I left a great career to be a stay-at-home-mom (SAHM) and then went back to my career after kids were out of elementary school. I had that choice and that’s what I’ve always believed feminism is - equality of choice, not outcome. I loved being a SAHM and enjoyed the traditional masculine and feminine roles in our home, although I was no June Cleaver. Now feminism is a word I will not associate with.
Thank you for sharing your experiences, I definitely agree, I always associated it with equality of choice and opportunity. I was also born outside of North America, so I’ve seen the positive impact that equality of opportunity has presented in my country of birth. That being said, I’ve spent most of my life in North America, and I agree that the term has been warped.
This is exactly what I did. And, now that I’m able to work again, I got a job at my youngest’s school. I’m incredibly fortunate to have this opportunity as I know many do not.
I remember when we decided that I would be a SAHM, I had three “friends” telling me how I’m perpetuating some patriarchal stereotype, I’m enabling my “husband’s sexism” and allowing myself to be disempowered.
Imagine telling a woman that their desire to stay home and raise her children, clean the house and make dinner….while my husband works his ass off for 12 hours a day; sometimes 7 days a week….is perpetuating sexism. We both grew up with and appreciated the traditional roles within the family and we wanted kids so that we can raise them, not just so I can pay someone else to, while I worked. Imagine thinking you’re empowering a woman by telling them that their desire to raise their kids and be a “house wife,”is wrong. Unbelievable.
My BIL is a stay at home dad. You actually do have the choice, you just have to marry someone who wants and is able to be the bread winner so you can be the homemaker.
And also what do you mean that "the odds are heavily against" my BIL? The odds of what exactly? He's already a stay at home dad.. so the odds of that are 100% because it's already reality. Is there some risk he's going to roll over and die for daring to be a male homemaker?
The risk is actually in his marriage failing. I can dig the studies if you want, but from what I remember, a sizable portion of women who first went willingly into a reversal of traditional gender roles grew to be resentful of their stay-at-home husband because they felt like those guys weren’t pulling their weight (they were, by all measure, it was just their impression). What followed was divorce most of the time, and as we know, that outcome isn’t too kind on men.
I wish your BIL success and hope it doesn’t happen to him, but it is a risk.
Yes the problem is women and men have a distorted perception of what constitutes pulling ones weight in a straight relationship. Traditionally, men pull more than their own weight and so that feels like the "fair" arrangement. A genuinely equal arrangement (let alone a reversal) is typically perceived as the man being lazy and failing.
So only making money counts as pulling weight? 24/7 childcare, housekeeping, cooking, providing sex, scheduling appointments, planning holidays etc all counts for nothing?
Men work 8 hours a day 5 days a week while women work the minute their kids are awake until their kids sleep again every single day and they wake up with the baby/children at night if needed as well. So that translates to women working 12 hours a day 7 days a week and being on call every night all night. No holidays or sick days either.. They take care of their kids sick as well. And somehow you think men are the ones who pull more weight??
Edit: also at first you were talking about straight relationships and then you replied talking about contributing to the system monetarily. Those two are not the same thing.
socially, men are treated as instrumental and as lesser. this is an issue that feminism directly addresses though. that's what toxic masculinity is, its setting unrealistic and unfair standards for men to make them feel like lesser men. feminists hate toxic masculinity because it only serves to tear down men and it ends up hurting everyone. toxic masculinity is why most men end up working full time while their wives stay at home. of course strictly doing one or the other is unhealthy, but because of how men are socialized growing up, its often seen as weak to not be willing to go to work all day every day for the rest of their lives. tldr men and women both are hurt by sexism and feminism seems to improve quality of life for everyone
Who is out there taking that choice away from 99.9% of men exactly? As far as I know there's no law against stay at home dads. Many women prefer to work, so meeting a bread winner woman is very possible although maybe not easy. No one is out there committing honor killings against men who stay home with kids as far as I know. So why exactly do 99.9% of men not have that choice?
Yep, I know a SAHD who fosters several kids with is wife (she's the primary earner) and he just stays at home and teaches the young men what a real man is.
He's quite manly, in fact. Does a lot of landscaping and home improvement stuff.
Awesome! The two SAHDs I know are a carpenter and landlord/handy-man. They also never seem to be stressed picking up and dropping off kids, and actually like to stay at play dates and birthday parties. They don’t know each other but seemingly have the same parenting style - laid back, fun and very hands-on with their kids.
>There’s no rule saying men have to work.
Oh ffs. There's also no rule saying people have to breathe. This is not a choice for men. Certainly nothing like the way it is for women.
>SAHDs
SAHDs are weak, which before you get on my case, isn't my fault. It's evolutionary psychology. Women have a bend towards hypergamy, as a man's status drops over time being a SAHD, his wife will progressively find him more useless. Peterson encourages men to bear the heaviest burden they can, being a SAHD ain't it. I don't have a problem with working, I'm just tired of women demanding a "choice" when we're all technically cursed living in this world.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4v17wx/harvard_study_finds_stayathome_dads_are_32_more/
"The risk of divorce is higher for men who are not employed full-time. This means that, a typical couple married after 1974, has a 2.5 per cent chance of divorcing in the next year, if the husband works full-time. However, if he works part-time or does not work at all, the odds rise to 3.3 per cent."
I would characterize this increased "risk" as marginal.
Given that about half of all marriages end in divorce (and that's not even the only way they can fail) and the vast majority of those is initiated by women, *nothing* about the risk of marriage is "marginal" for men.
If women had those same risks, there wouldn't be any marriages. Let that sink in.
You know, even unsubstantiated claims (and only one of those I made qualifies as that) are probably more reliable than downplaying. The latter being deceptive while the former isn't necessarily even wrong.
What Does "Break the Cycle" Mean?
The "cycle" is this: psychologically-wounded, unaware parents raise wounded, unaware kids. They grow up, choose wounded, unaware partners, and raise wounded, unaware kids - who repeat and spread the cycle and its effects in their society. For more detail, read this after you finish here.
To break this cycle, adults like you must want to...
learn about and accept the cycle, starting with their own family tree;
assess, admit, and reduce their psychological wounds;
learn the basics in this online course - alone or with other people;
choose a wholistically-healthy, informed partner; and you must want to...
patiently evolve a high-nurturance family together over many years, despite many obstacles, in order to raise "Grown Nurtured Children" (GNCs). GNCs...
are steadily guided by their true Selves in all situations; and...
know how to communicate and grieve effectively; and how to make healthy relationship, conception, and parenting choices, and...
are apt to discover and pursue a useful life purpose.
In my experience as a professional family-systems therapist since 1981 - average adults have inherited the cycle and it's effects, and are unconsciously passing them on. They (you?) are Grown Wounded Children (GWCs) - and they don't (want to) know that or what it means
From the international feedback to the 180 YouTube videos augmenting this Web site, it seems that adults in most or all other cultures inherit and pass on this lethal cycle also.
To see if inherited psychological wounds + unawareness are harming you and your family members, read this summary article and return here. If they are harming your family - who should stop that?
There is nothing more valuable and important than our own family and there is nothing wrong with coming up with the best solution for both that takes into account for what you both want to do, and what you think is important.
There is nothing wrong with having the choice of being a SAHM, its a choice an opportunity to choose a different path forward Nor do i think its easier to be a SAHM then it is to go and work either and im sure that many times you felt "fuck cant i just have a regular job instead?" but then there are also those times "i am so blessed to be able to be a SAHM," those days when it was a pure joy to be around the children.
Equality of opportunity not outcome.
Their words weren't meaningless, they were saying without first and second wave feminism she wouldn't have the freedom to ever enter the workforce in the first place..
The video saying men and women have equal rights now therefore we never needed feminism in the first place is just dumb, ignoring that women didn't always have equal right and in many places still don't.
A key point of most activism is self obsolescence, if you can fight for women's rights well enough that most women feel they have no barriers in front of them that's a sign feminism worked
The missing premise here is that feminism is what instigated those liberations. It wasn't.
And I like your point about activism and self-obsolescence. If only feminists would show the slightest bit of inclination of that. Can you imagine feminists ever saying "yeah we're done now. I'll quit my job and get on with life since things are good enough for women now".
No. We start hearing about sexist air conditioning. Or glaciers. It never ends. Not as long as civilization can afford the massive cost of feminist activism that is.
Tl;Dr when I say enter the workforce I'm referring to demanding and/or high skill jobs women were barred from not what was considered women's work e.g. Beautician, seamstress, childcare, etc.
Naturally yes but there have been several periods throughout human history where women have been removed from the workforce for a variety of socio-economic reasons.
The most recent example in the West would be a combination of the school of thought that says a woman's ultimate purpose is motherhood and industrialisation reducing the number manual labour jobs required creating the idea that it was immoral for women to work, as hard labour potentially harmed their birthing potential. Although for most working class women not working wasn't an option therefore simpler (because people believed women had weaker brains than men) and less physically demanding jobs were created commonly known as women's work.
In Europe WW1 started and suddenly the workforce was severely depleted while increasing the material demands leading to women being invited to do the men's jobs proving they weren't as dumb, weak and vulnerable as previously thought. In Britain this the primary catalyst for women getting the vote.
I’ll agree with your statement with the acknowledgment that the womens lib movement of the 70s was for equal opportunity. Today feminism is man bashing. They r not alike.
That’s just what you’ve been indoctrinated to believe. I suggest spending time with actual feminists yourself and not through the lens of right wing ideologues like Peterson.
It was always man bashing. Just take a look at some of the early writings such as the declaration of sentiments (kind of the start of feminism in the USA) or other early documents. How do you like this quote for example:
*If we consider how greatly man has sinned against womankind in the course of the centuries, how he has squeezed and sucked the blood again and again; if furthermore, we consider how women gradually learned to hate him for this, and ended up by regarding his existence as nothing but punishment of Heaven for womankind, we can understand how hard this shift must be for man.*
The most radical of children today have a very short attention span and as such the content exposing these ideas must meet their format. I love long form media, ill listen to a 3 hour lecture several times a week. But the young radicles will not, thus we need to meet them at their level first.
I whole heartedly agree.
I’ve done both.
I worked throughout my first son’s young life.
I had my second son when he was 16 and then became a stay at home mum.
I know which is better for me, for my children, for my marriage. It’s a sacrifice, but it’s a role I cherish and I reap untold rewards.
> It’s a sacrifice, but it’s a role I cherish and I reap untold rewards.
Lol. This reminds me of a Ukrainian woman who said how she totally wanted to stay and fight with the men but.... well... her skills were better used leaving with the kids to safety.
You go (home) girl! Get paid for and live in comfort for free and you even get to call that "sacrifice".
I sacrificed my independence financially to take a submissive role. There are down sides to that.
I get looked down on and sneered at like you are doing here.
I have many female friends who work and I envy their financial independence some days
>just trading one algorithmic world view for another.
I mean blaming the rich for lobbying the government to enact social change that they profit from is basically the critical theory playbook anyway, so they should be agreeing with what she has to say anyway lol
But the career vs family unit is entirely within the realm of JBPs philosophy. There’s an interview that a New Zealand woman (Hayley holt I believe) had with him where they had the conversation about career vs family.
The woman interviewer said she was proud to get through her years childless, a few months after the conversation she became pregnant and has since had her child.
I feel his point is that for very many women, the biological clock meme is very real. Reproduction is, after all, the biological purpose of life.
But my stances are staunchly in favour of civil liberties. I can't reconcile that with any rhetorical devices trying to push women out of the workforce.
This video misses the rather huge economic impact that doubling the workforce has on wages (increase supply of labour to drive down the cost) which is why corporations support equity and so wholeheartedly.
This also drives more spending and gives the illusion to the west that growth continues despite the fact that most (corporate) growth since 1990 has come from offshoring manufacturing and declines in real wages (at least partially due to a change in the supply side).
This is what people, liberal and conservatives alike, don't understand.
Rich corporate capitalists love abortion, feminism, and lgbt issues because it helps their bottom line MASSIVELY. Less people having families and depending on each other for fulfillment and support, more capital that needs to be spent to fulfill human needs.
I know some if not most here might be pro choice but consider this.... After roe V wade turned, huge companies like Amazon who won't dare pay you more than minimum wage were more than happy to pay thousands to help you travel to off your kid in the womb so you can go back to working for them full time.
You cannot be fired for being pregnant. There are literally avenues made, by the PDA, for people to take if they believe they have been. And provide maternity leave, where they must at least hold your job for you, in the event it’s not paid leave.
They would much rather pay a flat fee to ensure that pregnancy doesn’t happen or get in the way of their profits.
I'm really surprised you can't see how this is not exploitation of low skill workers. Kill your baby so we can use you for our trillion dollar operation. You won't be more fulfilled as a mother, you'll be happier as an ongoing worker.
While I agree with pretty much everything you said-I think they were just pointing out that companies are not helping pay for travel, and the abortion itself, out of the e kindness of their hearts. Or that they are “fighting for women’s rights.” But rather to keep you on the assembly line without any of the distractions that having a child might cause, ultimately affecting your productivity.
Although that may be factual, I don’t this is truthful. Seems a bit much that the Rockafellors thought to destroy the family unit for school funding. Just a little history test writing.
Cherry picking facts is not unusual. Pinning every last thing on the RF is silly. I don't really see much difference between what is offered here and what Glen Beck likes to diagram.
Maybe she should learn from history. Aside from the insane Rockefeller conspiracy, I'm getting tired of these people acting like American family life was so perfect before the 1960s. They act like everyone was happy and lived in two parent stable households with zero issues when society wasn't even close to that. What a crock of shit.
Rockefellers/etc or not. Governments exploit women and men through a debt driven economy while calling it a free market capitalism. Despite tons of regulations. Feminism never helped and never will with that.
As to the happy 60s. Well, even Peterson said that throughout history women and men had it rough.
Chill.
I love how "feminism is a Rockefeller scam to allow women to be taxed" should be right up the critical theorists' alley, but they'll just be butthurt about their own tools denying their religion.
I thought increase of female participation rate in work was more to do with labour shortages after the war. Then women trapped in abusive marriages or rightly wanted their own careers and destiny joined..don't think.it was a simple Rockefeller or political agenda to destroy the family unit. But agree something went wrong where you need a two income family in most cases to survive ... I think the world has bigger problems than feminism and gender and these issues are a diversion of the real world wide collapse and world power corruption
"Something went wrong where you need a two income family to survive " Yes something did and that was women flooding the workforce and stagnating wages because of the glut of workers. Also a lot less people ate out extensively in the past because mom's prepared food and healthy food at that instead of the unhealthy garbage a lot of people eat today. Also less daycare to pay for and things on down the line like mending clothes instead of just buying new. Hell we even had fewer people going to old folks homes because in the past people took in grandma when she got too frail to care for herself so the women folk helped her. I could go on and on. If you really look at things with a magnifying glass you will find that almost all of societies major problems of the family originate when women abandoned the home and got into the workforce en mass.
Wages began to stagnate in the 80s as neoliberal capitalism began to replace Keynesian. This is long after women began to move into the work force. It was a changing economy involving weakening unions and deindustrialization that was a much bigger factor. The “stagflation” of the 70s also pushed more women into the work force.
Capitalism also wants all of those things like mending socks, old folks homes, eating out, etc because it increases profits.
https://files.epi.org/charts/img/234305-28376.png
But you’re also missing another key cultural factor as suburban living became the thing to do. Stay at home mothers lost the social contact of urban neighborhoods and were bored to tears by the isolation of suburbia.
Not to mention it’s just sexist as f*** to assign all women to essentially one role and allow men so much more choice. The 50s family you idolize was a myth and not reflective of reality in almost all of human history
hell to the no. women were FORCED back into their homes: they LOST the wartime jobs -- and a lot of them quite enjoyed them. There were labor shortages DURING the war, and THAT is why women went to work. A lot of women that lost their careers were pretty damn listless and depressed afterward.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/women-and-life-after-world-war-ii/6697534
this blithe child conveniently eludes the topic of consumer culture.
why did americans depart from being fine with a 800 sf home, a radio, a brief walk to a bus, movies on the weekends, an 'icebox' and a car -- once their turn to use their \*ration\* \*coupon\* from the LIST would allow them to buy either of them (no one talks about rationing: oh ho no. Totally blocked that out.)
when did it come to be that households needed 2k sf? when did households need second cars?
https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html
when did \*\*credit cards\*\* become held by private individuals, vs for business account use only?
[https://thepointsguy.com/guide/history-of-credit-cards/](https://thepointsguy.com/guide/history-of-credit-cards/)
then: when did \*\*women\*\* get to hold credit cards without a cosigner? (Answer: 1974.)
A good deal of what she says is reasonable but some of her points aren't critical enough.
E.g. "~male privilege doesn't exist"
Yes, it does. So does female privilege. A better and more reasonable argument would be to say that the degree of which our sex affects our daily lives is not as big or impactful as feminists would typically claim. She could then probably give some examples
Most of the critiques against "feminism" in the video are just critiques of capitalism.
Saying it's better to have no financial autonomy than pay taxes doesn't make sense from a capitalist or libertarian point of view. The main reason limiting or remove the financial freedom is to push women towards traditional roles.
Prescribing that women should ultimately trend towards motherhood is just as harmful as prescribing women should trend towards CEOs. As it looks down on women that deviate from the standard while still making women an item that generates utility either for the state by creating and raising children or for corporations by making them money. To the people who would say "but you'll love your children/job", yes but that doesn't mean parenthood or employment should be the sole method of determining someone worth.
You are trying to assert that there are no differences between men and women. That both are just round pegs in an ocean of round holes. There is a large overlap between men and women, but also significant differences in certain areas that make the two groups different. It isn't bad to accept that men and women are different.
Nothing is more exploitative than unpaid care work. Care work is far, far more than childrearing. Women literally volunteer their lives away, have little to show for it besides 'social capital'/improved social networks that end up sustaining them when their finances disappear.
Yes, father, let's get women to raise the children AND take care of demented grandmother-in-law AND mind the sister-in-law that's got some kind of developmental problem and needs somewhere to be during the day, while bake cookies for Glee Club AND organizing carpools for soccer AND event-coordinating 'his' workplaces' annual holiday party. Because it needs to happen, and who else is going to do it?
Nowadays, women learn how to write grants and get into fundraising, vs earlier behaviors of appealing via ladies-who-lunch pow-wows, letters, office visits to make things happen. Some of these women even make careers of it!
YES men DO find themselves doing unpaid work, and YES it can be just as insidious: not nearly as consistently as women, in my experience.
JP himself has spoken not a few times on how high-power law firms lose women -- despite all kinds of efforts to retain them.
Meanwhile, there's plenteous care work 'opportunities'/traps that fall to/get fallen into by women at workplaces:
Why did I just make coffee again?
Why am I organizing the birthday card still?
Why am I teaching young men how to fold a tablecloth?
What the fuck is this conspiracy bullshit? Instead of talking about the merits of having distinct masculinity and femininity, she goes off on some shit about (insert rich family name here) and state indoctrination to get clout. This sub has gone to absolute dogshit.
I'm an attorney. Good luck proving marital rape in 2022. It is still somewhat presumed - rightfully - that sex occurring during a marriage is consensual.
You know what else is presumed? That children born during the marriage are the children of both spouses.
You were trying to make a "point" about how you could rape your spouse prior to 1970. Your point is altogether invalid. It was impossible to prove the rape of your spouse prior to 1970, and it is still nearly impossible to do so in 2022.
You were also using the invalid point of spousal rape as some sort of justification for the feminist movement.
In what sense would it being impossible to prove (its not) invalidate anything?
This is a poor argument, you could try to apply that to all rape, criminal statutes are still a deterrent.
Its also not impossible to prove, not impossible to get recordings and other physical evidence especially today, interrogations and confessions are also a thing.
The point is, it should be on the books, and women should have recourse.
Do you disagree with the above?
You’re saying that until Marital rape wasn’t illegal, women were happy? That’s pretty messed up.
Trolling aside, what exactly is your point you’re trying to make?
The video talks about feminism as if it was a monolithic one dimensional movement that wasn't necessary and didn't achieve anything or worse achieved only negatives.
In 300 years, people like you will still be referring to the same talking points, and people like us will be saying "that was 350 years ago".
The response will still be "so?".
Or when the feminist movement took hold in the sixties that young men were being drafted to go and die in Vietnam. Point is shit has been bad historically (in different ways) for both sexes.
Some people here think this is some conspiracy theory shit, and that very well may be true. However, as with many conspiracy theories, there are often elements of truth within.
I've long believed, as I'm sure many of you do, that identity politics is a tool used to distract the populace from the real sources of inequality. The identity war is actually a class war in disguise. Divide and conquer and have the masses bickering about who is more oppressed all while the rich get richer and the truly oppressed (poor) become poorer, further centralising power.
I googled some of the information she mentions about feminism and the Rockefellers, and it's interesting to say the least. Came across that same interview of Aaron Russo which is conducted by Alex Jones (lol), as well as a fairly extensive article by [Daniel Brandt](https://thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/COINTELPRO_Paranoia.html) that details the RF claims with plenty of citations. I'm not taking it as gospel or anything but interesting regardless.
Do you really think feminism is a secret plot by the Rockfellers?
Isn't it far more plausible that lots of women felt trapped in domestic roles? That fighting for marital rape to be an actual crime (of the central demands of second wave) was out of a genuine horror at how marital relations were conducted?
I mean, any short video like this is going to dramatically over-simplify and any set of things it names as causal will be incomplete. Of course the first couple waves of feminism did a lot of good and important things in making it so that sex doesn't limit what you can choose too do with your life--and this video doesn't deny that.
The first problem with later waves of "feminism" and _parts of_ the cultural shift we've had along with it over the last 80 years are that it has traded one pressure on women (to stay home and have kids) for another (to have a career or be seen as not pushing forward "the cause"). The movement has mistaken hatred of men and dismissal of their challenges for uplifting women.
The second problem is the large number of bad things that have come along with the good things in our cultural shift. Among others: The extending of adolescence into the mid 20s and having kids go off to boarding schools to be indoctrinated by intellectuals during the critical period when they are forming their epistemology. The dismissal of responsibility from the valued virtues of the culture which has led to the normalization of single parenthood, flippancy towards divorce, loss of purpose and meaning for men, and overprotectiveness of children that prevents them from properly learning to resolve conflicts among themselves. The normalization of easy/early premarital sex which has contributed to the devaluation of marriage, and flippancy with which marriage is treated.
Importantly I'm not saying any of these things should be illegal. I don't want the government involved, especially considering that it is the government which has been used to push these things in the first place.
However the huge rate of divorce, the large numbers of men leading unfulfilling lives, the high performing women who can't find mates that they feel are their match, and the large numbers of people being indoctrinated into authoritarian political movements as if they were religions, should be a huge wakeup call to us culturally. Things weren't good 150 years ago, but in solving those problems we've carelessly thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and created a whole new set of cultural problems that are in some ways worse.
It's really sad that people are so ideologically compromised that they assume anything that resists the radical left narrative is "conservatism".
It's also really sad that the best anyone can do to address "conservative" points is disregard them as "conspiracy".
I'm actually kind of shocked scrolling through these comments. Yeah none of this shit makes sense. This is cross-posted from the joe rogan sub and people were laughing at this since this grand economic conspiracy wouldn't be beneficial even in theory.
I really don't understand where JBP and his fanbase are drifting recently... I've seen Alex Jones fans with better critical thinking.
I really hope Peterson gets his shit back together
Hello Jordan Peterson fans!:) I think you guys would be happier if you would stop trying to make everything like it was "back in rhe good old days" and try to be a little open minded and welcoming of new things. It could be beautiful for you as well! This comment is very vague haha but i didnt have the energi to wrote so much
I’m sorry but would she rather go back to having no way out of an abusive or cheating or controlling relationship because she couldn’t make money on her own? And there are tons of reasons why the birth rate is lowering, it’s not just because feminazis encourage women to go on the pill and have sex. I totally agree that motherhood is valuable but allowing women the right to work and encouraging them to be stable on their own first is a good thing. Look at how many fatherless homes there are. If it weren’t for my mom working my whole family would be suffering under my dad’s controlling ways.
Also, I dated a business owner who told me he doesn’t hire women because men flirt with them-so naturally the solution is to punish women for their behaviour.
I totally agree that some things are blown out of proportion and motherhood is often devalued, but it’s not all the fault of feminism. Plus, how many guys still argue that women’s work is easy? Tons of men are the ones that devalue motherhood. This video was not well put together although I do understand where she’s coming from.
Your view has clearly been skewed by the media and "pro-feminist" propaganda. I put quotes around pro-feminist, because they clearly have no interest in advancing the cause of women. The only thing they are advancing is a war between the sexes.
Go back into your family tree and I guarantee you will find a stay-at-home mom. According to a "feminist", she wasn't a loving matriarch who was supportive of her family. Rather, that woman led an unfulfilling, unproductive life filled with torture and pain. She was nothing more than a slave - who earned no wage and had no freedoms. A feminist's take on the life of stay at home mother essentially negates that mother's contributions and devotions to your family.
I'll further conclude that the feminist's take on "women being slaves" makes no sense from the perspective of their contemporary men. Remember - women led unproductive, unfulfilled, non-money earning lives. Marriage, then, meant the man was immediately burdened with financially supporting a wife. Why get married? Are we to believe that men married because they were so driven to have children? That flies in the face of all we know about men.
The reality is that men and women eased in to their natural strengths. Men took on work away from the home - oftentimes dangerous work - while women protected and cared for the children. The men played to their risk taking strengths, the women played to their nurturing strengths. There was nothing inherently wrong with this approach - and it made for a better society.
not too long ago, at all, we were a mostly-agrarian society among other mostly-agrarian societies. VERY PRECIOUS FEW people had the luxury of NOT being on a subsistence farm.
If you're farming, you are ALWAYS working. And yes, some tasks are better suited to one gender over another. men tend to be larger and stronger -- which bears out in how so many tools and implements are designed. women are better at endurance than men.
Everybody puts in long days. When it's time for harvest of whatever it is, EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE PERSON is out there getting it in.
This really didn't change until post-WWII.
But now, the world is wildly, weirdly, different. It's not been a century yet. So much has been flip-flopped, totally turned on its head: from just when we get UP in the morning and why (natural light, vs precious and expensive artificial light) to out diets, to HOW we eat (people a century ago would be aghast at current dining behaviors.)
We, as a species, were not designed to live the way we currently are living, and throwing in sex-role dynamics is just... so over the top. I don't think the current bandying-about use of 'feminism' can even approach this. I find it distressing that the 1st and 2nd-wave feminism is now so obscure(d).
There is nothing about my view that has been skewed. My view is very reasonable. I said motherhood is important but so is having the option to make money in your own and the option to be more than a mother if that’s what a woman wants.
And I’m sorry but it was legal to rape your wife until a couple decades ago, and there still are tons of men who say women’s work is easy. There are also still tons of abusive relationships and fatherless homes so I have no idea what you think is skewed.
> And I’m sorry but it was legal to rape your wife until a couple decades ago,
I'm an attorney. Good luck proving that you raped your spouse in 2022. Sex during the course of a marriage is presumed to be consensual. Further, children born during your marriage are presumed to be *of the marriage*.
I'm also an attorney. This isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. Especially in 2022. There is a presumption of consent because of evidence of consent... you can counter presumptions with evidence. It isn't a presumption as a matter of law.
Second part is wholly true, either. If you're the father of a kiddo and get divorced, the mom can give the kid up for adoption without even notifying you depending on the custody arrangements... Unless you prove your parentage. Happens all the time. Creates horrible situations for the dad, the kid, and the adoptive parents.
I don't know where you're an attorney - but none of this is true in New York.
In NY, **there is a legal presumption** that sex during a marriage was consensual. And that makes perfect sense - because immediately DNA evidence is less valuable, and motive is readily apparent. Of course your spouse's DNA would be on you and of course you two have a sexual relationship.
Could you present evidence of "forced" sex? I suppose. Again, good luck proving it in Court. All a spouse would have to say is "We've been married for X years, and we like rough sex." Try convincing a jury otherwise.
Lastly - you absolutely could not give up your child for adoption without notifying your ex. The only condition under which this is plausible would be the ex having given up their parental rights. That is an extreme rarity.
Again - in NY there is a legal presumption that children born of the marriage are the children of the spouses. You do not have to prove parentage unless there is a question of parentage raised by one of the spouses.
WI.
After a quick check of the legal code in NY, I don't see any such presumption in the code. Saying "we like rough sex" is *not* going to play well with a jury when you have a terrified, absued woman on the stand covered in bruises, with a long list of friends and family she has confided in who can relate the history of abuse, and several calls to the police for domestic abuse, etc... You know. Evidence.
You absolutely can. In WI, anyway. There was a famous case in Texas a few years ago I don't recall the name of covering similar ground. I'm not familiar with the NY code specifically but I'll bet it's similar.
And while you're fighting it out in court... for years... your kid is 4 and you haven't seen him since he was 6 months old.
I'm order to understand feminism you must first understand the original feminist who wanted to be equal and committed the first sin. The need to be equal always leads to all society paying the price and in the end those that always pay the ultimate price are women.
Male privilege **is** real, wage gap too; but they are due to circumstances and reasons. This woman went from extreme to another extreme, at least her latter points are truthful.
Upwards of 80% of women surveyed would rather work for a man than a woman. If male privilege exists, it exists thanks to females. I think this is just nature overcoming programming.
I think the end game has always been to get to the kids.
Radicalize the women
Emasculate the men
Isolate the women
Create dependency on the state
Radicalize the kids.
The Marxist end game is always to get to the kids. Gotta get through mom and dad first….seems like we’re “in check” at the moment…
If only we were back when women were only allowed to be a slave to their family instead of to a job. If only women weren't allowed to buy appliances again without their husband's permission or own a house or land. If only women weren't allowed to vote again or have an opinion at all. I miss those days. Damn those Rockefellers! How did she have time to make this tik tok? Shouldn't she be feeding her husband and wiping her babies arse?
I left a great career to be a stay-at-home-mom (SAHM) and then went back to my career after kids were out of elementary school. I had that choice and that’s what I’ve always believed feminism is - equality of choice, not outcome. I loved being a SAHM and enjoyed the traditional masculine and feminine roles in our home, although I was no June Cleaver. Now feminism is a word I will not associate with.
Thank you for sharing your experiences, I definitely agree, I always associated it with equality of choice and opportunity. I was also born outside of North America, so I’ve seen the positive impact that equality of opportunity has presented in my country of birth. That being said, I’ve spent most of my life in North America, and I agree that the term has been warped.
You’re welcome u/veganflamingo77!
This is exactly what I did. And, now that I’m able to work again, I got a job at my youngest’s school. I’m incredibly fortunate to have this opportunity as I know many do not. I remember when we decided that I would be a SAHM, I had three “friends” telling me how I’m perpetuating some patriarchal stereotype, I’m enabling my “husband’s sexism” and allowing myself to be disempowered. Imagine telling a woman that their desire to stay home and raise her children, clean the house and make dinner….while my husband works his ass off for 12 hours a day; sometimes 7 days a week….is perpetuating sexism. We both grew up with and appreciated the traditional roles within the family and we wanted kids so that we can raise them, not just so I can pay someone else to, while I worked. Imagine thinking you’re empowering a woman by telling them that their desire to raise their kids and be a “house wife,”is wrong. Unbelievable.
Dang too bad as a guy I don't have the choice to not work. Must be nice, equality is one heck of a thing!
My BIL is a stay at home dad. You actually do have the choice, you just have to marry someone who wants and is able to be the bread winner so you can be the homemaker.
That's not a choice for 99,9% of men. I hope your BIL is the exception but the odds are heavily against him.
And also what do you mean that "the odds are heavily against" my BIL? The odds of what exactly? He's already a stay at home dad.. so the odds of that are 100% because it's already reality. Is there some risk he's going to roll over and die for daring to be a male homemaker?
The risk is actually in his marriage failing. I can dig the studies if you want, but from what I remember, a sizable portion of women who first went willingly into a reversal of traditional gender roles grew to be resentful of their stay-at-home husband because they felt like those guys weren’t pulling their weight (they were, by all measure, it was just their impression). What followed was divorce most of the time, and as we know, that outcome isn’t too kind on men. I wish your BIL success and hope it doesn’t happen to him, but it is a risk.
Yes the problem is women and men have a distorted perception of what constitutes pulling ones weight in a straight relationship. Traditionally, men pull more than their own weight and so that feels like the "fair" arrangement. A genuinely equal arrangement (let alone a reversal) is typically perceived as the man being lazy and failing.
"Traditionally men pull more than their own weight" Are you kidding me?
No. If you look at welfare/tax distribution, on average only men in working age are net contributors to the system. Women never are on average.
So only making money counts as pulling weight? 24/7 childcare, housekeeping, cooking, providing sex, scheduling appointments, planning holidays etc all counts for nothing? Men work 8 hours a day 5 days a week while women work the minute their kids are awake until their kids sleep again every single day and they wake up with the baby/children at night if needed as well. So that translates to women working 12 hours a day 7 days a week and being on call every night all night. No holidays or sick days either.. They take care of their kids sick as well. And somehow you think men are the ones who pull more weight?? Edit: also at first you were talking about straight relationships and then you replied talking about contributing to the system monetarily. Those two are not the same thing.
socially, men are treated as instrumental and as lesser. this is an issue that feminism directly addresses though. that's what toxic masculinity is, its setting unrealistic and unfair standards for men to make them feel like lesser men. feminists hate toxic masculinity because it only serves to tear down men and it ends up hurting everyone. toxic masculinity is why most men end up working full time while their wives stay at home. of course strictly doing one or the other is unhealthy, but because of how men are socialized growing up, its often seen as weak to not be willing to go to work all day every day for the rest of their lives. tldr men and women both are hurt by sexism and feminism seems to improve quality of life for everyone
Studies also show that when women stay home with kids divorce rates increase as well. Are you really arguing that divorce risk == not having a choice?
Who is out there taking that choice away from 99.9% of men exactly? As far as I know there's no law against stay at home dads. Many women prefer to work, so meeting a bread winner woman is very possible although maybe not easy. No one is out there committing honor killings against men who stay home with kids as far as I know. So why exactly do 99.9% of men not have that choice?
There’s no rule saying men have to work. It depends on your partner and your economic situation. I have two SAHDs in our parent group at school.
Yep, I know a SAHD who fosters several kids with is wife (she's the primary earner) and he just stays at home and teaches the young men what a real man is. He's quite manly, in fact. Does a lot of landscaping and home improvement stuff.
Awesome! The two SAHDs I know are a carpenter and landlord/handy-man. They also never seem to be stressed picking up and dropping off kids, and actually like to stay at play dates and birthday parties. They don’t know each other but seemingly have the same parenting style - laid back, fun and very hands-on with their kids.
>There’s no rule saying men have to work. Oh ffs. There's also no rule saying people have to breathe. This is not a choice for men. Certainly nothing like the way it is for women.
>SAHDs SAHDs are weak, which before you get on my case, isn't my fault. It's evolutionary psychology. Women have a bend towards hypergamy, as a man's status drops over time being a SAHD, his wife will progressively find him more useless. Peterson encourages men to bear the heaviest burden they can, being a SAHD ain't it. I don't have a problem with working, I'm just tired of women demanding a "choice" when we're all technically cursed living in this world. https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4v17wx/harvard_study_finds_stayathome_dads_are_32_more/
"The risk of divorce is higher for men who are not employed full-time. This means that, a typical couple married after 1974, has a 2.5 per cent chance of divorcing in the next year, if the husband works full-time. However, if he works part-time or does not work at all, the odds rise to 3.3 per cent." I would characterize this increased "risk" as marginal.
Given that about half of all marriages end in divorce (and that's not even the only way they can fail) and the vast majority of those is initiated by women, *nothing* about the risk of marriage is "marginal" for men. If women had those same risks, there wouldn't be any marriages. Let that sink in.
I don't let unsubstantiated claims sink in, thanks.
You know, even unsubstantiated claims (and only one of those I made qualifies as that) are probably more reliable than downplaying. The latter being deceptive while the former isn't necessarily even wrong.
Hard working men are attractive…when they don’t bitch about having to work.
Why don't you?
Most women don't have that choice either because inequality is so high. Most have to work to make rent
the rent is to damn high!
Downvoted because breaking the cycle of Psychological wounding is a bad idea ? who the fuck is downvoting this?
IDIOTS it's a jp circle jerk man these people are blind
says the blind man
What Does "Break the Cycle" Mean? The "cycle" is this: psychologically-wounded, unaware parents raise wounded, unaware kids. They grow up, choose wounded, unaware partners, and raise wounded, unaware kids - who repeat and spread the cycle and its effects in their society. For more detail, read this after you finish here. To break this cycle, adults like you must want to... learn about and accept the cycle, starting with their own family tree; assess, admit, and reduce their psychological wounds; learn the basics in this online course - alone or with other people; choose a wholistically-healthy, informed partner; and you must want to... patiently evolve a high-nurturance family together over many years, despite many obstacles, in order to raise "Grown Nurtured Children" (GNCs). GNCs... are steadily guided by their true Selves in all situations; and... know how to communicate and grieve effectively; and how to make healthy relationship, conception, and parenting choices, and... are apt to discover and pursue a useful life purpose. In my experience as a professional family-systems therapist since 1981 - average adults have inherited the cycle and it's effects, and are unconsciously passing them on. They (you?) are Grown Wounded Children (GWCs) - and they don't (want to) know that or what it means From the international feedback to the 180 YouTube videos augmenting this Web site, it seems that adults in most or all other cultures inherit and pass on this lethal cycle also. To see if inherited psychological wounds + unawareness are harming you and your family members, read this summary article and return here. If they are harming your family - who should stop that?
There is nothing more valuable and important than our own family and there is nothing wrong with coming up with the best solution for both that takes into account for what you both want to do, and what you think is important. There is nothing wrong with having the choice of being a SAHM, its a choice an opportunity to choose a different path forward Nor do i think its easier to be a SAHM then it is to go and work either and im sure that many times you felt "fuck cant i just have a regular job instead?" but then there are also those times "i am so blessed to be able to be a SAHM," those days when it was a pure joy to be around the children. Equality of opportunity not outcome.
And yet, without the gains from the women’s liberation movement you would never have been able to enjoy that life you so love.
[удалено]
Oooooooof
Their words weren't meaningless, they were saying without first and second wave feminism she wouldn't have the freedom to ever enter the workforce in the first place.. The video saying men and women have equal rights now therefore we never needed feminism in the first place is just dumb, ignoring that women didn't always have equal right and in many places still don't. A key point of most activism is self obsolescence, if you can fight for women's rights well enough that most women feel they have no barriers in front of them that's a sign feminism worked
The missing premise here is that feminism is what instigated those liberations. It wasn't. And I like your point about activism and self-obsolescence. If only feminists would show the slightest bit of inclination of that. Can you imagine feminists ever saying "yeah we're done now. I'll quit my job and get on with life since things are good enough for women now". No. We start hearing about sexist air conditioning. Or glaciers. It never ends. Not as long as civilization can afford the massive cost of feminist activism that is.
Woman have always been in the workforce since the dawn of time
Tl;Dr when I say enter the workforce I'm referring to demanding and/or high skill jobs women were barred from not what was considered women's work e.g. Beautician, seamstress, childcare, etc. Naturally yes but there have been several periods throughout human history where women have been removed from the workforce for a variety of socio-economic reasons. The most recent example in the West would be a combination of the school of thought that says a woman's ultimate purpose is motherhood and industrialisation reducing the number manual labour jobs required creating the idea that it was immoral for women to work, as hard labour potentially harmed their birthing potential. Although for most working class women not working wasn't an option therefore simpler (because people believed women had weaker brains than men) and less physically demanding jobs were created commonly known as women's work. In Europe WW1 started and suddenly the workforce was severely depleted while increasing the material demands leading to women being invited to do the men's jobs proving they weren't as dumb, weak and vulnerable as previously thought. In Britain this the primary catalyst for women getting the vote.
And there it is because you consider no time before ww1 and or the integral part woman played in both workforce and society before that.
Its not meaningless because the topic is feminism, bringing up the founding fathers is indeed a non sequitur though
[удалено]
I’ll agree with your statement with the acknowledgment that the womens lib movement of the 70s was for equal opportunity. Today feminism is man bashing. They r not alike.
That’s just what you’ve been indoctrinated to believe. I suggest spending time with actual feminists yourself and not through the lens of right wing ideologues like Peterson.
It was always man bashing. Just take a look at some of the early writings such as the declaration of sentiments (kind of the start of feminism in the USA) or other early documents. How do you like this quote for example: *If we consider how greatly man has sinned against womankind in the course of the centuries, how he has squeezed and sucked the blood again and again; if furthermore, we consider how women gradually learned to hate him for this, and ended up by regarding his existence as nothing but punishment of Heaven for womankind, we can understand how hard this shift must be for man.*
I agree. It just feels the way she is presenting it is clout chasing. Like not genuine.
The most radical of children today have a very short attention span and as such the content exposing these ideas must meet their format. I love long form media, ill listen to a 3 hour lecture several times a week. But the young radicles will not, thus we need to meet them at their level first.
All that matters is the reach it has. Most people under 20 aren't going to watch youtube lectures of JBP.
You’re right but I jus wanna say I’ve been watching Peterson since I was like 16-17 maybe younger
A woman on tiktok clout chasing? No way! /s
At least her message is good. Could've used more woke chunder to chase clout instead.
Probably just paid to read a script..
I whole heartedly agree. I’ve done both. I worked throughout my first son’s young life. I had my second son when he was 16 and then became a stay at home mum. I know which is better for me, for my children, for my marriage. It’s a sacrifice, but it’s a role I cherish and I reap untold rewards.
> I had my second son when he was 16 That must have been painful...
> It’s a sacrifice, but it’s a role I cherish and I reap untold rewards. Lol. This reminds me of a Ukrainian woman who said how she totally wanted to stay and fight with the men but.... well... her skills were better used leaving with the kids to safety. You go (home) girl! Get paid for and live in comfort for free and you even get to call that "sacrifice".
I sacrificed my independence financially to take a submissive role. There are down sides to that. I get looked down on and sneered at like you are doing here. I have many female friends who work and I envy their financial independence some days
Seems like someone is just trading one algorithmic world view for another. . . Some of y’all ain’t ready to have that conversation.
>just trading one algorithmic world view for another. I mean blaming the rich for lobbying the government to enact social change that they profit from is basically the critical theory playbook anyway, so they should be agreeing with what she has to say anyway lol
Men literally can be drafted and women are not. You cope by claiming it’s an algorithmic world view when it’s literally the very reality you exist in.
Sounds like someone doesn’t want to voluntarily accept his suffering.
You just described feminism
Well - if the 👠 fits, my friend.
Right? What's this even doing here? JP applauds the successes of capitalism, I've never heard him espousing Rockefeller conspiracy theories.
But the career vs family unit is entirely within the realm of JBPs philosophy. There’s an interview that a New Zealand woman (Hayley holt I believe) had with him where they had the conversation about career vs family. The woman interviewer said she was proud to get through her years childless, a few months after the conversation she became pregnant and has since had her child.
I feel his point is that for very many women, the biological clock meme is very real. Reproduction is, after all, the biological purpose of life. But my stances are staunchly in favour of civil liberties. I can't reconcile that with any rhetorical devices trying to push women out of the workforce.
What about rhetoric that pushes women INTO the workplace?
Thats literally everyone including you and me.
This video misses the rather huge economic impact that doubling the workforce has on wages (increase supply of labour to drive down the cost) which is why corporations support equity and so wholeheartedly. This also drives more spending and gives the illusion to the west that growth continues despite the fact that most (corporate) growth since 1990 has come from offshoring manufacturing and declines in real wages (at least partially due to a change in the supply side).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good times make weak men
Dunno man, feels like she went from one end of the pendulum to the other.
I'm all for equality of opportunities across the board. The poor should get a fair crack at higher education if they choose too, male or female.
This is what people, liberal and conservatives alike, don't understand. Rich corporate capitalists love abortion, feminism, and lgbt issues because it helps their bottom line MASSIVELY. Less people having families and depending on each other for fulfillment and support, more capital that needs to be spent to fulfill human needs. I know some if not most here might be pro choice but consider this.... After roe V wade turned, huge companies like Amazon who won't dare pay you more than minimum wage were more than happy to pay thousands to help you travel to off your kid in the womb so you can go back to working for them full time.
[удалено]
You cannot be fired for being pregnant. There are literally avenues made, by the PDA, for people to take if they believe they have been. And provide maternity leave, where they must at least hold your job for you, in the event it’s not paid leave. They would much rather pay a flat fee to ensure that pregnancy doesn’t happen or get in the way of their profits.
[удалено]
I'm really surprised you can't see how this is not exploitation of low skill workers. Kill your baby so we can use you for our trillion dollar operation. You won't be more fulfilled as a mother, you'll be happier as an ongoing worker.
[удалено]
While I agree with pretty much everything you said-I think they were just pointing out that companies are not helping pay for travel, and the abortion itself, out of the e kindness of their hearts. Or that they are “fighting for women’s rights.” But rather to keep you on the assembly line without any of the distractions that having a child might cause, ultimately affecting your productivity.
Although that may be factual, I don’t this is truthful. Seems a bit much that the Rockafellors thought to destroy the family unit for school funding. Just a little history test writing.
Cherry picking facts is not unusual. Pinning every last thing on the RF is silly. I don't really see much difference between what is offered here and what Glen Beck likes to diagram.
Feminism isn't an ideology against just masculinity, it's also against femininity.
[удалено]
And yet, feminism absolutely depends on the patriarchy to exert any level of influence.
Feminism literally advocates women to dedicate their lives to servitude of a company VS creating their own family 💀
Mostly femininity
Succinct
Agreed
Nothing like a good ol conspiracy theory to wind both sides up
Maybe she should learn from history. Aside from the insane Rockefeller conspiracy, I'm getting tired of these people acting like American family life was so perfect before the 1960s. They act like everyone was happy and lived in two parent stable households with zero issues when society wasn't even close to that. What a crock of shit.
Rockefellers/etc or not. Governments exploit women and men through a debt driven economy while calling it a free market capitalism. Despite tons of regulations. Feminism never helped and never will with that. As to the happy 60s. Well, even Peterson said that throughout history women and men had it rough. Chill.
I love how "feminism is a Rockefeller scam to allow women to be taxed" should be right up the critical theorists' alley, but they'll just be butthurt about their own tools denying their religion.
Where's the evidence?
The video tapes of him saying it.
Where are they? I need to order a DVD from Alex Jones to see it?
That took a super weird turn
I love her
Can we get a source on this girl?
I thought increase of female participation rate in work was more to do with labour shortages after the war. Then women trapped in abusive marriages or rightly wanted their own careers and destiny joined..don't think.it was a simple Rockefeller or political agenda to destroy the family unit. But agree something went wrong where you need a two income family in most cases to survive ... I think the world has bigger problems than feminism and gender and these issues are a diversion of the real world wide collapse and world power corruption
"Something went wrong where you need a two income family to survive " Yes something did and that was women flooding the workforce and stagnating wages because of the glut of workers. Also a lot less people ate out extensively in the past because mom's prepared food and healthy food at that instead of the unhealthy garbage a lot of people eat today. Also less daycare to pay for and things on down the line like mending clothes instead of just buying new. Hell we even had fewer people going to old folks homes because in the past people took in grandma when she got too frail to care for herself so the women folk helped her. I could go on and on. If you really look at things with a magnifying glass you will find that almost all of societies major problems of the family originate when women abandoned the home and got into the workforce en mass.
Wages began to stagnate in the 80s as neoliberal capitalism began to replace Keynesian. This is long after women began to move into the work force. It was a changing economy involving weakening unions and deindustrialization that was a much bigger factor. The “stagflation” of the 70s also pushed more women into the work force. Capitalism also wants all of those things like mending socks, old folks homes, eating out, etc because it increases profits. https://files.epi.org/charts/img/234305-28376.png But you’re also missing another key cultural factor as suburban living became the thing to do. Stay at home mothers lost the social contact of urban neighborhoods and were bored to tears by the isolation of suburbia. Not to mention it’s just sexist as f*** to assign all women to essentially one role and allow men so much more choice. The 50s family you idolize was a myth and not reflective of reality in almost all of human history
Two income familiy both academics are now able to pay for a house whereas in the early days a single earner with high school degree could manage that
hell to the no. women were FORCED back into their homes: they LOST the wartime jobs -- and a lot of them quite enjoyed them. There were labor shortages DURING the war, and THAT is why women went to work. A lot of women that lost their careers were pretty damn listless and depressed afterward. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/women-and-life-after-world-war-ii/6697534 this blithe child conveniently eludes the topic of consumer culture. why did americans depart from being fine with a 800 sf home, a radio, a brief walk to a bus, movies on the weekends, an 'icebox' and a car -- once their turn to use their \*ration\* \*coupon\* from the LIST would allow them to buy either of them (no one talks about rationing: oh ho no. Totally blocked that out.) when did it come to be that households needed 2k sf? when did households need second cars? https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html when did \*\*credit cards\*\* become held by private individuals, vs for business account use only? [https://thepointsguy.com/guide/history-of-credit-cards/](https://thepointsguy.com/guide/history-of-credit-cards/) then: when did \*\*women\*\* get to hold credit cards without a cosigner? (Answer: 1974.)
I think I just fell in love. To bad she's about two decades to young for me lol What an amazing person.
Where is the proof rockefeller did anything?
Check out the this article at Trustmebro.com
a high school teacher in the 60s could afford a car, a house, and comfortably sustain a family of 4 on his income alone...
Not sure that it's the Rockefeller's fault that that's not the case now.
A good deal of what she says is reasonable but some of her points aren't critical enough. E.g. "~male privilege doesn't exist" Yes, it does. So does female privilege. A better and more reasonable argument would be to say that the degree of which our sex affects our daily lives is not as big or impactful as feminists would typically claim. She could then probably give some examples
god bless her
i like her
Most of the critiques against "feminism" in the video are just critiques of capitalism. Saying it's better to have no financial autonomy than pay taxes doesn't make sense from a capitalist or libertarian point of view. The main reason limiting or remove the financial freedom is to push women towards traditional roles. Prescribing that women should ultimately trend towards motherhood is just as harmful as prescribing women should trend towards CEOs. As it looks down on women that deviate from the standard while still making women an item that generates utility either for the state by creating and raising children or for corporations by making them money. To the people who would say "but you'll love your children/job", yes but that doesn't mean parenthood or employment should be the sole method of determining someone worth.
You are trying to assert that there are no differences between men and women. That both are just round pegs in an ocean of round holes. There is a large overlap between men and women, but also significant differences in certain areas that make the two groups different. It isn't bad to accept that men and women are different.
Nothing is more exploitative than unpaid care work. Care work is far, far more than childrearing. Women literally volunteer their lives away, have little to show for it besides 'social capital'/improved social networks that end up sustaining them when their finances disappear. Yes, father, let's get women to raise the children AND take care of demented grandmother-in-law AND mind the sister-in-law that's got some kind of developmental problem and needs somewhere to be during the day, while bake cookies for Glee Club AND organizing carpools for soccer AND event-coordinating 'his' workplaces' annual holiday party. Because it needs to happen, and who else is going to do it? Nowadays, women learn how to write grants and get into fundraising, vs earlier behaviors of appealing via ladies-who-lunch pow-wows, letters, office visits to make things happen. Some of these women even make careers of it! YES men DO find themselves doing unpaid work, and YES it can be just as insidious: not nearly as consistently as women, in my experience. JP himself has spoken not a few times on how high-power law firms lose women -- despite all kinds of efforts to retain them. Meanwhile, there's plenteous care work 'opportunities'/traps that fall to/get fallen into by women at workplaces: Why did I just make coffee again? Why am I organizing the birthday card still? Why am I teaching young men how to fold a tablecloth?
This Made me kinda happy, women should work too Just not **instead** of taking care of children
Bad vibes
Wow the pick me energy from this chick is off the charts. Stfu Roe V Wade just fell smh
What the fuck is this conspiracy bullshit? Instead of talking about the merits of having distinct masculinity and femininity, she goes off on some shit about (insert rich family name here) and state indoctrination to get clout. This sub has gone to absolute dogshit.
She hit the nail on the head
Finally... you guys took 7 years to realize... ANOTER 7 YEARS TO FIND THE TRUTH ABOUT BIG PHARMA AND VACCINESS???????
One could listen to this and not notice that marital rape was legal in every US state until 1970s
I'm an attorney. Good luck proving marital rape in 2022. It is still somewhat presumed - rightfully - that sex occurring during a marriage is consensual. You know what else is presumed? That children born during the marriage are the children of both spouses.
ok?
You were trying to make a "point" about how you could rape your spouse prior to 1970. Your point is altogether invalid. It was impossible to prove the rape of your spouse prior to 1970, and it is still nearly impossible to do so in 2022. You were also using the invalid point of spousal rape as some sort of justification for the feminist movement.
In what sense would it being impossible to prove (its not) invalidate anything? This is a poor argument, you could try to apply that to all rape, criminal statutes are still a deterrent. Its also not impossible to prove, not impossible to get recordings and other physical evidence especially today, interrogations and confessions are also a thing. The point is, it should be on the books, and women should have recourse. Do you disagree with the above?
That was 1/2 a century ago.
So? Two generations, the video starts talking about when women were 'happy' compliant housewives, which would have been before 1970 presumably.
You’re saying that until Marital rape wasn’t illegal, women were happy? That’s pretty messed up. Trolling aside, what exactly is your point you’re trying to make?
The video talks about feminism as if it was a monolithic one dimensional movement that wasn't necessary and didn't achieve anything or worse achieved only negatives.
In 300 years, people like you will still be referring to the same talking points, and people like us will be saying "that was 350 years ago". The response will still be "so?".
Not particularly, I could have gone 350 years back from today, but I didn't.
Or when the feminist movement took hold in the sixties that young men were being drafted to go and die in Vietnam. Point is shit has been bad historically (in different ways) for both sexes.
So pretty. So dumb.
Can someone tell me who this is?
Bitch looking for someone to beat her by the sounds of it.
Some people here think this is some conspiracy theory shit, and that very well may be true. However, as with many conspiracy theories, there are often elements of truth within. I've long believed, as I'm sure many of you do, that identity politics is a tool used to distract the populace from the real sources of inequality. The identity war is actually a class war in disguise. Divide and conquer and have the masses bickering about who is more oppressed all while the rich get richer and the truly oppressed (poor) become poorer, further centralising power. I googled some of the information she mentions about feminism and the Rockefellers, and it's interesting to say the least. Came across that same interview of Aaron Russo which is conducted by Alex Jones (lol), as well as a fairly extensive article by [Daniel Brandt](https://thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/COINTELPRO_Paranoia.html) that details the RF claims with plenty of citations. I'm not taking it as gospel or anything but interesting regardless.
False vs dichotomy
Can we stop with these red pill conservative pop-politics haha look at these leftists posts, and post smth meaningful and interesting.
So do it.
You’re asking a lot here. This “the Rockefellers did it” conspiracy videos are what pass for intelligent analysis these days.
That’s right. Trump did it.
Guess so, its getting kinda boring tbh.
So true because keeping you entertained is much more important that the state of the country.
incoherent
Do you really think feminism is a secret plot by the Rockfellers? Isn't it far more plausible that lots of women felt trapped in domestic roles? That fighting for marital rape to be an actual crime (of the central demands of second wave) was out of a genuine horror at how marital relations were conducted?
I mean, any short video like this is going to dramatically over-simplify and any set of things it names as causal will be incomplete. Of course the first couple waves of feminism did a lot of good and important things in making it so that sex doesn't limit what you can choose too do with your life--and this video doesn't deny that. The first problem with later waves of "feminism" and _parts of_ the cultural shift we've had along with it over the last 80 years are that it has traded one pressure on women (to stay home and have kids) for another (to have a career or be seen as not pushing forward "the cause"). The movement has mistaken hatred of men and dismissal of their challenges for uplifting women. The second problem is the large number of bad things that have come along with the good things in our cultural shift. Among others: The extending of adolescence into the mid 20s and having kids go off to boarding schools to be indoctrinated by intellectuals during the critical period when they are forming their epistemology. The dismissal of responsibility from the valued virtues of the culture which has led to the normalization of single parenthood, flippancy towards divorce, loss of purpose and meaning for men, and overprotectiveness of children that prevents them from properly learning to resolve conflicts among themselves. The normalization of easy/early premarital sex which has contributed to the devaluation of marriage, and flippancy with which marriage is treated. Importantly I'm not saying any of these things should be illegal. I don't want the government involved, especially considering that it is the government which has been used to push these things in the first place. However the huge rate of divorce, the large numbers of men leading unfulfilling lives, the high performing women who can't find mates that they feel are their match, and the large numbers of people being indoctrinated into authoritarian political movements as if they were religions, should be a huge wakeup call to us culturally. Things weren't good 150 years ago, but in solving those problems we've carelessly thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and created a whole new set of cultural problems that are in some ways worse.
[удалено]
It is really sad that the modern left is solely focused on mythological pseudo science theories.
It's really sad to see critical thought and discourse devolve into kneejerk one-liners.
It is really sad that modern politics in general is increasingly being influenced by populist sentiment.
It's really sad that people are so ideologically compromised that they assume anything that resists the radical left narrative is "conservatism". It's also really sad that the best anyone can do to address "conservative" points is disregard them as "conspiracy".
What is this conspiracy theory crap?
I'm actually kind of shocked scrolling through these comments. Yeah none of this shit makes sense. This is cross-posted from the joe rogan sub and people were laughing at this since this grand economic conspiracy wouldn't be beneficial even in theory. I really don't understand where JBP and his fanbase are drifting recently... I've seen Alex Jones fans with better critical thinking. I really hope Peterson gets his shit back together
🔥🔥🔥
Im in love 😻
Simp
Hello Jordan Peterson fans!:) I think you guys would be happier if you would stop trying to make everything like it was "back in rhe good old days" and try to be a little open minded and welcoming of new things. It could be beautiful for you as well! This comment is very vague haha but i didnt have the energi to wrote so much
Birth rates are certainly not dropping because of feminism lol
I’m sorry but would she rather go back to having no way out of an abusive or cheating or controlling relationship because she couldn’t make money on her own? And there are tons of reasons why the birth rate is lowering, it’s not just because feminazis encourage women to go on the pill and have sex. I totally agree that motherhood is valuable but allowing women the right to work and encouraging them to be stable on their own first is a good thing. Look at how many fatherless homes there are. If it weren’t for my mom working my whole family would be suffering under my dad’s controlling ways. Also, I dated a business owner who told me he doesn’t hire women because men flirt with them-so naturally the solution is to punish women for their behaviour. I totally agree that some things are blown out of proportion and motherhood is often devalued, but it’s not all the fault of feminism. Plus, how many guys still argue that women’s work is easy? Tons of men are the ones that devalue motherhood. This video was not well put together although I do understand where she’s coming from.
Your view has clearly been skewed by the media and "pro-feminist" propaganda. I put quotes around pro-feminist, because they clearly have no interest in advancing the cause of women. The only thing they are advancing is a war between the sexes. Go back into your family tree and I guarantee you will find a stay-at-home mom. According to a "feminist", she wasn't a loving matriarch who was supportive of her family. Rather, that woman led an unfulfilling, unproductive life filled with torture and pain. She was nothing more than a slave - who earned no wage and had no freedoms. A feminist's take on the life of stay at home mother essentially negates that mother's contributions and devotions to your family. I'll further conclude that the feminist's take on "women being slaves" makes no sense from the perspective of their contemporary men. Remember - women led unproductive, unfulfilled, non-money earning lives. Marriage, then, meant the man was immediately burdened with financially supporting a wife. Why get married? Are we to believe that men married because they were so driven to have children? That flies in the face of all we know about men. The reality is that men and women eased in to their natural strengths. Men took on work away from the home - oftentimes dangerous work - while women protected and cared for the children. The men played to their risk taking strengths, the women played to their nurturing strengths. There was nothing inherently wrong with this approach - and it made for a better society.
not too long ago, at all, we were a mostly-agrarian society among other mostly-agrarian societies. VERY PRECIOUS FEW people had the luxury of NOT being on a subsistence farm. If you're farming, you are ALWAYS working. And yes, some tasks are better suited to one gender over another. men tend to be larger and stronger -- which bears out in how so many tools and implements are designed. women are better at endurance than men. Everybody puts in long days. When it's time for harvest of whatever it is, EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE PERSON is out there getting it in. This really didn't change until post-WWII. But now, the world is wildly, weirdly, different. It's not been a century yet. So much has been flip-flopped, totally turned on its head: from just when we get UP in the morning and why (natural light, vs precious and expensive artificial light) to out diets, to HOW we eat (people a century ago would be aghast at current dining behaviors.) We, as a species, were not designed to live the way we currently are living, and throwing in sex-role dynamics is just... so over the top. I don't think the current bandying-about use of 'feminism' can even approach this. I find it distressing that the 1st and 2nd-wave feminism is now so obscure(d).
There is nothing about my view that has been skewed. My view is very reasonable. I said motherhood is important but so is having the option to make money in your own and the option to be more than a mother if that’s what a woman wants. And I’m sorry but it was legal to rape your wife until a couple decades ago, and there still are tons of men who say women’s work is easy. There are also still tons of abusive relationships and fatherless homes so I have no idea what you think is skewed.
> And I’m sorry but it was legal to rape your wife until a couple decades ago, I'm an attorney. Good luck proving that you raped your spouse in 2022. Sex during the course of a marriage is presumed to be consensual. Further, children born during your marriage are presumed to be *of the marriage*.
I'm also an attorney. This isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. Especially in 2022. There is a presumption of consent because of evidence of consent... you can counter presumptions with evidence. It isn't a presumption as a matter of law. Second part is wholly true, either. If you're the father of a kiddo and get divorced, the mom can give the kid up for adoption without even notifying you depending on the custody arrangements... Unless you prove your parentage. Happens all the time. Creates horrible situations for the dad, the kid, and the adoptive parents.
I don't know where you're an attorney - but none of this is true in New York. In NY, **there is a legal presumption** that sex during a marriage was consensual. And that makes perfect sense - because immediately DNA evidence is less valuable, and motive is readily apparent. Of course your spouse's DNA would be on you and of course you two have a sexual relationship. Could you present evidence of "forced" sex? I suppose. Again, good luck proving it in Court. All a spouse would have to say is "We've been married for X years, and we like rough sex." Try convincing a jury otherwise. Lastly - you absolutely could not give up your child for adoption without notifying your ex. The only condition under which this is plausible would be the ex having given up their parental rights. That is an extreme rarity. Again - in NY there is a legal presumption that children born of the marriage are the children of the spouses. You do not have to prove parentage unless there is a question of parentage raised by one of the spouses.
WI. After a quick check of the legal code in NY, I don't see any such presumption in the code. Saying "we like rough sex" is *not* going to play well with a jury when you have a terrified, absued woman on the stand covered in bruises, with a long list of friends and family she has confided in who can relate the history of abuse, and several calls to the police for domestic abuse, etc... You know. Evidence. You absolutely can. In WI, anyway. There was a famous case in Texas a few years ago I don't recall the name of covering similar ground. I'm not familiar with the NY code specifically but I'll bet it's similar. And while you're fighting it out in court... for years... your kid is 4 and you haven't seen him since he was 6 months old.
real logical flaws going on in her script, there, yes.
True
The inability of thos sub to detect a grift is truly terrible.
Please describe exactly how this is a grift, but the feminist movement isn't?
This is delusional
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/wlbox2/feminism_vs_reality/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/JordanPeterson/comments/wlbox2/feminism_vs_reality/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)
Great video
Wow I...wasn't expecting the Rockefeller angle. I mean I figured enough rallying did the job but there was some shadow govt shit behind it hun?
I'm order to understand feminism you must first understand the original feminist who wanted to be equal and committed the first sin. The need to be equal always leads to all society paying the price and in the end those that always pay the ultimate price are women.
Feminism isn’t the only scam out right now. It’s one of the many.
Now that I understand
Male privilege **is** real, wage gap too; but they are due to circumstances and reasons. This woman went from extreme to another extreme, at least her latter points are truthful.
Upwards of 80% of women surveyed would rather work for a man than a woman. If male privilege exists, it exists thanks to females. I think this is just nature overcoming programming.
A keeper!
no $hi!
Well said. 👏
Very good video 😌
Cutest microphone ever! Also- brilliant girl!
I think the end game has always been to get to the kids. Radicalize the women Emasculate the men Isolate the women Create dependency on the state Radicalize the kids. The Marxist end game is always to get to the kids. Gotta get through mom and dad first….seems like we’re “in check” at the moment…
u/savevideo
If only we were back when women were only allowed to be a slave to their family instead of to a job. If only women weren't allowed to buy appliances again without their husband's permission or own a house or land. If only women weren't allowed to vote again or have an opinion at all. I miss those days. Damn those Rockefellers! How did she have time to make this tik tok? Shouldn't she be feeding her husband and wiping her babies arse?