He's so much clearer, more careful in his language and more honest on the topic of feminism than the likes of Jordan Peterson, who focuses on the more extreme and unreasonable branches of feminism and speaks of all feminists as though we all hold those irrational beliefs.
+Liz Mad +Kate Gomen Kolar I agree that it's *some* sanity and clarity. Though I would suggest that it not deep or very insightful sanity or clarity or coherence. It is more or less just some common sense ideas. The fact that those simple ideas are so rarely spoken in the culture is what makes them feel like some clarity, it takes courage for Sam to speak about this. That said, this is different from someone putting those ideas into a bigger framework based on deep insight and clarity. There are several things he says, which make me think "Wow, he hasn't really deeply thought about this at all". To me he still seems to operate inside the feminist framework, eg he says: "If by feminism you mean people who are concerned with equity and fairness in our society, and acknowledge that there are certain situations where women have a harder time than men, and that we should understand those situations, and correct for those injustices, "... "then I consider myself a feminist". He feels comfortable adding some qualifiers and calling himself a feminist. Notice how he doesn't say "certain times where either women OR men have a harder time... and we should correct for those injustices". It is ONLY women. He speaks about violence against women, in spite of the fact that statically, men objectively experience more physical violence than women, despite their bigger physical size. He doesn't distinguish between physical and sexual violence. He doesn't get into nuance like women's higher subjective fear of physical violence, in spite of their lower danger. He just lumps it all together, and expects that women can't rationally understand the statistics and base their perceptions around those statistics. Something he DOES expect of people on almost every other topic. Why doesn't he say similar things about Christianity? "If by Christianity you mean people who are concerned about injustice or suffering in our society, and acknowledge that there are certain situations where the teachings of Jesus would be beneficial to individuals, and that in those situations, we should benefit those people... then I consider myself a Christian". Or Islam? Sam DOES praise some parts of Islam, eg some of the beautiful Nasheeds (music). "If by Muslim, you mean someone who appreciates the incredible music which has been produced in the name of Islam, then consider myself a Muslim". These religion quotes don't say "certain times where the teachings or ideas about Jesus, or the Buddha, or Mahmoud, or a dozen other religious figures, would be beneficial to individuals, and in those situations we should benefit those people". It is ONLY Christianity, or ONLY Islam etc. With the religion quote, Sam would spot the one sidedness and collateral damage of such support a mile away. With the feminist quote, he seems blind to it.
Light And Shadow maybe its because feminism is even more riven with factions than religions are so he has to define it. Also, feminism is just an idea, it doesn't claim to be the one revealed true revelation, so he can cut it some slack. If its not divine it doesn't have to be perfect.
+Slave2thedrago Yes of course he would make distinctions if questioned. Thing is, he basically spoke about an ethnocentric framework of feminism, with some caveats, and identified with that. A version of feminism which focused ONLY on women. That was the foundation of his argument. Compare that with the feminist framework of someone like Camille Paglia, or Christina Hoff Summers, or even Warren Farrell, if he still identifies with the feminist movement at all. I don't think he is aware of men's issues at all. I don't even think he has a deep understanding of contextualism, which is a core part of the postmodern framework that much of feminism is theoretically built on.
+mellamosean, I can't tell you how pleased I am that my original comment set into motion of a chain of events that led to you explaining how you are "somewhat skinny, don't really work out..." and that you "could start lifting again and get back to 175lb" and somehow overpower or beat Cris Cyborg. Thank you for the lol. She would head kick you into a coma within 2 seconds. What point are you trying to make?
Sam is a true definition of intellectual for me. Not tainted by ideology or political beliefs, he assesses each issue on its merits. This is a great analysis.
Thank you for posting. I know this audio was meant for supporters only, but as someone who can't currently afford to support Sam financially, it's great to be able to hear his thoughts.
Yup I hear you. I have sent Sam a small donation in the past, and plan to again when I'm in a better financial place. I hope many others who appreciate Sam's work will think about supporting it also. Sam is a rare and precious and oh so refreshing voice of reason in world gone utterly mad..
+Ian Goddard I agree that Sam brought up a lot of important truths and perspective, that is missing in much of the gender conversation. At the same time, I think there are many biases underpinning the feminist paradigm which Sam hasn't transcended or become aware of at all. For example, he explanation of his commitment to ending violence against women included advocating for violent illegal vigilante justice against a man. "Harvey Weinstein should have had the shit kicked out of him a long time ago" How is that an example of "depth of articulated nuance"? Especially considering the fact that men are objectively more likely than women to experience physical violence. A fact that he directly omits, and actually, advocates for the perpetuation of.
+randomflashback In another topic you made a comment about how Sam is truly intelligent, but much of his audience are people of average or below average intelligence, who don't understand the nuance in what he says. However they like his conclusions, so they go along with it. Given that, I have to say I am disappointed in your reply here. I think it's pretty clear that right now he shouldn't have the shit kicked out of him. That wasn't what Sam said, he said "should have had a long time ago", not "should have". Those are two really different propositions. Do you really think Sam actually holds that position he suggested, rather than it just being his flippant remark that reflects some irrational primitive instinct about protecting women? Really? You realize that Sam thinks Weinstein didn't have free will right? That suggests there is zero justification for retributive justice or vengeance or someone "getting what they deserve". Sam has suggested that if you have a pill that magically could rehabilitate people, there would not be any justification for any punishment whatsoever. If you asked Sam, "Consider that Weinstein was likely to continue abusing women until he was forced to stop, that his behavior was/is relatively widespread, that the US are currently in a state of potential cultural unravel where institutions are being tested and people are losing faith in the system. Do you think the wisest step forward for the individual victims, for Weinstein, for the feminist cause and human civilization as a whole, would have been for someone to break the law by kicking the shit out of Weinstein and making him into a victim of a crime? In retrospect, would it have been better to somehow record Weinstein's actions and expose him on a broad level so that he stops, is brought to justice through the legal system, changes his attitude, and is made an example out of so that awareness of this issue spreads and many other abusers also stop, thereby preventing many abuses from ever happening?" If you asked Sam that, do you really think he would say "Upon careful reflection, I think the best intervention would have been to kick to the shit out of Weinstein."? Actually, "having had the shit kicked out of him", might have been a better outcome for Weinstein since he may have kept his job and not been publicly disgraced, but a worse outcome victims, for feminism and for humanity, since widespread change might not have been triggered as a result. I think that position doesn't make sense at all. The explanation I gave makes much more sense, a flippant remark that reflects some unexplored bias which Sam holds regarding violence against men being acceptable.
Only a Sam Harris level of articulation skill could come close to accurately describing how articulate Sam really is. This man is a consummate master of the English language.
Most of the people in left right now are quite irrational or deny in some ways science and biology (right does too). But this man always think about a lot of topics very deeply and is extremely reasonable. Thanks Sam.
In India we're constantly told that feminism is a bad thing by MRAs. Feminism had always been looked down upon by society ever since beginning of times. There's no winning. I particularly won't call the West to be a feminist Utopia either, btw. There are still rapes happen which goes underreported.
Which may be the intention. The oligarchs behind our media like division of men and women, blacks and whites, Republicans and Democrats. And they get the division going by promoting extremism in all these groups.
I've made the same point, that there is a difference between violent rape and groping, and have been attacked by female friends as being an "apologist" for rapists.
Sam saying that there's no crisis of women groping, molesting and inflicting varying degrees of assault on men is immensely disingenuous. Male victim rape and male victim domestic violence faces even more serious problems than female victims of the same assaults because men are even more severely stigmatized and disregarded both by society and our justice system for being victims. Male victim violence is trivialized and played for comedic effect in our media in ways that no morally sane person would ever consider for female victims. He mentions the #MeToo movement then conveniently omits the fact that several men have come out as part of the movement and voiced that they've been harassed and assaulted by both men and women in the film industry. He also conveniently omits the fact that women are almost exclusively the perpetrators of false claims of violence and harassment, the fact that married women are given egregiously unfair settlements in their favor in the case of divorce and that men have no functional reproductive rights whatsoever. I'm not going to sit here and say that women don't face very real and very serious threats to their well-being from predatory individuals though, and it really disgusts me that this is always thought of as such a binary topic, where you can either be a radfem or a MGTOW. Decent people, both men and women need to recognize and affirm that we all suffer at the hands of evil people, and that they're the enemy, not each other.
If you just listen to what he is really saying, you'll notice he's just saying what everyone already agrees on, but he's well spoken so he sounds smart.
Probably took balls for him to come out with this. Feminism is a BIG phenomenon, and shouldn't get hijacked by the loudest, most obnoxious people. An unwanted sexual advance is an unwanted sexual advance. The sickness is indisputable. The explanation and cure for it...well, that's up for debate
Why don't you subscribe to Sam's Patreon then? Just a couple of bucks a month. Pretty fair deal, considering you seemed to enjoy this bootleg copy so much.
Well that was illuminating. Harris sounds like a slightly more balanced version of J Peterson. Since Peterson’s a rank misogynist that’s not complimentary.
As per usual Sam is on point. However, I think he could have gone a touch deeper in us being honest about how we are trying to subvert male behaviour using female ideals and psychology. If we want men to have better control of their impulses etc we need more male influence.
Great vid, bullshit comment section. Sucks that the bulk of you just cherry pick whatever arguments feel like a pat on the back, and then toss the logic chains that greats like Sam and those in the related videos all follow (and with shit like "too blue pill"? Fuck that's revealing). Destructive and pathetic way of learning if you just seek out whatever's self-aggrandizing.
+Killian Lucas Can you explain to me the logic chain where Sam suggested that illegal violence should have been done against a man. Specifically that vigilante justice should have been done to Harvey Weinstein, he "should have had the shit kicked out of him a long time ago".
Sam raises a lot of great points. BUT I will say that when he speaks of "self defense" it is a VERY one-dimensional perspective from which he speaks. In this day and age, men need to be extremely conscious of the power of legality in every potential misstep they make along the way; that makes "self defense" about FAR more than just a physical threat---and let's not forget that many women get away with abusing men physically because they know they can get away with it and men generally know better than to strike back. Men face not only the wrath of the law, but the repercussions of their male peers as well if even the perception of them laying a hand on a woman takes hold. That is NOT the case for women in ANY way. If a woman abuses a man, it is the MAN who is shamed as a result. Sam's right fundamentally I think, but wrong as the issue is far more extremely nuanced than he's making it out to be. I suspect it has mostly to do with his lack of experience with any crazy bitchez in his life tho'---so I won't hold it against him.
I think the male groping and raping scandals happen far more often than get reported, just depends whose in power position, take a closer look at the everyday worker or student
I think the big problem is somewhat the false conclusions drawn from statistics and the media... the idea that you can ascribe to each and every individual the average characteristics. It's made even worse by sample selection. The media just amplifies those perceptions to make them seem real, but it is simply one case out of trillions of interactions.
Would love to hear Sam point out, "There is no other -ism that has so many detractors that feel you have to agree with ALL the fringe elements to be considered a Feminist"
Excellent piece! I would only pause to note... Scott Adams recently did a little "test" on periscope by simply asking his listeners whether the men among them had ever been groped by women. The answer was a massive stream of "me" and "yes" within seconds. The second part of that is that most men, by far, don't feel (particularly) offended by it. This I think is a "rape culture" that much of society is forgetting about, and that might make us question whether men should be more offended, or perhaps women less easily offended - if legal equality is the goal, anyway. Laws cannot rely on subjective responses. This no doubt also counts for "soft rape" to an extent (e.g. incapacitated rape)...men say "I shouldn't have gotten that drunk", many women say something very different. That said, I would also suspect that brute-force-rape is extremely one-sided... most men in that probably are victimized by other men, and for a very different reason.
Of course, it's all wrong, but there's a massive difference between women groping men and men groping women, and it has to do with the physical disparity between men and women. Being groped by someone who's physically weaker than you (as in the case of men being groped by women) is A LOT less intimidating than being groped by someone who's physically stronger than you (as is the case for women being groped by men). Add to that the fact that men are walking round with a potential weapon that women don't have, and there's no way that you can say you're comparing like with like here, because the threat level can never be the same. This is something that doesn't even occur to some men (and bizarrely, to some women), but I always say, if you want to know the level of intimidation that women feel from men in any given situation they find themselves in with a man, imagine what it would be like if you were in that same situation with a guy who was much bigger than you who may or may not have the hots for you and who's carrying a weapon he could use against you if he chooses to. In other words, you'd likely feel much more uncomfortable being groped by that guy than by your physical equal or inferior who's also carrying no such weapon.
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 There is quite some truth to that - which can be said as long as we recognize that men deserve that same protection even if they don't need it as often. But is the logic still accurate? After all, our instincts and emotions often still live on the savannah. Is it still true that an American woman can't possibly be a threat to a man? Guns are rather a big equalizer, and in cases like rape, we can expect them to be used. And is rape still *objectively* as dangerous as it used to be? Contraceptives, and the moral shift of the sexual revolutions, one would think, have greatly affected that. (the violence involved, of course, is a separate matter. And there is some more advanced biology involved. It's more complicated). But has the emotion changed along with reality? I don't think so. And part of me thinks that changing that will be as hard, as making people comfortable walking on a glass bridge 100 feet up in the air. You can tell me all day that it's perfectly safe, but I like to have something visible under my feet.
As a single guy who ADORES women, for whom women are "it" in human existence, who marvels at every little nuance of how they think, talk, walk, move, look like and even smell, for someone who struggles in his shiness to find them, all these scandals have become a curse. As if it wasn't already hard enough to meet people, the levels of suspicion and steretyping is really becoming unbearable. Don't get me wrong: the problem here is the abuse by many men. And the victims are women. But as collateral casualty of all this, the most distorted androgynist discourse is becoming mainstreamed. I see things pretty much like Sam Harris and even more. Also as the Latino I am, I wish somehow women governed the world a couple of generations, that way our world would have more empathy, more human sensibility, greater justice beyond instrumental rationality. I just wished we got closer and not farther apart, as it seems to be the case. I don't want this life if it is without women.
aLERNO, I like your attitude and I think that you will find a good woman. Be careful on who you approach, superficial people are everywhere, find someone that has some depth and she will be your partner. That is what women want, equality, that's it. When brothers and sisters unite, there isn't anything we can't do! Good luck :-)
Great points. We need to protect and heal our women. Nothing gets me angrier than hearing a sexual assault took place. I grew up with a single mom and 2 older sister and they made life easier for me and took care of me. So for me, women are a true gift from god! I know you don’t necessarily agree with the god thing lol but you get what I am saying. We as men need to stand up for women. Enough is enough!
@@der-niccolo Just do both! You can look out for yourself and others at the same time - it doesn't have to be one or the other. What's the point of having strength of any kind if you don't use it for the benefit of others? We should all look out for those who are more vulnerable for us, regardless of gender, and for most men, that'll mean looking out for most women.
My favorite part with Sam is how always measured and zen like he is when he talks. Especially when he talks to ignorant people & I envy him. I don’t think I ever heard him raise his voice.
As a woman, I feel that if you compare the capacity of men to be creeps and to be more violent and overpower women to the actual amount of men that are, its a testament of man's even greater capacity to be civilized, gentle and not act on their bases instincts. I like Harris and I agree with most of what he said, but I dont think handing boys at birth the responsibility to "not be creeps" is just a form of original sin and is condemning them without reason, and, in the worst case scenario, give them something to live up to. Its normalizing a type of behavior as male and doesnt help. Furthemore I dont have a problem trusting men because I know that for every man that may act like an asshole towards me there will be 10 or 20 that will defend me, and even risk their own safety to do so. If anything, the ones that really get screwed over are male victims, which, in liu of recent events have shown to be not a small number, by a long shot, and who dont have the same amount of people coming to their defense.
The term "Feminism" is a decadent one. The fact that Sam had to question which kind of "feminism" the question was talking about is a proof that the term is meaningless. What use is the term Feminism (or any vague term as such) if you need to extensively describe it every time you talk about the subject just to make yourself clear about it, like Sam did at the beginning!
It is a shame that such a clever man cannot really speak his mind. He is obviously treading very carefully so as not to offend these PC feminists, who have he quite rightly states, gone too far.
I wonder if you hold these same opinions regarding your friend Larry. So far, ive only ever heard you defend him. But its been proven that krauss was AT LEAST creepy and unwarranted. You condemn this im sure right?
I know of no prominent anti-feminists who don't think rape is awful or that people don't need to be protected from violence. Technically every anti-feminist is a feminist as well. Most anti-feminists simply want equal rights and access to services for men and women. I am genuinely still unsure of where Sam lands at the moment.
llortorp - Mr. Ham likes to be put between two loaves of thic black man to express his love and admiration of Hillary Clintons endorsement of regressive thinking.
I don't think every anti-feminist is a feminist... I think that's the point of being Anti-something, but every anti-feminazi is a feminist, that do sounds good to me, feminazis and anti-feminist are equally bad for feminism, maybe feminazis are worse cause they created the anti-feminists in first place
Alejandro González - Are men and women equal? No. To the extent that they aren't meritocracy and informed reasoning will not equate to either equity or equality. If we take that to mean that we should be having open and honest discussion you should then come to the conclusion that antifeminism is necessary and feminism is not. Antifeminism only being necessary until feminism is gone.
+Raven Ziola wait what? we need feminism right now, until the crime rate against women decreases to near zero we will need some feminist awareness in society, you say it like feminism is a plague you should kill with antifeminism but it's not, is the response to mistakes in the social behavior of human beings and yes I hope one day we won't even remember we had to have feminism in the first place, but that is long ahead in the future
I also agree with the Big Fat male chicken. Reposting an excerpt from a "supporters only" podcast without permission is either: a) just a little over the line if you didn't monetize it, or b) total bullshit if you did monetize it.
I feel a little bit bad about posting it because you’re right that this podcast is for supporters only. However, I posted only about 5% of the whole podcast, so perhaps it will work as a “teaser”, and people will support him to get access to the full podcast. I decided to post it because it’s a fascinating topic, and I really wanted to see a discussion about this among the people who listen to Sam Harris. I didn’t monetize it nor do I have a channel, it was the first video I’ve ever uploaded to RUclips.
There is a huge difference between criminal acts and gender xwz. Call it for what it is, criminal acts and don´t make it to something else or confuse it with something else.
Sam Harris being raised by single mom explains a lot of the blue pill nature of his talk. This explains his unwillingness to blame women sometimes when it's clearly some of the things they're doing or the system.
My only quibble is his supportive use of the term 'equity'. I have to suspect, knowing Sam's broader views, that he doesn't know that in contemporary social-justice parlance, 'equity' explicitly means _equality of outcome._ So for example, if there are more men among oil-rig maintenance crews, trash collectors or CEOs, a social injustice (ie, oppression) is occurring and some kind of intervention is needed to cause professional demographics to match the population. I'm sure Sam does not support that view, and yet he said he's for 'equity'.
Except that there are cultural issues faced by both sexes, which, from an ideological standpoint, egalitarianism is it. Even the violence argument is a perfect example of the lack of consideration for male victims.
The fact that men experience more physical violence actually shows that men are in more objective danger of physical violence, despite their bigger size. Just like a race car driver is in more objective danger of dying in a car crash than a little old lady with glasses who drives to the shop once a week to buy milk. This is DESPITE the race car driver’s higher skill level in that domain. The race car driver probably feels less fear around crashing, so perhaps they need less emotional support. But they are in more objective danger, so in terms of objective safety they need more support. Sam seems blind to this, as is feminism. Much of the argument is emotional and subjective, not built on objective facts. Sam claims to construct his worldview based on objective facts, something he doesn’t seem to have done very deeply with gender and conceptual frameworks like feminism.
+TheOlzee He also has two daughters, so him being bias is understandable. However, my impression of Sam's whole worldview is that subjective preference and emotional attachment is insufficient grounds for believing something. So the fact that he has two daughters, and was raised by a single mother, should in theory have zero effect on his views, from a purely rational perspective. From memory, he has said things like "to the extent that we are rational, we share the same identity". To me, it seems that feminism and women's issues is an example of him not having a worldview which aligns with those propositions.
I love that the intellectual heavyweights of our time are woke. Imagine a world where the smartest among us were still trying to bury children in post holes to maintain the structural integrity of buildings. We live in a perfect juncture to combat ideological dogma. We have torn the veil of righteousness from dogma’s hands. Let’s keep it up, shall we?
Sam Harris should talk with Paul Elam, dr Warren Farrell and check out the national coalition for men see what they have to say or even the men’s rights activist in India people only hear feminism they don’t know much about the other side.
I get groped by a woman at work, and she is the one woman I don't want to get groped by (I am unlucky like that). But Sam is still right about the asymmetry. I find this woman slightly annoying, but i don't feel physically threatened.. That is the difference.
I have always wanted the Hollywood sex scandal to debate how personal responsibility, class and power influenced the actions of Weinstein rather than simply focussing purely on the sex of the perpetrator or victim. The media's insistence on reducing the issue down to biological sex is to oversimplify the problem and to basically assert that all men should bear responsibility for Harvey Weinstein's actions - which is what feminists and the Elite seem to want. As far feminists and their media allies are concerned, a homeless man in Moscow is bears the same level of responsibility as multi-millionaire in Los Angeles for the crimes Weinstein or Bill Cosby, etc... which is absurd. I never hear them asserting that all gay men should take responsibility for Kevin Spacey's behaviour. We would never say all black men are criminals so why is it acceptable to say all men are either sex offenders... or potential sex offenders? What about the thousands of men in Hollywood who haven't assaulted women and would never dream of doing so? How about the billions of men worldwide who haven't groped or abused women and would never dream of doing so? How about the fathers, sons and brothers who want the best for the women in the lives? How about financially poor men who cannot get away with abusing women because they have no money or power to protect them? You will find that financially rich women can get away with a hell of a lot more than a poor man ever could. But money and class never come into the issue because, if they ever did, the "woe is me" cries of super-rich Hollywood actresses would be laughed at by the public at large. Also, why didn't any of the women who claim they were raped or abused by men like Weinstein report him to the police? They could have certainly done something AFTER becoming very wealthy actresses... but many, possibly most of them, did nothing until it became fashionable to jump on a bandwagon
why can't we just use the word 'humanism' to cover both masculism and feminism.??? Why do we have to keep on patronising women....?? What about the asymmetry of women being able to do things men cannot do..??
Just pause one second, there is absolutely groping going on in the other direction. It's just that when it happens to guys, it's funny. Or the guy shouldn't complain. We aren't hearing about it because of the mentality instilled in us by our culture. It's wrong when men grope. It's not serious when women do it. I'll tell you what middle aged women are probably the biggest perpetrators of this. At least in my own life. I've had my ass grabbed by three different older women. I can see why you'd think it's not a big issue going in the other direction, but it's an incorrect assumption. My friend was sexually assaulted by a woman at work. Nothing happened. If you tell somebody about it it's like they don't care. But if you, as a man, did that to a girl everybody freaks out
wat zup Men are taken more seriously in general. That is a good thing when it comes to taking on a responsibility. It is a bad thing when it comes to failing to fulfill that responsibility. Women have the opposite.
Slave2thedrago when I mean treated seriously, I mean considered more capable and possessing greater agency. Which is good and bad depending on circumstance, yes. That's what I said. As for the rate of victimisation, I don't have data on IRL instances but when it comes to online harassment men suffer more in all spheres other than stalking and sexual harassment where women are in the lead by a slight margin. Also, men are around ~40% of domestic violence victims. So until I see evidence to the contrary I assume IRL trend is similar to online trend.
I understand Sam's point about women being 50lbs lighter and naturally feel more vulnerable, however my entire culture has evolved around the idea of chivalry to provide protection to women - and feminism is the movement that wants to destroy that (ironically?).
Coulter They just replace social norms with legislature. How do you think can a man defend himself against a violent woman that is willing to use improvised weapons (and not end up in jail)?
@@MrRavellon currently in the UK and the US a man can defend himself against a women attacking him the exact same way a woman can. There is no legal difference. I don't know where you've got the idea that men would be jailed for defending himself
@@temple_123 just because the law says one thing does not mean it's application won't be different. And then there is the guidance of Duluth Model under which a lot of Western nations operate. It's not law. It's just operating procedure of the law enforcement.
@@MrRavellon yes but if that were the case then there would be casefiles showing where something like that happened. You can research into it. You'll struggle find any case where a man was under threat by an armed woman, defended himself, and was punished. Im not saying it couldn't happen, but the legislature is pretty tight in this area so it's very unlikely
Mathew Davis It’d be a good test to see how much Sam’s proclaimed rationality and objectivity holds up when his worldview is challenged with much more rational ideas.
+Koffee Black Sam's whole framing of what "power" means, his framing of "men vs women", his lack of consistency or coherence, and his selectively being influenced emotional reasoning. For example, he was talking about violence against women, in spite of the fact that in the real world, women are statistically safer from physical violence than men. He never even mentioned this this statistic, only one variable of body size, even though this particular variable is overwhelmed by other variables pushing in the opposite direction. Shortly after he said "Harvey Weinstein should have had the shit kicked out of him long ago". That isn't a rational and deeply considered suggestion of how to solve a systemic problem. That isn't a logical suggestion for feminist policy. It's an emotional and primal statement. Sam is usually VERY careful and articulate with his words. Have you ever, EVER, heard Sam Harris emotionally speaking about retributive justice before? There have been a few women who have done worse things. From memory in Japan there was a serial killer woman not too long ago. Do you really think Sam would comfortably suggest that such a woman who engaged in ongoing crime "should have had the shit kicked out of them a long time ago?" I doubt it. It's akin to Sam saying "Elon Musk should have people prostrating on the ground in worship a long time ago", instead of Sam focusing on women's lack of career advancement. Or was Sam just joking? In which case, again would he be comfortable joking about the above to analogous statements?
Light and Shadow is exactly right. The biggest bullshit is when he talks about how women are surrounded by 50 pound heavier men. Women are far less likely to get into a physical conflict with a male and there are all kinds of social mechanism to protect women from physical abuse from men. Of course, women get raped from time to time, but you might be surprised that in the USA, more men then women get raped every year. Men are much more likely to be victims of physical violence. The ones who really have the physical disadvantage in this world are the lesser able-bodied males. And you might be also surprised that women are often the perpetrators of physical (as well as emotional) violence in the family - sometimes against children, sometimes against men. It's actually a difficult situation for a man to be physically hit by a woman - you can't really defend yourself, even if you're physically much stronger. Even a passive defense can get her arms bruised and you're in trouble.
+vecerineck2 Well said. I'd expect Sam to have thought about all those things, they are not actually THAT difficult to see once you start to appreciate a counter intuitive perspective, especially for a person of his intelligence. However, Sam doesn't seem to have done that. I think a better analogy would be to the military / civilians in a developing nation or western nation under martial law. Civilians are surrounded by trained military personal, who are typically larger and stronger, not to mentioned well trained and armed. Analogous to being "50 pounds heavier". Typically, a civilian has little chance fighting against a typical military member, and occasionally military members do go on a rampage and kill civilians. But the civilian is objectively much safer than a military member, and the military member is much more likely to be violence towards other military members, than to civilians. Even further, military are not oppressing the civilians, there is a need for them and there is a general agreement between the two parties of what their roles are and why. Civilians actually want military to be "50 pounds heavier" in their physical/psychological/weaponry ability to assert violence. This is a desired situation for civilians. That's analogous to saying "I want my military to be at least as tall as I am, preferably taller". As a nation becomes more developed, these role change and develop, and one day maybe all military will be AI drones with no "boots on the ground" necessary. But to frame it as (paraphrased) an "asymmetry, where military people are harming civilians, you don't see civilians harming military", is just a low resolution map of the situation. Indirectly, civilians are completely harming military by the fact that civilians have wanted (and objectively needed) military to exist and be shaped into a shield and club for them. So you can't coherently frame it as "X vs Y". It's more "situation A created X and Y", so now we have situation B, how do we transition X and Y to better fit with the new possibilities?"
Is a taser not an infinitely better equaliser than a gun? A woman, or a physically weaker person takes out a gun against an aggressor, are far more likely to use a non-lethal weapon than a gun. And if they don't use the gun, they have it taken from them and are beaten senseless for putting up a fight. Please stop advocating guns as a means to self-defense in these situations.
Glad Sam makes the distinction between sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. If you ever want to hear the most neurotic and idiotic cognitive dissonance of your life, have an ideological feminist explain to you how they're the same.
Weinstein should be fired, sued, and prosecuted for what he did, if he did it. But, When a woman goes to see Harvey for a part every actress is dying for, that they've dreamed about all their lives, and that will earn them great esteem and respect in the future by their colleagues...probably almost all of them know about the Harvey-gauntlet they have to pass thru in order to be seriously considered for said part. So, it can't be glossed over that they know good and well what the quid pro quo is in this situation...so let's not kid ourselves...it's a two way street.
Lol, just a Little anecdote: during a recent company celebration - admittedly involving a substantial amount of alcohol - a female superior of mine slid her finger along my neck while walking past me. I found it amusing and - in a way - took it as a compliment. I would not dream of reporting this to anyone, because i did not feel molested in the slightest. So: was i "sexually assaulted" and should "see a psychologist" because i must be traumatized? I see that this is not the same Thing as "Louis C.K.-behaviour" - she didnt jerk off in front of me, after all. But i think that women are really exaggerating the severity of the sexual assaults they suffer.
I tend to agree with you, but you have to look at the intentions behind the scenes. I have had a flirty boss, which I just fund amusing. He wasn't a threat in any way. But I have also been raped by my brother-in-law. Not amusing at all! The intentions makes the difference.
Sam Harris, you're barely saying anything in this video, only supporting the status quo with carefully weighted arguments which only point to the fact you're not immoral in your views towards women, without daring to advance any positions which will truly help women's condition. You're using the worst possible strands of "feminists" arguments as straw-men to "debunk" many worthwile claims of respectable feminists. Respectable feminists do not see all men as crazy sex monsters (even though many are) but remark systemic problems in our society which lead to nearly all men as seing women as people with less agency and less importance, deserving less respect in nearly all areas of their lives. Also, I find you failed to point to the fact that actions such as groping a woman's body parts is, without any nuance, a morally despicable thing to do. Sure, not to the same degree as raping someone at knife-point, but nothing could possibly attenuate the fact that no one who does not wish to be touched should be groped with sexual intent.
You spend the entire talk about feminism discussing how it affects men. Why do you only think about men, men, men, men, even in a discussion on feminism? Because only men count, to you. So, no, you are not a feminist.
"We must not, however, be any less mistrustful of feminists' arguments: very often their attempt to polemicize robs them of all value. What people have endlessly sought to prove is that woman is superior, inferior, or equal to man: created after Adam, she is obviously a secondary being, some say; on the contrary, say others, Adam was only a rough draft, and God perfected the human being when he created Eve; her brain is smaller, but relatively bigger; Christ was made man, but perhaps out of humility. **Every argument has an opposite, and both are often misleading. To see clearly, one needs to get out of these ruts; these vague notions of superiority, inferiority, and equality that have distorted all discussions must be discarded in order to start anew.**" -Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex 1949)
And let’s forget about the west men’s suicide rate and the fact that almost no help is provided when most budgets, considerations and talks are aimed towards women. Have you watched The Red Pill Sam?
Don't agree with all you have to say Sam Harris by a long shot, but I am encouraged by some of your thoughts, ie., women have been vulnerable for a long time. Lots of differences between men and women including physical strength. Over generalizing is a big problem and you do that constantly. I don't agree with SJW that bully just as I don't agree with the Alt Right that bullies, it's all hate, and frankly, I'm sick to death with it. Enlightenment 101, I was assaulted at 16 and joined the #metoo movement, and there are a LOT of men on that movement as well. I don't recall a lot assaulted by women, mostly men. Sure, forcible penetration exists but it's not a part of our "acceptable" culture. Some women behave badly, but to completely dismiss a fairly acceptable practice in which the "norms" are Weinstein's, it's exhausting to see that another man is quick to turn it around and say, well what about all the women that are doing it? It's wrong, period. If you feel the need to continually bring that ridiculous point up because poor white boys have been so mistreated, then again, it's wrong. It's always wrong. What I love to see is when we can all come together with a sense of understanding and empathy, why aren't we evolving??????
There's no objective definition of being "creep" I know Sam Harris has been out of the "game" for a long time but what other woman finds creepy other woman finds attractive.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who has devoted genuine time to understanding contemporary feminism, as it manifests in it's 3rd wave, can respond to such a question in a way that starts with "It depends on what you mean by feminism". The extremities associated with feminism that Sam touched base on here are among the predominantly held views within the modern movement throughout the globe. If the Christina Hoff Sommers' & Camille Paglia's of the world were among those who act as representatives of the modern feminist movement, then I'd argue Sam's approach is correct. But not only are these women not representatives of the movement, they're openly demonized by those who are. Modern feminism is an embarrassment to our species, & it's time we start treating the label accordingly.
To be fair I'm not sure that all feminists would be categorized in that box. If you asked 99% of woman if they were a feminist, most of them would agree with the claim. But most don't really know what the word means, or what it stands for. I asked my sister, who is a 20 year old female going to a liberal arts college, the demographic you might expect to be a radical feminist. And she told me she is a feminist. But I asked what she meant, and she said she said she believed in equal rights of men and woman. Nothing really beyond that. She even thinks modern feminists are absolutely bat shit insane. It becomes in issue for those who have become so sycophantically obsessed with feminism. To the point they delude themselves into believing left wing propaganda, and believe in the wage gap. The ones that use the term "Mansplaining," to quiet those who's opinions go against their own. The ones who don't shave their arm pit hair as a statement of power. Who run around in Vagina Costumes to make a political standpoint. It's a monkey throwing shit against the wall, while sticking it's own fingers in it's ears to block out the noise of the bystanders who are telling them to stop, the pile of shit is 5 feet tall It's a virtual hurricane of nonsense and virtue signaling. If a radical feminist ever read this quotation they might consider me a sexist for metaphorically comparing them to a monkey. That's the kind of people we are dealing with. While I believe almost all woman would associate themselves with feminism, only the radical actively associate themselves in the echo chamber of modern feminism.
Sam was looking at the beliefs individually. Sam cares about specific beliefs and their consequences, so when people say they believe in equality between sexes and they are feminist he doesn't have any problem at all.
See, you are exactly what I have thought for a looong time, and Sam said is we should stop. Your last sentence is not something "we should do in the future" or "start", it has already happened before and after Feminism in all its facettes was created. Any form of empowerment and strength to women, "real" equality in some sense, has been labeled and oppressed by misogynistic assholes that got their ego from having power over women. That's exactly what is going on right now. People have this urge to oppress the "wrong" feminism that exists right now, with equally stupid measures, feeding and strengthening the new age feminism. It takes 2 braincells to realize that their, as Sam clearly said, are good and bad things about feminism. And that is where your part of the conversation should end. Period. Not any form of kicking or punching on the victim that lies beaten up on the ground does anything productive, no, it makes you equally as fucked up as the thing you hate - you are feeding your own stupidity, and that is mental, but you people don't even realize it.
I've never heard the phrase "should have had the shit kicked out of him" spoken with such calm before.
pedro correa Listen to Prof Dawkins say 'sneaky fucker'
He's so much clearer, more careful in his language and more honest on the topic of feminism than the likes of Jordan Peterson, who focuses on the more extreme and unreasonable branches of feminism and speaks of all feminists as though we all hold those irrational beliefs.
I really loved this. Some sanity and clarity in a polarizing and toxic debate. Well said.
Wouldn’t it be incredibly cool to hear Sam Harris debate a good, intellectual feminist on that subject??
+Liz Mad
+Kate Gomen Kolar
I agree that it's *some* sanity and clarity.
Though I would suggest that it not deep or very insightful sanity or clarity or coherence. It is more or less just some common sense ideas. The fact that those simple ideas are so rarely spoken in the culture is what makes them feel like some clarity, it takes courage for Sam to speak about this.
That said, this is different from someone putting those ideas into a bigger framework based on deep insight and clarity.
There are several things he says, which make me think "Wow, he hasn't really deeply thought about this at all".
To me he still seems to operate inside the feminist framework, eg he says:
"If by feminism you mean people who are concerned with equity and fairness in our society, and acknowledge that there are certain situations where women have a harder time than men, and that we should understand those situations, and correct for those injustices, "... "then I consider myself a feminist".
He feels comfortable adding some qualifiers and calling himself a feminist.
Notice how he doesn't say "certain times where either women OR men have a harder time... and we should correct for those injustices". It is ONLY women.
He speaks about violence against women, in spite of the fact that statically, men objectively experience more physical violence than women, despite their bigger physical size.
He doesn't distinguish between physical and sexual violence.
He doesn't get into nuance like women's higher subjective fear of physical violence, in spite of their lower danger.
He just lumps it all together, and expects that women can't rationally understand the statistics and base their perceptions around those statistics. Something he DOES expect of people on almost every other topic.
Why doesn't he say similar things about Christianity?
"If by Christianity you mean people who are concerned about injustice or suffering in our society, and acknowledge that there are certain situations where the teachings of Jesus would be beneficial to individuals, and that in those situations, we should benefit those people... then I consider myself a Christian".
Or Islam?
Sam DOES praise some parts of Islam, eg some of the beautiful Nasheeds (music).
"If by Muslim, you mean someone who appreciates the incredible music which has been produced in the name of Islam, then consider myself a Muslim".
These religion quotes don't say "certain times where the teachings or ideas about Jesus, or the Buddha, or Mahmoud, or a dozen other religious figures, would be beneficial to individuals, and in those situations we should benefit those people".
It is ONLY Christianity, or ONLY Islam etc.
With the religion quote, Sam would spot the one sidedness and collateral damage of such support a mile away.
With the feminist quote, he seems blind to it.
This is why Sam is a G. He keeps his mind whatever the audience might think. He does the same with Trump
Light And Shadow maybe its because feminism is even more riven with factions than religions are so he has to define it. Also, feminism is just an idea, it doesn't claim to be the one revealed true revelation, so he can cut it some slack. If its not divine it doesn't have to be perfect.
+Slave2thedrago
Yes of course he would make distinctions if questioned.
Thing is, he basically spoke about an ethnocentric framework of feminism, with some caveats, and identified with that.
A version of feminism which focused ONLY on women.
That was the foundation of his argument.
Compare that with the feminist framework of someone like Camille Paglia, or Christina Hoff Summers, or even Warren Farrell, if he still identifies with the feminist movement at all.
I don't think he is aware of men's issues at all. I don't even think he has a deep understanding of contextualism, which is a core part of the postmodern framework that much of feminism is theoretically built on.
The left needs more people like Sam
I think Sam is one of the greatest thinkers of our time.
Gummi Tomm I strongly disagree.
okay nice to know.
I would agree that he is one of the greatest speakers of out time though.
Gummi Tomm Thinkers AND speakers.
In a country of blind people the one eyed man is indeed King.
"Well, that depends how you define feminism"
Sam has a beautiful mind.
Sam Harris should be required reading in every class. Such a balanced and ethical thinker.
Why is Ben Stiller in the thumbnail?
hes a good friend of sam harris who replaces him during all life appearances and gets lipsynced by harris
+mellamosean, I can't tell you how pleased I am that my original comment set into motion of a chain of events that led to you explaining how you are "somewhat skinny, don't really work out..." and that you "could start lifting again and get back to 175lb" and somehow overpower or beat Cris Cyborg. Thank you for the lol. She would head kick you into a coma within 2 seconds.
What point are you trying to make?
lold?
What do men get in return for protecting women? I don't think it's a fair deal, if you believe in equality.
sam is actually hotter than ben stiller
Sam is a true definition of intellectual for me. Not tainted by ideology or political beliefs, he assesses each issue on its merits. This is a great analysis.
Thank you for posting. I know this audio was meant for supporters only, but as someone who can't currently afford to support Sam financially, it's great to be able to hear his thoughts.
Yup I hear you. I have sent Sam a small donation in the past, and plan to again when I'm in a better financial place. I hope many others who appreciate Sam's work will think about supporting it also. Sam is a rare and precious and oh so refreshing voice of reason in world gone utterly mad..
A master of nuance articulation! Sam blows aside the feminist vs anti-feminist label semantics by sheer depth of articulated nuance.
+Ian Goddard
I agree that Sam brought up a lot of important truths and perspective, that is missing in much of the gender conversation.
At the same time, I think there are many biases underpinning the feminist paradigm which Sam hasn't transcended or become aware of at all.
For example, he explanation of his commitment to ending violence against women included advocating for violent illegal vigilante justice against a man.
"Harvey Weinstein should have had the shit kicked out of him a long time ago"
How is that an example of "depth of articulated nuance"?
Especially considering the fact that men are objectively more likely than women to experience physical violence. A fact that he directly omits, and actually, advocates for the perpetuation of.
+randomflashback
In another topic you made a comment about how Sam is truly intelligent, but much of his audience are people of average or below average intelligence, who don't understand the nuance in what he says. However they like his conclusions, so they go along with it. Given that, I have to say I am disappointed in your reply here.
I think it's pretty clear that right now he shouldn't have the shit kicked out of him.
That wasn't what Sam said, he said "should have had a long time ago", not "should have".
Those are two really different propositions.
Do you really think Sam actually holds that position he suggested, rather than it just being his flippant remark that reflects some irrational primitive instinct about protecting women? Really?
You realize that Sam thinks Weinstein didn't have free will right? That suggests there is zero justification for retributive justice or vengeance or someone "getting what they deserve".
Sam has suggested that if you have a pill that magically could rehabilitate people, there would not be any justification for any punishment whatsoever.
If you asked Sam, "Consider that Weinstein was likely to continue abusing women until he was forced to stop, that his behavior was/is relatively widespread, that the US are currently in a state of potential cultural unravel where institutions are being tested and people are losing faith in the system.
Do you think the wisest step forward for the individual victims, for Weinstein, for the feminist cause and human civilization as a whole, would have been for someone to break the law by kicking the shit out of Weinstein and making him into a victim of a crime?
In retrospect, would it have been better to somehow record Weinstein's actions and expose him on a broad level so that he stops, is brought to justice through the legal system, changes his attitude, and is made an example out of so that awareness of this issue spreads and many other abusers also stop, thereby preventing many abuses from ever happening?"
If you asked Sam that, do you really think he would say "Upon careful reflection, I think the best intervention would have been to kick to the shit out of Weinstein."?
Actually, "having had the shit kicked out of him", might have been a better outcome for Weinstein since he may have kept his job and not been publicly disgraced, but a worse outcome victims, for feminism and for humanity, since widespread change might not have been triggered as a result.
I think that position doesn't make sense at all.
The explanation I gave makes much more sense, a flippant remark that reflects some unexplored bias which Sam holds regarding violence against men being acceptable.
Light And Shadow, good point, his calling for extra-judicial violence was barbaric, not nuanced!
Being groped is not the same as being raped of course. But women have also the right not to be groped.
Goes to the positive and the reality rather than Peterson who just goes for the jugular when asked about feminism
I agree. As much as I respect Peterson, I find him biased. I haven't noticed this with Harris.
Totally agree. I'm with Harris about his views on women and religion more than Peterson.
This man never ceases to amaze me with his clear logic and thoughtful insight.
a great balanced argument on feminism, love it
Only a Sam Harris level of articulation skill could come close to accurately describing how articulate Sam really is. This man is a consummate master of the English language.
Most of the people in left right now are quite irrational or deny in some ways science and biology (right does too). But this man always think about a lot of topics very deeply and is extremely reasonable. Thanks Sam.
Feminism is what women in India Iraq Syria etc.. should believe, they actually have a reason to fight men.
In India we're constantly told that feminism is a bad thing by MRAs. Feminism had always been looked down upon by society ever since beginning of times. There's no winning. I particularly won't call the West to be a feminist Utopia either, btw. There are still rapes happen which goes underreported.
Clearly y beautifully stated. He is right that the way the issue is being handled is creating antagonism between the sexes. Merci.
Which may be the intention. The oligarchs behind our media like division of men and women, blacks and whites, Republicans and Democrats. And they get the division going by promoting extremism in all these groups.
I've made the same point, that there is a difference between violent rape and groping, and have been attacked by female friends as being an "apologist" for rapists.
Thank you Sam Harris- a rational voice in the feminism debate at last.
If it really is rationality you are after in the feminist debate, then I suggest you check out Karen Straughan.
@Ultra I'm on the side of equality so yes he is :)))
@Ultra We both believe that women are equal to men so ideologically we are both feminists because that is the definition.
@Ultra 'Men and women are different'. Ok, you've said what you really wanted to say all along. Thanks for contributing.
Sam saying that there's no crisis of women groping, molesting and inflicting varying degrees of assault on men is immensely disingenuous. Male victim rape and male victim domestic violence faces even more serious problems than female victims of the same assaults because men are even more severely stigmatized and disregarded both by society and our justice system for being victims. Male victim violence is trivialized and played for comedic effect in our media in ways that no morally sane person would ever consider for female victims. He mentions the #MeToo movement then conveniently omits the fact that several men have come out as part of the movement and voiced that they've been harassed and assaulted by both men and women in the film industry. He also conveniently omits the fact that women are almost exclusively the perpetrators of false claims of violence and harassment, the fact that married women are given egregiously unfair settlements in their favor in the case of divorce and that men have no functional reproductive rights whatsoever.
I'm not going to sit here and say that women don't face very real and very serious threats to their well-being from predatory individuals though, and it really disgusts me that this is always thought of as such a binary topic, where you can either be a radfem or a MGTOW. Decent people, both men and women need to recognize and affirm that we all suffer at the hands of evil people, and that they're the enemy, not each other.
Amazing, from Meet the Parents to this.
If you just listen to what he is really saying, you'll notice he's just saying what everyone already agrees on, but he's well spoken so he sounds smart.
Probably took balls for him to come out with this. Feminism is a BIG phenomenon, and shouldn't get hijacked by the loudest, most obnoxious people. An unwanted sexual advance is an unwanted sexual advance. The sickness is indisputable. The explanation and cure for it...well, that's up for debate
I couldn’t agree more. Thank you.
Brilliantly put, Harris. I pretty much agree with everything he said on this.
Wow, I've been trying to put this same sentiment in words for some time. Well said Sam.
4:46 I was NOT expecting that. Lol
As usual, reasonable and utterly correct.
Only idiots don't know what inappropriate behaviour is. Such people don't deserve our time, just punish them.
I want more of this AMA!
Why don't you subscribe to Sam's Patreon then?
Just a couple of bucks a month.
Pretty fair deal, considering you seemed to enjoy this bootleg copy so much.
"All the deatails matter"
Sam Harris.
Indeed he's right. We should look at both sides.
Well that was illuminating. Harris sounds like a slightly more balanced version of J Peterson. Since Peterson’s a rank misogynist that’s not complimentary.
As per usual Sam is on point. However, I think he could have gone a touch deeper in us being honest about how we are trying to subvert male behaviour using female ideals and psychology. If we want men to have better control of their impulses etc we need more male influence.
Great vid, bullshit comment section. Sucks that the bulk of you just cherry pick whatever arguments feel like a pat on the back, and then toss the logic chains that greats like Sam and those in the related videos all follow (and with shit like "too blue pill"? Fuck that's revealing). Destructive and pathetic way of learning if you just seek out whatever's self-aggrandizing.
+Killian Lucas
Can you explain to me the logic chain where Sam suggested that illegal violence should have been done against a man. Specifically that vigilante justice should have been done to Harvey Weinstein, he "should have had the shit kicked out of him a long time ago".
Sam raises a lot of great points. BUT I will say that when he speaks of "self defense" it is a VERY one-dimensional perspective from which he speaks. In this day and age, men need to be extremely conscious of the power of legality in every potential misstep they make along the way; that makes "self defense" about FAR more than just a physical threat---and let's not forget that many women get away with abusing men physically because they know they can get away with it and men generally know better than to strike back. Men face not only the wrath of the law, but the repercussions of their male peers as well if even the perception of them laying a hand on a woman takes hold. That is NOT the case for women in ANY way. If a woman abuses a man, it is the MAN who is shamed as a result. Sam's right fundamentally I think, but wrong as the issue is far more extremely nuanced than he's making it out to be. I suspect it has mostly to do with his lack of experience with any crazy bitchez in his life tho'---so I won't hold it against him.
I think that's changing though - people have more and more sympathy for men who are victims of physical abuse.
If u see the percentage of violence committed by men vs committed by women then there is actually no comparison. Though I agree with u to some extent
Bravo. Clarity.
I think the male groping and raping scandals happen far more often than get reported, just depends whose in power position, take a closer look at the everyday worker or student
I think the big problem is somewhat the false conclusions drawn from statistics and the media... the idea that you can ascribe to each and every individual the average characteristics. It's made even worse by sample selection.
The media just amplifies those perceptions to make them seem real, but it is simply one case out of trillions of interactions.
Would love to hear Sam point out, "There is no other -ism that has so many detractors that feel you have to agree with ALL the fringe elements to be considered a Feminist"
Excellent piece!
I would only pause to note... Scott Adams recently did a little "test" on periscope by simply asking his listeners whether the men among them had ever been groped by women.
The answer was a massive stream of "me" and "yes" within seconds.
The second part of that is that most men, by far, don't feel (particularly) offended by it. This I think is a "rape culture" that much of society is forgetting about, and that might make us question whether men should be more offended, or perhaps women less easily offended - if legal equality is the goal, anyway. Laws cannot rely on subjective responses.
This no doubt also counts for "soft rape" to an extent (e.g. incapacitated rape)...men say "I shouldn't have gotten that drunk", many women say something very different.
That said, I would also suspect that brute-force-rape is extremely one-sided... most men in that probably are victimized by other men, and for a very different reason.
Of course, it's all wrong, but there's a massive difference between women groping men and men groping women, and it has to do with the physical disparity between men and women. Being groped by someone who's physically weaker than you (as in the case of men being groped by women) is A LOT less intimidating than being groped by someone who's physically stronger than you (as is the case for women being groped by men). Add to that the fact that men are walking round with a potential weapon that women don't have, and there's no way that you can say you're comparing like with like here, because the threat level can never be the same. This is something that doesn't even occur to some men (and bizarrely, to some women), but I always say, if you want to know the level of intimidation that women feel from men in any given situation they find themselves in with a man, imagine what it would be like if you were in that same situation with a guy who was much bigger than you who may or may not have the hots for you and who's carrying a weapon he could use against you if he chooses to. In other words, you'd likely feel much more uncomfortable being groped by that guy than by your physical equal or inferior who's also carrying no such weapon.
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559
There is quite some truth to that - which can be said as long as we recognize that men deserve that same protection even if they don't need it as often.
But is the logic still accurate? After all, our instincts and emotions often still live on the savannah.
Is it still true that an American woman can't possibly be a threat to a man? Guns are rather a big equalizer, and in cases like rape, we can expect them to be used.
And is rape still *objectively* as dangerous as it used to be? Contraceptives, and the moral shift of the sexual revolutions, one would think, have greatly affected that.
(the violence involved, of course, is a separate matter. And there is some more advanced biology involved. It's more complicated).
But has the emotion changed along with reality? I don't think so. And part of me thinks that changing that will be as hard, as making people comfortable walking on a glass bridge 100 feet up in the air. You can tell me all day that it's perfectly safe, but I like to have something visible under my feet.
Feminism is so much more than self defense
There should be an example in every dictionary next to the word intellectual, with Sam Harris' name on it.
Why did they choose Mike Gordon for the picture?
Why haven't he addressed important issues such as abolition of marriage institution, promulgation of free sex, encouragement to prostitution etc.
Wow - this was great. I absolutely love reasonable stances on sticky societal problems / issues of the day
Sam nailed it, again.
Racist, sexist, feminist, masculinist...all just different forms of prejudice. Why not just help all humans that need help?
Sam's an actual smart guy. I haven't found a single thing that I disagree with him on.
As a single guy who ADORES women, for whom women are "it" in human existence, who marvels at every little nuance of how they think, talk, walk, move, look like and even smell, for someone who struggles in his shiness to find them, all these scandals have become a curse. As if it wasn't already hard enough to meet people, the levels of suspicion and steretyping is really becoming unbearable.
Don't get me wrong: the problem here is the abuse by many men. And the victims are women. But as collateral casualty of all this, the most distorted androgynist discourse is becoming mainstreamed.
I see things pretty much like Sam Harris and even more. Also as the Latino I am, I wish somehow women governed the world a couple of generations, that way our world would have more empathy, more human sensibility, greater justice beyond instrumental rationality.
I just wished we got closer and not farther apart, as it seems to be the case.
I don't want this life if it is without women.
aLERNO, I like your attitude and I think that you will find a good woman. Be careful on who you approach, superficial people are everywhere, find someone that has some depth and she will be your partner. That is what women want, equality, that's it. When brothers and sisters unite, there isn't anything we can't do! Good luck :-)
50k views and the poster has 36 subs...
Any other podcasts/episodes you would recommend on these same topics? Anyone? :)
Let me please forward this to every human nurturing a twisted understanding of feminism.
Great points. We need to protect and heal our women. Nothing gets me angrier than hearing a sexual assault took place. I grew up with a single mom and 2 older sister and they made life easier for me and took care of me. So for me, women are a true gift from god! I know you don’t necessarily agree with the god thing lol but you get what I am saying. We as men need to stand up for women. Enough is enough!
Perhaps, you as a man need to stand up for yourself?
@@der-niccolo Just do both! You can look out for yourself and others at the same time - it doesn't have to be one or the other. What's the point of having strength of any kind if you don't use it for the benefit of others? We should all look out for those who are more vulnerable for us, regardless of gender, and for most men, that'll mean looking out for most women.
Weird that Sam has never done a podcast with Christina Hoff Sommers..
I don’t know, his response was not really impressive in my opinion, which was exactly as expected.
My favorite part with Sam is how always measured and zen like he is when he talks. Especially when he talks to ignorant people & I envy him. I don’t think I ever heard him raise his voice.
As a woman, I feel that if you compare the capacity of men to be creeps and to be more violent and overpower women to the actual amount of men that are, its a testament of man's even greater capacity to be civilized, gentle and not act on their bases instincts. I like Harris and I agree with most of what he said, but I dont think handing boys at birth the responsibility to "not be creeps" is just a form of original sin and is condemning them without reason, and, in the worst case scenario, give them something to live up to. Its normalizing a type of behavior as male and doesnt help.
Furthemore I dont have a problem trusting men because I know that for every man that may act like an asshole towards me there will be 10 or 20 that will defend me, and even risk their own safety to do so. If anything, the ones that really get screwed over are male victims, which, in liu of recent events have shown to be not a small number, by a long shot, and who dont have the same amount of people coming to their defense.
The term "Feminism" is a decadent one. The fact that Sam had to question which kind of "feminism" the question was talking about is a proof that the term is meaningless. What use is the term Feminism (or any vague term as such) if you need to extensively describe it every time you talk about the subject just to make yourself clear about it, like Sam did at the beginning!
It is a shame that such a clever man cannot really speak his mind. He is obviously treading very carefully so as not to offend these PC feminists, who have he quite rightly states, gone too far.
I agree with essentially everything Sam said here, and in 2017, if someone asks me if I'm a feminist, I just say no.
Refreshingly even handed.
Why does Sam sound so... sleepy on his podcast?
K, if Sam thinks this asymmetry must be acknowledged, what about all the other asymmetries?
Yes let sam tell you all about Feminism.
How do you know he is an expert?
He wrote a book about it.
I wonder if you hold these same opinions regarding your friend Larry. So far, ive only ever heard you defend him. But its been proven that krauss was AT LEAST creepy and unwarranted. You condemn this im sure right?
I know of no prominent anti-feminists who don't think rape is awful or that people don't need to be protected from violence. Technically every anti-feminist is a feminist as well. Most anti-feminists simply want equal rights and access to services for men and women. I am genuinely still unsure of where Sam lands at the moment.
I’m unsure as well.
llortorp - Mr. Ham likes to be put between two loaves of thic black man to express his love and admiration of Hillary Clintons endorsement of regressive thinking.
I don't think every anti-feminist is a feminist... I think that's the point of being Anti-something, but every anti-feminazi is a feminist, that do sounds good to me, feminazis and anti-feminist are equally bad for feminism, maybe feminazis are worse cause they created the anti-feminists in first place
Alejandro González - Are men and women equal? No.
To the extent that they aren't meritocracy and informed reasoning will not equate to either equity or equality. If we take that to mean that we should be having open and honest discussion you should then come to the conclusion that antifeminism is necessary and feminism is not. Antifeminism only being necessary until feminism is gone.
+Raven Ziola wait what? we need feminism right now, until the crime rate against women decreases to near zero we will need some feminist awareness in society, you say it like feminism is a plague you should kill with antifeminism but it's not, is the response to mistakes in the social behavior of human beings and yes I hope one day we won't even remember we had to have feminism in the first place, but that is long ahead in the future
This is from a Q&A specifically for supporters of the podcast. It's really not cool to upload this on your own channel.
Gravel Pit Give him $1 once and you can listen to the supporter-only AMA's. It's not a big deal.
I also agree with the Big Fat male chicken. Reposting an excerpt from a "supporters only" podcast without permission is either: a) just a little over the line if you didn't monetize it, or b) total bullshit if you did monetize it.
I feel a little bit bad about posting it because you’re right that this podcast is for supporters only. However, I posted only about 5% of the whole podcast, so perhaps it will work as a “teaser”, and people will support him to get access to the full podcast. I decided to post it because it’s a fascinating topic, and I really wanted to see a discussion about this among the people who listen to Sam Harris.
I didn’t monetize it nor do I have a channel, it was the first video I’ve ever uploaded to RUclips.
"Kate, don't listen to them. Listen to me. I make absurd demands on public intellectuals and then insult them for not completely agreeing with me."
Plagiarism, pure and simple. Despicable.
Great 👍
There is a huge difference between criminal acts and gender xwz. Call it for what it is, criminal acts and don´t make it to something else or confuse it with something else.
Sam Harris being raised by single mom explains a lot of the blue pill nature of his talk. This explains his unwillingness to blame women sometimes when it's clearly some of the things they're doing or the system.
My only quibble is his supportive use of the term 'equity'. I have to suspect, knowing Sam's broader views, that he doesn't know that in contemporary social-justice parlance, 'equity' explicitly means _equality of outcome._ So for example, if there are more men among oil-rig maintenance crews, trash collectors or CEOs, a social injustice (ie, oppression) is occurring and some kind of intervention is needed to cause professional demographics to match the population. I'm sure Sam does not support that view, and yet he said he's for 'equity'.
Except that there are cultural issues faced by both sexes, which, from an ideological standpoint, egalitarianism is it.
Even the violence argument is a perfect example of the lack of consideration for male victims.
S3N7RY way more male victims of violence
The fact that men experience more physical violence actually shows that men are in more objective danger of physical violence, despite their bigger size.
Just like a race car driver is in more objective danger of dying in a car crash than a little old lady with glasses who drives to the shop once a week to buy milk. This is DESPITE the race car driver’s higher skill level in that domain.
The race car driver probably feels less fear around crashing, so perhaps they need less emotional support.
But they are in more objective danger, so in terms of objective safety they need more support.
Sam seems blind to this, as is feminism.
Much of the argument is emotional and subjective, not built on objective facts.
Sam claims to construct his worldview based on objective facts, something he doesn’t seem to have done very deeply with gender and conceptual frameworks like feminism.
Light And Shadow Sam calls himself a feminist as well. He was raised by a single mum so it figures.
TheOlzee not statistically, but that's kinda my point.
+TheOlzee
He also has two daughters, so him being bias is understandable.
However, my impression of Sam's whole worldview is that subjective preference and emotional attachment is insufficient grounds for believing something.
So the fact that he has two daughters, and was raised by a single mother, should in theory have zero effect on his views, from a purely rational perspective.
From memory, he has said things like "to the extent that we are rational, we share the same identity".
To me, it seems that feminism and women's issues is an example of him not having a worldview which aligns with those propositions.
I love that the intellectual heavyweights of our time are woke.
Imagine a world where the smartest among us were still trying to bury children in post holes to maintain the structural integrity of buildings.
We live in a perfect juncture to combat ideological dogma. We have torn the veil of righteousness from dogma’s hands. Let’s keep it up, shall we?
Sam Harris should talk with Paul Elam, dr Warren Farrell and check out the national coalition for men see what they have to say or even the men’s rights activist in India people only hear feminism they don’t know much about the other side.
I get groped by a woman at work, and she is the one woman I don't want to get groped by (I am unlucky like that). But Sam is still right about the asymmetry. I find this woman slightly annoying, but i don't feel physically threatened.. That is the difference.
I have always wanted the Hollywood sex scandal to debate how personal responsibility, class and power influenced the actions of Weinstein rather than simply focussing purely on the sex of the perpetrator or victim. The media's insistence on reducing the issue down to biological sex is to oversimplify the problem and to basically assert that all men should bear responsibility for Harvey Weinstein's actions - which is what feminists and the Elite seem to want. As far feminists and their media allies are concerned, a homeless man in Moscow is bears the same level of responsibility as multi-millionaire in Los Angeles for the crimes Weinstein or Bill Cosby, etc... which is absurd. I never hear them asserting that all gay men should take responsibility for Kevin Spacey's behaviour. We would never say all black men are criminals so why is it acceptable to say all men are either sex offenders... or potential sex offenders? What about the thousands of men in Hollywood who haven't assaulted women and would never dream of doing so? How about the billions of men worldwide who haven't groped or abused women and would never dream of doing so? How about the fathers, sons and brothers who want the best for the women in the lives? How about financially poor men who cannot get away with abusing women because they have no money or power to protect them? You will find that financially rich women can get away with a hell of a lot more than a poor man ever could. But money and class never come into the issue because, if they ever did, the "woe is me" cries of super-rich Hollywood actresses would be laughed at by the public at large. Also, why didn't any of the women who claim they were raped or abused by men like Weinstein report him to the police? They could have certainly done something AFTER becoming very wealthy actresses... but many, possibly most of them, did nothing until it became fashionable to jump on a bandwagon
why can't we just use the word 'humanism' to cover both masculism and feminism.??? Why do we have to keep on patronising women....?? What about the asymmetry of women being able to do things men cannot do..??
Because of an instinct in all humans to protect women (Gynocentrism)
I am a feminist in the sense "not being a Texasian/Japanese man."
This guy's eyes are so unsymmetrical
We should be weary of all "ism"s.
Something Krishnamurti said.
yes, there is a lot of disfunctionality on the internet. sigh.
Just pause one second, there is absolutely groping going on in the other direction. It's just that when it happens to guys, it's funny. Or the guy shouldn't complain. We aren't hearing about it because of the mentality instilled in us by our culture. It's wrong when men grope. It's not serious when women do it. I'll tell you what middle aged women are probably the biggest perpetrators of this. At least in my own life. I've had my ass grabbed by three different older women. I can see why you'd think it's not a big issue going in the other direction, but it's an incorrect assumption. My friend was sexually assaulted by a woman at work. Nothing happened. If you tell somebody about it it's like they don't care. But if you, as a man, did that to a girl everybody freaks out
wat zup
Men are taken more seriously in general. That is a good thing when it comes to taking on a responsibility. It is a bad thing when it comes to failing to fulfill that responsibility.
Women have the opposite.
Slave2thedrago when I mean treated seriously, I mean considered more capable and possessing greater agency.
Which is good and bad depending on circumstance, yes. That's what I said.
As for the rate of victimisation, I don't have data on IRL instances but when it comes to online harassment men suffer more in all spheres other than stalking and sexual harassment where women are in the lead by a slight margin. Also, men are around ~40% of domestic violence victims. So until I see evidence to the contrary I assume IRL trend is similar to online trend.
I understand Sam's point about women being 50lbs lighter and naturally feel more vulnerable, however my entire culture has evolved around the idea of chivalry to provide protection to women - and feminism is the movement that wants to destroy that (ironically?).
Coulter
They just replace social norms with legislature. How do you think can a man defend himself against a violent woman that is willing to use improvised weapons (and not end up in jail)?
That's because the older ideas of chivalry as protection to women infantalize them and treat them as incapable when they are in fact, very capable
@@MrRavellon currently in the UK and the US a man can defend himself against a women attacking him the exact same way a woman can. There is no legal difference. I don't know where you've got the idea that men would be jailed for defending himself
@@temple_123 just because the law says one thing does not mean it's application won't be different.
And then there is the guidance of Duluth Model under which a lot of Western nations operate. It's not law. It's just operating procedure of the law enforcement.
@@MrRavellon yes but if that were the case then there would be casefiles showing where something like that happened. You can research into it. You'll struggle find any case where a man was under threat by an armed woman, defended himself, and was punished. Im not saying it couldn't happen, but the legislature is pretty tight in this area so it's very unlikely
Sam needs to talk with Karen Straughan or Warren Farrell. Too much blue pill bullshit here.
Mathew Davis
It’d be a good test to see how much Sam’s proclaimed rationality and objectivity holds up when his worldview is challenged with much more rational ideas.
"Too much blue pill bullshit" is pretty vague. What claims specifically did he make that you disagree with, and why are those claims poorly supported?
+Koffee Black
Sam's whole framing of what "power" means, his framing of "men vs women", his lack of consistency or coherence, and his selectively being influenced emotional reasoning.
For example, he was talking about violence against women, in spite of the fact that in the real world, women are statistically safer from physical violence than men.
He never even mentioned this this statistic, only one variable of body size, even though this particular variable is overwhelmed by other variables pushing in the opposite direction.
Shortly after he said "Harvey Weinstein should have had the shit kicked out of him long ago".
That isn't a rational and deeply considered suggestion of how to solve a systemic problem.
That isn't a logical suggestion for feminist policy.
It's an emotional and primal statement.
Sam is usually VERY careful and articulate with his words.
Have you ever, EVER, heard Sam Harris emotionally speaking about retributive justice before?
There have been a few women who have done worse things. From memory in Japan there was a serial killer woman not too long ago. Do you really think Sam would comfortably suggest that such a woman who engaged in ongoing crime "should have had the shit kicked out of them a long time ago?"
I doubt it.
It's akin to Sam saying "Elon Musk should have people prostrating on the ground in worship a long time ago", instead of Sam focusing on women's lack of career advancement.
Or was Sam just joking?
In which case, again would he be comfortable joking about the above to analogous statements?
Light and Shadow is exactly right. The biggest bullshit is when he talks about how women are surrounded by 50 pound heavier men. Women are far less likely to get into a physical conflict with a male and there are all kinds of social mechanism to protect women from physical abuse from men. Of course, women get raped from time to time, but you might be surprised that in the USA, more men then women get raped every year. Men are much more likely to be victims of physical violence. The ones who really have the physical disadvantage in this world are the lesser able-bodied males. And you might be also surprised that women are often the perpetrators of physical (as well as emotional) violence in the family - sometimes against children, sometimes against men. It's actually a difficult situation for a man to be physically hit by a woman - you can't really defend yourself, even if you're physically much stronger. Even a passive defense can get her arms bruised and you're in trouble.
+vecerineck2
Well said. I'd expect Sam to have thought about all those things, they are not actually THAT difficult to see once you start to appreciate a counter intuitive perspective, especially for a person of his intelligence. However, Sam doesn't seem to have done that.
I think a better analogy would be to the military / civilians in a developing nation or western nation under martial law.
Civilians are surrounded by trained military personal, who are typically larger and stronger, not to mentioned well trained and armed. Analogous to being "50 pounds heavier".
Typically, a civilian has little chance fighting against a typical military member, and occasionally military members do go on a rampage and kill civilians. But the civilian is objectively much safer than a military member, and the military member is much more likely to be violence towards other military members, than to civilians.
Even further, military are not oppressing the civilians, there is a need for them and there is a general agreement between the two parties of what their roles are and why. Civilians actually want military to be "50 pounds heavier" in their physical/psychological/weaponry ability to assert violence. This is a desired situation for civilians. That's analogous to saying "I want my military to be at least as tall as I am, preferably taller".
As a nation becomes more developed, these role change and develop, and one day maybe all military will be AI drones with no "boots on the ground" necessary.
But to frame it as (paraphrased) an "asymmetry, where military people are harming civilians, you don't see civilians harming military", is just a low resolution map of the situation.
Indirectly, civilians are completely harming military by the fact that civilians have wanted (and objectively needed) military to exist and be shaped into a shield and club for them.
So you can't coherently frame it as "X vs Y". It's more "situation A created X and Y", so now we have situation B, how do we transition X and Y to better fit with the new possibilities?"
this is some school curriculum shit!
spot-on
Is a taser not an infinitely better equaliser than a gun? A woman, or a physically weaker person takes out a gun against an aggressor, are far more likely to use a non-lethal weapon than a gun. And if they don't use the gun, they have it taken from them and are beaten senseless for putting up a fight. Please stop advocating guns as a means to self-defense in these situations.
Glad Sam makes the distinction between sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. If you ever want to hear the most neurotic and idiotic cognitive dissonance of your life, have an ideological feminist explain to you how they're the same.
'The general capacity for men to be creeps'
"general"
Citation needed.
Dark Magician He isn’t saying men are generally creepy, he’s just saying men generally have the CAPACITY to be be creepy.
Weinstein should be fired, sued, and prosecuted for what he did, if he did it. But, When a woman goes to see Harvey for a part every actress is dying for, that they've dreamed about all their lives, and that will earn them great esteem and respect in the future by their colleagues...probably almost all of them know about the Harvey-gauntlet they have to pass thru in order to be seriously considered for said part. So, it can't be glossed over that they know good and well what the quid pro quo is in this situation...so let's not kid ourselves...it's a two way street.
Lol, just a Little anecdote: during a recent company celebration - admittedly involving a substantial amount of alcohol - a female superior of mine slid her finger along my neck while walking past me. I found it amusing and - in a way - took it as a compliment. I would not dream of reporting this to anyone, because i did not feel molested in the slightest. So: was i "sexually assaulted" and should "see a psychologist" because i must be traumatized? I see that this is not the same Thing as "Louis C.K.-behaviour" - she didnt jerk off in front of me, after all. But i think that women are really exaggerating the severity of the sexual assaults they suffer.
I tend to agree with you, but you have to look at the intentions behind the scenes. I have had a flirty boss, which I just fund amusing. He wasn't a threat in any way. But I have also been raped by my brother-in-law. Not amusing at all! The intentions makes the difference.
Sam Harris, you're barely saying anything in this video, only supporting the status quo with carefully weighted arguments which only point to the fact you're not immoral in your views towards women, without daring to advance any positions which will truly help women's condition. You're using the worst possible strands of "feminists" arguments as straw-men to "debunk" many worthwile claims of respectable feminists. Respectable feminists do not see all men as crazy sex monsters (even though many are) but remark systemic problems in our society which lead to nearly all men as seing women as people with less agency and less importance, deserving less respect in nearly all areas of their lives.
Also, I find you failed to point to the fact that actions such as groping a woman's body parts is, without any nuance, a morally despicable thing to do. Sure, not to the same degree as raping someone at knife-point, but nothing could possibly attenuate the fact that no one who does not wish to be touched should be groped with sexual intent.
You spend the entire talk about feminism discussing how it affects men. Why do you only think about men, men, men, men, even in a discussion on feminism? Because only men count, to you. So, no, you are not a feminist.
You mention men six times in your comment. I think you like men more than you're willing to admit. Methinks thou doth proteth too muth.
"We must not, however, be any less mistrustful of feminists' arguments: very often their attempt to polemicize robs them of all value. What people have endlessly sought to prove is that woman is superior, inferior, or equal to man: created after Adam, she is obviously a secondary being, some say; on the contrary, say others, Adam was only a rough draft, and God perfected the human being when he created Eve; her brain is smaller, but relatively bigger; Christ was made man, but perhaps out of humility. **Every argument has an opposite, and both are often misleading. To see clearly, one needs to get out of these ruts; these vague notions of superiority, inferiority, and equality that have distorted all discussions must be discarded in order to start anew.**"
-Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex 1949)
And let’s forget about the west men’s suicide rate and the fact that almost no help is provided when most budgets, considerations and talks are aimed towards women. Have you watched The Red Pill Sam?
Don't agree with all you have to say Sam Harris by a long shot, but I am encouraged by some of your thoughts, ie., women have been vulnerable for a long time. Lots of differences between men and women including physical strength. Over generalizing is a big problem and you do that constantly. I don't agree with SJW that bully just as I don't agree with the Alt Right that bullies, it's all hate, and frankly, I'm sick to death with it. Enlightenment 101, I was assaulted at 16 and joined the #metoo movement, and there are a LOT of men on that movement as well. I don't recall a lot assaulted by women, mostly men. Sure, forcible penetration exists but it's not a part of our "acceptable" culture. Some women behave badly, but to completely dismiss a fairly acceptable practice in which the "norms" are Weinstein's, it's exhausting to see that another man is quick to turn it around and say, well what about all the women that are doing it? It's wrong, period. If you feel the need to continually bring that ridiculous point up because poor white boys have been so mistreated, then again, it's wrong. It's always wrong. What I love to see is when we can all come together with a sense of understanding and empathy, why aren't we evolving??????
There's no objective definition of being "creep" I know Sam Harris has been out of the "game" for a long time but what other woman finds creepy other woman finds attractive.
erhe etrherh The only difference between being perceived creepy or romantic is how attractive the other person finds you
Jesus, is he EVER not spot on?
I find it hard to believe that anyone who has devoted genuine time to understanding contemporary feminism, as it manifests in it's 3rd wave, can respond to such a question in a way that starts with "It depends on what you mean by feminism".
The extremities associated with feminism that Sam touched base on here are among the predominantly held views within the modern movement throughout the globe. If the Christina Hoff Sommers' & Camille Paglia's of the world were among those who act as representatives of the modern feminist movement, then I'd argue Sam's approach is correct. But not only are these women not representatives of the movement, they're openly demonized by those who are.
Modern feminism is an embarrassment to our species, & it's time we start treating the label accordingly.
To be fair I'm not sure that all feminists would be categorized in that box. If you asked 99% of woman if they were a feminist, most of them would agree with the claim. But most don't really know what the word means, or what it stands for. I asked my sister, who is a 20 year old female going to a liberal arts college, the demographic you might expect to be a radical feminist. And she told me she is a feminist. But I asked what she meant, and she said she said she believed in equal rights of men and woman. Nothing really beyond that. She even thinks modern feminists are absolutely bat shit insane.
It becomes in issue for those who have become so sycophantically obsessed with feminism. To the point they delude themselves into believing left wing propaganda, and believe in the wage gap. The ones that use the term "Mansplaining," to quiet those who's opinions go against their own. The ones who don't shave their arm pit hair as a statement of power. Who run around in Vagina Costumes to make a political standpoint. It's a monkey throwing shit against the wall, while sticking it's own fingers in it's ears to block out the noise of the bystanders who are telling them to stop, the pile of shit is 5 feet tall It's a virtual hurricane of nonsense and virtue signaling. If a radical feminist ever read this quotation they might consider me a sexist for metaphorically comparing them to a monkey. That's the kind of people we are dealing with.
While I believe almost all woman would associate themselves with feminism, only the radical actively associate themselves in the echo chamber of modern feminism.
Sam was looking at the beliefs individually. Sam cares about specific beliefs and their consequences, so when people say they believe in equality between sexes and they are feminist he doesn't have any problem at all.
See, you are exactly what I have thought for a looong time, and Sam said is we should stop. Your last sentence is not something "we should do in the future" or "start", it has already happened before and after Feminism in all its facettes was created. Any form of empowerment and strength to women, "real" equality in some sense, has been labeled and oppressed by misogynistic assholes that got their ego from having power over women.
That's exactly what is going on right now. People have this urge to oppress the "wrong" feminism that exists right now, with equally stupid measures, feeding and strengthening the new age feminism.
It takes 2 braincells to realize that their, as Sam clearly said, are good and bad things about feminism. And that is where your part of the conversation should end. Period. Not any form of kicking or punching on the victim that lies beaten up on the ground does anything productive, no, it makes you equally as fucked up as the thing you hate - you are feeding your own stupidity, and that is mental, but you people don't even realize it.