Feminist ideology has stuck men in a double bind. It's literally a narcissistic relationship on a large scale. Meanwhile our voices are silenced and subject to gaslighting. I spoke once to a woman who said that men's issues were due to "toxic masculinity." When I tried to break down her flawed logic she could not see. Saying the problem with men is our masculinity places us in a situation that we can never solve. I know the pain of this double bind because I suffered from depression for years trying to solve the problem of masculine self hatred that I was downloaded with through my years of schooling in the fascist Canadian school system. I thank God every day for the "intellectual dark web" as they are called for sharing their voices with the world and awakening men. The warriors were defeated in battle but we rose again because the war is not over. In the end we will prevail and bring peace between the sexes once more.
haha. Toxic Masculinity? Flip it on its side, and you will find behind every bit of it, LIES, and the reality of Toxic Femininity . MORE: > www.greenenergyinvestors.com/topic/21883-toxic-femininity-lack-of-logic-accountability/?page=4
Third wave Feminist ideology hasn't done shit. First wave feminism was valuable in society. Third wave feminism isn't feminism...its a thinly veiled attempt at Marxism to further destroy the family unit and its hiding behind women to do it. It has the same effect on culture as it always does. The only real problem is that the Marxists use the inherent built-in respect most men have always had towards women against them by putting a female reference in the title and young men arent checking the actual contents. Look...I can mark a box full of shit "potato chips" but it doesn't take but 2 seconds to realize that youre not actually getting Dorito's. Saying it actually causes problems for grown men who are informed lends it way too much credibility.
You reframed the problem so you can feel bad for yourself, right or wrong the problem statement is a specific kind of masculinity. I must have been lucky, I never had any problems. I am for stopping any excesses from either side, but we also need some self accountability. I have not heard any good faith arguments that men are not needed, the role of men in upbringing kids is as needed as the mothers, we are just not doing a good job at those things, just like some women have adapted to mothering and working fulltime, we need to adapt to fathering and whatever else is required from modern men.
Shout out to Fathers, Grandfathers, husbands, and soon to be Dads. Lead the way forward with wisdom, respect, and strength. Have a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
As an adult, I have lived through all of the 50 years Warren Farrell speaks about. I feel fortunate not to have been too much of a victim of what he talks of, perhaps I've been assertive about my rights as an individual, but I recognise that he is on the nail with his descriptions.
Men speak up and women say, "That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!" The remarkable thing to me is that I've said this to mixed groups of young men and women a couple of times, and they've all agreed! I don't think they understand how devastating this is to their own lives, but they agree that men should be ashamed of their feelings. Warren Farrell has shaped a life that gives him much more exposure to this type of experience. I envy that, but the mass of delusion is so huge and impenetrable that he doesn't seem to have much more success saving the world than I do. Maybe that view is too pessimistic. Still, he is living as a hero. He goes on, as we all must do.
Nick Parkison married men in the west cannot tell the truth; for fear of getting divorced/abandoned. Single men can. But there’s the rub, the never-married single men don’t have the insight to tell their truth to women. And the divorced single men feel their honest thoughts and words will jeopardize a potential relationship. This speaks to a larger dialogue between both sexes Warren is referring to. Since major media is incapable of such a larger discussion, the dialogue can only come from the internet and small pockets of talk radio.
I told the truth and then my ex alienated me from my son until I took her to court and fought tooth and nail for my rights. In my experience, if you tell most “modern” western women the truth, there will be a significant price to pay.
@@jeeed6390 There's no such thing as 'their truth', only THE truth, but seems you weren't talking about truth at all. You sound like you're talking about opinion, feelings or experience.
Wise man. Doesn't attack people or groups unnecessarily. Just describes the situation. He is not demonizing the feminist left when he discusses men's problems. This is how we all need to conduct ourselves.
Every respect. But Dr. Farrell's answers are based on a presumption of 'good faith'. Which may exist in some quarters, but for the most part is either compromised, or downright non-existent. The process of reconciliation is doomed to failure until the incentives are removed. Women by and large view their relationships in terms of value. Then they find ways to justify that view, including grooming their female children to follow in their footsteps. So the problem is much more like a disease than a misunderstanding. It is both contagious and escalating.
"But Dr. Farrell's answers are based on a presumption of 'good faith'." Yes. Feminism relies on being disingenuous about so many issues that the idea of 'good faith' helping to solve the imbalance against men has no standing what-so-ever.
"....listen, hear them, behind every angry face is somebody who once heard, has their anger diluted; so if you want to not just be angry at the angry people, and hate the haters; instead of being like them, be open to what they are saying. we all have a truth to speak...."
The Feminism I signed up for has changed. By definition, feminism is the belief that all genders should be treated equally. This makes every "feminist" not a feminist at all. This makes the good fight men and women both fought for in the 60s and 70s irrelevant. This is disgraceful.
Adopting the word "toxic" and normalizing it as is done in this video is I believe a very, very bad idea. No boys and girls should ever be designated as "toxic" except perhaps in very extreme cases of dysfunction and Adults should not be labeled as "toxic" except in extreme cases. Most people would not and do not meet an inter-personal reality that merits such a label. Words like "imbalanced" or "stuck" or "misdirected" masculinity/ femininity will help greatly in clearing up the problem up. How we frame a problem helps us or hurts us and taking any ownership and further adopting any one of the extreme post modern feminist ideas as framed in the extreme in word form of what is wrong, should be done with great caution and deliberation.
Momma Llama Sorry, you’re wrong. Feminism is indeed toxic. It was developed as a Leftist measure to destroy the West and prepare it for Communism. Feminists even openly admit it. Sanjosemike (no longer in Ca)
San Jose Mike I don't see where we disagree that greatly and you are not talking about the same dynamic. The Feminarchy, as a collective total reality is on its way to becoming toxic if it is not already so. And so is Patriarchy as the twin to Feminarchy, as it did before and continues to do. I hesitate in feeling like I have the over view yet to label us as actually toxic, but I know it may actually be so bad that it cannot be retrieved. In either case we need to get things right now if we are to have a chance to correct the situation. It is best to act responsively as if we believe things are that bad. 😊
I tend to agree with your alarm at using this label "toxic" as a throw-away word. And yet, it describes some phenomena very well. E.g. toxicity is often about dosage, it usually does not appear to be dangerous ( toxic things camouflage as quite attractive!) and it destroys a completely healthy body by attacking vital functions. Both masculine and feminine qualities/tendencies have the capacity to destroy when they cross a line into the psychological shadows playing on gullibility, ignorance, denial, egotistic phantasies etc......
I liked Christina Hoff Sommer's choice of 'pathological' rather than 'toxic', in her debunking of that weapon-term "toxic masculinity". In my more generous moods I'll lend the term validity but on the condition that people who use it spend just as much time talking about toxic femininity, and more time on the healthy versions for men and women. But really I think it would be better to toss those vague terms and just talk directly and clearly about one issue at a time (suicide epidemic, FGM, circumcision, on and on...).
What I find problematic in those discussions is that they talk like we were living in a society where the economic system have no role at all in our lives and subjectivities, absolutely no role. Not a single word about the economic structure that keep us alive, the economic system that drags 70%/ 80% of the time of our daily lives, that affect the habits of parenting, the economic system that create insecurity, stress, psychological suffering. Why avoid those questions?
What most people having this discussion are failing to see is the paper the state have as the catalyst for all these problems. Take away the resources the state is giving to activists, and everything goes away like a bad nightmare in a sunny morning.
An idea from Denmark about teaching listening skills in schools? But Denmark is in the EU. We have a sacred rule in Britain never to credit any social idea from the continent as having any value. It's why our future prospects are looking so good right now....Good discussion anyway - especially re: father role models.
33:18 "There is an increased percentage of dads who are full time dads but it's really still about 9%, 8 to 10 percent depending on the country, and among those men there's a much greater likelihood of divorce if those men don't also do something at home that produces money." This makes sense. Study after study has shown that in developed nations where more women work and thus men are more likely to do more house work the woman's view of the man's sexiness is directly related to the amount of indoor house work (old-fashionly dubbed "women's work") he does: the more house chores the man does the less the woman sees him as sexy. Much as modern woman think they hate them, traditional gender roles are what fires women's sex drives. As tiredness is often cited by women as a reason they aren't up for sex a man who doens't feel he's getting enough bed sport might understandably be tempted to do more house work so she'll have more energy for bedplay, and doing some is probably fine and only fair, but doing very much is sure to make her see you as emasculated and unsexy.
can I add proper subtitles to this video? the quality of automatic translation is shitty, and I really wanna show this interview to fellow koreans who are suffering from the war of sexes.
The problem with this interviewer is that he never challenges any of his guests. Never. He is like a partner to the guest, no someone who is interested in really get the best of the guests. It is always a type of interview that serves only for the interviewee to reaffirm his/her ideas without any challenge or difficulty. Sometimes it looks like a cult. When there is no counterpoint, absolutely no counterpoint, just the reaffirmation of an idea, things have come to look like a cult. There is no contradiction, no challenge, no counterpoint, but just an idea being stated without question.
I hear you and understand the "cult" thing. I think one of the problems with a more adversarial style is that it's difficult to do constructively. One of the best examples I've ever seen is CosmicSkeptic interviewing Douglas Murray recently. I'm so used to seeing the adversarial style done badly and in bad faith that I avoid it habitually now (one Kathy Newman interview is one too many). Since I can't reliably find interviews that challenge and force better explanations, I'll settle for guys like David that at least allow the interviewee to fully expand their views without interference. It's not quite as good in the end because I have to work harder to evaluate their ideas properly or risk being too uncritical myself, but I get something out of it, which is more than I can say for the attack-dog nonsense in the mainstream media - which has practically zero value. I think audiences as a whole have been turned off the way I have, it explains part of what you're seeing. It's sad but maybe it's the start of something better?
Most of what he's saying is good and helpful but as a gay man whose parents divorced when he was three, I feel really left out of this conversation, along with the larger conversation that men generally are being left out of.
That cheerleader thing....minds me of the patriotic British women circa WW1 who would plant a white feather in the civilian clothes of not yet enlisted young men. Might the young men have said "Yeah, sure, let's go take the King's shilling to fight The Kaiser in Flanders together on a basis of equality. We can go sapping and trench raiding together. There may be some mud, mind your white clothes." Circa 1918 he might not say that, nor might the patriotic young woman reply "Yeah, sure, I'm up for it, bayonet drill and all." Social opprobrium ( nay incredulity ) for both of them. In 2018 less incredulity ( which is good because openness to the undisclosed individual potential of individuals is good)....but the po faced assertion that There Are No Differences Twixt Men And Women is.....ay yi yi ....words fail. Words fail except for Jordan Petersons words....lots and lots and lots of them, very gently and thoroughly trying to explain to hideous ideologues...
I'd tell the young girls to have sex with me right now and I'll join up. Then I'm getting something out of it and you're giving up something. Take one for the team
Warren Farewell did a good job on male issues. However, if men did not get married or be in a monogamous relationship, with a women. they would not have any fears of back lash.
This man wants to repair what he has helped break. Assuming all the “bad” stuff can be left out. WE NEED VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND WARRIORS, perhaps the system of social bribes exists for a reason.
Who cares what weak incels have to say! How do they help me be father to a daughter, or husband to my wife? Short answer: They don't! Well, other than I get to point them out to my daughter and teach a strict avoidance policy. See this guy offers some advice what MGTOW offer is a bitter resentment.
Marc James Hugh Robson you are Mistaken MGTOW is not Incel.again I don't have to prove anything to you and One advice don't send your daughter to the college for Marxist indoctrination to make her Feminist. MGTOW does not offer bitter resentment but offers the protection for men from Gynocentric system.
Flameball even Brad pitt couldn't keep Angelina Jolie.how do you think average joe can keep women.you are making the same mistake all people make.women are always same but system is problem which rewards their every action without any accountability.
@@musclinepresentingtransgen8483 I hold women accountable myself. I'm clear with women about what i want, and expect. I am not worried about holding onto a woman, they can go of their own will if they don't accept things on my terms. I don't need a woman to be there for me to have self respect
“Women and children first”. While in ‘The Imperial Animal’ 1971 the authors Lionel Tiger & Robin Fox devote a whole chapter to this particular dynamic of socio-ecological structuring, they utterly fail to do it justice as ‘female centrality // male marginality’ is nothing short of one of if not the most critical components of evolutionary fitness. A fuller statement of this dynamic goes like this : ‘Evolutionary fitness as critically relies on female centrality // male marginality as it does of the availability of sufficient and suitable subsistence resources’. Our current urbanisation has so removed us from nature that few among us have any significant understanding of the manner in which nature operates, which ignorance allows us to miss the otherwise extremely easily observed fact of the matter that ‘female centrality // male marginality’ - or ‘women and children first’ - is quite simply a universal feature of the non-human world. All exceptions being perfect ‘rule provers’. Putting males in charge of anything - let alone in charge of everything, as is the case in our own current situation - is as certain a prescription for doom as is any significant subsistence resource insufficiency and/or unsuitable-ness. That particular social structure which affords its females the maximum amount of ‘centrality’ is the maternal avuncular clan, a grouping arrangement in which all of a woman’s children remain within and attached to her in perpetuity and assist in raising the clan’s young, individuals mate outside of their own maternal/avuncular clan with members of neighbouring clans during feast days, seasonal get-togethers, migration end points, pot latches & corroborees etc, etc but each party to any sexual dalliance returns home to his or her home clan whenever their dalliance or assignation concludes. A few maternal/avunculates exist in nature - Killer Whales, and maneless lions being among this admittedly very rare style of grouping. Clan’s males - the women’s sons, brothers and uncles (all as on the maternal side) - assist in raising the clan’s children - hence the term maternal /avuncular clan. WE ARE NOT A PAIR-BONDING SPECIES. Our adaptive profile is not only that of a nomadic maternal/avuncular clan living species, but we are the most highly adapted thereto of any species. The invention of monogamous pair-bonding was the single most damaging reconstruction of our sociality imaginable.
It is nonsense, if not utterly dishonest to claim that men are in charge of everything. Fantasies about the matriarchal paradise often are an attempt to deny female flaws and responsibilities for the real wold problems. Blaming others for problems is at best immature and not a quality that would take us closer to any intelligent solution. The inability to have mutually beneficial relationships is by no means a proof for the inadequacy of others. Neither is it by dreaming about an idealised nature that we can discharge ourselves from the responsibility that goes along with enjoying all the pleasant aspects of modern life's comfort and facilities. For decades we have heard how great a place the world would be if only women had to say something. Where are all the miracles that we were promised ? More hot air is not convincing any more at this point, sorry !
6 лет назад
God, could you be any more dimwitted, let alone verbose. Funny how you propose gynocentism, or female centrality as you so dishonestly put it, is paramount in species. Its not...and you know it. Cooperation is paramount, and the futher up the evolutionary chain, the more it is blatantly apparent. You are no doubt a toxic feminist...a euphemism for toxic individual. You have no place in the conversation.
You are simply seeing that you have NO POWER. Feminism is all about power politics. The reason you have no power is because you are OPP (Old, Poor, and Powerless), SMV (Sexual Market Value) is the baseline for female power, of which you have zero. Therefore, you simply cling to any nonsensical theory word salad that you can espouse in an attempt to do what female nature dictates.... To confuse men. That's what women do, you have no physical power, but you have great power to manipulate. You need to recognize that you are powerless, and have nothing of value to add to society. So sit down, shut up, and hang on. We men have got this. Trust us... That's the problem right there, you can't trust anyone. It's your problem, it's pathological and sadly, your pathology is like an infectious disease, for you spew your crap, spreading poison to other women who are also low SMV.
what you describe sounds like the Mosuo people in China. They live in matrilineal households, with men being invited by the women to visit them privately, for short or long term depending on how both of them want to be, and if she has children they stay with her maternal group, the children are raised by their mother and her female and male relatives, and the biological father helps raise the children of his female relatives, though he may visit his biological children if he wants. Although there is evidence that there have been more matrilineal cultures in the past, I don't know of any evidence that this was ever widespread.
I don't find this stupid. I find it lacking in answers. My answer is the only one that's the opposite of racism and sexism: Individualism. The day men and women find the coolest thing possible within the other PERSON is the day all this crap ends.
I'm as right wing as they come but he's constantly using the fallacious comparison of pretending that the people who say X are the same people who say Y. These might very well be different people. As an example: "oh the fans wanted something new, so we did something new and now they want the old thing we did". No. Those are probably different people.
Warren is the only true analyst of social dynamics for boys. How he can be used to restore the civilization? Obviously his association with Hilary was his failure to choose the platform...
This is an excellent talk but, imagine if Warren Farrell had supported Trump and gotten his ear about men's rights...did he seriously think Hilary was going to do something about it? At least we just had a refinement of title lx to bring back due process in colleges so he is aware of the issues at some level.
Imagine there's no gender, it isn't hard to do, just beings of consciousness, capable of massive boo-boos. Imagine talking less and listening more, that might just be best the way to learn, YOO-HOO-HOOO-OO you may say I'm dreamer, so glad I don't live inside a side-taker's head, I hope he reincarnates as a woman, just to see what a wasted life he led... (hum to the tune of "Imagine" by John Lennon)
Hello Is it hard to celebrate men's achievements. Forget the feminists. Embark on slogans and adverts that highlight men's achievement. Let feminists come up with theirs. That's how to confront these cretins. Talking and defending yourself is worthless. That will also help young boys to mature and have sense of purpose
Toxic femininity? There is a better name for that: patriarchy! It's absurd to have this conversation in terms of "men vs. women". All the problems that Warren Farrell describes here (men being manipulated by women, men being disposable, women using sex as a weapon, etc.) are the result of patriarchy (not of feminism!). These things only show that men are also victims of patriarchy (not only women are). There is nothing wrong with feminism. True feminism is not a movement against men, it's a movement against patriarchy. Feminism can liberate both men and women from this oppression, giving birth to a free and egalitarian society.
That sounds nice, and I once believed it, but no longer. To the extent that you're talking about dysfunctional patriarchy, perhaps you have a point, but to take one example: women are only able to use sex as a weapon because their power in the sexual arena utterly dwarfs that of men. Yes, a few ultra-powerful men have their choice of mating opportunities, but the average man is utterly at the mercy of women for his reproductive success. In the face of that, his only positive choice is to elevate his status enough to get noticed by a decent woman, and that in turn constrains his viable roles in society. Thus begins the traditional trade between the sexes: beauty and reproductive capacity on the female side, and status/wealth on the male side. That dance constrains both sexes in terms of their viable roles, sometimes in tragically diminishing ways, but that doesn't make it oppression by either. It just makes life hard and tragic for both by harshly narrowing their options. I looked for an explanatory factor for differences in interest between the sexes (i.e. why so few women in IT) for years, and it always bugged me that I couldn't see any social force on children strong enough to explain the size of the effect. Eventually I realised that my assumption of "blank slate" must be incorrect and that there ARE inherent temperamental differences. Given that that seems to be true, it's absurd to blame both men's and women's problems on men. The idea that women have been an oppressed class for the whole of human history is on its face ludicrous. No tyranny has ever lasted more than a few decades - how can this be the one example that's lasted 100 times longer? The only reasonable conclusion is that what you're observing is not actually a tyranny. Covert/implied power is still power. The only reasonable view of history is that men and women have been working together (with varying degrees of success) to overcome joint adversity.
I don’t understand how men are suffering because of feminism. Sincerely, I would honestly like to know. Are their rights somehow cut? Does anyone have time to enlighten me?
Fantastic conversation. Rebel Wisdom is a godsend. I see their project as taking up the work of the poet and cultural critic Robert Bly along with his friends and colleagues involved in the men’s movement that, to me, seemed most potent in the late 80’s and into most of the 90’s. I’m sure Warren Ferrel is aware of Bly, and I’m guessing Rebel Wisdom is as well. Bly was the village troublemaker who foreshadowed Peterson in that he evoked mythology and the importance of hierarchy to combat what he called “The Sibling Society”, the title of one of his books. For those interested, I’ve attached a link to a 17 minute lecture, “PASSION AND PURPOSE IN MEN AND WOMEN”, from the Minnesota Men’s Conference in 1988 which I think gives a very useful and enjoyable take on the relationship between women and men. Take care. Here’s the link: ruclips.net/video/qyODCbK0VNY/видео.html
What man in America would go to a therapist for them to tell you that you are toxic and then the sheriff is beating down your door and searching your house. Does the APA have any idea this is going on? Many suffering and many REFUSING to talk about it?
We should always think logically instead of going from one extreme to the other . First think , then you act - not the other way around . There was a reason that God create man and a woman . Ws should support each other instead of compete who is better . Anyway life is not a competition . We are here to help each other , not to fight each other.
Men need to open up, and we all need to be taught to listen better, because we're transitioning from a survival dynamic to one based on functionality which has lead to a gender war for valence in which women are on the attack and men have run for cover? Umm, I don't think so! Mr. Farell clearly has some valuable insights and experience, and I get that urban centers and academia seemingly represent the seats of power and thought, but no, Western men aren't repressed and passive. Interpersonal and gender relationships have always represented an incredibly nuanced, and complex tapestry of compromise, empathy, and basically every facet of human psychology shown to facilitate functionality and fulfillment (even in dire, austere historical periods which demanded a heightened focus on day-to-day survival). Western men are tolerant (possibly to a fault) even with really annoying, whiny, toxic ideas like neo-Marxist intersectional 3rd wave feminism plus+. But, we are taking note (at least meta-consciously, at the collective level), and our tolerance does have a limit. Even still, the Soviet megalith couldn't survive the folly of removing traditional norms and morays, just (as I predict) the Chinese model will eventually collapse under the weight of it's ever increasing application of top-down artifice to bolster a lack of substantive, organic flourishing. And, frankly, the modern western 'progressive' puritans are welcome to construct such a governmental and societal model here just as soon as they forcibly remove my individual life and liberty. That's a hollow declaration though, because, in my experience, their entire world view, with decades of research and practice, can't even stand up to a well placed barb in a twitter flame war. All the while, masculinity, femininity, traditionalism, liberty, and individualism have been shown to withstand and thrive in the face of the basest, and most venomous attacks ever hissed out of the mouths of the psychologically damaged and deluded. We ultimately shrugged off the allure of Aryan order and mastery, withstood the threat of mutually assured destruction, watched our cities burned by our brothers across the pond, and those north of the Mason Dixon. All the while clinging happily to our guns and our Bibles with a knowing smile that says, "none of these things mean what you say they mean." ...and to this day. We got Trump elected, for Christ's sake! And yet, we need to be warned by the lettered intelligentsia that our time has come?! Democracy is our laboratory, guys, and in this we hold unequivocal degrees. In this great laboratory it has been amusing to watch this little anti-male/white diversity experiment unfold. Luckily for us all the perceived sound of war drums currently coming from the left is often just the echo of thousands of embittered blue-haired cultists beating dead horses. It matters less than you think that the sound is amplified by their self-loathing acolytes in an increasingly paranoid, deceitful, and sycophantic corporate media. There have been real casualties on both sides, and for them my heart truly aches, and my arms stretch out; especially the children. Time will tell, though, that it is for the joyless self-absorbed shrews (so ready and overeager to sacrifice innocence and all upon the fire of their dystopian dreams) that your prayers, sympathy, admonitions, and therapy should be reserved. Where societal pressures fail to materialize environmental factors have an uncanny ability to manifest, and so the pendulum swings. But, when families brought forth from a loving, committed marriage fail to flower, and meet our evolutionary imperatives come and find me then in agreement that there is a need to obsessively tinker with the actualization of the male ego en masse...
The vast majority of feminists are white women, who have white Fathers. Farrell seems to have the uncanny knack of telling everyone what they 'want' to hear, rather than what they 'need' to hear. The maxim 'if all I get is applause, I am doing something wrong' will never apply to him.
Lee, this is a classic example of the toxic feminine: an inability to take responsibility, and shifting the responsibility to others (typically, the nearest available man).
@@LeeGee, not knowing your background and the exact problems that you only have with men, there are two approaches. One can expect the world to fall in line with one’s personal opinions or one can start to tackle the problems/conflicts that one has inside oneself. The latter approach can improve your life considerably and you may start noticing/meeting the men who do take responsibility for themselves.
Difficult audio for me to listen to. Way too much saliva sounds from Warren Farrell, way too much phlegm sounds, throat noises, nasal and mucous sounds, clearing of the throat-- is it the microphone placement, or bad sound mixing, or is it just an inherent flaw in Warren Farrell's voice and articulation? No such similar annoying sounds coming from the interviewer-- he speaks and articulates clearly and pleasantly by comparison. Warren Farrell's poor enunciation and very bothersome and distracting saliva noises and mucous sounds detracted from the points he tried to make and detracted from the strength of his arguments in this interview. Too bad,
Likely on purpose. How else can a male speak about these issues without attempting to appear as non-hostile as possible? Yet he's still protested as a bigot.
I disagree with one point he brought up. Mansplaining is *not* the same as sharing one’s feelings. Mansplaining is unsolicited sharing of an opinion by a man on an *external* idea or concept or event whereas when one shares feelings, they share personal truths about their inner world
A man recounting his feelings is NOT mansplaining. Mansplaining is when men assume you don’t know anything and that they have to explain everything to you.
That is completely false. What you are describing is simple condescension, and that is not gendered in the slightest and may also occur without any bad intentions. Mansplaining is a sexist feminist invention constructed to make women hypersensitive in their communication with men. Instead of just accepting it for what it is, which is something awkward that sometimes happens between people, it now serves as confirmation bias affirming a destructive belief system assuming malice where there is none. All you are doing by accepting such nonsense is justifying an unjust hatred/distrust of men.
Allow me to "mansplain".. What you're doing is a typical feminist strategy: when pushed to explain, you lean on a benign definition (denotation), but in common usage, the words are used with malice. A woman can label anything coming out of a man's mouth as mansplaining. Another example of this sort of duplicity is the word "feminism". Feminists will point to the dictionary and claim that it's just a fight for equality. But it's easy to see the malice when you look at feminist literature, pushes in the legal system (Duluth model of violence, custody, support, lobbying efforts, and #MeToo (bypassing legal channels entirely to ruin men's lives, with no consequences for false allegations).
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Feminist ideology has stuck men in a double bind. It's literally a narcissistic relationship on a large scale. Meanwhile our voices are silenced and subject to gaslighting. I spoke once to a woman who said that men's issues were due to "toxic masculinity." When I tried to break down her flawed logic she could not see. Saying the problem with men is our masculinity places us in a situation that we can never solve. I know the pain of this double bind because I suffered from depression for years trying to solve the problem of masculine self hatred that I was downloaded with through my years of schooling in the fascist Canadian school system. I thank God every day for the "intellectual dark web" as they are called for sharing their voices with the world and awakening men. The warriors were defeated in battle but we rose again because the war is not over. In the end we will prevail and bring peace between the sexes once more.
haha. Toxic Masculinity? Flip it on its side, and you will find behind every bit of it, LIES, and the reality of Toxic Femininity . MORE: > www.greenenergyinvestors.com/topic/21883-toxic-femininity-lack-of-logic-accountability/?page=4
Third wave Feminist ideology hasn't done shit. First wave feminism was valuable in society. Third wave feminism isn't feminism...its a thinly veiled attempt at Marxism to further destroy the family unit and its hiding behind women to do it. It has the same effect on culture as it always does.
The only real problem is that the Marxists use the inherent built-in respect most men have always had towards women against them by putting a female reference in the title and young men arent checking the actual contents. Look...I can mark a box full of shit "potato chips" but it doesn't take but 2 seconds to realize that youre not actually getting Dorito's.
Saying it actually causes problems for grown men who are informed lends it way too much credibility.
You reframed the problem so you can feel bad for yourself, right or wrong the problem statement is a specific kind of masculinity. I must have been lucky, I never had any problems. I am for stopping any excesses from either side, but we also need some self accountability. I have not heard any good faith arguments that men are not needed, the role of men in upbringing kids is as needed as the mothers, we are just not doing a good job at those things, just like some women have adapted to mothering and working fulltime, we need to adapt to fathering and whatever else is required from modern men.
I am a female integrating the shadow of my being. The truth has been painful, oftentimes scary.
Great interview! Especially the discussion about toxic femininity which is often left out of all gender discussions.
Shout out to Fathers, Grandfathers, husbands, and soon to be Dads.
Lead the way forward with wisdom, respect, and strength. Have a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Thank you!
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I have no idea what you mean.
Please look up the word “platitudes.”
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Death By Cognitive Dissonance and you as well.
Good job, Rebel Wisdom. I won’t forget the work you’ve done. You’re aiming for long term impact, and that will do infinite good. Keep at it x
Reading his book the Myth of Male Power. Eye opening. People are so ungrateful.
As an adult, I have lived through all of the 50 years Warren Farrell speaks about. I feel fortunate not to have been too much of a victim of what he talks of, perhaps I've been assertive about my rights as an individual, but I recognise that he is on the nail with his descriptions.
i like the bit where he says that 'it's like a war to which only one side has turned up' , i can relate to that.
Men speak up and women say, "That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!" The remarkable thing to me is that I've said this to mixed groups of young men and women a couple of times, and they've all agreed! I don't think they understand how devastating this is to their own lives, but they agree that men should be ashamed of their feelings.
Warren Farrell has shaped a life that gives him much more exposure to this type of experience. I envy that, but the mass of delusion is so huge and impenetrable that he doesn't seem to have much more success saving the world than I do. Maybe that view is too pessimistic. Still, he is living as a hero. He goes on, as we all must do.
why should men be ashamed of their feelings; I thought the problem was that men were not aware of their feelings.
Men need to tell women the truth more often.
Nick Parkison married men in the west cannot tell the truth; for fear of getting divorced/abandoned. Single men can. But there’s the rub, the never-married single men don’t have the insight to tell their truth to women. And the divorced single men feel their honest thoughts and words will jeopardize a potential relationship. This speaks to a larger dialogue between both sexes Warren is referring to. Since major media is incapable of such a larger discussion, the dialogue can only come from the internet and small pockets of talk radio.
I told the truth and then my ex alienated me from my son until I took her to court and fought tooth and nail for my rights.
In my experience, if you tell most “modern” western women the truth, there will be a significant price to pay.
It's only single men like me that can get away with that. And even then only through a level of indirect story telling. It has very little effect.
@@jeeed6390 There's no such thing as 'their truth', only THE truth, but seems you weren't talking about truth at all. You sound like you're talking about opinion, feelings or experience.
This is SO important !
Great talk
Wise man. Doesn't attack people or groups unnecessarily. Just describes the situation. He is not demonizing the feminist left when he discusses men's problems. This is how we all need to conduct ourselves.
Dr. Farrell is absolutely brilliant.
Thanks alot for doing this conversations
Wow thank you for existing and making this content!
Love your flow of content over the past few weeks 10/10 guests and conversation! Plz bring on more mens rights guys.
Paul Elam would be a good one.
Excellent work, thanks. keep it coming...
Great stuff! Warren is amazing.
Every respect. But Dr. Farrell's answers are based on a presumption of 'good faith'. Which may exist in some quarters, but for the most part is either compromised, or downright non-existent. The process of reconciliation is doomed to failure until the incentives are removed. Women by and large view their relationships in terms of value. Then they find ways to justify that view, including grooming their female children to follow in their footsteps. So the problem is much more like a disease than a misunderstanding. It is both contagious and escalating.
"But Dr. Farrell's answers are based on a presumption of 'good faith'."
Yes. Feminism relies on being disingenuous about so many issues that the idea of 'good faith' helping to solve the imbalance against men has no standing what-so-ever.
Great interview and great guy
"....listen, hear them, behind every angry face is somebody who once heard, has their anger diluted; so if you want to not just be angry at the angry people, and hate the haters; instead of being like them, be open to what they are saying. we all have a truth to speak...."
The Feminism I signed up for has changed. By definition, feminism is the belief that all genders should be treated equally. This makes every "feminist" not a feminist at all. This makes the good fight men and women both fought for in the 60s and 70s irrelevant. This is disgraceful.
I hit the like button before hearing the conversation just because Warren is such a likeable guy👍🙌
Adopting the word "toxic" and normalizing it as is done in this video is I believe a very, very bad idea. No boys and girls should ever be designated as "toxic" except perhaps in very extreme cases of dysfunction and Adults should not be labeled as "toxic" except in extreme cases. Most people would not and do not meet an inter-personal reality that merits such a label. Words like "imbalanced" or "stuck" or "misdirected" masculinity/ femininity will help greatly in clearing up the problem up. How we frame a problem helps us or hurts us and taking any ownership and further adopting any one of the extreme post modern feminist ideas as framed in the extreme in word form of what is wrong, should be done with great caution and deliberation.
Momma Llama
Sorry, you’re wrong. Feminism is indeed toxic. It was developed as a Leftist measure to destroy the West and prepare it for Communism.
Feminists even openly admit it.
Sanjosemike (no longer in Ca)
San Jose Mike I don't see where we disagree that greatly and you are not talking about the same dynamic. The Feminarchy, as a collective total reality is on its way to becoming toxic if it is not already so. And so is Patriarchy as the twin to Feminarchy, as it did before and continues to do. I hesitate in feeling like I have the over view yet to label us as actually toxic, but I know it may actually be so bad that it cannot be retrieved. In either case we need to get things right now if we are to have a chance to correct the situation. It is best to act responsively as if we believe things are that bad. 😊
I tend to agree with your alarm at using this label "toxic" as a throw-away word. And yet, it describes some phenomena very well. E.g. toxicity is often about dosage, it usually does not appear to be dangerous ( toxic things camouflage as quite attractive!) and it destroys a completely healthy body by attacking vital functions. Both masculine and feminine qualities/tendencies have the capacity to destroy when they cross a line into the psychological shadows playing on gullibility, ignorance, denial, egotistic phantasies etc......
KatiForTruth certainly it is about how it is used.
I liked Christina Hoff Sommer's choice of 'pathological' rather than 'toxic', in her debunking of that weapon-term "toxic masculinity".
In my more generous moods I'll lend the term validity but on the condition that people who use it spend just as much time talking about toxic femininity, and more time on the healthy versions for men and women. But really I think it would be better to toss those vague terms and just talk directly and clearly about one issue at a time (suicide epidemic, FGM, circumcision, on and on...).
After watching you interviewing Heather Heying and Warren Farrell. Sub.
It took exactly 8:40 minutes to mention Jordan Peterson
And the existence of archetypes as a unquestionable truth
I read this and thought it said "Will Ferrell". Can't express how excited I was for a moment...
What I find problematic in those discussions is that they talk like we were living in a society where the economic system have no role at all in our lives and subjectivities, absolutely no role. Not a single word about the economic structure that keep us alive, the economic system that drags 70%/ 80% of the time of our daily lives, that affect the habits of parenting, the economic system that create insecurity, stress, psychological suffering. Why avoid those questions?
What most people having this discussion are failing to see is the paper the state have as the catalyst for all these problems. Take away the resources the state is giving to activists, and everything goes away like a bad nightmare in a sunny morning.
wow! blown away!! thanks!
He makes so much sense, but he's only mocked in mainstream media.
A lot of wisdom here.
An idea from Denmark about teaching listening skills in schools? But Denmark is in the EU. We have a sacred rule in Britain never to credit any social idea from the continent as having any value. It's why our future prospects are looking so good right now....Good discussion anyway - especially re: father role models.
33:18 "There is an increased percentage of dads who are full time dads but it's really still about 9%, 8 to 10 percent depending on the country, and among those men there's a much greater likelihood of divorce if those men don't also do something at home that produces money." This makes sense. Study after study has shown that in developed nations where more women work and thus men are more likely to do more house work the woman's view of the man's sexiness is directly related to the amount of indoor house work (old-fashionly dubbed "women's work") he does: the more house chores the man does the less the woman sees him as sexy. Much as modern woman think they hate them, traditional gender roles are what fires women's sex drives. As tiredness is often cited by women as a reason they aren't up for sex a man who doens't feel he's getting enough bed sport might understandably be tempted to do more house work so she'll have more energy for bedplay, and doing some is probably fine and only fair, but doing very much is sure to make her see you as emasculated and unsexy.
can I add proper subtitles to this video? the quality of automatic translation is shitty, and I really wanna show this interview to fellow koreans who are suffering from the war of sexes.
I wonder if any research has been done on men who live "normally" and they're relationship to their dads?
Amazing well vocalised. A life time of carrying sexual male guilt from a femmenist mother.
You don't think women have been and still are being shamed for their sexuality?
Yes!
And speak with your vote.
Farrel didn´t elaborate the question about the female dark side.
he is right, it surley does destablize families if you only teach it on one side.
Ok, so I'm at a point where I know what the problem is after consuming RUclips for a long time now. But what is the solution?
Everytime the interviewer posits something, Dr. Farrell goes "yes and no." LOL
When it comes to pushy feminine divorce/custody impulses we need to examine the difference in morality between the sexes
The problem with this interviewer is that he never challenges any of his guests. Never. He is like a partner to the guest, no someone who is interested in really get the best of the guests. It is always a type of interview that serves only for the interviewee to reaffirm his/her ideas without any challenge or difficulty. Sometimes it looks like a cult. When there is no counterpoint, absolutely no counterpoint, just the reaffirmation of an idea, things have come to look like a cult. There is no contradiction, no challenge, no counterpoint, but just an idea being stated without question.
I hear you and understand the "cult" thing. I think one of the problems with a more adversarial style is that it's difficult to do constructively. One of the best examples I've ever seen is CosmicSkeptic interviewing Douglas Murray recently.
I'm so used to seeing the adversarial style done badly and in bad faith that I avoid it habitually now (one Kathy Newman interview is one too many). Since I can't reliably find interviews that challenge and force better explanations, I'll settle for guys like David that at least allow the interviewee to fully expand their views without interference. It's not quite as good in the end because I have to work harder to evaluate their ideas properly or risk being too uncritical myself, but I get something out of it, which is more than I can say for the attack-dog nonsense in the mainstream media - which has practically zero value.
I think audiences as a whole have been turned off the way I have, it explains part of what you're seeing. It's sad but maybe it's the start of something better?
Put an end to intersectional identity politics and the world will automatically become a better place.
Most of what he's saying is good and helpful but as a gay man whose parents divorced when he was three, I feel really left out of this conversation, along with the larger conversation that men generally are being left out of.
I'm curious, how do you think gay men are affected differently?
The moralistic feminist bully is real.
That cheerleader thing....minds me of the patriotic British women circa WW1 who would plant a white feather in the civilian clothes of not yet enlisted young men. Might the young men have said "Yeah, sure, let's go take the King's shilling to fight The Kaiser in Flanders together on a basis of equality. We can go sapping and trench raiding together. There may be some mud, mind your white clothes." Circa 1918 he might not say that, nor might the patriotic young woman reply "Yeah, sure, I'm up for it, bayonet drill and all." Social opprobrium ( nay incredulity ) for both of them. In 2018 less incredulity ( which is good because openness to the undisclosed individual potential of individuals is good)....but the po faced assertion that There Are No Differences Twixt Men And Women is.....ay yi yi ....words fail. Words fail except for Jordan Petersons words....lots and lots and lots of them, very gently and thoroughly trying to explain to hideous ideologues...
I'd tell the young girls to have sex with me right now
and I'll join up. Then I'm getting something out of it
and you're giving up something. Take one for the team
agree 100 %. The therapist aligned with me, i sacked her, i ruined my life. anyway
Warren Farewell did a good job on male issues. However, if men did not get married or be in a monogamous relationship, with a women. they would not have any fears of back lash.
Women broke it, let them fix it.
" we were designed ( evolved ) to survive"
Exactly. But we can also , by means of our evolved brain, decide to thrive and live together in harmony.
This man wants to repair what he has helped break. Assuming all the “bad” stuff can be left out. WE NEED VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND WARRIORS, perhaps the system of social bribes exists for a reason.
leave women alone for all you're life and see how its goes for them
man have to speak up.yes they have spoken they are called MGTOW.
Who cares what weak incels have to say! How do they help me be father to a daughter, or husband to my wife? Short answer: They don't! Well, other than I get to point them out to my daughter and teach a strict avoidance policy. See this guy offers some advice what MGTOW offer is a bitter resentment.
Marc James Hugh Robson you are Mistaken MGTOW is not Incel.again I don't have to prove anything to you and One advice don't send your daughter to the college for Marxist indoctrination to make her Feminist. MGTOW does not offer bitter resentment but offers the protection for men from Gynocentric system.
Flameball even Brad pitt couldn't keep Angelina Jolie.how do you think average joe can keep women.you are making the same mistake all people make.women are always same but system is problem which rewards their every action without any accountability.
@@Flamable1 Wow, that is the most astute analysis of this dynamic I've seen till now. Well said, sir.
@@musclinepresentingtransgen8483 I hold women accountable myself. I'm clear with women about what i want, and expect. I am not worried about holding onto a woman, they can go of their own will if they don't accept things on my terms. I don't need a woman to be there for me to have self respect
“Women and children first”.
While in ‘The Imperial Animal’ 1971 the authors Lionel Tiger & Robin Fox devote a whole chapter to this particular dynamic of socio-ecological structuring, they utterly fail to do it justice as ‘female centrality // male marginality’ is nothing short of one of if not the most critical components of evolutionary fitness.
A fuller statement of this dynamic goes like this : ‘Evolutionary fitness as critically relies on female centrality // male marginality as it does of the availability of sufficient and suitable subsistence resources’.
Our current urbanisation has so removed us from nature that few among us have any significant understanding of the manner in which nature operates, which ignorance allows us to miss the otherwise extremely easily observed fact of the matter that ‘female centrality // male marginality’ - or ‘women and children first’ - is quite simply a universal feature of the non-human world.
All exceptions being perfect ‘rule provers’.
Putting males in charge of anything - let alone in charge of everything, as is the case in our own current situation - is as certain a prescription for doom as is any significant subsistence resource insufficiency and/or unsuitable-ness.
That particular social structure which affords its females the maximum amount of ‘centrality’ is the maternal avuncular clan, a grouping arrangement in which all of a woman’s children remain within and attached to her in perpetuity and assist in raising the clan’s young, individuals mate outside of their own maternal/avuncular clan with members of neighbouring clans during feast days, seasonal get-togethers, migration end points, pot latches & corroborees etc, etc but each party to any sexual dalliance returns home to his or her home clan whenever their dalliance or assignation concludes.
A few maternal/avunculates exist in nature - Killer Whales, and maneless lions being among this admittedly very rare style of grouping.
Clan’s males - the women’s sons, brothers and uncles (all as on the maternal side) - assist in raising the clan’s children - hence the term maternal /avuncular clan.
WE ARE NOT A PAIR-BONDING SPECIES.
Our adaptive profile is not only that of a nomadic maternal/avuncular clan living species, but we are the most highly adapted thereto of any species.
The invention of monogamous pair-bonding was the single most damaging reconstruction of our sociality imaginable.
It is nonsense, if not utterly dishonest to claim that men are in charge of everything. Fantasies about the matriarchal paradise often are an attempt to deny female flaws and responsibilities for the real wold problems. Blaming others for problems is at best immature and not a quality that would take us closer to any intelligent solution. The inability to have mutually beneficial relationships is by no means a proof for the inadequacy of others. Neither is it by dreaming about an idealised nature that we can discharge ourselves from the responsibility that goes along with enjoying all the pleasant aspects of modern life's comfort and facilities. For decades we have heard how great a place the world would be if only women had to say something. Where are all the miracles that we were promised ? More hot air is not convincing any more at this point, sorry !
God, could you be any more dimwitted, let alone verbose. Funny how you propose gynocentism, or female centrality as you so dishonestly put it, is paramount in species. Its not...and you know it. Cooperation is paramount, and the futher up the evolutionary chain, the more it is blatantly apparent. You are no doubt a toxic feminist...a euphemism for toxic individual. You have no place in the conversation.
You are simply seeing that you have NO POWER. Feminism is all about power politics. The reason you have no power is because you are OPP (Old, Poor, and Powerless), SMV (Sexual Market Value) is the baseline for female power, of which you have zero. Therefore, you simply cling to any nonsensical theory word salad that you can espouse in an attempt to do what female nature dictates.... To confuse men. That's what women do, you have no physical power, but you have great power to manipulate.
You need to recognize that you are powerless, and have nothing of value to add to society. So sit down, shut up, and hang on. We men have got this. Trust us... That's the problem right there, you can't trust anyone. It's your problem, it's pathological and sadly, your pathology is like an infectious disease, for you spew your crap, spreading poison to other women who are also low SMV.
@@atheplummer Guys, she's clearly off her meds. Hope you can let it go.
what you describe sounds like the Mosuo people in China. They live in matrilineal households, with men being invited by the women to visit them privately, for short or long term depending on how both of them want to be, and if she has children they stay with her maternal group, the children are raised by their mother and her female and male relatives, and the biological father helps raise the children of his female relatives, though he may visit his biological children if he wants. Although there is evidence that there have been more matrilineal cultures in the past, I don't know of any evidence that this was ever widespread.
I don't find this stupid. I find it lacking in answers. My answer is the only one that's the opposite of racism and sexism: Individualism. The day men and women find the coolest thing possible within the other PERSON is the day all this crap ends.
I'm as right wing as they come but he's constantly using the fallacious comparison of pretending that the people who say X are the same people who say Y.
These might very well be different people.
As an example: "oh the fans wanted something new, so we did something new and now they want the old thing we did".
No. Those are probably different people.
He is right it takes both parents
Warren is the only true analyst of social dynamics for boys. How he can be used to restore the civilization? Obviously his association with Hilary was his failure to choose the platform...
This is an excellent talk but, imagine if Warren Farrell had supported Trump and gotten his ear about men's rights...did he seriously think Hilary was going to do something about it? At least we just had a refinement of title lx to bring back due process in colleges so he is aware of the issues at some level.
Yeah yeah yeah.... Same as it ever was.
Shared on Facebook, I wish us men could put these wah babies back in their place... Everything has been ruined.
20:30 so fXXXXXing ture, i wish i know this, so frustrating. i still hate like listening to Farrell, just too much hard pills to swallow.
Light pours in as Jordan Peterson gets mentioned :)
Imagine there's no gender, it isn't hard to do, just beings of consciousness, capable of massive boo-boos. Imagine talking less and listening more, that might just be best the way to learn, YOO-HOO-HOOO-OO you may say I'm dreamer, so glad I don't live inside a side-taker's head, I hope he reincarnates as a woman, just to see what a wasted life he led... (hum to the tune of "Imagine" by John Lennon)
I'll be in my stateroom w a brandy
Me2
Nobody "HAS TO" do anything. This is the problem behind most conflicts lately in the public discourse.
Hello
Is it hard to celebrate men's achievements. Forget the feminists. Embark on slogans and adverts that highlight men's achievement. Let feminists come up with theirs.
That's how to confront these cretins. Talking and defending yourself is worthless.
That will also help young boys to mature and have sense of purpose
Add strong Christian values of Peterson and high time witch hunts started
Toxic femininity? There is a better name for that: patriarchy! It's absurd to have this conversation in terms of "men vs. women". All the problems that Warren Farrell describes here (men being manipulated by women, men being disposable, women using sex as a weapon, etc.) are the result of patriarchy (not of feminism!). These things only show that men are also victims of patriarchy (not only women are). There is nothing wrong with feminism. True feminism is not a movement against men, it's a movement against patriarchy. Feminism can liberate both men and women from this oppression, giving birth to a free and egalitarian society.
There is no patriarchy
That sounds nice, and I once believed it, but no longer.
To the extent that you're talking about dysfunctional patriarchy, perhaps you have a point, but to take one example: women are only able to use sex as a weapon because their power in the sexual arena utterly dwarfs that of men. Yes, a few ultra-powerful men have their choice of mating opportunities, but the average man is utterly at the mercy of women for his reproductive success. In the face of that, his only positive choice is to elevate his status enough to get noticed by a decent woman, and that in turn constrains his viable roles in society. Thus begins the traditional trade between the sexes: beauty and reproductive capacity on the female side, and status/wealth on the male side. That dance constrains both sexes in terms of their viable roles, sometimes in tragically diminishing ways, but that doesn't make it oppression by either. It just makes life hard and tragic for both by harshly narrowing their options.
I looked for an explanatory factor for differences in interest between the sexes (i.e. why so few women in IT) for years, and it always bugged me that I couldn't see any social force on children strong enough to explain the size of the effect. Eventually I realised that my assumption of "blank slate" must be incorrect and that there ARE inherent temperamental differences. Given that that seems to be true, it's absurd to blame both men's and women's problems on men. The idea that women have been an oppressed class for the whole of human history is on its face ludicrous. No tyranny has ever lasted more than a few decades - how can this be the one example that's lasted 100 times longer? The only reasonable conclusion is that what you're observing is not actually a tyranny.
Covert/implied power is still power. The only reasonable view of history is that men and women have been working together (with varying degrees of success) to overcome joint adversity.
I don’t understand how men are suffering because of feminism. Sincerely, I would honestly like to know. Are their rights somehow cut? Does anyone have time to enlighten me?
Fantastic conversation. Rebel Wisdom is a godsend. I see their project as taking up the work of the poet and cultural critic Robert Bly along with his friends and colleagues involved in the men’s movement that, to me, seemed most potent in the late 80’s and into most of the 90’s. I’m sure Warren Ferrel is aware of Bly, and I’m guessing Rebel Wisdom is as well. Bly was the village troublemaker who foreshadowed Peterson in that he evoked mythology and the importance of hierarchy to combat what he called “The Sibling Society”, the title of one of his books. For those interested, I’ve attached a link to a 17 minute lecture, “PASSION AND PURPOSE IN MEN AND WOMEN”, from the Minnesota Men’s Conference in 1988 which I think gives a very useful and enjoyable take on the relationship between women and men. Take care. Here’s the link: ruclips.net/video/qyODCbK0VNY/видео.html
What man in America would go to a therapist for them to tell you that you are toxic and then the sheriff is beating down your door and searching your house. Does the APA have any idea this is going on? Many suffering and many REFUSING to talk about it?
We should always think logically instead of going from one extreme to the other .
First think , then you act - not the other way around .
There was a reason that God create man and a woman .
Ws should support each other instead of compete who is better .
Anyway life is not a competition .
We are here to help each other , not to fight each other.
Men need to open up, and we all need to be taught to listen better, because we're transitioning from a survival dynamic to one based on functionality which has lead to a gender war for valence in which women are on the attack and men have run for cover? Umm, I don't think so! Mr. Farell clearly has some valuable insights and experience, and I get that urban centers and academia seemingly represent the seats of power and thought, but no, Western men aren't repressed and passive. Interpersonal and gender relationships have always represented an incredibly nuanced, and complex tapestry of compromise, empathy, and basically every facet of human psychology shown to facilitate functionality and fulfillment (even in dire, austere historical periods which demanded a heightened focus on day-to-day survival). Western men are tolerant (possibly to a fault) even with really annoying, whiny, toxic ideas like neo-Marxist intersectional 3rd wave feminism plus+. But, we are taking note (at least meta-consciously, at the collective level), and our tolerance does have a limit. Even still, the Soviet megalith couldn't survive the folly of removing traditional norms and morays, just (as I predict) the Chinese model will eventually collapse under the weight of it's ever increasing application of top-down artifice to bolster a lack of substantive, organic flourishing. And, frankly, the modern western 'progressive' puritans are welcome to construct such a governmental and societal model here just as soon as they forcibly remove my individual life and liberty. That's a hollow declaration though, because, in my experience, their entire world view, with decades of research and practice, can't even stand up to a well placed barb in a twitter flame war. All the while, masculinity, femininity, traditionalism, liberty, and individualism have been shown to withstand and thrive in the face of the basest, and most venomous attacks ever hissed out of the mouths of the psychologically damaged and deluded. We ultimately shrugged off the allure of Aryan order and mastery, withstood the threat of mutually assured destruction, watched our cities burned by our brothers across the pond, and those north of the Mason Dixon. All the while clinging happily to our guns and our Bibles with a knowing smile that says, "none of these things mean what you say they mean." ...and to this day. We got Trump elected, for Christ's sake! And yet, we need to be warned by the lettered intelligentsia that our time has come?! Democracy is our laboratory, guys, and in this we hold unequivocal degrees. In this great laboratory it has been amusing to watch this little anti-male/white diversity experiment unfold. Luckily for us all the perceived sound of war drums currently coming from the left is often just the echo of thousands of embittered blue-haired cultists beating dead horses. It matters less than you think that the sound is amplified by their self-loathing acolytes in an increasingly paranoid, deceitful, and sycophantic corporate media. There have been real casualties on both sides, and for them my heart truly aches, and my arms stretch out; especially the children. Time will tell, though, that it is for the joyless self-absorbed shrews (so ready and overeager to sacrifice innocence and all upon the fire of their dystopian dreams) that your prayers, sympathy, admonitions, and therapy should be reserved. Where societal pressures fail to materialize environmental factors have an uncanny ability to manifest, and so the pendulum swings. But, when families brought forth from a loving, committed marriage fail to flower, and meet our evolutionary imperatives come and find me then in agreement that there is a need to obsessively tinker with the actualization of the male ego en masse...
The vast majority of feminists are white women, who have white Fathers. Farrell seems to have the uncanny knack of telling everyone what they 'want' to hear, rather than what they 'need' to hear. The maxim 'if all I get is applause, I am doing something wrong' will never apply to him.
Nice, but all my problems are with men. Maybe he is just talking to wimps?
Lee Gee, you don’t sound like the solution to your problems. Is this how you define a wimp ?
Lee, this is a classic example of the toxic feminine: an inability to take responsibility, and shifting the responsibility to others (typically, the nearest available man).
@@willybiber3035 - A very large part of it, absolutely, as opposed to taking responsibility for oneself.
@@LeeGee, not knowing your background and the exact problems that you only have with men, there are two approaches.
One can expect the world to fall in line with one’s personal opinions or one can start to tackle the problems/conflicts that one has inside oneself. The latter approach can improve your life considerably and you may start noticing/meeting the men who do take responsibility for themselves.
Difficult audio for me to listen to. Way too much saliva sounds from Warren Farrell, way too much phlegm sounds, throat noises, nasal and mucous sounds, clearing of the throat-- is it the microphone placement, or bad sound mixing, or is it just an inherent flaw in Warren Farrell's voice and articulation? No such similar annoying sounds coming from the interviewer-- he speaks and articulates clearly and pleasantly by comparison. Warren Farrell's poor enunciation and very bothersome and distracting saliva noises and mucous sounds detracted from the points he tried to make and detracted from the strength of his arguments in this interview. Too bad,
Dude is soft...
Likely on purpose. How else can a male speak about these issues without attempting to appear as non-hostile as possible? Yet he's still protested as a bigot.
I disagree with one point he brought up. Mansplaining is *not* the same as sharing one’s feelings. Mansplaining is unsolicited sharing of an opinion by a man on an *external* idea or concept or event whereas when one shares feelings, they share personal truths about their inner world
A man recounting his feelings is NOT mansplaining. Mansplaining is when men assume you don’t know anything and that they have to explain everything to you.
That is completely false. What you are describing is simple condescension, and that is not gendered in the slightest and may also occur without any bad intentions. Mansplaining is a sexist feminist invention constructed to make women hypersensitive in their communication with men. Instead of just accepting it for what it is, which is something awkward that sometimes happens between people, it now serves as confirmation bias affirming a destructive belief system assuming malice where there is none. All you are doing by accepting such nonsense is justifying an unjust hatred/distrust of men.
Jaxeed lol
Allow me to "mansplain".. What you're doing is a typical feminist strategy: when pushed to explain, you lean on a benign definition (denotation), but in common usage, the words are used with malice. A woman can label anything coming out of a man's mouth as mansplaining.
Another example of this sort of duplicity is the word "feminism". Feminists will point to the dictionary and claim that it's just a fight for equality. But it's easy to see the malice when you look at feminist literature, pushes in the legal system (Duluth model of violence, custody, support, lobbying efforts, and #MeToo (bypassing legal channels entirely to ruin men's lives, with no consequences for false allegations).
IT would’ve deleted IT’s original comment if she was smart.
As Jaxeed said it's condescension. And both men and women are capable and practice this social behavior.