Yeah, but that the guy in red would've descended into babbling insults if it went on for ten more minutes. His last line displayed it, claiming how the set up is not fair for him.
Academia has always been ideological. Science is supposed to describe and analyze, and even then you start with a hypothesis (an idea) and then try to falsify it. The rest of academia has always been about exploring ideas and refining them.
How can you even argue there isn't ideology baked into it when the same people who promote women's studies will laugh at you and do everything they can to stop you if you wanted to create a men's studies course? I've never taken a women's studies class and I can tell you with 100% certainty that it will present modern day feminism as a moral good and completely necessary with zero negative aspects. This is not intellectually honest, it is promoting an ideology and it is baked into women's studies.
Why do we need a men's studies course? Most studies in general involved males, that's one of the reasons women's health is can be so complicated because there just isn't the same amount of research to apply.
@@jamesfinlay6228he didn’t say “need”. He was implying if one were to for any reason it would be squashed as if it were some necessary evil to have a men’s studies. Also studies that involve men are not the studies of men.
@@ShiniGuraiJoker Personally, the anti-male aspect. Feminism has a history of quashing efforts to treat men equally to women as if rights were a zero-sum game. Divorce, birth control, child-custody, bodily integrity, the draft, etc. etc. Men have an issue and feminist organizations belittle it, fight against it, and ultimately end any political movement on it.
It was so refreshing to listen to this discussion. Two young men who are well spoken eloquent, thinking, and respectful of other opinions. Great conversation. Their parents raised some very nice people!
the course is about gender, women are apart of that. & if you understood or read anything in GWS you’d understand how people can transgress their gender or be transgender. read.
Women's studies used to be about women before they were changed to gender studies. I took a women's sexuality course in 2007. The class material was interesting but the professor was completely self absorbed tellus too much about her sex life.
This is a good example of something James Lindsay outlined. To normal people without a critical consciousness or insight into the way the crits think, the ideas all sound reasonable and valuable. This is a manifestation of the crits' constant use of Motte & Bailey. They deceive normies into supporting them by repurposing non-objectionable words, like "inclusion." The student opposite Peter feels compelled to defend Gender Studies because he hasn't yet realized that they are driven by power and revolutionary energy, not by understanding or knowledge seeking.
This is such an ironically clueless comment. Sounds exactly like a gender studies prof, who demonizes all of western culture as having an evil secret agenda behind nice words like democracy, merit or fairness. But it makes sense, since there isn’t much difference between the methods of James Lyndsay and those of the woke gender studies PMC. The guy tells you what books you will never read REALLY mean, never mind what the historians, contemporaries or partisans of those books always said they meant, just subscribe to this guru and he will tell you the truth. Also, since when has revolution become a scary word in America? It’s not saudi arabia, it was literally founded on revolution.
The "grain of salt" comment right at the end highlights the entire problem here. Peter was trying to say that students should be getting all info and being taught how to critically process it all. That guy's response says your info doesn't line up with mine so I will sweep it off the table like a grain of salt. Hence, proving the point that his views/ thinking process are ideologically driven.
I'm pretty sure his comment means the exact opposite. He was saying that he has never been a professor so you should take his own comments with a grain of salt.
I like how the student defended his school. I also hope that before he wastes his college years that he will realize it’s not only useless but harmful to society. Because it paints women as constantly oppressed in a civilization that it’s one of the best for women. Both men and women have been oppressed by other men and women. We should respect each other. You don’t need a degree to learn or practice that.
Yeah- it’s just a bummer these kids don’t see what their future looks like if they get a women’s studies degree. It’s basically just teaching or writing nonsense on terrible dying websites. In the west, we take it for granted that there will always be food and wealth. We need more Elon Musks, not more Ibram x Kendi
@Upticks36-v2u elon musk is as ideologically dogmatic as any of these gender studies majors. probably more. though i would agree that there are less people doing stem degrees and that's a problem. but conservatives have a blame in that along with liberals. why would conservative students - who are most likely to do stem - go to college when conservatives constantly shit on college degrees, and paint these institutions as essentially just one big woke gender studies building?
Oh my god, it's so fucking refreshing to see someone on the left who has put effort into understanding their position enough to make a persuasive argument for it. There's so many times anymore when I want to understand a new topic, and I talk to both sides, and one of them gives me actual arguments, and the other one attacks me as a person for even asking. So I'm left with joining the side that makes a case for themselves, _not knowing if maybe a better case for the other side DOES exist,_ but the vast majority of people on that side are just joining a cultish bandwagon, and don't know it themselves.
Like, for example, I have seen compelling arguments in favor of abortion. They're just extremely rare, because of how many people are screaming that a fetus isn't a human being.
Hey Warren! Just letting you know this video was posted in stereo but the sound is only going through the left channel. Hope that’s a productive comment, haha. Great video!
I completely disagree with the guy on the right in terms of his points, but I must give him kudos for a very strong argumentation, better than Peter's I would argue. I think the student was genuinely addressing the core of the arguments and bringing the discussion back to the question, as well as made points that justify his position relating to that question. While I think Peter ultimately had a better point I think his arguments genuinely failed to address the question of "should universities have gender studies" because he took the question as "should they have those studies as they are now" as opposed to the question's actual content which were if they should have those studies at all. It is a fact that those courses have been and probably will continue to plagued with ideological bias, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a way for them not to. Personally I think the answer to the question is "no because university courses are extremely expensive and time-consuming and just because you're mildly interested in something you should be paying enough money to stay in debt for the rest of your life and spend several years to learn what could only ever amount to bullshit because the entire premise of these courses is precisely that".
Great points. Maybe the question should be about scale. Part of any students life is testing different modes of thinking and those courses could allow you to do that (as would most philosophy / sociology courses). The problem is when disproportionate amounts of people specialise in these degrees
I think there's no denying that this particular field is so biased and driven, that it has a particular mission to change society rather than encouraging learning and free inquiry. I mean, I had philosophy, religion, even biology classes where there was a clear bias going on with the professor, but the professor could argue the alternate viewpoints better than we could or even most books with alternate perspectives. The profs encouraged us to dig and learn for ourselves. THAT dynamic is largely absent from this field they are talking about, and until it can make that shift, it's not a helpful field, in my opinion.
There's a Supreme Court case where justice Kennedy in his opinion talks about "discovering" greater and greater freedoms. That line gave me chills, and not in a good way. As a Law Student I didn't understand why, but now I understand your rights means someone else's restrictions. The "x studies" classes concern me on the level of talking about oppression and freedom without being grounded in responsibility.
It is refreshing to see some adults in college, very well made arguments made that are thought out within context and knowledge and with a openness of learning. I think these videos are extremely valuable, as are the exercises you get people to partake in on campus (or where this happens).
The reason those studies shouldn't exist is basically that the central idea they are based on, gender, doesn't even exist: they took the concept of sexual stereotypes, twisted it assigning it an individual character(which doesn't make sense since it's a concept about how men or women tend to be as a result of chromosomes functioning), and refered to that contradictory idea with the perfect word for manipulation for this case: the verbal inflection that signifies the sex of the person. I repeat: the sex, since the utility of said inflection was a reproductive one in times where(imagine that) people was interested in having children, forming a family and continuing the life cycle.
That's an interesting take on this. I agree that gender is a construct and the term 'gender studies' is therefore potentially problematic; however, using established normative gender ideas as a framework is a useful basis for discussing and critiquing culture and society. I would argue that, because throughout the majority of history in most cultures, the concept of two genders which are largely inseparable from sex (unfortunately) is so prevalent, to not regard it's significance as high is careless. I've not studied 'gender studies' but I do have a degree in Social Anthropology so I did learn a fair amount about gender, sex and culture.
@@djkhemix TH-cam censors my comments when I give my opinion(facts actually) about gender. They probably have a blacklist of words combinations like gender, exists, denial, etc... Very democratic. Not totalitarian at all.
As a blue collar working class person, i honestly do not even agree with that term i am peasant class. i grew up poor white trash and i have not escaped that foundation even though i am now in my 50s. but for me just the fact that people who even get the opportunity to go to College are taking things like Gender Studies, i mean where is the education in courses like that, what is this doing or how is it helping or important in your coming adult life. it just feels like these are courses for intellectuals types that have no need or expectation of having to actually work for a living. if you are someone that is going to have to work for a living then shouldn't you be taking actual educational classes that will somehow apply to earning a living. i have never questioned things like what roll do men or women play in the world or whatever, i am conservative but i have never played into or been taught any sort of archaic stereotypes about what men or women should be doing. where i am and how i grew up people are just people, we are equal in some unsaid way and everyone is just doing what they can to get by. there are more tadeonal male and female roles but nobody is trying to hold anyone or force anyone to those roles. i don't know i just have never understood any reason for those kind of courses or understand what people think they are going to learn from them. i am busy living my own life and trying to get by, and only have time to worry about the men and women in my life that matter to me and i just wish the best for them in whatever they do, which i certainly do not try to control.
Such an underrated comment. Working class women and men have always shared the labour. It's not a competition with each other. It's just what is necessary for survival.
This is the person that complains about the atomization of society yet cannot find purpose or wisdom in the humanity courses. There’s a reason why we are becoming more atomized, it’s because we teach one another to become robotic cogs for the corporate machine versus appreciating and exploring the humanity in one another. And we wonder why families aren’t forming and why society are devolving. Take South Korea for example, probably the country with the worst projected social problem even though they have some of the best STEM mindset. Intelligence and wisdom are two different things, the humanities(including women studies) incorporates the introspective and historical practices of wisdom as to humanize culture instead of atomizing it. The thought that one needs to be a cog in the corporate machine without any critical thinking is the indoctrination of the Neo liberal world belief that have rotted humanity and society into being seen as commodity. The op have done just that by not accounting for the importance of the humanity courses. What is Jordan Peterson if not a product of the humanities?
As a working class guy that opposes gender studies, i disagree with you. There is a big value in a place people can go for a few years , just go think, research, debate, and talk about life, the world, and thinking itself - without doing anything. Without any guarantee it will lead to a job or even a practical result. In fact, what is the point of people breaking their backs everyday to build a society , unless it is one that can afford such a space. Even the ancient world had monasteries.
@@henrytep8884ali agree with you except for including exulting women’s studies, which is a fraudulent , unserious, and bigoted field. Of course, a women’s studies field would be great.
I think a great question for the Strongly Disagree side to ask would have been "What additions to education and humanity have gender studies made that were not already achieved by other fields?" Do not see many feminist engineering or feminist mathematics studies.
it was nice to see actual back and forth discussion. my question would be "what job can i get after college, if i take a women's gender studies course?" isn't that the whole goal of college?
It'd be quite easy to restructure the class. We call this "Anthropology" the study of people and our cultures. "Gender Studies" itself is built out of critical theory and feminism so it will always be with that ideological perspective.
No, the kids is completely correct. He answered the question asked: “should colleges have a womens and genders study course” Peter answered a different question. One of: - are womens and genders studies courses properly implemented - should biased/ideological womens and genders studies courses exist - should womens and gender studies courses exist as they are usually implemented now.
I could agree with 1 course but pretty sure the question was directly or in spirit not a course but a major, which is of course absolutely not. This is already taught in biology. These types of majors are not science but pure politics and ideology devoid of any real science
The first question brought out an issue that can never be fully resolved. Whenever you attempt to instruct a topic that is closely attached to identity, you will have ideology and bias. There is no way to fully escape that issue unless your class is taught by robots.
I really enjoyed this. Both sides were willing to talk, hear others out, and articulate their point somewhat reasonably. This format might actually help save our politics...
It's always a greed and corruption problem, universities do need funding, but if the people teaching there are genuine and true to what their real purpose is, they need to be careful about where those fundings are coming from and if there are any demands attached to them.
These two students epitomize the issue on modern campuses where they think taking low quality sociology classes that don't translate into jobs should be up to the college and the students. This is why student debt is such a problem for so many people because they forget that they have to pay the same amount of money per credit regardless of whether or not it's going to help them monetize their skills in the future. They fill up their debt on empty carbs and then wonder why it gets so fat after 4 years. They're treating college more like a club than an academic institution designed to churn out high skill workers and researchers. To be fair the colleges do this too because they get free money from the govt and institutions that want to push this dreck ideology and they don't have any skin in the game when the student is neck deep in debt and unable to find work with their useless degrees. Sooner or later these colleges are going to have to pay the piper and I predict that a resurgence in Vocational schools in a relatively near future will end up replacing a large portion of these colleges once the woke wake up.
Vocational subjects ought to be put back into public highschool ed. They teach valuable skills regardless of any other type of work one might go on to pursue later.
@@Gingerblaze Agreed. The death of shop and auto body classes (among others) that typically appealed to male students is almost certainly a part of the sharp decline in positive masculinity. Being able to channel your energy and create or repair something functional is fulfilling and gives you a sense of capability to accomplish that is hard to find and often fleeting in other activities.
@@femsplainerI loved my Automotive class as a freshman. I told my dad I wanted to be a mechanic, and he shot it down with "oh, that's not a good job for a girl, you'll always have dirty greasy hands...." Sigh...
They're talking about 2 different things: Peter about the actual implementation of those subjects, the guy about the general idea of studying those subjects.
Credit to the guy arguing in favour of women's studies for having a polite discourse. But Boghossian is speaking from deep experience. He was one of the most active publishers of peer-reviewed papers in the grievance studies in... 2021, was it? Arguing that female gender studies backed by such an echo chamber is valid is indistinguishable from arguing that there should be a white supremacy studies or a male gender studies as long as there's demand for it from the student body. What happens in the sciences is that they teach the theory and then what you do with that engineering, or chemistry, or pure math, or computer science know-how is your problem. (Same with philosophy or law, which is what gender studies would need to resemble first.) In female gender studies you're graded on how wholesale you swallowed the narrative, with bonus marks for making it even more extreme.
4:59 And most importantly, I’d create a classroom where people felt free to disagree; where they would not risk their social capital/ reputation by saying, for example, “I don’t want to get changed in front of a biological male, no matter how he identifies”.
When I was in college, the content I studied & learned was based on demonstrable & repeatable evidence. "(fill in the blank) Studies" classes are not based on evidence. They derive their 'facts' from their ideology--because if they did NOT get it from ideology, then the (fill in the blank) wouldn't be in the title. Case in point: "gender studies" has ideology that "gender" matters and is sufficiently causal to warrant studying. All evidence that contradicts that ideology is antithetical to the existence of the subject, and therefore will not exist in the curriculum. Unlike science, there is no quantitative method in "studies" courses to discover truth. We don't see experiments that are repeatable across time and space. We don't see hypotheses tested with new historical evidence. A hallmark of real disciplines (and hence the term "discipline") is that when a theory is proposed, ALL EFFORT IS MADE to disprove it, tear it down, find fault/error--and if it survives, then it is accepted. That is lacking in fake disciplines like "(fill in the blank) studies." Even non-scientific disciplines like history still test hypotheses. Evidence is collected, theories are proposed, then new & undiscovered examples are sought to test the hypothesis. And when the new evidence contradicts the hypothesis, it is rejected.
Question: how would one display expertise in “gender studies” having been self-taught? You can show you can build a house by building a house, you can show you know how to do surgery… what can you do with gender studies? Other than get a cult following?
💯, plus tax money in grants and loans pays for that claptrap. Can I major in some other woo like Water Witching or Tarot and Astrology? Feel free to do navel gazing outside of what SHOULD be a place educating via factual instruction.
Warren, kudos. The fact that these folks could communicate a cogent point was impressive. This was the type of back and forth that used to exist. Yes, there are disagreements, and they had their opinions. The guy with the sunglasses (Peter?) on his head…just really made a great debate. The guy on the right did too. Get these guys on a collab podcast with you. I’d love to hear this play out more. This will be called sexist, however, I’m truly curious how a woman would have responded. Somehow I feel it wouldn’t have been communicated with either the calmness or clarity just based on what I’ve seen online with most women discussing their support of feminism (at any level).
The amount of social engineering you have to do for a society to start questioning gender roles is honestly beyond me. Is it really a necessary discussion to be had in the US when so many other dire subjects are at hand both domestically and globally?
I of course greatly admire Peter and what he is doing, but I have to say, without further clarification I totally agree with the kid. It seems to me like they are answering two different questions. The statement, “universities should have women’s gender and sexuality studies” is an ideological question as far as I am interpreting it - which I think is the same way the kid was hearing it, too. Should universities have the women’s gender and sexuality studies classes of the kind that they DO have TODAY is the question I think Peter was responding to. It’s like asking if we should have math classes in elementary school - yes, as a matter of principle. But should we teach common core math in elementary school, that’s a different question. Obviously I understand women’s studies is more controversial than math, but it does have a purpose in academia and to some degree in real life (at least in principle). Anyways, it was great seeing the engagement from all sides, but it was a little strange watching them talk at cross purposes.
Hard to believe someone who claims there is no ideology involved in current teaching of gender studies. Seems to me modern gender studies is simply modern feminist ideology. If they are teaching "gender" studies, where are the arguments for traditional male functions?
This was well done. No emotions. All making good points and the other respecting those points and attempting counter arguments. If this is how discourse was conducted across the board, the world would instantly be a 1000 times better.
I'm with the guy who stood in the middle. Not because I think people should be able to study whatever they want without criticism, but because I disagree with the other 2 gentlemen on the outside. I think it's a complete waste of time. Entirely. 100%. I have never, ever seen anything positive, or even neutral come from students in this field. It ALWAYS boils down to people who simply have a beef to pick with 'men' and 'masculinity' and some kind of weird desire to somehow prove that women are actually better than men. Which ANY logical person would look at and say is nonsense, because that's not equality. The idea of combing through human history with the express goal of finding woman who stand out is moronic. Women are humans, men are humans, we should look at every single person's accomplishments equally. These types of people like to paint a picture of 'women in science we historically shunned and silenced because there is only one renowned female scientist amongst dozens of male counterparts'. When the reality of those situations are that there were only a few dozen females even attempting to be scientists and HUNDREDS of men attempting the same thing. So OBVIOUSLY the outstanding female scientists are going to be greatly outnumbered, because there were simply fewer of them.. And that's the same thing with EVERY field in human history. Why are there so few famous female painters? Architects? Theologians? Warriors? Authors? Literally everything has the same answer. But these people want to play pretend and make you think that women throughout all of human history have been equally present in every single profession and the only reason there aren't as many notable ones is 100% the fault of mUh PaTrIaRcHy. The entire field of study is built on a giant lie.
I think blaming the patriarchy for everything is stupid. However, I think we should acknowledge that there was a much higher incentive for men to enter these fields and the gender roles back then did also play a part in this... Nowadays we've made it easier for women and minority groups who have had huge barriers in the past for participating in science, architecture etc. The statistics show that the split between male and female students in natural sciences is relatively 50:50 nowadays. The entire "men are better vs women are better" fight is stupid anyways. The important thing is that individuals are willing to put in the work and study hard.
IQ distribution also comes into play. Like with a lot of traits, females cluster around the average, the Bell curves of males are more spread out. So at the extremes you'll almost exclusively find males. This means that geniuses tend to be male, just as very dumb people are male.
He didn't put forth any point of view. He literally just repeated "you have an issue with this specific implementation of gneder studies, but not the concept". Peter explained 5 different ways how that's not actually true, and the student just kept repeating that same claim on loop in response (as well as constantly casting passive-aggressive asperisions on Peter's motivations).
Damn, no matter who you disagree with, imagine seeing two young people debate with some level of reason and with a manner and tone that's conducive to actual discourse. Good on every person in this video.
Another thing to consider is the fact that getting rid of Gender Studies at universities would cause a big impact on filling future barista positions at coffee shops around the US.
Once we’ve established their stance on the initial question, just have them stand beside each other. This was like watching Bobby Riggs play Billie Jean King.
At 5:30, the gentleman says that a lot of academics are currently critiquing Simone de Bouvoire on her stance over race. But, young sir, if we stay on topic, we're discussing the issue of women's studies and sexuality, not matters of race. You haven't mentioned that people are critiquing her on her second or third wave feminism. If that is the case, then let us stick to THAT, please.
The main difference between 2nd and 3rd wave feminism is about being more intersectional and including discussions of race, class, sexuality etc.. so critiques of Simone de Bouvoire because of race are 3rd wave feminist critiques.
I haven't taken a women's study course. I do know however that SOME professors are not always open to discuss other points of view. Please let me know when there is a men's study course. I'm sure we will need one soon.
Warren is great addition to the channel!
Lol you're on Warren's channel!
Did Warren have a channel without Warren?
before Warren was added to his own channel it was called . But nobody watched it because it was hard to type that in the search bar
@@LogosOfBabylon oh man, you ever try to search for episodes of the show Episodes …it's maddening!!
@@LogosOfBabylon Can't believe I just tried to highlight that or click it to see if that was spoiler text in a TH-cam comment.
Nice to see a debate like that without anyone screaming at them!
Agreed. I was half way expecting some histrionics.
Yeah, but that the guy in red would've descended into babbling insults if it went on for ten more minutes. His last line displayed it, claiming how the set up is not fair for him.
Thats because its only Evil White Men
@@CaptainSlapaDomeYou don’t know that. Instead, focus on the arguments he laid out.
2 mature men having a respectable debate.
It's so refreshing to hear genuine honest debate. I have been educated.
Extremely simple answer: academia is supposed to describe and analyze what is, not craft and promote ideology.
Academia has always been ideological. Science is supposed to describe and analyze, and even then you start with a hypothesis (an idea) and then try to falsify it.
The rest of academia has always been about exploring ideas and refining them.
@@AnimusVoxPopuli Even the sciences are dominated by orthodoxy. Higher academics have lost their purpose, it's not like it was in the Renaissance
It boils down to how root cause analysis leads to long term solutions.
So fuck all of western philosophy and medicine then, huh?
What IS ideology to you, anyway.
The Peter/Warren hookup was an excellent idea . Great discussions
How can you even argue there isn't ideology baked into it when the same people who promote women's studies will laugh at you and do everything they can to stop you if you wanted to create a men's studies course? I've never taken a women's studies class and I can tell you with 100% certainty that it will present modern day feminism as a moral good and completely necessary with zero negative aspects. This is not intellectually honest, it is promoting an ideology and it is baked into women's studies.
Like an intolerant cult.
Why do we need a men's studies course? Most studies in general involved males, that's one of the reasons women's health is can be so complicated because there just isn't the same amount of research to apply.
@@jamesfinlay6228he didn’t say “need”. He was implying if one were to for any reason it would be squashed as if it were some necessary evil to have a men’s studies. Also studies that involve men are not the studies of men.
If you have never taken a course, how do you know all teach such claims?
I am also curious what part of feminism ideology do you oppose?
@@ShiniGuraiJoker Personally, the anti-male aspect. Feminism has a history of quashing efforts to treat men equally to women as if rights were a zero-sum game. Divorce, birth control, child-custody, bodily integrity, the draft, etc. etc. Men have an issue and feminist organizations belittle it, fight against it, and ultimately end any political movement on it.
It was so refreshing to listen to this discussion. Two young men who are well spoken eloquent, thinking, and respectful of other opinions. Great conversation. Their parents raised some very nice people!
Why have courses on women if the academic consensus is that anyone can be a woman?
You win.
the course is about gender, women are apart of that. & if you understood or read anything in GWS you’d understand how people can transgress their gender or be transgender. read.
Women's studies used to be about women before they were changed to gender studies. I took a women's sexuality course in 2007. The class material was interesting but the professor was completely self absorbed tellus too much about her sex life.
@matthewcortecero703 read nonsense you say. No thanks.
Your conclusion does not follow from the premise
Love seeing Peter and Warren working together! Excellent idea.
I can't remember the last time I saw two people pay that much attention to what the other is actually saying.
Bravo!
This is a good example of something James Lindsay outlined. To normal people without a critical consciousness or insight into the way the crits think, the ideas all sound reasonable and valuable. This is a manifestation of the crits' constant use of Motte & Bailey. They deceive normies into supporting them by repurposing non-objectionable words, like "inclusion." The student opposite Peter feels compelled to defend Gender Studies because he hasn't yet realized that they are driven by power and revolutionary energy, not by understanding or knowledge seeking.
Yep.
This is such an ironically clueless comment. Sounds exactly like a gender studies prof, who demonizes all of western culture as having an evil secret agenda behind nice words like democracy, merit or fairness. But it makes sense, since there isn’t much difference between the methods of James Lyndsay and those of the woke gender studies PMC. The guy tells you what books you will never read REALLY mean, never mind what the historians, contemporaries or partisans of those books always said they meant, just subscribe to this guru and he will tell you the truth. Also, since when has revolution become a scary word in America? It’s not saudi arabia, it was literally founded on revolution.
I'm always curious about what kind of jobs a Gender Studies degree qualifies you for besides something in academia.
You exhausted the list of job opportunities in your example.
Office work temping?
HR and DEI constants
Human Resources. That way you can annoy A Lot Of People.
Barista. But you’ll still need some ojt
The "grain of salt" comment right at the end highlights the entire problem here.
Peter was trying to say that students should be getting all info and being taught how to critically process it all. That guy's response says your info doesn't line up with mine so I will sweep it off the table like a grain of salt. Hence, proving the point that his views/ thinking process are ideologically driven.
As someone who agrees with Peter, I don't think he argued his point very well, unfortunately
@@wjdeoliveira3809fair comment. He could have said gender/women's study is fine as a PhD but not an entire course.
@@wjdeoliveira3809how would you have made his arguments better in short answers?
I'm pretty sure his comment means the exact opposite. He was saying that he has never been a professor so you should take his own comments with a grain of salt.
@@bucketheadkfc you could be right, maybe he did mean it that way. I re-listened to it and I still think it was about the entire convo though.
“Inherently pejorative” is the most sophisticated thought terminating cliche yet.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Where was it inherited from?!
a debate about gender with intelligent question and focused answers
without ad hominem?
it tugs at the fabric of reality, for sure.
I do think the brown shirt was a little bit in his feels, though.
might be so, but he still did'nt derail it with all over the top stances.
I like how the student defended his school. I also hope that before he wastes his college years that he will realize it’s not only useless but harmful to society. Because it paints women as constantly oppressed in a civilization that it’s one of the best for women. Both men and women have been oppressed by other men and women. We should respect each other. You don’t need a degree to learn or practice that.
I think the guy needs a two-week trip to a M****m nation, to see what so-called 'oppression' really is.
Did you go to Williams College?
Yeah- it’s just a bummer these kids don’t see what their future looks like if they get a women’s studies degree. It’s basically just teaching or writing nonsense on terrible dying websites. In the west, we take it for granted that there will always be food and wealth. We need more Elon Musks, not more Ibram x Kendi
@Upticks36-v2u elon musk is as ideologically dogmatic as any of these gender studies majors. probably more. though i would agree that there are less people doing stem degrees and that's a problem. but conservatives have a blame in that along with liberals. why would conservative students - who are most likely to do stem - go to college when conservatives constantly shit on college degrees, and paint these institutions as essentially just one big woke gender studies building?
Let’s be honest Warren needs a million subs. This is quality, his single videos are quality.
Oh my god, it's so fucking refreshing to see someone on the left who has put effort into understanding their position enough to make a persuasive argument for it.
There's so many times anymore when I want to understand a new topic, and I talk to both sides, and one of them gives me actual arguments, and the other one attacks me as a person for even asking. So I'm left with joining the side that makes a case for themselves, _not knowing if maybe a better case for the other side DOES exist,_ but the vast majority of people on that side are just joining a cultish bandwagon, and don't know it themselves.
Like, for example, I have seen compelling arguments in favor of abortion. They're just extremely rare, because of how many people are screaming that a fetus isn't a human being.
Hey Warren! Just letting you know this video was posted in stereo but the sound is only going through the left channel. Hope that’s a productive comment, haha. Great video!
I thought my headphones were done for till I started another video
@@Mearl55 I normally only listen with my right earbud in, so I was also worried until I realized.
I completely disagree with the guy on the right in terms of his points, but I must give him kudos for a very strong argumentation, better than Peter's I would argue. I think the student was genuinely addressing the core of the arguments and bringing the discussion back to the question, as well as made points that justify his position relating to that question. While I think Peter ultimately had a better point I think his arguments genuinely failed to address the question of "should universities have gender studies" because he took the question as "should they have those studies as they are now" as opposed to the question's actual content which were if they should have those studies at all. It is a fact that those courses have been and probably will continue to plagued with ideological bias, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a way for them not to.
Personally I think the answer to the question is "no because university courses are extremely expensive and time-consuming and just because you're mildly interested in something you should be paying enough money to stay in debt for the rest of your life and spend several years to learn what could only ever amount to bullshit because the entire premise of these courses is precisely that".
agreed
Completely agree!
Agree
Great points. Maybe the question should be about scale. Part of any students life is testing different modes of thinking and those courses could allow you to do that (as would most philosophy / sociology courses). The problem is when disproportionate amounts of people specialise in these degrees
I wish all debates were as cordial as yours.
I think there's no denying that this particular field is so biased and driven, that it has a particular mission to change society rather than encouraging learning and free inquiry. I mean, I had philosophy, religion, even biology classes where there was a clear bias going on with the professor, but the professor could argue the alternate viewpoints better than we could or even most books with alternate perspectives. The profs encouraged us to dig and learn for ourselves. THAT dynamic is largely absent from this field they are talking about, and until it can make that shift, it's not a helpful field, in my opinion.
There's a Supreme Court case where justice Kennedy in his opinion talks about "discovering" greater and greater freedoms. That line gave me chills, and not in a good way.
As a Law Student I didn't understand why, but now I understand your rights means someone else's restrictions.
The "x studies" classes concern me on the level of talking about oppression and freedom without being grounded in responsibility.
My left ear loves this discussion
Thank you so much, thought it was my earbuds!
It is refreshing to see some adults in college, very well made arguments made that are thought out within context and knowledge and with a openness of learning. I think these videos are extremely valuable, as are the exercises you get people to partake in on campus (or where this happens).
This is the first time I’ve heard a student think rather than recite. This man offers hope for rationality.
Great content for my left ear. (== right channel is muted)
Was wondering if it was just me. Sucks cause I listen to this at work usually my left ear needs to be open
I had on only my right earbud and I was thinking "why no one say in the comments that the video is muted"
The reason those studies shouldn't exist is basically that the central idea they are based on, gender, doesn't even exist: they took the concept of sexual stereotypes, twisted it assigning it an individual character(which doesn't make sense since it's a concept about how men or women tend to be as a result of chromosomes functioning), and refered to that contradictory idea with the perfect word for manipulation for this case: the verbal inflection that signifies the sex of the person. I repeat: the sex, since the utility of said inflection was a reproductive one in times where(imagine that) people was interested in having children, forming a family and continuing the life cycle.
That's an interesting take on this. I agree that gender is a construct and the term 'gender studies' is therefore potentially problematic; however, using established normative gender ideas as a framework is a useful basis for discussing and critiquing culture and society. I would argue that, because throughout the majority of history in most cultures, the concept of two genders which are largely inseparable from sex (unfortunately) is so prevalent, to not regard it's significance as high is careless. I've not studied 'gender studies' but I do have a degree in Social Anthropology so I did learn a fair amount about gender, sex and culture.
@@djkhemix TH-cam censors my comments when I give my opinion(facts actually) about gender. They probably have a blacklist of words combinations like gender, exists, denial, etc... Very democratic. Not totalitarian at all.
@@djkhemix The Ministry of Truth censored my reply. Nothing incendiary, just facts.
A tree is judged by its fruits. What is the fruit of the Feminist Tree?
Warren and Peter are a perfect team!
It's rotten fruit.
As a blue collar working class person, i honestly do not even agree with that term i am peasant class. i grew up poor white trash and i have not escaped that foundation even though i am now in my 50s. but for me just the fact that people who even get the opportunity to go to College are taking things like Gender Studies, i mean where is the education in courses like that, what is this doing or how is it helping or important in your coming adult life. it just feels like these are courses for intellectuals types that have no need or expectation of having to actually work for a living. if you are someone that is going to have to work for a living then shouldn't you be taking actual educational classes that will somehow apply to earning a living.
i have never questioned things like what roll do men or women play in the world or whatever, i am conservative but i have never played into or been taught any sort of archaic stereotypes about what men or women should be doing. where i am and how i grew up people are just people, we are equal in some unsaid way and everyone is just doing what they can to get by. there are more tadeonal male and female roles but nobody is trying to hold anyone or force anyone to those roles. i don't know i just have never understood any reason for those kind of courses or understand what people think they are going to learn from them. i am busy living my own life and trying to get by, and only have time to worry about the men and women in my life that matter to me and i just wish the best for them in whatever they do, which i certainly do not try to control.
Such an underrated comment. Working class women and men have always shared the labour. It's not a competition with each other. It's just what is necessary for survival.
This is the person that complains about the atomization of society yet cannot find purpose or wisdom in the humanity courses. There’s a reason why we are becoming more atomized, it’s because we teach one another to become robotic cogs for the corporate machine versus appreciating and exploring the humanity in one another. And we wonder why families aren’t forming and why society are devolving. Take South Korea for example, probably the country with the worst projected social problem even though they have some of the best STEM mindset. Intelligence and wisdom are two different things, the humanities(including women studies) incorporates the introspective and historical practices of wisdom as to humanize culture instead of atomizing it. The thought that one needs to be a cog in the corporate machine without any critical thinking is the indoctrination of the Neo liberal world belief that have rotted humanity and society into being seen as commodity. The op have done just that by not accounting for the importance of the humanity courses. What is Jordan Peterson if not a product of the humanities?
@@Gingerblazeyeah that’s the basis of class solidarity, a Marxist belief
As a working class guy that opposes gender studies, i disagree with you. There is a big value in a place people can go for a few years , just go think, research, debate, and talk about life, the world, and thinking itself - without doing anything. Without any guarantee it will lead to a job or even a practical result. In fact, what is the point of people breaking their backs everyday to build a society , unless it is one that can afford such a space. Even the ancient world had monasteries.
@@henrytep8884ali agree with you except for including exulting women’s studies, which is a fraudulent , unserious, and bigoted field. Of course, a women’s studies field would be great.
I think a great question for the Strongly Disagree side to ask would have been "What additions to education and humanity have gender studies made that were not already achieved by other fields?"
Do not see many feminist engineering or feminist mathematics studies.
Love the respect that they show each other, it's wonderful to see an actual discussion instead of people screaming at each other.
it was nice to see actual back and forth discussion. my question would be "what job can i get after college, if i take a women's gender studies course?" isn't that the whole goal of college?
Thanks!
Amazing what a respectful, civilized discussion and exchange of ideas has to offer us humans.
Well done 👏👏
It'd be quite easy to restructure the class. We call this "Anthropology" the study of people and our cultures. "Gender Studies" itself is built out of critical theory and feminism so it will always be with that ideological perspective.
No, the kids is completely correct.
He answered the question asked: “should colleges have a womens and genders study course”
Peter answered a different question. One of:
- are womens and genders studies courses properly implemented
- should biased/ideological womens and genders studies courses exist
- should womens and gender studies courses exist as they are usually implemented now.
I could agree with 1 course but pretty sure the question was directly or in spirit not a course but a major, which is of course absolutely not. This is already taught in biology. These types of majors are not science but pure politics and ideology devoid of any real science
The question could have been worded more carefully, I agree.
Peter gave reasons for why there shouldn't be. If there isn't a non ideological/biased curriculum, the class shouldn't exist.
Your mic offering stance is impeccable.
The first question brought out an issue that can never be fully resolved. Whenever you attempt to instruct a topic that is closely attached to identity, you will have ideology and bias. There is no way to fully escape that issue unless your class is taught by robots.
I really enjoyed this.
Both sides were willing to talk, hear others out, and articulate their point somewhat reasonably.
This format might actually help save our politics...
It's always a greed and corruption problem, universities do need funding, but if the people teaching there are genuine and true to what their real purpose is, they need to be careful about where those fundings are coming from and if there are any demands attached to them.
LOVE this collab 👍
These two students epitomize the issue on modern campuses where they think taking low quality sociology classes that don't translate into jobs should be up to the college and the students. This is why student debt is such a problem for so many people because they forget that they have to pay the same amount of money per credit regardless of whether or not it's going to help them monetize their skills in the future. They fill up their debt on empty carbs and then wonder why it gets so fat after 4 years.
They're treating college more like a club than an academic institution designed to churn out high skill workers and researchers. To be fair the colleges do this too because they get free money from the govt and institutions that want to push this dreck ideology and they don't have any skin in the game when the student is neck deep in debt and unable to find work with their useless degrees. Sooner or later these colleges are going to have to pay the piper and I predict that a resurgence in Vocational schools in a relatively near future will end up replacing a large portion of these colleges once the woke wake up.
Vocational subjects ought to be put back into public highschool ed. They teach valuable skills regardless of any other type of work one might go on to pursue later.
@@Gingerblaze Agreed. The death of shop and auto body classes (among others) that typically appealed to male students is almost certainly a part of the sharp decline in positive masculinity. Being able to channel your energy and create or repair something functional is fulfilling and gives you a sense of capability to accomplish that is hard to find and often fleeting in other activities.
@@femsplainerI loved my Automotive class as a freshman. I told my dad I wanted to be a mechanic, and he shot it down with "oh, that's not a good job for a girl, you'll always have dirty greasy hands...." Sigh...
They're talking about 2 different things: Peter about the actual implementation of those subjects, the guy about the general idea of studying those subjects.
Agree 100%, which is why the discussion went nowhere. Brown shirt guy had it right.
Incredible you are with Peter!! Great to see!! You belong here!!
I LOVED this debate. Also I'm so happy Warren is in these videos with Peter now!
Credit to the guy arguing in favour of women's studies for having a polite discourse.
But Boghossian is speaking from deep experience. He was one of the most active publishers of peer-reviewed papers in the grievance studies in... 2021, was it?
Arguing that female gender studies backed by such an echo chamber is valid is indistinguishable from arguing that there should be a white supremacy studies or a male gender studies as long as there's demand for it from the student body.
What happens in the sciences is that they teach the theory and then what you do with that engineering, or chemistry, or pure math, or computer science know-how is your problem. (Same with philosophy or law, which is what gender studies would need to resemble first.)
In female gender studies you're graded on how wholesale you swallowed the narrative, with bonus marks for making it even more extreme.
4:59 And most importantly, I’d create a classroom where people felt free to disagree; where they would not risk their social capital/ reputation by saying, for example, “I don’t want to get changed in front of a biological male, no matter how he identifies”.
When I was in college, the content I studied & learned was based on demonstrable & repeatable evidence.
"(fill in the blank) Studies" classes are not based on evidence. They derive their 'facts' from their ideology--because if they did NOT get it from ideology, then the (fill in the blank) wouldn't be in the title. Case in point: "gender studies" has ideology that "gender" matters and is sufficiently causal to warrant studying. All evidence that contradicts that ideology is antithetical to the existence of the subject, and therefore will not exist in the curriculum.
Unlike science, there is no quantitative method in "studies" courses to discover truth. We don't see experiments that are repeatable across time and space. We don't see hypotheses tested with new historical evidence. A hallmark of real disciplines (and hence the term "discipline") is that when a theory is proposed, ALL EFFORT IS MADE to disprove it, tear it down, find fault/error--and if it survives, then it is accepted. That is lacking in fake disciplines like "(fill in the blank) studies."
Even non-scientific disciplines like history still test hypotheses. Evidence is collected, theories are proposed, then new & undiscovered examples are sought to test the hypothesis. And when the new evidence contradicts the hypothesis, it is rejected.
For the love of headphone users, Warren, please use mono sound
That's one I can strongly agree with because my left ear is still ringing after watching while my right ear had a vacation.
This reminds me of a collective of broken machines trying to break things that are not perfect. Would make a good Star Trek episode.
Question: how would one display expertise in “gender studies” having been self-taught?
You can show you can build a house by building a house, you can show you know how to do surgery… what can you do with gender studies? Other than get a cult following?
💯, plus tax money in grants and loans pays for that claptrap. Can I major in some other woo like Water Witching or Tarot and Astrology? Feel free to do navel gazing outside of what SHOULD be a place educating via factual instruction.
trust me, as soon as they open their mouths, you will know they've taken gender studies...
Warren, kudos. The fact that these folks could communicate a cogent point was impressive. This was the type of back and forth that used to exist. Yes, there are disagreements, and they had their opinions. The guy with the sunglasses (Peter?) on his head…just really made a great debate. The guy on the right did too. Get these guys on a collab podcast with you. I’d love to hear this play out more. This will be called sexist, however, I’m truly curious how a woman would have responded. Somehow I feel it wouldn’t have been communicated with either the calmness or clarity just based on what I’ve seen online with most women discussing their support of feminism (at any level).
Wow. Just wow.
Amazing discussion from all three participants.
Probably should check the audio to make sure it's stereo before uploading.
Two of my favorite TH-cam Thinkers!
Keep working together, gentlemen!
We can only benefit from you two putting your heads together !
Wow, these guys actually brought some solid questions and points. Great discussion, gents! It's like a throwback!
And! I was a Women's studies major 20 years ago! My god, what a crazy path we've had
Great conversation guys thank you ❤❤❤
The amount of social engineering you have to do for a society to start questioning gender roles is honestly beyond me. Is it really a necessary discussion to be had in the US when so many other dire subjects are at hand both domestically and globally?
really fantastic job here. peter is great. would love to see more of u doing his street epistemology method, with or without him.
I only had my right ear bud in and I was deeply confused by why there was no audio.
I of course greatly admire Peter and what he is doing, but I have to say, without further clarification I totally agree with the kid.
It seems to me like they are answering two different questions. The statement, “universities should have women’s gender and sexuality studies” is an ideological question as far as I am interpreting it - which I think is the same way the kid was hearing it, too. Should universities have the women’s gender and sexuality studies classes of the kind that they DO have TODAY is the question I think Peter was responding to.
It’s like asking if we should have math classes in elementary school - yes, as a matter of principle. But should we teach common core math in elementary school, that’s a different question. Obviously I understand women’s studies is more controversial than math, but it does have a purpose in academia and to some degree in real life (at least in principle).
Anyways, it was great seeing the engagement from all sides, but it was a little strange watching them talk at cross purposes.
They are beginning to understand that labeling themself as an ideology is an admission of magical thinking.
This was the BEST one yet. Very thoughtful answers from the students that made me rethink my own position. Bravo!
Hard to believe someone who claims there is no ideology involved in current teaching of gender studies. Seems to me modern gender studies is simply modern feminist ideology. If they are teaching "gender" studies, where are the arguments for traditional male functions?
Audio isnt mono
This was well done. No emotions. All making good points and the other respecting those points and attempting counter arguments. If this is how discourse was conducted across the board, the world would instantly be a 1000 times better.
Thank you! It's nice to see a reasonable debate. Gives me some hope. ❤
what a farce to even have a discussion on gender studies.
...wow... this was delightfully rare... an actual intelligent discussion between opposing "factions"...
I'm with the guy who stood in the middle. Not because I think people should be able to study whatever they want without criticism, but because I disagree with the other 2 gentlemen on the outside. I think it's a complete waste of time. Entirely. 100%. I have never, ever seen anything positive, or even neutral come from students in this field. It ALWAYS boils down to people who simply have a beef to pick with 'men' and 'masculinity' and some kind of weird desire to somehow prove that women are actually better than men. Which ANY logical person would look at and say is nonsense, because that's not equality.
The idea of combing through human history with the express goal of finding woman who stand out is moronic. Women are humans, men are humans, we should look at every single person's accomplishments equally. These types of people like to paint a picture of 'women in science we historically shunned and silenced because there is only one renowned female scientist amongst dozens of male counterparts'. When the reality of those situations are that there were only a few dozen females even attempting to be scientists and HUNDREDS of men attempting the same thing. So OBVIOUSLY the outstanding female scientists are going to be greatly outnumbered, because there were simply fewer of them..
And that's the same thing with EVERY field in human history. Why are there so few famous female painters? Architects? Theologians? Warriors? Authors? Literally everything has the same answer. But these people want to play pretend and make you think that women throughout all of human history have been equally present in every single profession and the only reason there aren't as many notable ones is 100% the fault of mUh PaTrIaRcHy. The entire field of study is built on a giant lie.
I think blaming the patriarchy for everything is stupid. However, I think we should acknowledge that there was a much higher incentive for men to enter these fields and the gender roles back then did also play a part in this...
Nowadays we've made it easier for women and minority groups who have had huge barriers in the past for participating in science, architecture etc.
The statistics show that the split between male and female students in natural sciences is relatively 50:50 nowadays.
The entire "men are better vs women are better" fight is stupid anyways. The important thing is that individuals are willing to put in the work and study hard.
IQ distribution also comes into play. Like with a lot of traits, females cluster around the average, the Bell curves of males are more spread out. So at the extremes you'll almost exclusively find males. This means that geniuses tend to be male, just as very dumb people are male.
This is amazing.. as far as I could tell nobody is trying to have a real conversation but here it is
I want to give this student credit. His argues his point of view effectively and rationally vs. a sharp interlocutor.
He didn't put forth any point of view. He literally just repeated "you have an issue with this specific implementation of gneder studies, but not the concept". Peter explained 5 different ways how that's not actually true, and the student just kept repeating that same claim on loop in response (as well as constantly casting passive-aggressive asperisions on Peter's motivations).
So refreshing to see college kids thinking critically and speaking eloquently-Van Halen, especially.
I am only hearing the audio in the left channel.
I love the resting face of "hmm. Interesting."
Get James Lindsay on here for this topic!
Damn, no matter who you disagree with, imagine seeing two young people debate with some level of reason and with a manner and tone that's conducive to actual discourse. Good on every person in this video.
Another thing to consider is the fact that getting rid of Gender Studies at universities would cause a big impact on filling future barista positions at coffee shops around the US.
This was fantastic. Both sides made well-thought out, reasoned points.
College is for education. Not necessarily for the students preferences.
Maybe mics for everyone? Or stand closer together? Props to the college students for the way they conducted themselves.
cool discussion but title is misleading, they're not gs students
I really like this. It gives really open dialogue and flow of idea / argument. Its awesome!
7:05 Yep, this right here is exactly the problem. Overton window.
Society has progressed since the Greeks? I disagree.
love seeing real debates!
Once we’ve established their stance on the initial question, just have them stand beside each other. This was like watching Bobby Riggs play Billie Jean King.
This was a great clip.
There's an old Korean proverb "a man can conquer the world and a woman can conquer that man".
It’s nice to see college kids who can form ideas and not just scream
Warren, I love your openness and neutrality here. Do more!
Someone please explain the mechanism for transcending chromosomes.
Audio for this video is only coming in on the left channel.
At 5:30, the gentleman says that a lot of academics are currently critiquing Simone de Bouvoire on her stance over race. But, young sir, if we stay on topic, we're discussing the issue of women's studies and sexuality, not matters of race. You haven't mentioned that people are critiquing her on her second or third wave feminism. If that is the case, then let us stick to THAT, please.
The main difference between 2nd and 3rd wave feminism is about being more intersectional and including discussions of race, class, sexuality etc.. so critiques of Simone de Bouvoire because of race are 3rd wave feminist critiques.
YES! You can never be woke enough for this crowd. CacklePants said it, “woke, woke, wokest…just be more woke.”
The students had really good objections and arguments to Peter on the base concept of the question.
I'd like to see the gender studies curriculum and book list.
I haven't taken a women's study course. I do know however that SOME professors are not always open to discuss other points of view. Please let me know when there is a men's study course. I'm sure we will need one soon.
So the pro gender studies guy ended with I don’t have any arguments but I don’t trust you , yeah not an ideology for sure….
Women have a choice after conception. So should men. End forced child support. Discrimination based on sex is illegal. Men deserve equal rights!