Acknowledging differences in male & female gender expression, does not mean imposing traditional sex roles upon people. This conflation has caused a lot of misunderstanding.
My Daoist master said in a teaching that men are yang on the outside and yin on the inside, whereas women are yin on the outside and yang on the inside.
I've heard that said but with soft/hard rather than yin/yang. Amazingly this also seems to be true physically with men having softer internal organs than women. Probably evolutionary reasons for that also, softer organs being less durable but healing more quickly in environments and roles where damage is more likely.
This reminds me of a great line I don't remember the source of: Women's greatest strength is their facade of weakness. Men's greatest weakness is their facade of strength.
In the "Old Society," it was just as much women as much enforcing the stricter social conventions. Prominent wives and mothers in the social structure had an interest in making sure that "loose" women didn't make a run for their husbands or sons.
The ancient Chinese worked this gender conundrum out thousands of years ago. Something over 99.9% of human beings are born either male or female, and in time, males will become men and females will become women. That's easy. Where things get culturally confused is when the term "masculine" is interchanged with only men and "feminine" is used to describe only women. The ancient Chinese called the masculine aspect of being "yang" and the feminine "yin". The masculine / yang represents the light, change, strength, the positive, Summer, the Sun, whereas the feminine / yang represents the dark, coolness, the Moon, the negative, Winter. Generally, men possess masculine / yang traits and women possess the feminine / yin traits. But, women can be strong in masculine traits and visa-versa. It is Western culture and tradition that creates the tension and conflict: a male must only be masculine and a female must only be feminine.
Unless I'm misinformed, traditonal gender roles are more prominent and enforced everywhere in the world outside the west. If the west creates this conflict, it's because the west questions the legitimacy of traditional gender roles to a greater degree than any other current civilization.
I was a gender feminist once. Then I got an MA in psych, and also casually studied sex differences and evolutionary biology etc for fun. TL;DR: "gender" is not a "social construct". That whole way of thinking is...I'll be generous and say only 90% utter nonsense on stilts, riding a unicycle, while being juggled by a seal. Half a century ago maybe it was a bold and daring but sort of plausible hypothesis, if you squinted just right. After the last half century of research, but at this point, trying to defend it in any way, shape or form is like saying, "Ok, I'm not an EXTREME phlogistonologist...but it's kind of true...you have to admit...yada yada yada." No. It's just wrong.
we need to stop rejecting traditionalism as being backward and try and understand the why it is what is valuable and how we want to grow our culture from traditions which have developed over thousands of years.
I'm curious about the female fighter pilot analogy. I think his point is valid to a degree (and believe me Bret is a person whose level I am way off from being on and perhaps I a being a bit pedantic) but biological speaking men still have massive advantages over women when it comes to that sort of activity. Nonetheless the conversation blew my mind.
From a biblical perspective, it would mean that we would have to admit our rebellion and humble ourselves towards a higher power. But we humans aren't quite known for our humility.
Riddickk Feminists. They know they’re wrong but the revolution must continue. They can’t exist without constant revolution. It’s deeply synonymous with communism all under the umbrella of cultural Marxism. Feminists are freaking out during this pandemic and lockdown. Many are gong full skinhead (literally) to get back at “the man”.
Sex, the biological diffrence between male and females and gender the social construct are two diffrent things that often get confused. Both exist obviously and nobody should deny that. But moving forward from this point there is choice and i really liked that Mr. Weinstein talked about that. We can choose how we as a society of humans apply and construct our gender identities. This is a moral question not a scientific one. We can choose to have a fair and free society which helps to bring out the best in us and to mutally support each other on that quest. Or we can build a society which subjugates and oppresses its members. The choice is ours to make!
Feedback Loop No we cannot choose our gender identities. We can choose our behaviour but we can’t choose identities because our identities are whoever we are not what we’d like to be. Gender is the degree to which someone is masculine or feminine. They derive from the sexes, male and female-to say anything different is to make nonsense of the word. Try to describe or define masculinity without referring to men. Gender is derived by collecting and observing the non-physical characteristics of each of the sexes. Behaviours (such as in the big 5 personality traits) do overlap between the sexes but they also cluster around each of them (for very good biological reasons). The female clusters are femininity and the male clusters are masculinity. In some cases a women are more masculine than men. But that’s not a choice-it’s just how they are. No one chooses their identity: they choose their behaviour and their identity is observed and experiences by that behaviour, among other things.
@@Muting_all_advice i agree with you when you say that gender is based on sex and that the properties of the biological are then transposed on the constructed gender identities. But i disagree with you when you say that we have no influence over our identity because its something that is fixed and given, you are who you are and nothing can change that. If as you say that we have a choice in our behavior, and then say that identity is observed and experienced through that behavior, then we can change who we are and how we identitfy, through our actions.
I’m glad you agree with the first bit. I didn’t say the second bit-that’s a misinterpretation of what I said. I didn’t say identity was fixed and I didn’t say we had no influence over it. I said we couldn’t choose it.
@@Muting_all_advicehmm i think i get now why you draw that distinction there, you cant just proclaim who you are and then "be" that, thats not how it works and i am on board with that. i wanted to emphasize that we have influence over our identity and that its not something fixed that cant be changed, and thats also something you agree with. now maybe the word choose doesnt cut it here, but there is agency and control in the human existence, and with that comes a responsiblity for how we act and who we become by those actions, for each one of us and for our society. that was the point that i tried to make.
I am so appreciative that Bret Weinstein and his crowd for having conversations that matter. What is happening right now is a part of our evolution. We need to do better than we’ve been doing. Thanks to people like Bret, Heather, Eric, Jordan, Joe, Pinker. Watching your content is a Master Class. Big hugs from just North of you Bret. If you’re in Gig Harbor I’ll buy you a pint. Cheers
I almost disliked because they claim feminist misunderstood. They do it on purpose, for political gain and censorship not because they are stupid. Its quite sad
What he means by plants, insects, birds, etc...being the same is he is referring to they like us are all Eukarya or the same Domain in our shared Taxonomic ranking
Social Dynamic's, Is a better way to put it. Our Social dynamics in turn have many measures in the marketplace some sort of Constructionism Via. the Commercialization of products or labels. Then just us Following or changing that in a media / social marketplace. JUST AS ANY FIRST PLACE PRINCIPLE WOULD APPLY.. SOCIAL DYNAMICS first principle.
This guy knows diddly squat about what feminism is. I'm getting really fed up with him, Jordan Petersen and Benjamin Boyce They all support speech and debate which is good and Boyce is actually able to listen to his guests. But their white male entitlement often shows both in relation to race and sex. They say feminism brought this on. But they are too biased to see what feminism incurred is a vicious and insidious backlash from those terrified of the power of women. Boyce refers to feminist analysis as ragging on men. Brent thinks there is no evolutionary support for feminism as if evolution were the only force in our development. His hammer.
Currently, things obviously have to swing back closer to the conservative side. I'm concerned that we'll do that without realizing or addressing some of the smaller but important core problems the conservative side has, and essentially create an even bigger mess of delinquency after people point back saying: "Been there, tried that. We are (over) fixing a lot of the problems you kept on ignoring." You think current stuff is screwed up? Just wait until you crack open the biological use cases for rape, incest and pedophilia. That will be a gong show of epic proportions. The problem is, the maturity to handle these things are virtually non existent now. We should get this sorted out before our species creates superior AI. But sadly that almost certainly won't happen.
Some of my feminist friends, would deny these things; others instead of blaming the oppressive patriarchy blame the oppressive kyriarchy which includes things like non-human evolutionary biology. Both groups, however, act roughly the same.
I don't think this is entirely about them "misunderstanding" biology or anything else. I think a significant part of this is them attempting (and largely succeeding) to bootstrap themselves into total power.
It is, but it isn't one of the most successful strategies for humans. It takes so much to get investment from a human child that it is best if they have both a mother and a father in a family unit.
@@musicalfringe It is. There is many animals that just impregnate and leave. However their lifespan might also be measured in days if not a couple of years at the most. For example a mice lives alone but also tend to only live for 1 - 2.5 years. By the time a human becomes an adult (18 years old) around 9-18 generations of mice have lived and died. LTaLT does not work as well for humans as other animals. We are a social species with a HUGE amount of time our juveniles are juveniles. We are comparable to elephants in that way. In fact we might take longer.
@@Cloud_Seeker Exactly. There's the length of investment issue, which incentivises females to be choosy, and there's the extra dimension of intensity of investment (extreme neediness of offspring) that incentivises them to seek long-term partners to share the load. Separate but highly related issues.
Again, titling. PhilosophyInsights, we ALL can misunderstand this, not just feminists. Do you really need this clickbait titling? I don't. It does so much harm. Everyone, Bret Weinstein doesn't use the word 'feminist' anywhere in this talk. He doesn't address his remarks to any sector of society or sociopolitical faction; he just explains the science and the nature of its misunderstanding - for everyone, man, woman and child. I have to unsubscribe from PI now because they engage in unethical practices that might look trivial but do inestimable harm, and which make them gigantically hypocritical, something I myself have no wish to be. I cannot 'like' this talk. If I do recommend this talk to anyone I have to write a damn treatise in front of it explaining what jerks you are, PhilosophyInsights.
You should know that it is a very well defined and enforced dogma within Feminism that male and female are not biological but a social construct. It is well defined that the argument is that humans are neither male or female, but the difference is formed from life experience and social pressures. This is a massive misunderstanding of biology and human autonomy. You might not agree with this or think this is something Feminism believes in. But that more shows that you do not understand what Feminism teach today. This view is supported by feminists all over the world and is seen everywhere from time to time in all regions feminism is a real power. Here in Sweden it is never outright spoken about, but it does show up to a point in official school curriculums. Did I mention that Sweden is the only so called "Feminist government" in the world? So no. This isn't clickbaiting. This is reality many Feminists preach. It is very harmful because it teaches scientific illiteracy and a fundamental denial of biology. It is as dangerous as teaching evolution doesn't exist and god created all animals on the planet.
@@Cloud_Seeker But you have gone completely outside of the fairly narrow scope of my remark. It is clickbaiting. Please confine yourself to what I said. Do not make assumptions or inference beyond my having expressed irritation at the titling, not the content. Bret Weinstein does not address himself to [feminists] or if he did I must have missed it while I was enjoying my white privilege. The title ought not assume that he does, or has. That is all I said, or meant to say. Now go and do Professor (Stanford) Sapolsky's entire course on evolutionary/behavioural biology as I just did, and we'll have a far better dialogue, I feel quite confident of that. I am just at this juncture a little concerned at people's eagerness to make assumptions. For example that disbanding the police will allow a utopia to spring up in the same way that COVID has allowed us to see the bottoms of canals in Venice. Don't grandstand on my account, please.
As human cognition and consciousness evolved, it is possible female humans “realized” that nature had short-handed them, in terms of the many existential advantages males of the species - apparently - have been endowed with. It seems also that the harsh and eternal search for the reason and the meaning of life that all humans embark into, might be an even harsher task for females, as a consequence of their perception of the aforementioned inherited “injustice”. This fact most probably has always been a real underlying issue in the female psyche. Females seem to resent males. Apparently this new world of expanded freedoms and opportunities, along with vast interconnected communication tools for debates and opinions, have presented the voices of the feminine-existential-conundrum-questioners, with a robust and far reaching platform to express their disagreement an dissatisfaction with the natural order. Resentment, confusion, disapproval, denial (even hatred) are being openly and vigorously manifested like never before in human history. This panorama is probably the new normal for humans and their sexual interactions, along with so many other phenomena germinating amidst our very technological and complicated world.
Overall, a fair observation. My only critique is the notion that females feel short-handed. I suspect that Camille Paglia is correct when she states that women were happier when they were in environments better suited to their temperament. The 'working' world is one of competition for resources. Women, on average, are less competitive. Entering the traditionally male dominated, competitive working world, has been a shock to the system. Traditional workplaces are now seen as toxic and uncivilized. I would, in fact, argue, that most arenas where men and women co-mingle, now as equals, is viewed as toxic. We removed the notion that there should be female social spheres. In the past, we men and women came together, it was to be tempered with a great deal of informal, and formal, decorum, to accommodate gender differences. In essence, when we valued the somewhat unique abilities of women as nurturers, family matriarchs, and community builders, I suspect they felt less existentially challenged.
vilemaxim, just like males, females of the species need to feel purpose in their existence. JBP says that motherhood is the pinnacle of usefulness for females, while males encounter a wider arrangement of potential sources of meaning. I think he is right and that explains why males are attracted more towards Peterson’s ideas. That said and converging with your position, today’s world affords females the possibility of direct competition with males in all endeavors, Natural Law then comes into play and irrefutably frustrates many female expectations.
Feminists/leftist women resent men but the rest of us don’t. I switched wings a few years ago and life got much happier. I now see it’s not a battle between us-men tend to share their male advantages with us. As we share our female advantages, if we’re not feminists. The things feminists don’t get is that men are not at all trying to hurt us women. Actually, there are two kinds of feminists: those who believe feminist bs and those who deliberately create it.
I've been getting Bret Weinstein, and Eric Weinstien mixed up all this time. I saw Eric on a previous video on this channel on the topic of Epstein. He came across like a condescending prick if I'm to be honest. I couldn't work it out, as I'd never seen/heard (podcast) Bret behave like that. before. Ha.
I've grown to like Eric a great deal over time, but he can be infuriating in not speaking plainly when it's appropriate and over-relying on metaphorical beating about the bush. That might be where you get the condescending vibe.
wait hold on - so is it the special case or is it not? evo fairy tales about flowers and lobsters, you can make such story to prove any point you want ...
See but here’s the thing. In one, quite legitimate sense, Evolution is every bit as notional as, say, Creationism. Creationists select and label phenomena that allegorizes with human design: Evolutionists select and label phenomena that allegorizes with the human value of survival. Evolution is, in one way *more* dependent on allegorizing with human intelligence, since it depends on the human notion of time.
Brett, I love everything you do really informative but I would like to ask you if you can set up a debate with me and Sam Harris, so I can crush him and it would only take five minutes using only science thank you. Please get back to me I promise I will not let you down.
"Social construct" can be defined so broadly that everything is a social construct. The key is that that definitely includes their stupid theories.
@Omne Obstat Its no coincidence. Why do you all think this is organic...
😄
Acknowledging differences in male & female gender expression, does not mean imposing traditional sex roles upon people. This conflation has caused a lot of misunderstanding.
I don't think that there are any "misunderstandings". It's a movement set out to gain political power and it seems to work.
Exactly, its so frustrating to see so many people not recognizing the patterns.
@@NerdlySquared wankers gonna wank
Divide and conquer.
There's also true believers but Critical Race Theory and Critical Gender Theory also seriously attack within and across to dismantle normalcy.
Yeah, but I don't think most of the normie base around these movements are gonna see that.
My Daoist master said in a teaching that men are yang on the outside and yin on the inside, whereas women are yin on the outside and yang on the inside.
I've heard that said but with soft/hard rather than yin/yang. Amazingly this also seems to be true physically with men having softer internal organs than women. Probably evolutionary reasons for that also, softer organs being less durable but healing more quickly in environments and roles where damage is more likely.
This reminds me of a great line I don't remember the source of: Women's greatest strength is their facade of weakness. Men's greatest weakness is their facade of strength.
In the "Old Society," it was just as much women as much enforcing the stricter social conventions. Prominent wives and mothers in the social structure had an interest in making sure that "loose" women didn't make a run for their husbands or sons.
The ancient Chinese worked this gender conundrum out thousands of years ago. Something over 99.9% of human beings are born either male or female, and in time, males will become men and females will become women. That's easy. Where things get culturally confused is when the term "masculine" is interchanged with only men and "feminine" is used to describe only women. The ancient Chinese called the masculine aspect of being "yang" and the feminine "yin". The masculine / yang represents the light, change, strength, the positive, Summer, the Sun, whereas the feminine / yang represents the dark, coolness, the Moon, the negative, Winter. Generally, men possess masculine / yang traits and women possess the feminine / yin traits. But, women can be strong in masculine traits and visa-versa. It is Western culture and tradition that creates the tension and conflict: a male must only be masculine and a female must only be feminine.
Unless I'm misinformed, traditonal gender roles are more prominent and enforced everywhere in the world outside the west. If the west creates this conflict, it's because the west questions the legitimacy of traditional gender roles to a greater degree than any other current civilization.
I was a gender feminist once. Then I got an MA in psych, and also casually studied sex differences and evolutionary biology etc for fun. TL;DR: "gender" is not a "social construct". That whole way of thinking is...I'll be generous and say only 90% utter nonsense on stilts, riding a unicycle, while being juggled by a seal. Half a century ago maybe it was a bold and daring but sort of plausible hypothesis, if you squinted just right. After the last half century of research, but at this point, trying to defend it in any way, shape or form is like saying, "Ok, I'm not an EXTREME phlogistonologist...but it's kind of true...you have to admit...yada yada yada." No. It's just wrong.
great comment
Finally, a reasonable, learned, honest discussion presented by a true scientific expert on the subject.
But according to the SJWs, he's a discredited fraud.
@@badendhappy2903 which means he's probably right and worth listening to.
we need to stop rejecting traditionalism as being backward and try and understand the why it is what is valuable and how we want to grow our culture from traditions which have developed over thousands of years.
I agree with a lot of what Bret Wigstein is saying. A lot of intelligence there
I'm curious about the female fighter pilot analogy. I think his point is valid to a degree (and believe me Bret is a person whose level I am way off from being on and perhaps I a being a bit pedantic) but biological speaking men still have massive advantages over women when it comes to that sort of activity.
Nonetheless the conversation blew my mind.
Why can't we admit we are organisms with innate limitations, what do we fear from this simple admission
From a biblical perspective, it would mean that we would have to admit our rebellion and humble ourselves towards a higher power. But we humans aren't quite known for our humility.
They’re willfully ignorant.
for now
Riddickk
Feminists. They know they’re wrong but the revolution must continue. They can’t exist without constant revolution. It’s deeply synonymous with communism all under the umbrella of cultural Marxism.
Feminists are freaking out during this pandemic and lockdown. Many are gong full skinhead (literally) to get back at “the man”.
@@southafricanizationofsociety20 That's ok. it's easier then to keep an eye on them.
Sex, the biological diffrence between male and females and gender the social construct are two diffrent things that often get confused. Both exist obviously and nobody should deny that. But moving forward from this point there is choice and i really liked that Mr. Weinstein talked about that. We can choose how we as a society of humans apply and construct our gender identities. This is a moral question not a scientific one. We can choose to have a fair and free society which helps to bring out the best in us and to mutally support each other on that quest. Or we can build a society which subjugates and oppresses its members. The choice is ours to make!
Feedback Loop No we cannot choose our gender identities. We can choose our behaviour but we can’t choose identities because our identities are whoever we are not what we’d like to be.
Gender is the degree to which someone is masculine or feminine. They derive from the sexes, male and female-to say anything different is to make nonsense of the word. Try to describe or define masculinity without referring to men.
Gender is derived by collecting and observing the non-physical characteristics of each of the sexes. Behaviours (such as in the big 5 personality traits) do overlap between the sexes but they also cluster around each of them (for very good biological reasons). The female clusters are femininity and the male clusters are masculinity.
In some cases a women are more masculine than men. But that’s not a choice-it’s just how they are. No one chooses their identity: they choose their behaviour and their identity is observed and experiences by that behaviour, among other things.
@@Muting_all_advice i agree with you when you say that gender is based on sex and that the properties of the biological are then transposed on the constructed gender identities.
But i disagree with you when you say that we have no influence over our identity because its something that is fixed and given, you are who you are and nothing can change that.
If as you say that we have a choice in our behavior, and then say that identity is observed and experienced through that behavior, then we can change who we are and how we identitfy, through our actions.
I’m glad you agree with the first bit. I didn’t say the second bit-that’s a misinterpretation of what I said. I didn’t say identity was fixed and I didn’t say we had no influence over it. I said we couldn’t choose it.
@@Muting_all_advicehmm i think i get now why you draw that distinction there, you cant just proclaim who you are and then "be" that, thats not how it works and i am on board with that. i wanted to emphasize that we have influence over our identity and that its not something fixed that cant be changed, and thats also something you agree with.
now maybe the word choose doesnt cut it here, but there is agency and control in the human existence, and with that comes a responsiblity for how we act and who we become by those actions, for each one of us and for our society. that was the point that i tried to make.
Feedback Loop Absolutely-I agree with all that. Of course we can change-that means we can improve!
What I would give to have had a teacher like Bret in college.
Men in wimmen sports is sick. No prostates in wimmen's sports.
"freedom to refigure...and we should do it" - that's nice, but Bret says he doesn't believe in free-will.
He said nothing about feminists misunderstanding anything. So what's with the title? You are misrepresenting and misunderstanding his argument
Question: Is there something a feminist *does* understand?
Lmao you wouldn't recognize a communist if they told you ha?
There's nothing good about feminism. It's the fault of both men and women and it's so old that it's in Genesis 3.
You're the best Mr. Insights! Keep up the great work!
I am so appreciative that Bret Weinstein and his crowd for having conversations that matter.
What is happening right now is a part of our evolution.
We need to do better than we’ve been doing.
Thanks to people like Bret, Heather, Eric, Jordan, Joe, Pinker.
Watching your content is a Master Class.
Big hugs from just North of you Bret.
If you’re in Gig Harbor I’ll buy you a pint.
Cheers
Men get choosy when they are looking for a mate to look after them into old age. Hhaha
Every single time.
The people who downvoted this just didn’t like the camera work and the audio.
I almost disliked because they claim feminist misunderstood. They do it on purpose, for political gain and censorship not because they are stupid. Its quite sad
@@AM-fh7ek Exactly. People need to see it for what is.
Or we can decide that we want to reject male aggression.
oh, the brats (brets? lol) are not interested in our opinion, clearly
The interviewer thinks evolutionary biology began in the 50's.
Thanks for this discussion.
Thank you
What he means by plants, insects, birds, etc...being the same is he is referring to they like us are all Eukarya or the same Domain in our shared Taxonomic ranking
Social Dynamic's, Is a better way to put it.
Our Social dynamics in turn have many measures in the marketplace some sort of Constructionism Via. the Commercialization of products or labels.
Then just us Following or changing that in a media / social marketplace.
JUST AS ANY FIRST PLACE PRINCIPLE WOULD APPLY.. SOCIAL DYNAMICS first principle.
Womb envy deep sigh.
Good.
This guy knows diddly squat about what feminism is. I'm getting really fed up with him, Jordan Petersen and Benjamin Boyce They all support speech and debate which is good and Boyce is actually able to listen to his guests. But their white male entitlement often shows both in relation to race and sex.
They say feminism brought this on. But they are too biased to see what feminism incurred is a vicious and insidious backlash from those terrified of the power of women. Boyce refers to feminist analysis as ragging on men. Brent thinks there is no evolutionary support for feminism as if evolution were the only force in our development. His hammer.
I haven’t heard the term “penis envy” in a while. Maybe it’s time to bring that back into the public sphere.
Currently, things obviously have to swing back closer to the conservative side. I'm concerned that we'll do that without realizing or addressing some of the smaller but important core problems the conservative side has, and essentially create an even bigger mess of delinquency after people point back saying:
"Been there, tried that. We are (over) fixing a lot of the problems you kept on ignoring."
You think current stuff is screwed up? Just wait until you crack open the biological use cases for rape, incest and pedophilia. That will be a gong show of epic proportions.
The problem is, the maturity to handle these things are virtually non existent now.
We should get this sorted out before our species creates superior AI. But sadly that almost certainly won't happen.
This is what happens when misinformed opinions substitute themselves to the factual, observable and quantifiable Natural Order.
Some of my feminist friends, would deny these things; others instead of blaming the oppressive patriarchy blame the oppressive kyriarchy which includes things like non-human evolutionary biology. Both groups, however, act roughly the same.
I don't think this is entirely about them "misunderstanding" biology or anything else. I think a significant part of this is them attempting (and largely succeeding) to bootstrap themselves into total power.
He is actually quite conservative in the sense of Burkean philosophy
Toxic Males have feelings too 😢
Males aren't inherently toxic. Radical feminists are.
My notes,
8:50 "the is and what ought" question.
The two side.
Gin,
"Love them and leave them" is one of the male strategies. A feminist just exploded at a statement of fact
It is, but it isn't one of the most successful strategies for humans. It takes so much to get investment from a human child that it is best if they have both a mother and a father in a family unit.
@@Cloud_Seeker Well put. The species-level advantage of steering away from LTaLT and towards pair bonding is why socially-enforced monogamy exists.
@@musicalfringe It is. There is many animals that just impregnate and leave. However their lifespan might also be measured in days if not a couple of years at the most. For example a mice lives alone but also tend to only live for 1 - 2.5 years. By the time a human becomes an adult (18 years old) around 9-18 generations of mice have lived and died.
LTaLT does not work as well for humans as other animals. We are a social species with a HUGE amount of time our juveniles are juveniles. We are comparable to elephants in that way. In fact we might take longer.
@@Cloud_Seeker Exactly. There's the length of investment issue, which incentivises females to be choosy, and there's the extra dimension of intensity of investment (extreme neediness of offspring) that incentivises them to seek long-term partners to share the load. Separate but highly related issues.
even parrots can be loyal, are you happy to be outperformed by parrots? it's an honest question
Beautiful conversation
Obviously.
Again, titling. PhilosophyInsights, we ALL can misunderstand this, not just feminists. Do you really need this clickbait titling? I don't. It does so much harm.
Everyone, Bret Weinstein doesn't use the word 'feminist' anywhere in this talk. He doesn't address his remarks to any sector of society or sociopolitical faction; he just explains the science and the nature of its misunderstanding - for everyone, man, woman and child. I have to unsubscribe from PI now because they engage in unethical practices that might look trivial but do inestimable harm, and which make them gigantically hypocritical, something I myself have no wish to be. I cannot 'like' this talk. If I do recommend this talk to anyone I have to write a damn treatise in front of it explaining what jerks you are, PhilosophyInsights.
You should know that it is a very well defined and enforced dogma within Feminism that male and female are not biological but a social construct. It is well defined that the argument is that humans are neither male or female, but the difference is formed from life experience and social pressures. This is a massive misunderstanding of biology and human autonomy. You might not agree with this or think this is something Feminism believes in. But that more shows that you do not understand what Feminism teach today.
This view is supported by feminists all over the world and is seen everywhere from time to time in all regions feminism is a real power. Here in Sweden it is never outright spoken about, but it does show up to a point in official school curriculums. Did I mention that Sweden is the only so called "Feminist government" in the world? So no. This isn't clickbaiting. This is reality many Feminists preach. It is very harmful because it teaches scientific illiteracy and a fundamental denial of biology. It is as dangerous as teaching evolution doesn't exist and god created all animals on the planet.
@@Cloud_Seeker That was rather well said.
@@Cloud_Seeker But you have gone completely outside of the fairly narrow scope of my remark. It is clickbaiting. Please confine yourself to what I said. Do not make assumptions or inference beyond my having expressed irritation at the titling, not the content. Bret Weinstein does not address himself to [feminists] or if he did I must have missed it while I was enjoying my white privilege. The title ought not assume that he does, or has. That is all I said, or meant to say. Now go and do Professor (Stanford) Sapolsky's entire course on evolutionary/behavioural biology as I just did, and we'll have a far better dialogue, I feel quite confident of that. I am just at this juncture a little concerned at people's eagerness to make assumptions. For example that disbanding the police will allow a utopia to spring up in the same way that COVID has allowed us to see the bottoms of canals in Venice. Don't grandstand on my account, please.
It is actually "neccessary" have to learn some how. No?
As human cognition and consciousness evolved, it is possible female humans “realized” that nature had short-handed them, in terms of the many existential advantages males of the species - apparently - have been endowed with. It seems also that the harsh and eternal search for the reason and the meaning of life that all humans embark into, might be an even harsher task for females, as a consequence of their perception of the aforementioned inherited “injustice”. This fact most probably has always been a real underlying issue in the female psyche. Females seem to resent males. Apparently this new world of expanded freedoms and opportunities, along with vast interconnected communication tools for debates and opinions, have presented the voices of the feminine-existential-conundrum-questioners, with a robust and far reaching platform to express their disagreement an dissatisfaction with the natural order. Resentment, confusion, disapproval, denial (even hatred) are being openly and vigorously manifested like never before in human history. This panorama is probably the new normal for humans and their sexual interactions, along with so many other phenomena germinating amidst our very technological and complicated world.
Overall, a fair observation. My only critique is the notion that females feel short-handed. I suspect that Camille Paglia is correct when she states that women were happier when they were in environments better suited to their temperament. The 'working' world is one of competition for resources. Women, on average, are less competitive. Entering the traditionally male dominated, competitive working world, has been a shock to the system. Traditional workplaces are now seen as toxic and uncivilized. I would, in fact, argue, that most arenas where men and women co-mingle, now as equals, is viewed as toxic. We removed the notion that there should be female social spheres. In the past, we men and women came together, it was to be tempered with a great deal of informal, and formal, decorum, to accommodate gender differences. In essence, when we valued the somewhat unique abilities of women as nurturers, family matriarchs, and community builders, I suspect they felt less existentially challenged.
vilemaxim, just like males, females of the species need to feel purpose in their existence. JBP says that motherhood is the pinnacle of usefulness for females, while males encounter a wider arrangement of potential sources of meaning. I think he is right and that explains why males are attracted more towards Peterson’s ideas. That said and converging with your position, today’s world affords females the possibility of direct competition with males in all endeavors, Natural Law then comes into play and irrefutably frustrates many female expectations.
Feminists/leftist women resent men but the rest of us don’t. I switched wings a few years ago and life got much happier. I now see it’s not a battle between us-men tend to share their male advantages with us. As we share our female advantages, if we’re not feminists.
The things feminists don’t get is that men are not at all trying to hurt us women. Actually, there are two kinds of feminists: those who believe feminist bs and those who deliberately create it.
Viva la differance
I've been getting Bret Weinstein, and Eric Weinstien mixed up all this time.
I saw Eric on a previous video on this channel on the topic of Epstein. He came across like a condescending prick if I'm to be honest. I couldn't work it out, as I'd never seen/heard (podcast) Bret behave like that. before.
Ha.
@lolcano234 Clue is in the comment. Look for an Eric W. vid on the same channel.
I've grown to like Eric a great deal over time, but he can be infuriating in not speaking plainly when it's appropriate and over-relying on metaphorical beating about the bush. That might be where you get the condescending vibe.
Sorry, we got COVID19 to need to worry about..
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
So engineer human nature? Like Hitler, Mao and Stalin?
All these incompetetent, incelibate men running humanity off the cliff. Your time is up. If we follow you, we are dead.
wait hold on - so is it the special case or is it not?
evo fairy tales about flowers and lobsters, you can make such story to prove any point you want ...
See but here’s the thing.
In one, quite legitimate sense, Evolution is every bit as notional as, say, Creationism. Creationists select and label phenomena that allegorizes with human design: Evolutionists select and label phenomena that allegorizes with the human value of survival.
Evolution is, in one way *more* dependent on allegorizing with human intelligence, since it depends on the human notion of time.
Brett, I love everything you do really informative but I would like to ask you if you can set up a debate with me and Sam Harris, so I can crush him and it would only take five minutes using only science thank you. Please get back to me I promise I will not let you down.