This is just such a great overview of the feminist approach to IR and security studies and potential applications to real-world case studies. Thankyou!!
French Revolution is an example of Feminism which began with the protest of Parisians women who couldn’t feed their family due to lack of bread and ultimately that protest/revolution led to the shift of French political system from monarchy to republic.
Here I am focusing in how the revolution starte NOT I bloody process. Don’t mix two diferent things. I.E, you are talking about consequence while I am talking about who started.
And I will respectfuly answer that it credit to woman because they were who started the French Revolution; because they didn’t have bread to feed their family and started the Revolution. And because they started a revolution that’d led to a huge change in French political system and furthermore influenced other countries massively. As opposed to Westphalian agreement, another huge event that brought peace in Europe but was dominated by men. In summary in French Revolution you see the initiative and precense of women and bring social changes and political system. Hope this makes you understand clearly my point.
@@monicamacias6155 ¿Are you not considering the consequences of the women's actions? ¡Most Certainly! The model of this system has been tried the world over, with similar results. . . . false allegations, mass executions, loss of liberty & destruction of a country. Pol Pot, Sadam & Mao are only a few individuals who apprecoated your lying & murderous sisters from the market. This is nothing in which any "brother" or "citizen" or woman should have pride
@First Name Last Name Feminism goes beyond considering women or "thinking of the other gender". Feminism is especially concerned with all marginalized identities, including the biggest marginalized group in the world: women. The biggest critique of liberal feminist theory is it's centric nature to white heterosexual women, ignoring the intersectionality of mixed race women and LGBTQ+. Your comment is redundant, your use of that stereotype is damaging and in doing so wholly projects your ignorance and lack of imagination.
Having watched halfway through, my one criticism is that she completely dismisses the role biology plays in gender and sex relations. 4:45 "No feminists within international relations will think about gender as something that is somehow biologically given or factually just there" So my argument against this is that yes, gender depends on the way society chooses to experience the masculine and feminine, but they're both rooted in our biology, in the way our brains are wired, in the hormones that flow through us, the way our bodies are made. Just ask any transgendered person how different they think and react after changing sex. E.G. Testosterone promotes muscle growth, bone density and aggression. Male brains are bigger than Female brains by 10%. Female hips designed for childbirth are unsuited to throwing, and carrying heavy loads over long distances. Women are much more likely to suffer stress injuries during long marches than men. Gvien these facts, who is more suited to warfare? And why should women lead male dominated organisations when 95% at least would struggle to meet the standards expected of an average male soldier. She's right that differences exist in the excercise in power, but she's wrong to say that it can deconstructed. Humans have always sent their young men to fight and almost never risked their women. This has been the case since prehistory and relevant all over the world in all climates, terrain and peoples and it's not because of the 'patriarchy' but because such behaviour is rooted in our dna. You can't deconstruct biology and assume if you render masculinity inert the world will be a better place.
The biggest problem with your argument is that you are not talking about gender, but about sex, and think they are linked, when they are not. You need to revise again what gender truly is. Your sexual identity, does not neccesarily go along with your gender expression, and that's a HUGE fault in your argument. And that is something many people is so confused about. So, i'll give here many examples. 1. I can totally feel and identify myself as a women, and yet, be extremely masculine in my everyday life, in the clothes I wear, in the way I act or speak and feel happy like that. 2.Thats why gay feminine men, are still men. Butch lesbians, are still women. They don't want to be other sex, they have the sexual organs, hormones, and brains of their sex, but their gender expression is completely different to what society expects/wants from them. 3. Drag queens: none drag queen consider herself a women, they are men, they love being men, and some are even heterosexual men. BUT, they enjoy performing for a minute, for a moment in their lifes as the "other gender" (reducing gender to a binary to make the point clear). Same goes with dragqueens. 4. Trasgender people, for example, have to undergo a really critic analysis of the way in which they perform gender, because, it is extremley hard to differientiate (for them an anyone, but especially for them) whether they want to behave in a really feminine/masculine way, because that is natural to them and their bodies, or because that's what they have learned about the other sex. And that's how gender is not natural, it is learned. 4.1For example, many old biological men that discover really late that they were women all allong, when transitioning have this really caricaturesque, totally biased and even simplyfied/vulgar ways to be women. Because all their lives, especially before, their view of what a women is like was really reduced. But after learning more, and accepting who they are despite social rejection, they stop those stereotypical ways of being a women, and adopt alternative not extremely/stereotypical feminine attitudes and actions. For example, decide to not operate, or to use their normal voice, or to not shave, or to dress less "Slutty" and femenine, adopting a little bit of masculinity even etc. What femine and masculine is has changed not only over time, but even in the same time is completely different in different societies, and that's why we know and social scientist learned that gender is not natural, is not something that relates to your hormones, it's learned. What is relate to a more biological aspect is your sexual identity, which means, whether you consider yourself as a women, a men or none. But even that cateogory that seems more "natural" is also social. The truth is we cannot know the sex of someone unless we do a study of their chromosomes. Millions of people have sex organs, appearance and hormones that makes them be seeing as part of one sex, but if you study their DNA, they are not. Also, intersexual people do not belong to any of the "natural" categories, but people is so obsessed with them that torture and mutilate them for years to make them look "normal". And there is many people, that despite having "normal" bodies, do not identify as women neither men. So... how can we say there is a biological clear distinction when all these issues exists? We choose to believe human sex biology is clear and sound, but it's not at all, we constructed it, and now we need to deconstruct it. :)
I don't want to diminish feminism because of the importance of gender equality and the contributions it has made to addressing women's rights. However, using it as a theoretical tool to analyze IR is just crazy, and in my opinion, there are limitations to feminist theory when compared to other theories. For one, they have unrealistic assumptions that tend to zoom in on gender as the main cause, oversimplifying the whole picture and not fully grasping power structures. And secondly, I dare to say it never was, is not, and never will be a theory; instead, I call it a social movement that isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of deal. They frame every social and IR issue as a battle between genders.
Hi, thanks for the video, very very interesting a helpfull. It is in my University course of IR. I have a request, does anybody know the name of the article she was referring about the Srebrenica massacre and constructivist perspective? Thanks in advace for anyone who is able tell me the name of it or even to directly link the text
No offense, but her arguments have no essence at all. She keeps saying "we are different from the mainstream view," but she never explains how exactly it is different and what sorts of contribution feminist approach can make to the field of international relations. It seems that the major topics such as "war and peace", "international organizations", "the possibility of world government", and "the Hegemonic conflicts" cannot be properly studied by the feminist approach of whatsoever. I have seen many feminist scholars trying to enter the field of international relations, but I have never really seen anyone who made me impressed with their own originality. Maybe I expected too much, but this video was not exceptional.
This is exactly why I also say that feminist theory in international relations only highlights the gendered nature of the international system, so how can you call that a theory? It solely focuses on these aspects of male dominance, highlighting gendered assumptions and male dominance. It simply has an overemphasis on gender and only prioritizes gender-related issues, ignoring other important factors. It simply lacks a unified framework and cohesiveness to be considered a theory because it focuses so much on gender and has limited generalizability.
Very good video. I am totally convinced on the role of gender for many events, but I still think realists are right when it comes to grand scale analysis.
This sounds like basic concepts that are laid out in constructivism and are centered around gender as a catalyst. The concept expects that only women can affect change in a certain way due to the psychological response that someone else MIGHT have toward them. Gender is a question of peoples feelings today, and it is difficult to say that this IR theory can even be considered a significant theory, as it is probable that gender response is completely shifted within ten years to one of complete societal confusion. People, who seem to be able to choose their gender identity, have started saying they identify as ... and soon the idea of this theory will be null and void in the fact that there is no longer an established scientific control for gender that the psychology or any such theory can be based on. As such it must fall back under the category of constructivism.
I'd honestly like to think of it more as an approach rather than a theory. I understand how it can be adopted in certain situations, but I do believe its application is very limited. Constructivism does, indeed, encompass many of these smaller approaches. So we could say that the Feminist approach is perhaps a subsidiary of Constructivism. More of a different dimension of understanding within Constructivist terms.
@@Twilight_lounge I contend that feminist theory is inherently a critical theory and therefore agree with both of you in that it does overlap with constructivism, as they are both critical theories and deal with an ontology of becoming. Locher and Prügl write: “Most IR feminists approach gender and power as integral elements in processes of construction, whereas most constructivist consider power to be external to such processes. This failure to conceptualise power and gender as social and pervasive leads constructivists to miss an important part of the empirical reality of power politics. Second, constructivists tend to ignore the implications of a post-positivist epistemology, whereas for feminists the question of “who knows?” Is crucial. [Locher and Prügl] Argue that the constructivist failure to problematise the research process as a social (and therefore political) process of construction is logically inconsistent with an ontology of becoming." (Versus realists and traditional IR theory of ontology of being). As constructivism and feminism both fall into the category of critical theories, they have a shared ontology of becoming. However in my mind constructivism falls short of taking into account the gendering of power and as such the symbiosis of both theories is a more inclusive theory that will never be null and void as it seeks to represent marginalized voices, be it women or not.
@@TheAnikasis I definitely agree with you on this. In my own research, I usually attempt to frame my work in what i call an "Identity-based Feminist Constructivist approach". I think with Constructivism there remains much room for reclassifying and redefining a few different elements predominant in the literature. Perhaps consolidating this hybrid approach could in fact be a viability in future studies.
It is nice to watch videos about feminism that are objetive and have depth analysis. Even though I'm not a supporter of the feminist mouvement and disagree in many points, I feel that it would be a great conversation to have with this woman about feminism and the world in general. However they way she describes it, feminist theory in IR seems more of a sociology theory of gender in IR rather a large explanation of how the international system works.
Mr90Sasa Feminist theory in IR aims to point out that the international system is structured based on assumptions regarding men and women, not to explain how the whole system in itself works - that's what theories like realism and liberalism aim for. Feminism is a critical theory that focuses on a social aspect of IR, therefore it does appear more sociological. It's meant to highlight the gendered character of IR, how most world leaders are men and what bearing that might have on policies, how it is men that traditionally fight in wars, even down to the division of labour based on gender, as mentioned in the video, it was assumed that diplomats were men and based on that they had certain duties while their supposed wives had others, which creates problems when you start getting female diplomats. That example highlights how the entire structure is built with men being the major players in political life. Feminist theory poses the question: how does male dominance in international relations affect them?
I agree, the problem with this theory is that it can only understand how and why certain ideas are perpetuated, justified and done and critically examine those, but it does not seem to find any good method or theory to understand the "why", and attempt to predict behavior of the state. The fact that Putin justifies his military aggresion with refering to masculinity and traditional "russian values", this is not explaining the raison d'etat, why he is envoking this. Feminism can be a good tool to break down propaganda and rhetoric, but it is difficult for it to be an IR theory if it can not be used to predict and understand politics.
@@gmkar7766 Feminist theory in international relations only highlights the gendered nature of the international system, so how can you call that a theory? It solely focuses on these aspects of male dominance, highlighting gendered assumptions and male dominance. It simply has an overemphasis on gender and only prioritizes gender-related issues, ignoring other important factors. It simply lacks a unified framework and cohesiveness to be considered a theory because it focuses so much on gender and has limited generalizability.
I must say of all the theories which I have studied in natural sciences and social sciences Feminism is the most difficult one. Every time I watch a video about feminism I get more confused....😢
I think all the fights in the world can be reduced to Patriarchy vs Matriarchy; the paradigm of Dominance vs Cooperation!!But the irony is, Life requires the interpenetration of both!! Not just that, it's inevitability is even more paradoxical (I mean metaphorically speaking). May be, we need to find a new paradigm that blends them in a parsimonious harmony! Can Love qualify? It looks too loaded for a larger brain with a smaller heart!!
why not use one international policy all human in earth???? use common language, e.g. english central international policy one education policy why there are police , and others do? then countries don't fight each other .....yeah don't split countries , just use one country...
This view of the world is openly absurd. The amount of blind assumptions, devoid of scientific proof or even common sense, she needs to make in order to justify her points is astounding.
This is just such a great overview of the feminist approach to IR and security studies and potential applications to real-world case studies. Thankyou!!
ማ ማዕከል ሙ
Thanks to this video I passed my political science course😂
Better than my lecturer in school
French Revolution is an example of Feminism which began with the protest of Parisians women who couldn’t feed their family due to lack of bread and ultimately that protest/revolution led to the shift of French political system from monarchy to republic.
!¿Did you forget the bloodshed associated with it, as well as it starting with lying about the Queen?
Here I am focusing in how the revolution starte NOT I bloody process. Don’t mix two diferent things. I.E, you are talking about consequence while I am talking about who started.
@@monicamacias6155
I have to respectfully ask how this is a credit to women
And I will respectfuly answer that it credit to woman because they were who started the French Revolution; because they didn’t have bread to feed their family and started the Revolution. And because they started a revolution that’d led to a huge change in French political system and furthermore influenced other countries massively. As opposed to Westphalian agreement, another huge event that brought peace in Europe but was dominated by men. In summary in French Revolution you see the initiative and precense of women and bring social changes and political system. Hope this makes you understand clearly my point.
@@monicamacias6155
¿Are you not considering the consequences of the women's actions?
¡Most Certainly!
The model of this system has been tried the world over, with similar results. . . . false allegations, mass executions, loss of liberty & destruction of a country. Pol Pot, Sadam & Mao are only a few individuals who apprecoated your lying & murderous sisters from the market. This is nothing in which any "brother" or "citizen" or woman should have pride
Before I watch this video, I have to applaud myself on how open-minded I am. Well done me.
Yes, well done you. It is sad though, that thinking of a gender other than your own is considered open-mindedness.
did you just assume their gender??
@First Name Last Name Feminism goes beyond considering women or "thinking of the other gender". Feminism is especially concerned with all marginalized identities, including the biggest marginalized group in the world: women. The biggest critique of liberal feminist theory is it's centric nature to white heterosexual women, ignoring the intersectionality of mixed race women and LGBTQ+. Your comment is redundant, your use of that stereotype is damaging and in doing so wholly projects your ignorance and lack of imagination.
10:12 to 10:27 I love her
Thanks for sharing this video.
Having watched halfway through, my one criticism is that she completely dismisses the role biology plays in gender and sex relations.
4:45 "No feminists within international relations will think about gender as something that is somehow biologically given or factually just there"
So my argument against this is that yes, gender depends on the way society chooses to experience the masculine and feminine, but they're both rooted in our biology, in the way our brains are wired, in the hormones that flow through us, the way our bodies are made. Just ask any transgendered person how different they think and react after changing sex.
E.G. Testosterone promotes muscle growth, bone density and aggression. Male brains are bigger than Female brains by 10%. Female hips designed for childbirth are unsuited to throwing, and carrying heavy loads over long distances. Women are much more likely to suffer stress injuries during long marches than men. Gvien these facts, who is more suited to warfare? And why should women lead male dominated organisations when 95% at least would struggle to meet the standards expected of an average male soldier.
She's right that differences exist in the excercise in power, but she's wrong to say that it can deconstructed. Humans have always sent their young men to fight and almost never risked their women. This has been the case since prehistory and relevant all over the world in all climates, terrain and peoples and it's not because of the 'patriarchy' but because such behaviour is rooted in our dna.
You can't deconstruct biology and assume if you render masculinity inert the world will be a better place.
The biggest problem with your argument is that you are not talking about gender, but about sex, and think they are linked, when they are not. You need to revise again what gender truly is. Your sexual identity, does not neccesarily go along with your gender expression, and that's a HUGE fault in your argument. And that is something many people is so confused about.
So, i'll give here many examples.
1. I can totally feel and identify myself as a women, and yet, be extremely masculine in my everyday life, in the clothes I wear, in the way I act or speak and feel happy like that.
2.Thats why gay feminine men, are still men. Butch lesbians, are still women. They don't want to be other sex, they have the sexual organs, hormones, and brains of their sex, but their gender expression is completely different to what society expects/wants from them.
3. Drag queens: none drag queen consider herself a women, they are men, they love being men, and some are even heterosexual men. BUT, they enjoy performing for a minute, for a moment in their lifes as the "other gender" (reducing gender to a binary to make the point clear). Same goes with dragqueens.
4. Trasgender people, for example, have to undergo a really critic analysis of the way in which they perform gender, because, it is extremley hard to differientiate (for them an anyone, but especially for them) whether they want to behave in a really feminine/masculine way, because that is natural to them and their bodies, or because that's what they have learned about the other sex. And that's how gender is not natural, it is learned.
4.1For example, many old biological men that discover really late that they were women all allong, when transitioning have this really caricaturesque, totally biased and even simplyfied/vulgar ways to be women. Because all their lives, especially before, their view of what a women is like was really reduced. But after learning more, and accepting who they are despite social rejection, they stop those stereotypical ways of being a women, and adopt alternative not extremely/stereotypical feminine attitudes and actions. For example, decide to not operate, or to use their normal voice, or to not shave, or to dress less "Slutty" and femenine, adopting a little bit of masculinity even etc.
What femine and masculine is has changed not only over time, but even in the same time is completely different in different societies, and that's why we know and social scientist learned that gender is not natural, is not something that relates to your hormones, it's learned.
What is relate to a more biological aspect is your sexual identity, which means, whether you consider yourself as a women, a men or none. But even that cateogory that seems more "natural" is also social. The truth is we cannot know the sex of someone unless we do a study of their chromosomes. Millions of people have sex organs, appearance and hormones that makes them be seeing as part of one sex, but if you study their DNA, they are not. Also, intersexual people do not belong to any of the "natural" categories, but people is so obsessed with them that torture and mutilate them for years to make them look "normal". And there is many people, that despite having "normal" bodies, do not identify as women neither men. So... how can we say there is a biological clear distinction when all these issues exists? We choose to believe human sex biology is clear and sound, but it's not at all, we constructed it, and now we need to deconstruct it.
:)
@allisonluciacastillosmall49 very well crafted and coherent response with the proper critical framework within the sociological field. Kudos to you!
I don't want to diminish feminism because of the importance of gender equality and the contributions it has made to addressing women's rights. However, using it as a theoretical tool to analyze IR is just crazy, and in my opinion, there are limitations to feminist theory when compared to other theories. For one, they have unrealistic assumptions that tend to zoom in on gender as the main cause, oversimplifying the whole picture and not fully grasping power structures. And secondly, I dare to say it never was, is not, and never will be a theory; instead, I call it a social movement that isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of deal. They frame every social and IR issue as a battle between genders.
Hi, thanks for the video, very very interesting a helpfull. It is in my University course of IR. I have a request, does anybody know the name of the article she was referring about the Srebrenica massacre and constructivist perspective? Thanks in advace for anyone who is able tell me the name of it or even to directly link the text
Hi, I have read "Women and Children First: Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans 1991-95" by R. Charli Carpenter on this topic.
No offense, but her arguments have no essence at all. She keeps saying "we are different from the mainstream view," but she never explains how exactly it is different and what sorts of contribution feminist approach can make to the field of international relations. It seems that the major topics such as "war and peace", "international organizations", "the possibility of world government", and "the Hegemonic conflicts" cannot be properly studied by the feminist approach of whatsoever. I have seen many feminist scholars trying to enter the field of international relations, but I have never really seen anyone who made me impressed with their own originality. Maybe I expected too much, but this video was not exceptional.
This is exactly why I also say that feminist theory in international relations only highlights the gendered nature of the international system, so how can you call that a theory? It solely focuses on these aspects of male dominance, highlighting gendered assumptions and male dominance. It simply has an overemphasis on gender and only prioritizes gender-related issues, ignoring other important factors. It simply lacks a unified framework and cohesiveness to be considered a theory because it focuses so much on gender and has limited generalizability.
Very good video. I am totally convinced on the role of gender for many events, but I still think realists are right when it comes to grand scale analysis.
This sounds like basic concepts that are laid out in constructivism and are centered around gender as a catalyst. The concept expects that only women can affect change in a certain way due to the psychological response that someone else MIGHT have toward them. Gender is a question of peoples feelings today, and it is difficult to say that this IR theory can even be considered a significant theory, as it is probable that gender response is completely shifted within ten years to one of complete societal confusion. People, who seem to be able to choose their gender identity, have started saying they identify as ... and soon the idea of this theory will be null and void in the fact that there is no longer an established scientific control for gender that the psychology or any such theory can be based on. As such it must fall back under the category of constructivism.
I'd honestly like to think of it more as an approach rather than a theory. I understand how it can be adopted in certain situations, but I do believe its application is very limited. Constructivism does, indeed, encompass many of these smaller approaches. So we could say that the Feminist approach is perhaps a subsidiary of Constructivism. More of a different dimension of understanding within Constructivist terms.
@@Twilight_lounge I contend that feminist theory is inherently a critical theory and therefore agree with both of you in that it does overlap with constructivism, as they are both critical theories and deal with an ontology of becoming. Locher and Prügl write: “Most IR feminists approach gender and power as integral elements in processes of construction, whereas most constructivist consider power to be external to such processes. This failure to conceptualise power and gender as social and pervasive leads constructivists to miss an important part of the empirical reality of power politics. Second, constructivists tend to ignore the implications of a post-positivist epistemology, whereas for feminists the question of “who knows?” Is crucial. [Locher and Prügl] Argue that the constructivist failure to problematise the research process as a social (and therefore political) process of construction is logically inconsistent with an ontology of becoming." (Versus realists and traditional IR theory of ontology of being). As constructivism and feminism both fall into the category of critical theories, they have a shared ontology of becoming. However in my mind constructivism falls short of taking into account the gendering of power and as such the symbiosis of both theories is a more inclusive theory that will never be null and void as it seeks to represent marginalized voices, be it women or not.
@@TheAnikasis I definitely agree with you on this. In my own research, I usually attempt to frame my work in what i call an "Identity-based Feminist Constructivist approach". I think with Constructivism there remains much room for reclassifying and redefining a few different elements predominant in the literature. Perhaps consolidating this hybrid approach could in fact be a viability in future studies.
As a tic-borne parasite, I completely agree with you.
We can understand all of these but according to our professor we have to write book wording it's very scary for me
Well done
It is nice to watch videos about feminism that are objetive and have depth analysis. Even though I'm not a supporter of the feminist mouvement and disagree in many points, I feel that it would be a great conversation to have with this woman about feminism and the world in general.
However they way she describes it, feminist theory in IR seems more of a sociology theory of gender in IR rather a large explanation of how the international system works.
Mr90Sasa Feminist theory in IR aims to point out that the international system is structured based on assumptions regarding men and women, not to explain how the whole system in itself works - that's what theories like realism and liberalism aim for.
Feminism is a critical theory that focuses on a social aspect of IR, therefore it does appear more sociological.
It's meant to highlight the gendered character of IR, how most world leaders are men and what bearing that might have on policies, how it is men that traditionally fight in wars, even down to the division of labour based on gender, as mentioned in the video, it was assumed that diplomats were men and based on that they had certain duties while their supposed wives had others, which creates problems when you start getting female diplomats. That example highlights how the entire structure is built with men being the major players in political life.
Feminist theory poses the question: how does male dominance in international relations affect them?
I agree, the problem with this theory is that it can only understand how and why certain ideas are perpetuated, justified and done and critically examine those, but it does not seem to find any good method or theory to understand the "why", and attempt to predict behavior of the state. The fact that Putin justifies his military aggresion with refering to masculinity and traditional "russian values", this is not explaining the raison d'etat, why he is envoking this. Feminism can be a good tool to break down propaganda and rhetoric, but it is difficult for it to be an IR theory if it can not be used to predict and understand politics.
Agreed.
@@gmkar7766 Feminist theory in international relations only highlights the gendered nature of the international system, so how can you call that a theory?
It solely focuses on these aspects of male dominance, highlighting gendered assumptions and male dominance. It simply has an overemphasis on gender and only prioritizes gender-related issues, ignoring other important factors.
It simply lacks a unified framework and cohesiveness to be considered a theory because it focuses so much on gender and has limited generalizability.
I must say of all the theories which I have studied in natural sciences and social sciences Feminism is the most difficult one. Every time I watch a video about feminism I get more confused....😢
Be discerning about feminism
Nah. Just ignore it. Life will quickly get better
What is gender?
Well, that was very confusing
Good job maam
The term "maam" is a misogynistic construct. Delete your comment.
let's check back in on these feminist IR theorists, see if any of them can give a coherent definition of what a woman is.
I think all the fights in the world can be reduced to Patriarchy vs Matriarchy; the paradigm of Dominance vs Cooperation!!But the irony is, Life requires the interpenetration of both!! Not just that, it's inevitability is even more paradoxical (I mean metaphorically speaking). May be, we need to find a new paradigm that blends them in a parsimonious harmony!
Can Love qualify? It looks too loaded for a larger brain with a smaller heart!!
Did Woman get defined yet?
Adult human female
This does not make sense sis, I am sorry.
Gender Is biological
lol ur talking abt sex, not gender.
@@nabilayasmine3319 He/she is talking about gender. Who are you to decide what he/she is talking about.
@@timlee2580 Biological sex and gender are different things. Gender is about a choice.
@@nabilayasmine3319gender is heavily influenced by sex
why not use one international policy all human in earth????
use common language, e.g. english
central international policy
one education policy
why there are police , and others do?
then countries don't fight each other .....yeah
don't split countries , just use one country...
man thought he was thomas hobbes im dead lmfao
okay mydude lets go
🤣
Make United States of World a reality...
This view of the world is openly absurd. The amount of blind assumptions, devoid of scientific proof or even common sense, she needs to make in order to justify her points is astounding.
feminism relies on pseudo science like psychology, which is why a lot of the feminist theories and concepts are so contentious to put it politely
This is not a scientific theory. These are political theories/ontologies, not science.
it's about a big idea; getting gender in consideration. what's wrong with it?
Social sciences are a "psuedo-science" if that is how you put it...
@Vik VLis Calm down you angry feminist moron. Why do you get so insecure when your feminist ideology is criticised?
Feminists are very cool SIKE!!!