YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → HISTORIADORA explica el ORIGEN de la ¿ENEMISTAD? FEMENINA

HISTORIADORA explica el ORIGEN de la ¿ENEMISTAD? FEMENINA — Transcript

by Pupina Plomer · 4,770 words · 750 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Why do we women hate each other? Are we
0:02natural enemies? Or were we taught to
0:05be, because for centuries we were made
0:07to believe we are enemies, when in fact
0:09we survived thanks to cooperation.
0:12Hello, my Lanteris. First of all, happy
0:15day. Happy day to us internet friends,
0:18social media friends in a way. I wanted
0:21to bring you a video for Friendship Day
0:23, which is commemorated on July 20th,
0:25at least in Argentina and several Latin
0:27American countries. But even if you
0:29aren't from these countries, I still
0:31think this reflection is necessary
0:32regarding why we were historically made
0:34to believe that women are something
0:36like natural rivals. Let's see, female
0:38friendship has always existed. What
0:41changed wasn't the friendship, but the
0:42value that society gave to that
0:44friendship. Because while male
0:47friendship was celebrated as the ideal
0:49of philosophical, political, and
0:51perfect friendship, female friendship
0:53was relegated to the daily domestic
0:56sphere, and obviously underestimated.
0:59We women have historically been
1:01emotional, political, and even physical
1:03pillars, but for some reason, a myth
1:06was built to suggest we are something
1:08like natural rivals. I’m not telling
1:14you anything new if I say that,
1:16stereotypically, in the media, in
1:18cultural consumption, and in life
1:20itself, we are always told that a
1:22woman's worst enemy is another woman:
1:24that we are envious, competitive, that
1:26we'll step on each other to get ahead,
1:28and that we only get together to talk
1:30trash about others. Modern culture has
1:33reinforced that idea. Now, for example,
1:35everyone is talking about the "pick-me,
1:38" reinforcing the idea that we have to
1:40hate another woman because she desires
1:42male attention over the attention of
1:44other women. We always have the traitor
1:47friend who steals our guy, the jealous
1:49one who sees you and says, "Oh, look,
1:51so-and-so gained weight, look,
1:52so-and-so looks uglier." No, we
1:55culturally have that idea, but at the
1:58same time and contradictorily, we women
2:00have female friends, even if more than
2:03one might say, "Oh,
2:04no, I prefer male friends because they
2:06always have less drama." How cool,
2:08right? Regardless, we always have
2:10female friends or we always have female
2:13support networks. So, the idea is
2:15contradictory, because if we were all
2:17backstabbers, traitors, and envious
2:19people, we wouldn't naturally form
2:20female networks that are, in a way,
2:22what sustain us. Well, it turns out
2:25that throughout history, every time
2:27women achieve some small step toward
2:29equality, there is a cultural response
2:31that tries to reverse that progress
2:33through media myths and social pressure
2:35. It’s what I mentioned in a video
2:38about how there is always an attempt to
2:40tip the scales back toward the
2:42masculine side. I mean, when women gain
2:45rights, there’s still a patriarchal
2:48balance that tries to tilt the scales
2:50toward men to keep things always
2:52benefiting the patriarchy. So, when
2:56women’s networks became so important
2:58for female survival, the scales had to
3:00be balanced back toward the patriarchy,
3:02we could say, and this myth was
3:04installed that women hate each other.
3:07But we’ll see that this isn’t
3:09naturally the case; rather, like
3:10everything else, it’s a social
3:12construct. But before that, let’s
3:14look at how male friendship was
3:15constructed, which we’ll see is very
3:17different, and in fact, male friendship
3:19is seen as the prototype of friendship,
3:21as if there is friendship, and then
3:23there is female friendship. We can’t
3:25seem to conceive of female friendship
3:26as part of the concept of friendship
3:28itself. As I say, friendship was always
3:33thought of as something philosophical
3:35and political, and in its origins, it
3:37was essentially masculine. We can look
3:39back to ancient Greece, for example,
3:42which is considered one of the cultural
3:44cradles of Western civilization, and
3:46we’ll see how the philosophers of
3:49ancient Greece thought of friendship as
3:51an exclusively masculine quality.
3:54Friendship was thought of as linked to
3:56virtue, war, citizenship, and
3:58perfection. And since women were
4:01excluded from those spaces of virtue,
4:03perfection, war, citizenship, and so on
4:06, they couldn’t be considered part of
4:08a bond of friendship because they were
4:11outside all those qualities attributed
4:13to friendship, which was only for men.
4:16Since they weren't citizens, they
4:18couldn't be friends, because
4:19characteristics of masculine
4:21citizenship were derived from
4:22friendship. I don’t know if that
4:24makes sense. They weren’t soldiers,
4:26they weren’t politicians, they
4:28didn’t write, and they didn’t
4:29participate in any space that the
4:31Greeks valued politically in any way;
4:32which doesn't mean that, of course,
4:34Greek women didn't have friends, they
4:36were friends, but they remained outside
4:38what was conceptually defined as
4:39friendship. I mean, history looked the
4:42other way when it thought about female
4:43friends. In practice, they were surely
4:45friends, but they didn't fit into the
4:47theory, the significance, or the debate
4:50on friendship, because it was expected
4:52that if women were friends, it was a
4:54mundane, daily friendship that lacked
4:56the philosophical power of men
4:58gathering to debate important matters;
5:00instead, they were just seen talking
5:02about where to get things cheaper—
5:04something mundane, domestic, and
5:06expected of women. In fact, Aristotle
5:09himself wrote normative ideas about
5:11what a friendship was expected to be,
5:13which obviously linked it to morality,
5:14virtue, and perfection, but since it
5:16was only between virtuous people, it
5:18could only be between men. He said
5:21there were three types of friendship:
5:23one for utility, one for pleasure, and
5:25one for virtue, which was precisely the
5:27hardest to achieve. Thus, he understood
5:29that friendship was a fundamental part
5:31of the Greek polis, and one could not
5:33conceive of citizenship without the
5:35concept of friendship between men,
5:37because Aristotle himself said that
5:39women lacked the rational capacity to
5:41achieve that kind of true friendship.
5:44Over time, we see that in Western
5:46European culture, the idea of
5:48friendship as something exclusively
5:50masculine persisted. In the Middle Ages
5:53, this idea remained predominant,
5:55although spaces like monasteries began
5:57to appear where female friendship could
5:59be thought of as something real, though
6:02, of course, on a second tier below
6:04male friendship. The problem is that we
6:07have very few sources to study female
6:09friendship, because women had much less
6:11literacy than men, of course. That is
6:13why we only know about the nuns, who
6:14were the few women who knew how to read
6:16and write. And at the same time,
6:18because it was not valued in society,
6:19the female voice was not really present
6:21in the documents of the time either. So
6:24, it is somewhat difficult to study the
6:25issue of friendship between women in
6:27the Middle Ages. Now, in the 17th and
6:3019th centuries, things begin to change
6:32because we start to have records.
6:35Letters between women emerge, where
6:37female friendship begins to flourish.
6:40Of course, again, everything is
6:41filtered by the gender variable of
6:43wealthy women, because they were the
6:44ones who could send letters. But we
6:46start to see a female voice that gives
6:48words, that gives presence to
6:50friendship between women, which allows
6:52us today to know that during the 17th
6:54and 19th centuries a kind of friendship
6:56began to form, at least in a
6:58theoretical sense; because, in a real
7:00sense, female friends have always
7:02existed. We'll talk a bit more about
7:05these letters between women later on,
7:07so I'll just pin the importance of
7:09these letters and the importance that
7:11women's literature, like Jane Austen's,
7:13had in the construction of these bonds
7:16of friendship between women. Because it
7:19is through Jane Austen's books that the
7:20importance of women's everyday
7:22friendship becomes manifest. Let's say,
7:25it appears in literature itself, so it
7:27begins to be much more visible;
7:28especially friendship as a support and
7:31containment network, as a matter not
7:33only of survival, but also of, I don't
7:35know, emotional support. But anyway,
7:37we'll come back to this in a bit. By
7:40the 20th century, we can think of
7:42female friendship as something also
7:44present in general culture, where
7:46having friends is now part of a kind of
7:48personal fulfillment, where we all
7:51expect to have friends. We think of
7:53friendship as a tool for political
7:55liberation, for family liberation. In
7:57other words, if you have a bad
7:59relationship with your family, well,
8:00you can choose your friends. And so we
8:02begin to build the modern image we have
8:04of friendship. Now, I think we need to
8:07talk about female friendship. As I told
8:12you a while ago, female friendship has
8:14always existed; it's just that,
8:16throughout history, we don't see it as
8:18recorded in documents, because women
8:20generally didn't write and, by not
8:22giving it entity in society and in the
8:24time we are looking at, it wasn't
8:26recorded in sources. So it is somewhat
8:28difficult to reconstruct the history of
8:30female friendship before the 17th
8:31century because we lack sources. As I
8:34told you, female friendship was
8:35historically underestimated because it
8:38took place in domestic, private spaces,
8:40like girls gossiping inside the house.
8:42So, different societies throughout time
8:45didn't give it a political entity or
8:47importance because it was considered to
8:49be just what women do inside the home.
8:51They must be talking, as I said a while
8:53ago, about where to get cheap chicken.
8:55Male friendship in public, female
8:57friendship in private. And since
8:59everything private is considered
9:01unimportant. What they don’t tell you
9:03, what they aren’t seeing, is that
9:05female friendship was essential to
9:08human survival. The creation of
9:10cooperative networks among women was
9:13key not only to evolution, but to human
9:15survival. In the video I made a few
9:18weeks ago about whether or not the
9:20maternal instinct exists, I mentioned
9:22at one point that one of the
9:23evolutionary keys of the human species
9:25was cooperative breeding. It was this
9:28idea that it’s not just a mother
9:30raising a child, but the group looking
9:32after the young, looking after the
9:34babies to generate, uh, greater
9:36fertility, let's say, shortening the
9:38fertility intervals in women; meaning
9:40they could have more children in less
9:42time, and that allows for more chances
9:44of future survival, because you’re
9:46going to have more children. And at the
9:49same time, it allowed both men and
9:51women to take on different tasks like
9:53hunting, gathering, and making tools,
9:55caring for the elderly, and so on.
9:58There is something where I don’t know
10:00if we could say they were friends,
10:02because the concept of friendship
10:04involves other, more emotional issues,
10:06shared interests, support, and the
10:07construction of a much more complex
10:09bond. But let's assume we can speak of
10:12a proto-friendship. Thanks to those
10:15networks of care and cooperation among
10:17women, the human species was able to
10:19thrive. Friends, or rather other women,
10:22were necessary for giving birth, for
10:23looking after the children, for caring
10:25for widows, for caring for the elderly,
10:27so the mother could go out. In other
10:29words, the capacity for cooperative
10:31breeding—let's say, as I'll state
10:33again, taking the term "friends" with a
10:35grain of salt—allowed for survival.
10:37Well, what happened then to that
10:38cooperation? Silvia Federici has a
10:41hypothesis regarding how capitalism
10:43contributed to dismantling those
10:45women’s networks to turn us into
10:47individual beings who, the more
10:49individualized and distanced we are
10:51from others, the more docile we become;
10:53we will have greater reproductive
10:55capacity and be more functional to
10:57capitalism, which expected us to be
10:59machines producing a workforce—that
11:02is, babies who will work in the future.
11:05In my video on the witch hunts, I talk
11:07about this in greater depth. Yes, I
11:10think it’s important to keep in mind
11:12that Silvia Federici's theory is a
11:14hypothesis that some historians say is
11:15a bit exaggerated, that perhaps
11:17historiographically it has some
11:19debatable points; but still, it is a
11:20hypothesis that, even though it has its
11:22critics, has quite a few points upon
11:24which we can find historiographical
11:26consensus today. But I find it
11:29interesting to bring up your hypothesis
11:31here about how, in the end, these
11:33networks of solidarity, of cooperative
11:35child-rearing, of mutual support among
11:37women were dismantled the moment
11:39capitalism needed us individualized so
11:41we wouldn't revolt, so we'd bring more
11:43children into the world individually,
11:45and fundamentally, so we'd be more
11:47docile. Because a docile woman is the
11:51woman who will have more children for
11:53you, who will obey her reproductive
11:55role more within a system that expects
11:57the greatest amount of social
11:59reproduction to sustain all the
12:01industry and production it exploits
12:03while the capitalist system takes shape
12:06. I got a bit rhetorical here, sorry,
12:08but I can't explain it any other way. I
12:10know you all will understand it anyway.
12:13So, to pick back up on this point from
12:15Silvia Federici, we can understand how
12:17capitalism, or the transition to
12:19capitalism, not only changed economic
12:21forms but also social relations,
12:23particularly among women, who in this
12:26case lost their collective autonomy:
12:28that capacity to raise children and
12:30live in a community, accompanied of
12:32course by the creation of private
12:34property and, well, other issues. We
12:37can also think, then, about how the
12:39witch hunts were also against communal
12:41forms of female organization, because,
12:44I don't know, 300 or 400 years ago, we
12:46shouldn't think of friends as people
12:48who met up for a specialty coffee to
12:50talk about their weekend, give advice,
12:52and say "don't be a pushover," because
12:54300 or 400 years ago, friends were the
12:56ones who supported you when you were
12:58widowed, taught you how to cook, make
13:00remedies, helped you give birth, healed
13:02you, and watched your children. Of
13:05course, we have to consider the issue
13:07of class here. It wasn't the same, I
13:08mean, than being a poor friend. That's
13:10always worth clarifying, because we
13:12shouldn't think there is a universal
13:14way of being friends among women, but
13:15we do have to know that these were the
13:17support networks that allowed for
13:19survival, because being a woman has
13:21always been more complicated than being
13:22a man. That friendship, considered
13:25inferior because it occurred in the
13:26private sphere, was what allowed those
13:28women to survive within those private
13:30spheres. In the upper classes, we can
13:32think of friends as people you went to
13:35dances with, talked to, sent letters to
13:37, or did some recreational activity
13:39with; whereas, for women in more
13:41popular sectors, they were the ones who
13:44allowed you to survive. I mean, never,
13:46or rather, she saves a friend for you.
13:49We can't think of these mutual aid
13:51networks in romantic terms, like a gift
13:53from a friend saying, "You've got this,
13:56girl, you're the best," but rather as a
13:58matter of survival, and sometimes even
14:00more; because, as I said a while ago, a
14:03way of bonding between women appeared
14:05in the 17th century that, if we read
14:07those letters today, we might say: "
14:09They were such good friends, so close
14:11that they lived together, never married
14:13, just very good friends." Friends. A
14:19contemporary philosopher asked if
14:21friends who kiss are the best company,
14:23and I think she must have been inspired
14:25by Victorian-era friendships. From 19
14:29th-century letters, we can learn more
14:31details about what friendship between
14:33women was like, because these are the
14:34first accounts we have of such
14:36friendships—naturally, of course,
14:38friendships among upper-class women who
14:40were the ones able to send letters. But
14:44well, for the first time, we can see
14:46firsthand, from the female voice itself
14:48, what the bonds between women were
14:50like. Well, something very
14:53characteristic of 19 th-century writing
14:56style might make us think those
14:58friendships were romantic, because, as
15:01I say, this very romantic, overly sweet
15:03style was typical of 19 th-century
15:06writing. For example, we can see it in
15:09the letters from San Martín to
15:10Belgrano, which we saw in the Manuel
15:12Belgrano video. There was a very loving
15:15, intense, affectionate, romantic
15:17language, which wasn't seen as
15:19competition for heterosexual marriage,
15:22but was simply the way of romanticizing
15:24or idealizing bonds with friends. We
15:28can't fall into the anachronism of
15:30thinking about the past using the terms
15:32and logic of the present, because just
15:34because those letters were so intense,
15:36it didn't always mean it was a romantic
15:38bond; rather, as I say, it was how
15:40people wrote back then. Which, of
15:42course, doesn't mean at all that
15:44perhaps some of those bonds weren't
15:46between friends who truly loved each
15:48other very much; but still, it was the
15:49way of writing, because when we read
15:51those letters, we find one that says
15:53something like: "My beloved," and you
15:55think: "My beloved? A friend?" Well,
15:57let's not be anachronistic, though I'll
15:59leave the doubt open. This brings up a
16:03question I’ve always thought about:
16:05notice how friendship was so important
16:07throughout history between men, but
16:09really, for survival between women. But
16:13in the Western culture we live in,
16:15it’s like romantic love is the center
16:17of the world; as if a person's
16:18fulfillment is getting married, having
16:20kids, everything linked to having a
16:22partner, and friendship is pushed into
16:25the background, when in reality,
16:26friendships are often longer, more
16:28intense, and more essential than
16:30romantic bonds. I mean, think about how
16:33many times you’ve broken up in your
16:34life or the role that your partner
16:36occupies. And think about how many
16:38friends you’ve had for so many years
16:40and the place those friendships occupy
16:41in your life. I, for example, can
16:43imagine a life with one partner, then
16:45another partner. I cannot imagine my
16:47life without two or three friendships
16:49that are structural and essential.
16:51Notice how we have names for when you
16:53become a widow, when you become single,
16:55but we don't have a name for when a
16:57friend dies, and we don't have a name
16:59for when you split from a friend, when
17:01you break up a friendship. Something
17:04very specific happened to me: one of my
17:06best friends actually lost her best
17:08friend to cancer, and she once told me
17:10something that destroyed me; she said:
17:11"I don't have a name, I'm not a widow,
17:13I didn't lose a sibling, I'm not an
17:15orphan, it's like we don't even have a
17:17name." And at the same time, she
17:20couldn't ask for days off work for the
17:21depression she was going through after
17:23losing her best friend, because there
17:25isn't even bereavement leave for losing
17:26a friend. I mean, for something so
17:29essential to social construction, to
17:31our bonds, our personalities, and our
17:33survival, friendships still take a
17:35backseat to romantic or
17:36sexual-affective bonds, which in the
17:39end are somewhat more ephemeral.
17:41Because I insist: think about how many
17:43times you’ve broken up throughout
17:44your life and think about how many
17:46friendships you've kept for many more
17:47years than a partner. But well, there,
17:49obviously, the role of culture is
17:51essential. In a culture where the
17:53nuclear family is the foundation of
17:55society, in a capitalist system where
17:57reproduction is expected as the basis
17:59for the system to function, of course
18:01the family is the focus, because the
18:02system wants us to have children, and
18:04you don't have children with friends,
18:06or at least not in the traditional way.
18:09So, culturally, the focus will always
18:11be placed on sexual and affective bonds
18:13, on couples. I propose we invent a
18:16word for when you break up with a
18:18friend and when you lose a friend. I'm
18:21sure in some language you've seen those
18:22words that some languages have, but we
18:24don't in Spanish, but anyway. I don't
18:27know if it's ever happened to you to
18:28cut off a bond with a friend of a long
18:30time, for whatever reason. I mean, you
18:33don't have...people just can't
18:34understand that grief because they
18:36don't see it as something essential to
18:38life. But it must happen to you; it's
18:40happened to me, cutting off friendships
18:41that were really important to me, but
18:43they weren't good for me and I couldn't
18:44put it into words, because in Spanish
18:46there are no words for that, to think
18:47it through. In the end, the friend is
18:49left as a secondary character: the
18:51counselor, the one who backs you up,
18:52the one who pulls you out of depression
18:54, the one who sustains you. Rarely are
18:56they the protagonist, but in my
18:57particular case, they are much more of
18:59a protagonist than a family or a
19:01partner. Luckily, I think that in
19:04current cultural productions something
19:06is changing, because I think, for
19:07example, of Frozen, the Disney movie,
19:09where what is important is not the bond
19:12of a couple, of romantic love, but the
19:14bond with a sister, a friend, a loved
19:16one. Things are changing little by
19:18little. There is a concept that I think
19:20is very nice for understanding this,
19:22which is that of a psychologist named
19:24Susan Pinker, which is what she calls
19:25the village effect. She showed how
19:29social bonds have visible, studyable
19:31material effects on human health.
19:35Obviously, as is clear, human beings
19:37are gregarious, meaning we live in
19:39community. As has already been made
19:41clear in this video, living in
19:42community was one of the evolutionary
19:44keys that allowed us to survive. We are
19:46not beings built to live alone. She
19:50studied how, in specific cases where
19:52people are isolated versus living in
19:54community, health manifests differently
19:56depending on whether you are alone or
19:59with others, seeing how living with
20:01other people has a highly positive
20:03effect on our mental and physical
20:05health. In other words, having friends
20:08is not just good for the soul, but also
20:09good for your health, for the body.
20:11Human companionship impacts the
20:12material lives of people. So, friends
20:15are not an accessory; they are not just
20:18essential for survival, they are
20:19essential for health. In fact, it has
20:23been studied—and I find this crazy—
20:26how in the case of men, when they are
20:28widowed, they tend not to have support
20:31from other men and are more prone to
20:33depression than women. It was studied
20:36that women, when widowed, tend to find
20:38much more support, affection, and
20:40comfort in their groups of friends. So
20:42they are less likely to develop
20:44depression or any kind of trauma, let's
20:46say, following a loss. But in the case
20:49of men, since their friendship networks
20:50are perhaps not as deep, not as intense
20:52, and not as emotional in general terms
20:54—no, I'm not talking about specific
20:56cases—but well, since they don't have
20:58that support, they are more prone to
21:00falling into depression. In other words
21:02, it is our communities of friends that
21:03save us from everything. So, if
21:06friendships are so essential for human
21:08survival, why were we taught for so
21:11long that women are rivals or enemies?
21:14And here we get to the heart of the
21:16matter, the key to the video. That's it
21:18, I know I took like half an hour to
21:19introduce the topic, but I felt it was
21:21important to give it a theoretical
21:22framework, because in the end, the
21:24answer to why women think we are
21:25enemies is very simple. The answer is
21:27patriarchy, which not only organized
21:30the subordination of women into a
21:32system of domination, but also the
21:34competitiveness between us. Why?
21:37Because separated, we are easier to
21:38dominate. We were taught that the other
21:41woman is competition because, for women
21:43over 100 years ago, the only way to
21:46achieve financial security, assets, and
21:48minimal independence was by getting
21:50married, right? I mean, when women
21:53couldn't own property, the only way to
21:54survive was for a husband to support
21:56you. Well, the other woman was
21:57competition because she was the one who
21:59could take the good candidate, the one
22:00who could take your good husband. So,
22:02culturally, this idea began to be
22:04created that the other woman is
22:05competition because she could steal
22:07your good husband. So, this rivalry
22:09between women isn't something essential
22:11or natural, but rather the product of a
22:14social structure historically built to
22:16keep us separated. Competition among us
22:19was key for the patriarchy to function
22:21as a system. Here I would like to
22:24return to Gerda Lerner, who has a
22:25masterpiece on the origin of the
22:27patriarchy, and I am actually going to
22:29make a specific video about her work
22:31because when I learned about it a few
22:33years ago, it totally changed how I
22:35think about the world. If you want the
22:38video on the origin of the patriarchy,
22:39you know what to do; at this point, I
22:41don't even have to tell you. But anyway
22:43, she studied how competition among
22:45women was a key historical creation of
22:47the patriarchy that can only function
22:50through cooperation among women. In
22:52other words, the patriarchy functions
22:54because women cooperate to keep it
22:56working. Which means that if we women
22:58stop being functional to what the
22:59patriarchy expects of us, that
23:01patriarchy should cease to exist.
23:04She’s going to show how competition
23:05among women is generated from many
23:07angles, such as sexual respectability.
23:10Like, there are women who are more
23:12respectable than others, so you already
23:13generate competition there—looking
23:15down on the libertine or looking down
23:17on the prude, you’ve got competition.
23:19It's also a matter of social
23:20hierarchies between rich women and poor
23:23women. As I said a moment ago, the
23:25protection by these protectors—that
23:26is, who marries the man most capable of
23:28protecting you—because, imagine, as a
23:30woman you can't own anything, you need
23:31a husband to support you. So, who gets
23:34the best husband? And of course, we
23:36judge the one who ended up alone, the
23:38one who got divorced, who had the
23:39audacity to challenge the issue of
23:41being a respectable woman with a good
23:43husband, right? It’s like, in the end
23:45, all the little things that construct
23:46us socially make us compete, and that
23:48competition among women is functional
23:50for the patriarchy to continue existing
23:52. There, Lerner will say something that
23:55is really important to me, even as a
23:57historian, showing how the deprivation
23:59of a shared history is also functional
24:01to this system and makes us fail to
24:03realize that things can change. She
24:05will say that the patriarchy denied us
24:07knowledge of our history and, of course
24:10, our achievements, and the lack of
24:11female role models makes us lose sight
24:13of the fact that we can do things.
24:16That’s why it’s so important to me
24:18to tell women’s history, revise
24:20history, and talk so much about it,
24:21because it’s a tool for struggle and
24:23a tool for building a historical
24:25identity. Because how can we expect to
24:27be women capable of anything if we
24:29don't admire the women who did things
24:31in the past? Or at least, if we don't
24:32understand why those women lived the
24:34way they did back then. In this
24:36particular case, knowing that the
24:38creation of this notion of competition
24:40between women is an initiative to
24:42undermine our ability to network in a
24:44world that is increasingly
24:46individualistic, closed off, and lonely
24:48, I think it’s an act of rebellion to
24:50have friends, to think of ourselves in
24:52a community, to think of ourselves as
24:55agents of historical change. It’s a
24:57bold act of rebellion. That’s why I
24:59urge you all to have more friends, to
25:01trust other women more, and not to fall
25:04into that historical trap that made us
25:06believe we are naturally competitors,
25:08when in reality that’s not the case.
25:10We stop seeing each other as
25:11competition. That doesn't mean there
25:13aren't bad women, just as there are bad
25:15people. I mean, I know someone here is
25:16going to tell me, "Well, I had a friend
25:18who screwed me over, who..."
25:19Yes, obviously, because there are
25:21rotten people and there are good people
25:23, but we cannot assume that women are
25:25by essence our competitors or our
25:27enemies. Maybe there's one who is
25:29because she’s a bad person, and
25:30she’ll do that to both men and women,
25:32but we have to distinguish between
25:33whether this is a historical construct
25:35or something natural. Anyway, happy day
25:37, friends. You know, having friends
25:39today is an act of rebellion. I want to
25:42wish you all a very happy day because
25:43you’re like my friends. Send this
25:45video to your friends so we can also
25:47understand how important it is to have
25:49each other. I wish a very happy day to
25:51my friends who have always saved my
25:53life. Honestly, I would be nothing
25:54without my friends. Luckily, over the
25:56years, I’ve built more and stronger
25:58bonds with friends. So, well, happy day
26:01. Pass this on to a friend, leave a
26:03like, you can go see my historical
26:05stand-up show—there are plenty of
26:07dates—you can join as a member, and
26:08you can have a happy day with your
26:10friends.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of HISTORIADORA explica el ORIGEN de la ¿ENEMISTAD? FEMENINA by Pupina Plomer, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 4,770 words across 750 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.