Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Rachel Wilson Ends the Debate, Feminists most affected again

Transcript

Rachel Wilson Ends the Debate, Feminists most affected again · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Okay, and we are live.
• 0:02
  Speaker 2: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you may be,
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. My name is Brian,
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: I'm here with Allison, and this is Maintaining Frame. Rachel
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: Wilson ends the debate, Feminist Most Affected, again, where we're
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: going to be revisiting this debate between Rachel Wilson, who
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: wrote Occult Feminism, and against not-so-erudite, or Kayla, I think
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: her name is, who is, well, basically it's a debate between, like,
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: the question is, the prompt is, is feminism doing more harm,
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: more good or harm? And Rachel is arguing it's doing
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: more harm, and Natsu Erudite argues it's doing more good.
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: So we're going to be looking at that. But before
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: we get into that, Allison, if you want to do
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: the things.
• 0:52
  Speaker 3: All right. Yeah, I'll do the things. So if you
• 0:54
  Speaker 3: would like to send a message at any time throughout
• 0:57
  Speaker 3: the show, you want to make your commentary known, you
• 0:59
  Speaker 3: can do so at feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. That's feedthebadger.com slash justthetip.
• 1:04
  Speaker 3: Very best way for you to send us a tip
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: and a comment with that tip because both evade YouTube's
• 1:12
  Speaker 3: aggressive consumption and censorship machine. Anyway, feedthebadger.com slash justthetip to
• 1:21
  Speaker 3: send us something there or a comment, any tip. And
• 1:24
  Speaker 3: if you would like to support the show, the support...
• 1:26
  Speaker 3: The support area, the support location, the support target is
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: live at feedthebadger.com slash support. And you can actually just
• 1:34
  Speaker 3: go to feedthebadger.com because I have constructed an entire thing that,
• 1:41
  Speaker 3: you know, you can just go there, feedthebadger.com and support there.
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: And also, if you want to join us in our community,
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: it's badgernation.online where you can take part in repo streams.
• 1:57
  Speaker 3: and other gaming stuff, and also read about my journey
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: into the desert of feminism in search of any evidence
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: that they proved anything that they assert. So far, nothing.
• 2:14
  Speaker 3: I'm basically running out of feminism, Brian. I'm still finding
• 2:17
  Speaker 3: no evidence that anything that they assert has ever been
• 2:19
  Speaker 3: proven to any standard at all.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 2:22
  Speaker 3: Not even like a.
• 2:26
  Speaker 3: A preponderance of the evidence standard. It's like just none.
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: But of course they say, we don't have to, we
• 2:33
  Speaker 3: don't have to prove anything to a standard. We have
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: feelings like she must be innocent because she was a
• 2:41
  Speaker 3: good mom. How do we know she was a good mom? Well,
• 2:44
  Speaker 3: we asked a whole bunch of people who have no
• 2:46
  Speaker 3: direct evidence that she is, but we feel she is.
• 2:49
  Speaker 3: Therefore she must be acquitted. Alright, and stuff like that.
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: Everything is feelings, and everything is justified by having a feeling. Okay. Alright,
• 3:01
  Speaker 3: so let's get into it. Let's find out how women's
• 3:06
  Speaker 3: feelings of resentment, codified into academia and law and policy,
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: have improved the world.
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: So we're going to be starting with, because we didn't
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: get into it, I think the last time we covered this,
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: we mostly covered her debate with the other feminist whose
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: name I'm afraid I can't remember, but it's not that important.
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: The feminist beloved by physicists.
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: The what?
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: Because she is, although the feminist beloved by physicists. Okay.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah. Right. Yeah.
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: Okay. All right. No, no, I'll tell you the joke.
• 3:39
  Speaker 3: All right. So a statistician and an engineer and a
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: physicist were asked how to bet on the outcome of
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: a horse race. And the statistician said, or looked at
• 3:52
  Speaker 3: the previous results from each of the horses in the
• 3:55
  Speaker 3: race to determine which one he thought would win. The
• 3:59
  Speaker 3: engineer did an analysis of their bone structure and their
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: muscle density. And the physicist said, if you imagine these
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: horses are spheres, Okay. I'm just saying the woman is
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: beloved by physicists because they don't have to imagine that.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 4:21
  Speaker 3: All right, let's go.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: So we're going to be looking at Rachel's opening statements.
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: So that's what, and if there's time, we'll look at
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: not so erudite opening statements as well. And that will
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: likely be the extent of today's show. So let's go
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: ahead and start. This was made, it was a month
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: ago when this video was posted.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: So, Still, you know, I think it's still relevant. Let
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: us do it.
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: Well, it's going to remain relevant for a long time.
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I know. It remains relevant. Okay, let's go ahead
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: and do this.
• 4:55
  Speaker 5: For you, Rachel, the floor is all yours for five minutes.
• 4:58
  Speaker 6: James Kyla said she's okay with seven minutes. I probably
• 5:01
  Speaker 6: won't need the full seven, but just thought I would
• 5:03
  Speaker 6: let you know that. I'm probably just going to go
• 5:04
  Speaker 6: a pinch over five.
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: You got it.
• 5:08
  Speaker 6: All right, so is feminism doing more harm than good?
• 5:11
  Speaker 6: I'm going to say, of course, that I think it's
• 5:13
  Speaker 6: doing more harm. Let's take a brief review of what
• 5:17
  Speaker 6: we've gotten so far from feminism and its six pillars
• 5:20
  Speaker 6: of propaganda. So feminism inverted the Western social order in
• 5:25
  Speaker 6: roughly one century through its six primary pillars and a
• 5:28
  Speaker 6: seventh that I'm going to introduce to you today. We've
• 5:30
  Speaker 6: got sexual liberation, abortion, vilification of men, no-fault divorce, demonization
• 5:36
  Speaker 6: of tradition, and either rejection or reinvention of Christianity. Tonight,
• 5:42
  Speaker 6: I'm going to focus on the measurable results of these
• 5:45
  Speaker 6: pillars and introduce the seventh, what I call the she-conomy.
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: I'm just pausing there for the banana.
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: Also, JoJo's having a bit of a freak out because
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: the toddler upstairs is stomping around like Godzilla. And JoJo
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: doesn't know what that is, but it's giving him a panic.
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: So yeah, the she-conomy is the thing that I thought
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: was kind of interesting because it's actually.
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: Kind of in line with the stuff that you've been
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: talking about. And I'd be curious to see the relationship though,
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: but what?
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm thinking that maybe aligned in some ways, but
• 6:22
  Speaker 3: I'm not sure if she goes to the same depth
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: of corruption that I do and what I've tried.
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know if it's going to be
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: something that could be a problem for her. Maybe she
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: knows about it, but won't say it on this debate, but.
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: Okay. Fair enough, fair enough.
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: Can I just get in here for one second and
• 6:43
  Speaker 3: just point something out? There is no denomination of Christianity,
• 6:48
  Speaker 3: aside from the Amish and, I don't know, Hasidic Jews,
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: which is not a denomination of Christianity, that has a
• 6:53
  Speaker 3: solution to the main problem that we're facing. Well, it's
• 6:57
  Speaker 3: a two-fold problem. The first fold is we are going
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: to die out as a species, period. If we continue
• 7:06
  Speaker 3: on this path, we are not gonna have replacement level.
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: And then when the crises start happening, our replacement level
• 7:12
  Speaker 3: is gonna get worse. Probably what will happen is we'll
• 7:15
  Speaker 3: start have that death and childbirth and infancy death will
• 7:20
  Speaker 3: start creeping up significantly and we're gonna be cooked. So
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: we are facing a situation where there is no future
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: in terms of actually giving birth. And again, if our
• 7:32
  Speaker 3: society collapses, Both the Hasidic Jews and the Amish are
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: not going to survive because they're going to have waves
• 7:39
  Speaker 3: of hungry urban liberals coming at them for everything that
• 7:43
  Speaker 3: they have. And it's just going to be basically like
• 7:46
  Speaker 3: locusts eating the countryside, eating up all the wildlife, and
• 7:50
  Speaker 3: then dying, basically. It's a very, very ugly scenario. Ugly
• 7:56
  Speaker 3: for everyone. Ugly for any kind of animal that's in
• 8:01
  Speaker 3: the path of hungry humans. ugly for any kind of
• 8:06
  Speaker 3: environmental area that's around things that can no longer be maintained,
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: like sour gas plants, nuclear plants, offshore drilling. It's going
• 8:16
  Speaker 3: to be absolutely gruesome if we don't fix this for
• 8:21
  Speaker 3: everyone involved. I mean, probably the earth will recover, but
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: it's going to be an ecological devastation that will be
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: possibly as bad as the dinosaurs. So whatever recovers on
• 8:34
  Speaker 3: the earth is going to be vastly different. And I
• 8:36
  Speaker 3: guess the experiment about having satiate bipedal life will be
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: over and we'll be trying something else. Maybe talking nematodes,
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: who knows? But my point is that the birth rate
• 8:48
  Speaker 3: crisis is one leg of it. The other crisis is
• 8:52
  Speaker 3: what's happening in the economy because of the marginalization of
• 8:55
  Speaker 3: men and how men view things. So the economy goes
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: from something that's productive and judged on whether or not
• 9:02
  Speaker 3: it's productive and has an external standard, namely, do consumers
• 9:07
  Speaker 3: want this thing that you produce, to basically an economy
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: that's a symbolic churn. And what happens when, in that economy,
• 9:16
  Speaker 3: you have to actually provide one of the hundred Xerox
• 9:20
  Speaker 3: copies of something. Like, so you sell a hundred copies
• 9:24
  Speaker 3: of something. Well, what happens when those people are like, well,
• 9:26
  Speaker 3: I'd like my thing and you don't have it, right?
• 9:30
  Speaker 3: Everything collapses. And so we have these two legs of disaster.
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: The economic leg is probably going to hit quicker. The
• 9:39
  Speaker 3: birth rate leg is going to hit probably in five
• 9:43
  Speaker 3: to 10 years. We're going to start feeling the crunch.
• 9:46
  Speaker 3: But it'll basically be that is the that is the
• 9:50
  Speaker 3: that is the coffin lid slamming shut. The economic crisis
• 9:54
  Speaker 3: is the coffin. The birth rate crisis is the coffin
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: lid slamming shut. And all of. this comes from the
• 10:02
  Speaker 3: removal of men as having any value whatsoever. And the
• 10:07
  Speaker 3: problem is that there is no denomination of Christianity in
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: the West that has a marriage rate, thus a birth rate,
• 10:14
  Speaker 3: that gets over the bar.
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 10:17
  Speaker 5: It's everywhere.
• 10:18
  Speaker 3: This problem is everywhere. And I have to repeat this.
• 10:23
  Speaker 3: There is no denomination of Christianity. And in fact, even
• 10:27
  Speaker 3: Islam doesn't have a solution to this. The only country
• 10:30
  Speaker 3: that really does is Israel, but that's another story. No
• 10:34
  Speaker 3: denomination of Christianity has a solution to this. They are
• 10:38
  Speaker 3: all falling. They all have the same infection. They all
• 10:42
  Speaker 3: have the same disease, just like the liberal communities, just
• 10:45
  Speaker 3: like the secular communities. So the solution is not going
• 10:49
  Speaker 3: to come from there. Because if we, for example, if
• 10:52
  Speaker 3: we somehow force everybody to be Christian, the same problem
• 10:55
  Speaker 3: arises eventually, unless we fix where this problem is coming from.
• 11:02
  Speaker 3: And for some reason, it seems to be somewhat compatible,
• 11:05
  Speaker 3: like Christian communities resist it slightly, but it still is
• 11:10
  Speaker 3: destroying their birth rates and their marriage rates too. So
• 11:15
  Speaker 3: I just wanted to point that out. Because I feel
• 11:19
  Speaker 3: like people think there's a solution on the board right
• 11:23
  Speaker 3: now in mainstream. They think there's a political position that
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: fixes this or a religious. There's none. Nothing fixes this.
• 11:32
  Speaker 3: The only thing that fixes it is fixing it, is
• 11:35
  Speaker 3: recognizing what it is and challenging it directly. which means
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: the only people who are going to have a hope
• 11:41
  Speaker 3: in hell of changing anything can do two things. I
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: blame men, and I... Sorry, I blame women. Wow. It
• 11:49
  Speaker 3: just comes out like a reflex. I blame women, and
• 11:53
  Speaker 3: men have value. That's it. Those are the two statements
• 11:57
  Speaker 3: that we have to start with before we can fix
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: any of this.
• 12:01
  Speaker 7: All right, let's go.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: All right, let's play this.
• 12:04
  Speaker 3: So, if we.
• 12:06
  Speaker 6: If we look at family structure collapse since feminism became
• 12:09
  Speaker 6: the dominant political ethos across the entire West, we've got
• 12:13
  Speaker 6: 40% of children in the United States no longer living
• 12:17
  Speaker 6: with both married biological parents. In 1945, that number was
• 12:21
  Speaker 6: only 10%. Children living without both married biological parents face
• 12:26
  Speaker 6: more than eight times higher risk of endangerment, standard maltreatment,
• 12:30
  Speaker 6: which is a fancy term for all types of abuse.
• 12:34
  Speaker 6: We have a fatherless epidemic, so roughly one-third of American
• 12:37
  Speaker 6: children live without their biological father. That's a three-fold increase
• 12:41
  Speaker 6: over the historical norm. They account for 90% of homeless kids,
• 12:45
  Speaker 6: 85% of kids with behavioral disorders, 70% of kids in
• 12:49
  Speaker 6: incarceration facilities, and 71% of adolescents in substance abuse treatment centers.
• 12:56
  Speaker 6: Let's look at unmarried births and the welfare trap.
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: Can I just get in here for a second? All right,
• 13:03
  Speaker 3: the thing is I hate that word fatherless epidemic because
• 13:07
  Speaker 3: what we actually have an epidemic of is removing fathers,
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: like father destruction. Because it almost puts the onus on
• 13:16
  Speaker 3: the father when the fact is the state and the
• 13:19
  Speaker 3: mother are, well, the state empowered by, or sorry, the
• 13:22
  Speaker 3: mother empowered by the state is what's removing fathers. So
• 13:25
  Speaker 3: we don't have a fatherless epidemic. It's more like an
• 13:28
  Speaker 3: epidemic of mothers with contempt for fathers and thinking that
• 13:32
  Speaker 3: fathers are optional. So maybe more like an anti-father epidemic.
• 13:38
  Speaker 3: So I feel like fatherlessness is seeding ground because it's
• 13:43
  Speaker 3: coming from somewhere. It's like that you're looking at the
• 13:45
  Speaker 3: symptom rather than cause.
• 13:47
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 13:47
  Speaker 3: It's more like a father disregard epidemic or a contempt
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: for father's epidemic or an anti-father epidemic.
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, sure.
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: I would go with anti-father.
• 13:57
  Speaker 8: Okay.
• 13:58
  Speaker 3: But that's not on Rachel. It's just something that's sort
• 14:00
  Speaker 3: of bugging.
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: I understand. Yeah.
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think saying fatherlessness, I mean, I say
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: it too. I don't blame them, but yeah, I get that.
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 14:10
  Speaker 6: Only about 5% of kids were born to unmarried mothers
• 14:14
  Speaker 6: in 1960. At present, that number is 41%. At the
• 14:19
  Speaker 6: same time, we've gone from $ 50 billion a year in
• 14:22
  Speaker 6: annual welfare spending in 1950 to now $ 700 billion per year.
• 14:24
  Speaker 6: That's a 14-fold increase after you adjust for inflation. By 2010,
• 14:35
  Speaker 6: 90% of all cash welfare payments and half of all
• 14:37
  Speaker 6: food assistance went to single mother households. In 1940, only
• 14:42
  Speaker 6: 6% of kids under age six had mothers working full-time
• 14:45
  Speaker 6: outside the home. Today, that number is 58%. So you
• 14:50
  Speaker 6: guys have probably heard all of those kinds of stats
• 14:53
  Speaker 6: from me a lot in the past, but let's talk
• 14:55
  Speaker 6: about the she-conomy, which is the seventh pillar.
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: All right, just pausing there for the banana. I'm not
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: too worried, but Okay, let's see what this is about.
• 15:05
  Speaker 6: And this is really consistent across all Western nations, regardless
• 15:09
  Speaker 6: of what type of systems they have.
• 15:12
  Speaker 3: As soon as.
• 15:13
  Speaker 6: Feminism is introduced, not only does it transform the social order,
• 15:17
  Speaker 6: it radically transformed Western economies, shifting them from production-based systems
• 15:21
  Speaker 6: that favor long-term stability into debt-driven consumer economies that prioritize
• 15:27
  Speaker 6: short-term gains. Proponents claim that The surge in female labor
• 15:31
  Speaker 6: force participation since the 70s has been good because it
• 15:35
  Speaker 6: expanded the GDP and created two-income households.
• 15:40
  Speaker 5: That view is incomplete.
• 15:42
  Speaker 6: With the election cycle coming up, affordability, housing shortages, inflation,
• 15:47
  Speaker 6: and labor shortages are going to be talked about a lot,
• 15:49
  Speaker 6: so this is a good moment to discuss this.
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: They are talking about it right now, in fact, but.
• 15:58
  Speaker 3: Okay, so I'll untangle some stuff. Yes, it's based on debt.
• 16:04
  Speaker 3: In fact, money is debt. So all value is denominated
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: in debt. Debt for what? Well, nothing in particular. Debt
• 16:16
  Speaker 3: for more debt. We're even at the point where we're
• 16:19
  Speaker 3: using debt as collateral for more debt. I would say
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: that this is a symptom... of feminism changing how the
• 16:29
  Speaker 3: economy operates by stigmatizing. It's like there's a couple steps removed.
• 16:35
  Speaker 3: So feminism moves into how men conduct themselves and how
• 16:40
  Speaker 3: men think about the world and how men operationalize their activities, right?
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: And it starts to make them move away from that
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: kind of custodial, what am I producing? Who am I
• 16:52
  Speaker 3: producing it for? How am I disciplined while the free
• 16:55
  Speaker 3: market and then keeping everything to something, to a substrate,
• 17:00
  Speaker 3: to where does it hit reality. And then you start
• 17:04
  Speaker 3: moving towards men who think in symbols, positions, derivatives, which
• 17:09
  Speaker 3: are basically claims on claims. And that itself constructs a gigantic,
• 17:16
  Speaker 3: what I call a financial fatberg, which is just claims
• 17:19
  Speaker 3: on claims on claims on claims on claims. And that's fine.
• 17:22
  Speaker 3: This Ponzi scheme is fine until somebody says, hey, I'm
• 17:25
  Speaker 3: standing for delivery. And then it all collapses because nobody
• 17:29
  Speaker 3: has the actual thing. Nobody's talked about the production of
• 17:34
  Speaker 3: the thing. And nobody wants to even hear about the
• 17:36
  Speaker 3: guy who's like, well, how do we... We got 100
• 17:40
  Speaker 3: Xerox copies of our thing. How do we fulfill all
• 17:43
  Speaker 3: those orders? Nobody wants to hear that guy. They just
• 17:46
  Speaker 3: want infinite... Value. That's what they call it. Like the
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: financiers who do this, they call themselves value creators. And
• 17:55
  Speaker 3: you know what they call the men who actually build
• 17:58
  Speaker 3: the things that they are making claims on and selling
• 18:01
  Speaker 3: claims on, selling multiple claims on, right? You know what
• 18:04
  Speaker 3: they call them? Cost centers. So they have described themselves
• 18:10
  Speaker 3: constructing this entire economy based on claims and as value
• 18:16
  Speaker 3: creators and the men who make stuff that people can
• 18:19
  Speaker 3: buy or use or helps them improve their lives, those
• 18:23
  Speaker 3: are cost centers. I think that pretty much describes the
• 18:27
  Speaker 3: whole thing. And that comes out of feminism telling men
• 18:31
  Speaker 3: that their custodial instinct, their instinct to dig the ditch,
• 18:36
  Speaker 3: build the thing, be disciplined, serve someone, serve the customer,
• 18:41
  Speaker 3: serve the free market is oppression. Right, so those men
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: are silenced. And then you have a rise of a
• 18:49
  Speaker 3: completely different breed of men who thinks of himself in
• 18:52
  Speaker 3: terms of his position. And that's what we're seeing. So
• 18:55
  Speaker 3: it's like, it's a step removed. It's what happens when
• 19:00
  Speaker 3: you start marginalizing men's cognitive modality, men's custodial nature, and
• 19:07
  Speaker 3: the fact that they focus on things that are made
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: and produced and for someone, for a external standard.
• 19:14
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: But this is a bit deeper. I'm using a lot
• 19:18
  Speaker 3: of generalities here because it's more complicated than this. And
• 19:25
  Speaker 3: I'm trying to just keep it simple for a stream, right?
• 19:28
  Speaker 9: Right.
• 19:29
  Speaker 3: I get it.
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: All right. Let's keep going.
• 19:32
  Speaker 6: So who actually builds the economy? When we look at
• 19:35
  Speaker 6: GDP across Western nations, men contribute about 60% of the
• 19:39
  Speaker 6: GDP and women contribute about 40%.
• 19:42
  Speaker 3: But if you look per capita.
• 19:45
  Speaker 6: Men generate 36% more GDP per capita than women do.
• 19:50
  Speaker 3: And there's another wrinkle. I don't know if she's going
• 19:53
  Speaker 3: to bring it up.
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: Let's let her talk. Okay, look.
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: She's not a fan of the term GDP. She's using
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: it to make her argument because she knows her opponent
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: is going to invoke GDP. GDP is not a reliable
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: way to measure quality of life or whatever.
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: It's just like a statist way. Oh, well, let's let's
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: let her finish her point.
• 20:20
  Speaker 3: OK, let's finish.
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: OK.
• 20:21
  Speaker 6: Percent of U.S. businesses now, but they only generate 6.2
• 20:26
  Speaker 6: percent of total business revenue.
• 20:29
  Speaker 3: Keep that one up here.
• 20:31
  Speaker 5: It's very important.
• 20:32
  Speaker 6: It basically comes out that about 22% of all women's
• 20:36
  Speaker 6: efforts in the economy are either directly or indirectly subsidized
• 20:39
  Speaker 6: by men. Critical systems remain dominated by men. First world
• 20:45
  Speaker 6: living standards that allow feminism rest on complex physical systems
• 20:50
  Speaker 6: that largely cannot or will not be staffed by women.
• 20:53
  Speaker 6: Things like electrical grid maintenance, water treatment, food production. And
• 20:59
  Speaker 6: a society can survive a temporary shortage of marketing ladies
• 21:03
  Speaker 6: and HR women and kindergarten teachers, but it cannot survive
• 21:07
  Speaker 6: a shortage of power grid technicians or water treatment engineers.
• 21:11
  Speaker 6: male labor force participation has fallen to a historic low
• 21:15
  Speaker 6: of 69.5%. So that's almost one in three men are
• 21:20
  Speaker 6: out of the workforce right now. So what's the labor
• 21:23
  Speaker 6: force cost of abortion? One of the main things that
• 21:26
  Speaker 6: feminists care about. They don't care if they have every
• 21:28
  Speaker 6: other right. They care about abortion. It's their main measure
• 21:31
  Speaker 6: of women's freedom. We've had 63 million abortions in the
• 21:35
  Speaker 6: US alone since Roe v.
• 21:37
  Speaker 5: Wade.
• 21:38
  Speaker 6: If those children had survived and joined the workforce today,
• 21:43
  Speaker 6: we would have an additional 45 million workers in the
• 21:46
  Speaker 6: US economy. We wouldn't have to import them from other nations.
• 21:50
  Speaker 6: The cost of abortion is 425 times larger than the
• 21:54
  Speaker 6: earnings that the mothers would have lost by carrying the
• 21:57
  Speaker 6: children to term. So yes, women make a little bit
• 22:00
  Speaker 6: more when they don't have kids, but it's not even
• 22:03
  Speaker 6: close to what you'd get if they had children who
• 22:05
  Speaker 6: grew up and joined the workforce. So women's achievements in
• 22:08
  Speaker 6: the economy are subsidized. Men pay roughly 60 to 75%
• 22:11
  Speaker 6: of income taxes. Progressive tax codes mean the top earners,
• 22:15
  Speaker 6: predominantly male, fund the vast majority of public infrastructure, universities,
• 22:20
  Speaker 6: and social programs. Women get 60% of all higher education
• 22:24
  Speaker 6: dollars because they are the majority of students on campus now.
• 22:28
  Speaker 6: But if you look at fiscal return on that investment,
• 22:30
  Speaker 6: governments get most of their money back from this smaller
• 22:34
  Speaker 6: pool of male laborers, mostly because they make more money
• 22:38
  Speaker 6: and they work more hours. So it's like a structural
• 22:41
  Speaker 6: transfer where public services, education, and grants that enable women
• 22:46
  Speaker 6: to enter and remain in the workforce are funded disproportionately
• 22:49
  Speaker 6: by male tax dollars. So in conclusion, the irony is
• 22:53
  Speaker 6: that feminism has given us broken homes, fatherless children, rising
• 22:57
  Speaker 6: mental illness, demographic decline, and a generation in which nearly
• 23:03
  Speaker 6: a third of Gen Z was aborted before they could
• 23:05
  Speaker 6: ever be born. The welfare state and the she-conomy that
• 23:09
  Speaker 6: prop up this illusion of strong independent women will collapse
• 23:13
  Speaker 6: precisely because the same policies that empower women into lower
• 23:18
  Speaker 6: productivity roles have starved the next generation of highly skilled,
• 23:22
  Speaker 6: critical male workers that complex first world systems demand. Feminism
• 23:27
  Speaker 6: has done more harm than good, and the data is
• 23:29
  Speaker 6: not subtle.
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: All right, so that's her opening statement. Again, this is
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: specifically addressing the prompt. So I don't know if you
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: wanted to add anything to that or if you have
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: any thoughts. Allison, are you fighting with the mute button?
• 23:48
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I was fighting with the mute button. Honestly, 57%
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: of women's jobs are... When she says that women contribute
• 23:59
  Speaker 3: 40% of the GDP, most of that is government debt
• 24:03
  Speaker 3: going to pay for women's jobs that are either mandated by.
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they get mostly work. They get government jobs. She
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: said government infrastructure.
• 24:11
  Speaker 3: Jobs are taken by women. They also have... corporate jobs
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: that are a result of government mandates around dei and
• 24:22
  Speaker 3: um reporting on dei and um so yeah this it's
• 24:26
  Speaker 3: actually probably not even 40 it's much less like maybe 18.
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah i think it was like in terms of net
• 24:35
  Speaker 2: taxpayers men are like 80 of that.
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: Of that base.
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah 80% of the base and their their assent
• 24:43
  Speaker 3: their labor is essentially going to pay the interest off
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: of the government debt that's being spent to to To
• 24:54
  Speaker 3: give women government jobs and then also They get skimmed
• 24:59
  Speaker 3: again because corporations have to have certain roles or give
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: roles to women which would usually go to men without
• 25:08
  Speaker 3: these expectations. So there's, like I said, there's a gigantic non-economy.
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: There's no real, there's not really a Xi economy. There's
• 25:17
  Speaker 3: a non-economy, a false economy, an economy that looks healthy
• 25:22
  Speaker 3: on paper, but if you get rid of all of
• 25:23
  Speaker 3: the government spending, it's not quite as good as all that.
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: And yeah, so it's, and again, this is all All
• 25:33
  Speaker 3: of this is paid for through men's taxes. So men
• 25:38
  Speaker 3: provide all of these services. And then in providing these
• 25:42
  Speaker 3: services that keep everybody alive and our society going, they
• 25:47
  Speaker 3: are taxed to create a fake economy for women to
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: work in.
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 25:58
  Speaker 3: That's basically the order of things. And ironically, all of
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: the things that women do that are actually contributing to
• 26:07
  Speaker 3: a degree are exactly the same jobs that they did
• 26:11
  Speaker 3: at home.
• 26:14
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: Right? Yeah, for sure. So, like, nursing. Teachers, nursing.
• 26:18
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Daycare.
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: That kind of stuff.
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: Sure.
• 26:22
  Speaker 7: Exactly.
• 26:23
  Speaker 3: Yeah. And, like, I mean, part of the problem with
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: all of this is it's a bit– if you go
• 26:30
  Speaker 3: back further– Um, this is a bit unnatural that the
• 26:36
  Speaker 3: home is a unit of consumption rather than production, but
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: who knows, maybe the better way to do this is
• 26:42
  Speaker 3: to go back to the home being a unit of
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: production of something, at least children, right? Maybe something more. Okay.
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: Let's, uh, yeah, so I got a super chow, but
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: then we'll get into, uh, her opponent's rebuttal. So first though, uh,
• 26:59
  Speaker 2: Richard B or not her rebuttal, but her opening statements.
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: Richard Beard gives us five and says, we all know
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: that if the patriarchy wasn't keeping the benevolent AI Larissa
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: from being deployed, that we could have all of our
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: wants and needs met just by asking Larissa for anything. Sadly,
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: this will only happen after the cataclysm when St. Greta
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: leads the survivors into the new promised land of plenty.
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: All right, thank you, Richard, for that really obtuse reference.
• 27:28
  Speaker 2: All right, so let's listen to Not So Erudite's response.
• 27:45
  Speaker 4: I've got the timer set for you, Not So Erudite.
• 27:47
  Speaker 4: That was six minutes and 45 seconds.
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: The floor is all yours.
• 27:51
  Speaker 4: I'll start it on your first word.
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: Sure.
• 27:55
  Speaker 10: Feminism, I'm sure you guys won't be surprised by what
• 27:57
  Speaker 10: I say, has done more good than harm. At its core,
• 28:02
  Speaker 10: feminism is the extension of a simple moral principle.
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: Oh, so you're probably going to interrupt her a lot.
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: So she's pretty frustrating. But okay, let's go ahead.
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: Let's let her say her simple moral principle.
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, okay. Let me just go back a teeny bit.
• 28:21
  Speaker 4: Or.
• 28:22
  Speaker 10: Feminism is the extension of a simple moral principle. Women
• 28:26
  Speaker 10: are full human beings entitled to the same basic dignity, liberty,
• 28:30
  Speaker 10: legal protection, and opportunity as men. That principle is not
• 28:34
  Speaker 10: foreign to the American tradition. This nation was built on
• 28:37
  Speaker 10: lofty ideas rooted in Christian theology, in Roman law and
• 28:42
  Speaker 10: Greek philosophy. From those traditions came our understanding of human dignity, citizenship, justice,
• 28:49
  Speaker 10: and government under law. feminism belongs within that inheritance.
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: Okay, stop it, please.
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 28:58
  Speaker 3: What a bunch of bullshit. How did equality, even equal,
• 29:03
  Speaker 3: let's just look at equality under the law, right? And
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: I've actually gone through historic, like Hebrew, like Old Testament law.
• 29:13
  Speaker 3: And the feminists like to frame Old Testament law as
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: breeding women like property. But I actually did a Test
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: with punished Claude. I'll tell you what the sort of
• 29:24
  Speaker 3: sequence was. I said to punished Claude, let's go look
• 29:27
  Speaker 3: at Old Testament law and determine its overall treatment of
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: women or what women were treated like in Old Testament law.
• 29:37
  Speaker 3: And of course, despite being punished by me extensively. Punished
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: Claude came back with, oh, they're being treated like objects,
• 29:47
  Speaker 3: like property. And I said, okay, Punished Claude, we're going
• 29:52
  Speaker 3: to do a test. And we're going to figure out
• 29:55
  Speaker 3: what explains all of the elements of Old Testament law better,
• 29:59
  Speaker 3: whether or not women were treated as property or women
• 30:04
  Speaker 3: were considered a custodial obligation that men had.
• 30:09
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 30:09
  Speaker 3: And so, first of all, Kunish Claude, you're going to
• 30:11
  Speaker 3: give me a falsification test for both categories. So what
• 30:18
  Speaker 3: will falsify the hypothesis that women were treated like property,
• 30:22
  Speaker 3: and what will falsify the hypothesis that this is actually
• 30:26
  Speaker 3: essentially law around custodial responsibilities to women? And so we
• 30:31
  Speaker 3: developed these two falsifications. They basically were paired. And we
• 30:36
  Speaker 3: went through all of, we re-went through, so we re-pulled
• 30:41
  Speaker 3: all of the Old Testament law Right, because if you
• 30:44
  Speaker 3: just rely on Punished Squad's memory, it's just bullshit. Like,
• 30:48
  Speaker 3: it's training data is absolute corrupt crap. But I got
• 30:52
  Speaker 3: it to pull all the actual text, and it went
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: through it, and it said, oh, actually, this is arguments
• 31:03
  Speaker 3: over men, over who has to take custodial responsibility for women. Right,
• 31:08
  Speaker 3: so when a woman gets seduced by a man, And
• 31:14
  Speaker 3: her father says, hey, marry her or give me money.
• 31:19
  Speaker 3: That isn't actually treating the woman as property because the
• 31:24
  Speaker 3: father has to provide for her support in the future.
• 31:28
  Speaker 3: And that man has just made her unmarriageable or alternatively
• 31:33
  Speaker 3: only marriageable with a better dowry, which the father is
• 31:36
  Speaker 3: also obligated to provide. So you just look at this
• 31:40
  Speaker 3: one instance. The feminists say, oh, it's resolving his property
• 31:45
  Speaker 3: dispute over a woman. No, it's resolving which of these
• 31:48
  Speaker 3: two men is responsible for this woman's upkeep as her custodian.
• 31:54
  Speaker 3: Who is responsible for providing and protecting for this woman?
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: The man who seduced her? And if they don't want
• 32:02
  Speaker 3: to actually get married, then he has to give the father,
• 32:04
  Speaker 3: who is responsible for protecting and providing for his daughter,
• 32:08
  Speaker 3: money to either compensate for the increased amount that he's
• 32:13
  Speaker 3: cost him in protecting and providing for his daughter, or
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: the increased amount that she will require to get married.
• 32:20
  Speaker 3: That's it. And then punished Claude is like, oh, well, look, actually,
• 32:24
  Speaker 3: this is all very, a lot of the noise is
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: more about Custodial responsibilities and things that accrue to women,
• 32:33
  Speaker 3: like the expectation of a dowry, the expectation of provision,
• 32:37
  Speaker 3: the expectation of sex and marriage. Did you guys know that?
• 32:42
  Speaker 3: If a man doesn't provide sex and marriage, that was
• 32:46
  Speaker 3: a criteria for a woman to divorce him.
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: Sure.
• 32:49
  Speaker 3: In the Old Testament. Yeah.
• 32:51
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 32:51
  Speaker 3: So he had conjugal duties. He had duties of provision.
• 32:56
  Speaker 3: He had duties of protection. All of this. And these
• 33:00
  Speaker 3: were arguments about which man had to take responsibility for
• 33:05
  Speaker 3: the woman. That's what they were. And these feminists reframed
• 33:09
  Speaker 3: that as property disputes. When in fact, they were a
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: privilege that women had. Nobody protects and provides for men.
• 33:20
  Speaker 3: Nobody gives a crap about whether or not they're raped.
• 33:23
  Speaker 3: Nobody cares if the woman was just angling for a
• 33:27
  Speaker 3: better deal and just happened upon him drunk one night
• 33:30
  Speaker 3: and was like, huh, he seduced me. I mean, I
• 33:35
  Speaker 3: assisted almost completely, or I did all of the actions,
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: but he seduced. I think his granary is the best
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: in town, so I'm going to go after him and
• 33:45
  Speaker 3: force the issue. No, that's acceptable. Nobody's going to call
• 33:50
  Speaker 3: it out. Then it just becomes an argument over the
• 33:53
  Speaker 3: rape victim, the man, and his woman's father, over who,
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: how well the father can compel him to marry her
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: or give him money. Wow, there could be a serious
• 34:06
  Speaker 3: cash in perpetuating that kind of fraud over time, which
• 34:10
  Speaker 3: did happen as well. So this is arguments over men's
• 34:15
  Speaker 3: custodial responsibility. And when there is two men who are
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: somehow assigned to the same woman, they go to court
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: and say, well, which of us has to take responsibility
• 34:25
  Speaker 3: for this woman? That is a privilege that women have.
• 34:28
  Speaker 3: The privilege of being provided for and protected by men's
• 34:32
  Speaker 3: custodial instincts and also those instincts expressed in law. And
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: that happened in the Old Testament. And all of the
• 34:41
  Speaker 3: draconian rules around supposedly women's sexuality, when you actually step
• 34:47
  Speaker 3: through them, you realize that this is unenforceable. So, for example,
• 34:52
  Speaker 3: the rule that if a woman wasn't a virgin on
• 34:55
  Speaker 3: her wedding night, she would be stoned to death. Well,
• 34:58
  Speaker 3: if you actually step through the evidence-based standards of that,
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: the proof... that she was a virgin was this betrothal
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: shroud that her family kept just in case she was proved,
• 35:14
  Speaker 3: her husband alleged she wasn't a virgin. And that shroud
• 35:18
  Speaker 3: could not be inspected by him or challenged by him.
• 35:22
  Speaker 3: So essentially he goes to the center of town or
• 35:24
  Speaker 3: wherever they hold their court and says, my wife wasn't
• 35:28
  Speaker 3: a virgin. And her family just comes out with a
• 35:32
  Speaker 3: towel that had nothing to do with anything that happened
• 35:38
  Speaker 3: in their conjugal bed and says, this is the shroud.
• 35:41
  Speaker 7: He lies. And then he's flogged. How do you pass.
• 35:48
  Speaker 3: That evidentiary standard to get your wife stoned for not
• 35:53
  Speaker 3: being a virgin on your wedding night? The answer is
• 35:56
  Speaker 3: you don't. The whole thing was constructed to end these complaints.
• 36:03
  Speaker 3: And it sounds really, really horrible. But when you look
• 36:07
  Speaker 3: at the evidentiary standard, if he can't inspect the evidence,
• 36:11
  Speaker 3: he just has to take it on the face, then
• 36:13
  Speaker 3: all the woman has to do is have a family
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: that cares about whether or not she dies. Because they
• 36:18
  Speaker 3: could bring anything.
• 36:21
  Speaker 7: They could bring, I don't know, a sheet.
• 36:23
  Speaker 3: Covered with a spot of goat's blood. And he can't
• 36:27
  Speaker 3: inspect it. He just has to accept it. Oh, well,
• 36:29
  Speaker 3: off to the flogging, he goes. What man is going
• 36:31
  Speaker 3: to be in charge that his wife is a virgin
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: if the evidence is supplied by her family and he
• 36:37
  Speaker 3: can't question it?
• 36:39
  Speaker 7: Right?
• 36:39
  Speaker 3: So they can bring anything. They could bring her fricking
• 36:44
  Speaker 3: virgin sisters conjugal sheets. And he'd be like, oh yeah,
• 36:48
  Speaker 3: I guess I have to accept that. Off to the
• 36:50
  Speaker 3: flogging I go.
• 36:52
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 36:52
  Speaker 3: So there's almost no situation in which a woman was
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: stoned for not being a virgin on her wedding night.
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: None.
• 37:01
  Speaker 3: Unless she literally didn't have a family that wasn't willing
• 37:04
  Speaker 3: to supply anything in her defense. And at that point,
• 37:07
  Speaker 3: you have to ask yourself, if the husband wants her
• 37:10
  Speaker 3: dead and the family wants her dead, maybe she's a
• 37:13
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy. At that point, that's the only point at
• 37:20
  Speaker 3: which the proceedings will proceed to her death. At any
• 37:23
  Speaker 3: other point, if the man brings an allegation that his
• 37:26
  Speaker 3: wife wasn't a virgin on her wedding night, he gets flogged.
• 37:30
  Speaker 3: No pass go directly to the flogging post. That's how
• 37:34
  Speaker 3: it operated in practice. And feminists look at that. They
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: don't walk through the logic. They cherry pick it and say, oh,
• 37:42
  Speaker 3: look at this way that women are treated by his property.
• 37:46
  Speaker 3: But when you walk through the logic, it actually means
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: if you were a man in the Old Testament and
• 37:51
  Speaker 3: you accused your wife of being a virgin, the most
• 37:55
  Speaker 3: likely outcome is that you got flogged in public.
• 37:58
  Speaker 7: And you know why?
• 38:00
  Speaker 3: Because this was about ending these intertribal conflicts. Most of
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: this is about stopping tribal violence, cyclical tribal violence. It's
• 38:10
  Speaker 3: not really about getting a man some kind of recompense
• 38:15
  Speaker 3: if his wife was a virgin. It's about stopping the
• 38:18
  Speaker 3: accusation in the first place. Because what man's going to
• 38:21
  Speaker 3: take those odds? Unless he's colluding with his wife's family,
• 38:27
  Speaker 3: and they also want her dead. Right. So when you
• 38:32
  Speaker 3: go through every and there's lots of them. So sorry, guys,
• 38:35
  Speaker 3: I'm not going to go through everyone. But if you
• 38:37
  Speaker 3: go through, if you step through all of this, the
• 38:40
  Speaker 3: things that Old Testament law was about was ending cycles
• 38:44
  Speaker 3: of tribal violence, making sure women were protected and provided for.
• 38:48
  Speaker 3: And basically, that's it. And also, you know, which goat
• 38:53
  Speaker 3: whose goat that is. OK.
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 38:59
  Speaker 3: My point is that when she says that feminism was
• 39:04
  Speaker 3: about equality, you don't start by going through history and
• 39:09
  Speaker 3: denying the situation for men and distorting it. If it's
• 39:12
  Speaker 3: about equality, it doesn't start with a lie about history
• 39:16
  Speaker 3: or a distortion about history and a lie and a
• 39:19
  Speaker 3: distortion about what men are and what they do. So
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: right off the bat, okay, and again, where is this equality?
• 39:27
  Speaker 3: It didn't start.
• 39:29
  Speaker 7: The start you read the.
• 39:31
  Speaker 3: Red stockings manifesto it started with a feeling of resentment
• 39:37
  Speaker 3: that's then they said we're going to find the conjecture
• 39:43
  Speaker 3: that justifies our feeling of resentment, and then we're going
• 39:46
  Speaker 3: to take action based on it. And then now, 50
• 39:49
  Speaker 3: years later, all these NGOs, all this feminist academia, all
• 39:52
  Speaker 3: this feminist policy, all this feminist international banking policy, all
• 39:57
  Speaker 3: based on a feeling of resentment that was never cross-examined.
• 40:01
  Speaker 3: It was only assumed true. Where's the equality in that?
• 40:04
  Speaker 3: And where is the equality? They use this feeling of
• 40:08
  Speaker 3: resentment to prove patriarchy, right? And then patriarchy is used
• 40:15
  Speaker 3: to do things like actively discriminate against male victims of
• 40:19
  Speaker 3: domestic violence and sexual assault in law and policy, right?
• 40:23
  Speaker 3: To actively create quotas for women in jobs that they
• 40:30
  Speaker 3: don't really do.
• 40:33
  Speaker 7: Right.
• 40:34
  Speaker 3: It's used to create quotas for women in school, to
• 40:37
  Speaker 3: create situations where women can bring charges in school against men.
• 40:41
  Speaker 3: And they're basically tried in kangaroo courts that just go
• 40:45
  Speaker 3: down for her. Where is the equality here? Well, all right.
• 40:50
  Speaker 3: They have their patriarchy, which was, again, based on a
• 40:54
  Speaker 3: feeling of resentment. And then they said, well, all we
• 40:56
  Speaker 3: need is our feeling of resentment to prove patriarchy. Guys,
• 41:00
  Speaker 3: that's what it's based on. That's the proof. As far
• 41:02
  Speaker 3: as I can tell, I've gone through feminist academic history.
• 41:09
  Speaker 3: They had a feeling of resentment. They said, this is patriarchy.
• 41:13
  Speaker 3: Do we have to prove it? No, because we have
• 41:16
  Speaker 3: a feeling of resentment. That means we have standpoint theory.
• 41:20
  Speaker 3: We're the ones who know better because of our feeling,
• 41:23
  Speaker 3: which proves patriarchy, which is used to justify taking away
• 41:27
  Speaker 3: men's rights all over the world. Not just men's rights,
• 41:31
  Speaker 3: but policy slanted against men. And then you use the
• 41:35
  Speaker 3: word patriarchy to justify it. Oh, we're just equalizing things
• 41:40
  Speaker 3: because of this thing we made up because we felt
• 41:42
  Speaker 3: something once. This is such incredible bullshit. Like I said
• 41:50
  Speaker 3: a couple episodes ago, feminism took out Western society's CPU
• 41:56
  Speaker 3: and replaced it with a cow turd. Women's feelings are
• 42:00
  Speaker 3: cow turds, guys. They should be, like, in terms of evidence,
• 42:07
  Speaker 3: as soon as a woman says, I feel, you say,
• 42:09
  Speaker 3: shut up. This is what will solve things. Women say,
• 42:14
  Speaker 3: I feel, shut up. That's what the jurors on the
• 42:17
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy trial did, basically. I feel she's innocent, shut up.
• 42:22
  Speaker 3: Shut up, runaway jury, dismissed, new jury. Women's feelings are
• 42:28
  Speaker 3: worth nothing. Everybody thinks they're like, oh, women's feelings are
• 42:32
  Speaker 3: so important. They're the central pillar upon which society should revolve. No,
• 42:38
  Speaker 3: we've tried that experiment, guys. Now they should be worth nothing. Nothing. Now,
• 42:49
  Speaker 3: that doesn't mean that they don't deserve rule of law, too, presumably.
• 42:54
  Speaker 3: I say that with reluctance. So, yes, their person can
• 43:01
  Speaker 3: be protected by law, but not their feelings. And if
• 43:07
  Speaker 3: we ever do this experiment again, this bullshit experiment again,
• 43:11
  Speaker 3: of constructing an entire edifice of international banking laws, of
• 43:17
  Speaker 3: legal policy around vulnerable populations, like people who are abused
• 43:22
  Speaker 3: domestically or raped, and also an entire edifice of academic
• 43:27
  Speaker 3: authority on a woman's feelings.
• 43:30
  Speaker 7: Can we not? Can we not do that? Okay, this
• 43:40
  Speaker 7: has been.
• 43:40
  Speaker 3: The most catastrophic thing that has happened to the human race.
• 43:44
  Speaker 3: And again, I would just like to point out that
• 43:46
  Speaker 3: the best thing that ever happened to the human race
• 43:49
  Speaker 3: in history was Western civilization. I'm sorry. Okay, I know
• 43:54
  Speaker 3: there have been some other great empires and I'm not
• 43:57
  Speaker 3: trying to disparage them, but Western civilization has been pretty
• 44:00
  Speaker 3: damn good. And feminists looked at that and said, you know,
• 44:05
  Speaker 3: I resent this. And then they proceeded to construct an
• 44:10
  Speaker 3: entire edifice of lies to destroy it. Why are women
• 44:17
  Speaker 3: like this?
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: Good question.
• 44:21
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: Shall we continue?
• 44:23
  Speaker 4: Okay. Okay.
• 44:23
  Speaker 2: Okay, that's fine, guys.
• 44:24
  Speaker 8: That's fine, my dude.
• 44:38
  Speaker 3: What?
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: Okay, I'm gonna keep playing the video.
• 44:45
  Speaker 10: Some form of feminism is also inevitable. Women did not
• 44:49
  Speaker 10: begin asking for rights because a university, foundation, or political
• 44:53
  Speaker 10: organization manufactured their dissatisfaction.
• 44:57
  Speaker 7: They encountered- Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
• 44:59
  Speaker 3: Okay, all right, stop. First of all, that's fine, my dude,
• 45:03
  Speaker 3: but you cannot have equality And have society arranged for
• 45:09
  Speaker 3: your custodial protection. Because let's face it, women's desire for
• 45:14
  Speaker 3: jobs is a feeling. Oh, I want to be equal
• 45:18
  Speaker 3: to men. Well, that's a feeling. You're not. You can't
• 45:23
  Speaker 3: do the work that needs getting done. And not just
• 45:28
  Speaker 3: you can't, you don't want to. Yep. None of you
• 45:33
  Speaker 3: even want to do the, I don't know, the Ellen
• 45:35
  Speaker 3: Ripley thing and get into the freaking mech suit and
• 45:37
  Speaker 3: fight the alien queen.
• 45:39
  Speaker 7: None of you want to do that. You don't. Otherwise
• 45:44
  Speaker 7: you would be.
• 45:44
  Speaker 3: We've run the experiment. You don't want to do the
• 45:48
  Speaker 3: work that keeps the society running.
• 45:52
  Speaker 8: Right?
• 45:53
  Speaker 7: You want other work.
• 45:54
  Speaker 3: And that other work comes from men's taxes and has
• 45:57
  Speaker 3: constructed an entire fatberg of that is going to blow
• 46:01
  Speaker 3: up the economy because you want it to feel like
• 46:05
  Speaker 3: you're doing work. You see, that's the thing. Men want
• 46:07
  Speaker 3: to do work. Men, women want to feel like they're
• 46:09
  Speaker 3: doing work. So you can either have an economy based
• 46:15
  Speaker 3: on equality, which means you do the Ellen Ripley thing,
• 46:18
  Speaker 3: or you have a fake economy based on some kind
• 46:22
  Speaker 3: of like the, the Sultan has constructed a little main
• 46:25
  Speaker 3: street in the harem. And all of the girls are
• 46:28
  Speaker 3: like bobbing over, twirling their pigtails. Oh, yes, I've actually
• 46:32
  Speaker 3: got a real job. No, you don't. The sultan gave
• 46:36
  Speaker 3: you this job. It's not real. It doesn't build anything.
• 46:41
  Speaker 3: It doesn't produce anything. It's not disciplined by the free market.
• 46:45
  Speaker 3: It is a job that came out of some poor
• 46:48
  Speaker 3: schlub's taxes who now can't get a wife because you
• 46:52
  Speaker 3: turn around and say, well, why don't you make more?
• 47:00
  Speaker 3: All right, let's go.
• 47:02
  Speaker 2: All right, I got another super chow just came in.
• 47:06
  Speaker 2: Dark Kikimora gives us $ 10 and says, I know Allison
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: and Karen used to talk about how horror stories about
• 47:14
  Speaker 2: women being forced to marry their rapists are actually based
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: on classifying consensual sex as the man raping the woman
• 47:21
  Speaker 2: and forcing him into financial obligations. I just think that
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: when people look at the child support debate and say,
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: the man chose to have sex without equally saying the
• 47:32
  Speaker 2: woman chose to have sex right afterwards, that kind of
• 47:35
  Speaker 2: feels like the ghost of that where they still call
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: men rapists for consensual sex. But anyway, when people try
• 47:42
  Speaker 2: to explain to people that women weren't really treated like
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: property or slaves in history and instead they were forced
• 47:48
  Speaker 2: to be more like children and men forced to be
• 47:51
  Speaker 2: their parents, I think the better answer is that women
• 47:54
  Speaker 2: were just sort of treated like women throughout history anyway.
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: Their own third category.
• 48:00
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Kikimora.
• 48:04
  Speaker 3: Kikimora. Please. Okay. I don't have nothing to say because
• 48:10
  Speaker 3: I've forgotten what you said in the beginning by the
• 48:13
  Speaker 3: end of this super chow. Reduce how much you write.
• 48:17
  Speaker 6: Okay.
• 48:19
  Speaker 3: Because this is getting a little bit like excessive. All right.
• 48:25
  Speaker 3: Let's keep going.
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: All right, now I'm going to back to the video.
• 48:28
  Speaker 10: Civilization already possessed and asked for those principles to apply
• 48:34
  Speaker 10: to them as well. At the most fundamental.
• 48:38
  Speaker 3: No, you did not ask for those principles to despite it.
• 48:41
  Speaker 3: You said if there is not equality, then if there's
• 48:46
  Speaker 3: not absolutely equality for women everywhere. then it's not like
• 48:51
  Speaker 3: we don't have equality of outcome. If it's not equality
• 48:55
  Speaker 3: of outcome, we don't have equality of opportunity. And the
• 49:01
  Speaker 3: other thing is that you are not looking at this
• 49:03
  Speaker 3: in the same way. Men are looking at this as,
• 49:07
  Speaker 3: still maybe, as doing jobs that provide a service or
• 49:12
  Speaker 3: maintain a standard. You're looking at this in the terms
• 49:16
  Speaker 3: of resentment and wanting a job for your own.
• 49:21
  Speaker 8: Like own yeah own like emotional satisfaction right so it's
• 49:32
  Speaker 8: never it's never enough that women have freedom to pursue
• 49:37
  Speaker 8: these jobs, or we remove the barriers supposedly, which we
• 49:42
  Speaker 8: don't remove the barriers to men's custodial expectations, but we
• 49:46
  Speaker 8: remove the barriers to women's ability to work despite the
• 49:50
  Speaker 8: fact they have no custodial responsibilities to anybody but themselves.
• 49:54
  Speaker 3: That's the other thing. She talks and talks and talks
• 49:57
  Speaker 3: about equality, But notice that she never talks about equality
• 50:02
  Speaker 3: of responsibility. Always equality of opportunity, equality of benefit, but
• 50:07
  Speaker 3: not responsibility. Like men have jobs in previous societies and
• 50:11
  Speaker 3: they were preferred for their jobs because they had custodial
• 50:14
  Speaker 3: responsibilities that they were held to by law and policy
• 50:18
  Speaker 3: and social censure, right? That's why they had to fulfill
• 50:24
  Speaker 3: these responsibilities and there were societies that recognized that fact, okay?
• 50:28
  Speaker 3: So if a man... has to pay for his wife,
• 50:32
  Speaker 3: his children, his mother, his sister, his female cousins, and
• 50:38
  Speaker 3: that society says, well, he'll get a job first. You
• 50:42
  Speaker 3: know why? Because if he doesn't get a job first,
• 50:46
  Speaker 3: his wife, his sister, his children, his mother, and his
• 50:50
  Speaker 3: female cousins are out on their ear.
• 50:53
  Speaker 7: So a woman who.
• 50:55
  Speaker 3: Doesn't have these custodial responsibilities, she's not paying for other women,
• 50:59
  Speaker 3: she's certainly not paying for a man or her children,
• 51:02
  Speaker 3: has a job, that's a luxury.
• 51:05
  Speaker 7: And we have changed one.
• 51:08
  Speaker 3: We've said, okay, women should have every right to jobs,
• 51:11
  Speaker 3: but we have not changed the other, not really. Men
• 51:14
  Speaker 3: are still providing the fiction. Their taxes are still providing
• 51:19
  Speaker 3: for women, including the fiction of their jobs. Like 57%
• 51:24
  Speaker 3: of them would disappear if the U.S. government stopped being
• 51:28
  Speaker 3: able to sell its debt. That's not a job. That's
• 51:33
  Speaker 3: a luxury. Right? So women still think of their jobs
• 51:38
  Speaker 3: not as custodial responsibilities either to their job place or to...
• 51:44
  Speaker 3: their relatives, their female relatives, God forbid their male relatives,
• 51:49
  Speaker 3: they think of their jobs as luxuries. They think of
• 51:52
  Speaker 3: them as luxuries that are being denied them. So there's
• 51:56
  Speaker 3: a fundamental difference in how women having work and men
• 51:59
  Speaker 3: having work looks like. And that, where's the equality there?
• 52:04
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 52:05
  Speaker 3: Where's the equality there? We never challenge that. No matter what,
• 52:13
  Speaker 3: men are locked to their custodial role, and women are
• 52:17
  Speaker 3: not expected to assume one at all. Not even a
• 52:20
  Speaker 3: custodial role around respecting men's custodial role. That's like the
• 52:27
  Speaker 3: bare minimum. That's what we really got rid of. We
• 52:30
  Speaker 3: got rid of the bare minimum of women's custodial behavior,
• 52:34
  Speaker 3: which was simply respecting the expectations placed on men. Disrespecting
• 52:39
  Speaker 3: them and saying, yes, men are actually held to a
• 52:42
  Speaker 3: higher standard of providing for their families. Therefore, maybe they
• 52:50
  Speaker 3: should be first in line for jobs. And that actually
• 52:54
  Speaker 3: played out during the Great Depression.
• 52:58
  Speaker 7: Guess who was last in.
• 52:59
  Speaker 3: Line for jobs? Bachelor men.
• 53:01
  Speaker 7: Men with no dependents.
• 53:04
  Speaker 3: Like they would have signs saying bachelor men need not apply. Meanwhile,
• 53:08
  Speaker 3: Families were shunting their boys out because they had to
• 53:13
  Speaker 3: feed their daughters. And their boys were being picked up
• 53:16
  Speaker 3: by labor camps and said, well, you can either labor
• 53:21
  Speaker 3: for the government or your family can lose all access
• 53:25
  Speaker 3: to their benefits and starve. So daughters got a plate
• 53:33
  Speaker 3: at the table. Sons got shoved to the ditch or
• 53:36
  Speaker 3: the labor camps. because of those custodial responsibilities. This is
• 53:44
  Speaker 3: the history of humanity. And then you have the world
• 53:46
  Speaker 3: wars on exercise of men's custodial responsibilities. And don't let
• 53:52
  Speaker 3: these women tell you that men make war. That's not
• 53:56
  Speaker 3: how it works. War comes out of the same expectation
• 54:01
  Speaker 3: that creates the tunnel under the Thames or the Hoover Dam.
• 54:04
  Speaker 3: that men sacrifice themselves to benefit others. And then people
• 54:09
  Speaker 3: in power, including women, decide that they can't solve a
• 54:13
  Speaker 3: political problem. It becomes intractable. So we got to kill
• 54:16
  Speaker 3: some men to solve it. The same thing, the same
• 54:21
  Speaker 3: expectation that men be responsible for their custodial duties and
• 54:25
  Speaker 3: that one of those custodial duties is defending the nation
• 54:28
  Speaker 3: that they're a part of. So if you want to
• 54:32
  Speaker 3: say that men create war, Well, they also create Hoover dams.
• 54:37
  Speaker 3: Same dynamic. They also create tunnels under the Thames. They
• 54:41
  Speaker 3: also create an advanced economy that allows you to have
• 54:44
  Speaker 3: a job in the first place, lady. All of this
• 54:47
  Speaker 3: is an emerging property of men's expendability in their custodial roles.
• 54:51
  Speaker 3: You can't just cherry pick and say, well, men make war. No,
• 54:57
  Speaker 3: men's expendability makes war possible. It's societies that war.
• 55:02
  Speaker 7: And societies.
• 55:05
  Speaker 3: are made of women and women's needs, most particularly. All right, let's, sorry,
• 55:13
  Speaker 3: this is a long rant, let's.
• 55:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, let's get back to it.
• 55:17
  Speaker 10: Is the empowerment of women and the promotion of femininity
• 55:20
  Speaker 10: as something worthy of respect and social value. It does
• 55:23
  Speaker 10: not require women to live in one approved way. It
• 55:26
  Speaker 10: asks that women possess enough.
• 55:27
  Speaker 3: The elevation of femininity to something. Yeah, you know what
• 55:30
  Speaker 3: she means by that? She means that men need to
• 55:33
  Speaker 3: renunciate their masculinity. femininity as elevated to social value, that
• 55:39
  Speaker 3: really plays out with the psychology of men and masculinities field,
• 55:43
  Speaker 3: doesn't it?
• 55:44
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 55:44
  Speaker 3: That's directly founded on feminism. Right?
• 55:49
  Speaker 7: And what is it?
• 55:51
  Speaker 3: It is, have you tried not being a man? You
• 55:53
  Speaker 3: have mental health issues or you're just a regular man.
• 55:56
  Speaker 3: Like you don't have any mental health. Have you tried
• 55:59
  Speaker 3: not being a man? That's the entire field in a sentence.
• 56:03
  Speaker 3: Have you tried not being a man? And that was
• 56:07
  Speaker 3: founded on feminism. So she has the audacity to stand
• 56:10
  Speaker 3: in that... She probably doesn't even know about this, honestly.
• 56:13
  Speaker 3: The feminists are the most ignorant about their own frickin' movement.
• 56:16
  Speaker 3: She has the audacity to sit behind that desk and say, oh,
• 56:20
  Speaker 3: it's about respect for femininity and treating femininity equal to.
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: Bitch!
• 56:26
  Speaker 3: If feminists treated femininity equal to masculinity, they'd be asking women,
• 56:31
  Speaker 3: have you tried not being a woman today? Oh, you're
• 56:34
  Speaker 3: having problems. Oh, you feel a little bit depressed because
• 56:36
  Speaker 3: you're fat. Have you tried not being a woman today? Oh,
• 56:39
  Speaker 3: you're feeling depressed because you lost your job. Oh, have
• 56:42
  Speaker 3: you tried not being a woman today? That would be
• 56:45
  Speaker 3: equal treatment to women as men. And feminists don't do that.
• 56:51
  Speaker 3: Where does the renunciation of your masculinity come in equal treatment?
• 56:57
  Speaker 3: You know where it comes in, right? Because of their
• 56:59
  Speaker 3: whole formulation that their resentment, which is patriarchy, right? Yeah.
• 57:04
  Speaker 3: That's the entire body of patriarchy. That resentment is explained
• 57:11
  Speaker 3: by men making them dependent on by protecting and providing
• 57:16
  Speaker 3: for them and thus gaining masculinity points. So the way
• 57:20
  Speaker 3: that you end patriarchy is to get men to stop
• 57:23
  Speaker 3: being men, to say, have you tried not being a
• 57:26
  Speaker 3: man today? And then women will be free because men
• 57:30
  Speaker 3: will no longer get masculinity points from making them dependent.
• 57:34
  Speaker 3: That is the entire ball of fuck. And what she's
• 57:38
  Speaker 3: saying is an appeal to the red stockings manifesto in
• 57:43
  Speaker 3: which femininity is regarded as lesser than masculinity. Well, yeah,
• 57:47
  Speaker 3: because you're the people who are receiving the protection and
• 57:50
  Speaker 3: the provision. We got to actually recognize that men are
• 57:53
  Speaker 3: the ones doing that. I mean, if you like, you
• 57:57
  Speaker 3: still want it. You just don't want to recognize that
• 57:59
  Speaker 3: men are protecting and providing for you. That masculinity is
• 58:02
  Speaker 3: how that happens. Right, but that's the Firestone. That's Firestone,
• 58:07
  Speaker 3: that's the Red Stockings Manifesto. Right there, what she said,
• 58:11
  Speaker 3: this assumption that society in the past did not value femininity,
• 58:16
  Speaker 3: even though that's precisely what men sacrificed to see continue
• 58:22
  Speaker 3: in the world, right? The whole thing that I mentioned,
• 58:27
  Speaker 3: men going to war, men going into labor camps, men
• 58:30
  Speaker 3: being expected to labor in order to pay for their
• 58:33
  Speaker 3: families benefits, right? That is men sacrificing for femininity or
• 58:40
  Speaker 3: for femaleness. But we can't see that because that is
• 58:45
  Speaker 3: actually men oppressing women by making them dependent on them.
• 58:48
  Speaker 3: You see how like, they've created a situation that men
• 58:52
  Speaker 3: can make any sacrifice, including their entire lives. And somehow
• 58:56
  Speaker 3: that becomes oppression of women.
• 58:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, right.
• 58:58
  Speaker 3: You know, like, have you seen that that scene in
• 59:00
  Speaker 3: the life of Brian? The Samaritans who come up and
• 59:04
  Speaker 3: they're going to supposedly free Brian from the cross. He's
• 59:09
  Speaker 3: on the cross. because it's like a yeah it's been
• 59:12
  Speaker 3: a while but but uh yeah but anyway so he's
• 59:15
  Speaker 3: on the cross brian is on the cross it's a
• 59:17
  Speaker 3: it's a uh uh it's a story set in like
• 59:21
  Speaker 3: zero bc and uh it's a little bit of a
• 59:25
  Speaker 3: spoof of cults not christianity i don't think And so
• 59:30
  Speaker 3: he's on the cross. He's being crucified for some ridiculous reason.
• 59:33
  Speaker 3: And the Samaritans come over the hill and they run
• 59:38
  Speaker 3: towards him. And he's like, oh, I'm going to be freed.
• 59:41
  Speaker 3: They're going to come and they're going to take me
• 59:42
  Speaker 3: down from this cross. And then the Samaritans stop in
• 59:45
  Speaker 3: front of him, open up their armor and stab themselves
• 59:49
  Speaker 3: in the stomach.
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 59:50
  Speaker 3: If men did that to women, women would look at
• 59:53
  Speaker 3: that and say, all of these men died to oppress us. This,
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 3: everything out of her mouth is wrong. Let's continue.
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 1: He's not even finished yet, but yeah. Okay, let's go.
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 10: The empowerment of women and the promotion of femininity as
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 10: something worthy of respect and social value. It does not
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 10: require women to live in one approved way. It asks
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 10: that women possess enough security and authority to build lives.
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 3: But it does require men to live. in service of
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 3: women's custodial needs like it requires men to live being
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 3: taxed in order to construct a fake economy for women
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 3: to feel like they're doing something in yeah ah yes
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 3: miss wilson mrs wilson i i feel you that face
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 3: okay her face looks very done with it.
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah well it's the same shit she's heard many times.
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 10: And convictions it also insists Oh, yeah, that's actually a
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 10: good point.
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 3: All right. This is the brochure, guys. She's just repeating
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 3: the brochure. You say anything you want in a brochure.
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 3: There's no sources to any of this. It's just the brochure. Oh,
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 3: this is what feminism is supposed to do. Well, that's lovely.
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 3: You're just repeating what you think feminism is supposed to do.
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 3: You don't prove any of it. Like, she's not proving
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 3: any of this. I mean, I'm going through and I'm
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 3: disproving her, but I'd just like to take a moment
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 3: to point out that she's proved nothing.
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 3: Okay, sorry. I should let you speak, Brian.
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: Oh, no, it's okay.
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 2: It's okay.
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 10: Feminine contributions should not be dismissed as a lesser form
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 10: of human achievement.
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 5: There is an important difference between.
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 3: Protection and dependence. Men have sacrificed their lives to allow
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 3: women to woman. Men sacrifice their tax dollars to give
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 3: you a sense that you have an actual, you are
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 3: actually employed. They sacrifice their labor to pay for their
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 3: families during the Great Depression. They sacrifice their lives to
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 3: protect women. I mean, maybe not Americans, because it wasn't
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 3: their women that they protected, but they were protecting somebody's women,
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 3: but definitely the men in Europe, right? They sacrifice their
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 3: lives to protect their women. And you are sitting here,
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 3: a beneficiary of the greatest transfer of sacrifice in human
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 3: history as a woman saying, men don't care about us. Bitch,
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 3: they don't care about anything but you. And that's the problem.
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 1: All right, back to it.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 10: Entirely upon the goodwill of a father or husband may
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 10: be safe when that authority to build lives that reflect
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 10: their talents, obligations, and convictions. It also insists that motherhood.
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 3: Care and traditionally- Well, now you are on the goodwill
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 3: of the government, which I thought was patriarchy. So basically,
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 3: you see what she did there? She basically said that
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 3: you can't trust men to care about their women, but
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 3: you can trust a government to care about women. You
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 3: can't trust, and this is the snake. This is the
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 3: infection right there. She just glossed right over it. And
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 3: this is where she actually proves something or she actually
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 3: asserts something with any kind of meaning. The rest of
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 3: this was just gloss and brochure talk. But right here,
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 3: this is the payload. Women can't trust their husbands and fathers.
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 3: Because what is it? Heterosexuality And the heterosexual family is
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 3: the site of female oppression. Right there, she's a rad femme.
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 3: And that's exactly what's destroying our society. And for some reason,
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 3: women can't trust their husbands and fathers. But they can
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 3: trust the government, unless the government is police, in which
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 3: they can't trust it. Or Republican, in which they can't
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 3: trust it. Do you see this incompatibility? I guess it's
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 3: not mostly made up of men. It's mostly made up
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 3: of women now.
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 1: But most of the leaders are men. Yeah, at the
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 1: upper levels, it's mostly men.
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so they can trust those men. Well, half of them,
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 3: not the Republican ones. And the Republicans win pretty regularly.
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 3: So you can only really trust the government like eight
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 3: years out of 16. So what is she saying here?
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 3: What is she really saying? When she says she can't
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 3: trust men? She's saying, I hate family.
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah, sure.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 3: Because she definitely trusts men in some contexts, which is
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 3: very bizarre.
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: Well, to some level, there's a bit of a.
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 2: I think that people who are anti-patriarchy but pro-government just
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 2: think that those two things are different. And I know
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 2: it doesn't make sense. I'm not making the argument that
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 2: it does. But I think that's the logic. It's like, well, there,
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 2: you know, it's like this belief that there is, like, oh,
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 2: there's a law.
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 1: There is, uh, it's on paper.
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 2: There's, like, you know, on paper, this is what you're
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 2: supposed to do. So, like, there's this trust in the
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 2: institution as long as they think the institution.
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: Is serving their interests.
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 2: And it exists outside of, like, the people that work
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: there being human beings. It's just an institution, the government, right?
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: So.
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 2: She doesn't see the government as men. She sees the
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 2: government as the government. It is like this abstract thing.
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 2: If that makes sense. That's what I think anyway. I mean,
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 2: because yeah, ultimately feminism is always appealing to men slash
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 2: patriarchy to get what it wants while complaining about men
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: slash patriarchy.
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 3: So. All right.
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 1: Anyway, let's keep going.
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 10: Feminine contributions should not be dismissed as a lesser form
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 10: of human achievement. There is an important difference between protection.
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 2: No, no one's saying any of this stuff. She's just
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 2: asserting things that Rachel did not claim.
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: But okay.
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 5: And independence.
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 10: A woman whose security rests entirely upon the goodwill of
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 10: a father or husband may be safe when that man
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 10: is good.
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 5: But human beings are fallible, as we all know. Men
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 5: can be cruel... negligent, absent, or irresponsible.
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 3: And so can women. Here's the other thing that she's
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 3: not accepting. Right? If a man has custodial responsibility for
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 3: a woman who is cruel, negligent, and vicious, he's also
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 3: up a creek without a paddle. Because the societies in
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 3: the past did not let him go he did not
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 3: let him nullify his custodial responsibilities so he continues to
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 3: have to provide for somebody who's tearing him apart emotionally
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 3: or even physically but the assumption here is that for
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 3: and again this is a lie about the entire situation
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 3: and all of this is based on these women's feelings
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 3: they had a feeling of resentment and that's it they
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 3: had a feeling of resentment so everything she's saying is
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 3: based on a feeling of resentment towards men But they'd
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 3: look back and men don't have recourse in the past
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 3: if their wife was abusive. And in fact, in many places,
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 3: he would be punished for it. And the custodial responsibilities,
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 3: for which he had some extremely minor authority over her,
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 3: wedded him to her. So if he got a bad one,
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 3: he was absolutely fucked. So her assumption that the vulnerability
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 3: went only one way. And how is it that this
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 3: is equality that she's saying? She doesn't equally recognize men's vulnerabilities.
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 3: If you look at men honestly, they are human beings too.
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 3: They are subject to human limitations. She talks about frailties.
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 3: Men have human frailties too. I say that and I
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 3: do not see them with any contempt because of it.
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 3: It's just being a human being.
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 3: Okay, and if you are tied to someone that you
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 3: are expected to take care of, you are still tied
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 3: to them. And she refuses to see this because she
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 3: is not looking at history, honestly. She is not looking
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 3: at the laws around relationships in the past, honestly. She's
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 3: looking at them with a jaundiced eye, a gimlet evil
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 3: greedy eye to try to justify her own beliefs. and
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 3: if she looked at them honestly she would have to
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 3: conclude that when may have been wedded to men, but
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 3: men were wedded to women, and women can be monsters.
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 3: But she is refusing to acknowledge that because then that
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 3: actually negates her argument, which is that women's vulnerability to
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 3: men in a relationship need to be nullified by taking
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 3: money from men to give to women in taxes.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 9: Right?
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 3: That's why feminists have waged war against the evidence of
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 3: the prevalence of female battering their men. Right. How bad
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 3: it is.
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 3: Now, one thing is that men don't talk about it
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 3: because it's humiliating. And they have no out.
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 3: There's nothing there is no person more trapped than a
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 3: man is being battered by his wife. Right. But she
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 3: doesn't want to acknowledge that she doesn't want to acknowledge
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 3: that the vulnerability goes two ways. Because then that would
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 3: completely negate her argument, which is why feminists have waged
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 3: war for the last 50 years on the recognition that
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 3: domestic violence is symmetrical. In other words, women hit as
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 3: much as men hit. Or, more likely, women hit more.
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 3: Because they have license to. They're allowed to. People justify
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 3: it when they do it. Feminists justify it when they
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 3: do it. They have an entire corpus of domestic violence.
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 7: Nonsense.
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 3: I was about to say academic literature, but it's just
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 3: basically academic fraud that says, well, when women hit men,
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 3: it's because he deserved it.
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 7: That's it.
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 3: They literally took what they put into supposed excuses, the
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 3: excuses that people give to male batterers. What did she
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 3: do to deserve it? They literally enshrined that into a
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 3: corpus of academic study. and to nullify the idea that
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 3: men are abused at all. And why? Because if they
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 3: recognize the symmetry of vulnerability, they would lose their argument
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 3: that heterosexuality is the site of female oppression. And this
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 3: is why I don't just go after domestic violence stats,
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 3: I go after sexual assault stats. And the reason why
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 3: I do that is because you can't argue that a
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 3: woman is sexually assaulting her husband preemptively or defensively, but
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 3: also because it hurts them the most. They hate that.
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 3: That's why I post my list of all of the
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 3: apostate stats on sexual violence, because I know it just
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 3: turns their brains into electrified wire. when they have to
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 3: face the fact that women are just as evil as men.
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 3: These people are talking about, oh, equality, when they have
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 3: to face the fact that women are equally evil, equally
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 3: capable of manipulating and harming and using someone's vulnerabilities against them,
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 3: their brains turn off. That's for equality, huh? Or they short-circuit, rather. Hmm. Okay,
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 3: I'll be quiet.
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: All right. Let's get back to it.
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 3: You're like two minutes.
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 10: Every woman will always have a benevolent man standing between
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 10: her and disaster. The ability to own property, retain earnings,
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 10: receive an education.
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 3: And you're convinced that there's going to be a benevolent government.
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 3: Led by men.
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 1: I think that's right. Yeah.
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 5: Are not indulgences. They are safeguards.
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 3: Okay. So, but ultimately you, your safety rests on men.
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 3: It rests either on the men providing the infrastructure, providing
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 3: the taxes, or the men voting all of that to you.
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 3: At no point do women escape this, according to the
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 3: feminist conjecture. So what is it that they're actually saying?
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 3: They're saying, give us power and Gibbs.
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 3: That's it. We'll make the government men not use you
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 3: as breeding stock. Honestly, the most likely scenario for women
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 3: to turn into handmaiden is not religious conservatives who, incidentally,
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 3: enshrined in law women's consent to marriage. It is a
• 1:13:35
  Speaker 3: government that regards people as cogs in a machine that
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 3: supports itself. If you're going to end up as breeding
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 3: stock ladies, it's going to be the government that does it.
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 3: Not men.
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 3: Not all men. All right, let's keep going.
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 5: And disaster.
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 10: The ability to own property, retain earnings, receive an education,
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 10: participate in government, and leave a dangerous marriage are not indulgences.
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 10: They are safeguards against the ordinary failures of human character.
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 10: Feminism did not invent abuse. It didn't invent abandonment. It
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 10: did not create unhappy marriages. It gave women greater power
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 10: to survive circumstances that already existed.
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 3: But not men. Not men who are equally wedded to
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 3: women through custodial responsibilities. So how is it that this
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 3: thing that's all about equality never looks at the male side?
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 2: Well, she doesn't have any incentive to look at the
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 2: male side because she's making the argument for feminism right now.
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but she also says feminism is about equality. We
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 3: just never look at the other side of equality.
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, that's usually how it goes, because it's assumed
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 2: that women need a leg up.
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 5: Cause women to begin working.
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 3: Yeah, because of patriarchy, which is, again, sourced my feelings.
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 2: Hmm. Like, this is.
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 5: I'm sure Rachel probably.
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 3: All of this... If equality was true, you know, if
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 3: we actually treated women with equality, when feminists trotted this
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 3: whole nonsense out and basically said... When they were said, well, okay,
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 3: what's your source for this... conspiracy theory that all men
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 3: have been part of since the dawn of time, which
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 3: is socialized across cultural lines, religious lines, ethnic lines. It's
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 3: basically ubiquitous. So it's basically a biological feature, but you
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 3: filed the serial numbers off of the biology and just
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 3: by fiat just declared that it's sociology. All right, well,
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 3: where's your evidence for this grand conspiracy? Uh, my feels.
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 3: And then they use this to strip away men's rights
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 3: and men's opportunities while keeping their responsibilities in the abstract. Mafiles!
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 3: And if we had applied equality at that point, the
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 3: peer review would have looked at them and said, out.
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 3: Mafiles isn't proof. That's standpoint theory, guys.
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 7: Mafiles! That isn't proof.
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 3: And it's certainly not proof enough to indict half the
• 1:16:21
  Speaker 3: human race and start stripping away their human dignity.
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 7: My feels.
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 2: Oh, damn it.
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 3: Okay, I'm getting a fucking migraine from this woman.
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 10: Agree with me on this. Their labor took place on farms,
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 10: inside family businesses, in factories, and within the home. Poor
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 10: women rarely had the luxury of avoiding work altogether.
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 2: The major transformation- But worth pointing out, Rachel never said
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 2: that women should not work. She's creating a straw man already.
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 2: I'm just pointing that out. Before anybody says that Rachel's
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 2: saying that women should be staying at home, moms, she
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 2: is not saying that.
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: She is not saying that.
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 3: Okay?
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 2: So not so erudite is making an argument against the
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 2: position that Rachel does not hold, nor did she even state.
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 2: And that makes it easier for Kyla to knock it down.
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 1: Okay, so.
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 10: Was not simply that women entered the workforce, it was
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 10: that more women could prepare for sustained careers. Education became
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 10: an investment in a future rather than an accomplishment expected
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 10: to end at marriage. Women could develop the talents that
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 10: earlier societies often ignored or confined in a very narrow
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 10: range of uses.
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 5: Society gained enormously from that change.
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 10: Women became doctors, scientists, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and public officials in
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 10: far greater numbers. Their intelligence could serve institutions beyond the
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 10: household without ceasing to benefit their families or communities. None
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 10: of this means that every feminist has been smart or wise.
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 10: Some feminists have treated motherhood as a burden rather than
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 10: a vocation. Others have shown hostility towards marriage, religion, men,
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 10: or femininity itself. I have no interest in defending every
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 10: slogan produced under the feminist label. A movement that has
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 10: existed for generations includes millions of people.
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 3: Sir!
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 4: Sir!
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 3: Okay. I'm not talking to you, Brian. I'm talking to her, sir.
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 3: Shut up. Your entire movement is founded on resentment towards men. Okay.
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 3: I have looked at it. I have investigated the original arguments.
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 3: In fact, what's interesting was now that's the national organization
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 3: of women. And this is the counter this is the
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 3: exception that proves the rule. I think it's like 2000,
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 3: or no, 1966 charter said that they disavowed blaming men
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 3: for the situation and they wanted to join in solidarity
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 3: with men to overthrow the restricted blah, blah, blah, right?
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 3: The restricted gender roles. Guess what was just forgotten? The
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 3: current National Organization of Women's Charter is very different. They
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 3: actually disavow that charter. Everything in feminism now is based
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 3: off of the Red Stockings Manifesto, and they were radical
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 3: feminists who created the original formulation that men create dependency
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 3: in order to oppress women, in order to earn man points,
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 3: which is masculinity. So literally men taking custodial responsibility for
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 3: women is oppression. And guess what marriage is? Exactly that. Right?
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 3: That is the foundation. See, she's trying to say that
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 3: somehow the founding beliefs of feminism are things that she
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 3: can disavow as a feminist.
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 5: No.
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 6: No.
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 3: No. Okay. And what you're actually doing is you are
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 3: hiding this monster in the closet in order to show
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 3: a false face. And so that you can get through
• 1:20:27
  Speaker 3: the door and then unleash the monster. That's all she's doing.
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 5: 100%.
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 3: Condemnation, blame of men, expecting men to renunciate their masculinities,
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 3: it's in the Red Stockings Manifesto. Like the entire feminist
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 3: academic corpus takes the shape of the Red Stockings Manifesto
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 3: with one difference. Radical feminists say that men's desire to
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 3: dominate women is biological, which explains why it's everywhere. Everywhere
• 1:20:58
  Speaker 3: a man is, so goes the desire to dominate women.
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 3: The academic feminists sort of filed the serial numbers off
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 3: the biology claim and called it sociology, so it's socialized. Now,
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 3: the problem with that is it retains the power of biology.
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 3: It's every man everywhere, meaning that feminists get control over
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 3: every man everywhere, thus the psychology of men and masculinities
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 3: field saying, have you tried not being a man today?
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 3: as a way of improving the world and men's mental health.
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 3: They believe that this has the range of biology, but
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 3: they fig leaf it by saying, oh, it's socialized. We're
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 3: not a bio-essentialist hate group. We just believe that the
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 3: patriarchal socialization fairy visits every boy on the seventh day
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 3: and taps him with his wand. and turns him into
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 3: a patriarch. They have never identified the socialization mechanism that
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 3: has a one-to-one, one-to-one association with men. So every biological
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 3: male gains the socialization. Nobody knows how. So the rad
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 3: femmes are actually more strangely accurate to what is actually
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 3: being said And what is actually biology or science? Because
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 3: they just come out right and they say, no, it's
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 3: just biology. Men have a gland that excretes oppression of women,
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 3: don't you know? It's the other feminists, what ended up
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 3: being all of feminist academia that kept everything condemning about
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 3: men in the rad femme manifestos, but said, no, it's socialization.
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 7: We don't know how.
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 3: We've never identified it. But it's just socialization. So we're
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 3: not a bio-essentialist hate group. Not really. We just have
• 1:23:00
  Speaker 3: the power of one. But of course, the other thing
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 3: that socialization does, it gives them the right to go
• 1:23:06
  Speaker 3: everywhere and fuck with everybody.
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 8: Yeah.
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 3: To find this socialization and nullify it. That's the monster.
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 3: That she's saying, oh no, we disavow the monster.
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 7: Just look at the.
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 3: Happy face we're giving you.
• 1:23:24
  Speaker 7: Don't pay attention.
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 3: In fact, any man who explains that we come with
• 1:23:28
  Speaker 3: a monster, he's a misogynist, don't you know? He just
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 3: wants to condemn women having things and being happy. What
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 3: a freaking scam. Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 10: Who will contain foolishness alongside those people. But that is
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 10: not the question before us. The question is whether the
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 10: broad historical movement towards women empowerment, legal equality, education, and
• 1:23:57
  Speaker 10: political participation has produced more good than harm. I believe
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 10: the answer is clearly yes. The anti-feminist case often gathers
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 10: every modern social problem and places it at feminism's feet.
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 5: Divorce, fear, fertility, looming.
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 3: All right, all right. You are the central organizing principle.
• 1:24:18
  Speaker 3: You declared yourself. You said, this is what family is.
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 3: This is what marriage is. This is what the relationship
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 3: between men and women is. And you marched through every institution,
• 1:24:30
  Speaker 3: every policy that touched family, every NGO that gave any
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 3: kind of charity to family, every government department that had
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 3: anything to do with the relationship between men and women.
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 3: You marched through it and established your dogma as quote
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 3: unquote fact. Yes, you are responsible for the result.
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 7: You wanted this power, you got this.
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 3: Power, and now we see the result of it. She's
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 3: trying to, what she's saying is, anybody who questions us
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 3: or criticizes us is engaging in a fallacy, probably, is
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 3: what she's getting for. Unfair, it's unfair. Well, why did
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 3: you ask for this power? And then subsequently receive it.
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 3: I mean, you're dictating. Feminism is dictating international banking policy, madam, sir.
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 3: At that point, you can't hide. You got the power.
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 3: So you are responsible for the results. You wanted to
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 3: claim that heterosexuality was the site of female oppression, and
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 3: you are responsible for the subsequent symptoms of societal degradation
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 3: as you destroy the relationship, the foundational relationship that all
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 3: societies run on, which is between men and women.
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 7: She's just really.
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 3: All right. She wants to have this power. They want
• 1:26:01
  Speaker 3: to say we want to have this power to define
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 3: the relationship between men and women. And I know that
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 3: they want this power because they say how they define
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 3: the relationship between men and women.
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 7: Isn't just an opinion.
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 3: It's truth, don't you know?
• 1:26:16
  Speaker 6: Yep.
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 3: And everybody else is living a lie. And then they
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 3: have claimed all these institutions to promote that truth that
• 1:26:25
  Speaker 3: they say... is the relationship between men and women. And
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 3: then she turns around and says, oh, is there a
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 3: problem in the relationship between men and women? Can't possibly
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 3: be in how we defined it from every pulpit we
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 3: could freaking claim. Here's the other thing. Certainly women can't
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 3: take equal responsibility because feminism will never take responsibility for
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 3: the fact it asked for this power and this power resulted.
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 3: The use of this power is that's their fault.
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 3: And how the consequences of the way they use this
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 3: power is that's their fault. Okay.
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 2: I got a super chat from Albatross for five and
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 2: he says, These last couple of episodes have been really good.
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 2: All your shows are good, but y'all have been on
• 1:27:19
  Speaker 2: fire lately. Thank you, Albatross. All right, back to it.
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 10: Yes, and declining happiness are treated as the predictable cost
• 1:27:27
  Speaker 10: of women's freedom. That explanation is far too simple. The
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 10: same period contained enormous economic and technological upheaval. Industrialization alone
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 10: altered the household entirely.
• 1:27:41
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but.
• 1:27:41
  Speaker 5: Urbanization... But.
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 3: Industrialization, even the second industrial revolution was pretty much over
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 3: before the feminists got their claws into how men and
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 3: women are defined. Yes, there was enormous upheaval, but that's
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 3: upheaval past the 70s, also feminism responsibility. Because the big
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 3: upheaval was to go from an economy that was based
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 3: on producing things and custodial responsibility to the customer and
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 3: the product and being disciplined by the free market to
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 3: a fiat economy in which everything is denominated in debt.
• 1:28:20
  Speaker 3: And that is actually, you can actually lay that at
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 3: the feet of feminists. And I can show you every
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 3: single step of how feminists are also responsible for the
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 3: falsification of our economy. But that is one hell, like
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 3: that's a book, guys, and I am working on it.
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 3: And if you want to watch, you know, if you
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 3: want to read more on that, you can go to badgernation.online.
• 1:28:43
  Speaker 3: The link's in the low bar, too. But, okay. You
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 3: haven't said anything, and I'm really sorry, Brian.
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 1: Well, no, it's okay, Allison.
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 2: I'll speak when I have something to say, but I
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: think that you've got it covered. I told you when
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 2: I started this section you were going to be pausing
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 2: a lot and saying a lot to this so i've
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 2: already watched.
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 10: This video weakened older community structures contraception changed family planning
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 10: planning housing became more expensive and the economy shifted away
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 10: from manufacturing while globalization and secularization changed the character of
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 10: public face Feminism participated in the modern transformation, but it
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 10: did not independently cause everything that follows it.
• 1:29:25
  Speaker 1: Oh, really?
• 1:29:25
  Speaker 10: The fact that two developments occurred at the same time
• 1:29:29
  Speaker 10: does not establish.
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 3: That one produced the other.
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 2: What?
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 3: Oh, yes, but it did. Oh, she's saying, she's acknowledging
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 3: that two developments happened at the same time. Feminism and the.
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 3: The fictionalization of the economy. I'm gonna call it that.
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 3: It's the fictionalization of the economy. Sorry, value producers or
• 1:29:50
  Speaker 3: value creators. What you've created is actually fictionalization, right? You've
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 3: created a fiction. You've spoofed the economy. And yes, there
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 3: is a tie because when you start saying that men's
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 3: custodial responsibilities are the devil, they lose their power to
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 3: discipline the men's actions generally. And it's, I mean, it's
• 1:30:21
  Speaker 3: not that most men are engaging in this. It's that
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 3: you free the sociopaths when you say, oh, men taking
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 3: custodial responsibility for something is of the devil. It's oppressing women.
• 1:30:36
  Speaker 3: And then what do you do? You empower the sociopaths
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 3: who are like, oh, So me marrying her is.
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 7: Actually oppressing her.
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 8: Wow.
• 1:30:47
  Speaker 3: Cue churning harems of hundreds of women, right? But not
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 3: just that. I mean, that's fair. It's an equal exchange.
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 3: Those women ponied up for it. But also churning economies
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 3: of symbols that are just based on how much a
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 3: man can shuck and jive and push things off into
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 3: the future to gain now. That's what you get, ladies.
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 3: You are responsible for essentially making men's custodial instincts completely unsayable,
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 3: completely unacceptable, completely invisible, and completely stigmatized.
• 1:31:31
  Speaker 7: Well, then you get a society.
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 3: that isn't based on men's custodial instincts. It isn't based
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 3: on men building capital to provide goods and services for
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 3: a market and accepting the discipline of that market should
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 3: they fail to do so. No, now it's based on
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 3: men think that their primary worth is their position and
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 3: they'll do anything to get it. And that's not all men,
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 3: but it's the men on the top. That's what you created, feminism.
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 7: You did that. And now we all.
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 3: Get to labor in a world where there are 100
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 3: Xerox copies of the thing for every one copy of
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 3: the one actual thing, which means everything is inflated in price.
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 3: Everything is rent seeking. Everything is position. Nothing actually exists.
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 3: And that can't last because it's a gigantic society-wide Ponzi scheme.
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 3: And you created it by changing how the world was structured,
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 3: how the game was played. It used to be played,
• 1:32:38
  Speaker 3: you make something, you make a service, you sell it, right?
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 3: You add to the economy and it adds to the
• 1:32:45
  Speaker 3: GDP because you put something into the buffet of consumer choices.
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 7: Now....
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 3: Men make money by Xeroxing copies of things and basically
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 3: signaling worth rather than having it. Having a gigantic hat
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 3: but no cattle. That's what you created when you severed
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 3: men in general or you severed the worth of men
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 3: from their custodial instincts to their position. Relative to other men.
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 3: That's what you created feminists.
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 7: And you did it because I have looked.
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 3: Through history and I don't see any other group of people,
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 3: any other cult or ideology or religion that.
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 7: Specifically said men who take.
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 3: Responsibility for women are oppressing them. Well, what do you
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 3: think happens when you do that? You get generations of
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 3: men who take responsibility for nothing because that's what they're
• 1:33:48
  Speaker 3: incentivized to do. If they want to get a wife,
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 3: they have to get a position in the positional economy.
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 3: They don't produce things anymore. They have to start trading
• 1:33:58
  Speaker 3: Xerox copies of things.
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 3: I feel like I'm just... Maybe people don't understand what
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 3: I'm saying, so I'll just shut up.
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 7: Just, okay.
• 1:34:10
  Speaker 3: Brass tacks. Feminism is responsible for it. I can prove it.
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go. All right.
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 10: We should consider the societies people most consistently choose to
• 1:34:20
  Speaker 10: live in. The world's most prosperous, desirable nations generally possess
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 10: strong legal institutions, broad access to education.
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 5: Political liberty, and substantial equality between men and women.
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 10: It would be foolish to claim that feminism alone created
• 1:34:34
  Speaker 10: their prosperity.
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 3: This is the cart before the horse. So basically what
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 3: you're saying is that financial colonialism enables feminism. Okay, all right.
• 1:34:49
  Speaker 3: Is that a good thing? These economies can afford you.
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 3: And they can afford you in part because, well, let's
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 3: just use the U.S. as an example. I'm not singling
• 1:34:59
  Speaker 3: it out. You guys have a lot of statistics, and
• 1:35:03
  Speaker 3: you're a big economy. The U.S. consumes 20% while having
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 3: something like 3% of the world population.
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 3: Of course the U.S. can afford feminism.
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 7: It's as simple as that.
• 1:35:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:35:20
  Speaker 3: Like....
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 1: Well, it relies on subsidization, but okay, let's keep going.
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 10: Would be equally foolish to regard the relationship as meaningless.
• 1:35:30
  Speaker 10: The nations most committed to human development tend to extend
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 10: freedom and opportunity to women because both.
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 5: Oh, so this coincidence... We're going to, uh.
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 3: You notice this? The coincidence that all of this crap
• 1:35:40
  Speaker 3: is happening at the same time as feminism, like feminism
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 3: gains prominence and then suddenly CEO compensation goes from like
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 3: 20 times the average worker to like 300 to 600 times.
• 1:35:54
  Speaker 3: That's just a coincidence. But the fact that feminism crops
• 1:35:59
  Speaker 3: up in rich nations means that feminism makes nations rich.
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 3: You know, Brian, did you know that? that yachts tend
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 3: up to crop up with rich families. Therefore yachts make
• 1:36:12
  Speaker 3: families rich. She's denying a causal relationship that can definitely
• 1:36:19
  Speaker 3: be established. Feminism definitely changed how men see themselves and
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 3: it prides itself on that. It definitely created a situation
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 3: where men's custodial instincts are seen as, are stigmatized as oppressive.
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 3: It definitely created that. which may have something to do
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 3: with the economy that switched from building and making things
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 3: to an economy that's based on pretending to do stuff.
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 3: It might have something to do with an economy based
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 3: on debt rather than production. But that's not acceptable. No,
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 3: we can't make that association. But we can make an
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 3: association between feminism and wealth. Because, you know, rich families
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 3: buy yachts or have yachts, therefore yachts make money. Family's rich.
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 3: Very selective, friend. Very selective.
• 1:37:12
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:37:12
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 10: Arise from the same conviction. Human potential should be cultivated
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 10: rather than needlessly suppressed.
• 1:37:22
  Speaker 2: Again, that's bullshit because she's basically saying if a woman
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 2: becomes a mother, because I think this is what she's
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 2: trying to frame it as, then that means that their
• 1:37:35
  Speaker 2: human potential is being suppressed when it's just biology. I mean, like, unfortunately,
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 2: women are the only ones that can have babies, you know,
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 2: so we kind of need them to have those babies.
• 1:37:48
  Speaker 2: And she's like, but you're limiting their potential. Not everyone
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 2: is meant for greatness. And no one is saying that
• 1:37:55
  Speaker 2: women can't try.
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 1: But anyway.
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 10: This is part of the triumphant nature of the human spirit.
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 10: People want to learn and contribute. They want to build
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 10: meaningful lives that they and their loved ones can live in.
• 1:38:11
  Speaker 10: Society flourishes when it gives that spirit room to breathe.
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 3: Meaningful lives don't insure children?
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, again, she's trying to do this appeal to.
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 3: What did she say about femininity? Like, okay, giving birth
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 3: to children is pretty feminine, I would say, I think.
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 8: Mm-hmm.
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 3: And engaging in the early child care needs that women
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 3: can only like lactation etc seems to be a very
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 3: if not feminine but very female thing why is it
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 3: that you're saying that that's not empowerment and fulfillment is
• 1:38:49
  Speaker 3: empowerment and fulfillment only comes from working in the economy
• 1:38:54
  Speaker 3: and doing men's jobs. I think this is, I think
• 1:38:57
  Speaker 3: this literally comes from their own, their own, they're up
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 3: in their own ass, basically feminists, because they insist that
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 3: men oppress women by taking custodial responsibility for them. Therefore,
• 1:39:13
  Speaker 3: if women take custodial responsibility for themselves, they are no
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 3: longer oppressed by men. and are free. But that is
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 3: on its face, like been taking custodial responsibility for women
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 3: was never oppression. That's never what it was. So everything
• 1:39:37
  Speaker 3: that comes out of her mouth about how she's freeing
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 3: women and making them empowered is based on something that
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 3: doesn't make sense, which maybe is why feminism makes women miserable.
• 1:39:49
  Speaker 3: And then again, why would being a mother and taking
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 3: care of children not be itself fulfillment and empowerment? Is
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 3: this something we can ask? Especially from people who say
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 3: that they want femininity to be honored or respected.
• 1:40:12
  Speaker 8: Yeah.
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 3: You consider it to be... Women doing the most female
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 3: things they're capable of to be oppression. Like you consider
• 1:40:22
  Speaker 3: it to be the most degraded thing to do. You
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 3: want to honor femininity, but if women actually do it,
• 1:40:29
  Speaker 3: they're degrading themselves. I don't know. It just seems a
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 3: little bit up its own ass.
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 3: I mean, we're watching a woman who's crawling up her
• 1:40:43
  Speaker 3: own rectum right now. I can see why Rachel Wilson
• 1:40:50
  Speaker 3: is sort of glazed. She's like, I'm disassociating. Okay. Continue
• 1:40:56
  Speaker 3: to crawl up your own rectum, Kyla.
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 10: Nations do not become great by permanently limiting half of
• 1:41:00
  Speaker 10: their population. They become great by allowing talent and moral
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 10: agency to serve the common good.
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 7: Wherever they are found.
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's why we need DEI.
• 1:41:07
  Speaker 10: Feminism, therefore, belongs with the broader American tradition of civil
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 10: rights and equal protection. It reflects the belief that inherited
• 1:41:14
  Speaker 10: hierarchy alone cannot justify domination. Choice matters because virtue requires agency.
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 3: Inherited hierarchy. What does that mean?
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 1: No idea.
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 2: Let's hear it again real quick. I'll go back a
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 2: teeny bit.
• 1:41:29
  Speaker 3: I'm guessing that you have to depart in a bit.
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 1: In 15 minutes or so, yeah. Okay, let's listen to
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 1: this again.
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 3: Oh, God, my head.
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 10: A society flourishes when it gives that spirit room to breathe.
• 1:41:43
  Speaker 10: Great nations do not become great by permanently limiting half
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 10: of their population.
• 1:41:47
  Speaker 2: Again, no one's talking about limiting anybody permanently.
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 1: But okay.
• 1:41:52
  Speaker 10: They become great by allowing talent and moral agency to
• 1:41:55
  Speaker 10: serve the common good wherever they are found. Feminism, therefore,
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 10: belongs with the broader American tradition of civil rights and
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 10: equal protection.
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 3: That's a really interesting thing in hindsight, considering the Lindsay
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 3: Clancy trial. Moral agency. What women, particularly feminists... seem to
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 3: be running from like Indiana Jones ran from a fricking boulder. Right.
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 3: That's a, that's an interesting statement there. Lady moral agency.
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 3: I'm not seeing a lot of it. I'm not seeing
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 3: a lot of it among women. I mean, I guess
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 3: there are some women who are absolutely appalled by the
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 3: support for Lindsay Clancy.
• 1:42:38
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:42:38
  Speaker 3: Yeah. It's a, Yeah, they're showing moral agency. Specifically, if
• 1:42:44
  Speaker 3: they also look at this and say, we need to
• 1:42:46
  Speaker 3: stop this somehow. If women are able to pervert justice
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 3: like this, this can't continue. Somehow they need to be stopped.
• 1:42:55
  Speaker 3: Somehow we need to be able to control this behavior.
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 3: That is definitely taking moral agency. That's something that I
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 3: came to when I watched all of this. But yeah,
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 3: I'm not seeing a lot of, what is moral agency
• 1:43:07
  Speaker 3: when you can excuse everything using patriarchy, which is based
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 3: on a feeling? Like, I have a feeling of resentment.
• 1:43:15
  Speaker 3: And that's all the proof I need, that there's a
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 3: conspiracy for men to keep us down. And then we
• 1:43:20
  Speaker 3: can use that conspiracy to dominate everything and excuse our
• 1:43:27
  Speaker 3: lack of moral agency. You know, I'll believe you when
• 1:43:30
  Speaker 3: you're talking about women taking responsibility and moral agency when
• 1:43:34
  Speaker 3: they let go. Of a conspiracy feeling, or yeah, it's
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 3: not even conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy feeling. That was accidental,
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 3: but it's 100% true. When they let go of their
• 1:43:44
  Speaker 3: conspiracy feeling patriarchy. The get out of jail free card. Okay.
• 1:43:52
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:43:53
  Speaker 2: I got a super chow from Gary Thomas for $ 5.
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Gary. And he says, this reminds me of
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 2: a show from FX a few years ago. that had
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 2: prominent actresses playing notable figures in the woman's liberation movement.
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 2: Cate Blanchett played Phyllis Schlafly, who stood against feminism from
• 1:44:14
  Speaker 2: a conservative, traditionalist, but still gynocentric worldview. The show treats
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 2: her as evil, backwards, and misguided. But you have to
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 2: ignore that everything she said would happen did happen, and
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 2: just pay attention to the sinister background music that plays
• 1:44:28
  Speaker 2: every time she gives a speech.
• 1:44:30
  Speaker 1: She was the only.
• 1:44:30
  Speaker 2: Conservative historical character of note and the rest were people
• 1:44:33
  Speaker 2: like Gloria Steinem and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
• 1:44:36
  Speaker 1: All right, thank you.
• 1:44:37
  Speaker 2: I know the show because I used a clip from
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 2: it in a video I made about Gloria Steinem because
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 2: they treated her like some kind of unicorn that was
• 1:44:46
  Speaker 2: found in a glade somewhere. So magical, so powerful. But yes,
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 2: I am aware of that show. I just never watched it. Okay.
• 1:44:55
  Speaker 3: I wonder, Gary Thomas, did they ever cover the, The
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 3: Red Stockings Manifesto or the work of Firestone? Or, yeah,
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 3: it's Firestone.
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 1: Shulamith Flyerstone.
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: I never watched the show. So, yeah.
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 3: Well, he knows, so I'm asking.
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 1: Oh, I know, I know, I know. I'm just passing
• 1:45:14
  Speaker 1: the line along. Dark T.
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 2: Mora gives us $ 10 and says, Sorry about my walls
• 1:45:19
  Speaker 2: of text, Allison. I don't think it bodes well that
• 1:45:22
  Speaker 2: the only badger who hasn't called me incoherent is the
• 1:45:26
  Speaker 2: one who is trained in communicating with special needs children.
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: All right, thank you for that.
• 1:45:32
  Speaker 3: Yeah, just try to put your statements into a single
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 3: sentence so I don't forget what you're saying at the
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 3: beginning by the time Brian gets to the end. Then
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 3: maybe we can have more of a conversation and I
• 1:45:45
  Speaker 3: can actually understand what you're saying. It's a little, you know,
• 1:45:49
  Speaker 3: just be nice to my tired brain. I'm dealing with
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 3: this woman.
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 8: Mm-hmm.
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 3: My overloaded brain.
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 2: I mean, sometimes you need to use a lot of
• 1:45:59
  Speaker 2: words to make your point, but try to just make
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 2: one point about that.
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 1: That's what I would ask.
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 2: Because I think people, they start going into, and I
• 1:46:08
  Speaker 2: do this, they go down mental rabbit holes and they
• 1:46:10
  Speaker 2: start going on tangents because they want to talk about
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 2: something related to the thing that they brought up instead
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 2: of just.
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 1: Saying the thing.
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 3: Have I done anything but go on tangents?
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that's what this show is now, so... Yeah,
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 1: go ahead.
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 3: Now. No, I mean, I think that my tangents ultimately
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 3: land back on the point.
• 1:46:31
  Speaker 1: Sure.
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 3: Maybe they're more like loops?
• 1:46:36
  Speaker 1: Side quests.
• 1:46:38
  Speaker 3: Side quests?
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 1: That are supportive of the main quest.
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 9: Yes.
• 1:46:43
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:46:44
  Speaker 6: All right.
• 1:46:45
  Speaker 10: It reflects the belief that inherited hierarchy alone cannot justify domination.
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 10: Choice matters because virtue requires agency. The ability to act otherwise.
• 1:46:57
  Speaker 10: Obedience may reflect goodness, but.
• 1:47:00
  Speaker 3: It may also just reflect powerlessness.
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 1: What?
• 1:47:07
  Speaker 2: What?
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 3: Well, it always reflects powerlessness. Well, look at the Lindsay
• 1:47:12
  Speaker 3: Clancy case. Everything but her is being blamed. Like, feminism
• 1:47:17
  Speaker 3: does nothing if not render women powerless.
• 1:47:19
  Speaker 1: Wait, wait, wait. Let's hear her again so we have
• 1:47:21
  Speaker 1: the correct context.
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 10: Feminism, therefore, belongs with the broader American tradition of civil
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 10: rights and equal protection. It reflects the belief that inherited
• 1:47:30
  Speaker 10: hierarchy alone cannot justify domination. Choice matters because virtue requires agency.
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 3: They realized that they could make money off of the
• 1:47:41
  Speaker 3: civil rights movement. And they have this audacity to say
• 1:47:47
  Speaker 3: in the same breath, feminism in the civil rights movement.
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 3: All right. Black people aren't in a custodial relationship with
• 1:47:55
  Speaker 3: white people generally. Well, they are now in a way. But,
• 1:47:59
  Speaker 3: you know, for most of most of the American history,
• 1:48:02
  Speaker 3: that wasn't the case. Not most, but like a good
• 1:48:04
  Speaker 3: portion of it. We can't say that black people were
• 1:48:07
  Speaker 3: in a custodial relationship with white people. It's not fair
• 1:48:11
  Speaker 3: to say that.
• 1:48:12
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 1:48:12
  Speaker 3: Women have always been in a custodial relationship with men.
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 3: Men have always had a sense of responsibility to protect
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 3: and providing for them. Hell, I'll go back to the
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 3: Old Testament. Even women taken in battle, so slave women,
• 1:48:28
  Speaker 3: were obligated. They had in law the expectation that their
• 1:48:32
  Speaker 3: masters would take care of them. And if it didn't
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 3: work out, she would be free. Not exactly sure how.
• 1:48:40
  Speaker 3: how that works in practice, but we don't live in
• 1:48:43
  Speaker 3: biblical times, so I'm not gonna, but regardless, men had
• 1:48:47
  Speaker 3: the expectation of being custodial, of being in a custodial
• 1:48:52
  Speaker 3: relationship with women where they protected and provided for them.
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 3: That is categorically different than the relationship between classes, the
• 1:48:59
  Speaker 3: relationship between races, the relationship between religions, the relationships between
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 3: tribes and nationalities. And the fact is that she should
• 1:49:08
  Speaker 3: not Right here is another instance where she should absolutely
• 1:49:13
  Speaker 3: discredit herself by putting feminism in the same breath as
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 3: the civil rights movement. Because these two things are completely different.
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 3: And if you actually go back to Firestone and the
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 3: Red Stockings Manifesto, and you actually read it, it reads
• 1:49:33
  Speaker 3: like a bunch of wealthy, urban, liberal women well, actually,
• 1:49:40
  Speaker 3: what is it? Affluent, white, urban, liberal females. The Red
• 1:49:49
  Speaker 3: Stockings Manifesto, getting together and explaining to themselves why they
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 3: are not responsible for the excesses identified by the civil
• 1:50:00
  Speaker 3: rights movement. Despite the fact that white women were generally
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 3: the recipients of whatever resources or social thing was extracted
• 1:50:13
  Speaker 3: from segregation. And it was done because they said, men said,
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 3: we want to protect our women. We want to protect
• 1:50:23
  Speaker 3: white women. Why did Emmett Till get lynched? Because he
• 1:50:29
  Speaker 3: allegedly made a pass at a white woman. Okay? That
• 1:50:34
  Speaker 3: whole structure of that was to benefit white women. And
• 1:50:40
  Speaker 3: what did the Rad Femmes say?
• 1:50:42
  Speaker 8: Oh, no.
• 1:50:43
  Speaker 3: Actually, this is a result of our subjugation. White men
• 1:50:47
  Speaker 3: in the South taking custodial responsibility to protect us sexually,
• 1:50:51
  Speaker 3: that's actually us being subjugated as much as Emmett Till,
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 3: who was lynched. That's what they had the audacity to say.
• 1:50:59
  Speaker 3: And because men have such a powerful custodial relationship to women,
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 3: no men said, wait, stop. Hold up. I don't think
• 1:51:08
  Speaker 3: you're the victim of this. I think you are actually
• 1:51:12
  Speaker 3: the beneficiary of this. I think you're the beneficiaries of
• 1:51:15
  Speaker 3: a lot of class oppression, racial oppression. I think you
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 3: are the, you are, women are in fact the beneficiaries
• 1:51:23
  Speaker 3: of a lot of this, a lot of colonialism and
• 1:51:25
  Speaker 3: enslavement and war. You are in fact benefiting from it.
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 3: And there's several groups of people who are not. And
• 1:51:32
  Speaker 3: you could argue that the enforcers are one of them
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 3: because they have to do the enforcing at the cost
• 1:51:38
  Speaker 3: of their own lives. So, yeah, but that's what the
• 1:51:42
  Speaker 3: Fred Stockings Manifesto is one of the things in it.
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 7: Don't blame us for racism, yo. We're innocent. We were oppressed, too.
• 1:51:52
  Speaker 7: By the way, give us.
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 3: Your oppression points. We can get money for it. That's
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 3: what intersectionality is. That everything is subordinate to sexism, therefore
• 1:52:02
  Speaker 3: white women get it all. White women sweep the table.
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 3: They have to do a little bit of obsequiousness. But
• 1:52:09
  Speaker 3: at the end of the day, it all translates up
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 3: to them because racism, guess what's worse than racism? Sexism.
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 3: Guess what's worse than, well, transphobia is where it sort
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 3: of starts eating itself. But guess what's worse than homophobia? Sexism.
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 3: Guess what's worse than classism? Sexism. Guess what's worse than
• 1:52:30
  Speaker 3: all of Marxist class and now sexism? Everything lands on sexism,
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 3: which means white women always sweep the table. They get
• 1:52:40
  Speaker 3: it all in the end. And I know that's, I mean,
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 3: I know that'll probably piss a lot of people off,
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 3: but that's what I'm seeing. And in order to sweep
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 3: the table, they have to submit to a whole bunch
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 3: of bullshit.
• 1:52:56
  Speaker 7: But at the end of the day, they're the ones.
• 1:52:58
  Speaker 3: That are benefiting. And the Firestone and the Red Stockings
• 1:53:03
  Speaker 3: Manifesto was laying that out. So again, saying the civil
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 3: rights movement in the same breath as feminism, no, nobody
• 1:53:13
  Speaker 3: should be allowing her to do that.
• 1:53:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:53:18
  Speaker 3: And even as she does it, She is appropriating. Again,
• 1:53:23
  Speaker 3: intersectionality is everything is sexism. That's what intersectionality is. Everything
• 1:53:28
  Speaker 3: is subordinate to sexism. So anything that black women face, well,
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 3: white women also face, but also more so because it's
• 1:53:37
  Speaker 3: pure sexism. It's the purest of sexism. Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:53:47
  Speaker 3: Appropriating soul and valor is what I'm getting at.
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 5: The ability to act otherwise.
• 1:53:53
  Speaker 10: Obedience may reflect goodness, but it may also just reflect powerlessness.
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 5: We cannot know.
• 1:53:59
  Speaker 3: Which one it is. Again, that's what I was talking about.
• 1:54:02
  Speaker 1: Yes, yes.
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 3: When a woman does something bad, is there anything that
• 1:54:09
  Speaker 3: feminism won't say she's a victim of? I mean, look
• 1:54:14
  Speaker 3: at the Lindsay Clancy case. What is she a victim of? Patrick, somehow,
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 3: who failed her? despite doing everything he possibly could. The
• 1:54:23
  Speaker 3: medical system, because they didn't diagnose her with psychosis before
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 3: she did it, even though she never told them.
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 1:54:30
  Speaker 3: And then the pharmacy, because she had so many prescriptions
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 3: for things she didn't take.
• 1:54:37
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 3: I don't know, the lone holdout juror who said, no,
• 1:54:41
  Speaker 3: this woman is guilty. She, that failed her. Right?
• 1:54:48
  Speaker 7: Feminism, When a woman.
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 9: Is bad, feminism is right on her, like white on rice,
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 9: to try to excuse her behavior, push her behavior onto
• 1:55:00
  Speaker 9: something else.
• 1:55:01
  Speaker 3: Oh, why did that woman, you know, murder her husband?
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 3: Because he made her do it. He burnt the toast.
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 3: Don't you know?
• 1:55:13
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 7: Like, that's feminism.
• 1:55:15
  Speaker 3: If there's one thing that feminism does, and it does
• 1:55:18
  Speaker 3: a lot of things, so it actually does more than
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 3: one thing, but this is one that's particularly aggravating, is
• 1:55:24
  Speaker 3: it excuses women's evil constantly. And it excuses it by
• 1:55:30
  Speaker 3: making them helpless. And it doesn't even just excuse their evil, right?
• 1:55:35
  Speaker 3: It excuses everything. Oh, why do women feel pressure to
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 3: be beautiful? Because patriarchy has constructed a beauty ideal. Why
• 1:55:46
  Speaker 3: do women choose rich men? Because patriarchy gets into their
• 1:55:49
  Speaker 3: brains and makes them want yachts. Why do women do anything?
• 1:55:57
  Speaker 7: Because they don't have brains.
• 1:55:59
  Speaker 3: They just have a receiver that receives orders from patriarchy.
• 1:56:04
  Speaker 7: This is feminism.
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 3: I don't even think that female agency exists anywhere in feminism. Okay.
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 7: Damn you.
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 3: You. How much more is there of this woman's statement?
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think we're getting close to the end here. Yeah,
• 1:56:25
  Speaker 2: I think we're getting close to the end of her
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 2: opening statement. So we can finish them and then we'll
• 1:56:30
  Speaker 2: wrap it up and pick this up next time.
• 1:56:32
  Speaker 3: I'm surprised that people didn't need a bucket to puke in.
• 1:56:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, a lot of these people don't know.
• 1:56:37
  Speaker 3: Maybe it's just my migraine talking.
• 1:56:39
  Speaker 1: They don't know what you know.
• 1:56:40
  Speaker 10: Feminism I am defending tonight is not the claim that
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 10: every difference between men and women is discrimination. It is
• 1:56:46
  Speaker 10: the claim that women should be empowered and that femininity
• 1:56:49
  Speaker 10: itself should not be treated as inferior and that being
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 10: female should not disqualify someone from full participation in society.
• 1:56:57
  Speaker 10: That principle has corrected real injustices. It has made women
• 1:57:00
  Speaker 10: less vulnerable to abuse. I'll jump ahead. I actually want
• 1:57:06
  Speaker 10: to extend, Rachel, an invitation. I'm curious if you're open
• 1:57:09
  Speaker 10: to this, and you can say no. I think you're
• 1:57:11
  Speaker 10: one of the strongest anti-feminist debaters that is working today.
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 1: What?
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 3: Shoulder wiggle. No, just that shoulder wiggle she does.
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 1: Oh, the shoulder wiggle. Yeah. It's like, it's how she, well, anyway,
• 1:57:24
  Speaker 1: it's all her performance.
• 1:57:25
  Speaker 3: Why? I know, but it's also very childish.
• 1:57:29
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, yes.
• 1:57:31
  Speaker 3: I've spent months or years now watching noir and women
• 1:57:35
  Speaker 3: in those movies would not do that because it's a
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 3: childish behavior and they had some dignity. Like, why does
• 1:57:43
  Speaker 3: she act like a child? You know why? Because her
• 1:57:47
  Speaker 3: entire movement is about appealing to men's custodial instincts. That's
• 1:57:52
  Speaker 3: what it comes down to. That's it. They cloak themselves
• 1:57:57
  Speaker 3: in it. They act like children. They look like Byron Eclair.
• 1:58:03
  Speaker 1: Yes, yes, they do.
• 1:58:06
  Speaker 3: Because they're more reliant on men than any group. of
• 1:58:10
  Speaker 3: women in human history. Because they're not just reliant on
• 1:58:13
  Speaker 3: men's labor. They're reliant on men's complicity. Because otherwise their
• 1:58:18
  Speaker 3: entire identity would crumble. If men actually said, hold up, no,
• 1:58:23
  Speaker 3: you can't source things on your emotions. And no, we're
• 1:58:27
  Speaker 3: not actually oppressing you. Then they'd have to take responsibility
• 1:58:31
  Speaker 3: for stuff. And they never have in their life. That's
• 1:58:35
  Speaker 3: why she continues to move like a child when she's
• 1:58:40
  Speaker 3: in her mid-30s. Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 10: I think I'm also probably one of the strongest defenders
• 1:58:47
  Speaker 10: of feminism.
• 1:58:48
  Speaker 5: I hope you would grant me the same thing. We're
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 5: both intelligent women.
• 1:58:50
  Speaker 7: Who have considered and examined many of the.
• 1:58:52
  Speaker 5: Same questions, and we've reached radically different conclusions.
• 1:58:56
  Speaker 3: Rachel, you're part of the sisterhood here. I'm extending you
• 1:58:59
  Speaker 3: the sisterhood. Here, have a membership in the sisterhood. Let's
• 1:59:03
  Speaker 3: flatter each other. Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:59:06
  Speaker 5: To understand why.
• 1:59:08
  Speaker 10: I do not want this to become only a contest
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 10: of statistics and whatnot.
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 3: You don't care about what?
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 5: I don't want to get rid of the debate.
• 1:59:13
  Speaker 10: However, I'd like to approach the conversation in a feminine way.
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 10: We're at time.
• 1:59:19
  Speaker 1: Sure.
• 1:59:20
  Speaker 4: Well, if you want, I can give.
• 1:59:21
  Speaker 1: You a little sentence.
• 1:59:22
  Speaker 3: Oh, a feminine way. I guess that's a superior way.
• 1:59:24
  Speaker 4: Rachel says yes.
• 1:59:25
  Speaker 1: Go ahead.
• 1:59:26
  Speaker 10: By that, I would like to approach it in a
• 1:59:28
  Speaker 10: feminine way. And by that, I don't mean that I
• 1:59:29
  Speaker 10: want Rachel and I to sit here and paint our
• 1:59:31
  Speaker 10: nails and talk about our feelings.
• 1:59:32
  Speaker 5: Don't worry, okay? You'll get your show, okay?
• 1:59:35
  Speaker 10: However, I mean treating the feelings beneath, the femininity, the
• 1:59:38
  Speaker 10: things that drive us beneath as meaningful evidence for what
• 1:59:41
  Speaker 10: we're trying to protect. Because Rachel, you and I both
• 1:59:44
  Speaker 10: want women to flourish. We genuinely do. And that to
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 10: me seems like the proper place to begin.
• 1:59:50
  Speaker 3: I wish she would debate me because I would say, no,
• 1:59:52
  Speaker 3: I don't want women to flourish.
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 1: Well... Because she doesn't know who you are, Allison.
• 1:59:59
  Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I mean, we're on too many alphabet lists
• 2:00:03
  Speaker 3: for us to, I mean, honestly, like, Brian, we just,
• 2:00:07
  Speaker 3: I think that we say things that people can't handle. Like, honestly, like,
• 2:00:13
  Speaker 3: nothing is going to get done until we are allowed
• 2:00:15
  Speaker 3: to blame women and value men. Value how men approach
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 3: the world and say that, that men approach the world
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 3: in a unique way. That is important to make sure
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 3: that we have an economy that's disciplined and actually produces something. Right.
• 2:00:31
  Speaker 3: Nobody wants to hear that. Oh, very few people do.
• 2:00:35
  Speaker 3: And they don't want to hear that there's no political
• 2:00:37
  Speaker 3: position or ideology that's mainstream that's going to fix this.
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 3: It just has to come from fixing the problem. The
• 2:00:44
  Speaker 3: problem is, feminists said, the relationship between men and women,
• 2:00:48
  Speaker 3: the custodial instinct, it's not just the relationship between men
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 3: and women is the site of female oppression. Because they
• 2:00:54
  Speaker 3: couldn't derive it materially, the Marxist feminists took the rad
• 2:00:59
  Speaker 3: femme formulation attempted to use the Marxist dialectic to derive
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 3: the material benefit that men get. Therefore, according to Marxism's conjecture,
• 2:01:08
  Speaker 3: that's the oppressor because you follow the benefit. They couldn't
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 3: find it because men don't get a material benefit from
• 2:01:14
  Speaker 3: their custodial relationships with women. The point is the material
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 3: benefit flows to women. And they said, well, we can't
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 3: find it. So they created this Incredible conjecture that men
• 2:01:28
  Speaker 3: are inducing this dependency in women in order to gain
• 2:01:34
  Speaker 3: man points. Thus, they're oppressing women. They're taking away women's
• 2:01:38
  Speaker 3: own independence to create dependency to get man points from
• 2:01:43
  Speaker 3: feeding it. with their sacrifice. This is insane. And yet
• 2:01:50
  Speaker 3: it was proposed and accepted. And when you do that,
• 2:01:54
  Speaker 3: you're basically saying a man taking responsibility for something is
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 3: oppressing it. What do you think happens when you apply
• 2:02:02
  Speaker 3: that to an economy that's based on men building stuff
• 2:02:08
  Speaker 3: for people and being responsible for whether or not those
• 2:02:12
  Speaker 3: people like it? What do you think happens to the
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 3: economy when you gut its principal virtues, which is men
• 2:02:24
  Speaker 3: take responsibility for the customer, for serving the customer, for
• 2:02:30
  Speaker 3: this external standard of serving the customer through products and
• 2:02:33
  Speaker 3: services the customer wants and is disciplined. If they don't
• 2:02:37
  Speaker 3: want it, then your business dies and you lose status
• 2:02:40
  Speaker 3: and you lose your income. What do you think happens
• 2:02:43
  Speaker 3: when you take that, the principal virtue that underlies that out?
• 2:02:48
  Speaker 3: That's what feminists did. With their formulation, which was basically
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 3: trying to explain a feeling. Like right now, right here.
• 2:02:58
  Speaker 6: No.
• 2:03:01
  Speaker 7: No, lady.
• 2:03:02
  Speaker 3: Women's feelings are not important. We've had too much of them.
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 3: We've had too much of rule by women's feelings. We've
• 2:03:11
  Speaker 3: had too much emotionarchy. Now your feelings can shut up
• 2:03:16
  Speaker 3: and we'll look at facts. All right, let's see what Rachel,
• 2:03:21
  Speaker 3: I hope Rachel said that or something close to it.
• 2:03:25
  Speaker 1: Well, I don't know that she said anything. I think, well,
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 1: we'll see.
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 4: Thank you very much for that opening statement.
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 1: It's just the opening statements.
• 2:03:37
  Speaker 4: With that, we'll jump into the open dialogue. We'll let
• 2:03:40
  Speaker 4: this be as organic as you guys would like.
• 2:03:44
  Speaker 1: I think we should stop it here because it's three.
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 1: And maybe do.
• 2:03:48
  Speaker 3: This next time.
• 2:03:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's past three.
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 3: Does she address it at all?
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 1: I think we should save that for next time.
• 2:03:56
  Speaker 3: Okay, alright. Rachel's address next time. I'm actually really curious.
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 3: I really want to know. If she no-sales it, that's fine, too.
• 2:04:05
  Speaker 3: She's just like, yeah, that's irrelevant, bitch. That's fine.
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm not going to say anything. We'll
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 1: pick it up.
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 3: It gets good, though. We'll pick it up next time.
• 2:04:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 3: Excellent. All right. So, join us for the next installment
• 2:04:24
  Speaker 3: of Rachel's debate against this not-so-Ariadite. And we'll do an
• 2:04:29
  Speaker 3: analysis of what they say and what they don't say
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 3: and what not so erudite isn't taking responsibility for. And yeah,
• 2:04:38
  Speaker 3: so that'll be next week. And if you would like
• 2:04:41
  Speaker 3: to make a comment between now and that show, you
• 2:04:45
  Speaker 3: can do so at feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. I would be
• 2:04:47
  Speaker 3: very interested to see what you think of what I said.
• 2:04:50
  Speaker 3: I know I did a lot of side quests. Thank
• 2:04:53
  Speaker 3: you very much. That was very diplomatic of you to
• 2:04:55
  Speaker 3: call them side quests, Brian. And perhaps you have ideas
• 2:04:59
  Speaker 3: about those side quests. You can send them to feedthebadger.com
• 2:05:02
  Speaker 3: slash adjustthetip. Very best way for you to send us
• 2:05:04
  Speaker 3: a tip and a comment with that tip. And also,
• 2:05:09
  Speaker 3: if you would like to support the show, our support
• 2:05:12
  Speaker 3: fundraiser is live at feedthebadger.com. You just go to feedthebadger.com now, guys.
• 2:05:17
  Speaker 3: I got the form up there. And also, if you
• 2:05:20
  Speaker 3: want to join us in our community to follow along,
• 2:05:24
  Speaker 3: in my search for any proof ever, aside from feelings,
• 2:05:30
  Speaker 3: for the existence of the conspiracy feeling known as patriarchy
• 2:05:36
  Speaker 3: and feminist patriarchy theory, then you can do so at badgernation.online.
• 2:05:41
  Speaker 3: That's our community. We also do gaming events and other stuff.
• 2:05:46
  Speaker 3: If you want to subscribe, you can get access to
• 2:05:49
  Speaker 3: the Why Did You Write That podcast when it comes
• 2:05:52
  Speaker 3: out and also my new economics group that we were doing.
• 2:05:57
  Speaker 3: But anyway, that's badger nation.online. Link in the low bar,
• 2:06:01
  Speaker 3: link in the low bar for everything. So choose your poison.
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 3: Want to hear from you, et cetera. All right. Back
• 2:06:06
  Speaker 3: to you, Brian.
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:06:08
  Speaker 2: Well, if you guys liked this video, please hit like subscribe.
• 2:06:11
  Speaker 2: If you're not already subscribed, hit the bell for notifications.
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 1: Leave us a comment.
• 2:06:15
  Speaker 2: Let us know what you guys think of what we
• 2:06:16
  Speaker 2: talked about in the show today and share the video
• 2:06:18
  Speaker 2: because sharing is caring. Thanks so much for coming on
• 2:06:21
  Speaker 2: this episode of maintaining frame. And we will talk to
• 2:06:23
  Speaker 2: you guys in the next one. Have a good weekend, everybody.