DISCLAIMER: I used JP in the title as a sort of clickbait: sorry, but he doesn't actually name JP in the video lesson in question. Second inaccuracy: he didn't actually teach this lesson because he was fired before he had a chance, but the lesson went online and it is therefore more than likely that most of his class eventually watched it.
PERSONAL DISCLAIMER: I am on record on these forums as giving JP genuine credence for certain parts of his doctrine, but it's exactly on this issue that I find JP blinkered and oddly sour for a married man with 3 children, and that is why I was motivated to summarize this fringe controversy in the form of this thread. The emojis are added for my own amusement but I am honestly quite shocked that a teacher at Eton could have slipped through the net like this before it came to a head (he has been dismissed).
Telegraph: Eton insists master's dismissal was 'not an issue of free speech' [notice the odd way that "master" is used - R.]Eton College has intervened for the first time in the row over a master's dismissal, insisting that it was "not an issue of free speech".
A spokesman for the £42,500-a-year school said the Head Master was left with "no choice" but to fire Will Knowland after he "persistently refused" to remove a ▶️video▶️ of his lecture from the internet.
Last week The Telegraph revealed that Mr Knowland was dismissed for ⚖️gross misconduct⚖️ after recording a lecture which questioned “current radical feminist orthodoxy”.
The lecture was part of the Perspectives course taken by older students to encourage them to "think 🤨critically🤨 about subjects of public debate".
But Mr Knowland alleged that he was banned from delivering the lecture to pupils and then dismissed after he refused to remove a video of the lecture from his personal ▶️YouTube channel▶️.
YouTube video: "The Patriarchy Paradox" by Will Knowland (AKA "KnowlandKnows")33mins, uploaded Sep 19 2020 (52k views, 3.3k likes)
▶️
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTHgMxQEoPIWhat follows is MY impartial summary (but DO listen to the ▶️video▶️ to pick up on its tone and "humour")
✔️"Patriarchy" is the theory that all gender differences are socially constructed, and that men dominate women in society at large.
✔️(according to the male-feminist activist group "Good Lads Initiative") feminism seeks to righteously "reimagine masculinity".
✔️(according to Doris Lessing) masculinity is "rubbished" without this even being noticed.
✔️No one wants to look up to a non-binary superhero: superheroes are by definition hyper masculine - see the marvel universe. ✔️These are quasi-biological archetypes and not mutable.
✔️Though women are freer to choose careers, they are not, in fact, more likely to close gender gaps in professions where gender gaps are prevalent. This is the titular "patriarchy paradox".
✔️There is no paradox because patriarchy is based in women's self-interested choices.
The
tone of the thing is way off by the start. The guy can barely suppress his rage when he says the name of Judith
BUTLER as if she was a war criminal.
The choice of visuals is propagandistic: the notion is that movements like the "Good Lads Initiative" are trying to shame little boys into being something they are not (appropriating a narrative from transgender activism).
The example of the marvel heroes seems circular to me: someone not already convinced that they are quasi-biological archetypes of immutable characteristics of masculinity would not find they existence convincing arguments for the immutable nature of masculine archetypes. So yeah. Poor start imo.
my summary continues
✔️"Procreate" "Protect" and "Provide" are the pillars of "Manhood", and "protect" above all. This is evidenced by sex differences in lion prides, and exemplified in a human context by Thor from Norse mythology. Through history, men have been naturals at making war.
✔️Judith Butler argues "sex" is socially constructed from the POV of non-binary people. Knowland counters this with another quote.
✔️If you take the logic of transgenderism you must accept its validity for some being lizard-people (reductio ad absurdum). The strong version of Butler's argument must fall.
✔️Hormones affect muscle development, and this shows that masculine strength is a biological fact. Again, the strong version of Butler's argument must fall.
Butler's maxim that "sex is socially constructed" is very trivial to dismiss so long as you subscribe to a very brittle and unwavering version of it. I won't belabour the point, because it's clear that "softer" versions of the maxim would not be so trivial to dismiss.
(again, please listen to the video to pick up on the tone of argument, however).
✔️Quotes a male-to-female transgender MMA fighter as saying "I am an abnormally strong woman", and argues that it is unfair that a person with natural hormonal advantages can attain victory in a female-only competition
✔️Thought experiment: what if all men were killed? Mining and other heavy industry (forestry, deep sea fishing etc) and the women would revert to hut-dwelling and die at age 40 on average. Women would accuse one another of witchcraft or similarly hurt one another regardless of the presence of men.
✔️What if men had never existed? There would be no useful inventions. Women lack the "Sisyphean" urge to create.
✔️Men have had it as bad or worse than women: male on female rape is insignificant compared to male on male rape in prisons. Men have had the vote longer than women, but men have had the obligation to be conscripted for longer than women (in fact that has never been the case).
✔️The science of "male expendability" intimates that men are more oppressed than women: when asked, people generally agree that (sourced studies) people prefer to spare the lives of women over men, that people are less willing to harm women than men, that women's aggression is more acceptable than men's aggression, and several sourced studies besides.
This is some deep ideological territory: every individual study must be addressed and the sweeping generalizations must be matched with equally sweeping generalizations. Or you can just back away and get on with your life. This is how this sort of stuff spreads: it insulates itself against intelligent response by making an adequate response book-length.
✔️Karl Popper's theory of "unfalsifiability" implicates feminism, since those women who disagree that they are oppressed are turned into examples of oppressed women (living in bad faith). It is a "closed system" in technical language.
This might be the only thing I agree with. Some people do have an "oppression narrative" and they try to accuse everyone who disagrees with them of acting in "bad faith". But I suppose that Knowland might accuse me of acting in bad faith if I, a male, should say that I think there are damaging cultural presumptions about masculinity that run back to chivalric times.
I don't like his use of Popper to single out feminist academia as unscientific, when I know that academic trends are generally "closed systems" that sustain themselves on hype rather than absolute, galilean principles of capital-S science (this kind of scientism is in fact the dubious legacy of Popper, imo).
Having dropped this name, he proceeds to his confident summary:
✔️The protector role is universal - whether among lion or humans. This is allied to the fact that women are more prone to fear (as studies prove).
✔️Men are universally socialized into conquering fear in the face of violent onslaught. They are told "man up", which the "Good Lads Initiative" proscribe as "meaningless". In fact, the process of "manning up" is necessary in order to achieve the aforementioned pillars of manhood: "Procreate" "Protect" and "Provide" (which, do not forget, are what prevent women from living in mud huts). The virtues of "manning up" are illustrated by the example of the Spartans at Thermopylae. What would king Leonidis have thought of the notion that "manning up" is "meaningless"?
✔️Women's honour is tied to ancient codes of propriety. Women use gossip rather than direct confrontation (i.e. a throwdown) which is the preserve of men. Women instigate competition between men in order to praise/mate with the highest sporting achievers. Men do not exert power over women because women manipulate men in this way.
✔️It is facile to imagine a world without violence: for one thing, it is a taboo fact that women are attracted to violence when it is righteous violence. Male aggression is a biological fact and it is facile to imagine it will dissipate.
Again, we get back to these nobodies the "Good Lads Initiative". I think he relies way too much on them because he has decided that they are a significant emblem of modern feminist attitudes to masculinity. But he hasn't worked to establish that.
I found this section difficult to summarise - it's about war and aggression, but also about indirect confrontation such as gossip. Maybe I'm not seeing the obvious but my impression is of a laundry listen of "men are good" and "women are bad" talking points.
I also think that, if it weren't for the aggrieved
tone of the video, these points could be made in a way that would be agreed upon by open-minded people: sure, women are more indirect in how they confront one another - there will probably always be some form of war - armies will probably always be mostly composed of men. I think Knowland fails to problematize these issues.
This is the final formulation:
I stress - these are my summations of a somewhat meandering video that ought to be watched in tandem
✔️"Machismo" is true "toxic masculinity", since it forgets the virtuous goal of true "masculinity": "chivalry". But "toxic masculinity" in its 21st century inception is nothing new, and adds nothing valuable to the notion of "machismo" vs "chivalry" in history.
✔️Women who like guys with muscles and money are normal and are unfairly discriminated against by ignorant researchers of "patriarchy".
✔️What's more, even feminists are not satisfied with sub-masculine husbands, as evidenced by an article in Marie Claire titled "Why I Left My Beta Husband": "I wanted to be overwhelmed by the power of his masculinity but I wasn't"
✔️ "Smash the Patriarchy" amounts to "Smash Human Nature". We need more chivalry and fewer calls for men to disavow masculinty.
This final summary is somewhat convincing, because it is a much weaker version of his actual summary. Who can complain about certain women's taste in men? Who can argue with a women who personally felt as if her man wasn't "man enough" for her in her marriage? I think modern feminism is completely at home with the notion that, especially in matters of sex, the notions of dominance and submission are essential for understanding oneself and the sex drives of your SO. In fact it is mostly from liberal, feminist types that I hear the most talk about embracing one's kinks and being authentic about one's preferred sexual persona. The problem with Knowland here is that he thinks that these are "gotchas" rather than mere complications.
