I never realized how class consciousness has gotten buried by elite women in the twentieth century. Those women with careers rather than jobs have set the agenda for ALL women, often to the disadvantage of those with jobs. Great interview. Great insights.
If I wanted to rant, I would say that feminists are just another group of power grabbers hell-bent on forcing their narrow world view on everybody else, men and women alike. My wife would add that the ones who inhabit the groves of academe all appear to be Marxist.
Every woman has free will. Every woman, I ever met, worked or stayed home according to her families' needs and resources. No woman lives her life to compete with elite women. They do what they need to do for themselves and their families. You never realized that you don't have a clue why women do what they do.
It’s not just “mens’s clubs” that no longer exist. There’s now no place left where men can support one another. Companies described as “mens’ clubs” now cannot exist. However, I’ve been to many companies and offices completely consisting of women. I had a dental office worker brag to me that the entire company was indeed all women - as though that was a selling point. The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness among people who think this way is astonishing. Men no longer have a single space that’s theirs. Women even bulldozed their way into Boy Scouts - now just called “Scouts” - despite the fact that Girl Scouts exists. Young boys need other boys and men to learn how to be proper men. Women don’t like men today? They need to look in the mirror. They’re the ones who have made them.
Not sure if this is worldwide but in my country, gyms won't hire males as cleaning staff at men's changing rooms. Privacy is something that is not allowed for men. It is absolutely forbidden to have a man in women's changing rooms. But the opposite is just "cost optimization".
Whenever I see a product labeled as a "Women Owned Company", I won't buy it. I don't care which sex owns the company, I'm only interested in the product itself.
Feminists distrust and despise male bonding. They see it as transgressive against their agenda, so they actively work to destroy any space where men can mingle with each other without female influence. They have been successful for the last 60 years until the internet and the rise of the manosphere. They can't control the manosphere, but they've been working overtime to come up with insults and shaming words for men who are sympathetic to male issues (i.e., incel, misogynist, etc.).
I was a Boy Scout leader for almost 15 years to give back to the organization that helped shape my childhood and love of Canadian nature. I quit shortly after girls started entering Scout troops. It killed the whole comradery and experience once girls and their moms joined. Add to that, I knew then, 20 years ago, that the risk to me as a young unmarried man supervising 9-12 year old girls on camping trips and outings was a risk I did not want to take. One girl getting angry for being disciplined and making a false abuse allegation was a threat even then....before MeToo....that could sideline my life. Not worth the risk. Our troop folded less than 5 years later. Apparently not enough interest....after being founded in 1953 and run out of the same church. It is still possible, albeit harder now, to do boy/men activities. Join a gun club. I got my boys into skeet shooting and competitions. Men outnumber women 10:1 in our club. I'm in a private club that was originally a mens club, but was forced to make it co-ed. However, if you keep focusing on stuff men like, such as cigar and scotch nights, scotch tastings, vintage car shows and rally's, etc. you tend to attract 99% men. Same in our car club...1930s to early 1950s hot rods and kustoms. Invitation only. While we do lots as a family, as a father of two boys, I think its important to do things together as boys and men. My wife agrees. Men have gotten too soft. How many young men today can change a tire, let along do a complete brake job on a car or do a complete service on a lawn tractor.
On the Modern Wisdom interview with her a commenter said, and I paraphrase, 'Feminism was all well and good when it was only hurting men and children but now that it's hurting women they have a problem.' Gentlemen, trust NO woman who calls herself a feminist.
The axiom of feminism is that there are no male issues. All the different 'opposing' forms of feminism are a misdirect to keep all societal focus on women and to keep men from establishing any kind of solidarity with each other.
@@keshhan6412 she talks typical feminist nonsense! Like the Industrial Revolution was gendered ffs! Multiples more men were impoverished than women during this process…you need a higher quality interviewer than Peter - whom I like - to pull her up on such nonsense. Only JP could do it currently
Traditional life placed men at the head of the family but Women were the centre of the family, different roles but extremely successful. Feminism broke this, and so the family has declined. Abortion figures are catastrophic, we are killing our children because they get in the way of a false choice: a career or motherhood. Motherhood is the most important thing there is, careers are mostly a waste of time. We need family and society, not more over paid professionals.
Woman the ❤of the family; man the head (and women used to be smart enough to let them be Chairman of the Board with her CEO of the (Surname) Family Incorporated
It's heartbreaking L Lewit... The answer is so obvious... Women have babies... Men provide for them... That is the basic law of life... Women homemakers paired with men breadwinners i.e the traditional nuclear family... Women are fulfilled as homemakers... Men find completion as breadwinners... Ultimately every man should have a well-paid job , and every woman should be provided for by a man with a well-paid job... That is the basis of middle-class life and social progress So the answer is a Homemaker Allowance to promote single-income households... We can't ban working couples and full-paid work for women , but we can discourage them... We want good homes... Let's go for it !
Men and women are supposed to be partners, not adversaries. I was married for over 30 years, till she passed from cancer, and we were always equal partners, helpmates, friends, and lovers. We had each other's back, stood by each other in thick and thin, for better and worse. I miss that little, sweet, very funny woman. And since then, the women I've met had no notion of how to build a life with a man.
Any man who believes marriage is a partnership has never been through a divorce. If marriage is a partnership, it is one where one partner is financially incentivized to break the terms of the contract. I've never signed a contract (outside of a marriage license) where one partner is financially incentivized to break the partnership. I was married for 2 decades and when she left, the courts awarded her half of all assets, plus support. That support amounted to about half of what I had remaining (no children were involved, so none of this was child support).
I did my final year in university in England, I came from Dublin with a group of friends to finish our degrees in Wolverhampton. This was about 1998/9. One of the things I noticed was although we thought that women's rights were more advanced in England, divorce, abortion ect, it felt much more unsafe. Walls of porno is every corner shop, peep shows, strip clubs, sex shops were everywhere. It felt very seedy. When we went out, we were dressed so modestly compared to the locals, who behaved like animals on a Saturday night tbh, I was pretty shocked. I remember thinking that this was wrong, and that the sexual revolution in the 60s may have been a mistake.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Its an infinite multi-verse and it is empty. We shall shortly have access to all of that and we need trillions more people to be born every year.
My young nephew mentioned he fancied a girl at school, not directly to the girl, just in passing. The school called my sister and advised her of his behaviour. He has been asked not to do this again. I should imagine it will be some time before he asks a girl on a date.
@@margyeoman3564 That's nothing. Younger men feel the same. If you're a very attractive, tall, athletic guy, a woman will welcome you approaching her. If you aren't, you're a creep. You only know where you sit on the creep spectrum through women's reactions to you, and the aggregate of how many are creeped out/call security/police.
@@ljones2087 Schools are introducing a no touching policy. Girls and boys will absolutely not be allowed to mingle, or play together, or do anything other than straight talk in a non-flirtatious way. Why? Because anything other than a professional, business-like conversation and interaction is sexual harassment towards the girl. So at a time in their psychosexual development when girls and boys should naturally be learning about each other, how to flirt, tease, and so on, schools are doing all they can to stamp that out. End result is that children will go into adulthood with the psychosexual development of a young child.
6 years a monk my friend. Now that "W@men most affected" again.. They start to see what was prophesy for millennia. No one can stop a train wreck once it has begun.
If you're in the UK we have the presumption of contact for the non resident parent, and only in very extreme circumstances would the court stop that. Maybe some self reflection is needed on your part.
I knew a woman who believed that men shouldn’t earn more then her. Even if they did a harder or higher skilled job. I asked her if that should include her husband and she said no. 😲
They just say whatever they want, never really having an understanding of the fragility of life. They think the way they feel in the moment is the gospel truth, everyone encourages their delusion so they never have to question themselves, or mature from hard lessons. We made it this way for them because we wanted to get laid. When they reach an undesirable age, only then do they taste reality, but even that is short lived.
One of the biggest lies today: "First you must be complete in yourself, and then if you CHOOSE to have a partner, you can. But you if you REALLY really want/need one, then you're doing it wrong." What absolute twaddle. We need people. Loving others can make us better people. Having relationships can help us to grow. It's just not true that first you must become sovereign of your world. There's no way to do that alone and be truly happy inside. Abandon the lie. Wanting good relationships is in itself a good thing. It doesn't make you "weak." Far from it.
Women are beginning to experience what men have for many years...and they are struggling to handle the stress. All the feminists who thought men had it easy and women were oppressed had no understanding of the weight men carried on their shoulders. Women are still not experiencing true equality of course as they are far less likely to be punched in the face when they overstep the mark, they are very unlikely to lose their children in divorce courts, they rarely pay alimony (although that is beginning to change) and society offers them disproportionate levels of support when things go wrong. As women start to experience true equality I expect they will become ever more depressed. It's quite interesting and also sad to see how women's self-reported levels of happiness have continually declined over the last 50 years despite gaining more and more equality. Correlation isn't causation of course but I think there is a clear causal link here and few feminists will touch it because it would rather undermine their ability to sell books about the evils of masculinity and patriarchal oppression.
85% of British women describe feminism as toxic. I don't think outright equality will, therefore, be achieved. What we have is what Bill Burr describe a as "buffet feminism" where women take a bit of feminism and a bit of traditionalism and optimise it to their preferred mix. A white wedding paid for by somebody else mixed with a career. Dating where the man pays for dinner coupled with media studies at university paid for by male taxpayers.
It's true, they haven't reached true equality. There will always be an empathy gap, I'd imagine, and it will remain highest for women and children. Nor do I think we should change it, necessarily. However, modern women are loathe to admit this gap. If you push them on this point, they will argue that people feel less empathy for men because of men's bad behavior. These are the sorts of on the spot, post-hoc rationalizations that are common these days. It's this empathy gap and the general disdain for males that female to male transitioners find incredibly hard to deal with. Feminists are incredibly smug in proclaiming that men cannot understand female experience but pretend to fully understand male experience. Not only do men face an empathy gap, but as you say, a quite large services gap in terms of social and mental health support. I've worked in the mental health field for almost 20 years and this gap never gets discussed.
Women always had stress too as Mary said they looked after children and worked but now many are totally alone, but are there anymore than during and after wars who had to go it alone?
You remind me of my great grandmother! The best person I remember in my life. She kept her vows till her death, never remarried, with several kids. GOD PLEASE BLESS HER SOUL!
@@francescostello1377 There is no context given. Maybe she was married long enough that starting a new relationship was simply not worth it. Some ppl don't want to remarry after 50 or more years spent committed to one person.
She was devoted to her marriage and to God. She had several children about half of whom died before she did, but she was always upbeat. She also had several Maltese dogs she took to pageants to keep her company when her family wasn't around. She didn't need an intimate companion when her husband died; she had family and pets and took the vows till death due you part seriously.
Women didn't have any (or many) rights simply because they didn't have any responsibility. Who gained from Feminism? Corporations who doubled the labour pool, and governments who doubled the tax base, and social engineers who wanted to destroy the family unit. Who lost? Men and women who now have to compete with one another instead of complementing each other; women who often spend their most fertile years building meaningless careers instead of marrying and raising children, both of which have real meaning; and decent men who are overlooked by women with an overinflated sense of themselves who all want the same 20% of men., but who themselves end up alone because the mathematics doesn't work (i.e. 80% of women wanting the 20% of men). If you wanted to destroy the family (and therefore society) then you could do a lot worse than unleash Feminism in that society.
@@aw-resistance9968 I was about to say that, it's really only the middle class and upper class women that didn't work, the working class women didn't have the luxury of staying at home, many had to at least work part time. My late grandmother worked from the age of 14 until she was in her 80's, she was born in 1903.
It’s not 80% of women who want the top 20% of men, it’s 100% of women who want the top percentile of men. After all, why wouldn’t the remaining 20% also want the best guys?
Perfect summary. I think you're being generous with the 20%. Women are now going for the top 5% of men according to the most recent dating site figures. Another study shows they're only going for the top 1% of men.
Her term "Promethian fantasy" is exactly correct. Strikes me that the common thread of the religion of wokeism/progressivism/feminism is the inability to accept the basic conditions of being incarnated as a human being on a physical planet and all the limitations that implies. Of course, picking a fight with nature/reality rarely ends well.
Meh...Idk. Its part of evolution. If we had that mentallity we would not have invented fire to cook our food. It's natural to want to control nature. That's all of nature does anyways at a more primitive level. But yes there's a lot of dead ends. Let's just make sure all this talk is not just ''Back to the trees''. To me it is more on a societal level that is the problem. It is the idea that everything can be controlled. Some things can't, so let's adapt. Like weather.
Whatever happened they would be unhappy. Get them to write down a list of their problems. Solve these problems. A whole new list of problems will be produced by women. Give them the Earth and they will demand the Moon as a well.
They have a point. Men allowed them the cultural and political power that got us all in this mess. As a famous philosopher said, it was like guving a gun to a monkey.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 Exactly. The weak men supported and created this hell. When the strong men return to fix this mess, they better start removing all weak men from society. And of course, the weak men can take their women with them.
They already have: transgender rights activism has routinely been cast as a wing of the men's rights movement. It makes no sense, but antagonistic feminists won't let sense or facts get in the way of their victim virtue.
@@fairplayer7435 I suppose there is some truth to this but you couldn't entirely blame strong men for not wanting to stop what they were doing to get embroilled in these kinds of arguments. What role do you think the devil has played in any of this?
The Home containing the family was a respected institution when I was small. Now its a non entity. The domestic sphere has been erased as a bastion to be reckoned with. I found among my Dad's old papers; a compensation advance paid for "disruption"; "disrupting his wife and family" by obliging him to move towns. Can you even imagine that now?
when i got my divorce is was vogue to send the father away to prison on trumped up totally false accusations of child sexual molestation and/or spouse abuse. so however ugly the charge of "disruption" appears, it's a big improvement over what used to be.
@@blakeh6250 respect women for the things they only can do and you get the same respect. Mysagony Puts all feminin down to elivat themselfs that is what is wrong in sociaty. To not be a girl! Why not? Is there anything wrong with being a girl?
Harrington is unsound. As I’m watching this she whines about a cherry picked case of female textile workers and makes it a gender thing the fking moron! She doesn’t even consider that more male lives were ripped apart by capitalism and the industrial revolution than women! A better interviewer - Jordan Peterson - would have destroyed her on that point alone. Wake up Whittle!
I remember the programs advertised for DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS in the 1960's and 1970's. The reason women need jobs outside the home is due to selfish and self-indulgent men. And due to inflation and technological changes. *Women don't work because of feminist ideology.* Women work because they need the money; same reason men work. *Your mother was out of touch with reality.* How many of her friends, neighbors, relatives were divorced due to husbands who were drunkards, abusers or adulterers? None, or she would understand why women need equal economic rights.
I appreciate that she has arrived at this perspective, and that she speaks about it publicly. It is telling that only women seem to have a voice on this issue, and seem to make the case for change based solely of the harmful effects on women and the quality of male partners available to them as result. Do our lives and our wellbeing mean nothing outside of what we can give to a woman? Are we no more than fodder for the comfort and quality of life of women? Feminists specifically, and Women in general now say over and over again that men have oppressed and subjugated them for thousands of years as if the traditional marital relationship is one where the woman sacrifices everything and the man sacrifices nothing; completely free. Many men are realizing that in the context of marriage, men choose to subjugate themselves to the will, happiness, and mood of their wives. Men have willingly made themselves slaves to the will of women for thousands of years, and women have ripped the mask off and exposed the rigged game for what it is. Women will always be physically attractive to us, but what have they left us to want that would make us willing to dedicate our lives to serving them like the men of the past served the women of the past? The ancient human evolutionary arrangement was that men strive to make something of themselves to have something to give to a woman in order to be selected, and women made themselves pleasant to be around and cooperative so that a man would chose to stick around and devote his life to supporting her. Now that they are free of us, we are free of them, and it's a hard sell to get either to give that freedom up in spite of societal consequences once we've gotten a taste of it. We are not afraid of commitment and responsibility, we are afraid to give our lives over to be hated and used. Do you think that after bludgeoning good men for decades based on a grossly false narrative and showing us who you really are, you can just flip a switch and we won't remember what you really think of us and what we mean to you? You will always have access to the desperate men, but you have lost many of the self respecting ones and you will lose many more as they continue to wake up from this dream they have been sold.
No men such as yourself go berserk because they are realizing that they can’t put women back in the kitchen. You never respected women to begin with, so you need to find any reason to put them down to feel yourself like you are a man.
I once saw a rest area bathroom that had a female bathroom and a gender neutral bathroom. I thought it perfectly encapsulated where we are as a society.
Back in the day my spouse was on the pill from 16- 20ish age. Due to the effects she stopped taking it. The cost to her health was huge. Her mental stability, weight gain, etc. The pill is not harmless.
the birth control pills purpose is misunderstood, it gives control of your ability to procreate to inhuman entities called corporations. it should be called the delayed sterilization pill. even when you stop taking it, it could still work for years by destroying your health.
@@anonymousreaperxiv15thaccount Liberation means to be free from (something), women free from men? free to work a miserable job for a soulless corporation and die alone with her nine cats.
"When I say let men be, I don't mean we should make them go in a room and talk about their feelings. We should absolutely not do that. We should let them go sit on a riverside and NOT talk about their feelings." FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS IT!!! All these people trying to push guys to be all soft and vulnerable and talk about their feelings is so annoying, and it is killing male friendships.
I am constantly amazed by how so many people allow others to tell them what to do and how to do it. They don't need to look around very much to see where it ends up.
The goal is to feminize men and masculate women. This is against nature and screwing up society. All the single women that believe they can raise a man to be a man. They are dillusional
@@mudworld5307there used to be male only bars, and the women had the tea room. The bar was for guys to swear and all that, and socialize. When it became illegal for a men's only bar, men were not allowed to swear and be as loud. It started to chip away at men bonding, and relaxing after a hard day's work. Men's areas become feminized. The men leave, as they have to become more restrained, and that is not what they want.
I don't want to hear their feelings! The top Internet search results (unfiltered) give me good reason to fear and avoid most men. They're unable to separate who they're attracted to from who they want to hurt. Women don't have that problem. There isn't a global pandemic of women filming themselves violently raping men and then sharing those films with other women so those women can orgasm.
What I believe is: Women's statistics of happiness has declined as much as men 's. Now both are carrying the same amount of weight and responsibility. It's time to support eachother, let's not go back to ordering people around forcing them into roles. What we have to do it's stop competing with one another. We have to work together to gain proper life and work balance, and careers with a healthy life. No man boss, no girl boss, none of that shit. We can have leaders. But we shall not subjugate and we shall not oppress eachother.
It was at height of Neoliberalism 1983 when marriages declined the most sharply or when inequality was out of control. It's a right wing policy consequence. A traditional man supporting a family became virtually impossible. A traditional woman raising children became a luxury that most can't afford due to Thatcher and Regan policies that benefit the ultra wealthy at the expense of the working man and traditional woman
Many men are rediscovering traditional family life as potential goal of a personal eden, but the supply chain for the essential components have broken down. There is an acute shortage of computer chips for women, a shortage made much worse by the modern tendency of women to delay delivery until late in the product cycle, resulting in the need for remanufacturing to improve functionality. Chip manufacturers have responded by creating chips that can calculate logical inconsistencies (such as women requiring equal pay and a husband who earns much more than they do) at staggering speeds. While there is hope that new technology such as AI will make the next generation of women better able to do essential tasks such as loading or unloading a dishwasher without a system breakdown, there is less confidence that the long list of demands made on system designers will be achieved. "The list of features demanded by modern consumers as almost endless," complained system engineer Hai Yu from Femfix Technologies, a leader in the field. "One example is the demand to look sexy while cleaning the oven. It is so hard to get the levels right, too low and it is hard to see any differencet, too high and the oven never gets cleaned."
I’m a product of that, been married for 33 years, 2 grown kids, who we love. We have worked together all along as male and female and with respect for each other.
After being with one for 30 years, I can say with confidence that they create their own hell every single day, and hate anyone that isn't as miserable as they are.
Everything we need to know to live a fruitful and upright life is found in the Gospel. It’s an unfashionable position to take but the Truth shall set you free. Great interview as ever Peter and the team.
Which "Gospel"...the gospel of Buddha,Mohammed,the Baghavat Ghita,Jainism,.....or the "gospel" which was held under your nose when you were born,being the one that you excepted,without question...??? I suppose it will be to no avail to debate this issue with you,as,in most cases of religious dogma ,bobby will make himself unavailable for debate,as he does not need,or want logical analysis to challenge what he is clinging to without question...
I wash shipped off to have a bunch of hellfire and brimstone sermons. All I saw was a pyramid scheme of manipulating children, then making them dupe other children, and so on for the past 2000 years.
I can remember women vigorously aggressively campaigning for homosexual rights which led to the trans movement and what thanks did the women receive no more safe spaces ouch a bit of an own goal for ladies
Trans is no friend of gay people. The constant pressure of this fashionable woke idea is driving young gay people especially girls to mutlilate themselves in a quest for false heterosexuality.
Feminism has spent decades demonising masculinity and now we're surprised that there's an epidemic of disturbed men who believe they would be treated better if they were women. It's hard to argue that these men are wrong in that belief.
@@MackerelCat It was feminism that told people to ignore reality and see men and women as the same when clearly they are not and so when yet another group comes along and pushes that wedge further into what is real and unreal yes we can indeed blame those who put that fake wedge in in the first place and that was and is feminism.
Although may be possible to convince women that marriage is the way forward is it too late to convince men as they are turning their backs on marriage?
I have a theory on exploitation of women. It is based on the idea that the genders are exploited equally at all times in a society. Women for sex and serving men, men for their industry and security. It is very easy to determine how much men are exploited for their services. Just look at the life expectancy of men and women. Men pay for their exploitation in their lives and health, women don't. You will find (in a free market economy) that women statistically will pay for the amount by which they exploit men for what they provide society, by the same amount. No matter how hard governments try to prevent it. In the short term they can try, but eventually they will go broke. Eventually the laws of supply and demand will balance out. After WW1 there was no feminism. There were not enough men to exploit. Women would sleep with anyone for nothing, cook, clean, and do a full time job. After WW2, my father never lifted a finger in the house. He was given a job without an interview, and my mother never worked a day in her life. She lived to serve him. Was she exploited, totally. Was my father exploited for his 4 years of slavery in a Japanese POW camp, totally. He died Aged 78, my mother died aged 98. I'm not sure I can prove my theory, but thank you for reading it at least.
@@JupiterThunder That may be true but you should refrain from continuing to chastise someone that has unindoctrinated themselves from the cult or it could be that people may see no value in that effort and not bother thusly the cult continues as does the decline of society..
it not supposed to be a privilege it supposed to be the norm! Other women should be able to stay at home like me if they don't want to go work! I'm not even rich we only get 20000 a year and i live in Canada my men let me stay at home. I refuse to work for other people that are not my provider! My job has a woman is not serve everyone only the husband if you dont have a husband your family is supposed to keep you at home until you find someone unless you are mentally sick gay /trans ! stay with your family and get counselling!
A lovely point at the end there about how men socialise and interact :). It instantly reminded me of when I was visiting my friend in Finland. On my last day there we went out into the waters south of Helsinki to see a great old sea fort that is a living museum now. You might think that as I would be flying out in a few hours there would be constant chatter … but we hardly spoke, beyond the odd conversation about this or that feature of the fort and it’s history … … but we had a great time just being in each other’s company and enjoying our friendship.
That makes sense. My lovely, wise and humble daughter often speaks of the awful atmosphere in the company of some women. She says that there is always a competitive atmosphere amongst 2 or 3 women, and a quickness to mock and bring down anyone who holds individual views. Chicken pecking, my daughter calls it, lol. Needless to say that she avoids these gatherings, preferring the company of two or three close friends including male friends!
She's a woman from a very wealthy background. These are the same people that brought women into this s***. Believe me she's not doing this for men she's doing this for women. She doesn't give a f*** about men. Unless they can get something for her
@@paulatreides4274 While I don't disagree on the Marxist origin for many of the idiotic ideas behind radical feminism, I find it fascinating how deep the cultural conditioning is to not allow women to be responsible for their actions. Not only to women seek to avoid any responsibilty by routinely blaming men, but men like yourself make excuses to help them to avoid accountability for their actions! Another form of "White Knighting" I guess...
@@boatfaceslim9005 Observing and explaining something is not excusing it. Psychological manipulation is a powerful tool and anyone can fall prey to it. We already had a model of largely not holding woman accountable under the old patriarchal system primarily because of women's lack of ability to participate in the workforce along with other privileges afforded their gender through social norms this carry over has to be adjusted for to right the scales. As the family unit continues to dissolve from the removal of men hate and violence will continue to escalate and when you add a half a dozen cultures and races all vying for power in the same place you a hellscape in the making.
What a rich and inspiring talk 💛 Thankyou for this conversation and thankyou Mary, for being so brave as to address issues so very delicate in our day! God bless you! 🙏💛
@@Happyheretic2308 OK. I don't dislike her. It's just that I see her everywhere at the minute and everyone praises her - yet all I see is someone raiding right-leaning TH-cam channels for ideas then regurgitating them for a wider audience. Hence, nothing to write home about (Although "would" as the meme goes).
Modern feminism is Schrödinger feminism where they are both the victim and the empowered at the same time until something happens and they can choose which position yields the most benefit.
So, Her Highness graciously thinks that it should be discussed to grant men, these inferior creatures, some space on their own, BUT: only if it benefits women, in this case so that older men show young men how to kowtow before the fair sex. But she doesn't think that men should have the right to socialize when and with whom they want, which, one would think, is a basic human right, but not in the eyes of this o so enlightened feminist.🤦🏻
I’m glad an elite woman can see how elite women have utterly destroyed life for women who work jobs and who aren’t university educated. I’m tempted to despise them all, but this woman is okay in my book. As a working class woman myself, I didn’t notice that the feminists of my upbringing and young adulthood (late 60s/mid 80s) were the highly educated daughters of powerful, doting parents with trust funds. Powermongers, all of them. I didn’t realize that I didn’t fit into the foolish Utopian narrative until I was in middle age and had squandered my opportunities for marriage and procreation and reasonable expectations from life. Thank you Mary Harrington. I hope more young women like you step forward to be heard and paid attention to.
Thank you Peter for introducing this incredible thinker Mary Harrington. She was voicing all my concerns as a mother and now grandmother, she makes complete sense in my opinion. Again NCF at its best.
The effects Harrington calls "counter intuitive" are not counter intuitive from the Christian perspective, but obviously she has my complete respect for honestly and clearly describing them as they were observed in reality.
I also wonder if the results currently labeled as "counter intuitive" are only labeled as such because they are counter to a narrative being pushed very hard for many decades distracting a lot of people from reality.
49:50 Single Mothers are 70% more likely to produce drug addicted children, mentally disturbed children, homeless children and inmates. Children raised by single fathers have the same advantages as children raised by married couples. The root word of "Smother" is "mother", for a reason. Women have all the love and kindness a child needs, but many women lack the backbone to instill discipline, accountability, and pride into a child. They do not have a clue how to do it. Great at hugging, poor at accountability. Many of them just lose it, and scream, and think that is how to instill discipline into a child. And then their child moves out and becomes an entitled burden on society. And 37% (US) of children today are raised by single mothers.
Feminists: "Let's smash the Patriarchy...by letting the Patriarchy smash us!" Men: "Oh, no. Please. Don't go down on me while expecting no commitment at all. Please stop."
This lady is moving down the correct path, but still has a ways to go on her journey. First, the entire discussion, even when talking about men, was how to "make men better mates for women". Recovering feminists such as herself don't seem to ever want to ask men what it is that THEY want. Men now have no interest in marriage because they have no incentive to get married and the marriage state offers zero benefits to men. Not only does marriage not offer men any benefits, but it is the source of literally life destroying problems if the marriage fails. This idea that we are going to be able to create some new culture of secular contractual marriage where women and men engage in "transactional" marriages is pure fantasy if marriage offers men no benefits. The only possible way it would work is if all attractive women all jointly decided to stop having sex outside of marriage and forced men to get married in order to get sex with them. Right now I see a zero chance of anything like that happening within a purely secular context. As it is, I don't see any solution to these social problems or to the coming birthrate collapse outside of religion. The only way that men would ever agree to get married in the current climate is if there was a religious reason to do so. Religion is also the only way that women will voluntarily stay sexually monogamous and voluntarily go off the pill. Expecting secular worldly women to do any of those things voluntarily without a religious motivation is a pipe dream.
Ya brother i as a Muslim women of 27 years still virgin because of Islam we fulfull others right just to please Allah because one day we die and again present in front of Allah on the day of judgment plz brothers convert to Islam there is so much piece of hearts inspite of pverty all others problems
Who else is our entire society set up to serve, if not men and what they want?! Even the maddest wokester isn't attempting to force the Freemasons to admit females, or or stop "men-who-identify-as-women" from inheriting their male-privilege hereditary titles once they transition to "womanhood"! They know transgenderism is about forcing females to accommodate males, not the other way around!
To go through life alone is a very heavy burden to shoulder and one to which few outside the religious community, can bear well. You only get one chance in life to live life fully!
I'm a very old lady - was married [ not particularly happy ] for 47 years. I always loved being a woman - had 2 beautiful daughters, and 5 grandsons, grown up now and always show me great love and respect. I've never felt inferior to a man, so don't want to join in the emasculating of them. God's word comes to mind " in thinking to become wise, they become fools" So round and round theses silly women go, like headless chickens.
Women entering the workforce over doubled the labor pool which in turn lowered demand for labor which in turn reduced wages for labor. Before the influx of so many additional workers, a man could support a family with one job. Now, it takes two parents working to achieve that. The sexual revolution made women more promiscuous. So women as a whole, now have had more lovers by the time they're 20 than men have in their entire lives. It is a psychological fact that this causes discontent with any man they eventually may want to settle down with. It is the choice overload paradox, where having too many options leaves people feeling dissatisfied with whatever choice they eventually make.
The idea that women have always played a productive role in the home's microeconomy even while being mothers needs to be propagated. Even a relatively prosperous women in the 1600s was head of production, not just a wet nurse. She knew how to make cheese and beer, some of which would be sold. She knew how to make bread, how to preserve fruit, how to make clothes, and so on. Changing the human body won't change the human mind. We will have the same human behaviors with augmented capabilities. Yikes.
Either there were more hours in the day back then, or women were part of a community of women who worked collectively to raise children and produce goods.
This has been such an insightful conversation! I found myself nodding so many times. It is filled with gems. I am going to save it and listen repeatedly. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
It’s been a long wait. With the notable exception of Camille Paglia and a few contrarian feminists. Fads tend to run in 20 year cycles whether fashion, music or … . Reactionary make be a misnomer and perhaps First Wave feminism 2.0 more appropriate. As the sage handed down, “When the rearguard turns about-face, it becomes the vanguard.
Listening to these types of conversations always makes me feel a little sad as I watch people - and all credit to them - working out for themselves what the catholic church predicted about the contraceptive pill. So it wasn't an unpredictable effect, even if it seems counterintuitive to most people.
Let's not confuse things, what is so called "first wave Feminism", that is, the right to vote, reduced working hours, etc., that is not Feminism. That was the logical progression of our Western civilization to extend its responsibilities (and its counterpart, the rights) to all its human participants. To call this Feminism is like calling Masculinism to the wage earners who demanded an 8-hour working day, or to call Masculinism the independence movement started by the Founding Fathers in the USA, or to call Masculinism obtaining the Magna Carta in the UK, etc., etc. Then, in the 60's Feminism appeared, and to cover itself up with a certain "aura of legitimacy", they, in retrospect, labeled as Feminism the above progression. But the truth is that those people that participated in that progression, men and women, did not call themselves Feminist, or anything like that. The real things is that Feminism is an ideological perversion resulting from applying Marxist logic, and some other ideological frameworks, into the context of the relations between the sexes (weaponizing sex differences and relationships), with the intention of subverting those relations, and thus causing real chaos in society and bring it to a "tabula rasa" situation, in order to have the possibility of rebuilding society from scratch to reach their Utopia mirage. Of course, to hide that purpose, Feminism continued to cover itself with an "aura of legitimacy" by using beautiful words like "equality", "rights", "justice", and other beautiful and "catchy" expressions. And what is more ironic, is that Feminism can do that with impunity, not only because they disguise themselves by dressing with that "aura of legitimacy", but also because Feminism abuse precisely the rights (the counterpart of the obligations) acquired in this progression of our Western society. That is, Feminism could not exist if it were not for Masculinism (in the case that we decided to call the whole progression that way). I would recommend reading / listening to Yuri Bezmenov about the concept of "Ideological Subversion", I'm not sure if what that gentleman says is all true, but given the time when he said that (1984), and what happened next, the coincidence is interesting. We, as a society, should be very suspicious and watch very carefully those movements that advocates only for a "select" part of our society, that is, any movement that selects a group of our society using criteria based on some identifiable attribute of the individuals (sex, skin color, intelligence, whatever), and then starts advocating for the rights of those "selected" ones. That movement, is one based on division, not union, and the logical question is, when does that movement stop? and where does it stop? according to history, probably this movement never stops by itself, and becomes more, and more extremist with time, because it becomes a lobbying-based machine for status and power. And it is the survival of this very machine itself, that becomes the movement's main goal, and for it to survive, the best thing to do it's not solving the problem they preached to solve, but to maintain the problem and possibly aggravate it. Let's remember that movements at the end of the day are not managed by ordinary people, the ordinary people are busy living their lives and trying to make ends meet, the movements at their core are managed by "ideologues" and "fanatics" (they are the "life force" behind the movement, not ordinary people). And those are the ones, mainly the ideologues (but also the "fanatics" through "the end justifies the means"), that are corrupted by the previously described machine. If we really want a more just society, then we must fight so that everyone has the same obligations (and therefore the same rights, they are sides of the same coin). A few and fundamental obligations (it is not necessary to restrict our freedom with unnecessary obligations); the obligation to respect the life of others, the obligation to respect the property of others, the obligation to respect the privacy of others, the obligation to respect the merits of others (the counterpart would be equal access to opportunities), and the obligation to faithfully and sincerely comply with the laws that enforce those obligations. With regard to these laws, we should also have the minimum number of laws so as not to unnecessarily restrict our freedoms, so those laws must take care of breaches to the lowest common denominator of those obligations. And we should have a legal framework where we are all equal before those laws, and where innocence is assumed until proven otherwise in a fair trial. Achieving a society that works under that framework, and does not "go off the rails", it is already a "task of titans". It is not necessary to corrupt that task advocating for "select" groups, the latter is a sure recipe for division, resentment, tyranny and finally, the inevitable destruction coming from inside .. ------------- Now, going in particular to Mary's argument, she is right in saying that women have special interests. But, and what I'm going to say must not be considered an attack to her, by saying "special interests", she is inadvertently camouflaging that both sexes have their differences, those differences generate special needs, and those special needs generate special interests, I think we always have to be clear in what we talk about, because what we are looking for, is to reach a coexistence agreement where each party can give the best of themselves to live in the best possible way. So, it is true that women have special interests, just as men have special interests, but the assumption that is always used to discuss those special interests is that society already takes care of these special interests of men, and only those of women are not covered, and therefore it is necessary to continue "fighting" for them. But just as Mary explains that Feminism is imposed by some elite women, society was not structured for the benefit of all men, because only a tiny percentage of men were in charge of society (and although it seems unfair now that that tiny percentage of men were in charge of society, later we can discuss the reason for that situation, since it was not arbitrary as it seems now from the comfort of our couches, without the threat of another tribe or kingdom that wants to turn us into slaves). And this very small elite established policies that mostly benefited them and the functionality of the society as a whole, not the special interests of the population, neither men nor women, unless that was strictly necessary for the functioning of society as a whole (as a machine). Then, throughout history, in a tortuous and very slow progression, our Western society began to extend the responsibilities and their corresponding rights to the rest of the population, but always with politics being dominated by a very small elite, even in democratic systems. An elite that was isolated from the day-to-day problems of ordinary people, men and women. And just as it is true that along that progression there were women's special interests left uncovered, there were also a lot of men's special interests left uncovered. And those are not empty words, that situation is what the statistics reflect, they show that it is men who have some of the worst outcomes in society, a lower life expectancy, much more more probability of suffering aggression and violent death (the reality is different from the perception of danger), much more isolation, much less attention to their health, more working hours, the most dangerous jobs and with a higher rate of accidents and deaths, a much higher suicide rate, a much higher rate of homeless and addictions, worse results in the educational system, etc. In addition, men do not have the privilege of choosing between staying at home or working, on the contrary, women do, and they have a whole legal framework that protects them if they make that decision, precisely because of the potential economic inequality that decision causes. So, instead of talking about Feminism, or Masculinism, or any other special group, and creating lobby-based machines that advocate for a certain group, and invariably end up corrupt. What we should do is analyze the situation of our society from a holistic perspective, taking into account the special interests of each party. Review the current situation, review the situation in more traditional times, because although not everything was perfect, not everything was bad either, many things can be learned, because precisely thanks to those traditions we manage to survive and prosper. And at the end of the day, try to come up with a reasonable solution (because perfection and Utopia doesn't exist), where each party can give the best of themselves while living the best possible life, but the cooperation of each party is indispensable for that, both parties are equally valuable, and it is not possible to have any viable humanity without both cooperating in harmony and love. And of course, none of that is really going to work, because nothing works well by force, not at least in the medium-long term, if our society does not re-examine its moral values and re-establish its foundations on strong moral values.
You were correct early on with your mention of marxism agenda, which is to undermine society, our individual identity, the family, our culture and traditions! That has been playing out over a good few years now, but people stupidly refer to this creeping marxism as 'woke'! No, let us see it for the insidious agenda which it is! If our society does not want to totally implode, people have to start realising that humanity and decency matter. Otherwise many will be and already are, shadows of who they were meant to be. Angry, bitter and unfulfilled miseries, because they are barking up the paths of delusion!
Never vote for any these anti-democratic mainstream political parties. PR can destroy the two-party monopoly; Reform UK is promising PR. Anything that can destroy the two-party monopoly gets my vote. Self-love is not as biggest sin as self-neglect
Is PR as great as Farage (who I greatly respect) says though? Peter Hitchens's opinion is, I believe, that when the two-party system goes, you get pathetic, weak, liberal, lefty coalitions which never get anything done. He lists countries where that has happened. For anyone who dislikes 'career politicians', abolishing the two-party system might be a mistake considering that if, say, the Green Party is now always one of the major parties, the general public is now stuck with their representative i.e. typically with the two-party system, we mercifully don't hear much from the party that isn't in power for about 4 years. And Hitchens's last point is that, with the two party system you MIGHT one day possibly have a genuinely conservative party in power, I am personally on the fence about the benefits of abolishing the 'first past the post system', which explains my comment, but I would like to have my mind made up on this subject when election time comes around. Any responses would be most welcome.
@@yiguanas812There are pros and cons to both that's for sure, but it's a bit of a red herring to flag up arguable examples of cr@p coalition governments when there are also arguable examples of cr@pp FPTP ones too. The point, as much as anything, is to get as many people as possible feeling enfranchised in ie not disenfranchised from the political system.
@@gerhard7323 I hear what you say and thank you for your reply. If the objective is to prevent people from feeling disenfranchised from the political system (as you say), perhaps the path forward is to be encouraging 'normal' local people to get into local government as independents where they can disrupt, shape and form the government's and governments' agendas. I seem to hear little to no such encouragement. There seems to be at least one site I know which seems to try to give people the tools and expertise to do that - voteHYPHENfreedomDOTorg.
@@yiguanas812 Not dismissing your suggestion out of hand there, but an infrequent democratic vote is the extent of most people's wish to engage directly with democratic politics so the least we can try and do is to make it feels like it counts unlike with FPTP which actively 'encourages' people not to vote in certain constituencies where they know it'll be a wasted vote and not worth the bother. FPTP made much more sense in the 1970s when there was an all but two party system and when the coalitions were essentially internalized within each party, but today there are a plethora of ideas and parties whose views it would be healthier to be seen to be presented and represented. If only for the sake of the democratic process itself if nothing else.
Very interesting interview. I wonder if the difference between career and job is why the focus on equality always seems to be in careers rather than jobs as that is where elite women feel that they belong. I've often wondered if the focus on gender, sexuality, colour etc. is so that very privileged people (class) can use their perceived oppression to push their way into careers.
What elite women! You mean the latter entities which you mention, whom cheat their way into well paid jobs by crying hard done by! Underhand and crafty, but far from elite 😂
The trust fund and private school kids all get married, owned homes and have oodles of children. Why? Because their lives are paid for before they are even born. They are taught in private school that public school kids are their slaves. It's why public schools so bad, a dumb population is an obedient one. And then they watch the masses yell at women for their demise. The rich do this on purpose to men. They have them blame the women for what the rich do, so the men will hate on women instead of the rich that actually enslaves them. Men are the dumber sex, it's why they target them. They know what they do and when you work with these people and then see men going on and on how women destroy everything by not wanting family, nope, the rich do by making having a family so expensive only the rich can do it. See?
Dear, once you align yourself with and become a part of any "ism" you are in trouble. Why? The reason is simple and should be obvious, if you stop and think about it. The very fact that you have done that automatically means that you are obligated to go along with whatever their narrative is-whether that narrative is true or false. If you don't then you are a traitor. So, you are automatically in a highly compromised position and you are not permitted to think and reason for yourself. You are a prisoner of group-think. For decades, many of us have stood by watching many young women be easily allured into that stupid trap. No one ever says, "Gosh, I wish roosters were more like hens." Yet, we have heard countless numbers of women lament the fact that men are not more like women, and then proceed to tell men that they need to think and act more like women do. Now, we have doubled down on stupidity by wondering why so many men and so many women want little to nothing to do with each other, but at the same time they are unhappy with who they are. Feminism, like all isms, by its very nature is highly toxic. It needs conflict in order to survive. Feminism lead women down the path to creating their own hell-and not just for themselves but for society as a whole. Your kind of feminism-however you define it-will inevitably do the same thing, and for the same reason. Instead of desperately seeking to be a dependent "me too" try intelligently striving to be an independent "I am."
She makes so many excellent points. What is missing here is anyone being to articulate the benefits for a man to get married. She describes marriage as “phenomenally freeing”. Marriage for men is the exact opposite of that.
The women's liberation movement of the 1960's and 1970's did a lot of damage to women in general and to society as a whole. What was perhaps most damaging was that it promoted the false idea that women could sleep around with different men with no negative consequences. That is totally untrue. Men have told me that when women started sleeping around with men they started losing a lot of respect for women. There is a comment attributed to Elvis Presley, who famously said that "Why should men buy the cow when they can get the milk for free?" This sounds like a terrible thing to say, but it's true. There is a lot more men and women living together and even having children together, than there are couples getting married. Also, there are more men now who think that most, if not all, women make a habit of sleeping around with different men. Also, women liberationists propogated the false notion that "women could have it all" - that a woman could work full-time, manage a house, and raise children successfully. This is simply not true. I sincerely wish that a lot more women in the past would have stayed home and raised their children themselves, instead of leaving it in the hands of places like daycares. As an older women, I am forever grateful to my Mom for staying home and raising four young children, instead of working outside of the home. I have seen far too many badly raised children and young people, who were raised with only one parent or pretty well had to raise themselves while their mother worked outside of the home. Some of these kids are really out of control. In hindsight, I really wish that the Women's Liberation Movement had never taken place.😢☹️😮
No, impacts on men were always intended. Look at families. Men have systematically been excluded e.g. no fault divorce, preference for mothers in family courts, zero reproductive rights for men, support for single mothers etc. Same in Universities, corporate boards etc Women demand access, then equality, then exclude men (e.g mandating female friendly cultural changes).
its ironic that there seems to be a greater patriarchy inside Feminism than in society at large. I know more single mothers (or former single mothers) than mothers who live with the father of all of their children. Feminism required women to take a greater responsibility, but an enormous amount of young women didn't understand this until they were already suffering the consequences of behaving irresponsibly. A friend of mines daughter has PTSD from having an abortion, she tried to take her own life after having the abortion, she was only 19 or 20 ish at the time.
I always thought it was weird at an electronics company I worked for, when there was talk of legally increasing the number of women on boards, how the working class women working in the wire-shop would benefit from having high earning, middle class women, but who knew nothing about engineering, parachuted onto the board.
Elites, male and female, care nothing about the peasants. They feel like they have nothing in common with them and can neglect them without repercussions. It's always been like that. That's part of the human nature that they try to tell us doesn't exist.
Mary Harrington asserts that, for women doing certain jobs ("with a laptop"), there's no difference in the work output of women and men. But what if that isn't true? Even though we have almost ll the same organs, except for those that produce offspring, and our brains are shaped in very similar ways, this doesn't mean that men and women have identical thought patterns or efficiency in understanding and communicating information. Why Mary Harrington takes as a given the feminist claim that brain work has no sex component surprises me. All my life, it's been obvious to me that men and women think differently, and I see the differences in point of view having real-world outcomes. That women keep trying to squash this reality is quite sad.
Read "In Defense of Women" by H. L. Mencken sometime. Not that women need to be defended but that's the way he had to put it in the 1920s. Men and women are different and they think differently and, in his and my opinion, women are easily better at it. It's a survival trait. As a friend of mine put it, when she talked to a man he would open the file cabinet and pull out the file on whatever subject they were talking about and, if she changed the subject, he would have to close the file and put it back in the file cabinet and pull out the new file and talk about that one. Women don't have to do that - their brains are much more agile and that makes them much more fun to talk to. Men had to learn how to do one thing well but women had to know how to do many things well. That takes a better brain.
As a seasoned person in the tech industry it has been my experience that few women can outperform men, even though there is no "physical strength" element in the work we do. The explanation that I have reached - from observation - matches something that I later heard from Camille Pagglia: men are by nature obsessed with what they do and that makes a huge difference.
@@defendliberty1289 And women weren't obsessed with raising children and keeping a household which took a lot of different skills that they had to master not just the one that men had to master so they could make money? I've known a lot of men who were great at one thing and totally inept at most everything else but that one thing paid the bills. If you're not obsessed with that one thing then you'll starve. This is where I disagree with Paglia and Peterson who tend to look at everything through the lens of income. There's much more to life than a career.
Too bad Mary ascended to her media exposure after Robert Bly was out of the picture. Men are made by older men: this is the main thesis of _Iron John._ Men's groups and retreats and conferences got a lot of attention starting 40 years ago and are still going on. Some of them are touchy-feely, and some of them aren't. With the diversity among men's personalities there's plenty of room and need for all kinds of men's exclusive gathering and socialization. Even among average normal men - more masculine, less sensitive - there are ways of dealing with emotions and inner fears and insecurities that can only happen well away from women's eyes and ears.
Men can still socialize and be mentored by other men in an all-male setting: Freemasons. Their motto: "We take good men and make them better." If only I had joined decades earlier... There is a lodge near you.
Mary Harrington so eloquent, intelligent and perceptive. If only women espoused a doctrine of loyal relationships and caring for their man long term instead of sleeping around and over rating themselves.
I work in a male environment. I have overheard younger men cry because their wife is pregnant and now he realizes he is trapped for life. I have overheard men tell their girlfriends to not depend on them for anything. This to me shows how much men's view of relationships (or non relationship? ) has changed. They dont want the burden of supporting a wife and children. They dont want to be looked at as the solver of problems or the hero or the provider. they dont view it as responsibility but as burden. Men dont want women in their lives in any substantial way. So there is no stability in relationships because men dont want to carry the burden. I think part of that is also because of corporate america and the way they treat employees as disposable and that health insurance is tied to your employer. If you cant depend on the stability of your job, how can you plan to be able to afford a house/car/wife/2.2 kids ? So corporate America has done it's part to emasculate men. Corporate America can take away a man's ability to provide for his family and replace him with a woman and pay her less. Before, a man was proud to be the provider, now a man knows that the world is working against him to be able to provide and he has given up.
Women seem to have many advocates. Are there any advocates for men? Is there any recognition anywhere about men’s issues. Edit: while she did not advocate for men she’s one of the rare feminists I’ve heard who recognizes that men need to have their own space. Perhaps more importantly, she also seems to recognize that men having their own space does not diminish women.
I think a separate space for men is needed, and has been duly earned. But do not forget that “men’s spaces” used to encompass almost all of public life, including academic institutions making it difficult for women to be recognized for scientific achievement, earn certain types of degrees, or represent themselves in politics. The fear that positive men’s only spaces might devolve into a legal way to exclude women from important public conversation and decision making is a legitimate fear.
@@easyname9184 Actually, In Greek, it says Satan pharmakia Eve. In English it says deceived. The garden story are three dudes who drugged, sa and bred a young girl. You don't even know what the original text says and you're trying to say what the point of it was? LOL!! The whole world is under the snakes SOREcery aka pharmakia. The woman did NOTHING wrong. So, if you're going to use that book to talk about men and women in relationships, then it clearly states ALL men are bad and NO women will be punished for what men do. Hosea 4:14 "I WILL NOT PUNISH YOUR DAUGHTERS WHEN THEY COMMIT HARLOTRY, NOR YOUR BRIDES WHEN THEY COMMIT ADULTRY. FOR MEN THEMSELVES GO APART WITH HARLOTS." You forget, Adam and the Father and the Snake all knew what's up. I'm just saying, if you're going to quote a historical book, you should know what it's actually saying. Be well and take care.
Bossy women have always treated other women with contempt. .. and twisted men around their little fingers But often they end up alone and friendless . It was never about freedom or liberation just power. ( The story of Adam and Eve is an ancient version..."we can have the power let's eat the apple" )
No, she needs to separate the pill from casual sex. Women take the pill for multiple reasons having nothing to do with casual sex: some to clear up severe acne, some to lighten heavy periods, some to control endometriosis, some married women for family or career planning, and some married women take it because they've been advised by their doctor to avoid pregnancy because of serious medical issues. The pill enables married women who need to avoid pregnancy to actually have a sex life with their husbands. The pill's side effect are different from woman to woman. Also, it's been demonstrated that having endless periods over a lifetime isn't healthy either. The pill lowers the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, while it slightly increases other cancers. It's not one size fits all.
I would question the assumption that the "elite women" who will have sexual freedom followed by finding a relationship holds up. It did in the 90s and early 2000s. But as men disappear from university and decent earning men in blue collar work are deemed "socially unattractive" in those women's social circles. Is the patern going to continue? I'm not so sure. If the laptop class faces severe job losses with AI, these "elite women" may find themselves in a very depressing position.
The greater problem for men is that they have no say in the matter. If this book had been written my a man it simply wouldn't have found an agent to dare push it, let alone a publisher to publish it. In publishing houses today, almost all the in-house script readers are women, especially in publishers that accept scripts upon `radical' issues. A manuscript falling on the mat that argued against the merits of feminism and was also written by a man would be simply discarded to the slush-pile unread.
![[🔴LIVE] งานประกาศรางวัล MAYA TV AWARDS 2024 : มายามหาชน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwmWYXXVwBY/mqdefault.jpg)
a wise man once said: The further a society drifts from the truth the more it hates those who speak it
Yeah I think Christians are at the top of the list. The biblical world view is too radical to even be tolerated in this day and age.
Orwell
That is why the west hate Islam.
which truth? There are so many....
@@zahariachirica5466 No. There is only one actually.
I never realized how class consciousness has gotten buried by elite women in the twentieth century. Those women with careers rather than jobs have set the agenda for ALL women, often to the disadvantage of those with jobs. Great interview. Great insights.
Class consciousness stopped being useful to Marxists once noblesse oblige disappeared.
Exactly
Women worship celebrities. No one made them do anything.
If I wanted to rant, I would say that feminists are just another group of power grabbers hell-bent on forcing their narrow world view on everybody else, men and women alike. My wife would add that the ones who inhabit the groves of academe all appear to be Marxist.
Every woman has free will. Every woman, I ever met, worked or stayed home according to her families' needs and resources. No woman lives her life to compete with elite women. They do what they need to do for themselves and their families. You never realized that you don't have a clue why women do what they do.
It’s not just “mens’s clubs” that no longer exist. There’s now no place left where men can support one another. Companies described as “mens’ clubs” now cannot exist. However, I’ve been to many companies and offices completely consisting of women. I had a dental office worker brag to me that the entire company was indeed all women - as though that was a selling point. The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness among people who think this way is astonishing. Men no longer have a single space that’s theirs. Women even bulldozed their way into Boy Scouts - now just called “Scouts” - despite the fact that Girl Scouts exists. Young boys need other boys and men to learn how to be proper men. Women don’t like men today? They need to look in the mirror. They’re the ones who have made them.
Not sure if this is worldwide but in my country, gyms won't hire males as cleaning staff at men's changing rooms. Privacy is something that is not allowed for men. It is absolutely forbidden to have a man in women's changing rooms. But the opposite is just "cost optimization".
Whenever I see a product labeled as a "Women Owned Company", I won't buy it. I don't care which sex owns the company, I'm only interested in the product itself.
Feminists distrust and despise male bonding. They see it as transgressive against their agenda, so they actively work to destroy any space where men can mingle with each other without female influence. They have been successful for the last 60 years until the internet and the rise of the manosphere. They can't control the manosphere, but they've been working overtime to come up with insults and shaming words for men who are sympathetic to male issues (i.e., incel, misogynist, etc.).
I was a Boy Scout leader for almost 15 years to give back to the organization that helped shape my childhood and love of Canadian nature. I quit shortly after girls started entering Scout troops. It killed the whole comradery and experience once girls and their moms joined. Add to that, I knew then, 20 years ago, that the risk to me as a young unmarried man supervising 9-12 year old girls on camping trips and outings was a risk I did not want to take. One girl getting angry for being disciplined and making a false abuse allegation was a threat even then....before MeToo....that could sideline my life. Not worth the risk. Our troop folded less than 5 years later. Apparently not enough interest....after being founded in 1953 and run out of the same church.
It is still possible, albeit harder now, to do boy/men activities. Join a gun club. I got my boys into skeet shooting and competitions. Men outnumber women 10:1 in our club. I'm in a private club that was originally a mens club, but was forced to make it co-ed. However, if you keep focusing on stuff men like, such as cigar and scotch nights, scotch tastings, vintage car shows and rally's, etc. you tend to attract 99% men. Same in our car club...1930s to early 1950s hot rods and kustoms. Invitation only.
While we do lots as a family, as a father of two boys, I think its important to do things together as boys and men. My wife agrees. Men have gotten too soft. How many young men today can change a tire, let along do a complete brake job on a car or do a complete service on a lawn tractor.
@@1949coupe well, I am also pretty sure she is very happy to not have to share your attention with a female friend, even if she doesn't say so.
“The moment it became a woman’s choice, it also became a woman’s responsibility.” That one hit me hard!
" before womens liberation, we couldn't tax half the population " - Nick rockefeller
As it's always been.
On the Modern Wisdom interview with her a commenter said, and I paraphrase, 'Feminism was all well and good when it was only hurting men and children but now that it's hurting women they have a problem.' Gentlemen, trust NO woman who calls herself a feminist.
The axiom of feminism is that there are no male issues. All the different 'opposing' forms of feminism are a misdirect to keep all societal focus on women and to keep men from establishing any kind of solidarity with each other.
100%
I agree - she has missed the worst damage done by feminism.
@@ColonelMuppet Thanks for telling me, I'll check it out.
@@keshhan6412 she talks typical feminist nonsense! Like the Industrial Revolution was gendered ffs! Multiples more men were impoverished than women during this process…you need a higher quality interviewer than Peter - whom I like - to pull her up on such nonsense. Only JP could do it currently
Traditional life placed men at the head of the family but Women were the centre of the family, different roles but extremely successful. Feminism broke this, and so the family has declined. Abortion figures are catastrophic, we are killing our children because they get in the way of a false choice: a career or motherhood. Motherhood is the most important thing there is, careers are mostly a waste of time. We need family and society, not more over paid professionals.
And are we any richer, happier, wiser, or more emotionally mature as a result of this revolution?
Woman the ❤of the family; man the head (and women used to be smart enough to let them be Chairman of the Board with her CEO of the (Surname) Family Incorporated
It's heartbreaking L Lewit... The answer is so obvious... Women have babies... Men provide for them... That is the basic law of life... Women homemakers paired with men breadwinners i.e the traditional nuclear family... Women are fulfilled as homemakers... Men find completion as breadwinners... Ultimately every man should have a well-paid job , and every woman should be provided for by a man with a well-paid job... That is the basis of middle-class life and social progress
So the answer is a Homemaker Allowance to promote single-income households... We can't ban working couples and full-paid work for women , but we can discourage them... We want good homes... Let's go for it !
@@EE12CSVT
Yes we are
@@clivecowlard7098
No woman with a career or lucrative job will give it up
Marriage is not a viable alternative
Men and women are supposed to be partners, not adversaries. I was married for over 30 years, till she passed from cancer, and we were always equal partners, helpmates, friends, and lovers. We had each other's back, stood by each other in thick and thin, for better and worse. I miss that little, sweet, very funny woman. And since then, the women I've met had no notion of how to build a life with a man.
We look at male/female relationships as being adversarial in the West. People do build lives around that but I'm not one of them.
Your partners in your own distinct genders, personalities, roles & responsibilities, feminine or masculine energy or spiritual force.
A very interesting and thought provoking presentation.
Hopefully this kind of discussion will become more common.
Any man who believes marriage is a partnership has never been through a divorce. If marriage is a partnership, it is one where one partner is financially incentivized to break the terms of the contract.
I've never signed a contract (outside of a marriage license) where one partner is financially incentivized to break the partnership.
I was married for 2 decades and when she left, the courts awarded her half of all assets, plus support. That support amounted to about half of what I had remaining (no children were involved, so none of this was child support).
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus Your marriage could (and perhaps should) have been a partnership. What happens if it ends is a matter of law.
I did my final year in university in England, I came from Dublin with a group of friends to finish our degrees in Wolverhampton. This was about 1998/9. One of the things I noticed was although we thought that women's rights were more advanced in England, divorce, abortion ect, it felt much more unsafe. Walls of porno is every corner shop, peep shows, strip clubs, sex shops were everywhere. It felt very seedy. When we went out, we were dressed so modestly compared to the locals, who behaved like animals on a Saturday night tbh, I was pretty shocked. I remember thinking that this was wrong, and that the sexual revolution in the 60s may have been a mistake.
Fertility rate has plummeted to 0.84 in South Korea corresponding to a 58% decline in population. Modernity is looking increasingly like a death cult.
A reduction in population is the best thing that could happen to humanity.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 I'd like to see a quick and large reduction in Britain's population and not by waiting for birth rates to drop.
Except it's not humanity, it's just the west.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Its an infinite multi-verse and it is empty. We shall shortly have access to all of that and we need trillions more people to be born every year.
@@Lt.GonvilleBromhead true,too many Muslims in the UK.
My son is 34 I asked him if his friend had met a nice girl yet he said men are afraid to approach women any more in case its seen as creepy .
Wow! For a young man to have to draw such a conclusion . How sad. Strange pressures!
My young nephew mentioned he fancied a girl at school, not directly to the girl, just in passing. The school called my sister and advised her of his behaviour. He has been asked not to do this again. I should imagine it will be some time before he asks a girl on a date.
@@pauldorset2124 that's awful.
@@margyeoman3564 That's nothing. Younger men feel the same. If you're a very attractive, tall, athletic guy, a woman will welcome you approaching her. If you aren't, you're a creep. You only know where you sit on the creep spectrum through women's reactions to you, and the aggregate of how many are creeped out/call security/police.
@@ljones2087 Schools are introducing a no touching policy. Girls and boys will absolutely not be allowed to mingle, or play together, or do anything other than straight talk in a non-flirtatious way. Why? Because anything other than a professional, business-like conversation and interaction is sexual harassment towards the girl. So at a time in their psychosexual development when girls and boys should naturally be learning about each other, how to flirt, tease, and so on, schools are doing all they can to stamp that out. End result is that children will go into adulthood with the psychosexual development of a young child.
I have not seen or heard from my beloved son in 12 years because of the feminist run Family Law Courts! Now I am MGTOW!
Should have made your own law. For his sake.
@@patnor7354 spend the rest of my life in prison? Good plan
6 years a monk my friend. Now that "W@men most affected" again.. They start to see what was prophesy for millennia. No one can stop a train wreck once it has begun.
@@1tinMan The 5 sisters pf mercy are preferable to any feminist!
If you're in the UK we have the presumption of contact for the non resident parent, and only in very extreme circumstances would the court stop that. Maybe some self reflection is needed on your part.
I knew a woman who believed that men shouldn’t earn more then her. Even if they did a harder or higher skilled job.
I asked her if that should include her husband and she said no. 😲
They just say whatever they want, never really having an understanding of the fragility of life. They think the way they feel in the moment is the gospel truth, everyone encourages their delusion so they never have to question themselves, or mature from hard lessons. We made it this way for them because we wanted to get laid. When they reach an undesirable age, only then do they taste reality, but even that is short lived.
One of the biggest lies today: "First you must be complete in yourself, and then if you CHOOSE to have a partner, you can. But you if you REALLY really want/need one, then you're doing it wrong." What absolute twaddle. We need people. Loving others can make us better people. Having relationships can help us to grow. It's just not true that first you must become sovereign of your world. There's no way to do that alone and be truly happy inside. Abandon the lie. Wanting good relationships is in itself a good thing. It doesn't make you "weak." Far from it.
Generally people make better relationship choices when they're not coming at it from a position of loneliness or dependency.
@@LH-kr4od yet here we are, making people more lonelier and more dependent.
Women are beginning to experience what men have for many years...and they are struggling to handle the stress. All the feminists who thought men had it easy and women were oppressed had no understanding of the weight men carried on their shoulders. Women are still not experiencing true equality of course as they are far less likely to be punched in the face when they overstep the mark, they are very unlikely to lose their children in divorce courts, they rarely pay alimony (although that is beginning to change) and society offers them disproportionate levels of support when things go wrong. As women start to experience true equality I expect they will become ever more depressed.
It's quite interesting and also sad to see how women's self-reported levels of happiness have continually declined over the last 50 years despite gaining more and more equality. Correlation isn't causation of course but I think there is a clear causal link here and few feminists will touch it because it would rather undermine their ability to sell books about the evils of masculinity and patriarchal oppression.
Absltly correct.
85% of British women describe feminism as toxic. I don't think outright equality will, therefore, be achieved. What we have is what Bill Burr describe a as "buffet feminism" where women take a bit of feminism and a bit of traditionalism and optimise it to their preferred mix. A white wedding paid for by somebody else mixed with a career. Dating where the man pays for dinner coupled with media studies at university paid for by male taxpayers.
Well said
It's true, they haven't reached true equality. There will always be an empathy gap, I'd imagine, and it will remain highest for women and children. Nor do I think we should change it, necessarily. However, modern women are loathe to admit this gap. If you push them on this point, they will argue that people feel less empathy for men because of men's bad behavior. These are the sorts of on the spot, post-hoc rationalizations that are common these days.
It's this empathy gap and the general disdain for males that female to male transitioners find incredibly hard to deal with. Feminists are incredibly smug in proclaiming that men cannot understand female experience but pretend to fully understand male experience. Not only do men face an empathy gap, but as you say, a quite large services gap in terms of social and mental health support. I've worked in the mental health field for almost 20 years and this gap never gets discussed.
Women always had stress too as Mary said they looked after children and worked but now many are totally alone, but are there anymore than during and after wars who had to go it alone?
You remind me of my great grandmother! The best person I remember in my life. She kept her vows till her death, never remarried, with several kids. GOD PLEASE BLESS HER SOUL!
Really,, and was she happy. Were her actions born out of a misplaced duty, religious dogma,
@@francescostello1377 There is no context given. Maybe she was married long enough that starting a new relationship was simply not worth it. Some ppl don't want to remarry after 50 or more years spent committed to one person.
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
She was devoted to her marriage and to God. She had several children about half of whom died before she did, but she was always upbeat. She also had several Maltese dogs she took to pageants to keep her company when her family wasn't around. She didn't need an intimate companion when her husband died; she had family and pets and took the vows till death due you part seriously.
Women didn't have any (or many) rights simply because they didn't have any responsibility. Who gained from Feminism? Corporations who doubled the labour pool, and governments who doubled the tax base, and social engineers who wanted to destroy the family unit. Who lost? Men and women who now have to compete with one another instead of complementing each other; women who often spend their most fertile years building meaningless careers instead of marrying and raising children, both of which have real meaning; and decent men who are overlooked by women with an overinflated sense of themselves who all want the same 20% of men., but who themselves end up alone because the mathematics doesn't work (i.e. 80% of women wanting the 20% of men). If you wanted to destroy the family (and therefore society) then you could do a lot worse than unleash Feminism in that society.
Working class women have always worked.
@@aw-resistance9968 I was about to say that, it's really only the middle class and upper class women that didn't work, the working class women didn't have the luxury of staying at home, many had to at least work part time. My late grandmother worked from the age of 14 until she was in her 80's, she was born in 1903.
It’s not 80% of women who want the top 20% of men, it’s 100% of women who want the top percentile of men. After all, why wouldn’t the remaining 20% also want the best guys?
@@aw-resistance9968 define "always".
Perfect summary. I think you're being generous with the 20%. Women are now going for the top 5% of men according to the most recent dating site figures. Another study shows they're only going for the top 1% of men.
Her term "Promethian fantasy" is exactly correct. Strikes me that the common thread of the religion of wokeism/progressivism/feminism is the inability to accept the basic conditions of being incarnated as a human being on a physical planet and all the limitations that implies. Of course, picking a fight with nature/reality rarely ends well.
Meh...Idk. Its part of evolution. If we had that mentallity we would not have invented fire to cook our food. It's natural to want to control nature. That's all of nature does anyways at a more primitive level. But yes there's a lot of dead ends. Let's just make sure all this talk is not just ''Back to the trees''. To me it is more on a societal level that is the problem. It is the idea that everything can be controlled. Some things can't, so let's adapt. Like weather.
Great comment.
@@zord829
Learn to comprehend better
@@amyj4283 Learn to mind your business if you don't put any effort to communicate properly. Nerd!
@@SusanParker-uz5du They have not, they're just treated differently.
Left in a hell of their own making but don't worry, women have a plan: blame men
Whatever happened they would be unhappy.
Get them to write down a list of their problems. Solve these problems.
A whole new list of problems will be produced by women.
Give them the Earth and they will demand the Moon as a well.
They have a point. Men allowed them the cultural and political power that got us all in this mess. As a famous philosopher said, it was like guving a gun to a monkey.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 Exactly. The weak men supported and created this hell. When the strong men return to fix this mess, they better start removing all weak men from society. And of course, the weak men can take their women with them.
They already have: transgender rights activism has routinely been cast as a wing of the men's rights movement. It makes no sense, but antagonistic feminists won't let sense or facts get in the way of their victim virtue.
@@fairplayer7435 I suppose there is some truth to this but you couldn't entirely blame strong men for not wanting to stop what they were doing to get embroilled in these kinds of arguments. What role do you think the devil has played in any of this?
The Home containing the family was a respected institution when I was small. Now its a non entity. The domestic sphere has been erased as a bastion to be reckoned with. I found among my Dad's old papers; a compensation advance paid for "disruption"; "disrupting his wife and family" by obliging him to move towns. Can you even imagine that now?
Jeeeez what a mad viewpoint, you must be more forgiving and loving!
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
when i got my divorce is was vogue to send the father away to prison on trumped up totally false accusations of child sexual molestation and/or spouse abuse.
so however ugly the charge of "disruption" appears, it's a big improvement over what used to be.
@@hawklord100 Either this is sarcasm, or you have poor reading comprehension.
@@longnamenocansayy He was saying the company paid his dad moving expenses.
My wife was complaining about sexual equality. So I gave her a shovel and a bag of cement. 😲
In the middle of dinner at a restaurant. 😅
My wife wouldn't dare, she knows what I do and she can't or won't
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
That would have been fine by me, but then again I've driven trucks, loaded containers, driven forklifts. I'm pretty good at manual work.
@@blakeh6250 respect women for the things they only can do and you get the same respect. Mysagony Puts all feminin down to elivat themselfs that is what is wrong in sociaty. To not be a girl! Why not? Is there anything wrong with being a girl?
This session has been like listening to the end result of what my mother predicted when the feminist movement went into top gear in the 1960’s.
Your mother is a wise woman! 😊
What we're her predictions
@@aloisraich9326 pretty well everything said in this video.
Harrington is unsound. As I’m watching this she whines about a cherry picked case of female textile workers and makes it a gender thing the fking moron! She doesn’t even consider that more male lives were ripped apart by capitalism and the industrial revolution than women! A better interviewer - Jordan Peterson - would have destroyed her on that point alone. Wake up Whittle!
I remember the programs advertised for DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS in the 1960's and 1970's. The reason women need jobs outside the home is due to selfish and self-indulgent men. And due to inflation and technological changes.
*Women don't work because of feminist ideology.* Women work because they need the money; same reason men work. *Your mother was out of touch with reality.* How many of her friends, neighbors, relatives were divorced due to husbands who were drunkards, abusers or adulterers? None, or she would understand why women need equal economic rights.
What is hilarious is that she speaks of women having a choice whether to work, when men have NEVER had that choice.
Nothing is stopping you from being a house husband.
Not true. Most women are not attracted to house husbands, they dont want to date down. @@KFrost-fx7dt
Men are in 100% employment now?! Who knew?!
@@KFrost-fx7dt You know any women who want an unemployed house husband? 🤣🤣🤣
Women dont want a house husband 😂 @@KFrost-fx7dt
I appreciate that she has arrived at this perspective, and that she speaks about it publicly. It is telling that only women seem to have a voice on this issue, and seem to make the case for change based solely of the harmful effects on women and the quality of male partners available to them as result. Do our lives and our wellbeing mean nothing outside of what we can give to a woman? Are we no more than fodder for the comfort and quality of life of women? Feminists specifically, and Women in general now say over and over again that men have oppressed and subjugated them for thousands of years as if the traditional marital relationship is one where the woman sacrifices everything and the man sacrifices nothing; completely free. Many men are realizing that in the context of marriage, men choose to subjugate themselves to the will, happiness, and mood of their wives. Men have willingly made themselves slaves to the will of women for thousands of years, and women have ripped the mask off and exposed the rigged game for what it is. Women will always be physically attractive to us, but what have they left us to want that would make us willing to dedicate our lives to serving them like the men of the past served the women of the past? The ancient human evolutionary arrangement was that men strive to make something of themselves to have something to give to a woman in order to be selected, and women made themselves pleasant to be around and cooperative so that a man would chose to stick around and devote his life to supporting her. Now that they are free of us, we are free of them, and it's a hard sell to get either to give that freedom up in spite of societal consequences once we've gotten a taste of it. We are not afraid of commitment and responsibility, we are afraid to give our lives over to be hated and used. Do you think that after bludgeoning good men for decades based on a grossly false narrative and showing us who you really are, you can just flip a switch and we won't remember what you really think of us and what we mean to you? You will always have access to the desperate men, but you have lost many of the self respecting ones and you will lose many more as they continue to wake up from this dream they have been sold.
No men such as yourself go berserk because they are realizing that they can’t put women back in the kitchen.
You never respected women to begin with, so you need to find any reason to put them down to feel yourself like you are a man.
I once saw a rest area bathroom that had a female bathroom and a gender neutral bathroom. I thought it perfectly encapsulated where we are as a society.
I went to a place.that didn't have a men's room. They had a room for people with penises and a room for people with vaginas.
Back in the day my spouse was on the pill from 16- 20ish age. Due to the effects she stopped taking it. The cost to her health was huge. Her mental stability, weight gain, etc. The pill is not harmless.
Nowadays, there are many different contraceptive pills, all of them developed as a consequence of the effects of their rather crude predecessors.
David, you should not have wanted your wife on any kind of contraception.
the birth control pills purpose is misunderstood, it gives control of your ability to procreate to inhuman entities called corporations.
it should be called the delayed sterilization pill. even when you stop taking it, it could still work for years by destroying your health.
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
@@anonymousreaperxiv15thaccount Liberation means to be free from (something), women free from men?
free to work a miserable job for a soulless corporation and die alone with her nine cats.
"When I say let men be, I don't mean we should make them go in a room and talk about their feelings. We should absolutely not do that. We should let them go sit on a riverside and NOT talk about their feelings." FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS IT!!! All these people trying to push guys to be all soft and vulnerable and talk about their feelings is so annoying, and it is killing male friendships.
I am constantly amazed by how so many people allow others to tell them what to do and how to do it. They don't need to look around very much to see where it ends up.
The goal is to feminize men and masculate women. This is against nature and screwing up society. All the single women that believe they can raise a man to be a man. They are dillusional
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
@@mudworld5307there used to be male only bars, and the women had the tea room.
The bar was for guys to swear and all that, and socialize. When it became illegal for a men's only bar, men were not allowed to swear and be as loud.
It started to chip away at men bonding, and relaxing after a hard day's work. Men's areas become feminized. The men leave, as they have to become more restrained, and that is not what they want.
I don't want to hear their feelings! The top Internet search results (unfiltered) give me good reason to fear and avoid most men. They're unable to separate who they're attracted to from who they want to hurt. Women don't have that problem. There isn't a global pandemic of women filming themselves violently raping men and then sharing those films with other women so those women can orgasm.
What I believe is: Women's statistics of happiness has declined as much as men 's. Now both are carrying the same amount of weight and responsibility.
It's time to support eachother, let's not go back to ordering people around forcing them into roles. What we have to do it's stop competing with one another. We have to work together to gain proper life and work balance, and careers with a healthy life. No man boss, no girl boss, none of that shit.
We can have leaders. But we shall not subjugate and we shall not oppress eachother.
It was at height of Neoliberalism 1983 when marriages declined the most sharply or when inequality was out of control. It's a right wing policy consequence. A traditional man supporting a family became virtually impossible. A traditional woman raising children became a luxury that most can't afford due to Thatcher and Regan policies that benefit the ultra wealthy at the expense of the working man and traditional woman
Women responsible? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
but roles are always gonna be there
Many men are rediscovering traditional family life as potential goal of a personal eden, but the supply chain for the essential components have broken down. There is an acute shortage of computer chips for women, a shortage made much worse by the modern tendency of women to delay delivery until late in the product cycle, resulting in the need for remanufacturing to improve functionality. Chip manufacturers have responded by creating chips that can calculate logical inconsistencies (such as women requiring equal pay and a husband who earns much more than they do) at staggering speeds. While there is hope that new technology such as AI will make the next generation of women better able to do essential tasks such as loading or unloading a dishwasher without a system breakdown, there is less confidence that the long list of demands made on system designers will be achieved. "The list of features demanded by modern consumers as almost endless," complained system engineer Hai Yu from Femfix Technologies, a leader in the field. "One example is the demand to look sexy while cleaning the oven. It is so hard to get the levels right, too low and it is hard to see any differencet, too high and the oven never gets cleaned."
Thanks for this comment, you've brought a smile to my face today.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
good one
thx brian
"I don't care about the customer, it's all about disrupting the market!!!"
“Equal pay yet a husband who earns more than them”
"Shotgun weddings went on to be long, happy marriages"
As I understand it, many Roman comedies were based on this premise.
I’m a product of that, been married for 33 years, 2 grown kids, who we love. We have worked together all along as male and female and with respect for each other.
Traditions often exist simply because they work, and have worked for eons.
After being with one for 30 years, I can say with confidence that they create their own hell every single day, and hate anyone that isn't as miserable as they are.
Exactly my experience with my single mother, 🤮😠😈🖕 Being male earns 2x hate 🤭
Sir. You speak a truth that is on a par with any of the great philosophers since the dawn of time and I salute you!
They say "Money can't buy you happiness, but you can buy a better class of misery".
Please do your wife a favour and leave her. She'll soon start feeling happier.
Everything we need to know to live a fruitful and upright life is found in the Gospel. It’s an unfashionable position to take but the Truth shall set you free. Great interview as ever Peter and the team.
Which "Gospel"...the gospel of Buddha,Mohammed,the Baghavat Ghita,Jainism,.....or the "gospel" which was held under your nose when you were born,being the one that you excepted,without question...??? I suppose it will be to no avail to debate this issue with you,as,in most cases of religious dogma ,bobby will make himself unavailable for debate,as he does not need,or want logical analysis to challenge what he is clinging to without question...
@@gerhardvanderpoll7378 I came to the Lord at aged 38. I pray you come to know him too.
@@bobbyunavailable I know him, that's why I avoid him. I'm allergic to bullshit.
I wash shipped off to have a bunch of hellfire and brimstone sermons. All I saw was a pyramid scheme of manipulating children, then making them dupe other children, and so on for the past 2000 years.
Wonderful interview
I’m not crazy !!!!
65 and agree 100%
Always knew things were going down hill fast ….. again Thank you 🕊🕊🕊
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
I can remember women vigorously aggressively campaigning for homosexual rights which led to the trans movement and what thanks did the women receive no more safe spaces ouch a bit of an own goal for ladies
Don’t blame the women and gays for the bad behaviour of cross dressing straight men.
Trans is no friend of gay people. The constant pressure of this fashionable woke idea is driving young gay people especially girls to mutlilate themselves in a quest for false heterosexuality.
Feminism has spent decades demonising masculinity and now we're surprised that there's an epidemic of disturbed men who believe they would be treated better if they were women. It's hard to argue that these men are wrong in that belief.
@@MackerelCat It was feminism that told people to ignore reality and see men and women as the same when clearly they are not and so when yet another group comes along and pushes that wedge further into what is real and unreal yes we can indeed blame those who put that fake wedge in in the first place and that was and is feminism.
Very true
You can’t avoid the universal law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Although may be possible to convince women that marriage is the way forward is it too late to convince men as they are turning their backs on marriage?
What an interesting thinker is Mary Harrington!Thank you for this talk.
I have a theory on exploitation of women. It is based on the idea that the genders are exploited equally at all times in a society. Women for sex and serving men, men for their industry and security.
It is very easy to determine how much men are exploited for their services. Just look at the life expectancy of men and women. Men pay for their exploitation in their lives and health, women don't.
You will find (in a free market economy) that women statistically will pay for the amount by which they exploit men for what they provide society, by the same amount. No matter how hard governments try to prevent it. In the short term they can try, but eventually they will go broke. Eventually the laws of supply and demand will balance out.
After WW1 there was no feminism. There were not enough men to exploit. Women would sleep with anyone for nothing, cook, clean, and do a full time job. After WW2, my father never lifted a finger in the house. He was given a job without an interview, and my mother never worked a day in her life. She lived to serve him.
Was she exploited, totally. Was my father exploited for his 4 years of slavery in a Japanese POW camp, totally. He died Aged 78, my mother died aged 98.
I'm not sure I can prove my theory, but thank you for reading it at least.
Most thought provoking conversation. Thanks Peter for introducing me to Mary Harrington.
@@JupiterThunder
That may be true but you should refrain from continuing to chastise someone that has unindoctrinated themselves from the cult or it could be that people may see no value in that effort and not bother thusly the cult continues as does the decline of society..
@@Set-ri6rs 🤔
'Unplanned childlessness' seems to be a new buzzphrase.
*_That's no bad thing regarding the hysterical, man hating, blue rinse, nose pierced, dungaree clad, Doc Marin wearing_*
*_harpy feminist ..._*
@@jane---489 I'm no fan of feminists either, but we might have a vocal minority ruining it (once again) for the majority.
Have you watched JBP’s interview with Mr. Shaw. Very interesting and very worrying.
Never heard of it
@@jane---489 hey what did dr. Martin ever do to you?🤣
Staying at home and raising your kids is a privilege
it not supposed to be a privilege it supposed to be the norm! Other women should be able to stay at home like me if they don't want to go work! I'm not even rich we only get 20000 a year and i live in Canada my men let me stay at home. I refuse to work for other people that are not my provider! My job has a woman is not serve everyone only the husband if you dont have a husband your family is supposed to keep you at home until you find someone unless you are mentally sick gay /trans ! stay with your family and get counselling!
@@funnygaming2672 But most woman cannot afford to stay at home. That makes it a privilege that you enjoy. I don’t get how you fail to understand that
Most stay at home mothers are taking antidepressants. They need a combination of both.
A lovely point at the end there about how men socialise and interact :).
It instantly reminded me of when I was visiting my friend in Finland. On my last day there we went out into the waters south of Helsinki to see a great old sea fort that is a living museum now. You might think that as I would be flying out in a few hours there would be constant chatter … but we hardly spoke, beyond the odd conversation about this or that feature of the fort and it’s history … … but we had a great time just being in each other’s company and enjoying our friendship.
That makes sense. My lovely, wise and humble daughter often speaks of the awful atmosphere in the company of some women. She says that there is always a competitive atmosphere amongst 2 or 3 women, and a quickness to mock and bring down anyone who holds individual views. Chicken pecking, my daughter calls it, lol. Needless to say that she avoids these gatherings, preferring the company of two or three close friends including male friends!
Yes us Finns don't do small talk!
Mary Harrington quite obviously a very intelligent individual giving a very realistic appraisal of the modern woman in society today.
Really, she made so many incorrect statements its embarassing.
She's a woman from a very wealthy background. These are the same people that brought women into this s***. Believe me she's not doing this for men she's doing this for women. She doesn't give a f*** about men. Unless they can get something for her
Society has conned women and one cost is the mother baby bond an attachment that literally forms self regulation in the infant .
No, not society. *Feminism* conned women. Women conned women.
Women will NEVER take accountability, it WAS NOT SOCIETY that conned women, it's FEMINISM that suggests to women to be miserable.
@@boatfaceslim9005 Marxists conned them as feminism comes from Marxism.
@@paulatreides4274 While I don't disagree on the Marxist origin for many of the idiotic ideas behind radical feminism, I find it fascinating how deep the cultural conditioning is to not allow women to be responsible for their actions. Not only to women seek to avoid any responsibilty by routinely blaming men, but men like yourself make excuses to help them to avoid accountability for their actions! Another form of "White Knighting" I guess...
@@boatfaceslim9005 Observing and explaining something is not excusing it. Psychological manipulation is a powerful tool and anyone can fall prey to it. We already had a model of largely not holding woman accountable under the old patriarchal system primarily because of women's lack of ability to participate in the workforce along with other privileges afforded their gender through social norms this carry over has to be adjusted for to right the scales.
As the family unit continues to dissolve from the removal of men hate and violence will continue to escalate and when you add a half a dozen cultures and races all vying for power in the same place you a hellscape in the making.
What a rich and inspiring talk 💛
Thankyou for this conversation and thankyou Mary, for being so brave as to address issues so very delicate in our day!
God bless you! 🙏💛
Mary Harrington is fantastic.
Why?
@@howardalantreesong2588 because she sets out the situation clearly, and offers solutions. In these febrile times, it’s a revelation.
@@Happyheretic2308 OK. I don't dislike her. It's just that I see her everywhere at the minute and everyone praises her - yet all I see is someone raiding right-leaning TH-cam channels for ideas then regurgitating them for a wider audience. Hence, nothing to write home about (Although "would" as the meme goes).
@@howardalantreesong2588Show me someone who claims not to be a magpie and I'll show you a liar.
@@howardalantreesong2588 try reading her UnHerd articles. She doesn’t regurgitate.
She only cares because now it effects women negatively .
Modern feminism is Schrödinger feminism where they are both the victim and the empowered at the same time until something happens and they can choose which position yields the most benefit.
Amazing. Thank you Mary. Spot on IMO. And thank you Peter for interviewing this guest.
So, Her Highness graciously thinks that it should be discussed to grant men, these inferior creatures, some space on their own, BUT: only if it benefits women, in this case so that older men show young men how to kowtow before the fair sex. But she doesn't think that men should have the right to socialize when and with whom they want, which, one would think, is a basic human right, but not in the eyes of this o so enlightened feminist.🤦🏻
I’m glad an elite woman can see how elite women have utterly destroyed life for women who work jobs and who aren’t university educated. I’m tempted to despise them all, but this woman is okay in my book. As a working class woman myself, I didn’t notice that the feminists of my upbringing and young adulthood (late 60s/mid 80s) were the highly educated daughters of powerful, doting parents with trust funds. Powermongers, all of them. I didn’t realize that I didn’t fit into the foolish Utopian narrative until I was in middle age and had squandered my opportunities for marriage and procreation and reasonable expectations from life. Thank you Mary Harrington. I hope more young women like you step forward to be heard and paid attention to.
They made it sound like such a perfect solution. I am sorry you were conned into believing their foolish vision.
Even in the 1970s as a child I viewed feminism as something stealing my rights and opportunities.
Thank you Peter for introducing this incredible thinker Mary Harrington. She was voicing all my concerns as a mother and now grandmother, she makes complete sense in my opinion. Again NCF at its best.
Gushing
lets the poor men and women fight amongst themselves
we will tax both, we win
The effects Harrington calls "counter intuitive" are not counter intuitive from the Christian perspective, but obviously she has my complete respect for honestly and clearly describing them as they were observed in reality.
Yes. It is possible to see why she has not been cancelled isnt it.
True. I grew up Christian - still am - and the voices from the pulpit saw all this coming 50 years ago.
@@charlesstanford1310 And the voice/s from the 4 gospels. Watch and pray. ✝️
I also wonder if the results currently labeled as "counter intuitive" are only labeled as such because they are counter to a narrative being pushed very hard for many decades distracting a lot of people from reality.
Same with the LGBTQI+ movements
So wise. As a Catholic I’m very familiar with these insights and arguments against contraception and liberal “feminism,” from Paul VI to JPII.
Yeah, spreading AIDS across Africa. Not so wise.
49:50 Single Mothers are 70% more likely to produce drug addicted children, mentally disturbed children, homeless children and inmates. Children raised by single fathers have the same advantages as children raised by married couples.
The root word of "Smother" is "mother", for a reason. Women have all the love and kindness a child needs, but many women lack the backbone to instill discipline, accountability, and pride into a child. They do not have a clue how to do it. Great at hugging, poor at accountability. Many of them just lose it, and scream, and think that is how to instill discipline into a child. And then their child moves out and becomes an entitled burden on society. And 37% (US) of children today are raised by single mothers.
Feminists: "Let's smash the Patriarchy...by letting the Patriarchy smash us!"
Men: "Oh, no. Please. Don't go down on me while expecting no commitment at all. Please stop."
This has been one super eye opening experience. Thank you for this.
(From a man from Africa.)
This lady is moving down the correct path, but still has a ways to go on her journey. First, the entire discussion, even when talking about men, was how to "make men better mates for women". Recovering feminists such as herself don't seem to ever want to ask men what it is that THEY want.
Men now have no interest in marriage because they have no incentive to get married and the marriage state offers zero benefits to men. Not only does marriage not offer men any benefits, but it is the source of literally life destroying problems if the marriage fails. This idea that we are going to be able to create some new culture of secular contractual marriage where women and men engage in "transactional" marriages is pure fantasy if marriage offers men no benefits. The only possible way it would work is if all attractive women all jointly decided to stop having sex outside of marriage and forced men to get married in order to get sex with them. Right now I see a zero chance of anything like that happening within a purely secular context.
As it is, I don't see any solution to these social problems or to the coming birthrate collapse outside of religion. The only way that men would ever agree to get married in the current climate is if there was a religious reason to do so. Religion is also the only way that women will voluntarily stay sexually monogamous and voluntarily go off the pill. Expecting secular worldly women to do any of those things voluntarily without a religious motivation is a pipe dream.
Ya brother i as a Muslim women of 27 years still virgin because of Islam we fulfull others right just to please Allah because one day we die and again present in front of Allah on the day of judgment plz brothers convert to Islam there is so much piece of hearts inspite of pverty all others problems
Who else is our entire society set up to serve, if not men and what they want?! Even the maddest wokester isn't attempting to force the Freemasons to admit females, or or stop "men-who-identify-as-women" from inheriting their male-privilege hereditary titles once they transition to "womanhood"! They know transgenderism is about forcing females to accommodate males, not the other way around!
To go through life alone is a very heavy burden to shoulder and one to which few outside the religious community, can bear well. You only get one chance in life to live life fully!
preferably without women! MGTOW!
I'm a very old lady - was married [ not particularly happy ] for 47 years. I always loved being a woman - had 2 beautiful daughters, and 5 grandsons, grown up now and always show me great love and respect. I've never felt inferior to a man, so don't want to join in the emasculating of them. God's word comes to mind " in thinking to become wise, they become fools" So round and round theses silly women go, like headless chickens.
Women entering the workforce over doubled the labor pool which in turn lowered demand for labor which in turn reduced wages for labor. Before the influx of so many additional workers, a man could support a family with one job. Now, it takes two parents working to achieve that.
The sexual revolution made women more promiscuous. So women as a whole, now have had more lovers by the time they're 20 than men have in their entire lives. It is a psychological fact that this causes discontent with any man they eventually may want to settle down with. It is the choice overload paradox, where having too many options leaves people feeling dissatisfied with whatever choice they eventually make.
Exactly
It's game over for marriage and family in the West.
This woman is the most articulate English speaking person I have had the pleasure of witnessing. We need more Mary’s!
We are screwed.
Bravo for having Mary Harrington on your show!!! She is truly brilliant.
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
The idea that women have always played a productive role in the home's microeconomy even while being mothers needs to be propagated. Even a relatively prosperous women in the 1600s was head of production, not just a wet nurse. She knew how to make cheese and beer, some of which would be sold. She knew how to make bread, how to preserve fruit, how to make clothes, and so on.
Changing the human body won't change the human mind. We will have the same human behaviors with augmented capabilities. Yikes.
Either there were more hours in the day back then, or women were part of a community of women who worked collectively to raise children and produce goods.
@@LH-kr4od There absolutely was more cooperative effort.
This has been such an insightful conversation! I found myself nodding so many times. It is filled with gems. I am going to save it and listen repeatedly. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
This is an extremely important conversation. This woman is extraordinary.
What an incredibly intelligent amazing woman and conversation I shall look forward to reading her book asap!
It’s been a long wait. With the notable exception of Camille Paglia and a few contrarian feminists. Fads tend to run in 20 year cycles whether fashion, music or … . Reactionary make be a misnomer and perhaps First Wave feminism 2.0 more appropriate. As the sage handed down, “When the rearguard turns about-face, it becomes the vanguard.
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
Listening to these types of conversations always makes me feel a little sad as I watch people - and all credit to them - working out for themselves what the catholic church predicted about the contraceptive pill. So it wasn't an unpredictable effect, even if it seems counterintuitive to most people.
The Catholic Church is the anti-christ and its evil has stained the world
What did the catholic church predict about pedophile priests?
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus It didn't need to predict. See if you can figure that out for yourself.
Let's not confuse things, what is so called "first wave Feminism", that is, the right to vote, reduced working hours, etc., that is not Feminism. That was the logical progression of our Western civilization to extend its responsibilities (and its counterpart, the rights) to all its human participants. To call this Feminism is like calling Masculinism to the wage earners who demanded an 8-hour working day, or to call Masculinism the independence movement started by the Founding Fathers in the USA, or to call Masculinism obtaining the Magna Carta in the UK, etc., etc.
Then, in the 60's Feminism appeared, and to cover itself up with a certain "aura of legitimacy", they, in retrospect, labeled as Feminism the above progression. But the truth is that those people that participated in that progression, men and women, did not call themselves Feminist, or anything like that.
The real things is that Feminism is an ideological perversion resulting from applying Marxist logic, and some other ideological frameworks, into the context of the relations between the sexes (weaponizing sex differences and relationships), with the intention of subverting those relations, and thus causing real chaos in society and bring it to a "tabula rasa" situation, in order to have the possibility of rebuilding society from scratch to reach their Utopia mirage.
Of course, to hide that purpose, Feminism continued to cover itself with an "aura of legitimacy" by using beautiful words like "equality", "rights", "justice", and other beautiful and "catchy" expressions. And what is more ironic, is that Feminism can do that with impunity, not only because they disguise themselves by dressing with that "aura of legitimacy", but also because Feminism abuse precisely the rights (the counterpart of the obligations) acquired in this progression of our Western society. That is, Feminism could not exist if it were not for Masculinism (in the case that we decided to call the whole progression that way).
I would recommend reading / listening to Yuri Bezmenov about the concept of "Ideological Subversion", I'm not sure if what that gentleman says is all true, but given the time when he said that (1984), and what happened next, the coincidence is interesting.
We, as a society, should be very suspicious and watch very carefully those movements that advocates only for a "select" part of our society, that is, any movement that selects a group of our society using criteria based on some identifiable attribute of the individuals (sex, skin color, intelligence, whatever), and then starts advocating for the rights of those "selected" ones.
That movement, is one based on division, not union, and the logical question is, when does that movement stop? and where does it stop? according to history, probably this movement never stops by itself, and becomes more, and more extremist with time, because it becomes a lobbying-based machine for status and power. And it is the survival of this very machine itself, that becomes the movement's main goal, and for it to survive, the best thing to do it's not solving the problem they preached to solve, but to maintain the problem and possibly aggravate it.
Let's remember that movements at the end of the day are not managed by ordinary people, the ordinary people are busy living their lives and trying to make ends meet, the movements at their core are managed by "ideologues" and "fanatics" (they are the "life force" behind the movement, not ordinary people). And those are the ones, mainly the ideologues (but also the "fanatics" through "the end justifies the means"), that are corrupted by the previously described machine.
If we really want a more just society, then we must fight so that everyone has the same obligations (and therefore the same rights, they are sides of the same coin). A few and fundamental obligations (it is not necessary to restrict our freedom with unnecessary obligations); the obligation to respect the life of others, the obligation to respect the property of others, the obligation to respect the privacy of others, the obligation to respect the merits of others (the counterpart would be equal access to opportunities), and the obligation to faithfully and sincerely comply with the laws that enforce those obligations.
With regard to these laws, we should also have the minimum number of laws so as not to unnecessarily restrict our freedoms, so those laws must take care of breaches to the lowest common denominator of those obligations. And we should have a legal framework where we are all equal before those laws, and where innocence is assumed until proven otherwise in a fair trial.
Achieving a society that works under that framework, and does not "go off the rails", it is already a "task of titans". It is not necessary to corrupt that task advocating for "select" groups, the latter is a sure recipe for division, resentment, tyranny and finally, the inevitable destruction coming from inside ..
-------------
Now, going in particular to Mary's argument, she is right in saying that women have special interests. But, and what I'm going to say must not be considered an attack to her, by saying "special interests", she is inadvertently camouflaging that both sexes have their differences, those differences generate special needs, and those special needs generate special interests, I think we always have to be clear in what we talk about, because what we are looking for, is to reach a coexistence agreement where each party can give the best of themselves to live in the best possible way.
So, it is true that women have special interests, just as men have special interests, but the assumption that is always used to discuss those special interests is that society already takes care of these special interests of men, and only those of women are not covered, and therefore it is necessary to continue "fighting" for them.
But just as Mary explains that Feminism is imposed by some elite women, society was not structured for the benefit of all men, because only a tiny percentage of men were in charge of society (and although it seems unfair now that that tiny percentage of men were in charge of society, later we can discuss the reason for that situation, since it was not arbitrary as it seems now from the comfort of our couches, without the threat of another tribe or kingdom that wants to turn us into slaves).
And this very small elite established policies that mostly benefited them and the functionality of the society as a whole, not the special interests of the population, neither men nor women, unless that was strictly necessary for the functioning of society as a whole (as a machine). Then, throughout history, in a tortuous and very slow progression, our Western society began to extend the responsibilities and their corresponding rights to the rest of the population, but always with politics being dominated by a very small elite, even in democratic systems. An elite that was isolated from the day-to-day problems of ordinary people, men and women.
And just as it is true that along that progression there were women's special interests left uncovered, there were also a lot of men's special interests left uncovered. And those are not empty words, that situation is what the statistics reflect, they show that it is men who have some of the worst outcomes in society, a lower life expectancy, much more more probability of suffering aggression and violent death (the reality is different from the perception of danger), much more isolation, much less attention to their health, more working hours, the most dangerous jobs and with a higher rate of accidents and deaths, a much higher suicide rate, a much higher rate of homeless and addictions, worse results in the educational system, etc. In addition, men do not have the privilege of choosing between staying at home or working, on the contrary, women do, and they have a whole legal framework that protects them if they make that decision, precisely because of the potential economic inequality that decision causes.
So, instead of talking about Feminism, or Masculinism, or any other special group, and creating lobby-based machines that advocate for a certain group, and invariably end up corrupt. What we should do is analyze the situation of our society from a holistic perspective, taking into account the special interests of each party. Review the current situation, review the situation in more traditional times, because although not everything was perfect, not everything was bad either, many things can be learned, because precisely thanks to those traditions we manage to survive and prosper. And at the end of the day, try to come up with a reasonable solution (because perfection and Utopia doesn't exist), where each party can give the best of themselves while living the best possible life, but the cooperation of each party is indispensable for that, both parties are equally valuable, and it is not possible to have any viable humanity without both cooperating in harmony and love.
And of course, none of that is really going to work, because nothing works well by force, not at least in the medium-long term, if our society does not re-examine its moral values and re-establish its foundations on strong moral values.
BS
You were correct early on with your mention of marxism agenda, which is to undermine society, our individual identity, the family, our culture and traditions!
That has been playing out over a good few years now, but people stupidly refer to this creeping marxism as 'woke'!
No, let us see it for the insidious agenda which it is!
If our society does not want to totally implode, people have to start realising that humanity and decency matter. Otherwise many will be and already are, shadows of who they were meant to be. Angry, bitter and unfulfilled miseries, because they are barking up the paths of delusion!
Excellent post. Thanks.
Now ask GPT-3 or whatever version of the AI you're using to write the exact same article but debunk what was just written hmmm.
@@awolgeordie9926 You are welcome
Never vote for any these anti-democratic mainstream political parties.
PR can destroy the two-party monopoly; Reform UK is promising PR. Anything that can destroy the two-party monopoly gets my vote.
Self-love is not as biggest sin as self-neglect
Is PR as great as Farage (who I greatly respect) says though? Peter Hitchens's opinion is, I believe, that when the two-party system goes, you get pathetic, weak, liberal, lefty coalitions which never get anything done. He lists countries where that has happened. For anyone who dislikes 'career politicians', abolishing the two-party system might be a mistake considering that if, say, the Green Party is now always one of the major parties, the general public is now stuck with their representative i.e. typically with the two-party system, we mercifully don't hear much from the party that isn't in power for about 4 years. And Hitchens's last point is that, with the two party system you MIGHT one day possibly have a genuinely conservative party in power, I am personally on the fence about the benefits of abolishing the 'first past the post system', which explains my comment, but I would like to have my mind made up on this subject when election time comes around. Any responses would be most welcome.
Agreed. LibLabCon hate us.
@@yiguanas812There are pros and cons to both that's for sure, but it's a bit of a red herring to flag up arguable examples of cr@p coalition governments when there are also arguable examples of cr@pp FPTP ones too.
The point, as much as anything, is to get as many people as possible feeling enfranchised in ie not disenfranchised from the political system.
@@gerhard7323 I hear what you say and thank you for your reply. If the objective is to prevent people from feeling disenfranchised from the political system (as you say), perhaps the path forward is to be encouraging 'normal' local people to get into local government as independents where they can disrupt, shape and form the government's and governments' agendas. I seem to hear little to no such encouragement. There seems to be at least one site I know which seems to try to give people the tools and expertise to do that - voteHYPHENfreedomDOTorg.
@@yiguanas812 Not dismissing your suggestion out of hand there, but an infrequent democratic vote is the extent of most people's wish to engage directly with democratic politics so the least we can try and do is to make it feels like it counts unlike with FPTP which actively 'encourages' people not to vote in certain constituencies where they know it'll be a wasted vote and not worth the bother.
FPTP made much more sense in the 1970s when there was an all but two party system and when the coalitions were essentially internalized within each party, but today there are a plethora of ideas and parties whose views it would be healthier to be seen to be presented and represented.
If only for the sake of the democratic process itself if nothing else.
Very interesting interview. I wonder if the difference between career and job is why the focus on equality always seems to be in careers rather than jobs as that is where elite women feel that they belong. I've often wondered if the focus on gender, sexuality, colour etc. is so that very privileged people (class) can use their perceived oppression to push their way into careers.
What elite women! You mean the latter entities which you mention, whom cheat their way into well paid jobs by crying hard done by!
Underhand and crafty, but far from elite 😂
@@derickjude7188 Fair point 😂
The trust fund and private school kids all get married, owned homes and have oodles of children. Why? Because their lives are paid for before they are even born. They are taught in private school that public school kids are their slaves. It's why public schools so bad, a dumb population is an obedient one. And then they watch the masses yell at women for their demise. The rich do this on purpose to men. They have them blame the women for what the rich do, so the men will hate on women instead of the rich that actually enslaves them. Men are the dumber sex, it's why they target them. They know what they do and when you work with these people and then see men going on and on how women destroy everything by not wanting family, nope, the rich do by making having a family so expensive only the rich can do it. See?
I LOVE Mary Harrington. Go Mary. What a great service you are doing for women. Definitely my kind of feminism.
All of feminism is a religion of total disregard for men's rights, men's issues, and male spaces.
lets the poor men and women fight amongst themselves
we will tax both, we win
Dear, once you align yourself with and become a part of any "ism" you are in trouble. Why? The reason is simple and should be obvious, if you stop and think about it. The very fact that you have done that automatically means that you are obligated to go along with whatever their narrative is-whether that narrative is true or false. If you don't then you are a traitor. So, you are automatically in a highly compromised position and you are not permitted to think and reason for yourself. You are a prisoner of group-think. For decades, many of us have stood by watching many young women be easily allured into that stupid trap. No one ever says, "Gosh, I wish roosters were more like hens." Yet, we have heard countless numbers of women lament the fact that men are not more like women, and then proceed to tell men that they need to think and act more like women do.
Now, we have doubled down on stupidity by wondering why so many men and so many women want little to nothing to do with each other, but at the same time they are unhappy with who they are. Feminism, like all isms, by its very nature is highly toxic. It needs conflict in order to survive. Feminism lead women down the path to creating their own hell-and not just for themselves but for society as a whole. Your kind of feminism-however you define it-will inevitably do the same thing, and for the same reason. Instead of desperately seeking to be a dependent "me too" try intelligently striving to be an independent "I am."
The kind where women continue to screw men?
She makes so many excellent points. What is missing here is anyone being to articulate the benefits for a man to get married. She describes marriage as “phenomenally freeing”. Marriage for men is the exact opposite of that.
The women's liberation movement of the 1960's and 1970's did a lot of damage to women in general and to society as a whole. What was perhaps most damaging was that it promoted the false idea that women could sleep around with different men with no negative consequences. That is totally untrue. Men have told me that when women started sleeping around with men they started losing a lot of respect for women. There is a comment attributed to Elvis Presley, who famously said that "Why should men buy the cow when they can get the milk for free?" This sounds like a terrible thing to say, but it's true. There is a lot more men and women living together and even having children together, than there are couples getting married. Also, there are more men now who think that most, if not all, women make a habit of sleeping around with different men. Also, women liberationists propogated the false notion that "women could have it all" - that a woman could work full-time, manage a house, and raise children successfully. This is simply not true. I sincerely wish that a lot more women in the past would have stayed home and raised their children themselves, instead of leaving it in the hands of places like daycares. As an older women, I am forever grateful to my Mom for staying home and raising four young children, instead of working outside of the home. I have seen far too many badly raised children and young people, who were raised with only one parent or pretty well had to raise themselves while their mother worked outside of the home. Some of these kids are really out of control. In hindsight, I really wish that the Women's Liberation Movement had never taken place.😢☹️😮
No, impacts on men were always intended.
Look at families. Men have systematically been excluded e.g. no fault divorce, preference for mothers in family courts, zero reproductive rights for men, support for single mothers etc.
Same in Universities, corporate boards etc Women demand access, then equality, then exclude men (e.g mandating female friendly cultural changes).
its ironic that there seems to be a greater patriarchy inside Feminism than in society at large.
I know more single mothers (or former single mothers) than mothers who live with the father of all of their children.
Feminism required women to take a greater responsibility, but an enormous amount of young women didn't understand this until they were already suffering the consequences of behaving irresponsibly.
A friend of mines daughter has PTSD from having an abortion, she tried to take her own life after having the abortion, she was only 19 or 20 ish at the time.
I absolutely love Mary’s work. She’s well studied, articulate, intelligent and good hearted.
I always thought it was weird at an electronics company I worked for, when there was talk of legally increasing the number of women on boards, how the working class women working in the wire-shop would benefit from having high earning, middle class women, but who knew nothing about engineering, parachuted onto the board.
Elites, male and female, care nothing about the peasants. They feel like they have nothing in common with them and can neglect them without repercussions. It's always been like that. That's part of the human nature that they try to tell us doesn't exist.
Great discussion with lots of perception, wisdom and stuff to think about.
I want this book.
This woman created probably 10 excellent 1 min clips with profound magnificent knowledge and understanding.
Incredibly beautiful and interesting discussion. I agree 100% with the lady Mary Harrington.
Would love to see a discussion with Mary and Jordan Peterson
I think they could get into some nuanced discussion about the end of abundance and the development of the Third World.
Maybe we should all just get on with it, follow your instincts and live your life with respect for others.
Easy to say while everyone around you is being brainwashed by TikTok.
Most men don't want that. They want a slave and pet
@@VaporRize08 would that be following instinct?
Mary Harrington asserts that, for women doing certain jobs ("with a laptop"), there's no difference in the work output of women and men. But what if that isn't true? Even though we have almost ll the same organs, except for those that produce offspring, and our brains are shaped in very similar ways, this doesn't mean that men and women have identical thought patterns or efficiency in understanding and communicating information. Why Mary Harrington takes as a given the feminist claim that brain work has no sex component surprises me.
All my life, it's been obvious to me that men and women think differently, and I see the differences in point of view having real-world outcomes. That women keep trying to squash this reality is quite sad.
Read "In Defense of Women" by H. L. Mencken sometime. Not that women need to be defended but that's the way he had to put it in the 1920s. Men and women are different and they think differently and, in his and my opinion, women are easily better at it. It's a survival trait.
As a friend of mine put it, when she talked to a man he would open the file cabinet and pull out the file on whatever subject they were talking about and, if she changed the subject, he would have to close the file and put it back in the file cabinet and pull out the new file and talk about that one. Women don't have to do that - their brains are much more agile and that makes them much more fun to talk to.
Men had to learn how to do one thing well but women had to know how to do many things well. That takes a better brain.
Even the ones who think they are not feminists have internalized the feminist beliefs,
@@neilreynolds3858 Unscientific drivel.
As a seasoned person in the tech industry it has been my experience that few women can outperform men, even though there is no "physical strength" element in the work we do. The explanation that I have reached - from observation - matches something that I later heard from Camille Pagglia: men are by nature obsessed with what they do and that makes a huge difference.
@@defendliberty1289 And women weren't obsessed with raising children and keeping a household which took a lot of different skills that they had to master not just the one that men had to master so they could make money? I've known a lot of men who were great at one thing and totally inept at most everything else but that one thing paid the bills. If you're not obsessed with that one thing then you'll starve. This is where I disagree with Paglia and Peterson who tend to look at everything through the lens of income. There's much more to life than a career.
Too bad Mary ascended to her media exposure after Robert Bly was out of the picture. Men are made by older men: this is the main thesis of _Iron John._ Men's groups and retreats and conferences got a lot of attention starting 40 years ago and are still going on. Some of them are touchy-feely, and some of them aren't. With the diversity among men's personalities there's plenty of room and need for all kinds of men's exclusive gathering and socialization. Even among average normal men - more masculine, less sensitive - there are ways of dealing with emotions and inner fears and insecurities that can only happen well away from women's eyes and ears.
Men can still socialize and be mentored by other men in an all-male setting: Freemasons. Their motto: "We take good men and make them better." If only I had joined decades earlier... There is a lodge near you.
Mary Harrington so eloquent, intelligent and perceptive. If only women espoused a doctrine of loyal relationships and caring for their man long term instead of sleeping around and over rating themselves.
I work in a male environment. I have overheard younger men cry because their wife is pregnant and now he realizes he is trapped for life. I have overheard men tell their girlfriends to not depend on them for anything. This to me shows how much men's view of relationships (or non relationship? ) has changed. They dont want the burden of supporting a wife and children. They dont want to be looked at as the solver of problems or the hero or the provider. they dont view it as responsibility but as burden. Men dont want women in their lives in any substantial way. So there is no stability in relationships because men dont want to carry the burden. I think part of that is also because of corporate america and the way they treat employees as disposable and that health insurance is tied to your employer. If you cant depend on the stability of your job, how can you plan to be able to afford a house/car/wife/2.2 kids ? So corporate America has done it's part to emasculate men. Corporate America can take away a man's ability to provide for his family and replace him with a woman and pay her less. Before, a man was proud to be the provider, now a man knows that the world is working against him to be able to provide and he has given up.
At last we find a woman who thought things through! This is marvelous!
Liberation of women came at a cost. It made the women unmarriageable.
It's rare that a woman's choice is ever backed up with responsibility.
Women seem to have many advocates. Are there any advocates for men? Is there any recognition anywhere about men’s issues.
Edit: while she did not advocate for men she’s one of the rare feminists I’ve heard who recognizes that men need to have their own space. Perhaps more importantly, she also seems to recognize that men having their own space does not diminish women.
Andrew Yang and Warren Farrell
I think a separate space for men is needed, and has been duly earned. But do not forget that “men’s spaces” used to encompass almost all of public life, including academic institutions making it difficult for women to be recognized for scientific achievement, earn certain types of degrees, or represent themselves in politics. The fear that positive men’s only spaces might devolve into a legal way to exclude women from important public conversation and decision making is a legitimate fear.
@@karenbean271 Yours is the conventional response. The issue is MUCH more complicated for men.
@@karenbean271 Okay, that's just retarded, If that was the case, women only space should be closed
How about men and women get treated the same in let's say. . . sentencing for crime?
Camille Paglia "stop blaming men."
and so, the women picked apples from the tree of Paradise and eat them. The endgame is, predictable, outside the Paradis and not pretty for all.
If God didn't want women to eat the apple, He wouldn't of made the apple. Your God makes no mistakes right? LOL!!
@@easyname9184 Actually, In Greek, it says Satan pharmakia Eve. In English it says deceived. The garden story are three dudes who drugged, sa and bred a young girl. You don't even know what the original text says and you're trying to say what the point of it was? LOL!! The whole world is under the snakes SOREcery aka pharmakia. The woman did NOTHING wrong. So, if you're going to use that book to talk about men and women in relationships, then it clearly states ALL men are bad and NO women will be punished for what men do. Hosea 4:14 "I WILL NOT PUNISH YOUR DAUGHTERS WHEN THEY COMMIT HARLOTRY, NOR YOUR BRIDES WHEN THEY COMMIT ADULTRY. FOR MEN THEMSELVES GO APART WITH HARLOTS." You forget, Adam and the Father and the Snake all knew what's up. I'm just saying, if you're going to quote a historical book, you should know what it's actually saying. Be well and take care.
Bossy women have always treated other women with contempt. .. and twisted men around their little fingers But often they end up alone and friendless . It was never about freedom or liberation just power. ( The story of Adam and Eve is an ancient version..."we can have the power let's eat the apple" )
No, she needs to separate the pill from casual sex. Women take the pill for multiple reasons having nothing to do with casual sex: some to clear up severe acne, some to lighten heavy periods, some to control endometriosis, some married women for family or career planning, and some married women take it because they've been advised by their doctor to avoid pregnancy because of serious medical issues. The pill enables married women who need to avoid pregnancy to actually have a sex life with their husbands.
The pill's side effect are different from woman to woman. Also, it's been demonstrated that having endless periods over a lifetime isn't healthy either. The pill lowers the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, while it slightly increases other cancers. It's not one size fits all.
This woman blew my mind. Especially that the pill was the first transhumanist step, leading to today's trans obsession.
I would question the assumption that the "elite women" who will have sexual freedom followed by finding a relationship holds up.
It did in the 90s and early 2000s. But as men disappear from university and decent earning men in blue collar work are deemed "socially unattractive" in those women's social circles.
Is the patern going to continue? I'm not so sure.
If the laptop class faces severe job losses with AI, these "elite women" may find themselves in a very depressing position.
Women don't care so long as they can get with tall hot guys. 6 feet equals 100k income...
The greater problem for men is that they have no say in the matter. If this book had been written my a man it simply wouldn't have found an agent to dare push it, let alone a publisher to publish it. In publishing houses today, almost all the in-house script readers are women, especially in publishers that accept scripts upon `radical' issues. A manuscript falling on the mat that argued against the merits of feminism and was also written by a man would be simply discarded to the slush-pile unread.