Today, me and my friend were left looking at a video that left us basically in awe with it’s regressive views. So, as is usual, we entered into a feminist and political view of the entire deal. So, me and Shivangi sat down and discussed the video below to well, find out what was wrong with it.
Me : OK, so what are your primary thoughts? For me the video performs quite a few fallacies, there have been several countries where enforced monogamy is the norm (*cough* India *cough), where the economic situation has not seen uniform growth over the years and has in fact in the long term, only benefited from the outside trade. Also, equation sexual liberation with the political ideologies of the left is naivete. Historically, as well as recently, the left has routinely stood up for women’s rights, and sexual liberation has played a key part in it. Also, let us remember that there have been countries with high levels of gender equality, which have offered a multicultural approach to Islam and have worked their way. So, the correlation, however, positive cannot account for the causation. The prime example of course is the Danish government, which despite having one of the most sexually liberated, and gender equal societies in Europe has remained staunchly against immigration. Which by definition of scientific research makes the entire debate moot.
S : The perspective of the narrator is completely wrong. He is looking at everything from a biological point of view and not social.
Me : So, as we scientifically disprove this false ideal we also have to question the sources he is using, a 1936 book cannot account for recent economic trends and of course the developing nations with new trade opportunities are growing at a faster rate than developed countries where the trade opportunities have become limited in scope. However, there has been a scope for development still, USA is still growing in the business sector, the sexually liberated and free bordered EU countries have seen growth too
S : Also the comparison of Vietnamese and Nazi incidents with the Syrian refugees is not only stupid but also blatantly racist. The women who married the enemies were just in a social position where they could take advantage and they did like any man would have as well.
Me : Of course, the biological perspective sans any social context puts things at a backseat, traditionally, men have sought out women with larger hips and larger breasts because they were indicators of greater fertility, but, in the context of a steady growth of population and an already overpopulated world, the concept of a monogamous family as a production unit of children holds no purpose and is quite archaic.
S : Where he brings in the 87% women orgasm during rape. That doesn’t prove that women naturally seek more aggressive men.
Me : A lot of American soldiers would have had relations with Vietnamese men, this was not seeking out the enemy, historically this was to protect the family from the oppression, I believe we can find studies and books written about the same
S : Because by that logic we can also say that a lot of men get erections during rape so they like aggressive women as well.
Me : Sexual arousal is a bodily response to penetration and other things, it is removed from the consensual basis of a relationship that should be established. there are psychological repercussions
S : Exactly
Me : This disproves the aggressive men theory
S : Plus people have different personalities on bed and in public.
Me : Also, it is a moot point that women tend to have rape fantasies, because by consenting to have those fantasies women essentially want sex that is consensual. This cannot be equated to rape.
S : The most irritating part for me was the author’s 80% and 40% part. He clearly ignored the fact that maybe the women were lesser in quantity.
And of the rest 60% of men maybe some were not interested in Heterosexuality.
Me : Also, the fact that polygamy was an accepted social norm in the older societies and that monogamy is a recent construct which basically created the family as a production unit has been noted in Marxist philosophies for such a long time.There is positive evidence that colonization of the older cultures particularly in native America was when the monogamy as the accepted norm started there, there is actual documented evidence of this
S : Exactly. And moreover the sex ratio has not always been equal.
Me : Basically, the construct of civilized society has been so influenced by colonization it is very difficult to construct a narrative where you can account for a part where a polygamous society or a society where the women were more sexually liberated was worse off
S : Also he said that women never built or maintained a civilization. Whose fault is that?
Me : Because as far as I remember, in India particularly, the polygamy and sexual liberation of women, to the point of an entire sexual culture centered around it was when it was showing maximal growth. Of course the colonists did not see it as growth because they were myopic in their views of what growth really meant
S : While the civilization was about to start women did not have an option but to reproduce
Me : Patriarchal societies have routinely not allowed female participation in decision making and with male opinions dominating the media, and the male narrative still dictating a large amount of consumerist society, we cannot construct a view of how a matriarchal society might perform in the real time world
There is simply no credible scientific evidence either way.
S : I like how he keeps saying that he isn’t referring to all women but women as an organism. I have really never seen a sentence contradict itself so much
Me : Woman isn’t an individual organism, the female sex still belongs to homo sapiens and has particularly same base characteristics, despite societal norms dictating behavioral changes and the inherent biological differences almost all female and males of any species have
This other-ing of woman into another separate organism as a whole represents a myopic view in itself and showcases an inherent misogynist view
Out of everything, we can probably understand that the author represents this mindset which is scary. mostly, we debated on the feminist characteristics of the views represented in the video, the inherent xenophobia would need a whole other source.