Love and romanticism isn't something to be overthought and planned. Our boys today get too lost in their own heads, waiting for the right moment to do x, y, and z. They never meet the girl, they never ask out the girl, they never build a relationship; when those few do, the same problem rears its head, the right moment to move in together, to get married, to have a child, they think and think but the moment is always in the future. These are things which must simply be acted on, the brain is the enemy in such moments, and the heart is the too often unheeded expert. Yes, love in such a fashion is unpredictable, bumpy, scary, but it's real, and it's human.
Feminism has done a good job in deconstructing male sexuality, namely the masculine desire for conquest and domination. However, feminism is blind to the nature of female sexuality. Prostitution in this film is presented as the economic empowering of female sexuality, but how is the siphoning of resources from men to women empowering? This reminds me of an economist article which praised the collapse of fertility rates in Japan, as this meant Japanese women were now empowered and no longer settling for economically inferior men. How are these women empowered if they still need equal or greater resources from men?
I think it more that women are free to not marry and are not dependent on men in their lives. The point isn’t that women aren’t marrying “inferior” men but that women are not socially and economically dependent on men that they will marry whoever.
Isn't it weird that the main character is technically a little girl throughout the movie, yet having sex with grown men etc.? Like what is that even trying to say exactly?
Her brain develops rapidly essentially to adolescence and then adulthood. It's by the time of her discovery of sexuality where she's essentially in her adolescent brain phase. Plus, most of the characters that take advantage of her are framed as disgusting pigs. The guy she ends up Marrying doesn't choose to take advantage of her because he recognises her mental immaturity as she's mentally underdeveloped but physically an adult woman and respects her boundaries and choices. To imply this film advocates pedophilia by showing something akin to it is like saying The Avengers advocates genocide of half the universe because it's showed in it.
I dont remember the movie actually saying her brain was developing super fast but I wasnt exactly glued to the screen, maybe I missed this. @@willothewisp4939
I remember subscribing to you when Der Schattenmacher gave you a shoutout, but I haven't really watched many of your video yet (which I will change now). This is probably one of the best videos I have seen in a long time. It's a great analysis, the characterisation of Male and Female "Nationalism" is very smart and fitting and one that I haven't really heard before and the decay of the ideal of real love in exchange for a loveless hookup culture is one that is not talked about enough. Great video. I am almost positive that I will find many of your other videos just as good.
The sweet irony of this is that before finding out that you made this video (sorry, I've not been around for a few months), I was browsing your channel and I figured that I should watch the Feminist Utopia video. In other words, my instincts are thematically consistent.
The thing that bothers me the most about the left and right wing is the isolated contemplation of ideas. Regarding fertility, the left never discusses the problematic cultural implications of sexual liberation and focuses on the material/monetary perspective. On the other hand, the right wing, being generally against redistribution of wealth, only focuses on the cultural perspective. I definitely agree that some aspects of modern feminism are problematic. But the importance of financially supporting families far outweighs the need for cultural change. As a leftist, I really appreciate the closing statement where you say that you support an egalitarian relationship arrangement. In my opinion, that would be far more progressive than the current direction of the feminist movement.
Because its simply not true. Compare Fertility in East Germany (free, high) vs West Germany (prudish, low). Sexual Liberation - especially at a young age - is the Key to boom, especially since we (state 2025) are in a situation, there prudishness is the bottleneck. Of course back then the Enemy of Liberty were mostly rich women (=Karens), but now we have male traitors to fight. Both the Western Paedo-hunter and Eastern Honour-killer are Enemy of the White, Second-World Incel, and must be targeted with priority to save our race. Even Bernd Höcke (hard right figure), admitted the healthy demography of socialism, and his father alegdly called 1989 the end of the aryan race.
I appreciate this analysis so thoroughly, thank you for this. If I might add, one of the most blatent issues I saw with the film wasn't just its treatment of the opposite sex but of the triumphant sex. The woman is portrayed as most independent, most venerated, most triumphant when she is expressing herself through her sexuality. This mirrors the cultural view that a woman is victorious when she is able to take ownership of her sexuality as her own. If Poor Things is meant to be a 21st Century iteration of Frankenstein then the contrast is clear. Where the Monster desired to be unalone and have someone like him, Bella only desires rampant sexuality and to humiliate all those who do not align with her own goals.
worst movie I've ever saw in my life. The worst part is the one in wich she goes back to her husband and says something like "I'm happy you're not like the other man, who think they have possession over my body, and don't mind my past as a prostitute". Never have I seen a scene so ridiculous.
Great video, you touched on a lot of ideas I've had even though we might come at them from a different angle and might even arrive at different conclusions. The culture war is exhausting and it's hard to see how any of the visible conversation around it is helping anyone. Relationships are by nature hard to quantify but we've been trying to atomize it like everything else we do nowadays. Side note: you have a terrible definition of love! Unless put in the context of "I'm willing to fight a war so you don't have to" or something similar it really doesn't make sense. In any case love shouldn't be defined through an extreme negative since that really isn't what it is all about in my opinion. Love also isn't an inability to live without someone either. If I had to define it (in the context of a romantic relationship) I'd say it would be: a decision and need to try to make the other person happy every day and the attraction it stems from.
This movie sounds absolutely ridiculous if its actually communicating the message you’re saying it is. Basically it would be telling the story of how a young girl having sex with everyone she meets is good actually. That seems like an absolutely disgusting message on its own.
"Sexual empowerment" might have been new and radical in the 1960s (although there were already tendencies in early 20th century decadence, e.g. Wedekind or a bit later all that Freud-inspired stuff. But now it has been preached virtually unopposed in all kinds of books and movies, both novels and memoirs, including version for homosexuals, since at least 2 generations, so one wonders why anyone should bother. And also about the blissful ignorance about the horrible consequences/side effects of the "sexual liberation" from AIDS to destruction of the family and partially anything like "normal" relations between the sexes. The medicine was poisoned, let's have more from the same medicine!
Great video man and I agree with your solution but before we restore romanticism, we need to set up the conditions that would allow things to flourish. By restoring christianity, you give men and women a purpose beyond pleasure and actual duties and responsibilities that lead to a happy and healthy relationship that isn't based on mere convenience. Only then will we create conditions for real love on a societal basis
You are contadicting yourself multiple times in the video, and misinterpret the plot. Bella's journey its not motivated by her sexuality, you just said it at the begining, its her desire to know the world. You cant construct your argument upon the the film states that through sexuality she matures, she matures when she gets sufficient knowledge and experience to make consciuos choices, thats why she shifts when reads philosophy in the ship, and when she decides to pursue a medical career.
This is just about the first time, that a video essay has stayed in my mind for over three days, and I never stopped thinking about it. I really like your approach, and appreciate your ideas, I actually agree with you on a lot of points, and even changed my mind some on some earlier thoughts I had about the movie. The one thing I just couldn't let rest, was your point about male characters being all shit in this movie (paraphrasing, obviously!) and I didn't really know why, because yes, you are right, that they are not really positive characters here, but I *think* that was not really the point? For context, I'm a 32 year old woman, so maybe that is why my takeaway was a bit different, but to me at least, apart from the "final boss" of the movie, which was the husband of Victoria, none of the men seemed as bad, as they may have come off. Sure, they were not all great, especially Mark Ruffalo's character, but even him, and for sure, the father, the cynic and Max all were just victim's of the world in a way. - The father was tortured by his own father, he recalls that in gruesome detail, and even makes comments, that seem to validate what his father did to him > to me this said that this was how he socialized, how he grew to love, and what, essentially he passed on to Bella as well, not realizing that this is not healthy parenting is. He is redeemed from this, when he apologizes at the end, and learns to grow, by the time he is on his deathbed, AND there is the only way how two males actually connect on the show, by Max calling him out on his shit (note, how the father surrounded himself mostly with either with students, or women (Bella and his maid) at home), so once he invited this young men into their lives, Max was able to bring upon the household this huge shift, despite being this more quiet and reserved person. (I actually half expected when he was dying, that it would be his brain put into the former husbands body, not a goats, so that he can be free from the body his own father cursed him with) - Max is seen first as someone who has empathy and curiosity, in his very first scene, you find him sitting in class, ready to learn from God, but also defends him, when others are making fun of him. He is introduced as someone who cares deeply for even people he doesn't know very well, and he is not a pushover to the point, where he doesn't call out injustice when he sees it. Sure, he is not your average masculine hero, but he has values and is somewhat idealistic and optimistic, which I think are great characteristics of an interesting character. Not degrading Bella based on her history is interesting, as at no point is it ever brought up, what his bodycount is, so just the fact that he is okay with this is more modernistic than anything else, and if we want a somewhat "realistic" picture of current dating history, that is as close as it gets. I have never heard men being devalued based on how many women they have slept with. - Duncan is beyond my sympathy, sorry. He gave me the same energy, as those manosphere types, who are like "a woman should be pure and sweet, and I'm a free spirit, I don't commit to any woman, I leave my options open" and then end up being clingy. To me, he is a worse example of masculinity, than Max. I'll give it to Ruffalo, he was amazing in this role, he totally made it his own. - Astley, the cynic. I really loved his character, it was very true to some people I know either in real life, or see online. He was the epytome of those people who are just so fed up with life, that they think they know everything and also know that things are meaningless, and just want to ruin the fun for everyone. But what a GREAT character he is for admiting to this, and apologizing for it? His storyline was very breif, and wrapped up a bit too quick (I wish he would have stuck around beyond the middle part of the film) but very satisfying. The husband? He was just a jerk, no redeeming qualities. I think these characters are very fresh, and not something we have seen on screen for men before. What a great supporting cast. The way in which this move is feminist for me, is to title it "Poor Things", when the main character looks at the men around him, and proceeds to see them as such. As people, who deserve empathy and maybe, in some cases pity.
I believe that men and women are like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat according to Marxist theory, that is, it is either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or that of the proletariat, but both cannot collaborate and coexist peacefully, one always has to be above the other. whether in a patriarchy or a matriarchy and curiously people with Marxist ideology believe that in the past in "primitive communism" there was a matriarchal society and then with the appearance of the state came patriarchy. sorry for my bad english is no my native languague
What on earth is your definition of "feminism"? Classical feminism is hardly about individual "liberation" through promiscuity. That may be a modern definition synthesized out a matrix of middle class concepts of freedom and "self-actualization," but that's a specific definition. You're generalizing. It hurts your argument.
What then is your definition of feminism. Even looking at classical feminism and early feminist books there's like a bunch of description of what feminism is. It's always been vague and loosely defined
Here I rewrote your comment so you don’t sound annoying: What is your definition of feminism? Classical feminism is not about individual liberation through promiscuity. That may be its modern meaning but it is not the only one. Also without all the bad prose you can see that the point of your comment is comical. He used a modern definition. Yes.
I think your essay has good points but the typical conservative problem. You can’t go back. Romance in the old way came and now it goes. The status quo is absurd, but we have to go forward. With the red and black pill knowledge out, there is just no going back to the good old days.
I agree that you can't go back to the 50s, but I think that you can definitively bring back a stronger cultural focus on romance because it is something inherent to human nature and is a costant.
If someone is going to pride themselves of brining the future to fruition, they should probably be familiar with the fundamental code that guides the human ethos regardless of time and place.
You suffer from ressentiment, the drive to punish your (successful) enemies. Your definition of love -- via the question, Would you die for this person? -- is idealistic juvenilia. It commits the No True Scotsman fallacy in spades. The movie, to me at least, was interesting. It reminded me of older movies, like Zardoz. But who cares? Your boring 30 minute rant has inspired me to make a lame comment. Splendid.
Love knows no resentment. It is simply understanding and awareness to pursue beauty as a living creature. To achieve love, one must understand their purpose. Being willing to die for another is proof and trust that others are a same part of said purpose. Whether you like it or not, all social activity is based around the concept of squeezing out parasites or parasitic traits with the hope and aspiration to create an individual capable of navigating all things. This is the narrative that underlies anything and everything that people hold dear. (Its also the same narrative thats been used to deceive people into thinking that the de-constructionist and your every day person is on the same side.) If you wish to engage in deception or narcissistic criticism of human ideals be my guest, you will only provide selection mechanisms for those who do know truth and purpose to succeed in the long run. You are heavily in the process of tarnishing the legacy of the de-constructionist type. Good luck.
Well, conflict is a fundamental part of natural selection and therefore human nature, so, I believe that it makes up a large part of our collective uncoscious. But I would be curious to read what you make of this essay...
Love and romanticism isn't something to be overthought and planned. Our boys today get too lost in their own heads, waiting for the right moment to do x, y, and z. They never meet the girl, they never ask out the girl, they never build a relationship; when those few do, the same problem rears its head, the right moment to move in together, to get married, to have a child, they think and think but the moment is always in the future. These are things which must simply be acted on, the brain is the enemy in such moments, and the heart is the too often unheeded expert. Yes, love in such a fashion is unpredictable, bumpy, scary, but it's real, and it's human.
True but women certainly don't help by making the risk so great that it's often not worth it and they often have nothing to offer
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
-David Hume
Keep pumping this channel Mr. Z. He’s spreading some wisdom!
Feminism has done a good job in deconstructing male sexuality, namely the masculine desire for conquest and domination. However, feminism is blind to the nature of female sexuality.
Prostitution in this film is presented as the economic empowering of female sexuality, but how is the siphoning of resources from men to women empowering?
This reminds me of an economist article which praised the collapse of fertility rates in Japan, as this meant Japanese women were now empowered and no longer settling for economically inferior men. How are these women empowered if they still need equal or greater resources from men?
I have never felt the need to conquer or dominate a women sexually, they like when I act that way. Other men how do you feel?
I think it more that women are free to not marry and are not dependent on men in their lives.
The point isn’t that women aren’t marrying “inferior” men but that women are not socially and economically dependent on men that they will marry whoever.
@@blugaledoh2669women will only msrry upwards tho😂
@@Blackstar-yd3yftrue
Isn't it weird that the main character is technically a little girl throughout the movie, yet having sex with grown men etc.? Like what is that even trying to say exactly?
Yeah it totally is, but its hollywood, so it checks out.
@@courtssenseit only states that men prefer young immature and easy to manipulate girls. Nothing in connection with Hollywood 😀
Her brain develops rapidly essentially to adolescence and then adulthood. It's by the time of her discovery of sexuality where she's essentially in her adolescent brain phase. Plus, most of the characters that take advantage of her are framed as disgusting pigs. The guy she ends up Marrying doesn't choose to take advantage of her because he recognises her mental immaturity as she's mentally underdeveloped but physically an adult woman and respects her boundaries and choices. To imply this film advocates pedophilia by showing something akin to it is like saying The Avengers advocates genocide of half the universe because it's showed in it.
Liking young women is one thing, but little girls? Nah thats highly abnormal.@@user-mm7jn6bh6l
I dont remember the movie actually saying her brain was developing super fast but I wasnt exactly glued to the screen, maybe I missed this. @@willothewisp4939
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *Visually stunning propaganda.*
00:15 *Poor Things advocates feminism.*
01:38 *Movie explores sexuality, maturity.*
03:31 *Bella's rebellion patterns.*
07:19 *Male characters as archetypes.*
09:34 *Film critiques toxic masculinity.*
10:56 *Male characters humiliated.*
16:38 *Women's sexuality equals freedom.*
19:23 *Film's impact on maturity.*
22:36 *Hostile gender relationships impact society.*
23:17 *Emphasis on love.*
24:38 *Poor state of love.*
25:33 *Desire for Romanticism.*
26:13 *Love requires loyalty.*
26:53 *Choose painful love.*
27:20 *Hate despite quality.*
Made with HARPA AI
I remember subscribing to you when Der Schattenmacher gave you a shoutout, but I haven't really watched many of your video yet (which I will change now). This is probably one of the best videos I have seen in a long time.
It's a great analysis, the characterisation of Male and Female "Nationalism" is very smart and fitting and one that I haven't really heard before and the decay of the ideal of real love in exchange for a loveless hookup culture is one that is not talked about enough.
Great video. I am almost positive that I will find many of your other videos just as good.
The sweet irony of this is that before finding out that you made this video (sorry, I've not been around for a few months), I was browsing your channel and I figured that I should watch the Feminist Utopia video. In other words, my instincts are thematically consistent.
The thing that bothers me the most about the left and right wing is the isolated contemplation of ideas. Regarding fertility, the left never discusses the problematic cultural implications of sexual liberation and focuses on the material/monetary perspective. On the other hand, the right wing, being generally against redistribution of wealth, only focuses on the cultural perspective. I definitely agree that some aspects of modern feminism are problematic. But the importance of financially supporting families far outweighs the need for cultural change.
As a leftist, I really appreciate the closing statement where you say that you support an egalitarian relationship arrangement. In my opinion, that would be far more progressive than the current direction of the feminist movement.
I mostly agree, but I would add that the feminist movement is not remotely a monolith.
@@bladdnun3016 Agreed. Some radicals/Twitter make it seem like that though.
Because its simply not true. Compare Fertility in East Germany (free, high) vs West Germany (prudish, low). Sexual Liberation - especially at a young age - is the Key to boom, especially since we (state 2025) are in a situation, there prudishness is the bottleneck.
Of course back then the Enemy of Liberty were mostly rich women (=Karens), but now we have male traitors to fight. Both the Western Paedo-hunter and Eastern Honour-killer are Enemy of the White, Second-World Incel, and must be targeted with priority to save our race.
Even Bernd Höcke (hard right figure), admitted the healthy demography of socialism, and his father alegdly called 1989 the end of the aryan race.
I appreciate this analysis so thoroughly, thank you for this. If I might add, one of the most blatent issues I saw with the film wasn't just its treatment of the opposite sex but of the triumphant sex. The woman is portrayed as most independent, most venerated, most triumphant when she is expressing herself through her sexuality. This mirrors the cultural view that a woman is victorious when she is able to take ownership of her sexuality as her own. If Poor Things is meant to be a 21st Century iteration of Frankenstein then the contrast is clear. Where the Monster desired to be unalone and have someone like him, Bella only desires rampant sexuality and to humiliate all those who do not align with her own goals.
worst movie I've ever saw in my life. The worst part is the one in wich she goes back to her husband and says something like "I'm happy you're not like the other man, who think they have possession over my body, and don't mind my past as a prostitute". Never have I seen a scene so ridiculous.
Your channel is amazing sad to see you dont have more subscribers and views
Great video, you touched on a lot of ideas I've had even though we might come at them from a different angle and might even arrive at different conclusions. The culture war is exhausting and it's hard to see how any of the visible conversation around it is helping anyone. Relationships are by nature hard to quantify but we've been trying to atomize it like everything else we do nowadays.
Side note: you have a terrible definition of love! Unless put in the context of "I'm willing to fight a war so you don't have to" or something similar it really doesn't make sense. In any case love shouldn't be defined through an extreme negative since that really isn't what it is all about in my opinion. Love also isn't an inability to live without someone either. If I had to define it (in the context of a romantic relationship) I'd say it would be: a decision and need to try to make the other person happy every day and the attraction it stems from.
This movie sounds absolutely ridiculous if its actually communicating the message you’re saying it is. Basically it would be telling the story of how a young girl having sex with everyone she meets is good actually. That seems like an absolutely disgusting message on its own.
Great video! Thanks for your excellent work!
"Sexual empowerment" might have been new and radical in the 1960s (although there were already tendencies in early 20th century decadence, e.g. Wedekind or a bit later all that Freud-inspired stuff. But now it has been preached virtually unopposed in all kinds of books and movies, both novels and memoirs, including version for homosexuals, since at least 2 generations, so one wonders why anyone should bother. And also about the blissful ignorance about the horrible consequences/side effects of the "sexual liberation" from AIDS to destruction of the family and partially anything like "normal" relations between the sexes.
The medicine was poisoned, let's have more from the same medicine!
Your comment section culture is crazy good! Never seen something like it
I wasn't able to get past the first 15 minutes, but I'm old, so there you go. Nothing new under the sun.
Great video man and I agree with your solution but before we restore romanticism, we need to set up the conditions that would allow things to flourish. By restoring christianity, you give men and women a purpose beyond pleasure and actual duties and responsibilities that lead to a happy and healthy relationship that isn't based on mere convenience. Only then will we create conditions for real love on a societal basis
You are contadicting yourself multiple times in the video, and misinterpret the plot. Bella's journey its not motivated by her sexuality, you just said it at the begining, its her desire to know the world. You cant construct your argument upon the the film states that through sexuality she matures, she matures when she gets sufficient knowledge and experience to make consciuos choices, thats why she shifts when reads philosophy in the ship, and when she decides to pursue a medical career.
This video was spot on. Hope this channel blows up soon.
This is just about the first time, that a video essay has stayed in my mind for over three days, and I never stopped thinking about it. I really like your approach, and appreciate your ideas, I actually agree with you on a lot of points, and even changed my mind some on some earlier thoughts I had about the movie. The one thing I just couldn't let rest, was your point about male characters being all shit in this movie (paraphrasing, obviously!) and I didn't really know why, because yes, you are right, that they are not really positive characters here, but I *think* that was not really the point?
For context, I'm a 32 year old woman, so maybe that is why my takeaway was a bit different, but to me at least, apart from the "final boss" of the movie, which was the husband of Victoria, none of the men seemed as bad, as they may have come off. Sure, they were not all great, especially Mark Ruffalo's character, but even him, and for sure, the father, the cynic and Max all were just victim's of the world in a way.
- The father was tortured by his own father, he recalls that in gruesome detail, and even makes comments, that seem to validate what his father did to him > to me this said that this was how he socialized, how he grew to love, and what, essentially he passed on to Bella as well, not realizing that this is not healthy parenting is. He is redeemed from this, when he apologizes at the end, and learns to grow, by the time he is on his deathbed, AND there is the only way how two males actually connect on the show, by Max calling him out on his shit (note, how the father surrounded himself mostly with either with students, or women (Bella and his maid) at home), so once he invited this young men into their lives, Max was able to bring upon the household this huge shift, despite being this more quiet and reserved person. (I actually half expected when he was dying, that it would be his brain put into the former husbands body, not a goats, so that he can be free from the body his own father cursed him with)
- Max is seen first as someone who has empathy and curiosity, in his very first scene, you find him sitting in class, ready to learn from God, but also defends him, when others are making fun of him. He is introduced as someone who cares deeply for even people he doesn't know very well, and he is not a pushover to the point, where he doesn't call out injustice when he sees it. Sure, he is not your average masculine hero, but he has values and is somewhat idealistic and optimistic, which I think are great characteristics of an interesting character. Not degrading Bella based on her history is interesting, as at no point is it ever brought up, what his bodycount is, so just the fact that he is okay with this is more modernistic than anything else, and if we want a somewhat "realistic" picture of current dating history, that is as close as it gets. I have never heard men being devalued based on how many women they have slept with.
- Duncan is beyond my sympathy, sorry. He gave me the same energy, as those manosphere types, who are like "a woman should be pure and sweet, and I'm a free spirit, I don't commit to any woman, I leave my options open" and then end up being clingy. To me, he is a worse example of masculinity, than Max. I'll give it to Ruffalo, he was amazing in this role, he totally made it his own.
- Astley, the cynic. I really loved his character, it was very true to some people I know either in real life, or see online. He was the epytome of those people who are just so fed up with life, that they think they know everything and also know that things are meaningless, and just want to ruin the fun for everyone. But what a GREAT character he is for admiting to this, and apologizing for it? His storyline was very breif, and wrapped up a bit too quick (I wish he would have stuck around beyond the middle part of the film) but very satisfying.
The husband? He was just a jerk, no redeeming qualities.
I think these characters are very fresh, and not something we have seen on screen for men before. What a great supporting cast. The way in which this move is feminist for me, is to title it "Poor Things", when the main character looks at the men around him, and proceeds to see them as such. As people, who deserve empathy and maybe, in some cases pity.
I believe that men and women are like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat according to Marxist theory, that is, it is either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or that of the proletariat, but both cannot collaborate and coexist peacefully, one always has to be above the other. whether in a patriarchy or a matriarchy and curiously people with Marxist ideology believe that in the past in "primitive communism" there was a matriarchal society and then with the appearance of the state came patriarchy. sorry for my bad english is no my native languague
Amazing vídeo! Totally agree, but be careful of regression to sexual repression 😅
What on earth is your definition of "feminism"? Classical feminism is hardly about individual "liberation" through promiscuity. That may be a modern definition synthesized out a matrix of middle class concepts of freedom and "self-actualization," but that's a specific definition. You're generalizing. It hurts your argument.
What then is your definition of feminism. Even looking at classical feminism and early feminist books there's like a bunch of description of what feminism is. It's always been vague and loosely defined
Here I rewrote your comment so you don’t sound annoying:
What is your definition of feminism? Classical feminism is not about individual liberation through promiscuity. That may be its modern meaning but it is not the only one.
Also without all the bad prose you can see that the point of your comment is comical. He used a modern definition. Yes.
I think your essay has good points but the typical conservative problem. You can’t go back. Romance in the old way came and now it goes. The status quo is absurd, but we have to go forward. With the red and black pill knowledge out, there is just no going back to the good old days.
I agree that you can't go back to the 50s, but I think that you can definitively bring back a stronger cultural focus on romance because it is something inherent to human nature and is a costant.
@@courtssense
ruclips.net/video/c-8sqgEUBgI/видео.htmlsi=Fb8iyOflyfrt_AjH
If someone is going to pride themselves of brining the future to fruition, they should probably be familiar with the fundamental code that guides the human ethos regardless of time and place.
Forward to where?
Forward to where? Forward from here is only the abyss.
I don’t think it’s feminist because mainstream feminism is opposed to sex work.
I see plenty of feminist declaring sex work as empowering. Feminist fought for sexual liberation including taking back words like slut and sex work.
Opposed? Modern feminism says it's "empowering"
Radical Feminists are no longer mainstream.
You suffer from ressentiment, the drive to punish your (successful) enemies. Your definition of love -- via the question, Would you die for this person? -- is idealistic juvenilia. It commits the No True Scotsman fallacy in spades.
The movie, to me at least, was interesting. It reminded me of older movies, like Zardoz. But who cares? Your boring 30 minute rant has inspired me to make a lame comment. Splendid.
what exactly is your point here
Love knows no resentment. It is simply understanding and awareness to pursue beauty as a living creature. To achieve love, one must understand their purpose. Being willing to die for another is proof and trust that others are a same part of said purpose.
Whether you like it or not, all social activity is based around the concept of squeezing out parasites or parasitic traits with the hope and aspiration to create an individual capable of navigating all things. This is the narrative that underlies anything and everything that people hold dear. (Its also the same narrative thats been used to deceive people into thinking that the de-constructionist and your every day person is on the same side.) If you wish to engage in deception or narcissistic criticism of human ideals be my guest, you will only provide selection mechanisms for those who do know truth and purpose to succeed in the long run.
You are heavily in the process of tarnishing the legacy of the de-constructionist type. Good luck.
weirdest take i've seen so far, why do men always compare everything to war?? your understanding of feminism is quite surface level
Well, conflict is a fundamental part of natural selection and therefore human nature, so, I believe that it makes up a large part of our collective uncoscious.
But I would be curious to read what you make of this essay...