Do you agree with Žižek's conceptualisation of the unconscious? Leave your thoughts in the comments. To watch the full video, head to iai.tv/video/the-life-and-philosophy-of-slavoj-zizek?TH-cam&
1. The Power of Absence and Symbolic Substitution Žižek’s point is that absence is as powerful as presence because we often define our desires by what isn’t there, rather than by what is. “Coffee without milk” and “coffee without cream” are both just black coffee, but each phrase implies a different symbolic context. Saying “without milk” vs. “without cream” suggests that milk or cream is part of a different symbolic network or expectation. The phrase “coffee without cream” implies the possibility or existence of cream, even if it’s not present, just as “coffee without milk” implies the potential of milk. For Žižek, these subtle symbolic distinctions reveal our underlying ideological frameworks. He might say we aren’t just dealing with “coffee” in the abstract; we’re dealing with a version of coffee shaped by the context of our desires, cultural norms, and ideological meanings. 2. Ideology and the Role of Fantasy In Žižek’s view, ideology works in much the same way. We often define our lives not just by what is directly present but by the fantasies and ideals that shape our desires and expectations. For instance, when we look at something like capitalism, we might see that our economic system promises us freedom, success, and choice. Yet, what actually materializes often lacks those qualities; our engagement with capitalism is shaped by what we believe it “ought” to provide, even if it doesn’t. In this sense, “coffee without milk” reflects how ideology shapes our desires. Just as we can differentiate between “coffee without milk” and “coffee without cream,” we might differentiate between freedom as an ideal and freedom as a lived reality, even if that reality is marked by absence. 3. The Desire for the Impossible Another layer to this example is that human desire is structured around the unattainable. Žižek would say that our desires are shaped not by what we have, but by what we lack, or what we think we lack. This is why the “without” part is so important: it symbolizes the missing piece that keeps us longing, fantasizing, and chasing after something. In other words, we don’t just want “coffee”-we want coffee with some extra meaning, even if it’s a negative one. 4. The Absurdity of Symbolic Logic Finally, this example hints at the absurdity of human symbolic logic. The fact that “coffee without cream” or “coffee without milk” might sound strange or overly specific shows how we’re constantly applying abstract distinctions to things that, materially, are the same. Žižek highlights the contradictions and ridiculousness inherent in everyday experiences, suggesting that we are always living in a symbolic, not a purely material, reality. Žižek’s Conclusion In the end, “coffee without milk” is more than a clever quip; it’s Žižek’s way of showing how absence, ideology, and desire shape our realities. We are not simply satisfied with the things we have; we crave meaning, distinctions, and stories, even in the most trivial forms. So, the next time we’re ordering “coffee without milk,” we might remember that it’s not just about coffee; it’s about the rich, messy, and often absurd layers of meaning that color our every experience.
My plainspeech translation: in any social structure (whether a coffee shop or a traditional family/marriage) your sense of what your possible options are is already constrained. So for feminism, women's consciousness of what they are deprived of and what is possible is already limited by the same factors that limit men's options in their society. That's why he's getting into "the unconscious." That isn't a real thing in his view but it's a placeholder for what is "missing" in our picture of life and the world.
Yeah I see his point. The reason there's no coherent structure or goal to the movement is because they are asking for coffee without cream when really we only have milk.
Why are Zizek commentors so polarized on average? 🤔 Just seems like a few simple statements. Women don't know which absence to complain about. Women ought to define their grievances and then identify the systems which generate those grievances. Or something along those lines.
I love this guy but he's like permanently in a revelatory acid trip where he combines concepts not usually combined mentally with general observations of society and express it through language in an unfiltered and sometimes barely intelligible way. He also goes into subjects relevant to consciousness studies here alot.
The narcissism of fichte? Isnt he supposed to be the actual hegel, since i saw that schizophrenic double printed version of it. Kant literally argues fichte was supposed to write it and even a preface foreshadowing being and time. You are literallly arguing fichte narcissistic revenge, in that book, hegel in a wired brain, which would be hegels adaption of his ideas and his literal annihilation through a master degree?
I must confess, I have no idea how this analogy to coffee is supposed to work. It's entertaining, I'll give him that, but I'm a bit too thick to see what he's trying to say.
Happy for better/further insights from others but I'll provide my attempt at parsing the analogy... He seems to be saying that even though coffee without milk and coffee without cream leads to the same coffee had by the customer, the wrong expectation in their head leads to a different subjective experience. This is similar to feminism where if one doesn't know what they are deprived of then the end result, even though the objective reality is one thing the subjective experience will be wildly different. He doesn't make a statement about the object reality (or lack thereof) of gender equality but rather that without knowing if society is depriving you of milk or of cream your subjective experience will be difficult/impossible to satisfy. To be satisfied, first figure out formally and precisely what you are missing.
He speaks in abstract concepts, so you’ll need a deeper understanding of determinate negation, for example. His books offer a clearer grasp of his ideas, though some scholarly effort is needed, as he writes within a broader intellectual movement. He’s a good philosopher and a charmingly obscene speaker, though more entertaining than clear in lectures. Žižek’s style blends complex theory with humour, pop culture references and sometimes even provocative or contradictory ideas, which makes him tough to follow or seem a bit all over the place. But this approach is deliberate-he uses shock, irony and paradox to get people thinking critically and to push against mainstream ideas. His value isn’t in giving neatly packaged answers; it’s in opening up fresh ways to look at philosophy, politics and culture. If you see him as someone who’s there to provoke thought rather than provide clear solutions, his ideas are really interesting. But if you're looking for straightforward, structured answers, he might feel a bit frustrating.
He speaks in metaphor, so it’s a bit difficult to understand what he meant by “coffee without milk and coffee without cream.” In short, he was critiquing feminism’s nonsensical ideas where subjective reality is seen as different from objective reality.
He's done what many philosophers did in their lifetimes, come up against the hard wall of nihilism (in this case, being represented in a novel way by one being rendered non-subject by an artificially intelligent "objectifier"), and having to create some kind of flimsy get-around - in this case, doubling down on the cartesian separation, the things which for a long time has become forever further nullified by cognitive neuroscience. Its not the worst "take" in existence. At least its more modern than religious fundamentalism. But in the end, it doesn't feel like philosophy, just a loquacious man's Copism Perhaps a slightly better way of putting it is that such an AI would in some senses merely be reifying the system of what it means to be human. i.e. The revelation that it is not in fact AI that is artificially intelligent, but that we are Artificially Unintelligent, if you can subscribe that in some abstract way, human consciousness is reducible as such. There I would invoke Godel - all such systems are inherently incomplete, (or just inconsistent). Indeed humans are generally inconsistent, as shown here, when it comes to applying what the hard data of science really says about us. Our ability to be self contradictory is something we actually label about ourselves almost poetically.
He is all over the place, he can't articulate himself in a coherent way and he rarely finishes his point before jumping to a different idea, I find it hard to keep up with him.
what women are lacking is personal power and autonomy. there is a power imbalance. men make the rules and women are expected to go along, and punished if they are not going along with the rules. in my opinion.
They don’t want to formulate answers. They want power derived from trying to shame/guilt others into submission of relying solely on emotion over scientific/biological evidence.
I'm not clear on which "they" you're referring to. But I do agree in the clarification, that it sounds like slavoj and men, are wanting those who are fighting for feminism, to become complacent to the current systems. Instead of continuing to fight for a world where all feel respected on equal footing.
This fellow is saying absolutely nothing. I have no doubt that someone somewhere thinks he is a genius when he is in fact talking utter rubbish and said nothing intelligible at all.
I think he has problems to express himself, that's it. But I don't think he isn't saying anything, probably he accumulated layers of thought from different theorists, and now he speaks in a multitude of voices that he doesn't always point. I mean, he isn't "speaking" just from Descartes and Butler, but from Hegel, Lacan and Freud, Agamben (probably), Bordieu, Baudrillard, and instead of lecturing as in an University Chair, he just talks as if he were on a Podcast.
1. The Power of Absence and Symbolic Substitution Žižek’s point is that absence is as powerful as presence because we often define our desires by what isn’t there, rather than by what is. “Coffee without milk” and “coffee without cream” are both just black coffee, but each phrase implies a different symbolic context. Saying “without milk” vs. “without cream” suggests that milk or cream is part of a different symbolic network or expectation. The phrase “coffee without cream” implies the possibility or existence of cream, even if it’s not present, just as “coffee without milk” implies the potential of milk. For Žižek, these subtle symbolic distinctions reveal our underlying ideological frameworks. He might say we aren’t just dealing with “coffee” in the abstract; we’re dealing with a version of coffee shaped by the context of our desires, cultural norms, and ideological meanings. 2. Ideology and the Role of Fantasy In Žižek’s view, ideology works in much the same way. We often define our lives not just by what is directly present but by the fantasies and ideals that shape our desires and expectations. For instance, when we look at something like capitalism, we might see that our economic system promises us freedom, success, and choice. Yet, what actually materializes often lacks those qualities; our engagement with capitalism is shaped by what we believe it “ought” to provide, even if it doesn’t. In this sense, “coffee without milk” reflects how ideology shapes our desires. Just as we can differentiate between “coffee without milk” and “coffee without cream,” we might differentiate between freedom as an ideal and freedom as a lived reality, even if that reality is marked by absence. 3. The Desire for the Impossible Another layer to this example is that human desire is structured around the unattainable. Žižek would say that our desires are shaped not by what we have, but by what we lack, or what we think we lack. This is why the “without” part is so important: it symbolizes the missing piece that keeps us longing, fantasizing, and chasing after something. In other words, we don’t just want “coffee”-we want coffee with some extra meaning, even if it’s a negative one. 4. The Absurdity of Symbolic Logic Finally, this example hints at the absurdity of human symbolic logic. The fact that “coffee without cream” or “coffee without milk” might sound strange or overly specific shows how we’re constantly applying abstract distinctions to things that, materially, are the same. Žižek highlights the contradictions and ridiculousness inherent in everyday experiences, suggesting that we are always living in a symbolic, not a purely material, reality. Žižek’s Conclusion In the end, “coffee without milk” is more than a clever quip; it’s Žižek’s way of showing how absence, ideology, and desire shape our realities. We are not simply satisfied with the things we have; we crave meaning, distinctions, and stories, even in the most trivial forms. So, the next time we’re ordering “coffee without milk,” we might remember that it’s not just about coffee; it’s about the rich, messy, and often absurd layers of meaning that color our every experience.
He's done what many philosophers did in their lifetimes, come up against the hard wall of nihilism (in this case, being represented in a novel way by one being rendered non-subject by an artificially intelligent "objectifier"), and having to create some kind of flimsy get-around - in this case, doubling down on the cartesian separation, the things which for a long time has become forever further nullified by cognitive neuroscience. Its not the worst "take" in existence. At least its more modern than religious fundamentalism. But in the end, it doesn't feel like philosophy, just a loquacious man's Copism Perhaps a slightly better way of putting it is that such an AI would in some senses merely be reifying the system of what it means to be human. i.e. The revelation that it is not in fact AI that is artificially intelligent, but that we are Artificially Unintelligent, if you can subscribe that in some abstract way, human consciousness is reducible as such. There I would invoke Godel - all such systems are inherently incomplete, (or just inconsistent). Indeed humans are generally inconsistent, as shown here, when it comes to applying what the hard data of science really says about us. Our ability to be self contradictory is something we actually label about ourselves almost poetically.
@@TheSapphire51 he saying that it just isn't about not getting "enough money from your husband" but that the expectation that requires a husband to give justification to the wife's existence. It is not enough to say "without cream" (money from husband) instead of "without milk" (defining woman through patriarchal obligation and the control that encompasses)
You just asked something impossible : Clearly formulate what are you deprived of. Woman as a neurotic being, will always wining about something even if they are the cause of it.
@@hjones4922it's obviously not achieving its goals (or lack thereof) and the clock is ticking, society is about to swing the other way. Missed your shot to get anything meaningful out of society, we just got moving goal posts and resentment from all sides lol!
"The cause of it" 😂 do you understand the world has been operating under a patriarchy long enough, that all we know in society today, is that? Or let me first ask, do you know what patriarchy is?
Do you agree with Žižek's conceptualisation of the unconscious? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
To watch the full video, head to iai.tv/video/the-life-and-philosophy-of-slavoj-zizek?TH-cam&
Femininity is NEVER toxic. 💄
Feminism is ALWAYS toxic. ☠️
to be honest, I don´t know his conceptualisation...
1. The Power of Absence and Symbolic Substitution
Žižek’s point is that absence is as powerful as presence because we often define our desires by what isn’t there, rather than by what is. “Coffee without milk” and “coffee without cream” are both just black coffee, but each phrase implies a different symbolic context. Saying “without milk” vs. “without cream” suggests that milk or cream is part of a different symbolic network or expectation. The phrase “coffee without cream” implies the possibility or existence of cream, even if it’s not present, just as “coffee without milk” implies the potential of milk.
For Žižek, these subtle symbolic distinctions reveal our underlying ideological frameworks. He might say we aren’t just dealing with “coffee” in the abstract; we’re dealing with a version of coffee shaped by the context of our desires, cultural norms, and ideological meanings.
2. Ideology and the Role of Fantasy
In Žižek’s view, ideology works in much the same way. We often define our lives not just by what is directly present but by the fantasies and ideals that shape our desires and expectations. For instance, when we look at something like capitalism, we might see that our economic system promises us freedom, success, and choice. Yet, what actually materializes often lacks those qualities; our engagement with capitalism is shaped by what we believe it “ought” to provide, even if it doesn’t.
In this sense, “coffee without milk” reflects how ideology shapes our desires. Just as we can differentiate between “coffee without milk” and “coffee without cream,” we might differentiate between freedom as an ideal and freedom as a lived reality, even if that reality is marked by absence.
3. The Desire for the Impossible
Another layer to this example is that human desire is structured around the unattainable. Žižek would say that our desires are shaped not by what we have, but by what we lack, or what we think we lack. This is why the “without” part is so important: it symbolizes the missing piece that keeps us longing, fantasizing, and chasing after something. In other words, we don’t just want “coffee”-we want coffee with some extra meaning, even if it’s a negative one.
4. The Absurdity of Symbolic Logic
Finally, this example hints at the absurdity of human symbolic logic. The fact that “coffee without cream” or “coffee without milk” might sound strange or overly specific shows how we’re constantly applying abstract distinctions to things that, materially, are the same. Žižek highlights the contradictions and ridiculousness inherent in everyday experiences, suggesting that we are always living in a symbolic, not a purely material, reality.
Žižek’s Conclusion
In the end, “coffee without milk” is more than a clever quip; it’s Žižek’s way of showing how absence, ideology, and desire shape our realities. We are not simply satisfied with the things we have; we crave meaning, distinctions, and stories, even in the most trivial forms. So, the next time we’re ordering “coffee without milk,” we might remember that it’s not just about coffee; it’s about the rich, messy, and often absurd layers of meaning that color our every experience.
thank you
Thank you for this wonderful explanation
Thank you from me as well and I hope you teach at University and, if you don’t, I think you should.
Ty!
This kind of feels like ChatGPT's style of writing...but maybe I am wrong.
My plainspeech translation: in any social structure (whether a coffee shop or a traditional family/marriage) your sense of what your possible options are is already constrained. So for feminism, women's consciousness of what they are deprived of and what is possible is already limited by the same factors that limit men's options in their society.
That's why he's getting into "the unconscious." That isn't a real thing in his view but it's a placeholder for what is "missing" in our picture of life and the world.
Yeah I see his point. The reason there's no coherent structure or goal to the movement is because they are asking for coffee without cream when really we only have milk.
So would cream, then be, men learning better coping mechanisms and men healing their egos?
i have no idea what hes talking about
Why are Zizek commentors so polarized on average? 🤔 Just seems like a few simple statements. Women don't know which absence to complain about. Women ought to define their grievances and then identify the systems which generate those grievances. Or something along those lines.
I wonder what does he think of Donna Haraway's cyborg theory
I love this guy but he's like permanently in a revelatory acid trip where he combines concepts not usually combined mentally with general observations of society and express it through language in an unfiltered and sometimes barely intelligible way. He also goes into subjects relevant to consciousness studies here alot.
The narcissism of fichte? Isnt he supposed to be the actual hegel, since i saw that schizophrenic double printed version of it. Kant literally argues fichte was supposed to write it and even a preface foreshadowing being and time. You are literallly arguing fichte narcissistic revenge, in that book, hegel in a wired brain, which would be hegels adaption of his ideas and his literal annihilation through a master degree?
I must confess, I have no idea how this analogy to coffee is supposed to work. It's entertaining, I'll give him that, but I'm a bit too thick to see what he's trying to say.
Happy for better/further insights from others but I'll provide my attempt at parsing the analogy... He seems to be saying that even though coffee without milk and coffee without cream leads to the same coffee had by the customer, the wrong expectation in their head leads to a different subjective experience. This is similar to feminism where if one doesn't know what they are deprived of then the end result, even though the objective reality is one thing the subjective experience will be wildly different.
He doesn't make a statement about the object reality (or lack thereof) of gender equality but rather that without knowing if society is depriving you of milk or of cream your subjective experience will be difficult/impossible to satisfy. To be satisfied, first figure out formally and precisely what you are missing.
@@hahahasan Yeah, that's fair enough, actually.
He speaks in abstract concepts, so you’ll need a deeper understanding of determinate negation, for example. His books offer a clearer grasp of his ideas, though some scholarly effort is needed, as he writes within a broader intellectual movement. He’s a good philosopher and a charmingly obscene speaker, though more entertaining than clear in lectures.
Žižek’s style blends complex theory with humour, pop culture references and sometimes even provocative or contradictory ideas, which makes him tough to follow or seem a bit all over the place. But this approach is deliberate-he uses shock, irony and paradox to get people thinking critically and to push against mainstream ideas. His value isn’t in giving neatly packaged answers; it’s in opening up fresh ways to look at philosophy, politics and culture. If you see him as someone who’s there to provoke thought rather than provide clear solutions, his ideas are really interesting. But if you're looking for straightforward, structured answers, he might feel a bit frustrating.
This guy is over.
Pardon. Peace ✌️ 😎. Great video. Thanks.
He speaks in metaphor, so it’s a bit difficult to understand what he meant by “coffee without milk and coffee without cream.” In short, he was critiquing feminism’s nonsensical ideas where subjective reality is seen as different from objective reality.
He speaks in metaphor similar to how Jesus Christ spoke in parables
He's done what many philosophers did in their lifetimes, come up against the hard wall of nihilism (in this case, being represented in a novel way by one being rendered non-subject by an artificially intelligent "objectifier"), and having to create some kind of flimsy get-around - in this case, doubling down on the cartesian separation, the things which for a long time has become forever further nullified by cognitive neuroscience.
Its not the worst "take" in existence. At least its more modern than religious fundamentalism. But in the end, it doesn't feel like philosophy, just a loquacious man's Copism
Perhaps a slightly better way of putting it is that such an AI would in some senses merely be reifying the system of what it means to be human. i.e. The revelation that it is not in fact AI that is artificially intelligent, but that we are Artificially Unintelligent, if you can subscribe that in some abstract way, human consciousness is reducible as such. There I would invoke Godel - all such systems are inherently incomplete, (or just inconsistent).
Indeed humans are generally inconsistent, as shown here, when it comes to applying what the hard data of science really says about us. Our ability to be self contradictory is something we actually label about ourselves almost poetically.
I disagree. The crisis is not in 10 years. Ukraine, Palestine, Taiwan, the climate crisis... it's now, it started yesteryear
What a very funny moment though! 😂
Got it!
Women like cream i get it now
he repeats his prose every time saying nothing at the end .
he doesnt even provoke thinking, confusion is useless to even argue against
He is all over the place, he can't articulate himself in a coherent way and he rarely finishes his point before jumping to a different idea, I find it hard to keep up with him.
is the hole in the donut, part of the donut? or nothingness
The guy is hilarious
what women are lacking is personal power and autonomy. there is a power imbalance. men make the rules and women are expected to go along, and punished if they are not going along with the rules. in my opinion.
No.
Yes.
@@ordinarryalien I would prefer not to
Ok, account with a pfp of the author of C'thulu with his cat.
They don’t want to formulate answers. They want power derived from trying to shame/guilt others into submission of relying solely on emotion over scientific/biological evidence.
The fascist response to anything is to accuse others of what you are doing.
I'm not clear on which "they" you're referring to. But I do agree in the clarification, that it sounds like slavoj and men, are wanting those who are fighting for feminism, to become complacent to the current systems. Instead of continuing to fight for a world where all feel respected on equal footing.
a million isnt even a real number !!!! LOL
This fellow is saying absolutely nothing. I have no doubt that someone somewhere thinks he is a genius when he is in fact talking utter rubbish and said nothing intelligible at all.
I think he has problems to express himself, that's it.
But I don't think he isn't saying anything, probably he accumulated layers of thought from different theorists, and now he speaks in a multitude of voices that he doesn't always point.
I mean, he isn't "speaking" just from Descartes and Butler, but from Hegel, Lacan and Freud, Agamben (probably), Bordieu, Baudrillard, and instead of lecturing as in an University Chair, he just talks as if he were on a Podcast.
1. The Power of Absence and Symbolic Substitution
Žižek’s point is that absence is as powerful as presence because we often define our desires by what isn’t there, rather than by what is. “Coffee without milk” and “coffee without cream” are both just black coffee, but each phrase implies a different symbolic context. Saying “without milk” vs. “without cream” suggests that milk or cream is part of a different symbolic network or expectation. The phrase “coffee without cream” implies the possibility or existence of cream, even if it’s not present, just as “coffee without milk” implies the potential of milk.
For Žižek, these subtle symbolic distinctions reveal our underlying ideological frameworks. He might say we aren’t just dealing with “coffee” in the abstract; we’re dealing with a version of coffee shaped by the context of our desires, cultural norms, and ideological meanings.
2. Ideology and the Role of Fantasy
In Žižek’s view, ideology works in much the same way. We often define our lives not just by what is directly present but by the fantasies and ideals that shape our desires and expectations. For instance, when we look at something like capitalism, we might see that our economic system promises us freedom, success, and choice. Yet, what actually materializes often lacks those qualities; our engagement with capitalism is shaped by what we believe it “ought” to provide, even if it doesn’t.
In this sense, “coffee without milk” reflects how ideology shapes our desires. Just as we can differentiate between “coffee without milk” and “coffee without cream,” we might differentiate between freedom as an ideal and freedom as a lived reality, even if that reality is marked by absence.
3. The Desire for the Impossible
Another layer to this example is that human desire is structured around the unattainable. Žižek would say that our desires are shaped not by what we have, but by what we lack, or what we think we lack. This is why the “without” part is so important: it symbolizes the missing piece that keeps us longing, fantasizing, and chasing after something. In other words, we don’t just want “coffee”-we want coffee with some extra meaning, even if it’s a negative one.
4. The Absurdity of Symbolic Logic
Finally, this example hints at the absurdity of human symbolic logic. The fact that “coffee without cream” or “coffee without milk” might sound strange or overly specific shows how we’re constantly applying abstract distinctions to things that, materially, are the same. Žižek highlights the contradictions and ridiculousness inherent in everyday experiences, suggesting that we are always living in a symbolic, not a purely material, reality.
Žižek’s Conclusion
In the end, “coffee without milk” is more than a clever quip; it’s Žižek’s way of showing how absence, ideology, and desire shape our realities. We are not simply satisfied with the things we have; we crave meaning, distinctions, and stories, even in the most trivial forms. So, the next time we’re ordering “coffee without milk,” we might remember that it’s not just about coffee; it’s about the rich, messy, and often absurd layers of meaning that color our every experience.
He's done what many philosophers did in their lifetimes, come up against the hard wall of nihilism (in this case, being represented in a novel way by one being rendered non-subject by an artificially intelligent "objectifier"), and having to create some kind of flimsy get-around - in this case, doubling down on the cartesian separation, the things which for a long time has become forever further nullified by cognitive neuroscience.
Its not the worst "take" in existence. At least its more modern than religious fundamentalism. But in the end, it doesn't feel like philosophy, just a loquacious man's Copism
Perhaps a slightly better way of putting it is that such an AI would in some senses merely be reifying the system of what it means to be human. i.e. The revelation that it is not in fact AI that is artificially intelligent, but that we are Artificially Unintelligent, if you can subscribe that in some abstract way, human consciousness is reducible as such. There I would invoke Godel - all such systems are inherently incomplete, (or just inconsistent).
Indeed humans are generally inconsistent, as shown here, when it comes to applying what the hard data of science really says about us. Our ability to be self contradictory is something we actually label about ourselves almost poetically.
Oof, another feminist got butthurt.
@@TheSapphire51 he saying that it just isn't about not getting "enough money from your husband" but that the expectation that requires a husband to give justification to the wife's existence. It is not enough to say "without cream" (money from husband) instead of "without milk" (defining woman through patriarchal obligation and the control that encompasses)
You just asked something impossible : Clearly formulate what are you deprived of. Woman as a neurotic being, will always wining about something even if they are the cause of it.
Yet again: the comments under any content on feminism always confirm the need for feminism
Is there a "law" for this?? There absolutely should be!
I mean in the sense of godwins law for example
@@hjones4922it's obviously not achieving its goals (or lack thereof) and the clock is ticking, society is about to swing the other way. Missed your shot to get anything meaningful out of society, we just got moving goal posts and resentment from all sides lol!
@@ruifilgo and you assume man is not a neurotic being? You are as ridiculous as he is.
"The cause of it" 😂 do you understand the world has been operating under a patriarchy long enough, that all we know in society today, is that?
Or let me first ask, do you know what patriarchy is?