I subscribe to The Free Press. It's always fascinating to me how the conservatives in the comments section over there basically say Bari is a fanatical leftist sellout with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and then the mainstream liberal press describe her as a right wing activist. Our current society just can't handle people who don't comfortably fit into a neat little box! Spoiler alert, those are usually my favorite people 😉
Team Bari/Free Press all the way. Any time there is loud protest/hate/derangement on any "side" about anyone, I become more interested in that person. And thank goodness Bari got ousted from the Times. She is shining so intelligently, it obviously scares people. Thanks for the fun recap. Looking forward to watching the videos!
Omg that was hilarious when the Pom Pom caught on fire. Thanks for sharing so much of the night with those of us who couldn’t make it! Free press is so important and we need journalists like you. I appreciate all that you do!
As one of the older, non-feminist readers, I liked the recap/post-debate videos. Having grown up in the 70-80’s, I did benefit from the sexual revolution, but looking at it on this side of it, it hurt me in many ways. Just because we can sleep with whoever, wherever, whenever doesn’t mean we should. Just my 2 cents.
I just have to add, that man in the 2nd video acted like the men feminists hate. He talked over the women, bullied his way in, and sounded like most of the narcissistic, arrogant jerks I’ve known. He did not impress me at all. Change my mind.
"The era ushered in radical change and challenged age-old norms ....."
PATRIARCHY...... Women and children first! (a man's role is to sacrifice himself for women and children)
FEMINISM ......He for she! (a man's role is to sacrifice himself for women, who now assume the role and identity of children - with an emphasis on play, hedonism, narcissism, dependency - rather than social responsibilities and reciprocal support to men)
"........to liberate women from narrowly carved societal roles."
Manual labourer, factory worker, coal miner, cannon fodder ...... oh wait, those were men's narrowly carved societal roles.
Women were also expected to sacrifice themselves as well, as homemakers and dependent on the economics of the male. If she was dumped, along with her children, she had to start over and try and support herself among hostile forces. If he was beating her, she was expected to stay with him. It was that icon of conservatism, Reagan, who pushed the first no-fault divorce law in the US.
"Women were also expected to sacrifice themselves as well, as homemakers and dependent on the economics of the male"
This is standard feminist dogma. The problem with framing it like that is that it defines women as victims and objects (devoid of agency). Throughout history women's choices have been (1) to remain single and earn an income for oneself as a single working woman (with housework, washing, cooking etc relegated to evenings and weekends)....... or (2) to marry a man and form a partnership where he goes out and earns money and she stays home and runs the household.
Option 1 means joining men in the paid (and taxed) workforce which for most of history meant some kind of backbreaking manual labour (coal mining, fishing, farming, construction, factory work etc). Option 1 means coming home in the dark after a 12 shift down the coal mine (or whatever) and starting up the fire, boiling water for cooking and washing, preparing food (skinning a rabbit etc), cooking, cleaning, darning some socks and doing all of this by candlelight before going to bed. Before the 1950's housework was a full time job and backbreaking work, and most paid jobs were even more backbreaking and dangerous too. For a woman to be single meant effectively doing two manual labour jobs, with no possibility of children and no husband to do the most arduous tasks.
Option 2 means the wife gets to offload most of the manual labour onto her husband. All she has to do is the cooking, cleaning and other household duties (which is still manual labour by today's standards), and she can do it during the day when there is natural daylight. And she can multi task which is essential when it takes 3 hours for the stove to get hot enough to cook on, and all washing must be dried when there is no rain. And she can have children and fit the housework in around mothering duties. And with housework duties taken care of the husband is free to maximise his earning potential with the best paid job around. He can afford to work long hours, or work away from home (out to sea etc) without worrying the house will fall apart or the goats, dogs and chickens will die of starvation.
Marriage gives men the greatest possible earning potential, creating the best possible lifestyle for women and children. Single living only became an attractive prospect for women after the 1950's when mod cons made housework a breeze and new technology created warm, comfortable, safe work environments in service industries ie the modern office environment (electric lights, indoor toilets, central heating etc) which is where most women work to this day.
Also single living became an attractive option after government began paying women to be single (welfare). Welfare is enjoying the fruits of men's labour, but without offering men anything in return (not even a sandwich). Today men pay the majority of taxes, and women are the main beneficiaries of tax spending. On balance women as a group do not actually pay taxes at all, only men do.
The net flow of resources is from men to women, as it always has been, except marriage is a voluntary arrangement with women providing value to their husbands, where as socialism is just the state pointing guns at men and demanding half their earnings, and then keeping most of it to pay for wars bigger government, and throwing whatever is left at single mothers.
Had feminism not persuaded women to marry the state instead of husbands the standard of living would be 100x higher than it is today because all of men's income would remain within the family unit.
Feminism claims marriage was oppression and sacrifice for women because feminism was invented by the ruling class to alienate women from men, and exploit women's natural hypergamies nature..... promising the welfare state (and a million other government programs aimed at 'lifting up women') could be a better husband to women than a husband who loves her.
The result is that most women would love to be able to afford to be a stay at home mother, but now they cannot afford it - even WITH a husband. Before feminism a working class husband could afford to support an entire household on his wages alone. But since feminism 'liberated' women, even a married couple must now both work full time just to pay the bills, with stay at home motherhood (previously called motherhood) a luxury only available to the rich.
"If she was dumped, along with her children, she had to start over and try and support herself among hostile forces."
Marriage was always a means to secure a man's labour and tie it to his wife and children. At no point in history was a man ever able to dump a wife and children on a whim. Also it was feminist who campaigned for (and won) the default legal custody of children. Before feminism men were the default custodians of children in the event of a breakup.... which could only be authorised in the event of infidelity or some other violation of the marriage contract. No fault divorces are another invention of feminism - because women today have the welfare state as 'backup husband', and can use custody of the children to essentially keep an ex husband as a slave.
"If he was beating her, she was expected to stay with him."
Husbands beating wives has always been a social taboo liable to get the husband lynched. Social experiments show what we all know anyway, that a woman being attacked by a man provokes sympathy and rescue (men will intervene to ensure the woman is alright), but a woman attacking a man is generally regarded as a joke, with nobody intervening or showing any sympathy. Studies also show that domestic violence is not a gendered issue. In most violent households the violence is equally split between the man and the woman. Society has always provided women with protections against violent men, and never offered male victims of female violence anything of the sort.
In fact, when a man is abused by his wife or she is an adulterer we often shame the man (not the woman), calling him 'hen pecked' or 'a cuck'.
"It was that icon of conservatism, Reagan, who pushed the first no-fault divorce law in the US."
At the behest of feminists, who are themselves funded and managed by the ruling class. It is not rocket science why the ruling class would want to create a movement and ideology to pit men and women against each other, undermine marriage and the family and push women into the paid workforce (where half their labour now belongs to the state).
Women's 'liberation' has reduced women's options, lowered everybody's standard of living, made motherhood a nightmare instead of a joy, and destroyed the lives of children by putting them in state indoctrination centres from age 5. Women's mental health has plummeted since the 60's, as has children's now that they are being denied a proper, natural childhood at home in a stable, loving family environment with a mother and father.
If we reversed the gender roles throughout history, and had women working down the coal mines or out at sea, and bringing home a pay packet for their stay-at-home husbands who did the housework nobody would say the men were 'sacrificing' anything.
And we'd say men's dependency on their wives' pay packet was EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN, by lazy deadbeat men!
Feminism's talking points and 'proofs' of female oppression make absolutely no sense because they are not related to the practical realities of living. Most 'feminist academics' have only ever lived in the bubble of tenured positions at liberal universities. They've never lived on a farm or worked a normal job. When they speak of 'men' they look at the top 1% of society and ignore the rest. And when they speak of women they look at the bottom 1% of women and ignore all the rest.
The very concept that men and women are competing tribes in a battle for resources and social status is a feminist invention. For most of history men and women viewed themselves as allies, partners, compatible energies ..... not just romantically but as business partners.
When times were tough (ie all of history) marriage was primarily a business venture, where men and women combined their talents in order to increase their standard of living .... or just to survive at all!
If not being married was advantageous to women them women would not have chosen to get married.
Remember, a lot of feminist academics CAN'T get married because they are so awful as human beings that no man (no man of quality) would ever want to marry them. It's no wonder they love to run marriage (to men) into the ground and promote marriage to the state instead (socialism).
"A man's role is to sacrifice himself for women and children" and "Manual labourer, factory worker, coal miner, cannon fodder ...... oh wait, those were men's narrowly carved societal roles." Using your logic, you are saying men are victims and objects (devoid of agency). Ever since the advent of the bcp, many men have used that as an excuse to go around with their pants down knowing the female(s) he impregnates can be married to the state. Promiscuous men have the state as "the father." There's also no room for lesbian couples in your brain, or straight couples where they've chosen to reverse roles. I'm not a "feminist academic," but I am a middle-aged feminist who has worked many "normal jobs" and is currently a farmer. I've also been married to a man for 32 years. As far as "we often shame the man (not the woman), calling him 'hen pecked' or 'a cuck'" you may do this but I've never referred to a man as hen pecked. In fact, I've never heard a woman refer to a man this way but I have heard plenty of men say this about other men, even about men that just want to spend time with their families at home instead of being out slugging beer with the guys. The rest of your points are complete fantasy in an alternate universe.
"Using your logic, you are saying men are victims and objects (devoid of agency)"
Yes. We objectify men by sending them off to war (and shooting them for desertion), or sending them down mines, or demanding they sacrifice themselves to allow women and children onto the lifeboats.
A woman who flirts with a man at the bar JUST to get free drinks, or who goes on a date with a man JUST for a free meal and ego boost (some women date every night just for the free meals to save money) is an example of objectifying men as cash dispensers and vending machines.
There are many ways we objectify men that are horrendous, and yet we only hear of how women are objectified. Feminism's absurd claim that men are 'privileged' is ITSELF an example of objectifying men, because when a group is branded as privileged (as men are) society loses all empathy for them, and even men themselves are mostly blind to their own objectification because they have been indoctrinated to view themselves as 'privileged' and women as 'oppressed'.
If we objectify women as 'precious vases' to be kept safe and confined in a museum, then we objectify men as 'disposable tools' to be used and then discarded when they are worn out or damaged.
These are different ways to objectify, and feminism has trained us to only view the female forms of objectification and not the male forms.
I agree the welfare state encourages men AND women to view sex and relationships as a casual, reckless and hedonistic affair, rather than a serious commitment and partnership. But it was feminism that demanded we separate sex from marriage and reproduction. Yes women can 'marry the state' but fathers are also obligated to pay child support too. For women consent to sex is NOT consent to parenthood in the event of a pregnancy. But for men it is. Even if the man is not the biological father, if the mother puts his name on the BC he will be forced to pay child support.
Lesbian couples are outliers and not part of the debate on male/ female issues. But if there were no men and only lesbians (and babies were delivered by storks) somebody would have to be homemaker/mother and somebody would have to be bread winner. Lesbians expose the oppression/ oppressed narrative as nonsense. Parenting/ family life requires different roles and a collaborative effort, just as most businesses do (admin, sales etc).
Straight couples who reverse roles are another proof that women are not an oppressed class. Nobody calls stay-at-home husbands oppressed, or their wives privileged. If anything we tend to regard stay-at-home husbands as getting the easy role, and there is some social stigma that he is sponging off his wife's pay packet.
If you are a feminist then you believe women are an oppressed class and men are an oppressor class. But you've not provided any evidence to support this position. I doubt you actually are a feminist, even if you identify as one.
Feminism is a toxic and utterly insane ideology, which is an affront to biology, nature, psychology and common sense. But feminism is also a completely meaningless term which just means 'women's issues'. This is what makes feminism so destructive. Most self-identifying feminists are not insane but feminist ideology is utterly insane.
If you live on a farm you must understand how traditional gender roles just make sense and served women for tens of thousands of years. Swapping gender roles does NOT serve women, therefore feminist ideology's central claim (traditional gender roles are men's way of oppressing women) makes no sense.
The problem is we only ever look at half the story. Life is tough for women today and in the past, but men never had it any easier... and I would argue they had it harder in almost every respect.
The problem with this religion of 'women worsting' is it is just so demoralising for both sexes. Feminism's goal is to erase empathy for men by framing them as privilege and maximise empathy for women by framing women as victims of absolutely everything (in order to justify feminism's demands for special treatment and free stuff). But the result is just a demoralised population.
The first generation to be exposed to feminism in schools as the default narrative on gender (as opposed to a fringe ideology) is also the first generation to reject gender ITSELF, often with the aid of hormones, surgeries and 'non binary' self identities.
Many of these young people (both sexes, but mostly female) report being traumatised by puberty and the prospect of having to take on the burdens of femininity (oppressed class) or masculinity (oppressor class) and so they do all they can to evade sexual maturity.
There's nothing wrong with discussing women's/ men's issues (of which there are many), but doing so through the feminist lens of 'oppression' and 'battle of the senses' is tearing society apart.
This screams of an essay wanting to be written. Is there more you want to say? Do you have your own account? Or are you just posting random statements as they come to mind? Curious.
“I’m just proud I acted like a professional and refrained from asking her about ramped-up custody issues with the moon man, whose blonde haired spawn I spotted getting into the elevator with two paranoid looking nannies.” my fav sentence 😂😂 Also, Jess your hair is looking 🤌🏼
Feminism ruined the nuclear family, ruined children’s well being, and created this god awful society we’re currently living in. No one is raising children, teaching respect, self-worth, or the sanctity of life. We’re living in a hedonistic free for all, selfish land. It sucks and I see no end in sight.
Am I the only one jealous they didn’t get an owl? JESSICA YOU LOOKED FABULOUS-that dress, those shoes, the hair🔥🔥🔥🔥 Absolutely FABULOUS! I’m wicked jealous I couldn’t make it across the country for this but LIVING for this content!!!!!! THIS IS WHAT WE NEED MORE OF!
I must admit it scared the shit out of me to hear Grimes say it won't matter in five years bc women will be obsolete😳 crazy times were living in, endless amounts of jaw dropping, at this point Im along for the ride, lol
Thank you for including me, such an incredible evening, I really loved "observing & absorbing" so yes please, tee shirts😜
It didn’t scare me. I wanted her to continue saying it more and more! It’s true, if they can replace women with men in sports imagine what will happen with AI. And we’re not just talking actors or musicians.
And just when I thought there were no spaces in this world for smart women to get together and look cute and be funny and think freely and have a cocktail...
How do I get in this club? Are y’all accepting new members? Would love to submit an application!
I subscribe to The Free Press. It's always fascinating to me how the conservatives in the comments section over there basically say Bari is a fanatical leftist sellout with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and then the mainstream liberal press describe her as a right wing activist. Our current society just can't handle people who don't comfortably fit into a neat little box! Spoiler alert, those are usually my favorite people 😉
I love your style of writing. If I had had my act together as a dumb teenager I would have been you - as Katy says - in another life!
Thank you for always just saying it - refreshing.
Team Bari/Free Press all the way. Any time there is loud protest/hate/derangement on any "side" about anyone, I become more interested in that person. And thank goodness Bari got ousted from the Times. She is shining so intelligently, it obviously scares people. Thanks for the fun recap. Looking forward to watching the videos!
Omg that was hilarious when the Pom Pom caught on fire. Thanks for sharing so much of the night with those of us who couldn’t make it! Free press is so important and we need journalists like you. I appreciate all that you do!
As one of the older, non-feminist readers, I liked the recap/post-debate videos. Having grown up in the 70-80’s, I did benefit from the sexual revolution, but looking at it on this side of it, it hurt me in many ways. Just because we can sleep with whoever, wherever, whenever doesn’t mean we should. Just my 2 cents.
I just have to add, that man in the 2nd video acted like the men feminists hate. He talked over the women, bullied his way in, and sounded like most of the narcissistic, arrogant jerks I’ve known. He did not impress me at all. Change my mind.
"The era ushered in radical change and challenged age-old norms ....."
PATRIARCHY...... Women and children first! (a man's role is to sacrifice himself for women and children)
FEMINISM ......He for she! (a man's role is to sacrifice himself for women, who now assume the role and identity of children - with an emphasis on play, hedonism, narcissism, dependency - rather than social responsibilities and reciprocal support to men)
"........to liberate women from narrowly carved societal roles."
Manual labourer, factory worker, coal miner, cannon fodder ...... oh wait, those were men's narrowly carved societal roles.
Women were also expected to sacrifice themselves as well, as homemakers and dependent on the economics of the male. If she was dumped, along with her children, she had to start over and try and support herself among hostile forces. If he was beating her, she was expected to stay with him. It was that icon of conservatism, Reagan, who pushed the first no-fault divorce law in the US.
"Women were also expected to sacrifice themselves as well, as homemakers and dependent on the economics of the male"
This is standard feminist dogma. The problem with framing it like that is that it defines women as victims and objects (devoid of agency). Throughout history women's choices have been (1) to remain single and earn an income for oneself as a single working woman (with housework, washing, cooking etc relegated to evenings and weekends)....... or (2) to marry a man and form a partnership where he goes out and earns money and she stays home and runs the household.
Option 1 means joining men in the paid (and taxed) workforce which for most of history meant some kind of backbreaking manual labour (coal mining, fishing, farming, construction, factory work etc). Option 1 means coming home in the dark after a 12 shift down the coal mine (or whatever) and starting up the fire, boiling water for cooking and washing, preparing food (skinning a rabbit etc), cooking, cleaning, darning some socks and doing all of this by candlelight before going to bed. Before the 1950's housework was a full time job and backbreaking work, and most paid jobs were even more backbreaking and dangerous too. For a woman to be single meant effectively doing two manual labour jobs, with no possibility of children and no husband to do the most arduous tasks.
Option 2 means the wife gets to offload most of the manual labour onto her husband. All she has to do is the cooking, cleaning and other household duties (which is still manual labour by today's standards), and she can do it during the day when there is natural daylight. And she can multi task which is essential when it takes 3 hours for the stove to get hot enough to cook on, and all washing must be dried when there is no rain. And she can have children and fit the housework in around mothering duties. And with housework duties taken care of the husband is free to maximise his earning potential with the best paid job around. He can afford to work long hours, or work away from home (out to sea etc) without worrying the house will fall apart or the goats, dogs and chickens will die of starvation.
Marriage gives men the greatest possible earning potential, creating the best possible lifestyle for women and children. Single living only became an attractive prospect for women after the 1950's when mod cons made housework a breeze and new technology created warm, comfortable, safe work environments in service industries ie the modern office environment (electric lights, indoor toilets, central heating etc) which is where most women work to this day.
Also single living became an attractive option after government began paying women to be single (welfare). Welfare is enjoying the fruits of men's labour, but without offering men anything in return (not even a sandwich). Today men pay the majority of taxes, and women are the main beneficiaries of tax spending. On balance women as a group do not actually pay taxes at all, only men do.
The net flow of resources is from men to women, as it always has been, except marriage is a voluntary arrangement with women providing value to their husbands, where as socialism is just the state pointing guns at men and demanding half their earnings, and then keeping most of it to pay for wars bigger government, and throwing whatever is left at single mothers.
Had feminism not persuaded women to marry the state instead of husbands the standard of living would be 100x higher than it is today because all of men's income would remain within the family unit.
Feminism claims marriage was oppression and sacrifice for women because feminism was invented by the ruling class to alienate women from men, and exploit women's natural hypergamies nature..... promising the welfare state (and a million other government programs aimed at 'lifting up women') could be a better husband to women than a husband who loves her.
The result is that most women would love to be able to afford to be a stay at home mother, but now they cannot afford it - even WITH a husband. Before feminism a working class husband could afford to support an entire household on his wages alone. But since feminism 'liberated' women, even a married couple must now both work full time just to pay the bills, with stay at home motherhood (previously called motherhood) a luxury only available to the rich.
"If she was dumped, along with her children, she had to start over and try and support herself among hostile forces."
Marriage was always a means to secure a man's labour and tie it to his wife and children. At no point in history was a man ever able to dump a wife and children on a whim. Also it was feminist who campaigned for (and won) the default legal custody of children. Before feminism men were the default custodians of children in the event of a breakup.... which could only be authorised in the event of infidelity or some other violation of the marriage contract. No fault divorces are another invention of feminism - because women today have the welfare state as 'backup husband', and can use custody of the children to essentially keep an ex husband as a slave.
"If he was beating her, she was expected to stay with him."
Husbands beating wives has always been a social taboo liable to get the husband lynched. Social experiments show what we all know anyway, that a woman being attacked by a man provokes sympathy and rescue (men will intervene to ensure the woman is alright), but a woman attacking a man is generally regarded as a joke, with nobody intervening or showing any sympathy. Studies also show that domestic violence is not a gendered issue. In most violent households the violence is equally split between the man and the woman. Society has always provided women with protections against violent men, and never offered male victims of female violence anything of the sort.
In fact, when a man is abused by his wife or she is an adulterer we often shame the man (not the woman), calling him 'hen pecked' or 'a cuck'.
"It was that icon of conservatism, Reagan, who pushed the first no-fault divorce law in the US."
At the behest of feminists, who are themselves funded and managed by the ruling class. It is not rocket science why the ruling class would want to create a movement and ideology to pit men and women against each other, undermine marriage and the family and push women into the paid workforce (where half their labour now belongs to the state).
Women's 'liberation' has reduced women's options, lowered everybody's standard of living, made motherhood a nightmare instead of a joy, and destroyed the lives of children by putting them in state indoctrination centres from age 5. Women's mental health has plummeted since the 60's, as has children's now that they are being denied a proper, natural childhood at home in a stable, loving family environment with a mother and father.
If we reversed the gender roles throughout history, and had women working down the coal mines or out at sea, and bringing home a pay packet for their stay-at-home husbands who did the housework nobody would say the men were 'sacrificing' anything.
And we'd say men's dependency on their wives' pay packet was EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN, by lazy deadbeat men!
Feminism's talking points and 'proofs' of female oppression make absolutely no sense because they are not related to the practical realities of living. Most 'feminist academics' have only ever lived in the bubble of tenured positions at liberal universities. They've never lived on a farm or worked a normal job. When they speak of 'men' they look at the top 1% of society and ignore the rest. And when they speak of women they look at the bottom 1% of women and ignore all the rest.
The very concept that men and women are competing tribes in a battle for resources and social status is a feminist invention. For most of history men and women viewed themselves as allies, partners, compatible energies ..... not just romantically but as business partners.
When times were tough (ie all of history) marriage was primarily a business venture, where men and women combined their talents in order to increase their standard of living .... or just to survive at all!
If not being married was advantageous to women them women would not have chosen to get married.
Remember, a lot of feminist academics CAN'T get married because they are so awful as human beings that no man (no man of quality) would ever want to marry them. It's no wonder they love to run marriage (to men) into the ground and promote marriage to the state instead (socialism).
"A man's role is to sacrifice himself for women and children" and "Manual labourer, factory worker, coal miner, cannon fodder ...... oh wait, those were men's narrowly carved societal roles." Using your logic, you are saying men are victims and objects (devoid of agency). Ever since the advent of the bcp, many men have used that as an excuse to go around with their pants down knowing the female(s) he impregnates can be married to the state. Promiscuous men have the state as "the father." There's also no room for lesbian couples in your brain, or straight couples where they've chosen to reverse roles. I'm not a "feminist academic," but I am a middle-aged feminist who has worked many "normal jobs" and is currently a farmer. I've also been married to a man for 32 years. As far as "we often shame the man (not the woman), calling him 'hen pecked' or 'a cuck'" you may do this but I've never referred to a man as hen pecked. In fact, I've never heard a woman refer to a man this way but I have heard plenty of men say this about other men, even about men that just want to spend time with their families at home instead of being out slugging beer with the guys. The rest of your points are complete fantasy in an alternate universe.
"Using your logic, you are saying men are victims and objects (devoid of agency)"
Yes. We objectify men by sending them off to war (and shooting them for desertion), or sending them down mines, or demanding they sacrifice themselves to allow women and children onto the lifeboats.
A woman who flirts with a man at the bar JUST to get free drinks, or who goes on a date with a man JUST for a free meal and ego boost (some women date every night just for the free meals to save money) is an example of objectifying men as cash dispensers and vending machines.
There are many ways we objectify men that are horrendous, and yet we only hear of how women are objectified. Feminism's absurd claim that men are 'privileged' is ITSELF an example of objectifying men, because when a group is branded as privileged (as men are) society loses all empathy for them, and even men themselves are mostly blind to their own objectification because they have been indoctrinated to view themselves as 'privileged' and women as 'oppressed'.
If we objectify women as 'precious vases' to be kept safe and confined in a museum, then we objectify men as 'disposable tools' to be used and then discarded when they are worn out or damaged.
These are different ways to objectify, and feminism has trained us to only view the female forms of objectification and not the male forms.
I agree the welfare state encourages men AND women to view sex and relationships as a casual, reckless and hedonistic affair, rather than a serious commitment and partnership. But it was feminism that demanded we separate sex from marriage and reproduction. Yes women can 'marry the state' but fathers are also obligated to pay child support too. For women consent to sex is NOT consent to parenthood in the event of a pregnancy. But for men it is. Even if the man is not the biological father, if the mother puts his name on the BC he will be forced to pay child support.
Lesbian couples are outliers and not part of the debate on male/ female issues. But if there were no men and only lesbians (and babies were delivered by storks) somebody would have to be homemaker/mother and somebody would have to be bread winner. Lesbians expose the oppression/ oppressed narrative as nonsense. Parenting/ family life requires different roles and a collaborative effort, just as most businesses do (admin, sales etc).
Straight couples who reverse roles are another proof that women are not an oppressed class. Nobody calls stay-at-home husbands oppressed, or their wives privileged. If anything we tend to regard stay-at-home husbands as getting the easy role, and there is some social stigma that he is sponging off his wife's pay packet.
If you are a feminist then you believe women are an oppressed class and men are an oppressor class. But you've not provided any evidence to support this position. I doubt you actually are a feminist, even if you identify as one.
Feminism is a toxic and utterly insane ideology, which is an affront to biology, nature, psychology and common sense. But feminism is also a completely meaningless term which just means 'women's issues'. This is what makes feminism so destructive. Most self-identifying feminists are not insane but feminist ideology is utterly insane.
If you live on a farm you must understand how traditional gender roles just make sense and served women for tens of thousands of years. Swapping gender roles does NOT serve women, therefore feminist ideology's central claim (traditional gender roles are men's way of oppressing women) makes no sense.
The problem is we only ever look at half the story. Life is tough for women today and in the past, but men never had it any easier... and I would argue they had it harder in almost every respect.
The problem with this religion of 'women worsting' is it is just so demoralising for both sexes. Feminism's goal is to erase empathy for men by framing them as privilege and maximise empathy for women by framing women as victims of absolutely everything (in order to justify feminism's demands for special treatment and free stuff). But the result is just a demoralised population.
The first generation to be exposed to feminism in schools as the default narrative on gender (as opposed to a fringe ideology) is also the first generation to reject gender ITSELF, often with the aid of hormones, surgeries and 'non binary' self identities.
Many of these young people (both sexes, but mostly female) report being traumatised by puberty and the prospect of having to take on the burdens of femininity (oppressed class) or masculinity (oppressor class) and so they do all they can to evade sexual maturity.
There's nothing wrong with discussing women's/ men's issues (of which there are many), but doing so through the feminist lens of 'oppression' and 'battle of the senses' is tearing society apart.
This screams of an essay wanting to be written. Is there more you want to say? Do you have your own account? Or are you just posting random statements as they come to mind? Curious.
“I’m just proud I acted like a professional and refrained from asking her about ramped-up custody issues with the moon man, whose blonde haired spawn I spotted getting into the elevator with two paranoid looking nannies.” my fav sentence 😂😂 Also, Jess your hair is looking 🤌🏼
Make sure not to forget to watch all the videos embedded. Jessica hosts a thought-provoking and hilarious podcast throughout the night!
You did such an incredible job herding the cats! Well done sister 🙌🏼
Feminism ruined the nuclear family, ruined children’s well being, and created this god awful society we’re currently living in. No one is raising children, teaching respect, self-worth, or the sanctity of life. We’re living in a hedonistic free for all, selfish land. It sucks and I see no end in sight.
Am I the only one jealous they didn’t get an owl? JESSICA YOU LOOKED FABULOUS-that dress, those shoes, the hair🔥🔥🔥🔥 Absolutely FABULOUS! I’m wicked jealous I couldn’t make it across the country for this but LIVING for this content!!!!!! THIS IS WHAT WE NEED MORE OF!
I must admit it scared the shit out of me to hear Grimes say it won't matter in five years bc women will be obsolete😳 crazy times were living in, endless amounts of jaw dropping, at this point Im along for the ride, lol
Thank you for including me, such an incredible evening, I really loved "observing & absorbing" so yes please, tee shirts😜
xb
It didn’t scare me. I wanted her to continue saying it more and more! It’s true, if they can replace women with men in sports imagine what will happen with AI. And we’re not just talking actors or musicians.
touchè ;)
Really loved this funny group of women! Everyone added their own sense of humor, loved the show, keep the podcast coming!
Really loved this funny group of women! Everyone added their own sense of humor. Podcast was tremendous.
Can we talk about Bijou filing for divorce 2 days after the conviction? Wow. Talk about I’ll always stand by your side.
It´s probably about protecting assets...
Totally agree - she was photographed still wearing her wedding ring after filing for divorce.
Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that.
Thank you for this!
Also, I NEED that blue pantsuit!
And just when I thought there were no spaces in this world for smart women to get together and look cute and be funny and think freely and have a cocktail...
How do I get in this club? Are y’all accepting new members? Would love to submit an application!