How We’ll Win The Culture War

Hi everyone, I hope you’re all well. Today’s political landscape is, for
lack of a better term, a bit of a mess. It is characterised by two
warring camps, one on the left, one on the right, plus a large group
of exasperated, disaffected centrists and moderates in the middle,
whose necks are getting increasingly sore watching the back and
forth, back and forth of the bitter ideological tennis match that is the
culture war in 2019. It started off as a few hypersensitive university
students lamenting being “triggered” over certain words and
demanding safe spaces being gently poked fun at by snarky, witty,
highly amusing, very attractive right wingers who were sick of
being told what to think and say. However, it has turned into a vicious war
of not just words, but actions. From online dogpiling, to professional sabotage,
doxing, street brawling, and even mass loss of life;
the culture war has escalated to a place it never, ever needed
to go. So, how did we get to this point? Well, before I tell you how, pretty
please make sure you like this video, subscribe to my channel if you
haven’t already, and hit that notification button. Goodness knows
what’s going on with the algorithm at the moment, so if you like my
videos and don’t want to miss any, then I’d love you to like, subscribe
and smash that notification button right…now. Thank you! Here we
go. The left will have you believe the political
tension, or “division” as they call, it is caused by racist, sexist,
bigoted conservatives spewing so called hate speech led by a man named Donald
Trump who is apparently the second coming of Mussolini. To be clear, when I say the left, I mean the
“regressive” left; the faction teetering on the extreme, who, while
making up small minority of the population, occupy a disproportionate
number of influential positions in the media, academia,
Hollywood, and big tech. This allows them to dictate the cultural narrative,
and determine what is and isn’t publicly acceptable
to talk about. The right, however, will tell you this cultural
friction is caused by the blunt refusal of the regressive left to consider
opposing opinions, as well as their vicious smearing of any opposition. After all, if you tell a
group of people, that is conservatives, often enough that their entire
moral core is questionable because they support a certain political
candidate, you’ve got to expect that maybe those people will get a
little bit angry, eventually. And considering the left’s hostility i has
amped up bigly since the election of Donald Trump, for no other reason
than they are such appallingly sore losers, it’s no wonder
we have a reached a point where certain members of the two ideological
camps are role playing at civil war. From what I have observed and experienced
over the past few years, the regressive left, with their neo-Marxist
mentality of pitting people against each other as either the oppressed
or the oppressors, seems to have made it their sole mission to inflame
these tensions. So much
that conservatives, after years of ignoring or downplaying the
provocations, are starting to react. This is quite a big deal, because conservatives
are not naturally reactionary. Conservatism is not about reacting to things
so much as conserving what is good and true and functional. Conservatives want
to create and maintain, rather than react and destroy. Leftism, on the other hand, is by definition
a reactionary ideology. They are not about building things up; they
prefer to tear things down, with no discernible plan of what to
construct in their wake. It is in their nature to poke and prod and
harangue conservatives, to proverbially stick it to the man. Funny thing is, what the regressive
left doesn’t realise is that they already won that culture war back in
the 90s, and now they are the proverbial “man” to which people are
sticking it. Considering the tendency of the right to placate
rather than react, the regressive left has been dealt a surprising
hand in recent years, with right wingers finally making it known
they are fed up with the left’s rudeness. One thing I noticed after the 2016 election
is that it always seemed to the regressive left who were
suddenly talking about this “division” in society, and
how everyone was “divided”. And I remember thinking, uh, this isn’t
a new thing; everyone has always hated you, it’s only now that people
feel empowered to say so. You could say that the regressive left is
the ideological equivalent of Mean Girls Regina George So, why am I relaying my concerns and mournful
musings about the state of the culture war? Well, because, no joke, the West is on the
brink of devouring itself. We’ve seen this multiple times with the
violence perpetrated by Antifa, and also more recently the mass loss
of life caused by right wing extremists. There are a number of people out there who
are very keen to escalate, and I think we can all agree this
needs to not happen any more than it already has. Now, I’ve seen commentary from people who
tend to be somewhere in the so-called sensible centre lamenting
the fact there is not enough listening going on; that the two sides
are failing to hear and understand each other, and that’s why there’s
so much resentment and vitriol. Well, that, I think, is a load of rubbish. Conservatives do listen to leftists, because
we have no choice. All
they do is talk, we couldn’t not listen if we tried. They are so noisy,
and as I mentioned before, occupy such a large chunk of institutions
like the media there’s literally no escaping them. And the thing is,
conservatives are happy to listen! We don’t find hearing opposing
views offensive simply because they’re opposing views. The reverse,
however, is just not true. The extreme left is more than happy to admit
they will not absorb any opposing viewpoint. That’s why they demonize outlets like Fox News and Breitbart as fascist and company. It’s so they can excuse
themselves from tuning in on moral grounds; and thus avoid the
sheer trauma of listening to people they don’t agree with. They are
also much more likely than conservatives to break off friendships
over politics. A survey taken after the 2016 US election
by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute found Democrats
were almost three times more likely than Republicans to
have unfriended someone on social media after the election. There was a similar
disparity for self-identified leftists versus conservatives. Democrat women were by far the most likely
to unfriend someone because of politics, with 30% of them saying
they had done so. This
was followed by Democrat men, at 14%, then Republican women at
10%, then Republican men at 8%. Funny how those who so rigidly
preach tolerance show the most extraordinary intolerance while
doing so, amirite? This unashamed habit of packing themselves
into echo chambers, demonizing any opposing voices as morally
repugnant, and slicing people into tribes based on arbitrary characteristics
like race and gender, is why the regressive left, not conservatives,
are responsible for the division in society. I’m calling it, there it is. And they will
never, ever, ever see it. They will never admit fault, or consider that
somehow their behaviour is less than appropriate, because
they are so sure that they are the true, pure, moral, enlightened
class. Therefore, they feel
they are justified in being as vicious and as cruel as they want to anyone who disagrees with them, because they
believe those people are not only wrong, but evil reprehensible
scum. That’s the key difference between the left
and the right. The right
think the left are naïve, but the left think the right are evil. Big and
very significant distinction. Once you understand that, you
understand the mindset that we are dealing with. There is no
measure these people will not go to in order to protect their
narrative. So, if not enough listening, at least from
the right, isn’t the problem, then what is? Well, I would say it’s not enough talking,
specifically, talking from conservatives. As I mentioned earlier, conservatives are
not naturally reactionary. We’re also, funnily enough, not interested
in engaging in conversation with people who are going to
screech RACIST at us whenever we suggest something so horribly
radical as perhaps open borders aren’t such a good idea. That is what has landed us in this mess. Because of conservatives’
totally understandable unwillingness to let their opposition screech
at them publicly about what bad people they are, the regressive left
has been led to believe that their way is objectively the correct way
of thinking and speaking. And because there is no ideological balance
in popular culture, people in the middle who are desperate to
hear a different perspective are not given a reasonable alternative. All of this has allowed the regressive left to get away with
their thuggery and intolerance, under the guise of working for
the common good. This hall pass for bad behaviour they’ve
been handed is also what causes social justice warriors to act with
such hysteria whenever they suffer a loss. They are like spoilt children; their ongoing
global tantrum over the 2016 election proves that
they’d had it their own way for so long that they’ve forgotten how
to share. They are so emotionally attached to their
political beliefs that even a hint that maybe they are wrong on one or two
things goes to the very core of their being. To admit they are wrong would be to upend
the very fibre of their identity. Because of this, and also because of the left-wing
obsession with big government, it makes perfect sense they would
stress about who is going to lead them, and which politician does
what. Again, they’re
like children; they need to be reassured that the adult authority
figure is in the room, or they’ll become anxious and act out by crying
or throwing things. Literally. Conservatives, on the other hand, do not get
emotionally attached to our political beliefs, or at least not as
attached. This is, again, the
nature of conservativism. We don’t like big government. We would
prefer politicians to have as little to do with our lives as possible. Unlike the extreme left, we don’t look to
politicians for moral guidance; that’s what religious and community
leaders or family members are for. As such, whenever our political parties lose,
we shrug it off with an oh well, let’s work harder and win next
time. We do not need
therapy dogs and play dough and colouring books to get over the
appalling traumatic experience of losing an election. So, what’s the solution to all of this craziness? How do we generate
not necessarily a more conservative society, but a more balanced
one? A cultural zeitgeist where everyone feels
they can express their views without fear of losing relationships,
or having their reputation destroyed? Well, conservatives need to start finally
speaking up. It is very important we challenge the noisy
regressive leftists in our lives, but not for the reasons you think. It’s not to change their
minds; that’s not going to happen. The only way a social justice
warrior will seriously consider other viewpoints is if they go on their
own personal journey of soul searching. You won’t convince them of
anything. But, you can convince those who may witness
the discussion. To borrow from the Gospel according to Ben
Shapiro, never argue privately with a leftist. Always do it with an audience. They are the
ones you are going to persuade. Some of the best advice I ever got
when I was starting out on this journey of culture warrior-dom in
2017 was from my editor. Before I did my first TV panel gig, he said
to me, don’t go in there trying to win an argument. That’s not your job. Your job is to present
a particular perspective in an entertaining and interesting way, not
for the other panellists or the studio audience, but for the people at
home. Those are the people you are going to influence. The same is true in your own lives, without
cameras and studio audience. While you probably won’t influence your
opposition, they’ll be too busy hand-flapping and calling
you a bigot or something, you will influence your audience. Donald Trump embodies this. Yes, while he may be brash, and
seemingly spontaneous, and rude, and crude, he is what you would
call the first wartime president during the Culture War. That
brashness, while not typically conservative, is what is needed. Until Trump, the left has been the only side
actually fighting for what they value, and what a dirty, dirty fight
they have put up. And while
conservatives pride themselves on being dignified, and polite, and
not at all reactionary, that strategy hasn’t worked. Trump, for all his wonderful flaws, is actually
fighting that Culture War, using the left’s own tactics against
them. He is calling them out
at their own game, using words, not violence, and while he won’t
change their minds, he is proving to the silent masses just how
unscrupulous, disingenuous, and power-crazed the regressive left
actually is. His strategy, while unorthodox and uncomfortable,
is working. And yes, I know regressive leftists are aggressive,
I know they will denigrate and mock you, I know it is intimidating. But it is so
important we do engage with them to somehow swing the
pendulum of acceptable public dialogue to a happier medium, even if they cast you as the villain. Sometimes, you have to be ready to
play that villain to get the message across.

How to survive the wacky gender politics on campus | FACTUAL FEMINIST

If you’re headed for college for the first
time this fall, you need to be aware of some strange new developments. Don’t be alarmed
by what I am about to say. Most of you are going to be very happy at college and will
thrive there. But you need to know what to expect. Coming up next on the Factual Feminist:
how to negotiate your way through the wacky sexual politics on campus. Colleges throughout
the United States are carried away with eccentric gender politics. In general, the higher the
tuition, the greater the eccentricity. At schools with a more working class population,
the students often have more pressing concerns than finding new ways to be offended. As an
incoming freshman, many of you will be subject to special training sessions and introduced
to a new vocabulary with unusual terms like “trigger warnings,” “othering,” “microaggression,”
“male privilege,” and “safe spaces.” Outside Speakers—especially comedians—
will be called out and boycotted for breaches of sensitivity. Colleges are changing their
mission: Truth seeking is being replaced by the more sensitive goal of making everyone—especially
female students– feel safe and validated. Ideas that get in the way of this mission
may not tolerated. Well, here are three survival tips—custom-tailored to your political views—plus
a fourth, bonus tip for everybody. Number one: If you are libertarian or conservative, no
one is that concerned with your feelings. That’s actually a good thing. You’re going
to face a challenging intellectual environment. According to a recent UCLA study, there are
nearly 5 times more liberal professors than conservative professors on college campuses.
Your views are going to be tested every day, but most of your teachers will treat you respectfully.
Your ideas are going to face critical scrutiny and you may end up revising or abandoning some
of them. Again, that’s a good thing. That’s what education is supposed to be about—and
it’s something many liberal students are missing. What is not good is that a noisy
minority of students—and a few professors—will see you as the embodiment of evil. If you
express your opinions vigorously, some classmates may complain to school authorities that your
presence makes them feel “unsafe.” But here is the bright side. Even at schools overrun
by the new orthodoxy, you will find great friends and allies, male and female, and professors
too, whether they agree with you or not. Now, if you are liberal and idealistic, and also
a woman, you face a different sort of risk. When you get to campus you will find a large
and excited group of gender activists—students and some professors—eager to recruit you
to their cause. They will present you with shocking statistics of sexual violence on
campus, and theories about an oppressive patriarchy. They will tell you how mistreated and traumatized
you are. It will seem new and exciting to you. Maybe a way to make friends and fight injustice at
the same time—and you may be tempted to sign up. Just be aware that most of the victim
statistics you will hear are wildly exaggerated and the theories about women’s oppression
are twisted and surreal. As for trigger warnings and safe spaces—these are infantile. They
are the opposite of empowerment. It’s the fashion on many campuses to treat women as
delicate flowers—fragile little birds. But most of you are tough and resilient. The gender activists I am describing
will probably say, “Don’t listen to her.” “Don’t take her word for anything.”
Well, that’s true you shouldn’t take my word on these matters. You shouldn’t take anybody’s word. Think for yourself. And remember that your feminist foremothers fought and won a battle for your right to be educated on a par with men. They knew you were tough, and they wanted you to have the opportunity to put that strength to use. Don’t waste it by falling captive
to a pointless ideology or indulging in victimhood. Take serious classes in philosophy, science,
and history. Avoid courses that luxuriate in female oppression. Third bit of advice: If you are a liberal and idealistic man, you may face an even greater risk. You probably think of yourself
as an open-minded, well-intended progressive. But many on campus will not see you that way.
Today many college women practice gender profiling. It’s the fashion among activists to judge
men by the worst members of their sex and women by the best. Many of your attempts to
exonerate yourself or your friends will be dismissed as “mansplaining.” To save yourself
from excommunication, you’ll be asked engage in a fair amount of self-flagellation and
male-bashing. But don’t do it. Have some dignity. Don’t be the guy who sends tweets like this. Today’s campus manias are not going to last. Sooner or later, the age-old virtues of higher education will reassert themselves—free speech, intellectual diversity, open inquiry, vigorous competition of ideas, mutual respect. If you learn to be a critical, independent thinker yourself, you can play a part in this intellectual renaissance. Well, let me know what you think about today’s politically charged, safe-spaced campus. And if you’ve been to college recently or have kids in college, do you agree with my characterization? I welcome your comments. If you appreciate this series please subscribe, follow me on Twitter and Facebook—and thank you for watching the Factual Feminist.

Men need meaning and responsibility | Modern Masculinity

We need men talking to men. But there are no male figures talking to 18-,
19-, 20-year-olds saying: ‘Look, life is going to be brutal,
malevolence is waiting for you, evil is waiting for you,
hard times are waiting for you.’ And prepare them then, and tell them
the antidote to that is to find meaning now so when those times come,
you have an iron rod to hold on to. That will get you through that storm. I’m Iman Amrani,
and I’m a journalist at the Guardian and this is the second episode in our series
on modern masculinity. In the first episode,
I went to a Jordan Peterson event in Birmingham to ask people why was it that they were coming
to see him speak. When I was there,
I met this really interesting guy called Neil who owns a bunch of barber shops
in the north of England. I went to Leeds to continue
my conversation with him and we have listened to what
you said about the last video: the music is going to be a lot less intrusive. Neil, Neil? Hey there, are you alright? Yeah, you’re good? I am good. How are you? Yeah. good, thank you. I’ve got a team of two. Hi man, how are you doing? Neil’s barber shop is called
King Koby, named after his son. All the staff that worked there are
super interesting, very friendly and I wanted to get their perspectives
on modern masculinity. The size of your arse? It’s big, isn’t it? I swear I haven’t got arse that big. I don’t even squat. I am not going to be able to stop looking
at it now. I have chats with people
whose hair I’ve cut that I wouldn’t have with my mates. I can open up a lot more to people
who I don’t know that well. More than I can with my mates
that’s the beauty of a barber shop. Why do you thing that is? The person whose hair you cut,
you don’t know as well as your mates and you don’t really feel that judged whereas your mates,
they know a little bit more about you, and know who you are. One of the recurring themes in our call-out
to readers, was men telling us that often
they find it difficult to find spaces where they can communicate
and express themselves openly and honestly. Seems like barber shops might be
one of those spaces. The most rewarding part of my job
is when you find that you can tap into something that someone has never spoken about before. Like guys who are going through breakups
or they’re abusing drugs or something like that and they know they’re doing something wrong,
but they don’t know how to fix it. Loads of guys who come in
don’t know how to deal with heartbreak
or even how to sort of level up and be a better partner
for their misses or fellas. You were going to say, be a better man,
weren’t you? Stop yourself. It’s meaning that sustains people,
it’s meaning and responsibility. That means when you do lose your job,
don’t get me wrong, it’s catastrophic, it’s awful but it’s meaning and purpose
that gets you through that and keeps pushing you in it. The less you attach your life
to external things, the more you’ve got to go internal and the internal things are what give you
meaning, definitely. The connection to your children, to your partner, to the greater good is what gives you meaning. What do you feel like your meaning is?
Do you know what you think your meaning is? I think … I am definitely on a learning
curve, had a sort of bad relationships with women because of the way I thought I should act
in a relationship. And how was that? Being disloyal was a big one, You felt like you should be disloyal? No … I feel like, no one would
ever call me out for being disloyal. I feel like if you could go out
with a group of friends that were all pulling
a fast one on their birds they’d be like,
‘I managed to do this last week’ and no one was going,
‘oh, you’re really wrong.’ Wanting to brag about it
because it feeds the ego, and that’s what we are all doing
as young men, we’re just feeding the ego. And so, I actually stopped and cut away
all the bullshit, like trying to pull girls
and spending money on clothes and whatnot and just came in
and found like a good group of people that really genuinely cared about me that would be honest with you
and say, ‘what you’re doing is wrong’ like, ‘this is the path you should be walking.’ It wasn’t in a religious aspect,
it was, let’s treat everyone how you want to be treated. And I don’t think that behaviour
is encouraged enough, really. When was the last time, genuinely you met someone that you impressed by, went that’s someone who knows who they are,
that’s someone who got their shit together. That’s someone who’s the same person
whether they’re in front of their parents, or their friends and they know how to say no to certain things. You don’t meet those guys because individualism
isn’t encouraged, supported or taught, and what we really, really need,
is we need to teach men to take responsibility for themselves first and then they can play an active
and important role in the collective. So this idea of identity
and individualism for men is really interesting especially when you think about the economics
of growing up. It’s harder than ever to fit in
that traditional mould of leaving home at 18, getting a mortgage, getting married
and starting a family. And lots of people aren’t even sure if that’s
what they want anymore. I have people in my chair
who would probably associate, probably be defined as lads. I am talking to them for half an hour
in the chair and they’re not lads, they’re just a little bit lost,
they don’t really know themselves, they want to fit in,
they want to be normal. What would you describe as being a lad? A lad is overcompensating,
that’s all a lad is. So, bravado … Yeah. Overcompensating. And the moment I hear that or
see that from some point, it’s just like …
it’s just seeing past that. Now I know that equals that.
Do you know what I mean? Yeah. I meet a lot of men who as soon
as they are around any other men, they start speaking completely differently
and like, watching you today, you’ve just being the same person,
in the barber shop, you’ve exactly been the same,
no matter who’s been on your seat, and everything. And it kind of gives the impression
of a sense of like, I guess, peace with yourself. Yeah, 100%,
and I think the exact opposite would be, be like this with this group,
and this with this group, and see, lost sense of self. While not everyone in the barber shop
was as much of a fan of Peterson as Neil was, there were recurring themes that kept making me
think about Peterson’s book. It feels like Petterson has claimed ownership
of this idea of responsibility which seems like an universal one
but he packages it in a way that makes it very accessible for men
who are looking for solutions. Men need men to teach them
how to be men. So the crisis of masculinity,
if we are accepting that there is one, and that’s debatable
but I believe there is one, regardless of whether you link that back
to the rise of feminism, or to the lack of competition in schools,
whatever you want to link that back to, it’s not deep enough. We don’t teach our young children,
our young people rather, at all to look for meaning in their life
or even what meaning is, that is a conversation to being had
and to adopt responsibility. I think that are somethings that are just
uniquely masculine. Women, generally speaking,
want a man who’s got his shit together, they want a man who takes
responsibility for himself, they want a man who can say no
when it’s appropriate to say no. They want a man that can be gentle,
when it’s appropriate to be gentle. They want a man that can be strong
and aggressive even, when it’s appropriate to strong and aggressive. And there are so many traits that are uniquely,
not uniquely, women have these traits too, but men need that we just not teaching,
our young men at all, in any way. What I find really interesting is that all
these things that you’ve listed, I feel like women have been saying
that for a while, and Peterson came along and said, ‘Make your bed in the morning.’ And I’ve had so many guys, they see me reading the book on the tube or whatever, they come over and they said,
Jordan Peterson, make your bed in the morning, it really changed my life, and I’m like,
didn’t your mum tell you to do that? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I am like,
what is it about Jordan Peterson saying that, that is so different
and actually gets more of an effect than that being said for time by teachers,
your mum … Your mum telling you to tidy your room
is in case the neighbours come up for tea and she wants to show the house off, Jordan Peterson telling you to tidy your
room, he goes and adds context to that. If you can’t govern your immediate surroundings, don’t expect to be able
to govern anything else in your life. It’s naivety. We have so many men that do not have the most basic elements of their life in order, including me for a long time. And now we live in a culture,
that we want to go from step one to step six and miss out steps one to five. You know? So, your mum telling you to tidy your room
or teaching doing it, doesn’t have the same emphasis
as a man saying, no, you do this, because it leads
to everything else you’re looking for in your life. What kind of decisions have you made
differently in the past 10 years? Which you think have helped you to have this
sense of security that you seem you have. Yeah. I don’t know if it’s any like, specific decisions that made my life at a crossroads go
in one direction or the other, but it was just a decision
that never, ever, ever, ever, ever again, will I use any part of my past
or any part of anything that’s occurred to me, as an excuse for not being the man
that I know full well I should be. And I think having a commitment
to the truth as well is one of the biggest things that’s changed in my life since then. You have mentioned the truth a lot,
I can even see the tattoo over your eyebrow. When I am talking about the truth,
and I don’t mean, don’t tell lies, that’s a level one basic thing that you teach
your children. When I am talking about truth,
I’m talking about really getting to the bottom of who you are as a person
and who we are. Find what’s true about you. And often times you’ll find,
as I found, the more that I look into myself,
what was true about me was overwhelmingly hideous. I met a girl, called Helen,
who ended up being a real catalyst in my life. We were together for two years,
and then that ended. How was she a catalyst in your life? She was the first person
that told me I was full of shit, which I needed. I had this belief system here
that I genuinely believed in, the way which you should live
and integrity, and courage and all of those things, and then on the other side of that,
I had the way that I actually behaved, which didn’t represent
that belief system in any way. And I’d managed to circumvent
that by being relatively popular, having lots of friends, being articulate, and those things hid a multitude of sins. So I’ve done all these things
to completely hide the fact that deep down, I was completely lost and I had no fucking clue
who I was or what I was doing, had this belief system and this way of living
that I desperately wanted to achieve, but my own weakness
wasn’t allowing me to achieve it. And at the end of my relationship with Helen,
she said, ‘You’re not the man you think you are.
You could be, but you’re not.’ ‘You’re full of shit.’ ‘You need to go away and change it.’ It proper, it really hurt and I was really resistant
to it for like a day or two and then I started transcending myself and went inside
and said, she’s right, she’s absolutely right. She’s absolutely right. She was the catalyst for me
beginning this sort of last 10-year journey that I’ve been on. I’ve just been trying to sort myself out
and get my act together and find meaning and find responsibility, find a way to actually
start living the things I claim. Interesting though,
it was a woman. Yeah, yeah,
very interesting. Did you cheat on her? Yeah. Yeah, I did. I mean, I haven’t seen Helen for 15 years
but even now, I’ve nothing but respect for her. Because if it wasn’t for her and that conversation
in her apartment in 2006, whenever it was, I would probably be
in a very different place to where I’m now. I really appreciated the conversations
I had with Neil and the other guys in the barber shop, I felt like they were honest, candid
and very respectful and I think that’s a big part of what I’m
trying to get out with this series. Dialogue is so important,
be that between man in barber shops, or between a man and a woman
across the table, it’s only through speaking to each other
and really listening that we are going to come up with
solutions to the big questions about things like modern masculinity in 2019. One of the recurring themes
that you’ve asked us to look at, is that of role models for men
and we will be addressing that later on in the series. But our next episode will focus on
a few familiar faces. There’s always a stigma around men
can’t be vulnerable and men can’t have emotions or men can’t cry. When I see my friends,
especially when they are approaching women and they turn on this certain amount of bravado, it’s like,
that isn’t you. When we are talking about
role models with kids, we have to be careful that in 40 years time you are not telling them,
‘nah, that’s wrong now.’ Like, comment and subscribe to stay up to date with everything we are doing in the series of modern masculinity. When I think of masculine,
I think of power but if you mean man,
because I am powerful as a man in my way …

Intersectional Feminism: What is it? | FACTUAL FEMINIST

Intersectional feminism. It’s all the rage
on campus and on social media, but what is it? And is its new popularity a welcome development?
Coming up next on the Factual Feminist. Suddenly intersectionality is on the boards.
News stories are turning up everywhere. Intersectional theory was first developed in the 1970s and
1980s by a group of African American feminist scholars and activists. They accused the women’s
movement of neglecting black women and of misunderstanding oppression. Pathologies like
and racism and sexism, they said, are not separate systems—they connect and overlap—and
create a complex arrangement of advantages and burdens. White women, for example, are
penalized for their gender—but privileged by their race. Black men, suffer from their
race, but garner advantage from their gender. Black women—are in double-jeopardy—they
are disadvantaged by both race and gender. Patricia Hill Collins, professor at the University
of Maryland and former president of the American Sociological Association, is one of the chief
architects of intersectionality theory. The textbook she co-authored describes the United
States as a “matrix of oppression.” Beneath a veneer of freedom and opportunity, there
lies a rigid system of privilege and domination. Now most Americans don’t see it, but Collins
and her co-author alert students to the fact that the true nature of their society has
been hidden from them. “Dominant forms of knowledge have been constructed largely from
the experiences of the most powerful.” The text promises to introduce students to deeper
“subordinated truths” by avoiding what it calls “Western” and “masculine”
styles of thinking which could obscure these truths. According to the theory, those who are most
oppressed have access to deeper, more authentic knowledge about life and society. In short:
members of privileged groups (especially white males) should not only check their privilege,
but listen to those they have oppressed—because those groups possess a superior understanding
of the world. Initially, the primary focus of intersectional
feminism was on black women. But the number of victims quickly multiplied. This graphic
from a popular Women’s Studies textbook includes 14 or 15 marginalized identities. The Factual Feminist is concerned. Now there
are social scientists who use a sensible, non-politicized version of intersectionality
to understand complex social identities—I have no quarrel with them. But what concerns
me is how intersectional feminism is taught and practiced on the college campus. I have
many objections—I will limit myself to three.   Problem 1: It’s a Conspiracy theory: If
intersectionality theory were merely a reminder to be sensitive to different kinds of social
advantages and disadvantages, that would be fine. But it is much more than that. It is
an all-encompassing theory of human reality– constructed to be immune to criticism. If
you question it, that only proves you don’t understand it—or are just part of the problem
it seeks to correct. That is why articles by skeptics almost never
appear in textbooks like these. And certain groups—men, for example—are sinners who
are marked with a capital P. If they dare to question the theory they will be told to
check their privilege. Their job is to atone for their unearned advantages and learn from
those they have oppressed. Some men are really taking this to heart. Consider this tweet: @arthur_affect–As a dude who cares about
feminism sometimes I want to join all men arm-in-arm & then run off a cliff and drag
the whole gender into the sea Problem 2: Victim creep: According to this
theory, victimization confers wisdom, moral authority, and prestige. So—in places where
intersectionalists gather—on campus and on social media—there is now a mad scramble
for victim status. I first saw this theory in action in 1992
at the annual meeting of the National Women’s Studies Association in Austin, Texas. The
conference organizers had imbibed the lessons of intersectional feminism and were struggling
to honor all identities. Participants were told to assemble in small groups based on
their healing needs—Asian-American Women, African-American Women, Old Women, Jewish
lesbians, Disabled Women, Fat Women. But none of these groups proved stable. The fat group
polarized into gay and straight factions. Members of the black lesbian group could not
get along—those who had white partners were called out for their privilege and had to
form a separate group. And new identities emerged: A group of  “Women with Allergies,”
formed a caucus and issued a set of demands about not wearing dry-cleaned clothing or
hairspray. It was a conference of scholars—but we did
not resolve all the anger through rational discussion. Instead, intersectionality created
new reasons for anger and devoured itself. The conference ended with songs and healing
rituals. Problem 3: Bullying: Intersectionality tells
us that white males are in charge of the “capitalist, white supremacist, patriarchy” and enjoy
the most “unearned privilege.” On many campuses, that has given marginalized victims
permission to treat them badly. Ironically,members of the insider victim class now routinely
do to others what they accuse the privileged class of doing to them: they stereotype, demonize,
shame, and silence people. But, as often happens with morally inflamed
groups, they soon turn on one another. In 2014, the Nation magazine ran a story about
a conference at Barnard College for feminist bloggers. Now the participants were immediately
denounced by a Twitter mob as “a cabal of white opportunists,” even though it included
several women of color. The very act of holding the conference was considered discriminatory:
it privileged people who lived in New York City and excluded indigenous women, mothers,
veterans. women who are not on-line. The Nation quotes a participant who compared it to a
“Maoist hazing.” Such hazings are now the norm in the feminist blogospheres. If you have wondered why there are so many
millennials on campus are telling people to check their privilege, demanding trigger warnings,
calling people out for micro aggressions, and retreating to safe spaces, here is my
theory: They are in the grips of a conspiracy theory
and have succumbed to the cult of intersectionality. There are human rights catastrophes that bear
directly on race and gender. Black male incarceration in the United States comes to mind, as does
gender apartheid in many Muslim societies. But intersectional theory isn’t uniting
people around urgent humanitarian crises. It is dividing rather than uniting. It is
leading large numbers of talented, idealistic students at the highly privileged intersections
of American colleges to focus on themselves and to enact psychodramas. It’s turning
them inward—away from a world that needs them. Please let me know  your thoughts on intersectional
feminism in the comments section. Do you agree with my analysis? Am I missing something?
If you found this video valuable please  show your support by subscribing to the series,
and following me on Facebook and Twitter. And thank you for watching the Factual Feminist.

PRC Forum: Midge Decter (U1074) – Full Video

Music Reality. Captured in user friendly symbols and processed for understanding. Music The Idea Channel. My name is Midge Decter. I used to be an editor on magazines and in book publishing. Now I am the director of the Committee for The Free World. The reason that I went from something so interesting as being an editor to something so hard to describe as being the organizer of a committee, is that through the late 1960s and even more in the 1970s I was growing distressed; and not only I, but many, many people around me, friends and associates growing extremely distressed by the condition of the American intellectual community by its hatred for the values and the virtues of American society, by its repeated efforts to undermine everything most important about this society, particularly, alas, our children. What I mean by the intellectual community is something very simple. I mean academics, journalists, writers, artists, people who make a living from ideas and from manipulation of words. They are very important people in any society. More important, I think, than most of our political leaders have understood. Mikhail Gorbachev understands how important intellectuals are. He is madly courting them at this moment. That is something that no American president has yet learned to do, with the possible exception of Jack Kennedy. In any case, these people have an enormous effect and impact on the general climate in this country. And for decades had increasingly been devoting themselves to attacks on the United States, on its political system, on its social system, on its freedom. It called these a sham; it was very distressing and it was more than just distressing to most of us. It was something we all considered extremely ugly, ungrateful. There is nothing uglier than ingratitude. And there never was a group of people better treated, certainly never a group of writers, better treated by the political system and the economic system and the general conditions of the society in which they lived than the writers, the teachers and the artists in the United States. And on the one hand, we couldn’t understand, not really, not deep down, we couldn’t understand why they hate this country so much. And on the other hand, we felt they were posing a very, very great danger because no country can long survive a condition in which its culture will give it no sustenance and no blessing. And so we decided, I guess it’s not exactly a proportionate kind of decision to make or proportionate activity to undertake, but we decided that we would try to gather together a group of all the people, who like us, felt that we ought to be down on our knees in gratitude. That in this world we live in, in the late twentieth century, we should be down on our knees in gratitude for the United States of America. Not only for what it was doing for us, but for what it represented as a resistance to the forces of tyranny and misery and oppression in the world. And so we decided, what do people do when they want to engage in fights? They organize a committee. And that’s what the Committee for The Free World is. And I am its director. Well changing from editor to, I would say advocate, is quite a step. What was the most difficult part of that change? Well, it is quite a step. Indeed in fact- it’s like a 180 degree turn from being an editor to being an advocate. An editor is not supposed to be an advocate. That’s the theory. Of course, that’s utter nonsense, absolute nonsense. And, in fact, no editor worth his salt is not a person with a very strong conviction and not a person who, one way in another, works to impose its convictions onto other people. Still, what I found difficult was not becoming an advocate. What I found difficult was continuing to pretend to a neutrality, especially in book publishing. There you are in commerce, and in commerce you are supposed to make no judgements other than commercial ones. That too, of course, is nonsense. Very few people in book publishing ever achieve that kind of neutrality. Nevertheless, one is supposed to do so. And I found it increasingly difficult for me to do so because all I really wanted to do was not to publish books and make profits from them. All I really wanted to do was to see to it that the kinds of arguments and the kinds of descriptions and the kinds of discussion that I wanted in the air and that I felt there was shortages of which should come into being. In that sense, I suppose, one’s job with a committee like the Committee for the Free World is not all that different. At bottom from being an editor, which is to say I am constantly driving people to say things and to write things. I nagged them. I pestered them to get these things done. So in that sense, I suppose, there is a kind of editorial function. Well the emotion that you express, the feeling toward the United States is one that’s not heard frequently in America today. It’s now 1988; did you have the same kind of sensitivity, say 30 years ago? No, 30 years ago I was very careless. I have always, I think, I hope, I’ve always been a patriotic person and I hope I have always been sufficiently grateful for the freedoms and the privileges and the luxuries, and particularly the political luxuries that have been extended to me in my life, including then. But I was careless. In 1958, we all thought that the United States of America was endlessly powerful and that everything was going to be all right. We thought of if as a kind of rock and we could pound up against it if we wanted to, and no harm would be done. Well, by 1968 we had learned to think very differently about that and when I say “we,” I mean that there really are a whole group of us. You say this is a sentiment you don’t often hear expressed in the United States, that is partly true, I think. But that doesn’t mean that we are not around expressing it. It just means that at the moment we suffer from a slight shortage of access. And is it true that there are people who feel it, who don’t express it? Well, there are those. There are always those. Of course, you see the university is a very good case in point here. The university is an institution which is now completely under the domination of left, I would say, left thinking, but I don’t even think it’s thinking. I think it’s obedience to leftist culture, and there are people who know and who will tell you that they would suffer very great sanctions if they stood up and spoke out. And so what they tend to do is applaud others who stand up and speak out, and then they sneak over to you in the corner and shake your hand and say “I couldn’t agree with you more.” If you detect a slight note of bitterness, it’s there I don’t think that people are ever, ever going to become self-respecting and have freedom, not even in American universities, unless they stand up for themselves a little bit better than a lot of these people do. But it is true; it is true that the university has become a place which really does go farther than anyone to smother dissent. Totally contrary to what one thinks the university should be. That is right. It is totally contrary. The universities collapsed. In the 1960s student radicals ganged together and they also brought into their fold a lot of students, what we call ideological cannon fodder. There are students who really had no particular opinions, but who did sort of serve to come along for the ride. And they attacked the universities and they said to the universities, everything you have to teach us is a lot of crap and it’s irrelevant. Do you remember the word, irrelevant? And it’s no good and it’s useless. And it’s all in the service of this hideous society and they said all those things. They were kids. At least a lot of them were kids. And the university responded like so many permissive parents and said: You know what? You’re right. You’re absolutely right. What can we do to make you happy? And in responding this way… in collapsing in front of whatever was a student, I guess you could over-dignify it by calling it rebellion, the university brought itself low and it remains low. And it may be low for decades and decades, maybe for half a century because institutions don’t survive very well when they can find no way to stand on the ground of their own principles. You’ve been an author and an editor, which role do you find most satisfying? If you were to go back to one or the other, which would you choose? Well, being an author, obviously, is more satisfying in the long run, in the sense that you got something on your mind and then when you get finished there are these pages in print and they belong to you. So, I suppose in that sense it is far more satisfying. On the other hand, in the near term, writing is a misery for most people. There are some who really like it. I mean, I have a friend named Joseph Epstock, who is a simply a wonderful writer and when you read him you know that he actually likes to sit down and do it. Most of us don’t, I think. It’s lonely work and it’s very anxious making and in that sense, in the short term, it was much more fun for me to get my hands on a little manuscript called Wealth and Poverty by a writer named George Gilder than ever it was to sit down and slog my way through my own. And kind of help him slog his way through it without having to pay quite the price. In a recent issue of Contentions, which is a monthly collection of essays which you publish here at the Committee for The Free World, you printed a book review by Sidney Hook. In that review Dr. Hook made the following statement, “When an intelligent person is chided for changing his mind, he replies to his interlocutor, when I discover that I am wrong, I change my mind, what do you do?” Do most authors meet that test that Dr. Hook puts forward? Well, if you put the question that way, do most authors? I honestly don’t know the answer. What I know is there are some people who have, I suppose, you would call it the honesty. It’s something more than honesty. It’s something more like spiritual responsibility to say that they were wrong when they were wrong. And there are some others who will never do this… never. I remember- you know I remember very well- I came of age politically in the early 50s which means the McCarthy era. And there were lots of ex-communists around and they were being heard from then because it was the McCarthy era. And lots of them, I noticed, it was almost kind of amusing were saying I was right then to be a communist and I am right now not to be a communist which is just another way of saying, wherever I happen to find myself is the right place to be. Now, this probably offers people a great deal of comfort if they talk that way. On the other hand, it’s not very good I think, either for their intellectual condition or if it doesn’t sound too pompous, may I say, for their moral condition to do that. In the continuing conflict of ideas which you, in all of these various roles that you’ve played, they certainly have been involved in, have you come to recognize any rhetorical or debate tactics that are particularly effective? Any advice to the people who want to put forward ideas? Well, again, I’m not sure I know what the word “effective” means in this case, because that is something that you have to measure by measuring other people. I do know quite a bit by now about engaging in arguments, and the one thing that is absolutely necessary for maintaining one’s own strengths in an argument is to say exactly what one means and take the consequences for it. That sounds like truism and, in fact, it sounds like a kind of boring maxim book adage or something. On the other hand, if you really pay attention to this you will see that not many people do it. Not many people do it. They are constantly hoping that they can, on the one hand, say something that others might find unpleasant and, on the other hand, ward off any unpleasantness by covering their tracks. And that makes mud and it also makes weakness. Leonard Reed, I think, made a point that is related to that, which is that one has to first start by being sure what one’s own position is and to think that through. Yes, well that is certainly the beginning. But, of course, that in itself takes the most courage actually. To confront how you really feel. And to clarify and to be really clear about what it is. That takes a lot of courage because it’s easier not to. I meet with kids on campus and a lot of these kids like the Committee for The Free World are taking dissident positions, in particularly in the university. They are conservative kids, let’s say, or that’s what they call themselves, although some of them are really not so conservative. In the university context they certainly feel that they are conservative. And I talked to them and they are all- they’re young, and they get very frightened because not only their fellow students, but even their professors can get extremely nasty with them and the advice I always give them…alway is to say: do not apologize. Whatever you do, do not get up and defend yourself. Don’t defend yourself for being a person who loves his country by saying, you know really, I’m a nice guy. Never defend yourself. Interesting advice. I, of course, I directly admit I have total sympathy for your ideas. I also enjoy your prose. Why, thank you. You know there is nothing you can say to a writer that is better than that. You can say he’s dead wrong and he’s crazy, as long as you say you like his prose. Perhaps even the ultimate, I wish I could write that well. When did you begin writing? Well, I suppose every writer begins writing when he is a kid. When did you think you were a writer? When did I really begin writing? Oh, I guess I was in my early twenties. In college or after college? Well… after. Where did you go to college? I went to the University of Minnesota for a year and I went to NYU for a semester. That’s it. That’s it? That’s it. So you can see that it took me awhile to collect the nerve to start writing. When you started in college, did you have a goal that you were working toward or were you just well I’ll go… and see what I’m interested in. Oh, I didn’t really have a goal. I suppose if you asked me, I would’ve said I did, but it would’ve certainly been something that sounded like a great deal of nonsense, like I want to be a philosopher or something like that. You know… utterly meaningless nonsense. I just went to be a liberal arts major, I guess. You’re a mother. Oh yes. Four children, is that right? That’s right and a grandmother, that’s much more important. I have eight grandchildren. Oh, that’s delightful. It’s interesting that 15 years ago, I probably would’ve assumed you were a mother without knowing or having that information provided. Why is that? Well, because my background is one in which, I assume that a goal and therefore the likely outcome for every woman is to be a mother and for every man to be a father, but I have to say that now I have a few mental alarms. I have some things built into me now that prevent me, kind of an early warning system, that resists those kinds of assumptions. Is that symbolic of desirable social change in your life? Oh god, it’s just absolutely a disaster. That’s what it is. You’re talking about the fact that you now- there is some question in your mind as to whether you can take for granted that every woman wants to be a mother. You see that’s wrong. Every woman does want to be a mother. You can still go on taking that for granted. But young women who had their minds- their heads so filled with garbage that it can no longer be taken for granted that they find out that they want to be a mother until they are well into their thirties, and that’s really very sad, and even then they are all mixed up about it. But that’s because this wonderful movement for social change came along in the late 1960s and it said to women: we are going to call ourselves feminists and we are for your liberation and the way we are going to liberate you is by telling you that you are no good, that your lives are no good, that you’ve been brainwashed all your life, that you can never possibly succeed in this world unless they give you very special treatment; and that they owe it to you because you are some kind of slave; and the only way you can prove you’re not some kind of slave is by pursuing a career; and not enslaving yourself to some man and to some bunch of children who imprison you in the house. And they began talking that way, these women… the liberators of women. They now deny they said such things, but it’s not true. They did say them. They did. And like many people, they now wish to have no responsibility for what they actually did and said. But they said this and they said it to young women in the best universities, who came out for no reason, seething with resentment, full of hostility to young men, full of hostility to, I don’t know what, to the world with a big chip on their shoulder for nothing. Now, it has taken them a long time to recover from this. That movement was a movement against nature. That’s what it was. It was movement against women’s nature, against their better nature. Now, if you said things like this- and I did say them at the time- I was an early and vociferous opponent of women’s liberation. And if you said it then and if you say it now, it is assumed you mean then, that women are supposed to be pregnant and barefoot all their lives and hang out in the kitchen. That, of course, is not true. It’s obviously not true in your case. No, it’s not true in my case and it’s not true in lots of other people’s cases, and it certainly has got to be said. See, one of the problems with the generation of the 60s is that they believed that the world was invented the day they were born. This is an idea that we their parents did plant in their minds, but certainly there were plenty of career women before women’s liberation attempted to liberate them, but this was not a movement for equal pay, for equal work. There was nobody opposed to that. But it was a movement which wanted to blame all the difficulties that these women were having on somebody else, society, nature, men. That everything they did, everything that was difficult for them was because they were victims. Now, if you are a person and you got a trouble, you got a problem, you’re worried about something or you’re anxious and somebody comes along and says to you, baby naturally you feel that way, you’re a victim, your heart is going to rise up in response to this. You want to think you’re a victim because then that means it’s not your fault, anything you do. So, there was this terrible assault on men and on womanhood and on motherhood. And as I say, it took a very, very long time for people to recover from it. They are only just beginning to do it now, but you will find now that the young women everywhere there are these stories which are appearing. The young women in the law firms are discovering to their astonishment that when they have babies, they don’t really feel like leaving their babies two months after they’re born and going back to the office. And the women’s movement is now storming around demanding maternity leave and paternity leave and all these things so that women can have children and be in the office and then, lo and behold, lots of them actually don’t want to go back to the office. They actually like to hang around with these babies and not only that, but in 15 years there has hardly been anybody to explain to them, not their mothers and certainly not their teachers, and not the popular culture and not the magazines they read and not the newspapers they read, nothing to say to them: You know what? There is something to this baby’s business. They are actually rather affectionate. And when you have one of them, you will discover that you actually love it quite a lot… and are amused by it; that these babies will give you pleasure and, in fact, more pleasure than you ever actually thought you might have in your life, of a kind you never anticipated having. There was nobody to say this to these young women, so naturally they were very puzzled when they discovered this. And now, of course, thanks to this wonderful social change we’re going through, now when they stay home and look after their babies they feel extremely guilty. That’s what I was going to say. They’re still made to feel guilty. They are made to feel guilty. They think there must be something wrong with them because actually, they don’t hate motherhood. They love motherhood and they’d rather look after their children than go and spend 60 hours a week crawling their way to the top in some terrific law firm; and that the women’s movement used to say that all women were sheep, passive sheep, that’s why they allowed themselves to be herded into the suburbs, and there to graze and to produce babies that would be consumers for a capitalist’s society. Well, if you ever saw a bunch of sheep, you can see them now, the young girls getting out of college, herding themselves into law school. Yes, it’s a fascination. I have a niece who is fascinated with being a lawyer and for no rational reason. Well, in my time it was publishing and there it was supposed to be much more glamorous to sit all day long reading, proofreading galley sheets, than to be home with a baby. I notice that the maternity leave almost is rationalized by also asking for paternity leave. Now obviously, I don’t think there has ever been a time when the feminists claimed that there wasn’t a physical, sexual difference between man and woman. They may have liked to have, but they had to admit to that. But they have continuously and to this day insisted that beyond that obvious, physical difference, there is no other difference, there is no basis for behavioral differences, etc. Do you agree with that? No, of course, I don’t agree with that. First of all, if that were true think about how boring the world would be and how dreary life would be. And I’m not just making a sexual allusion here; I mean the whole world would be terribly boring if men and women were the same. Of course, they are not the same. And not only that, but children’s lives would be so completely flattened and I fear are getting flattened, in fact, by the idea that a daddy is a mommy and mommy is a mommy or a mommy is a daddy and that there really is essentially no difference between these two things. That’s a terrible thing. What do you think is the most significant behavioral difference? Can you point to one kind of behavioral characteristic that really is strongly different in men and women? Well there must be many. The fact that women conceive and give birth to babies, if we just start with the most primitive, simple definition already has got to make a difference because what women are involved in is the day-to-day- the “daily-ness” of care and great women novelists are great, precisely because of this connection to the daily-ness; and great women social theorists are great because of their connection to the daily-ness. They are just closer to the ground. And you could say on that account, if you wanted to, that is why in some areas they have a lot more ordinary sense than men. It is called mother wit. It’s not for nothing that it’s called mother wit. And men are adventurers of a different kind and that’s what makes the world an interesting place. I was thinking about it in the context of my own children, and I have two grandchildren. I have a ways to go yet to catch you. But you say “daily-ness,” that’s interesting because I thought of the difference, in that sense, as that kind of total focus that my wife would have toward her children- our children- I love my children and have always been very comfortable with them at all ages. But even so, if I think about it, I compartmentalize. There are times when I am prepared to be a father and close to the children, and there are other times when I’m not comfortable with that. I want to go in another direction; in my senses… women don’t do that. They don’t compartmentalize. Children are children now, today, tomorrow, this minute the next minute in every sense. Well, that may be so. Of course, that is one of the things that women’s movement carried on the most about that wasn’t true. That you had your space in your life and you see you didn’t do this. Why do people expect mothers to do this? And, of course, it’s all nonsense. You have children, I have children… and it’s even easier to see with one’s grandchildren because one isn’t anxious about one’s grandchildren; and one isn’t stuck with the responsibility to their welfare. So you can just sit and watch them; and if anybody watches little children from birth, let’s say, well alright birth is perhaps too radical, from one year up and does not see complete difference between little boys and little girls, which has nothing to do with how they’re socialized or what clothes they’re put in or anything, they are just different. They develop differently. They think differently. They are interested in different things. They behave differently. And you can begin to see it. I mean there all different ways you can describe this. Little boys, for instance, are totally pure of heart. They can be violent. They can be nasty. They can be difficult. They are rarely sneaky and they are rarely manipulative; and little girls can be absolutely perfect little angels and will manipulate the daylights out of you from morning till night. Yes, agreed. Have there been any decisive winners or losers in this battle that has been going on over the last decade and more on the women’s rights? Well, I think that there can’t be any winners. I think there are many losers however. Hopefully, we might recover from this because if you attempt to do something that is so violating of people’s natural feelings, it doesn’t last long. You can’t get away with it, sooner or later nature will make its claims, but of course there have been losers. There have been two sets of losers. First of all for one set, let’s take men and women, they’ve been losers. Men cannot thrive when women are not thriving and vice versa. Women cannot thrive and have a satisfactory life if their men are not in good condition; and if they don’t understand this they are going to have many sorrows before they learn this. We are on earth together and we really do depend on one another, both sexes, for our well-being. And if war is declared, nobody benefits. So men and women is the first set of victims, and children is the next. And children these days are torn; their fates are torn between being neglected on one hand, or being driven on the other. In either case there is something very, very artificial in their lives these days. I have nieces and nephews and neighbors and so on and all I want to say to them is- these are all young aspiring middle class, a couple, I guess- you call them yuppies and all- I want to say to them is cool down, cool off leave these kids alone. Don’t start worrying about their matriculation to Harvard; and don’t press them and don’t examine them so; and don’t make them extensions of your ambition. It is very hard for them not to do that because of the way life, itself, has been represented to these people. Given the chance would you personally alter how you’ve dealt with career and motherhood? Oh absolutely. Oh my god would I; I never found a satisfactory answer to that question, never. Well the first thing I always want to say to career women, who are mothers is- don’t fret if you can’t find a satisfactory answer to that- because there is none. There really is none. I mean, no one could’ve tried harder than I. And I am very sorry I went back to work when my youngest child was 3 1/2 years old and was in a very good school until 3:30 in the afternoon, a very good school where he was lovingly looked after. It was a school that people in New York City killed to get their children into. And then when he came home there was a housekeeper at home and just one housekeeper and she was a darling girl, who loved him and whom he loved and now I have decided that 3 1/2 was too young anyway. I mean it was under the most ideal circumstances and I bitterly regret that I did it. My son, who is the child involved here, and I have had these arguments ever since in which, I say, I bitterly regret having to have done that and he always says to me, oh come on forget about it. He’s 27, so he thinks it’s time. There was no harm done, he insists. In an article you wrote, I must interrupt, because it’s interesting. I want to remind you this, it relates to what you just said, though. You said something that may be as little children I want to say, no fair- but it is the truth. In other words, in a sense you’re saying, you don’t like it that you haven’t been able to find a better answer. But it is the truth. It is reality that you have to deal with. That’s right… that’s right. Well look, the secret is that having children is a career and having a career is a career. And if you do both, you are someone who undertakes two careers. Now that is possible. It is possible to do that. There are a lot of people who do it. There are men who do it. My husband does it. He has a full-time job; and in addition to that he writes, which means that every spare moment of his life is involved in work. It’s doable, but what it requires- what the pursuit of two careers requires- is a lot of energy for one thing. And a high level of capacity to get yourself organized and a lot of self-discipline. Now, not everybody has that much energy and not everybody has that much self- discipline and organization… nor is it a virtue. It is not a moral virtue to have it, it’s a quality some people have, but you better have it if you want to do both, because otherwise you will walk around embittered by both. But if you don’t have it and you can possibly recognize that, don’t feel guilty about it. Well, of course not. Why on earth anyone should feel guilty about being a mother. It is just utterly absurd. It used to be claimed that women who went to work were made to feel guilty because they weren’t looking after their children. I think that was a lot of nonsense. I don’t think they were, maybe in 1870 they were. But when I grew up they weren’t. They weren’t made to feel guilty. But who are being made to feel guilty now- are women who are looking after their children… and I think that is a crime. Do you see any evidence that today’s teenagers will do a better job of handling the problem? I don’t see today’s teenagers very much. My own children are too far grown and my grandchildren are, as yet, too young. The one thing that I learned in the 1960s is not to believe what anybody tells you about the young. Not to believe anything you do not see with your own eyes, because in the 1960s they were telling us these kids are wonderful. They are the best. The most wonderful idealistic, terrific generation that ever lived; and what I saw with my own eyes was that they were getting pale and sick, that they were nervous, that they were running away from the world, that they were frightened, that they were at sea. And ever since that time, I have not believed what anybody says. So, I’m not sure what the teenagers of today are like. Here’s another question, I think you may have a much sharper feeling about. Has the United States, as a nation, been weakened by this movement, by the feminist’s movement? Oh, of course it has been weakened. Of course it has been weakened. It’s really an anomaly. Here you have this marvelous country bursting with energy. You want to see energy? Get in a car and drive through the state of Nebraska and Kansas and Iowa even, just drive, just go on one of those big highways, and you will see things growing and moving and people growing and moving all around you. This is a country which is full of energy; which is doing nothing these days but attacking itself and talking about the impossibility of life; talking about how there is a disaster just around the corner. This all comes from a sense that things are not well with us. And the first ground of well-being is that thing that men and women make together, it is called a family and the family is the greatest invention of the human spirit. Not because it is so wonderful and sweet and not because everybody is nice to everybody and not because it’s full of love. Because sometimes to tell the truth and we all know it, families can be a royal pain in the neck, but because it is an institution in which the needs of men and women and children are somehow adjudicated; and somehow the mode is found in which people can help one another and bring to one another what they need. And in which children know- every child in the family knows- that he is vitally important to someone else. And this is something that children really need to know. So, families are absolutely bedrock of the sense of well-being in this country. So what we have here is a country which is actually very well-off. A funny example of this- not so funny- peculiar example of this is the state of the American economy. It’s booming along and every single day all you can hear is these terrible predictions that any minute now, the country is going to collapse. It can’t go on. Tomorrow, the economy, you think it’s stronger today, it’s producing jobs, it’s doing this, it’s doing that, tomorrow disaster is coming. Now I maintain that this inability to feel the strength in this country, and to husband the strength of this country and to appreciate it, and to love it and to cherish it, and to defend it and to be cheerful about it- this all derives from the fact that the Americans have been bereft of any kind of feeling of well-being in the most arbitrary terrible way- and it’s sinful, is what it is- and that America’s middle class women- because don’t make any mistake about this- that is who it is. That is who that movement is… it’s middle class women, America’s middle class women who live longer, healthier, better looking, stronger- who see all their children live and survive. They don’t have to give birth to 17 children in order to have 4 of them survive. They don’t have to stand by and watch their children being ravaged by diseases; no one ever had it so good. And that they should get up and compare themselves with the condition of blacks in the south under slavery, it’s a sin is what it is. It’s a sin and sins get punished. And we’re seeing some of the costs of that. We are indeed. Do you find the same consequences resulting from other sectors of what I would call this civil rights growth industry that seems to be going on? Well, it’s a civil rights growth industry. It’s not got anything to do with civil rights at all. It’s a group of people who are battening on the difficulties and the discomfiture of others; and who are making very big careers of keeping these discomfitures- helping keep these discomfitures alive. I don’t know how long it would take, otherwise, under proper conditions for blacks to catch up. They have a lot of catching up to do. I don’t know how long it would’ve taken. It probably would’ve taken a lot less time than anyone felt, because by the time the structure of discrimination had given away in this country; the feelings of discrimination were already crumbling as well. But it would’ve taken time. Instead of allowing it to take time, what happened was a group of professional disaster mongers who screamed racism in the face of every single condition, in the face of every single problem. Who again- just the way the women’s movement turned to the women of this country and said: every difficulty you have is because you’re a woman. They turned to blacks who were just beginning to feel their way and said to them: everything that is bothering you is racist. Now… just in the case of the women, it sets people back. It is going to take not all the blacks… after all. Quietly there are the blacks we don’t hear about. They never get mentioned. They are like the pro-American intellectuals that I was talking about. There are lots of them around. We just don’t hear about them, who are doing fine and who are moving into the middle class and are actually on schedule. But then there are lots of others, they are suffering from all kinds of terrible breakdowns and social pathology. And to say to them that everything that is wrong with them is due to racism; and that the government has got to find the cure; and if the government doesn’t find the cure, it’s because the government doesn’t want to and is nothing but a bunch of racists. To do this to such people is a crime. You’ve also written, particularly recently, about what at first glimpse is a totally different area of concern, and that’s foreign policy, the whole question of the Soviet/ U.S. conflict. I’m interested to know if you- if those two elements have any relationship. Obviously, to the extent that these movements weaken the United States to the benefit of any enemy of any kind. Is there any tie in here? Is there any relationship between the two areas? Yes, of course there is… indeed there is. There are two things that govern our relations with the Soviet Union. One is the question of military security, and the other is the question of the good society… if you will. Anti-Americanism has actually undermined both of these things very much. We are not permitted to defend ourselves. We are not permitted to have a defense. Obviously, we do have a defense and obviously, the voters of the United States wanted us to have a very strong defense; that’s why they- twice- by a landslide- elected Ronald Reagan. But this defense of our country is not permitted to be given any confirmation, not in the movies, not in the newspapers, not on television. It is almost as if the people who wear the uniforms that protect us in this country are our primary enemies. So that is one attitude we are not allowed to do this. And we’re not even allowed to think about it… all around us. So the people who understand in a very simple way that they want the country to have a strong defense- and that therefore they voted for Ronald Reagan, for that reason among other receive no confirmation for the rightness of their view all around. That is except for a few cheap politicians who wish to pander to their votes, and who say it isn’t that we aren’t entitled to a defense, it’s that we don’t need a defense. And this is where the new romance with the Soviet Union comes in. The Soviet Union is now in trouble. It is in dire economic trouble. It faces the possibility of the breakdown, at least to some extent, of its empire. The nationalities inside are giving it trouble. The Afghans gave it more trouble than they expected and so on. What is the response of the leadership in the United States and the press and the people who make up all the national conversation? What is the response of the people to this difficulty that the Soviet Union is in? Is it good? That’s what our policy has been after for a long time. Now let us hold firm and hold steady and maybe we will see the passing away of this monstrosity. Is it that? It is not that at all. It’s okay, that’s terrific. Well, we’re rid of that responsibility. And after all, it’s simply wonderful what is going on in this Soviet Union. You find people coming back from the Soviet Union telling you how wonderful it is that the Soviet Union is no longer governed by a mass murderer. You see the point about comrade Gorbachev is that he is not a mass murder like Stalin. And they will come back singing his praises because he is not a mass murderer; and haven’t got a kind word to say, not for Ronald Reagan, not for Jimmy Carter, not for the chief justice of the Supreme Court, not for the attorney general of the United States. You would think that the attorney general of the United States was the head of the KGB; and that the head of the KGB is now a wonderful hero of freedom and democracy. Well, the reason that we are doing this and responding in this way- which is not to greet the discomfiture of the Soviets with great joy- on the grounds that a lot of people in the world, in Eastern Europe and in Southeast Asia and everywhere else will benefit mightily if the Soviet Union is in trouble. Instead, we say that’s good. That lets us off the hook. Now we can fold our hands and we don’t have to do anything. And the reason that people are so eager to write off their responsibilities is because their sense of rightness has been undermined all the way down to the bottom. We are not entitled to hold ourselves superior to the Soviets. That is the message and it is absurd. There is nothing arrogant or jingo about the idea that free men living in a free and democratic society have a superior society and are, therefore, a thousand times luckier than those who have the misfortune to have inherited a totalitarian state, which if we only hold firm might be in the condition of disintegration. And in the same sense, fathers and mothers lacking the conviction that they’re honest and sometimes failing efforts at being parents and part of the community is somehow a trivial pursuit. That’s the relationship. Yes. Well, do we have any reason for believing that our grandchildren will share a more free and prosperous world than we do? Well, I would like to think so. I’m not really sure. One thing I am sure of, however, if our grandchildren do live in a world in which there are more and more and more people enjoying freedom and prosperity than there are now, it will be because of the brave people in places like Poland and Hungary and Czechoslovakia who are willing to risk everything, and the Soviet Union who are prepared to go to jail for what they believe, and who are the ones who are to the eternal shame of this country, I think, they are the ones who are showing the way of how to have a free world. And I would hope that my grandchildren, when they are teenagers, will know and will remember to salute those people and will understand how much they owe to them.

We should all be feminists | Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie | TEDxEuston

Translator: Ivana Korom
Reviewer: Helena Bedalli My brother Chuks and my best friend
Ike are part of the organizing team, so when they ask me to come,
I couldn’t say no. But I’m so happy to be here. What a fantastic team of people
who care about Africa I feel so humble and so happy to be here. And I’m also told that the most beautiful, most amazing little girl in the world
is in the audience her name is Kamzia Adichie and I want her to stand up…
she’s my niece! (Applause) So, I would like to start by telling you
one of my greatest friend, Okuloma. Okuloma lived on my street and looked after me like a big brother. If I liked a boy, I would ask
Okuloma’s opinion. Okuloma died in the notorious
Sosoliso Plane Crash in Nigeria in December of 2005. Almost exactly seven years ago. Okuloma was a person I could argue with,
laugh with, and truly talk to. He was also the first person
to call me a feminist. I was about fourteen,
we were at his house, arguing. Both of us bristling with
half bit knowledge from books we had read. I don’t remember what this
particular argument was about, but I remember that
as I argued and argued, Okuloma looked at me and said,
“You know, you’re a feminist.” It was not a compliment. I could tell from his tone, the same tone
that you would use to say something like “You’re a supporter of terrorism.” (Laughter) I did not know exactly what this word
“feminist” meant, and I did not want Okuloma
to know that I did not know, so I brushed it aside
and I continued to argue. And the first thing I planned to do
when I got home was to look up the word
“feminist” in the dictionary. Now fast forward to some years later,
I wrote a novel about a man who among other things
beats his wife and whose story doesn’t end very well. While I was promoting the novel
in Nigeria, a journalist, a nice well-meaning man,
told me he wanted to advise me. And for the Nigerians here,
I’m sure we’re all familiar with how quick our people are to give
unsolicited advice. He told me that people were saying
that my novel was feminist and his advice to me — and he was shaking his head sadly
as he spoke — was that I should never
call myself a feminist because feminists are women who are unhappy
because they cannot find husbands. (Laughter) So I decided to call myself
“a happy feminist.” Then an academic, a Nigerian woman
told me that feminism was not our culture
and that feminism wasn’t African, and that I was calling myself a feminist because I had been corrupted
by “Western books.” Which amused me,
because a lot of my early readings were decidedly unfeminist. I think I must have read every single
Mills & Boon romance published before I was sixteen. And each time I tried to read those books called “the feminist classics”
I’d get bored and I really struggled to finish them. But anyway, since feminism was un-African, I decided that I would now call myself
“a happy African feminist.” At some point I was a happy
African feminist who does not hate men and who likes lip gloss and who wears high-heels
for herself but not for men. Of course a lot of these
was tongue-in-cheek, but that were feminists so heavy
with baggage, negative baggage. You hate men, you hate bras, you hate African culture,
that sort of thing. Now here’s a story from my childhood. When I was in primary school, my teacher said at the beginning of term
that she would give the class a test and whoever got the highest score
would be the class monitor. Now, class monitor was a big deal. If you were a class monitor, you got to write down the names
of noise makers, which was having enough power of its own. But my teacher would also give you
a cane to hold in your hand while you walk around and
patrol the class for noise makers. Now of course you’re not
actually allowed to use the cane. But it was an exciting prospect
for the nine-year-old me. I very much wanted to be
the class monitor. And I got the highest score on the test. Then, to my surprise, my teacher said that
the monitor had to be a boy. She’ve forgotten to make that clear earlier
because she assumed it was… obvious. (Laughter) A boy had the second highest
score on the test and he would be monitor. Now what was even more
interesting about this is that the boy was a sweet, gentle soul who had no interest in patrolling
the class with the cane, while I was full of ambition to do so. But I was female, and he was male and so he became the class monitor. And I’ve never forgotten that incident. I often make the mistake of thinking that something that is obvious to me
is just as obvious to everyone else. Now, take my dear friend Louis
for example. Louis is a brilliant, progressive man, and we would have conversations
and he would tell me, “I don’t know what you mean by things
being different or harder for women. Maybe in the past, but not now.” And I didn’t understand how Louis
could not see what seems so self-evident. Then one evening, in Lagos,
Louis and I went out with friends. And for people here who
are not familiar with Lagos, there’s that wonderful Lagos’ fixture, the sprinkling of energetic man
who hung around outside establishments and very dramatically “help” you
park your car. I was impressed with
the particular theatrics of the man who found us
a parking spot that evening, and so as we were leaving,
I decided to leave him a tip. I opened my bag, put my hand inside my bag, brought out my money that
I had earned from doing my work, and I gave it to the man. And he, this man who was very grateful,
and very happy, took the money from me, looked across at Louis, and said “Thank you, sir!” (Laughter) Louis looked at me, surprised, and asked “Why is he thanking me?
I didn’t give him the money.” Then I saw realization
dawned on Louis’ face. The man believed that
whatever money I had had ultimately come from Louis. Because Louis is a man. The men and women are different. We have different hormones,
we have different sexual organs, we have different biological abilities, women can have babies, men can’t. At least not yet. Men have testosterone and are
in general physically stronger than women. There’s slightly more women
than men in the world, about 52% of the world’s population
is female. But most of the positions of power
and prestige are occupied by men. The late Kenyan Nobel Peace Laureate, Wangari Maathai, put it simply
and well when she said: “The higher you go,
the fewer women there are.” In the recent US elections we kept hearing
of the Lilly Ledbetter law, and if we go beyond the nicely
alliterative name of that law, it was really about a man and a woman doing the same job being equally qualified and the man being paid more
because he’s a man. So in the literal way, men rule the world, and this made sense a thousand years ago because human beings lived then in a world in which physical strength was
the most important attribute for survival. The physically stronger person
was more likely to lead, and men, in general,
are physically stronger. Of course there are many exceptions. But today we live
in a vastly different world. The person more likely to lead
is not the physically stronger person, it is the more creative person,
the more intelligent person, the more innovative person, and there are no hormones
for those attributes. A man is as likely as a woman
to be intelligent, to be creative, to be innovative. We have evolved; but it seems to me
that our ideas of gender had not evolved. Some weeks ago I walked into a lobby
of one of the best Nigerian hotels. I thought about naming the hotel,
but I thought I probably shouldn’t, and a guard at the entrance stopped me
and ask me annoying questions, because their automatic assumption is
that a Nigerian female walking into a hotel alone is a sex worker. And by the way, why do these hotels focus on the ostensible supply rather than
the demand for sex workers? In Lagos I cannot go alone into
many “reputable” bars and clubs. They just don’t let you in
if you’re a woman alone, you have to be accompanied by a man. Each time I walk into a
Nigerian restaurant with a man, the waiter greets the man and ignores me. The waiters are products… at this some women felt like
“Yes! I thought that!” The waiters are products of a society that has taught them that men are
more important than women. And I know that waiters
don’t intend any harm. But it’s one thing to know intellectually
and quite another to feel it emotionally. Each time they ignore me,
I feel invisible. I feel upset. I want to tell them I’m just as human
as the man, that I’m just as worthy
of acknowledgement. These are little things, but sometimes it’s the little things
that sting the most. And not long ago I wrote an article about what it means to be
young and female in Lagos, and the printers told me
“It was so angry.” Of course it was angry! (Laughter) I am angry. Gender as it functions today
is a grave injustice. We should all be angry. Anger has a long history of
bringing about positive change; but, in addition to being angry,
I’m also hopeful. Because I believe deeply
in the ability of human beings to make and remake themselves
for the better. Gender matters everywhere in the world, but I want to focus on
Nigeria and on Africa in general, because it is where I know, and because it is where my heart is. And I would like today to ask that we begin to dream about
and plan for a different world, a fairer world; a world of happier men and happier women who are truer to themselves. And this is how to start: we must raise our daughters differently. We must also raise our sons differently. We do a great disservice to boys
on how we raise them; we stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way, masculinity becomes this hard, small cage and we put boys inside the cage. We teach boys to be afraid of fear. We teach boys to be afraid
of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be,
in Nigerian speak, “hard man!” In secondary school, a boy and a girl,
both of them teenagers, both of them with the same amount
of pocket money, would go out and then
the boy would be expected always to pay, to prove his masculinity. And yet we wonder why boys
are more likely to steal money from their parents. What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity with money? What if the attitude was not
“the boy has to pay” but rather “whoever has more should pay”? Now of course because of that
historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today, but if we start raising children
differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure
of having to prove this masculinity. But by far the worst thing we do to males, by making them feel
that they have to be hard, is that we leave them
with very fragile egos. The more “hard-man”
the man feels compelled to be, the weaker his ego is. And then we do a much greater
disservice to girls because we raise them to cater
to the fragile egos of men. We teach girls to shrink themselves,
to make themselves smaller, we say to girls, “You can have ambition,
but not too much.” “You should aim to be successful,
but not too successful, otherwise you would threaten the man.” If you are the breadwinner
in your relationship with a man, you have to pretend that you’re not, especially in public, otherwise
you will emasculate him. But what if we question
the premise itself, why should a woman’s success
be a threat to a man? What if we decide to simply dispose
of that word, and I don’t think there’s an English word
I dislike more than “emasculation.” A Nigerian acquaintance once asked me
if I was worried that men would be intimidated by me. I was not worried at all. In fact it had not occurred to me
to be worried because a man who would be intimidated by me is exactly the kind of man
I would have no interest in. (Laughter)
(Applause) But still I was really struck by this. Because I’m female,
I’m expected to aspire to marriage; I’m expected to make my life choices
always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important. A marriage can be a good thing; it can be a source of joy
and love and mutual support. But why do we teach girls
to aspire to marriage and we don’t teach boys the same? I know a woman who decided
to sell her house because she didn’t want to
intimidate a man who might marry her. I know an unmarried woman in Nigeria who,
when she goes to conferences, wears a wedding ring because according to her, she wants
the other participants in the conference to “give her respect.” I know young women who are
under so much pressure from family, from friends,
even from work to get married and they’re pushed
to make terrible choices. A woman at a certain age
who is unmarried, our society teaches her to see it
as a deep, personal failure. And a man at a certain age
who is unmarried we just think he hasn’t come around
to making his pick. (Laughter) It’s easy for us to say, “Oh but women can just say no
to all of this”, But the reality is more difficult
and more complex. We’re all social beings. We internalize ideas
from our socialization. Even the language we use in talking about marriage
and relationships illustrates this. The language of marriage
is often the language of ownership rather than the language of partnership. We use the word “respect” to mean something a woman shows a man but often not something
a man shows a woman. Both men and women in Nigeria will say – this is an expression I’m very amused by – “I did it for peace in my marriage.” Now when men say it, it is usually about something that
they should not be doing anyway. (Laughter) Sometimes they say it to their friends, it’s something to say to their friends
in a kind of fondly exasperated way, you know, something that ultimately proves
how masculine they are, how needed, how loved — “Oh my wife said I can’t go to club
every night, so for peace in my marriage,
I do it only on weekends.” (Laughter) Now when a woman says,
“I did it for peace in my marriage,” she’s usually talking about having
giving up a job, a dream, a career. We teach females that in relationships, compromise is what women do. We raise girls to see each other
as competitors not for job or for accomplishments,
which I think could be a good thing, but for attention of men. We teach girls that they cannot be
sexual beings in the way that boys are. If we have sons, we don’t mind
knowing about our sons’ girlfriends. But our daughters’ boyfriends?
God forbid. (Laughter) But of course when the time is right, we expect those girls to bring back
the perfect man to be their husbands. We police girls, we praise girls for virginity, but we don’t praise boys for virginity, and it’s always made me wonder
how exactly this is supposed to work out because…
(Laughter) (Applause) I mean, the loss of virginity
is usually a process that involves… Recently a young woman was gang raped in a University in Nigeria, I think some of us know about that. And the response of many young Nigerians, both male and female, was something along the lines of this: “Yes, rape is wrong. But what is a girl doing in a room
with four boys?” Now if we can forget
the horrible inhumanity of that response, these Nigerians have been raised
to think of women as inherently guilty, and have been raised to expect
so little of men that the idea of men as savage beings
without any control is somehow acceptable. We teach girls shame. “Close your legs”,
“Cover yourself”. We make them feel as though
by being born female they’re already guilty of something. And so, girls grow up to be women who cannot see they have desire. They grow up to be women
who silence themselves. They grow up to be women who
cannot see what they truly think, and they grow up – and this is the worst thing
we did to girls – they grow up to be women
who have turned pretense into an art form. (Applause) I know a woman who hates domestic work, she just hates it, but she pretends that she likes it, because she’s been taught that
to be “good wife material” she has to be — to use that Nigerian word
— very “homely.” And then she got married, and after a while her husband’s family began to complain
that she had changed. Actually she had not changed, she just got tired of pretending. The problem with gender, is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Now imagine how much happier
we would be, how much freer to be
our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight
of gender expectations. Boys and girls are undeniably
different biologically, but socialization exaggerates
the differences and then it becomes
a self-fulfilling process. Now take cooking for example. Today women in general are more likely
to do the house work than men, the cooking and cleaning. But why is that? Is it because women are born
with a cooking gene? (Laughter) Or because over years they have been
socialized to see cooking as their rule? Actually I was going to say that maybe
women are born with a cooking gene, until I remember that the majority
of the famous cooks in the world, whom we give the fancy title of “chefs,” are men. I used to look up to my grandmother who was a brilliant, brilliant woman, and wonder how she would have been if she had the same opportunity
as men when she was growing up. Now today, there are
many more opportunities for women than there were during
my grandmother’s time because of changes in policy,
changes in law, all of which are very important. But what matters even more
is our attitude, our mindset, what we believe and what we value
about gender. What if in raising children we focus on ability instead of gender? What if in raising children we focus on interest instead of gender? I know a family who have
a son and a daughter, both of whom are brilliant at school, who are wonderful, lovely children. When the boy is hungry,
the parents say to the girl “Go and cook Indomie noodles
for your brother.” Now the daughter doesn’t particularly like
to cook Indomie noodles, but she’s a girl,
and so she has to. Now, what if the parents, from the beginning, taught both the boy and the girl
to cook Indomie? Cooking, by the way,
is a very useful skill for boys to have. I’ve never thought it made sense
to leave such a crucial thing, the ability to nourish oneself, in the hands of others. (Applause) I know a woman who has the same degree
and the same job as her husband, when they get back from work
she does most of the house work, which I think is true for many marriages, But what struck me about them was that whenever her husband changed
the baby’s diaper, she said “thank you” to him. Now what if she saw this
as perfectly normal and natural that he should, in fact,
care for his child? I’m trying to unlearn
many of the lessons of gender that I internalized when I was growing up. But I sometimes still feel very vulnerable in the face of gender expectations. The first time I taught a
writing class in graduate school I was worried. I wasn’t worried about the material
I would teach because I was well-prepared and I was going to teach
what I enjoy teaching. Instead, I was worried about what to wear. I wanted to be taken seriously. I knew that because I was female I will automatically
have to prove my worth. And I was worried if I looked too feminine I would not be taken seriously. I really wanted to wear my shiny lip gloss
and my girly skirt, but I decided not to. Instead, I wore a very serious, very manly, and very ugly suit. Because the sad truth is
that when it comes to appearance we start off with man as the standard, as the norm. If a man is getting ready
for a business meeting he doesn’t worry about
looking too masculine and therefore not being taken for granted. If a woman has to get ready
for business meeting, she has to worry about looking
too feminine, and what it says and whether or not
she will be taken seriously. I wish I had not worn
that ugly suit that day. I’ve actually banished it from my closet,
by the way. Had I then the confidence
that I have now to be myself my students would have benefited
even more from my teaching, because I would have been
more comfortable, and more fully and more truly myself. I have chosen to no longer be apologetic
for my femaleness and for my femininity. (Applause) And I want to be respected
in all of my femaleness because I deserve to be. Gender is not an easy conversation
to have. For both men and women, to bring up gender, sometimes
encounters almost immediate resistance. I can imagine some people here
are actually thinking “Women, true to selves? ” Some of the men here might be thinking “Okay, all of this is interesting, but I don’t think like that.” And that is part of the problem. That many men do not actively think
about gender or notice gender, is part of the problem of gender. That many men, say, like my friend Louis, that everything is fine now. And that many men do nothing to change it. If you are a man and you walk
into a restaurant with a woman and the waiter greets only you, does it occur to you to ask the waiter “Why haven’t you greeted her?” Because gender can be… (Laughter) Actually we may repose part of
a longer version of this talk. So, because gender can be
a very uncomfortable conversation to have, there are very easy ways to close it,
to close the conversation. So some people will bring up
evolutionary biology and apes, how, you know, female apes
bow down to male apes and that sort of thing. But the point is we’re not apes. (Laughter)
(Applause) Apes also live on trees and
have earth worms for breakfast but we don’t. Some people will say, “Well, poor men also have a hard time.” And this is true. But that is not what this…
(Laughter) But this is not what this conversation
is about. Gender and class are different forms
of oppression. I actually learned quite a bit
about systems of oppression and how they can be blind to one another by talking to black men. I was once talking to a black man
about gender and he said to me, “Why do you have to say ‘my experience as a woman’? why can’t it be ‘your experience as a human being’?” Now this was the same man
who would often talk about his experience as a black man. Gender matters. Men and women
experience the world differently. Gender colors the way
we experience the world. But we can change that. Some people will say, “Oh but women have the real power, bottom power.” And for non-Nigerians, bottom power
is an expression which — I suppose means something like a woman who uses her sexuality
to get favors from men. But bottom power is not power at all. Bottom power means that a woman simply has a good root to tap into,
from time to time, somebody else’s power. And then of course we have to wonder what happens when that somebody else is in a bad mood, or sick, or impotent. (Laughter) Some people will say that a woman
being subordinate to a man is our culture. But culture is constantly changing. I have beautiful twin nieces
who are fifteen and live in Lagos, if they had been born a hundred years ago they would have been taken away
and killed. Because it was our culture,
it was our culture to kill twins. So what is the point of culture? I mean there’s the decorative, the dancing… but also, culture really is about
preservation and continuity of a people. In my family, I am the child who is most interested
in the story of who we are, in our tradition, in the knowledge about ancestral lands. My brothers are not as interested as I am. But I cannot participate, I cannot go to their meetings, I cannot have a say. Because I’m female. Culture does not make people, people make culture. (Applause) So if it’s in fact true
that the full humanity of women is not our culture,
then we must make it our culture. I think very often
of my dear friend Okuloma, may he and all the others that passed
away in that Sosoliso Crash continue to rest in peace. He will always be remembered
by those of us who loved him. And he was right that day many years ago when he called me a feminist. I am a feminist. And when I looked up the word
in the dictionary that day, this is what it said: Feminist, a person who believes
in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes. My great grandmother, from the stories I’ve heard, was a feminist. She ran away from the house of the man
she did not want to marry, and ended up marrying the man
of her choice. She refused,
she protested, she spoke up whenever she felt she’s being deprived
of access, or land, that sort of thing. My great grandmother did not know
that word “feminist,” but it doesn’t mean that she wasn’t one. More of us should reclaim that word. My own definition of feminist is: a feminist is a man or a woman who says – (Laughter)
(Applause) a feminist is a man or a woman who says “Yes, there’s a problem
with gender as it is today, and we must fix it. We must do better.” The best feminist I know is my brother Kenny. He’s also a kind, good-looking,
lovely man, and he’s very masculine. Thank you. (Applause)

Media Leftist Blames Democrats For Offensive Trump Tweet As Democrat Implosion Continues

earlier today Donald Trump put out tweets that I find I don't know how to describe it distasteful poorly made and I gotta be honest III really don't care Donald Trump tweets all the time some of them are funny memes you ever see that carpe dong dumb meme where it's at the Democratic debates and the lights shut off and then it starts playing that's playing Black Sabbath and then Donald Trump walks out with smoke it's hilarious so Donald Trump's Twitter account is silly nonsense but he puts out this tweet and I'm just like oh my god you couldn't just let the Democrats tear each other apart and now something fun I'm gonna say I'll get into the critique of that in a second but something funny yeah what the left in this country they can't just let Trump do something wrong right look you guys watch my channel you know I'm not a big fan of the guy I don't have Trump derangement syndrome I'll criticize them what I think you should be criticized and I don't care if I get ratioed on Twitter for it I'm gonna say what I think is important for the most part I don't care when Trump tweets stupid things I look but this this one was really bad he basically said to the the progressive Democratic Congress women he says you know originally came from countries whose governments are complete total catastrophe okay full stop it's one it's Ilhan Omar and the rest are from America so there's a lot wrong with this tweet and I'll criticize it but here's the thing you may have seen him tweet this here we have Karen attea global opinions that are for the Washington Post saying make no mistake Nancy Pelosi's dog whistling Snipes at AOC Ilhan Omar rich in Italian repress Li helped pave the way for this vicious racist I can't even finish read it couldn't you just let me rag on the president for once no I kid you not I'm sorry let me finish the tweet saying uh okay she's saying Nancy Pelosi dog whistling which means she's a white supremacist or something helped Donald Trump tweet racist things they owe my god there's just so much going on here uh you know it's this kind of thing that I've it finally makes me just say like laughs I see all this craziness in the world and all the politics is just it's all insane and then and then Karen comes in with this amazing tweet and I just can't help but laugh and just think everything's not gonna be alright but at least it's funny right yeah at least it's funny it's it's it's insane look at this she says see how quickly we have moved from two powerful white women Marine down and speaker Pelosi helping each other to attack women of color over a nice box of chocolates to the president telling them to leave the country what people need to see in this newly formed Maureen Dowd – speaker Pelosi Donald Trump axis of evil' tell me is that white supremacy relies on dismissing silencing and undermining women of color putting them in their place by any means that's she actually said she Vil okay let me further in the podcast sh e VI l ah this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen I was I kid you not you know they always they always say Tim why don't you make videos targeting the right and I'm like because for the most part they're just doing the Republicans always do it it's not shocking to me I don't feel like there's any real development the Republicans aren't moving far right they're not the pulse the polls and the graphs and the data it shows that the Republicans are kind of moving a little to the left if anything so Trump tweets this thing out and I and I and I criticized him for it and I get ratioed but it's like a ten to one ratio like a thousand people responding saying Tim you're wrong on this you're wrong Trump basically said go he didn't say go back to where you came from that's that's a hyperbolic take on it what he said was go back to your home countries try all these policies come back and show us how it's done he was basically saying you know if you've got all these good ideas why don't you go back to these you know so the countries you came from to try it out so technically you know technically they're right but there's this this subtlety here okay I think it was a horrible tweet I think you know look man the Democrats are tearing each other apart and all Donald Trump had to do is sit back and let it happen he could just sit and watched and what do we get check this out I think this is the right one Melanie is ánotá of Politico said every time Dems are on the brink of Civil War Trump throws them a lifeline we then have this one Trump does have a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory sometimes the Dems were in fighting all week between the squad and House leadership and Trump goes in there to make some outrageous characterization about the squad that will serve to rally Dems together yes that was my criticism my look it's ridiculous when anyone says go back to country or leave America it is insane to me when the left says if trope gets elected I'm gonna move to Canada no you're not shut up you're gonna go with Starbucks and order a caramel frappe and cry to your friends about how we're in a fascist country you will do nothing you are an armchair activist on Twitter and then and then other people saying if you don't like America why don't you leave and it's like no stop come on man if America is built on amending the Constitution it is a brilliant system the founding fathers were very very smart they had many flaws but they did a goddamn great job of crafting a living document that we can amend to make this place better and we have so know if the country's bad I'm gonna stick around to make sure it works and it's a funny thing really because you know I'm just I'm not saying it's everybody on the Left who's trying to go to can't of course not sound everyone the right saying leave the country of course not most people are saying yeah this one's just for the weirdos listen America is a country that becomes better over time okay so leaving it when Trump gets elected is the stupidest thing you could say because you're supposed to stick around to fight to make it better and telling people to leave it because they don't like it is the same thing so anyway what what Trump said let me pull up his tweet and let's go through it okay cuz I look I have no problem being critical of Trump I do it all the time it's really funny all my I might add too because people on YouTube like have no problem when I go into a tangent about what I don't like about him but people on Twitter weren't having it they were lying you're wrong on this one but they weren't they were they were nice okay and that's that's the thing too I think if you're the important thing to consider for anybody watching on YouTube is that when I say something that I don't like about Trump and I mean it and I have facts behind me the response I usually get from Trump supporters is like well I disagree with you but I but I understand your opinion because listen I'm I'm where liberals used to be back like during era like not that long ago and for the most part that's kind of the conversations I had with Republicans Iowa would let go to my friend's house like a Republican a suburb and the Republican and we would talk and I'd be like I completely we and we would get heated and and now and then we'd have pizza and stuff and like watch a movie that's how it used to be when I was growing up I remember going to my friend's house and their family was all pro-life and I've always been pro-choice and they were like oh you're wrong like you need to understand and we talked and I was like you know III really do feel like our opinions aren't that far apart we just have fallen slightly on this on these two different sides of the issues and I don't know what we can do and we ultimately like you know we we just say well you know I guess a greater disagree this is America and well we'll take our argument to the ballot box I I remember like the first time I truly understood in her like a pro-life person it was at my friend's house what his conversations could happen you I guess when you live in Chicago you know there are a lot of Republicans and and and and Democrats they live kind of close to each other because the suburbs are kind of Republican so it's interesting to me that when you still engage on this level of like being honest and trying to have a conversation then the worst thing I get like most the responses aren't really that they're not being me and they're not insulting me just maybe they're saying Tim you're wrong X Y & Z well I disagree so look at this sweet he says so interesting to see progressive Democrat congresswoman who originally came from countries who governments are a complete and total catastrophe the worst most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world if they even have a functioning government at all here's the thing there's only one progressive congresswoman who's come from a country like that and it's Ilhan Omar from I believe she's a refugee from Somalia the rest of the squad are all american-born he says now now loudly and viciously telling the people of the u.s. the greatest and most powerful nation on earth how our government is to be run why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came then come back and show us how show us how it is done these places need your help badly you can't leave fast enough I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements let me tell you the problems I had with this for one as I mentioned telling someone to leave for whatever is silly come on Ilhan Omar isn't as an American citizen she came here she's a refugee she has every right to be here but there's legal asylum for which she did it like I'm gonna say this man Trump says come here legally ice director home and I believe his name is grilled okasha Cortez boom fire when he said if they want to come they can come here legally well illa no Mart did come here legally we can talk about the Star Tribune claiming she may have married her brother that seems like a weird thing for a mainstream paper to claim but if that's the case it's a whole other issue she came here legally she's an American citizen and we should defend the legal immigration process that's another reason why I'm like nah not havin it man the argument we're having right now the like the sane rational argument is we need border security for the illegal immigrants and we want people to come here legally so then telling them that maybe they can go try to fix their own countries is like no no no no no no no no legal asylum man you get legal asylum we respect that process so I will disagree with Trump on this one the bigger issue is less about Trump being Trump okay look it's I don't care that Trump tweeted this in the sense that like Trump tweets things like us all the time the issue is that he is giving his he is he's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is that as I when she says that what she said penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory just let the Democrats look I don't like Trump but I don't have trumpet arrangements in here that's how I normally frame it my political position on Trump is like I think he's bad but he's not that bad okay he's not that bad all right you know I wouldn't vote for him um but that's like when you think about American politics you have Obama and Trump I don't think either of them are like you know Stalin or or you know World War two guy I can't say that one you know what I mean I think they're two people with slightly different opinions for the most part and we need to figure out which one we like better I think Trump has got an attitude problem I disagree with some of his policy and I disagree with some of his tweets so I'd prefer not to vote for a mobile for somebody else I vote in principle I don't vote to win period I would if at the end of the day I voted for myself it's voting on principle and that's how well I will always act so if I wanted Trump to win you know sure I'd vote for a Republican but I'm not going to all right so it's not what's gonna happen there they're still some Democrats I think are worth you know voting for even if it's me voting for Tulsi and she even drops out don't care I vote for who I think is right for the job the point is from where I am kind of in the middle Trump has a the moment let me go back from where I am kind of in the middle I'm look at the Democrats and I see Nancy Pelosi who is this wealthy elitist and I'm like I roll and then I see the fringe wacko loon far-left squad members and I'm like please these people are destroying the left make them stop and their and their infighting and I'm like okay maybe this is the Democrats immune system weeding out the wackos thank god the democrats are finally standing up to these people and pushing back because they are going to cost us elections in 2020 they're gonna cost us the house okay that's the big issue Trump's probably gonna win fine but at least the Democrats might get some sane moderates in the house right nope so here's the thing hopefully they can get rid of them and then Trump comes in with this tweet and the Nancy Pelosi jumps to their defense so I'm gonna end this video right now and say this none of it matters none of it matters because in the end what we get is the Washington Post opinion editor editor blaming Nancy Pelosi for Trump tweeting calling it the axis of evil now we're done it's look Trump can tweet this and Trump supporters don't care they don't their race yelling me on Twitter saying Tim you're wrong okay I get it you like Trump you agree with them I don't all right but I'll respect your opinion and I will do what I can to push back on what I think is wrong it doesn't matter though I live in purgatory apparently where there's no sane left to actually align with when I disagree with the president I can get ratioed by Trump supporters and then I turn to the left and say hey guy oh you're blaming Nancy Pelosi for this one welcome to politics in 2019 isn't it a hoot I love it stick around I got one more assignment coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly you

Democrats PANIC After Poll Shows Ocasio-Cortez Is So Detested She Can Cost Them The Election

a new internal poll has been circulating and it's really bad news for Democrats the poll looks at swing voters and how they view the Democratic Party according to the poll it would seem alexandria Ocasio cortez is one of the most visible individuals of the democratic party and this preventive this group of individuals really really doesn't like socialism which is one thing I've been saying for a long time so of course it's evidence towards my own bias confirmation bias but we'll read anyway listen I'm a moderate leftist write to them to the Ocasio Cortez's and others I don't exist I must be a right winger because there's no center it's really it's really funny isn't it like we know centrists exists right so why is it that I can't be one I don't know I've praised left-wing policy while criticizing the left that's typically what I do and because of that they say it must be right-wing it makes literally no sense I am the voter they need to get if they want to win in 2020 and they have done nothing now Tosi Gabbard has done a lot I really like Tulsi but they're not gonna give her the nomination and we all know it the same is true for Andrew yang I wouldn't vote for Gravelle because I think he's kind of being silly and I don't agree with him for the most part and I wouldn't vote for Marianne Williamson just because while I think she's hokey and wholesome I wouldn't vote for her so what's gonna end up happening me I'm probably gonna vote independent or not vote at all I actually think I probably vote like independent or something I might just you know write-in Tulsi if she doesn't get the nomination um maybe I don't know vote for myself because I'm it's better than not voting and at least I know what I believe in right here's the point I always made with my videos if they weren't so busy trying to excise people like me they might realize what they need to win but I will say this before we threw the poll one of the big bets the Democrats are making is that by getting by waking up progressive voters they will solve the problem of losing moderates but let me just stress as I have many times when you lose a moderate the Republicans probably will pick them up but so if you gain one on the left and lose one on the right and the right game on the left congratulations the Republicans are up one and you're at zero but let's read this before we get started head over to Tim cast comm slash done it if you'd like to support my work there are multiple ways to donate PayPal crypto and a physical address but of course share this video because you too doesn't suggest my content the same way they used to they've D ranked everybody so if you think this video is important I rely on you to get the word out from Axios exclusive poll aoc defining them in swing states they write top Democrats are circulating a poll showing that one of the houses most progressive members Ocasio Cortes has become a definitional face for the party with a crucial group of swing voters horrible horrible bad news I might add horrible why it matters these Democrats are sounding the alarm that swing voters know and dislike socialism warning it could cost them the house and the presidency the poll is making the rounds of some of the most influential Democrats in America quote if all voters hear about his AOC it could put the House Majority at risk set a top Democrat who is involved in twenty twenty congressional races she is getting all the news and defining everyone's everyone else's racist think about what just happened let me say this Oh Casa Cortez starts mouthing off about concentration camps she refuses to back down she calls CBP a rogue agency and then a doob literally shows up and a nice facility with weapons and you know how that went I certainly hope you do Ocasio Cortez is a bloviating blowhard loud mouthed narcissist who has no idea what she's talking about and this is coming from someone who praised her when she first won the primary and that's not an exaggeration you can look on this channel and go back and see my half in our video where I'm like woo she did it she won yes I praised her and now we get to see her character as time goes on she is a bad person she refuses to accept when she's wrong she pushes a nonsense she accuses Pelosi of singling a woman of color which we know what that means and then denies I know it's not about racism oh please dude you're card-carrying member of the Democratic socialists of America who have protested for open borders holding signs saying no borders and abolish profits what do you think that means to middle America means the Democrats have lost it let's read on the poll taken in May before speaker Pelosi's latest run-in with AOC and a three other liberal house freshmen known as the Squad included a thousand three likely general election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education hey that includes me oh no I'm sorry I'm not white yes and I mean this seriously it's IIIi don't know likely actually how it works but I know that because according to like the census because I'm part Korean I'm literally just Korean like they don't count white in that regard so I'm just Korean but let's read on they say these are white non college voters who embrace Donald Trump in 2016 but are needed by Democrats in swing House districts the group that took the pole shared the results with Axios on the condition that not be named because the group has to work with all members of the party with all parts of the party the findings Ocasio Cortes was recognized by 74 percent of voters in the poll 22 percent had a favorable view oh my god swing voters do not like her rep Ilyn Omar of Minnesota another member of the squad was recognized by 53 percent of voters 9 percent not a typo they right had a favorable view oh lord help us the Democrats have lit themselves on fire and I'll tell you you know the easiest example the easiest bit of proof is how they throw me under the bus I am by no means a far left progressive I am just your run-of-the-mill social liberal the typical moderate working-class uneducated fulcrum the southside of Chicago who is looking for a real solution and doesn't quite know what these great ivory tower elites have in store but I would I would like to find something that makes sense so I don't like the wealthy privileged elites I want something for the working-class and what do we get we get wacky nonsense identitarian ISM and socialism sorry that's not what me and my friends and family want so you've lost us this poll is really funny because it's like a reflection of who I am and where I come from although I'll say this my friends and family are in Chicago not a swing district now here's the crazy part socialism was viewed favorably by 18 percent of the voters and unfavorably by 69 percent capitalism was 56 percent favorable 32 percent unfavorable I think that kind of describes where I'm like a mixed economy person but I kind of lean a little bit more towards this the the co-operative side I don't like saying socialist because socialist is a is a legit like a hard form of economy I say cooperative versus competitive because it's like it's it's nuanced right but cooperative means you lean a little bit more towards socialism and away from free-market capitalism but I'm like a centrist you know so I'm not I think you gotta have a right balance right in the middle because free markets run amok caused damage you get massive you know technologies like Google Facebook Twitter etc but without a free market you get no food and no phones and stagnation and death so there's got to be a good balance where we have government regulation that can restrict the worst impulses of the free market while making sure we can still maintain healthy competition and that bad industry's die because that's what you need you need an evolution in the marketplace but let's read on socialism is toxic do these voters at the top Democrat between the lines Democrats are performing better with these voters and in 2016 although still not as well in 2018 so party leaders will continue to try to define themselves around more mainstream members sorry AOC takes the cake to the other side three members of the squad are they say Omar Rasheeda Talib and IANA Presley of Massachusetts defended their approach while appearing in Philadelphia yesterday on a panel at the annual Netroots nation conference I was once invited to that I think I was a speaker I never I didn't go though 8ps joanna summers reports we never need to ask for permission or wait for an invitation invitation to lead Omar said adding later that there's a constant struggle often times with people who have pop who have power about sharing that power listen there's this weird mentality these people have its really annoying they don't care for facts they don't care about what what actually works they don't care about what's what will solve problems they're just overly emotional and I'm not talking no I here that here comes I said it now they're gonna go Oh Tim's a bigot he's blaming them for being women that's what they do when Nancy Pelosi singles them out they say it's because we're men of color because that's their attack factor Nancy Pelosi his wife when I say they're acting on emotion they're gonna say he just said he that's that's a dog whistle – Bing – you know – being a misogynist no seriously when you refuse to fund the border wall and then I'm talking out the wall the border crisis like the humanitarian aid and then complain there's a crisis it's like dude listen check this out from Real Clear Politics a couple days ago Oh Casa Cortez says this is a manufactured crisis because the cruelty is manufactured oh dear lord help me Ocasio Cortez is despicable completely despicable the Democrats were mocking the idea of a crisis at the border mocking it laughing refusing to fund it and now here we are and they're gonna be a listen I'm gonna tell you something from a policy perspective when I say I would like money in humanitarian aid from the government that is a social program where I want the government to fund humanitarian aid a I swear to left wing position you silly Democrats oh my god ask like listen I I am opposed to private detention centers and I speak out against them and I would like the government to fund aid to help this solve this problem is that is what what universe are we in these people have lost it and that's why look men they can mock me all day and night they can ridicule me they can push me aside marginalize me my friends and a button-up and the space and politics that I am in but I tell you this my friends and family who grew up in support of the LGBT community who defended progressive rights who are now shrugging saying what is going on we are the people you need to vote for you and you are losing us and you don't care you mock you belittle you smear and I'll tell you what happens Brandon Straker I think I'm pronouncing his name right walkaway happens people just say enough and they walk away I look I am I am NOT on board the Democrats at this point and I flat it's a tall probably you're voting independent Oh might just vote for Tulsi no matter what so I don't want to say necessarily that I'm leaving right but the Democrats have gone nuts plain simple look at the tweets they put out it is a nightmare an absolute nightmare and here it's gonna happen I got another segment coming up for you Donald Trump tweeted some stupid nonsense oh and and you know and people on Twitter I'm mad at me it's like I don't I don't care man you know they're like they expect me to like you guys know I don't like Trump so I rag down his tweet and a bun I got ratioed hard and I don't care and some people were like why are you posting all this left I'm gonna say I'm gonna save this for the next segment but but the next I meant isn't necessarily about Trump tweeting stupid things and the thing is look Trump I think Trump's tweets a lot of stupid things it's how he's goated the left into blaming the Democrats for Trump's tweets what is going on I will see you in a few moments the next segment you

Democrats Are Literally Campaigning In Mexico, Ok Well, Two Of Them Are

but Democrats are literally campaigning in Mexico I'm not exaggerating now I don't want to say okay maybe maybe the Democrats is a bit hyperbolic a couple Democrats literally a couple have campaigned in Mexico and I have no idea why but all of the Democrats are at least campaigning for non-us citizens and it's really confusing it's very confusing I am by no means a staunch nationalist in fact I've told people I'm a determinist globalist or I don't know the right way to frame it is I believe globalism is inevitable due to cyber war the nature of cyber war the vulnerabilities of cyber cybernetic infrastructure and trade and communications I believe it's in it's it is an inevitability however I don't believe we're at a point now we're going to snap our fingers and have this global utopia so it's probably important we maintain a balance in immigration and protect the borders of the United States so I'm a centrist for the most part here's the thing though Democrats as it stands today are campaigning for illegal immigrants to not be deported are campaigning for health care for illegal immigrants and are rejecting a citizenship question on the census I just don't get it I don't know if you're following the story on the citizenship question Trump wants the census to ask if you are a citizen and why not don't you think it would be important for us to figure out who is or isn't a citizen kind of makes sense right like if you're not paying taxes or you're working under the table or your employer's breaking the law citizenship is not some like controversial thing at least it wasn't for the most part of my life I got a Social Security card a birth certificate right if I want to get a job I check off I'm a citizen why can't we do it for census I've never heard a good answer from Democrats take a look at voter ID laws I've never heard heard a good answer as to why they oppose voter ID it literally makes no sense I need an ID to do basically everything III go to a restaurant I want to get a beer they ask for my ID voting is way more important than that I I kid you not I went I shaved I went to the movies they asked for my ID to see an r-rated movie I'm like dude what I'm not seven man I'm 33 it happens maybe because I'm part agent I look younger than I really am the thing is Democrats tend to oppose voter ID laws they say it's racist that's not an argument like I'm from the hood I'm from the south side of Chicago everybody had an ID in the internet like you're not making a good argument for me it's confusing so this makes me say well I don't understand what you're doing now Trump wants the census to ask you people are a citizen there's some really interesting in I guess whether or not Trump succeeds in getting this because it's been it's been blocked by the Supreme Court whether or not the census actually asks this question I think Trump has has done something that's a net positive for Trump and for nationalism what this has to mean all of this it's like I don't think Democrats actually have any idea what they're doing or why they're doing it they're trying to pander I have no idea if none of it makes sense they oppose Trump for the sake of opposing Trump look at this cory booker actually helped illegal immigrants return to the US after they were deported under the migrant action protocols bado O'Rourke literally campaigned in Mexico look at this it's a photo of him in Mexico to meet some asylum seekers okay why though they can't vote for you well here's something interesting it all comes back to the citizenship question Trump is now saying he wants he's considering using an executive order to get the citizenship question on the 2020 census I've talked to a lot of people and they say Tim it's because illegal immigrants vote well I'm sure some do sometimes but I'm not convinced insignificant staunch Trump supporters will say it's in the millions Trump has said it's in the millions I don't believe that's true I do believe illegal immigrants vote and we have seen some information from reputable sources claiming that on the voter rolls there have been even tens of thousands of undocumented or illegal immigrants in which case it's possible they voted in one circumstance a woman had a driver's license and she voted when she wasn't allowed to because she was a legal resident and she actually got in trouble that's kind of screwed up right if like it was some woman who had a green card she voted and she's facing prison time come on now some old lady who made a mistake let's just let's just say don't do it again prison time to me that's it that's but I do not believe Trump wants the citizenship question on the census to affect voting some you know one person said to me it's so that he knows how many illegal immigrants are in the country and may or may not be voting I'm like no you're making the jump here the first and only thing it will do is allow the government to know how many illegal immigrants we have but people on the Left say immigrants in general will avoid answering the census because they're scared of you know repercussions from the government I do not believe that it's true of legal immigrants I believe anybody is who is here legally with a visa or green card has no problem saying I am NOT a citizen I've been to foreign countries I have visas for foreign countries I have a ten year visa to a South American country I was there and someone said hey you know are you citizen to Brazil I'd say no I I'm here at ten yeah I got 10-year visa it's good for six months at a time I can come back you know six months out of the year I wouldn't care the people I know who have a permanent residency in foreign countries they also don't care I don't think that's legitimate I think people who are legal immigrants would have no problem saying like here's here's Who I am here's where I live here's what I do and no I'm not you know a citizen what it will do however is change the structure of the districts in Congress and this to me is very very interesting and how it'll play into the hands of Trump so let's read this Fox News says President Trump said Friday is considering using an executive order to place a citizenship question on the 2020 census as the administration faces an afternoon deadline to say whether it will proceed with its push we're thinking about doing that it's one of the ways we have it's one of the ways we have four or five ways to do it Trump told reporters when asked if he was considering an executive order we can do the printing now and maybe do an addendum after we get a positive decision from the Supreme Court basically what's happening is he has to say now whether or not the question will be in the census but he's being obstructed by the courts by doing this they can put the question on the census before the court ruling it's all legally murky we'll see if he gets away with it if it's legal well I shouldn't think it's away with it we'll see if it's legally upheld but this may buy time for the census to include the quest Trump said think about it 15 to 20 billion dollars on a census and you're not allowed to ask if someone's a citizen adding that Attorney General William bar is working on the issue the court ruled last week that the reasoning provided by the administration that it would help them enforce the Voting Rights Act was insufficient it sent the case back to the lower courts for further consideration in what was seen as a significant blow to the administration after the rebuke Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said his department would print the census without the question seemingly indicating the administration had dropped the controversial issue but Trump later said their reports that they dropped the issue were fake and on Thursday said the question was so important and that the Justice and Commerce Department's were working very hard on this on Wednesday a high-ranking DOJ lawyer told a federal judge that the administration has not abandoned efforts to put the question on the census saying that there may be a legally available path open to the administration the DOJ the DOJ faces a 2 p.m. deadline to respond to a judge's order to decide whether the administration will try again to get the question on the census so I'm filming this after 2 p.m. we'll see what happens but Trump has said they're going to do it now here's what's interesting the push for a citizenship question has been fiercely opposed by Democrats who say that immigrants may not want to respond and be counted in the census this was this would result in official population numbers that are lower than they truly are which in turn could yield less federal funding and fewer congressional seats in districts with high immigrant populations those districts tend to favor Democrats an executive order could also facing the can push back and could fail in the Supreme Court one source told Axios that it may allow the administration to shift the blame for the ultimate failure of the push on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts but Trump on Friday said he had a lot of respect for Roberts I have a lot of respect for Justice Roberts he didn't like it but he did say come back so we'll see what happens this is really interesting the Democrats can flight illegal immigrant with immigrants I do not believe illegal immigrants are entitled to the full benefits of citizenship of what citizens receive I do believe illegal immigrants are entitled to rights under the Constitution and some immediate benefits to protect life it's a complicated problem but when it comes to government programs that are above and beyond immediate needs like hierarchy of needs like access to food and other things like this should we be providing certain resources to illegal immigrants the answer is well I would say no but it's hard to know for sure what and when the Democrats say they want to provide health care to illegal immigrants unfortunately as much as I would like to I don't think we can I do think we have an obligation to prevent loss of life which means if there's an illegal immigrant and we have emergency services available I believe we are morally obligated to say they're save their lives it is a conflict in the conundrum because then illegal immigrants are putting a strain on our already strained health care system so what happens is that if they can actually track illegal immigrants or they can exclude them saying they're not citizens therefore the district will be of a certain size it means the shape of districts in Congress will be dramatically different it will provide Republicans and nationalists with strong resources towards 4/1 deporting illegal immigrants I don't know if they'll use a census to actually deport people but I will say illegal immigrants will be much less likely to in to fill out a census form if they're asked if they're citizens they already probably do a void filling and out of a fear of government intervention and deportation but this to me is very interesting and telling it's hard to know how to appropriate federal funds immigrants are entitled to many of the same funds as citizens if they're permanent residents illegal immigrants not so much and this I think is where the Democrats come in to conflate the two they say Oh immigrants won't do it I disagree that makes no sense if you're illegal if you're a legal resident why would you be afraid of filling out a form maybe they will be maybe they're scared of Trump maybe they think Trump will take away their green card permanent residents it's hard to know for sure what I will say however the citizenship question is going to play a massive role in empowering Republicans in the future if it makes its way through I don't know what you know exactly will happen but I will say with one final thing it really really does feel Democrats are not campaigning for American citizens we can see that their vow it vowing to decriminalize illegal immigration they're campaigning some of them are campaigning in Mexico they want to provide health care to non-citizens it does not sound like they have the interest of American citizens at heart and the whole thing confuses me if only American citizens can vote isn't this country for Americans and not for people outside the country you can immigrate here you can you get you can become a citizen over time and then you will be entitled to those same privileges and and and and otherwise and I certainly believe legal immigration is the correct path forward and I welcome all the people anywhere in the world to come here legally okay and what that means is when you apply there are some criteria where you won't be allowed to come but I believe everyone has the opportunity to come here legally so that we can have a robust and healthy and diverse society great things illegal immigration however bypasses our laws it violates you know the rules and the social contract of our nation and they reap benefits to which they didn't pay into to put it simply if today we all put in $1 towards a pizza party a week from now someone shows up and says oh I'll put in $1 – we say we've been putting in $1 every day for a week and you're gonna show up now without putting in the same amount of money and get our pizza it's not so much as it they aren't paying taxes it's that they haven't paid into the system thus far it's complicated I gotta say it does feel a lot like Democrats don't really care what Americans have to say I'm gonna defer to the opinion published in The New York Times where one writer said Americans feel like they're strangers in their own country I'm not surprised Trump won and I think it went again ah look I'll leave it there I don't really have like a closing thought but it is what it is let me know what you think about the citizenship question shouldn't this country be for citizens whatever stick around I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you shortly you