I watched Will Knowland’s video. My condolences to the parents who paid for this

As a person from a Russian middle-class family, whose parents always dreamt to give me an education in a Western country, but failed, I seem to overestimate English private schools.

So I expected more from the infamous Patriarchy Paradox by Will Knowland.

Have people who argue about freedom of speech, misogyny, and transphobia in it actually watched it? The problems are even worse. It’s feeble, erroneous, and blind piece of thinking.

Probably if you listen to the lecture without a pause, in a classroom full of your peers and Knowland fans you would have another opinion. But I paused and did some research.

And the first problem is that Knowland lies. Or makes a lot of sincere errors… Still not the best characteristic for an Eton professor, I believe.

• He mentions that the Russian army in 95–96 had about 14% of female officers (at first I heard “40%”, but commenters on Youtube tell me that I misheard). Still, 14% is a gross miscalculation even now, in 2020. Let’s count — circa 150 000 officers, among them about 3000 women. And there were fewer women in 90th.
• He says that married women live longer and healthier. Quite the opposite.

The second problem is that he omits some interesting facts and context.

• When he explains that gender is biological, he links us to the scientist David Gilmore. But Gilmore is an anthropologist. His book is literally titled Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. Do English professors know the difference between culture and nature?
• When he shows us a YouGov graph, which proves that some women don’t want to call themselves feminists, he comfortably forgets that the survey has also shown that those not-feminists share the feminist values.
• When he makes fun of an article titled ‘Upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating into the sky’ — do cities have to be so sexist? he doesn't’ mention that it’s a book review. And Leslie Kern, author of the Feminist City, a rather serious work, surely has nothing to do with the editor’s provoking pick of a title.
• Talking about coverture laws he mentions that a husband could be punished for a crime committed by his wife. But he doesn't mention that husband couldn’t be prosecuted for the rape of his wife. Lawyers considered that absurd, like rape of your own hand, since a woman in marriage didn’t exist as a legal entity.

The third problem is that some of his arguments are not proving anything at all or even contradict his own words.

• My favorite example is the lions. He says that while lionesses get 90% of food, the lion catches only 10% but the prey is most dangerous. That’s the prey that can harm the lioness if it tried to catch it. I don’t like to compare animals and humans, but Knowland does it, so let us do. Imagine a family where the wife (or a collective of wives) gets 90% of an income comfortably, and the husband gets only 10%, but with a terrible danger to his life and health. I don’t say that they should divorce, but I wonder, who pays his medical bills and cares about him while he’s healing and does the household duties since he’s constantly damaged by his heroic deeds? In Russia, we call such husband’s motto “What if there is a war and I’m tired?!”
• There are also things like “Look at the face of a girl on a date who has heard that the guy wants to split the bill” (a photo of a girl). Well, I looked at it, and what? Look at that article about a lady who doesn’t like her “beta husband”. Or even, look at Tony Montana beating the shit of some fictional guy. Listen to the quote from that fictional Tony Montana. Quote from a fictional criminal — powerful argument indeed. At some point, I had to listen to a poem.
• He tells that men do the hardest work in our world. Fine. Then he suddenly tells that ancient mythology didn’t have punishments analogic to Sisyphus punishment. First of all, it had (the Danaides). Second — king Sisyphus was a rapist, a king, and tried to fool the gods. He’s hardly an example of an honest worker.
• He says that men rape more men in jail, then they rape women out of jails. What does it prove? You just told us that men tend to rape, I guess and resort to men when they can’t get women. Scary thought.
• He tells that masculinity is opposed to pedophilia, since inmates hate pedophiles. I have a suspicion that a burly incarcerated man is Knowlands’ top example of modern chivalry. But I have noticed that pedophiles usually consider themselves anti-feminist, non-toxic, caring, protecting, and providing to poor young girls — just like his lection describes “the good men”.

From this, we come to what I can only call fillers. Like that picture.

Knowland has a penchant for fantasy illustration with half-dressed people, mostly muscular males. This picture is an exclusion — the knight is dressed. But I like that the fight is going on on the other planet (or, maybe, Moon). It really must prove something about earthly masculinity.

He adds something like this to every second or third talking point, bombarding his viewers with that gun-show. But as a part of the serious discussion, those pictures are mere noise.

Sometimes the choice of an illustration is a mystery to me. For example, he says that we may think that man should be vulnerable, sensitive, and wear rainbow-colored bootlaces, but it doesn’t matter if the man is dead. Then he shows a half-naked native American with a horse. Is it a rebus? Have rainbow-colored bootlaces did something bad to Native people in Knowland's opinion or what?

I must admit I don’t share Knowland’s taste of humor if such exists. For example, he shows Marvel heroes (like Thor), then shows a picture of someone like Superman, but with tits and some pubic hair showing. The caption says “non-binary superhero”. Knowland adds “No one wants superheroes like this”. It’s so much to unpack! Why does he think that non-binary people behave in a sexualized way? Why does he think that no one wants to see non-binary movie heroes? Does he know that movie-Thor is a feminist ally? What is the age of his students? I mean, if they would ask him — why is this person pulling down their pants — what would he answer?

Ok, I’m petty. Let’s return to the serious points.

The whole lection is dedicated to the concept of toxic masculinity. He never seriously explains what feminists mean by it (because it can shake some of his assumptions). But in the end, he mysteriously and making giant leaps between his theses comes to the following conclusions:

First — actually masculinity isn’t toxic, it’s good, useful, and saving the world (Knowland knows about machismo, but waves it away as some defect masculinity)

Second — it’s natural and inevitable anyway.

He also mentions two alternatives to masculinity. Somehow it’s pedophilia and Soviet terror. Stalin would like your anti-feminist stance, comrade. It’s a matter of another post, though.

The main problem of Knowland and his proponents is a terrible, painful need to ignore your own dark side. Who are those pedophiles, whom real men hate? Who are the enemies, whom real protectors fight during all the wars Knowland proudly mentioned, from ancient Greece to war in Chechnya, including WWII? Who was Tony Montana’s neighbor, whom he had to beat? Did we wage war with the extraterrestrials all the time?

No. Men fought with the men. And you probably don’t dare say that women started WWII for our sweet feminine benefits that we get for being beautiful and bearing children. Are all those wars and terrors in Knowland's opinion a price we must pay for not splitting a bill on a date? Oh, thank you so much, how generous!

Finally another filler picture, the one he shows at the end of the video.

Knowland asks if the lady in the picture looks imprisoned or protected. I haven’t studied in Eton, but I can see that it’s a symbolic image, intended to show care and protection. But if he wanted me to take the illustration literally, I must admit, that half-naked people sitting in the forest without a roof over their heads don’t look particularly protected or provided. Is that Knowland's ideal world? Severe, full of wars, wild animals, lacking any civilization, where only sheer physical strength can somehow postpone your death? This world doesn’t need Eton professors.

UPDATE

His claim that Egyptian pyramids were built by male slaves is not true as well. The workers were hired force and lived with their families. See here for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_builders_01.shtml