Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Why don't men want to oppress women anymore?

Transcript

Why don't men want to oppress women anymore? · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: All right, and we are live. Hello everybody, and welcome
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: back to Honey Badger Radio. My name is Brian. I'm
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: here with Allison, and this is maintaining frame why don't
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: men want to oppress women anymore? Where we're going to
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: be talking a little bit about men leaving the workforce
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: and yeah, it's strange. Yeah, they're leaving the labor market.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: They're leaving it in droves, and people are starting to wonder,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: perhaps even panic, or notice at least notice, yeah that
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: this is going on. So I guess before we get yeah,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: you know what.
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: I think, you know what I think. I think we
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: should do another push to tell men that wage labor
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: is oppression of women's right. You know that if they
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: take a job from a woman, they are an oppressor.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: If they take a job to pay a woman's bills,
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: they're a double oppressor. So participation in wage labor has
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: absolutely nothing to do with your chances of having a family,
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: And in fact, you are a neck Billard in cell
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: chud for even even the entitlement of considering some some
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: kind of equation between getting a job and being able
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: to pay for a family. There is nothing between those things.
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: That's just a pressure talk. So to recap, guys, I
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: want you to know that when you get a job,
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: you are taking a job from a woman, which makes
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: you an oppressor. Right when you get a job and
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: you pay a woman's bills, that makes you a double oppressor.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: And if you have any conception that participating in society
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: through having a job should lead or at least make
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: you more attractive to women, you are a triple pressor
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: you are like a super Saiyan oppressor. Your br on
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: the scale or your power level of oppression is just
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: blown the scale because you just can't do that right now?
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: Why don't you work? Why aren't you guys working, Why
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: aren't you out there getting a job? Oh? Good lord. Anyway,
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: so I thought this would be a great one to
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: look at because I'm currently examining the the providence of
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: the word patriarchy in feminist literature or feminist academic scholarship,
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: and I use that really loosely, and right now I'm
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: looking at in the from like seventies, from nineteen seventy
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: to nineteen eighty Fourish feminists were arguing Marxist feminists were
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: arguing with radical feminists about patriarchy and where to situate
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: the origins of this term, not about whether or not
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: it describes anything at all. That's too scientific key for feminism,
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: that's too objective, it's too it's too male thought. You know,
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: it's too patriarchal to expect you to prove something before
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: you assert it. So they're they're arguing where they situate patriarchy,
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: and the Marxist feminists are actually losing the fight. I
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: don't know if people know that they lost the fight
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: to the radical feminists that just asserted patriarchy is forever.
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: It's like this, uh, this constant like this. It's almost
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: like a background radiation of society. So men always oppress
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: women everywhere. It just transcends time and space. Right, whether
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: the aliens on Alpha Centauri are also patriarchal, it just
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: is everywhere. As soon as gam meets differentiate based on
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: how much investment is put in them, we have patriarchy.
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: So it's right at the origin of sex differential in
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: our you know, phylogenetic past. That's the radical feminist and
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: the Marxist feminists tried to take that and situate it
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: somewhere in Marx's dialectical materialism, right, Okay, And they couldn't,
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: and they said, you know, we can't figure this out
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: because Marx says that work is the side of oppression,
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: and radical feminists are saying that the person who doesn't
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: work but gains the benefit of the wage eurner is
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: the one who's oppressed. So is it earning a wage
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: through your labor that's oppression or is it not earning
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: wage through your labor that's oppression. We can't square this,
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: and so the radical feminist nation attacked, The Marxist feminist
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: fell out of favor, disappeared, Marxism was broken up for
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: its constituent parts that were useful to radical feminism. And
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: here we are, right, if men get a job, you
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: are a pressing women. Now, why aren't you getting jobs?
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: Why aren't you doing this thing that everybody's told you
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: was a pressing women? Huh? What's up with that? Why
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: are you still perverse? Okay, So, anyway, if any point
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: you want to if any point you want to send
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: us a message you want to tell me that I'm
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: a lunatic, you can do so at feed Thebadger dot com,
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: slash just the tip don't laugh. People have done that.
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: They've specifically supported the show in order to tell us
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: how horrible we are. So that's feed Thebadgery dot com
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: slash just the tip. And if you want to support
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: the show because you like my analysis, like I've done
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: a lot more work than what I do. This is
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: what I just said was maybe a humorous gloss on
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: what actually happened. But if you want to support my analysis,
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: you want to support Brian's analysis and our work, go
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: to feed the Badger dot com slash support and help
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: us out so we can continue to bring you these
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: thoughts that we have on the general thought hoo sphere.
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: And if you would like to join our community, badger
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: nation dot online. All of these options are in the
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: low bar, so if any of them appeal to you,
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: go there and click it. All right, Brian, did you
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: want to have Did you have any thoughts after my
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: extensive spiel?
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: No? I think that you basically nailed it. I mean,
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: we have to get into this, but uh, that sounds
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: like that's probably where we're going to land, Like what
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: you've just said. Do you want to start with the
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: Hill article or the actual study from the National Bureau
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: of Economic Research.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: The Hill article's probably more accessible, right, Yeah.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: So this is the study. Well, I can't. Actually I
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: have to download the pdf. I guess give them my
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: email address or.
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: Something I can.
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: I can download it, but I don't need it. I
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: guess you're right. I think the article is probably going
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: to be relative fair, and it's gonna, you know, say
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: what needs to be said about it. So let's let's
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: let's do that. Let's take a look at it.
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: You you would be surprised. It doesn't really go quite
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: where I went. Yeah, so it'll be a good launching
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: off point for clarifying a lot of the specifics of
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: what I'm getting at. But yeah, the Hill is going
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: to be at least fair to a degree. It's just
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: not going to It's not gonna it's not like us.
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: You know, we're gonna go places that no one else does.
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: We're gonna take you, guys, places where you can't even imagine.
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: Let's me buckle up, all right, let's all right.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: Let's start it. All right, So the Hill? What's really
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: behind America's male recession?
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: Uh?
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, I can already tell they're gonna they're gonna
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: miss the mark here. But let's see. For decades, economists
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: have stared at the declining labor force participation rate among
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: American men the way medieval villagers stared at an eclipse, bewill, frightened,
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: and bereft of decent answers. The numbers are troubling. In
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: nineteen fifty eighty six point four percent of American men
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: over age twenty were either working or looking for work.
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Today that figure hovers below seventy percent. Generation after generation,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: millions of men have exited the labor force. Some are
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: disabled and some retired early, but a growing number have
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: simply removed themselves from the economic ecosystem altogether, trading the
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: daily grind for the blissful nirvana of doing absolutely nothing.
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: You want to cut in, I'll stop after every paragraph
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: in case you want to say something.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: So, umm, I'm not too enthused by this, and you
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: know this is fine. Let's just let's just keep going.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: Okay, the explanations off I'm not tea it, but I'm
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: not really like.
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: I think that they're just being a slightly sarcastic here,
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: So yeah, that's fair. I feel like getting my hackles
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: up at sarcasm would would defeat the purpose, So let's
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: just keep going.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Okay. The explanations offered over the years have ranged from
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: plausible to absurd. Construction cratered after the housing crash. Automation
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: destroyed blue collar jobs. Globalization eviscerated manufacturing, men stayed in
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: school longer or became caretakers. Men lost skills demanded by
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: a changing economy. If it was a buffet, or it
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: was a buffet of micro disasters, a perfect storm of
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: economic obsolescence that left millions of guys stranded on the couch.
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: Okay, oh man, yes, Okay. Globalization invescerated menu factoring, men's
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: stayed in school longer, became caretakers, men lost skills demanded
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: by a changing economy. My friend at the hill, whoever
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: wrote this, These skills are still needed, they're just no
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: longer available, Okay, and we're probably good to find out
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: very shortly. The pain is coming, because what actually happened
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: is a whole bunch of a financial extractor's rent seat
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: sot or start set up rent seeking on productive industries, okay,
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: and their activities made actually being productive no longer financially
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: feasible in mostly the States. I'm just gonna use the States.
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying that the West is any other place
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: in the West is not immune to it. But unfortunately,
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: the States is where this has hit hardest, so everything
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: was off. It doesn't mean those jobs stop being necessary.
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: It means that they became cost prohibitive in the States,
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: so they moved off. And ironically this, the fact that
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: they became cost prohibitive in the States, wasn't the function
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: of free market capitalism. It was a function of financial extraction. Okay,
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: so let me let me let me run you through
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: silver because that's my go to because I have mapped
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: it out from beginning to end. All right, So what
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: happens is the chicanery in the commodities market for silver
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: creates So what they do is, in particular, we call
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: it the actual actual party that's doing this. JP Morgan
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: spoofs or promises to uh sell or deliver more ounces
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: of silver than they actually have, and that leads to
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: a situation where you know, at some point the people
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: who they've promised say I want that silver and JP
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: Morgan says I don't have it. Well, they do, but
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: that's another step in the story, and that creates a
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: squeeze in the market. Right, So what happens the commodity
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: market does not want this to propagate through the bank's
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: P and L. So what do they do. They raise margins.
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: They hike margins on the lungs. Those are the people
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: standing for delivery, to get them out of the market, right,
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: to get them to puke up their silver. But what
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: happens then, this is the whole This is the whole
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: shuffling bullshit. What happens to the people who are in
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: the market, the men who are in the market because
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: they need to actually financial like, they need the financial
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: wherewithal to actually refine silver, which is there's a whole
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: bunch of stuff. But let's just say they're stuck here
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: because they need the financing, the underwriting financing to refine silver,
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: to actually create the thing that the commodities market is marketing. Right,
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: they go out of business or they have to offshore
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: because and it's not because it's not profitable to make
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: silver in the US. It's because the financial chicanery of
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: the market, the commodity that's supposed to market the silver,
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: has make it made it financially impossible to refine silver
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: in the US. So this is still an activity that
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: needs to happen, but it ends up being offshore. So
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: these jobs need to happen, right. The fact is that it's, yeah, sure,
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: American men aren't doing them, but they're still being done offshore.
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: And that's because of financialization. It's not because these commodities
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: are worthless or that it just becomes too expensive to
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: do it in the States. Well, why is it becoming
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: too expensive Because everybody's playing financial games? Right. If they weren't,
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: it would still be here and these jobs would still
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: be here and these men would still be employed. So
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: the idea that this is just like, well, sure, globalization,
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: I guess did it if you mean like the financialization
• 14:25
  Speaker 2: of everything in the American economy by globalization? And I
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: apologize because this is I'm trying to make it shorter,
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: so I would end up ranting for like fifteen minutes.
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: So I'm glossing over a lot. But let's just make
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: it really simple. American men's jobs were not pushed out
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: of the US because of the free market. They were
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: pushed out because of financialization games, which are themselves because
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: these companies would not play these games right, because they're
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: putting themselves in a hell of a the position of
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: a hell of a lot of liability if they didn't
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: know that their losses were going to be socialized to
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: the American taxpayer. So this idea that this is just
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: some kind of natural progression of the free market is nonsense.
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: And it or even that this is this represents economic
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: obsolescence of these jobs. No, it doesn't right. That they're
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: still out there in the world being done. And the
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: reason why the US gets the benefit of those jobs
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: is because of the World reserve currency. But that's another story.
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: So anyway, let's keep going. I feel like I've lost everyone.
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: Oh no, you're fine, right, okay, yeah, yeah, let's get
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: into the next paragraph. Well, how far did I get? Explanations? Yeah,
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: Then came one of the more entertaining theories video games.
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: According to this narrative, vast numbers of young men were
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: apparently abandoning work because they had become hopelessly addicted to
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: increasedly soft, mistigated digital entertainment. I know they're not going there.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: Civilization itself, it seemed, was being defeated by better graphics
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: cards and high definition dopamine hits. There's only one problem
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: with this convenient skatecoat. Women now play video games at
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: rates equal to men, doubt, with the gaming industry reporting
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: near parody among many age groups, yet female labor force
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: participation has remained far more stable. If Mario is responsible
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: for workforce sabotage, he appears strangely selective in his victims,
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: leaving the ladies to pay the mortgage while the guys
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: spend their days hunting for digital mushrooms. All right, so,
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: before you guys jump down the hill's throat, it sounds
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: like they're not making the argument that video games did this.
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: They're actually making fun of people who make the argument
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: that video games are responsible for this, because it's stupid, Okay.
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: A recent paper by economists at the University of Connecticut
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: offers a deeper, significantly darker explanation. Their argument isn't that
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: men stop working because today's labor market looks weak, but
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: that they learned a bitter truth much earlier. Essentially, the
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: economic struggles boys witness during childhood permanently warped their belief
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: in whether hard work is actually worth the effort. If
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: a boy grows up surrounded by unemployed men, underemployed men,
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: discouraged men, and men whose wages barely improved despite years
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: of backbreaking effort, he absorbs those lessons like a sponge
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: even moving to a different state failed to erase the
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: psychological scar. Men carried these low expectations with them like
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: a hereditary disease. In other words, the labor force crisis
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: may less, may be less about jobs than belief, maybe
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: less about God. And yeah, that's that's okay, go.
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: Ahead, Yeah that this is where I got to step in.
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: So you don't think that men are observing reality, right,
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: So this is this is uh, this is an observation
• 18:07
  Speaker 2: about reality. Is it true? And the answer is yes,
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: it is true. You're you're dealing with an economy that
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: has gone from being productive selling things to selling xerox
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: copies of things, which doesn't require men. It just requires
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: women because you know women, you know, they got the
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: little fingers and they can work the xerox machine. They're
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: a lot better men than that. Right. So the men
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: who produce the thing and have the cognitive modality, like
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: an operative modality that looks to the actions to the
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: production of things in the greater world, in the real world, right,
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: they are marginalized. And these guys are observing that marginalization.
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: So the mentality that men have and we say this constantly,
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: not us, not me, and Brian but economists, feminists, they
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: say the feminization of the workplace, that the mental skills
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: required by this new workplace doesn't favor men. Well, it's true.
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: The skills required by this new workplace is to move
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: around symbols of things without ever asking, hey, can we
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: make those things? And the mentality that looks at the
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: symbol of a thing and sees the substrate reality underneath it,
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: In other words, the kind of mentality that passes the
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: waterline test. All right, that's not the kind of mentality
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: that a financialization empire wants in the driver's seat or
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: controlling the levers of the cultural climate or the corporate
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: climate or whatever. They don't want that ask too many
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: uncomfortable questions, like how are we ever going to make
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: four hundred ounces of silver when we only have one
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: and we have no ability to refine more. Those are
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: uncomfortable questions, and people who just want to move around
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: symbols to make don't want those questions. So they marginalize
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: the modality that would naturally ask those questions, not because
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: they're necessarily more virtuous, although I would argue they are,
• 20:09
  Speaker 2: but simply because that's the way they think a man
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: looks the waterline test, and he sees the glass the
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: lines represents, so he sees that glass tipping, and he
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: sees gravity moving the water line, and that is almost
• 20:26
  Speaker 2: that is a reflex. That's why, guys, when I explain
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: why women don't pass the waterline test, they're baffled because
• 20:35
  Speaker 2: that's a reflex for you, like the reflex that Brian
• 20:39
  Speaker 2: demonstrated with Natty. When Natty just kept ejaculating these increasing
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: abstractions about what we need to do to be good people,
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: and he finally said, well, what not? What do we
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: do need to do? What we need to believe to
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: be good people? And Brian finally said, yeah, but what
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: do we need to do? What are we gonna do?
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: What is the action here? That is the male modality?
• 21:02
  Speaker 2: What is the action here? Does the substrate cover the
• 21:06
  Speaker 2: symbols that we're selling? Nobody in the financialization Fatberg wants
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: these questions so they marginalize men out of it. Goodbye, go,
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: don't let the door hit you on the ash, on
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: the place where the good Lord split you out the door, right,
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: And men are looking at this and saying, hey, we're
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: not wanted, or alternatively, they go through the process of
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: k through twelve, and they realize at some point that
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: the way that they view the world is not the
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: mentality that's being selected for in education. The mentality that's
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: being selected for in education is compliance an agreement and
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: moving symbols around without asking what do these symbols mean?
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: Do we have to actually test them against reality understand
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: which modality is being selected for And it's not theirs.
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: So they're going through this winnowing process throughout their entire life,
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: and they're watching and they're creating an observation that is accurate.
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: Men are not wanted in this economy because men ask
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: uncomfortable questions. Men have different focuses. Men say, well, where
• 22:24
  Speaker 2: where's the there? Like where where where's the beef?
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: Yeah?
• 22:30
  Speaker 2: You know, what what do we do? Like? What is
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: the next action? What is what is it you are demanding?
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: What action are you demanding? What consequences? What are the effects?
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: What are the goals? Like? Where where is? Where is
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: the club? Straight? Where's the reality behind all of this?
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: And that just doesn't work. And so I think what's
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: actually happening is not that men have a belief, they
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: have a recognition of what's really happening. And even if
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: they get into the labor force, it sort of gets like,
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: it gets tiered, it gets hierarchical. There's this you know,
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: men who are doing the thing, they're making the product,
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: they're refining, they're mining, they're establishing the infrastructure, they're doing
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: the things that need to get done, the substrate work,
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: and they recognize there's sort of a there's a glass
• 23:26
  Speaker 2: wall atop them between them and the people who are
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: in charge of the levers of policy and finance, you know,
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: and they probably are aware of that too, and certainly
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: some of them who would otherwise go into these jobs
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: are turned off by the fact that they know there's
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: no more upward bomility because the culture, the corporate culture
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: is not the same as the culture of the contractors,
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: the people who are now producing things, or the people
• 24:01
  Speaker 2: the men on the line. There's no there's no connection there.
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: So's it's like a very disenfranchising kind of proposition. I'm
• 24:10
  Speaker 2: sure men still do it anyway because its jobs need
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: to be done, but again that's a recognition of what
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: actually is. It's not a belief like they're turning this
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: by problem with this not the hill, because they're probably
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: just reporting on this accurately but these researchers are turning
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: an observation into a belief, which is the very thing
• 24:35
  Speaker 2: that leads to like it's the very action that prioritize
• 24:39
  Speaker 2: one modality over another. Like they're they're saying, we're what
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: they're not saying. They're doing this. They're interpreting this situation
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: through a relational modality. They're decomposing a belief or a
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: position when it's an observation. And the question is are
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: these is this observation correct?
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, just saying wow, I guess they just they're just
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: believing in this mythical thing called all the men around
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: them are underemployed or unemployed. There that's causing them to
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: not believe. It's like, no, we're just seeing the reality.
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: And I'm starting to think that this is one of
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: the things that was a problem before I even found
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: this channel, Like when I was trying to find work before,
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: when I was like, uh, you know, looking for jobs
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: and I couldn't find them, And yeah, I think that
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: it's there's a reason for it. I think it's a
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: real phenomenon. I think that men are getting passed over.
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: Well, it's verifiable because you can see the actual paperwork. Yeah,
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: you know you can see the quotas. You know, women
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: need to be this many in the job, right, and
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: you see the quota in the navy, we're aiming for
• 25:57
  Speaker 2: twenty five percent female naval warship personnel because because you know,
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: sixteen percent pregnant female soldiers snapshot on a warship isn't
• 26:10
  Speaker 2: good enough. We got to get that up to thirty
• 26:12
  Speaker 2: two percent one and three baby one in three. Right.
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: But anyway, like so there's these constant quotas. You can
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: see him everywhere. It's a huge paper trail to this
• 26:23
  Speaker 2: diversity initiative getting women into jobs. So, I mean again,
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: is this a belief or is it an observation of reality?
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: Yep?
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: Okay, let's say, all.
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: Right, I got a super chow. I'm gonna read real
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: quick and then I'll keep going dark. KICKI Mora gave
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: us ten dollars and says one. There's still a stream
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: elsewhere on YouTube that says starting soon. No, no, no,
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: that's already started. It was the vertical. There are people
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: stuck there too, Brian. If you're interested in attacking Marxist thought,
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: I think the getting a qualitative difference out of a
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: quantitative one sounds much worse than the Hegelian dialectic. I
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: found out about it once when I was calling it
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: out as an informal fallacy. Some guy said that's actually
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: a good thing in Marx's thought, and then I looked
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: it up and had a good laugh. Thank you for that. Well,
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: the Hegelian dialectic pre it precedes all these other things.
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: That's why I started with that, But thank you, Darkikimora.
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: Uh Novae what Yeah, well, I was gonna say that,
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: From what I'm reading, Marxism is very quaint. Yeah, it's uh,
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: it's sort of adorable. I don't really think it needs
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: a refutation because we're dealing with much bigger monsters. Now.
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: All right, I'm sorry, com communists. Your foundational texts have
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: no relevance to the world as it is. And also
• 27:50
  Speaker 2: your entire movement was consumed by feminism. Okay, that's that's
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: why you got called Birdie Bros. And then shat on
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: by your own movement. Yeah, okay, let's keep going, all right.
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: Nova Fan twenty one gave us a dollar on Rumble
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: and said, men, if you can't get a job, then
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: just try hard to compete with the women and immigrants.
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: What you work sixty hour weeks and rent is too expensive?
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: Kids these days always making excuses, all right, thanks, let's
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: get back to it all right. That possibility is unsettling
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: because beliefs are far harder to repair than payroll statistics.
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: You can't fix a broken spirit with a tax credit
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: or a resume a resume workshop. The findings also raise
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: important cultural questions that you could not economists typically avoid,
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: Like the plague. For a decades, many boys have been
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: raised on messaging that portrays men as privileged, depressors, potential threats,
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: or moronic bystanders to modern progress. Popular culture routinely depicts
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: fathers as idiots, husbands as incompetent, and masculinity as something
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: requiring immediate correction. Okay, so I think they see something here.
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: Let's see if expectations matter, as University of Connecticut professors
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: Remy Levin or Levin and Daniella vid Art suggest, then
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: it's impossible to ignore the broader environment in which boys
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: form views about their future value. A society that repeatedly
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: tells young men they are unnecessary shouldn't be shocked when
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: some some eventually conclude that they are that is unnecessary. Meanwhile,
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: economic realities have reinforced the message. Earnings for non college
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: educated men have fallen significantly over the past few decades,
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: while earnings for college educated men have risen. Status gaps
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: have widened. Yeah, go ahead, not the case anymore.
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: No, No, that's not the case anymore so recently. I
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: don't know if they have, if they're party to this
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: new research, or maybe they haven't looked at it recently. No,
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: there is now no benefit for men to go to calle.
• 30:00
  Speaker 2: That's why I did the whole the stream like it
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: maybe a year ago on looking at whether or not
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: college is worthwhile. And I said that if you're a
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: man who isn't in the top whatever of a type
• 30:15
  Speaker 2: of field that women can't go into, I don't mean
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: won't can't, then don't don't go in. Don't bother right,
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: because it's not going to pan out for you. And
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: the reason why I said that is because the benefit,
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: the financial benefit of going to school or going to
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: set post secondary now for men is not there. And
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: then you have to also factor in the fact that
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: you're going to come out with a lot of debt. Right,
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: So it's it's probably on the balance of things, just
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: not worth it to go in. And I think that
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: they may not be They may not be looking at
• 30:56
  Speaker 2: that particular research because I noticed that researchers take to
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: be very siloed, like they don't they don't look at
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: the findings from other fields, so they may not actually
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: be aware of this research that new research is found.
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: M there is no benefit for men in going to
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: post secondary education.
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, it's better if they don't
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: because they won't be in debt bullshit degree. I mean,
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: I know there are real degrees.
• 31:24
  Speaker 2: Out there, but no, that's why I said, if you're
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: in the top, if you're in the top of your class,
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: and you're going into a degree that generally women don't
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: go into, this is probably a reasonable proposition. Yeah, But
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: if you're just going because that's the thing that you're
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: expected to do.
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: Don't everyone just goes to college because it's time to
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: go to college.
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, exactly, don't do that. If you're going and
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: you know exactly what you want to do, and especially
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: if like you have a future employer paying you go.
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: But if you don't, then don't it's not worth it.
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, And.
• 32:03
  Speaker 2: There are freaking horror stories from men going to college
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: too because of Title nine. So that's something else to consider.
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: I mean, I don't want to give anybody like anxiety,
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: but it is a it is a factor. You are
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: going into an environment that doesn't want you there and
• 32:22
  Speaker 2: what has created a social and policy situation where they
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: can destroy your life. Right, So, not only are you
• 32:29
  Speaker 2: going in debt, not only is it looking like you're
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: not going to get much of a benefit in terms
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: of an increase in income after going into debt, you're
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: going into a climate that doesn't want you there and
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: is massively slanted against you in terms of its policy.
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: If you ever get into some kind of like a
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: conflict with a woman or even this is what's astounding.
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: There are some instances where the woman herself has had
• 32:56
  Speaker 2: like she engages in a sexual relationship with a man
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: on campus, and the the feminists or the the the
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: the sex police get a hold of it and they
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: decide to pursue sanctions on the man on her behalf,
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: where she's saying, no, I am not consenting to this,
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: I am not it was fine, I'm happy with it.
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: I did nothing happened. Please do not attack, do not
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: sanction this man, do not bring any kind of sanctions
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: against him, and the the sex police continue to persecute
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: the guy against her wishes. If you can frickin wrap
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: your mind around that at that point, what do you
• 33:46
  Speaker 2: do really? Okay, anyway, let's let's so that I feel
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: about don't going don't go?
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, don't go to college. Okay, I just got
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: another couple more superchows our rumble. Rants actually gave us
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: a dollar and said, ladies on a warship very important.
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: What I don't know yet, Thank you, I think you
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: mean to say for what? Yeah, Nova fan twenty one
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: gives a dollar and says even the logic and fact
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: based auditor Caleb Hammer struggled to barely acknowledge the idea
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: of DEI being a major factor in why fewer than
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: fewer men are getting jobs and degrees from college. Yeah, well,
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: I think they're right to question whether or not any
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: of that stuff is for them as men. I'm glad
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: they're doing that, even though it does, you know, make
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: it difficult for them to find other means. I guess
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: this is, you know, to thrive, But yeah, college is
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: not it. So all right, back to the article status
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: gaps widened, wage gaps widened, opportunities widened for some and
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: narrowed for others. The result is a growing population of
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: men who look upward and see a ladder whose lower
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: rungs have been entirely chopped off. Predictably, many on the
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: far left will roll their eyes and offer mock sympathy
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: for the oppressors, while many on the right will respond
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: with nonsensical lectures about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: and loving a country that doesn't love your bank account back.
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: People need a reason to buy into the system, a
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: baseline of respect and the tangible sense that today's effort
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: actually buys a better tomorrow. If childhood experience teaches that
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: hard work produces little reward, labor force withdrawal becomes understandable,
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: even if it remains destructive. So like, before we get
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: into the next paragraph, I just want to say that
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: I watched a video that Matt Christiansen did on this
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: and this is how I found the article, or at
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: least found the story. And I'm not I like Matt Christensen,
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: but what I noticed is everyone seems to think that
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: the reasons why men and women work are identical and
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: I don't know why people think that. I think that
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: they're being uncharitable to men when they say that, because
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: I think that the men who are like not working,
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: you know that they're talking about that, are refusing to
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: enter the workforce. They're not necessarily just sort of like
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: living in their you know, parents' basement or something like that,
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: like because they don't want to do it. I think
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: that they're living just within their own means to survive
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: and they're just doing that. And the reason is because
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: I think when what men want to do, and I
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: think they want this more than women do, is work
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: so they can support a family, which starts with a
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: woman at least like work with a woman. And that's
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: why they have ambitions. It's like the like like you know,
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: I keep bringing up every so often when I used
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: to work at the paid store and there was this
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: guy who worked under me out was the assistant manager,
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: and he was just one of the employees. But he
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: was older than me, and he was married and had
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: a daughter, and he would come into work on time
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: every day, cheerful, and I know the job sucked, like
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: he didn't. He have bad days too, but he never
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: let it like become a problem, Like there were other
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: people men and women that if they had a bad day,
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: they might just like leave early, or they would want
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: to quit or whatever. And he stayed. And I remember
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: talking to him about it, and he was like, I
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: have a daughter like and and it wasn't like he
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: was suffering. He didn't feel like he was suffering. He
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: just felt like duty bound to do that job because
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: he had to do that job because he wasn't the
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: smartest guy. He wasn't like someone who should be, you know,
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: a doctor or a lawyer somewhere. He was just a
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: guy who was basically good for labor and he was
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: happy to do it because he had a family he
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: wanted to support. And it completely altered his mindset, like
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: his brain chemistry was different from mine because I didn't
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: have kids and I hate did my job. But he
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: learned to love it right. And again, it wasn't like
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: it was a bad job. It's just that when you
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: don't have responsibilities or duties, you start thinking of it
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: as completely optional, like, well, you know, I don't really
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: have to do this. I could do something, you know,
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: I could drive an uber and probably live off of
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: it and be fine. So I I guess when I'm
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: going going back to what I was thinking before. The
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: reason the thing is is interesting is that men are
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: looking not for a job. They are looking for a purpose,
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: and the job is something that serves it. Women don't
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: work for those reasons. Women work because they want the money.
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: They just want the material benefits of working. And that's
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: it sounds like I'm being mean to women, but I
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: think that that is overall what it is. Like if
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: they didn't have to work, they wouldn't. I don't think
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: that they have the same thing, that the same drive,
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: the same ignition that gets men up to go to
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: to do a job like a really like dangerous job
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: or a dirty job, you know, working in sanitation, working
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: the power lines, or you know, tearing up streets like
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: laying down new tarmac whatever, or laying down nutar for roads,
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: whatever it is. They'll do it because they they have
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: people they're doing it for. This is why when women
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: look for jobs, they're looking for stuff that's like, you know,
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: it serves their personal comforts. Like they're looking for something
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: that isn't gonna be really hard on their nails. They
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: want something that has flexible hours, they want something that's
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: in an air conditioned office space that's comfortable. They want
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: something that you know, they can wear outfits to whatever.
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: That's what they want. And because the the the incentives
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: or not incentives, but the reason for entering the workforce
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: is different. I think overall, on the whole, not everybody.
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: I know, there's exception and outliers, blah blah blah blah blah.
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: But I think on the whole that's the case. So, okay,
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: this is why, like women spend money on themselves and
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: men spend their money on women.
• 40:11
  Speaker 2: So here's here's a statement from dead Cat forty two,
• 40:16
  Speaker 2: ten months ago, and it's in our comments. I'm one
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: of the few men being trained to operate a power plant,
• 40:24
  Speaker 2: and honestly, I'm thinking of moving off grid in a
• 40:27
  Speaker 2: few years. There won't be enough men willing to work
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: these extremely dangerous jobs because we don't have families to support.
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: Say bye bye to dependable electricity. Yeah, that's that is
• 40:39
  Speaker 2: the uh, that is the crux of it. Men participate
• 40:43
  Speaker 2: in the system because they feel like it makes them
• 40:47
  Speaker 2: reproductively attractive or relationally attractive to women. And I know
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: people will I put persistently misinterpret what I'm saying they'll
• 40:59
  Speaker 2: say they and there's a reason why they do it,
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: Why they straw man it because because it did, it
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: discredits what I'm saying. They'll say, oh, well, you think
• 41:12
  Speaker 2: that men are entitled to women. Well, first of all,
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: nobody is entitled to men's labor. So if having a
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: reasonable chance at having a family is the cost that
• 41:26
  Speaker 2: men want for their participation in society. And again, this
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: is not saying that women are going to be assigned
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: to men against their will, which also means a man
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: is assigned to woman. But will this set that aside.
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: It means that men know their participation in the society
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: makes them a better prospect as a partner, and they're
• 41:53
  Speaker 2: participating in a society that not only facilitates that, but
• 41:57
  Speaker 2: doesn't lie about them, lie about their worst as partner.
• 42:00
  Speaker 2: There has nothing to do with entitlement. Like the only
• 42:04
  Speaker 2: place that entitlement figures into this is the feminists asserting
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: that men should labor for a society that lies about them,
• 42:15
  Speaker 2: treats them with contempt, makes their love illegible to women,
• 42:18
  Speaker 2: or redefines it as hatred of women, and doesn't respect
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: their role in manufacturing the conditions for a modern society. Like,
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: why is society owed men's labor if it provides nothing
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: back but an increasingly inflated away wage, inflated away to
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: the aforementioned financialization, Okay, which is of course facilitated by
• 42:47
  Speaker 2: the feminist firewall. All right, So why should men invest
• 42:50
  Speaker 2: in all of this? Why should they put their labor
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: into it without, as Brian says, a purpose that's legible
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: to them? And why should they labor for a society
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: if we hold everything constant, why should we they labor
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: for a society that treats them like garbage? Right? And
• 43:13
  Speaker 2: then every time I bring this up, I have a
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: feminist in the comment saying, oh, you think men are
• 43:19
  Speaker 2: entitled to women? Like? Where what I've said is that
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: is the statement that men are entitled to women. You know,
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: it's really funny because I think I feel like that's
• 43:31
  Speaker 2: progression or projection, because it comes from a place where
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: feminists feel entitled to men's labor, and of course, their
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: entire theological construction, sorry ideological construction justifies that entitlement by
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: situating men's labor as the site of their oppression of women.
• 43:57
  Speaker 2: So of course they're owed the fruits of their labor
• 44:00
  Speaker 2: if the labor itself is oppressing women, is costing women something. Yeah, hey,
• 44:07
  Speaker 2: you're a woman taxed everyone for having worked for the
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: dread oppression of having a job.
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: Okay, okay, h Noba fan gave us a dollar on
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: Rumble again and said, I believe neo cons are bringing
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: in immigrants to replace the American men who opt out.
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: There's a video of a man who has upset he
• 44:32
  Speaker 1: can't keep his immigrants that work pennies on the dollar. Well,
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: fuck him all right. America's rising male suicide rates, growing
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: social isolation, declining marriage rates, and workforce withdrawal may not
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: be separate phenomena, but different symptoms of the same underlying condition,
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: a crisis of expectation. The video game theory was comforting
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: because it implied a simple solution, turn off the xbox,
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: put on some pants, and return to work. The new
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: research points to something less convenient. It suggests that what
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: matters most is not what men are doing at age thirty,
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: but what they learned about the value of work, purpose,
• 45:11
  Speaker 1: and their place in society when they were thirteen. Yeah,
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: that's not so close, but not quite. I don't even
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: really think you know. That's another thing that people presume
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: is that, you know, men are working to attract women.
• 45:29
  Speaker 1: I think that that's part of it. But I also
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: think men don't really start working until there is like,
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: you know, family is like on the let's say that
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: it's on the horizon, like they see that it's gonna happen, like, oh,
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: I think I'm gonna get married and start a family,
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: and they start really becoming ambitious because that's what motivates them.
• 45:50
  Speaker 2: I mean.
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: But anyways, so that's the whole article. It's kind of short.
• 45:54
  Speaker 1: We could look at the data as well, but let
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: me see what people are saying in the comments. Unless
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: you want to say something.
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: To you yes, no, no, it's we can go take
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: a look at the comments all. Before we do, I
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: will remind everyone feed the Badger dot com slash just
• 46:08
  Speaker 2: the tips best way for you to send a tip
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: in the comment with that tip, So sending those sending
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: those comments, feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip,
• 46:18
  Speaker 2: and feed the Badger dot com slash support to help
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: us out for the month. Now, let's let's look at
• 46:23
  Speaker 2: the comments.
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: All right. Pound Key says, uh, there's quite a bit
• 46:30
  Speaker 1: of dangerous truth in this piece. Also, you're likely talking
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: about the new demographic, that demo of working class, non
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: college educated MAGA voters who consistently vote against their self interest.
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: These are probably the same people who inexplicably complain about
• 46:45
  Speaker 1: minimum wage earners making fifteen to eighteen dollars an hour
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: a few years ago. The power elites distract them with DEI,
• 46:52
  Speaker 1: transgender Marxist communists. The next thing you know, you've turned
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: an entire generation of ruined, an entire generation. Okay, that guy,
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know what he's just he just wants to make.
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: A point about chat.
• 47:07
  Speaker 1: No, no, no, This is a comment on the article.
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: These are comments of the article. These are on the article.
• 47:13
  Speaker 2: All right, So okay, yeah, fair enough. I would like
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: to I would like to venture a interpretation of what
• 47:20
  Speaker 2: he's saying. She's saying that the working class man is
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: voting against his interests because he's voting Republican. All right.
• 47:29
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry, sir, but you are wrong, and I'm not.
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: I'm not I'm going to say this as not a Republican.
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: I'm not even American, right, I'm not on the right.
• 47:40
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying that the right is wrong. I don't
• 47:41
  Speaker 2: even know what the right in the left are really anymore,
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: because honestly, what it looks like to me is you
• 47:46
  Speaker 2: have the Smash Patriarchy Party, which is trying to smash
• 47:52
  Speaker 2: the patriarchy, which seems to only really result in creating
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: more financialization or justifying more financialization. But let's let's let's
• 48:01
  Speaker 2: just set that aside. They seem to want to advocate
• 48:04
  Speaker 2: two things. Men renunciating their masculinity and vindicating women is
• 48:09
  Speaker 2: always good, as they were forever and patriarchy was keeping
• 48:13
  Speaker 2: them down right, So we got the Smash Patriarchy Party,
• 48:17
  Speaker 2: and then we have everyone else, and that is everybody
• 48:21
  Speaker 2: who has an opinion other than the most important thing
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: is to smash patriarchy, and of course smash patriarchy and
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: also includes all of the trands and intersectional variations, hallmark variations.
• 48:37
  Speaker 2: But regardless, everybody else is just the not Smash the
• 48:40
  Speaker 2: Patriarchy party. And this includes people who don't why who
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: may actually agree and like, yeah, smashing patriarchy is a
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: good thing, but what about the economy, you know, I'd
• 48:51
  Speaker 2: like to have a job, or what about being able
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: to pay for groceries you know? Or what about the
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: whales or what a out? You know? Anything else? So
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: they agree, but they don't center it. They of course,
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: are of the devil, just like everybody else in the
• 49:08
  Speaker 2: Non Smashed the Patriarchy Party, which includes the right, It
• 49:12
  Speaker 2: includes the Unions, it includes the former Left, It includes
• 49:15
  Speaker 2: the Marxist Bernie Brose he got you covered too in curs,
• 49:19
  Speaker 2: includes everybody who doesn't believe that men should renunciate their
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: masculinity and women should be vindicated forevermore. These are our
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: parties we got. And this is why the Not Smashed
• 49:32
  Speaker 2: the Patriarchy Party is so heterogenet He heterogeneous blah blah, homogeneous,
• 49:39
  Speaker 2: heterogeneous header zegis no headr.
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: I'm I'm not I'm not following. I don't know what
• 49:47
  Speaker 1: you're getting at. Homogenous, heterogenous.
• 49:53
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Thank you appreciated that. This is why everybody
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: in the Not Smashed the Patriarchy Party heterogeneous. It's because
• 50:02
  Speaker 2: all that's defined by is either not putting that first
• 50:07
  Speaker 2: or not thinking it's relevant. So anybody who doesn't think
• 50:11
  Speaker 2: that smashing the patriarchy is the most important thing is
• 50:15
  Speaker 2: not part. And that's basically sort of the unit party, right,
• 50:20
  Speaker 2: And I think that what you're saying is that unless
• 50:24
  Speaker 2: men vote for the smash the patriarchy party, and you know,
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: disavow their masculinity, renunciate of their masculinity, flagellate themselves for
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: being men. They don't they aren't voting for their own
• 50:38
  Speaker 2: best interests. Because I think what you're doing is you're
• 50:40
  Speaker 2: conflating the old kind of labor organization left with this answer,
• 50:51
  Speaker 2: and I think you're wrong. I think that left is gone.
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: I think that left died when the left stop being
• 50:59
  Speaker 2: able to form families and reproduce. And that, strangely coincidentally
• 51:06
  Speaker 2: coincides completely by coincidence with exactly what I am researching,
• 51:12
  Speaker 2: which is the conflict between the Marxist feminists and the
• 51:15
  Speaker 2: radical feminists, and eventually the Marxist feminists losing, Marxism being
• 51:21
  Speaker 2: dismantled for parts, the role of the capitalist extractor being
• 51:26
  Speaker 2: given to the husband don don Don the vector of
• 51:32
  Speaker 2: evil into the household, otherwise known as all right. So
• 51:37
  Speaker 2: you know, it's just from somehow those things coincide, the
• 51:41
  Speaker 2: complete like the switch from capital being or capitalist being
• 51:48
  Speaker 2: the evil one to the husband being the evil one
• 51:51
  Speaker 2: coincides just by coincidence, surprising coincidence, you know, just I
• 51:56
  Speaker 2: don't know who knows why it coincides with the no
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: longer being able to form families or reproduce. And I
• 52:03
  Speaker 2: think that if you're going to tell people that the
• 52:06
  Speaker 2: left of the past is this left, you are wrong.
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: And uh so I I.
• 52:16
  Speaker 2: I think, uh, I think this construct you've made that
• 52:20
  Speaker 2: mega working class men are voting against their own interests
• 52:25
  Speaker 2: by not voting for the I hate men priorty is
• 52:29
  Speaker 2: uh it's really simplistic, and it's it's not uh, it
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: just isn't consistent with the historical reality that I'm seeing.
• 52:36
  Speaker 1: Putting it mildly, Yeah, I was expected. I'm sorry I
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: read that comment because I was hoping for something better.
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: But it was one of those where I had to
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: read more and then I started reading it and I
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: hit read more and well, let's see uh oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: I don't I don't have Uh, I don't have. Do
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: you have access to news paper? I still need it?
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: I mean, I guess I can try to download the PDAs. No,
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: I got it. It's open Enver Working Paper series. Nobody
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: wants to work anymore. Lifetime labor market experiences and the
• 53:15
  Speaker 1: decline of male l FP labor labor force participation in
• 53:21
  Speaker 1: the United States by Remy Levin and Daniella vid Art
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: or vid Art.
• 53:28
  Speaker 2: Okay, okay, so just just so you know, like full
• 53:31
  Speaker 2: full disclosure, this isn't peer reviewed yet, it's a working paper.
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: Okay, we can look at the conclusion or yeah, let's
• 53:38
  Speaker 1: look at the abstract and then go to the conclusion
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: because it's long, all right. Male male So okay, interesting,
• 53:47
  Speaker 1: it says nobody wants to work anymore. So they started
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: with a kind of like unisex or not specific title
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: nobody instead of men. I don't know why. But then
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: like in the abstract that go into men. So why
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: don't you guys just say it like men don't want
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: to work so that you can start asking the correct questions.
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: It bugs me, I know, maybe I'm being pedantic. Sorry, okay.
• 54:10
  Speaker 1: Abstract Male labor force participation has declined steadily for fifty
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: years in the United States. We show that one cause
• 54:18
  Speaker 1: has been changes in men's beliefs about the returns to
• 54:22
  Speaker 1: work shaped by lifetime experiences of the aggregate male labor market.
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: We find that experience effects on a participation persist for
• 54:31
  Speaker 1: men who move across state lines, are stronger for the
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: same race male experiences and are driven by formative childhood years.
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: We also document effects of experiences on direct measures of
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: labor market expectations. Our findings suggest that experience effects can
• 54:48
  Speaker 1: turn short run declines in labor demand into long run
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: declines in labor supply. Okay, do you want me to
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: just move ahead to the to the end.
• 55:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, Well let's situate. Let's go to the end.
• 55:04
  Speaker 2: Let's see where they're going with us. Okay, so, uh,
• 55:09
  Speaker 2: I think the hill probably gave us a good idea.
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I yeah, I think the hill is oh yeah.
• 55:15
  Speaker 1: Conclusions inclusion in this paper, we contribute to the ongoing
• 55:20
  Speaker 1: debate on the causes of the long run decline in
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: m l FP, which.
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: Is male labor force participation.
• 55:29
  Speaker 1: Yeah in the United States. We identify and analyze a
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: novel mechanism contributing to the decline, namely, the persistent influence
• 55:38
  Speaker 1: of aggregate lifetime male labor market experiences. Our results imply
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: that the long run decline in US male labor force
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: participation cannot be understood solely as a response to contemporaneous
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: market incentives or institutional shifts. Men's labor supply decisions are
• 55:58
  Speaker 1: also shaped by their beliefs about the returns to participation,
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: which are a function of their lived experience and the
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: experiences of the men around them. This belief formation Okay,
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: this formation mechanism matters for two reasons. First, it helps
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: explain why men's labor supply responds only sluggishly to contemporaneous
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: wage gains, consistent with the well documented small, short run
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: wage elasticity of male labor supply. Second, it underscores the
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: persistence of labor market shocks. Men carry the imprint of
• 56:37
  Speaker 1: past wage and employment histories into present decisions. Notably, this
• 56:43
  Speaker 1: experience effect operates largely through pre adult exposure. It is
• 56:48
  Speaker 1: the labor market environment men grow up in more than
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: what they observe as adults that shapes their latest participation
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: or later participation. This points to the formative years as
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: the critical window for belief formation about returns to work,
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: with implications for how policy interventions might most effectively cultivate
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: lasting labor force attachment among men. Just as central banks
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: stabilize inflation partly by anchoring expectations about future prices, policymakers
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: concerned with labor force participation might also consider managing expectations
• 57:24
  Speaker 1: cultivating credible long run beliefs in the stability and value
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: of work to sustain participation over time. Rebuilding these expectations
• 57:34
  Speaker 1: may not only help reverse the decline in male labor
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: force participation in the United States, but also mitigate the
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: broader set of challenges affecting men in the present day.
• 57:46
  Speaker 1: So that's the conclusions. Yeah, I like how they make
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: the comparison to Central Banks, which is kind of like
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: a weird, a weird thing to bring up.
• 57:59
  Speaker 2: But yeah, yes, strangely, strangely just out of nowhere. But yeah,
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: I'm just trying to I was envisioning what what do
• 58:07
  Speaker 2: they mean? What would they do in terms of intervention,
• 58:10
  Speaker 2: like just a poster campaign, Hey guys, we really.
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: Really want you to go back to work.
• 58:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, and also not pictured all of the
• 58:25
  Speaker 2: watching their male relatives go through divorce courts and lose
• 58:29
  Speaker 2: access to their children not pictured there, like and also
• 58:33
  Speaker 2: lose a good portion of what they had earned. So
• 58:37
  Speaker 2: they don't they don't explore that as a rationale for
• 58:40
  Speaker 2: why men don't want to get involved in the labor force,
• 58:45
  Speaker 2: that they're going to be taken for the ride, but
• 58:47
  Speaker 2: by the family courts. That's not one rationale that they
• 58:50
  Speaker 2: look at and then they also don't look at all
• 58:54
  Speaker 2: of the rhetoric around men in the labor force, how
• 59:01
  Speaker 2: that suppression of women somehow or or the delegitimization of
• 59:07
  Speaker 2: men as providers and the presentation of men as providers
• 59:12
  Speaker 2: as oppressors rather than providers. They don't look at that, right,
• 59:16
  Speaker 2: and they don't look at women's expectations and whether or
• 59:19
  Speaker 2: not these men feel like they can meet those expectations
• 59:23
  Speaker 2: to become desirable partners to women. There's a lot of stuff.
• 59:26
  Speaker 2: I mean, I guess this is one thing. It's just
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: like the stupidest thing.
• 59:32
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 59:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just like, it's just dumb. It's it's just dumb.
• 59:40
  Speaker 2: That reminds me I have to send an email to
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: the guy who wrote the towards an individualistic reproduction.
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: I tried to email that guy and it kept bouncing
• 59:51
  Speaker 1: back at me telling me it was unable to be delivered.
• 59:54
  Speaker 1: So I don't know. Maybe yeah, I tried like twice
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: and I got back, so I don't know. Hopefully it
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 1: went out. I tried it on a different email.
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 2: You might have a you might have some kind of
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 2: me filter, or he has a filter where through well,
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: it may actually.
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: Be come from you. Yeah, okay, all right, all right,
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 1: fair enough. Well hopefully he'll respond. But you were saying, well,
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 1: what I was saying is.
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 2: So it's just dumb right, Like it's they're basically saying, Oh,
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 2: it's the how they grew up and what they saw
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 2: when they grew up that shapes their opinion now and
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: reduces their participation. So you're saying that guys are This
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 2: is why I think this is a little bit weird.
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 2: You're saying that guys are just like looking, there's there's
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: there's plenty of the potential jobportunities that are perfectly suited
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 2: for them in every conceivable way, and they're looking at that,
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 2: and they're saying, but I grew up and men were
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 2: underemployed and my father couldn't get a job, and they're
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 2: looking at these job opportunitieses and saying, no, I'm not
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 2: taking any of these. No, I'm I'm not updating my
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: reality to this. I Am just going to continue to
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 2: be unemployed. Like it's it's the proposal here, and then
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: what is the intervention, Like you just postering campaign give
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 2: young men leaflets? What and are you going to actually
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 2: try to create an intervention that's positive for men. Have
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 2: you met feminism, sir and madam? Because you try to
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: do that, and feminism is gonna is gonna smash that
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 2: pretty quick. You try to do anything positive for men
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 2: and feminists that it's just like they pop out of
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 2: the frickin' walls and they're like, is that positive? Are
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 2: you doing something positive for men?
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 1: Huh?
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 2: Huh? Is that? Is that something that might benefit men? Wow?
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 2: You like your academic career, you don't have it anymore? Hey,
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 2: that's what feminists do. Like, so good luck. They want
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 2: to try some kind of intervention that's positive, they'll be
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 2: in a year, they'll be on our program talking about
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 2: how feminists destroy their career. Yeah, like that's so uh yeah,
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 2: I just okay, fair enough, Like maybe you could do
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 2: some kind of intervention with these young men. Maybe you
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 2: could do some like job counseling you somehow you evade
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 2: the feminist cartel on all kinds of social interventions, like
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 2: they have to go through feminism, the feminist supilter. You
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 2: have to, you have to escape it, right, So they
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 2: managed to do that, is it really going to be useful? Like?
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 2: Is counseling to young men saying, hey, you know that
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 2: really cool job that you've always wanted and you got
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 2: you you were accepted, You're and they were like, you
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 2: can come work for us, and you said no, no,
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 2: my I grew up in an economically depressed region. I
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 2: reject your job. How about you don't do that? How
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: would you go work at it? Like? Okay, I think
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 2: this is a make work project, honestly this but you know,
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 2: if they can operationalize, it's good luck to them.
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 1: You know what I was thinking about. I was thinking
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: about this so we know that like feminist academia is
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: doesn't even qualify as science, okay, like it is it
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: there isn't in no way does it follow any kind
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 1: of like you know, objective I don't know, like it
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 1: doesn't follow any objective standards at all, and all of
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 1: it is just based on whatever it's It's like you know,
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: when you when you go into science, one of the
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 1: first things you have to learn are the ethics of science.
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: And within the ethics of science, the probably the very
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 1: first lesson is one of confirmation bias, Like learning confirmation
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 1: bias so that you can avoid it. Because what you're
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 1: trying to do in science is measure reality regardless of
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 1: what you think or feel about it. But feminist academia,
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 1: for lack of a better term, it's all based in
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 1: confirmation bias. Like there's an assumption and then they just
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 1: try to find the data that supports the assumption, and
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: then they make a paper after that, and then they
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: put the paper all backs up everything to believe it. Now,
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 1: this is all obvious stuff that you guys know. I
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 1: know that you know this, But I was thinking about
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 1: something else. What if you work in academia in another
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: kind of soft science, like economics, for example, and you're
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 1: also trying to write a paper, but everything that you're
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: using as like a sub let's say, like a support
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: as supporting documentation, as you know, even if you're trying
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 1: to be really objective, it could all be infected by
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 1: this kind of like confirmation bias oriented feminist literature. So
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: I think that what I'm saying is is that feminist
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: academia is destroying all of academia because at least all
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 1: of the soft sciences are in danger, even some hard sciences,
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: because there are assumptions made because like you're working in
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: the field. I'm talking about something kind of big picture
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 1: you're working in the field and you need you're putting
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: together a paper, and so you need data from stuff
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: that might not be directly in your wheelhouse, but it's related.
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: Like say, you're trying to figure out why men are
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: not participating in the workforce, and you're doing this as
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 1: an economist or at least like an economic you know,
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 1: professor or something, right, you're doing the study in this
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: particular realm, and then you start looking at this and
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: you're like, oh, men are not like you know, men
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 1: are failing or men are struggling in this way or whatever.
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: And then you're trying to like answer those questions. So
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: you're like, well, I need some documentation from outside of
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: my discipline to help understand why this is happening. And
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: you end up going to feminists because that's where if
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 1: you talk about anything to do with gender, it's going
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 1: to be them, even if it's a masculinities class, which
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 1: they don't exist, and when they do, they're basically just
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: feminist classes. And so you're going to be drawing from
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: bad science, which you don't know is bad because it's
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 1: not your job to like, you know, do checks and balances,
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 1: and because you assume that everyone else is doing the
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 1: same thing, following the rules the same way you are,
• 1:07:01
  Speaker 1: and so you get your results and your your your
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: data from that, and now it's infected your work because
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: it's and you don't know it because you think it's legit,
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 1: Like you're like, well, you know, their data shows this,
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 1: that and the other, and I'm not. And I'm also
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 1: thinking about the paper that we've been going over over
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: time that the guy I actually might be a woman
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: because the name is Mad's and Mads could be a
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 1: man's name or a woman's Nay, it could be short
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 1: for Maddie, but Mads who reached out to us, they
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 1: might even be legitimately following this through. But if you
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: look at their paper on and the one we've been
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: going through about, you know, like how to fix the
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 1: birth rate by essentially giving more money to women, if
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 1: they could have gotten there purely on like just going
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 1: off of whatever paperwork was around and just looking at that,
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 1: because they're not looking at real people, just looking at
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 1: data and spreadsheets, and they are coming to these conclusions
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 1: which have already been tainted by this ideology. You guys
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 1: know what I'm saying. I know I got I went.
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 2: I get what you're saying. Yeah, yeah, I totally get
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 2: what you're saying. Yeah, it makes a lot of sense
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 2: because again I talked about the silo link. There are
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 2: people when you're in academia, you're only in your own
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 2: little silo. This is something I'm discovering as I'm chasing
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: down citations like networks. Well not even discovering, I'm like
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 2: just getting more confirming evidence. So researchers in their field
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 2: won't look at even other branches of the same field.
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 1: Right, Well, they can't go around double checking everyone else's homework.
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: They just have to hope and presume that everyone else
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 1: is working there as diligent as they are. Yeah I know,
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 1: I know, but yeah, but.
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 2: They don't necessarily even are are not even completely aware
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 2: of the controversies or the problems of the field that
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 2: they're citing. So you're right, they somebody who's in sociology
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 2: might be like, oh, wow, I'm dealing with gender. Let
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 2: me go talk to the den of thieves feminism, you know,
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 2: and uh, and then they get a whole whack load
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 2: of bullshit that they can't you know, they're just taking
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 2: on phace value because it's not their job. To fix it. Yeah,
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 2: I can see that happening. It's like it's the same
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 2: sort of process where we have actual anthropologists saying that
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 2: female humans vocalize during sex in order to elicit male
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 2: male competition without pausing to think about what they're asserting
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 2: and whether or not that matches their own life, lived experience. Yeah,
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 2: unless unless anthropologists are seriously seriously kinky with some massive
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 2: cuckold fetishes like that, that probably doesn't match their lived
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 2: experience if they spent a moment thinking about it. But
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 2: they've imported it from like biology, and they have to
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 2: they have to start somewhere, right with vocalizations, with trying
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 2: to figure out what women are up to. But so
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 2: that's a but that's the that's that kind of importing thing.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: You import something that isn't it doesn't fit at all,
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 2: and you do it because you got to start somewhere. Yeah,
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 2: it's it's how feminist science perpetuates itself. Feminist science, it does.
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: Other disciplines and and can you question it, like can
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: you say, like I don't think this is science, this
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 1: is junk. Can you do that or are you gonna
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 1: get your job?
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah? That's that's another thing, like there is an entire
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 2: like endocrinology was killed in the cradle by feminists because
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 2: it was pointing in a direction that they didn't approve of. Yeah,
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 2: all right, so like I uh looking at people's behavior
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 2: through endocrinology. Yeah, that that became sort of a yeah.
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 2: The feminist would just walk over like that's a really
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 2: nice career there, huh, be shame if someone did anything
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 2: to it. And then these these endocrinologists would be like, oh, oh, well,
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 2: I guess I'll just switch away from studying humans and
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 2: just go back to prairie voles. There's no prairie rol
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 2: feminist lobby like and then and then we don't have
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 2: like we one of the most criminally understudied biolli biological
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 2: fields is end in humans. There's all kinds of information
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 2: we could have and we don't because of stuff like that.
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 2: Feminism just breaks everything into counters, including itself. But then
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 2: it doesn't care because that's that's the thing. I'm like,
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 2: going through this, this gigantic argument between the radical feminists
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 2: and the and the mar feminists and the chat where.
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: Like the chat or you said you're in an argument, No, no,
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 1: I'm not in.
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 2: Going through it like this is an argument that was dead.
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: It's like forty years dead. Brian. Oh, I'm going through.
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 2: I'm going through the battle field and looking like doing
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: excavations of the skeletons.
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. Feminists are always arguing. I I was,
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: I was doing a thing on Andrea Dwarkin and Judith Butler.
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 1: And these are two you know, feminists from back to
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 1: the day. I mean, Judith Butler's still alive if I
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: remember correctly, But innate disagreeree with each other. But like,
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: the thing that's interesting about it is they are a
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: feminists who disagree with each other on all kinds of
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 1: different things, but they all agree on you know, like
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 1: what their opinions on men are. But their disagreements are
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 1: the conversation like anyone who is most people, except for
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 1: people like us, who are talking about anything to do
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: with the relationship between men and women, male nature, female nature,
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 1: whether we're talking about biology or the social or the
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 1: cultural stuff, everyone is participating as a representative of one
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: of many feminist arguments, and no one, very few people
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 1: have aside outside of that. So even though there are
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 1: lots of feminists who disagree on lots of different things,
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 1: like you mentioned, the Marxist feminists, the Turfs, the the
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 1: you know, the the political lesbians, the gender feminists whatever.
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: Even though they they all you know, disagree with each other,
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 1: they are also the only arguments that anyone is having,
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: like for the most part, because almost everyone got there,
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 1: you know, whatever level of education on gender relations, gender
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: and self, gender roles, sex whatever. They all got it
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: from feminists, but they just got it from different ones.
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: And they think that it's a diversity of opinions that
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 1: they're you know, like they're all over the place, but
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 1: they're they're not. They're only different on little things like
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: minutia at the end of the day, because they all
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: agree that met are trash, like that's like the starting point,
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: and most people or that patriarchy's real and that men
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 1: have oppressed women throughout history blah blah blah.
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 1: So it makes it like that's why it's so hard
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: to talk about because most people you're starting from, like
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 1: you know, they're all at square one and where it's
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 1: square you know n and they're like what the hell
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 1: is that. It's like, yeah, this is this is like
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 1: the real place you should be starting from this integer yeah.
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, no, and no, well The particular argument that
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 2: I'm looking at is again between Marxist feminists and radical feminists,
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 2: and it took place between nineteen seventy and nineteen eighty five,
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 2: I guess would be over with. And they all agree
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 2: that they aren't able to define it completely or they
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 2: don't necessarily, but they all agree that women are oppressed
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 2: and men are doing it. Yeah, okay, and they use
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 2: the term patriarchy. And the argument that I'm looking at
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 2: is an argument over the term patriarchy, because I'm trying
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 2: to find where feminists actually defined it in a way
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 2: that was falsifiable and then proved it was true. Okay, guys,
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 2: guess what. Still still haven't found that the mythical, actual
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 2: feminist science that established the patriarchy is a thing that exists, right,
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 2: because I had to go and actually construct by myself
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 2: a theoretical formulation that could be falsified out of feminist
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 2: beliefs around men. Okay, I shouldn't have to do that. Okay,
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 2: they should have it, and they should be able to
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 2: point to it and be able to say, hey, this
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 2: is where we proved this true. This is where we
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 2: formulated this theoretical this falsif falsifiable causal statement. And this
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 2: is where we proved it true. They haven't even done
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 2: stage one. And after this is like what seventies, fifty
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 2: years now, fifty six years now are going on. They
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 2: still haven't gotten to stage one of science stating their
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 2: patriarchy conjecture in a way that's provable or falsifiable. So anyway,
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 2: I'm like looking at this way back when I'm looking
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 2: at the providence of the concept of patriarchy. And again,
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 2: it's really fascinating this argument, and it also explains why
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 2: and I know might be controversial, but Soviet feminism is
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 2: just not like Western feminism. I hate to tell you guys.
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 1: It's customized to fit whatever culture it needs to fit,
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: you know.
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 2: Setting setting aside the nature of communism itself is as
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 2: a political system, Soviet feminism stopped at women going into
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 2: the workplace and women's education, and that was it.
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: That makes sense. Well, no, I mean, why would you
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 1: want to work under a communist regime? I don't think so,
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 1: like fucking you know, cossacks putting their guns at you
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 1: or whatever course whatever they call them. You know, what
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 1: I'm talking about common dots.
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 2: Overall point is that that's where it stopped. It's also
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 2: where Japanese feminism stopped. Is just getting women into the workplace,
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 2: getting female education, advocating female education, stuff like that Western feminists,
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 2: and this is this is the thing that I'm tracing.
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 2: You gotta look at it this way, all right. So
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 2: Marxism puts working women in the position of oppressed, right
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 2: because they're working their laborers right now. The bourgeois women
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 2: saw that and were like, how could you give so
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 2: much oppression points to the smelly, white trash working women
• 1:18:24
  Speaker 2: that belongs to us, And so they constructed an entire
• 1:18:28
  Speaker 2: framework because they were jealous of working women being centered.
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 2: For once, right, their scullery maids got a bit of attention.
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 2: So the lady of the house got a little pissed
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 2: and said, now we're not saying, we're not standing for that.
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 2: So these bougie women got together and developed a framework
• 1:18:51
  Speaker 2: in which they were, in fact the greatest of oppressed
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 2: people on the planet. And what's interesting about that framework
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 2: is if you look at the Marxist framework, where oppression
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 2: accrues to wage earners, so a wage earner is exploited
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 2: by a capitalist. Now I'm not advancing this like I
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 2: believe it. And again I say that Marxism is quaint
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 2: because the kind of corruption that we see with financial extraction. Yeah,
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 2: that's I don't think he could even conceive of it, right,
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 2: So just yeah, whatever, But he thinks that the wage earner,
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 2: the laborer, is being exploited by the bosses, the people
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 2: who are the men who owner the people who own
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 2: the capitol. So the site of exploit exploitation is situated
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 2: in the wage, in the wage earning, right. But what
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 2: the bougie women say is that actually the site of
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 2: oppression is situated in the stay the housewife who lives
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 2: off the wage of the wage earner, and that men
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 2: go out and get wages in order to able to
• 1:20:00
  Speaker 2: oppress women with them. Okay, so this real side of
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 2: oppression actually isn't the working class women, or the scullery
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 2: maid or the woman that throws out the chamber pot
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 2: of the lady of the house. The actual side of
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 2: the oppression is the lady of the house. Because she
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 2: doesn't have a wage, she is completely reliant on the
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 2: wage of the man of the house. Thus is the
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 2: most depressed of all. And I just find it really
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 2: a coincidence. Another coincidence that this framework came out of
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 2: bourgeois feminists, like a, the bourgeois radical feminists, like they
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 2: just they landed on that one. Just so coincidental that
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 2: they were the ones who were the most depressed, even
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 2: though if you think about it, that means that as
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 2: women go up the class hierarchy, the more oppressed they are. Yeah,
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 2: and then they don't talk about they don't reconcile this,
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 2: and then they situate all of the anti social extractive
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 2: behavior that Mar's attributed to the capitalist to their husbands,
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 2: and there you go patriarchy. And then suddenly the weft
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 2: stops having children, the stops pair bonding and having children.
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 2: I wonder why anyway, So I just find that really funny.
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 2: So that's what I'm attracking, And in the context of
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 2: what I've been researching, I did do like a bit
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 2: of an analysis of this article. But you guys are
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 2: interested what articles?
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: Can we just read the or the actual.
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 2: The actual paper?
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: Okay, okay, okay, sweet okay, So yeah, well hold on
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: before you read it. Before you read it, I got
• 1:21:51
  Speaker 1: a super chat. I want to read it. Dylan one
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 1: O two double one gives us ten dollars. Thank you,
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 1: Dylan and says feminist, alright, to get the book Rape
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 1: by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer band because it contradicted
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 1: the feminist narrative of rape being about power. Oh interesting,
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: I never heard of that book Randy Thornhill and Craig
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 1: Palmer Okay, else and go ahead, I'm gonna look this
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 1: book up while you're reading.
• 1:22:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, sure, like I would imagine that that book
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 2: still works under the premise that rape is something that
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 2: men do to women.
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 1: I'm yeah, that's why I'm looking it up. That's why
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 1: i'm looking it up.
• 1:22:28
  Speaker 2: Sticks ive seen suggests that no, actually, it's just something
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 2: that humans.
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 1: It's actually not. It's not called rape. It's called a
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 1: natural history of rape, biological bases of sexual coercion.
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's going to exclude the fact that women actually
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 2: coerced a considerable rates. When you control for all of
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 2: the factors that lead to men's under reporting, generally you
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 2: find equality. So women are sexually assaulting men at approximately
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 2: the same rate as the reverse.
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 1: Much. Yeah, which feeds back into what I was saying
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: before about how feminist academia destroys all academia, because if
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 1: you are just someone in criminology and you were just
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: like doing a paper on rape. You're going to get
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 1: feminist infected sources, so it's going to impact your own results,
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 1: and you're not gonna like have you don't have time
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: to check everybody else's homework, so you're just going to
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 1: go along with That's why I'm saying when I say
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 1: that it's it's it's a problem that is far bigger
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 1: than people are willing to admit, because you can't get
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 1: to the truth if everyone's working from a lie, like
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 1: even if they just have a lie as one of
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 1: the accidental you know, ingredients in their in their final results.
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 1: But anyway, you go ahead, I'm sorry.
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 2: Okay, So this working paper makes male labor supply and
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 2: explain at them. This is the thing that, like my
• 1:24:02
  Speaker 2: analysis of these papers has shown, has never been in like,
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 2: it's never presented as a possibility in this discussion between
• 1:24:14
  Speaker 2: Marxist and rad femme conception of patriarchy. Essentially in the
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 2: rad femine like the foundation of both is that why
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 2: women are in the home requires an explanation, and of
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 2: course the Marxist feminists sort of struggled with that one,
• 1:24:33
  Speaker 2: and the rad fem's just had this kind of ever
• 1:24:36
  Speaker 2: present patriarchal force that restructures society according to its men's benefit.
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 2: But they never thought about, well, why are men taking
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 2: a wage? Why are they in the wage earning role?
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 2: So this particular paper actually questions that which is good?
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 2: Like honestly, in that sense, this is this is sort
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 2: of a step forward. It's it's like I did say,
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 2: it was dumb, Okay, let me qualify that. I think
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 2: it's simply simplistic and it's leaving a lot of stuff out.
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 2: I don't see how it is going to be pursued
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 2: as a potential intervention, and good luck getting it past
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 2: the feminists. But I mean, it couldn't hurt, right unless
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 2: they're actually trying to convince boys that there are more
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 2: opportunities than there actually are, in which case that it
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 2: just ends up landing on boys being the problem somehow,
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 2: which is not a helpful message. But the point is
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 2: that this paper is actually sort of a step in
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 2: the right direction because it is looking at something that
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 2: hasn't been looked at for fifty six years, which is
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 2: why are men in the wage earn a role? Now,
• 1:25:48
  Speaker 2: everybody who's listening to here it's probably thinks that that's
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 2: an absurd question, but you know, academia is about asking
• 1:25:56
  Speaker 2: obvious questions, right and then refusing the obvious answers. But
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 2: that question has never even been asked, particularly where it
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 2: would actually be most relevant, which is in the feminist
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 2: appraisal or the feminist explanation of why women are in
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 2: the home and why. Well, they don't even ask why
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 2: men are as in the way at taking wages, or
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 2: if they do, they just they actually don't even ask
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 2: the question. They just assert the response, which is that
• 1:26:23
  Speaker 2: men are a wage in order to subjugate women with it.
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 2: So opening up that question is a good thing, and
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 2: this paper does it. Okay, So this paper treats male
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 2: participation as a decision with causes and finds them. Well,
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 2: that's like, at least it's opening up the field. That's
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 2: something I would also say for the paper towards an
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 2: individual a individualistic individualistic reproduction. At least it's opening up
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 2: the conversation around men's reproductive disenfranchisement. It's doing it in
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 2: possibly one of the most bizarre trends humanist ways, but
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 2: at least it's opening it up. And the direction that
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 2: this paper is going in with that question. With that
• 1:27:07
  Speaker 2: question is incompatible with the wages power reading, which the
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 2: wage's power readings comes from. The Marxist feminist attempt to
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 2: integrate radical feminist patriarchal conception into Marxism, and again they failed,
• 1:27:26
  Speaker 2: they were silenced in the record. Basically, the radfem assertion
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 2: of patriarchy prevailed and Marxism was just basically broken down
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 2: for parts. And what we're living in now is the
• 1:27:41
  Speaker 2: smash patriarchy political party. Male participation fell from ninety five
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 2: percent to eighty eight percent. I'm pretty sure it's lower
• 1:27:50
  Speaker 2: than eighty eight percent over forty five years, cohort by cohort.
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 2: And the mechanism is beliefs about the returns to participating.
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 1: I think it's like a third right now. A third,
• 1:28:00
  Speaker 1: So like something like thirty sixty six percent ish of
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 1: men are working, So like a third.
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 2: Of the men. Okay, you do not withdraw from a
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 2: position of dominance because it's returns declined. So this paper
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 2: exactly contradicts the assertions that radical feminine well Marxist feminists,
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 2: and what radical feminists took forward from that conflict with
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 2: Marxist feminists. This directly directly conflicts with it because they
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 2: say that wage is power, and this is saying why
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 2: would anyone withdraw from a position of power. Power doesn't
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 2: have a rate of return that can fall below a
• 1:28:44
  Speaker 2: reservation costs. A job does so a position of power
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 2: like it is a position of power. There's no real
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 2: like return you need to think about because you're the
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 2: one getting all the benefit. Even if you benefit slightly less,
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 2: there's no reason to get out of it unless you know.
• 1:29:02
  Speaker 2: You see the guillotine being erected in the town square.
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 2: Odd job does. The behavior they measure is the behavior
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 2: of men evaluating a role, not men holding an advantage
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 2: an advantage. So this entire paper frames the situation, and honestly,
• 1:29:18
  Speaker 2: it might actually get them in the sights of feminists.
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 2: I'm not kidding. Like the feminist cartel, the feminist mob
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 2: might be paying these guys a visit at some point.
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 2: But the behavior they measure is the behavior of men
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 2: evaluating a role, not men holding an advantage. So when
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 2: you are evaluating a role, you're saying what are the costs?
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 2: What are the benefits? And in this case, this paper
• 1:29:42
  Speaker 2: doesn't recognize that one of the benefits for men being
• 1:29:45
  Speaker 2: in the provider role is that they can provide for
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 2: a family, which gives them a sense of purpose. Set
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 2: against Barrett Barrett's that Barrett is the one of the
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 2: Marxist feminists who was trying to argue or create, or
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 2: to square the circle, trying to integrate radical feminism with Marxism.
• 1:30:04
  Speaker 2: Barrett's observation that men fought with tenacity for exclusive access
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 2: to the wage role. Same object to eras contested hard
• 1:30:12
  Speaker 2: when available, exited when the return stop reading is worth it.
• 1:30:16
  Speaker 2: Both are what you'd expect of a role. Neither is
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 2: what you'd expect of a privilege. So men aren't behaving
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 2: towards wage earning like it's a privilege. They're behaving towards
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 2: it like it's a role that either delivers a return
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 2: or doesn't. Okay. The mechanism of boys exempting out is
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 2: boys watching men as a class, not their fathers. They
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 2: stratify by father's education, and the effect survives not their
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 2: own work history. Adult only exposure has no detectable effect.
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 2: Coefficients in indistinguishable from zero, not general pessimism. Lifetime experience
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 2: predicts a man's belief about his own wage offers and
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 2: employment odds. And predicts nothing about his expectations for national
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 2: employment or inflation, and it's reference group specific. While participation
• 1:31:02
  Speaker 2: loads on white male wage history, black participation on black
• 1:31:07
  Speaker 2: mail employment history. Boys are reading the men who look
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 2: like them for information about what's available to someone like them,
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 2: what it can't distinguish, and what it can. They model
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 2: the belief is expected wage time's probability, ben offer an
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 2: instrumental reterm, but every result is equally consistent with the
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 2: belief being about whether the provider role is achievable, formative
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 2: year's exposure, same race, reference groups, sensitivity to what happens
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 2: to men rather than to the economy. All of that fits.
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 2: Can someone like me carry a household? As well as
• 1:31:40
  Speaker 2: it fits what will I be paid? The paper has
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 2: no measure that separates them, and it needs to because
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 2: like we're, me and Brian are bringing up confounds. Is
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 2: it the economic situation of men? Or is it can
• 1:31:54
  Speaker 2: men who are like me provide for a family? One
• 1:31:58
  Speaker 2: in symmetry that might, yeah, well I want to have it.
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 2: The political the policy conclusion is to tell they propose
• 1:32:04
  Speaker 2: that policy makers manage expectations the way central banks anchor
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 2: inflation expectations cultivating credible long term beliefs in the value
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 2: of work. This locates the error in the belief rather
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 2: than in the returns. They never test whether the beliefs
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 2: are accurate. If men correctly read that the returns fell,
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 2: the proposal is to persuade them of something false. Okay,
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 2: so goes into some analysis of the science. We don't
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 2: need to go into that. Yeah, exposure from age twenty
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 2: four onwards, a man's entire working life produces coefficients indistinguishable
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 2: from zero. What predicts whether or not he participates is
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 2: what happened to men around him before he was old
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 2: enough to work. That's hard to reconcile with any account
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 2: where the wages of resource men pursue for what it
• 1:32:52
  Speaker 2: gives them. It's straightforwardly consistent with an account where boys
• 1:32:56
  Speaker 2: are reading in childhood whether the role is available to
• 1:32:59
  Speaker 2: someone like them. All right, So essentially boys are learning
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 2: that the provider role is not available to them, And
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 2: the feminist framework that boys are drawn into wage slavery
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 2: because they get to be an oppressor is not consistent
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 2: with this. If wages were privileged, they'd still be doing it.
• 1:33:27
  Speaker 2: But if it was an exchange in which they feel
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 2: like they're no longer getting a benefit. Opting out becomes smart. So,
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 2: for example, if wage gave men the ability to be
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 2: higher status than women, just as a matter of course,
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 2: and that's what men actually were after, which is really
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 2: if you think about it, every time feminists talk about status,
• 1:33:52
  Speaker 2: they're actually interpreting everything through the relational web, because the
• 1:33:56
  Speaker 2: relational web always is thinking about status, yes, and position.
• 1:34:02
  Speaker 2: But anyway, if if boys were motivated by status and
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 2: wage and becoming a wage earner was how they gained
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 2: status over women, they wouldn't be They would still be
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 2: doing it because it was it's the source of their privilege,
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 2: but because they are actually treating it like accost some Yeah,
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 2: it's a refutation of what feminists assert about men, which
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 2: is just it'll either just float on by unremarked, changing nothing,
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 2: or these guys are going to get a visit from
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 2: the feminist the feminist mob sometime in the future. Yeah,
• 1:34:42
  Speaker 2: a nice career, you got there, nice career would be
• 1:34:46
  Speaker 2: a shame anything happened to it, all right, So that's
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 2: my analysis. I did you want to add anything to.
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 1: That, Brian, Uh, I did, but I can't remember what
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 1: it is now.
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 2: Sorry, Well, if you have anything to read, maybe we'll remember.
• 1:35:06
  Speaker 1: Uh no, I don't have anything to do. I have
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 1: something to read. I think I read it. Everything we did.
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 1: We Yeah, we read the whole article. I mean there
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 1: were some comments, but they're not great.
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 1: I think that's the That's why I brought up the
• 1:35:21
  Speaker 1: thing about like how this academia is infecting everything because
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: everyone who has something to say or they're looking at
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 1: data or whatever, they're all looking at data that is
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 1: at some point in the chain of how we got
• 1:35:36
  Speaker 1: the final result, there is some of this infection. So
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 1: that's going to like create presumptions. And I can't fault
• 1:35:47
  Speaker 1: people for that because that's all they have, Like you'd
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 1: have to. You know, it's like trying to convince like
• 1:35:53
  Speaker 1: somebody I really like that doesn't know what I do.
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 1: I don't think they're bad people. I just think they're
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 1: working with bad information.
• 1:36:02
  Speaker 2: So yeah, yeah, it's hard because you know, you have
• 1:36:06
  Speaker 2: the Smash Patriarchy party and then you have the sort
• 1:36:10
  Speaker 2: of separate camps that that that actually have nothing really
• 1:36:16
  Speaker 2: in common aside from not wanting to center smashing patriarchy
• 1:36:20
  Speaker 2: as like a central proposition in their life. And it
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 2: can be hard to be Like, you know, guys, you
• 1:36:27
  Speaker 2: realize why you're all have sort of the same problem.
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 2: Is is the smash patriarchy party, right, Yeah, that's that's
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 2: where that's where the problem is coming from. And it's
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 2: hard to explain that to people because I don't know it.
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 2: She sounds reductionist, even though if you think about it,
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 2: like ostracizing and stigmatizing half the human race is going
• 1:36:52
  Speaker 2: to have like I mean, the problems that result from
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 2: that are going to propagate everywhere if you think about it,
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 2: because there's you know, there's a lot of men and
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 2: they're like everywhere, and if you stigmatize them, and also
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 2: presumably they're everywhere because evolution was like, yeah, you guys
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 2: need men for something, right, I don't think I don't
• 1:37:11
  Speaker 2: think men would evolve their particular physicality and mentality if
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 2: it wasn't useful to the survival of the human race.
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 2: So when you start marginalizing half the human race that
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 2: is essential to its survival, you're gonna get a lot
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 2: of problems and they're going to pop up in very
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 2: weird places, and they and the and the people who
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 2: are sort of pushed out of the Smash patriarchy party.
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 2: You know, they don't necessarily understand that. They don't follow
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 2: the logic. They just think you're a weirdo when you
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 2: point it out. But yeah, and and and again they
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 2: partly because they haven't spent as much time as me
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 2: and Brian. I think, in particular me, I don't know
• 1:37:58
  Speaker 2: how much Brian and is an entertained by reading fifty
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 2: year old do some well, I don't.
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 1: Know about that. Yeah, but I think it's necessary. I do.
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 1: I did have. I remember what I was going to
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 1: bring up. It was the book that somebody talked about,
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 1: the hit Natural History of Rape. You are correct, and
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 1: this is what I thought too. The book does not
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 1: meaningfully discuss women as perpetrators or men as victims. Critics
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 1: and reviewers note the work is narrowly focused, and this
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 1: is again these guys that wrote this might have been
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: well intentioned, but they're also part of that chain, that
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 1: cancerous chain. That the work is narrowly focused on heterosexual
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 1: male and female rape in humans, with some animal comparisons
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 1: like ducks. It does not engage substantially with same sex rape,
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 1: female offenders or male victims. This was one of many
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 1: points of controversy around the book. When it was released,
• 1:38:55
  Speaker 1: and it also apparently the final argument or or result
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 1: it lands on is that rape is like a last
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 1: ditch effort to reproduce, and that's what that's what they're
• 1:39:07
  Speaker 1: trying to suggest with a natural history. That sounds awful
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 1: to me to like, because if you're already framing it
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 1: as only something that men do to women, and then
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 1: you're saying, well, it's you know, I mean, when they're
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: out of options, I'm sorry, but guys don't do that,
• 1:39:24
  Speaker 1: not in a civilized society anyway. But yeah, so I'm
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 1: just so I don't think, yeah, not in any real
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 1: functioning society.
• 1:39:34
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean because even if you look at the uh,
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 2: the genetic kind of components of sexual assault, Like I've
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 2: said this, I probably should bring it up again and
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 2: periodically whenever this topic gets brought up, genetic factors look
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 2: like they explain twice as much the variation between men
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 2: who rape and men who don't rape as men who
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 2: are straight versus men who are gay. So just just
• 1:40:04
  Speaker 2: think about that rapists potentially are more genetically distinct from
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 2: normal men than gay men are from straight men. Okay,
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 2: Like that's not an evil, that's not exactly okay, so
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 2: rape is a less okay, Like, let's compare rape to
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 2: being gay as a man, which is evolutionarily adaptative adaptive. Well,
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 2: you would presume that the one that's more evolutionarily adaptive
• 1:40:31
  Speaker 2: would end up with a would end up with more
• 1:40:34
  Speaker 2: like A. There it would be, it would be closer
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 2: to normal. It's further, so, apparently being a rapist is
• 1:40:43
  Speaker 2: less evolutionarily adapt adaptive than being gay. Think about that.
• 1:40:50
  Speaker 2: It's ridiculous. Like, so the premise that this entire book
• 1:40:53
  Speaker 2: is based on is probably not accurate. And I would
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 2: tend to agree with Brian, Like, uh, stigma against gay
• 1:41:04
  Speaker 2: men cannot build a candle the stigma against rapists.
• 1:41:09
  Speaker 1: Oh for sure. Yeah, like rapists. It's like rapists get
• 1:41:12
  Speaker 1: it the worst in prison. Like there are like psychopathic
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 1: murderers that hate rapists. I mean obviously, because like you know,
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 1: the society is ginocentric, even amongst the most dysfunctional of
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 1: human beings.
• 1:41:32
  Speaker 2: Well, it's it's like there's a certain thing that consent
• 1:41:36
  Speaker 2: is really critical. It's why these when I bring up this,
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 2: why should men invest in a society that undercuts their
• 1:41:45
  Speaker 2: value as partners to women? Feminists constantly bring up Oh,
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 2: you just want to you just want to force women
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 2: to partner with men. And I'm like no, That's the
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 2: reason why they bring it up is because it's that
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 2: concept that very action is so stigmatized that you completely
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 2: silence any discourse when you bring it up. It's why
• 1:42:10
  Speaker 2: it's feminists favorite word. It's like it turns people's brains
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 2: off and then they just get to do whatever they
• 1:42:18
  Speaker 2: want to do. They ignore extort compliance using that word,
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 2: and it really isn't about any concern over victims of
• 1:42:28
  Speaker 2: the act. It's about silencing your opponents so you don't
• 1:42:34
  Speaker 2: have to deal with uh, with their I don't know
• 1:42:38
  Speaker 2: if if their heads flapping ogain all right, So yeah,
• 1:42:46
  Speaker 2: you is there anything interesting going through the chat? Perhaps
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 2: is the vertical chat of interest?
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 1: Love the New Model? Thomas Cook says, love the New Model.
• 1:43:01
  Speaker 1: He's talking about yours.
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 2: Of course, it's Brian entirely.
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 1: Brian's doing Uh yeah, thank you, Uh, Doc Dyllan, I did,
• 1:43:13
  Speaker 1: Dylan said. The book doesn't say that that rape is
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 1: a last ditch effort to reproduce. It postulates that it
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 1: is one of two explanations to rape in most species. Yeah,
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 1: but that's that's like the statement that has most people
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 1: reacting on Amazon's reviews. That's what so like, that's what
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 1: people are having, like a real problem. Well, women especially
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 1: hate the book. And I looked at like, based on
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 1: what I know about Andrea Dwarkin, And this is another
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 1: I'm bringing this up for a specific reason. She would
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 1: hate the book too, But not because it's a men's
• 1:43:46
  Speaker 1: rights book, because it's not, uh that it's it is
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 1: a feminist book in its own right. It's just you know,
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 1: pivoting a little bit towards trying to, I guess, biological
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 1: explain why men are garbage, as opposed to simply, you know,
• 1:44:06
  Speaker 1: going along with what maybe a Dwarkin uh disciple would say,
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 1: which is that it's you know that what is it
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 1: that that that all all sex, not just rape, all
• 1:44:19
  Speaker 1: sex is not a reproductive act but a violent expression
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 1: of patriarchy. So when you try to explain, even even
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 1: while you're demonizing men, when you try to explain it
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 1: in some kind of like biological or evolutionary scientific terms,
• 1:44:40
  Speaker 1: even though you're still attacking men, you're still going to
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 1: upset feminists too. So because again they're all working from
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 1: very similar presumptions. Earlier in the chain, but they just
• 1:44:51
  Speaker 1: happen to be landing in slightly different places. But it's
• 1:44:55
  Speaker 1: all garbage.
• 1:44:56
  Speaker 2: So okay, all right, I better a better do the thing. Yeah, yeah,
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 2: because I'm starting to experience.
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 1: Experience what uh oh, I think Alison dropped. Let me
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 1: see Alison. Are you there?
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 2: Uh?
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 1: Uh Alison? Are you there? She says she started to
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 1: experience and then stop talking. I mean she's in the call.
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 1: Wait Alison, Alison, wait, you're you got cut out for
• 1:45:27
  Speaker 1: that thirty seconds? Yeah? Can you hear me now? Uh okay,
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 1: hold on. She did come in and then she stopped again.
• 1:45:42
  Speaker 1: It's that Canadian internet, guys. Uh okay, I'm waiting for Alison.
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 1: Let me just send her a message. Yeah, yeah, are
• 1:45:54
  Speaker 1: you there?
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm on my enginet's going.
• 1:45:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's okay, so really quick, yeah, do it I disappear,
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 1: So if it does, I'll just I'll just finish. Yeah,
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 1: go ahead. Oh all right, I'm just gonna I'm just
• 1:46:12
  Speaker 1: gonna end the show. Allison's Allison's no longer with us,
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 1: she's her Internet's going. It was right at the end too.
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 1: All right, Well, if you guys want to send us
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 1: a message at any point after the show. We'll be
• 1:46:24
  Speaker 1: sure to read it on the next relevant show. Go
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 1: to feed Thebadgeler dot com forward slash just the tip
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 1: to send us a message. We to really appreciate that.
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 1: And also, our monthly fundrais are still going. We got
• 1:46:36
  Speaker 1: about a week left. That was Alison hanging up. She dropped.
• 1:46:40
  Speaker 1: They've they've lost their internet. It was right at the
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 1: end too, It was right at the end. But that's okay.
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 1: Her avatar is still here and it looks like she's
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 1: here even though she's not so all right. Anyway, our
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 1: monthly fundrais are still going. It's gonna be for about
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 1: the rest of this week and next week. So we
• 1:46:59
  Speaker 1: just we need to get that Depp points you guys
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 1: so we can keep doing this work. Really appreciate it,
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 1: and yeah, hopefully you know, send us a message. Feed
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 1: Thebadger dot com for slash just the tip, support the channel,
• 1:47:12
  Speaker 1: Feed Thebadger dot com forard slash support, and join our community.
• 1:47:17
  Speaker 1: Feed the Badger dot com forward slash, subscribe or badgerination
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 1: dot online to check out the community. And also the
• 1:47:24
  Speaker 1: stuff that Allison has been writing about all of her
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 1: various rabbit hole diving. So yeah, with that said, If
• 1:47:31
  Speaker 1: you guys liked this video, please hit like, subscribe. If
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 1: you're not already subscribed, hit the bellfal notifications, leave us
• 1:47:36
  Speaker 1: a comment, let us know what you guys think about
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 1: what we talked about on the show today, and share
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 1: the video because sharing is caring. Thank you guys so
• 1:47:43
  Speaker 1: much for coming on this episode of Maintaining Frame, and
• 1:47:46
  Speaker 1: we'll talk to you guys in the next one.