You can get tickets to The Prince here! southwarkplayhouse.savoysystems.co.uk/SouthwarkPlayhouse.dll/TSelectItems.waSelectItemsPrompt.TcsWebMenuItem_432565.TcsWebTab_432566.TcsProgramme_13931695
When my daughter was a teenager she said she didn’t asked to be born and she was just cruising through the aether like a fish and got snagged and dragged into this world and now had to go to school. I told her she was right and that it’s not her fault but it is her responsibility to minimize her suffering and maximize her meaning in this endeavor of life. She said “whatever Dad”
frankly thats pretty sad of you to respond that way...because you had to fulfill a sexual urge or earn a legacy, your child has to suffer because of it? if i were you id just never tell my kid i loved them because you dont...
I remember reading in some union booklet that labor was “selling your time”. I was horrified by this definition, not because I thought it was wrong, but because it felt so violating. Is my time - my life - something I can just sell to a company? Is it really not worth more than they were willing to pay me? And it occurred to me that at that time, I and most people in the world had nothing to sell but our time. Yet merely surviving, not to mention living a fulfilling life, costs a lot of money. Now tell me any of this is voluntary.
As a child, my grandfather made sure to read the histories of Piracy and the West India Trade Company, with details about how profiteering and merchant trade worked. It was an important lesson in his mind. And similarly I was horrified when I learned that the privateers buisness models both of the profiteers and the WTC never died, it moved to land and called itself capitalism. The labor was always just the mark being stolen from, and profit was always just the yields that the buisness owner person never worked for. I have yet to find a reason to call capitalism anything but a Kleptocracy. There is risk to theft, as there is risks to wall street and neither are so dissimilar as to not be identical inside.
Yes, that is precisely what it means. All the machines, buildings, places that rich people own and all their toys and pretty things and pointless baubles are the crystalized life-time of other people.
Neurologically speaking it doesnt cost anything but heat. voluntarily? never unless you want to starve. Money? no definitely not. We can argue whether our ancestors lived fulfilling lives or if they only stressed about the impending death but seeing as we are almost identical neurologically id say that there is no reason they wouldnt have been able to. So as long as you want to survive you have to keep the system of life we call a biological entity from collapsing into equilibrium. Having a job tends to be the easiest and safest way. But thats culture, not biology.
@@humanistwriting5477 I would love to hear an actual good argument for anarchy. Capitalism best argument is that humanity have never found a good solution to economy but capitalism is by far the better one out of the other, which would be feudalism, monarchy and communisms, which bases their beliefs in owning humans. anarchy is definitely not in our genes, and we havent found a single multicelled organism where the different cells work sollely for their own benefit. So please enlighten me. Im not a fan of capitalisms and i live in Sweden which is communisms disguised and socialism which isnt much better except i have shorter time to the doctor but i dont get any fun drugs when im there.
@@adrianflo6481 you want the argument for anarchy, answer these questions on a peice of paper; what excatly do you think Anarchy is? What excatly do you think communism is? What excatly do you think capitalism is? Got it written down? Good now throw that peice of paper away, it's wrong. Your notions are wrong, that is a granted. communism is any economic order that is a free market and provides for the needs of the many from the means of the few, that's a quote from Karl Marx. Anarchy, is a social order methodology that does not utilize any born or elected hiarchies, kind of like everyone lived under when they did not have warlords ruling them, fpr all of history, im including the United States congress as a body of warlords here. Bear in mind countries are a modern invention, based on medieval misunderstandings on ancient Roman and Greek texts, and in addition the United States is actually the closest to Anarchy that I am personally aware of. This is because the United States constitution was based on the confederacy of the five nations (oft called the Iroquois Confederacy from a mis-translation), an anarchist "nation" of tribes. Nation in quotes as we cannot So wait a second here. If tribes naturally form anarchist republic confederations, then it seems natural. Doesn't it? Now here is the other thing. A correction for the biggest assumption you are certainly making. There has been no evidence for direct barter and trade in any time period, even before money was invented. People just took track of what you contributed. Okay; so communism is where people keep track of your contributions and everyone is given equal credit for equal contribution, and everyone is allowed to consume thier needs, but if you have means you are allowed to consume more. And your probably thought that was capitalism, I am betting? It's not. And anarchy can be described as a democratic republic where all elected officials are *servant* held to the electorate not just by losing thier job but actually held accountable to the electorate. So. The promise and intent of the US constitution, but actual communism because you cannot have a free market without everyone's base needs being met freely. Otherwise all work is coerced to some degree by threat of starvation or freezing to death. Now. Does any of this sound terrible strange to you? It probably sounds like your friend group doesn't it? There is your argument. Obviously there are some major changes in anarchy, such as rights everyone observes for everyone else instead of laws, but by and large, the good that we have seen has all came from the process of switching to anarchism, and that change is called socialism.
Every time I watch one of her videos I feel like I need to take notes, they're always so informational, structured, precise and nuanced, this is like therapy
right!! especially when you feel like everybody around you care only about small talks and some down to earth stuff, which is okay of course, but you physically crave TO THINK a little
@April Showers it would be great if you would think a bit and realise that it doesn't matter at all whether it's a man or a woman when we're delivered great content. You could just not watch it
I didn't think I could guffaw louder after the words: "allowing Catholics in women's toilets" but then "Is that incense? No, it's weed, I swear-" I think I sprained something
I was so worried about not being able to see the play because I live in the US, but to know it's going to be recorded? Thank you so much! I will absolutely be signing up to watch.
There really is some cool stuff on there, after seeing the things there, I'd be ok with more than $15/year for it but hey, as long as it's that cheap, go go go go go lmao
I think Franz Kafka's 'The Trial' should be mandatory reading for all public servants, not just police and legislators but also doctors, social workers, and people put there ostensibly to help. I think often about the time my brother got COVID. He called the NHS hotline to report it and they said, get a PCR test. He said "I don't have a car so I can't get to the testing site, so I'm just going to self-isolate for two weeks." They said, "No, you have to get a PCR test. Get a (£60 round-trip) taxi". So he called every single taxi company in the area, and obviously none would take him, but the person on the other end of the phone seemed to only know one thing (which wasn't even accurate): he was required to get a PCR test. It didn't matter to them that this was physically impossible. So they booked him in for one, and he never showed up.
In Romania, during the emergency state of things, you could call an ambulance and the public health system always had PCR tests available for those who had no other choice but to wait for the public health system to come at their door (a lot of people were in this situation and the waiting time was either a few hours, or two-three days - depending on demand or on where you lived) but I think it was required for such a plan B system to exist. Are you sure, compared to us, in a "first world country" you did not have such a thing? I kind of doubt it, but then again, I don't live there, so
This is why I was so glad my local government not only set up mobile vans that give on site rapid covid tests, but the federal government also delivered free tests to every household, as well. Sure the US dropped the fricking ball on Covid, but some states actually did a lot better with testing and tracing.
Also Kafka's _The Castle_ freaky stuff, when "I am just following the rules" leads to madness. Kafka anticipated neo-liberal tecnocracy rules-based order.
@@0CryingAngel0 you would be so surprised. There's no public health folks to come to our door, and while you could possibly call an ambulance for that purpose an ambulance ride is prohibitively expensive here
I heard Detroit and assumed that the water crisis was going to be part of this... I haven't finished this, but in my heart of hearts I believe Detroit's water crisis is behind the late great philosophers.
this reminds me of the active shooter case that police said they had no duty to manage. sure, they didn't break any laws, but they did fundamentally break the social contract of "murder is illegal but your right to live is protected" if society doesn't provide protection from those breaching the contract, no wonder people feel scared and empty.
Yeah , when rules are breached in your disadvantage it really sucks , It just feels unfair , And kinda makes you want to break those rules since , is everyone else following those ? Maybe i tought differently ? But at the same time it's hard to do since , you're just being like the pepolebthat hurt you
@@maxwellmills4825 not allot but it seems to be agreed that at the very least the police are supposed to use violence to stop like an act of greater more damaging violence
@@maxwellmills4825 That needs to be well defined to defend police as an institution but not to criticise them via social construct theory, because the criticism already specifies a threat and expected protection (active shooter, police should stop the shooter).
“We’re not at the table because we’re on the menu” wow that’s a horrifying but totally true concept. Thanks Abigail! Finally a perfect way to describe how sexism is more complicated than men hating women, and that it’s so deeply rooted into our culture that we can’t just say it’s gone and wipe our hands of patriarchy.
I haven't watched the video yet and don't know what it's about. So when reading your comment I thought the quote related to capitalism. Which is fitting as well, I think.
The highest praise I can think of for this show in particular is that I feel like I learned something, and don't come away from it feeling completely dumpster'd by the world.
as an indigenous girl, i found it weird to sit in a US Gov class and be taught about how life before settlement was barbaric and cruel, and that the only way to move forward was with the social contract. it felt isolating to think about how my culture and my people were not barbaric and cruel, they had survived for hundreds of years, and it was uncomfortable for me to hear my white male teacher connect it to the colonizers. i love this video, it put into words what i always felt about the social contract without knowing that theories like this existed because it was only presented to me during class that the social contract is the right way.
There was so much erasure as well. I am from a previosuly nomadic culture as well and people knew how to harmonise with nature back then. It's beautiful and I you have opportunities to keep ties with your culture!
You first mistake is in believing you are an “indigenous girl”. No such thing. Your ancestors stole the land… in as much as “stealing land” has any meaning to begin with. You are just a product of history, same as everyone else. You are no more indigenous as me.
Your indigenous ancestors invented technologies to live on these continents since 13,000 or maybe even 15,000 years ago. Seen the tracks in White Sands National Monument? 😮
I've come to the conclusion that Government Charity has only one goal; to force the oppressed to admit to their oppressors that they are inferior. It's not enough to lie to them, they want you to make them believe it. Perhaps the only freedom the oppressed will ever know, is to make them believe it, make sure we don't believe it, and use the lie against the system of oppression.
(In Canada) there are workshops you can take where you reenact colonization and it’s extremely emotional. I participated in one and learned about how the village way of life in Indigenous cultures honoured children and women, how cooperative and redistributive it was in terms of shared wealth and resources. Just the total opposite of the colonial system which then stripped all this away.
The first couple chapters of David Graber‘s “the Dawn of everything” addresses the origins of social contract theory and takes a critical look at the idea of “the state of nature.“ A TLDR, at least for that chapter, is that history is much more nuanced and doesn’t make for a good straightforward narrative. Every group of our Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestors experimented endlessly with different forms of social construction and politics. It doesn’t conform to either Rousseau‘s idea of the noble savage and the corrosive effect of society, or Hobbes’ primitive state of man.
I'm about a quarter into this book and love it so far. I highly recommend his "Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of out Own Dreams"
From what i have seen it's not the best of Graber's, because a lot of other anthropologists seem to disagree with it a lot. That being said though, it's true that people really do think that their circumstances are a lot more "natural" and therefore implied to be unchangeable, than they actually are.
@@BadAstra Rousseau and Hobbes had such a profound impact on political thought in their times though that it basically cemented their thought experiments as interpretations of actual human nature. That was not their intentions; but for those who wish to utilize their arguments to say something ~about human nature specifically~ to justify certain kinds of political systems, they form useful pillars to lean on for those "arguments". In other words, those who like authoritarian systems of control find Hobbes and Rousseau (and Locke) useful thinkers to justify their authoritarian rule. "We must use the boot to keep you in line! Do you want to live like savages in a violent state of nature instead?" What a shame.
Is it just me, or is Abigail just getting more and more upbeat and energetic in her videos lately? Like it just feels like there is this fountain of energy running underneath each video. It's fantastic!
I noticed that too! I wonder whether it's because of her excitement over her play being produced. She seemed almost to be bursting out of her skin when she discussed the play at the end. So joyful!
I haven't watched in a while, and maybe its just because she's not doing a character in this one, but she seems so much more comfortable in her own skin than the last I saw her
This feels like a bit of a return to a slightly older style but with updated flare and production value that I have to say I'm a big fan of. Enjoyed this one, always looking forward to whatever comes next.
Agreed, I've been reading Tropic of Cancer except I like to pretend the character Van Norden is like a Bailey Jay, mite write my own book think I'll call it "Beyond the Valley of Penises"
The part on women got me as I just heard a commercial on the radio by focus on the family about women needing to put out to their husbands because it’s Gods gift to do so. It was kind of a sick commercial.
I remember reading data that, in cis straight marriages, when wives become seriously ill, their husbands are much more likely to want a divorce than if the roles are reversed. Because then the wife is a burden that isn't serving the husband or his interests. Really reinforces the idea not only is there a menu, but there are social consequences of becoming an unappealing menu item.
@@doggo6517 the sexual contract isn't a two-way thing. The consequences for women not being on the menu is far greater than the diner not being at the table
Also, I read the statistics somewhere that men are the most likely to cheat when the woman is pregnant. Because she isn't on the table, or she is but she might not be as desirable because of the pregnancy. Imagine carrying someone's baby, the immense strain your body and mind go through, and all he thinks about is wetting his dick to the point he breaks the marriage vows. As a cis straight woman that's really scary to think about. Plus, after that, there's the horrifying practice of the "husband stitch" (ie. when stitching up the vagina after birth, the doctor, after consulting the husband, makes an extra stitch to make the opening tighter, and yes it is still done today) where they violate your bodily autonomy and possibly cause you lots of discomfort and pain, all for the man's sexual pleasure. It's like the hierarchy is men, men's dicks, then women. It's infuriating to think this is happening in fucking 2022.
I find the ideas in “the sexual contract” fascinating and thought provoking, but as Abigail said, there are plenty of flaws that have not yet been addressed. Yes, women are disproportionately affected in pervasive sociological and psychological patterns that delve deeper than the tip of the iceberg “social contract” we see openly talked about. However, to state that every single situation is the result of “women being on the menu” and “diners exploiting women” and insisting it is a rigid, unchangeable fact of life and society… is not only fatalistic, but also really reductionist and dogmatic. In a sense, as Abigail said, it is hypocritical to denounce the social order and social contract for its exclusion of deeper and more complex issues regarding women’s condition in society at large and in their personal lives, as well overly generalizing and, in and of itself, erecting an incredibly narrow minded and dogmatic system which “cases” women as victims of every possible scenario and social situations they are placed into. It excludes lesbians relationships as a possibility, hence the ideas behind the sexual contract are extremely heteronormative. In that case, who would be the “menu” and who would be the “diner”? Also, if a woman is the one sexualizing (thus necessarily objectifying to some degree) her partner who happens to be a woman, is it still patriarchal and degrading for the woman being sexualized in the relationship? Don’t all relationships need some degree of sexuality and/or intimacy to function properly? Also, on the topic of men as your comment said: can’t there be heterosexual men who do engage in sexualizing their partner from time to time, in their private life, with their consent, and practice intimacy with their female partner… yet they can understand the notions of respecting the integrity, individuality and freedom of their partner in their everyday public and private social life outside of moments of intimacy in the relationship? There are plenty of problems in society right now and education making that boys are not raised properly to understand respect and boundaries regarding women, but trying to perpetuate the myth that “all men will turn into oppressive and degrading, violent individuals who will enslave and disrespect women” is… not helping women, nor the feminist cause. Those kind of fatalistic arguments are based on depressive/like thinking, pessimism and flat out biological determinism, which is ironic considering that type of “delineation of gender roles in society according to some proponents of a false biological determinism” is EXACTLY what the sexual contract is trying to dismantle and counter, since it would just oppress women further in society. And gay men exist, with their whole lot of issues as well, feminine guys tend to be abused and discriminated against just as much as women in certain gay communities and inner circles. Even Oscar Wilde talked about it centuries ago. The notions of femininity and the attacks on it many members of society are programmed to manifest towards it in an unconscious manner… can go beyond being exclusive to a particular gender, in certain cases. A more open-minded and far reaching elaboration on the “Sexual Contract” could have the potential of being a groundbreaking study on the feminine condition in modern societies, as well as sociological and psychological phenomena that lead some groups of people to systematically devalue individuals which exhibit femininity. Also it could touch on lesbian erasure in media, gay men and femininity being oftentimes ostracized in the LGBTQ community, how young girls are programmed to be subservient and oftentimes self/harming in unhealthy behavioural patterns from their youngest age, and the problem does not only lie on the education of just boys/young men (which is incredibly important as well, not denying that). Restricting the idea of the defintion of a women to “victimhood” or “infantilism” is extremely harmful in itself for girls and women, since it causes epistemological changes in thinking which can lead to acting out those said “programs” or archetypes which aren’t always healthy. Empowering young girls and women, and at the same thing better teaching young boys/men about the importance of respect, consent and integrity of women in society AND at home in their private lives… both of those are key to making the world a better place for girls and women in general.
This was really good! And congrats on the big announcement! Fun Footnote: The reason they could get away with putting William of Orange on the throne is that his wife, Mary, was the protestant daughter of James II that Abigail mentioned. Parliament asked her to come over and be Queen, and her only wish was that William would be co-monarch with her. This means that William and Mary were the only joint-monarchs in English history, which is pretty interesting.
A polite political fiction that doesn’t make up for the fact that a Dutch army occupied London for years. The Dutch are certainly aware that they invaded here.
Today's political climate is being shaped by the almost universal feeling of social contracts being broken: on the conservative side of the spectrum, it's more about making them "work again" while on the progressive side the fight seems to be more focused on challenging, re-writing and in some cases abolishing them. You can see this in action when it comes to the rise of the Manosphere: most men in those circles don't challenge the requirements patriarchy imposes on them (being the provider, possibly fighting in wars, etc.), they just feel that nowadays they aren't getting their "natural" reward (i.e. a submissive tradwife) anymore. On the contrary, men in progressive spaces are trying to reform and/or deconstruct their traditional role altogether. On a totally unrelated note, congrats Abigail, I'm sure this new project of yours is going to be great!
I have studied the manosphere and it is rather shocking that the contract with men (in the eyes of conservative men) is that their payment to defend the state is basically the opportunity to abuse a woman. They may not chose to abuse a woman perhaps, but they want to feel they have the opportunity should they choose to do so. They justify it basically by saying that it is "natural" that women should give them subordination and that it is best for us actually for us to be subordinate, and women are too dumb and broken by feminism to understand it and they should fight the system to fix the current status quo. And when I contemplate the situation I realise that asking men to be prepared to die for the state is a huge imposition (obviously) and their desire for the state to give something in return is pretty normal. We must remove that imposition from men as a class and apply it across people fairly. I now realise why from the 1970s feminism has fought this and why the establishment has fought including women in combat, there is a resistance to change this social contract.
@@mistressofstones You're 100% right, and I cannot understand how so many men can see working to death or dying in a trench as totally fine as long as they get to "receive" another human being they can enslave, just like they are enslaved by the State or by their employer.
"Broken social contract" is a sentiment shared on the left as well. Like how the left-of-center party keeps telling us to "go out and vote!" while they do absolutely nothing to make sure our votes mean something. Or, "no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process...unless you're a woman/afab person of reproductive age or trans. Then the State can absolutely tell you what to do with your body."
@@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos I think many people see this, in many different ways: another example is capitalism, with most right-wingers thinking it can be "fixed" by undoing globalization, whereas leftists reject it altogether.
I love how much fun you're having with all the costumes. It's weird looking back at your older videos, how you're holding back a lot of your personality. I love that you came out as yourself, your videos feel so much less restrained and more real this way. We're all better off for it!
I love the captions, I don't know about you, but even though they're more for people who are hard-of-hearing I find it easier to pay attention when I'm hearing and reading the words and I get more out of it. Which also includes moments like that lol
There's always post-video commentary in the captions as well; if, for whatever reason, I'm watching the video without them, I'll turn them on for the credits. I'd recommend that at minimum, especially for people who really dislike captions.
@@twinny_mi IKR I love captions. Sometimes I've got the kettle on the boil, or a bunch of whatever stir-frying, and when lovely folks like Abigail take the time to put in worthy captions it steals my heart.
@Max Milian nah honestly I liked Abigail’s older content, she jumps to a lot of conclusions in her newer videos which sucks but I still love her videos so i watch, just a loss in quality
I've lived near Detroit my entire life and people have been fighting for the most basic human rights and fair treatment as long as I can remember. I'm very glad you covered it, would have been interesting to talk about how after the homes were stolen, they were sold to wealthy white folks for pennies on the dollar (There were full homes you could buy for $1000 and up in historic districts) and large swaths of the city were massively gentrified. Instead of helping her citizens who needed help, they tried to rinse the city with dirty money to "bring life back to the city". You could probably do an entire series on Detroit and the things that have been done to her people...Anyway, loved the show and looking forward to the play! Congrats, Abigail! And BREAK A LEG!!!!!
Hey! I lived in Keego Harbor for quite some time… and yeah… I’m well aware of the situation… to this day I will actively shame those predatory property buyers when they call and get me as a wrong number. I don’t yell too hard, because the ones calling are just doing so to pay bills, but I definitely don’t shy away from letting them know the consequences of their actions when they succeed in making a deal for the corporations they work for to buy these peoples’ houses, including making it nearly impossible for themselves to have access to buying their own home someday.
Yes, justice requires that Detroit public services be funded by outsiders who have nothing to do with Detroit. Sheesh, if you think an 82% black city is catering to white investors, I don't know what to tell you. The city is just looking for money because the residents don't produce enough to satisfy their own needs. They can either try to start new industries or they can attempt to attract a tax base that'll support the rest of the city. What Detroit can't do is "help her citizens" simply by force of will. If they could do that, that 82% would've made sure they did.
My cousins used to live in Detroit and the whole neighborhood started selling after the pandemic and drug influence of fentanyl All neighbors sold their homes at higher price they buy it (that's good for them) but it's crazy people are saying is because someone stole their houses or higher the prices because of skin color... When all neighbors were black and they raised the price themselves
And is good black neighborhoods raise their prices because that way they ended up richer, in Europe they fix property prices and people don't buy homes and thats bad because they depends on politicians and politics ( if they rise rent) Sadly left politics need people to rent... That way they control votes in Europe, in America it's different because property are from people, in Europe property is technically owned by European union system and royals, America is more freedom of ownership
I work in public services in a majority Black and Latino city and MY GOD the Detroit story hits home. So many of the services that are meant to help have a crapton of arbitrary barriers put in place just to minimize the number of cases that actually get processed. Seeing how these services are designed from the inside is a radicalizing experience.
The evolution of redlining is very creative. They try really hard to hide the fact that they only want to help a certain type of people (which is mostly the ones with most money)
It's a problem in Western Europe too at least. Monthly money for young disabled people keeps being harder and harder to get because people who are well off and healthy decide every damn time to make it stricter and stricter to the point it helps almost no-one who needs it. It's a lack of empathy, disdain for the "poor", and a misplaced sense of superiority because you participate in capitalism "better" all in one
The story about Detroit also definitely isn't a unique case. In the Netherlands, our previous cabinet fell as a result of hundreds of parents being incorrectly registered as fraudsters. Basically, if your yearly income is less than a certain amount you can get an allowance from the government to pay for your children their needs. However, a lot of parents were unfairly registered as lying about their yearly income AND it was discovered that the ministry of taxes used racial background as an indicator of "increased fraudster risk". The ministry, of course, claim this wasn't done on purpose. Interestingly enough, our prime minister was convicted of racial discrimination in 2007 for doing something quite similar, back when he was state secretary. These parents got in debt, lost their houses and sometimes even their children to child "protection" as a result of these systems wrongly accusing them of fraud. They also still haven't gotten their reparations because the current cabinet, which actually is pretty much the same with the seats shuffled around a little, claim it takes a long time to figure out how much the government owes to whom. Time those parents, of course, didn't get, back when they had to pay back all of their allowance along with a fine all those years back. I really enjoyed the video, it might be one of my favourites actually! If I knew for sure that I could afford the trip to London I would have definitely come to see you live, but I guess I will just have to get curiosity stream. Just know that, after hearing about it for years and not getting on, you made something that made me get curiosity stream immediately! (any idea when I will be able to see the show on there?)
The fact that the VVD lost absolutely nothing in the elections just 3 months later and then on top of it we got Rutte-IV is just downright depressing and it drives me absolutely insane. I truly feel for all these families especially the ones that were separated from their children.
I have been sexually harassed since I was about 13 years old (by boys my age and grown men who tended to be very touchy) and now in my 30s I have finally seen the situation more objectively and how it has affected me so deeply. I never even thought about speaking against it because it happened all the time, for as long as I could remember. Men just came up to me and started commenting on my looks no matter what I was doing or where I was. When I was a child no adult ever spoke up against it and other women tend to get jealous so nobody really stands up for you, people just laugh at your anger and protests. It took me a long time to learn that I am/was still trying to please the male gaze, that I do not need to please men and that that does not define me, my worth or me as a woman and human being. It's been a hell of a ride. Great video Abigail, I love your work.
about a week ago here in China, a girl was molested in a public resteraunt and she resisted, then the man along with other 8 man started beating and kicking and stump her and her friends, they were then dragged onto the street and continue to be beaten and head being smashed by beer bottles continued for more than 8 minutes i uploaded the video on my channel the it was taken down for being to violent and gory, all chinese media are state owned so its been hushed out, claiming they only had some broken teeth, but in reality they're likely dead, won't even survived that nigh, because we saw how brutally they were attacked on surveillance camera, this is quite common here in China, I was beaten by parents and teachers when i was small and it was encourged by our society, and molested by old man on buses on my way back home from school.the abuse targetting woman is so common here in China, and that's what made me a feminist
Do you think those men would have approached you if you had been residing in a country in which dharma was practised (assuming you understand what is "DHARMA")?
@e- w-, the fact that you are directly responding to my comment implies that you understand what is "DHARMA". Therefore, in your own words, define "DHARMA".
I love you! I am living in a backwards small town and I’ve been bullied and nearly thrown in a jail cell but I knew my human rights were being violated. I recently lost my job for sticking up for myself. I wish I could meet you! You are amazing!!
love love LOVE the fact that you used Detroit as an example for social contract. I love my home city, and I would go to bat for everybody in it. I watched the housing crisis affect everybody in my Latino community directly, and how the water crisis affected the Black community. Social contract is a really interesting theory that somehow makes me feel more radicalized in this political climate.
it's one of the few examples of videos on the platform that isn't straight up poverty tourism or reactionary propaganda. much of my family is still back there and i'm glad for these videos encouraging solidarity
I really appreciate that you mentioned your own epistemological blocks, as I found myself frustrated by them while watching the video- namely, when you refer to how men as a group are unaware of the sexual contract/misogyny, while trans men like myself - especially those of us who don't pass - are all too aware of it, as we have to live through it *every goddamn day* just like any other non-cis-man out there. Everyone always forgets and being invisible like that really wears one down. Other than that, another fantastic video, thanks!
I've heard from several trans men that they became even _more_ aware of societal misogyny once they transition. ("Passing") trans men suddenly get treated like men, in that they're listened to, respected, and treated as a reasoning adult. As a cis woman, this aspect of transition fascinates me. Out of curiosity, have you experience that kind of cessation of sexist treatment? I don't know how you present in public, so I don't know if it's a familiar story. (I know there's a similar phenomenon for a lot of trans women, in that they're suddenly faced with a type of sexism that may have gone previously unnoticed. I always imagine that the first time a trans woman gets cat-called, or aggressively hit on, it's probably a pretty strange mix of reactions. Like, there's got to be some validation there, in that she's being treated in exactly the same way cis women are. On the other hand, it's a scary and uncomfortable feeling to be objectified in that way for the first (or hundredth) time.)
For what is worth, I used to be in the "pick-up artist" community and to harass women pretty much in the way you describe. Part of me didn't see that what I was doing was wrong. Part of me didn't *want* to see it. Part of me just decided not to care. Then, thanks to some very patient people, I started to understand how privilege works, and everything broke down. I realized I had to change. A lot. Thank you for the videos Abigail, you made me appreciate philosophy. I'll be looking forward to see your show on Nebula. EDIT: ehm... I appreciate the positive comments, I get where they come from, but I feel like people are thanking me for stopping to behave like an asshole, and it's making me a bit uneasy. The only thing I wanted to bring with my comment, is that people and the culture that makes us can change, it's worth pushing in that direction and all your efforts are far from in vain, even if at the beginning you can't see that.
I feel ya bro, I had a transgender coworker we worked at a Tacobell and he/she would jizz in the sourcream called it "jizzzam" I suggested they call it "cumshot"
@@Maialeen On one hand I'd agree with ya, on the other hand you obviously don't understand that every person is different and some ppl might struggle more with certain issues...
People have no idea where my husband and I fall in terms of social equity. I’m a culinary professional. When I became a stay at home husband after our marriage, I was treated very strangely. When alone, I have the privileges of a man, but when we’re together in expectant heterosexual company, I am clearly relegated to the “successful persons spouse” role and not much more. In those situations my words carry no weight, and people feel they have the right to ignore me. Unfortunately for them, I have a vengeful streak, and fortunately for me, husband will gladly say “you had this coming,” to those who would appeal to him what I did after the fact. When THAT happens it suddenly becomes a 50/50 toss up between being the “crazy spouse” and “scary big man with sudden authority.” I never know what to expect next.
@@klontjespap the fact that a provocative statement provoking someone/s to think in a way they had not before causes you to judge a whole viewership says more about you than those who are allowing themselves to be challenged. Your statement gives off the odor of having already found a higher intellectual field to stand in when in reality you have hit an intellectual ceiling by scoffing at others journeys.
I really like this video; right now in the city of Buenos Aires, the education ministry has prohibited the use of gender neutral language. That resolution literally ignores the fact that we’ve had gender identity legislation for the past ten years! And, more recently, the executive power has ruled last year a decree that recognized the access of non binary people to a national document of identification. So, all the discussion you brought reminded me of the obscures times we are living en Buenos Aires.
D: I'm sorry, but I can't think of any other way to express my disappointed and shocked [yet not surprised] reaction! Thank you for sharing this. I'm so behind the times with what's going on in ARG since leaving. (Do you have any suggestions for good sources? As you know, information there is... stifled... by the powers that be. And I don't know how much trust to put into _La Nación_ and the like. Please excuse my English, but seems other languages aren't often allowed. [It's complicated.]) Muchísimas gracias.
those theories should be reserved for higher levels of education. children cannot think critically and therefore should not be taught controversial stuff like crt and sometimes, the bible
One thing to note is that this prohibition is exclusively in the Buenos Aires province (that or just the CABA, the central region of the capital) Other provinces like Santa Fe, defended the free use of gender neutral modifications to the language. A sad thing to see ppl being petty for minimal changes to address many ppl or non binary ppl but it is met with resistance none the less.
This is really interesting because the "hike the property taxes and seize everyone's stuff" thing nearly happened up in Penfield about a month ago. Similar story: Town of Penfield sends out property adjusters to reassess everyone's property taxes, people's taxes doubled. However, the residents were able to put a stop to it. There are some important differences though: Penfield is mostly white, relatively wealthy, and it's a pretty small town where everyone knows everyone. I think that the residents being white made them more sympathetic and they managed to hijack multiple town council meetings to demand change. It should be noted that the local news media is mostly based in the City of Rochester, which is home to a higher percentage of black and Hispanic people than Penfield is. The media sold it as "look at the rampaging town government going after innocent homeowners", which didn't seem to be as much the case in the initial coverage of the Detroit, where the media seemed to blame the black homeowners for their own misfortune.
@@kobasaking This is kind of long, so strap in. Back in 1968, there was a major race riot in City of Rochester which prompted a lot of white flight out of the city center into the surrounding satellite towns. Many of the wealthier white people (a lot of whom are former Kodak/Xerox employees and retired RIT/UofR faculty) moved to Penfield. Since 1968, the area has gentrified and is considered one of the nicest places to live in Monroe county. Many of the poorer residents of color (mostly Black and Puerto Rican) had to live in the city because the rents are lower there and it's seen as a less nice place to live. There is a reason why City of Rochester and Monroe county are seen as one of the most segregated places in the US. Fast forward to now. To give you some idea of how the City of Rochester is doing: former Mayor Lovely Warren was arrested on felony campaign finance violations, her husband is likely going to prison for selling cocaine out of their home, the interim mayor almost couldn't get sworn in because he caught covid, and the police department have decided they hate the new mayor and are painting the city as a dangerous hellscape [it really isn't]. Also, the SEC is investigating the city council because of some alleged financial shenanigans. And while this is bad, the media has definitely jumped on the "Rochester City is unimaginably dangerous" line. Penfield being majority white and wealthy and not having all of this turmoil were painted as these innocent little dears that didn't deserve it, especially contrasted with the city, where the local media is based.
Oh wow. I live in that area and didn’t even know this happened. Gotta read up on that for sure. This town is definitely mainly white, my high school was about 90%, and during the trump era we had a mock election and he won which is ..... unfortunate to say the least and incredibly telling to say the truth
"Similar story" - no, it is really not. Don't forget that we are capable of using Google Maps and Wikipedia and what have you, and are perfectly capable of figuring out what Penfield is in this equation. Edit: er, namely what you described in your second comment.
The absolute glow in your entire being when you were talking about The Prince is absolutely infectious. I couldn’t help but smile myself seeing that level of happiness.
Great analysis Abigail! I grew up in Chicago, with a lot of friend/family connections to the Detroit area. It's always been depressing when trying to discuss what was going on there with the older men in that community. Vulture Capitalists have no empathy for the communities you describe as 'having no rights under the social contract'. Appreciate* your in depth conversation tying back this recent history into the deeper writings underpinning the founding of the US. Good luck with the Prince!
I currently live in Chicago and couldn't agree with this more. Also I'm going to use the term "Vulture Capitalist" more because it 100% describes the landlord corporations.
My cousin was from that type of neighbors they're talking and the pandemic and drug influence fentanyl and crack push all the neighborhood to sell their property Good thing is they sold for more than they buy it... And is weird they're saying the properties were stole? When they sold them for more and they put the prices not third parties And is god because in the past those properties didn't have value but now it has and is good they can be sold for more because they end up richer than before, they don't loose the invest money in the property
My thoughts haven't quite coalesced yet, but while watching this video, I keep thinking about your witchcraft video from a million years ago; the idea that calling something supernatural means assuming that certain things are natural. It strikes me that deciding what stuff goes into the "state of nature" and what stuff goes into "society" is a very similar philosophical project as deciding what is and isn't "supernatural". It's like these ideas and philosophers are in communication or something lol
The universe is just one continuous thing and we make up all the categories. Some give us predictive and cognitive power, it's handy to be able to reference the idea of a chair for example, but of course minds are also incentivised to be lazy, and so we draw our categories and find ideas like a five-legged chair outlandish. All this argument about the "true nature of X" is just semantics, and distracts from the complex but very real project of improving the system as whole, as best as we can subjectively define such a goal anyway.
Still coalescing too. Dividing the universe into these two states had a far reaching affect not only on laws and whose interests they protect, but historically where those laws came into play. For much of western history, laws about theft of property and violence existed out in the World but they ceased to exist in the interior space of the Home. The Home was legally some odd other-realm, a parallel universe that existed to meet the needs of the man who owned it. We used to say "a home is a man's castle" because while outside the home, he had to obey the social contracts with other men, but inside he held the keys and was literally the master. The effects of this are still felt today. Police in Australia used to ignore screaming if it came from inside a home, because that was the man's private business. Police are still slow to act on domestic violence issues, and I do wonder about those old beliefs still being a part of our culture. Another thought brought to my mind is about how often in the past women who didn't toe the line were described as "unnatural" (although I know you were talking about "supernatural"). Unnatural women could be women who harmed their children- ie "unnatural mothers". I have memories of women who had sex outside of marriage or who harmed their husbands being called "unnatural" in literature, but cannot pinpoint any exact references at this hour of the evening. It seems odd to me, as I cannot recall any men being called this, and I wonder if it is linked to women being classified under the "nature" state. Perhaps that is why we have historically been accused of being emotional creatures, behaving only how our "nature" prescribes us to be. (Of course we all know what utter shit this is; men and women are both emotional and rational and both have biology that sometimes eggs us on) Also, thankyou Abigail once again for such a thought-provoking and educational essay. Well done, and best of luck with your new endeavour.
@@TiffyVella1 Oh that is interesting. I recently listened to a, unfortunately modern day, conversation about -how a man’s goal is to conquer nature, and a woman’s goal is to conquer man-. This didn’t make any sense to me because why wouldn’t women want to conquer nature, since nature affects women too? But like you said, if women are viewed as a part of nature themselves while men are not, it makes sense why there isn’t historical literature that describe a man as “unnatural” because men aren’t seen ‘of nature.’ Ah the level of conceitedness always gets me. Not something I’ve thought too much about before but you made clearer for me. Thanks for sharing.
@Overhauledunderpaid not creepin, her outfits and makeups are absolutely stunning. I just appreciate the effort since let's face it she could just record a podcast and it would contain the same amount of information. The visual aspect is a cherry on top of great content
Super proud upon realizing I have reviewed every single source Abigail cited for my master's thesis 4 years ago. :) Specially works of Pateman and Mills!. Brilliant work as always, lady!
Wow, that's really interesting! I understand it's been awhile since you've posted, but still, could you please share your thesis? I've grown attracted to this topic lately so much that any mindful discussion is very welcome
Recently I've been having a hard time differentiating my woman identity from how I've been victimized by men. It has been incredibly healing to realize that sexual harassment is something that happens to women, *but does not make them* . It is difficult, especially for women, to not align their perspectives of themselves with how they are perceived by men and society. We have learned that our appearances often dictate how society interacts with us to a much more severe degree, and, as happens with abusive relationships, we adjust ourselves for our own personal safety. That is not womanhood, that is living as a woman in a predatory patriarchal society, but it is not *womanhood* . It assumes that our identity as a woman can be *taken or given* whether men feel comfortable encroaching our space and mentalities, not something we discover and decide for ourselves. TLDR: women can exist in a society where men dont harass them. (And men can exist in a society where they don't need a lady to "prove" their value as a man)
Thank you for posting this. I’ve been reading some stuff by Audre Lorde and it made me chew on similar thoughts, but your comment is new to me and gives me more to chew on.
I really think this is a trap a lot of people fall into, and it honestly makes the space of speaking about gender based violence and harrassment more hostile to non women. Like I've seen a lot of protests and movements throughout my life that make womanhood synonymous with being a victim of men entitled by the patriarchy, and it, in a way, makes it a dysphoric experience for me as a genderqueer individual to express my experience with what have so often been called "women's issues" because theres a sort of implicit agreement that you are a woman if you experience those issues in many spaces. It feels wrong to call myself an ally to those experiences because they're my experience, but then it goes back to "admitting" I'm a woman because of what other people have done to me. Reframing patriarchal abuse away from being defining of womanhood could go a long way to help AFAB and more ambiguous people have a place to share our trauma and experiences
Thank you for such an informative video. I’m an African American woman that studies and collects our presence in American pop culture from the 80s to the present day. I frequently find myself questioning and studying the origins of racism and bigotry toward us African Americans and I have found it a rarity to find the discussion of the American social contract paired with the fact that we are seen as being sub-human, which is really not human at all. This vid has given me so much more to research and think upon. Thank you. Congratulations on your play being on stage!!! I’m so happy for you 😁
I was interested in the topic so I watched. You did an exceptional job, so I subscribed. I loved how you blended artistry and information. I hope you'll continue your work here.
I was holding out on Curiosity Stream/Nebula (no idea why, thinking about it), but once I heard "Professional Recording of Abigail's Play" I signed up! I'm also excited to see the PhilosophyTube documentary. Fantastic video, as usual. I think the evolution of marriage in the past 50 years is WILD, since my (lesbian) marriage was about joint taxes, health insurance, hospital visitation/medical decisions, joint ownership and inheritance...even my cis friends who married opposite-gender spouses didn't really notice a substantial life change afterwards, since cohabitation and sexual exclusivity aren't reserved for (or required as part of) marriage now. I loved the running theme in this video of "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu" because it drives home the point that choosing to opt-out of society really isn't an option for most people. Even if I decided to go survivalist and live up in the mountains somewhere, I'd still have to follow local hunting/fishing/camping/waste/permit regulations, and I could get kicked out at any time for any reason if officials decided I know longer had the right to be there.
I very much want to see those rights continue to disengage from the nuclear family as a model so that it's easier for individuals to distribute these legal benefits to the person or people around them as they choose, whether or not it's a spouse (unsurprising attitude from an ace/aro)
@@lyndonwesthaven6623 Very much agreed. The idea of "fill out some papers with another person and you get legal benefits" is very old-fashioned. (from an ace and questioning gray aro)
I signed up a couple of months ago because I realised I watch a lot of youtubers that have content there and, by subscribing, I can support them all in one go!
I was surprised to notice you didn't mention children anywhere here. as a group that are usually used as the archetype for groups that are excluded, and frequently what groups (women, racial minorities, native inhabitants, autistics) are compared to in order to justify their subjugation.
my father sometimes recalls an old expression that children 'should be seen and not heard'. i detest it and it harkens to the exclusionary sentiment you're referencing
Completely agree. The arbitrary and exploitative ways that society determines if someone has the right to self-determination or not exposes so much about a culture, and is most visible through children and youth. Where I live, you can sell your labour long before you can vote. Dependency is a social construct with some of the blurriest lines out there. And Patriarchy is based on the Father having control and dominion over his 'dependants,' which yeah, includes women and people with disabilities and on a broader scale the colonized.
I guess it circles back to what she said about thinking about the Sexual Contract before engaging with the Racial one. As a fairly young person who is still in college and very much having to process my childhood, it is always very clear to me how they are used to justify any authority for any "higher class". But in the end it's that, "they" try to always have people below those that could revolt so that they can take out their frustration on their "subordinates" rather than their masters: be it employees, women, people of color, children, disabled people, animals, the "third world", poor people, the homeless, the "weak" or basically any other category they can conjure up that can make people feel powerful, as even if the children get the short end of the stick on both parents' fronts, it is not unusual that they in turn start to pick up on other children (be it for being dumb, nerdy, poor, 'gay', fat or whatever excuse they come up for bullying) or even animals; and I guess when they can't find anyone or anything "below" them on this ladder they finally start to take it out on themselves. I guess it goes without saying that this near-infinite regression is not only regressive and highly prejudicial to all involved, it also takes away from finding actual solutions to the problems people take out on others.
Carole Pateman, writing her book in 1988: "Ya'll be re-shaping the natural state theory to excuse whatever BS you were already thinking" Abigail, texting back via bloody pentagram with a glitter gel pen: "No, u" ♥
When I got to the part of the video where she reveals that Pateman says transphobic stuff in her book, I literally said out loud, "A second wave feminist is transphobic--shocker!"
A philosopher's retirement is.......drinking hemlock. Bravo. I took a course in human sexuality in 1988 and was still in the closet. I wouldn't start my transition for another 3 years, but I was still supportive of trans rights, even if I wasn't ready to publically admit that I was trans myself.,
@@abigailhancher2999also… a second wave feminist has a pretty sex-negative view and makes arguments that don’t consider the experience of women of color or indigenous women? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you… okay, not that shocked.
I am just discovering this channel now and am blown away how seamless you manage to connect all the islands and isolated chunks of knowledge I have gathered and forgotten over the course of my education. I have been really interested in sociology, particularly capitalism, patriarchy and queer themes recently in university. I have never found access to history though, as memorization never came to me naturally, and i notice this deficit a lot these days in my literature degree. I am thorougly blown away by how effortless you make the connections between history, philosophy and sociology / cultural studies seem here. This even reactivated some long forgotten memories of when i took 9th and 10th grade philosophy classes (a decade ago!) and had to learn about all these french social contract guys while questioning every week why I was even doing this to myself. Well TURNS OUT now i finally understand the payoff! Thank you so much. I am in awe of your work, and hope one day I will get to write papers as eloquently as you do your videos.
I got really heated up on this topic during philosophy class. I am a little late to the party, but I am so looking forward to see what you have to say on this topic, when I am free to rewatch the whole video.
I feel ya bro, I had a transgender coworker they worked at a Tacobell and he/she would jizz in the sourcream called it "jizzzam" I suggested they call it "cumshot"
@@globalist1990 It's not funny it's very serious rite of passage, predominantly it consists of the task of providing food for the tribe. A boy becomes a man when he can provide food for a family to grow. Is a very common trope in the indigenous tribes isolated from western modernity.
@@mgntstr i bet it has been a thing to most societies. You just need to go back in time a bit. From my perspective, there’s nothing serious about it, it’s funny.
I love everything about this video. As a lifelong Michigander, it's good to see that even people across the pond can realize the situation with the major cities in this state. Flint isn't much better, and don't even get me started on the environmental disasters. I mean the Kalamazoo river has been the site of major disasters and we even managed to catch Lake Erie on fire a few decades ago.
I'm sorry, I know this is a months old comment with a serious point on a serious topic But you have a river called Kalamazoo? I'm fucking crying here xD
@@marcog.verbruggen674 Yeah it sounds like something out of The Jungle Book, which to think something that magical has been the site of consistent ecological disaster is somehow even more upsetting to hear about
Yes, I migrated to Detroit and it hits close to home to me. Detroit is fucked thousand ways. Then I heard what happened in Flint and I was shocked. And then Kalamazoo and other places with Lead, disgusting
As a Swedish comic-writer put it about leaving the social contract: "But I live in a hut in the forest and survives on crows and pine cones!" "The state doesn't care. You're content with your existens, and therefore you can be taxed."
That's so good! I get so pissed when people go like "If you don't like how society works, go live in the woods" Babe, I would like nothing more than gather a bunch of friends and start a commune, but even if we managed to come together in a way that we have all the necessary skills among us that we could be self-sufficient, wanna bet how long would it take for a bunch of cops to show up and dismantle the whole thing?
Dear Abigail there's something I have to say and I truly hope you see this. I have been watching your videos for more than 4 years now and I never cease to be amazed by them, but also by your growth as a person. I am sincerely happy to see you shine through your work and artistic expression, and I'm SO EXCITED for The Prince!!! As a one-day-future-hopeful performer I'm glad to see works like yours getting a chance to shine in the theater world. I wish I were able to see it live but since I live in Greece I cant really do that, I will absolutely watch the Pro Shot though! I know you might not take things like this seriously but I truly believe you are a role model! For me at least, I guess you could say you're everything I aspire to be, a woman who makes art that's authentic to her, is not afraid to show her intelligence and doesn't shrink herself, a successful performer and a loving, caring, empathetic person. A true inspiration.
hey abby, I can't quite articulate what is different format-wise about this video, but all i know is that i really enjoy the way this topic and video is structured and explained. i always really enjoy the videos you make, and I hope you have fun making them always. :)
For me it feels more grounded, I reckon because of the topic being so widely experienced and at times questioned or pondered, even if only in passing. I think this is a topic that anyone can pick up and imeadietly recognize as a part of their life regardless of their position in _society™_
Oh my goodness, Abigail!! I have been a long time viewer now, proud to say I was one of your first hundred thousand subscribers. ❤🎉 I must say, it has been really cool to see your trans journey. I haven’t seen your channel for many months now, the change is huge, you look immaculate. You somehow managed to become even more beautiful! I really appreciate your vulnerability in all of this, it really has taught me a lot about the trans community! I’m so glad to see that you’re still shining friend and i'm super proud of you! I cant believe you wrote a play this is so cool! I cannot wait to watch it!🥰
Watching this video crystallized in my mind something that I've experienced being the owner of a rescue dog with pretty severe trauma. The idea that men feel entitled to women's attention, time, and bodies as part of the sexual contract is very much analogous to the idea that (some, not all) people feel entitled to my dog's attention because she's a dog. For context I live in Canada where dogs in general have amazing lives and it's normal and acceptable for strangers to approach your dog and ask you questions about them. Most of the time this is fine (especially if your dog is super friendly). BUT. There have been TOO MANY TIMES where I've encountered grown-ass adults who *insist* that my dog sniffs their hand or allows them to pet her. Even when I tell them: "My dog is a rescue... She doesn't trust anyone but her Moms so don't take it personally..." these people just completely ignore my words and my dog's body language (shying away, avoiding being approached, hiding behind my legs) and continue to make kissy noises, bending over and reaching their hands out to her, while repeating "Oh don't worry, I'm a dog person. Dogs love me." It's honestly exhausting to have to protect my dog from these people who hear "rescue dog with trauma" and don't care. Their desire to pet my dog is *not* more important than her desire not to be touched by a stranger. You're not entitled to her attention, affection, and fur! Also: huge fan, Abigail. Love your work
dogs have it rough af in canada. your laws are very out of date and fail to protect them. the most excessive and insane acts of animal cruelty i have ever seen were in canada. The whistler sled dog massacre happened in canada. The RCMP shot indigenous sled dogs almost to extinction in the 50s and 60s. Canada has a very very rough history with dogs and its still rough af.
That's very interesting. Have you noticed a difference in the genders of those who do this? A few years ago I encountered the idea that if a man hates cats, and especially if he hates cats but loves dogs, that's a red flag. The idea was that if a man hates cats but loves dogs, it's likely that he feels entitled to having all interactions on his own terms, and is unhappy with being forced to take "no" for an answer. I wonder if these self-proclaimed "dog people" who apparently can't read or don't care about your dog's boundaries consider themselves Dog People for the same reason.
@@InfiniteAnvil I've heard of that theory too, but with the addition, that cats are regularly seen as a female animal (not referring to the actual sex of the individuum, but the energy/spirit). So, if they dislike cats for just being cats, it's because of it having a female spirit or even 'worse' being rejected by a creature with female spirit.
I think that's why sexist men often hate cats. Cats have boundaries, they have places they don't like you to touch. They hiss and scratch if you do. And they don't love you immeditely, it takes time to gain their trust. Plus, cats were never domesticated like dogs, they're still wild therefore independent. Reminds you of something?
@@Ariel_is_a_dreamer May not have been what you are going for, but one reading could be sexist men emulate cats, and vice versa. Seriosuly... read it again.
Just started watching these after my husband got me addicted to the Kill James Bond podcast. I always knew snippets of all these theories and ideas but it's so nice to see them tied together and learn how they influenced one another. Love the mix of humor, incisive social commentary, killer looks, and copious citations!
The middle part (about gender dynamics and marriage) was extremely interesting to me, because last week, I got married. My husband and I chose to get married for practical purposes, we just went to the government office and were like "yeah, so, we want to get married." No wedding bs and all that stuff, we just took out our witnesses and closest family for dinner and were done. What struck me the most was during the process where the, err I forgot what you call them, the person who marries you, asked us whose surname we'll take. And here in my country, women either choose the husband's name or keep their maiden surname plus the husband's surname. However, when the lady asked us, she said - "the wife can take the husband's name, the husband can take the wife's name, both spouses can keep their maiden surnames plus the other partner's surname". I knew of instances where a man would "marry into" the wife's family, taking her surname (usually if the wife's family had more power or wealth), but I never knew there was an option to, basically, exchange surnames lol. (I take yours, you take mine). 😂 I wanted to take my husbands surname coz I honestly don't like the sound of my maiden surname... Just for that. Also, I liked how they specified how both spouses are equal in marriage, both legaly and "socially". I don't know when they established these regulations, but my country has had a fair gender dynamic since I can remember. But knowing that these outdated social and gender norms still exist in many countries is beyond me. Great video, as always. 👏✨
@@valardohaeris333 I also want to know which country, and it'd be so cute if instead it was the norm to just swap names like socks lmaooo - cuz ur literally part of the other family now, right? And it goes both ways!
I love you! It hurts my heart to think of any woman or person trying to make you feel you aren’t “woman enough.” It happens to all of us. Women can be mean to each other. You are AMAZING and AUTHENTIC.
A problem with any form of social contract theory has always been this: due to the way human beings tend to behave, any social contracts seem to inevitably end up working this way in the real world: There are in-groups whom the law protects, but does not bind. And out-groups whom the law binds, but does not protect. Social contracts are maintained amongst people within an in-group. However, those people tend to use purposeful twisting on the same contract to exploit those who exist outside their group. We tend to call this "corruption" - as in a corrupt politician bending or breaking rules in order to benefit themselves. Ultimately however, it seems to come down to in-and-out group dynamics. An unfortunately human issue that has always been with us.
Yeah, this is absolutely true. Corruption is about how much the in-groups are gaming the system they built to benefit themselves. I believe this corruption always exists to some degree, and human nature makes that impossible to avoid, but the amount of corruption is different for different groups. No group will ever be perfectly corrupt, they will always seek to improve lives of others to some degree, and no group will be free of corruption, and will always use the system to their benefit.
I think the fact that we have to keep defining new contracts (social, sexual, racial, etc) just to explain the same phenomenon tells us that we are missing something more fundamental. It clicked when you started this video talking about how governments exist through conquest. There is no "contract" (in the sense of an agreement, explicit or otherwise), but there is the dynamics of power. Power over others, in its various forms, has a natural tendency to condense into smaller portions of the population all the way until an equilibrium is found that counteracts this accumulation. This is because once people gain power (even accidentally!), they are loathe to lose it. This loss aversion leads to the tendency to accumulate additional power purely as a safeguard to loss. And on goes the feedback loop. This explains why truly egalitarian societies are so rare. If humanity is inherently wicked, it is true only so far as our desire to avoid loss. Looking at gender as an example, it turns out that gender is a useful way to distinguish groups of people. And when you have multiple groups, you have group power dynamics. Even if you start out perfectly equally, circumstances naturally shift over time until one group has some power over the other, and then the dynamics of loss aversion take over from there. I won't speculate on why there are more patriarchies than matriarchies in the world, but it's important to remember that once a precedent is set even once, it's very easy to perpetuate in later generations (see: generational wealth).
I really like this perspective. I will say, from my understanding of history, a lot of the reason behind the dominance of patriarchy relates to imperialism; many societies that were once matriarchal have since flipped. This applies to a lot of other things as well, such as queerphobia, racism, and even the prevalence of the idea of binary sex and gender.
@@loadishstone I'm not claiming that past societies held the same values we do today; precisely the opposite. Take nonbinary genders. The current, western take on this is fully new. However, many societies across the globe have had specific nonbinary genders beyond male and female, such as the various two-spirit gender roles in Native American tribes. Another example, racism was obviously not invented by imperialism, but imperialism had a significant contribution to the spread of the modern form of racism prevalent in places like the United States. I admit my initial message may have been misleading. I was primarily responding to the comment "I won't speculate on why there are more patriarchies than matriarchies in the world", as while I don't know the total number of patriarchies versus matriarchies there have been throughout history, I do know of several cases where matriarchal societies were culturally influenced by another, more politically dominant at the time culture, and adopted patriarchal values as a result.
What do you mean you won’t speculate on why there’s more patriarchies (if that’s how it’s spelled) --- it’s obvious. Men have more physical power. That’s it, that’s all there is to it. If women had more physical power, then it would be the exact same thing just inverted. I’m 90% sure.
Im taking a required government class right now and the lessons are just obsessed with the social contract! This video really helped to open my eyes to the fact that the social contract isn't really all that big and flashy- if that makes any sense.
Technically, Rousseau said that it was groups of people (peoples) who could form the social contract. The family is used as an example to explain how contracts form (kind of) and how they work (tending towards paternalism). He's really disputing the Hobbesian idea that two people can agree to form a contract by saying that it requires some complete culture to divest itself of certain individual rights to form such a contract. At least, that's my reading of it. I wrote a paper applying the Social Contract to history where I used Rousseau's work pretty heavily, and that was the interpretation I used.
Has Rousseau mentioned the contract between citizen and government? most of the contracts mentioned here were mainly about society in the more... abstract, rather than the institutionalized concept.
@@ahoyturtle Yeah, that's kinda what I'm talking about. For Rousseau, I'm pretty sure the idea of the Social Contract necessitates a Sovereign to be subordinated to (though I could be conflating him with Hobbes on that point). With respect to more interpersonal contracts, I'm pretty sure Rousseau would argue that they have inherent connection to the political establishment. If a people is the only thing capable of forming a Social Contract, that's where social dynamics would gestate and occur. His whole point in doing this is to establish that Hobbes is wrong in saying that two individuals can form a contract (which I believe is reinforced by the content of the video). We could also take this into a discussion about how these dynamics are expressed, discussing how the interpersonal interactions arise from the Social Contract (such as the anecdote about the man on the bench), but that strays from a discussion of Rousseau into broader Social Contract theory. I hope that answers your question. I also hope it's right.
"Why are you having your religious services in Latin? SPEAK ENGLISH. Like Jesus did." Abigail, your a comedic genius whether you know it or not. This whole video is amazing and insightful. Thanks for doing what you do friend 🙂 🙏🙏
Thank you for (in this and other videos) showing off second-wave feminist voices. As a millenial raised by a feminist boomer, this was the source of my earliest political and sociological education. But the third wave is not always friendly to second-wave thought, which disappoints me as a trans queer feminist in 2022 who felt the impact of that "definition of woman" question pretty clearly. Good think. Very tube.
you're right. As much as I love Butler's queer theory, her thought owns so much to second wave feminists like Wittig, or even black feminists such as Audre Lorde or bell hooks.
@@babymilksnatcher I'm not really a history buff but it is a shame how the second wave has become synonymous with terfs and swerfs because they had allot of the theory down right on the nose, it seemed that how they attempted to combat that which is where the problem arose, instead of looking outward to effect change for the most amount of people they looked to the personal to essentially try and cast out men as a class entirely and just replace them with women and hope it worked out good.
I absolutely adore how every one of your videos is like a scholarly research paper, where the citations appear at the top of the screen and it is all done in a fun, memorable and sexy way. Keep up the phenomenal work!
Abigail, you're such a freaking positive feminist icon for me. It makes me so happy to see a woman so confident and self-assured, and gives me hope that one day I can get there too!
@@arkology_city actually it's the estrogen and therapy. she's talked about her experiences with abusive partners in previous videos and how transition has been a process of self confidence and self respect for her. Also there are plenty of confident, self-assured cis women and plenty of neurotic, self-loathing cis men. You really don't have to project your own insecurities onto others.
and now, we are having massive crackdowns on peaceful protest and freedom of speech, because everyone's got to support the monarchy and dissent is not allowed.
This is a small point, but I cannot believe how perfect you got the lawyer-cadence. So direct and dryly funny, like you’re doing geometry proofs for philosophy
Hi Abigail! I just discovered your channel and I think I`m in love! I`m 22 years old and recently I started reading classical literature, taking interst in politics, but I have never imagined that philosophy would stole my heart! Your knowledge, way of speaking, confidence, and even sassiness in your jokes- I love all of it! You inspire me to read more and expand my knowledge. Thank you so much! Btw congratulations on your show! I hope it was amazing experience and a dream come true :D
as someone with an intense interest in zoology and paleoanthropology the state of nature was always an idea that intrigued and infuriated me (and i got into quite a few arguments with my teachers during our philosophy unit in highschool over it) bc we *know* how society came about now, or rather, that humans have always lived in societies of sorts. society pre-dates homo sapiens by hundreds of thousands of years, people have always lived together and fed each other and defended each other.
Also, marriage and the sexual contract has more relevance once private property started existing and could be inherited. In the middle ages peasants didn't even bother with marriage, they just made an agreement Infront of society when often the church was not even involved. People pair up because they want sex and companionship, and children are a consequence of that and will help with working in the fields. Everything else was created to deal with property once started existing, and controlling women's sexual lives became a thing to ensure who would get the property. Societies without private property of land have different sexual dynamics.
Ah, glad to hear The Prince will be on Nebula. Flying across the sea to see the play is a bit out of budget ... But streaming is pretty affordable haha
I was just thinking that! (Right after I was trying to process in my head how I was going to get a job, reserve tickets, get a new Passport, and fly to London, England! 😫😉)
1. You’re gorgeous and I love your outfits so much. 2. I’m really in awe of how you teach the audience to engage with, critique, and not completely toss out a text. Thank you for that, I hope that people pick up on that skill and use it!
So wild to hear you talking about Detroit. The only time Detroit seems to ever be mentioned outside of the city is when it's getting dunked on for being poor. Thanks for highlighting the struggle here.
i appreciate hearing people talk about Detroit in an honest/understanding way a lot. my mom grew up there and told me that a lot of other poor people she knew eventually "got out" of Detroit by burning down their houses to get out of some of the debt that was attached to them and move--if you visit, you'll notice a lot of houses that look burned from the inside with no belongings in there+no damage to other homes and that's why
This is exactly the kind of content I've been yearning for in UA-cam. An educational, pertinent, authentic and meaningful channel and content; on top of that I value the humor and very much the specific resources listed. I studied a bit on the social contract and I do very much appreciate that the philosophy content is very thorough, accurate, and clearly cited. Best channel I've come across. I think I get bored pretty easily but you kept my attention the whole way through with this video and I never heard of The Sexual Contract in my studies, but I did remember when reading Locke and Rousseau and Hume and, well, the rest of the eminent ancient and modern philosophers I did rid, that they all lacked an accurate understanding of the state of being woman. And what you elaborated about Pateman's ideas about how women are on the menu has been, unfortunately, all too accurate in my experience. It was a truth about reality and society that I gradually had to learn and one almost feels helpless as a female, at times, to be able to do anything about it or alter that fact about society. There is a lot about the consequences of the sexual contract operating in real life to be combatted, for lack of a better word. That Pateman wrote about it and you've discussed it so well here already helps legitimize my experience, for which when I've tried to voice about it in the past, especially in front of male acquaintances, would be disregarded as me simply sounding like "a crazy feminist". Some of the consequences of the Sexual Contract I'm talking about is how it is so "normal" to regularly have a hand placed on the small of your back when a male acquaintance passes by, or to be called sweetheart by a man while being lectured to or to try to have an intellectual conversation just to have it repeatedly flipped to a sexual conversation by one's male conversant or how when one says "no" as a woman it apparently is incomprehensible or how one voices why something can't be done about something to be responded to "well, there's no such thing as magic" or to be regularly flirted with by males in superior positions whether they be bosses or teachers, etc, and if you don't flirt back and don't flirt back you are shunned by them and from any opportunities of moving up, etc. ad infinitum.
“We’re not at the table because we’re on the menu” This gave me Tzimisce Vibes, which makes it even creepier -> "you aren't at the table, because you are the table and the chairs and the paper the contract is written on"
Social contract: by virtue of being able to access the internet, every single person has a moral obligation to watch PhilosophyTube and pay tribute to Abby I like to think of myself as a faithful citizen in that respect, exercising my duty to perfection
"we're not at the table because we're on the menu" is a very interesting way of looking at it, people will naturally be vigilant about their own interests when making decision at the expense of others, specially those not present when making the choise, but I loved the way you put it!
the act of not being present when choices are made is crucial, and a key factor in how de facto private decisions are made within our supposedly public institutions, at the expense of the combined minorities which are now, taken as a whole, the majority.
Back again after the release of The Prince. Congratulations to AWARD WINNING ACTRESS AND WRITER Abigail Thorne!!! It has been AMAZING watching your work over the last 4/5 years, and HOLY BALLZ ITS BEEN A FUCKIN RIDE! And as I've oft been told, a broadly led life is the true catalyst of the creative soul. Experience and empathy channeled back out of the mind anf projected into reality for others to see, hear, feel, empathize, and know there's another PERSON outsider of them. That's art. I can't believe I got to see it all happen. Thank you for sharing your work with us over all this time.
Always always always love when plays get filmed. There's no way i could get tickets (being on a different continent entirely) but ive never been happier about my nebula subscription. Sorry this comment is all about the play now but damn it sounds amazing and i cannot wait to see it for so many reasons. Congratulations, abby, i wish you a packed house for the entire run.
I think more plays should be pro-shot. Yes, I realize it's complicated and expensive, but I think a lot more could be done than is being done. Learning that this play is going to be professionally filmed is what *finally* got me to click on a sponsor link, after all these years of watching sponsored videos on UA-cam.
Spike Lee’s best films are his stage-to-screen projects. Passing Strange, A Huey P. Newton Story, Pass Over, Freak, and so on. They capture the immediacy of the stage and the emotional intensity of cinema so beautifully and powerfully. All this as way of saying - absolutely more stage productions should be filmed. For casual access to those of us outside metropolis’ if nothing else.
@@Guy4318 For casual access outside metropolis', for people with disabilities (physical or cognitive) that make any particular theater inaccessible, for use in classrooms, for showing in movie theaters, too, for those who want a communal experience, and probably more, too, that I'm not thinking of...
As a Northern Irish person it feels incredibly odd hearing someone talk about James II and William of Orange and going beyond just, "1690, Battle of the Boyne, King Billy yeooo"
@@lemurwrench6344 You're technically right, but people usually only say "take it or leave it" when they're forcing you to choice the least horrible of two shitty options. Today, I bought my girlfriend some flowers. They were reasonably priced. I could have gone to another florist, or chosen not to buy flowers at all. So, the florist didn't say, "take it or leave it!". OTOH, I once had a boss who told me he was cutting my salary - and he knew I was in a bad financial situation and if I'd quit, I'd likely be homeless within 6 weeks. He said, "it's your choice - take it or leave it!".
@@andrewclifton429 You may have considered the price of the flowers reasonable, but there are almost certainly some people who think they cost too much. If they attempted to haggle with the florist, they would have almost certainly been met with something approximating a "take it or leave it" response. The florist can do this because they know there are enough customers such as yourself who are okay with the price that keeping the price above what some customers will pay will ultimately make more money. Likewise, your boss knew that other workers who were okay with the lower wage could replace you. He would have said this to you even if you had the means to easily get a better paying job. The dynamic there is much less about him knowing you can't afford to say no & much more about him knowing that you saying no doesn't impact him negatively much if at all, & therefore it's not a really a risk. In other words, being able to say "take it or leave it" is about you being in a position of strength regardless of whether or not the person you are negotiating with is in a position of weakness. "take it or leave it" happens all the time between two parties where neither has leverage over the other but for whom a mutually beneficial arrangement can't be reached. "it basically translates to "this is my final offer" not "it would be a shame if......."
@@lemurwrench6344 Again, you are technically right on some points, but again, you're missing the larger point of the vast difference between the two cases: (1) buying some flowers and (2) reluctantly taking a huge pay cut.
Flowers are not a necessity of life. No one will starve, or face homelessness without them. Neither the florist, nor the customer, has huge negotiating leverage. If you think one florist's prices are a bit steep, there are other florists. You're right that, in the highly unlikely event of someone haggling over the price of some inexpensive flowers, the florist would be able to say "take it or leave it" - and there would be nothing wrong with doing so, because there are no hugely negative consequences, for the customer, of either (a) not getting to buy flowers at all, or (b) not getting to buy them at a slightly lower price! You try to disconnect having a position of strength, in negotiation, from the situation of the other person - but this is absurd, because bargaining strength always is relative to the strength or weakness of the other party. If you have no idea about the latter, but you don't particularly care whether or not you get the deal, you're not necessarily in a position of strength; you're in a position of INDIFFERENCE. It's not the same. If you're in a situation of near parity and you say take it or leave it, you may or may not get the deal. No worries, another customer will come along soon. If you're in a very strong position and say "take it or leave it", you almost certainly get the deal - even if you're not indifferent about it. This brings me to the situation with the pay cut. This was in late 2008. The company's revenue had fallen, thanks to the Great Recession and a shrinking market for its services, and my boss wanted to keep his six-figure income as high as possible, by drastically cutting wages. There were, as I explained, extremely negative consequences to my saying "no" - and you're totally wrong to assume that my boss was unaware of this. He knew all the relevant details of my situation - and this, I can assure you, is exactly why he used the words "take it or leave it!" It's true that, had I refused the pay cut and quit my job, he would probably been able, eventually, to find another worker to take my place - but you're entirely wrong to assume that this would have been EASY. My job was technically specialised; I'd been working there for five years and I was very good at it. Finding someone equally competent, who was also desperate enough to work a 50 hour week for a sub-minimum wage, would have been very difficult - but my boss knew, perfectly well, that he didn't have to worry about this. He knew I couldn't afford to quit. He even spelled it out for me: due to disruptive new technologies, demand for my now obsolescent skills had rapidly fallen, so the chances of my quickly getting another job in that field were very low. For me, he explained, his company was "the only game in town". Take it, or leave it. In any case, it's a ridiculous to suggest that anyone would be "okay" with the deal I was being offered. Nobody is "okay", or happy and content, with working a 50 hour week for an sub-poverty-line income that's not enough to live on; just like nobody is "okay" with paying a mobster "protection" to avoid violence. Both situations are highly coercive. In both cases, you're forced to chose the least horrible of two shitty options, because some greedy bastard wants to prosper at your expense.
I have to say I am a little bit in love with you! I've recently discovered your content and binged most of the channel. I am so interested in philospophy and really should have gone into it acedemically. I did performing arts in uni but my final project was a performative presentation on Marlene Dietrich, feminism and sexuality through the lense of my own self. Your videos remind me so much of that, performative presentations on philiosphy. You are so smart, funny and stunningly beautiful. I never leave youtube comments but had to get that out. Much love.
A couple of tiny points about Rousseau: one, he wasn't French but Genevan; two, the four words 'man is born free' is an easy-to-make mistranslation of the French original 'L’homme est né libre', which actually means 'man WAS born free' ('is born' would be 'il naît', present tense). It's a subtle distinction, but it gestures to a key difference between the birth of humanity and the birth of each individual human. Aside from my nerdy quibbles, though, this was, as ever, an excellent video! Love your work!
I kindly disagree, in French "l'homme est né libre" can be both read as "man was born free" and "man is born free". I'd argue that the original reading and intention was the "man IS born free" one.
You made the mistake to confuse the french conjugation tenses. (Présent, Passé Composé, Plus-Que-Parfait) French language view time differently with 22 tenses. Yes, "L'Homme naît libre" (Présent) become "Man is born free". BUT, "L'homme est né libre" (Passé Composé) also become "Man is born free". There is a difference in french, but since english only have 16 tense... that's how it is. Meanwhile, "L'homme était né libre" (Plus-Que-Parfait) become "Man was born free". French language have 4 way to talk of the past in the indicative only... so yeah, it's complex.
Abigail: When a British monarch dies, that’s when the English are at their most dangerous. Me, Welsh, looking at news about the 96 year-old Queen’s health: 👁 👄 👁
@@Capybarrrraaaa 🐟 21. THE MONARCHY: A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and courageously lead his army into battle if necessary (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his ministers, in order to build a just society. A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families). There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy: By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LEGITIMATE monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn't have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator. Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn't necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire. The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance. Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by definition, controlled by either workers or by businessmen (or rarely by priests or spiritual leaders), and therefore is intrinsically evil, since they are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power. Although WAR is unfortunate, it is sometimes necessary to defend oneself from aggressors. In certain circumstances, it is legitimate for a ruler or aspiring ruler to overtake another (evil and corrupt) ruler and usurp his sovereignty. Unfortunately, in the modern era, it is nigh impossible for an aspiring king to seize power, since he will be easily defeated by sheer military might, as opposed to the state of affairs in ancient times, where two opposing monarchs would fight in hand-to-hand combat (or possibly lead their respective armies into a battle for the kingdom). Being a soldier is a legitimate and necessary occupation in this wicked and perilous world, mainly for the defence of a local population or nation, but unfortunately, not all soldiers serve a good master. Not all world leaders are righteous in all their ways. In fact, you who are reading this Scripture, are almost definitely being oppressed by a corrupt, tyrannical regime. The reason why you may not realize this fact is due to either abject ignorance, or because, just like your illegitimate government, you have little desire for society to be organized according to holy and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a newborn child has absolutely no conception of what is most beneficial to its welfare, the vast majority of citizens have very little idea of what benefits society most. Hence the decadent state of contemporary culture. Whenever there is a CONFLICT in this world, whether that be a conflict between two persons, or a conflict between two groups of persons (such as political wars), it is absolutely certain that one side is more righteous than the other. Both sides can not be equally right, because equality is non-existent in this phenomenal sphere. Equality exclusively exists in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably on the sub-atomic level. Unfortunately, it requires an above-average intellect to be able to comprehend such truthful concepts. “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” George Carlin, American Comedian and Actor. 1937-2008. “I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. ... That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple, to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government.” Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, English Author, “The Weight of Glory”. *Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one's speech. For example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he or she ought to be punished for that sinful deed. A genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). Of course, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regards to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society.
This is just awesome. I am in the middle of the night not able to sleep for overthinking and a nice friend's feed had this video on their page. I just fell in love with the narrative style, the really gentle acting and the entire video being really sensitive towards any kind of audience and backgrounds. this feels refreshing and relaxing, and if i will not be able to sleep at all this night, at least i will be filling myself with some nice philosophy and very on-point notes that makes me want to dust off some of the old classic from high school philosophy class. Thank you so much
That devil outfit was simply chefs kiss and those wings!! Beautiful. Was sad I wouldn't be able to watch Abigails play and I am so glad she arranged for it to be recorded. I will now sign up for Nebula and CuriosityStream and I feel like I will chide myself for not doing so sooner since both services seem like a perfect fit for me. A huge congratulation to Abigail for writing a play and being able to get it on stage. I wish her the best, even more than I normally do, and I can't wait to see her very own play!!
In my IB social class we learned about Hobbes and Locke and a bunch of other enlightenment philosophers but Locke was seen as almost completely good and so this was great at giving a more balanced view.
"Detroit became subhuman", love the gamers reference! also reminds me one boss from the game Nier Automata that intentionally is called Simone, a robot that try to became woman, to transform and behave and consume in order to became woman so she can be loved by another robot, called Jean Paul.... not by accident, the robots were trying to reproduce human behavior to became human, but also repeating the same mistakes over and over. to me it's the best bame ever!
I’ve never even watched a full play through or played the game in any form but I love the characters so much, maybe because the game did them so dirty and fanfic loves gently taking canon from the authors and saying “let me just rearrange the furniture a bit *I* know what we’re doing”
Watched through a LOT of the channel recently and i have to say that out of all of the thumbnails THIS is the best one. Also love your videos they've somehow kept me sane while stuck at home due to Illness the past 8 weeks and counting Edit: *Chronic Illness :/ Though, amputation of the problem area MAY fix it. Might edit again in the future.
i absolutely love these videos where you start off by relaying the premise in non-costumed attire, and then when the thesis is out of the way you switch to costumes. i dont know what about it makes me excited considering i can see the costume in the thumbnail, but its so engaging. it makes the intro like a magical girl transformation sequence where we get to see things relating to it and bits of the costume and then WHAM the full look comes into frame and im ready to go
@@globalist1990 her older, pre-transition videos are still available for viewing, you know. i have no expectation for a trans woman who already put a lot of masculine costuming out on the internet to go back to that rather than doing the same formula but with feminine costumes
The talk about the State of Nature reminds me of Margaret Mead - who said that the first sign of civilization is the sign of a healed femur bone. Because it takes so long to heal, it means that someone must have organized care.
For all the people contesting the example of the guy in the park, usually justifying the guy as "only wanting to chat" and saying he was not entitled: you are missing the point. Can we agree on the fact that by observing people, we can generally guess if they are busy or not? If a person reads a book taking notes, they are clearly busy and focused. Yes, even if the person in question is a woman. So it may happen that a man wants to talk to a stranger, but doing so would break the other person's focus and most likely disturb and annoy them. By choosing to speak to the person, the man is deciding he is entitled to disturb the person, as in "his desire to speak to a stranger is more important than the focus of the stranger on their book". Like, don't disturb strangers who are working, their working in a public space doesn't mean they are free. If you are in the mood to chat, choose someone who looks more available, for example, someone sitting on a bench but who is casually looking around and not doing much.
I disagree, you can still chat them up but in way testing their reciprocation . If the first 15 second of conversation you strike up and they don't hit the ball back enthusiastically then sure leave them alone.
@@issac7787 did you pay any attention to the video though? Why should someone have to put up with you interrupting them for even 15 seconds, why are you entitled to their time or attention at all? Do you appreciate when people interrupt you? DOES anyone ever interrupt you and expect you to chat as a man? Most importantly though, women have to deal with the fact that men can become violent and dangerous when they are rejected. They MUST put up with you, they CANT reject you out of hand and many will act enthusiastic to make sure that you don't hurt them. That is the situation you are exploiting when you expect women to speak to you and its the reinforcing block Abigail was talking about. You don't realize that its not an equal relationship, you don't realize there are factors that mean they will speak with you and not reject you even if they would rather and through these interactions you come to believe that its acceptable to behave this way.
You can get tickets to The Prince here! southwarkplayhouse.savoysystems.co.uk/SouthwarkPlayhouse.dll/TSelectItems.waSelectItemsPrompt.TcsWebMenuItem_432565.TcsWebTab_432566.TcsProgramme_13931695
fuckin knew this was about the play, hope the tickets dont run out immediately;-;
Omg omg.... I'm staying longer in UK now - I might be able to go!!! Woot!!!!
Oo my boyfriend's coming over from the States during this window, snagging two tickets for the both of us
Already crashed website 🙃
Tickets booked right away 😁
"As a demon I live forever, but as a lawyer I charge by the hour." Love it.
Is that incense, no its weed, I swear............. LOL. Even funnier for a former Catholic alter boy,..........now girl.
Whoa , the dum dum cult watched a movie
"...we'll be here 'til Armageddon."
So you're saying we don't have much time?
Sadly the truth is missing from that statement , I wonder why she did not want to go to websters definition of gender ?
"Step on me Daddy!" 😂
When my daughter was a teenager she said she didn’t asked to be born and she was just cruising through the aether like a fish and got snagged and dragged into this world and now had to go to school. I told her she was right and that it’s not her fault but it is her responsibility to minimize her suffering and maximize her meaning in this endeavor of life. She said “whatever Dad”
That's a good dad right there
@@elevationsickness8462 she turned out ok which is always a question when a dad raises a daughter on their own
You tried, that's what matters
frankly thats pretty sad of you to respond that way...because you had to fulfill a sexual urge or earn a legacy, your child has to suffer because of it? if i were you id just never tell my kid i loved them because you dont...
@@jayjohnson5016 interesting take
I remember reading in some union booklet that labor was “selling your time”. I was horrified by this definition, not because I thought it was wrong, but because it felt so violating. Is my time - my life - something I can just sell to a company? Is it really not worth more than they were willing to pay me? And it occurred to me that at that time, I and most people in the world had nothing to sell but our time. Yet merely surviving, not to mention living a fulfilling life, costs a lot of money. Now tell me any of this is voluntary.
As a child, my grandfather made sure to read the histories of Piracy and the West India Trade Company, with details about how profiteering and merchant trade worked. It was an important lesson in his mind.
And similarly I was horrified when I learned that the privateers buisness models both of the profiteers and the WTC never died, it moved to land and called itself capitalism.
The labor was always just the mark being stolen from, and profit was always just the yields that the buisness owner person never worked for.
I have yet to find a reason to call capitalism anything but a Kleptocracy. There is risk to theft, as there is risks to wall street and neither are so dissimilar as to not be identical inside.
Yes, that is precisely what it means. All the machines, buildings, places that rich people own and all their toys and pretty things and pointless baubles are the crystalized life-time of other people.
Neurologically speaking it doesnt cost anything but heat. voluntarily? never unless you want to starve. Money? no definitely not. We can argue whether our ancestors lived fulfilling lives or if they only stressed about the impending death but seeing as we are almost identical neurologically id say that there is no reason they wouldnt have been able to. So as long as you want to survive you have to keep the system of life we call a biological entity from collapsing into equilibrium.
Having a job tends to be the easiest and safest way. But thats culture, not biology.
@@humanistwriting5477 I would love to hear an actual good argument for anarchy. Capitalism best argument is that humanity have never found a good solution to economy but capitalism is by far the better one out of the other, which would be feudalism, monarchy and communisms, which bases their beliefs in owning humans.
anarchy is definitely not in our genes, and we havent found a single multicelled organism where the different cells work sollely for their own benefit.
So please enlighten me. Im not a fan of capitalisms and i live in Sweden which is communisms disguised and socialism which isnt much better except i have shorter time to the doctor but i dont get any fun drugs when im there.
@@adrianflo6481 you want the argument for anarchy, answer these questions on a peice of paper; what excatly do you think Anarchy is? What excatly do you think communism is? What excatly do you think capitalism is?
Got it written down? Good now throw that peice of paper away, it's wrong. Your notions are wrong, that is a granted.
communism is any economic order that is a free market and provides for the needs of the many from the means of the few, that's a quote from Karl Marx.
Anarchy, is a social order methodology that does not utilize any born or elected hiarchies, kind of like everyone lived under when they did not have warlords ruling them, fpr all of history, im including the United States congress as a body of warlords here. Bear in mind countries are a modern invention, based on medieval misunderstandings on ancient Roman and Greek texts, and in addition the United States is actually the closest to Anarchy that I am personally aware of. This is because the United States constitution was based on the confederacy of the five nations (oft called the Iroquois Confederacy from a mis-translation), an anarchist "nation" of tribes. Nation in quotes as we cannot
So wait a second here. If tribes naturally form anarchist republic confederations, then it seems natural. Doesn't it?
Now here is the other thing. A correction for the biggest assumption you are certainly making.
There has been no evidence for direct barter and trade in any time period, even before money was invented. People just took track of what you contributed.
Okay; so communism is where people keep track of your contributions and everyone is given equal credit for equal contribution, and everyone is allowed to consume thier needs, but if you have means you are allowed to consume more.
And your probably thought that was capitalism, I am betting? It's not.
And anarchy can be described as a democratic republic where all elected officials are *servant* held to the electorate not just by losing thier job but actually held accountable to the electorate. So. The promise and intent of the US constitution, but actual communism because you cannot have a free market without everyone's base needs being met freely. Otherwise all work is coerced to some degree by threat of starvation or freezing to death.
Now. Does any of this sound terrible strange to you? It probably sounds like your friend group doesn't it?
There is your argument. Obviously there are some major changes in anarchy, such as rights everyone observes for everyone else instead of laws, but by and large, the good that we have seen has all came from the process of switching to anarchism, and that change is called socialism.
Every time I watch one of her videos I feel like I need to take notes, they're always so informational, structured, precise and nuanced, this is like therapy
I always feel like I'm in the most amazing college course EVER, and she's my favorite professor.
right!! especially when you feel like everybody around you care only about small talks and some down to earth stuff, which is okay of course, but you physically crave TO THINK a little
@April Showers yeah, clearly *you* think about it too much. Sadly, without any passable logical conclusions, but keep going, I believe in you
@April Showers it would be great if you would think a bit and realise that it doesn't matter at all whether it's a man or a woman when we're delivered great content. You could just not watch it
@April Showers you make me sad
I didn't think I could guffaw louder after the words: "allowing Catholics in women's toilets" but then "Is that incense? No, it's weed, I swear-"
I think I sprained something
what got me was 'beelzebub, beelzebub, and jones'. abigail is hilarious.
@@elisecode2212 She's seriously one of the most quotable people on the planet.
I was so worried about not being able to see the play because I live in the US, but to know it's going to be recorded? Thank you so much! I will absolutely be signing up to watch.
Been thinking about Curiosity Stream and Nebula; you pushed me into actually signing up. Love your work. Love from USA.
There really is some cool stuff on there, after seeing the things there, I'd be ok with more than $15/year for it but hey, as long as it's that cheap, go go go go go lmao
Same here but from Australia, excited to see the recording
Same here but from Canada! Will be signing up 😄
ditto
I think Franz Kafka's 'The Trial' should be mandatory reading for all public servants, not just police and legislators but also doctors, social workers, and people put there ostensibly to help. I think often about the time my brother got COVID. He called the NHS hotline to report it and they said, get a PCR test. He said "I don't have a car so I can't get to the testing site, so I'm just going to self-isolate for two weeks." They said, "No, you have to get a PCR test. Get a (£60 round-trip) taxi". So he called every single taxi company in the area, and obviously none would take him, but the person on the other end of the phone seemed to only know one thing (which wasn't even accurate): he was required to get a PCR test. It didn't matter to them that this was physically impossible. So they booked him in for one, and he never showed up.
In Romania, during the emergency state of things, you could call an ambulance and the public health system always had PCR tests available for those who had no other choice but to wait for the public health system to come at their door (a lot of people were in this situation and the waiting time was either a few hours, or two-three days - depending on demand or on where you lived) but I think it was required for such a plan B system to exist. Are you sure, compared to us, in a "first world country" you did not have such a thing? I kind of doubt it, but then again, I don't live there, so
My government did the same thing. I was just lucky enough not to get COVID.
This is why I was so glad my local government not only set up mobile vans that give on site rapid covid tests, but the federal government also delivered free tests to every household, as well. Sure the US dropped the fricking ball on Covid, but some states actually did a lot better with testing and tracing.
Also Kafka's _The Castle_ freaky stuff, when "I am just following the rules" leads to madness. Kafka anticipated neo-liberal tecnocracy rules-based order.
@@0CryingAngel0 you would be so surprised. There's no public health folks to come to our door, and while you could possibly call an ambulance for that purpose an ambulance ride is prohibitively expensive here
I love how the hook of this essay is essentially “yes but *why* can’t you have shit in detroit”
Hurry☝️ You just got yourself something from me, Send me a message above to claim your prize, ✅🎉.
..
I know
Damn that’s fucking great 😂
I heard Detroit and assumed that the water crisis was going to be part of this... I haven't finished this, but in my heart of hearts I believe Detroit's water crisis is behind the late great philosophers.
You're going to lose your life in Detroit. Rock City
this reminds me of the active shooter case that police said they had no duty to manage. sure, they didn't break any laws, but they did fundamentally break the social contract of "murder is illegal but your right to live is protected"
if society doesn't provide protection from those breaching the contract, no wonder people feel scared and empty.
Not to mention the social contract of "the police will protect you from violence", although I'm aware that's under a lot of strain in the US anyway
@@redwitch95 the police will protect who from violence? And what is violence?
Yeah , when rules are breached in your disadvantage it really sucks ,
It just feels unfair ,
And kinda makes you want to break those rules since , is everyone else following those ? Maybe i tought differently ?
But at the same time it's hard to do since , you're just being like the pepolebthat hurt you
@@maxwellmills4825 not allot but it seems to be agreed that at the very least the police are supposed to use violence to stop like an act of greater more damaging violence
@@maxwellmills4825 That needs to be well defined to defend police as an institution but not to criticise them via social construct theory, because the criticism already specifies a threat and expected protection (active shooter, police should stop the shooter).
“We’re not at the table because we’re on the menu” wow that’s a horrifying but totally true concept. Thanks Abigail! Finally a perfect way to describe how sexism is more complicated than men hating women, and that it’s so deeply rooted into our culture that we can’t just say it’s gone and wipe our hands of patriarchy.
I haven't watched the video yet and don't know what it's about. So when reading your comment I thought the quote related to capitalism. Which is fitting as well, I think.
It’s fitting with really any form of systemic oppression lol it just hit me the hardest with the reference to patriarchy.
Sounds a bit like "if it's free then you're the product", right ?
It is also one of the idea behind EU
That's why I'm gonna find me a girl like Bailey Jay, Annabelle Lane, or Ashley George won't have to deal with this lol
The highest praise I can think of for this show in particular is that I feel like I learned something, and don't come away from it feeling completely dumpster'd by the world.
She's a fed. Relieved UK government funding to pish their narrative
as an indigenous girl, i found it weird to sit in a US Gov class and be taught about how life before settlement was barbaric and cruel, and that the only way to move forward was with the social contract. it felt isolating to think about how my culture and my people were not barbaric and cruel, they had survived for hundreds of years, and it was uncomfortable for me to hear my white male teacher connect it to the colonizers. i love this video, it put into words what i always felt about the social contract without knowing that theories like this existed because it was only presented to me during class that the social contract is the right way.
There was so much erasure as well. I am from a previosuly nomadic culture as well and people knew how to harmonise with nature back then. It's beautiful and I you have opportunities to keep ties with your culture!
You first mistake is in believing you are an “indigenous girl”. No such thing. Your ancestors stole the land… in as much as “stealing land” has any meaning to begin with.
You are just a product of history, same as everyone else. You are no more indigenous as me.
Your indigenous ancestors invented technologies to live on these continents since 13,000 or maybe even 15,000 years ago. Seen the tracks in White Sands National Monument? 😮
I've come to the conclusion that Government Charity has only one goal; to force the oppressed to admit to their oppressors that they are inferior. It's not enough to lie to them, they want you to make them believe it. Perhaps the only freedom the oppressed will ever know, is to make them believe it, make sure we don't believe it, and use the lie against the system of oppression.
(In Canada) there are workshops you can take where you reenact colonization and it’s extremely emotional. I participated in one and learned about how the village way of life in Indigenous cultures honoured children and women, how cooperative and redistributive it was in terms of shared wealth and resources. Just the total opposite of the colonial system which then stripped all this away.
The first couple chapters of David Graber‘s “the Dawn of everything” addresses the origins of social contract theory and takes a critical look at the idea of “the state of nature.“ A TLDR, at least for that chapter, is that history is much more nuanced and doesn’t make for a good straightforward narrative. Every group of our Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestors experimented endlessly with different forms of social construction and politics. It doesn’t conform to either Rousseau‘s idea of the noble savage and the corrosive effect of society, or Hobbes’ primitive state of man.
I just started reading that same book and was thinking the same thing
I'm about a quarter into this book and love it so far. I highly recommend his "Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of out Own Dreams"
Almost like philosophers just making stuff up without archeological evidence should be taken as figurative rather than literal.
From what i have seen it's not the best of Graber's, because a lot of other anthropologists seem to disagree with it a lot. That being said though, it's true that people really do think that their circumstances are a lot more "natural" and therefore implied to be unchangeable, than they actually are.
@@BadAstra Rousseau and Hobbes had such a profound impact on political thought in their times though that it basically cemented their thought experiments as interpretations of actual human nature. That was not their intentions; but for those who wish to utilize their arguments to say something ~about human nature specifically~ to justify certain kinds of political systems, they form useful pillars to lean on for those "arguments".
In other words, those who like authoritarian systems of control find Hobbes and Rousseau (and Locke) useful thinkers to justify their authoritarian rule. "We must use the boot to keep you in line! Do you want to live like savages in a violent state of nature instead?"
What a shame.
Is it just me, or is Abigail just getting more and more upbeat and energetic in her videos lately? Like it just feels like there is this fountain of energy running underneath each video. It's fantastic!
I noticed that too! I wonder whether it's because of her excitement over her play being produced. She seemed almost to be bursting out of her skin when she discussed the play at the end. So joyful!
Probably getting more and more comfortable being herself I'd imagine
I haven't watched in a while, and maybe its just because she's not doing a character in this one, but she seems so much more comfortable in her own skin than the last I saw her
coke? lol
Glad she seems happy, I hope she is off camera
This feels like a bit of a return to a slightly older style but with updated flare and production value that I have to say I'm a big fan of. Enjoyed this one, always looking forward to whatever comes next.
Good, that's exactly what I was going for!
@@PhilosophyTube I loved the inclusion of Anansi for the reading of the piece on the Detroit water shutoffs. I love their voice so, so much!
Agree! Very exciting
I'd love a return to old subjects like this one. Marx and private property revisited would be great.
Agreed, I've been reading Tropic of Cancer except I like to pretend the character Van Norden is like a Bailey Jay, mite write my own book think I'll call it "Beyond the Valley of Penises"
The part on women got me as I just heard a commercial on the radio by focus on the family about women needing to put out to their husbands because it’s Gods gift to do so. It was kind of a sick commercial.
My own dear mom donates to them monthly... And yet she divorced my dad in part because she didn't feel like putting out all the time 🤷♀️😂
@@nomadicam well, ok then lol I was really shocked at the commercial. I’ve never heard something like it before.
@@clseairsppt real common among the trad wife/ultra conservative crowd. SOOOO glad I escaped!
"focus on the Family" is so fucking toxic.
Hurry☝️ You just got yourself something from me, Send me a message above to claim your prize, ✅🎉.
...
I remember reading data that, in cis straight marriages, when wives become seriously ill, their husbands are much more likely to want a divorce than if the roles are reversed. Because then the wife is a burden that isn't serving the husband or his interests. Really reinforces the idea not only is there a menu, but there are social consequences of becoming an unappealing menu item.
So much for "In sickness and in health"...
Marriage is ouroboros - the same thing happens if a husband loses his job or his wife starts making more than him.
@@doggo6517 the sexual contract isn't a two-way thing. The consequences for women not being on the menu is far greater than the diner not being at the table
Also, I read the statistics somewhere that men are the most likely to cheat when the woman is pregnant. Because she isn't on the table, or she is but she might not be as desirable because of the pregnancy. Imagine carrying someone's baby, the immense strain your body and mind go through, and all he thinks about is wetting his dick to the point he breaks the marriage vows. As a cis straight woman that's really scary to think about. Plus, after that, there's the horrifying practice of the "husband stitch" (ie. when stitching up the vagina after birth, the doctor, after consulting the husband, makes an extra stitch to make the opening tighter, and yes it is still done today) where they violate your bodily autonomy and possibly cause you lots of discomfort and pain, all for the man's sexual pleasure. It's like the hierarchy is men, men's dicks, then women. It's infuriating to think this is happening in fucking 2022.
I find the ideas in “the sexual contract” fascinating and thought provoking, but as Abigail said, there are plenty of flaws that have not yet been addressed. Yes, women are disproportionately affected in pervasive sociological and psychological patterns that delve deeper than the tip of the iceberg “social contract” we see openly talked about. However, to state that every single situation is the result of “women being on the menu” and “diners exploiting women” and insisting it is a rigid, unchangeable fact of life and society… is not only fatalistic, but also really reductionist and dogmatic. In a sense, as Abigail said, it is hypocritical to denounce the social order and social contract for its exclusion of deeper and more complex issues regarding women’s condition in society at large and in their personal lives, as well overly generalizing and, in and of itself, erecting an incredibly narrow minded and dogmatic system which “cases” women as victims of every possible scenario and social situations they are placed into.
It excludes lesbians relationships as a possibility, hence the ideas behind the sexual contract are extremely heteronormative. In that case, who would be the “menu” and who would be the “diner”? Also, if a woman is the one sexualizing (thus necessarily objectifying to some degree) her partner who happens to be a woman, is it still patriarchal and degrading for the woman being sexualized in the relationship? Don’t all relationships need some degree of sexuality and/or intimacy to function properly?
Also, on the topic of men as your comment said: can’t there be heterosexual men who do engage in sexualizing their partner from time to time, in their private life, with their consent, and practice intimacy with their female partner… yet they can understand the notions of respecting the integrity, individuality and freedom of their partner in their everyday public and private social life outside of moments of intimacy in the relationship? There are plenty of problems in society right now and education making that boys are not raised properly to understand respect and boundaries regarding women, but trying to perpetuate the myth that “all men will turn into oppressive and degrading, violent individuals who will enslave and disrespect women” is… not helping women, nor the feminist cause. Those kind of fatalistic arguments are based on depressive/like thinking, pessimism and flat out biological determinism, which is ironic considering that type of “delineation of gender roles in society according to some proponents of a false biological determinism” is EXACTLY what the sexual contract is trying to dismantle and counter, since it would just oppress women further in society.
And gay men exist, with their whole lot of issues as well, feminine guys tend to be abused and discriminated against just as much as women in certain gay communities and inner circles. Even Oscar Wilde talked about it centuries ago. The notions of femininity and the attacks on it many members of society are programmed to manifest towards it in an unconscious manner… can go beyond being exclusive to a particular gender, in certain cases.
A more open-minded and far reaching elaboration on the “Sexual Contract” could have the potential of being a groundbreaking study on the feminine condition in modern societies, as well as sociological and psychological phenomena that lead some groups of people to systematically devalue individuals which exhibit femininity. Also it could touch on lesbian erasure in media, gay men and femininity being oftentimes ostracized in the LGBTQ community, how young girls are programmed to be subservient and oftentimes self/harming in unhealthy behavioural patterns from their youngest age, and the problem does not only lie on the education of just boys/young men (which is incredibly important as well, not denying that). Restricting the idea of the defintion of a women to “victimhood” or “infantilism” is extremely harmful in itself for girls and women, since it causes epistemological changes in thinking which can lead to acting out those said “programs” or archetypes which aren’t always healthy. Empowering young girls and women, and at the same thing better teaching young boys/men about the importance of respect, consent and integrity of women in society AND at home in their private lives… both of those are key to making the world a better place for girls and women in general.
This was really good! And congrats on the big announcement!
Fun Footnote: The reason they could get away with putting William of Orange on the throne is that his wife, Mary, was the protestant daughter of James II that Abigail mentioned. Parliament asked her to come over and be Queen, and her only wish was that William would be co-monarch with her. This means that William and Mary were the only joint-monarchs in English history, which is pretty interesting.
A polite political fiction that doesn’t make up for the fact that a Dutch army occupied London for years. The Dutch are certainly aware that they invaded here.
Today's political climate is being shaped by the almost universal feeling of social contracts being broken: on the conservative side of the spectrum, it's more about making them "work again" while on the progressive side the fight seems to be more focused on challenging, re-writing and in some cases abolishing them.
You can see this in action when it comes to the rise of the Manosphere: most men in those circles don't challenge the requirements patriarchy imposes on them (being the provider, possibly fighting in wars, etc.), they just feel that nowadays they aren't getting their "natural" reward (i.e. a submissive tradwife) anymore.
On the contrary, men in progressive spaces are trying to reform and/or deconstruct their traditional role altogether.
On a totally unrelated note, congrats Abigail, I'm sure this new project of yours is going to be great!
I have studied the manosphere and it is rather shocking that the contract with men (in the eyes of conservative men) is that their payment to defend the state is basically the opportunity to abuse a woman. They may not chose to abuse a woman perhaps, but they want to feel they have the opportunity should they choose to do so. They justify it basically by saying that it is "natural" that women should give them subordination and that it is best for us actually for us to be subordinate, and women are too dumb and broken by feminism to understand it and they should fight the system to fix the current status quo. And when I contemplate the situation I realise that asking men to be prepared to die for the state is a huge imposition (obviously) and their desire for the state to give something in return is pretty normal. We must remove that imposition from men as a class and apply it across people fairly. I now realise why from the 1970s feminism has fought this and why the establishment has fought including women in combat, there is a resistance to change this social contract.
@@mistressofstones You're 100% right, and I cannot understand how so many men can see working to death or dying in a trench as totally fine as long as they get to "receive" another human being they can enslave, just like they are enslaved by the State or by their employer.
What an excellent observation...
"Broken social contract" is a sentiment shared on the left as well. Like how the left-of-center party keeps telling us to "go out and vote!" while they do absolutely nothing to make sure our votes mean something. Or, "no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process...unless you're a woman/afab person of reproductive age or trans. Then the State can absolutely tell you what to do with your body."
@@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos I think many people see this, in many different ways: another example is capitalism, with most right-wingers thinking it can be "fixed" by undoing globalization, whereas leftists reject it altogether.
I love how much fun you're having with all the costumes. It's weird looking back at your older videos, how you're holding back a lot of your personality. I love that you came out as yourself, your videos feel so much less restrained and more real this way. We're all better off for it!
Plus Trixie is am absolute smoke show
If you watch with the captions you can get Abi's interpretations of the music choices, it really adds an extra level of enjoyment
I was quite enjoying "Music like - boop bop bop boop" lol
I love the captions, I don't know about you, but even though they're more for people who are hard-of-hearing I find it easier to pay attention when I'm hearing and reading the words and I get more out of it. Which also includes moments like that lol
There's always post-video commentary in the captions as well; if, for whatever reason, I'm watching the video without them, I'll turn them on for the credits. I'd recommend that at minimum, especially for people who really dislike captions.
@@twinny_mi IKR I love captions. Sometimes I've got the kettle on the boil, or a bunch of whatever stir-frying, and when lovely folks like Abigail take the time to put in worthy captions it steals my heart.
Fred que haces aqui?!
If I had a dollar for every trans woman that became a bigtime philosophy youtuber, I'd have about two dollars, but it's cool that it happened twice
To make it three: Do you know Mia Mulder?
@Max Milian nah honestly I liked Abigail’s older content, she jumps to a lot of conclusions in her newer videos which sucks but I still love her videos so i watch, just a loss in quality
@@stellaw3682 Mia is technically a historian first.
@@vxicepickxv that‘s true
@@stellaw3682 No but she sounds interesting, I'll check her out
I've lived near Detroit my entire life and people have been fighting for the most basic human rights and fair treatment as long as I can remember. I'm very glad you covered it, would have been interesting to talk about how after the homes were stolen, they were sold to wealthy white folks for pennies on the dollar (There were full homes you could buy for $1000 and up in historic districts) and large swaths of the city were massively gentrified. Instead of helping her citizens who needed help, they tried to rinse the city with dirty money to "bring life back to the city". You could probably do an entire series on Detroit and the things that have been done to her people...Anyway, loved the show and looking forward to the play! Congrats, Abigail! And BREAK A LEG!!!!!
Fucking christ why isnt there more attention to this IN GENERAL??
Hey! I lived in Keego Harbor for quite some time… and yeah… I’m well aware of the situation… to this day I will actively shame those predatory property buyers when they call and get me as a wrong number. I don’t yell too hard, because the ones calling are just doing so to pay bills, but I definitely don’t shy away from letting them know the consequences of their actions when they succeed in making a deal for the corporations they work for to buy these peoples’ houses, including making it nearly impossible for themselves to have access to buying their own home someday.
Yes, justice requires that Detroit public services be funded by outsiders who have nothing to do with Detroit.
Sheesh, if you think an 82% black city is catering to white investors, I don't know what to tell you. The city is just looking for money because the residents don't produce enough to satisfy their own needs. They can either try to start new industries or they can attempt to attract a tax base that'll support the rest of the city. What Detroit can't do is "help her citizens" simply by force of will. If they could do that, that 82% would've made sure they did.
My cousins used to live in Detroit and the whole neighborhood started selling after the pandemic and drug influence of fentanyl
All neighbors sold their homes at higher price they buy it (that's good for them) but it's crazy people are saying is because someone stole their houses or higher the prices because of skin color...
When all neighbors were black and they raised the price themselves
And is good black neighborhoods raise their prices because that way they ended up richer, in Europe they fix property prices and people don't buy homes and thats bad because they depends on politicians and politics ( if they rise rent)
Sadly left politics need people to rent... That way they control votes in Europe, in America it's different because property are from people, in Europe property is technically owned by European union system and royals, America is more freedom of ownership
I work in public services in a majority Black and Latino city and MY GOD the Detroit story hits home. So many of the services that are meant to help have a crapton of arbitrary barriers put in place just to minimize the number of cases that actually get processed. Seeing how these services are designed from the inside is a radicalizing experience.
The evolution of redlining is very creative. They try really hard to hide the fact that they only want to help a certain type of people (which is mostly the ones with most money)
It's a problem in Western Europe too at least. Monthly money for young disabled people keeps being harder and harder to get because people who are well off and healthy decide every damn time to make it stricter and stricter to the point it helps almost no-one who needs it. It's a lack of empathy, disdain for the "poor", and a misplaced sense of superiority because you participate in capitalism "better" all in one
The story about Detroit also definitely isn't a unique case.
In the Netherlands, our previous cabinet fell as a result of hundreds of parents being incorrectly registered as fraudsters. Basically, if your yearly income is less than a certain amount you can get an allowance from the government to pay for your children their needs. However, a lot of parents were unfairly registered as lying about their yearly income AND it was discovered that the ministry of taxes used racial background as an indicator of "increased fraudster risk". The ministry, of course, claim this wasn't done on purpose. Interestingly enough, our prime minister was convicted of racial discrimination in 2007 for doing something quite similar, back when he was state secretary.
These parents got in debt, lost their houses and sometimes even their children to child "protection" as a result of these systems wrongly accusing them of fraud. They also still haven't gotten their reparations because the current cabinet, which actually is pretty much the same with the seats shuffled around a little, claim it takes a long time to figure out how much the government owes to whom. Time those parents, of course, didn't get, back when they had to pay back all of their allowance along with a fine all those years back.
I really enjoyed the video, it might be one of my favourites actually! If I knew for sure that I could afford the trip to London I would have definitely come to see you live, but I guess I will just have to get curiosity stream. Just know that, after hearing about it for years and not getting on, you made something that made me get curiosity stream immediately! (any idea when I will be able to see the show on there?)
That story is horrifying (but not surprising, unfortunately)
The fact that the VVD lost absolutely nothing in the elections just 3 months later and then on top of it we got Rutte-IV is just downright depressing and it drives me absolutely insane. I truly feel for all these families especially the ones that were separated from their children.
@@daycatchers many people benefit from systems of oppression. And we're so dependent on it that it's difficult to change.
Sounds very similar to the Robodebt bullshit in Australia, by our conservative party.
Meanwhile they can pay back rich people who paid too much in no time. And as Moon said, they lost absolutely nothing. They fell only to be reelected
I have been sexually harassed since I was about 13 years old (by boys my age and grown men who tended to be very touchy) and now in my 30s I have finally seen the situation more objectively and how it has affected me so deeply. I never even thought about speaking against it because it happened all the time, for as long as I could remember. Men just came up to me and started commenting on my looks no matter what I was doing or where I was. When I was a child no adult ever spoke up against it and other women tend to get jealous so nobody really stands up for you, people just laugh at your anger and protests. It took me a long time to learn that I am/was still trying to please the male gaze, that I do not need to please men and that that does not define me, my worth or me as a woman and human being. It's been a hell of a ride.
Great video Abigail, I love your work.
I admire your strength ❤️ I am working on the same path, and it's difficult.
about a week ago here in China, a girl was molested in a public resteraunt and she resisted, then the man along with other 8 man started beating and kicking and stump her and her friends, they were then dragged onto the street and continue to be beaten and head being smashed by beer bottles continued for more than 8 minutes i uploaded the video on my channel the it was taken down for being to violent and gory, all chinese media are state owned so its been hushed out, claiming they only had some broken teeth, but in reality they're likely dead, won't even survived that nigh, because we saw how brutally they were attacked on surveillance camera, this is quite common here in China, I was beaten by parents and teachers when i was small and it was encourged by our society, and molested by old man on buses on my way back home from school.the abuse targetting woman is so common here in China, and that's what made me a feminist
Do you think those men would have approached you if you had been residing in a country in which dharma was practised (assuming you understand what is "DHARMA")?
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Of course. There is not one place in the world that is free from this. Not even religious institutes or institutes for children.
@e- w-, the fact that you are directly responding to my comment implies that you understand what is "DHARMA".
Therefore, in your own words, define "DHARMA".
I love you! I am living in a backwards small town and I’ve been bullied and nearly thrown in a jail cell but I knew my human rights were being violated. I recently lost my job for sticking up for myself. I wish I could meet you! You are amazing!!
The only choice we are ever given in life, is conformity or freedom.
Most towns are filled with them! I’m with you!
Stay strong, you are not alone.
Seeing how women account for only 3% of the prison population, it's unlikely.
@@TitusAzzurro Jails and prisons aren't really the same thing in some countries.
"We live - it has been said - in a society. How did that happen?", possibly one of my favourite quotes of this decade. Thank you
love love LOVE the fact that you used Detroit as an example for social contract. I love my home city, and I would go to bat for everybody in it. I watched the housing crisis affect everybody in my Latino community directly, and how the water crisis affected the Black community. Social contract is a really interesting theory that somehow makes me feel more radicalized in this political climate.
it's one of the few examples of videos on the platform that isn't straight up poverty tourism or reactionary propaganda. much of my family is still back there and i'm glad for these videos encouraging solidarity
I really appreciate that you mentioned your own epistemological blocks, as I found myself frustrated by them while watching the video- namely, when you refer to how men as a group are unaware of the sexual contract/misogyny, while trans men like myself - especially those of us who don't pass - are all too aware of it, as we have to live through it *every goddamn day* just like any other non-cis-man out there. Everyone always forgets and being invisible like that really wears one down. Other than that, another fantastic video, thanks!
This^^^
This is a super good point, thank you for bringing it up!
I've heard from several trans men that they became even _more_ aware of societal misogyny once they transition. ("Passing") trans men suddenly get treated like men, in that they're listened to, respected, and treated as a reasoning adult. As a cis woman, this aspect of transition fascinates me.
Out of curiosity, have you experience that kind of cessation of sexist treatment? I don't know how you present in public, so I don't know if it's a familiar story.
(I know there's a similar phenomenon for a lot of trans women, in that they're suddenly faced with a type of sexism that may have gone previously unnoticed. I always imagine that the first time a trans woman gets cat-called, or aggressively hit on, it's probably a pretty strange mix of reactions. Like, there's got to be some validation there, in that she's being treated in exactly the same way cis women are. On the other hand, it's a scary and uncomfortable feeling to be objectified in that way for the first (or hundredth) time.)
Interesting... as women we do fight the desire to be seen, while simultaneously being invisible to predators.
What on earth is a "trans man" like yourself? :/
For what is worth, I used to be in the "pick-up artist" community and to harass women pretty much in the way you describe.
Part of me didn't see that what I was doing was wrong.
Part of me didn't *want* to see it.
Part of me just decided not to care.
Then, thanks to some very patient people, I started to understand how privilege works, and everything broke down.
I realized I had to change. A lot.
Thank you for the videos Abigail, you made me appreciate philosophy.
I'll be looking forward to see your show on Nebula.
EDIT: ehm... I appreciate the positive comments, I get where they come from, but I feel like people are thanking me for stopping to behave like an asshole, and it's making me a bit uneasy.
The only thing I wanted to bring with my comment, is that people and the culture that makes us can change, it's worth pushing in that direction and all your efforts are far from in vain, even if at the beginning you can't see that.
Bless you for being able to escape the PUA cult. It can be really challenging for so many people!
I feel ya bro, I had a transgender coworker we worked at a Tacobell and he/she would jizz in the sourcream called it "jizzzam" I suggested they call it "cumshot"
Stop thanking and blessing men for the bare minimum of human decency, for fcks sake
@@Maialeen On one hand I'd agree with ya, on the other hand you obviously don't understand that every person is different and some ppl might struggle more with certain issues...
@@Maialeen Yes.
Urgh. I'm adding this to my comment. Thank you for pushing me.
People have no idea where my husband and I fall in terms of social equity. I’m a culinary professional. When I became a stay at home husband after our marriage, I was treated very strangely. When alone, I have the privileges of a man, but when we’re together in expectant heterosexual company, I am clearly relegated to the “successful persons spouse” role and not much more. In those situations my words carry no weight, and people feel they have the right to ignore me.
Unfortunately for them, I have a vengeful streak, and fortunately for me, husband will gladly say “you had this coming,” to those who would appeal to him what I did after the fact. When THAT happens it suddenly becomes a 50/50 toss up between being the “crazy spouse” and “scary big man with sudden authority.” I never know what to expect next.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, then you're what's on the menu." Brilliant analogy, and chillingly correct. Loved the video as always
I guess the last option is to make the act of eating a fatal one lmao
the fact that that is deemed brilliant, says a lot about the zero sum mentality of people here lol
@@klontjespap OK bootlicker
@@klontjespap the fact that a provocative statement provoking someone/s to think in a way they had not before causes you to judge a whole viewership says more about you than those who are allowing themselves to be challenged. Your statement gives off the odor of having already found a higher intellectual field to stand in when in reality you have hit an intellectual ceiling by scoffing at others journeys.
Or you're standing next to it, starving?
I really like this video; right now in the city of Buenos Aires, the education ministry has prohibited the use of gender neutral language. That resolution literally ignores the fact that we’ve had gender identity legislation for the past ten years! And, more recently, the executive power has ruled last year a decree that recognized the access of non binary people to a national document of identification. So, all the discussion you brought reminded me of the obscures times we are living en Buenos Aires.
D:
I'm sorry, but I can't think of any other way to express my disappointed and shocked [yet not surprised] reaction! Thank you for sharing this. I'm so behind the times with what's going on in ARG since leaving. (Do you have any suggestions for good sources? As you know, information there is... stifled... by the powers that be. And I don't know how much trust to put into _La Nación_ and the like. Please excuse my English, but seems other languages aren't often allowed. [It's complicated.])
Muchísimas gracias.
es el despotismo y la arbitrariedad que regresan con toda su fuerza a América Latina.
Abigail or anyone really needs to look into the philosophy of narional capitals' inhabitants.
those theories should be reserved for higher levels of education. children cannot think critically and therefore should not be taught controversial stuff like crt and sometimes, the bible
One thing to note is that this prohibition is exclusively in the Buenos Aires province (that or just the CABA, the central region of the capital)
Other provinces like Santa Fe, defended the free use of gender neutral modifications to the language. A sad thing to see ppl being petty for minimal changes to address many ppl or non binary ppl but it is met with resistance none the less.
This is really interesting because the "hike the property taxes and seize everyone's stuff" thing nearly happened up in Penfield about a month ago. Similar story: Town of Penfield sends out property adjusters to reassess everyone's property taxes, people's taxes doubled. However, the residents were able to put a stop to it. There are some important differences though: Penfield is mostly white, relatively wealthy, and it's a pretty small town where everyone knows everyone. I think that the residents being white made them more sympathetic and they managed to hijack multiple town council meetings to demand change. It should be noted that the local news media is mostly based in the City of Rochester, which is home to a higher percentage of black and Hispanic people than Penfield is. The media sold it as "look at the rampaging town government going after innocent homeowners", which didn't seem to be as much the case in the initial coverage of the Detroit, where the media seemed to blame the black homeowners for their own misfortune.
I’m super curious how race plays into this. The mayor and majority of Detroit city council were Black in 2009.
@@kobasaking The only color some people see is green.
@@kobasaking This is kind of long, so strap in. Back in 1968, there was a major race riot in City of Rochester which prompted a lot of white flight out of the city center into the surrounding satellite towns. Many of the wealthier white people (a lot of whom are former Kodak/Xerox employees and retired RIT/UofR faculty) moved to Penfield. Since 1968, the area has gentrified and is considered one of the nicest places to live in Monroe county. Many of the poorer residents of color (mostly Black and Puerto Rican) had to live in the city because the rents are lower there and it's seen as a less nice place to live. There is a reason why City of Rochester and Monroe county are seen as one of the most segregated places in the US. Fast forward to now. To give you some idea of how the City of Rochester is doing: former Mayor Lovely Warren was arrested on felony campaign finance violations, her husband is likely going to prison for selling cocaine out of their home, the interim mayor almost couldn't get sworn in because he caught covid, and the police department have decided they hate the new mayor and are painting the city as a dangerous hellscape [it really isn't]. Also, the SEC is investigating the city council because of some alleged financial shenanigans. And while this is bad, the media has definitely jumped on the "Rochester City is unimaginably dangerous" line. Penfield being majority white and wealthy and not having all of this turmoil were painted as these innocent little dears that didn't deserve it, especially contrasted with the city, where the local media is based.
Oh wow. I live in that area and didn’t even know this happened. Gotta read up on that for sure. This town is definitely mainly white, my high school was about 90%, and during the trump era we had a mock election and he won which is ..... unfortunate to say the least and incredibly telling to say the truth
"Similar story" - no, it is really not. Don't forget that we are capable of using Google Maps and Wikipedia and what have you, and are perfectly capable of figuring out what Penfield is in this equation.
Edit: er, namely what you described in your second comment.
The absolute glow in your entire being when you were talking about The Prince is absolutely infectious. I couldn’t help but smile myself seeing that level of happiness.
Great analysis Abigail! I grew up in Chicago, with a lot of friend/family connections to the Detroit area. It's always been depressing when trying to discuss what was going on there with the older men in that community. Vulture Capitalists have no empathy for the communities you describe as 'having no rights under the social contract'. Appreciate* your in depth conversation tying back this recent history into the deeper writings underpinning the founding of the US.
Good luck with the Prince!
Hi im Connor your personal assistant
I currently live in Chicago and couldn't agree with this more. Also I'm going to use the term "Vulture Capitalist" more because it 100% describes the landlord corporations.
@@BadAstra That term is one of the very few things we have to thank Rick Perry for. It's just such a good phrase, and captures so much with so little.
My cousin was from that type of neighbors they're talking and the pandemic and drug influence fentanyl and crack push all the neighborhood to sell their property
Good thing is they sold for more than they buy it... And is weird they're saying the properties were stole? When they sold them for more and they put the prices not third parties
And is god because in the past those properties didn't have value but now it has and is good they can be sold for more because they end up richer than before, they don't loose the invest money in the property
My thoughts haven't quite coalesced yet, but while watching this video, I keep thinking about your witchcraft video from a million years ago; the idea that calling something supernatural means assuming that certain things are natural. It strikes me that deciding what stuff goes into the "state of nature" and what stuff goes into "society" is a very similar philosophical project as deciding what is and isn't "supernatural". It's like these ideas and philosophers are in communication or something lol
The universe is just one continuous thing and we make up all the categories. Some give us predictive and cognitive power, it's handy to be able to reference the idea of a chair for example, but of course minds are also incentivised to be lazy, and so we draw our categories and find ideas like a five-legged chair outlandish. All this argument about the "true nature of X" is just semantics, and distracts from the complex but very real project of improving the system as whole, as best as we can subjectively define such a goal anyway.
@@cryoshakespeare4465 Beautifully put, you really live up to your username!
@@hbwilder4586 I'm back, and this time with a vengeance! (but thank you
Still coalescing too.
Dividing the universe into these two states had a far reaching affect not only on laws and whose interests they protect, but historically where those laws came into play. For much of western history, laws about theft of property and violence existed out in the World but they ceased to exist in the interior space of the Home. The Home was legally some odd other-realm, a parallel universe that existed to meet the needs of the man who owned it. We used to say "a home is a man's castle" because while outside the home, he had to obey the social contracts with other men, but inside he held the keys and was literally the master. The effects of this are still felt today. Police in Australia used to ignore screaming if it came from inside a home, because that was the man's private business. Police are still slow to act on domestic violence issues, and I do wonder about those old beliefs still being a part of our culture.
Another thought brought to my mind is about how often in the past women who didn't toe the line were described as "unnatural" (although I know you were talking about "supernatural"). Unnatural women could be women who harmed their children- ie "unnatural mothers". I have memories of women who had sex outside of marriage or who harmed their husbands being called "unnatural" in literature, but cannot pinpoint any exact references at this hour of the evening. It seems odd to me, as I cannot recall any men being called this, and I wonder if it is linked to women being classified under the "nature" state. Perhaps that is why we have historically been accused of being emotional creatures, behaving only how our "nature" prescribes us to be. (Of course we all know what utter shit this is; men and women are both emotional and rational and both have biology that sometimes eggs us on)
Also, thankyou Abigail once again for such a thought-provoking and educational essay. Well done, and best of luck with your new endeavour.
@@TiffyVella1 Oh that is interesting. I recently listened to a, unfortunately modern day, conversation about -how a man’s goal is to conquer nature, and a woman’s goal is to conquer man-. This didn’t make any sense to me because why wouldn’t women want to conquer nature, since nature affects women too? But like you said, if women are viewed as a part of nature themselves while men are not, it makes sense why there isn’t historical literature that describe a man as “unnatural” because men aren’t seen ‘of nature.’ Ah the level of conceitedness always gets me. Not something I’ve thought too much about before but you made clearer for me. Thanks for sharing.
Am I the only one that's excited not only about the content of upcoming video but probably even more about the outfits we will see?
She always amazes me with the outfits and makeup each new episode.
She has been turning it
@Overhauledunderpaid not creepin, her outfits and makeups are absolutely stunning. I just appreciate the effort since let's face it she could just record a podcast and it would contain the same amount of information. The visual aspect is a cherry on top of great content
@Overhauledunderpaid What a stupid thing to say.
The outfits payed off
Super proud upon realizing I have reviewed every single source Abigail cited for my master's thesis 4 years ago. :) Specially works of Pateman and Mills!. Brilliant work as always, lady!
Wow, that's really interesting! I understand it's been awhile since you've posted, but still, could you please share your thesis? I've grown attracted to this topic lately so much that any mindful discussion is very welcome
Recently I've been having a hard time differentiating my woman identity from how I've been victimized by men. It has been incredibly healing to realize that sexual harassment is something that happens to women, *but does not make them* .
It is difficult, especially for women, to not align their perspectives of themselves with how they are perceived by men and society. We have learned that our appearances often dictate how society interacts with us to a much more severe degree, and, as happens with abusive relationships, we adjust ourselves for our own personal safety. That is not womanhood, that is living as a woman in a predatory patriarchal society, but it is not *womanhood* .
It assumes that our identity as a woman can be *taken or given* whether men feel comfortable encroaching our space and mentalities, not something we discover and decide for ourselves.
TLDR: women can exist in a society where men dont harass them. (And men can exist in a society where they don't need a lady to "prove" their value as a man)
Wait, this comment gave me a lot to think about. 😐 Thanks for the insight.
Thank you for posting this. I’ve been reading some stuff by Audre Lorde and it made me chew on similar thoughts, but your comment is new to me and gives me more to chew on.
but why tie anything to the identity of being a women. im more interested in addressing issues.
I really think this is a trap a lot of people fall into, and it honestly makes the space of speaking about gender based violence and harrassment more hostile to non women. Like I've seen a lot of protests and movements throughout my life that make womanhood synonymous with being a victim of men entitled by the patriarchy, and it, in a way, makes it a dysphoric experience for me as a genderqueer individual to express my experience with what have so often been called "women's issues" because theres a sort of implicit agreement that you are a woman if you experience those issues in many spaces. It feels wrong to call myself an ally to those experiences because they're my experience, but then it goes back to "admitting" I'm a woman because of what other people have done to me. Reframing patriarchal abuse away from being defining of womanhood could go a long way to help AFAB and more ambiguous people have a place to share our trauma and experiences
o.o
Trixie Mephistopheles is my new favourite addition to the Philosophy Tube Pantheon! I really hope we see her again!
Didn't she win Season 3 of RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars?
Thank you for such an informative video. I’m an African American woman that studies and collects our presence in American pop culture from the 80s to the present day. I frequently find myself questioning and studying the origins of racism and bigotry toward us African Americans and I have found it a rarity to find the discussion of the American social contract paired with the fact that we are seen as being sub-human, which is really not human at all. This vid has given me so much more to research and think upon. Thank you.
Congratulations on your play being on stage!!! I’m so happy for you 😁
I was interested in the topic so I watched. You did an exceptional job, so I subscribed. I loved how you blended artistry and information. I hope you'll continue your work here.
Hurry☝️ You just got yourself something from me, Send me a message above to claim your prize, ✅🎉
...
I was holding out on Curiosity Stream/Nebula (no idea why, thinking about it), but once I heard "Professional Recording of Abigail's Play" I signed up! I'm also excited to see the PhilosophyTube documentary.
Fantastic video, as usual. I think the evolution of marriage in the past 50 years is WILD, since my (lesbian) marriage was about joint taxes, health insurance, hospital visitation/medical decisions, joint ownership and inheritance...even my cis friends who married opposite-gender spouses didn't really notice a substantial life change afterwards, since cohabitation and sexual exclusivity aren't reserved for (or required as part of) marriage now.
I loved the running theme in this video of "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu" because it drives home the point that choosing to opt-out of society really isn't an option for most people. Even if I decided to go survivalist and live up in the mountains somewhere, I'd still have to follow local hunting/fishing/camping/waste/permit regulations, and I could get kicked out at any time for any reason if officials decided I know longer had the right to be there.
i can totally relate. i always think "yeah i should get that". but now tab is opened, account created and bill is payed. i can't wait.
I very much want to see those rights continue to disengage from the nuclear family as a model so that it's easier for individuals to distribute these legal benefits to the person or people around them as they choose, whether or not it's a spouse (unsurprising attitude from an ace/aro)
@@lyndonwesthaven6623 Very much agreed. The idea of "fill out some papers with another person and you get legal benefits" is very old-fashioned. (from an ace and questioning gray aro)
I signed up a couple of months ago because I realised I watch a lot of youtubers that have content there and, by subscribing, I can support them all in one go!
@@beckstheimpatient4135 I noticed that, too! Excited to watch on there!
I was surprised to notice you didn't mention children anywhere here. as a group that are usually used as the archetype for groups that are excluded, and frequently what groups (women, racial minorities, native inhabitants, autistics) are compared to in order to justify their subjugation.
my father sometimes recalls an old expression that children 'should be seen and not heard'. i detest it and it harkens to the exclusionary sentiment you're referencing
I think it's irrelevant to the subject. This is mostly about sexism
I get what you mean. Children exist in most societies as nearly property, expendable.
Completely agree. The arbitrary and exploitative ways that society determines if someone has the right to self-determination or not exposes so much about a culture, and is most visible through children and youth. Where I live, you can sell your labour long before you can vote. Dependency is a social construct with some of the blurriest lines out there. And Patriarchy is based on the Father having control and dominion over his 'dependants,' which yeah, includes women and people with disabilities and on a broader scale the colonized.
I guess it circles back to what she said about thinking about the Sexual Contract before engaging with the Racial one. As a fairly young person who is still in college and very much having to process my childhood, it is always very clear to me how they are used to justify any authority for any "higher class". But in the end it's that, "they" try to always have people below those that could revolt so that they can take out their frustration on their "subordinates" rather than their masters: be it employees, women, people of color, children, disabled people, animals, the "third world", poor people, the homeless, the "weak" or basically any other category they can conjure up that can make people feel powerful, as even if the children get the short end of the stick on both parents' fronts, it is not unusual that they in turn start to pick up on other children (be it for being dumb, nerdy, poor, 'gay', fat or whatever excuse they come up for bullying) or even animals; and I guess when they can't find anyone or anything "below" them on this ladder they finally start to take it out on themselves. I guess it goes without saying that this near-infinite regression is not only regressive and highly prejudicial to all involved, it also takes away from finding actual solutions to the problems people take out on others.
Carole Pateman, writing her book in 1988: "Ya'll be re-shaping the natural state theory to excuse whatever BS you were already thinking"
Abigail, texting back via bloody pentagram with a glitter gel pen: "No, u" ♥
When I got to the part of the video where she reveals that Pateman says transphobic stuff in her book, I literally said out loud, "A second wave feminist is transphobic--shocker!"
A philosopher's retirement is.......drinking hemlock. Bravo. I took a course in human sexuality in 1988 and was still in the closet. I wouldn't start my transition for another 3 years, but I was still supportive of trans rights, even if I wasn't ready to publically admit that I was trans myself.,
@@abigailhancher2999also… a second wave feminist has a pretty sex-negative view and makes arguments that don’t consider the experience of women of color or indigenous women? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you… okay, not that shocked.
I am just discovering this channel now and am blown away how seamless you manage to connect all the islands and isolated chunks of knowledge I have gathered and forgotten over the course of my education. I have been really interested in sociology, particularly capitalism, patriarchy and queer themes recently in university. I have never found access to history though, as memorization never came to me naturally, and i notice this deficit a lot these days in my literature degree. I am thorougly blown away by how effortless you make the connections between history, philosophy and sociology / cultural studies seem here. This even reactivated some long forgotten memories of when i took 9th and 10th grade philosophy classes (a decade ago!) and had to learn about all these french social contract guys while questioning every week why I was even doing this to myself. Well TURNS OUT now i finally understand the payoff!
Thank you so much. I am in awe of your work, and hope one day I will get to write papers as eloquently as you do your videos.
I got really heated up on this topic during philosophy class. I am a little late to the party, but I am so looking forward to see what you have to say on this topic, when I am free to rewatch the whole video.
same
This is one of your best videos yet. Very informative
One of my favourite history channels showing up in Abigail’s comment section, pog
@@flowerchild8450 I was just nerding out to my bf about this when he pointed at your comment and laughed at me, pog
I feel ya bro, I had a transgender coworker they worked at a Tacobell and he/she would jizz in the sourcream called it "jizzzam" I suggested they call it "cumshot"
my mom's parents raised her as such a liberal that she thought as a child that when she turned 18 she'd be signing a copy of the social contract
So *literally* and *actually* agreeing to the terms and conditions of existence.
It’s funny that many tribes used to have rituals into “social adulthood”.
@@globalist1990 It's not funny it's very serious rite of passage, predominantly it consists of the task of providing food for the tribe.
A boy becomes a man when he can provide food for a family to grow. Is a very common trope in the indigenous tribes isolated from western modernity.
@@mgntstr i bet it has been a thing to most societies. You just need to go back in time a bit. From my perspective, there’s nothing serious about it, it’s funny.
@@globalist1990 No need to time travel, tribes still live like this in 2022 they starve and die if no new hunters are raised.
I love everything about this video. As a lifelong Michigander, it's good to see that even people across the pond can realize the situation with the major cities in this state. Flint isn't much better, and don't even get me started on the environmental disasters. I mean the Kalamazoo river has been the site of major disasters and we even managed to catch Lake Erie on fire a few decades ago.
lake michigan as well if i'm not mistaken
Hurry☝️ You just got yourself something from me, Send me a message above to claim your prize, ✅🎉.
...
I'm sorry, I know this is a months old comment with a serious point on a serious topic
But you have a river called Kalamazoo? I'm fucking crying here xD
@@marcog.verbruggen674 Yeah it sounds like something out of The Jungle Book, which to think something that magical has been the site of consistent ecological disaster is somehow even more upsetting to hear about
Yes, I migrated to Detroit and it hits close to home to me. Detroit is fucked thousand ways. Then I heard what happened in Flint and I was shocked. And then Kalamazoo and other places with Lead, disgusting
As a Swedish comic-writer put it about leaving the social contract:
"But I live in a hut in the forest and survives on crows and pine cones!"
"The state doesn't care. You're content with your existens, and therefore you can be taxed."
That's so good! I get so pissed when people go like "If you don't like how society works, go live in the woods" Babe, I would like nothing more than gather a bunch of friends and start a commune, but even if we managed to come together in a way that we have all the necessary skills among us that we could be self-sufficient, wanna bet how long would it take for a bunch of cops to show up and dismantle the whole thing?
a link to the original comic would be wonderful!!
Could you post the name of the comic-writer? Jag gillar svensk comedier.
@@aight_bhai tried to find it but the writers has been going on for decades and there are no online database. :(
@@sharonoddlyenough It's from a newspaper strip-comic called "Berglins".
Dear Abigail there's something I have to say and I truly hope you see this.
I have been watching your videos for more than 4 years now and I never cease to be amazed by them, but also by your growth as a person. I am sincerely happy to see you shine through your work and artistic expression, and I'm SO EXCITED for The Prince!!! As a one-day-future-hopeful performer I'm glad to see works like yours getting a chance to shine in the theater world. I wish I were able to see it live but since I live in Greece I cant really do that, I will absolutely watch the Pro Shot though!
I know you might not take things like this seriously but I truly believe you are a role model! For me at least, I guess you could say you're everything I aspire to be, a woman who makes art that's authentic to her, is not afraid to show her intelligence and doesn't shrink herself, a successful performer and a loving, caring, empathetic person. A true inspiration.
hey abby, I can't quite articulate what is different format-wise about this video, but all i know is that i really enjoy the way this topic and video is structured and explained. i always really enjoy the videos you make, and I hope you have fun making them always. :)
I have to agree. I really enjoyed this - I can’t quite put my finger on why or what was different, but this was a very satisfying video. Thanks!
@Thaal she
For me it feels more grounded, I reckon because of the topic being so widely experienced and at times questioned or pondered, even if only in passing.
I think this is a topic that anyone can pick up and imeadietly recognize as a part of their life regardless of their position in _society™_
Oh my goodness, Abigail!! I have been a long time viewer now, proud to say I was one of your first hundred thousand subscribers. ❤🎉 I must say, it has been really cool to see your trans journey. I haven’t seen your channel for many months now, the change is huge, you look immaculate. You somehow managed to become even more beautiful! I really appreciate your vulnerability in all of this, it really has taught me a lot about the trans community! I’m so glad to see that you’re still shining friend and i'm super proud of you! I cant believe you wrote a play this is so cool! I cannot wait to watch it!🥰
Omg thank you so much for sticking around all this time!
Watching this video crystallized in my mind something that I've experienced being the owner of a rescue dog with pretty severe trauma. The idea that men feel entitled to women's attention, time, and bodies as part of the sexual contract is very much analogous to the idea that (some, not all) people feel entitled to my dog's attention because she's a dog. For context I live in Canada where dogs in general have amazing lives and it's normal and acceptable for strangers to approach your dog and ask you questions about them. Most of the time this is fine (especially if your dog is super friendly).
BUT.
There have been TOO MANY TIMES where I've encountered grown-ass adults who *insist* that my dog sniffs their hand or allows them to pet her. Even when I tell them: "My dog is a rescue... She doesn't trust anyone but her Moms so don't take it personally..." these people just completely ignore my words and my dog's body language (shying away, avoiding being approached, hiding behind my legs) and continue to make kissy noises, bending over and reaching their hands out to her, while repeating "Oh don't worry, I'm a dog person. Dogs love me."
It's honestly exhausting to have to protect my dog from these people who hear "rescue dog with trauma" and don't care. Their desire to pet my dog is *not* more important than her desire not to be touched by a stranger. You're not entitled to her attention, affection, and fur!
Also: huge fan, Abigail. Love your work
dogs have it rough af in canada. your laws are very out of date and fail to protect them. the most excessive and insane acts of animal cruelty i have ever seen were in canada. The whistler sled dog massacre happened in canada. The RCMP shot indigenous sled dogs almost to extinction in the 50s and 60s. Canada has a very very rough history with dogs and its still rough af.
That's very interesting. Have you noticed a difference in the genders of those who do this?
A few years ago I encountered the idea that if a man hates cats, and especially if he hates cats but loves dogs, that's a red flag. The idea was that if a man hates cats but loves dogs, it's likely that he feels entitled to having all interactions on his own terms, and is unhappy with being forced to take "no" for an answer.
I wonder if these self-proclaimed "dog people" who apparently can't read or don't care about your dog's boundaries consider themselves Dog People for the same reason.
@@InfiniteAnvil I've heard of that theory too, but with the addition, that cats are regularly seen as a female animal (not referring to the actual sex of the individuum, but the energy/spirit). So, if they dislike cats for just being cats, it's because of it having a female spirit or even 'worse' being rejected by a creature with female spirit.
I think that's why sexist men often hate cats. Cats have boundaries, they have places they don't like you to touch. They hiss and scratch if you do. And they don't love you immeditely, it takes time to gain their trust. Plus, cats were never domesticated like dogs, they're still wild therefore independent. Reminds you of something?
@@Ariel_is_a_dreamer May not have been what you are going for, but one reading could be sexist men emulate cats, and vice versa.
Seriosuly... read it again.
Just started watching these after my husband got me addicted to the Kill James Bond podcast. I always knew snippets of all these theories and ideas but it's so nice to see them tied together and learn how they influenced one another. Love the mix of humor, incisive social commentary, killer looks, and copious citations!
The middle part (about gender dynamics and marriage) was extremely interesting to me, because last week, I got married.
My husband and I chose to get married for practical purposes, we just went to the government office and were like "yeah, so, we want to get married."
No wedding bs and all that stuff, we just took out our witnesses and closest family for dinner and were done.
What struck me the most was during the process where the, err I forgot what you call them, the person who marries you, asked us whose surname we'll take. And here in my country, women either choose the husband's name or keep their maiden surname plus the husband's surname. However, when the lady asked us, she said - "the wife can take the husband's name, the husband can take the wife's name, both spouses can keep their maiden surnames plus the other partner's surname".
I knew of instances where a man would "marry into" the wife's family, taking her surname (usually if the wife's family had more power or wealth), but I never knew there was an option to, basically, exchange surnames lol. (I take yours, you take mine). 😂
I wanted to take my husbands surname coz I honestly don't like the sound of my maiden surname... Just for that.
Also, I liked how they specified how both spouses are equal in marriage, both legaly and "socially".
I don't know when they established these regulations, but my country has had a fair gender dynamic since I can remember.
But knowing that these outdated social and gender norms still exist in many countries is beyond me.
Great video, as always. 👏✨
That's phenomenal! Which country is this?
!! also interested to know 👀
@@valardohaeris333 I also want to know which country, and it'd be so cute if instead it was the norm to just swap names like socks lmaooo - cuz ur literally part of the other family now, right? And it goes both ways!
@@N3ONLUV Ikr! The sock idea is too cute
I'm guessing the Netherlands, or a Scandinavian country! 😂
I love you! It hurts my heart to think of any woman or person trying to make you feel you aren’t “woman enough.” It happens to all of us. Women can be mean to each other. You are AMAZING and AUTHENTIC.
Hurry☝️ You just got yourself something from me, Send me a message above to claim your prize, ✅🎉
...
A problem with any form of social contract theory has always been this: due to the way human beings tend to behave, any social contracts seem to inevitably end up working this way in the real world:
There are in-groups whom the law protects, but does not bind.
And out-groups whom the law binds, but does not protect.
Social contracts are maintained amongst people within an in-group. However, those people tend to use purposeful twisting on the same contract to exploit those who exist outside their group.
We tend to call this "corruption" - as in a corrupt politician bending or breaking rules in order to benefit themselves. Ultimately however, it seems to come down to in-and-out group dynamics. An unfortunately human issue that has always been with us.
Yeah, this is absolutely true. Corruption is about how much the in-groups are gaming the system they built to benefit themselves. I believe this corruption always exists to some degree, and human nature makes that impossible to avoid, but the amount of corruption is different for different groups. No group will ever be perfectly corrupt, they will always seek to improve lives of others to some degree, and no group will be free of corruption, and will always use the system to their benefit.
I think the fact that we have to keep defining new contracts (social, sexual, racial, etc) just to explain the same phenomenon tells us that we are missing something more fundamental. It clicked when you started this video talking about how governments exist through conquest. There is no "contract" (in the sense of an agreement, explicit or otherwise), but there is the dynamics of power. Power over others, in its various forms, has a natural tendency to condense into smaller portions of the population all the way until an equilibrium is found that counteracts this accumulation. This is because once people gain power (even accidentally!), they are loathe to lose it. This loss aversion leads to the tendency to accumulate additional power purely as a safeguard to loss. And on goes the feedback loop.
This explains why truly egalitarian societies are so rare. If humanity is inherently wicked, it is true only so far as our desire to avoid loss. Looking at gender as an example, it turns out that gender is a useful way to distinguish groups of people. And when you have multiple groups, you have group power dynamics. Even if you start out perfectly equally, circumstances naturally shift over time until one group has some power over the other, and then the dynamics of loss aversion take over from there. I won't speculate on why there are more patriarchies than matriarchies in the world, but it's important to remember that once a precedent is set even once, it's very easy to perpetuate in later generations (see: generational wealth).
I really like this perspective. I will say, from my understanding of history, a lot of the reason behind the dominance of patriarchy relates to imperialism; many societies that were once matriarchal have since flipped. This applies to a lot of other things as well, such as queerphobia, racism, and even the prevalence of the idea of binary sex and gender.
@@loadishstone I'm not claiming that past societies held the same values we do today; precisely the opposite. Take nonbinary genders. The current, western take on this is fully new. However, many societies across the globe have had specific nonbinary genders beyond male and female, such as the various two-spirit gender roles in Native American tribes. Another example, racism was obviously not invented by imperialism, but imperialism had a significant contribution to the spread of the modern form of racism prevalent in places like the United States.
I admit my initial message may have been misleading. I was primarily responding to the comment "I won't speculate on why there are more patriarchies than matriarchies in the world", as while I don't know the total number of patriarchies versus matriarchies there have been throughout history, I do know of several cases where matriarchal societies were culturally influenced by another, more politically dominant at the time culture, and adopted patriarchal values as a result.
@@garrett9945 I love Rawls his work. Especially his veil of ignorance thought experiment, is very insightful.
What do you mean you won’t speculate on why there’s more patriarchies (if that’s how it’s spelled) --- it’s obvious. Men have more physical power. That’s it, that’s all there is to it. If women had more physical power, then it would be the exact same thing just inverted. I’m 90% sure.
Bigger muscles...
"Is that incense?"
"No its weed, I swear!"
Absolutely lost it. Great video.
Im taking a required government class right now and the lessons are just obsessed with the social contract! This video really helped to open my eyes to the fact that the social contract isn't really all that big and flashy- if that makes any sense.
Technically, Rousseau said that it was groups of people (peoples) who could form the social contract. The family is used as an example to explain how contracts form (kind of) and how they work (tending towards paternalism). He's really disputing the Hobbesian idea that two people can agree to form a contract by saying that it requires some complete culture to divest itself of certain individual rights to form such a contract. At least, that's my reading of it. I wrote a paper applying the Social Contract to history where I used Rousseau's work pretty heavily, and that was the interpretation I used.
Sorry, don't mean to be a pedant, I'm just excited there's a Philosophy Tube video about something I've studied.
Has Rousseau mentioned the contract between citizen and government? most of the contracts mentioned here were mainly about society in the more... abstract, rather than the institutionalized concept.
@@ahoyturtle Yeah, that's kinda what I'm talking about. For Rousseau, I'm pretty sure the idea of the Social Contract necessitates a Sovereign to be subordinated to (though I could be conflating him with Hobbes on that point). With respect to more interpersonal contracts, I'm pretty sure Rousseau would argue that they have inherent connection to the political establishment. If a people is the only thing capable of forming a Social Contract, that's where social dynamics would gestate and occur. His whole point in doing this is to establish that Hobbes is wrong in saying that two individuals can form a contract (which I believe is reinforced by the content of the video). We could also take this into a discussion about how these dynamics are expressed, discussing how the interpersonal interactions arise from the Social Contract (such as the anecdote about the man on the bench), but that strays from a discussion of Rousseau into broader Social Contract theory.
I hope that answers your question. I also hope it's right.
"Why are you having your religious services in Latin? SPEAK ENGLISH. Like Jesus did."
Abigail, your a comedic genius whether you know it or not.
This whole video is amazing and insightful. Thanks for doing what you do friend 🙂 🙏🙏
Thank you for (in this and other videos) showing off second-wave feminist voices. As a millenial raised by a feminist boomer, this was the source of my earliest political and sociological education. But the third wave is not always friendly to second-wave thought, which disappoints me as a trans queer feminist in 2022 who felt the impact of that "definition of woman" question pretty clearly. Good think. Very tube.
you're right. As much as I love Butler's queer theory, her thought owns so much to second wave feminists like Wittig, or even black feminists such as Audre Lorde or bell hooks.
@@babymilksnatcher I'm not really a history buff but it is a shame how the second wave has become synonymous with terfs and swerfs because they had allot of the theory down right on the nose, it seemed that how they attempted to combat that which is where the problem arose, instead of looking outward to effect change for the most amount of people they looked to the personal to essentially try and cast out men as a class entirely and just replace them with women and hope it worked out good.
I absolutely adore how every one of your videos is like a scholarly research paper, where the citations appear at the top of the screen and it is all done in a fun, memorable and sexy way. Keep up the phenomenal work!
Abigail, you're such a freaking positive feminist icon for me. It makes me so happy to see a woman so confident and self-assured, and gives me hope that one day I can get there too!
"It makes me so happy to see a woman so confident and self-assured"
It is the testosterone and Y chromosome.
@@arkology_city don’t be silly, that doesn’t have any effects on confidence in cis men, what about trans women who are on hormones??
@@TryinaD His testosterone is still elevated. He also has been a biological male his whole life.
Who gives a shit? She’s a she.
@@arkology_city actually it's the estrogen and therapy. she's talked about her experiences with abusive partners in previous videos and how transition has been a process of self confidence and self respect for her.
Also there are plenty of confident, self-assured cis women and plenty of neurotic, self-loathing cis men. You really don't have to project your own insecurities onto others.
12:49 "When a British Monarch dies, that's when the English at at their most dangerous! Because suddenly anything is possible!"
OH MY GOODNESS
and now, we are having massive crackdowns on peaceful protest and freedom of speech, because everyone's got to support the monarchy and dissent is not allowed.
This is a small point, but I cannot believe how perfect you got the lawyer-cadence. So direct and dryly funny, like you’re doing geometry proofs for philosophy
Hi Abigail!
I just discovered your channel and I think I`m in love! I`m 22 years old and recently I started reading classical literature, taking interst in politics, but I have never imagined that philosophy would stole my heart! Your knowledge, way of speaking, confidence, and even sassiness in your jokes- I love all of it! You inspire me to read more and expand my knowledge.
Thank you so much!
Btw congratulations on your show! I hope it was amazing experience and a dream come true :D
as someone with an intense interest in zoology and paleoanthropology the state of nature was always an idea that intrigued and infuriated me (and i got into quite a few arguments with my teachers during our philosophy unit in highschool over it) bc we *know* how society came about now, or rather, that humans have always lived in societies of sorts. society pre-dates homo sapiens by hundreds of thousands of years, people have always lived together and fed each other and defended each other.
Also, marriage and the sexual contract has more relevance once private property started existing and could be inherited. In the middle ages peasants didn't even bother with marriage, they just made an agreement Infront of society when often the church was not even involved. People pair up because they want sex and companionship, and children are a consequence of that and will help with working in the fields. Everything else was created to deal with property once started existing, and controlling women's sexual lives became a thing to ensure who would get the property. Societies without private property of land have different sexual dynamics.
Oh we talking Locke? I'm ready
Same, the social contract has always been one of my favourites from philosophy class 😅
Ah, glad to hear The Prince will be on Nebula. Flying across the sea to see the play is a bit out of budget ... But streaming is pretty affordable haha
I was just thinking that! (Right after I was trying to process in my head how I was going to get a job, reserve tickets, get a new Passport, and fly to London, England! 😫😉)
The sheer joy in Abigail's voice when she's describing the play she wrote is so cute. Love that in you!
Good luck!
In your future ventures, I guess.
1. You’re gorgeous and I love your outfits so much.
2. I’m really in awe of how you teach the audience to engage with, critique, and not completely toss out a text. Thank you for that, I hope that people pick up on that skill and use it!
So wild to hear you talking about Detroit. The only time Detroit seems to ever be mentioned outside of the city is when it's getting dunked on for being poor. Thanks for highlighting the struggle here.
i appreciate hearing people talk about Detroit in an honest/understanding way a lot. my mom grew up there and told me that a lot of other poor people she knew eventually "got out" of Detroit by burning down their houses to get out of some of the debt that was attached to them and move--if you visit, you'll notice a lot of houses that look burned from the inside with no belongings in there+no damage to other homes and that's why
This is exactly the kind of content I've been yearning for in UA-cam. An educational, pertinent, authentic and meaningful channel and content; on top of that I value the humor and very much the specific resources listed. I studied a bit on the social contract and I do very much appreciate that the philosophy content is very thorough, accurate, and clearly cited. Best channel I've come across. I think I get bored pretty easily but you kept my attention the whole way through with this video and I never heard of The Sexual Contract in my studies, but I did remember when reading Locke and Rousseau and Hume and, well, the rest of the eminent ancient and modern philosophers I did rid, that they all lacked an accurate understanding of the state of being woman. And what you elaborated about Pateman's ideas about how women are on the menu has been, unfortunately, all too accurate in my experience. It was a truth about reality and society that I gradually had to learn and one almost feels helpless as a female, at times, to be able to do anything about it or alter that fact about society. There is a lot about the consequences of the sexual contract operating in real life to be combatted, for lack of a better word. That Pateman wrote about it and you've discussed it so well here already helps legitimize my experience, for which when I've tried to voice about it in the past, especially in front of male acquaintances, would be disregarded as me simply sounding like "a crazy feminist". Some of the consequences of the Sexual Contract I'm talking about is how it is so "normal" to regularly have a hand placed on the small of your back when a male acquaintance passes by, or to be called sweetheart by a man while being lectured to or to try to have an intellectual conversation just to have it repeatedly flipped to a sexual conversation by one's male conversant or how when one says "no" as a woman it apparently is incomprehensible or how one voices why something can't be done about something to be responded to "well, there's no such thing as magic" or to be regularly flirted with by males in superior positions whether they be bosses or teachers, etc, and if you don't flirt back and don't flirt back you are shunned by them and from any opportunities of moving up, etc. ad infinitum.
They're good videos but don't believe all because comes from the perspective of 1 type of person there is 16 according to psychology...
.
“We’re not at the table because we’re on the menu”
This gave me Tzimisce Vibes,
which makes it even creepier
-> "you aren't at the table, because you are the table and the chairs and the paper the contract is written on"
o.o
Is Hobbes a ventrue or Toreador?
to the victor go the spoils ... the feast ,,, the competitive and consumptive nature of our societal models ... unequal and unsustainable
Social contract: by virtue of being able to access the internet, every single person has a moral obligation to watch PhilosophyTube and pay tribute to Abby
I like to think of myself as a faithful citizen in that respect, exercising my duty to perfection
i am exceedingly faithful, i watch every video mulitple times
God save the Queen!
Is humanity's natural state sin? The sin of not being caught up on PhilosophyTube?
"we're not at the table because we're on the menu" is a very interesting way of looking at it, people will naturally be vigilant about their own interests when making decision at the expense of others, specially those not present when making the choise, but I loved the way you put it!
the act of not being present when choices are made is crucial, and a key factor in how de facto private decisions are made within our supposedly public institutions, at the expense of the combined minorities which are now, taken as a whole, the majority.
Back again after the release of The Prince. Congratulations to AWARD WINNING ACTRESS AND WRITER Abigail Thorne!!! It has been AMAZING watching your work over the last 4/5 years, and HOLY BALLZ ITS BEEN A FUCKIN RIDE! And as I've oft been told, a broadly led life is the true catalyst of the creative soul. Experience and empathy channeled back out of the mind anf projected into reality for others to see, hear, feel, empathize, and know there's another PERSON outsider of them.
That's art.
I can't believe I got to see it all happen. Thank you for sharing your work with us over all this time.
Always always always love when plays get filmed. There's no way i could get tickets (being on a different continent entirely) but ive never been happier about my nebula subscription.
Sorry this comment is all about the play now but damn it sounds amazing and i cannot wait to see it for so many reasons. Congratulations, abby, i wish you a packed house for the entire run.
I think more plays should be pro-shot. Yes, I realize it's complicated and expensive, but I think a lot more could be done than is being done. Learning that this play is going to be professionally filmed is what *finally* got me to click on a sponsor link, after all these years of watching sponsored videos on UA-cam.
Spike Lee’s best films are his stage-to-screen projects. Passing Strange, A Huey P. Newton Story, Pass Over, Freak, and so on. They capture the immediacy of the stage and the emotional intensity of cinema so beautifully and powerfully.
All this as way of saying - absolutely more stage productions should be filmed. For casual access to those of us outside metropolis’ if nothing else.
@@Guy4318 For casual access outside metropolis', for people with disabilities (physical or cognitive) that make any particular theater inaccessible, for use in classrooms, for showing in movie theaters, too, for those who want a communal experience, and probably more, too, that I'm not thinking of...
You live in Africa
👏
As a Northern Irish person it feels incredibly odd hearing someone talk about James II and William of Orange and going beyond just, "1690, Battle of the Boyne, King Billy yeooo"
Same
If a so-called "social contract" is a "take it or leave it" deal, it's nothing but a protection racket.
How so? aren't all contracts take it or leave it?
It's completely voluntary the same way a mugging is
@@lemurwrench6344 You're technically right, but people usually only say "take it or leave it" when they're forcing you to choice the least horrible of two shitty options. Today, I bought my girlfriend some flowers. They were reasonably priced. I could have gone to another florist, or chosen not to buy flowers at all. So, the florist didn't say, "take it or leave it!". OTOH, I once had a boss who told me he was cutting my salary - and he knew I was in a bad financial situation and if I'd quit, I'd likely be homeless within 6 weeks. He said, "it's your choice - take it or leave it!".
@@andrewclifton429 You may have considered the price of the flowers reasonable, but there are almost certainly some people who think they cost too much. If they attempted to haggle with the florist, they would have almost certainly been met with something approximating a "take it or leave it" response. The florist can do this because they know there are enough customers such as yourself who are okay with the price that keeping the price above what some customers will pay will ultimately make more money.
Likewise, your boss knew that other workers who were okay with the lower wage could replace you. He would have said this to you even if you had the means to easily get a better paying job. The dynamic there is much less about him knowing you can't afford to say no & much more about him knowing that you saying no doesn't impact him negatively much if at all, & therefore it's not a really a risk.
In other words, being able to say "take it or leave it" is about you being in a position of strength regardless of whether or not the person you are negotiating with is in a position of weakness. "take it or leave it" happens all the time between two parties where neither has leverage over the other but for whom a mutually beneficial arrangement can't be reached. "it basically translates to "this is my final offer" not "it would be a shame if......."
@@lemurwrench6344 Again, you are technically right on some points, but again, you're missing the larger point of the vast difference between the two cases: (1) buying some flowers and (2) reluctantly taking a huge pay cut.
Flowers are not a necessity of life. No one will starve, or face homelessness without them. Neither the florist, nor the customer, has huge negotiating leverage. If you think one florist's prices are a bit steep, there are other florists. You're right that, in the highly unlikely event of someone haggling over the price of some inexpensive flowers, the florist would be able to say "take it or leave it" - and there would be nothing wrong with doing so, because there are no hugely negative consequences, for the customer, of either (a) not getting to buy flowers at all, or (b) not getting to buy them at a slightly lower price!
You try to disconnect having a position of strength, in negotiation, from the situation of the other person - but this is absurd, because bargaining strength always is relative to the strength or weakness of the other party. If you have no idea about the latter, but you don't particularly care whether or not you get the deal, you're not necessarily in a position of strength; you're in a position of INDIFFERENCE. It's not the same. If you're in a situation of near parity and you say take it or leave it, you may or may not get the deal. No worries, another customer will come along soon. If you're in a very strong position and say "take it or leave it", you almost certainly get the deal - even if you're not indifferent about it.
This brings me to the situation with the pay cut. This was in late 2008. The company's revenue had fallen, thanks to the Great Recession and a shrinking market for its services, and my boss wanted to keep his six-figure income as high as possible, by drastically cutting wages. There were, as I explained, extremely negative consequences to my saying "no" - and you're totally wrong to assume that my boss was unaware of this. He knew all the relevant details of my situation - and this, I can assure you, is exactly why he used the words "take it or leave it!"
It's true that, had I refused the pay cut and quit my job, he would probably been able, eventually, to find another worker to take my place - but you're entirely wrong to assume that this would have been EASY. My job was technically specialised; I'd been working there for five years and I was very good at it. Finding someone equally competent, who was also desperate enough to work a 50 hour week for a sub-minimum wage, would have been very difficult - but my boss knew, perfectly well, that he didn't have to worry about this. He knew I couldn't afford to quit. He even spelled it out for me: due to disruptive new technologies, demand for my now obsolescent skills had rapidly fallen, so the chances of my quickly getting another job in that field were very low. For me, he explained, his company was "the only game in town". Take it, or leave it.
In any case, it's a ridiculous to suggest that anyone would be "okay" with the deal I was being offered. Nobody is "okay", or happy and content, with working a 50 hour week for an sub-poverty-line income that's not enough to live on; just like nobody is "okay" with paying a mobster "protection" to avoid violence. Both situations are highly coercive. In both cases, you're forced to chose the least horrible of two shitty options, because some greedy bastard wants to prosper at your expense.
I have to say I am a little bit in love with you! I've recently discovered your content and binged most of the channel. I am so interested in philospophy and really should have gone into it acedemically. I did performing arts in uni but my final project was a performative presentation on Marlene Dietrich, feminism and sexuality through the lense of my own self. Your videos remind me so much of that, performative presentations on philiosphy. You are so smart, funny and stunningly beautiful. I never leave youtube comments but had to get that out. Much love.
I love you too 😘
Hurry☝️ You just got yourself something from me, Send me a message above to claim your prize, ✅🎉.
..
dont say that first bit, its weird
@@sydssolanumsamsys to u
@@sydssolanumsamsys don't project your discomfort with emotional intimacy onto others, it's weird
A couple of tiny points about Rousseau: one, he wasn't French but Genevan; two, the four words 'man is born free' is an easy-to-make mistranslation of the French original 'L’homme est né libre', which actually means 'man WAS born free' ('is born' would be 'il naît', present tense). It's a subtle distinction, but it gestures to a key difference between the birth of humanity and the birth of each individual human. Aside from my nerdy quibbles, though, this was, as ever, an excellent video! Love your work!
o.o
I kindly disagree, in French "l'homme est né libre" can be both read as "man was born free" and "man is born free". I'd argue that the original reading and intention was the "man IS born free" one.
You made the mistake to confuse the french conjugation tenses. (Présent, Passé Composé, Plus-Que-Parfait) French language view time differently with 22 tenses. Yes, "L'Homme naît libre" (Présent) become "Man is born free". BUT, "L'homme est né libre" (Passé Composé) also become "Man is born free". There is a difference in french, but since english only have 16 tense... that's how it is. Meanwhile, "L'homme était né libre" (Plus-Que-Parfait) become "Man was born free". French language have 4 way to talk of the past in the indicative only... so yeah, it's complex.
@@everhappiness "L'homme est né libre" Cannot be trasnlate has "Man was born free". You would need to say "L'homme était né libre".
Man was born free would be "l'Homme fût né libre" (passé simple)...
Abigail: When a British monarch dies, that’s when the English are at their most dangerous.
Me, Welsh, looking at news about the 96 year-old Queen’s health: 👁 👄 👁
Welsh character unlocked 🔓
To which "QUEEN" are you referring, considering there has not been a monarch on earth for at least a couple of centuries now?
Have you seen English news lately? We are definitely on a knife edge
@@ReverendDr.Thomas What?
@@Capybarrrraaaa
🐟 21. THE MONARCHY:
A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and courageously lead his army into battle if necessary (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his ministers, in order to build a just society.
A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families).
There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy:
By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LEGITIMATE monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn't have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator.
Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn't necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire.
The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance.
Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by definition, controlled by either workers or by businessmen (or rarely by priests or spiritual leaders), and therefore is intrinsically evil, since they are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power.
Although WAR is unfortunate, it is sometimes necessary to defend oneself from aggressors. In certain circumstances, it is legitimate for a ruler or aspiring ruler to overtake another (evil and corrupt) ruler and usurp his sovereignty. Unfortunately, in the modern era, it is nigh impossible for an aspiring king to seize power, since he will be easily defeated by sheer military might, as opposed to the state of affairs in ancient times, where two opposing monarchs would fight in hand-to-hand combat (or possibly lead their respective armies into a battle for the kingdom).
Being a soldier is a legitimate and necessary occupation in this wicked and perilous world, mainly for the defence of a local population or nation, but unfortunately, not all soldiers serve a good master. Not all world leaders are righteous in all their ways. In fact, you who are reading this Scripture, are almost definitely being oppressed by a corrupt, tyrannical regime. The reason why you may not realize this fact is due to either abject ignorance, or because, just like your illegitimate government, you have little desire for society to be organized according to holy and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a newborn child has absolutely no conception of what is most beneficial to its welfare, the vast majority of citizens have very little idea of what benefits society most. Hence the decadent state of contemporary culture.
Whenever there is a CONFLICT in this world, whether that be a conflict between two persons, or a conflict between two groups of persons (such as political wars), it is absolutely certain that one side is more righteous than the other. Both sides can not be equally right, because equality is non-existent in this phenomenal sphere. Equality exclusively exists in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably on the sub-atomic level. Unfortunately, it requires an above-average intellect to be able to comprehend such truthful concepts.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
George Carlin,
American Comedian and Actor.
1937-2008.
“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. ...
That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple, to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government.”
Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, English Author,
“The Weight of Glory”.
*Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one's speech. For example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he or she ought to be punished for that sinful deed. A genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). Of course, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regards to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society.
This is just awesome. I am in the middle of the night not able to sleep for overthinking and a nice friend's feed had this video on their page. I just fell in love with the narrative style, the really gentle acting and the entire video being really sensitive towards any kind of audience and backgrounds. this feels refreshing and relaxing, and if i will not be able to sleep at all this night, at least i will be filling myself with some nice philosophy and very on-point notes that makes me want to dust off some of the old classic from high school philosophy class.
Thank you so much
What a lovely comment! I hope you're able to get some sleep and await the next leg of Abigail's adventures with us!
I love how the dictionary is now a recurring character. Refusing to follow the normal rules of essay writing is amazing, keep it up!
That devil outfit was simply chefs kiss and those wings!! Beautiful.
Was sad I wouldn't be able to watch Abigails play and I am so glad she arranged for it to be recorded. I will now sign up for Nebula and CuriosityStream and I feel like I will chide myself for not doing so sooner since both services seem like a perfect fit for me. A huge congratulation to Abigail for writing a play and being able to get it on stage. I wish her the best, even more than I normally do, and I can't wait to see her very own play!!
In my IB social class we learned about Hobbes and Locke and a bunch of other enlightenment philosophers but Locke was seen as almost completely good and so this was great at giving a more balanced view.
"Detroit became subhuman", love the gamers reference! also reminds me one boss from the game Nier Automata that intentionally is called Simone, a robot that try to became woman, to transform and behave and consume in order to became woman so she can be loved by another robot, called Jean Paul.... not by accident, the robots were trying to reproduce human behavior to became human, but also repeating the same mistakes over and over. to me it's the best bame ever!
I’ve never even watched a full play through or played the game in any form but I love the characters so much, maybe because the game did them so dirty and fanfic loves gently taking canon from the authors and saying “let me just rearrange the furniture a bit *I* know what we’re doing”
Nier automata is very good true.
Watched through a LOT of the channel recently and i have to say that out of all of the thumbnails THIS is the best one.
Also love your videos they've somehow kept me sane while stuck at home due to Illness the past 8 weeks and counting
Edit: *Chronic Illness :/
Though, amputation of the problem area MAY fix it.
Might edit again in the future.
i absolutely love these videos where you start off by relaying the premise in non-costumed attire, and then when the thesis is out of the way you switch to costumes. i dont know what about it makes me excited considering i can see the costume in the thumbnail, but its so engaging. it makes the intro like a magical girl transformation sequence where we get to see things relating to it and bits of the costume and then WHAM the full look comes into frame and im ready to go
It’s just a bit weird they have to be always feminine. I believe a wider range is feasible.
@@globalist1990 Have you forgotten Sir Nigel Piss?? Abi has played him even after she came out.
@@cellobotomy6368 i missed that one.
@@globalist1990 her older, pre-transition videos are still available for viewing, you know. i have no expectation for a trans woman who already put a lot of masculine costuming out on the internet to go back to that rather than doing the same formula but with feminine costumes
@@scottydog6713 i have zero expectations as well
The talk about the State of Nature reminds me of Margaret Mead - who said that the first sign of civilization is the sign of a healed femur bone. Because it takes so long to heal, it means that someone must have organized care.
For all the people contesting the example of the guy in the park, usually justifying the guy as "only wanting to chat" and saying he was not entitled: you are missing the point.
Can we agree on the fact that by observing people, we can generally guess if they are busy or not? If a person reads a book taking notes, they are clearly busy and focused. Yes, even if the person in question is a woman.
So it may happen that a man wants to talk to a stranger, but doing so would break the other person's focus and most likely disturb and annoy them. By choosing to speak to the person, the man is deciding he is entitled to disturb the person, as in "his desire to speak to a stranger is more important than the focus of the stranger on their book".
Like, don't disturb strangers who are working, their working in a public space doesn't mean they are free. If you are in the mood to chat, choose someone who looks more available, for example, someone sitting on a bench but who is casually looking around and not doing much.
Thanks for explaining that, I agreed with everything in the video but didn't understand the problem there.
I disagree, you can still chat them up but in way testing their reciprocation . If the first 15 second of conversation you strike up and they don't hit the ball back enthusiastically then sure leave them alone.
@@issac7787 did you pay any attention to the video though? Why should someone have to put up with you interrupting them for even 15 seconds, why are you entitled to their time or attention at all? Do you appreciate when people interrupt you? DOES anyone ever interrupt you and expect you to chat as a man? Most importantly though, women have to deal with the fact that men can become violent and dangerous when they are rejected. They MUST put up with you, they CANT reject you out of hand and many will act enthusiastic to make sure that you don't hurt them. That is the situation you are exploiting when you expect women to speak to you and its the reinforcing block Abigail was talking about. You don't realize that its not an equal relationship, you don't realize there are factors that mean they will speak with you and not reject you even if they would rather and through these interactions you come to believe that its acceptable to behave this way.
@@thejesusaurus6573 Hey man, we all have places to be. Interrupting others occasionally is warranted if the circumstances call for it.
@@kingstarscream320 The circumstance that calls for it is not simply because you felt like chatting