All he’s doing is going over undeniable history there plenty of books and studies on this. By many other authors besides Dr.Curry. He’s just the most popular and is pretty good at his craft to say the least. Just read and you’ll see he’s not making things up.
Shout out to all the YT people in this reply section flailing about, desperately resorting to ad hominem, and his "sentence structure" because they can't actually refute the veracity of his assertions as they are backed up by actual empiricism.
I'm not sure textual analysis counts as "empiricism"? It's philosophical research and debate, sure, but ultimately it's opinions about other people's opinions.
It's sad that for some reason journalists can't talk about this stuff. All journalism seems to spew out nowadays is article after article about how women are oppressed, over and over and over again.
@GlennLouryShow I would love to see you share your ideas with Tommy Curry. This isn’t Marc L. Hill or Ibrahim Kandi X or whatever his name is (I am not sure). Tommy J Curry PhD is a very serious man
YT guy here. Brilliant video, giving me all the context that Susan Brownmiller, my old Women's Studies professor, seemed to have conveniently forgotten back when I was in college. Of course, she herself made tone-deaf, if not racist commentary on Emmet Till, earning her the ire of Angela Davis.
For those saying he misquoted Elizabeth Cady Stanton: He didnt misquote her. Generally what she is saying is that men and women need to balance each other out. She is basically saying most men are brutes even tho there are exceptions. This idea that men are GENERALLY brutes is essential for her case to be made. Prof. Curry is pointing to her overarching idea (what she considers to be a rule), not what she considers as exceptions.
2:55 Am I misunderstanding her writing or does this woman implicitly state “I DO NOT WISH to be understood to say that all men are hard, selfish, and brutal?” How the hell are you going to misquote and underline her work like that? edit : 2:53
Go read the book. It talks about how white women were active participants in the slave trade (not by standers or victims of “patriarchy that they like to claim). The book also debunks the narrative that white women were at the mercies of their husbands. Throughout the book there are numerous cases of white women requiring prenups and post nuptials before getting married (which their husbands agreed to). It also debunk the myth that only wealthy white people had slaves (middle class women owned 10 or less)
@@Blvck_6im talking about this exact sentence though? if this if such a strong argument there are surely better quotes that dont sound as contradictory edit: by no means am I trying to defend her, its this exact quote that doesn’t seem to line up with this statement
Yet another example of stupidly trying to judge people (in this case women) of past eras by today's standards. Shall we therefore also similarly judge the many African kingdoms and leaders who were - at that time - complicit in the slave trade?
@@antiyttrad The actions of Nazi Germany are rather more recent than those of slave-owners prior to the American Civil War. Moreover, I didn't say 'don't judge' - instead I implied that we should't judge exclusively by applying today's standards .
@@richardoldfield6714 Why do you even jump to that conclusion? Who is "judging exclusively by applying today's standards? Are they with us in this room?
@@tmfuentes7 When the video calls slave-owning women 'feminists', it's pretty obvious that there's a modern-day anti-feminist agenda in play. The plain fact is that the actions and roles of women who did own slaves were not framed as 'feminists' at the time, and nor are they framed in that way by feminists today. 19th century feminism was about things like getting the right to vote - not about some supposed right to own slaves just like men.
in 100 years, people will look back at Curry's arguments with the same disdain he has for the ideas of 100 years ago. they'll probably be seen as extensions of one another.
Tell us, with that big brain of yours....what led you to ask this deep and totally genuine question when there is no gender component to anti-racism to begin with ? Oh wait, there isn't any and there never was.
@@Kitchen374 Anti-racism has no gender component to it, and I am not sure if @Ben9362 knows this and is being disingenuous or he is just that pudding brained to think he is dropping mics here.
![Chlöe - Shake (Feat. Jeremih) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aDs_1ufpfv8/mqdefault.jpg)
All he’s doing is going over undeniable history there plenty of books and studies on this. By many other authors besides Dr.Curry. He’s just the most popular and is pretty good at his craft to say the least. Just read and you’ll see he’s not making things up.
@@Papadidas weird flex but ok
Shout out to all the YT people in this reply section flailing about, desperately resorting to ad hominem, and his "sentence structure" because they can't actually refute the veracity of his assertions as they are backed up by actual empiricism.
I'm not sure textual analysis counts as "empiricism"? It's philosophical research and debate, sure, but ultimately it's opinions about other people's opinions.
The basic Tool of a White Supremacist is deception.
@@hjones4922 Opinions about racist opinions?
@@BlackThoughtChannel sure, but I'm not sure that qualifies as "empiricism"
@@hjones4922 ...let's first establish that you don't know what that word "empiricism" means in the first place.
It's sad that for some reason journalists can't talk about this stuff. All journalism seems to spew out nowadays is article after article about how women are oppressed, over and over and over again.
CONDITIONING
Well said Dr Tommy.
@GlennLouryShow I would love to see you share your ideas with Tommy Curry. This isn’t Marc L. Hill or Ibrahim Kandi X or whatever his name is (I am not sure). Tommy J Curry PhD is a very serious man
YT guy here. Brilliant video, giving me all the context that Susan Brownmiller, my old Women's Studies professor, seemed to have conveniently forgotten back when I was in college. Of course, she herself made tone-deaf, if not racist commentary on Emmet Till, earning her the ire of Angela Davis.
AIA has great content, but their pay walling the rest of it really sucks.
Strong agree.
What about other places and times where men seem to care about and love their families?
What, PRAY TELL, does what you said have to do with these white women in history practicing white supremacy?
For those saying he misquoted Elizabeth Cady Stanton: He didnt misquote her. Generally what she is saying is that men and women need to balance each other out. She is basically saying most men are brutes even tho there are exceptions. This idea that men are GENERALLY brutes is essential for her case to be made. Prof. Curry is pointing to her overarching idea (what she considers to be a rule), not what she considers as exceptions.
Excellent.
Well done.
Thank you for talking about this!!!
important area for discussion!
Based
🙄
it's odd to me that a man would presents on feminism alone.
Because feminism has become a pathology that harms the lesser class. Stop running from your past
That’s because we’re smarter than yall.
Why?
With your pointless statement, we all know why.
It is so slanted and misogynistic views still rule!
✊
2:55 Am I misunderstanding her writing or does this woman implicitly state “I DO NOT WISH to be understood to say that all men are hard, selfish, and brutal?” How the hell are you going to misquote and underline her work like that? edit : 2:53
Go read the book. It talks about how white women were active participants in the slave trade (not by standers or victims of “patriarchy that they like to claim).
The book also debunks the narrative that white women were at the mercies of their husbands. Throughout the book there are numerous cases of white women requiring prenups and post nuptials before getting married (which their husbands agreed to).
It also debunk the myth that only wealthy white people had slaves (middle class women owned 10 or less)
He didnt misquote anything, weak
😮💨
@@Blvck_6im talking about this exact sentence though? if this if such a strong argument there are surely better quotes that dont sound as contradictory edit: by no means am I trying to defend her, its this exact quote that doesn’t seem to line up with this statement
@@antiyttrad how so? read the whole sentence and listen to what he says about it, from my perspective he’s cherry picking
Give me a break....jfc.
Cry harder as you all but openly admit you can't refute a word he has said.
Yet another example of stupidly trying to judge people (in this case women) of past eras by today's standards. Shall we therefore also similarly judge the many African kingdoms and leaders who were - at that time - complicit in the slave trade?
So by this logic you dont judge nazis either right?
@@antiyttrad The actions of Nazi Germany are rather more recent than those of slave-owners prior to the American Civil War. Moreover, I didn't say 'don't judge' - instead I implied that we should't judge exclusively by applying today's standards .
@@richardoldfield6714 Why do you even jump to that conclusion? Who is "judging exclusively by applying today's standards? Are they with us in this room?
@@tmfuentes7 When the video calls slave-owning women 'feminists', it's pretty obvious that there's a modern-day anti-feminist agenda in play. The plain fact is that the actions and roles of women who did own slaves were not framed as 'feminists' at the time, and nor are they framed in that way by feminists today. 19th century feminism was about things like getting the right to vote - not about some supposed right to own slaves just like men.
@@richardoldfield6714 🤦♂️
Capitalism or death. What a small minded concept
in 100 years, people will look back at Curry's arguments with the same disdain he has for the ideas of 100 years ago. they'll probably be seen as extensions of one another.
Could you explain and elaborate on that please? Thanks.
With respect- you don’t know what will happen tomorrow, let alone 100 years from now.
Lmao nonsense
Flail about harder while gaslighting as you cowardly side-step the fact that you can't refute a word he has asserted nor the empiricism that backs it.
He is pretty dreadful.
Total nonsense. It undermines the integrity of the Institute. Get your head out of your butt
I hope the IAI will soon be facilitating a talk on the misogynist side of anti-racism but I shan't be holding my breath.
Lmao hilarious
Cry harder Pink-Toes as you ironically prove Dr. Curry's point.
What's the misogynist side of anti-racism?
Tell us, with that big brain of yours....what led you to ask this deep and totally genuine question when there is no gender component to anti-racism to begin with ? Oh wait, there isn't any and there never was.
@@Kitchen374 Anti-racism has no gender component to it, and I am not sure if @Ben9362 knows this and is being disingenuous or he is just that pudding brained to think he is dropping mics here.