and who's that pretty lady in the middle? ps: did you not like the video/present? did i misjudge you that much? Or have you not listened to it yet? just in case, i am talking about the comment under Linda Blade's video. ˘J˘
I feel that in this conversation "liberal" is being slightly confused with individualist/consumerist. Liberalism is about personal liberty and individual rights yes, but also about personal/individual responsibility. That includes the responsibility to your family, as a mother or as a father.
I agree. She keeps talking about 'progress' as if that's mutually exclusive with Liberalism. Liberalism is, as you said, about the government's responsibility to protect the rights of the individual and the institutions of society, not to progress 'toward' something. Not in my view.
No but we are being marketed in a manner of consumerism; even in religion and other dynamics because we consume and when we become parents we are buying to suit that purpose. It is only right that men and women are given their suggestive rights for paternal and maternal leave. But then you have to see it from the perspective that churches have to stop being one dimensional and start thinking the ideology of having the gay community marry one another would bring another alteration to consumerism.
My brain is about to explode now. Like Mary just went through my house, emptied all my closets and drawers into a big pile on the floor and I need to decide what to keep, toss and buy new.
The strange part is, when it if framed like that, I sort-of sympathize with that view. When aspects of our bodies hamper us or makes us suffer, we develop means of addressing that. If a tooth aches, you fix/pull it. If your appendix is inflamed, you cut it out. - If the means to replace and remodel aspects of our bodies becomes available as medical science progresses, hypothetically to the point of being able to implant let's say actually functional sex-organs to a member of the opposite sex, then I struggle to separate that from the aforementioned artificial replacement/remodeling of a tooth to make life easier for the individual in question. Though what makes for a functional long-term society is another matter, and only time will tell with respects to that. Artificially growing humans in tanks might also be on the table within the foreseeable future, and I also struggle with seeing that as fundamentally wrong as well... I dunno, these are some interesting questions to consider
@M McPherson Feminists can focus their efforts on the glass ceiling because gynocentrism insures that women are prevented from slipping too low on the ladder
@@marclacey2263 agreed, just another grifter. And a busybody. Sticking her long britbong nose into the business of women trying to make business surrogacy contracts which they consent to. Getting on her moral Karen high horse about what other people want to do with their bodies. I suppose the idea of other women getting paid for what she chose to do for free really upsets her
@UCOShHlI0YuF3PS7j1iGv7jQ I wasn't referring to this woman personally. She has not brought about the conditions necessary to grift yet. But I am assuming that the only conclusion of her logic is that society needs to come in and make sure women can be "dependent" if they want to. This can only lead to A) private citizens having to fund a woman's life because she wants to be a stay at home mom and not work or B) all citizens who pay taxes indirectly funding a woman's choice to stay home instead of working. That's why it's a grift. She thinks society needs to appreciate her laziness as something worthy of being funded. Her whole interview consists of her bitching about the modern version of liberalism that expects her to be an adult and pay for her own life, because she says it doesn't account for times in people's lives in which they need to be dependent. Well actually, we do have disability, welfare, unemployment, etc. We should also have paid maternity leave for a realistic amount of time just like any other injury/medical procedure would be granted paid/unpaid leave. But if she wants women to be housewives again, who is paying for that? Who is going to pick up the pieces when women's private arrangements with their baby daddies inevitably fail and society has a huge swathe of middle aged divorcees with no job experience and no savings to contend with? Make men pay them alimony? Certainly not. If a woman was eating and sleeping for free in a man's house that he paid for during the marriage, that's compensation enough. She doesn't deserve half his money or any of his money just for existing. Especially not if we keep allowing no-fault divorce. So what used to happen to those middle aged divorcees who found themselves with no job experience and no savings, is that they would get a little alimony settlement, try to live off it, and eventually end up in some menial job to make ends meet in their old age. And it was always really sad to see the old cleaning lady/old cashier/old waitress who was in her 60s or so but you knew she couldn't retire because of her poor life decisions in youth. But according to "reactionary feminism" women should be allowed to be dependent. A woman who made poor life decisions and has no money can't just be allowed to take a shitty job and sit with her choices. Someone has to let her be dependent on them. So either this "reactionary feminist" doesn't care that "being dependent" is going to lead to a LOT of aging women who are living in poverty when their marriages end, or she wants women to receive never ending welfare. And someone I don't think it's the former. Hence why I said grift.
The civil rights movement at least at first was highly religious and informed by Christianity. The “I have a dream” speech is very much based on Christian morality. So I’m not sure the original Civil Rights movement really saw its self above God. The people claiming that mantle present day are a different case.
It's indeed all in to topple any existing structures of power (Christianity included) as it sees these as "oppressive" due to their associations with being founded by European males. If they have their way, they will end up causing another holocaust. This was never about liberalism or protecting minorities, but about totalitarianism. I am not even white, but I read between the lines and see the resentment on many of these so called leftists ideals.
@@dix0n778but Christianity wasn’t founded by European males so I’m not sure what they’re trying to do. Maybe some of the nationalist white Jesus Christianity is what they want to deconstruct but it would seem more like they’re unaware how Christianity has shaped there morals and also how white supremacy has also infected there ideology. It’s the some of the same logic just tweaked in another direction and derived from a different place.
Great interview! This reminds me of a talk by David Graeber where he reframed the working and professional as the caring class vs the bureaucratic|admin class. Suggesting the left could not serve both, noting the interests of the bureaucratic class had been prioritised by current politics. Graeber included teachers, farmers, nurses, road workers as all caring class - those who do things or make things that we need and society needs to function. ps: this interview and the previous with Mary did not show up in my subscriptions or notifications.
The part about how we're just screwed if we keep treating male-female relations as a zero-sum game is right on, and sums up the problem I started having with most other feminisms. Also, "your name will be Windchime" lol.
I periodically go back & watch Benjamin’s old Evergreen updates (since I only came across the Evergreen story about a year ago). I commented that it was good stuff, but that Benjamin’s become such an excellent interviewer that his new direction is his best work. Still fun to occasionally revisit that story, at least where it’s left the university, which appears to be in a downward spiral…
as i see it reactionary feminism is a movement to combat the neo-fascist feminism that constrains/boxes women and men today. and the expansion of what motherhood is was the best one i, as a man, have ever heard in my 56y life. paraphrasing: ‘It’s like one of your limb separating from you body and you instinctively must take care of it as if it is still attached.’ My jaw dropped when i heard this, the comprehension was mind altering :-0
They seem to mean responsibility , for child , family , proper domesticality , caring . Jordan Peterson says it is not just rights , it is also responsibilities ... Also civic sustenance . I think this may be 'part and parcel' of this feminism , it sounds good to me ... I like it .
In answer to your question @53:02 - Equal status in family courts and a presumption of 50/50 custody. The end of Alimony. The end of unproven allegation of DV being a factor in custody battles. If a women can abort a man baby, a man should be able to abort his connection to that baby and not pay child support (his body, his choice).
I trained 2B a family court mediator during the 3 years I served as volunteer small claims mediator. Most jurisdictions can offer that to divorcing Dads. It has more to do with which lawyers the judge chooses to favor. Sometimes Moms pay child support and alimony. Each state has a formula or chart. It's BEST to ask a CPA! There can be BIG tax advantages to paying higher alimony for some parents. I am the guaranteed EMPRESS of that kinship of people targeted by fabricated & bizarre accusations! I go into "documenting evidence" and "case building" modes in the blink of an eye. I'll give you a virtual mediation simulation, or your friend, for FREE if you can dm me for the wix site people mediate. If you like what I composed and published there.
Further, a man should be able to demand an abortion just as a woman can. Single party no fault divorce should not be possible if underage children exist. Child support (auxiliary alimony) must be abolished. All of these incentives for divorce must go away. If a mother can't manage the children and wants a career, give the children to the father.
Some women don't design their lives around the difficulties of children and career. Even way back, Madam Curie had two daughters. Not having kids because of career is not progress. It's a form of selfish defeat that many regret secretly. There are ways to do both. It's all about timing and choices and finding fulfillment in the imperfection of a lifetime. I think it's better to do it so that no stone left unturned, even if some of them don't have a worm. To be passionate about life and work.
Depending on one's bubble, this is a very sobering conversation. Did I say "sobering?" Substitute "hopeless," until tomorrow when the veil lifts and I get back to work. As I heard JBPeterson say: Sometimes the tragedy of life recedes. We are in tragic times, Benjamin, but there can be good days. Raising my own children (they are now of age) was prescient reactionary feminism in the 90s and 00s. Thank you.
I'm thinking...what about the beautiful, loving, masculine, literate fathers that were archetypical in my youth? in the sixties and seventies? Where ever did that go? It seems so unrepresented now.
Men are not obsolete. They're just undervalued. If all women went on strike for one week there would be a noticeable inconvenience but life would go on. If all men went on strike for a week we'd be in the stone age in 3 days. Men do all the heavy lifting that allows civilization to exist. Men keep the power one, the toilets flushing, the machines in repair, fuel in the tanks at the gas stations, food on the shelves in stores. Women complain about the glass ceiling, but they completely ignore the glass floor.
It's the silencing of the 'subalter' mentioned by James Lindsay. Legal documents for designated health care surrogate rejected by local hospital and denied critical diabetic care. I had to call ER 911, who transported my son to the hospital earlier, to get his life saving treatment.
@@dirkcheezleman5963 just that silencing people is a primary feature & target for the social justice warriors and loaning judicial resources & immunity to friends to create false evidence is the default setting in US courts right now
@@dirkcheezleman5963 the 3 branches of US gov are usurping power. Supreme Court nullified 42 USC 1983 by requiring EXACT circumstances exist in prevailing case law, thereby eradicating any jurisdictions to seek remedy when several judges and the state attorneys publicly hand over their powers and immunity to "other folks" Perhaps if I petition the government for gender identity protection, as I identity as an androgynous gender capitalist, an authentic jurisdiction may emerge.
You find such amazing people to interview and I "learn" so much, some new stuff and some stuff that validates my thought process.... #mindexpansionisgood
Don’t you dare give up on Feminism yet! I’m just gaining steam in my fight against the real enemy: The Heightriarchy ! The vertically challenged have suffered under longlimbed oppression for too long, and I’m on the precipice of my state legislature granting us special rights. I’ve already obtained over a million signatures to ban basketball! I mean, really, can’t everyone see that Basketball is just thinly disguised short-shaming!? Please join my cause and keep feminism strong. Thank you.
Yeah somebody does have to wipe bottoms....the underclass who bingo just so happen to be mostly poor women.....and this has always been my objection to feminism, which I see in the UK as a white middle class movement who constantly pull the ladder up because somebody needs to wipe bottoms.
I wonder what's wrong with the term 'pragmatic feminism'? I almost think that describes what Mary's getting at better - ie. that dimorphism runs deep enough that we're built around it and if our construction of culture doesn't do a heck of a lot better than just keeping women safe from male sexual avarice, but then throwing them in to be batteries / fuel rods in the corporate array and even treating their biological role of having children as a strike against them really turning into something like an economic chauvinism when they're really like fish being told that they're failed monkeys for not climbing trees - 'pragmatism' seems like a nod to the realization that there's a shape to the container that the myth of progress is perpetually trying to rebel against and, in very much a John Ralston Saul 'Voltaire's Bastards' sense detachment from reality is the eventual ruin of civilizations.
I'd joke and say is there anything called 'feminism' that would ever make sense or I could get behind? But wow, I haven't heard of reactionary feminism before, and it seems to be quite thoughtful and supporting of the idea of a movement that doesn't want to disadvantage other groups (no zero-sum game attitude, is aware of men's issues too) and is very very critical of whether the current strands of feminism has helped or harmed women. Of course, I know some people will be like "Why keep the feminist label then?" while other mainstream feminists will be like "Not real feminism!". It will be interesting to watch, I enjoy the conversation, especially Mary's ideas are at first hard to follow (maybe because of her eloquent and maybe slightly intellectual sounding speech) but I kinda understand what she tries to say and also watching some other videos of her, there are some fascinating ideas things to think about I didn't even in the past. Will definitely watch more in the future from these ladies :)
You can't be free in society. If you are part of society you have responsibility and a man with responsibility is never free. The only way to be free is to leave society.
I like Mary's perception of the liberal context. Teaching men that we women can still give birth up until we are 50 in some cases; equivocates to the value of life and that we are not disposable. Or relationships would change and our whole longevity would change.
Strangely, when it was put like that, I sort-of sympathize with the view that developing means to bypass biological limitations is ideal. I mean, there are plenty of shitty aspects to our biology that makes us suffer, whether it be your body not conforming to your gender-identity or a worn-down knee that causes constant agony. Is there really a fundamental difference between these - If the means to overcome these medically is becoming available, by treating the body like "Meat Lego", why should it not be indulged? For sure, the tech isn't there just yet, but with the way biological science is going it might be within a lifetime. It was food for thought for sure.
For a time, the first class first world Feminism of the few was called by the pejorative phrase White Feminism. While not quite accurate due to the volume of peoples excluded from the form of Feminism that is purports to describe including most White women, it still spoke to the fact that it did not represent the majority of women anywhere on earth.
Didn’t Mary just speak for women in general, when she “had the answer” to why some women don’t want to have kids? That they can’t envision a future with kids in it, because it would change things for the worse - or did I misunderstand what she said? Sure, that’s probably true for some CFBC women, but definitely not for all. I can only speak for myself, and I can say this: I have never ever had any interest or urge or anything near a wanting or longing to have a child. - Never. I do have the impression that that is true for a lot of women who are child free by choice too, from what they have said. - That they just don’t have it in them, that urge to produce an offspring. And not that having a child would entirely “ruin” their life. The life they knew and enjoyed. I think the women who really desire to have children should have them, and those who don’t want to have children shouldn’t. 🤷🏼♀️
To a degree, women who chose childlessness due to personal aversion are probably affected by the culture and the zeitgeist. Imagine such a woman in Sparta. She wouldn't exist. Those women (the ones in ancient cultures) had a sense of duty. Now, only men feel this sense of duty. In the US, they are forced to sign up for selective services. In many countries, they are conscripted. Women are unique in one way: they can bear children. As has always been understood until now, women have a duty to their culture and their family to bear children. Otherwise, you have demographic collapse.
@@Vesuya Well, good thing the majority of women want to have kids, then. So that those who truly doesn’t want to have kids will be in the minority, using their life in other purposeful ways. 😊 Always nice when those who really want kids, get them, happy for all the women out there who want that for themselves. 👍🏼
@@NiinaSKlove unfortunately, you specifically don't matter to the discussion at hand. Your declining life satisfaction will start within a decade or so, most likely. If it doesn't, selfish ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
Recently a quote from Ian Malcolm (from the book/movie Jurassic Park) keeps coming into my thoughts: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should." He was talking about using DNA sequencing the re-create dinosaurs (scientism with disastrous results), but the same could be said about changing people's genders by medical procedures (insofar as that is possible). Progressivism is so preoccupied by everything that CAN be done by modern science, especially when it comes to creating (in their mind) more "equality", that they never stop to ask themselves if these things SHOULD be done. Or I guess they just assume that they should because they believe in the ever ongoing progress towards a "better world". Now, I don't neccesarily think that a better world is not possible, or that we are no better as a species than we were 2000 or 3000 years ago. I think that in many ways we are better: we know more about the world and the universe, we are less aggressive and prone to war and conquest, we are able to prevent or ease more suffering due to medical and social advancements... but of course at the same time we are harming nature more, and are perhaps more disconnected from ourselves and others. But as Mary Harrington notes, change is not good or bad in itself. Change is not always progress in the sense that it's moving towards a "better world". It can often be damaging or downright catastrophic.
Yes exactly I think that's what she was getting at.. there is a trend to immediately embrace anything that seems innovative just because we can. There is no waiting and analysing all the pros and cons and trying to consider all the potential consequences for society. Just blindly accepting each step because it's "progress" and by the time the negative effects are seen it's too late to stop. If we allow some new kind of tech that ends up killing us all then that's not very progressive after all.
I think this latest manifestation of feminism can be best labeled: situational feminism in that it's a feminism which can be redefined in any way that benefits the redefiners in whatever manner benefits any group of women at that stage of their lives. And as usual, it's the responsibility of men to make the new definition satisfying for this group of women.
I teach a math class and I am trying to make it more inclusive for women, yet whenever I use shoes or 0nlyfans as an example, the female students get really uncomfortable. Do they need to decolonize their thinking or what?
Not to knock Benjamin, but his reaction at 19 minutes on Catholic Social teaching is pretty amusing. The secular minded are so often damn ignorant of religion, especially the religion most of them think they know best, Christianity. So many of them have childish ideas, and have no idea of what they do not know or understand. They so often smugly think they know all about it, but too often ignorantly dismiss or even arrogantly scorn the flowering core of their own culture that feeds and sustains them, without a clue what they are doing.
I don't see how Liberalism led to the atrocities of the 21st century (fascism and communism). I'd argue that Liberalism is the force that ENDED those regimes. I'm not sure what to think about some of the ideas presented here, but I'm not finished with the video; so I'll listen completely before criticizing too much.
Did I like miss part one of this conversation?!?!? I'm halfway through the video and I feel like I'm not sure what their viewpoints are. They sound like collective communists, but supposedly are against woke ideology/contemporary feminism. I'm confused!
I think I'm starting to understand what they're saying. What they're calling "Liberalism," I would call "Illiberal Progressivism." I think my misunderstanding was perhaps a matter of semantics.
I contend with the idea that delegating child rearing to other women is a problem, and that it is exclusive to liberal societies. Nursemaids have always existed. You could quite convingcinly argue that as all other luxuries, they are just widely available to more people now. And the class difference in this relationship is not necessarily true: in latino culture, for example, having housemaids is not a luxury, nor is it uncommon for women to do this for other women within the same economic class. As with a lot of conversations that I see happening between people I follow in the English speaking world, they make a whole lot of assumptions and generalizations based on a very limited understanding of the world outside the anglosphere.
Interesting take. I guess it's true that a large part of all these conversations is focused on specifically current Western liberal culture but I think that's kind of implied as that is where the "culture war" is happening. I'm sure other cultures have their own discussions and some elements of these discussions are increasingly present in almost all cultures as globalisation and the internet makes cross-pollination (or infection) between cultures easier and faster.
I think maybe you are not wording your statement correctly or just generalizing. I’m Latina, housemaids were and are a luxury where I come from. And the only people doing anything like child rearing were the retired grandmothers or an aunt who had a day off.
@@loramurray2341 I think you are missing the point (and also, key word: necessarily (my housemaid lives a block away from me)). The point is women taking care of other people's children is a phenomenon that predates liberalism and it is present in most cultures (and having someone take care of house chores for you is common in most societies other than in the US). It is not a direct consequence of liberalism.
For a look at the civil rights movement, check out Vince Ellison and Thomas Sowell, who have some interesting perspectives on the movement and statistics to support their views.
In isolation, 33:46 does *not* play well. As a descendent of Holocaust survivors, I take great objection to the employment of stigma against consenting adult lifestyles that simply depart from the norm. There are no circumstances in which it's virtuous, in fact it's quite dangerous and they lost my audience at that point.
Ahhhhh it hurts! But the “liberation” of women has ALWAYS worked against the interests of women. Especially poor women. But it only matters now that it’s caught up with the rich ones 🧐
@@annarboriter I always thought feminism was a parody of black liberation movements designed to keep them at bay. One still sees echoes of this whenever a shoe store is looted.
@@anitasassassine It's a myth that the feminist movement secured those last two rights rights for you. After women gained suffrage, property rights subsequently followed. So much of the feminist project is claiming ownership of advances that are the result of modernity and industriaiization while at the same time, claiming that women lack such rights
Regarding men's role now and going into the future, and if you want to get more detail on the "Mannerbund" perspective, you should talk to Jack Donovan.
Women fighting for their right to be protected and asserting their desire to domesticate men whilst expressing admiration for men who choose to deviate from that. What a provoative and threatening shape this conversation took, and yet everything feels entirely commensurate with my view of reality. How terrifyingly conservative do I sound!?
I love it when people build entire intellectual theses railing against a reductive form of liberalism, which should really be referred to as "L"ibertarianism.
I super love Alex...LOVE YOU GIRL! Congrats on your impending motherhood! Mary is a little bit too much for me, but I definitely found this conversation fascinating.
41:00 Mary says "why not work?" Because you could be home caring for home and children, instead most women go do jobs that are modern version of women's work. They do so now, not for their family, but for corporations, for less pay, while out sourcing their children's care and raising. Women haven't gained hardly anything
So what now? Robots? Robots take care of children and "wipe bottoms"? I'm 57 and enjoyed the last gleams of the Golden Age of America...the high art ( all consigned to the dust bin by modernity) the increased prosperity ( a shadow in the past now) the wonder of advancing technology ( all deformed ala Frankenstein) and will be fine for my remaining time on this mortal coil...but what of the kids? Dystopia?
@@apebass2215 Children aren't getting much love from modern parents. My young Meditation students tell me about how they were parented. It's not a nice picture...and yes, the Robots will do even worse than the failing modern parent
@@soulbasedliving I can't comment on the levels of love individual children receive from their parents, every situation is different. I don't think robots are the answer though.
@@soulbasedliving a robot may not offer unconditional love...but neither will it offer conditional love. Kids won’t have to look back and wonder why dad would rather be off on his own than spend any time with them. Robots sound like a terrible idea; but I just wanted to call attention to the fact that many parents are a net negative on their child’s life - not even a neutral - a negative.
the roving bands of pirates do talk about their reproductive problem, endlessly. Bio science may have a dystopian solution to this problem. Hopefully that particular pile of dead male bodies isn't in out timeline
Yay, two normal women, one I've stated before is my kind of woman, translation, hooot. Tho I do still have major concern with baggage involved in feminism. There's always baggage or, feminism no longer means what a majority are saying. Am I right in saying, feminism needs men? 😇
These women seem normal to you? That's depressing. They are ideologues with a distorted view of the world and humanity. What feminism needs. Seriously? Feminism is just another harmful Marxist device to separate us, it doesn't need anything and people don't need it either. Feminism never helped anyone and has damaged everyone. Reject feminism.
Marc you’ve a Pavlovian response to the word feminism it seems as you’re not describing or arguing a single point that Alex and Mary put forward. Blinded by your hatred of ideologues you’ve taken on their worst aspect: reflexive action without thought.
@@marclacey2263 Yeah, they're far more in line with normality than many others Ben has interviewed. As for your view on feminism, I'm on the fence on this one. I have an old school take on feminism but, have rejected feminism over the years because the activism surrounding it has become monolithic, making one of the most toxic things in politics.
Surprisingly interesting chat! In response to Mary's question of what reactionary men want from 'reactionary feminism', the answer is as simple as you'd expect: femininity and a defense thereof from the female side.
Quite an unobjectionable chat! (That's a compliment.) Though I'm not sure I see a problem with adults choosing to enter into a contract for surrogacy. (Though I do understand the point Mary was making.)
Christianity gave rise to science and liberty. Christianity was the bulwark against today's decadent culture. Secular Atheism, standing on the back of Christianity, gave rise to Libertinism. Feminism and libertinism could not have created the success of the West. Parasites only come along after the success of a separate host. It is the same for Libertinism. This conversation incorrectly conflates classical liberalism with libertinism. Classical liberals warned against libertinism. The French Revolution is presented as an example of libertinism's inherent instability and despotism. Unfortunately, it was inevitable that when the West abandoned Christianity as its moral compass, it would adopt libertinism. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
I can't help but think she means liberationist, not liberal. And how exactly are these women feminists? So far they just appear to be tradcons. Feminism is an ideological framework, it doesn't just mean "caring about women".
I disagree with Ms. Harrington's view of classical liberalism as an attempt to create 'heaven on earth'. I would see it as an attempt to make it somewhat less hellish than it demonstrably can be. The utopian visions tend to be more of the extreme right and left. Good thought-provoking conversation though.
Women were overwhelming in favor of lockdowns under the guidance of the beloved Saints Fauci and Cuomo. They will trade freedom for safety in a heartbeat.
@@thebibosez7949 I don't know any women like that but that's beside the point. If an individual woman wants to do that, that's fine but I know personally I was very much against being forced to stay home. I also don't live in a totalitarian large city so we weren't locked down to begin with. I just don't understand why people get degrees in telling women how to live.
54:00 that's not an answer; it's a dodge, and an admission that this whole idea has ignored half the population so far ... These are not serious people.
Alex Kaschuta is on the left, Mary Harrington is on the right.
Fire at will
Benjamin is in the centre.
Thank you for providing this intelligent and thought provoking discussion. I felt that your questions advanced the exposition of your guests.
Good discussion, please more of this, less of the trans stuff.
and who's that pretty lady in the middle?
ps: did you not like the video/present? did i misjudge you that much? Or have you not listened to it yet?
just in case, i am talking about the comment under Linda Blade's video. ˘J˘
I feel that in this conversation "liberal" is being slightly confused with individualist/consumerist. Liberalism is about personal liberty and individual rights yes, but also about personal/individual responsibility. That includes the responsibility to your family, as a mother or as a father.
I agree. She keeps talking about 'progress' as if that's mutually exclusive with Liberalism. Liberalism is, as you said, about the government's responsibility to protect the rights of the individual and the institutions of society, not to progress 'toward' something. Not in my view.
No but we are being marketed in a manner of consumerism; even in religion and other dynamics because we consume and when we become parents we are buying to suit that purpose. It is only right that men and women are given their suggestive rights for paternal and maternal leave. But then you have to see it from the perspective that churches have to stop being one dimensional and start thinking the ideology of having the gay community marry one another would bring another alteration to consumerism.
"Having a child trashed my liberalism." No kidding. The understanding of the interdependent relationship is normal, necessary and evolution. Yep.
My brain is about to explode now.
Like Mary just went through my house, emptied all my closets and drawers into a big pile on the floor and I need to decide what to keep, toss and buy new.
Alexa, play "Freebird".
Old wisdom expressed by a modern intellectual. I liked it.
Wow! What a great conversation. One of the best you’ve had on the show, Benjamin.
Speaking as a gay man I think this is the most important, eye opening conversation I have ever heard on these topics.
“ they reframe humans as a kind of meat lego.” ~ classic!! 😄
The strange part is, when it if framed like that, I sort-of sympathize with that view.
When aspects of our bodies hamper us or makes us suffer, we develop means of addressing that. If a tooth aches, you fix/pull it. If your appendix is inflamed, you cut it out.
- If the means to replace and remodel aspects of our bodies becomes available as medical science progresses, hypothetically to the point of being able to implant let's say actually functional sex-organs to a member of the opposite sex, then I struggle to separate that from the aforementioned artificial replacement/remodeling of a tooth to make life easier for the individual in question.
Though what makes for a functional long-term society is another matter, and only time will tell with respects to that. Artificially growing humans in tanks might also be on the table within the foreseeable future, and I also struggle with seeing that as fundamentally wrong as well...
I dunno, these are some interesting questions to consider
The reality is we all need each other, someone made the sidewalk you walk on, even if you're too asleep to think of those things
@M McPherson Feminists can focus their efforts on the glass ceiling because gynocentrism insures that women are prevented from slipping too low on the ladder
No discussion of feminism is concerned about those who build, maintain, and shovel sidewalks. Because
@M McPherson From welfare queens to CEOs, every wammin is on the ladder.
Great, thanks for introducing me to these women, Boyce.
Mary Harrington is so intelligent and clear headed.
Just another solipsist trying to game the system in her own favour. Predictable and weak are better descriptors.
Brilliant! Definitely, food for thought.
@@marclacey2263 agreed, just another grifter. And a busybody. Sticking her long britbong nose into the business of women trying to make business surrogacy contracts which they consent to. Getting on her moral Karen high horse about what other people want to do with their bodies. I suppose the idea of other women getting paid for what she chose to do for free really upsets her
Mary’s brilliant
@UCOShHlI0YuF3PS7j1iGv7jQ I wasn't referring to this woman personally. She has not brought about the conditions necessary to grift yet. But I am assuming that the only conclusion of her logic is that society needs to come in and make sure women can be "dependent" if they want to. This can only lead to A) private citizens having to fund a woman's life because she wants to be a stay at home mom and not work or B) all citizens who pay taxes indirectly funding a woman's choice to stay home instead of working.
That's why it's a grift. She thinks society needs to appreciate her laziness as something worthy of being funded. Her whole interview consists of her bitching about the modern version of liberalism that expects her to be an adult and pay for her own life, because she says it doesn't account for times in people's lives in which they need to be dependent. Well actually, we do have disability, welfare, unemployment, etc. We should also have paid maternity leave for a realistic amount of time just like any other injury/medical procedure would be granted paid/unpaid leave. But if she wants women to be housewives again, who is paying for that? Who is going to pick up the pieces when women's private arrangements with their baby daddies inevitably fail and society has a huge swathe of middle aged divorcees with no job experience and no savings to contend with? Make men pay them alimony? Certainly not. If a woman was eating and sleeping for free in a man's house that he paid for during the marriage, that's compensation enough. She doesn't deserve half his money or any of his money just for existing. Especially not if we keep allowing no-fault divorce. So what used to happen to those middle aged divorcees who found themselves with no job experience and no savings, is that they would get a little alimony settlement, try to live off it, and eventually end up in some menial job to make ends meet in their old age. And it was always really sad to see the old cleaning lady/old cashier/old waitress who was in her 60s or so but you knew she couldn't retire because of her poor life decisions in youth. But according to "reactionary feminism" women should be allowed to be dependent. A woman who made poor life decisions and has no money can't just be allowed to take a shitty job and sit with her choices. Someone has to let her be dependent on them.
So either this "reactionary feminist" doesn't care that "being dependent" is going to lead to a LOT of aging women who are living in poverty when their marriages end, or she wants women to receive never ending welfare. And someone I don't think it's the former. Hence why I said grift.
What a combination of guests! Can't wait
The civil rights movement at least at first was highly religious and informed by Christianity. The “I have a dream” speech is very much based on Christian morality.
So I’m not sure the original Civil Rights movement really saw its self above God. The people claiming that mantle present day are a different case.
It's indeed all in to topple any existing structures of power (Christianity included) as it sees these as "oppressive" due to their associations with being founded by European males. If they have their way, they will end up causing another holocaust. This was never about liberalism or protecting minorities, but about totalitarianism. I am not even white, but I read between the lines and see the resentment on many of these so called leftists ideals.
USofPA: Thanks. I am def using this idea as you express it at my School Board. Otherwise hopeless.
@@dix0n778but Christianity wasn’t founded by European males so I’m not sure what they’re trying to do. Maybe some of the nationalist white Jesus Christianity is what they want to deconstruct but it would seem more like they’re unaware how Christianity has shaped there morals and also how white supremacy has also infected there ideology. It’s the some of the same logic just tweaked in another direction and derived from a different place.
@@paigemccormick6519 Sorry, seems a lot of school boards are a lost cause.
This "form" of feminism seems capable of promoting agency, self accountability and introspection.
Great interview! This reminds me of a talk by David Graeber where he reframed the working and professional as the caring class vs the bureaucratic|admin class. Suggesting the left could not serve both, noting the interests of the bureaucratic class had been prioritised by current politics. Graeber included teachers, farmers, nurses, road workers as all caring class - those who do things or make things that we need and society needs to function.
ps: this interview and the previous with Mary did not show up in my subscriptions or notifications.
Oh I like that phrasing.. the roles that 'care' for society.. so necessary but not valued enough
I loved his Bullshit Jobs book so much.
The part about how we're just screwed if we keep treating male-female relations as a zero-sum game is right on, and sums up the problem I started having with most other feminisms. Also, "your name will be Windchime" lol.
Thanks for introducing such interesting guests, a refreshing change of viewpoint.
Had just been thinking today that you'd have an interesting conversation with Alex, so imagine my surprise to see that's what you were up to!
Here’s our first: ua-cam.com/video/_NeJ8Fig5aI/v-deo.html
Thanks Benjamin and ladies. This was a fascinating interview.
“The genie is well and truly out of the bottle … Somebody has to wipe bottoms.” (that was my job, btw. glad to do it.)
I sure hope we are going to see the Evergreen Story Part 24 sometime before the end of the summer. It just feels wrong to leave it at #23.
I periodically go back & watch Benjamin’s old Evergreen updates (since I only came across the Evergreen story about a year ago). I commented that it was good stuff, but that Benjamin’s become such an excellent interviewer that his new direction is his best work. Still fun to occasionally revisit that story, at least where it’s left the university, which appears to be in a downward spiral…
53:00 - This segment right here cements Harrington as the real deal. A union requires more than one voice.
Very insightful and to the point. Good guests Sir Benjaminz 👏🏼
as i see it reactionary feminism is a movement to combat the neo-fascist feminism that constrains/boxes women and men today.
and the expansion of what motherhood is was the best one i, as a man, have ever heard in my 56y life. paraphrasing: ‘It’s like one of your limb separating from you body and you instinctively must take care of it as if it is still attached.’ My jaw dropped when i heard this, the comprehension was mind altering :-0
Finally some feminism without the misandry
It was less than an hour long discussion with two women dividing that time
This is such a cool conversation. I have had similar thoughts. It is so nice to hear so well articulated.
They seem to mean responsibility , for child , family , proper domesticality , caring . Jordan Peterson says it is not just rights , it is also responsibilities ... Also civic sustenance . I think this may be 'part and parcel' of this feminism , it sounds good to me ... I like it .
In answer to your question @53:02 - Equal status in family courts and a presumption of 50/50 custody. The end of Alimony. The end of unproven allegation of DV being a factor in custody battles. If a women can abort a man baby, a man should be able to abort his connection to that baby and not pay child support (his body, his choice).
I trained 2B a family court mediator during the 3 years I served as volunteer small claims mediator.
Most jurisdictions can offer that to divorcing Dads.
It has more to do with which lawyers the judge chooses to favor.
Sometimes Moms pay child support and alimony. Each state has a formula or chart.
It's BEST to ask a CPA! There can be BIG tax advantages to paying higher alimony for some parents.
I am the guaranteed EMPRESS of that kinship of people targeted by fabricated & bizarre accusations!
I go into "documenting evidence" and "case building" modes in the blink of an eye.
I'll give you a virtual mediation simulation, or your friend, for FREE
if you can dm me for the wix site people mediate.
If you like what I composed and published there.
Further, a man should be able to demand an abortion just as a woman can. Single party no fault divorce should not be possible if underage children exist. Child support (auxiliary alimony) must be abolished. All of these incentives for divorce must go away. If a mother can't manage the children and wants a career, give the children to the father.
Some women don't design their lives around the difficulties of children and career. Even way back, Madam Curie had two daughters. Not having kids because of career is not progress. It's a form of selfish defeat that many regret secretly. There are ways to do both. It's all about timing and choices and finding fulfillment in the imperfection of a lifetime. I think it's better to do it so that no stone left unturned, even if some of them don't have a worm. To be passionate about life and work.
Depending on one's bubble, this is a very sobering conversation. Did I say "sobering?" Substitute "hopeless," until tomorrow when the veil lifts and I get back to work. As I heard JBPeterson say: Sometimes the tragedy of life recedes.
We are in tragic times, Benjamin, but there can be good days. Raising my own children (they are now of age) was prescient reactionary feminism in the 90s and 00s. Thank you.
I'm thinking...what about the beautiful, loving, masculine, literate fathers that were archetypical in my youth? in the sixties and seventies? Where ever did that go? It seems so unrepresented now.
Maybe they went too far, and they need reactionary masculinity. Delicate balances.
You mean all the old toxic masculine, patriarchal males?
Men are not obsolete. They're just undervalued. If all women went on strike for one week there would be a noticeable inconvenience but life would go on. If all men went on strike for a week we'd be in the stone age in 3 days. Men do all the heavy lifting that allows civilization to exist. Men keep the power one, the toilets flushing, the machines in repair, fuel in the tanks at the gas stations, food on the shelves in stores. Women complain about the glass ceiling, but they completely ignore the glass floor.
It's the silencing of the 'subalter' mentioned by James Lindsay.
Legal documents for designated health care surrogate rejected by local hospital and denied critical diabetic care.
I had to call ER 911, who transported my son to the hospital earlier, to get his life saving treatment.
@@dirkcheezleman5963 just that silencing people is a primary feature & target for the social justice warriors and loaning judicial resources & immunity to friends to create false evidence is the default setting in US courts right now
@@dirkcheezleman5963 the 3 branches of US gov are usurping power. Supreme Court nullified 42 USC 1983 by requiring EXACT circumstances exist in prevailing case law, thereby eradicating any jurisdictions to seek remedy when several judges and the state attorneys publicly hand over their powers and immunity to "other folks"
Perhaps if I petition the government for gender identity protection, as I identity as an androgynous gender capitalist, an authentic jurisdiction may emerge.
ua-cam.com/video/9qvE0uO8JJg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/vKxq7tsMPqc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/PcHAiBUaew0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/iM6efNjhcdE/v-deo.html
You find such amazing people to interview and I "learn" so much, some new stuff and some stuff that validates my thought process.... #mindexpansionisgood
"Maiden to crone" What a lovely way with words Alex has.
Don’t you dare give up on Feminism yet! I’m just gaining steam in my fight against the real enemy: The Heightriarchy ! The vertically challenged have suffered under longlimbed oppression for too long, and I’m on the precipice of my state legislature granting us special rights. I’ve already obtained over a million signatures to ban basketball! I mean, really, can’t everyone see that Basketball is just thinly disguised short-shaming!? Please join my cause and keep feminism strong. Thank you.
Yeah somebody does have to wipe bottoms....the underclass who bingo just so happen to be mostly poor women.....and this has always been my objection to feminism, which I see in the UK as a white middle class movement who constantly pull the ladder up because somebody needs to wipe bottoms.
I wonder what's wrong with the term 'pragmatic feminism'? I almost think that describes what Mary's getting at better - ie. that dimorphism runs deep enough that we're built around it and if our construction of culture doesn't do a heck of a lot better than just keeping women safe from male sexual avarice, but then throwing them in to be batteries / fuel rods in the corporate array and even treating their biological role of having children as a strike against them really turning into something like an economic chauvinism when they're really like fish being told that they're failed monkeys for not climbing trees - 'pragmatism' seems like a nod to the realization that there's a shape to the container that the myth of progress is perpetually trying to rebel against and, in very much a John Ralston Saul 'Voltaire's Bastards' sense detachment from reality is the eventual ruin of civilizations.
I'd joke and say is there anything called 'feminism' that would ever make sense or I could get behind?
But wow, I haven't heard of reactionary feminism before, and it seems to be quite thoughtful and supporting of the idea of a movement that doesn't want to disadvantage other groups (no zero-sum game attitude, is aware of men's issues too) and is very very critical of whether the current strands of feminism has helped or harmed women.
Of course, I know some people will be like "Why keep the feminist label then?" while other mainstream feminists will be like "Not real feminism!". It will be interesting to watch, I enjoy the conversation, especially Mary's ideas are at first hard to follow (maybe because of her eloquent and maybe slightly intellectual sounding speech) but I kinda understand what she tries to say and also watching some other videos of her, there are some fascinating ideas things to think about I didn't even in the past. Will definitely watch more in the future from these ladies :)
You can't be free in society. If you are part of society you have responsibility and a man with responsibility is never free.
The only way to be free is to leave society.
I like Mary's perception of the liberal context. Teaching men that we women can still give birth up until we are 50 in some cases; equivocates to the value of life and that we are not disposable. Or relationships would change and our whole longevity would change.
Mary: "Meat Lego".
Good word choice.
Strangely, when it was put like that, I sort-of sympathize with the view that developing means to bypass biological limitations is ideal.
I mean, there are plenty of shitty aspects to our biology that makes us suffer, whether it be your body not conforming to your gender-identity or a worn-down knee that causes constant agony. Is there really a fundamental difference between these
- If the means to overcome these medically is becoming available, by treating the body like "Meat Lego", why should it not be indulged? For sure, the tech isn't there just yet, but with the way biological science is going it might be within a lifetime.
It was food for thought for sure.
For a time, the first class first world Feminism of the few was called by the pejorative phrase White Feminism.
While not quite accurate due to the volume of peoples excluded from the form of Feminism that is purports to describe including most White women, it still spoke to the fact that it did not represent the majority of women anywhere on earth.
We take turns serving each other.
Fantastic conversation. Well articulated reason based arguments, tremendous.🇨🇦🍻
Aha! Miss Kaschuta, one of my fav tweeters! This should be fun! Thanks Benjamin.
These are all the same reasons that Vervaeke is so pissed off at Romanticism.
Very enjoyable. Thanks again Benjamin.
Didn’t Mary just speak for women in general, when she “had the answer” to why some women don’t want to have kids? That they can’t envision a future with kids in it, because it would change things for the worse - or did I misunderstand what she said? Sure, that’s probably true for some CFBC women, but definitely not for all.
I can only speak for myself, and I can say this: I have never ever had any interest or urge or anything near a wanting or longing to have a child.
- Never. I do have the impression that that is true for a lot of women who are child free by choice too, from what they have said. - That they just don’t have it in them, that urge to produce an offspring. And not that having a child would entirely “ruin” their life. The life they knew and enjoyed.
I think the women who really desire to have children should have them, and those who don’t want to have children shouldn’t. 🤷🏼♀️
To a degree, women who chose childlessness due to personal aversion are probably affected by the culture and the zeitgeist. Imagine such a woman in Sparta. She wouldn't exist. Those women (the ones in ancient cultures) had a sense of duty. Now, only men feel this sense of duty. In the US, they are forced to sign up for selective services. In many countries, they are conscripted. Women are unique in one way: they can bear children. As has always been understood until now, women have a duty to their culture and their family to bear children. Otherwise, you have demographic collapse.
@@Vesuya Well, good thing the majority of women want to have kids, then. So that those who truly doesn’t want to have kids will be in the minority, using their life in other purposeful ways. 😊 Always nice when those who really want kids, get them, happy for all the women out there who want that for themselves. 👍🏼
@@Vesuya Well, glad I’m not one of them, then. Happy gen x here, loving life! 😊👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
@@NiinaSKlove unfortunately, you specifically don't matter to the discussion at hand. Your declining life satisfaction will start within a decade or so, most likely. If it doesn't, selfish ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
@@Vesuya 😂 Oh, really? Have we met?
Okay but that kind of begonia is that in your intro clip with the deer tho
It is a white begonia, the official flower of BLM.
Just wow. These women are so smart and articulate and radical. So very interesting. Thanks for the introduction to these ideas.🙂
Recently a quote from Ian Malcolm (from the book/movie Jurassic Park) keeps coming into my thoughts: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should." He was talking about using DNA sequencing the re-create dinosaurs (scientism with disastrous results), but the same could be said about changing people's genders by medical procedures (insofar as that is possible). Progressivism is so preoccupied by everything that CAN be done by modern science, especially when it comes to creating (in their mind) more "equality", that they never stop to ask themselves if these things SHOULD be done. Or I guess they just assume that they should because they believe in the ever ongoing progress towards a "better world".
Now, I don't neccesarily think that a better world is not possible, or that we are no better as a species than we were 2000 or 3000 years ago. I think that in many ways we are better: we know more about the world and the universe, we are less aggressive and prone to war and conquest, we are able to prevent or ease more suffering due to medical and social advancements... but of course at the same time we are harming nature more, and are perhaps more disconnected from ourselves and others. But as Mary Harrington notes, change is not good or bad in itself. Change is not always progress in the sense that it's moving towards a "better world". It can often be damaging or downright catastrophic.
Yes exactly I think that's what she was getting at.. there is a trend to immediately embrace anything that seems innovative just because we can. There is no waiting and analysing all the pros and cons and trying to consider all the potential consequences for society. Just blindly accepting each step because it's "progress" and by the time the negative effects are seen it's too late to stop. If we allow some new kind of tech that ends up killing us all then that's not very progressive after all.
Great one! Tnx
I think this latest manifestation of feminism can be best labeled: situational feminism in that it's a feminism which can be redefined in any way that benefits the redefiners in whatever manner benefits any group of women at that stage of their lives. And as usual, it's the responsibility of men to make the new definition satisfying for this group of women.
I teach a math class and I am trying to make it more inclusive for women, yet whenever I use shoes or 0nlyfans as an example, the female students get really uncomfortable. Do they need to decolonize their thinking or what?
Not to knock Benjamin, but his reaction at 19 minutes on Catholic Social teaching is pretty amusing. The secular minded are so often damn ignorant of religion, especially the religion most of them think they know best, Christianity. So many of them have childish ideas, and have no idea of what they do not know or understand. They so often smugly think they know all about it, but too often ignorantly dismiss or even arrogantly scorn the flowering core of their own culture that feeds and sustains them, without a clue what they are doing.
I would see it in a more positive light if I wasn't shipped off as a child for a bunch of hellfire and brimstone sermons tro get cptsd and OCD.
And the pendulum starts to swing back... very interesting conversation. Thank you.
I don't see how Liberalism led to the atrocities of the 21st century (fascism and communism). I'd argue that Liberalism is the force that ENDED those regimes. I'm not sure what to think about some of the ideas presented here, but I'm not finished with the video; so I'll listen completely before criticizing too much.
Did I like miss part one of this conversation?!?!? I'm halfway through the video and I feel like I'm not sure what their viewpoints are. They sound like collective communists, but supposedly are against woke ideology/contemporary feminism. I'm confused!
I think I'm starting to understand what they're saying. What they're calling "Liberalism," I would call "Illiberal Progressivism." I think my misunderstanding was perhaps a matter of semantics.
I contend with the idea that delegating child rearing to other women is a problem, and that it is exclusive to liberal societies. Nursemaids have always existed. You could quite convingcinly argue that as all other luxuries, they are just widely available to more people now. And the class difference in this relationship is not necessarily true: in latino culture, for example, having housemaids is not a luxury, nor is it uncommon for women to do this for other women within the same economic class.
As with a lot of conversations that I see happening between people I follow in the English speaking world, they make a whole lot of assumptions and generalizations based on a very limited understanding of the world outside the anglosphere.
Interesting take. I guess it's true that a large part of all these conversations is focused on specifically current Western liberal culture but I think that's kind of implied as that is where the "culture war" is happening. I'm sure other cultures have their own discussions and some elements of these discussions are increasingly present in almost all cultures as globalisation and the internet makes cross-pollination (or infection) between cultures easier and faster.
I think maybe you are not wording your statement correctly or just generalizing. I’m Latina, housemaids were and are a luxury where I come from. And the only people doing anything like child rearing were the retired grandmothers or an aunt who had a day off.
@@loramurray2341 I think you are missing the point (and also, key word: necessarily (my housemaid lives a block away from me)). The point is women taking care of other people's children is a phenomenon that predates liberalism and it is present in most cultures (and having someone take care of house chores for you is common in most societies other than in the US). It is not a direct consequence of liberalism.
For a look at the civil rights movement, check out Vince Ellison and Thomas Sowell, who have some interesting perspectives on the movement and statistics to support their views.
Oh god, yet another feminism!
And somehow women have been the most harmed - again!
Feminism has trashed women to beyond belief. Men are just left holding the bag.
“The Mary Harrington Show”.
@@ChickenC0re some men have dropped that bag
@@Yeetus223 Yes. Western society does not give a crap about men. Time to drop the bag and walk away.
@@ChickenC0re She is more of a crone than a bag, but yeah.
In isolation, 33:46 does *not* play well. As a descendent of Holocaust survivors, I take great objection to the employment of stigma against consenting adult lifestyles that simply depart from the norm. There are no circumstances in which it's virtuous, in fact it's quite dangerous and they lost my audience at that point.
Ahhhhh it hurts! But the “liberation” of women has ALWAYS worked against the interests of women. Especially poor women. But it only matters now that it’s caught up with the rich ones 🧐
Feminism is a series of debates among women who are financially able, inclined by class background, and willing to pursue careers in feminism
@@annarboriter I always thought feminism was a parody of black liberation movements designed to keep them at bay. One still sees echoes of this whenever a shoe store is looted.
In some ways, yes, but in others, no. I'm quite grateful that I'm allowed to vote, to inherit and to keep property of my own.
@@anitasassassine It's a myth that the feminist movement secured those last two rights rights for you. After women gained suffrage, property rights subsequently followed. So much of the feminist project is claiming ownership of advances that are the result of modernity and industriaiization while at the same time, claiming that women lack such rights
@@anitasassassine Inheriting property, and keeping property, are both contrary to BLM's principles.
i am so excited to listen to this!
How sad.
i hope my excitement does not sadden you. it is not my intention.
Regarding men's role now and going into the future, and if you want to get more detail on the "Mannerbund" perspective, you should talk to Jack Donovan.
Women fighting for their right to be protected and asserting their desire to domesticate men whilst expressing admiration for men who choose to deviate from that. What a provoative and threatening shape this conversation took, and yet everything feels entirely commensurate with my view of reality. How terrifyingly conservative do I sound!?
I love it when people build entire intellectual theses railing against a reductive form of liberalism, which should really be referred to as "L"ibertarianism.
Can someone tell me what they mean specifically when they make reference to "liberalism"? What aspect/facet of liberalism are they referring to?
This conversation more profoundly disturbing than the tone would suggest
I super love Alex...LOVE YOU GIRL! Congrats on your impending motherhood! Mary is a little bit too much for me, but I definitely found this conversation fascinating.
41:00 Mary says "why not work?" Because you could be home caring for home and children, instead most women go do jobs that are modern version of women's work. They do so now, not for their family, but for corporations, for less pay, while out sourcing their children's care and raising. Women haven't gained hardly anything
So what now? Robots? Robots take care of children and "wipe bottoms"? I'm 57 and enjoyed the last gleams of the Golden Age of America...the high art ( all consigned to the dust bin by modernity) the increased prosperity ( a shadow in the past now) the wonder of advancing technology ( all deformed ala Frankenstein) and will be fine for my remaining time on this mortal coil...but what of the kids? Dystopia?
Robots aren't capable of unconditional love, I don't think they would be able to support healthy emotional development of children.
@@apebass2215 Children aren't getting much love from modern parents. My young Meditation students tell me about how they were parented. It's not a nice picture...and yes, the Robots will do even worse than the failing modern parent
@@soulbasedliving I can't comment on the levels of love individual children receive from their parents, every situation is different. I don't think robots are the answer though.
@Bob Charles the hyper real simulacrum baby
@@soulbasedliving a robot may not offer unconditional love...but neither will it offer conditional love. Kids won’t have to look back and wonder why dad would rather be off on his own than spend any time with them. Robots sound like a terrible idea; but I just wanted to call attention to the fact that many parents are a net negative on their child’s life - not even a neutral - a negative.
Good job on the frame :) I think its interesting. Wonder how much time is to render the video this way tho.
An hour or so, then a half hour to correct it.
Where do I sign up to be a pirate bro?
the roving bands of pirates do talk about their reproductive problem, endlessly. Bio science may have a dystopian solution to this problem. Hopefully that particular pile of dead male bodies isn't in out timeline
Looking at these comments... Theres lots of men hating on feminism. Why are these women trying to talk to such men.
I'm one behind the curtain advising the Apex Predator. Attempting to make this dangerous person into someone who can do Good.
Only the dangerous can do good, since the safe do nothing.
20:00 Liberty without moral constraint is hedonism
Yay, two normal women, one I've stated before is my kind of woman, translation, hooot.
Tho I do still have major concern with baggage involved in feminism.
There's always baggage or, feminism no longer means what a majority are saying.
Am I right in saying, feminism needs men? 😇
These women seem normal to you? That's depressing. They are ideologues with a distorted view of the world and humanity.
What feminism needs. Seriously? Feminism is just another harmful Marxist device to separate us, it doesn't need anything and people don't need it either.
Feminism never helped anyone and has damaged everyone. Reject feminism.
Marc you’ve a Pavlovian response to the word feminism it seems as you’re not describing or arguing a single point that Alex and Mary put forward. Blinded by your hatred of ideologues you’ve taken on their worst aspect: reflexive action without thought.
@@marclacey2263 Yeah, they're far more in line with normality than many others Ben has interviewed.
As for your view on feminism, I'm on the fence on this one. I have an old school take on feminism but, have rejected feminism over the years because the activism surrounding it has become monolithic, making one of the most toxic things in politics.
@@BenjaminABoyce Hey, do me a favour and tell the one on the right, I love her and will she marry me.
If she doesn't like gingers I can dye my hair...
Surprisingly interesting chat! In response to Mary's question of what reactionary men want from 'reactionary feminism', the answer is as simple as you'd expect: femininity and a defense thereof from the female side.
BAP and his merry band of body building pirates will hear of this!
interesting chat.
We need a Compelling Meme for a Post Liberal Paradigm.
Cute deer.
Why dont we call it natural feminism?
Whenever I see integralism, I love joking about the St Thoma Aquinas defense of legal sex work.
Quite an unobjectionable chat! (That's a compliment.) Though I'm not sure I see a problem with adults choosing to enter into a contract for surrogacy. (Though I do understand the point Mary was making.)
Christianity gave rise to science and liberty. Christianity was the bulwark against today's decadent culture.
Secular Atheism, standing on the back of Christianity, gave rise to Libertinism. Feminism and libertinism could not have created the success of the West. Parasites only come along after the success of a separate host. It is the same for Libertinism. This conversation incorrectly conflates classical liberalism with libertinism. Classical liberals warned against libertinism. The French Revolution is presented as an example of libertinism's inherent instability and despotism. Unfortunately, it was inevitable that when the West abandoned Christianity as its moral compass, it would adopt libertinism.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
Talk to auron macintyre and the distributist.
I'd like to see either of them speak with Mary.
tldr: make love not war
i have to admit i am enjoying the mess going on in the US, plenty of entertainment lol
Based and Boyce-pilled.
I can't help but think she means liberationist, not liberal. And how exactly are these women feminists? So far they just appear to be tradcons. Feminism is an ideological framework, it doesn't just mean "caring about women".
I don't know what word would best describe these women, but I agree that they don't seem to be using "liberal" in the classical sense.
@@JonathanRossRogers What they're calling "Liberalism," I'd call "Illiberal Progressivism"
Well that went down well with the reactionary men.
I also thought the reactionary men reacted quite well.
I'd like to see both of them asked about trans humanism.
This talk has made up for the travesty that was the interview with that cam girl.
I disagree with Ms. Harrington's view of classical liberalism as an attempt to create 'heaven on earth'. I would see it as an attempt to make it somewhat less hellish than it demonstrably can be. The utopian visions tend to be more of the extreme right and left. Good thought-provoking conversation though.
I agree that classical liberalism wasn't utopian. However, I'm a fan of the English Enlightenment rather than the French Enlightenment.
Jesus I'm so sick of people's obsession with telling women how to live their lives. Can't we just do what makes us happy and forge our own path?
Women were overwhelming in favor of lockdowns under the guidance of the beloved Saints Fauci and Cuomo. They will trade freedom for safety in a heartbeat.
@@thebibosez7949 I don't know any women like that but that's beside the point. If an individual woman wants to do that, that's fine but I know personally I was very much against being forced to stay home. I also don't live in a totalitarian large city so we weren't locked down to begin with. I just don't understand why people get degrees in telling women how to live.
@@lindymuse9271 Women detest other women, so the desire to be the queen bee, or overthrow her, is a quite popular theme in chick culture.
@@lindymuse9271 I live in the inner city (Dallas) and every woman I know was mortified when the mask mandate was lifted and businesses reopened.
@@thebibosez7949 I'm pretty sure you're a troll so this isn't going to be productive. Thanks ✌
In Marxist thought: the State takes care of children
I couldn’t really get anything out of this interview. I felt like the guests weren’t making any points.
“Detonate freedom as an ideal everyone should aspire to”
54:00 that's not an answer; it's a dodge, and an admission that this whole idea has ignored half the population so far ... These are not serious people.