I'm fairly left or liberal in my thinking, I work in software testing where lateral thinking, contrary thinking and deconstruction and arbitration are useful ways to examine things and be creative in approaches to how I test something. I value left thinking. So my olive branch to Heather is that I think she's right to suggest that the people who have made these observations or tools, (given that they try not to come up with the solutions), generally deserve recognition. And again she's right and seems to be in agreement with you Ben is that the following interpretation of these tools can lead to corruption, or bad thinking etc which have led us to critical theories etc But I still think it hinges on one core value that I disagree with. The Marxist perspective of flattening the meaning of existence onto one axis, power (in his case economic power). The moment you realise that not everything has to occur with power, that power or money cannot explain a ton of human motivation (art, charity, teaching, aid), is when you realise that these arguments are compromised. The argument that patriarchy exists because men compete to get to the top of a dominant hierarchy, its not untrue, but its not the complete picture. There are many hierarchies which exist intertwined in our society, there is a prestige hierarchy in classes which both men and women compete, and a communication/information hierarchy which exists in many female circles. We have placed the value of existence onto something like money, which means that we now only value the hierarchy which deals with money, which means we now disregard other hierarchy's in our complex culture as invalid. Reject Marxist simplification and we can get past this limited way of thinking. Also gamergate was an earlier mainstream instance of cancel culture which predated her experiences by a year or two, but that shouldn't detract from her being on the front line of the gender war.
It's a bete noir of mine. Can you read some liberal philosopher (John Locke?l. Liberalism is NOT left wing. Classical English Liberalism would not advocate for state education, it's not Conservative, but it's definitely not Socialist. Here in Australia the Liberal party are in coalition with the Nationalists. The popular view is this equates with being right wing. BUT when you look into it in depth, Nationalism can claim Socialist ideals and liberalism can align with libertarianism.
"The moment you realise that not everything has to occur with power, that power or money cannot explain a ton of human motivation (art, charity, teaching, aid), is when you realise that these arguments are compromised." This would cause a good person to stop using these arguments. Heather keeps using them, though, because careerism.
@@shinyhunterlens I've watched her other videos with Graham Linehan, I'm not under the impression she's anything but passionate about what she does. I don't think she carries any careerist cynicism. A Robin DiAngelo cynical careerist would know its easier not to have these conversations for example.
Your comment has so many valid points to it, I find it remarkable how even a software developer is even encroaching on the overturn window. I am a liberal and I do not think I could follow anymore of this crazy reductive theories. I know it has ruined gaming.
Feminist academic in an apologetic discussion of Foucault makes no mention of any influence of academic feminism in the present state of Postmodernism and trans activism. She is eager to use patriarchy theory (well, her personal definition of patriarchy) to explain the intractability of the situation without ever allowing feminism to enter the discussion. One definition power is what nobody is allowed to criticize. Her ultimate solution is just more security for her and her cohort: "we need to have an open discussion about it so this is the beginning ..." i.e. this nonsense is never going to be called out and put aside as long as feminist academics are dominating the debate. You added the most helpful input in this discussion, Mr Boyce.
I think feminist should take responsibility for their own actions in the last couple of decades, instead of making up more theories how patriarchy did it.
51:27 I'm glad Benjamin flustered her into defining it, because it helped re-contextualize all the things she's been saying--it would have been very useful at the outset or the first time the term was used, because I felt she was using the term very differently from how we generally conceptualize it, as it seems to preclude the concept of willful participation in _our_ idea of patriarchy (think: the women who were anti-suffrage, or maybe even pro-trad women). It seems like she's using the term in a very absolute fashion, i.e anything that contravenes on femininity is necessarily patriarchal, and vice-versa (which was very confusing to me up until this point). Glad I stuck it out, she's got great insights and it helped me understand the Foucault-ian approach to this quagmire in which we find ourselves.
From what I could gather (maybe I am misunderstanding), her ideological perspective begins from a place of enemy/oppressor vs victim/ally mentality. All those definitions reflect that perspective. Those are not passive definitions. She is using it knowingly for a purpose. Some could call it deception, but I don't know much about her. It could also be she lives and breathes those theories with people with the same purpose. Maybe that is why she doesn't try and explicitly define it.
I think the best point she made is that the term ‘patriarchy’ is not really fit for purpose but it’s the one we are left with after a hundred odd years of applying it. The opposite of patriarchal isn’t feminine, it’s matriarchal. This points to the confusion somewhat I feel. Aren’t we talking about “opposed” personality traits, historically divided along genital lines, as if that delimitation is factual. In fact all humans are a melange of opposing personality traits to varying degrees & this is why all humans participate in their own ways in what we’re calling patriarchy. The worst part of this is what Heather pointed to in the form of the demonising of individuals based upon the shitty historical sorting categories.
You might be right about what Heather means by "patriarchy." I was constantly frustrated because she never defined it AFAICT. She did complain about people complaining about the use of the word.
But there has to be a being holding the power, so it is not so much power as oppression (of one by another). The power of the wind is only oppressive to those who can't use it (sailing) or who can't resist it (cyclone shelters). Yet the power it contains is the same, irrespective of who it is acting against. Power is the wrong word, oppression is more fitting? The wind has power, but it has lost its ability to do with us what is against our will.
@@andyjarman4958 I think the story of the concubines in the art of war, shows the different types of power and how it is weilded to make others bend to your will. How to collect and direct humans for an expressed goal. The entrenched power with money and family. The soft power of deception and ignorance. The hard power of death and control. How the rock, paper scissors like game always plays out with hard power controlling it's lesser forms by one simple means. Line everyone up and give a command. When the collective fails to act this command, select from amongst the ranks and publicly execute them as an example to the others. It may not always be so drastic. See: Dr.Seuss. But those who laugh and giggle when they should follow your command gets removed. People don't want to be removed from the group, for that could lead to death. Learning how to hit the right switches of primal fear, and a desire to belong to a group to get people to turn over agency in favor of your power. It is not the wind, it is the weight of billions of years of evolution mirrored across all social animals.
@@j_freed I see it as a power we all have, essential to the model making mechanisms in social creatures. When you need the kids to quiet down so as not to reveal the location of the group to a threat, the boon gained from staying quiet out weights getting eaten by preditors. But that evolutionary mechanism in the lack of an actual predator, turns it into the "us and them" tribal mentality. Where we're fighting the ghosts of predators reborn in the ways we fight each other.
Wasn't convinced on the pushback on the cynical nature of many of the postmodern theories and I disagree with her on quite a lot. Gives me the sense of a fair bit of motivated reasoning, but I'm glad for all the conversations you have and their value, this one included.
Motivated reasoning indeed. Michel Foucault argued that, as long as they are able able to give consent, children could have sexual relations with adults. French-American professor Guy Sorman accused Foucault of being a "pedophile rapist” in an interview with The Sunday Times. Sorman, a friend of Foucault, said that the philosopher sexually abused Arab children while living in Tunisia in the late 1960s. This is also the "True Foucault."
Not sure if I'll be able to finish this one, less than half way in and it's looking like just another feminist with massive confirmation biases, who is looking for ways to imply someone else's confirmation bias. /"floods of comment"
@@cosmoscoronado8862 I'm not so sure. I didn't detect hostile feminism. Maybe my spidey senses are less well developed. Sorry for the long spew here. I hope someone finds it useful, if not you. I heard the argument that Foucault (setting aside his scandalous shortcomings, focusing only on his intellect) recognized or argued that varying facets of power mediate our lives and also tell us what is true -- especially socially -- and what isn't, as well as right and wrong. NOT including biology and other areas of empirical scientific hypotheses. Heather was seemingly pointing to Foucault's tools as a means to deconstruct all the various Critical Theory, especially Queer Theory and Trans Rights. This would INCLUDE pedophilia which is -- among other things -- a ridiculously dangerous power imbalance. *I disagree with Heather that "inclusion" in DEI and Critical Theory is from Liberalism* . Yes, Liberalism opens the door in a small "i" inclusive manner. Everyone is welcome to talk and make their arguments, at least until they get banished by serious people for excess stupidity. The DEI meaning of "Inclusion" stands on a radically different foundational meaning. "Inclusion" in DEI stands firmly and self-righteously on the necessity to *silence* and forcibly *exclude* any ideas and any individuals who could possibly "make" any hypothetical person --- one who has been assigned an identity group of "Oppressed" -- *FEEL* "emotionally excluded" or *FEEL* emotionally "unsafe" in any way. She's a 'Tard that she doesn't see that. (Get my funny joke?) Seriously, this idea of a "safe space" to share your deepest personal feelings is connected to *Psych Therapy* , so the counselor you hire doesn't shame you for weaknesses, or only gently shames you, and arises from certain 12-Step alternative groups that are all about "listening" non-judgmentally. That's is a specific purpose for a "safe space", for a project of working on one's emotional healing of past traumas, real or imaginary, to bare one's soul to the Light of Truth. Work and school and public discourses is NOT a therapeutic Safe Space. We cannot put enough soft padding on ALL of society to take it down to the level of persons who may be the most emotionally and psychologically damaged and crippled. It is also not healthy for resilient humans to PRETEND they exist on a spectrum of severely emotionally crippled at all times, instead of strengthening emotional and social resilience. There's space enough for both tracks in one's life, normalcy and time set aside for healing work. Likewise, the tender vulnerable conversations you may have with a sweetheart aren't the same conversations you have at the cafe and classroom or your desk at work. Not to forget that the "Safe Space Police" practice extreme forms of "justified" attacks of social shaming and punishments that are often extended to additional real life punishments, like destroying a person's career for stating "their truth", even when supported by extensive footnotes. "Inclusion" in the DEI sense requires harshly Critical Critics, both self-appointed random mobs, and highly-paid administrators of "safe" discourses, to watch conversations and silences, and to take reports, looking for ideas and conversations to "problematize" and accuse and silence and de-platform and exclude. We know from James Lindsay, that's what Marcuse was all about, pre-silencing conservatives and their ideas as "proto-Nazi" while defending reactive or pre-active Leftist physical and psychological violence.
@dilbertgeg That's a very good take, nothing for me to disagree on. However I was honestly in the mode to learn something more from an informed perspective, when "patriarchy" gets invoked a few times with unqualified conceit, and then the clincher... "It REALLY impacts women." (and no I can't be assed if that's not exactly verbatim) She stepped off the cliff with that one, not something one is allowed to simply walk back, not in the established context. So I didn't even pass judgement on her motive as such - of course I may - but the type she manifestly represents, to quote an Alison Tieman term, the "women worst" worldview is obviously firmly fixed. But it has settled some convictions personally, I don't believe it is reasonable to defend post-modernism in general, or most of its precedent thinkers as non-cynical. Critical Theory is basically just an openly biased dialectical, as you refer to "problematization" appropriately there, the only purpose it can serve is cynical by default, a prejudiced argumentation with a prescribed outcome of redacting all perception of function from a subject. As such, a woman who employs this aspect of critical theory, has no credibility to suggest to me that one of her mentors is not cynical.
Well, I was naively hopeful this discussion might salvage some Foucault for me; it did not. A few of my thoughts, for whatever they are worth: A) Someone please please correct me (a timestamp with the correction would be beautiful) but I did not hear a clear, or even clearly attempted, definition of "power" or "patriarchy." Without clear definitions, of which one can assert their opinion without asserting definitive authority, then how are we supposed to further the discourse surrounding such ideas? Talking around ill-defined terms and using anti-labeling rhetoric only serves those who know how to operate at those levels of abstraction (an ironic display of power dynamics). As such, one should not get frustrated when others keep pushing for clear attempts at defining terms within the discussion. Also, asking a question does not imply definitive authority to the answerer to have THE answer; discussion can happen with educated opinions. B) Yes, people have been chaotic, self-aware, and engaged in problematization for most of our history. However, I do not see it as unfair or unreasonable to associate post-modernism with a wider dispersal of analytical tools with which to do so. Tools are neither benign nor malevolent. Similarly with Marx, he did not create revolutionary and collectivist zeal in humans; however, it would be inaccurate to not attribute the dispersal and (mis)application of his analytical tools as a furtherance of such beliefs and associated behaviors. C) (and finally) Isn't critiquing without seeking to improve the very definition of problematization? Sure, all systems, thoughts, and people have flaws (by nature and definition), but simply drawing attention to fundamental flaws only instantiates desires in people to correct those flaws. If there is one thing humans are good at, it's responding to negativity bias and feeling the need to act in the face of negativity (thanks, evolution).
I also did not hear a definition of either power or patriarchy. The closest Heather seemed to get was to say that because women are being harmed by transgender ideology, it must have been patriarchy.
@@JonathanRossRogers it almost sounds like she is using the term akin to how CRT uses "systemic racism," the whole system designed by and for a particular group and everyone else just has to deal
@@JonathanRossRogers in all fairness, identity groups are being harmed by CRT and intersectionality. Ideological frameworks tend to only help those who buy-in 100%, which is another criticism: rather than flattening any hierarchical pyramids embedded in any system, these reductionist ideologies only invert the pyramid
At its most basic power is the ability of a person to exert control or influence on their environment. There done. I find postmodernism and CRT share the aversion to being pinned down semantically in any way. It's almost as if they are related.
It as if they don't want to have a way to disprove their end conclusion. It is easier to manipulate people using loose definitions along the way. Any objection towards a statement can be met with "I know what you are saying. But I meant this way". Purposefully kept in the fog.
James Lyndsay says similar things about Post Modernism himself. He proposes the term Critical Constructivism should be used to describe Wokeness. He has no bone to pick with Post Modernism per se. He has identified how the Cultural Marxism has been developed by Critical Theorists, and the Critical Theorist's ideas have been wedded with the Post Modernist perspective to create the Critical Constructivism that forms the Woke faith.
yea, there’s something about no longer requiring holy writ as the ultimate authoritah if that’s what Post Modern is talking about, it’s on point, whereas the whacky power-games predicated on using the abacus (think coloured beads & counting, accounting & debts) absolutely wrong, is a telling ploy most people already know is heading into hostile takeover territory. just question your HR, you won’t believe what happens next!
@@N0die tell me about it. I'm off to HR's LGBTQI+ induction on Tuesday. We have a new staff code of conduct document. It obliges me to state if my employer's policies conflict with my beliefs. I took an Oath at my citizenship ceremony to uphold liberal democratic values. This is going to be interesting.
Around timestamp 27:00? re: women being impacted by transgender ideology - she is correct. Women were developing an identity and strength as emerging in the 1970s; post 1990s the lesbian feminist ideology seeped in; and in the 2010s transgenderism broke through and in essence, took over the true feminist movement to the extent that strong feminists were utterly shuttered for speaking against transgender ideology as it subsumed the feminist movement.
I wonder how much the recent trend in newer generations as girls attempting to escape the tough years of female puberty connects to this and the larger conversation. True, men identifying as women is pervasive in the adult spheres, and has repercussions, but the trend in the youth seems to be more and more girls identifying as boys, as written about and researched by Abigail Schrier
@@mcroot87 which begs the question: what has cultural equality meant for women and girls? That they can functionally become men; expectations to be, successful, financially independent, job, housing, etc. to have sex like a man, that is, with impunity and without the "burden" of pregnancy and childrearing. The result: girls intuitively know their bodies are designed to bear and nurture children, but societal norms dictate they render themselves free of their biological gender. It is the logical consequence of medical contraceptives, birth control, and abortion. The bitter irony is that because her femininity is neutralized, she becomes more "masculine" and hypersexualized (sexually availability at all times means higher competition for mates), sex becomes an expectation. And boys are rewarded for being effeminate and punished for typical male characteristics such as aggression and competiveness. Women have once again been placed second to " men" who identify as female. Girls struggle the most as their rightful role has been hijacked.
I’ll add my vote for that interview. Actually I’d leave James out of it. I think seeing Heather & Wokal pull apart the philosophical underpinnings of all of this would be fascinating.
She'd get annihilated. She doesn't address anything they say and just falls back on 'the patriarchy done it' trope. Well that's what I got out of the first third of the interview.
@@tonypeck5507 yes I agree. It has the potential to be a civilised philosophical exploration (rather than political/ideological one focussed on winning) that can tease out some of the opacity in the underlying schools of thought, which is sadly lacking right now.
The problem is that people who don't believe he is are being forced to act as though he is - and the goal is to make us believe that he is. O'Brien wasn't satisfied when Winston _said_ he was holding up five fingers - Winston had to _know_ he was holding up five.
"It's not Foucault's fault!" Yes, that's right. It's not. It is Freud's fault - explaining everything that is wrong as being caused by "trauma," and if only we could find the trauma, the problems would disappear. So we focus only on trauma, only look for the bad, and use every thought model there is in the never ending quest for wrongness. This causes personal stress, societal stress; precludes clear thinking and reason; and drives people crazy.
Ok, so, if there is ANY part of feminism that the men's right's movement is largely on board with, it would be regard for women's only spaces, I think. Transgender activism is not at all a big thing in the MRM, that I am aware of.
The way she is speaking is standard for gender critical feminists. It is pretty foolish. Its also primarily women who populate the ideology they are opposing, they seem to have trouble coming to terms with this.
I like that this basically ends with a Churchill quip - democracy is the worst system of governance, except for every other form of governance (paraphrasing)
It bothered me, though, that she argued against problematizing as a product of post-modernism, then argued that she was problematizing by definition. It was totally reasonable for Benjamin to ask for an opinion about how to fix the identified problems with capitalism and western democracies, and I think it was fairly unreasonable for Heather to dodge the question. No one asked for THE answer, just for her to opine on the subject, as that's what people do in healthy conversation. It seemed in a few spots that she legit wanted to shut down the conversation
@@mcroot87 Yeah, she objected: why do I have to have the answer? But the question was a way of asking, what are the goals we should value, in terms of which your criticism can be legitimated (and seen to be something other than groundless carping)? To the extent that she indicated an answer (around 17:00), it was "freedom in its maximum capacity," which of course Foucault would have had nothing to do with.
It's fair to demonize postmodernism, because while the method/lens/perspective may have its own valid uses, the way in which it is used is divisive and outright terroristic, in concert with other theories or ideas. While it should be fairly critisized, we all know that this is an emotionally laden subject that is causing harm and making our world worse by the day. We can't afford or hope to inform people on the nuances of it all before it's too late.
Foucault wanted to question power for his own gain. Because HE wanted power. James Lindsey is doing so from a skeptical point of view, just trying to make sense of prevailing philosophies of the day. This doesn't make him a post modernist. Like, James believes in truth whereas for post modernists there is no truth. Huge difference
“If you are going to pick up the ring of power, you better have a plan to cast it into mount doom.” - Curtis Yarvin Responsibility without accountability does not require competency. That would be Yarvins power for the sake of power. That is Voldemort until he was held accountable by a greater force. A force who never wanted the power.
This conversation, among so many others, and Ms. Brunskell-Evans constant evasions, convinces me that this line of thought isn't going anywhere. Is it time yet to just give it up and move on to more productive projects?
It is just a dogma. It is a very complicated one. Postmodernists will do their genealogies (which are usually bad, misleading histories) and deconstructions (of gender binaries but not the oppressed/oppressor binary) and their assertion that everything is subjective and biased (hoping you won't apply this to themselves) but it is just a clever card trick at best.
You're right. That would be sensible. But if this line of thought is the scaffold for your whole intellectual career, it's really going to be tough to see clearly how non-performing it is.
@@philipmoss4027 I am not concerned with converting the woke-progressive-socialist true believers. I reckon they won't reconsider their beliefs because we offer them a truer alternative. I am concerned that the non woke-progressive-socialists are wasting their time and talents wrestling with the Postmodernists again and again, generation after generation. As with pig wrestling, per GBS, you only get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. Why can't we starve them of their easy unearned livelihoods? They can't or won't support themselves. They depend on misguided philanthropists, unguided academies, coopted unions, and government programs for their daily bread. The productive class underwrites the unproductive. We should replace the woke-progressive-socialist board members controlling these institutions and put them and their allies in the unemployment line.
She struggles to make his "good points" sound like anything more than common sense. There is nothing postmodernists taught that George Orwell didn't know and teach against better.
Lindsay does pretty deep dive in a four part series on Foucault's repressive tolerance where he mentions where you could now use it to dismantle the current hegemony... He's also reliably stated its "applied" post modernism/critical theory, not 100 proof straight from the bottle Foucault. I think Heather and James would get along fine.
Wasn’t that four part series on Repressive Tolerance about Herbert Marcuse rather than Foucault though? It was Marcuse who wrote the essay ‘Repressive Tolerance’ in 1965 and Lindsay did a four part series on it.
@@rockonallnight That'd be good- I think the new one coming down the pike is 4 hours of Hegel - That's four straight hours... Lindsay is the energizer bunny these days. I'm not complaining mind you. I listen to all of it. Lol
Man, Foucault's philosophy has really jacked up her mind. I would love to see James Lindsey absolutely dismantled her foucauldian ideology in a debate.
Heather’s got it right! yes, I’m unironically saying that in regards to Foucault. Wokoharam proper has an extra-special reading of Foucault and perhaps anyone one else they’re culturally appropriating. Michele Foucault would be at loggerheads with Wokoharam for obviously obvious reasons, given the ubiquitous power disparity of so many international corporationey corporations backing these hyper-charged brats, the dystopian prison tower analogy wouldn’t even begin to illustrate what’s wrong with internalising several prison towers coming out of every orifice and being utterly disenfranchised; once the Twattle mobs are activated
41:10 the discussion about why women are compelled to defend men assuming control over women's identity. J B Peterson seems to have provided an excellent answer in his pre illness videos. Women tend higher in trait Agreeableness than men. Evolutionarily it's to the species' advantage that female mammals put up with a lot, are more tolerant and accepting of imposts on their person ( accept less power more readily?). Males being more useful for risky roles (because in terms of evolution they can impregnate many more women than women can rear children) tend to be less risk averse and therefore lower in trait Agreeableness. This is what a lot of people assume to be patriarcal power and oppression. What is missed is the ultimate control of men by women over time. If a man wants offspring, wants a dynasty, a reason for working beyond amassing power and control. If he wants friends and lovers to share his inner world, his plans and his dreams with, then he'd better learn to behave himself around women.
I think that's what Benjamin was trying to reference when he brought up replacing patriarchy as a term because it has positive and negative elements; I also think Peterson's reciprocal ethic of stable hierarchies applies equally as well here, too. Leaders don't lead through use of force: such a system would crumble under corruption.
Interesting. The responses should be as well. But I do recall Lindsay already saying that he isn't criticizing any of these individuals like Foucault in total, but noting that they are the sources named for the bad ideas floating around today.
It’s so tiring how she takes EVERYTHING so personal! 🤦♀️ Especially critiques against Buttofuco over there… 😜 She dances around so much, avoiding so damn hard to make a definitive assertion one way or another… She’s so smart and knowledgeable yet so blinded by her love for the guy and post-modernism as a whole… That love blinds her to some pretty pesky truths that hurt her personally (hence her obsession with Lindsay & Pluckrose critiques)… She’s boomer gen personified… Kinda like my mom, God bless them both… They’re amazing women but oh so blind to their own faults… It breaks their brains when facing the mirror… 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
Really enjoyed this conversation. She speaks like a true scholar so refreshingly aware that there need not always be clear and definitive answers in philosophy. One thing I am not sure about is her conviction that Pluckrose & Lindsay blame "Frenchmen" in current madness(es). Instead they usually emphasize that they only talk about applied postmodernism. (Hoping you can crack through my poor English grammar.)
This was awesome! This lady has brought the real revolution to your channel. What we are witnessing is the death rattles of modernism and the rise of postmodernism. The goal should be to figure out how to reconcile the two. We can never go back.
The sentiment expressed in "modernism" was at heart simply a recognition the manifest shift away from reliance on age old ideological constructs, to maintain societal function. Empiricism had come into its own, and people perceived the advantages it affords over the old dogmas. The post-modernists are basically intelligent narcissists who are not being sufficiently recognized and rewarded in the new order, if modernism can be framed as post-ideological then what is the meaning of post-post-ideological? The irony of post-modernism is that it is little more than a crypto-reactionary sophist movement, desperately feeding off their recognition (which doesn't require genius) of an unremarkable (predictable) level of hubris in the scientific practices and culture. "You aren't perfect therefore you may be invalidated... by me." How do we then achieve a resolution between an organic paradigm shift that has demonstrated unprecedented utility, providence and philosophical integrity... and a jealous backlash that has demonstrated remarkable dishonesty and _dis-ingenuity?_ How can that "resolve" as anything other than regression.
@Raft Lawdog Thanks, at least someone got something from it. An honest rant moment, I should also thank OP for the inspiration, the "we can never go back" line is what focused a bunch of things scattered around my mind. Post-modernism is _obsessively backwards looking,_ it exists to deconstruct everything built while presenting absolutely nothing new. The very label is a Freudian slip, like "we're what comes after progress, yeah!" It broadcasts both cynicism and insecurity, loud and clear.
You’re right to say the thing you are saying. I’m not sure I believe Modernism is equal to progress though. None the less, there is a war going on and at this rate modernism will loose unless value can be found in postmodernism and applied to something that makes more sense. This is why hallucinogenics are making a comeback. This is why JBP got big. This is why “socialism” is getting big. This is why churches are changing their opinions. This is why modernists are now considered conservative. Not making a value judgement. Just an observation.
The hyperrealism discussion is interesting surely, but saying these terms become "more real than real" is just more post-modern, semantic wordplay. No, the Strawberry(tm) Jolly Rancher Slurpee is not "more real" than the real strawberry. The real strawberry is the real strawberry and the slurpee is the strawberry flavored slurpee. Its just an interesting thought experiment regarding the way people adapt and progress. This is the heart of post-modernism. They believe there is no objectively true "strawberry" and therefore the slurpee is as much a strawberry as the strawberry even though we need to use the damn descriptions to differentiate inherently. I hate this stuff with a passion. Its developed by articulate, pretentious hippies with serious moral defects and a bone to pick with everything decent in the world. They think "w-w-why cant *I* be the "good guy" or famous or rich and powerful? Everythings subjective anyway! I've got just as much right as Henry Ford or Tesla!" But they wouldnt recognize by their own logic, theyd also have to share worth with Richard Spencer or a toilet.
I think the real strawberry is better than the artificial one because our bodies are adapted to digest the nutrients to be healthy. But now you don’t crave the strawberry, you crave the fake strawberry flavour that has no nutritional value but you want pleasure from the taste, like watching a porno alone instead of talking to a real person
@@steveb9713 Using health as a criterion might work for the strawberry - the artificial strawberry is definitely unhealthy, but (going back to Wokal's full list), is the wild strawberry really more healthy than the cultivated one? However, I'm not sure it works for porn. Going to a prostitute is demonstrably less physically healthy (if nothing else, because of the risk of STDs) than watching porn, so we have to introduce mental health into the equation. This means setting up a standard of a "healthy mind", which is much less obvious, and very socially conditioned, than the standard of a healthy body. (And, of course, what constitutes a healthy body is not entirely objective). We then come to examples with no obvious health implication. Is looking at a photo of a sunset less healthy than looking at the real thing? It's still a step towards the hyperreal, so, if we're condemning hyperreality, we need to find a common standard to condemn both the artificial strawberry and the photo. Health doesn't seem to work.
@@Tevildo i'm not saying one is inherently better than the other. "Better" can be applied to one or the other in different circumstances on a case by case basis. The whole argument is semantics and when you reject their foundation, it collapses.
@@za5820 I think I see your point. If we start with "Natural" = "Real" = "Good", we're led to two incorrect conclusions: either we can objectively assess the "goodness" of something by determining if it's natural, or we can say "Because 'real' is effectively meaningless, 'good' is effectively meaningless." The problem is in the original premiss, not the conclusions.
Looking at the Amazon's back cover I'd give it a miss. If France is to remain France does it require non-symbolic French masculine violence before returning to being non-violent and invisible?
Tosh. He was a gifted intellect who twisted things round to make "bourgeois society" liable for all the world's shortcomings and strenuously avoided the massive gaps of consistency and empirical research that existed in his work. He seemed to have no other motivating ideals: an evil eye for all institutions and a resolute refusal to produce any criteria by which his own criticisms could be judged.
She did not define the term "power" enough. If power refers to nearly everything, then the term is to vague to use. Jordan Peterson would say (I think) "What exactly do you mean?"
@@guusvandermeulen7210 first thing the patriarchy is indistinguishable from man. Everything that men is= patriarchy. There is no distinction they may say there's a distinction, but ultimately there isn't. Also, if you take the word patriarchy and you replace it with transphobia you get trans ideology. radical feminist deconstructionism which is what came out of Foucault. Looks great on paper, but in practice, it's a nightmare
At 31:00, she's saying power "couldn't work" if people didn't get some pleasure from it. It'd like to remind Brunskell-Evans, that human beings are ANIMALS, and power structures exist in things as distantly related as sharks. There's a saying: "evolution is smarter than you or me". This is my main gripe with people like Foucault: they talk about power, but they don't talk about human nature. Your typical Foucault-friendly university faculty is terrified of the latter. And so you end up with smart sounding nonsense about people and society. For the record: power works because those who participate in hierarchy are more likely to have grand children, whether they have fur and walk on four legs, or if they're a relatively hairless ape. If we fail to draw attention to the functional aspects of power, then we may devolve into the politics on envy -- a base response straight from the "six million year old self". And there sure is a helluva lot of that at universities.
Sheesh, what a jumble of twisting, turning, non-answers and mental gymnastics. As far as I'm concerned, she's a wonderfully ironic example of how postmodernist thought seems to affect a person's thought processes. The moment she lost me completely when she claimed transgender promotion descends from liberal democratic thought and "men's rights".
Had Boyce insisted a little more persistently on her being more precise in her claims and definitions she would have turned into an angry old rabid feminist without control. Woof woof
She claimed "inclusion" comes from liberal democratic thought. I argued above that liberal inclusion and DEI Inclusion have vastly different meanings and actions. The latter contains hostile exclusion and even violent exclusion. Kelly (the anti-Trans "TERF" lady) doesn't associate Trans with the "MRA" form of Men's Rights movement, but I think Heather said it's a lot about weird blokes invading female-only spaces, and claiming the "right" to do so and have their perversions embraced as normal. (Shades of Loretta from Life of Brian.) I can't wait to argue with a Trans Activist that, by their rules, Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or Donald Trump -- should he ever be convicted of the sex crimes for which they accuse him -- or a younger and stronger rapist --- could simply claim to have suddenly discovered they are Trans Women and be granted full access to Womens' Prison and other Womens' spaces. THAT is I think the sense in which she's associating Trans with Male abuse of power and "rights" to creep on women thru this bizarre ideology. Jonathan Yaniv's own Facebook page had him identifying as a man, with photos of himself with a full beard, while harassing women who objected to his claims of "rights" as a woman.
David: thanks! I listened to her and thought this is so much gobbly-gook and makes zero sense. In my attempt to understand her, I was only able to come up with the explanation that her rambling nonsense is the ultimate statement of what defines postmodernism: the justification for not thinking in order to destroy reason as the foundation of Western thought.
@@rensha8635 Old-feminist, not old-woman. Get it now? Now since you ask what else I want to say about her....well, she's not very bright. I know she thinks she is of curse, but...there is reality out there...Are you happy now?
The power/patriarchy part of the conversation felt a little derailing. It seemed like heather wanted to move on and get away from that imo. But it didnt take anything away from this episode ofc, because she was such an awesome guest. I hope to hear more from her in the future! Cheers! Another great interview BB!
Another very interesting conversation. Thanks Benjamin I think that the adoption of a new term to avoid the "patriarchy" trap that Heather fell into; that word has been corrupted for the malicious purposes. Therefore I suggest adopting either *_"tachriarchy"_** or **_"takeriarchy"_** tātrēˌärkē/ /ˈteɪtriˌɑrki* to describe the system where trans-women and Trans Activists are the holders of power having positioned them at the top of the current social hierarchy or, taken it from "the patriarchy", if you will.
I see a lot of praise for this interview. I see a person who has spent their entire life deconstructing the powers she saw oppressing her generation to now having those same techniques turned against the work she did in her youth. The Emperor is dead, and now the power games for the crown are in the motion. Her side of the board has been out-maneuvered, and she now finds herself in the oppressor class- straight, white, western, wealthy (compared to most who would challenge her positions), and educated. She is using the arrows of the past to fight the barbarians that lived in the hills while being challenged by a UAV piloted by those she taught, who moved into the apartment upstairs.
Saying men becoming women and entering women’s spaces is patriarchal doesn’t sound right to me, I think it’s more men co-opting postmodern feminism by becoming women
It seemed to me that Heather went into this calmversation with the idea that it was a powerstruggle and either she or Benjamin had to come out on top, so she wiggled around like a snake shedding skin every time Benjamin asked her to define a term and anchor the discussion in something that could act as the foundation that they then could build on. She refused to be "pinned down". It was a weird but very interesting conversation to observe. She seemed to have a very "toxicly feminine" way of speaking. Lots of vague hints and abstract words that are filled with emotion and suggestion. Very confusing and disturbing because as soon as you ask for clarity your portraid as the abuser (ofcourse in the same subtle and suggestive way). Men transitioning to "women" is to me the complete OPPOSITE of patriarchy, it's the next step/wave of liberal feminism... It's gender ideology eating its own tail. Our culture is Matriarchal and psychopathic men see that if they transition they will come out on top in the oppression hierarchy. They're using feminism for themselves. That's the game of the Matrix. The most interesting thing is that these postmodern thinkers do hold the keys to exiting the Matrix, to reach enlightenment, but only if you use their tools to deconstruct your self and your own identity. Liberation is an inside job. 🌞
It did seem we were witnessing some sort of dynamic being enacted in the conversation. I didn't necessarily think patriarchy was the issue/driving force in trans activism though it seems the group whose rights are getting most encroached upon are biological women's.
Men like Carl Benjamin and Stefan Molyneax are very aware of the power matriarchy holds over men. They also see this as a counterpoint to the patriarchy in a balanced deal for mutual advantage.
At 16:00, it seems like Brunskell-Evans missed the main thesis of "Cynical Theories". Pluckrose & Lindsey are going after what they call *applied* postmodernism, which is downstream from Foucault. Pluckroses & Lindsey's main complaint about the /actual/ postmodernists, such as Foucault, was that they weren't saying anything particularly original -- and that it was all said more clearly before. Pluckrose & Lindsey never say that Foucault was being cynical, or merely cynical.
The problem with Foucault and other thinkers is not their philosophy. Sigmund Freud pointed out that it doesn't matter how carefully you construct your philosophy human nature and its innate tendencies to dominate and control is always underestimated. a better idea is to put in checks and balances to make sure one group doesn't dominate the other.
There certainly are things you can criticize about liberal democracy, (there are things you can criticize about any system), but to say that it proposes that power will no longer be operative under it is, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "not even wrong."
The bit on patriarchy they were bogged down in. Seems to me it’s the ideologies related to Critical Theory and bits of PoMo imported in that is behind this, rather than some definition of patriarchy. This was on my mind while listening there. Not finished listening yet though.
31:01 power is just synonymous with agency, the ability to act in the world, so I don't know what the hells hes going on about here. 33:25 she clearly doesn't know how to answer the question because she hasn't thought about it that deeply before. My impression
Regarding your first point, Nietzsche understood the will to power as, first and foremost, the power over oneself. We exercise power over ourselves first and foremost so we can then actualize that agency as manifest behaviors in the world. Astute point you make
@@mcroot87 whats more, its important to understand this fundamental origin of power, because its also how people amass large amounts of power, with the collective will of the people. Beyond that, that power is an illusion.
@@nickmagrick7702 I think that's an important nuance in our working definition of power: it is manifest in action. Without action, power is simply a concept, not manifest, and therefore not arguably "real" in the metaphysical sense
It's all about control, imposed and won at the legislation level. At that level the arguments are decided. All philosophies are to remain private. To disagree with the legalties is deemed an assault on the person. The law means you must also promote it.
God bless you, Benjamin for trying here: feels a bit like you are trying to nail Jello to a wall. I've still not heard a concrete def of Power...which is typical of post-mod's frustrating, shape-shifting nature. That said, there are some REALLY interesting roots of thoughts here. I would love to see you do a panel with Pluckrose and this guest. Anyway...wonderful work, as always. Big fan!
"You see it's not the post modernist thinkers at fault who have actually propagated these ideas. These were actually wonderful people. It's the entirety of the male population who is at fault...excluding of course my favorite thinkers who just happen to be male." Yeah right... You're getting tiresome very quickly. "I can prove patriarchy is real because when I talk, nobody likes me. Including women, but that's because they've been taken over by patriarchy themselves, because patriarchy isn't really the power of men, it's everything that's bad in the world in my view, it's what people would call Satan in the olden times". I'm so done with this kind of opinion already. It's not original, it's not clever and it's not helpful to anyone. Just bitter people circling around a point, making it more complicated to confuse you (probably because they are confused themselves) evading simple questions and turning everything to suit their point of view. Still gonna watch the rest because exposure to opposite ideas or whatever XD
Preach. No one who claims to be defending or legitimizing postmodernism is ever impressive. They are all perpetually out of touch, careerist r-tards. Literally anyone with an anti-SJW UA-cam channel understands power relations better than this woman.
Men are also impacted as parents of children who are deemed by the outside world to desire transition. I think she's basically correct though about women bearing the brunt here. I also think she's confused and not ready to be public with her ideas. Also, she's not confident enough in them and lets Benjamin lead her around too much.
When I was at university 25 years ago, I did a study of Power as it appears in both Foucault and Frankfurt School theorists. From what I recall the latter broadly thought knowledge is power whereas Foucault talks of power-knowledge as being in some form of mutually reinforcing relationship. I believe I concluded that Foucault’s concept of power is not very coherent and most significantly, rendered things like being able to articulate when the exercise of power was morally justifiable or unjustifiable impossible. Nevertheless, the narrative force of many of his explications of how power manifests are compelling and useful. I think BB was maybe following Lindsey’s approach and looking at writers like Foucault in the wrong way. He wants to identify a clear causal argument that is falsifiable and can be disputed, much as one might prove or disprove a claim in experimental science. But just as one wouldn’t analyse a text by Shakespeare or say, Johnathan Swift, to find a definitive theory of power, even though power is a concept that is problematised and also operates in their work. But if you did do this and were disappointed that you couldn’t pin “power” down, but could only speak of the various ways it operates through the characters and narrative, you might still find the texts had something important to say about power (amongst other things). As Heather says, it is possible to both critique something, and also find value in it. In fact I would say it is critical for the future of liberal democracy to be able hold a pluralistic perspective as the alternative is totalitarianism.
I might suggest that an analysis of 'the human condition' is in order. That notion always comes with the burden of self-reflection aka 'man, know thyself'. The endeavor inevitably leads to a realization of intimate connectivity to individuals and by reflex all humanity in general. We all share this path, mostly unrealized by the general populace and it's resultant insights blurred by egocentric notions reflected in Lao-Tsu's admonition that ours is to animate and not to approprfiate. Meaningful discussion, thanks...
Isn't dressing up as women, assuming women's identity, a particularly gay man thing? Is the offending patriarchy in this case a particularly gay patriarchy? As a straight male I don't see how any of this relates to me, not that I think it needs to. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a foreign sporting event where I don't know the rules, the players, or the goal. I certainly can't tell who is winning.
I think Benjamin is right about the postmodern nature of today's "inclusivity." She says, 36:30 - 36:42, "it's got nothing to do with postmodernism," it's an ideal of liberal democracy. But that misses the important distinction. The ideal of liberal democracy is "non-exclusion." That goes with an indifference to whether "enough" straight men are participating in musical theater or whether "enough" black Americans work at Google: just so long as there is no policy to exclude them or barrier erected in order to exclude them. The anti-liberal version of this, championed by Social Justice types, goes beyond the negative program of removing barriers and adopts a PRO-ACTIVE program of seeking to "include" ( or, at least, to kick up a fuss in particular cases). They are not indifferent to outcomes but seek to interfere where there isn't "enough" of one description of person or another. Postmodernism--which in general has nothing to do with any of this--assists the passage of liberal minds into the illiberal program by just the move Benjamin remarks: it attacks conceptual boundaries. It takes umbrage at the line between any opposed terms. Eg. To enforce the boundary of "women," to exclude non-females, is invidious; it is not a real distinction in nature but the deployment of power. We must destabilize the binary and expose the instability of the distinction! Etc. Without that intellectual prep work, we would have resisted many more of the arguments used, eg, to foist the trans agenda on us at the expense of women's rights. This woman is so intoxicated by her postmodern commitments that she simply overlooks this.
Power is ENERGY. The invisible something that the enlightenment denied existed at all; now it's coming back to bite like an angry dog. It is also known as emotion.
And the vicious animals who most indulged that emotion, will also howl the loudest, as they hunt the scapegoats. The same _autists_ who take the blame for everything inconvenient, must also take the blame for failing to maintain their conveniences, as the comfortable world they take for granted begins to vanish. Ain't it grand!
My question may be a diversion from the premise this conversation was made on? That said, I struggled with it in that the concept of power was not, for me adequately identified in this discussion, so I was not able to get onboard properly. I have some dim idea of personal power and social power and the the variants these come in, as part of this, but they don't seem to be on the table here. I may be missing them?
I think Heather's vocabulary is swilling about in the soup of Woke definitions. She uses the term gender as though it shares the same meaning as sex. Uses sexism as though it is the same as patriarchy.
Heather comes from the school of thought that everything's socially constructed around power. Even Norm Chomsky couldn't understand what Foucault was saying there is a famous debate between him and Foucault.
@@James-ip1tc I caught the "social construction" view very clearly (eg. gender), but then she was pretty dogmatic when it came to "patriarchy." No reflective distance from her own most prized terminology!
I'm fairly left or liberal in my thinking, I work in software testing where lateral thinking, contrary thinking and deconstruction and arbitration are useful ways to examine things and be creative in approaches to how I test something. I value left thinking.
So my olive branch to Heather is that I think she's right to suggest that the people who have made these observations or tools, (given that they try not to come up with the solutions), generally deserve recognition. And again she's right and seems to be in agreement with you Ben is that the following interpretation of these tools can lead to corruption, or bad thinking etc which have led us to critical theories etc
But I still think it hinges on one core value that I disagree with. The Marxist perspective of flattening the meaning of existence onto one axis, power (in his case economic power).
The moment you realise that not everything has to occur with power, that power or money cannot explain a ton of human motivation (art, charity, teaching, aid), is when you realise that these arguments are compromised.
The argument that patriarchy exists because men compete to get to the top of a dominant hierarchy, its not untrue, but its not the complete picture. There are many hierarchies which exist intertwined in our society, there is a prestige hierarchy in classes which both men and women compete, and a communication/information hierarchy which exists in many female circles.
We have placed the value of existence onto something like money, which means that we now only value the hierarchy which deals with money, which means we now disregard other hierarchy's in our complex culture as invalid.
Reject Marxist simplification and we can get past this limited way of thinking.
Also gamergate was an earlier mainstream instance of cancel culture which predated her experiences by a year or two, but that shouldn't detract from her being on the front line of the gender war.
It's a bete noir of mine. Can you read some liberal philosopher (John Locke?l. Liberalism is NOT left wing.
Classical English Liberalism would not advocate for state education, it's not Conservative, but it's definitely not Socialist.
Here in Australia the Liberal party are in coalition with the Nationalists. The popular view is this equates with being right wing. BUT when you look into it in depth, Nationalism can claim Socialist ideals and liberalism can align with libertarianism.
"The moment you realise that not everything has to occur with power, that power or money cannot explain a ton of human motivation (art, charity, teaching, aid), is when you realise that these arguments are compromised."
This would cause a good person to stop using these arguments. Heather keeps using them, though, because careerism.
Good comment!
@@shinyhunterlens I've watched her other videos with Graham Linehan, I'm not under the impression she's anything but passionate about what she does. I don't think she carries any careerist cynicism. A Robin DiAngelo cynical careerist would know its easier not to have these conversations for example.
Your comment has so many valid points to it, I find it remarkable how even a software developer is even encroaching on the overturn window. I am a liberal and I do not think I could follow anymore of this crazy reductive theories.
I know it has ruined gaming.
When I was younger my Pops told me, "everyone is not equal. That is a lie." He added "but everyone should be treated as equal under the law.
When _I_ was a young boy _my_ father
TOOK ME INTO THE CITY
That sounds like toxic masculinity. :)
@@DarrellVermilion MCR. I can not deny the first three albums.
Your pops is too sensible for even facebook
I love Heather! She's a brilliant adult human female. Wouldn't it be peachy if Chase Strangio listened to this very enlightening calmversation.
Isn't Chase Strangio the worst nom de gender ever? What a horrible name. 😂
@@tysparks598 I believe that name is Italian
Thank you Benjamin, for introducing so many interesting and informative guests. I am learning so much.
Feminist academic in an apologetic discussion of Foucault makes no mention of any influence of academic feminism in the present state of Postmodernism and trans activism. She is eager to use patriarchy theory (well, her personal definition of patriarchy) to explain the intractability of the situation without ever allowing feminism to enter the discussion. One definition power is what nobody is allowed to criticize. Her ultimate solution is just more security for her and her cohort: "we need to have an open discussion about it so this is the beginning ..." i.e. this nonsense is never going to be called out and put aside as long as feminist academics are dominating the debate. You added the most helpful input in this discussion, Mr Boyce.
Such an entertaining and complex discussion! She is one of my favorites. I find her to be brilliant and fearless. Thank you for having Heather B-E on!
I think feminist should take responsibility for their own actions in the last couple of decades, instead of making up more theories how patriarchy did it.
Wow this is a fascinating talk. Thank you for this guest!
51:27 I'm glad Benjamin flustered her into defining it, because it helped re-contextualize all the things she's been saying--it would have been very useful at the outset or the first time the term was used, because I felt she was using the term very differently from how we generally conceptualize it, as it seems to preclude the concept of willful participation in _our_ idea of patriarchy (think: the women who were anti-suffrage, or maybe even pro-trad women). It seems like she's using the term in a very absolute fashion, i.e anything that contravenes on femininity is necessarily patriarchal, and vice-versa (which was very confusing to me up until this point).
Glad I stuck it out, she's got great insights and it helped me understand the Foucault-ian approach to this quagmire in which we find ourselves.
From what I could gather (maybe I am misunderstanding), her ideological perspective begins from a place of enemy/oppressor vs victim/ally mentality. All those definitions reflect that perspective. Those are not passive definitions. She is using it knowingly for a purpose. Some could call it deception, but I don't know much about her. It could also be she lives and breathes those theories with people with the same purpose. Maybe that is why she doesn't try and explicitly define it.
I think the best point she made is that the term ‘patriarchy’ is not really fit for purpose but it’s the one we are left with after a hundred odd years of applying it.
The opposite of patriarchal isn’t feminine, it’s matriarchal. This points to the confusion somewhat I feel. Aren’t we talking about “opposed” personality traits, historically divided along genital lines, as if that delimitation is factual. In fact all humans are a melange of opposing personality traits to varying degrees & this is why all humans participate in their own ways in what we’re calling patriarchy.
The worst part of this is what Heather pointed to in the form of the demonising of individuals based upon the shitty historical sorting categories.
You might be right about what Heather means by "patriarchy." I was constantly frustrated because she never defined it AFAICT. She did complain about people complaining about the use of the word.
Power, as sun tzu said, is the capacity to get others to do things against their own best interests.
But there has to be a being holding the power, so it is not so much power as oppression (of one by another).
The power of the wind is only oppressive to those who can't use it (sailing) or who can't resist it (cyclone shelters). Yet the power it contains is the same, irrespective of who it is acting against.
Power is the wrong word, oppression is more fitting?
The wind has power, but it has lost its ability to do with us what is against our will.
@@andyjarman4958 I think the story of the concubines in the art of war, shows the different types of power and how it is weilded to make others bend to your will. How to collect and direct humans for an expressed goal. The entrenched power with money and family. The soft power of deception and ignorance. The hard power of death and control. How the rock, paper scissors like game always plays out with hard power controlling it's lesser forms by one simple means. Line everyone up and give a command. When the collective fails to act this command, select from amongst the ranks and publicly execute them as an example to the others. It may not always be so drastic. See: Dr.Seuss. But those who laugh and giggle when they should follow your command gets removed. People don't want to be removed from the group, for that could lead to death. Learning how to hit the right switches of primal fear, and a desire to belong to a group to get people to turn over agency in favor of your power. It is not the wind, it is the weight of billions of years of evolution mirrored across all social animals.
That sounds like the modern Democrat party.
Power of this type of takes ruthlessness, doesn’t it… I can’t stomach Being that way.
@@j_freed I see it as a power we all have, essential to the model making mechanisms in social creatures. When you need the kids to quiet down so as not to reveal the location of the group to a threat, the boon gained from staying quiet out weights getting eaten by preditors. But that evolutionary mechanism in the lack of an actual predator, turns it into the "us and them" tribal mentality. Where we're fighting the ghosts of predators reborn in the ways we fight each other.
The title should have been Truecault versus Fauxcault.
Is this a dagger which I see before me? No, it's Truffaut the Wonder Dog!
(Sorry, a feedline is a feedline). :)
Fauxcault, yo... Yoko Ono... Hi-ho the derrio.
Get the Foucault.
Wasn't convinced on the pushback on the cynical nature of many of the postmodern theories and I disagree with her on quite a lot. Gives me the sense of a fair bit of motivated reasoning, but I'm glad for all the conversations you have and their value, this one included.
Motivated reasoning indeed. Michel Foucault argued that, as long as they are able able to give consent, children could have sexual relations with adults. French-American professor Guy Sorman accused Foucault of being a "pedophile rapist” in an interview with The Sunday Times. Sorman, a friend of Foucault, said that the philosopher sexually abused Arab children while living in Tunisia in the late 1960s. This is also the "True Foucault."
Not sure if I'll be able to finish this one, less than half way in and it's looking like just another feminist with massive confirmation biases, who is looking for ways to imply someone else's confirmation bias.
/"floods of comment"
@@cosmoscoronado8862 In case you didn't finish it, you should know that your judgement was entirely correct and accurate. She is a weasel.
@@cosmoscoronado8862 I'm not so sure. I didn't detect hostile feminism. Maybe my spidey senses are less well developed.
Sorry for the long spew here. I hope someone finds it useful, if not you.
I heard the argument that Foucault (setting aside his scandalous shortcomings, focusing only on his intellect) recognized or argued that varying facets of power mediate our lives and also tell us what is true -- especially socially -- and what isn't, as well as right and wrong. NOT including biology and other areas of empirical scientific hypotheses.
Heather was seemingly pointing to Foucault's tools as a means to deconstruct all the various Critical Theory, especially Queer Theory and Trans Rights. This would INCLUDE pedophilia which is -- among other things -- a ridiculously dangerous power imbalance.
*I disagree with Heather that "inclusion" in DEI and Critical Theory is from Liberalism* . Yes, Liberalism opens the door in a small "i" inclusive manner. Everyone is welcome to talk and make their arguments, at least until they get banished by serious people for excess stupidity.
The DEI meaning of "Inclusion" stands on a radically different foundational meaning. "Inclusion" in DEI stands firmly and self-righteously on the necessity to *silence* and forcibly *exclude* any ideas and any individuals who could possibly "make" any hypothetical person --- one who has been assigned an identity group of "Oppressed" -- *FEEL* "emotionally excluded" or *FEEL* emotionally "unsafe" in any way. She's a 'Tard that she doesn't see that. (Get my funny joke?)
Seriously, this idea of a "safe space" to share your deepest personal feelings is connected to *Psych Therapy* , so the counselor you hire doesn't shame you for weaknesses, or only gently shames you, and arises from certain 12-Step alternative groups that are all about "listening" non-judgmentally. That's is a specific purpose for a "safe space", for a project of working on one's emotional healing of past traumas, real or imaginary, to bare one's soul to the Light of Truth. Work and school and public discourses is NOT a therapeutic Safe Space. We cannot put enough soft padding on ALL of society to take it down to the level of persons who may be the most emotionally and psychologically damaged and crippled.
It is also not healthy for resilient humans to PRETEND they exist on a spectrum of severely emotionally crippled at all times, instead of strengthening emotional and social resilience. There's space enough for both tracks in one's life, normalcy and time set aside for healing work. Likewise, the tender vulnerable conversations you may have with a sweetheart aren't the same conversations you have at the cafe and classroom or your desk at work.
Not to forget that the "Safe Space Police" practice extreme forms of "justified" attacks of social shaming and punishments that are often extended to additional real life punishments, like destroying a person's career for stating "their truth", even when supported by extensive footnotes.
"Inclusion" in the DEI sense requires harshly Critical Critics, both self-appointed random mobs, and highly-paid administrators of "safe" discourses, to watch conversations and silences, and to take reports, looking for ideas and conversations to "problematize" and accuse and silence and de-platform and exclude. We know from James Lindsay, that's what Marcuse was all about, pre-silencing conservatives and their ideas as "proto-Nazi" while defending reactive or pre-active Leftist physical and psychological violence.
@dilbertgeg
That's a very good take, nothing for me to disagree on. However I was honestly in the mode to learn something more from an informed perspective, when "patriarchy" gets invoked a few times with unqualified conceit, and then the clincher... "It REALLY impacts women." (and no I can't be assed if that's not exactly verbatim) She stepped off the cliff with that one, not something one is allowed to simply walk back, not in the established context.
So I didn't even pass judgement on her motive as such - of course I may - but the type she manifestly represents, to quote an Alison Tieman term, the "women worst" worldview is obviously firmly fixed.
But it has settled some convictions personally, I don't believe it is reasonable to defend post-modernism in general, or most of its precedent thinkers as non-cynical. Critical Theory is basically just an openly biased dialectical, as you refer to "problematization" appropriately there, the only purpose it can serve is cynical by default, a prejudiced argumentation with a prescribed outcome of redacting all perception of function from a subject.
As such, a woman who employs this aspect of critical theory, has no credibility to suggest to me that one of her mentors is not cynical.
Well, I was naively hopeful this discussion might salvage some Foucault for me; it did not. A few of my thoughts, for whatever they are worth:
A) Someone please please correct me (a timestamp with the correction would be beautiful) but I did not hear a clear, or even clearly attempted, definition of "power" or "patriarchy." Without clear definitions, of which one can assert their opinion without asserting definitive authority, then how are we supposed to further the discourse surrounding such ideas? Talking around ill-defined terms and using anti-labeling rhetoric only serves those who know how to operate at those levels of abstraction (an ironic display of power dynamics). As such, one should not get frustrated when others keep pushing for clear attempts at defining terms within the discussion. Also, asking a question does not imply definitive authority to the answerer to have THE answer; discussion can happen with educated opinions.
B) Yes, people have been chaotic, self-aware, and engaged in problematization for most of our history. However, I do not see it as unfair or unreasonable to associate post-modernism with a wider dispersal of analytical tools with which to do so. Tools are neither benign nor malevolent. Similarly with Marx, he did not create revolutionary and collectivist zeal in humans; however, it would be inaccurate to not attribute the dispersal and (mis)application of his analytical tools as a furtherance of such beliefs and associated behaviors.
C) (and finally) Isn't critiquing without seeking to improve the very definition of problematization? Sure, all systems, thoughts, and people have flaws (by nature and definition), but simply drawing attention to fundamental flaws only instantiates desires in people to correct those flaws. If there is one thing humans are good at, it's responding to negativity bias and feeling the need to act in the face of negativity (thanks, evolution).
I should say, too, that I fundamentally agree with the majority of her analyses. I just take issue with a few of the particulars, as mentioned above.
I also did not hear a definition of either power or patriarchy. The closest Heather seemed to get was to say that because women are being harmed by transgender ideology, it must have been patriarchy.
@@JonathanRossRogers it almost sounds like she is using the term akin to how CRT uses "systemic racism," the whole system designed by and for a particular group and everyone else just has to deal
@@mcroot87 Indeed, it could be something like that. However, Heather also said that men and boys are being harmed by transgender ideology.
@@JonathanRossRogers in all fairness, identity groups are being harmed by CRT and intersectionality. Ideological frameworks tend to only help those who buy-in 100%, which is another criticism: rather than flattening any hierarchical pyramids embedded in any system, these reductionist ideologies only invert the pyramid
Heather, thankyou so much for giving of your time to discuss with Benjamin and sharing your self.
I do love your topics, Mr Boyce.
Thank you.
At its most basic power is the ability of a person to exert control or influence on their environment. There done. I find postmodernism and CRT share the aversion to being pinned down semantically in any way. It's almost as if they are related.
It as if they don't want to have a way to disprove their end conclusion. It is easier to manipulate people using loose definitions along the way. Any objection towards a statement can be met with "I know what you are saying. But I meant this way". Purposefully kept in the fog.
James Lyndsay says similar things about Post Modernism himself.
He proposes the term Critical Constructivism should be used to describe Wokeness.
He has no bone to pick with Post Modernism per se.
He has identified how the Cultural Marxism has been developed by Critical Theorists, and the Critical Theorist's ideas have been wedded with the Post Modernist perspective to create the Critical Constructivism that forms the Woke faith.
yea,
there’s something about no longer requiring holy writ as the ultimate authoritah
if that’s what Post Modern is talking about, it’s on point, whereas the whacky power-games predicated on using the abacus (think coloured beads & counting, accounting & debts) absolutely wrong, is a telling ploy most people already know is heading into hostile takeover territory.
just question your HR, you won’t believe what happens next!
@@N0die tell me about it. I'm off to HR's LGBTQI+ induction on Tuesday.
We have a new staff code of conduct document.
It obliges me to state if my employer's policies conflict with my beliefs.
I took an Oath at my citizenship ceremony to uphold liberal democratic values.
This is going to be interesting.
Around timestamp 27:00? re: women being impacted by transgender ideology - she is correct. Women were developing an identity and strength as emerging in the 1970s; post 1990s the lesbian feminist ideology seeped in; and in the 2010s transgenderism broke through and in essence, took over the true feminist movement to the extent that strong feminists were utterly shuttered for speaking against transgender ideology as it subsumed the feminist movement.
This, I believe, should be more thoroughly explored. Perhaps I should look up Paglia.
If you haven't yet, check out Boycie's interview with the LGB Fight Back peeps, they're really sick of the T for these reasons and having none of it
@@realexkav thank you. I think I watched some of that, too.
I wonder how much the recent trend in newer generations as girls attempting to escape the tough years of female puberty connects to this and the larger conversation. True, men identifying as women is pervasive in the adult spheres, and has repercussions, but the trend in the youth seems to be more and more girls identifying as boys, as written about and researched by Abigail Schrier
@@mcroot87 which begs the question: what has cultural equality meant for women and girls?
That they can functionally become men;
expectations to be, successful, financially independent, job, housing, etc. to have sex like a man, that is, with impunity and without the "burden" of pregnancy and childrearing.
The result:
girls intuitively know their bodies are designed to bear and nurture children, but societal norms dictate they render themselves free of their biological gender. It is the logical consequence of medical contraceptives, birth control, and abortion.
The bitter irony is that because her femininity is neutralized, she becomes more "masculine" and hypersexualized (sexually availability at all times means higher competition for mates), sex becomes an expectation. And boys are rewarded for being effeminate and punished for typical male characteristics such as aggression and competiveness.
Women have once again been placed second to " men" who identify as female.
Girls struggle the most as their rightful role has been hijacked.
Omg I'd love to hear a discussion between her, Wokal and James.
I doubt it would go well
I’ll add my vote for that interview. Actually I’d leave James out of it. I think seeing Heather & Wokal pull apart the philosophical underpinnings of all of this would be fascinating.
She'd get annihilated. She doesn't address anything they say and just falls back on 'the patriarchy done it' trope.
Well that's what I got out of the first third of the interview.
@@mumtrader I think wokal really gets it, I am sure they would disagree on a few things but it would be a civilized discussion...
@@tonypeck5507 yes I agree. It has the potential to be a civilised philosophical exploration (rather than political/ideological one focussed on winning) that can tease out some of the opacity in the underlying schools of thought, which is sadly lacking right now.
Why does she think only men transition? Not once did she mention women transitioning to men. This seems to be a personal crusade of sorts.
She did, she talked about the horrors of phalloplasty & about children in general
She argued that the effects are totally asymmetrical. It was the one thing I absolutely agreed with her on.
A little word salady. Heavy on the bitter greens. Needs more bacon.
Agreed, both because the metaphor is apt and the fact that bacon makes everything better.
People didn’t believe Bruce had become a woman, people believed he started wearing a dress and calling himself a woman.
The problem is that people who don't believe he is are being forced to act as though he is - and the goal is to make us believe that he is. O'Brien wasn't satisfied when Winston _said_ he was holding up five fingers - Winston had to _know_ he was holding up five.
joano. , you got that right ...
But he was awarded the title “woman of the year “
@@eveeve9758 Time Magazine also had Adolf Hitler as their Man of the Year. It just means that they have had a significant impact on culture.
Thanks Heather and thanks Ben. Tough one for me, had to do it twice.
"It's not Foucault's fault!" Yes, that's right. It's not. It is Freud's fault - explaining everything that is wrong as being caused by "trauma," and if only we could find the trauma, the problems would disappear. So we focus only on trauma, only look for the bad, and use every thought model there is in the never ending quest for wrongness. This causes personal stress, societal stress; precludes clear thinking and reason; and drives people crazy.
Ok, so, if there is ANY part of feminism that the men's right's movement is largely on board with, it would be regard for women's only spaces, I think. Transgender activism is not at all a big thing in the MRM, that I am aware of.
The way she is speaking is standard for gender critical feminists. It is pretty foolish. Its also primarily women who populate the ideology they are opposing, they seem to have trouble coming to terms with this.
I like that this basically ends with a Churchill quip - democracy is the worst system of governance, except for every other form of governance (paraphrasing)
It bothered me, though, that she argued against problematizing as a product of post-modernism, then argued that she was problematizing by definition. It was totally reasonable for Benjamin to ask for an opinion about how to fix the identified problems with capitalism and western democracies, and I think it was fairly unreasonable for Heather to dodge the question. No one asked for THE answer, just for her to opine on the subject, as that's what people do in healthy conversation. It seemed in a few spots that she legit wanted to shut down the conversation
@@mcroot87 Yeah, she objected: why do I have to have the answer? But the question was a way of asking, what are the goals we should value, in terms of which your criticism can be legitimated (and seen to be something other than groundless carping)?
To the extent that she indicated an answer (around 17:00), it was "freedom in its maximum capacity," which of course Foucault would have had nothing to do with.
It's fair to demonize postmodernism, because while the method/lens/perspective may have its own valid uses, the way in which it is used is divisive and outright terroristic, in concert with other theories or ideas. While it should be fairly critisized, we all know that this is an emotionally laden subject that is causing harm and making our world worse by the day. We can't afford or hope to inform people on the nuances of it all before it's too late.
Foucault is a prime example of someone justifying their pathology
Very interesting discussion. Thank you.
Foucault wanted to question power for his own gain. Because HE wanted power. James Lindsey is doing so from a skeptical point of view, just trying to make sense of prevailing philosophies of the day. This doesn't make him a post modernist. Like, James believes in truth whereas for post modernists there is no truth. Huge difference
“There is no good and evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it.”
Looks like Voldemort got it right.
“If you are going to pick up the ring of power, you better have a plan to cast it into mount doom.” -
Curtis Yarvin
Responsibility without accountability does not require competency. That would be Yarvins power for the sake of power. That is Voldemort until he was held accountable by a greater force. A force who never wanted the power.
This is some good stuff. Thanks Heather and Benjamin!
This conversation, among so many others, and Ms. Brunskell-Evans constant evasions, convinces me that this line of thought isn't going anywhere. Is it time yet to just give it up and move on to more productive projects?
It is just a dogma. It is a very complicated one. Postmodernists will do their genealogies (which are usually bad, misleading histories) and deconstructions (of gender binaries but not the oppressed/oppressor binary) and their assertion that everything is subjective and biased (hoping you won't apply this to themselves) but it is just a clever card trick at best.
You're right. That would be sensible. But if this line of thought is the scaffold for your whole intellectual career, it's really going to be tough to see clearly how non-performing it is.
@@philipmoss4027 I am not concerned with converting the woke-progressive-socialist true believers. I reckon they won't reconsider their beliefs because we offer them a truer alternative. I am concerned that the non woke-progressive-socialists are wasting their time and talents wrestling with the Postmodernists again and again, generation after generation. As with pig wrestling, per GBS, you only get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
Why can't we starve them of their easy unearned livelihoods? They can't or won't support themselves. They depend on misguided philanthropists, unguided academies, coopted unions, and government programs for their daily bread. The productive class underwrites the unproductive. We should replace the woke-progressive-socialist board members controlling these institutions and put them and their allies in the unemployment line.
She struggles to make his "good points" sound like anything more than common sense. There is nothing postmodernists taught that George Orwell didn't know and teach against better.
Lindsay does pretty deep dive in a four part series on Foucault's repressive tolerance where he mentions where you could now use it to dismantle the current hegemony... He's also reliably stated its "applied" post modernism/critical theory, not 100 proof straight from the bottle Foucault. I think Heather and James would get along fine.
Wasn’t that four part series on Repressive Tolerance about Herbert Marcuse rather than Foucault though? It was Marcuse who wrote the essay ‘Repressive Tolerance’ in 1965 and Lindsay did a four part series on it.
@@rockonallnight You are correct it was Marcuse. I had Foucault fog..
@@oceania2385 I think he may have said though in one of his recent videos that he’s planning on doing an upcoming series on Foucault as well.
@@rockonallnight That'd be good- I think the new one coming down the pike is 4 hours of Hegel - That's four straight hours... Lindsay is the energizer bunny these days. I'm not complaining mind you. I listen to all of it. Lol
Man, Foucault's philosophy has really jacked up her mind. I would love to see James Lindsey absolutely dismantled her foucauldian ideology in a debate.
Heather’s got it right!
yes, I’m unironically saying that in regards to Foucault. Wokoharam proper has an extra-special reading of Foucault and perhaps anyone one else they’re culturally appropriating.
Michele Foucault would be at loggerheads with Wokoharam for obviously obvious reasons, given the ubiquitous power disparity of so many international corporationey corporations backing these hyper-charged brats, the dystopian prison tower analogy wouldn’t even begin to illustrate what’s wrong with internalising several prison towers coming out of every orifice and being utterly disenfranchised; once the Twattle mobs are activated
Another very good interview, thank you
41:10 the discussion about why women are compelled to defend men assuming control over women's identity.
J B Peterson seems to have provided an excellent answer in his pre illness videos.
Women tend higher in trait Agreeableness than men.
Evolutionarily it's to the species' advantage that female mammals put up with a lot, are more tolerant and accepting of imposts on their person ( accept less power more readily?).
Males being more useful for risky roles (because in terms of evolution they can impregnate many more women than women can rear children) tend to be less risk averse and therefore lower in trait Agreeableness.
This is what a lot of people assume to be patriarcal power and oppression.
What is missed is the ultimate control of men by women over time.
If a man wants offspring, wants a dynasty, a reason for working beyond amassing power and control. If he wants friends and lovers to share his inner world, his plans and his dreams with, then he'd better learn to behave himself around women.
I think that's what Benjamin was trying to reference when he brought up replacing patriarchy as a term because it has positive and negative elements; I also think Peterson's reciprocal ethic of stable hierarchies applies equally as well here, too. Leaders don't lead through use of force: such a system would crumble under corruption.
Well if Patriarchy isn't male, then let's not use a gender specific prefix.
Antropoarchy then? Hmm let's go with "apearchy".
@@abacaxiveer I'm thinking ventriloquarchy. The woman tells the man what to think and he sticks his neck out.
Exactly
Take a shot everytime she avoids a definitive answer...if youre suicidal.
It was a great discussion because both left mutually exasperated.
Interesting. The responses should be as well. But I do recall Lindsay already saying that he isn't criticizing any of these individuals like Foucault in total, but noting that they are the sources named for the bad ideas floating around today.
It’s so tiring how she takes EVERYTHING so personal! 🤦♀️
Especially critiques against Buttofuco over there… 😜
She dances around so much, avoiding so damn hard to make a definitive assertion one way or another… She’s so smart and knowledgeable yet so blinded by her love for the guy and post-modernism as a whole… That love blinds her to some pretty pesky truths that hurt her personally (hence her obsession with Lindsay & Pluckrose critiques)… She’s boomer gen personified…
Kinda like my mom, God bless them both…
They’re amazing women but oh so blind to their own faults… It breaks their brains when facing the mirror… 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
This conversation annoyed the life out of me......... so I should probably give it a like
Really enjoyed this conversation. She speaks like a true scholar so refreshingly aware that there need not always be clear and definitive answers in philosophy. One thing I am not sure about is her conviction that Pluckrose & Lindsay blame "Frenchmen" in current madness(es). Instead they usually emphasize that they only talk about applied postmodernism. (Hoping you can crack through my poor English grammar.)
The issue is not looking at structures of power, it's reducing all structures to power... (I promise this is the last one)
This was awesome! This lady has brought the real revolution to your channel. What we are witnessing is the death rattles of modernism and the rise of postmodernism. The goal should be to figure out how to reconcile the two. We can never go back.
The sentiment expressed in "modernism" was at heart simply a recognition the manifest shift away from reliance on age old ideological constructs, to maintain societal function. Empiricism had come into its own, and people perceived the advantages it affords over the old dogmas.
The post-modernists are basically intelligent narcissists who are not being sufficiently recognized and rewarded in the new order, if modernism can be framed as post-ideological then what is the meaning of post-post-ideological? The irony of post-modernism is that it is little more than a crypto-reactionary sophist movement, desperately feeding off their recognition (which doesn't require genius) of an unremarkable (predictable) level of hubris in the scientific practices and culture. "You aren't perfect therefore you may be invalidated... by me."
How do we then achieve a resolution between an organic paradigm shift that has demonstrated unprecedented utility, providence and philosophical integrity... and a jealous backlash that has demonstrated remarkable dishonesty and _dis-ingenuity?_
How can that "resolve" as anything other than regression.
@@cosmoscoronado8862 Here here
@Raft Lawdog
Thanks, at least someone got something from it. An honest rant moment, I should also thank OP for the inspiration, the "we can never go back" line is what focused a bunch of things scattered around my mind.
Post-modernism is _obsessively backwards looking,_ it exists to deconstruct everything built while presenting absolutely nothing new. The very label is a Freudian slip, like "we're what comes after progress, yeah!" It broadcasts both cynicism and insecurity, loud and clear.
You’re right to say the thing you are saying. I’m not sure I believe Modernism is equal to progress though.
None the less, there is a war going on and at this rate modernism will loose unless value can be found in postmodernism and applied to something that makes more sense.
This is why hallucinogenics are making a comeback. This is why JBP got big. This is why “socialism” is getting big. This is why churches are changing their opinions. This is why modernists are now considered conservative.
Not making a value judgement. Just an observation.
The hyperrealism discussion is interesting surely, but saying these terms become "more real than real" is just more post-modern, semantic wordplay. No, the Strawberry(tm) Jolly Rancher Slurpee is not "more real" than the real strawberry. The real strawberry is the real strawberry and the slurpee is the strawberry flavored slurpee. Its just an interesting thought experiment regarding the way people adapt and progress. This is the heart of post-modernism. They believe there is no objectively true "strawberry" and therefore the slurpee is as much a strawberry as the strawberry even though we need to use the damn descriptions to differentiate inherently.
I hate this stuff with a passion. Its developed by articulate, pretentious hippies with serious moral defects and a bone to pick with everything decent in the world. They think "w-w-why cant *I* be the "good guy" or famous or rich and powerful? Everythings subjective anyway! I've got just as much right as Henry Ford or Tesla!" But they wouldnt recognize by their own logic, theyd also have to share worth with Richard Spencer or a toilet.
Why is the "real strawberry" _better than_ the artificial one? This is the point I find most difficult to accept on the anti-transhumanist argument.
I think the real strawberry is better than the artificial one because our bodies are adapted to digest the nutrients to be healthy. But now you don’t crave the strawberry, you crave the fake strawberry flavour that has no nutritional value but you want pleasure from the taste, like watching a porno alone instead of talking to a real person
@@steveb9713 Using health as a criterion might work for the strawberry - the artificial strawberry is definitely unhealthy, but (going back to Wokal's full list), is the wild strawberry really more healthy than the cultivated one? However, I'm not sure it works for porn. Going to a prostitute is demonstrably less physically healthy (if nothing else, because of the risk of STDs) than watching porn, so we have to introduce mental health into the equation. This means setting up a standard of a "healthy mind", which is much less obvious, and very socially conditioned, than the standard of a healthy body. (And, of course, what constitutes a healthy body is not entirely objective).
We then come to examples with no obvious health implication. Is looking at a photo of a sunset less healthy than looking at the real thing? It's still a step towards the hyperreal, so, if we're condemning hyperreality, we need to find a common standard to condemn both the artificial strawberry and the photo. Health doesn't seem to work.
@@Tevildo i'm not saying one is inherently better than the other. "Better" can be applied to one or the other in different circumstances on a case by case basis. The whole argument is semantics and when you reject their foundation, it collapses.
@@za5820 I think I see your point. If we start with "Natural" = "Real" = "Good", we're led to two incorrect conclusions: either we can objectively assess the "goodness" of something by determining if it's natural, or we can say "Because 'real' is effectively meaningless, 'good' is effectively meaningless." The problem is in the original premiss, not the conclusions.
Benjamin might enjoy reading Bourdieu's short book Masculine Domination. Thanks for this discussion.
Looking at the Amazon's back cover I'd give it a miss. If France is to remain France does it require non-symbolic French masculine violence before returning to being non-violent and invisible?
It seems that many great and unique thinkers (like Foucault) bring into the world concepts that become weaponised.
Tosh. He was a gifted intellect who twisted things round to make "bourgeois society" liable for all the world's shortcomings and strenuously avoided the massive gaps of consistency and empirical research that existed in his work. He seemed to have no other motivating ideals: an evil eye for all institutions and a resolute refusal to produce any criteria by which his own criticisms could be judged.
13:00 - that unintentional moment of flirtation and Heather's spontaneous and sweet reaction is quite a joy.
Let's not simplify and blame this all on postmodernism... Let's blame patriarchy instead. Ok.
Heather could give gingers a good name. She's wrong about one thing though: Cat's definitely know they are going to die!
Wow! What a woman! What clarity. Thank you, Benjamin for this conversation. (Still wish you wouldn't do the breathy intros!)
Ha! The “breathy intros” are everything!
Love them, so...
This woman is amazing
She did not define the term "power" enough. If power refers to nearly everything, then the term is to vague to use.
Jordan Peterson would say (I think) "What exactly do you mean?"
I found some of her stuff on "a outlaw sex doll site" which not only wants outlaw sex dolls but ALL sex toys. I find this a bit authoritarian
@@James-ip1tc,
She presents herself as vary radical.
@@guusvandermeulen7210 first thing the patriarchy is indistinguishable from man. Everything that men is= patriarchy. There is no distinction they may say there's a distinction, but ultimately there isn't. Also, if you take the word patriarchy and you replace it with transphobia you get trans ideology. radical feminist deconstructionism which is what came out of Foucault. Looks great on paper, but in practice, it's a nightmare
I would like to know Heather Brunskell-Evans' opinion about Foucault’s alleged sxual abuse of boys in Tunisia? is that The True or Faux Foucault?
She would only lie and deflect, like she has throughout this interview.
At 31:00, she's saying power "couldn't work" if people didn't get some pleasure from it. It'd like to remind Brunskell-Evans, that human beings are ANIMALS, and power structures exist in things as distantly related as sharks. There's a saying: "evolution is smarter than you or me". This is my main gripe with people like Foucault: they talk about power, but they don't talk about human nature. Your typical Foucault-friendly university faculty is terrified of the latter. And so you end up with smart sounding nonsense about people and society.
For the record: power works because those who participate in hierarchy are more likely to have grand children, whether they have fur and walk on four legs, or if they're a relatively hairless ape. If we fail to draw attention to the functional aspects of power, then we may devolve into the politics on envy -- a base response straight from the "six million year old self". And there sure is a helluva lot of that at universities.
Sheesh, what a jumble of twisting, turning, non-answers and mental gymnastics. As far as I'm concerned, she's a wonderfully ironic example of how postmodernist thought seems to affect a person's thought processes.
The moment she lost me completely when she claimed transgender promotion descends from liberal democratic thought and "men's rights".
Had Boyce insisted a little more persistently on her being more precise in her claims and definitions she would have turned into an angry old rabid feminist without control. Woof woof
She claimed "inclusion" comes from liberal democratic thought. I argued above that liberal inclusion and DEI Inclusion have vastly different meanings and actions.
The latter contains hostile exclusion and even violent exclusion.
Kelly (the anti-Trans "TERF" lady) doesn't associate Trans with the "MRA" form of Men's Rights movement, but I think Heather said it's a lot about weird blokes invading female-only spaces, and claiming the "right" to do so and have their perversions embraced as normal. (Shades of Loretta from Life of Brian.)
I can't wait to argue with a Trans Activist that, by their rules, Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or Donald Trump -- should he ever be convicted of the sex crimes for which they accuse him -- or a younger and stronger rapist --- could simply claim to have suddenly discovered they are Trans Women and be granted full access to Womens' Prison and other Womens' spaces.
THAT is I think the sense in which she's associating Trans with Male abuse of power and "rights" to creep on women thru this bizarre ideology.
Jonathan Yaniv's own Facebook page had him identifying as a man, with photos of himself with a full beard, while harassing women who objected to his claims of "rights" as a woman.
David: thanks! I listened to her and thought this is so much gobbly-gook and makes zero sense. In my attempt to understand her, I was only able to come up with the explanation that her rambling nonsense is the ultimate statement of what defines postmodernism: the justification for not thinking in order to destroy reason as the foundation of Western thought.
@@zose6289 that’s it why not call her old , fanatical what else you want to say - pick on her looks as a woman?
@@rensha8635 Old-feminist, not old-woman. Get it now? Now since you ask what else I want to say about her....well, she's not very bright. I know she thinks she is of curse, but...there is reality out there...Are you happy now?
One ofy favourite chats to date . Love her !!!
The power/patriarchy part of the conversation felt a little derailing. It seemed like heather wanted to move on and get away from that imo.
But it didnt take anything away from this episode ofc, because she was such an awesome guest. I hope to hear more from her in the future!
Cheers! Another great interview BB!
Another very interesting conversation. Thanks Benjamin
I think that the adoption of a new term to avoid the "patriarchy" trap that Heather fell into; that word has been corrupted for the malicious purposes.
Therefore I suggest adopting either *_"tachriarchy"_** or **_"takeriarchy"_** tātrēˌärkē/ /ˈteɪtriˌɑrki* to describe the system where trans-women and Trans Activists are the holders of power having positioned them at the top of the current social hierarchy or, taken it from "the patriarchy", if you will.
Girard offers a much better way of analyzing gender, sex, etc than Foucault IMO, and Foucault beasts everyone else.
I see a lot of praise for this interview. I see a person who has spent their entire life deconstructing the powers she saw oppressing her generation to now having those same techniques turned against the work she did in her youth. The Emperor is dead, and now the power games for the crown are in the motion. Her side of the board has been out-maneuvered, and she now finds herself in the oppressor class- straight, white, western, wealthy (compared to most who would challenge her positions), and educated. She is using the arrows of the past to fight the barbarians that lived in the hills while being challenged by a UAV piloted by those she taught, who moved into the apartment upstairs.
Saying men becoming women and entering women’s spaces is patriarchal doesn’t sound right to me, I think it’s more men co-opting postmodern feminism by becoming women
Heather is so brilliant
An excellent guest. Thanks to both of you.
oh lord she says issues like "e-see-oos" but ill power through this one anyways
Oh this should be interesting. Keeping it for tomorrow in the studio.
Great conversation
It seemed to me that Heather went into this calmversation with the idea that it was a powerstruggle and either she or Benjamin had to come out on top, so she wiggled around like a snake shedding skin every time Benjamin asked her to define a term and anchor the discussion in something that could act as the foundation that they then could build on. She refused to be "pinned down". It was a weird but very interesting conversation to observe.
She seemed to have a very "toxicly feminine" way of speaking. Lots of vague hints and abstract words that are filled with emotion and suggestion. Very confusing and disturbing because as soon as you ask for clarity your portraid as the abuser (ofcourse in the same subtle and suggestive way).
Men transitioning to "women" is to me the complete OPPOSITE of patriarchy, it's the next step/wave of liberal feminism... It's gender ideology eating its own tail. Our culture is Matriarchal and psychopathic men see that if they transition they will come out on top in the oppression hierarchy. They're using feminism for themselves. That's the game of the Matrix.
The most interesting thing is that these postmodern thinkers do hold the keys to exiting the Matrix, to reach enlightenment, but only if you use their tools to deconstruct your self and your own identity. Liberation is an inside job. 🌞
It did seem we were witnessing some sort of dynamic being enacted in the conversation. I didn't necessarily think patriarchy was the issue/driving force in trans activism though it seems the group whose rights are getting most encroached upon are biological women's.
Men like Carl Benjamin and Stefan Molyneax are very aware of the power matriarchy holds over men.
They also see this as a counterpoint to the patriarchy in a balanced deal for mutual advantage.
At 16:00, it seems like Brunskell-Evans missed the main thesis of "Cynical Theories". Pluckrose & Lindsey are going after what they call *applied* postmodernism, which is downstream from Foucault. Pluckroses & Lindsey's main complaint about the /actual/ postmodernists, such as Foucault, was that they weren't saying anything particularly original -- and that it was all said more clearly before. Pluckrose & Lindsey never say that Foucault was being cynical, or merely cynical.
This woman is fabulous!
Nope. She's like a "useful idiot", but without the "useful" part.
The problem with Foucault and other thinkers is not their philosophy. Sigmund Freud pointed out that it doesn't matter how carefully you construct your philosophy human nature and its innate tendencies to dominate and control is always underestimated. a better idea is to put in checks and balances to make sure one group doesn't dominate the other.
WOW. Just wow. I'll listen to this a 2nd time.
There certainly are things you can criticize about liberal democracy, (there are things you can criticize about any system), but to say that it proposes that power will no longer be operative under it is, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "not even wrong."
The bit on patriarchy they were bogged down in. Seems to me it’s the ideologies related to Critical Theory and bits of PoMo imported in that is behind this, rather than some definition of patriarchy. This was on my mind while listening there. Not finished listening yet though.
31:01 power is just synonymous with agency, the ability to act in the world, so I don't know what the hells hes going on about here.
33:25 she clearly doesn't know how to answer the question because she hasn't thought about it that deeply before. My impression
Regarding your first point, Nietzsche understood the will to power as, first and foremost, the power over oneself. We exercise power over ourselves first and foremost so we can then actualize that agency as manifest behaviors in the world. Astute point you make
@@mcroot87 I don't disagree
although I said that mostly in frustration with his guest, lol
@@nickmagrick7702 right? Took us 5 minutes to have a working definition of power. Took her 1:45 minutes to dodge a working definition altogether
@@mcroot87 whats more, its important to understand this fundamental origin of power, because its also how people amass large amounts of power, with the collective will of the people. Beyond that, that power is an illusion.
@@nickmagrick7702 I think that's an important nuance in our working definition of power: it is manifest in action. Without action, power is simply a concept, not manifest, and therefore not arguably "real" in the metaphysical sense
It's all about control, imposed and won at the legislation level. At that level the arguments are decided. All philosophies are to remain private. To disagree with the legalties is deemed an assault on the person. The law means you must also promote it.
God bless you, Benjamin for trying here: feels a bit like you are trying to nail Jello to a wall. I've still not heard a concrete def of Power...which is typical of post-mod's frustrating, shape-shifting nature. That said, there are some REALLY interesting roots of thoughts here. I would love to see you do a panel with Pluckrose and this guest. Anyway...wonderful work, as always. Big fan!
"You see it's not the post modernist thinkers at fault who have actually propagated these ideas. These were actually wonderful people. It's the entirety of the male population who is at fault...excluding of course my favorite thinkers who just happen to be male." Yeah right... You're getting tiresome very quickly. "I can prove patriarchy is real because when I talk, nobody likes me. Including women, but that's because they've been taken over by patriarchy themselves, because patriarchy isn't really the power of men, it's everything that's bad in the world in my view, it's what people would call Satan in the olden times". I'm so done with this kind of opinion already. It's not original, it's not clever and it's not helpful to anyone. Just bitter people circling around a point, making it more complicated to confuse you (probably because they are confused themselves) evading simple questions and turning everything to suit their point of view.
Still gonna watch the rest because exposure to opposite ideas or whatever XD
Preach. No one who claims to be defending or legitimizing postmodernism is ever impressive. They are all perpetually out of touch, careerist r-tards. Literally anyone with an anti-SJW UA-cam channel understands power relations better than this woman.
You're funny ;)
Good interview Boycey. Liked the weird bit 🙂
Men are also impacted as parents of children who are deemed by the outside world to desire transition. I think she's basically correct though about women bearing the brunt here.
I also think she's confused and not ready to be public with her ideas.
Also, she's not confident enough in them and lets Benjamin lead her around too much.
When I was at university 25 years ago, I did a study of Power as it appears in both Foucault and Frankfurt School theorists. From what I recall the latter broadly thought knowledge is power whereas Foucault talks of power-knowledge as being in some form of mutually reinforcing relationship. I believe I concluded that Foucault’s concept of power is not very coherent and most significantly, rendered things like being able to articulate when the exercise of power was morally justifiable or unjustifiable impossible. Nevertheless, the narrative force of many of his explications of how power manifests are compelling and useful.
I think BB was maybe following Lindsey’s approach and looking at writers like Foucault in the wrong way. He wants to identify a clear causal argument that is falsifiable and can be disputed, much as one might prove or disprove a claim in experimental science. But just as one wouldn’t analyse a text by Shakespeare or say, Johnathan Swift, to find a definitive theory of power, even though power is a concept that is problematised and also operates in their work. But if you did do this and were disappointed that you couldn’t pin “power” down, but could only speak of the various ways it operates through the characters and narrative, you might still find the texts had something important to say about power (amongst other things).
As Heather says, it is possible to both critique something, and also find value in it. In fact I would say it is critical for the future of liberal democracy to be able hold a pluralistic perspective as the alternative is totalitarianism.
Excellent. Well done! I've always said that transgenderism is an expression of radical gender fundamentalism.
Fascinating discussion squire Boyce and great courage from you both. I suspect having a pod with HBE and Mary Harrington has crossed your mind?
I might suggest that an analysis of 'the human condition' is in order. That notion always comes with the burden of self-reflection aka 'man, know thyself'.
The endeavor inevitably leads to a realization of intimate connectivity to individuals and by reflex all humanity in general. We all share this path, mostly unrealized by the general populace and it's resultant insights blurred by egocentric notions reflected in Lao-Tsu's admonition that ours is to animate and not to approprfiate.
Meaningful discussion, thanks...
It certainly is reasonable to blame philosophers for the outworking of their philosophy, if their contemporaries were warning them about the dangers.
Isn't dressing up as women, assuming women's identity, a particularly gay man thing? Is the offending patriarchy in this case a particularly gay patriarchy? As a straight male I don't see how any of this relates to me, not that I think it needs to. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a foreign sporting event where I don't know the rules, the players, or the goal. I certainly can't tell who is winning.
I think Benjamin is right about the postmodern nature of today's "inclusivity."
She says, 36:30 - 36:42, "it's got nothing to do with postmodernism," it's an ideal of liberal democracy. But that misses the important distinction.
The ideal of liberal democracy is "non-exclusion." That goes with an indifference to whether "enough" straight men are participating in musical theater or whether "enough" black Americans work at Google: just so long as there is no policy to exclude them or barrier erected in order to exclude them. The anti-liberal version of this, championed by Social Justice types, goes beyond the negative program of removing barriers and adopts a PRO-ACTIVE program of seeking to "include" ( or, at least, to kick up a fuss in particular cases). They are not indifferent to outcomes but seek to interfere where there isn't "enough" of one description of person or another.
Postmodernism--which in general has nothing to do with any of this--assists the passage of liberal minds into the illiberal program by just the move Benjamin remarks: it attacks conceptual boundaries. It takes umbrage at the line between any opposed terms. Eg. To enforce the boundary of "women," to exclude non-females, is invidious; it is not a real distinction in nature but the deployment of power. We must destabilize the binary and expose the instability of the distinction! Etc.
Without that intellectual prep work, we would have resisted many more of the arguments used, eg, to foist the trans agenda on us at the expense of women's rights. This woman is so intoxicated by her postmodern commitments that she simply overlooks this.
Power is ENERGY. The invisible something that the enlightenment denied existed at all; now it's coming back to bite like an angry dog. It is also known as emotion.
And the vicious animals who most indulged that emotion, will also howl the loudest, as they hunt the scapegoats.
The same _autists_ who take the blame for everything inconvenient, must also take the blame for failing to maintain their conveniences, as the comfortable world they take for granted begins to vanish.
Ain't it grand!
@@cosmoscoronado8862 What you mean take responsibility? Hehe ...
My question may be a diversion from the premise this conversation was made on? That said, I struggled with it in that the concept of power was not, for me adequately identified in this discussion, so I was not able to get onboard properly. I have some dim idea of personal power and social power and the the variants these come in, as part of this, but they don't seem to be on the table here. I may be missing them?
54:30 I think this is what cognitive dissonance looks like.
Willful cognitive dissonance is simply a subset of job security
Look forward to this one.
I think Heather's vocabulary is swilling about in the soup of Woke definitions.
She uses the term gender as though it shares the same meaning as sex.
Uses sexism as though it is the same as patriarchy.
Well, she is an academic and likely must define herself as a feminist for the sake of peace at the workplace
Heather comes from the school of thought that everything's socially constructed around power. Even Norm Chomsky couldn't understand what Foucault was saying there is a famous debate between him and Foucault.
@@James-ip1tc I caught the "social construction" view very clearly (eg. gender), but then she was pretty dogmatic when it came to "patriarchy." No reflective distance from her own most prized terminology!
I can’t share Boyce’s material fast enough!!!!!
The "Very Smart People" Strike Back!
Cheers for another one boycey boy