Agree - and that is true of everyone really. And to be clear, men are not in crisis because of women or feminism or anything like that. They are in crisis because of elite decision makers who have taken away many of the roles they traditionally played and because they have not transitioned well into the other roles that have grown (as the speaker says, like Health, Education, Arts, and Literature). We should all be for bringing back Voc Ed btw, but corporate leaders have killed good working class jobs in order to pay less to folks whose labor they can devalue sufficiently to meet their greedy aims.
What frustrates me about Hannah is people like her never admit it’s women themselves demanding men work and earn more than women. She says she was upset women dropped out of the workforce and not men during the pandemic as though it’s mens fault. Do you think men don’t want to stay home with kids? It’s because women would divorce them for not “providing” and themselves want to prioritize family while her husband works.
25:10 "We should just let these become legends and ceremonial" Why? Where is this logic for this beyond power and in group preference? Her arguments until this point have come across as 'we should do everything we can to avoid helping men directly while still keeping in place institutional structures that directly benefit women as a class'. She says this all in the face of the fact that men as a class are doing extremely poorly.
Hanna Rosin comes off as very close-minded in this interview. Richard Reeves, on the other hand, is much more conciliatory and apologetic. Excessively so.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop. The double-standards abound, the lack of empathy, the lack of reason, the total historical ignorance, and the absolute callous inhumanity of this woman's attitude is unacceptable; I am really getting sick of this constant dehumanization by people like her who simply suppose that they know everything, this "debate" was certainly not good for my sense of hope in humanity.
She says a lot in the opening segment but in the last few years this show has had such a blindness and coastal bias that many of the debates have been stilted from the start to where no real discussion could be had because both sides ostensibly agreed the only diverging point was to what degree. When you do that you leave most of the country isolated and denigrate your show. At lease with 'Is The Democratic Party Too Far Left?' you had different view points. If you can bring more of that to the table then you may be able to save your show, otherwise its not worth saving.
I think this channel should actually invite Jordan Peterson to know what he actually thinks about these issue rather believe what a third person says about his views.
Indifference concerning the struggles of Boys and Men stirs up anger and rage . Ms Rosin came across as being uncaring of Latino boys and men by laughing at their struggles in school.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop.
I think Charles Murray, the author of Coming Apart, would really add to this conversation. The story of the men from Fishtown really pins down on this topic.
Hannah's problem is that she wants to get ride of the strongest human instinct: The mother's bond to her child. Like her devastating response for more woman dropped off working market to take care the staying home students. For the Society, we should with no doubt to strength this maternity bond. But for woman herself, Hannah wants to weaken this bond, or at least lowing it to the level of Father's Love. In short Hannah wants woman to be just human, not woman.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop. The double-standards abound, the lack of empathy, the lack of reason, the total historical ignorance, and the absolute callous inhumanity of this woman's attitude is unacceptable; I am really getting sick of this constant dehumanization by people like her who simply suppose that they know everything, this "debate" was certainly not good for my sense of hope in humanity.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop. The double-standards abound, the lack of empathy, the lack of reason, the total historical ignorance, and the absolute callous inhumanity of this woman's attitude is unacceptable; I am really getting sick of this constant dehumanization by people like her who simply suppose that they know everything, this "debate" was certainly not good for my sense of hope in humanity.
@@hanumaniam the questions alone are insulting. Imagine asking any other group to listen while another group speculates on the viability and worthiness of the first group. It’s intentionally inflammatory, negative comments should be expected
@@hanumaniam maybe when I have the hour to spare. But would you suggest a black person watch a debate with a title that similarly degrades black people? Should a Jew watch Nazis discuss their worthiness to exist?
As a middle aged man I see where so many of my fellow males are heading especially the younger ones. The lack of role models, lack of partners (partially the fault of said men who are not seen as desirable due to lack of education, careers, etc.,) and lack of good prospects for those without college education, has limited what many can do.
One of the biggest mistakes pushed on society is the idea of the role model. We have a overwhelming glut of people who look up to others who are just as imperfect as they are. If you look at role models as a mold for a part and it's flawed it means you will eventually have mostly defective parts. If you allow people to think for themselves and develop organically you have a far more reasonable potential to have varieties needed to make sure future problems are solved but you have less group think that makes people create the many destructive groups we see today from the Klan, blindly criminal militaries, or political parties.
@@James-kp8mg To think for your self you must have the motivation to do so. It seems like you may have had role models as a youngen that were highly individualistic hence your high value on self determination and deducing for yourself (untrusting of groups and group conclusions?). Those can be some very wonderful character traits indeed, but are they the only ones worth valuing? No other animal on earth mimics each other and other animals the way we do. We learn by mimicking, copying each other all the time. Character traits are important and don't develop spontaneously and without reason. A culture should have good role models for its citizens to imitate, with focus on the most admirable character traits which we would like to see commonly practiced in the culture. The common good is a practice, and with a million ways to do it wrong, and only so many ways (one way?) to do it right, role models do matter. We mimic what we think is in our interest to mimic.
What a load of shit. HVAC, welding, plumbing, there are many high paying jobs that don’t need a college degree. I know several handymen that work for themselves and make 6 figures. The problem is not a lack of good jobs that don’t require college degree. It’s that society has massively devalued marriage, raising children within that marriage and uses sex as a commodity or just fun thing to do. The things once held sacred and revered are now discarded and replaced by nihilistic apathy.
@@jaykong1128 I actually didn't have so much as a role model as I was the recipient of genetic traits. My father wasn't a follower and apparently I was a lone wolf and defiant even as a very small baby. I didn't cling to others I preferred to crawl around on my own looking into everything. My parents weren't together but it was something my father encouraged because he left home as a teenager to explore the country and wanted his children to be able to be alone if we wanted that. While it didn't take on some of my siblings while some of us accepted the long lease. But like I said I wanted space from the time I was a baby. As for role models and society I believe they are one of the worse things about society. I believe they open people up to propaganda and manipulation. If you get to deep into the idea of needing guidance especially from certain individuals it's easy for you to get led down the wrong path. Even from within your household. How many people become racist because they learned it at home? Or look at the dysfunction that results from trauma in the home. If you have a strong, independent personality you can more easily brush off issues from your youth. How many people look to gangs because their parents weren't available? Look at TicTok challenges. How many people make idiotic decisions based on social pressure? No. Analytical, independent thinkers are far more likely to survive the pitfalls of life. The only issue independent people face is the efforts from the government to force us to conform. Society is built to put sheep asleep. Not to work with individuals.
@@jaykong1128 And by the way, animals actually do learn from each other. Look up monkeys using tool and passing them around to each other to use. They actually chip rocks off of harder rocks to created a sharpe edge to use to open coconuts. After opening their coconut they pass the rock to the next monkey. When it gets dull they sharpen it more.
This is just iq2 with a different name. If you unsubbed from them before you should just do it again because literally nothing has changed. They could have a debate on what the best dessert is and one side would be chocolate ice cream, the other would be vanilla and both sides would spend the entire time avoiding the topic of flan.
I really don't like this Men vs Women view. I think it's morally questionable, and just wrong in all these huge ways. I think the underlying issue is we have a very unhealthy society, and a crazy culture right now.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop. The double-standards abound, the lack of empathy, the lack of reason, the total historical ignorance, and the absolute callous inhumanity of this woman's attitude is unacceptable; I am really getting sick of this constant dehumanization by people like her who simply suppose that they know everything, this "debate" was certainly not good for my sense of hope in humanity.
I don't think any these three have ever read or listened to anything Jordan Peterson has written or said, yet they keep bringing him him up as some sort of extremist and keep equating him with Andrew Tate. Horrible job by the mediator. Horrible quality of debate. Richard Reeves seems too defensive of his own position and doesn't want to put his point with any force.
Fascinating topic - along with the name change - although I don't have much faith in others being open to this, mainly due to increasingly common while heavily blinding social biases around gender. The levels of meta with this one shall be interesting to see unfold.
@@hanumaniam The both mentioned them by name. Especially as it applies to the men’s rights activities that policy neglect of men makes room for. Apparently, they see it as a bad thing that room is made for either of them. I don’t like Tate and I think he is a misogynist. But I don’t think Peterson is, though I think they both think he is.
@@ianmartinesq they both appeal to disenchanted young men in their own ways and are negative role models. That's probably why they were mentioned together.
@@hanumaniam I don’t see how Jordan Peterson is a negative role model. But I believe both speakers would agree with you that they are both negative role models and they probably both think they are negative role models in a similar way.
@@ianmartinesq I think they're negative in different ways. Peterson has some very dubious views on consent, gender roles, and psychology in general. I've followed him for quite some time.
This was a joke of a debate. The woman was demonizing the phrase men have to be men and women have to be women and the other side didn’t push back at all. This is why Andrew rate is so popular. He doesn’t kowtow to sensitive women!
Right, this points to the larger issue with this and most of the other iq2 debates I’ve seen. Both sides have built trivially different opinions on foundations that are too similar for real, meaningful debate. It pretends to present two sides while really only presenting two perspectives found on the same side. So it makes people think they listened to a debate but really, no matter which perspective the listener agrees with they actually both agree with the same side. For example, in a debate over whether trump should be indicted, one side might say yes because he likely committed a crime and the other side might say no because he is so clearly guilty we shouldn’t delay justice with a trial. In previous debates I have noticed many comments espousing the same concerns and I eventually unsubscribed from them along with many other listeners. I believe this was the reason for their rebranding. The iq2 name was too sullied by intellectual dishonesty so they picked a different one that conveyed a message of actually wanting to have both sides of the debate represented. It worked: I subbed just seeing the name, thinking there was finally an honest long-form debate channel that was focused on hot button issues. Unfortunately after listening to this entire debate I can see that nothing has changed but the name and will be unsubscribing…again.
I feel the situation today starts from boy to man the fundamentals in a males youth is important in sculpting the masculine male Social skills. Look back to when programs were boy scouts, hunting, fishing just climbing trees. Not to exclude the females social skills within there youth but the gender policy is a big problem within the problem. Allow them to develop and become the person they will be.
How are people posting comments on a 50 minute long video 2 minutes after it is posted? (Clearly, these are trolls.) Or "reasoned"-appearing comments only 16 minutes after? Obvious trolls should feign some attempt to not be trolls. On an unrelated topic, seeing new "channels" appear in my feed is always a bit unsettling. I've been waiting to hear the explanation for the name change, but I'm 3 minutes in and it's either buried or I'm oblivious to the reason. I'd recommend a standalone video introducing your new selves first. That aside, because the format is long it tends to gets buried in my "watch later" queue, but I've always enjoyed your work. Glad to see you are continuing.
People post comments not to troll but because we know the question we can come to our own conclusions to it. That is the problem with people. Too many sit around waiting to be told what to think about an issue instead of using their brains and making their own choices.
@@James-kp8mg the issues with that are various. Why make comments at all on something you've not consumed? Seems foolish. The title for some kinds of media might be provocative and the content nuanced, as in this case. Having taken the time to listen to the content, I can say it's a very good and balanced discussion which would make sense to most people, especially those concerned with men's outcomes.
Richard Reeves should have been asked what does Jordan Peterson get wrong about diagnosis and prescription for Men's problems. He stated it as if he had somehow proved that in a lab.
The fact that Hanna laughs when Richard explains Hispanic boys are the reason for the graduation difference between boys and girls in some cities at 29:15 is quite telling.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop.
Oh it's not men who are done, it's society. You can have men without a society, you can't have a society without men.
Agree - and that is true of everyone really.
And to be clear, men are not in crisis because of women or feminism or anything like that. They are in crisis because of elite decision makers who have taken away many of the roles they traditionally played and because they have not transitioned well into the other roles that have grown (as the speaker says, like Health, Education, Arts, and Literature).
We should all be for bringing back Voc Ed btw, but corporate leaders have killed good working class jobs in order to pay less to folks whose labor they can devalue sufficiently to meet their greedy aims.
What frustrates me about Hannah is people like her never admit it’s women themselves demanding men work and earn more than women. She says she was upset women dropped out of the workforce and not men during the pandemic as though it’s mens fault. Do you think men don’t want to stay home with kids? It’s because women would divorce them for not “providing” and themselves want to prioritize family while her husband works.
We men must do more. This is simply the fact of the times. The key is to be honest about what we want.
25:10 "We should just let these become legends and ceremonial"
Why? Where is this logic for this beyond power and in group preference?
Her arguments until this point have come across as 'we should do everything we can to avoid helping men directly while still keeping in place institutional structures that directly benefit women as a class'.
She says this all in the face of the fact that men as a class are doing extremely poorly.
Hanna Rosin comes off as very close-minded in this interview. Richard Reeves, on the other hand, is much more conciliatory and apologetic. Excessively so.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop. The double-standards abound, the lack of empathy, the lack of reason, the total historical ignorance, and the absolute callous inhumanity of this woman's attitude is unacceptable; I am really getting sick of this constant dehumanization by people like her who simply suppose that they know everything, this "debate" was certainly not good for my sense of hope in humanity.
She says a lot in the opening segment but in the last few years this show has had such a blindness and coastal bias that many of the debates have been stilted from the start to where no real discussion could be had because both sides ostensibly agreed the only diverging point was to what degree. When you do that you leave most of the country isolated and denigrate your show.
At lease with 'Is The Democratic Party Too Far Left?' you had different view points. If you can bring more of that to the table then you may be able to save your show, otherwise its not worth saving.
Intelligence Squared is so dead that they replaced it with a garbage interview series and changed the name of their debate series.
I think this channel should actually invite Jordan Peterson to know what he actually thinks about these issue rather believe what a third person says about his views.
Indifference concerning the struggles of Boys and Men stirs up anger and rage . Ms Rosin came across as being uncaring of Latino boys and men by laughing at their struggles in school.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop.
I think Charles Murray, the author of Coming Apart, would really add to this conversation.
The story of the men from Fishtown really pins down on this topic.
Hannah's problem is that she wants to get ride of the strongest human instinct: The mother's bond to her child. Like her devastating response for more woman dropped off working market to take care the staying home students.
For the Society, we should with no doubt to strength this maternity bond. But for woman herself, Hannah wants to weaken this bond, or at least lowing it to the level of Father's Love.
In short Hannah wants woman to be just human, not woman.
Hanna should have been asked when did Jordan Peterson say that Men should be man and women should be women.
That was a very interesting and productive discussion. I think in the end this debate even came to some kind of common ground. Thanks for having it!
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop. The double-standards abound, the lack of empathy, the lack of reason, the total historical ignorance, and the absolute callous inhumanity of this woman's attitude is unacceptable; I am really getting sick of this constant dehumanization by people like her who simply suppose that they know everything, this "debate" was certainly not good for my sense of hope in humanity.
Next up can we ask if women have really contributed to society and should we keep pandering to them?
I mean the theme is blatant sexism right?
Ouch
you feel that women have not contributed to society? how so?
@@bethsanchezyoga55 its sarcasm.
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop. The double-standards abound, the lack of empathy, the lack of reason, the total historical ignorance, and the absolute callous inhumanity of this woman's attitude is unacceptable; I am really getting sick of this constant dehumanization by people like her who simply suppose that they know everything, this "debate" was certainly not good for my sense of hope in humanity.
Love the new name, thank you for the hard work you put into hosting these debates
Men should just walk off the job and see how things go without them.I bet that wouldn't last long.
Men should just listen to the debate before posting their opinions and thoughts on it.
You walk off the job? Thousands men will rush in, take the job in order to pay dating fee to their new girl friends or get more mistress.
@@hanumaniam the questions alone are insulting. Imagine asking any other group to listen while another group speculates on the viability and worthiness of the first group. It’s intentionally inflammatory, negative comments should be expected
@@Seven_1865 maybe listening to the debate rather than just reading the title would be a good thing.
@@hanumaniam maybe when I have the hour to spare. But would you suggest a black person watch a debate with a title that similarly degrades black people? Should a Jew watch Nazis discuss their worthiness to exist?
As a middle aged man I see where so many of my fellow males are heading especially the younger ones. The lack of role models, lack of partners (partially the fault of said men who are not seen as desirable due to lack of education, careers, etc.,) and lack of good prospects for those without college education, has limited what many can do.
One of the biggest mistakes pushed on society is the idea of the role model. We have a overwhelming glut of people who look up to others who are just as imperfect as they are. If you look at role models as a mold for a part and it's flawed it means you will eventually have mostly defective parts. If you allow people to think for themselves and develop organically you have a far more reasonable potential to have varieties needed to make sure future problems are solved but you have less group think that makes people create the many destructive groups we see today from the Klan, blindly criminal militaries, or political parties.
@@James-kp8mg To think for your self you must have the motivation to do so. It seems like you may have had role models as a youngen that were highly individualistic hence your high value on self determination and deducing for yourself (untrusting of groups and group conclusions?). Those can be some very wonderful character traits indeed, but are they the only ones worth valuing?
No other animal on earth mimics each other and other animals the way we do. We learn by mimicking, copying each other all the time. Character traits are important and don't develop spontaneously and without reason. A culture should have good role models for its citizens to imitate, with focus on the most admirable character traits which we would like to see commonly practiced in the culture. The common good is a practice, and with a million ways to do it wrong, and only so many ways (one way?) to do it right, role models do matter. We mimic what we think is in our interest to mimic.
What a load of shit. HVAC, welding, plumbing, there are many high paying jobs that don’t need a college degree. I know several handymen that work for themselves and make 6 figures. The problem is not a lack of good jobs that don’t require college degree. It’s that society has massively devalued marriage, raising children within that marriage and uses sex as a commodity or just fun thing to do. The things once held sacred and revered are now discarded and replaced by nihilistic apathy.
@@jaykong1128 I actually didn't have so much as a role model as I was the recipient of genetic traits. My father wasn't a follower and apparently I was a lone wolf and defiant even as a very small baby. I didn't cling to others I preferred to crawl around on my own looking into everything. My parents weren't together but it was something my father encouraged because he left home as a teenager to explore the country and wanted his children to be able to be alone if we wanted that. While it didn't take on some of my siblings while some of us accepted the long lease. But like I said I wanted space from the time I was a baby.
As for role models and society I believe they are one of the worse things about society. I believe they open people up to propaganda and manipulation. If you get to deep into the idea of needing guidance especially from certain individuals it's easy for you to get led down the wrong path. Even from within your household. How many people become racist because they learned it at home? Or look at the dysfunction that results from trauma in the home. If you have a strong, independent personality you can more easily brush off issues from your youth. How many people look to gangs because their parents weren't available? Look at TicTok challenges. How many people make idiotic decisions based on social pressure? No. Analytical, independent thinkers are far more likely to survive the pitfalls of life. The only issue independent people face is the efforts from the government to force us to conform. Society is built to put sheep asleep. Not to work with individuals.
@@jaykong1128 And by the way, animals actually do learn from each other. Look up monkeys using tool and passing them around to each other to use. They actually chip rocks off of harder rocks to created a sharpe edge to use to open coconuts. After opening their coconut they pass the rock to the next monkey. When it gets dull they sharpen it more.
This is just iq2 with a different name. If you unsubbed from them before you should just do it again because literally nothing has changed. They could have a debate on what the best dessert is and one side would be chocolate ice cream, the other would be vanilla and both sides would spend the entire time avoiding the topic of flan.
I really don't like this Men vs Women view.
I think it's morally questionable, and just wrong in all these huge ways.
I think the underlying issue is we have a very unhealthy society, and a crazy culture right now.
I agree. Your brevity is on point.
nobody asked for a catlady's opinion, go back to your boxed wine
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop. The double-standards abound, the lack of empathy, the lack of reason, the total historical ignorance, and the absolute callous inhumanity of this woman's attitude is unacceptable; I am really getting sick of this constant dehumanization by people like her who simply suppose that they know everything, this "debate" was certainly not good for my sense of hope in humanity.
There is no room for social Indifference concerning the struggles of Boys and Men and Girls and Women.
I don't think any these three have ever read or listened to anything Jordan Peterson has written or said, yet they keep bringing him him up as some sort of extremist and keep equating him with Andrew Tate.
Horrible job by the mediator.
Horrible quality of debate.
Richard Reeves seems too defensive of his own position and doesn't want to put his point with any force.
Fascinating topic - along with the name change - although I don't have much faith in others being open to this, mainly due to increasingly common while heavily blinding social biases around gender.
The levels of meta with this one shall be interesting to see unfold.
Verbal diarrhea originally entering as word salad.
@@spazmonkey3815 thank you for affirming the premise.
@@TheLadyBlerd What do u think the bias is about??
They both just kind of acted as though Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are the same kind of person.
Except that they didn't
@@hanumaniam The both mentioned them by name. Especially as it applies to the men’s rights activities that policy neglect of men makes room for. Apparently, they see it as a bad thing that room is made for either of them.
I don’t like Tate and I think he is a misogynist. But I don’t think Peterson is, though I think they both think he is.
@@ianmartinesq they both appeal to disenchanted young men in their own ways and are negative role models. That's probably why they were mentioned together.
@@hanumaniam I don’t see how Jordan Peterson is a negative role model. But I believe both speakers would agree with you that they are both negative role models and they probably both think they are negative role models in a similar way.
@@ianmartinesq I think they're negative in different ways. Peterson has some very dubious views on consent, gender roles, and psychology in general. I've followed him for quite some time.
This was a joke of a debate. The woman was demonizing the phrase men have to be men and women have to be women and the other side didn’t push back at all. This is why Andrew rate is so popular. He doesn’t kowtow to sensitive women!
Right, this points to the larger issue with this and most of the other iq2 debates I’ve seen. Both sides have built trivially different opinions on foundations that are too similar for real, meaningful debate. It pretends to present two sides while really only presenting two perspectives found on the same side. So it makes people think they listened to a debate but really, no matter which perspective the listener agrees with they actually both agree with the same side. For example, in a debate over whether trump should be indicted, one side might say yes because he likely committed a crime and the other side might say no because he is so clearly guilty we shouldn’t delay justice with a trial.
In previous debates I have noticed many comments espousing the same concerns and I eventually unsubscribed from them along with many other listeners. I believe this was the reason for their rebranding. The iq2 name was too sullied by intellectual dishonesty so they picked a different one that conveyed a message of actually wanting to have both sides of the debate represented.
It worked: I subbed just seeing the name, thinking there was finally an honest long-form debate channel that was focused on hot button issues. Unfortunately after listening to this entire debate I can see that nothing has changed but the name and will be unsubscribing…again.
Her argument was never that men were finished, just that women might do a bit better then men.
I feel the situation today starts from boy to man the fundamentals in a males youth is important in sculpting the masculine male
Social skills. Look back to when programs were boy scouts, hunting, fishing just climbing trees. Not to exclude the females social skills within there youth but the gender policy is a big problem within the problem. Allow them to develop and become the person they will be.
How are people posting comments on a 50 minute long video 2 minutes after it is posted? (Clearly, these are trolls.) Or "reasoned"-appearing comments only 16 minutes after? Obvious trolls should feign some attempt to not be trolls.
On an unrelated topic, seeing new "channels" appear in my feed is always a bit unsettling. I've been waiting to hear the explanation for the name change, but I'm 3 minutes in and it's either buried or I'm oblivious to the reason. I'd recommend a standalone video introducing your new selves first.
That aside, because the format is long it tends to gets buried in my "watch later" queue, but I've always enjoyed your work. Glad to see you are continuing.
Good point.
It's only important to respond to a video title
it dropped on podcast last night, it was available to listen to at about 6a eastern
People post comments not to troll but because we know the question we can come to our own conclusions to it. That is the problem with people. Too many sit around waiting to be told what to think about an issue instead of using their brains and making their own choices.
@@James-kp8mg the issues with that are various. Why make comments at all on something you've not consumed? Seems foolish. The title for some kinds of media might be provocative and the content nuanced, as in this case. Having taken the time to listen to the content, I can say it's a very good and balanced discussion which would make sense to most people, especially those concerned with men's outcomes.
Richard Reeves should have been asked what does Jordan Peterson get wrong about diagnosis and prescription for Men's problems. He stated it as if he had somehow proved that in a lab.
The fact that Hanna laughs when Richard explains Hispanic boys are the reason for the graduation difference between boys and girls in some cities at 29:15 is quite telling.
she says “uh-huh”.
@@juuunebug copium
I'd say pretty well finished, yes. You hardly see any of them in public office or heading companies anymore.
That's why it pays to watch the videos before commenting.
As a fellow jew, I think Hanna Rosin produces the most concise argument. Her delivery is on point!!
So Hanna's solution is to increase the tax liability for those in the workplace who have no children (men) to compensate for the ability of women to CHOOSE BOTH a career and a family? The fact that this woman has sons is, frankly, sad; she doesn't see her own children as fundamentally human, nothing more than mere sperm donors and wage slaves who exist for the purpose of, but are not personally entitled to, a role in relation to women and children. She is the problem, feminism is cancer, this has to stop.