Andrew Wilson HUMBLES Feminist On The MATRIARCHY!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июл 2024
- 🔗 Full video: • She BANKRUPTS Men?! Wo...
📅 Dating Talk is LIVE every Sunday & Tuesday 5:00 PM Pacific Time
▶️ WATCH LIVE: ruclips.net/user/whatever?sub_...
💎 Join: ruclips.net/user/whateverjoin
📺 Patreon: / whatever
👕 Merch: shop.whatever.com
💵 Tip Jar: paypal.com/donate/?hosted_butt...
🎥 Equipment: amazon.com/shop/whatever
📘 Facebook: / whatever
🐦 Twitter: / whatever
📷 Instagram: / whatever
👾 Twitch: / whatever
👽 Reddit: / whatever
🏴☠️ Brian: / bd_atlas
🌴 Linktree: linktr.ee/whatever
🎧 Listen: anchor.fm/whatever
To an educated person she’s just using big words and saying nothing
Big time! It screams, “I read a book once in college”
Less than nothing
@@glennwashington2186 and it also screams cat for the future !
Please, someone fact check her!
Exactly. If you use critical thinking and have enough brain power you look for substance and you start to recognize what's substance is...
Where brain cells come to die.
She scrambles to prevent Andrew from completing an idea because shes so terrified of being convinced by a cogent point.
How would this “author” have any evidence of the makeup of poower structures in cultures before writing?
While we CAN tell things about people before writing, such as through tools & other items they leave behind, making big conclusions about complex interactions are guesses at best.
There was a book mocking how archaeologists always jump to religion to answer "why" ancient people did things, and it did it with the assumption a modern city was buried by a volcanic eruption and dug up in the distant future. It used the standard archaeologist arguments for why basketball hoops must be religious symbols that people worshiped.
It never ceases to amaze me how these women will pivot mid-point to "agree" with the opposition, but then turn around a second later and still argue the opposition when said opposition has been invalidated.
Women for you
Modus operandi
That’s every woman ever
You realize that you can agree with an overarching point/conclusion of an argument/position but still not agree with every single individual part of it right? This is normal in conversation, especially debate, regardless of sex.
@@winters0075 it's called gaslighting. They agree two contradictory points to maximise your cognitive dissonance, lose track, go with thd mood of what she's saying that affected you rather than the substantial logic.
People used to call it casting a spell, witchcraft etc, it's just persuasive methods to take advantage
Oh look, one of them thinks she knows something....
She reads part of a book and she is a expert
And the book itself was a wrongheaded historical revisionism Rationalisation for progressive policies and the brave new world.
She probably didn't notice
The gal with the black hair loves to make salads...word salads.
Feminist studies major
If talking in circles, thinking (big words make me smart) and being a complete contradiction was a person 😂😂😂😂😂😂
It’s so ironic that these girls will look back at this in years to come and say “ what the hell was I talking about “
Seems to me that organizing a knitting circle is far different than organizing an army for war.
Not that different, usually ends in similar outcomes
Listening to erudite is absolutely painful
Why does she look up constantly weird af
I think she's on the spectrum.
She is trying to remember phrases she had memorized through repetition.
Look up body language eye charts.
She thinks that: “HR, one of the most important human organization groups”😂😂
According to experts: “A group comprises several individuals bound together by a common need (hunting and gathering food, survival in a hostile environment) or achieving a common goal (organization, football team).” I don’t see HR as a group, but a part of a group (business).
... and it is a non-value adding division in businesses. Companies existed long before HR. Many small companies don't have HR. A big company could operate without HR, but since HR handles hiring, they won't let the company do that.
Useless people finagled themselves into the scam called HR and then seized control of the power to hire & fire people to perpetuate their power to others of their hivemind as a beachfront into successful patriarchal groups to drag them down to mediocrity.
Have there been matriarchal societies? Obviously, yes. Did they survive or thrive? No. Therefore, natural selection means they are hard to find.
Do women organize society? No. Do they even organize people? No.
Look at feminine organizations. They are things like book clubs. They don't scale. Matriarchal organizations/societies don't progress/develop beyond tribes. They are easily conquered. They don't have the resiliency to survive catastrophies.
Conversely, men absolutely DO organize people. Look at corporate structure--it's hierarchical, structured, and repeated. A boss manages a group of people & tasks. He has a boss over him that does the same thing, and that boss has another boss over him doing the same. Military forces do the same. Churches. Governments. Etc. These are scaleable; therefore, it is only the masculine that is able to organize a body the size of society.
It's pointless to argue about patriarchy, because without patriarchy, you don't have the ability/opportunity to debate it. It's like debating about air--it doesn't matter if it's good or bad, without it, you'd be dead.
Feminists writing fan fic again lol
she payed thousands of dollars to be told this bs
She needs to read John Norman. He wrote books describing a true utopia! My favorite one of his novels is “Slave Girl of Gor”!
You can't educate someone that goes by the moniker Notsoerudite
Time for the asteroid ☄️
Everything about her is just awful, but mostly her Joe Biden low monotone condescending voice.
4:41
G- You said this
B- Uh no I didn’t
G- I know
She thinks she is waaaay smarter than she is
I have no idea what she's talking about. It makes no sense at all, but that girl next to Andrew is gorgeous.
I'm not Andrew's biggest fan, but he is an excellent debater. Very impressive
Theres a whole lot of her looking to the right (her right, our left) as she is rambling on... aka: she's making the shit up
Up and to her right(our let), imagined/constructed visual, centered her right, imagined/constructed audio, down and her right, feelings/emotions.
Up and her left(our right), auditory memories, things previously heard, centered her left, visual memories, things she has heard, down and her left, internal self talk, the voice in your head...
look up body language eye charts, its kinda handy
She thinks she's cute emulating Ryan Reynolds
What?! Shut UP!
All I'm hearing is word salad
She has no idea what she is talking about the great thinkers of that time would say Logos was the main value of the ancient world.
If you can't name even one, it's bs
She talking about organization being feminine but her examples sound like a family party type of organization 😂. Patriarchy, pattern are about structure, organization and hierarchy
She is an example of saying a lot of words doesn't equal saying something.
She likely believes there no difference between men and women
Iroquoian societies are still matriarchal. You belong to your mother's clan, not your fathers. Yes, there are still male Chiefs and warriors and hunters are men, but the female elders carry the weight of decision making. Just look at the Oka Rebellion in Quebec, Canada, in 1990. When the men were about to get into a fire fight with the soldiers who were sent in to clear blockades, it was the women who told the men to stand down, and they obeyed.
No they're not. They're matrilineal. It's not the same as matriarchal. Brothers and uncles fathered the mother's children and the lineage was traced through the women. Men still led and determined the fate of their tribes.
@@pottsjk as I stated, political leaders were men, but women elders had significant roles. Sachems were still nominated and overseen by the women elders.
She read Yuval nohair haha ree and thinks she knows something
Madison is having fun being pretty. Andrew is having fun arguing with someone pretty wrong. Cite examples, evidence or logic. Don't just make assertions.
Pay attention to body language
Shes very smart at being wrong and just assurting her opinions.
It is shocking how confident people can be in their ignorance.
The only thing she’s leading me towards in a giant headache.
Who is the white woman next to Andrew?
It is amazing the stretches people like her will go to try to prove women had power. Before recorded history men ruled unopposed, why? Because they had a monopoly on force and women couldnt do anything about it.
I mean... Queens existed and most definitely exercised their power quite viciously. It was enforced by men but these queens did have power in the same way the kings did.
Absent men queens had no way to enforce their power because it came from men. If the men enforcing their power said mo the queens couldnt do shit.
Is she purposely trying to imitate Destiny?
11:29 Jesus isn't portrayed anywhere nearly as masculine in the images a person sees "of jesus" in churches, online and in movies as he should be. The man was a carpenter in his mid 30s, its safe to assume he had been working an extremely physically demanding job for 20 years in a part of the world and at a time where a lot of structures were built with large stones, mud bricks, heavy timbers and large planks all without power tools. Jesus was definitely not a small, weak man with slumped shoulders and as he is often portrayed.
He was definitely strong, most likely obviously strong in looks alone after that many years doing that kind of work, and he definitely knew violence. He knew how to be violent enough, quickly enough to get shit done, and that's proven in the cleansing of the temple stories. You do not clear out an entire temple and its courtyard full of men selling oxen and sheep and money changers with nothing more than a whip you quickly made from a piece of rope you found outside without being a strong man with a commanding presence, especiallywhen angry. All of the while, he was releasing the animals and flipping the tables the money was on (which were likely not all too light) and trashing everything being sold by the merchants inside of the temple and nobody stopped him. So either he was that big and that violent that nobody dared to try and stop him or he was so strong and so skilled in the application of violence that anybody who tried to stop him, couldn't stop him. Either way, that's not a weak man with slumped shoulders going in and trashing a temple in the middle of the day and remember it was bad enough for him to be arrested by roman soldiers, beaten and whipped almost to death before he was forced to carry his cross (a large wood beam weighing hundreds of pounds) up a hill before being nailed to it and being hoisted up and left to die which he did quite quickly compared to most who would hang and suffer for 3 or 4 days before they died, further proof they beat and whipped him almost to death before hand so you know he really pissed some people off.
There is very little about Jesus that is "feminine" in any way unless you want to claim that the ability to show empathy and compassion is feminine, which it isn't, it is just a little more common in females and less likely to be shown in the same ways with masculine men but personality traits in general are not in and of themselves masculine or feminine, some are just more pronounced while others are suppressed at the extreme ends of the scale but the vast majority of people on the planet have a pretty healthy blend of all of the major personality traits.
the spider lady is gross
🎩
She's right, actually. Look it up. Some native American tribes were and currently are a matriarchal. There are still chiefs, but the chiefs aren't in charge as a whole. They are in charge of protection and war.
Same as it is now. Among the people for social organizing (food, celebrations, weddings) woman are in charge. Among the people for combative organizing (sports, war,) men are in charge. She does not make this distinction, she assigns feminine to all forms of organizing. This does not mean these tribes were a matriarch.
@kevinopfer116 wrong. They were classified as a matriarch. Their heritage is passed down the female line, not the male lines. Their social organization doesn't only extend to food and celebrations. It's counsel for members and inter tribal relations and even the decision to go to war rests with the matriarch.
@@kevinopfer116she did make the distinction at about 3:00
@@christinasherman9968 You do make some good points. Yes, I know there is more to it than just celebrating. It's a RUclips comment, I can't extrapolate through all the nuances, but you get my point. Micro vs macro organizational systems is what I was trying to demonstrate. These systems to my understanding were as a Matrifocal societies. It's similar, but not the same. And because family is a micro organization structure (so to speak) this would make the women have council and full authority over things related to family, celebrations etc. They also would have decisions made about macro events, but they did not make the final decision without the approval of the male council for things related to war etc. which these societies did have. Both sexes were very involved because they had to be. That is all this is just my understanding, obviously everyone can always read more and learn. Have a good day. I tried my best to be as clear as could could, but it's just a comment. Can only do so much lol
@@ryancomer6290 I didn't see that, she said organization in literature has always been seen as feminine. Andrew disagreed, she hit back with family, he hit back with corporations. She said, yes it is men organizing corporations, and the reason why is because men are allowed to be feminine. Throughout, she remained firm the organization is a feminine trait. Organizing is neutral, the "what" and "how" are the factors that make it feminine or masculine. Aggression would be another form of a neutral trait. Masculine is a physical fight, feminine is gossip and innuendo. Anywho, I'm done now have a good one, sorry for the lengthy reply
These comments are asinine. She makes sense and here you all are saying she's unintelligent. If Andrew said it, you'd agree. Smh. Btw. Nursing is not a small task. Tell the RN that's saving your life that what she does is a small task. Tell the teacher that is responsible for educating our future leaders that what they're doing is a small task.
Compared to like 99% of the women on this podcast(other than maybe andrews wife 😂), conservative ones included, Erudite is miles above them in actual comprehension skills and ability to convey what she mean. She has specific biases like everyone else does, even andrew, but she is definitely intelligent. I'd be willing to bet even more so than those who are so quick to write her off as unintelligent/unarticulate with no real reasoning why
@ryancomer6290 exactly. She was able to articulate her points clearly and with examples that appeared to be something she genuinely looked into, not just glanced at some i fo for the pod. She was also able to keep to the topic at hand and divert the conversation back to it when it strayed.
Unfortunately, I've been seeing some things about Andrew's wife that demean her intelligence and make her seem more scripted than she already was. I have no proof, of course, but it does jade my view of her and her stance.
@@christinasherman9968 i havent seen much about andrews wife other than appearances on this or a couple random other things so cant comment on that.
But i think its clear just from the way that Andrew was talking to her, she isnt like most other women they have on the panel. She sounded aggressive/combative because she's used to online debate where you gotta be loud and interrupt to be heard. He sounded slightly aggressive/combative because he's used to that and that's generally his debate style. But compared to most convos where he seems exasperated, annoyed and literally is laughing off whatever nonsense they say. He seemed to actually enjoy this conversation and the chance to have a respectable back and forth. He was taking what she said seriously even though he disagreed.
@ryancomer6290 totally agree. At one point he was almost lost for words. Haha!
@@christinasherman9968 Just watched the video about andrew and farha "debating" moral absolutism. It's a very hard watch/listen but i think it's a great example of my point that Andrew actually seemed to enjoy/respect his convo with erudite compared to most convos with women on the panel.
this women just keeps talking and talking and wont him talk. but the problem is she talking BS stuff she makes up herself and wants it to be real when it isnt