Untangling Feminism and Critical Theory | BreadBusting #16

NOTE: Marxian doesn't mean Marxist. It is an academic term, and here it means something like pseudo-Marxist or Marxist-like. For my latest thoughts on why criticalism isn't Marxism, see this 2021 post.

Welcome to BreadBusting by TaraElla, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally.

Today, I want to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Men, where Natalie talked about topics like masculinity and the men's rights movement. While I think she did much better than your typical left-leaning feminist, I also believe she ultimately missed the mark. I think it's great that Natalie could at least see that life is pretty bleak for many men out there, particularly young men, and the left in particular has often been too dismissive of this. I also think it's great that Natalie is aware that, if there is to be new models of masculinity for the 21st century, it would need to be developed by and for men. I certainly agree that most men wouldn't accept a model of masculinity that was designed by women!

Where Natalie missed the point, however, was that she couldn't see how contemporary feminism is making things difficult for many men. While I'm not saying that contemporary feminism is all bad, it certainly has some problematic features, and they have created genuine disadvantage and resentment in men. Of course, the other important factor in the crisis of masculinity is the economic side of things, that is, the poor economic prospects for many young people in today's world, which I will address in part 2 of my response. Today, though, I will be focusing on where feminism has gone wrong. What I'm going to say may be unpopular, but I think it's an unpopular truth we all have to face.

Part 1: How Feminism Mutated and Failed Men

Let's start with this controversial proposition. The fact that there even needs to be a men's rights movement today is a sign of feminism's failure, at least according to the goals of earlier feminism. The reason why there needs to be a men's rights movement is because there are a number of ways men are disadvantaged because of their gender, for example in custody, in sentencing, in suicide rates, and so on. Even early in life, girls are told to be proud of their gender, but boys are not. The problem is, no other mainstream political movement would care about these issues. The fact that this is the case represents the failure of feminism as it was originally understood, the version of feminism that I personally idenfity with. You see, feminism was originally about equal treatment of all people regardless of gender. It sought to end all such unequal treatment, as part of classical liberalism's wider goal of individual liberty and equal opportunity. This is why many classical liberals like John Stuart Mill were sympathetic to the feminism of their day. This form of feminism was ultimately quite successful, bringing women the right to vote, equal access to education, and much better access to employment opportunities, even though I think there's still improvement to be made there in terms of the glass ceiling.

The problem is that, around the 1960s and 70s, something happened across the Western intellectual landscape that ultimately also changed feminism for the worse. Classical liberal values like individual-level equality and dignity went out of fashion, and Marxian ideas introduced via critical theory became fashionable, and eventually became dominant in so-called progressive circles. When I say Marxian, I don't mean Marxist or Communist, but rather models of understanding society that was inspired by Marxism. For example, during second wave feminism, gender relations became more commonly thought of as a class-like system, with men being the oppressors and women being the oppressed, analogous to Marx's idea of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Unlike earlier models of feminism, which sought gender equality by reform, this new model of feminism saw men as an oppressive class, and effectively pit women against men.

Part 2: Toxic Gender Relations Under Marxianized Feminism

Anyway, the Marxian influence essentially turned feminism from a project of reform for equality to a dialectic struggle between women and men. Regular audience of this channel would know that I have never been a fan of Marxian influence in culture, but its impact on gender relations have been particularly toxic for society. Feminists began blaming men and masculinity for every difficulty faced by women. After all, every man was now a member of the oppressor class, with all its privileges. Every man thus had an undeniable role in the perpetuation of the system, mirroring how in Marxist theory every member of the bougeoisie had a similar role, whether they embraced it or not. Just like it is difficult for the Marxist to feel sorry for the bougeoisie, it became difficult for the radical feminist to have any genuine concern for the welfare of men. Thus, where classical liberal feminism would sought to iron out all gender inequalities, Marxian-inspired radical feminism would only care about women. This gave rise to attitudes like 'it's not feminism's responsibility to care about men', which I am disappointed to see. I also think this attitude is ultimately self-defeating for feminism too, because gender inequality somewhere in society is a threat to gender equality everywhere in society. I firmly believe that, we can't fix the glass ceiling in the corporate world, unless we also fix the bias against fathers' custody in the courts.

Part 3: The Attack on Traditional Masculinity

The Marxian and critical theory turn in social studies also led to the view of cultural hegemony becoming dominant. In this worldview, all existing cultural arrangements are seen as potentially in service of systems of domination, and should be deconstructed and dismantled for the sake of liberation. In this view, traditional masculinity began to be seen as a social construct that supported the system of patriarchy, and its dismantling was therefore seen as essential for women's liberation. Ideas like 'toxic masculinity' was thus born. This led to the denounciation of much of the traditional gender role for men, with harmful consequences. While it is true that not all men want traditional masculinity, the fact that it was popular for so long should logically point to this model being satisfying for many, if not most, men. Like it or not, traditional masculinity gives many men the purpose they need in life, and I believe this is somewhat biologically hardwired too. Therefore, I think that it is impossible for men to develop models of healthy masculinity if feminists keep attacking multiple elements of traditional masculinity all the time. While we certainly can do without the sexist attitudes of the past, there are plenty of other elements of traditional masculinity that deserve to be celebrated, and we shouldn't let critical theory ideology get in the way of that. I believe that, ultimately, we can have traditional masculinity and we can have gender equality, that the two aren't incompatible if you take a classical liberal view.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to deliver the second part of my response to Men by ContraPoints, focusing on the economic side of things this time. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Bernie Sanders Diagnosed The Biggest Problem Of Our Time | TaraElla News | Re Joe Rogan

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. We'll be doing this on most days of the week, subscribe if you're interested.

Today, I want to respond to something Bernie Sanders said in his recent interview with Joe Rogan. Basically, Bernie said that the candidate debates didn't allow enough time for the candidates to adequately present their views and policies. He said it instead resembled reality TV. He went on to expand this analysis to the current state of political discourse in America more generally, where it is common to reduce things to soundbites, and where long discussions are rare. He made it clear that he believes the media has responsibility for this regrettable situation, and also compared it to some other countries where leaders of major parties are given hours of free air time to explain their platform on TV.

As is often the case, I think Bernie has accurately diagnosed a major problem with the quality of political discussion in America and many other Western countries. While I don't always agree with Bernie, he is always great at making this kind of analysis. In fact, I strongly believe that the proliferation of fake news has a lot to do with reducing everything to soundbites. As to how this situation can be resolved, Bernie told Joe Rogan that he thinks it can only change with legislation. Regrettably, I think in the immediate present, he is essentially correct. On the other hand, if we take a longer-term view, it is the culture that needs to change.

I mean, what Bernie essentially said was that network TV wouldn't change unless they were forced to. But why would this be the case? Because they are after ratings, they are after what's popular. Which must, in turn mean that, reducing everything to soundbites, even at the risk of promoting fake news, is the popular thing to do. But then, what's popular in terms of the media landscape changes regularly, and it all depends on what the public values. Right now, the public doesn't value long-form discourse, and prefers to get their information as simple statements. But if the public can wake up to the fact that this preference is poisoning our political discourse and preventing common ground from being found, and hence preventing us from finding the necessary answers, their preference may gradually change over time. And it could already be happening right now. For example, while long-form discussions are still rare on network TV, they are becoming increasingly common on YouTube, and we all know YouTube and social media in general are essentially lead indicators in terms of political trends. That is, what we see on YouTube now, we are quite likely to see in the mainstream in several years' time. Therefore, if we independent political commentators keep up our work, we may just be able to change political discourse for the better.

The popularity of long-winded and serious political discussions on YouTube and elsewhere shows that a media landscape of soundbites and fake news doesn't have to be the case. All it takes is a widespread awareness that there is a better way to do things. And right now, by creating alternative political content, by creating meaningful content as opposed to the soundbites on mainstream media, we are spreading this awareness.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

We Need to Look At Anti Free Speech Theories | TaraElla News

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. TaraElla News is released on most days of the week, and each episode is distributed to either the TaraElla Politics channel or the TaraElla Culture channel, subscribe if you're interested.

Today, I want to respond to a recent PragerU video titled Hate Speech Doesn't Exist. Firstly, I have very mixed feelings about Dennis Prager and PragerU, but they are staunchly pro-free speech, and I will give them that. However, I believe we win arguments by being honest and rational. I think it's an objective truth that hate speech is a thing. What we should argue is that there shouldn't be laws against free speech, and that would have to mean no laws against any speech.

The video itself basically tells us what we already know. You know, trigger warnings, microaggressions, disinviting speakers, college students who prefer freedom from speech over freedom of speech, all things we have been familiar with since at least 2015. In other words, the video doesn't cover any new ground. Therefore, you would have to ask, why would someone be making this video in 2019? It's because free speech still isn't winning. Unfortunately, outlets like PragerU generally love to preach to the converted, and tend to simplify and dichotomize everything. Another example is their recent video on the death penalty, where the subject was treated with absolutely no nuance.

But let's return to free speech. Many of us continue to support free speech as a key pillar of classical liberalism, believing that the free market of ideas will bring truth and rationality. We've also been making the argument that suppressing speech doesn't improve things for anyone. We've been going public with our objections to so-called safe speech, microaggression theory, and the de-platforming of speakers for several years now, and let's face it, we haven't been making any progress at all. The reason is because we haven't made a dent in the underlying theory justifying these phenomenon. Free speech activists generally haven't been big on theory. The PragerU video only mentioned academic theory once, in connection with microaggressions. But the fact is, critical theory, and in particular postmodern critical theory, is the backbone of the anti-free speech movement. In other words, we can save free speech, if we smash the critical theory worldview with classical liberal arguments.

Basically, all anti-free speech arguments are ultimately rooted in the idea that discourse itself is power. This draws heavily on postmodern critical theory thinkers like Foucault, but also has deeper roots in the critical theory tradition, where it is assumed that there are culturally-based systems of oppression everywhere. The assumption of culturally-based systems of oppression is baked right into the method. It's not hard to see how this would lead to discourse being power, and from there to speech itself being tools of oppression, and even speech itself being violent. Of course, the best antidote to this bleak worldview of humanity is to embrace classical liberal values like the free market of ideas, and its potential to better humanity both morally and pragmatically. Where critical theory is negative about humanity, classical liberalism is very positive. Where postmodern critical theorists see individuals as being defined by external forces, classical liberals see individuals as having lots of agency.

Andrew Yang Made The Best Argument for Medicare For All (M4A) | #YangGang | TaraElla News

NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.

Welcome to TaraElla News, the news report where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of the classical liberal spirit.

Today, we will begin a multi-part examination of the things Andrew Yang said in the recent CNN debate. Yang was again given the least amount of time to speak, but even with this disadvantage, he managed to make a few very important points, and was widely seen as one of the winners of the night. Today, I will focus on his argument on Medicare For All.

Once a fringe position, Medicare For All has grown to become very mainstream in the Democratic Party, in just a few years. While many 2020 candidates are climbing aboard the Medicare For All bandwagon, their arguments often sounds similar to each other. There's the humanitarian argument, the economic effciency argument, and the argument that big pharma and the healthcare industry shouldn't be able to profit off sick people while putting their health at risk. While all these arguments are valid and important, there's something missing. I think Andrew Yang may have provided the final missing piece of the Medicare For All puzzle.

Basically, Yang argued for Medicare For All from the perspective of the business environment. From the perspective of business owners, Medicare For All makes it easier to hire people, especially full-time employees, because there wouldn't be a need to include health insurance for them anymore. From the perspective of individuals, Medicare For All makes it easier to switch jobs, and to start a business, because they wouldn't lose their current health care arrangements by leaving their current job. All this means a more efficient labor market, more flexibility and mobility, which is good for both employers and workers.

I think the point about Medicare For All removing a big barrier for those wanting to start a business was an especially important one. Something many people have forgotten is that, a big part of the classical liberal vision was that the market would have low barriers to entry, so that it would be feasible for most individuals to save enough to start a business before they were too old. The original American dream wasn't about working like a slave for someone else just to be able to pay the bills; it was about being able to take one's ideas and run with it in the free market. Therefore, our current situation is not the classical liberal vision of a free market; it is nothing less than a betrayal of this vision. In this day and age, when the barriers for entry into business are so high, the class-based conditions of feudal society have been effectively re-created. I believe that a real classical liberal should be much more concerned with this, than with the size of the federal government.

Which brings me back to why Yang's argument is so important. A lot of the remaining resistance to Medicare For All is surrounding the idea that such a program would grow the size of the federal government, and hence move away from classical liberalism and towards statism. But this would be to see classical liberalism as having a narrow focus on cutting federal government, without regard for human outcomes in the bigger picture, which would not be in line with what the great 19th century classical liberals actually wanted. I believe that, by situating Medicare For All in the larger picture of how we can achieve classical liberal objectives, we can bring many more M4A skeptics on board.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.