วีดีโอ

Thank you!! <3 I'm glad u liked it:)

Hi, thanks for watching! Gurl that topic is so interesting it bothers me so much that radical feminist spaces are filled with transphobia. Thanks for bringing it up! I will try to see if I can put that into video form, if I find good literature about it!:) Abraços <3

Hi! Laissez-faire capitalism is just a term to characterize a specific epoch of capitalism where there was less (not no, even though that was the philosophy, connected to liberalism in the UK, France and the US) state intervention in the market - but yeah the state always does execute power over the market. That's explained a bit further along in the video. And of course doesn't mean that there should be laissez-faire capitalism:D hope that makes it clearer:) Thanks for watching!

denke mal du meinst google suchergebnis "CL (südkoreanische Rapperin)", oder?:) freut mich zu wissen🙏

thanks to you for pointing it out!:)

Grüß Gott. Of course, as any video essay channel would, I contemplated Bobby Fischer's takes on metaphysical economics and ontological postmodernism for a long time. At the moment, I don't feel ready for such a superior mind and thinker however. I hope you can wait until I complete another decade of studies on his work. Saluditos

​@@EssaiaNote that the historical term to consider as the precursor to neoliberalism is "economic liberalism." Along with political liberalism and religious liberalism, these are the unholy trilogy of what ails the contemporary world.

Solch eine Ode hätte ich mir in meinen schönsten Träumen nicht ausmalen können. Selbst würde ich meinen Namen niemals im selben Satz wie den eines gottesähnlichen Genußkenners wie Daniel Beuthners nennen, aber aus Ihrer Hand nehme ich diese Lobrede doch gerne entgegen. Gruß an Frau und Kind!

Thank you so much:)) that's good to know! <3

thank you for watching!! ♥️♥️

Hi! I understand your initial reaction so I hope you have the time to read my explanation and hopefully it will make it more clear what I was trying to get at:) Let me explain the criticism: at the time the statement was used, most if not all white women within the movement did not accept their privilege due to their skin color, but only regarded themselves as oppressed due to their gender. they equated this oppression with the one of women of color, using the word "sisterhood" for this. however, women of color experience both racism and different kind of sexism, which was ignored in this statement. AND even more severe: it's not just not recognising the different living exerience of women of color. it's that they (white feminists) were often actively part of this oppression due to their behaviour, their group arrangements, their fight causes etc etc. So just imagine someone who racially discriminates you and does not recognise that then saying that you are "sisters". I get what you mean, of course in theory it should mean solidarity. But if it comes from the same people that are not willing to recognise their privilege and how their talk about feminism stems from a white perspective (e.g. housewives etc as a fundamentally white middle-class experience), it feels very exclusionary. Saying this within an environment where no woman of color was even around or welcome (this is an experience many feminists of color had and still have nowadays) feels like postulating that racism is over and we are now already sisters. I hope this makes the criticism clearer

Thanks for your comment:) First of all: yes, we can mention that. It is the same as mentioning that some men supported feminism throughout the waves. But what is the thing we want to draw the attention to? The fact that throughout feminism, the HUGE majority of white feminists were not and still often are not reflecting their double role as oppressed (gender) and oppressor (ethnicity). From the very beginning PoC feminists formed their own groups due to the racism in the movement. This shows that they did not feel welcome and heard within the other groups. They often still don't. This is what is important to remember and it's an uncomfortable fact because we want to celebrate the early feminists, but knowing how often they were unaware of their privilege or even actively racist is of course uncomfortable. Still, this is what is important to draw our attention to, and that's why I chose this focus. I hope this makes sense

Yes for sure! (if the only-women spaces are inclusive and not just a binary division:))

Naaw thank you so much!!<3

Thank you so much!!:)

Hallöle:) Yes bin deutsch hahah:) Danke dir und grüßee☺️🫶

omggg thank you!!! also i love that u follow sara y atenas heehe🫶

Halloo!:) Thank you so much for ur comment, it's super interesting and I'm so glad that the video helped to start this discussion and reflection <3 Thank you especially for sharing from your perspective and bringing up this important topic (if you're interested, I made video about the myth of the "enlightened" West vs the "oriental" East, would be interesting to hear your thoughts about that too! It's called smth with Orientalism hahah you will see it on my channel there aren't a lot of videos yet😅). Viele Grüße an dich und danke für den support☺️🫶

yaaay omg that's so great to hear😍

Choice feminism is supporting everything a woman does even if she is misogynist.How does it make sense.Choice feminism gives the ideal of all women as angels and she will not do anything against the women.But real Feminism acknowledges that women are humans not angels and we have to work on fighting that keeps women in chains based on objective principles which benefit women

But it is important to consider that every choice has an ideological basis, and a choice without critical thinking and moved by individual gains can't be a path to emancipation. It's just a simulation of freedom that creates legitimacy for oppression

Gonna print this out and hang it on my wall <3 You're so right, fighting for intersectional equality really is the same as dehumanizing people because of their ethnicity or se*ual identity 😍😍

@Essaia ❤️

Yayy thank you so much!☺️🫶

@@AnnaSnow-n8d Hi:) No, I haven't, but thanks for the recommendation!

@Essaia ♥️🫂

@@sindju Hi! So glad to hear that you identify with this view:) Thank you for watching and commenting, it's great to hear this -<3

@@claudiaborges8406 Hi, idk if that was a misunderstanding but I do not actually support nor reproduce the view that the West is 100% "individualist" compared to a "collectivist East". I mentioned this im the context of stereotypes that were critizised by Said. I get what you are saying, but I just would not say this relates (solely) to East/West, but has way more aspects/axes (financial siguation, gender, religion etc), just like you said, it's not that simple, but definitely interesting to talk about:) Thanks for watching!

@ no misunderstanding. I probably could’ve worded my comment better.

@@claudiaborges8406 interesting!:) thanks for watching <3

Thanks so much for watching!!:)

Hi. First thank you for your comment that comes from a good place of wanting to give agency to women. However, I have to say I cant seem but think that you didn't watch the video and/or purposefully misunderstood a lot of points. So let me lay that out in case it wasn't clear in the video, going through the aspects you mentioned. If you do not have time to watch the video, you can read so,e of the comments to have a short version. 1. Saying that women are not smart enough to make their own choice. Again, I have to say I am very confused by how exactly this was your takeaway from the video, but let's talk about it anyway. Firstly, I explicitly mention this criticism and acknowledged that it is important not to fall into this argumentation. Instead, as I argue, it has nothing to so with lack of intelligence to take a choice that is align with the normative way, since everyone (not just women! this has nothing to do with gender!) is influenced by power structures, economic incentives and societal expectations. As with the example I give of going part-time because of economic reasons, this is not at all a "stupid" choice, it is instead very calculated, but it's still a choice that shouldn't be considered feminist in the sense of breaking through gendered division of labour/upholding structures that benefit the patriarchy. 2. You mention that you dislike the idea of saying that women (even lesbians) are said to actively cater to the male gaze even though they are just living their lives. I agree with this. However, again, I find it very hard to imagine what part of the video you took to even remotely go into this direction? Even if it was, it is a completely different story to say that women (as everyone) are shaped in their self-perception and the styling choices they make by what has been the norm around them since their socialization, than to say they are purposefully catering to the male gaze when they are clearly just expressing themselves or even actually cater to a female/lesbian gaze. The Male Gaze is a concept stemming from film theory very focused on media representation and visual representation. To say that media are not catering to it is just ridiculous. Because I am so confused by where in the video I say this I find it hard to even say more about this topic, but if you would like to clarify, I would be happy to elaborate further on what I meant. 3. The main takeaway from the video should be that condemning individual choices women make is wrong since there are vast power structures in place that shape these choices and/or it could in theory also just be their own free will. However, calling these choices "feminist" also moves away from the progressive momentum of feminism, as this inhibts political observation of the structures underlying the current inequalities. This is exactly what Ferguson describes in her paper "Choice Feminism and the Fear of Politics". It is fully available online and linked in the bio in case you are interested in her argumentation. 4. My argumentation is focused on power structures instead of individuals, since I want to draw attention to the psychological shaping that the media industry and the educational system have on us (that, again, has nothing to do with being more or less intelligent/educated, but is just the effect of being social animals that are ideologically shaped by their surroundings). These institutions were and still are heavily influenced by patriarchal gender norms, heteronormativity and racism. Also, the people in power making the decisions in these realms are predominantly white cis men, shaping them from their own perspective. An intersectional viewpoint can however only be implemented through political action that breaks out of the normative status quo. I hope this makes everything a little bit clearer. Of course, you can still prefer Choice Feminism, and I also talk about its advantages in the video, since some points that it raises are very important and interesting to consider. Still, I wanted to present a critical reflection on it.

@Essaia no worries it's just my visceral reaction

@@cactus2260 Yeah, this is an interesting perspective. On a political/party-policy level, majorities are extremely important, and ofc the goal should in fact be for everyone to be feminist in the sense of embracing gender equality long term. But I get what you mean about it taking the transformative energy away from the movement if its main/only focus is appealing to the masses without actually reaching structural changes. Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts!! 🫶

@@cactus2260 That's super interesting, thank you for the insight! 🫶 also thanks for taking the time to comment:) means a lot to open these conversations

@@okzmp hahshshahs omg idk how to feel about that (i didn't know him before but now i listened to him talk and i feel like you're saying i sound stoned💀💀💀)

@@heywhat6676 i couldnt agree more, especially with the part about it being "okay" not to consider everything feminist. It bothers me so much that many works of literature , movies, personal lifestyle choices etc that reinforce patriarchal norms now all have to fall under "feminism" just because a woman does them (female rap is often a good example). It would be so much more helpful to just accept them as a thing existing in this world of gender norms but not try to stretch the meaning of what "feminism " is about to the point where it doesnt stand for anything anymore ... Thank you for your comment!! <33

the comedic timing/phrasing of this is everything hahs. Also love ur channel btw

@@Pango275 thank you for watching:)

@@BeneathFullMoon exactly. Its always a structure, and I am glad the point wasnt misunderstood since I also don’t want to personally attack individuals just trying to make sense of this patriarchal world.. Thank yiu for watching and leaving a comment! <33

​@@Essaia then the issue is Capitalism, not Feminism. This is a matter of Economics, not culture.

@@Jamhael1 Could you elaborate since when economics and cultute are separate entities? Everything economic is heavily shaped by culture (see gendered division of labor, underrepresentation of PoC/women in politics and leading positions, accessibility of information and education about economics, etc...). Hope this makes it clearer.

@Essaia simple: Economics do not care for gender, only that the control of the economic power stay in the hands of a few. And to preserve said elite, the creation of arbitrary divisions are imposed to create the "oldest game" of power: Divide et impera - Divide and Conquer And in Capitalism (the system where we live), the main purpose of it is to grant the greatest profit possible by the least amount of cost, independent of the morality or gender of the ones who hold the reigns of economical power. And if ANY idea, philosophy or ideology ends up being not only profitable but also capable to be absorbed by Capitalism, it WILL BE promoted as a merchandize under the claim of "progress", but will not address the deep issue within it - only the owners of "big business" will profit from the "virtue signaling", while the lives of billions will not gonna have a single iota of their existence changed in any way, shape or form - it is just an illusion of progress, a mirage of success, but that is done to soothe our conscience and pad the bank account of entire corporations. Culture, however, are more about the limitations imposed by geography and resources - a culture developed in the desert will hold different beliefs from a culture developed in a different biome, and so on. The problem with the situation presented is: culture is not an immobile thing, but serve as the "lubricant" to ease social iteractions according to said geographical and resource limitations, and will change whenever new developments in technology, science, or philosophy, but this will only lead to a new culture, more adapted to the "spirit of the age", being developed to accomplish the function of the now discarded one. The problem ignored here is this belief that we can (metaphorically speaking) "remove a god from the altar" and expect that said altar will STAY empty. So, in the case presented here, no amount of "consciensious objection" done by individual action will change the situation that is imposed on the entire planet - an individual refusing to buy a purse for moral objections will not impede that someone else will buy it because Capitalism does not abide to morality, only its inherent logic of profit to its leaders at the cost of exploitation of everybody else.

I dont know if you watched the video but this is equactly (and I really mean complete and utterly the same xd) what I am saying in the video...? Delegating responsibility about consumption choices to individuals is a way for neoliberal capitalism to preserve power and remain the status quo. This is why political action is required for a more just society. I dare say you misunderstood large parts of the video or did not watch it, since this point was repeated various times and pretty clear:) Of course, I dont agree that this makes feminist issues disappear since they are "purely economic " and I dont get how that alligns with your other reflections, but everyone is entitled to their opinion so thats fine:D The divisions in society you call arbitrarily imposed by capitalism are imo not at all arbitrary but were necessary conditions for capitalism to arise (see: my video on the Capitalocene/Cheap Nature appropriation). Thank you for taking the time to present your opinion on this interesting topic.

@@MarieUllrich-w6k naaw hihihi danke fürs anschauen☺️🫶