30:00 I greatly admire Kathleen, but listening to her, an academic, describe housework in these hideous terms is really amusing. I wonder how long its been since she worked an actual job? Because "mind boggling dull, repetitive, knackering, sleepless, work" would seem to describe most jobs. Does she really think that women are more satisfied sitting in a cubicle for eight hours, staring at a monitor, filing TPS reports? Kathleen talks about the bourgeoise elements of the new left, but she's just as mired in the bourgeoise elements of the old feminist left. She has this conception of women working that is at complete odds with reality. The vast majority of women who enter the workforce aren't going to be professors, they're going to be clerical workers, nurses, retail staff, wait staff, etc. Like many feminists, Kathleen assumes a choice between the "drudgery" of being a stay-at-home mother and the "excitement" of having a top-tier leadership position with the backing of powerful institutions, when in reality the choice for the vast majority of women is the same as it is for men: You get the work you can get, and you hope it pays well enough that you can afford sufficient luxury to make the work bearable.
I commented something like this before. This perception of stay at home moms doing something repetitive and so on The vast majority of jobs are repetitive, though, and on top of that, most women don't get the satisfaction they derive from being with their kids in those repetitive jobs. Also, sleepless?! Actually, according to pew research, stay at home moms have more sleep time than employed moms, they also have more leisure time. This is one biggest delusions of many feminists, the delusion that a working woman is this imaginary boss who puts her schedule as she likes, who gets paid the money she needs for all her luxuries! Feminists always try to frame women having employment as something good, because most of them have this imaginary view of a working woman as an independent boss, but that is far from the truth A lot of women get abused and so on in their jobs, and they feel they don't have a choice because they need the money and the market is too competitive for them. For most people, employment isn't a privilege, it is a responsibility, something they have to do to live their lives That is why i actually think a society with less employed women is a society where women are more privileged and less stressed than women in another similar society, but more women are employed.
Feminists think women who stay at home are barefoot and pregnant, kept imprisoned by their husbands, they make extreme caricatures out of everything@@MA-gu2up
Louise: I think your view that there should be a default culture tolerant of exceptions is spot on! That is a brilliant phrasing, obvious once it has been spoken.
As a mother who stayed home and raised little kids I wouldn't describe the work as "boring".. it was exhausting and maddening because it was so interrupt driven but as a woman I think we're naturally great multi-taskers. Every time I left the kids home with my husband it was a total comical fiasco to come home to see how he coped with the insanity.
Women are great multitaskers. And men are more likely to be laser focused. Honestly when I get interrupted when I’m working I get so irritated because it takes awhile all my mental focus. But my wife doesn’t mind at all. She can be washing the dishes, have something boiling on the stove, and still not get irritated at me when I ask where the garlic powder is. I’m pretty impressed when she can do that. However when we try to have a philosophical discussion, honestly I get frustrated with her because her mind jumps all over the place while I’m trying to focus on one point. Anyway, people who try to make it seem like “WOMEN/MEN CAN DO THAT TOO!!” Whenever you say something one of the sexes is better at, it just muddles everything and you lose the specialness of the differences. Men and women are more alike than not but our differences are usually very complimentary, which should be appreciated
"I'm a carceral feminist .. for men, not for women!" Seriously, Louise? I worked as a Prison Officer in both male and female estate. Very much opposed to Trans prisoners being allowed into women's prisons because of the very real danger they pose to women, who are actually vulnerable. But it's batshit comments like that lose me.
You want to exclude men from female prisons - to protect the women? Do the other male prisoners in male prisons deserve equal protection to that the women receive? If not, why not? So much for equality between the sexes! If the men are entitled to equal protection, are the sexual predators going to be excluded from male prisons too? Or will the men have to share accomodation with these predators and lesser protection? Or perhaps the women could be given equal protection to that the men receive - none at all! And the women have to share with the men? I guess women will not want nor accept equality with men in this area! Equality but not where women do not benefit!
@@jonahtwhale1779exposing women to these men isn't the same as exposing men to other men. Eg exposure to risk of pregnancy in prison is cruel and unusual punishment-you can't do that to males. Males are more dangerous to females than they are to each other due to biological differences between the sexes. This should be obvious, no? That said, yes everyone should be protected from offenders. It is of course wrong for men to be affected by these criminals. Male prisoners must be separated from females because _duh,_ and men who offend against men should be separated within the male prison system. Similarly males who for whatever reason may be more likely to be victimized should be protected. Systems exist to provide these protections-different security levels, specialized wings, etc.
@@jonahtwhale1779wtf are you babbling on about. There is no equality of the sexes in physicality. The Isla Bryson case in Scotland showcased the absurdity of such decisions. A male double r***st who decided to "identify" himself as a woman to gain access to a woman's prison. You don't solve the horrendous issue of SA in male prisons in doubling the problem, by drafting those of a predatory nature into a women's prison. How about just solving the apathetic nature towards men in the prison system rather than punishing women for what effectively is an overwhelmingly male problem.
@@jonahtwhale1779 trans prisoners in the Male Estate are automatically offered a place in the Vulnerable Persons Unit (VPU) so that they don't have to mix in General Population and are afforded extra protection. No such system exists in the Female Estate. Moreover there is now a Transgender unit at HMP Downview to specifically cater to such prisoners, which I can see being the way things will go in the future.
@@jonahtwhale1779 I don't think you understand equality. It isn't let's make things worse for 50% (except that women commit more like 3%) to drag them down to a worse but equal level. When ppl say they want equality they don't usually mean females and males get equal access to prostate exams of midwives. Clearly separating males from females works and single-sex female spaces are incredibly important. We could arbitrarily raise the rate of s assaults, in fact we have done across the West by including males, but it doesn't make any sense to do so.
There might be certain women who don't leave abusive relationships for "psychological" reasons , but both these women seem too financially comfortable to be in-touch with the cost of moving & leasing housing these days. People can't move or leave due to affordability.
I would add that marriage is a strategy, it is not a need. It is one possible way of meeting individual needs for connection, intimacy, partnership, love, etc. It is also a strategy for meeting social needs, such as for harmony, order, and security. It is , however, by no means the only strategy for meeting those needs. Similarly, reproduction is a strategy for meeting individual-level needs, such as those for care, love, connection, contribution, and growth. It is only at the species level that reproduction is a need.
From my own experience it's wise not to underestimate how much teenagers need a parent to be around.. Not just preschoolers. There is sickness, school holidays, the short school day, etc
Well, as Louise said; we should tolerate them. Just like you tolerate certain other things in life, perhaps not in your own life, but just accept that it exists for whatever reason, and ignore it. Live your life and move on.
@@peanutbutterbruv I know she is not. But you think she will have to tackle those parts of the Bible at some point and explain why she doesn’t believe them, while she seems to accept other teachings?
@emeraldtier1750 many christians denominations in the US, like Catholicism or the Mormons, don't believe in the concept of needing to "be saved" to begin with. Those that do, like born again Christians, typically don't believe in predestination at all but rather the free will for every individual to choose.
I’m an old leftie type in Kathleen Stock’s mould; I believe in public investment in the many essential services we all but especially the under resourced need and benefit from - and I am irritated by Louise’s breathless idealisation of Marriage as the solution to all feminine ills. As if enough of us haven’t been taken for a ride by fairytale ‘happy ever after’ gaslighting already. But I am grateful to her for highlighting the point that Kathleen and many exceptionally gifted and dare I say privileged women overlook - that for the vast majority of us, raising our kids exhausting and yes often boring as it is, is the most important and ultimately rewarding job we’ll ever do, and it would be good to get it properly recognised/supported at last. For most us, all our other jobs are just that, necessary paid jobs, even more ‘boring’, we do our best to tolerate with a smile.
I didn't know enough abt no-fault divorce until recently, I confused it with several things included in "irreconcilable differences". I'm not in favor of no-fault divorce, because it practically negates marriage as a legal institution, and I don't think there's good reason to abolish this historical construct (legal marriage,) just the opposite (research data proves its advantages). Although Conservatives might argue marriage was already weakened by irreconcilable differences, I think that tradeoff was worth allowing women to escape bad marriages. Marriage should be strengthened mostly through social renormalization, instead of legal reform.
no fault divorce has killed marriage, along with custody preferences for women, child support, alimony.. and women intitiate most divorces over low-conflict situations, it allowed a small amount of women to leave (even though they could leave abusive marriages anyway) but destroyed the instituion of marriage for the majority, so it wasnt worth the tradeoff.. marriage was best for children too but Feminism and wimmin killed it, even though family is what gives wahmen most security, they got convinced to destroy that which is benefiical to em
No Fault Divorce was introduced in 1975 in my country. But people got divorced before then, there just had to be a reason. It's a feminist lie that before No Fault Divorce "women were trapped in awful marriages." Violence, cruelty, failure to financially support a wife and family, and adultery were all grounds for divorce long before 1975. In those days the assets and children were ussually given to the party who had not broken the wedding vows. And that's what feminists hated.
@@spiff1When No Fault Divorce was introduced to my country they already knew what great harm this had done to US families. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway.
I agree the Collins' have completely shifted my position on the solution. It doesn't really matter what 'solution' we go with, nature will bounce back. A lot of these non-relationships never got off the ground because its always been survival of the fittest and they didn't make the cut.
Louise, might I suggest a future guest: Professor Gordon Menzies (Sydney University/Oxford). You may have already read his book _'Western Fundamentalism: Democracy, Sex, and the Liberation of Mankind.'_ If not, I recommend it. It is right up your alley. He offers some gentle but thoughtful criticisms of Liberalism and Sexual Liberalism in particular from the point of view of an economist and Christian.
The reason for mothers and women in the UK for being more progressive bent and not culturally sensitive is because they have allowed progressivism to take over their livesas the norm, having given up on traditions for wanting to be seen as merely women doing household chores. Tbh I really see this being influenced from the American liberal feminist wave having its effect on the rest of the West. Turn to some traditional families in the East. They have preserved their cultural ways and traditions as mothers, and women in their families whilst having great careers as teachers, bankers, with corporate jobs, local politicians, while at the same time embracing motherhood, devoting time to their elders (parents and in-laws), allowing time for religious and cultural events (for e.g. participating along side their husbands in such events which allow women to be part of rites alongside men or some where women perform them on their own inviting other women in the community to join thereby uplifting an entire community of women). I am one example of this, albeit living in the West. It is incredibly hard to balance work life, family life, focus on children, organising traditional functions and events, and getting time for oneself, meeting other family members, etc. but it definitely has immense benefits not just selfishly for the women but ALSO for the family unit and the community.
Which part of the east? Mothorhood can't exactly be that popular in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or South Korea when you see those ultra low birth numbers.
Kathleen Stock - a very traumatising story but also a liberating one! Freelance she is not silenced. Two great women having an adult conversation even when they come from very different standpoints 👏
I do like Kathleen's points a lot but Louise is right that most jobs are repetitive and boring. Most of us can't get the top jobs. Motherhood should be valued properly.
12:24 whenever Kathleen stock tries to say why she's on the left, the majority of what she appeals to are economic policies and the idea of the "gruff old left trade unionist" . But economic policy isn't really the core of the left , at least today. For example the german national socialists would agree with most of those economic policies. The core of the left today is really sacralising groups that are viewed as disadvantaged. The core question is "is our priority the wellbeing of the majority indigenous population or is our priority the minority groups"
I don't think talking about a single left makes sense anymore. But I don't think Stock is mistaken, A lot of the Woke stuff is decried by the economic left (see Jacobin Magazine, Die Linke in Germany), the Woke stuff is largely liberal elite progressivism, which sometimes calls itself left, sometimes not, but has especially captured the Democratic left in the US. I guess under your definition. a 2nd gen racial minority in the UK that takes an economic class-first perspective must necessarily be woke by their very existence, as they are definitionally excluded from seeing themselves or possibly wanting to improve the economic wellbeing of everyone in the UK, including the racial majority.
over other groups ie racism and sexism ie the quota system and affirmative action.. the left is totalitarian, they want more taxes and redistribution, they aint into meritocracy
Is there realistically any other kind of Left in 2024 than the bourgeois Left? If not, might it be because this is the inevitable destination that Left ideas lead to?
Disgusted by political rhetoric? That's a choice of words that tend to point the finger back at the mental health of the disgusted, methinks. Disagreement is quite unemotional, whereas disgust is emotional. Best used for fiction methinks.
I've only watched half of this so will have to come back to it but I was a stay at home mum for 7 years for our 3 children. I felt that it was a sacrifice, not because I sacrificed my career or that I didn't find it worthwhile, I knew my children were getting the best start in life and I felt strongly that I wanted to raise them in their formative years. It was a sacrifice because the work we do is unpaid and largely unseen. We need more acknowledgement and monetary incentive for what we do.
You get paid by seeing your children healthy, nobody else can pay u that, its not always about money sweetheart.. ps u had me in the first half, then proved youre just a Feminist
shes a Feminist, thinks other people need to pay her for her to look after her own kids hahahaha one of the most crazy things ive heard of@@marlonmoncrieffe0728
Nobody asked you to have kids, if u dont wanna look after em, keep them legs closed, otherwise dont be asking other people to give you money for it, though you do get money from either your husband or everyone elses husbands via taxes if u a single mother, but u want even more of other peoples money
It's fun watching older feminists witnessing the ideology head towards it's telos and become disillusioned as it smashes into reality and grows more incoherent.
It's an ideology that is largely responsible for driving western culture straight into the gutter, and will likely pave the way for institutions far worse than the ones it initially opposed.
Aside from bearing and birthing a child, in nearly every other physical task, there is nothing a fit, able bodied woman can do that a comporably fit able able bodied man cannot. This is pointed out to say that yes, there should be gender specific roles in _some_ areas of employment in society.
Absolute rubbish. In physical tasks,the weakest man is approximate to the strongest woman. Try wheelbarrowing 3x50kg sacks of cement for a day and tell me I'm wrong.
@nickbarber2080 Okay, well, excluding outliers, then. Do you have any explanation why, beyond choice, there aren't very many female roughnecks, roustabouts, or stevedores, while the vast majority of men in those positions are purely average, physically?
To me, if to make a case for something u are fighting for, u need to go into the extremes, violent husbands and abusive husbands etc.... u probably arent making a reasonable case but u attemping to make a very emotional one.
Exactly....maybe to a lesser degree but its as insulting as saying...."well women are better at looking after kids...except those mothers who are trying to murder their kids!"
Yeah that annoys me whenever the topic of marriage or divorce gets brought up. “Yes there are too many divorces. But we need to make sure women can leave if they’re being abused!!!” It’s constantly about the man abusing the woman. Can we talk about divorce without going off on a tangent about the minority of cases?? Who in the hell is advocating that women stay in abusive relationships? Even Pearl doesn’t say that, and she says women should be okay with the guy cheating if he’s rich. No one is advocating abuse, the caveats are not needed
@@awsambdaman It's not even true either. Before modern divorce leaving your husband because he was violent was grounds for legal separation and even divorce. And today with No Fault Divorce many women stay in violent relationships anyway. So it's an illogical argument.
The thing for me is I don't understand what people like Louise Perry want to do about overpopulation and humanity's unsustainable resource usage. They want constant growth on a finite planet. The population growth of the last century is what is unsustainable. A rate below replacement is a great thing if we can adjust our economic model to prepare for it.
@@wendellbabin6457 yeah so... this guy hardly has the best information. He's one guy, hardly an expert, opposing the entire scientific community when we say that industry rapidly changing the Earth's carbon storages is incredibly serious, and we're already seeing the effects of it. Maybe you should engage with some of the criticism of him instead of falling prey to confirmation bias. His entire stance is minimizing the seriousness of this to people who don't even know basic information about how climate change works, and then banking on the development of technology that doesn't exist yet to mitigate it. Once again, there is no such thing as infinite growth on a planet with finite resources. I don't see him or you addressing this very plain fact. If we're capable of acknowledging reality, we need to drop the growth imperative sooner or later, and move on to a post-growth economy. For what it's worth, I don't think the gen z climate doomers, people who also don't know anything and are treating climate change like a doomsday, are helping either.
It’s disquieting to listen to a discussion of violence against women and what to do about it with the origins of that violence only obliquely referenced, and with only slight reference made to human nature and social forces, but none at all made to the notion of overarching paradigms of disconnection and domination that perpetuate and encode the cultural conditioning of male violence.
Most of the discussion here seems to be concerned with exceptions to the rule than anything else. I have been married for 20+ years myself and most of my friends are as well. Most people I started my first job with are all married and still married. They all have kids and are raising happy families. Most women have chosen to stay home and take care of the family till the kids were out or of certain age. Maybe I am in a certain strata or group reflecting a certain kind of selection bias. I am not sure.
Why do people worry about our declining birthrate? Why must we be concerned about replacing a population of over 350 million? Wasn't our country thriving when there were 300 million of us? Two hundred million?
The problem is the ratio of old to young, we need more young people working to be taxed to support society and the elderly who can’t work. When there are more elderly than young things will get dicey.
The ability to delay gratification seems somewhat correlated with being working class and ending up in prison. It does not seem unreasonable to guess that greater representation of the working class in prison is not just circumstantial, unless one of the circumstances you account for is biology.
This the most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen. It’d be interesting to see how people who believe the above might believe differently if they grew up in poverty. Lol.
Well, a few days ago, I saw a video on TH-cam where if I remember right, a historian busted the myth about the stay at home mom. It was the affluent people who could afford that, the few ones, and the middle class and not to mention the poor ones had to work, women as men, and children when they were old enough to to contribute to the family unit. So, in some sense it seems like you’re romanticizing things a bit. Sure there might be an ideal, something to strive for, but that’s not the same as going back to the “good old times.” Also, - when you say‘Tolerate people outside the norm’ (gay and lesbian people, childfree people etc) it sounded like you meant ‘barely tolerate them.’ I don’t know but the way you said it came across a bit icky to me. I might be wrong about that, but that’s the feeling I got when you said that.
The reality is that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, most working class women worked outside of the home. Feminism was never about allowing women to work, it was about allowing women access to elite education and careers. There has been almost no real change in women's employment since the 1940s, with the biggest changes coming in the form of changing the title of "secretary" to "office manager." If I were more conspiratorial, I would suspect that corporate America embraced liberal feminism because corporations cannot exploit profit from the labor of stay at home mothers and perpetuated the myth of women being "forbidden" from working to obfuscate the reality: In the post-war boom, millions of working class men were elevated into the middle class and able to afford to support a wife, just like the rich men do. The more this became normalized, the more working class men would demand an income capable of supporting a family. But if you break the power of labor by flooding the labor market with large numbers of ununionized women who will work for lower wages, while also raising a generation of girls to believe that oppression is having the economic security to be a fully involved parent while exploring personal interests and involving oneself in charitable organizations, just like the rich women do....well, that seems to work out really well for the capitalists...
The difference is that before the industrial revolution work did not separate mothers and babies. Spinning, weaving and domestic work can be done whilst caring for children, and babies and toddlers can be brought into the field whilst the mother did agricultural work. I grew up in a farming community. Lots of mothers would work harvesting crops like strawberries, lettuces and tomatoes. They'd park the babies prams in the shade, and stop their work when the baby needed them, and toddlers would run around playing. I imagine women have worked like this for thousands of years. Most of the work children did before the industrial revolution was not harmful or dangerous either. One of my favourites was often a child's first job, at four or five. Farmers would employ these little kids, to run around in the fields, playing, flapping their arms and making noise. The official job title was bird scaring.
The difference is that before the industrial revolution work did not separate mothers and babies. Spinning, weaving and domestic work can be done whilst caring for children, and babies and toddlers can be brought into the field whilst the mother did agricultural work. I grew up in a farming community. Lots of mothers would work harvesting crops like strawberries, lettuces and tomatoes. They'd park the babies prams in the shade, and stop their work when the baby needed them, and toddlers would run around playing. I imagine women have worked like this for thousands of years. Most of the work children did before the industrial revolution was not harmful or dangerous either. One of my favourites was often a child's first job, at four or five. Farmers would employ these little kids, to run around in the fields, playing, flapping their arms and making noise. The official job title was bird scaring.
@@wolfofthewest8019That's not being conspiratorial. I have gone through what happened in my country (Australia) in detail, including who benifited from feminism. Before female "liberation". A wife who didn't work was a tax deduction. And as you say her work was not taxable. Most wives grew food, kept poultry, and many sewed the family's clothing. But encouraging mothers to work outside the home tripled the taxpayers, mum, Dad, and daycare providers. For businesses it suppressed wages without decreasing consumerism. And for people with real estate portfolios there value Increased as now it took two incomes to buy or rent a home. By 1990, all the mothers who were going to work were doing so. Addicted to the sugar hit they looked around for a way to replicate it. And mass immigration began.
22:55 marriage is a contract used to trade women like a good or animal between men. That was the original purpose of marriage. Only in very recent years…… like the last decade…which is a sliver in time compared to how long marriage has been around…. Has marriage meant anything different than that.
But the ruling conservatives in Britain are not particularly against the trans ideology, are they? They've been in power for how many years now, and it's their government who voted in all the outrageous policies, no? It's flawed reasoning to believe that if someone is wrong (even very wrong) about one thing, therefore they must be wrong in everything else. No one, in the whole history of humankind, was always right about everything. Those who believed that was possible, ended up as failed ideologists.
48:18 Men who advocate would likely get cancelled for being patronizing mansplaining or some such these days. Or not even allowed to "speak" at all increasingly. Especially on campuses.
The fact that these two somehow make a living talking about their theories and feelings about being a woman should help them realise how easy women have it these days.
27:44 BAN "No-Fault" divorce once there are children involved. More traditional divorce where is a long, LAST RESORT, tried everything to save it, and the children will be good and step parents vetted if children will be in house. Except in abuse etc if course. BUT has to be documented, investigated, and prosecuted or remediated. A Facebook post and call the Lawyer won't work ONCE there are kids. Or delay it until last child is on their own, then adios with all the usual nasty divorce drama.
Having grown up with parents who SHOULD have gotten divorced, even when we were children, I am of the opinion that your suggestion is utter codswallop. My childhood was violent. It would have been far better had my parents split up. The expense of a trial to prove that they deserved to get divorced would have been awful. The acrimony would have been worse than it already was. A "nasty" divorce can be far preferable to a violent childhood. At least as far as the children you supposedly are trying to protect are concerned.
Haven’t finished listening yet, but, I’m not sure I understand the need to pit one kind of work against another, for women. The point is for women to have choice. Occupationally, socially, economically, reproductively. Choice, autonomy, and freedom. If the fear is that without cultural incentives and strictures to marry and reproduce we won’t survive as a species or flourish culturally, one need only consider that this is precisely how humans-our forebears-lived for hundreds of thousands of years… and made recorded history, the present era, our lives, and this conversation possible.
What? You are completely insane. "If the fear is that without cultural incentives and strictures to marry and reproduce we won’t survive as a species or flourish culturally, one need only consider that this is precisely how humans-our forebears-lived for hundreds of thousands of years… and made recorded history, the present era, our lives, and this conversation possible." You do understand for almost all of that history women didn't have any power to control their reproduction and the moral law was "might makes right," which is why women were typically the *_property_* of men, right? You're totally right that we don't "need" cultural incentives and strictures to marry and reproduce, but what you're suggesting is that we go back to the days when women had no choices at all and were treated as a commodity by men. Which is batshit insane.
41:07 There are no solutions, only trade offs.--Thomas Sowell ( Another Former Marxist in misguided youth now "Coded" Conservative that USED to be sensible center or SLIGHTLY center right) He hasn't CHANGED one single jot since the 80s, BTW.
52:06 Agreed. So let's give them a finance degree on "Easy Mode" so they end up with a mountain (EDIT: of debt) and cannot get their "Ferrari-Job Participation Trophy". Then they can rip off someone's 401K for millions from a dark web scam instead. Then send them to a Country Club White collar Federal Pen for a month. If AT ALL. If they buy a defense, or a Politician, with the proceeds or disappears from the Grid they won't even get Parole.
The government can only “tackle austerity” via force/coercion and it does so with far less efficiency than a series of voluntary transactions ever could. I really like a lot of her thought but the welfare state is too big, too easily corrupted and too stupid and hamfisted to be of much good to anyone. It’s a bet drain on the world it’s supposed to serve.
Kathleen is nice for today's feminist standard but she hit all the previous points that feminists rally behind which really isn't that grave as they make it out to be
42:21 I can understand why to a point, but I observe men will always seek other male approval over the approval of most women. Even as the hero who saves the damsel. Once she’s the villain and “deserves” her mistreatment, she’s a prop for his glory. Spirit of the witchhunts resurrected. Vicious.
shhh, they wont like that because they cant blame men for it.. plus wimmin are more religious than men u are correct, and make false accusations more@@hallowakers3d2y
Pls have on Charles CW Cooke, before I BECOME Charles CW Cooke, through some strange commentary osmosis. (I haven't actually read the whole Conservatarian Manifesto, participating in this channel is starting to require more time & attention than my usual trwl quota).
Strong, empowered women demanding the Patriarchy protect them! 49:00 "Women need a strong state. We can't do it on our own". When she wants the rescue services to risk their lives to protect her - does she mean police woman, fire women, female lifeboat crews, female rescue pilots or female soldiers etc? Or does she expect men to put themselves at risk for her benefit? I thought women could do anything that men can do and were equal to men? When are men going to see an equal contribution to their safety from women? Or does provision of safety only go one way?
women have their own means to provide safety/protection to men in particular dimensions, but do they have any reliable motivation to do so, beyond their own immediate kin? note that historically, women also had no protection outside of their relatives and tribal membership.
Trite words. Kathleen persists with the violence against women anecdotes, using this as leverage to justify feminism. Try for once to balance your discussions with more nuance, and on this particular theme, stop treating domestic violence as a lopsided issue. It isn't. Statistics show a surprising amount of violence by women against men, and this is considering the fact men infrequently report such violence. Moreover, abuse comes in the form of verbal and emotional. In this respect, women have the market cornered. So please drop the women-as-victims point. It is utter rubbish.
This annoys me too. It wasn't feminists who "saved" women. Violence has been grounds for divorce for a very long time. And family violence, as you say not always mean, still happens, so nothing they've done in recent years has solved it either.
The discussion of status is interesting to me. I often wonder exactly what women think they are striving for when they strive for status. The entire concept of status is deeply masculine, because the masculine mind is obsessed with hierarchy. When we talk about status, we are really talking about a man's position in the hierarchy of masculine authority relative to other men. When women chase after status, I am reminded of the proverbial dog who chases after cars and catches a bumper, with no idea what to do next. Status doesn't generally make women more attractive to men, since being with a woman who is of higher status than you actually reduces a man's status relative to other men. Women certainly don't appreciate the status of other women, due to women's natural inclination towards equality. So when a woman achieves status in the masculine hierarchy, it never has the same effect as it would for a man. There's the old joke about how women need men like a fish needs a bicycle, but the reality is that women need status like a fish needs that bicycle. It doesn't actually benefit them in meaningful ways.
I don't think I entirely agree, but probably at least partly agree. I don't get Louise's fixation on "status," it seems to me like just a byproduct of doing something the market values. Men might do that more often, but so can women. Reminds me of the whole thing nowadays abt "power". Basically, I think it's not very powerful to be so fixated on power, it takes care of itself if you have an important contribution in a functional society. Similarly, it seems somewhat low status to be so focused on status, lol. If you produce something of value, your status will improve, all by itself. Ppl trying to fake this nowadays, is like credential inflation. You can only get away with it for so long, ppl see through it, without real engineers there's no arguing that the bridges will fall down, etc.
@@rowlandharryweston6037 Fair enough, but there are different sorts of status. What I mean is specifically the sort of masculine status we associate with "career success," not the sort of status that is reflected in material goods. Masculine status primarily influences how men treat other men, how much respect and deference they show. Men who have high status are aspirational, other men want to be like them. When women take on masculine status, it's inherently problematic because the reward for masculine status is generally not appreciate by women nor do they know how to make effective use of it. It doesn't benefit them the way material status does. The fundamental issue is that modern, western "neoliberal/mainstream" feminism has embraced the ethos underlying Gloria Steinham's quip 'Women are becoming the men we wanted to marry." Women are becoming the men they wanted to marry. This has turned out to not actually benefit women, because they don't enjoy masculine status the same way men do. There's an additional problem that while masculinity and femininity are dynamic and attractive to each other, feminine men are not attractive to masculine women, while masculine women are not attractive to masculine men. So you have a lot of women who have become the men they want to marry and now can't marry those men, but are also disgusted by the idea of having a male wife.
The contract was to restrict male behaviour, prohibit harems and men leaving once she's pregnant. Name a society they doesn't have marriage that you would like to emulate ? Il wait
@@jaredsindelwomen don’t need men to be mothers. Tons of women are raising children together. Lots of single mothers say it’s easier to do the work single than with a man who doesn’t want to be there. As far as love goes…. You don’t need a contact for that. Men love marriage. Women love people.
You didn't answer my question how bout this one , How does a woman become a mother without man? Your Brain is cooked. If your misandry leads you to being a genetic dead end I applaud it
@@Ilovecleanlaundry you didn't answer but that's ok, how about this one ; how do you become a mother without a man? The best situation for children has and always will be 2 parents in the home. If your misandry leads you to being a genetic dead end I applaud your choices
@@jaredsindelwhy don’t you ask all the mothers out there without a man? Women can also be inseminated at a doctors office for about 1k. Can you ask your question again but try different wording? I honestly couldn’t tell what you were asking. :)
Here's how I think the spectrum goes, left to right: Progressive (Deontologist) - Libertarian (Utilitarian) - Conservatarian (Consequentialist) - Conservative (Virtue Ethicist) US Liberals, used to include everyone except Conservatives. Classical Liberals, used to include both Libertarians and Conservatarians.
I don't think Progressives are deontological at all. They are consequentialist to the extreme. ShortFatOtaku has a fantastic video on this subject here: th-cam.com/video/iT8EnEqVFYY/w-d-xo.html I don't always agree with him on everything, but if you can get past his ugly background picture I think his thoughts on this topic are well-considered and eloquently expressed.
@@English_Thespian The thing is, we're now understanding that Progressives are the ones who have an inflexible, arguably warped moralizing code, that gets haphazardly projected onto everything. Some ppl have specifically identified its origins in Unitarian Protestantism. I can partially manage a steel-man: if you delineate a fairly specific, hard and fast codified ideology which you then apply throughout society (some find this admirable, some call this an ideologue) then this IS what happens. It perhaps fits well in some places, and gets forced awkwardly into every other venue. Progressive shibboleths involving things like "universalism," at least involve a broadly applicable enough ruleset that they can SORT OF be widely applied, so I don't automatically vilify these ppl, and think their intentions are usually good. But of course, anyone on this channel probably finds themselves most often opposed to Progressives nowadays. To the other thing you said, no. Firstly, Progressives force their beliefs regardless of consequences, it couldn't be more clear. Secondly, the relationship btw Libertarianism and utilitarianism is explicit, btw utilitarianism and consequentialism is explicit, and btw Libertarianism and Conservatarianism is explicit. (Thus, by the transitive property, lol). I'll also say, that while consequentialism is my own position, I acknowledge it's only as good as our ability to predict approximate outcomes. However, I believe that our ability to be moral AT ALL, is only as good as our ability to predict approximate outcomes. (Also, to hear a consequentialist Conservatarian prodigy, listen to MMM episode with Ben Shapiro's little brother Andrew Sibarium. Admittedly, I don't usually look up to younger ppl, it's a height issue).
As a firm Kantian deontologist, I find the notion that the progressive left is deontological utterly absurd. They are utilitarian consequentialist to the max, with all the attendant problems of consequentialism. Conservatives tend to be far more deontological because conservatives are skeptical of the ability to predict consequences an prefer to stay the course by following established rules schemas that have proven reliable.
@@wolfofthewest8019 Sure, that's the obvious statement. And YT buried my other reply. But the reality is, there's only one political faction nowadays, rigidly applying their moralizing algorithm to everything in sight. And it's not Conservatism. Therefore, I simply Kan't agree with you.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy Except the progressive don't have rules. That's why their positions are so easy to collapse. For example, race and gender are socially constructed. If you alter your appearance to manifest the gender stereotypes of the other sex, then you become a member of that opposite sex. If you alter your appearance to appear to manifest the racial stereotypes of another race, then you are an offensive hatemongering jackass. Or consider the "rules" around the n-word. You can say it if you're black, but not if you're white, establishing a moral variance based on race. But claim that moral variance anywhere else, and you'll be accused of racism (because it *is* racism). You can trip a deontologist up by demonstrating contradiction in their principles. You can't do that to a progressive, because progressives don't care if they are consistent. Expecting rational consistency is white supremacy, or something.
So if someone is disabled and they can't work they should be left to starve. What if a woman is a stay at home mum with 3 kids and her working partner gets cancer and dies, should she have no help to feed her family? What if there's a recession and lots of people lose their jobs and jobs are not easy to come by, should they starve?
I would like to see the data that women are more abused if they are not married to a man rather than in a marriage I do not believe that for a minute, so please provide statistical data on that
"so please provide statistical data on that" To be honest. I do not care about your opinion to the level that I woul do your research for you. "I do not believe that for a minute," I kind of assume that your disbelief comes from you confusing correlation with causality. Its not that not having a husband would do anything particular horrible to women. It is more that women that are stuck in the most horrible circumstances do not get the change to marry anybody. Example given. Most prostitutes are unmarried. And heavily abused. But they are not abused because they are unmarried They never get the option to marry because they are so abused.
She does not see men advocating for her? Has she turned on a tap or flushed a toilet or switched on an electric device or closed a door on her home or driven a car or the taken medication or turned on a computer or walked down a lighted street at night or eaten farmed food or read a book or attended a University or used a mobile phone or worn clothes spun a loom or taken a pay cheque, or any of an almost infinite number of things not available to women before men invented these technologies and devices? Would be interesting to hear how she protects herself from the wolves, bears and other naturalm predators in her home country? What have men ever done for women? Almost everything - even given too much patience for their endless complaints!
Ya something has to be done in one direction. Right now (in the us at least) we kind of have the worst system where if u work u get no help from government programs so u are encouraged to do nothing. Where as i feel like the people who often need some help are the people who are trying and working but are just not skilled. I know alot of people who are living off of welfare because even if they got a job they would lose all assistance... and after a 40 hour week they would come out maybe a hundred dollars or so ahead of where they are now. Its really not a good system. Idk if more welfare is a solution but i think most people agree the way we do it now is pretty dumb.
Nice to see a proper leftie on the podcast for a change! Not just the I've left the left nonsense or straight up conservatives. It's all about balance. Julie Bindel next please! 😊
I think you will find that only capitalist societies have the surplus for welfare states, countries like the Soviet Union or Cuba or China very much so were/are NOT welfare states. It is countries like Great Britain that have publicly funded healthcare, not marxist countries like China.. @@goa9034
Can a woman be a pilot? If so, which women are going to design and build her a plane? Or do men need to do that for her? There are no planes solely designed & built by women. If men don't create these aircraft, no one does and no one can be a pilot. . Which airport will she use? Which airport was built by women? Men are responsible for buikding almost all airports. What will she use for fuel? Is it women or men that drill, transport and refine the oil for fuel? Men of course. Are there any laws thatprevent women designing, building aircraft ir airports ir drilling for oil etc? Of course not, almost zero women choose to do the highly paid jobs. So a woman can be a pilot- if men provide all the infrastructure she needs to b e a pilot. Does that sound like equal.opportunities? Women accessing opportunities created by men. Where Are the equal number of opportunities created by women and shared with men? Equal opportunities? Not very equal!
"Men" isn't one person. Some men, a very small percentage of men, have invented planes and built things. By your logic the majority of men and the majority of women should not have access to these things.
But when femunists demand equal opportunities for women they mean women as a demographic group not individual women. I am not saying wonen should not have access to opportunities - just that women have not done their part in creating opportunities. Why not? If women want careers in banking, start your own banks. Get 8nto the c suite on your own personal merits not by enforcing a quota. If women want careers in sports, invent your own sports . If you want ewuality - be equal! As I said if men you don't create these opportunities - no one does - why are so few women interested in inventing? There are no many programs to encourage these activities for men, women can do it by themselves too!
Google will show you that there are plenty of women who work in aerospace. Are men gonna stop eating, wearing clothes, having their hair cut because women do that for them ? Primary school level of argument.
the all-female team designed a plane door which flew off mid-flight hahaha trust me, you dont want wahmen desiging things.. not to mention the bridge that fell killing people.. all-female designers
men are better at these things, seeing 3d objects in their heads, mathematics, engineering, they are more interested in it too.. if wimmin can prove themselves that fine, but they cant, which is why they need gender quotas@@danielaparcel2647
How refreshing to see two smart people disagreeing and smiling and being pleasant to each other. Thank you both
30:00 I greatly admire Kathleen, but listening to her, an academic, describe housework in these hideous terms is really amusing. I wonder how long its been since she worked an actual job? Because "mind boggling dull, repetitive, knackering, sleepless, work" would seem to describe most jobs. Does she really think that women are more satisfied sitting in a cubicle for eight hours, staring at a monitor, filing TPS reports?
Kathleen talks about the bourgeoise elements of the new left, but she's just as mired in the bourgeoise elements of the old feminist left. She has this conception of women working that is at complete odds with reality. The vast majority of women who enter the workforce aren't going to be professors, they're going to be clerical workers, nurses, retail staff, wait staff, etc. Like many feminists, Kathleen assumes a choice between the "drudgery" of being a stay-at-home mother and the "excitement" of having a top-tier leadership position with the backing of powerful institutions, when in reality the choice for the vast majority of women is the same as it is for men: You get the work you can get, and you hope it pays well enough that you can afford sufficient luxury to make the work bearable.
I commented something like this before.
This perception of stay at home moms doing something repetitive and so on
The vast majority of jobs are repetitive, though, and on top of that, most women don't get the satisfaction they derive from being with their kids in those repetitive jobs.
Also, sleepless?! Actually, according to pew research, stay at home moms have more sleep time than employed moms, they also have more leisure time.
This is one biggest delusions of many feminists, the delusion that a working woman is this imaginary boss who puts her schedule as she likes, who gets paid the money she needs for all her luxuries!
Feminists always try to frame women having employment as something good, because most of them have this imaginary view of a working woman as an independent boss, but that is far from the truth
A lot of women get abused and so on in their jobs, and they feel they don't have a choice because they need the money and the market is too competitive for them.
For most people, employment isn't a privilege, it is a responsibility, something they have to do to live their lives
That is why i actually think a society with less employed women is a society where women are more privileged and less stressed than women in another similar society, but more women are employed.
@@MA-gu2up "For most people, employment isn't a privilege, it is a responsibility, something they have to do to live their lives"
Bingo!
housework is easy, these are lazy women, trying to act like their lives are so hard, putting clothes into that machine that does it for you
Feminists think women who stay at home are barefoot and pregnant, kept imprisoned by their husbands, they make extreme caricatures out of everything@@MA-gu2up
Feminism doesn't care about working class women.
Louise: I think your view that there should be a default culture tolerant of exceptions is spot on! That is a brilliant phrasing, obvious once it has been spoken.
Agree!
As a mother who stayed home and raised little kids I wouldn't describe the work as "boring".. it was exhausting and maddening because it was so interrupt driven but as a woman I think we're naturally great multi-taskers. Every time I left the kids home with my husband it was a total comical fiasco to come home to see how he coped with the insanity.
Women are great multitaskers. And men are more likely to be laser focused. Honestly when I get interrupted when I’m working I get so irritated because it takes awhile all my mental focus. But my wife doesn’t mind at all. She can be washing the dishes, have something boiling on the stove, and still not get irritated at me when I ask where the garlic powder is. I’m pretty impressed when she can do that.
However when we try to have a philosophical discussion, honestly I get frustrated with her because her mind jumps all over the place while I’m trying to focus on one point. Anyway, people who try to make it seem like “WOMEN/MEN CAN DO THAT TOO!!” Whenever you say something one of the sexes is better at, it just muddles everything and you lose the specialness of the differences. Men and women are more alike than not but our differences are usually very complimentary, which should be appreciated
Is there really a non-bourgeois Left anymore? It doesn't seem like it.
"I'm a carceral feminist .. for men, not for women!" Seriously, Louise? I worked as a Prison Officer in both male and female estate. Very much opposed to Trans prisoners being allowed into women's prisons because of the very real danger they pose to women, who are actually vulnerable. But it's batshit comments like that lose me.
You want to exclude men from female prisons - to protect the women?
Do the other male prisoners in male prisons deserve equal protection to that the women receive?
If not, why not? So much for equality between the sexes!
If the men are entitled to equal protection, are the sexual predators going to be excluded from male prisons too? Or will the men have to share accomodation with these predators and lesser protection?
Or perhaps the women could be given equal protection to that the men receive - none at all! And the women have to share with the men? I guess women will not want nor accept equality with men in this area! Equality but not where women do not benefit!
@@jonahtwhale1779exposing women to these men isn't the same as exposing men to other men. Eg exposure to risk of pregnancy in prison is cruel and unusual punishment-you can't do that to males. Males are more dangerous to females than they are to each other due to biological differences between the sexes. This should be obvious, no?
That said, yes everyone should be protected from offenders. It is of course wrong for men to be affected by these criminals. Male prisoners must be separated from females because _duh,_ and men who offend against men should be separated within the male prison system. Similarly males who for whatever reason may be more likely to be victimized should be protected. Systems exist to provide these protections-different security levels, specialized wings, etc.
@@jonahtwhale1779wtf are you babbling on about. There is no equality of the sexes in physicality. The Isla Bryson case in Scotland showcased the absurdity of such decisions. A male double r***st who decided to "identify" himself as a woman to gain access to a woman's prison.
You don't solve the horrendous issue of SA in male prisons in doubling the problem, by drafting those of a predatory nature into a women's prison. How about just solving the apathetic nature towards men in the prison system rather than punishing women for what effectively is an overwhelmingly male problem.
@@jonahtwhale1779 trans prisoners in the Male Estate are automatically offered a place in the Vulnerable Persons Unit (VPU) so that they don't have to mix in General Population and are afforded extra protection. No such system exists in the Female Estate. Moreover there is now a Transgender unit at HMP Downview to specifically cater to such prisoners, which I can see being the way things will go in the future.
@@jonahtwhale1779 I don't think you understand equality. It isn't let's make things worse for 50% (except that women commit more like 3%) to drag them down to a worse but equal level. When ppl say they want equality they don't usually mean females and males get equal access to prostate exams of midwives.
Clearly separating males from females works and single-sex female spaces are incredibly important. We could arbitrarily raise the rate of s assaults, in fact we have done across the West by including males, but it doesn't make any sense to do so.
There might be certain women who don't leave abusive relationships for "psychological" reasons , but both these women seem too financially comfortable to be in-touch with the cost of moving & leasing housing these days. People can't move or leave due to affordability.
I would add that marriage is a strategy, it is not a need. It is one possible way of meeting individual needs for connection, intimacy, partnership, love, etc. It is also a strategy for meeting social needs, such as for harmony, order, and security. It is , however, by no means the only strategy for meeting those needs. Similarly, reproduction is a strategy for meeting individual-level needs, such as those for care, love, connection, contribution, and growth. It is only at the species level that reproduction is a need.
From my own experience it's wise not to underestimate how much teenagers need a parent to be around.. Not just preschoolers. There is sickness, school holidays, the short school day, etc
I agree. This is why we have so many messed up teens
@@grannyannie2948 not mother's
I would rather stay at home with kids than do 90% of the jobs I have done. Without question
I find it fascinating that they want 100% of women to have a life goal and aim for top 1% or top 10% of all jobs, seems no one learns math these days.
I wonder how Louise's religious experimentation will eventually clash with Kathleen Stock's same-sex-marriage? How can she reconcile those?
Louise isn't homophobic so there is no clash.
Well, as Louise said; we should tolerate them. Just like you tolerate certain other things in life, perhaps not in your own life, but just accept that it exists for whatever reason, and ignore it. Live your life and move on.
@@peanutbutterbruv I know she is not. But you think she will have to tackle those parts of the Bible at some point and explain why she doesn’t believe them, while she seems to accept other teachings?
Every Christian plays fast and loose with Scripture.@@js1423
@emeraldtier1750 many christians denominations in the US, like Catholicism or the Mormons, don't believe in the concept of needing to "be saved" to begin with. Those that do, like born again Christians, typically don't believe in predestination at all but rather the free will for every individual to choose.
I’m an old leftie type in Kathleen Stock’s mould; I believe in public investment in the many essential services we all but especially the under resourced need and benefit from - and I am irritated by Louise’s breathless idealisation of Marriage as the solution to all feminine ills. As if enough of us haven’t been taken for a ride by fairytale ‘happy ever after’ gaslighting already.
But I am grateful to her for highlighting the point that Kathleen and many exceptionally gifted and dare I say privileged women overlook - that for the vast majority of us, raising our kids exhausting and yes often boring as it is, is the most important and ultimately rewarding job we’ll ever do, and it would be good to get it properly recognised/supported at last.
For most us, all our other jobs are just that, necessary paid jobs, even more ‘boring’, we do our best to tolerate with a smile.
Public investment is not public expansioni
I didn't know enough abt no-fault divorce until recently, I confused it with several things included in "irreconcilable differences". I'm not in favor of no-fault divorce, because it practically negates marriage as a legal institution, and I don't think there's good reason to abolish this historical construct (legal marriage,) just the opposite (research data proves its advantages).
Although Conservatives might argue marriage was already weakened by irreconcilable differences, I think that tradeoff was worth allowing women to escape bad marriages. Marriage should be strengthened mostly through social renormalization, instead of legal reform.
no fault divorce has killed marriage, along with custody preferences for women, child support, alimony.. and women intitiate most divorces over low-conflict situations, it allowed a small amount of women to leave (even though they could leave abusive marriages anyway) but destroyed the instituion of marriage for the majority, so it wasnt worth the tradeoff.. marriage was best for children too but Feminism and wimmin killed it, even though family is what gives wahmen most security, they got convinced to destroy that which is benefiical to em
No Fault Divorce was introduced in 1975 in my country. But people got divorced before then, there just had to be a reason. It's a feminist lie that before No Fault Divorce "women were trapped in awful marriages." Violence, cruelty, failure to financially support a wife and family, and adultery were all grounds for divorce long before 1975. In those days the assets and children were ussually given to the party who had not broken the wedding vows. And that's what feminists hated.
@@spiff1When No Fault Divorce was introduced to my country they already knew what great harm this had done to US families. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway.
@@spiff1this idea that women alone want a divorce because they file for it is simplistic at best.
I agree the Collins' have completely shifted my position on the solution. It doesn't really matter what 'solution' we go with, nature will bounce back. A lot of these non-relationships never got off the ground because its always been survival of the fittest and they didn't make the cut.
A few minutes in.
All woke are Left,but not all left are woke.
Louise, might I suggest a future guest: Professor Gordon Menzies (Sydney University/Oxford). You may have already read his book _'Western Fundamentalism: Democracy, Sex, and the Liberation of Mankind.'_ If not, I recommend it. It is right up your alley. He offers some gentle but thoughtful criticisms of Liberalism and Sexual Liberalism in particular from the point of view of an economist and Christian.
Thanks for this - the book looks great and I look forward to reading it!
The reason for mothers and women in the UK for being more progressive bent and not culturally sensitive is because they have allowed progressivism to take over their livesas the norm, having given up on traditions for wanting to be seen as merely women doing household chores. Tbh I really see this being influenced from the American liberal feminist wave having its effect on the rest of the West.
Turn to some traditional families in the East. They have preserved their cultural ways and traditions as mothers, and women in their families whilst having great careers as teachers, bankers, with corporate jobs, local politicians, while at the same time embracing motherhood, devoting time to their elders (parents and in-laws), allowing time for religious and cultural events (for e.g. participating along side their husbands in such events which allow women to be part of rites alongside men or some where women perform them on their own inviting other women in the community to join thereby uplifting an entire community of women). I am one example of this, albeit living in the West. It is incredibly hard to balance work life, family life, focus on children, organising traditional functions and events, and getting time for oneself, meeting other family members, etc. but it definitely has immense benefits not just selfishly for the women but ALSO for the family unit and the community.
Which part of the east? Mothorhood can't exactly be that popular in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or South Korea when you see those ultra low birth numbers.
Kathleen Stock - a very traumatising story but also a liberating one! Freelance she is not silenced. Two great women having an adult conversation even when they come from very different standpoints 👏
I do like Kathleen's points a lot but Louise is right that most jobs are repetitive and boring. Most of us can't get the top jobs. Motherhood should be valued properly.
Kathleen has fantastic teeth!
12:24 whenever Kathleen stock tries to say why she's on the left, the majority of what she appeals to are economic policies and the idea of the "gruff old left trade unionist" . But economic policy isn't really the core of the left , at least today. For example the german national socialists would agree with most of those economic policies. The core of the left today is really sacralising groups that are viewed as disadvantaged. The core question is "is our priority the wellbeing of the majority indigenous population or is our priority the minority groups"
I don't think talking about a single left makes sense anymore. But I don't think Stock is mistaken, A lot of the Woke stuff is decried by the economic left (see Jacobin Magazine, Die Linke in Germany), the Woke stuff is largely liberal elite progressivism, which sometimes calls itself left, sometimes not, but has especially captured the Democratic left in the US. I guess under your definition. a 2nd gen racial minority in the UK that takes an economic class-first perspective must necessarily be woke by their very existence, as they are definitionally excluded from seeing themselves or possibly wanting to improve the economic wellbeing of everyone in the UK, including the racial majority.
over other groups ie racism and sexism ie the quota system and affirmative action.. the left is totalitarian, they want more taxes and redistribution, they aint into meritocracy
I think you know your answer.
Unless you sort comments by "newest first," you might be missing some of the greatest hits.
"bourgeois left" she hit the nail on the head! That's why I'll never 'leave the left" cos I don't claim those people!
and also importantly, we don't let them claim "the left"! these ideas have barged their way into prevalence, i never claimed those either!
Never leave the left but why ??
Is there realistically any other kind of Left in 2024 than the bourgeois Left? If not, might it be because this is the inevitable destination that Left ideas lead to?
Is there really any other sort of Left remaining, at this point?
People are way too attached to hollow words and titles, like overpriced souvenirs.
Disgusted by political rhetoric? That's a choice of words that tend to point the finger back at the mental health of the disgusted, methinks. Disagreement is quite unemotional, whereas disgust is emotional. Best used for fiction methinks.
I've only watched half of this so will have to come back to it but I was a stay at home mum for 7 years for our 3 children. I felt that it was a sacrifice, not because I sacrificed my career or that I didn't find it worthwhile, I knew my children were getting the best start in life and I felt strongly that I wanted to raise them in their formative years. It was a sacrifice because the work we do is unpaid and largely unseen. We need more acknowledgement and monetary incentive for what we do.
You get paid by seeing your children healthy, nobody else can pay u that, its not always about money sweetheart.. ps u had me in the first half, then proved youre just a Feminist
So what if it is unseen?
shes a Feminist, thinks other people need to pay her for her to look after her own kids hahahaha one of the most crazy things ive heard of@@marlonmoncrieffe0728
Nobody asked you to have kids, if u dont wanna look after em, keep them legs closed, otherwise dont be asking other people to give you money for it, though you do get money from either your husband or everyone elses husbands via taxes if u a single mother, but u want even more of other peoples money
@@spiff1 This is the point I always make, have kids if you want them.
It's fun watching older feminists witnessing the ideology head towards it's telos and become disillusioned as it smashes into reality and grows more incoherent.
Right, and they start turning on each other which is what is happening now.
yet they still support it, theyre zealots, they will never stop 'smashing the patriarchy' ie destroying everything
It's an ideology that is largely responsible for driving western culture straight into the gutter, and will likely pave the way for institutions far worse than the ones it initially opposed.
Aside from bearing and birthing a child, in nearly every other physical task, there is nothing a fit, able bodied woman can do that a comporably fit able able bodied man cannot.
This is pointed out to say that yes, there should be gender specific roles in _some_ areas of employment in society.
That sounds like an argument for there NOT being gender specific roles.
Absolute rubbish.
In physical tasks,the weakest man is approximate to the strongest woman.
Try wheelbarrowing 3x50kg sacks of cement for a day and tell me I'm wrong.
@nickbarber2080 Okay, well, excluding outliers, then.
Do you have any explanation why, beyond choice, there aren't very many female roughnecks, roustabouts, or stevedores, while the vast majority of men in those positions are purely average, physically?
@@markaurelius61 In what respect?
Men can do most things better tbh even gymnastics lol thats why wimmin need gender quotas
To me, if to make a case for something u are fighting for, u need to go into the extremes, violent husbands and abusive husbands etc.... u probably arent making a reasonable case but u attemping to make a very emotional one.
Yes I can't think of any period in western history when abusive husbands were admired. They think feminists stopped the phenomenon when they didn't.
Exactly....maybe to a lesser degree but its as insulting as saying...."well women are better at looking after kids...except those mothers who are trying to murder their kids!"
Yeah that annoys me whenever the topic of marriage or divorce gets brought up. “Yes there are too many divorces. But we need to make sure women can leave if they’re being abused!!!” It’s constantly about the man abusing the woman. Can we talk about divorce without going off on a tangent about the minority of cases?? Who in the hell is advocating that women stay in abusive relationships? Even Pearl doesn’t say that, and she says women should be okay with the guy cheating if he’s rich. No one is advocating abuse, the caveats are not needed
@@awsambdaman oh man ur preaching now. So true.
@@awsambdaman It's not even true either. Before modern divorce leaving your husband because he was violent was grounds for legal separation and even divorce. And today with No Fault Divorce many women stay in violent relationships anyway. So it's an illogical argument.
The thing for me is I don't understand what people like Louise Perry want to do about overpopulation and humanity's unsustainable resource usage. They want constant growth on a finite planet. The population growth of the last century is what is unsustainable. A rate below replacement is a great thing if we can adjust our economic model to prepare for it.
Overpopulation is a myth, don't buy their propaganda
Watch Bjorn Lombergs content. You are SERIOUSLY behind the best information.
@@wendellbabin6457 yeah so... this guy hardly has the best information. He's one guy, hardly an expert, opposing the entire scientific community when we say that industry rapidly changing the Earth's carbon storages is incredibly serious, and we're already seeing the effects of it. Maybe you should engage with some of the criticism of him instead of falling prey to confirmation bias.
His entire stance is minimizing the seriousness of this to people who don't even know basic information about how climate change works, and then banking on the development of technology that doesn't exist yet to mitigate it. Once again, there is no such thing as infinite growth on a planet with finite resources. I don't see him or you addressing this very plain fact. If we're capable of acknowledging reality, we need to drop the growth imperative sooner or later, and move on to a post-growth economy.
For what it's worth, I don't think the gen z climate doomers, people who also don't know anything and are treating climate change like a doomsday, are helping either.
It’s disquieting to listen to a discussion of violence against women and what to do about it with the origins of that violence only obliquely referenced, and with only slight reference made to human nature and social forces, but none at all made to the notion of overarching paradigms of disconnection and domination that perpetuate and encode the cultural conditioning of male violence.
Most of the discussion here seems to be concerned with exceptions to the rule than anything else. I have been married for 20+ years myself and most of my friends are as well. Most people I started my first job with are all married and still married. They all have kids and are raising happy families. Most women have chosen to stay home and take care of the family till the kids were out or of certain age. Maybe I am in a certain strata or group reflecting a certain kind of selection bias. I am not sure.
Why do people worry about our declining birthrate? Why must we be concerned about replacing a population of over 350 million? Wasn't our country thriving when there were 300 million of us? Two hundred million?
because it leads to population collapse, its spirals downwards quickly and causes problems within a generation or two
Because the entitlements for the elderly will collapse.
Only conservative men are concerned about it. They can't control all women.
The problem is the ratio of old to young, we need more young people working to be taxed to support society and the elderly who can’t work. When there are more elderly than young things will get dicey.
@@holliesaraswat6241 You'll care about that when you are 70.
The ability to delay gratification seems somewhat correlated with being working class and ending up in prison. It does not seem unreasonable to guess that greater representation of the working class in prison is not just circumstantial, unless one of the circumstances you account for is biology.
This the most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen. It’d be interesting to see how people who believe the above might believe differently if they grew up in poverty. Lol.
The pure reactionary is not a dreamer of abolished pasts, but a hunter of sacred shades on the eternal hills.
-- Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Well, a few days ago, I saw a video on TH-cam where if I remember right, a historian busted the myth about the stay at home mom. It was the affluent people who could afford that, the few ones, and the middle class and not to mention the poor ones had to work, women as men, and children when they were old enough to to contribute to the family unit. So, in some sense it seems like you’re romanticizing things a bit. Sure there might be an ideal, something to strive for, but that’s not the same as going back to the “good old times.”
Also, - when you say‘Tolerate people outside the norm’ (gay and lesbian people, childfree people etc) it sounded like you meant ‘barely tolerate them.’ I don’t know but the way you said it came across a bit icky to me. I might be wrong about that, but that’s the feeling I got when you said that.
The reality is that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, most working class women worked outside of the home. Feminism was never about allowing women to work, it was about allowing women access to elite education and careers. There has been almost no real change in women's employment since the 1940s, with the biggest changes coming in the form of changing the title of "secretary" to "office manager."
If I were more conspiratorial, I would suspect that corporate America embraced liberal feminism because corporations cannot exploit profit from the labor of stay at home mothers and perpetuated the myth of women being "forbidden" from working to obfuscate the reality: In the post-war boom, millions of working class men were elevated into the middle class and able to afford to support a wife, just like the rich men do. The more this became normalized, the more working class men would demand an income capable of supporting a family.
But if you break the power of labor by flooding the labor market with large numbers of ununionized women who will work for lower wages, while also raising a generation of girls to believe that oppression is having the economic security to be a fully involved parent while exploring personal interests and involving oneself in charitable organizations, just like the rich women do....well, that seems to work out really well for the capitalists...
@@wolfofthewest8019 Well put!
The difference is that before the industrial revolution work did not separate mothers and babies.
Spinning, weaving and domestic work can be done whilst caring for children, and babies and toddlers can be brought into the field whilst the mother did agricultural work. I grew up in a farming community. Lots of mothers would work harvesting crops like strawberries, lettuces and tomatoes. They'd park the babies prams in the shade, and stop their work when the baby needed them, and toddlers would run around playing. I imagine women have worked like this for thousands of years.
Most of the work children did before the industrial revolution was not harmful or dangerous either. One of my favourites was often a child's first job, at four or five. Farmers would employ these little kids, to run around in the fields, playing, flapping their arms and making noise. The official job title was bird scaring.
The difference is that before the industrial revolution work did not separate mothers and babies.
Spinning, weaving and domestic work can be done whilst caring for children, and babies and toddlers can be brought into the field whilst the mother did agricultural work. I grew up in a farming community. Lots of mothers would work harvesting crops like strawberries, lettuces and tomatoes. They'd park the babies prams in the shade, and stop their work when the baby needed them, and toddlers would run around playing. I imagine women have worked like this for thousands of years.
Most of the work children did before the industrial revolution was not harmful or dangerous either. One of my favourites was often a child's first job, at four or five. Farmers would employ these little kids, to run around in the fields, playing, flapping their arms and making noise. The official job title was bird scaring.
@@wolfofthewest8019That's not being conspiratorial. I have gone through what happened in my country (Australia) in detail, including who benifited from feminism. Before female "liberation". A wife who didn't work was a tax deduction. And as you say her work was not taxable. Most wives grew food, kept poultry, and many sewed the family's clothing.
But encouraging mothers to work outside the home tripled the taxpayers, mum, Dad, and daycare providers. For businesses it suppressed wages without decreasing consumerism. And for people with real estate portfolios there value Increased as now it took two incomes to buy or rent a home.
By 1990, all the mothers who were going to work were doing so. Addicted to the sugar hit they looked around for a way to replicate it. And mass immigration began.
22:55 marriage is a contract used to trade women like a good or animal between men. That was the original purpose of marriage. Only in very recent years…… like the last decade…which is a sliver in time compared to how long marriage has been around…. Has marriage meant anything different than that.
But the ruling conservatives in Britain are not particularly against the trans ideology, are they? They've been in power for how many years now, and it's their government who voted in all the outrageous policies, no?
It's flawed reasoning to believe that if someone is wrong (even very wrong) about one thing, therefore they must be wrong in everything else. No one, in the whole history of humankind, was always right about everything. Those who believed that was possible, ended up as failed ideologists.
48:18 Men who advocate would likely get cancelled for being patronizing mansplaining or some such these days. Or not even allowed to "speak" at all increasingly. Especially on campuses.
42:09 - What part of that savagery does she think is beneficial for the men responsible for it?
Kathleen Stock is brilliant - thank you for the podcast
The fact that these two somehow make a living talking about their theories and feelings about being a woman should help them realise how easy women have it these days.
because no men have ever had the job of "philosophizing" and nothing else..... at ANY point in history
27:44 BAN "No-Fault" divorce once there are children involved.
More traditional divorce where is a long, LAST RESORT, tried everything to save it, and the children will be good and step parents vetted if children will be in house. Except in abuse etc if course. BUT has to be documented, investigated, and prosecuted or remediated.
A Facebook post and call the Lawyer won't work ONCE there are kids.
Or delay it until last child is on their own, then adios with all the usual nasty divorce drama.
Having grown up with parents who SHOULD have gotten divorced, even when we were children, I am of the opinion that your suggestion is utter codswallop. My childhood was violent. It would have been far better had my parents split up. The expense of a trial to prove that they deserved to get divorced would have been awful. The acrimony would have been worse than it already was. A "nasty" divorce can be far preferable to a violent childhood. At least as far as the children you supposedly are trying to protect are concerned.
Haven’t finished listening yet, but, I’m not sure I understand the need to pit one kind of work against another, for women. The point is for women to have choice. Occupationally, socially, economically, reproductively. Choice, autonomy, and freedom. If the fear is that without cultural incentives and strictures to marry and reproduce we won’t survive as a species or flourish culturally, one need only consider that this is precisely how humans-our forebears-lived for hundreds of thousands of years… and made recorded history, the present era, our lives, and this conversation possible.
What? You are completely insane.
"If the fear is that without cultural incentives and strictures to marry and reproduce we won’t survive as a species or flourish culturally, one need only consider that this is precisely how humans-our forebears-lived for hundreds of thousands of years… and made recorded history, the present era, our lives, and this conversation possible."
You do understand for almost all of that history women didn't have any power to control their reproduction and the moral law was "might makes right," which is why women were typically the *_property_* of men, right? You're totally right that we don't "need" cultural incentives and strictures to marry and reproduce, but what you're suggesting is that we go back to the days when women had no choices at all and were treated as a commodity by men. Which is batshit insane.
Know your enemy.
41:07 There are no solutions, only trade offs.--Thomas Sowell ( Another Former Marxist in misguided youth now "Coded" Conservative that USED to be sensible center or SLIGHTLY center right) He hasn't CHANGED one single jot since the 80s, BTW.
52:06 Agreed. So let's give them a finance degree on "Easy Mode" so they end up with a mountain (EDIT: of debt) and cannot get their "Ferrari-Job Participation Trophy". Then they can rip off someone's 401K for millions from a dark web scam instead. Then send them to a Country Club White collar Federal Pen for a month. If AT ALL. If they buy a defense, or a Politician, with the proceeds or disappears from the Grid they won't even get Parole.
English Accent is 🔥
The government can only “tackle austerity” via force/coercion and it does so with far less efficiency than a series of voluntary transactions ever could. I really like a lot of her thought but the welfare state is too big, too easily corrupted and too stupid and hamfisted to be of much good to anyone. It’s a bet drain on the world it’s supposed to serve.
The same could just as easily be said of "women's empowerment".
Kathleen is nice for today's feminist standard but she hit all the previous points that feminists rally behind which really isn't that grave as they make it out to be
42:21 I can understand why to a point, but I observe men will always seek other male approval over the approval of most women. Even as the hero who saves the damsel. Once she’s the villain and “deserves” her mistreatment, she’s a prop for his glory. Spirit of the witchhunts resurrected. Vicious.
seeking the approval of women is called being a Simpanzee
Witches were mostly women accusing other women
shhh, they wont like that because they cant blame men for it.. plus wimmin are more religious than men u are correct, and make false accusations more@@hallowakers3d2y
Pls have on Charles CW Cooke, before I BECOME Charles CW Cooke, through some strange commentary osmosis.
(I haven't actually read the whole Conservatarian Manifesto, participating in this channel is starting to require more time & attention than my usual trwl quota).
Strong, empowered women demanding the Patriarchy protect them!
49:00 "Women need a strong state. We can't do it on our own".
When she wants the rescue services to risk their lives to protect her - does she mean police woman, fire women, female lifeboat crews, female rescue pilots or female soldiers etc? Or does she expect men to put themselves at risk for her benefit? I thought women could do anything that men can do and were equal to men?
When are men going to see an equal contribution to their safety from women? Or does provision of safety only go one way?
you're equating "the state" with male executioners. That' not what Louise is talking about. ...
women have their own means to provide safety/protection to men in particular dimensions, but do they have any reliable motivation to do so, beyond their own immediate kin?
note that historically, women also had no protection outside of their relatives and tribal membership.
Kathleen is great. I’m down with anybody who calls Billy Bragg a wanker.
Two of my favourite women in one discussion. What's not to love?
Trite words. Kathleen persists with the violence against women anecdotes, using this as leverage to justify feminism. Try for once to balance your discussions with more nuance, and on this particular theme, stop treating domestic violence as a lopsided issue. It isn't. Statistics show a surprising amount of violence by women against men, and this is considering the fact men infrequently report such violence. Moreover, abuse comes in the form of verbal and emotional. In this respect, women have the market cornered. So please drop the women-as-victims point. It is utter rubbish.
This annoys me too. It wasn't feminists who "saved" women. Violence has been grounds for divorce for a very long time. And family violence, as you say not always mean, still happens, so nothing they've done in recent years has solved it either.
Louise loves giving these zealots a voice over normal people
The discussion of status is interesting to me. I often wonder exactly what women think they are striving for when they strive for status. The entire concept of status is deeply masculine, because the masculine mind is obsessed with hierarchy. When we talk about status, we are really talking about a man's position in the hierarchy of masculine authority relative to other men.
When women chase after status, I am reminded of the proverbial dog who chases after cars and catches a bumper, with no idea what to do next. Status doesn't generally make women more attractive to men, since being with a woman who is of higher status than you actually reduces a man's status relative to other men. Women certainly don't appreciate the status of other women, due to women's natural inclination towards equality. So when a woman achieves status in the masculine hierarchy, it never has the same effect as it would for a man. There's the old joke about how women need men like a fish needs a bicycle, but the reality is that women need status like a fish needs that bicycle. It doesn't actually benefit them in meaningful ways.
Really? Women aren't status driven???? (Well, some of them. And as much as some men???) 🙂
I don't think I entirely agree, but probably at least partly agree. I don't get Louise's fixation on "status," it seems to me like just a byproduct of doing something the market values. Men might do that more often, but so can women. Reminds me of the whole thing nowadays abt "power". Basically, I think it's not very powerful to be so fixated on power, it takes care of itself if you have an important contribution in a functional society. Similarly, it seems somewhat low status to be so focused on status, lol. If you produce something of value, your status will improve, all by itself. Ppl trying to fake this nowadays, is like credential inflation. You can only get away with it for so long, ppl see through it, without real engineers there's no arguing that the bridges will fall down, etc.
@@rowlandharryweston6037 Fair enough, but there are different sorts of status. What I mean is specifically the sort of masculine status we associate with "career success," not the sort of status that is reflected in material goods.
Masculine status primarily influences how men treat other men, how much respect and deference they show. Men who have high status are aspirational, other men want to be like them. When women take on masculine status, it's inherently problematic because the reward for masculine status is generally not appreciate by women nor do they know how to make effective use of it. It doesn't benefit them the way material status does.
The fundamental issue is that modern, western "neoliberal/mainstream" feminism has embraced the ethos underlying Gloria Steinham's quip 'Women are becoming the men we wanted to marry." Women are becoming the men they wanted to marry. This has turned out to not actually benefit women, because they don't enjoy masculine status the same way men do. There's an additional problem that while masculinity and femininity are dynamic and attractive to each other, feminine men are not attractive to masculine women, while masculine women are not attractive to masculine men. So you have a lot of women who have become the men they want to marry and now can't marry those men, but are also disgusted by the idea of having a male wife.
they want power cos they are weak, or they want power over others@@Jules-Is-a-Guy
@@rowlandharryweston6037 status for a woman amongst other women is having a high status man .. or maybe being Beyonce lol
Marriage was originally a contact used to trade women between the men. The idea that marriage needs to be preserved is silly.
The contract was to restrict male behaviour, prohibit harems and men leaving once she's pregnant. Name a society they doesn't have marriage that you would like to emulate ? Il wait
@@jaredsindelwomen don’t need men to be mothers. Tons of women are raising children together. Lots of single mothers say it’s easier to do the work single than with a man who doesn’t want to be there. As far as love goes…. You don’t need a contact for that. Men love marriage. Women love people.
You didn't answer my question how bout this one , How does a woman become a mother without man? Your Brain is cooked. If your misandry leads you to being a genetic dead end I applaud it
@@Ilovecleanlaundry you didn't answer but that's ok, how about this one ; how do you become a mother without a man? The best situation for children has and always will be 2 parents in the home. If your misandry leads you to being a genetic dead end I applaud your choices
@@jaredsindelwhy don’t you ask all the mothers out there without a man? Women can also be inseminated at a doctors office for about 1k. Can you ask your question again but try different wording? I honestly couldn’t tell what you were asking. :)
Here's how I think the spectrum goes, left to right:
Progressive (Deontologist) - Libertarian (Utilitarian) - Conservatarian (Consequentialist) - Conservative (Virtue Ethicist)
US Liberals, used to include everyone except Conservatives.
Classical Liberals, used to include both Libertarians and Conservatarians.
I don't think Progressives are deontological at all. They are consequentialist to the extreme. ShortFatOtaku has a fantastic video on this subject here: th-cam.com/video/iT8EnEqVFYY/w-d-xo.html
I don't always agree with him on everything, but if you can get past his ugly background picture I think his thoughts on this topic are well-considered and eloquently expressed.
@@English_Thespian The thing is, we're now understanding that Progressives are the ones who have an inflexible, arguably warped moralizing code, that gets haphazardly projected onto everything. Some ppl have specifically identified its origins in Unitarian Protestantism. I can partially manage a steel-man: if you delineate a fairly specific, hard and fast codified ideology which you then apply throughout society (some find this admirable, some call this an ideologue) then this IS what happens. It perhaps fits well in some places, and gets forced awkwardly into every other venue. Progressive shibboleths involving things like "universalism," at least involve a broadly applicable enough ruleset that they can SORT OF be widely applied, so I don't automatically vilify these ppl, and think their intentions are usually good. But of course, anyone on this channel probably finds themselves most often opposed to Progressives nowadays.
To the other thing you said, no. Firstly, Progressives force their beliefs regardless of consequences, it couldn't be more clear. Secondly, the relationship btw Libertarianism and utilitarianism is explicit, btw utilitarianism and consequentialism is explicit, and btw Libertarianism and Conservatarianism is explicit. (Thus, by the transitive property, lol).
I'll also say, that while consequentialism is my own position, I acknowledge it's only as good as our ability to predict approximate outcomes. However, I believe that our ability to be moral AT ALL, is only as good as our ability to predict approximate outcomes.
(Also, to hear a consequentialist Conservatarian prodigy, listen to MMM episode with Ben Shapiro's little brother Andrew Sibarium. Admittedly, I don't usually look up to younger ppl, it's a height issue).
As a firm Kantian deontologist, I find the notion that the progressive left is deontological utterly absurd. They are utilitarian consequentialist to the max, with all the attendant problems of consequentialism. Conservatives tend to be far more deontological because conservatives are skeptical of the ability to predict consequences an prefer to stay the course by following established rules schemas that have proven reliable.
@@wolfofthewest8019 Sure, that's the obvious statement. And YT buried my other reply. But the reality is, there's only one political faction nowadays, rigidly applying their moralizing algorithm to everything in sight. And it's not Conservatism. Therefore, I simply Kan't agree with you.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy Except the progressive don't have rules. That's why their positions are so easy to collapse.
For example, race and gender are socially constructed. If you alter your appearance to manifest the gender stereotypes of the other sex, then you become a member of that opposite sex. If you alter your appearance to appear to manifest the racial stereotypes of another race, then you are an offensive hatemongering jackass. Or consider the "rules" around the n-word. You can say it if you're black, but not if you're white, establishing a moral variance based on race. But claim that moral variance anywhere else, and you'll be accused of racism (because it *is* racism).
You can trip a deontologist up by demonstrating contradiction in their principles. You can't do that to a progressive, because progressives don't care if they are consistent. Expecting rational consistency is white supremacy, or something.
"I still believe in the welfare state."
Buh-bye.
So if someone is disabled and they can't work they should be left to starve. What if a woman is a stay at home mum with 3 kids and her working partner gets cancer and dies, should she have no help to feed her family? What if there's a recession and lots of people lose their jobs and jobs are not easy to come by, should they starve?
That's not what the welfare state is, and you damn well know it. Your hypothetical bs is to small to even qualify as a rounding error.
I would like to see the data that women are more abused if they are not married to a man rather than in a marriage I do not believe that for a minute, so please provide statistical data on that
"so please provide statistical data on that"
To be honest. I do not care about your opinion to the level that I woul do your research for you.
"I do not believe that for a minute,"
I kind of assume that your disbelief comes from you confusing correlation with causality.
Its not that not having a husband would do anything particular horrible to women.
It is more that women that are stuck in the most horrible circumstances do not get the change to marry anybody.
Example given. Most prostitutes are unmarried. And heavily abused.
But they are not abused because they are unmarried
They never get the option to marry because they are so abused.
Not sure I agree with the host introducing Stock as 'infamous'. A term which is ordinarily a disparaging one.
Kathleen IS the bourgois left. She has this contempt for labor that only the bourgois hold.
She’s from a Scottish fishing town. Not exactly a bourgeois snob
48:00 conviction rates are pitiful.
25:12 "small c" conservative.
Modern thinking attempts to colonise our grandparents' lives...
Old school left.
💕
She does not see men advocating for her?
Has she turned on a tap or flushed a toilet or switched on an electric device or closed a door on her home or driven a car or the taken medication or turned on a computer or walked down a lighted street at night or eaten farmed food or read a book or attended a University or used a mobile phone or worn clothes spun a loom or taken a pay cheque, or any of an almost infinite number of things not available to women before men invented these technologies and devices? Would be interesting to hear how she protects herself from the wolves, bears and other naturalm predators in her home country?
What have men ever done for women? Almost everything - even given too much patience for their endless complaints!
Sorry but is anyone actually able to follow what this discussion is about
Yes.
Yes, it's not that hard.
@@mrsherwood2599 can you summarise in a sentence?
@jamesbuchan8086 yes!
@@mrsherwood2599 please do!
My condolences to the poor soul this antinatalist misanthrope married
Kathleen is the best terf
Npbody wants to be in a 'tribe'!
Wanna try again?
Have you paid attention to how humans generally behave? We're a tribal species.
Missed my point--'tribe' being a pejorative term.@@jenniferlawrence2701
It would be so mych easier to watch if the op didn't wear so much absurd makeup
Except she is certainly a "joiner-inner" if the last few weeks are anything to go by. Insufferable.
What do you mean
You women need Jesus. If you would not love Him, no policy interventions will successfully impact your godless masses.
The guest says "she believes in the welfare state and believes it should get bigger" Wow, I'm speechless.
I have no time for marxists
Life is too short
Maybe she likes her taxes high.
Ya something has to be done in one direction. Right now (in the us at least) we kind of have the worst system where if u work u get no help from government programs so u are encouraged to do nothing. Where as i feel like the people who often need some help are the people who are trying and working but are just not skilled. I know alot of people who are living off of welfare because even if they got a job they would lose all assistance... and after a 40 hour week they would come out maybe a hundred dollars or so ahead of where they are now. Its really not a good system. Idk if more welfare is a solution but i think most people agree the way we do it now is pretty dumb.
Nice to see a proper leftie on the podcast for a change! Not just the I've left the left nonsense or straight up conservatives. It's all about balance. Julie Bindel next please! 😊
I think you will find that only capitalist societies have the surplus for welfare states, countries like the Soviet Union or Cuba or China very much so were/are NOT welfare states. It is countries like Great Britain that have publicly funded healthcare, not marxist countries like China.. @@goa9034
BREAKING NEWS: Louise Perry claims that menstruation has no physical nor mental/emotional effect on the subject whatsoever.
Can a woman be a pilot?
If so, which women are going to design and build her a plane? Or do men need to do that for her? There are no planes solely designed & built by women. If men don't create these aircraft, no one does and no one can be a pilot. .
Which airport will she use? Which airport was built by women? Men are responsible for buikding almost all airports.
What will she use for fuel? Is it women or men that drill, transport and refine the oil for fuel? Men of course.
Are there any laws thatprevent women designing, building aircraft ir airports ir drilling for oil etc? Of course not, almost zero women choose to do the highly paid jobs.
So a woman can be a pilot- if men provide all the infrastructure she needs to b e a pilot. Does that sound like equal.opportunities? Women accessing opportunities created by men.
Where Are the equal number of opportunities created by women and shared with men?
Equal opportunities? Not very equal!
"Men" isn't one person. Some men, a very small percentage of men, have invented planes and built things. By your logic the majority of men and the majority of women should not have access to these things.
But when femunists demand equal opportunities for women they mean women as a demographic group not individual women.
I am not saying wonen should not have access to opportunities - just that women have not done their part in creating opportunities. Why not?
If women want careers in banking, start your own banks.
Get 8nto the c suite on your own personal merits not by enforcing a quota.
If women want careers in sports, invent your own sports .
If you want ewuality - be equal!
As I said if men you don't create these opportunities - no one does - why are so few women interested in inventing?
There are no many programs to encourage these activities for men, women can do it by themselves too!
Google will show you that there are plenty of women who work in aerospace. Are men gonna stop eating, wearing clothes, having their hair cut because women do that for them ? Primary school level of argument.
the all-female team designed a plane door which flew off mid-flight hahaha trust me, you dont want wahmen desiging things.. not to mention the bridge that fell killing people.. all-female designers
men are better at these things, seeing 3d objects in their heads, mathematics, engineering, they are more interested in it too.. if wimmin can prove themselves that fine, but they cant, which is why they need gender quotas@@danielaparcel2647
Louise the Feminist tut tut keeps getting other Feminists on talking shite
She is a friend of julie bindel. All you need to know, purely a misandrist
Nonsense