David Benatar | The Second Sexism

[@bluewhaleyshark11111]

Benatar is criminally underrated as a thinker and philosopher. I wish his ideas gained more traction within the public sphere.

[@anti-natalist8762]

Prof. Benetar, thank you for putting your ideas out in the world.

[@adreaminxy]

10/10 time we'll spent!

[@xyzain_1827]

I can't disagree with his points. The problem seems to be so ingrained that we won't solve it in the next 20 years.

[@bebe8842]

27:30 because the issue women have is screaming and was the last drops of all bad treatments they got for centuries if not more from men. why would women think of injustice and violence that take place between men and men? 😅 we're busy with our issues and concerns. why isn't this obvious to Benatar. 1st time when i had to say sth against him and i m not a feminist , at least i avoid saying it but i believe in all those core rules the movement have, though i should have the right to become and declare myself so after years of abuse from different males

[@tudormarginean4776]

you also benefit from some injustices between men, for example from wars. If you live in a (former) (geopolitical) empire like Russia or pretty much all of the West, the fact that your men fought wars against other men contributed to the power of your countries, and implicitly to their development. Roman women, for example, benefited from the fact that the Roman legions died in wars of conquest. Furthermore, you have a great influence over men. Without male consent, the goals of feminism would be impossible to achieve, but fortunately, many men chose at some point not to continue to maintain Iran-like societies. But sometimes your influence over men is so great that you transform them into male feminists, who happily make laws or approve of practices that discriminate against men. I can continue with examples if you're interested.

[@ryanbrown9833]

@@tudormarginean4776yeah a lot of them tend to really stay quiet when it comes to draft or when it comes to the fact that men were literally willing ti give them rights lol.

[@spacepan]

6:38 very weak stance here. He is also incorrect about the reciprocal fgm proposed. It was a ritual nic, and even that was deemed too barbaric. It was in no way comparable

[@celeritasc9207]

I agree, very weak stance indeed and incorrect on the proposed reciprocal ritual nic. I very much respect Benatar’s clear and precise philosophies. His logic is almost always impeccable. Thus, I am baffled by his position on routine male infant circumcision. The simple fact that there are a significant number of men that were subjected to routine infant infant circumcision and as adults prefer to have been otherwise is a biased harm against males irrespective of the lack of pain management during the procedure. Benatar’s blindness to the asymmetry of the short lived physical pain in comparison to the lifelong psychological pain is ironic considering his anti-natalism philosophy. With respect to the proposed ritual nic, in principle I agree with the decision but it should be applied to all genders. But, perhaps such a less invasive symbolic procedure to satisfy the seemingly eternally persistent religious dogma could be an avenue to lessen the overall harm to all.

[@BobbyMack]

@@celeritasc9207 I think this is a rare instance of his own bias showing due to his Jewish heritage. He cannot say it is wrong due to his own upbringing.

[@celeritasc9207]

@@BobbyMack I was unaware of his Jewish heritage, that is the likely explanation. It is unfortunate that as an atheist he couldn't over come his bias. There are Jewish people that are against the practice. It is disappointing that he actually wrote a paper on it with his brother and concluded that societal given parental right to chop off body parts of their male offspring is ethically acceptable. It is troubling that those with heritage based conflicts of interest make such proclamations on the behalf all society. That is just wrong. To me an individual's right to body autonomy (all of it) are paramount unless there is urgent medical necessity. I guess I will have to forgive him for being a normal human with biases.

[@renwolf8333]

Hi how are u are happy now

[@DiogenesNephew]

​@@celeritasc9207 It sounds to me that he is under the impression that there are benefits that are reasonable enough to justify the practice (with anesthesia). Disagree if you want. Doesn't make either of you correct. I'm absolutely thrilled that I was circumcised. Others aren't (though I only seem to hear people claim that on the internet).

[@philamahlangu3465]

David would agree with Jordan Peterson on this one a whole lot more

[@skyeshore5704]

Benatars comment ending at about 38 minutes makes me think about criminal law in the US. If a group of robbers are tried for the crime, and it happened that one of the robbers also committed a murder during the robbery, all those involved in the robbery can be charged with equal responsibility for the murder. How does this situation differ to from the one Benatar responded to? Thanks.

[@Supersaiyanbuddha]

These aren't the men these topics should be discussed with.

[@rebekahlevy4562]

And PLEASE do not categorize me as some kind of man-hating feminist, either. I am on MOTHERS' cases just as much. In my view, mothers have to (1) stop using their sons to be their "Little Men" (because they are full of repressed rage at men), since it not only contributes to enabling the bullying culture later on--it also contributes vastly to emotionally stunting boys by enmeshing their emotional lives to Mommy--later on the same men demand mommies in their mates, and NOT peer partners; mothers also have to (2) find ways to allow their little boys to have their "Male" feelings and emotions as well as their "Female" ones. Too many "feminist" mommies are busy filtering out those very natural emotions. If boys had culturally permitted access to BOTH, they would not have to "learn" compassion later on in life--they would already have a basis for understanding other people's situations...and we would have a lot less war AND environmental destruction, for a start.

[@TheUrantia001]

Stop breeding....

[@onelmstreet8839]

@@TheUrantia001 same i thought.. all this gender/Feminist stuff to have a genderfree World is utter BS.. The human race is Messy crap. Allways complain about everything

[@jamesbond8540]

Better never to have men LOL

[@TheUrantia001]

Good luck making your own shoes and sleeping in a field...hope you much cardboard to make a house..

[@junetaylor8396]

This is the sorry state of philosophy now. MRAs griping and calling it philosophy.

[@abaddonanon7573]

Why does Benatar care?

[@TheUrantia001]

It's called intelligence...and common sense..

[@ColeNasrallah]

Stop using "male" and "female" as nouns. It's incorrect and highly distracting.

[@BraininaVat]

Male is both a noun and an adjective. What are we missing?

[@ColeNasrallah]

@@BraininaVat if you use it as a noun, it needs to be part of a noun phrase. Used alone, any intelligent person ought ask "female what? A female toad? A female puppy? A female cell? A female stool sample? Or a female person?" Of course, language changes, but when it changes such that calling people by their adjectives is acceptable use, we get things like, "it was a gay who kicked over the chair," or "it was a black who bought the cake." And I don't think anyone wants that. We want adjectives+nouns.

[@BraininaVat]

@Cole From the context of the discussion it should be clear that we are talking about male and female human beings. Saying a male person would be cumbersome. Simply using the term male is useful, because it refers to both men and boys, which Benatar argues are both subject to disadvantage.

[@oblivison6467]

@@ColeNasrallah bro you think they’re talking about cats or Koalas, pretty sure it’s obvious.

[@sreerajpj846]

Fuck pronouns