~ archived since 2018 ~

Progress: Krystal Ball touches on gender dynamics when police interactions, speaks on privileged white women and underclass black men

TC1851

May 29, 2020

26 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

https://youtu.be/8GgRYVDxS-Y

Archived from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a place for the discussion of men's issues from a left wing perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Progress: Krystal Ball touches on gender dynamics when police interactions, speaks on privileged white women and underclass black men
Author	TC1851
Upvotes	26
Comments	25
Date	May 29, 2020 7:42 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/gszrv4/progress_krystal_ball_touches_on_gender_dynamics/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/progress-krystal-ball-touches-on-gender-dynamics.1063389 https://theredarchive.com/post/1063389

Comments

[–]Strikester101 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]TC1851[S] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]VertuseAlet 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TC1851[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcellentTraffic123 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TC1851[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcellentTraffic123 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for that link!

I actually became familiar with Krystal and Saagar a few months ago when I followed r/SandersForPresident as they frequently linked to videos of them criticising the neoliberals that Sanders competed with for the nomination to run for POTUS against Trump.

When they really got my attention and won me over as a dedicated listener was when Saagar gave his talk about how "Corporate Elites Chose to Make You Suffer" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm7H3HRdPhg) where he talked about the shutdown protesters in Michigan. Instead of denigrating them as tacticool idiots as many others have, Saagar pointed out that these people are in an economic situation that could have been prevented if only our leaders had made protecting and making them whole a priority in the covid bailout programs. That was the first time that they not only informed me, but changed my mind about something.

That video you shared looks like a rather wholesome look at men's issues. I should have expected no less from Krystal.

[–]TC1851[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcellentTraffic123 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Women were barred from scientist professions until around the post-war. They started at the start of the century but were extremely shunned. Situations like the one of Rosalind Franklin (of open sexist rob of women's credit) do exist, but they weren't that common.

Until the early XX century, all scientists were self-taught geniuses, mostly flithy rich that did not have to do anything for a living. Scientists from poor backgrounds do exist, but I would say that they were rarer than women, who also were mostly upper class.

I would say that women had a harder time being accepted into PhDs than men. Scientist men were rich but they usually studied at universities, scientist women usually were rich and were barred from universities and depended on male contacts and mentors.

Typical female scientists would be Sophie Germain or Emilie di Chatelet. You can check their biographies to see what would be the typical life of a female scientist in the XVIII century.

[–]Strikester101 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Aaaaalll the differences?

Veeery roughly speaking, there was a hierarchy inside the house. The father was in charge of public relationships with other households, this includes politics and many economic activities (specially the ones that involved travel). Women were in charge of the household, which included the children, but also slaves and domestic servants. The idea was roughly that women micromanaged the household while men gave the big directives. Men were in charge to make sure the common law was respected. Men were expected to be rational, active and on the side of culture. Women were expected to be "naturally good". People thought a moral man was more virtuous, because women were more like animals (nearer nature and earth) so they did not know evil, exactly. Men, instead, could choose to be good and virtuous or evil and lazy. Men were expected to give orders to their wives, but not in their own interest: they carried culture through reason and law, so they give instructions to make sure the household respected the law. Men were expected to be the ones to kill (specially organized violence, but also big animals) and protect others from physical harm, while women were in charge of childrearing and small-scale agriculture. Marriage was an economic unit, not a romantic one. Husbands and wives were expected to grew accostumed to each other, not exactly to love. Gender roles inside marriage were related to economic efficiency, not to male advantage over women. Men and women were expected to complement each other. In particular, men would do the hard work while women would take care of men's feelings (which included "domesticate" their men to become more responsible).

The reason why women were barred from Universities is mainly because it was a public institution. Women did not do public things. Women did were nuns, since nunhood is reclusive. Nunhood was one of the highest status of women. They were considered married to God. Some of the greatest female naturalists were nuns.

[–]Strikester101 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In my oppinion, from political anthropology, patriarchy is a mode of production (like capitalism is), which I have seen called (patrilineal) kin corporate mode of production. It stems from tribalism. The name is because families act as corporations -tribes or clans, depending on the size- with interests and alliances (like in Game of Thrones). Roughly speaking, it is good to have in-laws that you can trade through gifts. Arranged marriage is one of the most important institutions in these societies. This is the reason for hypergamy, by the way, parents try to marry their daughters up economically/socially, to have a more secure retirement. This ends up with polyginy of rich people, who get married with all the daughters of the poor people who want gifts from you.

Matriarchies did not exist as such, but there had been matrifocal societies. Mostly in horticultural societies of native americans in the US and in Southeast Asia. Horticultural matrifocal societies form complex societies (but without a State), with low internal warfare and high international warfare. The division of labour is roughly similar, but because those societies are horticultural, women have a stronger economic role. Formal politics is usually divided into male and female roles, so women have a stronger political role, however, the public sphere is much weaker than in patrifocal societies. Divorces are way more common (divorce is correlated with female empowerment). The cause for this is that in patrifocal societies, women are tied to their husbands (they are part of that corporation). Instead, in matrifocal kin corporate societies, they are tied to their brothers and fathers (they are of that corporation). One of the crucial difference that separates traditional (whether patrifocal or matrifocal societies) from modern (neolocal ones) is whether adults live with their parents and in-laws. Of course, housing is expensive so only rich societies that can afford housing for most adult couples can superate this problem.

[–]Strikester1011 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes. It's still men the ones who fight at wars. Men are usually physically absent from households, busy fighting wars very far away, conquering more land from other nations to ease the demographic pressures. They would not be able to fight other tribes of the same nation/culture, because they live at their in-laws, so they share the house with the people who would be their enemies (like their wive's sister's husbands). Ultimately, these are matrifocal societies but are still tribal (kin corporate mode of production). Ours is a capitalistic society. Most of tribal ties were severed by feudalism/manoralism in Western Europe and in the rest of the world through capitalism. Married adult men and women with children do not longer live with their inlaws. So these relationships are quickly changing, and matrifocal pre-state societies provide a limited framework for a non-patriarchal society.

[–]ExcellentTraffic123 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TC1851[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YuenHsiaoTieng 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcellentTraffic123 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link