I've actually been converted to Carl Benjamin's theory that the Barbie movie is either a subtle yet harsh critique of feminism, or an accidental criticism of feminism via following flawed premises to their logical conclusion.
The people who know Greta seem to think the movie is actually a criticism of feminism, while those who don't just see it as propaganda. I have no clue who's right though, because the movie itself seems confused about what it is.
Sounds like we were the ones that controlled the access to sex all along! /s Not that I really gave much credit to that theory, "women control access to sex, men control access to relationships". It should be clear to anyone that everyone controls the access to themselves, so both parties control the access to the sex and the relationship and must make an agreement to utilize that access. I mean, just because I'm a man doesn't mean any woman can have her way with me, and I can't gain control over her life or force her into a relationship.
@@GBDupree on an individual basis you're right. But the market forces of supply and demand make "women control access to sex" generally true and "men control access to relationships" somewhat true. If only there was some solution that worked for both parties. Like people not having sex before they get married at 20.
It's a balance somewhat. Since guys prefer youth in a mate and women prefer resources in one, sex life starts out tough for young men but typically gets easier with age. Women start out getting all the attention they want (and often far more than they want) but struggle to get any late in life, if they aren't involved or married.
In the mid-2010s, I saw feminism as silly when it declared war on itself over an unwinnable question; If a man declares himself to be a woman and society agrees, is that an example of male privilege? I love posting that question on facebook and watching feminists rip into each other.
Feminism has been nothing but gender communism ever since the "Declaration of Sentiments" by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1848. You can find this very brief document very easily on Google. Approximately 300 women signed it at the Seneca Falls Convention, and ever since the driving theory of the movement has been to create a class divide between men (the bourgeoisie) and women (the proletariat). The document begins by Plagiarizing the Declaration of Independence (literally takes the "we hold these truths to be self evident" passage and only changes "men" to "men and women") and uses this as a basis to justify communist theory ("The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her."). It lists several "facts" that are all issues that have been modified through legislation in subsequent years (like voting rights, equal pay, property ownership in marriage, etc.), and presents them in the most vilifying way possible. Naturally, the document doesn't provide any defense of or rationale for these policies, all of which were imposed on women for their protection and benefit. I could write a dissertation for how wrong this worldview is, but that's a story for another comment. In other words, the Declaration of Sentiments is typical of other socialistic works, facile arguments to justify an unrealistic worldview by demonizing public policies they want abolished. I point this out to echo MentisWave's observation that most of feminism's arguments can be debunked by challenging leftist economics. At it's core Feminism has always been based on the same worldview as other left-wing movements, which is why the arguments are so deeply intertwined. People like to say they support earlier "waves" of feminism, but this is really a convoluted mind game to separate ideas that people generally support from ideas that make it abundantly clear that Feminism is and always has been a supremacy movement. This is also the same tactic Feminists are using with labels like "sex-positive", "sex-negative", and "TERF". Given this, it's unsurprising that men would aspire to be women, and it is indeed hilarious watching all the logical knots that feminists have to tie themselves into in order to avoid admitting that they are a supremacy movement that doesn't care about equality, just like other forms of socialism.
I usually ask this: If a boy puts on a dress, you declare him being trans. You say that tomboys are not women. Why are you upholding gender stereotypes?
I don't know bro. There was the scene at the end where Barbie talks Ruth Handler (the creator of Barbie, or in her case, literally God), and she's asked what she wants to be. A compilation of happy children plays and she says "I know". Deadass conservative message about motherhood at the end of the movie. @@Kydino
Using reason to convince people is the best approach in principle, but unfortunately, humans in general (women and men) tend to be more emotional than logical.
@@conjurezero9745Then learn to weaponize that emotion just like the woketoids do. I'm sorry, I'm not about to sit on "mUh MoRaL HiGh GroUnD" as my entire nation burns around me, culturally and literally, because communists want one more chance at their failed, dogwater totalitarian ideology. Is there anything wrong with that? Because at the end of the day, I'm just rationally making the choice to use specific emotional responses from people into driving my preferred cultural norms forward, based purely on observations that doing so would be most effective. If we accept that at least 8/10 humans follow emotion more than logic, shouldn't we just try to find better ways to appeal that way? It almost seems that you're specifically choosing to fail if you go about it the sterile, pure-logic way. Cicero said that courts don't really rely on hard facts and that the best orator would win most cases as courts are driven by human emotion rather than logic. He was also one of the most successful orators and businessmen of Rome, so I think he might have been onto something.
The barbie movie’s criticism of feminism almost seems like an accident, the way Squid Game ended up being an excellent critique of communism. I know all the actors who starred in it are pretty big feminists themselves but there’s too many jokes that poke fun of modern feminism to ignore. A good one being when Ken learns about “The Patriarchy” and tries to apply for all these important jobs, only to be turned down, not cause he’s a man, but because he doesn’t have the qualifications. Even some of the people that turn him down are women. It’s a slap in the face to the idea of patriarchy and I’m not sure the filmmakers even picked up on it
Queen Victoria lived during the "first wave" and she openly called it out as toxic and degenerate. And none of them were ever able to criticize her for it.
Even first-wave? As far as I understand, it fizzled out for a couple decades after getting the vote, and second-wave was built on a completely different platform of abortion and "liberating women". There's no way or reason to "rewind" to the first wave anymore since its purpose was fulfilled (as evidenced by how it ended, as any good movement that achieves its goal should), but was it authoritarian?
Precisely People forget that even the Suffragette's (1st Wave) were warmongers who used sexism and social pressures to send men to [become unalive] in WW1 via marking them as "cowards" with flowers. All feminists have seen men as disposable pack-mules to be used then discarded at any point in time and they're all just as *totalitarian.* (I don't see them as merely "authoritarian" because at no point do they ever argue for less govt power. That's not merely authoritarian, that's nigh-totalitarianism) Sexism and worship of big government are features of the ideology, not bugs.
I was at a meeting recently in work with the manager of my department (software development). There was only one woman there, and the boss gestured to her and said " and thank you very much for the diversity!". She gave him a filthy look. Later on, she told me that she privately went to him and told him never to call her out like that again. I thank God for women like that
Fighting Feminism by - Don't be sexist and - debunk Leftist economics Sounds like a good plan. By all means, shouldn't be the only plan, but if every plan had these elements, it'd be a good thing.
Some level of sexism (= inequality based on sex) is necessary and good. The debate is about what is "necessary and good". While debunking lefty economics is necessary, it's as important the building of cultural and spiritual alternatives to these movements - most people that are militants are not because they reach the conclusion the feminist/leftists/etc doctrines were correct after searching for the truth seriously, but because they adehere to a tribe that gave a culture and sense of purpose.
@@HoradrimBR I've once asked if focusing your philosophy on self betterment could be selfish. I then learned that that association is stupid. You're doing the same mistake with sexism. What you put in brackets isn't what you should think of when you say sexism. That's at most social sex based differences, since a gap is good if it exists because the other takes care of that side of life.
@@HoradrimBR 1. Depends on what you mean, I will always say that girls should have their freedom and not have cultural expectations that are coercive(ie ridden with consequences) should they leave the norms. Nothing wrong with a woman deciding to go the career path. 2. I disagree, I firmly do think they genuinely believe what they're spouting, to a certain extent I even understand their knee jerk reactions and my views have certainly been shaped quite a bit by them.
I really think that leftists/feminists/ideologies are much alike religions. Of course people would be angry in case of some harsh criticism against any fundamental point of the religious doctrine/their main prophets. But that doesn't exclude the fact that religion to the true beliver is not just a set of dogmatic propositions, is provides community, brotherhood and sense of belonging. Of course there's always the lone wolfs that are faithful alone amidst non believers. But I ask you: from these high-school/college feminists everywhere in the West, how many of them would really keep the same level of devotion to their cause once disconected to like minded people ? I bet most of them would be silent once they realise their opinions have no space and, after a while, socializing with the new group, they would start to reevalute their positions and, finally, moving to socially acceptable stance. Depending on how hungry for social status they naturally are, a number of them would even became true believers of the dominant creed of the place they now dwell.
Folks... fortunately we have numbers on that and don't have to guess. Female rulers are about 39% more likely to go to war then men per year of rule. (27% in another study looking at europe in an particular time span)
Oh man, I thought the feminism points were open and shut since 2013. Ten years later and the feminists are still threading over these talking points, that is hilarous.
It's exactly like how even today 3 years later people still believe Kyle Rittenhouse killed 3 innocent black men. If anything, this highlights the main problem: They believe what they want, no matter how many times they are proven wrong or how many facts come out contradicting them.
so what u tell me is we thought something was solved because it was thought through to its logical conclusions .... and yet the women keep bringing it up again and again as if the logic of things was never the problem at all ? :D we are unhappy they are unhappy thats the only god damn thing that blows this debate up again and again... im just waiting for the war on drugs to be expanded to the war on sexuality gender and everything else that can fit into a dichotomy ... oh shit wait what year is it god damn there it goes oh well xD
The feminist talking points have been around since the 60s. They have not changed across the decades. What has changed is feminism's grip on society which is considerably stronger now than then. And because of it many think this stuff is new. The wave of Feminism we are currently dealing with was spearheaded by the infamous college professor "Mary Daly" in the 60s. She was a woman so misandrist that her feminist indoctrination class in college only allowed women to join. The central tenet of her ideology is that the world needs to belong to and be ruled by homosexual women. She view heterosexuals as a threat that needed to be destroyed. Modern feminism today is literally obsessed with achieving her views. This, very ironically, means hetero women are also seen as a problem for them. This is why feminism hates mothers, feminine women, and anything that would remind them of a straight feminine woman.
It's good to see a fellow literature devil fan. I would also like to point out that even more tomboyish women have feminine traits and can still be cute and attractive. You would think that tomboys would be encouraged by the woke left but they actually hate tomboys because they think they should be either gay or trans.
It probably has to do with the fact that they're more independent thinkers and don't fall in line all that well, might also have to do with them having some more of the masculine traits that make them more disagreeable and more critical of stupidity.
This is an actually insane take, who on the left hates tomboys? I'm laughing my ass off rn imagining a blue hair yelling at some girl fixing her motorcycle "WHY AREN'T YOU LESBIAN? EAT PUSSY OR TAKE THE TESTOSTERONE!" like bro do you believe people actually think like that?
I wouldn't call myself attractive, lol. I kinda look like a man. But yes, the wokes hate tomboys. Likely due to the fact that feminists liked the "not like other girls" trope until they thought it was "toxic" because women have to be the same and support each other blah blah.
had a feeling tate would show up here. the only reason he had the possibility of blowing up as he did is because of consistent failing towards looking after young boys. for many, I have no doubt he was, or is, the first male role model they have had that's just a sad set of events
Though I don’t agree with most of what Tate says, I have to admire the way he understands and manipulates the entire internet and lots of the people on it. He’s a very smart guy, but it’s a shame he doesn’t seem to have any morals.
@@edwardowens19 Exactly. He's a grifter who understands how social media and attention seeking works. Young boys who are a bit lost are an easy target.
You can't fucking tell me that Barbie isn't actually about Ken trying to be free and living his own life but being stopped by the corporate supported Barbie who forces him to live an unhappy and unfulfilling life. Be like Ken bros, live your own life.
@@johnwatts8346 All that means is that feminists are too incompetent and lacking in self awareness to even make a feminist movie properly. This is not surprising.
@@johnwatts8346 yes it's literally the message for mens in the movie "don't let your insecurities lead you to unhealties ideoligies (like thinking like Andrew Tate and similars), don't define YOUR life by what you are for OTHERS (it's not Ken and Barbie, it's just Ken) don't fight with each other over a woman (or job or whatever) unite for a common goal and be nice, you mens share a lot of the same insecurities, etc" I don't know why you think that the director change that message, it's too explicit. And the director have really good movies actually
@@johnwatts8346 or probably you are thinking that because she is a feminist she does not belive that mens suffer or some ignorant shit like that. My response to that will be, you better stop seing "feminist doing shit compilation" on youtube and start to listen what actually the serious radfems have to say
@@LuarL4581 have you heard her speak? shes not very bright, i dont believe feminists care less about mens issues etc. the film is fem propaganda and nothing more. gerwig is of overtly ave intellect and has nothi ng clever or deep to say.
Epictetus was close. Wealth is how long your current possessions can sustain your wants. If you have fifteen apples, and you want to eat an apple a day, your wealth is fifteen days. If you have an apple orchard that grows an apple a day, you have unlimited wealth.
@@williambarnes5023That probably could be tied into the whole "teach a man to fish" thing. "Give a man a basket of apples and he eats for a day. Show him how to grow his own apples in an orchard and he eats forever." Yeah, that seems right. (I'm not a Christian or trying to convert you. Nothing against it, but its odd how many people randomly try to convert ppl in comments sections)
False accusations in general. That’s apparently their greatest weapon, yet any challenge to them must pass the highest and most stringent standards while anything they claim is automatically assumed true.
feminists singlehandedly devalued what an accusation of rape or sexual assault mean, they're like accusations of being a nazi or fascist, nothing more than hot air
The problem with false accusations is also that you still have to show up to court. Plus you don't have to bring false accusations there, instead you can easily pass it to your "friends" and strangers through statements and rumors... That alone is sufficient to ruin life in general since you effectively have become an outcast.
Good to see a balanced take and arguments that actually address root problems instead of fresh and fit rehashes. Hatred of the opposite sex in most cases is an immature cop-out for not addressing personal problems. This absolutely goes both ways
A balanced take is what got us here since the 1990s. The same approach as 30 years ago will create the same results. We need to approach this as total war, the same war women are waging against our society. Put 'em back in the kitchen, return to 1890s/1910s gender rules of engagement. Without a guiding paternal hand, women will continue to behave like entitled children.
Feminism relies on the image of its critics being nothing but womanhaters in order to continue presenting their newer and more contemporary arguments and commentary as correct. They WANT you to either hate women, be pushed into hating women, or at least appear to hate women, so they can dismiss and attack critics to breathe new life into their ideology.
Hasn't it? The transgender element that kept creeping in until now we have an actual patriarchy in the form of men like Dylan Mulvaney is new. Feminists created the patriarchy.
As a married man with a daughter and son, I've pushed for cooperation instead of angsty diatribe. I know feminists are wrong, and I know the androgrifters are wrong. Men can't go one way without women being affected, and vice versa. More than anything I'm just tired of the name calling; all men are not sex pests, not all women are golddiggers; and life is never cut and dry like that. Grow up, we need one another. edit: Good video too, comment for the algo
Feminism: "Advocacy for women's rights based on the theory of equality between women and men". Which rights? And based on which theory of "equality between women and men"? Whichever rights and whichever theories are, at any given moment, popular among a given culture's political class. Which is why Feminism varies so much between "waves" and countries. As for Anti-feminism, it comes in two forms. a) "Feminism has gone too far in this country, as women here have been empowered with some rights and privileges that are too unfair and/or too dangerous to be allowed. Not to mention that academics keep inventing ever-crazier theories about gender and the whole thing is getting kind of cultish". b) "Patriarchy is important and very good for society. Female mate-choice is dysgenic, antisocial and cursed with a fickleness of shifting change that wrecks no end of homes and families. Defect-defect equilibrium (serial monogamy and the 'game of players and bitches') disincentivises commitment to family life, largely robbing modern civilizations (European Caucasoid as well as East-Asian) of their native grandchildren. No lawyerette or other modern careerwoman (short of the ultra-rare Marie Curie- level genius) can ever realistically expect to accomplish as much in her life as does the humble housewife with six healthy, well-brought-up kids." How far must Feminism be beaten back before tolerably pro-social outcomes on these civilizationally vital issues can materialize? To what extent should wives and daughters (but not equally their male counterparts) be disempowered, controlled and returned to the authority of husbands and fathers for the good of society? Stating this question explicitly it is obvious that "b)" is a very hard sell to women in a liberal democracy. And "a)" is just yesterday's Feminism, always by definition less fashionable (with the class that matters) than the Avant Garde Feminism of the Current Year. A defensive uphill fight where even _naming_ (let alone solving) the real problems is in any case regarded as beyond the pale.
With regards to some of the anger that you'll see in the manosphere, just because an argument comes from a place of anger doesn't make it illegitimate. A person can be frothing at the mouth raging and be 100% correct. I'm sure you know the saying "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity?" Well this conversation is not new. These issues and arguments have been had over and over again for decades and no one is listening. Even when people point blank explain why someone is wrong and how their choices will ultimately hurt themselves and others they still persist, and when it comes to men's issues many will dismiss them outright even after acknowledging the issue and conceding the point. So if it's not stupidity and it's not ignorance then the only conclusion left is malice and I don't think there's anything untoward about being angry with people who hate you for no reason or for things that are not your fault.
but hearing truth in anger is like peeling an onion. You have to endure the many layers of hatred before you find the objective take. Anger tends to make people spew overblown bs faster than being logical.
@@varnix1006 Joy and mania lead to as many bad takes as anger. Bad take. While its true that your level of outrage does not determine how wronged you really are, its not negatively correlated either. The onus is on you to to sus out the truth, not for people or the universe to present it to you on a plate, so when when you fail, because of bias against emotionally tumultuous parties, its your fault, not the damaged party that's understandably all angry as hell, just as its not the universe's fault when you erroneously interpret evidences with no human contamination involved at all. When you make bad takes, they are your fault, not the fault of evidence, so long as said evidence is not false.
Now hold on, I've read fanfiction better than most modern western writing. Fanfiction hits both ends of the spectrum cuz there's no quality assurance but there's no ESG scores either
Eh, I get called a misogynist all the time and I'm a woman. I don't care, neither should you. We need more men to speak the truth that men are the ones building society and that the vast, vast majority of competitive accomplishments are made by men. The problem is that feminism has brainwashed women into thinking that their strengths are weaknesses (i.e. being communal keepers, and nurturing, and having life wisdom and being able to raise and educate children, making homes out of houses, making people happy, etc), to the point where people accuse you of hating women if you say that women should do the things that make them valuable. Apparently a woman needs to be a bargain bin man and bring in the dough to be valuable. Which is absurd. Monogamy, housekeeping, raising children. It's a great deal for women, and it's a great deal for society, because I sure would prefer children be raised by actual mothers instead of phones. That's humanity's future we're sacrificing for so-called women's empowerment that makes them miserable! What good is a utopia if the people filling them are broken? I mean, it won't be a utopia either because who'll be producing things, but that's besides the point. Bring back motherhood, bring back families, bring back responsibilities for women to their environment. Freedom from government is great, but everyone should willingly burden themselves with responsibilities towards their families, because that's the only thing that will provide not only meaning and fulfillment, but also real value. Just like a real man dedicates his life to work for the people around him, a real woman does the same.
My favorite criticism of women working is if women stayed home we wouldn't need HR departments. Women have feelings. These feelings require HR departments. HR, like all bureaucrats, are useless busybody parasites.
Women in the workforce have also provably driven down wages, so not only have they risen the operating costs of businesses, and even worse is that none of this even fixes the issue of women being abused in the marketplace and dressing themselves up to falsely attract men giving most men they run into the wrong impression of what they're doing. (or at minimum giving them the wrong conscious impression, subconsciously many are almost certainly doing it for a reason) There's also plenty of polygamous hypergamists who are screwed in this system by their inability to control themselves.
Kinda, but i reccomend ya a video from the academic agent titled "The managerial elites", it is mass society that needs managers and HR´s... his whole playlist on managerial elites is a brain candy thats really good to chew on...
@@Spartan322Female employment went from 40% in 1960 to 60% in 2000, women had a lesser effect on wages than immigrants and women already worked before Feminism. You are literally propagating Feminist myths without knowing it.
@@Spartan322 Implying women in the workforce to drive wages down isn't the point. Whenever corporations take on activists views, it's because of their bottom line. Always question them doing this.
HR does not focus exclusively on women, Logan. HR will also be involved in the hiring process, training employees, and most importantly are a legal asset that the company uses to avoid lawsuits in cases such as sexual harassment and certain types of discrimination. Discrimination such as racial, sexuality, and religiosity. Which I assume you know are not exclusive to any gender.
I like Vees take on Barbie which he said the movie was a critique of feminism because when woman took control, both men and women suffered as a result but when the men took the power back, most men and women were happy and the displeased women tried to subvert the womens feeling to be against the men again.
Sounds like sargoy's milk fed gimp is coping. Go woke go broke was a lie by a grifter. As long as the n cattle like a thing, it does not matter if it is woke.
@@PeruvianPotato Exactly. I have seen the opinion of many who disagree with the critical reviews, presenting elements of the movie that they believe contradict those reviews. But mostly it was glorified elements, while displacing all the negative context that was around them.
@@jgrif7891 There's a case to be made that at that stage, it wasn't 'proven' and rather a prediction, but the prediction was correct. It goes to show that Sowell was indeed a superior thinker and the feminists are pretty much imbeciles* *imbeciles with vaginas that thirsty men feel compelled to agree with
@@jgrif7891 Look Thomas is epic but back then media controlled shit. Acces to this info is not as free form as it is today. Don't get confused on that. Seriously man, I'm 23 and you think other 23 year olds in the 70s would want to listen to that? (I would but I'm not the average) do you think the media then would even allow it to blow up? It's just a different time my man. So in actuality, making concise and clear arguments NOW is the best time because info and ideas are traded so quickly.
12:55 From what I’ve seen, quite a lot of the Red Pill community can more appropriately be called the Black Pill community, along with a lot of bashing of women and basically saying every women is a opportunist snake in the grass, the dog-eat-dog, we’re all wolves to each other honestly sounds like a truly miserable life path to me. I remember seeing a tweet by Tristan Tate wherein he basically scammed a guy, and said ‘no mercy, strong eat the weak’ and all that garbage. Which sounds great until you’re now wearing those shoes.
which is no different from feminism eating their own. A dog eat dog world would just end up with a king with no subjects, cause the king killed them all.
Here some simple ideas how to ethically Balance male/female power in society: >Common decriminalization of prostitutions that would destroy (gov. granted) wet hole monopoly. BTW any type of contact between two adults that directly not violate right of others is 100% moral and shall be respected. >Obligatory DNA testing of new borns, each parents get DNA test result separately in sealed envelope. (in case of negative test. party will achieve right to unconditional divorce with immediate effect, and a right to demand rehabilitation on the part of the other party for the extortion attempt.) >In family courts cases, gender and details that could be revealed gender of parent is kept secret from judge and jury. Court refer to parents as party "X" and Party "Y" to prevent bias and discrimination. And, I won't even bring up the issue of cruel right violation by mandatory draft, or pay gap where men are highly under pay compare to women in gov. run work force like: Police, Fire department, Military.
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2 Women just want to be seen as people, we don't want to be condescended to just because men are stronger than us or whatever. I'm against the draft for anyone, I miss the days when leaders had to head armies on the battlefield, it would make those fart huffing politicians think twice about starting wars so they can line their pockets just a tad bit more.
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2 That's a idea that I could stand for too, Here is my anecdote: -Once I have argument with some Karen about right violation by forced male draft. -I said that in name equality women should be forced too. -Karen said why not in name equality relief men from forced draft then? -I said, that my priority is maximizing wellbeing of all peoples in and ethical and MOST EFICIENT WAY, and is much easier to convince gov, to expand draft then to abolish it, and if women equally to man take consequences of potential war(we be in this shhet together) then they most likely f stop to be pro forced draft Like they do this NOW (yes, I'm serous, in Poland 50% of women are pro FORCED/involuntary military service for men, compare to only 40% of men wanting that)
@@adriankowalski5492 I was thinking also along the lines of if a male falsely accuses a woman of rape, then we should believe that man and that woman should be dragged through the mud and have to fight like hell to prove innocence.
@@lainiwakura1776 Hard to see that when women do the exact thing to men. Yet we are considered the source of all evil, so don't bitch and whine because the pendulum is swinging right back. You didn't care and celebrated when men were suffering. Told us all to grow up, act like a man, and shut up when we were suffering. Now do what you told us.
men and women are different. they shouldn't be treated like they're the same when they're not. that's the criticism of feminism. if it doesn't begin there, it's just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
@@itsoktobewhite4278 They deserve the same rights because they are human as well, just like men. There aren't enough differences to justify discrimination
@@FerdarPleaseSubscribe Yes there are. there are serious differences in temperament. They don't deserve political enfranchisement because they aren't suited to it by nature. If you can't see that I think you're not being honest with yourself.
Except teenaged girls. Grant Stinchfield's friend's daughter, and her friends, thought that Ryan Gosling looks too old to be Ken. I have to agree with them. The stupid bleach blonde hair makes him look older than he actually is.
I think you touched on this towards the end, but something I wish you would've gone into more, maybe in your next video, is that men have long abandoned the quest for money, power, and women. They have taken to liveing modestly. Feminism has decided to fill that void by telling women about that same quest for money and fame, and just like with men, they are starting to abandon it because they are beginning to feel how soul shattering it is. You talked about Andrew Tate and he is a perfect example of that. All that's left is an angry shell of a man. Women break in very similar ways. Another thing, the woke types tend to be young girls and middle aged women way older who act just as young. That is because this men versus women thing is no different than the boys versus girls bullshit everyone deals with when they are children all the way through high school. They are stuck in that phase forever.
love that last sentence there. I tend to challenge identitarians with that, saying "if you want me to play your playground girls rule boys drool bullshit games youre gonna have to make me, good luck."
@@SirBlackReeds people have finally started to understand that one house, one car, and one spouse is all one needs, maybe a child or two. We are starting to see that messaging, whether it is the pick up artist types or the supposed women empowerment people, for the cold corporate grave that it is.
@@SirBlackReedsA house, a fridge, a mattress, a bed frame (optional), a console or computer. And consumables like food water and medicine. Truly utilitarian, no-frills lifestyle
I can understand the point of not being misogynistic/sexist/derogatory, however at what point does one differentiate between that and sugarcoating/placating?
Misogynist:"all women are manipulative and are overly emotional" Not Misogynist: "there are women who are manipulative and overly emotional" there you go, not that hard. No sane woman would dispute the second statement (emphasis on "sane"), while the first one will get all women against you.
Being a nineties leftie ancap personally, I think there’s also value in having a multi philosophical prong approach, such as being able to dismantle wokie feminist talking points by out-liberaling them, in a manner that doesn’t allow them to take solace in that form of tribalism. Also mocking and shaming. Lots of mocking and shaming.
@@stefanpatrickco 'leftie' =/= communist. There are other dimensions to be left-leaning or 'liberal' in. Socially left leaning ancaps are a thing, believing that the hard line of free trade and freedom to fail are sufficient to stop things getting too degenerate.
about the female depression yes it is true that women are more depressed but it is also true that they seek treatment more often.Also the have 1/4 of the suicide rates .Btw have you heard about a dude called dr shaym he has debunked many feminist talking points.Last but not least congrats for the 20k subs
We need to go back to understanding that men and women are different and have different roles in the world and society. We also need to acknowledge that men and women are happiest when we are fulfilling the role we were made for. Men want to be providers and protectors and women want to be caretakers and we are both happier in our roles than when we try and act outside of our roles.
It’s sad that the ONLY way to get women to care even an iota about men and their issues is to show how they will be hurt as well rather than appealing to the so called “More empathetic and compassionate nature” of women. Also funny how almost women(And a lot of men) have no idea that a major factor of why it’s so hard to support a family on one income these days was due to the workforce being doubled when women started working thus wages lowering ever since then.(Alongside wages having been stagnant for years now) The reality is that no amount of debating is going to fix this. Feminism is a complete inversion of natural order and we’re seeing the effects of it now. Almost every degenerate, idiotic and insane social, economic or political movement of today is spearheaded by women and weak men. Some of y’all might not want to admit it but we’re in the situation we are now because of the chaotic nature of femininity. There’s a reason literally every society that came before us gave women only so much power. Now we have men and women mutilating themselves because of mental illness, open celebration of practices that are antithetical to the advancement of human life and countries having their populations replaced because women want to be inclusive and import their countries with people not willing or wanting to acclimate to western culture. As other have pointed out, if all it took was sound arguments and being nice to defeat feminism we would’ve stopped talking about it decades ago. In reality y’all need to realize the 19th amendment and it’s consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
You get it. And not to mention population decline due to women in the workforce. now no one can afford to have kids or wants them anymore and it’s slowly causing a population collapse and decline and this isn’t just exclusive to the west this is also in places like Japan and South Korea, countries that also have feminism and equal rights for women. It’s a joke. women weren’t meant to be allowed such freedom and we’re experiencing a slow death through an ageing and decline population. But I guess that’s just natures way of restoring balance. And the worst part is people are too afraid to admit this uncomfortable reality or the solution to the problem, take away womens rights and watch all of this crap go away.
The way you describe how Andrew Tate prescribes toxic masculine behaviors to fight toxic feminine behaviors made me realize that it's exactly the same tactic of feminism (but with the genders reversed, of course). So, methodologically speaking, can't we say that (in a very ironic way) Andrew Tate is the greatest and most successful feminist out there today? 😅😅😅
10:30 Oh, had you not been around during the early development stages when this game was attacked by the feminists and they demanded the main character be defeminized because she looked "unrealistic" with slightly more noticeably cleavage? She looks the way she does now because they listened to the mob that likely never bought the game. The original design wasn't bad in any way and fit the setting just as much. The japanese may not have caved as much, but they still did, mistaking those rants for that of actual fans. Just compare the two, the differences are obvious - she still looks fine, but it is clear the change was wholly unnecessary.
I was actually so devastated leaving the Barbie movie. I grew up on Barbie movies and shows, I was so excited! I even dressed up for the movie. I left feeling so sick. I felt sick that they took this thing I love and just used it as feminist propaganda. When I got home, I nearly cried talking with my dad about it. I knew he’d understand what I meant when I explained what the movie ended up being, and he sadly had to tell me that it was time to grow up. “You should know by now that anything they can use for their agenda, they’ll use it.” And he’s right, the only thing that has stayed cool and fun is videogames but that’s because anyone can make a game, but only movies backed by corporations can really make it far nowadays. After that, the only thing I thought was “at least I can still see Oppenheimer!” They never took me to see Oppenheimer. I was betrayed by my parents, who claimed they loved me, but would not take me and my brother to the war movie because it was “too long” and “would only be entertaining to people that like history.” Me and my brother love history 🥺
Economist Claudia Golden points out the cause of the wage gap is different jobs itself. Women would take child development job because they can take a break from the job. Compare to men taking a demanding job like a doctor where they are heavily needed.
In addition, even in situations where a woman and a man are theoretically in the same positions, the pay may differ because, for example, a man takes more overtime, takes less leave and tries more for a promotion.
@@ThePoliticalCheckmate-hm8ky Right. I'm not denying it in any way. Probably, even if feminists were mainly referring to the same positions, they would still complain about the "pay inequality". And there may be so many factors at work that it is impossible to pinpoint "Yes, that's the main reason. It needs to be changed and people will be paid equally." No, because people are different.
Ah yes, I believe Karl Marx's commentaries in The German Ideology, wherein he lays bare the principal criticism of the until then revolutionary works of Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel, and building of course upon the work of Ludwig Feuerbach, explore this in depth, the application of dialectical social and political change coalescing as a societal thoughtform to transfer the status quo from one dominance hierarchy (the thesis; stereotypical Barbie) to another status quo induced egregor (antithesis; Kendom) which of course leads to Ryan Gosling self actualising (synthesis; the proletariat achieving class consciousness).
The thing about feminism, the gay rights movement and the alphabet group born out of it are all the same thing. They are a marxism take on gender, race, sexuality or whatever other classification they can use to divide. Hell the concepts and lines of reasoning are exactly the same just swap out the oppressed class for the other. These ideologies are utterly divorced from reason so you can't really debate them and the debate is a ploy to distract you while they set the terms on how you can debate thus gaining control over the debate it's self so they don't need to beat your reasoning just gain control of the parameters. I hate to say it but no matter the marxist ideology or woke ideology debate is functionally useless at best and at worst gives them more control over the wording of the debate thus giving them what they want which is more and more control over all domains. I fear it's an infection that only utter collapse can beat as you can not get the majority to see reason and the more you debate the more linguistic ground is lost no matter how well you out reason them.
all of these movements went marxist when this whole "intersectional" idea took off in the mid 2010s, before then I remember much of the values and arguments were more libertarian.
@dannybonsai7102 intersectionality was a thing since the Civil rights movements back in 60s and 70s, even a friendly feminist like Christina Hoff Sommers said we had people talking about this back then in 80s inside of feminist conferences in academia. Things are way older than you think they are and our political detractors have been building up for a long time, universities weren't ideologicaly flipped from out of nowhere.
10:00 This will often be combined with the critical theorist (neomarxist) perspective that we femininity is a social construct and so it can be whatever we want it to be. Which maybe seems reasonable at first glance, but if you think at all about it, you see that would mean that the word just loses any meaning
that is exactly the point, for the word to lose its meaning so that it can be redefined whilst still soliciting the original emotional response, since these ideologies spread through emotion rather reason.
A very important point you've missed is that while women can enter the traditional male role of labor in order to provide for a family, men can NOT enter the traditional female role of having children. This is a huge social problem and a big reason why encouraging women into the work force is poisonous for society. It's also worth pointing out that there are nefarious incentives for encouraging women into the work place, because it devalues labor, increases productivity per population, and increases consumer spending(women account for 70-80% of consumer spending today). The richest of the rich love feminism, which is why it gets pushed in all of the media companies they own. It makes them wealthier at the detriment of social cohesion and birthrates.
Stupid point, if women entering the workforce devalues the labor then that is what the labor is actually worth, also women have been in the workforce for decades and only recently as it become impossible to live off of one income and 3rd, you're literally creating second class citizens
@@DameOfDiamonds wages vs purchasing power have been distancing for decades, and are directly proportional to both women and immigrants entering the work force. The suppressed wages are what the value of the labor BECOMES, not what it is, due to the introduction of more laborers.
@@levitatingoctahedron922women who are citizens and are part of the native population entering the workforce and economic migrants moving here and entering the workforce are NOT comparable
@@DameOfDiamonds It's the same result. More workers = more competition for jobs = lower pay, regardless of where the workers are coming from. This is a statistical reality, the only reason to deny it is blind ideology.
@GPUGambon I am obsessed with the whole series. Enough to make my own Shield hero and Raphtalia model from scratch for Vrchat and the like. Currently reading the books, just finished 17 and waiting for the last 5.
Just tell them you are a Nazi and they aren't human. There is nothing they can do when you tell them that, they can't threaten you with telling people you are a Nazi when you are the one telling everyone you are
In my country it's illegal to be a National Socialist, so that may not work here. But I get your point. If you are in a position to not be cancelled, empty their insults by embracing them.
You can say that feminism is actually worse for woman, in the case of man they are being attacked, in the case of woman they are being attacked, attacking, suffering the unintended consequencies of being fooled into attacking, and losing whatever goodwill they once had.
@@crispyandspicy6813 dude, anyone that bothered researching about the nuremberg trials, will realize 1- they were a scam, judging by decades of experience judges that watched it, and 2- laid the faudation that "just following orders" is no defence watsoever agaist prosecution and execution.
Good on you for calling for a healthier discourse on this topic. Possible video idea: the least bad government programs? Surely there's been some effective program somewhere and at some time. We wouldn't want to seem dogmatically against all government when talking to normies, but rather that we're open to reason and nuance.
@@justiceforjoggers2897 The sign of an honest actor is having a win condition. If there's areas where I can compliment (a) government program at some point in history, it lends credence to my general criticism of the rest of them, because it shows someone who isn't a libertarian that I'm not just a black-and-white anti-government at all costs person who may choose a worse outcome simply because it matches my relatively obscure ideology. It also helps us better dissect what doesn't work about government when we acknowledge what *does* work.
@@saltytwoferbut no goverment program is good !All goverment programs ,except maybe national security are done in better and less costly way by the private sector.
Hey come on man, don't diss on Fanfiction like that, there's a lot of FF stories that are actually really good, and not just self insert power fantasies, XD
I can’t go with that take, because the moral of the story is that Barbie was right all along. The writer is likely just so far gone to the point of self-parody.
Sorry given the overall messaging, industry politics and ESPECIALLY the ending, I find that pretty hard to believe and any "mocking of hyper feminism" was likely purely accidental
7:59 exactly. While I may earn next to nothing right now (family is floating me and helping me while I study and work, just got clean and had literally no where to go. Very grateful!) I don't make a lot, but I do have a lot from friends and family. I'm not super attached to material things, but not having to worry about what I'm going to eat and how I'm going to pay rent has helped immensely with being stable in life
It’s strange how sexiness was seen as empowering in 2010 when games like Bayonetta came out. It’s seemed like the argument was “don’t be ashamed of being sexy but men shouldn’t objectify” and now the argument is “everyone is sexy no matter how they look and no one can judge at all.” It’s weird how that stance within feminism seems to have weirdly shifted over time. A video on that would be interesting. I think it’s because feminism has been overtaken by every equality/equity movement and to include fat acceptance and body positivity, sexiness had to be abandoned by the nonsensical statement that “everyone is sexy no matter how they look.”
This is true, because we're now in an age where the real distinction between man and women are being forgotten. Both sexes should work together for survival in society rather than having war betwen both; or eroding one and having artificial ones.
Not even 3 minutes into the video and we're already being warned not to be "misogynistic". You've already lost. I can't bring myself to watch past this point. You've said that most of their criticism is false accusations of bigotry, and it's not because that's something they discovered after carefully listening and deconstructing your arguments. They will falsely accuse you of bigotry because they hate you for not agreeing with them, or in many cases, they hate you because you're a man. Nothing you say, or don't say, will have any influence on these people. They are for all intents and purposes demonically possessed. And the argument of "appealing to the normies" is another fundamental misunderstanding of why we always lose on social issues. Normies will generally take the path of least resistance. People who don't care about politics or culture or ideology will adopt opinions and views which will have them be ostracized from society the least. This is why for example abortion is the only issue that the right never completely caved on. It's because for once we have been the side that historically and frantically accuses the other of being literal child murderers, which they are. We need to be forthright and honest in our convictions. And the normies can only be won over when we make it clear that our path is the one that must be appeased.
But his point was that if you aren’t misogynistic then when people accuse you of being misogynistic they appear delusional. Thus they are forced to engage with your arguments. If you say misogynistic things then they can just ignore any point you made and focus entirely on the misogyny. The truth is a lot of people that criticize feminist ARE misogynistic even if they make valid criticisms. This undermines everyone who speaks against feminism.
@@fudgefactor1639I simply dont believe that labels work that way, and there are countless examples to prove the point. They will accuse you of misogyny or bigotry no matter what you say, because to them disagreement is misogyny and bigotry. So caring about this is like willingly shooting yourself in the foot before a battle. Plus it lends legitimacy to the accusation.
Watching the rest of the video was fine, the economic arguments are all meh. I dont think this is an issue that should be backed up by so much talk about financial issues. The fault of libertarianism is that not everything is inherently economic and not everyone cares about it.
Hey Mentis as someone who is on the far right and is politically homeless. I have to say your presentation of more libertarian ideas is top notch. Keep up your good work, can’t wait to see your channel grow
Just honestly curious? What does far right mean to you? I consider myself politically homeless as well and I wonder how you define that political group.
@@michealfreeman9714 Sure. I think there are plenty of ways to think of far right. But essentially I think Republicans represent mainstream “conservatism”. So if you are further right than the mainstream you could consider yourself far right. It can include Edmund Burkes conservatism Paleoconservatism Thomas Carlyle’s conservatism Monarchism Reactionary And because I sympathize with some of these communities I really don’t have any real representation in our current government. I have some good channel recommendations to learn a bit more about this philosophy
I don’t care about the Barbie movie, but I’ve definitely become a fan of this channel over the last few weeks. So, kudos to The Algorithm for actually being helpful for once! I can always appreciate content that is created by someone who clearly cares about putting actual thought and effort into their Work, in this Crazy World of Comfortable Convenience in Accordance with which We have been conditioned to exist. It’s not as common as you might think it is.
Here's another idea I got from RazorFist, be the difference you want to be, don't ideologically engage with these people at all & gatekeep them out of your groups. Think about it? We have been calling these people hypocrites & liars for at least a decade at this point & it has done nothing of value, so don't waste time debating & prove through action how & why your system works & theirs doesn't. In short, "Actions speak louder than words..."
I actually met and connected with my wife by talking about how ridiculous and stupid MGTOW-ism is and how being an evil man does not fix evil women. She surprised me by telling me how Feminism is an evil oxymoron by telling women they're empowered by dressing and slutting out to be non-empowered. Your points are correct and will attract the right type of women to marry and be the best mothers for your children.
Ok but not all of red pill and mgtow is bad. It's only some segments of it that is bad. Manhood channel for example is a fair take and is mgtow. It's not anti-female.
@@MyWTFisgoinon No, because feminism is pretty much obsolete today. Only radical feminism remains, which is not good. Red Pill and mgtow are adaptations to radical feminism. They are not equivalents, but there are some harmful aspects on the red pill/mgtow side too.
@@MyWTFisgoinon If by feminism you mean equality of opportunity, then yes the red pill can be a threat to that, to a small extent. Some of the talk among them does involve taking women's rights away, which kind of puts us towards the opposite extreme. The problem with this definition is that women already have equality of opportunity, which doesn't put the problem on the RP community because they only formed as a response to radical feminism. So really women's rights are under threat now simply because feminists have gone too far and want to take it to the extreme. So in theory yes, feminism has a good side. It's just that it doesn't apply to today because we already have equality of opportunity for women and our issue shouldn't be whether we should strive towards something we already have but rather to fight against the radical feminism which is trying to create equality of outcome which then threatens women's equality of opportunity because the men will then want to take that away. So there's 2 ways we can go about. We either fight radical feminism and maintain equality of opportunity for women or we take all or most of women's rights away. That's the good vs the bad red pill.
Great vid and proposal! Like so many times in human history and with so many subjects of debate, it shows that a healthy middle ground is the ultimate goal. Also: honesty, reason and ridicule are the best tools against oppression and fearmongering.
10:11 this one thing I wanted to point out in Sydney Watson's vid about how men's masculinity is declining. The masculinity isn't going to waste just going where it shouldn't which is to men. As women become more masculine in terms of behavior the men become more feminine. An anology I'm gonna use is how a man turns into a femboy, a femboy becomes one by not only wearing women's clothing but taking estrogen a hormone that's associated with feminity, in case of *"empowered women"* it's basically like how men are becoming femboys. In a nutshell men today have more estrogen in their bodies than testosterone while women more testosterone than estrogen
Hey, I agree with some points but I think this video misses the actual most prominent feminist talking point, which is male abuse. A lot of women consider themselves feminists not because they want super authoritarian government overreach or because "men dominate everything grrrr", but simply because they view the current culture as one that is heavily biased against women that are victims of sexual and physical abuse. Remember, it wasn't very long ago that in many countries you could literally use your "honor" as an excuse in court to get away with abusing your wife, and in many african and asian societies you can very easily get away with rape and murder against women. When we call ourselves "antifeminists" or loudly rant against them, they feel like we are criticising those things instead, and that is why many of them resist these arguments. Hell, many conservatives are still in favor of these things and people like Andrew Tate were exposed as being extremely abusive sexual criminals. We need to make sure women know we aren't on their side by calling out these behaviors, supporting victims of abuse (when they are proven correct of course) and showing libertarian solutions to these issues (such as showing statistics of how firearm prohibitions can increase rape). We also need to find a way to prove our empathy and attempt at showing women the problems men face as well and how the "patriarchy" is not an idea built solely by rich men trying to turn women into sex toys, but rather an ages-old complex social phenomenon that affects both men and women (we can even admit that women suffer more from it, but this discussion shouldn't even be done in the first place as each individual has their own experiences and issues and fighting for who suffers more is pointless and counterproductive). Another important thing that makes this hard is the fact that most women are very emotional in their decisions. This isn't to say this is an inherent aspect of women, but rather what most of them have learned socially to be like that. This makes so that just spitting out data and "fax" isn't enough, you will have a hard time convincing a woman to understand the complex, boring psychlogical male loneliness phenomenon when feminism is about "not getting raped" to her. It's a losing battle a lot of the time. In this case, I believe the strategy is more about finding ways to, at least initially, tap into that emotion by showing her the horrors done by authoritarianism and leftism, and how feminism is largely associated with those things. Only after she accepts such premises emotionally will you be able to tear down leftist misconceptions with facts and data to support your claims. Anyway, I would really appreciate a follow-up with these topics in mind, I really want libertarianism to be more inclusive as that is what it's about in the end, people being allowed to freely do what they want to pursue happiness. I feel like I wouldn't really convince my female friends of anything with this video and I would appreciate one that could do that.
That would've worked back in 2016 or pre-2020. However, it's at the point where the hatred is so deeply rooted that they'll plug their ears and yell at anyone who doesn't 100% agree.
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2 You mean regular women? I disagree. I think most of them can be convinced if you use the right words. Not all women are super-leftists.
@@flydrop8822 Never said all women are super-leftists. I'm specifically referring to post-2020 feminists. They all are super-leftists. Yes, there are outliers, but they are exceptions not the standard.
Tate seems to follow the patern of Marx and Freud. Asking mostly the right questions and generally figuring out the problem. Then they completely get the answer wrong.
I honestly didn't see anything wrong with Aloy's design? I haven't played it, but from what I've seen, she doesn't like seem overly masculinized. Just kind of has a more square jaw than she previously has. Still looks attractive to me. Honestly I find the edits of her to be more "pretty" to be funny, with her having makeup and all of that in this early caveman world.
Wow, this is one of the few anti-SJW channels I’ve come across that actually presents a reasonable and inclusive solution. Subscription earned my guy. This whole toxic red pill/ anti-feminism wave has made feminists so fucking obnoxious that I can’t even pick a side anymore, let alone be comfortable with being born a male at this point
I will never stop being surprised when a channel has enough research and experience to make valid talking points, yet still be delusional enough to sell you bluepills in regards to dating life. The desire to breed is so ingrained into humanity that even knowledgeable people will delude themselves into thinking that somehow inner insecurity is a bigger factor in dating than physical appearance and attraction.
I think you are jumping to extreme conclusions. He didn't imply that. He just offered a balanced take on the RP. Yes wealth and success are important in men, but you don't need to have a Lamborghini to get laid. That's the point. And there are some aspects of RP which are bad and grifty.
I went to go see this movie with my sister and to be honest it had some funny moments but it just feels like it was the writer trying to argue against straw men.
I for one am glad the Zoomers (whether intentionally or accidentally) excavated these unresolved bedroom feminist talking points and everyone is now able to see just why they were always so wrong.
I think the main takeaway from Barbie is this: Modern consumerism makes us value products over real human interaction and we have to re-learn to understand that other people are real humans with a real identity.
15:39 - I would love to hear your thoughts regarding blackpill/"incel" ideology. I'm not calling him an incel but Gerbert Johnson has a few videos that are certainly at least blackpill adjacent.
Thank you for this. I watch Think Before You Sleep and while he criticizes women, it's not from a bad place, he does it with the intention of showing why you shouldn't wallow in victimhood and get professional help when you need it and what to look out for to avoid bad women/relationships, but the comments section is always filled with guys pretty much going "women bad!" and completely missing the point of his videos.
I used to watch him but it started to feel empty every time I watched a new video like it was a chore. His new videos have the same flavour with maybe a small piece of new information. When he got focused on feminism and fat phobia he became a broken record. Agreed, but the comments don’t usually say “women bad”, they more say “woman bad” as in the person in the video. (btw what anime is your pfp from, looks dope)
I've also had my fair share of frustrations with the manosphere as well. The rule that you explained that we need to get very picky on what manosphere content to listen to is a rule I learned by myself. I find it very hypocritical for these types to complain about women sleeping around with 50+ men while they promote sleeping around with 50+ women. It's like they have that "American Pie" mindset ( _"Get laid as soon as possible with as many women as possible, because if you don't you're a loser! Huurrr Duurrr!!!"_ ), not realizing that that mindset, which a lot of them have, is what contributes to the problem they complain about. Cause and effect. Imagine a scenario: If all men went strictly monogamous and learned to vet a potential significant other before dating them (let alone sleeping with them), then these types of women would not be enabled to sleep around. They would then see no choice but to start flying right or live the rest of their lives lonely and miserable with their cats.
True. Some of the RP stuff offers adaptations to the current dating market but not permanent solutions. The argument is that it's not your job to fix society. Which is true but at the same time you run into ethical problems as well. If men just continue to perpetuate the problem, then it will never be solved. I would say treat the women who are already damaged like they deserve to be treated, as sluts. And value the women who aren't into sleeping around and looking for LTR. Problem is it can be hard to know which is which, which is why some people choose to play it safe, meaning either don't participate at all or use all women only for sex. It's true that if you choose to play the game society offers you run now, you risk burning yourself, ie get married. And it's fair to say that it's not worth playing. So it's up to each individual to decide what risk to take. I think better solution would be to fix the broken marriage laws to make them fair for all. That way more men can marry women and it will start to self-correct a bit.
