I am amazed that so many of us have never questioned the women’s suffrage movement and believed the ethos of these women to be pure and virtuous and held them in such high regard all my life! I’m going to read the books and teach my children what the schools and teachers failed to teach them. Thank you so much Mrs. Peterson. You are leading me in a path that I never knew I needed to go. I’m also a recent convert to Catholicism. Your testimony really moved me as well. God bless you and Mr. Peterson for all you’re doing!
I know about Stanton by name, but I didn't know about her rejection of Black male suffrage (before women) (and child industrial labor wasn't outlawed until 1920) (and I think a talk by Janice several years ago revealed Stanton as a member of a Free Love Commune for a while, so that wasn't just a 1960s thing).
I can go part of the way with you. Decades ago, starting from a positive attitude towards feminism (because I was young, ignorant, and stupid) I read a number of feminist books and noted down what prominent 2nd wave feminists said (Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Robin Morgan, Valerie Solanas, etc), I quickly realised that this was a man-hating female supremacist movement. I therefore never went along with the idea that it went off the rails with 3rd wave, it was bad long before that. Later, I read about the British suffragettes, the Pankhursts et al, and found that they were really horrible people, both terrorists, and many of the leading figures were actually fascists (ie members of Oswald Mosley's British Fascist Party). Still, I thought that 19th century feminists, at least, were decent people. Much more recently, as in this year, I have started to learn more about those people, and I don't like what I see. It was always a cancer.
I enlisted, but plenty of men my age were drafted. They were shoved out of a warm bed at 5 AM to perform drills. They had little choice in what they would eat. They were told to muster at sick bay for shots and inoculations. They could be forced to go over seas and dodge bullets and sometimes bullets were not dodged. Nobody would have paid the least attention to any claim of bodily autonomy.
This was a very informative video. I never even realized how much feminism damaged my life. But now, at 50, I can look back at all the beliefs and influences that brought to where I am today.(Never married or having children) I definitely see I picked up subtle feminist beliefs through my parents and the culture around me. My father was a very successful portrait artist and my mom was a stay at home mom. They were both Christians and at age ten mom claimed that," God told her to take me out of school and teach me the Bible. However, my parents didn't get along and my "homeschool" experience disintegrated into chaos. In my lonely and disorganized state of mind I turned to God for help and came to believe I was "called to be single" and I would have" troubles in the flesh" if I married. I now believe I gravitated to those types of Bible verses because I held deeper cultural beliefs like "career is the most important thing" " the planet is overpopulated" and "having children is selfish". I was talented in art, my dad never had a son, and he was financially strapped(through mismanagement) so there was a push from him for me to focus on becoming a successful artist. My mom made statements like," women go to college but then they JUST get married and have kids." And " women are just as strong as men physically just in a different way." She fed her bitterness and anger towards dad to me and dad who had been abused by his alcoholic stepfather in turn intimidated me. I couldn't talk to him. I grew up without anyone to talk to so I developed a very unhealthy state of mind. I was overprotected by my mom and shut down by my dad. I bounced around in a confused state of mind and ended up in several cultlike situations. Today, after counselling, I'm in a healthier state of mind and starting to build a meaningful life but,' Damn! feminism. It wasn't helpful AT ALL.
Hi Mrs. Peterson, This was a great video, and I always enjoy when you have Mrs. Fiamengo on. I stumbled across her work a few years ago and that prompted me to start reading the writings of the leaders from the women's/feminist movement starting with Wollstonecraft. I came to the same conclusion that she did, which is that it seemed to be fueled by deep bitterness and resentment and not an actual drive towards redressing some sort of injustice. I think another person you may like to have on your show is Dr. Carrie Gress. She wrote a book called "The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us." She goes through a lot of the same things that Mrs. Fiamengo has, but takes it a few steps further. For example, she connects one of the axioms that underlies feminism from its inception-that women should conduct themselves more like men-to Queer Theory that results in us no longer being able to define what a woman is. Another thing that I liked about her book (and this really surprised me) was her showing the influence of theosophy and occultism present in feminism, including leaders like Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Dr. Gress also offers in her book an alternative vision for women and restoring womanhood. Her approach is based on the Christian understanding of womanhood since she's Catholic, which I think is a very powerful and resonant vision. She runs a website called Theology of Home, and I believe she can be contacted there. Even if you're unable to bring her on your show, I think you would enjoy reading her book. Thanks for taking the time to read my comment. I'm looking forward to your next video! Jake
Yes, another vote for Carrie Gress. She is amazing. She has another book called AntiMary and many things in a society make much more sense after I read this. We have been poisoned by this feminist ideology and we're not even aware how much it is present in our lives.
Janice articulates everything I have felt about feminism for many years. I have been following her on the internet since 2016. We need more women like her.
That old serpent is still speaking to Eve, in all women. It is the age old story. This was so helpful, dear Mrs. Peterson and Mrs. Fiamengo, thank you both. I am keenly looking forward to the next one and will be coming back to this one.
Yes I just heard Rachel speak on a podcast. It turns out as I always suspected. Feminism was the beginning of the end of western civilization. Evil to the core.
Ahhh. What a delight. Two ladies demonstrating responsibility for their society by exchanging information in a manner that is pro-social. This is what civilization desperately needs.
When my mother began working again, I was 14 and she didn't have time to cook anymore so we ate a lot of fast food. Everyone in the family started to gain weight including me and I then dealt with that by becoming anorexic. I stuggled with school after that in part because my parents weren't available to help. I remember asking my mother at one point to ask me if my homeowkr was done, a clear sign of a child needing more assistance with her high school homework. She didn't take that as a sign to get more involved. Having someone at home to cook healthy food, clean, and in general look after the health and well-being of the family is an essential role, perhaps the most important role for society. I certainly agree it can be fulfilled by either parent, but women are more likely to want it.
Tammy, I am so glad to subscribe to your RUclips channel. I have some firsthand knowledge of some of the issues you discuss as I am almost 80. I find you and your family a very refreshing respite and my gratitude and prayers are with you 🙏 🎉
I wonder how many men who signed that document were fathers of daughters. Compassion men may or may not have for their wives, they often have for their daughters (and their future).
Good this discussion is taking place! The expansion of the franchise is a major factor in the decline of democracy. When are we going to restrict it again?
31:10 On the topic of suffrage: The idea that suffrage is something granted to any group just by default is something rather new historically. In fact, the classic democracy as invented by the greeks does NOT have a universal right to vote, neither for men nor women. Suffrage in the classical democracy was granted as a result of 1) land ownership and 2) aquiring that land through family succession. The second part was to prevent someone from simply buying land in order to increase their own political power. The social class that actually fullfiled those condition was called the "demos", and was under 2% of the total population. And not only was this excluding the majority of people (including men), but there was no rule that limited land ownership to women. The first woman recorded to cast a political vote was in the 13th century, in Europe. And she in fact voted twice (legally), because she cast her own vote, and her husbands vote, who had given her written permission to do so, as he was traveling at the time and couldn't attend in person.
In grad school in the 90s, I dated a woman who in some ways fits the same profile--privileged, upper-middle class background; righteous sense of entitlement; always playing the feminist card when things didn't go her way; and a personality that was prone to fits of contracted anger and an acute unhappiness at the core of it all. I think her anger was a reaction to the mother-child bonding that didn't seem to happen for her when she was a baby. I say this because of borderline symptoms such as lack of emotional regulation, for that was the boyfriend's job. At 68, I don't live with too many regrets, but one is falling prey to her guilt inducements (and flattery) and giving three years of my sanity to her manipulations. She made feminism her academic focus. Good riddance.
Always good to hear Janice's perspective. I think as far as how much better the female influence on making the world a better place it has certainly become painfully clear to everyone with eyes to see in the present day. The matriarchy is not better and indeed has wrought enormous chaos and damage to society that after many decades of feminist ideology, which will take even more decades to heal, if, we even can.
When I finished my BA degree, I took two history classes and learned more about the women's suffrage movement. I found it curious at the time how it was led by rich white women, usually widowed, who lobbied politicians at that time. I learned a lot more, having sat through this interview. Very enlightening indeed! I didn't know white men below a certain stature still couldn't vote at this time. The more you know..
45:07 It’s funny, I’m here having breakfast, listening to this amazing interview, and when you said that even today women are not the interested in politics, I remembered early on, with my husband having breakfast and listening the news on politics and public affairs. Yes, we are interested in different areas of knowledge and current affairs.
Thank you Tammy for your beautiful testimony and for your podcast! Your family's story is so remarkable! I know your husband recently did a podcast about the birth control pill. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. However, it perhaps might be an idea for you to talk about the impact that birth control in general has had on society and on women especially. I truly believe Jordan was prophetic about this issue years ago when he said that the birth control pill was like 'an atomic bomb on society". I lay at its feet much of the objectivization of women, the break-up of the family, 'gender theory', the growing confusion of "what is a woman", and woke ideology in general. It would be very interesting to hear an objective voice discuss facts and statistics showing what has happened to our culture, indeed our civilization, since the dawn of reliable birth control. Thank you again!🎉
The revolutions of 1848 were the same year. Liberalism, egalitarianism, and nationalism were (and are) the three forces of radical revolution unleashed in the French and subsequent revolutions, including the radical feminist revolution.
54:42 this is a good insight by Stanton actually. Slavery is not chains or shackles, but an absence of responsibility and authority over one's own life. Children are always slaves, and only some adults become free.
@spoonerreligionandplitics I thought the same thing as I listened to that part; she was honing in the seeming or actual (depending on how you think) lack of agency but that is the point, concepts such as ‘agency’, ‘right’, ‘power’ etc etc that have come to mean everything to modern man seek to have done us more harm than good when’s it’s all been said and done. I was going to leave it alone but your choice of the word ‘slaves’ is a lot :), I don’t think you would disagree, but I get the point you’re making minus the definite overstating it. And I say this as someone who is and has always been very passionate about children. The rights way was the absolute wrong way to go about it into ensure the wellbeing of children as they grow up, just as with everything else.
Children are not comparable to slaves at all Oo. Yes, in some aspects - like the level of descission making they get to do - they are similar, but the root cause of this reduced level of agency is diametrically opposed. Slaves are seen as less valuable than the average citizen, and that is why their agency is always seen second to the (apparently more valuable) choice of their masters. They are not seen as incapable of making their own descisions, they are seen as not worthy of wielding power, even the minimum of power over their own lives. Children, on the other hand, are generally seen as MORE valuable than the average person (because of both their innocence and potential, as well as their necessity for the next generation). The reason why they dont get to make descisions regarding their life is not because they are seen as unworthy, they are simply too important too be allowed harmed - even when that harm comes from their own inexperience. So while it may seem similar from a legal standpoint, its very different from a moral one. Coincidently, the way i described the treatment of children here kinda applies also to the way women were being treated by many societies throught history (as women are equally to important to let come to harm, in societies eyes. Restricting female freedom in order to increase female safety was something that most societies did, out of sheer necessity when it comes to survival and continuation of said society.)
@@random.3665 Thanks for the thoughtful response! I think we're in agreement actually since - regardless of the disparity in motivation which you correctly point out - children, women, and slaves are relieved of responsibility for making dangerous decisions (either for themselves or for others). This lack of responsibility necessitates a corresponding submission to the responsible authority, in these examples those of parent, husband, and master. We see this exact same dynamic in the Medicare system in the USA, where those who have no responsibility to pay also have no authority to choose their treatment.
The women’s suffrage movement of Stanton’s time in the U.S was closely linked to the abolitionist movement and from what I remember from my Women’s studies class that movement started with Christian women’s groups who would get together and quilt. So to me it makes sense that Stanton wrote this when she did. And later that women’s movement rejected black feminists from their movement after the civil war.
31:17 Remember this fact - there was only a 51 year difference between when women got the vote compared to when all men could vote. Use that next time you hear one of them say - we have to remember that it was less than a hundred years ago that we could vote.
Perhaps, due to there being such a small amount of unhappy women the men didn't think it was anything to worry about. I don't believe they anticipated the ripples the movement would have on women a century later.
Did men deny jobs to women? Yes. However, how many opportunities did women create? How many factories, mines, farms, railways, businesses, industries etc did women start? Near zero in comparison to men. So is the lack of opportunities for women men's fault or women's? Are women creating an equal number of job opportunities to those created by men today? So where are the cequal opportunities for men today? If We had to wait for women to invent the steam train etc? Wou lkd they have done it yet? How many centuries would we have to wait?
9.09 So eloquent and tears, is the result of the speaker speaking demagogically. Speaking in a manner that excites the emotions of people. As Brene' Brown said; "Once emotions are driving, logical and rational thought are not back seat passengers, they are locked in the trunk."
I find it interesting all the men who signed the Declaration of Sentiments. I'm sure each person had his own reason for doing so, but I see this also in the Woke movement. I worked at a college in California and so many caucasian administrators and faculty wholeheartedly took on the Racist moniker as described in the Ibrahim X Kendi book. As if accepting their guilt as describe in the book expunged them from the sins of their ancestors. In fact the caucasians were more militant and dogmatic than their peers of different color and race.
57:01 OOPS, she covered most of comment. This was Victorian Era, many schools wouldn't allow pregnant women to teach. This was still a policy in many schools where once a teacher was obviously, visibly pregnant she was shielded from students on moral grounds until the 60s. Not sure if this was case in all girls schools or Parochial Separate Classrooms and such. This was likely not to OPPRESS women, but to allow for the fact that probably most Men whom were teaching as a career were the sole breadwinners as heads of household and women were probably going to quit as soon as they were married to have children, just like today, or WERE married and supported by a husband. Probably had to do this to get male teachers. Why there are no male teachers in US today. He cannot support the entitled hypergamous women as wives any longer as a Teacher and some breadwinner. May have even been for budget reasons because women often lived at home and taught until she got married. Many schools only required an HS Diploma to teach. College was only required for High School and Principals in many school districts larger than the one room school house. These may have required a BS because they were essentially k-12 and independent schools AND, effectively, the district, for years.
I aplaud that JF argues on behalf of men's rights today giving men a voice where they are not allowed. But she argues the extreme arguments of the document by exceptions. Also to extrapolate what men wanted or thought 150 years ago is difficult because no one person speaks or writes for an entire group. It is clear feminism has gone too far in many arenas today. But they have also now been betrayed by the DEI train currently. With much of the "progress" over the last 40 years being lost. Many of the finishing schools existed to educate women to be dignified wives to support their upper class husbands. They were not there to teach women to be lawyers and doctors, etc. Again there are exceptions but the majority of women did not have equivalent access to education to their male counterparts. Over sixty years ago, here in Ontario, my mother had three options at school secretary, nurse or teacher. Her sister went the nurse route, like others pursued post graduate training. But she was an exception. My mother went back to school to finish her HS diploma and a BA. During WW2 there was a period of liberation when men were absent and loss after they returned. Though we may disagree with others, there is something to be learned from opposing views. Avoiding terms like never and always helps to promote conversation. As JF says at the end to see the humanity in others. And avoid judging the character of others solely by reputation or public image.
Schools generally taught women what would be useful for them to learn in whatever social sphere they lived in. The idea that they were just being groomed to be an ornament to her husband is a very one-sided interpretation, an upper class woman would be educated in subjects to become an upperclass woman: foreign languages, etiquette, literature, painting, music, knowledge of history, household management, etc. A lowerclass woman, particularly of the lowest classes, would have to learn some kind of skill in order to work because she had to. Wives of tradesmen often learned the skills of the trade to continue the business if/when he died. Being a lawyer or doctor was not only looked down on for being less than aristocracy (because you had to work), but also very dangerous "dirty" work. To be a doctor you visited the sick or dying, and to be a lawyer, you had to confer with possible criminals. Is it not surprising that not a lot of women at the time wanted to choose this work? That perhaps the more regulated environments for these jobs today invites more women into these occupations? The first woman to pass the bar (Arabella Mansfield) didn't even practice law and ended up only teaching by choice.
Ideologies are formed as a result of how people think. To get idea of the differences between men and women but in a very simplistic way, men are all on the spectrum of overt narcissism due to such narcissism being derived from feelings of strength and power. While women are all on the spectrum of covert narcissism because this is derived from a sense of weakness and vulnerability. Now look at the ideologies that have been created by men and women. Unfortunately I am only aware of one created by women and that one is feminism. If one compares this ideology to the traits of covert narcissism they align perfectly.
1:30:27 It is like a warped and somewhat...crippled?...religion ir denomination with ties to fringe Christian sects and extra-Biblical "causes". Yet another example of why the Founders in US insisted on Separation of Church and State. Law cannot, and SHOULD not guarantee rights etc unique to Religious Contexts. Nor should it restrict them.
Mary Harrington is helping a lot too with bringing a alternative lense to feminism in her book „feminism against progress“. Thank God I divorced myself from these beliefs, I‘m so much happier since I‘m a mother and find myself as a matriarch.
You are right about women being involved in the anti-slavery movement. However, was it not their involvement in the anti-slavery movement, and their denued access from attending an Abolishinist convention prompted them to introspection, and finally seeing themselves as not much better off than the slaves? No, they did not consider themselves "slaves," but they considered themselves not much better off than a slave as far as status and legal rights are concerned. Janice complains about wimen fighting for the right to vote or own property, yet she never talks about the vote being given to former male slaves. It appears to me that she believes women are undeserving of being given full citizenship status for reasons that are yet to be determined. I can understand her being against modern feminism, but her disdaun for even the early suffragist movement is puzzling to me. Its as if she does not want wimen to fight for anything. It seems to me that Hanice does not want women to contribute to society in any significant way, nor participate in the public sphere. I completely disagree! As for men being "forced to go to war," well, perhaps that was true in the past, and still is in theory, there has not been a draft in the US in over 50 years. I doubt if there will be because there are many people joining the military voluntarily, and among the many men joing the military are also many women as well. Interesting how Janice never mentions the women in the armed forces. Therr is nothing new about women serving in the military, even during times of war during the history of the US. While they did not have a combat role, ( exceot for the few women who disguised themselves as men ), they served the battle field by delivering ammunition and supplues, and also by preparing meals, laundering their clothes, ect...while these may be considered 'secondary ' roles, they were still roles nevertheless, and were essential. I do mot understand why Janice does not seem to have any empathy for women. I know life was hard for men, but it was also hard for women too.
You say: "she (Janice) never talks about the vote being given to former male slaves. It appears to me that she believes women are undeserving of being given full citizenship status for reasons that are yet to be determined." Janice does mention it in passing but the primary reason women were not granted the vote when universal male suffrage was extended to all men including freed slaves was Reconstruction. White men who had participated in or supported the Confederacy were disenfranchised. The radical Republicans controled Congress were entertaining very extreme social reforms. Extending the vote to women would have, to some extent, allow southern white men to vote by proxy through women whose loyalty to the Union could not be honestly determined. And no one knew whether women in the North, who hadn't been through the radicalizing experience of the Civil War, would have supported radical reforms to the same extent as ex-soldiers and freed slaves did. Women's suffrage became a state by state issue to prevent southern women from gaining the vote and to protect radical Republican strongholds.
1:28:08 No Empathy even for Freed Slaves. Even a friend an ally to her cause. Too bad the Big 5 didn't exist yet. Maybe an AI trained on Psychology and Feminist Language models could analyze some of these "Leaders" writings retroactively ro provide greater insight. Curious that the Postmodernists Silence on these writings is profoundly absent. Curiouser and curiouser.
Personally, I doubt any functional man (not desperate), signs a document out of "self-loathing." They sign it out of a desire to join the team that will give them higher status, belong to an elite, not be one of "those" loser men. If it is an intellectual elite in a space defined by women, that is fine, since being in a male "elite" must include access to the higher status women.
Subsuming the wife legally into the marriage union, headed by the husband, is a great idea that we should bring back. It would certainly go a long way toward silencing the ravings of the red-pillers. And it is better aligned with the Catholic sacramental understanding of marriage.
@@sherylmccollum895 I'd be fine with that, except that God Himself dictates multiple governmental regulations on marriage in the Law of the Moses. It's God's idea, not mine.
Thank you, good Ladies, and God bless you! "The modern idea of sex equality is beautiful and worthy of an expanding civilization, but it is not found in nature. When might is right, man lords it over woman; when more justice, peace, and fairness prevail, she gradually emerges from slavery and obscurity. Woman’s social position has generally varied inversely with the degree of militarism in any nation or age. But man did not consciously nor intentionally seize woman’s rights and then gradually and grudgingly give them back to her; all this was an unconscious and unplanned episode of social evolution. When the time really came for woman to enjoy added rights, she got them, and all quite regardless of man’s conscious attitude. Slowly but surely the mores change so as to provide for those social adjustments which are a part of the persistent evolution of civilization. The advancing mores slowly provided increasingly better treatment for females; those tribes which persisted in cruelty to them did not survive." The Urantia Book, Paper 84, Section 5.
Apparently an anti-feminist is a misogynist. I don't find her arguments complete or completely viable. She is the definition of a mysogynist. She lacks the ability to see complexity or to try to understand this woman. After all, it is called the Declaration of Sentiments. However you interpret it, she is entitled to her feelings and I don't think she was specifically referring to an exact period in time, like when it was written, but rather a continual struggle exemplified in the microcosm of her early life. A woman should be grateful or happy to be able to be a teacher or secretary, to do finances for her husband, but not complain about being limited to these things? And even if they were able to study, were they given equal respect often once qualified? I think women still struggle with this today. Fiamengo isn't trying to understand this woman, nor does she offer empathy for the true injustices that DID occur, but rather seeks to prove her wrong as a true misogynist, because if she was really searching for truth she would pursue a broader understanding of this woman's works, which she self-admittedly has not done. Household values do matter and have been casualties of women's counter reaction to previous oppression, but this doesn't mean, as Fiamengo says, that the woman's place is missing in the household - it is often lacking because women are expected to DO IT ALL now, and it is impossible to meet modern day expectations as the value and meaning of being a woman, having children and a family fades due to misled modern day values.
I am really dismayed that these two women have offered up an obviously biased hit piece/ hatchet job on Stanton, it seems, just to snare unwary or malicious minded people into the same biased, small minded, catty cronyism, that does as much or more to weaken the stature and credibility of their arguements as their "heroic" take down of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. If they really had the courage of their convictions they would knock down someone who hasn't been dead for over a century.
@@janeproctor5542Oh my lord can't both of you women stop being emotional? Literally instead of accusing the 2 women for hating women how about address what they said. Literally neither of you provided no counter evidence.
I find it interesting how some women will accuse members of their gender that they don't agree of being "misogynistic". They personalise it basically if you don't agree with me and my opinions, then you are misogynistic. Or perhaps suffering from "Uncle Toms cabin syndrome". Some how women who care deeply about what is happening to men are "sleeping with the enemy" and are complicit.
@@janeproctor5542 Jane is it really a hit piece? or is a more honest look at what drove Stanton. It sounds to me that Tammy and Janice have created a cognitive dissonance for you and the easiest way to deal with that is to attack the speakers whose views challenge your own.
0:00 0:05 @@philliphickox4023That is my point. They are attacking a speaker whose views challenge their own( cognitive dissonance)? and it is getting in the way of a more balanced presentation of the subject or prejudicing such an intension. They come across as bitterly antagonistic and resentful of women who had unfortunately to face the unenviable task of raising the profile of "female/women's suffering" above the parapet of indifference, not to mention blatant hostility, hatred and prejudice,😊 to help women gain political representation, as people in their own right plus much more, and,, yes, they used some "shock"tactics in the process. Otherwise no one would have noticed. It seems inconsistent with Tammy Peterson's statements, to the effect that "being motivated by resentment is never a good thing", that she would promote hatred and resentment toward women or those who advocated for women to enter the political process/arena on behalf of all the current males( child or adult) who she claims have been discomfitted and victimized by man- hating and resentment filled feminists, the same justification for which they are endorsing, via their vilification of this one woman, Stanton, who was highly educated. but also chose to get herself married and had seven children. I think that sounds a little rich considering the reputation and renown she achieved in her lifetime, to use and abuse her in the name of stoking mens' resentment of women, and Feminism, current and future. 0:05
I hate to say it but I think you are probably giving the men that signed that document more credit than they probably deserve. I'm a man and I would be more inclined to believe that the men weren't even in the building listening to the speech it is way more like that they were outside smoking and bullshiting with each other and didn't even read the document. It's way more like that when the speech was over there wives said Bill, John, Bob and who ever come in here and sign this document and show your support or we will have a problem. And if the men were willing to take there wives to such a meeting it stands to reason that they would help there wives in any such manner.
I wonder sometimes if these radical views she had were interfering in any way in her life? What about her father, her husband and the men who signed this document? Would that not cause cognitive dissonance and doubts in her?
Listening to women and men speak on what makes a woman happy and what a woman's purpose is, is audacious. All opinions are bias. Anything outside of facts and numbers is tainted with personal experiences and therefore questionable. There is absolutely no logical reason to procreate, especially for women. There is no logical reason to give yourself over to a man in any shape form or fashion. However, EMOTIONS, not logic, drives you to do so. Heck, I can even understand procreation as social experiment but nothing more. It's humans playing a game of Russian roulette or game of chance keeping fingers crossed playing God in a way, with a whole other person.
This is so highly disingenuous. Have some courage, talk to someone with opposite views, hold a debate. These arguments are infactual and so dishonest I am shocked that janice and tammy can post this in good conscience. Pathetic.
Bitter hysteria. The original proponents of the feminist were often privileged women filled with ingratitude and distortion. The most vicious creatures are women who choose not to have children or marry and berate their husbands night and day. We've only heard the feminist side for fifty years! It's time for truth! Thankyou Tammy and Janice. Great interview!
@@balipsetteAnd what parts exactly and specifically are true? It seems obvious that they are relying on ridicule, as if only women with similarly botched motivations as full blown misandrist, Cady Stanton, at least as they are painting her, would have followed in her footsteps and so the entire feminist movement has been tainted from the very beginning. If anything they are probably giving Feminism a shot in the arm by dismantling their own credibility.
@@janeproctor5542You can't refute by reversing the roles. It's your job defending the disgusting feminist by making the person making the case to prove your right.
38:10 this woman is very naive about how much women were respected in society, and how much freedom they had to pursue anything other than serving her husband and children. Let’s not forget that even today women are running away from abusive relationships all the time, hence all the domestic violence shelters. Not too long ago, women had to tolerate abuse all the time. Marital rape was legal until the 70s. And when Ashley Madison provided married people the ability to cheat, 35 million users were men and 1 million were women, only 10 000 of which were responsive. Plus, still today I hear men say “childcare is easy” and “what do you do all day?” all the time! I could write a whole essay on this. Her ignorance is frustrating. And most respectfully to Tammy, she has been very fortunate to find a man like Jordan Peterson. The vast majority of men are not like him.
@@TammyPetersonPodcast I agree with you, but I am not advocating for resentment based decisions, but rather for decisions that look at the real and common possibilities, in order to avoid being in a bad situation
@@deezed6478 "Possibilities" that's your problem. Probability is reality. Abuse goes both way and evidence show that 70% of the time women started throwing fists first. Martial Rape is such a bullcrap feminist nonsense. That's like me saying I'm being oppressed for going to work when I don't feel like it today. Feminists make up any to push their nonsense.
....You understand that most countries, even before the 70s, had laws that explicitly forbid domestic violence, as long as it came from men, yes? And that is not even mentioning rural areas, where a man could literally get publically punished (usually tied to a donkey and then chased out of the village) for GETTING beaten by his wife (which wasnt considered a crime at the time, domestic violence laws - along with many r*pe laws - were always assuming a male perpetrator.)
Men make up more violent fatalities than women. Violence isn't a women's issue just because they are in abusive relationships. Abuse happens in same sex relationships too, yet that isn't nearly as politicized.
I am amazed that so many of us have never questioned the women’s suffrage movement and believed the ethos of these women to be pure and virtuous and held them in such high regard all my life! I’m going to read the books and teach my children what the schools and teachers failed to teach them. Thank you so much Mrs. Peterson. You are leading me in a path that I never knew I needed to go. I’m also a recent convert to Catholicism. Your testimony really moved me as well. God bless you and Mr. Peterson for all you’re doing!
I know about Stanton by name, but I didn't know about her rejection of Black male suffrage (before women) (and child industrial labor wasn't outlawed until 1920) (and I think a talk by Janice several years ago revealed Stanton as a member of a Free Love Commune for a while, so that wasn't just a 1960s thing).
I can go part of the way with you. Decades ago, starting from a positive attitude towards feminism (because I was young, ignorant, and stupid) I read a number of feminist books and noted down what prominent 2nd wave feminists said (Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Robin Morgan, Valerie Solanas, etc), I quickly realised that this was a man-hating female supremacist movement. I therefore never went along with the idea that it went off the rails with 3rd wave, it was bad long before that. Later, I read about the British suffragettes, the Pankhursts et al, and found that they were really horrible people, both terrorists, and many of the leading figures were actually fascists (ie members of Oswald Mosley's British Fascist Party). Still, I thought that 19th century feminists, at least, were decent people. Much more recently, as in this year, I have started to learn more about those people, and I don't like what I see. It was always a cancer.
I enlisted, but plenty of men my age were drafted. They were shoved out of a warm bed at 5 AM to perform drills. They had little choice in what they would eat. They were told to muster at sick bay for shots and inoculations. They could be forced to go over seas and dodge bullets and sometimes bullets were not dodged. Nobody would have paid the least attention to any claim of bodily autonomy.
This was a very informative video. I never even realized how much feminism damaged my life. But now, at 50, I can look back at all the beliefs and influences that brought to where I am today.(Never married or having children) I definitely see I picked up subtle feminist beliefs through my parents and the culture around me. My father was a very successful portrait artist and my mom was a stay at home mom. They were both Christians and at age ten mom claimed that," God told her to take me out of school and teach me the Bible. However, my parents didn't get along and my "homeschool" experience disintegrated into chaos. In my lonely and disorganized state of mind I turned to God for help and came to believe I was "called to be single" and I would have" troubles in the flesh" if I married. I now believe I gravitated to those types of Bible verses because I held deeper cultural beliefs like "career is the most important thing" " the planet is overpopulated" and "having children is selfish". I was talented in art, my dad never had a son, and he was financially strapped(through mismanagement) so there was a push from him for me to focus on becoming a successful artist. My mom made statements like," women go to college but then they JUST get married and have kids." And " women are just as strong as men physically just in a different way." She fed her bitterness and anger towards dad to me and dad who had been abused by his alcoholic stepfather in turn intimidated me. I couldn't talk to him. I grew up without anyone to talk to so I developed a very unhealthy state of mind. I was overprotected by my mom and shut down by my dad. I bounced around in a confused state of mind and ended up in several cultlike situations. Today, after counselling, I'm in a healthier state of mind and starting to build a meaningful life but,' Damn! feminism. It wasn't helpful AT ALL.
I agree that much damage has been done by feminist dogma. Its twisted ideas created so many problems for families it was a very destructive force.
I'm glad that you are in a better place.
Thank you!
I will pray that you can embrace Mother Mary. She will not betray your trust. ❤
it sounds as though you've done a lot to get to this point of insight xxx
Hi Mrs. Peterson,
This was a great video, and I always enjoy when you have Mrs. Fiamengo on. I stumbled across her work a few years ago and that prompted me to start reading the writings of the leaders from the women's/feminist movement starting with Wollstonecraft. I came to the same conclusion that she did, which is that it seemed to be fueled by deep bitterness and resentment and not an actual drive towards redressing some sort of injustice.
I think another person you may like to have on your show is Dr. Carrie Gress. She wrote a book called "The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us." She goes through a lot of the same things that Mrs. Fiamengo has, but takes it a few steps further. For example, she connects one of the axioms that underlies feminism from its inception-that women should conduct themselves more like men-to Queer Theory that results in us no longer being able to define what a woman is. Another thing that I liked about her book (and this really surprised me) was her showing the influence of theosophy and occultism present in feminism, including leaders like Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Dr. Gress also offers in her book an alternative vision for women and restoring womanhood. Her approach is based on the Christian understanding of womanhood since she's Catholic, which I think is a very powerful and resonant vision.
She runs a website called Theology of Home, and I believe she can be contacted there. Even if you're unable to bring her on your show, I think you would enjoy reading her book.
Thanks for taking the time to read my comment. I'm looking forward to your next video!
Jake
Thank you for the comment. I’ll look up these books . Much appreciated
Yes, another vote for Carrie Gress. She is amazing. She has another book called AntiMary and many things in a society make much more sense after I read this. We have been poisoned by this feminist ideology and we're not even aware how much it is present in our lives.
Janice articulates everything I have felt about feminism for many years. I have been following her on the internet since 2016. We need more women like her.
Privileged modern women desperately need a way to identity as a victim. It means they can absolve themselves of the consequences of their actions.
That old serpent is still speaking to Eve, in all women. It is the age old story.
This was so helpful, dear Mrs. Peterson and Mrs. Fiamengo, thank you both. I am keenly looking forward to the next one and will be coming back to this one.
Janice is so detailed. I follow her on x. she's so beautiful, her understanding and honesty make her angelic to me.
Rachel Wilson author of Occult Feminism would be a good person to interview here.
also Carrie Gress
Yes I just heard Rachel speak on a podcast. It turns out as I always suspected. Feminism was the beginning of the end of western civilization. Evil to the core.
I wonder if she could get both of them on at the same time. That would be quite interesting
The saddest aspect is that RUclips has chosen to make many of Janices previous videos unavailable for viewing.
I think she is reuploading them. Check it out.
Keep the fire burning and the hope alive.
@@nocturnaljoe9543 It is actually Steve from studio Brulee who made the videos
It’s fascinating to dig the rabbit hole of feminism. I’m learning so much from this conversations! Thank you
Ahhh. What a delight.
Two ladies demonstrating responsibility for their society by exchanging information in a manner that is pro-social.
This is what civilization desperately needs.
When my mother began working again, I was 14 and she didn't have time to cook anymore so we ate a lot of fast food. Everyone in the family started to gain weight including me and I then dealt with that by becoming anorexic. I stuggled with school after that in part because my parents weren't available to help. I remember asking my mother at one point to ask me if my homeowkr was done, a clear sign of a child needing more assistance with her high school homework. She didn't take that as a sign to get more involved. Having someone at home to cook healthy food, clean, and in general look after the health and well-being of the family is an essential role, perhaps the most important role for society. I certainly agree it can be fulfilled by either parent, but women are more likely to want it.
Tammy, I am so glad to subscribe to your RUclips channel. I have some firsthand knowledge of some of the issues you discuss as I am almost 80. I find you and your family a very refreshing respite and my gratitude and prayers are with you 🙏 🎉
I wonder how many men who signed that document were fathers of daughters. Compassion men may or may not have for their wives, they often have for their daughters (and their future).
Always a good conversation. And topics of ideology that infiltrate our society.
I learned a lot, thank you!
Thank you very much for helping us underatabd the root causes of such a hailed movement nowadays! May God bless you!
Always so great to see and hear again
Good this discussion is taking place! The expansion of the franchise is a major factor in the decline of democracy. When are we going to restrict it again?
Far left politicians in Australia would like to lower the voting age to 16 for this reason.
In NZ too.... indoctrinate them at school so they vote left...@grannyannie2948
31:10
On the topic of suffrage:
The idea that suffrage is something granted to any group just by default is something rather new historically.
In fact, the classic democracy as invented by the greeks does NOT have a universal right to vote, neither for men nor women.
Suffrage in the classical democracy was granted as a result of 1) land ownership and 2) aquiring that land through family succession. The second part was to prevent someone from simply buying land in order to increase their own political power. The social class that actually fullfiled those condition was called the "demos", and was under 2% of the total population.
And not only was this excluding the majority of people (including men), but there was no rule that limited land ownership to women.
The first woman recorded to cast a political vote was in the 13th century, in Europe. And she in fact voted twice (legally), because she cast her own vote, and her husbands vote, who had given her written permission to do so, as he was traveling at the time and couldn't attend in person.
Wonderful and beneficial conversation, thank you both.
In grad school in the 90s, I dated a woman who in some ways fits the same profile--privileged, upper-middle class background; righteous sense of entitlement; always playing the feminist card when things didn't go her way; and a personality that was prone to fits of contracted anger and an acute unhappiness at the core of it all. I think her anger was a reaction to the mother-child bonding that didn't seem to happen for her when she was a baby. I say this because of borderline symptoms such as lack of emotional regulation, for that was the boyfriend's job. At 68, I don't live with too many regrets, but one is falling prey to her guilt inducements (and flattery) and giving three years of my sanity to her manipulations. She made feminism her academic focus. Good riddance.
Such an enjoyable discussion! Absolutely lovely listening, fascinating!
Such a great joy to listen to and watch interview. Both of you. Thank you.
Always good to hear Janice's perspective. I think as far as how much better the female influence on making the world a better place it has certainly become painfully clear to everyone with eyes to see in the present day. The matriarchy is not better and indeed has wrought enormous chaos and damage to society that after many decades of feminist ideology, which will take even more decades to heal, if, we even can.
!!! Another vital video !!!
When I finished my BA degree, I took two history classes and learned more about the women's suffrage movement. I found it curious at the time how it was led by rich white women, usually widowed, who lobbied politicians at that time. I learned a lot more, having sat through this interview. Very enlightening indeed! I didn't know white men below a certain stature still couldn't vote at this time. The more you know..
So interesting and enlightening, please keep them coming! 👍
These ladies are educated and awesome👍👍
45:07 It’s funny, I’m here having breakfast, listening to this amazing interview, and when you said that even today women are not the interested in politics, I remembered early on, with my husband having breakfast and listening the news on politics and public affairs.
Yes, we are interested in different areas of knowledge and current affairs.
Fantastic discussion
Thanks for sharing this!
This is very good information for men and women.
So interesting! i’m surprised this video doesn’t have more views!
RUclips is suppressing this video on purpose.
Thank you Tammy for your beautiful testimony and for your podcast! Your family's story is so remarkable!
I know your husband recently did a podcast about the birth control pill. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. However, it perhaps might be an idea for you to talk about the impact that birth control in general has had on society and on women especially. I truly believe Jordan was prophetic about this issue years ago when he said that the birth control pill was like 'an atomic bomb on society". I lay at its feet much of the objectivization of women, the break-up of the family, 'gender theory', the growing confusion of "what is a woman", and woke ideology in general. It would be very interesting to hear an objective voice discuss facts and statistics showing what has happened to our culture, indeed our civilization, since the dawn of reliable birth control.
Thank you again!🎉
Carrie Gress wrote a book on the history of the "mothers" of feminism ("The End of Woman")-she'd be a good one to interview here.
Thank you for sharing
Intriguing as always! Thank you both!
Delightful women. They remind me of my own mother and sister and grandmother.
The revolutions of 1848 were the same year. Liberalism, egalitarianism, and nationalism were (and are) the three forces of radical revolution unleashed in the French and subsequent revolutions, including the radical feminist revolution.
54:42 this is a good insight by Stanton actually. Slavery is not chains or shackles, but an absence of responsibility and authority over one's own life. Children are always slaves, and only some adults become free.
Still seems like stretching the definition to the point of falsehood
@spoonerreligionandplitics I thought the same thing as I listened to that part; she was honing in the seeming or actual (depending on how you think) lack of agency but that is the point, concepts such as ‘agency’, ‘right’, ‘power’ etc etc that have come to mean everything to modern man seek to have done us more harm than good when’s it’s all been said and done. I was going to leave it alone but your choice of the word ‘slaves’ is a lot :), I don’t think you would disagree, but I get the point you’re making minus the definite overstating it. And I say this as someone who is and has always been very passionate about children. The rights way was the absolute wrong way to go about it into ensure the wellbeing of children as they grow up, just as with everything else.
Children are not comparable to slaves at all Oo. Yes, in some aspects - like the level of descission making they get to do - they are similar, but the root cause of this reduced level of agency is diametrically opposed. Slaves are seen as less valuable than the average citizen, and that is why their agency is always seen second to the (apparently more valuable) choice of their masters. They are not seen as incapable of making their own descisions, they are seen as not worthy of wielding power, even the minimum of power over their own lives.
Children, on the other hand, are generally seen as MORE valuable than the average person (because of both their innocence and potential, as well as their necessity for the next generation). The reason why they dont get to make descisions regarding their life is not because they are seen as unworthy, they are simply too important too be allowed harmed - even when that harm comes from their own inexperience.
So while it may seem similar from a legal standpoint, its very different from a moral one.
Coincidently, the way i described the treatment of children here kinda applies also to the way women were being treated by many societies throught history (as women are equally to important to let come to harm, in societies eyes. Restricting female freedom in order to increase female safety was something that most societies did, out of sheer necessity when it comes to survival and continuation of said society.)
@@random.3665 Thanks for the thoughtful response! I think we're in agreement actually since - regardless of the disparity in motivation which you correctly point out - children, women, and slaves are relieved of responsibility for making dangerous decisions (either for themselves or for others). This lack of responsibility necessitates a corresponding submission to the responsible authority, in these examples those of parent, husband, and master. We see this exact same dynamic in the Medicare system in the USA, where those who have no responsibility to pay also have no authority to choose their treatment.
Awesome 🙏
The women’s suffrage movement of Stanton’s time in the U.S was closely linked to the abolitionist movement and from what I remember from my Women’s studies class that movement started with Christian women’s groups who would get together and quilt. So to me it makes sense that Stanton wrote this when she did. And later that women’s movement rejected black feminists from their movement after the civil war.
31:17 Remember this fact - there was only a 51 year difference between when women got the vote compared to when all men could vote. Use that next time you hear one of them say - we have to remember that it was less than a hundred years ago that we could vote.
Stanton was an articulate and experienced teenager mentally.
Perhaps, due to there being such a small amount of unhappy women the men didn't think it was anything to worry about. I don't believe they anticipated the ripples the movement would have on women a century later.
Did men deny jobs to women? Yes.
However, how many opportunities did women create? How many factories, mines, farms, railways, businesses, industries etc did women start? Near zero in comparison to men.
So is the lack of opportunities for women men's fault or women's?
Are women creating an equal number of job opportunities to those created by men today? So where are the cequal opportunities for men today?
If We had to wait for women to invent the steam train etc? Wou lkd they have done it yet? How many centuries would we have to wait?
I notice also that the Feminists demanded to be allowed to be Lawyers and Doctors, but not miners and construction workers.
The thing about history is that it requires lots of speculation, as demonstrated here.
There is a great documentary called Not for Ourselves Alone. The story of Elizabeth Cary Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.
Janice continues a tour de force forever
9.09 So eloquent and tears, is the result of the speaker speaking demagogically. Speaking in a manner that excites the emotions of people. As Brene' Brown said; "Once emotions are driving, logical and rational thought are not back seat passengers, they are locked in the trunk."
I find it interesting all the men who signed the Declaration of Sentiments. I'm sure each person had his own reason for doing so, but I see this also in the Woke movement. I worked at a college in California and so many caucasian administrators and faculty wholeheartedly took on the Racist moniker as described in the Ibrahim X Kendi book. As if accepting their guilt as describe in the book expunged them from the sins of their ancestors. In fact the caucasians were more militant and dogmatic than their peers of different color and race.
48:04 heads up gentlemen...
People may not know her by name but feminism today seems to reflect a lot of her bitterness and the ideas in her writings.
57:01 OOPS, she covered most of comment.
This was Victorian Era, many schools wouldn't allow pregnant women to teach. This was still a policy in many schools where once a teacher was obviously, visibly pregnant she was shielded from students on moral grounds until the 60s. Not sure if this was case in all girls schools or Parochial Separate Classrooms and such.
This was likely not to OPPRESS women, but to allow for the fact that probably most Men whom were teaching as a career were the sole breadwinners as heads of household and women were probably going to quit as soon as they were married to have children, just like today, or WERE married and supported by a husband. Probably had to do this to get male teachers. Why there are no male teachers in US today. He cannot support the entitled hypergamous women as wives any longer as a Teacher and some breadwinner.
May have even been for budget reasons because women often lived at home and taught until she got married. Many schools only required an HS Diploma to teach. College was only required for High School and Principals in many school districts larger than the one room school house. These may have required a BS because they were essentially k-12 and independent schools AND, effectively, the district, for years.
The right to vote provides no assurance of your interests being represented in law on any case.
I aplaud that JF argues on behalf of men's rights today giving men a voice where they are not allowed. But she argues the extreme arguments of the document by exceptions. Also to extrapolate what men wanted or thought 150 years ago is difficult because no one person speaks or writes for an entire group. It is clear feminism has gone too far in many arenas today. But they have also now been betrayed by the DEI train currently. With much of the "progress" over the last 40 years being lost.
Many of the finishing schools existed to educate women to be dignified wives to support their upper class husbands. They were not there to teach women to be lawyers and doctors, etc. Again there are exceptions but the majority of women did not have equivalent access to education to their male counterparts.
Over sixty years ago, here in Ontario, my mother had three options at school secretary, nurse or teacher. Her sister went the nurse route, like others pursued post graduate training. But she was an exception. My mother went back to school to finish her HS diploma and a BA. During WW2 there was a period of liberation when men were absent and loss after they returned.
Though we may disagree with others, there is something to be learned from opposing views. Avoiding terms like never and always helps to promote conversation. As JF says at the end to see the humanity in others. And avoid judging the character of others solely by reputation or public image.
If you're talking about trans people, then no they haven't trumped women's 'rights'/ Public restrooms have nothing to do with anyone's rights.
Schools generally taught women what would be useful for them to learn in whatever social sphere they lived in. The idea that they were just being groomed to be an ornament to her husband is a very one-sided interpretation, an upper class woman would be educated in subjects to become an upperclass woman: foreign languages, etiquette, literature, painting, music, knowledge of history, household management, etc. A lowerclass woman, particularly of the lowest classes, would have to learn some kind of skill in order to work because she had to. Wives of tradesmen often learned the skills of the trade to continue the business if/when he died.
Being a lawyer or doctor was not only looked down on for being less than aristocracy (because you had to work), but also very dangerous "dirty" work. To be a doctor you visited the sick or dying, and to be a lawyer, you had to confer with possible criminals. Is it not surprising that not a lot of women at the time wanted to choose this work? That perhaps the more regulated environments for these jobs today invites more women into these occupations? The first woman to pass the bar (Arabella Mansfield) didn't even practice law and ended up only teaching by choice.
I'm thinking a title like "declaration od sentiments' was ominous foreshadowing
I tell u if we dont start helping young men our soceity will fail
Ideologies are formed as a result of how people think. To get idea of the differences between men and women but in a very simplistic way, men are all on the spectrum of overt narcissism due to such narcissism being derived from feelings of strength and power. While women are all on the spectrum of covert narcissism because this is derived from a sense of weakness and vulnerability. Now look at the ideologies that have been created by men and women. Unfortunately I am only aware of one created by women and that one is feminism. If one compares this ideology to the traits of covert narcissism they align perfectly.
1:30:27 It is like a warped and somewhat...crippled?...religion ir denomination with ties to fringe Christian sects and extra-Biblical "causes".
Yet another example of why the Founders in US insisted on Separation of Church and State.
Law cannot, and SHOULD not guarantee rights etc unique to Religious Contexts. Nor should it restrict them.
Mary Harrington is helping a lot too with bringing a alternative lense to feminism in her book „feminism against progress“.
Thank God I divorced myself from these beliefs, I‘m so much happier since I‘m a mother and find myself as a matriarch.
Isn't she also a feminist?
You are right about women being involved in the anti-slavery movement. However, was it not their involvement in the anti-slavery movement, and their denued access from attending an Abolishinist convention prompted them to introspection, and finally seeing themselves as not much better off than the slaves? No, they did not consider themselves "slaves," but they considered themselves not much better off than a slave as far as status and legal rights are concerned.
Janice complains about wimen fighting for the right to vote or own property, yet she never talks about the vote being given to former male slaves. It appears to me that she believes women are undeserving of being given full citizenship status for reasons that are yet to be determined.
I can understand her being against modern feminism, but her disdaun for even the early suffragist movement is puzzling to me. Its as if she does not want wimen to fight for anything. It seems to me that Hanice does not want women to contribute to society in any significant way, nor participate in the public sphere. I completely disagree!
As for men being "forced to go to war," well, perhaps that was true in the past, and still is in theory, there has not been a draft in the US in over 50 years. I doubt if there will be because there are many people joining the military voluntarily, and among the many men joing the military are also many women as well. Interesting how Janice never mentions the women in the armed forces.
Therr is nothing new about women serving in the military, even during times of war during the history of the US. While they did not have a combat role, ( exceot for the few women who disguised themselves as men ), they served the battle field by delivering ammunition and supplues, and also by preparing meals, laundering their clothes, ect...while these may be considered 'secondary ' roles, they were still roles nevertheless, and were essential.
I do mot understand why Janice does not seem to have any empathy for women. I know life was hard for men, but it was also hard for women too.
You say: "she (Janice) never talks about the vote being given to former male slaves. It appears to me that she believes women are undeserving of being given full citizenship status for reasons that are yet to be determined."
Janice does mention it in passing but the primary reason women were not granted the vote when universal male suffrage was extended to all men including freed slaves was Reconstruction. White men who had participated in or supported the Confederacy were disenfranchised. The radical Republicans controled Congress were entertaining very extreme social reforms. Extending the vote to women would have, to some extent, allow southern white men to vote by proxy through women whose loyalty to the Union could not be honestly determined. And no one knew whether women in the North, who hadn't been through the radicalizing experience of the Civil War, would have supported radical reforms to the same extent as ex-soldiers and freed slaves did. Women's suffrage became a state by state issue to prevent southern women from gaining the vote and to protect radical Republican strongholds.
25:00 the outcome is seen now in the trans movement.
55:44 Exact the same as today's Feminists. Look at Ivy League in US. Been that way for Generations.
❤💓💜
Anybody follow James Lindsay?
Was she maybe speaking of white men and black women, as they moved North or lived in the North?
1:28:08 No Empathy even for Freed Slaves. Even a friend an ally to her cause. Too bad the Big 5 didn't exist yet. Maybe an AI trained on Psychology and Feminist Language models could analyze some of these "Leaders" writings retroactively ro provide greater insight. Curious that the Postmodernists Silence on these writings is profoundly absent.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Personally, I doubt any functional man (not desperate), signs a document out of "self-loathing." They sign it out of a desire to join the team that will give them higher status, belong to an elite, not be one of "those" loser men. If it is an intellectual elite in a space defined by women, that is fine, since being in a male "elite" must include access to the higher status women.
10:05 "how DARE you!!"
-Greta Thunberg
Subsuming the wife legally into the marriage union, headed by the husband, is a great idea that we should bring back. It would certainly go a long way toward silencing the ravings of the red-pillers. And it is better aligned with the Catholic sacramental understanding of marriage.
Government should not be involved in marriage . It's a covenant with God.
@@sherylmccollum895 The idea of marriage is literally older than any religion that exists today.
@@sherylmccollum895 I'd be fine with that, except that God Himself dictates multiple governmental regulations on marriage in the Law of the Moses. It's God's idea, not mine.
Thank you, good Ladies, and God bless you!
"The modern idea of sex equality is beautiful and worthy of an expanding civilization, but it is not found in nature. When might is right, man lords it over woman; when more justice, peace, and fairness prevail, she gradually emerges from slavery and obscurity. Woman’s social position has generally varied inversely with the degree of militarism in any nation or age.
But man did not consciously nor intentionally seize woman’s rights and then gradually and grudgingly give them back to her; all this was an unconscious and unplanned episode of social evolution. When the time really came for woman to enjoy added rights, she got them, and all quite regardless of man’s conscious attitude. Slowly but surely the mores change so as to provide for those social adjustments which are a part of the persistent evolution of civilization. The advancing mores slowly provided increasingly better treatment for females; those tribes which persisted in cruelty to them did not survive."
The Urantia Book, Paper 84, Section 5.
Apparently an anti-feminist is a misogynist. I don't find her arguments complete or completely viable. She is the definition of a mysogynist. She lacks the ability to see complexity or to try to understand this woman. After all, it is called the Declaration of Sentiments. However you interpret it, she is entitled to her feelings and I don't think she was specifically referring to an exact period in time, like when it was written, but rather a continual struggle exemplified in the microcosm of her early life. A woman should be grateful or happy to be able to be a teacher or secretary, to do finances for her husband, but not complain about being limited to these things? And even if they were able to study, were they given equal respect often once qualified? I think women still struggle with this today. Fiamengo isn't trying to understand this woman, nor does she offer empathy for the true injustices that DID occur, but rather seeks to prove her wrong as a true misogynist, because if she was really searching for truth she would pursue a broader understanding of this woman's works, which she self-admittedly has not done. Household values do matter and have been casualties of women's counter reaction to previous oppression, but this doesn't mean, as Fiamengo says, that the woman's place is missing in the household - it is often lacking because women are expected to DO IT ALL now, and it is impossible to meet modern day expectations as the value and meaning of being a woman, having children and a family fades due to misled modern day values.
I am really dismayed that these two women have offered up an obviously biased hit piece/ hatchet job on Stanton, it seems, just to snare unwary or malicious minded people into the same biased, small minded, catty cronyism, that does as much or more to weaken the stature and credibility of their arguements as their "heroic" take down of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
If they really had the courage of their convictions they would knock down someone who hasn't been dead for over a century.
@@janeproctor5542Oh my lord can't both of you women stop being emotional? Literally instead of accusing the 2 women for hating women how about address what they said.
Literally neither of you provided no counter evidence.
I find it interesting how some women will accuse members of their gender that they don't agree of being "misogynistic". They personalise it basically if you don't agree with me and my opinions, then you are misogynistic. Or perhaps suffering from "Uncle Toms cabin syndrome". Some how women who care deeply about what is happening to men are "sleeping with the enemy" and are complicit.
@@janeproctor5542 Jane is it really a hit piece? or is a more honest look at what drove Stanton. It sounds to me that Tammy and Janice have created a cognitive dissonance for you and the easiest way to deal with that is to attack the speakers whose views challenge your own.
0:00 0:05 @@philliphickox4023That is my point. They are attacking a speaker whose views challenge their own( cognitive dissonance)? and it is getting in the way of a more balanced presentation of the subject or prejudicing such an intension.
They come across as bitterly antagonistic and resentful of women who had unfortunately to face the unenviable task of raising the profile of "female/women's suffering" above the parapet of indifference, not to mention blatant hostility, hatred and prejudice,😊 to help women gain political representation, as people in their own right plus much more, and,, yes, they used some "shock"tactics in the process. Otherwise no one would have noticed.
It seems inconsistent with Tammy Peterson's statements, to the effect that "being motivated by resentment is never a good thing", that she would promote hatred and resentment toward women or those who advocated for women to enter the political process/arena on behalf of all the current males( child or adult) who she claims have been discomfitted and victimized by man- hating and resentment filled feminists, the same justification for which they are endorsing, via their vilification of this one woman, Stanton, who was highly educated. but also chose to get herself married and had seven children.
I think that sounds a little rich considering the reputation and renown she achieved in her lifetime, to use and abuse her in the name of stoking mens' resentment of women, and Feminism, current and future. 0:05
Wow!
I really tried, but I could not make it past the one hour mark.
I hate to say it but I think you are probably giving the men that signed that document more credit than they probably deserve. I'm a man and I would be more inclined to believe that the men weren't even in the building listening to the speech it is way more like that they were outside smoking and bullshiting with each other and didn't even read the document. It's way more like that when the speech was over there wives said Bill, John, Bob and who ever come in here and sign this document and show your support or we will have a problem. And if the men were willing to take there wives to such a meeting it stands to reason that they would help there wives in any such manner.
You tried so hard little buddy. Has she finally seen your comment?
I wonder sometimes if these radical views she had were interfering in any way in her life?
What about her father, her husband and the men who signed this document? Would that not cause cognitive dissonance and doubts in her?
Sounds like gaslighting.
Listening to women and men speak on what makes a woman happy and what a woman's purpose is, is audacious. All opinions are bias. Anything outside of facts and numbers is tainted with personal experiences and therefore questionable. There is absolutely no logical reason to procreate, especially for women. There is no logical reason to give yourself over to a man in any shape form or fashion. However, EMOTIONS, not logic, drives you to do so. Heck, I can even understand procreation as social experiment but nothing more. It's humans playing a game of Russian roulette or game of chance keeping fingers crossed playing God in a way, with a whole other person.
You sound very emotional and hysteric.
This is so highly disingenuous. Have some courage, talk to someone with opposite views, hold a debate. These arguments are infactual and so dishonest I am shocked that janice and tammy can post this in good conscience. Pathetic.
What parts exactly and specifically are false? Sounds like you’re just angry that your ideology is being attacked
My my, I’d hate to be so angry. Bet you got sucked in by the feminists. So sad, too bad.
Bitter hysteria. The original proponents of the feminist were often privileged women filled with ingratitude and distortion. The most vicious creatures are women who choose not to have children or marry and berate their husbands night and day. We've only heard the feminist side for fifty years! It's time for truth! Thankyou Tammy and Janice. Great interview!
@@balipsetteAnd what parts exactly and specifically are true?
It seems obvious that they are relying on ridicule, as if only women with similarly botched motivations as full blown misandrist, Cady Stanton, at least as they are painting her, would have followed in her footsteps and so the entire feminist movement has been tainted from the very beginning.
If anything they are probably giving Feminism a shot in the arm by dismantling their own credibility.
@@janeproctor5542You can't refute by reversing the roles. It's your job defending the disgusting feminist by making the person making the case to prove your right.
38:10 this woman is very naive about how much women were respected in society, and how much freedom they had to pursue anything other than serving her husband and children. Let’s not forget that even today women are running away from abusive relationships all the time, hence all the domestic violence shelters. Not too long ago, women had to tolerate abuse all the time. Marital rape was legal until the 70s. And when Ashley Madison provided married people the ability to cheat, 35 million users were men and 1 million were women, only 10 000 of which were responsive. Plus, still today I hear men say “childcare is easy” and “what do you do all day?” all the time! I could write a whole essay on this. Her ignorance is frustrating.
And most respectfully to Tammy, she has been very fortunate to find a man like Jordan Peterson. The vast majority of men are not like him.
Resentment based decisions are not useful no matter what the situation
@@TammyPetersonPodcast I agree with you, but I am not advocating for resentment based decisions, but rather for decisions that look at the real and common possibilities, in order to avoid being in a bad situation
@@deezed6478 "Possibilities" that's your problem. Probability is reality. Abuse goes both way and evidence show that 70% of the time women started throwing fists first. Martial Rape is such a bullcrap feminist nonsense. That's like me saying I'm being oppressed for going to work when I don't feel like it today. Feminists make up any to push their nonsense.
....You understand that most countries, even before the 70s, had laws that explicitly forbid domestic violence, as long as it came from men, yes? And that is not even mentioning rural areas, where a man could literally get publically punished (usually tied to a donkey and then chased out of the village) for GETTING beaten by his wife (which wasnt considered a crime at the time, domestic violence laws - along with many r*pe laws - were always assuming a male perpetrator.)
Men make up more violent fatalities than women. Violence isn't a women's issue just because they are in abusive relationships. Abuse happens in same sex relationships too, yet that isn't nearly as politicized.
Tammy Peterson stop acting like you don’t understand nuance.