One thought on “The Deal Between Men and Women Is Broken | Bret Weinstein”

1. I suppose essentially Dr Warren Farrell’s argument. I do think many miss the truth that the chaos is intentional. It is an objective of the Marxist inspired brands of feminism. One made clearly by De Beauvoir and Greer amongst many others. Now of course in fact many feminists don’t really recognise this as their focus is on immediate advantages and privileges without really considering any wider issues. The “Sex in the City” sort who ant lots of freedoms yet fall into the arms of “Mr Big”. The paradox that the most “traditional” classes are precisely those that are upper and middleclass where a lot of whingeing goes on in a privileged position where hubby/partner earns loads and wife “works” in something “creative”.

   Meanwhile the ideas they learned in University (doing Eng Lit. or “Studies” of some sort) have a real and direct impact on the poor who are dependant in varying degrees on the “welfare state” Which is a huge number in most western European nations. The net result is women “marry” the state and in effect a form of “matriarchy” is created as most of that welfare is channelled through mothers. Men becoming peripheral and to an extent dependent on women as the more financially stable (a huge part of which is of course that “single mothers” have access to “social” housing which is a huge benefit in kind in such a crazy housing market). Even men with good earnings in a wide variety of occupations that are “unreliable” due to seasons, weather, project contracts, self employment etc. cannot compete with the reliability of welfare and housing welfare in particular (hence the phenomenon of the “hidden” male partner, hidden rom the DWP in case his income is spotted). This result is exactly what is aimed for in “In the Family Way” authored by Hattie Harman and others way back in the 70s. The more the welfare state impacts people in terms of numbers the more the socialist state will ensure the feminist version of “equality”. From each according to ability (ie Male workers) to each according to their “need ” (women and their children(fathers being scrubbed out)) which is of course women and children and any other “oppressed” group = feminist socialism.

   I think it was in Swedish research that I first saw an analysis of these apparent paradoxes as they separated society into one group, University educated typically high earning man partnered with professional woman (he in the private sector she in the public sector) espousing gender equality yet conforming to a fairly traditional family pattern. And “blue Collar” Sweden where aspirations to form families were much more fraught even though the aspirations for traditional family formation was stronger.

   Perhaps the much less comprehensive welfarism in the US means they don’t see this, or that their feminism is less overtly Marxist/Socialist as that in our Universities. But it is evident in much of the feminist agenda in UK and Europe. Just one example in the stated reasons to do nothing about the poor educational outcomes for boys, which are to handicap them in their opportunities to secure good employment precisely because this will equip them to earn good money and be attractive to females and valued by society. This not a “conspiracy” but revealed by Mary Curnock Cook when she tried to get the educational establishment to do something about boys “falling behind”!

   Yes there is a “wedge” driven between men and women in their “romantic aspirations” and yes feminism is full of entitled narcissists, but their ideologues are pursuing a long term strategy of “social deconstruction”. Hence casualties along the way (white working class girls victimised by grooming gangs, middle class women not getting a “high value” partner (where have all the good men gone?), Trans allies etc.) are fine because in fact there is a long game being played. That this results in anarchy is the intention not an accident or “unintended consequence”. Its what “de-construction” means.

   LikeLike

   Reply