Muh Mongols

Corporations that exploit sweatshop labor in China are the new champions of yuppie leftists against fascism, haven't you heard?

I think it means he uses it to debate and kill fascist idead

> The ancient Greeks were misogynists because they had a different conception of gender roles than we do.
What exactly wrong with it? This is like saying that ancient Greek were slave owners because they had a different conception of personal freedom. Kind of roundabout statement but factual and pretty close to the truth.

There's a difference between slavery and the roles of men and women. On top of that there's big difference between gender roles and slavery, and it makes zero sense to compare the two.
What is saying is that its wrong to call an entire group of people "misogynist" just because they don't conform with your post modern standards.

Apparently, reality is misogynistic too:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Is it really wrong to say that group of people was misogynistic if they lived in the time of misogyny being common cultural standard?

Is it really wrong to say that nature is misogynistic when it forces animals into fixed gender roles?

What's wrong with it is Green's inconsistency in applying moral relativism to islam, but not greek men from thousands of years ago.

That is exceptionalism, where one group is considered exceptional and thus immune to any criticism that might be applied to similar groups. John green practices exceptionalism to a tee according the modern, reactionary narrative that the only people on the planet who are not victims are men who are tied for whatever arbitrary reason to European thought and religion.

Yes, they would be misogynistic by today's standards. Ancient Greece is neither here, nor now though. And value judgements like that are effectively smalltalk, not the stuff of self-serious history.

...

There's nothing on the face of it that is wrong, as other users said though it's hypocritical as he seems to be more than able to argue for moral relativism in his other videos. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

It's also a really dumb thing to spend a video griping about. Dude made a video on a blind guy from the bronze age and spent half of the time talking about how his gender roles were archaic - it's idiocy.

It's important to acknowledge that, of course, by our standards most of the past was misogynistic.

The issue comes when we make moral judgements on people in the past relative to our own morals and values. That borders on extreme presentism, and it treats our worldview as the only one that has existed. Judging psuedo-mythical figures like Homer, who are reflections of a society without writing ffs, by modern gender theory is inane. It provides no useful or relevant commentary on the work, and worse, it fails to properly educate or discuss the culture and values of the time we're looking at.

>last name Green
>english is native tongue
>is a part of the Church of England

>not Anglo

He's Christian?

Believe it or not.

He is. If you watch his videos he always spergs out any mention of Henry VIII. I don't understand how he willingly associates with Anglicanism despite fully knowing why it was founded.

I can think of two possible reasons.

A. He chose it believing it to be the less "mainstream" form of Christianity, while still retaining some semblance of dignity by not going off the deep end like Mormonism

B. Something happened in his life to where a Christian or Christians became significant in his life and those Christians happened to be a part of the Church of England. The original meaning behind the founding of the various sects of Christianity honestly doesn't hold much meaning to many modern Christians. The average Lutheran or Presbyterian wouldn't be able to give you the historical differences and backstory behind their particular form, but they follow it anyway because of family or some other personal reason.

Episcopalian (American Anglican)
youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs

They have gay marriage as a sacrament, they are pro-choice, and have lesbian bishops

That makes sense.

>The ancient Greeks were misogynists because they had a different conception of gender roles than we do
They literally prided themselves on the word. The problem isn't calling them that, its denouncing the practice.

>Young adult history.

its anachronistic to apply modern concepts to the ancient world and is a waste of time. its like saying the ancient greeks or romans were morons because they didnt use guns even though gunpowder had not been invented yet.

they arent misoginistic in the modern sense because there that was no feminine perspective at the time no way for them to view their society any other way.

alternatively you could say the ancient britons werent misogynist because they were led by the female queen boudica. but that is just an anomaly because she was already royalty and no other woman in that tribe could have had that opportunity even if they wanted.

again just to show how stupid moral relativism is and how anachronisms should be avoided. the ancient greeks and romans had no concept of sexual orientation. sexuality was defined by being either dominant or submissive. for example, men could fuck boys and other men in certain circumstances, as long as they didnt receive anal penetration. Receiving would have been seen as non-masculine and therefore submissive. They didnt see themselves or others as gay or straight because those ideas just didnt exist in their culture. however, you could take that as them being very sexually progressive.

>The average Lutheran [...] wouldn't be able to give you the historical differences and backstory behind their particular form

Liar.

That slavery part is a fucking lie! There were several countries in Europe where slavery had been outlawed already. Ragusa, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway, just to name a few.