Courageous and interesting presentation, many thanks. Areas like this are always guaranteed to properly upset somebody... because there is almost zero agreement on even the basic terms and what counts as 'the relevant facts'. Its a Scylla/ Charibdis situation. Thanks to the limitiations of language, the singular form of words like 'feminism' etc create the illusion that there is a list of beliefs and evaluations which a bunch of VERY disparate 'feminist' people sign up to! A bit like saying Samoans, Australian Aborigines, and Kenyans are all ''black people' so they share a lot of culture ... or those guys from Antrim with the bowler hats and those guys from Newry with the green bonnets are all equally ''the Irish'', and they all like hats, so they're bound to be on the same frequency. Language almost always defaults to over-simplification - which is why we need poets and philosphers to freshen it up regularly. It is inevitable we'll put our foot in our mouths, but it's better than not talking about or thinking about the big problems. Well done Sir for having a brave go! M :)
I would LOVE if you could do I deep dive into Blackpill ideas and the psychology of the incel community. I’ve been doing my own research on it trying to understand it’s arguments impartially. Many other TH-camrs have done their own “analysis’”, but in my opinion lack depth because they are riddled with condescension. The stigma of the incel community has made it difficult to take the Blackpill philosophically seriously, but I do think there are some great arguments and perspectives that could only have originated from the margins of society. Blackpill content is becoming evermore popular on TH-cam, so I feel its imperative that it be addressed seriously. At the very least as an attempt to combat the more extremist and dangerous ideas it’s propagating.
Hmm the thought did cross my mind while making this video and I think I'd have a more sympathetic take on it. I think at some point when I circle back to this topic in future of masculinity that I will get into it more and explore it. I was only reading an article yesterday that mentioned it in passing and couldn't help but call the ideas vile and disgusting and that just set off my curiosity alarms because that's clearly points to something important that's being neglected -our culture's shadow. I'll start taking some notes and exploring the ideas from now but not sure when I'll get around to making the video. Thanks for the nudge along though, it gives me a lot more motivation to get into it
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I really like how you interpreted universal contempt as a flag for our contemporary culture's shadow. It's a pretty wise insight, that had never occurred to me before. I think the phenomenon of incels is intrinsically linked to changes in gender roles in modern society. There is a legitimate reason why the incel community exists. But this is not to say that incel ideology has any legitimacy. It doesn't. The incel community is a symptom of a sick culture. It's NOT the cure. I'm of the opinion that you cannot change what you don't understand. This is why I think we need to understand incel culture. But very few people are trying to do that. Instead people are falling into the age old pattern of othering and shaming. And to me, this is the biggest mistake humanity is making. It is the one lesson we cannot seem to learn. We claim to have left superstition and magical thinking behind us, and yet we still paint pictures of "Satan" everywhere, constantly. Until we can have a public discourse that isn't founded on villifying the other, we'll never have a peaceful sustainable world.
@@ahobimo732 Beautifully put Mark I love that line about painting pictures of Satan everywhere. Very on point. There's actually a video on Incels by Contrapoints that I've been meaning to watch. She usually does a very good job at giving an analysis of a topic that isn't condescending and manages to be nuanced rather than self-righteous
Its cool to see the mention, I never thought I'd hear my name on TH-cam. Honestly I was a little nervous to write the first comment. I was involved in Reddit a decent amount probably 5-10 years ago but eventually the culture there shifted to being more ideologically combative and hive minded rather then explorative and open minded (but still biased). So Im hesitant to want to engage online. I typically think and speak much clearer when Im in the practice of writing and online provides feedback to push back and expose myself to my weaknesses, lack of understanding, and my own ideological capture. --- I dont know if this is a change in position exactly, but thinking about it more - I think there is more room for stewardship in business and politics even if I think fundamentally masculine traits are selected like assertiveness and competitiveness because without those how do your ideas influence anything. I think its because I noticed my empathy was in opposition to those traits in the past, but really its because I had no empathy towards myself and demanded perfection and keeping everyone around me happy. Empathy and stewrdship could be included in masculinity but I was blinded as empathy lead me to bad outcomes so emotionally I probably have too much protections to going down the empathetic rabbit hole. Like it got so bad I could feel the fear in squirrels and rabbits and be put in a bad mood going for walks. Quick summary of my development was I was stunted emotionally till about 12, became too masculine till like 17, became too empathetic til like 25ish, and have been working on reincorporating empathy and selfishness and accepting that it wont be perfect and thats okay but accepting the desire/anxiousness of survival/thriving/self improvement. (I grew up being bullied by the father figure and household in general; the female figure was a narcissist that was never in the wrong who had to always be pleased and had limited patience so I was trained to stop whatever I was doing to immediately do what was asked) So I saw empathy and masculine traits as more of opposites but as point out by someone in the comment section, the masculine is not devoid of empathy, sympathy, compassion, and other traits (the good king/father archetype). --- So I think culturally we swung too much demonizing masculine competitiveness and praising agreeableness and empathy. I think as people die off the cultural shift will enter the workplace and politics some more but I also think the younger generations are still battling these thoughts themselves and will shift more unpredictably then the optimists think. I think we are heavier on ideas then practice so learning that not all our ideas are perfect will continue to shift our thoughts on what should or shouldn't be. I dont know where it will land but I keep seeing the theme of becoming our fathers/parents everywhere and people realising its harder to practice their ideology especially when raising kids. Im in a rush so couldnt proofread too much and g2g.
you’re doing a great job, Alice walker is a interesting character very ambitious thinker, writer and theorist. she has fallen short quite a few but her fame in the community means her blunders have been published lol. that last part is just my payback for reading a hefty and terrible book she wrote years ago it still haunts me 😂.
One recent significant cultural development is the undermining of the binary of masculine / feminine. Particularly in the transgender movement (but also within modern feminism and the LGBT+ movement in general), there is a LOT of pushback against the idea that masculine and feminine are legitimate essential qualities that can be described. And conversely, the recent right-wing documentary "What is a woman" has used this "gender essentialism" angle to attack the trans movement. So the very idea that "womanism" and "feminism" can even be separated in the way you did in your earlier video is a very controversial issue at the moment. Personally, I think that these concepts are too psychologically important for us to simply throw them away, but I recognize that they come with a lot of complex baggage that we need to address if we're going to salvage them from their problematic historical context.
@@canismajoris6733 I think 99% is an exaggeration. I'll grant that the traditional gender labels probably describe MOST people fairly accurately. But since most people are also pretty fucking boring, I don't see how that's a particularly significant accomplishment.
@@ahobimo732you think pronouns are exciting? I forget them the moment I’m not hassled by that cult as they’re filler words and do not lead to healthy conversations. 3:34 seems to argue semantics which you won’t get anywhere neither, especially letting scam activists speak for everyone.
@@canismajoris6733even if that's true (which it isn't), why do you think the 1% doesn't matter? 1% from 8 billion is 80 million, you're going to exclude all those tons of people?
Thank for very enlightening video. We all here to learn and grow with each other. I was wondering where you this week, I thought you drop videos on Saturday. 💞💯
Hello there this comment popped into my head today and I realised I hadn't responded! Thanks for the comment I usually post on Sunday evening around 6pm GMT but admittedly I haven't been as consistent as of late!
@@renaissancefairyowldemon7686 Yeah I think for East coast US it would usually be around 1300 but not sure what it would be for the West...early morning I guess?
Many of the ideas you talked about in your last video and this video sounded familiar to me because Bell Hooks' book the will to change men, masculinity, and love talks about a few of the same ideas. I would be interested to know if you have or haven’t read the book? and your opinion of her ideas?
The word "Intersectionality" is such a cop out. All it means is that when you analyse data, you have to be aware of all the variables it contains and that you need to base conclusions based on that. It isn't a thing by itself. It just means that people of one group can also be people of another group. The people that defined the term seem like they don't understand mathematics or statistics.
@@CambrianAnomalocaris So if I’m understanding correctly, intersectionality argues that black women do not experience blackness and womenhood in parallel, but as an amalgamation of the two that is a whole unique experience all on its own? Every apparent consequence of being a women also always involves the consequence of being black, and vice versa.
Yup. The geometric metaphor of 'intersection' is horrible when applied to social theory and praxis. Intersection is quite the opposite of inclusion, so what get's socially intersected tends to be just the lowest common denominator, e.g. victimhood and deeply traumatized superiority-inferiority complex of psyche conditioned by class society and it's pecking orders. And that makes inclusive peer-to-peer cooperation and care of synergetic win-win games very very difficult.
Its not that they don't understand statistics. Its that you don't understand how statistics are used in social theory. You are correct in multiple variable data analysis but not in applying it to social inequality.
I remember asking you to do a video on how we could integrate the real feminism u talked about moving forward but now also after reading ur discussion with Aaron latif I find that comment was kinda dumb n naive... lemme try n explain... I've seen how u discuss daoism n I believe ur perspective on it is kinda naive too... as a person who used to b a daoist(just by listening to the dao de jing for over 5 years rather than reading it )it got me thinking along daoist lines so lemme try n explain... the main view of daoism is through the yin yang symbol which is basically duality... yin is the receptive part of the universe (dark fluid n ever changing ) while yang is the active part(bright solid n never changing )... duality is an imortal concept which is beautifully explained by rava the spirit in the legend of kora... basically they r complementary forces as one gives rise to the other viewed from a perspective of cycles like the season... in this perspective we r basically manifestations of it not the other way round... duality exists n will always exist regardless of humans... in this sense... since the rise of agriculture its been yang being the dominant force in humans... given time yin arises by itself hence the change Aaron described... this change arises naturally n has been so since the dawn of time n so one doesn't have to worry about enacting it... but listening to other teachers(spiritual mainly) n reading other philosophies one can take it further it further n agree humans have the ability to go beyond it by force of will n use duality to their advantage than just being pawns or fully n happily embrace(embrace being a pawn) this great cycle but that ability has to b cultivated to the point its an automatic part of an individual hence the stressing by the writer of the book on meditation in silence to become the dao n go beyond existing n non existing by fully embracing it (which is in known in daoism as the water method)... as in existing, n non existing r natural cycles of the universe... one time it will exist n another it wont so one should not cling to either but enjoy the cycles conciously n use them to their advantage as required by the moment as we r the part of the universe blessed by it enough to willfully do so... just like u... u use fire n water(yang n yin) to ur advantage... u make a video based on an understanding of ur own n post it which is fire or male(active) in u but crowd source knowledge in the form of feedback(as naturally somebody just has something to say bout ur video) which changes ur perception just as u changed the perception of ur viewers in the beginning (me in particular ) which is yin or the female(receptive ) aspect of u... humans just as everything in the universe have both seeds in them the only difference is we can willfully or conciously use these aspects which most other aspects of the universe can't according to my current knowledge (meaning viewing ourselves as free will beings with no solid evidence of other Creatures in existence who can do the same)... I know both chauvinism n feminism r alive n well in both men n women n if we could only look within ourselves n know when to b assertive or yield all things will naturally exist harmoniously... now duality is not the only view as there is nothingness, singularity, trinity, on n on which is the main reason I left daoism as I personally found it very hard to exist in dualistic nature as my nature agrees to something else but the journey is what revealed this that's why I have great respect for this philosophy for pointing me in the right direction... but all in all ur last videos was the greatest thing (ur discussion with Aaron included) as it combined dots in my head that I never was conscious of the existence of their combinations n helped me see things from a whole different perspective... n 4 that I'm forever grateful
About masculinity, I don't buy the red knight / white knight theory, but I do believe that women can sense what they want in a man. And if you don't look like you can provide what they want, then you don't connect. There are many exceptions, of course.
I honestly tought the video was great. It perfectly pointed out the problems with our culture and feminism at this moment imo. In my own country, there was a slight chance of a woman becoming the political leader. And however great that would have been for representation, a first time female leader, she lacked all the female traits that are so sorely lacking in politics. And that would have just added to the problem with politics and our dominant culture and the values it puts on a pedestal, and that females would need to cultivate if they want to suceed. Namely the masculine traits, which imo are not suited well on their own for politics and a healthy society. And when I say masculine traits, I mean the traits that are more related to the male hormone. And I'm no expert on this, but I think egotism, aggression, strong individuality and such traits are mostly related to testosterone. And these traits sure are great for certain endeavors, but are not well suited for leading a society to a healthy future on their own. They need to be balanced out to create a healthy society that looks after its people and the future, and not just short term political succes of the individual politician. The feminine traits are much more suited for cultivating a healthy society I think. Solidarity, amenability, empathy, and putting a group before ones own interests and being sensitive towards other people's needs is just way more likely to happen with these traits than it is with the masculine traits. And because the dominance of these masculine traits in our culture, these traits have gained te highest value in that culture and have been colored positively as strong, assertive, creative, reliable etc. But they aren't well suited to create solidarity and solve the biggest problems humanity faces right now as a species. The masculine traits actually are the cause of our problems. They feed the capitalist, individualistic trajectory we as a species have taken. With little regard for our future and the consequences for others of our actions for personal gain. Polution, exploitation, violence for profit, manipulation for personal gain that leads to polarization and deteriation of democracy and social cohesion. All sorts of actions that because of a lack of solidarity and focus on selfish gain, harm us all and endanger our future. So in my opinion, we as a species need a change in what we value in each other. The feminine traits need a re-evaluation and if we are to succeed as a species, feminine traits need a more dominant place in our political environment. Simply put, we need to re-evaluate masculine and feminine traits, not just for fairness or the sake of women or others who strongly have them, but for the sake of the whole of humanity.
Thanks Jonathan and I agree that we need more of the feminine in the public space though I would say that balance is necessary and we still want those individualistic and competitive elements associated with masculinity, we just want them in healthier balance with the rest of society
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I agree we need a healthy balance, its just going to be very difficult for the feminine traits and their nature to regain space in our current culture I think. By experience I know how toroughly the masculine traits have infiltrated the minds of women as the superior traits through our culture. Pretty much all the women I have encountered in my life, had completely embraced the current value judgments about the masculine traits as being exactly what they needed and as being superior to the feminine traits. Which is to be expected since humans with stronger feminine traits are more likely to be more amenable and accepting to the dominant culture. But I see it as a very difficult problem to solve. But I really appreciate your feminism video even more because of that.
Naturally, society has an indisputable right to protect itself against arrant subjectivisms, but in so far as society is itself composed of de-individualized human beings, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless individualists. Let it band together into groups and organizations as much as it likes it is just this banding together and the resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros joined together do not, unfortunately, add up to one. Ultimately everything depends on the quality of the individual, but our fatally short-sighted age thinks only in terms of large numbers and mass organizations, though one would think that the world had seen more than enough of what a well-disciplined mob can do in the hand of a single madman. (Carl jung, the undiscovered self). Beauvoir explains the association of feminity with immanence and that's the fault of history While masculinity is associated with transcendence. These are errors which should be mitigated. Individuality does not have be a masculine trait. I think if cultivated properly under a feminine understanding the sense of individuality could lead to a better future. Even despotism does not produce its worst effects, so long as Individuality exists under it; and whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called, and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men. Having said that Individuality is the same thing with development, and that it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings, I might here close the argument: for what more or better can be said of any condition of human affairs, than that it brings human beings themselves nearer to the best thing they can be? or what worse can be said of any obstruction to good, than that it prevents this? Doubtless, however, these considerations will not suffice to convince those who most need convincing; and it is necessary further to show, that these developed human beings are of some use to the undeveloped, to point out to those who do not desire liberty, and would not avail themselves of it, that they may be in some intelligible manner rewarded for allowing other people to make use of it without hindrance. (J.S Mill, On liberty)
@@Anicius_ I don't think I subscribe to value judgements as being objective. But I do understand why a society uses and needs sets of overarching values in order to function. But these values themselves, to me have no objectively intrinsic value, besides just facilitating a society. The good and bad value judgements rationally speaking in the context of a society are only as good or as bad as they serve their purpose in helping that society thrive. So they can be seen as having a certain subjective value in relation to the society. But said society might itself be harmful for humanity as a whole and these value judgements, although good for said society, might be bad for humanity's chances as a whole, and in that context, these good values might be bad. And so there are a multitude of different perspectives from which value judgments change, according to the perspective. So besides value judgements as a human construct just being very subjective and dependent on context, they also just detract from the clarity of reality. So I rather view culture, human behaviour and things of that nature through the lens health, is it healthy for the species or not, or is a certain action the result of a healthy organism, or is it the result of a unhealthy organism. I think thats a much more quantifiable and useful method of measuring behaviour in this analytical context. And more helpful in comunicating thoughts clearly in this context as well. Also the only logical conclusion with today's science is that free will and choice dont really exist. So value judgements about behaviour, that is seen rationally as just a summation of one's genes and prior experience, is just a irrational act. So all the more reason to just stick with healthy or not, since that can be used way more objectively than some moral judgment ever can. So now free will and actual choice are out of the equation, in order to gain a certain action or behaviour out of an individual or group, there just needs to be a certain stimulus. Obviously the amount of stimuli and cascades of actions and reactions that constantly influence individuals and groups, makes predicting or steering behaviour largely impossible at this moment in time. But that doesn't change the fact that stimuli are the only way to change behaviour. And of course morals like so many philosophers talk about can be a stimuli, as can science or religion. But I think it's clear that the current stimuli in our current environment don't deliver the effect we as a species need for our future. And the way I see it, the dominance of the masculine traits in places of power and decision-making carry a very large part of the responsability for the current development of affairs in the world. The problems we face today, as in the unhealthy humans exhibiting unhealthy behavior for the species, in my opinion stem from the misalignment between our society, it's culture and the human nature. The human as a species has evolved to thrive in a certain environment. That environment is far removed from our current one, and as a result we encounter a multitude of problems. Taking the human out of their smaller scale environment, where close social bonds and strong social control steered them in a direction where the group had priority over the individual, enabled the unhealthy behavioral traits(in context to the group) to thrive. Humanity just can't adjust to it's new environment in a way where group issues still gain priority over individual goals. That isn't the man's fault for having masculine traits that enabled this outcome, its just a clumsy outcome of human nature in the post hunter gatherer environment. And the devaluation of the feminine traits are simple just both the result and the cause of the new environment. They became less useful in the increasing anonimity of an ever growing society and the devaluation of them and of the female as a result exacerbated that reality. And I think as a result of that, we seem to be in the middle of a competition towards climate disaster and who can build the biggest weapons, skyscrapers, biggest pile of cash and fastest vehicles, while people are dying of hunger and preventable decease. Now that the female has slowly at least partly fought herself back into society on the male's terms, we just need to find a way back towards a place where she can reconquer a spot on her own terms, with faminine traits and hopefully rebalance our environment and culture as much as possible, so it might become a healthier environment for us all to live in. For in a healthy environment humans will be the healthiest versions of themselves. And that's the best we could hope to be in my opinion.
@@Anicius_ in short, we humans are just the victims of our own talents at this point, the talents that brought us to the top are now the ones that might take us down. And just maybe some femininity could change things. But solidarity among humanity is needed if we are to change course and actually realize some of our true potential. How that solidarity can be achieved, I don't know, but the current systems have failed thus far.
So white knight is conquest, red knight is war, black knight is famine, and the pale green knight not mentioned is Death. Gee, this sounds familiar, wonder where I heard it before? Oh yeah, in the Bible, book of Revelation
6:40 Great example of today's paranoia. Feminism once was a fad (or simply a mean for somebody's end, no matter for this discussion) for some time, but now the fad of the month is LGBTQ, so feminism is not important anymore, because is not"inclusive" enough. What is the the most funny, the current feminist-zealots are harming women (in most cases) at the end of the day. The best example is MeToo movement. Because of this, women are less preferred as employees, because the risk of hiring one woman who will throw some false rape accusations, outweighs the benefits of having woman as an employee (even if woman would be better on this particular position).
The goal of feminism used to be equality with men, which was odd, why would a person want to be equal with an "oppressor". Modernity is a house that was built and afforded by male values. Postmodernity is an occupant of that house which provides shelter for and promotes female values. This has always been the purpose of the house in the first place. Feminism wants to live with this standard of living which was afforded by modern patriarchs but now wants to sideline men, believing it can maintain this modern house with postmodern values. Quite entertaining to watch. A little bit like clown show including yellow, green and blue hair.
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the channel? Love supporting things? Check out the Patreon page:
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
Courageous and interesting presentation, many thanks. Areas like this are always guaranteed to properly upset somebody... because there is almost zero agreement on even the basic terms and what counts as 'the relevant facts'. Its a Scylla/ Charibdis situation. Thanks to the limitiations of language, the singular form of words like 'feminism' etc create the illusion that there is a list of beliefs and evaluations which a bunch of VERY disparate 'feminist' people sign up to! A bit like saying Samoans, Australian Aborigines, and Kenyans are all ''black people' so they share a lot of culture ... or those guys from Antrim with the bowler hats and those guys from Newry with the green bonnets are all equally ''the Irish'', and they all like hats, so they're bound to be on the same frequency. Language almost always defaults to over-simplification - which is why we need poets and philosphers to freshen it up regularly. It is inevitable we'll put our foot in our mouths, but it's better than not talking about or thinking about the big problems. Well done Sir for having a brave go! M :)
Very well put thanks a million Mark!
I would LOVE if you could do I deep dive into Blackpill ideas and the psychology of the incel community. I’ve been doing my own research on it trying to understand it’s arguments impartially. Many other TH-camrs have done their own “analysis’”, but in my opinion lack depth because they are riddled with condescension. The stigma of the incel community has made it difficult to take the Blackpill philosophically seriously, but I do think there are some great arguments and perspectives that could only have originated from the margins of society. Blackpill content is becoming evermore popular on TH-cam, so I feel its imperative that it be addressed seriously. At the very least as an attempt to combat the more extremist and dangerous ideas it’s propagating.
Hmm the thought did cross my mind while making this video and I think I'd have a more sympathetic take on it. I think at some point when I circle back to this topic in future of masculinity that I will get into it more and explore it. I was only reading an article yesterday that mentioned it in passing and couldn't help but call the ideas vile and disgusting and that just set off my curiosity alarms because that's clearly points to something important that's being neglected -our culture's shadow. I'll start taking some notes and exploring the ideas from now but not sure when I'll get around to making the video. Thanks for the nudge along though, it gives me a lot more motivation to get into it
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I really like how you interpreted universal contempt as a flag for our contemporary culture's shadow. It's a pretty wise insight, that had never occurred to me before.
I think the phenomenon of incels is intrinsically linked to changes in gender roles in modern society.
There is a legitimate reason why the incel community exists. But this is not to say that incel ideology has any legitimacy. It doesn't. The incel community is a symptom of a sick culture. It's NOT the cure.
I'm of the opinion that you cannot change what you don't understand. This is why I think we need to understand incel culture. But very few people are trying to do that.
Instead people are falling into the age old pattern of othering and shaming. And to me, this is the biggest mistake humanity is making. It is the one lesson we cannot seem to learn. We claim to have left superstition and magical thinking behind us, and yet we still paint pictures of "Satan" everywhere, constantly.
Until we can have a public discourse that isn't founded on villifying the other, we'll never have a peaceful sustainable world.
@@ahobimo732 Beautifully put Mark I love that line about painting pictures of Satan everywhere. Very on point. There's actually a video on Incels by Contrapoints that I've been meaning to watch. She usually does a very good job at giving an analysis of a topic that isn't condescending and manages to be nuanced rather than self-righteous
Its cool to see the mention, I never thought I'd hear my name on TH-cam.
Honestly I was a little nervous to write the first comment. I was involved in Reddit a decent amount probably 5-10 years ago but eventually the culture there shifted to being more ideologically combative and hive minded rather then explorative and open minded (but still biased). So Im hesitant to want to engage online.
I typically think and speak much clearer when Im in the practice of writing and online provides feedback to push back and expose myself to my weaknesses, lack of understanding, and my own ideological capture.
---
I dont know if this is a change in position exactly, but thinking about it more - I think there is more room for stewardship in business and politics even if I think fundamentally masculine traits are selected like assertiveness and competitiveness because without those how do your ideas influence anything. I think its because I noticed my empathy was in opposition to those traits in the past, but really its because I had no empathy towards myself and demanded perfection and keeping everyone around me happy. Empathy and stewrdship could be included in masculinity but I was blinded as empathy lead me to bad outcomes so emotionally I probably have too much protections to going down the empathetic rabbit hole.
Like it got so bad I could feel the fear in squirrels and rabbits and be put in a bad mood going for walks. Quick summary of my development was I was stunted emotionally till about 12, became too masculine till like 17, became too empathetic til like 25ish, and have been working on reincorporating empathy and selfishness and accepting that it wont be perfect and thats okay but accepting the desire/anxiousness of survival/thriving/self improvement.
(I grew up being bullied by the father figure and household in general; the female figure was a narcissist that was never in the wrong who had to always be pleased and had limited patience so I was trained to stop whatever I was doing to immediately do what was asked) So I saw empathy and masculine traits as more of opposites but as point out by someone in the comment section, the masculine is not devoid of empathy, sympathy, compassion, and other traits (the good king/father archetype).
---
So I think culturally we swung too much demonizing masculine competitiveness and praising agreeableness and empathy. I think as people die off the cultural shift will enter the workplace and politics some more but I also think the younger generations are still battling these thoughts themselves and will shift more unpredictably then the optimists think. I think we are heavier on ideas then practice so learning that not all our ideas are perfect will continue to shift our thoughts on what should or shouldn't be. I dont know where it will land but I keep seeing the theme of becoming our fathers/parents everywhere and people realising its harder to practice their ideology especially when raising kids.
Im in a rush so couldnt proofread too much and g2g.
Wow Aaron thanks for sharing the story and I appreciate the input and the updating of the thoughts. Defintiely more to explore there!
you’re doing a great job, Alice walker is a interesting character very ambitious thinker, writer and theorist. she has fallen short quite a few but her fame in the community means her blunders have been published lol. that last part is just my payback for reading a hefty and terrible book she wrote years ago it still haunts me 😂.
Haha thanks a million vashposh!
One recent significant cultural development is the undermining of the binary of masculine / feminine.
Particularly in the transgender movement (but also within modern feminism and the LGBT+ movement in general), there is a LOT of pushback against the idea that masculine and feminine are legitimate essential qualities that can be described.
And conversely, the recent right-wing documentary "What is a woman" has used this "gender essentialism" angle to attack the trans movement.
So the very idea that "womanism" and "feminism" can even be separated in the way you did in your earlier video is a very controversial issue at the moment.
Personally, I think that these concepts are too psychologically important for us to simply throw them away, but I recognize that they come with a lot of complex baggage that we need to address if we're going to salvage them from their problematic historical context.
Don't really see how it matters when 99% of people can be described in this way
@@canismajoris6733 I think 99% is an exaggeration. I'll grant that the traditional gender labels probably describe MOST people fairly accurately.
But since most people are also pretty fucking boring, I don't see how that's a particularly significant accomplishment.
@@ahobimo732you think pronouns are exciting? I forget them the moment I’m not hassled by that cult as they’re filler words and do not lead to healthy conversations. 3:34 seems to argue semantics which you won’t get anywhere neither, especially letting scam activists speak for everyone.
@@canismajoris6733even if that's true (which it isn't), why do you think the 1% doesn't matter? 1% from 8 billion is 80 million, you're going to exclude all those tons of people?
Thank for very enlightening video. We all here to learn and grow with each other. I was wondering where you this week, I thought you drop videos on Saturday. 💞💯
Hello there this comment popped into my head today and I realised I hadn't responded! Thanks for the comment I usually post on Sunday evening around 6pm GMT but admittedly I haven't been as consistent as of late!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I think for ends up being Sunday..... I live in the States.
@@renaissancefairyowldemon7686 Yeah I think for East coast US it would usually be around 1300 but not sure what it would be for the West...early morning I guess?
Thank you for what you do; you do it well.
Thanks a million Dennis!
Many of the ideas you talked about in your last video and this video sounded familiar to me because Bell Hooks' book the will to change men, masculinity, and love talks about a few of the same ideas. I would be interested to know if you have or haven’t read the book? and your opinion of her ideas?
I feel like I've heard to Bell Hooks but no never read any of her stuff. Sounds interesting
The word "Intersectionality" is such a cop out. All it means is that when you analyse data, you have to be aware of all the variables it contains and that you need to base conclusions based on that. It isn't a thing by itself. It just means that people of one group can also be people of another group. The people that defined the term seem like they don't understand mathematics or statistics.
@@CambrianAnomalocaris So if I’m understanding correctly, intersectionality argues that black women do not experience blackness and womenhood in parallel, but as an amalgamation of the two that is a whole unique experience all on its own? Every apparent consequence of being a women also always involves the consequence of being black, and vice versa.
Yup. The geometric metaphor of 'intersection' is horrible when applied to social theory and praxis. Intersection is quite the opposite of inclusion, so what get's socially intersected tends to be just the lowest common denominator, e.g. victimhood and deeply traumatized superiority-inferiority complex of psyche conditioned by class society and it's pecking orders. And that makes inclusive peer-to-peer cooperation and care of synergetic win-win games very very difficult.
Its not that they don't understand statistics. Its that you don't understand how statistics are used in social theory. You are correct in multiple variable data analysis but not in applying it to social inequality.
Thanks!
I remember asking you to do a video on how we could integrate the real feminism u talked about moving forward but now also after reading ur discussion with Aaron latif I find that comment was kinda dumb n naive... lemme try n explain... I've seen how u discuss daoism n I believe ur perspective on it is kinda naive too... as a person who used to b a daoist(just by listening to the dao de jing for over 5 years rather than reading it )it got me thinking along daoist lines so lemme try n explain... the main view of daoism is through the yin yang symbol which is basically duality... yin is the receptive part of the universe (dark fluid n ever changing ) while yang is the active part(bright solid n never changing )... duality is an imortal concept which is beautifully explained by rava the spirit in the legend of kora... basically they r complementary forces as one gives rise to the other viewed from a perspective of cycles like the season... in this perspective we r basically manifestations of it not the other way round... duality exists n will always exist regardless of humans... in this sense... since the rise of agriculture its been yang being the dominant force in humans... given time yin arises by itself hence the change Aaron described... this change arises naturally n has been so since the dawn of time n so one doesn't have to worry about enacting it... but listening to other teachers(spiritual mainly) n reading other philosophies one can take it further it further n agree humans have the ability to go beyond it by force of will n use duality to their advantage than just being pawns or fully n happily embrace(embrace being a pawn) this great cycle but that ability has to b cultivated to the point its an automatic part of an individual hence the stressing by the writer of the book on meditation in silence to become the dao n go beyond existing n non existing by fully embracing it (which is in known in daoism as the water method)... as in existing, n non existing r natural cycles of the universe... one time it will exist n another it wont so one should not cling to either but enjoy the cycles conciously n use them to their advantage as required by the moment as we r the part of the universe blessed by it enough to willfully do so... just like u... u use fire n water(yang n yin) to ur advantage... u make a video based on an understanding of ur own n post it which is fire or male(active) in u but crowd source knowledge in the form of feedback(as naturally somebody just has something to say bout ur video) which changes ur perception just as u changed the perception of ur viewers in the beginning (me in particular ) which is yin or the female(receptive ) aspect of u... humans just as everything in the universe have both seeds in them the only difference is we can willfully or conciously use these aspects which most other aspects of the universe can't according to my current knowledge (meaning viewing ourselves as free will beings with no solid evidence of other Creatures in existence who can do the same)... I know both chauvinism n feminism r alive n well in both men n women n if we could only look within ourselves n know when to b assertive or yield all things will naturally exist harmoniously... now duality is not the only view as there is nothingness, singularity, trinity, on n on which is the main reason I left daoism as I personally found it very hard to exist in dualistic nature as my nature agrees to something else but the journey is what revealed this that's why I have great respect for this philosophy for pointing me in the right direction... but all in all ur last videos was the greatest thing (ur discussion with Aaron included) as it combined dots in my head that I never was conscious of the existence of their combinations n helped me see things from a whole different perspective... n 4 that I'm forever grateful
Amazing! Great comment Khan!
You're doing great 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 keep going
You seem to be confining yourself to the US.
About masculinity, I don't buy the red knight / white knight theory, but I do believe that women can sense what they want in a man. And if you don't look like you can provide what they want, then you don't connect. There are many exceptions, of course.
You should have a talk with Keith Woods!
I honestly tought the video was great. It perfectly pointed out the problems with our culture and feminism at this moment imo.
In my own country, there was a slight chance of a woman becoming the political leader. And however great that would have been for representation, a first time female leader, she lacked all the female traits that are so sorely lacking in politics. And that would have just added to the problem with politics and our dominant culture and the values it puts on a pedestal, and that females would need to cultivate if they want to suceed. Namely the masculine traits, which imo are not suited well on their own for politics and a healthy society.
And when I say masculine traits, I mean the traits that are more related to the male hormone. And I'm no expert on this, but I think egotism, aggression, strong individuality and such traits are mostly related to testosterone. And these traits sure are great for certain endeavors, but are not well suited for leading a society to a healthy future on their own. They need to be balanced out to create a healthy society that looks after its people and the future, and not just short term political succes of the individual politician.
The feminine traits are much more suited for cultivating a healthy society I think.
Solidarity, amenability, empathy, and putting a group before ones own interests and being sensitive towards other people's needs is just way more likely to happen with these traits than it is with the masculine traits.
And because the dominance of these masculine traits in our culture, these traits have gained te highest value in that culture and have been colored positively as strong, assertive, creative, reliable etc.
But they aren't well suited to create solidarity and solve the biggest problems humanity faces right now as a species.
The masculine traits actually are the cause of our problems. They feed the capitalist, individualistic trajectory we as a species have taken. With little regard for our future and the consequences for others of our actions for personal gain. Polution, exploitation, violence for profit, manipulation for personal gain that leads to polarization and deteriation of democracy and social cohesion.
All sorts of actions that because of a lack of solidarity and focus on selfish gain, harm us all and endanger our future.
So in my opinion, we as a species need a change in what we value in each other. The feminine traits need a re-evaluation and if we are to succeed as a species, feminine traits need a more dominant place in our political environment.
Simply put, we need to re-evaluate masculine and feminine traits, not just for fairness or the sake of women or others who strongly have them, but for the sake of the whole of humanity.
Thanks Jonathan and I agree that we need more of the feminine in the public space though I would say that balance is necessary and we still want those individualistic and competitive elements associated with masculinity, we just want them in healthier balance with the rest of society
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I agree we need a healthy balance, its just going to be very difficult for the feminine traits and their nature to regain space in our current culture I think.
By experience I know how toroughly the masculine traits have infiltrated the minds of women as the superior traits through our culture.
Pretty much all the women I have encountered in my life, had completely embraced the current value judgments about the masculine traits as being exactly what they needed and as being superior to the feminine traits.
Which is to be expected since humans with stronger feminine traits are more likely to be more amenable and accepting to the dominant culture.
But I see it as a very difficult problem to solve.
But I really appreciate your feminism video even more because of that.
Naturally, society has an indisputable right to
protect itself against arrant subjectivisms, but in so far as society is itself composed of de-individualized human beings, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless individualists. Let it band together into groups and organizations as much as it likes it is just this banding together and the resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros joined together do not, unfortunately, add up to one. Ultimately everything depends on the quality of the individual, but our fatally short-sighted age thinks only in terms of large numbers and mass organizations, though one would think that the world had seen more than enough of what a well-disciplined mob can do in the hand of a single madman. (Carl jung, the undiscovered self).
Beauvoir explains the association of feminity with immanence and that's the fault of history
While masculinity is associated with transcendence. These are errors which should be mitigated. Individuality does not have be a masculine trait. I think if cultivated properly under a feminine understanding the sense of individuality could lead to a better future.
Even despotism does not produce its worst effects, so long as Individuality exists under it; and whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called, and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.
Having said that Individuality is the same thing with development, and that it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings, I might here close the argument: for what more or better can be said of any condition of human affairs, than that it brings human beings themselves nearer to the best thing they can be? or what worse can be said of any obstruction to good, than that it prevents this? Doubtless, however, these considerations will not suffice to convince those who most need convincing; and it is necessary further to show, that these developed human beings are of some use to the undeveloped, to point out to those who do not desire liberty, and would not avail themselves of it, that they may be in some intelligible manner rewarded for allowing other people to make use of it without hindrance. (J.S Mill, On liberty)
@@Anicius_ I don't think I subscribe to value judgements as being objective. But I do understand why a society uses and needs sets of overarching values in order to function. But these values themselves, to me have no objectively intrinsic value, besides just facilitating a society. The good and bad value judgements rationally speaking in the context of a society are only as good or as bad as they serve their purpose in helping that society thrive. So they can be seen as having a certain subjective value in relation to the society. But said society might itself be harmful for humanity as a whole and these value judgements, although good for said society, might be bad for humanity's chances as a whole, and in that context, these good values might be bad. And so there are a multitude of different perspectives from which value judgments change, according to the perspective.
So besides value judgements as a human construct just being very subjective and dependent on context, they also just detract from the clarity of reality. So I rather view culture, human behaviour and things of that nature through the lens health, is it healthy for the species or not, or is a certain action the result of a healthy organism, or is it the result of a unhealthy organism. I think thats a much more quantifiable and useful method of measuring behaviour in this analytical context.
And more helpful in comunicating thoughts clearly in this context as well.
Also the only logical conclusion with today's science is that free will and choice dont really exist. So value judgements about behaviour, that is seen rationally as just a summation of one's genes and prior experience, is just a irrational act.
So all the more reason to just stick with healthy or not, since that can be used way more objectively than some moral judgment ever can.
So now free will and actual choice are out of the equation, in order to gain a certain action or behaviour out of an individual or group, there just needs to be a certain stimulus.
Obviously the amount of stimuli and cascades of actions and reactions that constantly influence individuals and groups, makes predicting or steering behaviour largely impossible at this moment in time.
But that doesn't change the fact that stimuli are the only way to change behaviour. And of course morals like so many philosophers talk about can be a stimuli, as can science or religion. But I think it's clear that the current stimuli in our current environment don't deliver the effect we as a species need for our future.
And the way I see it, the dominance of the masculine traits in places of power and decision-making carry a very large part of the responsability for the current development of affairs in the world.
The problems we face today, as in the unhealthy humans exhibiting unhealthy behavior for the species, in my opinion stem from the misalignment between our society, it's culture and the human nature.
The human as a species has evolved to thrive in a certain environment. That environment is far removed from our current one, and as a result we encounter a multitude of problems.
Taking the human out of their smaller scale environment, where close social bonds and strong social control steered them in a direction where the group had priority over the individual, enabled the unhealthy behavioral traits(in context to the group) to thrive.
Humanity just can't adjust to it's new environment in a way where group issues still gain priority over individual goals.
That isn't the man's fault for having masculine traits that enabled this outcome, its just a clumsy outcome of human nature in the post hunter gatherer environment.
And the devaluation of the feminine traits are simple just both the result and the cause of the new environment. They became less useful in the increasing anonimity of an ever growing society and the devaluation of them and of the female as a result exacerbated that reality. And I think as a result of that, we seem to be in the middle of a competition towards climate disaster and who can build the biggest weapons, skyscrapers, biggest pile of cash and fastest vehicles, while people are dying of hunger and preventable decease.
Now that the female has slowly at least partly fought herself back into society on the male's terms, we just need to find a way back towards a place where she can reconquer a spot on her own terms, with faminine traits and hopefully rebalance our environment and culture as much as possible, so it might become a healthier environment for us all to live in.
For in a healthy environment humans will be the healthiest versions of themselves. And that's the best we could hope to be in my opinion.
@@Anicius_ in short, we humans are just the victims of our own talents at this point, the talents that brought us to the top are now the ones that might take us down. And just maybe some femininity could change things. But solidarity among humanity is needed if we are to change course and actually realize some of our true potential. How that solidarity can be achieved, I don't know, but the current systems have failed thus far.
So white knight is conquest, red knight is war, black knight is famine, and the pale green knight not mentioned is Death. Gee, this sounds familiar, wonder where I heard it before? Oh yeah, in the Bible, book of Revelation
6:40 Great example of today's paranoia. Feminism once was a fad (or simply a mean for somebody's end, no matter for this discussion) for some time, but now the fad of the month is LGBTQ, so feminism is not important anymore, because is not"inclusive" enough.
What is the the most funny, the current feminist-zealots are harming women (in most cases) at the end of the day. The best example is MeToo movement. Because of this, women are less preferred as employees, because the risk of hiring one woman who will throw some false rape accusations, outweighs the benefits of having woman as an employee (even if woman would be better on this particular position).
How was feminism a fad ( and now LGBT)??
The goal of feminism used to be equality with men, which was odd, why would a person want to be equal with an "oppressor". Modernity is a house that was built and afforded by male values. Postmodernity is an occupant of that house which provides shelter for and promotes female values. This has always been the purpose of the house in the first place. Feminism wants to live with this standard of living which was afforded by modern patriarchs but now wants to sideline men, believing it can maintain this modern house with postmodern values. Quite entertaining to watch. A little bit like clown show including yellow, green and blue hair.
How many bad apples does it take to reallize the entire basket is rotten?
no idea what you are trying to say here mate....try again...
Don't hold your breath, maybe you should listen to it again you gormless rube
I thought to be very confusing as well. I can't find the previous video mentioned. Seems to be a strictly American discussion.
F nism W ahma ism te$$ issom all the same.