Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Rachel Wilson vs NotSoErudite, Round Two — FIGHT!

Transcript

Rachel Wilson vs NotSoErudite, Round Two — FIGHT! · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you may be,
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. My name is Brian,
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: I'm here with Allison, and this is Maintaining Frame. Rachel
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Wilson versus not-so-erudite, not erudite, round two fight. Erudite. Or
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: just Kyla. You can just call her Kyla.
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: Kyla.
• 0:21
  Speaker 3: Kyla.
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: Sure. Yeah.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: All right, so just to get you guys all situated,
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: last round we went through a bunch of feminist boilerplate
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: and brochure reading. It was the opening arguments. Yeah, yeah,
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: it was not so erudite's opening argument where she availed
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: us all of... what feminism really is, don't actually look
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: at its actions and its facts and its policy decisions
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: and its academic output and its international banking influence. Just
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: look at the brochure. And she regaled us all of
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: the brochure of feminism, which is, of course, it's totally
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: about equality. Having never measured men's side, so how one
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: creates equality between a Quantity that you are constantly measuring
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: and a quantity that you just wave at. I don't know.
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: That's never answered. How you create equality without weighing both sides.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: But in the brochure, feminist brochure, they assure us that
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: they don't need to weigh men's side. They know what
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: equality is. They know what it is when they see it.
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: And if we think that they're not creating equality, then
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: it's something wrong with our eyes. Because they totally are.
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: And we need to believe them. And if we don't
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: believe them, then we are horrible people who deserve to
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: be erased from the earth. And that is not the
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: sign of an authoritarian ideology. In fact, the authoritarian ideology
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: that can brook no dissent and gets to define whatever
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: terms it's asserting, whatever ideals it purports to live up to,
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: it also gets to define. just like the authoritarian government
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: in 1984. Peace is war, freedom is slavery, and feminism
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: equality is actual equality. All right, so we were availed
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: of the brochure. I went through at length. If you
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: want to watch that one, I went through at length,
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: ad nauseum, to the absolute fine print, everything that she
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: asserted and proved it all to be completely false. The
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: brochure is a lie. In fact, a lie. Anyway, so
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: we're back at it again. We're going to be listening
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: to Rachel Wilson's rejoinder. Or not her rejoinder, but her
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: opening statements. No, no.
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: We've already heard both of their opening statements. They're going
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: into the open debate now. Okay. Sorry.
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: My apologies.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: No, yeah. Rachel went through them last show. We went
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: through both hers and Kyla's opening statements. Okay.
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: We're going to be going through Rachel's rejoinder to Kyla
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: reading the feminist brochure to us and assuring us that
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: feminism does all the good things and you are a
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: bad person for questioning it if you think that it doesn't.
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: So that's where we're at. If you want to send
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: a message at any time throughout the show, You can
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: do so at feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. It's the very best
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: way for you to send us a comment and a
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: tip with that comment because your comment does not go
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: through YouTube's comment thresher system. And whatever money you send,
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: we get the full benefit of because that also doesn't
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: get a big bite out of it through YouTube. So
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: once again, that's feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. And if you would
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: like to support the show, it is live. All you
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: have to do is go to Feed the Badger, because
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: I put the form up on the front page. So
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: that's just at Feed the Badger, if you want to
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: make sure that we can continue to talk about this stuff.
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: And go through the feminist brochure and audit it line
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: by line, which I don't think anybody is autistic enough
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: to do but me. So, well, no, I'm sure there's
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: somebody somewhere. I'm sure. But most people just sort of
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: specialize in some stupid aspect of it. But anyway, feedthebadger.com
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: slash support or just feedthebadger.com. And if you would like
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: to join us in our community and avail yourself of
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: the games that we play, etc., or watch my journey
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: into the desert of feminism in search of the mythical patriarchy,
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: you can do so at badgernation.online. That'll take us to
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: our Discord page. Or take you, well, it won't take
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: us to your Discord. It will take you to our Discord.
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: All right? All right, let's just get started.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: All right, here we go. We're going to get into
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: the back and forth portion of the debate. So hit
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: and play now.
• 4:55
  Speaker 4: Jump in if it gets really crazy.
• 4:58
  Speaker 5: Okay, so I'm actually very curious about your... your relationship
• 5:03
  Speaker 5: to feminism. Like what got you interested in feminism and
• 5:07
  Speaker 5: specifically concerns about feminism and its impacts on society? Like
• 5:11
  Speaker 5: what personally in your life or ideologically? Well, that was
• 5:15
  Speaker 5: a beautiful opening.
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: She's very concerned about Rachel's relationship to the party.
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: Yes. That's pretty much what it is. Yeah.
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: Why doesn't Rachel believe the brochure? She's read the feminist brochure.
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: Why is it a relationship? There's no relationship. I'm concerned
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: about your relationship to Christianity or the Republican Party or
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: Marxism or a relationship with an ideology. Why are you
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: turning feminism into a person?
• 5:54
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: I don't know. She immediately opens up with relational web. stuff, right?
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: What's your relationship with this?
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: I'm going to judge you based on your relationship to feminism, guys.
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: Very important. Oh, this is going to be like nails
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: on a chalkboard to me, isn't it?
• 6:12
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: Let's continue.
• 6:16
  Speaker 3: I appreciate all the sentiments they're in, but none of
• 6:20
  Speaker 3: this addresses the fact that we are about to fall
• 6:22
  Speaker 3: off a demographic cliff that will make all of these beautiful,
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: lofty sentiments mean absolutely nothing. Because as you addressed in
• 6:31
  Speaker 3: your opening, it's not a coincidence that feminism did not
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: exist until the industrial and technological revolutions. You need technology
• 6:40
  Speaker 3: and first world living standards to have this idea that
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: we can just push women into the workforce, everyone can
• 6:47
  Speaker 3: follow their dreams and do what their heart tells them
• 6:50
  Speaker 3: to do, and everybody should have choices and all that
• 6:53
  Speaker 3: sort of thing. But if we don't have enough men
• 6:55
  Speaker 3: to run this first world standard of living, we will
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: be like the only places in the world that are
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: still below replacement birth rates, which would be like Africa, Pakistan,
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: That's where we're going to be if we don't solve
• 7:11
  Speaker 3: the demographic problem.
• 7:12
  Speaker 5: So as much as I would love to.
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: Talk about how we feel and what got us into this,
• 7:16
  Speaker 3: I'm concerned by the fact that I like air conditioning.
• 7:19
  Speaker 5: I live in Texas. I like power. I like infrastructure.
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: And we won't have that if women don't start producing
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: the next generation of workers who can maintain the standard
• 7:31
  Speaker 3: that allows women to even think about whether they want
• 7:35
  Speaker 3: to have babies or become doctors.
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: I think that was her statement. I don't know if
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: you wanted to add anything to that or listen for
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: Kyla's reaction.
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: What's your relationship to feminism, Rachel? We need to ascertain that.
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: I'm just like, this is going to be interesting because
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: we're going to be watching a borderline and, no offense,
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: somebody who's probably a bit on the spectrum, have a
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: discussion about feminism. Now, Am I being rude? I don't know.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think that Rachel is a spurg,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: but I think she just had the free time to
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: do the research and did it. Maybe she's a bit
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: of a.
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: Let me put it a different way. Okay. We're going
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: to watch a woman who has more of an operational focus.
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: So she just said right now, she wants society to function, right? Yeah.
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: Talking about her relationship to feminism. She didn't even acknowledge that.
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: It was probably a good move. But she wants society
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: to function. So right off the bat, she's talking about
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: society as a machine that needs certain inputs to get
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: certain outputs.
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: She's not wrong.
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: And Kaila is immediately pulling it into the relational web modality.
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: What does that mean? So Women tend to operate or
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: attend to things based on their relationships to other things.
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: So when women process the world, they process it in
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: terms of developing a relational topography of what kind of
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: relationships people have with each other, access to resources, stuff
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: like that. So you think about it as a relational topography.
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: And right off the bat, I'm gonna, make a prediction,
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: that's going to be a problem. But you know, maybe,
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: maybe we'll get somewhere because Rachel seems to be no
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: selling that pretty hard. And no, I didn't mean like, um,
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: I didn't mean that in a bad way, but just
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: like the colloquial, a woman who's more interested in how
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: things function than how things relate.
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: No, I get it.
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: Um, yeah.
• 9:55
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: Let's continue.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: All right. I got a super chat from Dylan for
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: five and he says, as someone who lives in texas
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: i can assure you that air conditioning is a necessity
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: to life yeah i bet all right let's let's keep
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: going let's see what kyla says Okay.
• 10:08
  Speaker 5: Yeah, if you want to just do the boy's way,
• 10:10
  Speaker 5: we can just do the boy's way.
• 10:11
  Speaker 3: I don't think it's inherently male to have concerns about
• 10:15
  Speaker 3: the rational, real-world implications of what's happening.
• 10:19
  Speaker 5: It's a joke. Yeah, yeah, I don't. Okay, so let's
• 10:22
  Speaker 5: maybe get in.
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: No, it's not a joke, and you're both wrong. She's
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: absolutely 100% right. That is the female way of doing
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: things versus the male way of doing things, and nobody
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: should be ashamed of that.
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: I wonder if the fact that Rachel has multiple children
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: who are mostly grown adults at this point has some
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: impact on how she sees things. Like, you know, when
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: men have kids, they change, their hormones change. I wonder
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: if the same thing happens to women. Just thinking, I
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: don't know. Yeah, I don't know. It's something to think about.
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: My point that I'm making here is, yes, this is
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: female versus male cognition. And men do attend more to...
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: how the machine runs, the input it requires to function properly,
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: that kind of thing. So yeah, she's right. Rachel wants
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: to put it in the male way of thinking, and
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: it is the male way of thinking, and there should
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: be no shame in acknowledging that, that it is more masculine.
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: That that is what men attend to when you give
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: them a blank paper and say, hey, write anything you want.
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: What do men write about? How trains work. how somebody
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: wails in the Pacific right how to navigate a desert
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: what it was like fighting in Iwo Jima right this
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: kind of stuff what do women attend to does Darcy
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: like me in this dress.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: Magnets how do they work.
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: Well that's not kidding.
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry that was a polarizing joke Astrology.
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: The relationships between things, the relationships between people and the
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: relationships between planets. I'm going to come right out there.
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: This is what I've discovered from my analysis of literature,
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: which is people might say, oh, that's crazy, but literature
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: literally is. You give a man and you give a
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: woman a blank piece of paper, what do they attend
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: to when they can write anything they want? Men attend
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: to the operation of things. Women attend to the relationship
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: between people. I know this can be very controversial. And
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: Kyla wants that to be male so that she can
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: declare the female approach superior, which it isn't. I mean,
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: it is in some ways because for whatever reason, it's
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: designed for appropriating resources. possibly because women needed to do
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: that throughout our evolutionary history or they died. It does
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: have more dominance, it seems, over the operative mindset, which
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: is why Kyla gets away with being a chauvinist like this.
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: But it's not better. It's certainly not better when you're
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: talking about how something is going to keep running so
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: everybody stays alive. So Rachel, right off the bat, she's
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: putting it into this particular cognitive modality. Kyle is recognizing
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: it and saying, oh, so we're just going to do
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: the boy thing. She's not wrong, but she's wrong because
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: she's contemptuous.
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: But that's what's so infuriating because feminists will recognize that.
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: that men think differently. But then in the same breath,
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: they'll say inferiorly, like that way of thinking is inferior.
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: And if you do it, you shouldn't be heard from.
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: It's such a chauvinist position. But anyway, let's keep going.
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: All right, let's keep going.
• 14:01
  Speaker 5: To the starting point then for you. So at what point,
• 14:04
  Speaker 5: what's the period you think is most prolific for feminism
• 14:07
  Speaker 5: really changing the chic economy that you described? Is there
• 14:09
  Speaker 5: a window of time? Would be the 1970s. What happened
• 14:11
  Speaker 5: in the 1970s? I'm glad you asked. You're so welcome.
• 14:17
  Speaker 5: We're tag-teaming this, really. What happened in the 70s was
• 14:19
  Speaker 5: we had just been through.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I know. The smug oozes, but okay. So in
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: the 1970s.
• 14:28
  Speaker 3: Through the Vietnam War, which was very unpopular and extremely expensive,
• 14:33
  Speaker 3: and the U.S. Treasury needed more income tax coming in.
• 14:38
  Speaker 3: And this was at the exact same time that the
• 14:40
  Speaker 3: Rockefellers and the Fords created gender studies. They passed Title
• 14:45
  Speaker 3: IX and started handing out college scholarships and funding for
• 14:49
  Speaker 3: women to go to college like candy. And we saw
• 14:53
  Speaker 3: over 20% increase in females in the workforce just in
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: that decade alone. By the 90s, women were on par
• 14:59
  Speaker 3: with men. And what happened at the same time as
• 15:02
  Speaker 3: that is Roe v. Wade and the birth control pill.
• 15:06
  Speaker 5: And the gold standard getting removed. That one's kind of important, too.
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: What's that?
• 15:10
  Speaker 5: Well, the gold standard got removed as well.
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: Sure.
• 15:13
  Speaker 5: Well, that's economically super important, right? It's important, but I
• 15:17
  Speaker 5: don't think... What do you mean it's important? We fundamentally
• 15:19
  Speaker 5: changed our relationship from the gold standard to the petrol
• 15:21
  Speaker 5: dollar under Nixon in 1971. But that's not why women... Oh, man.
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: Bitch. I wish I'd been there. Oh, my fucking God.
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: Let's talk about the gold standard and what it represents.
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: Let's talk about removing the money meaning something. Sorry, money
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: being worth something. So that you could take a dollar,
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: go into the bank and get actual gold, which takes
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: effort to get out of the earth. And then we
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: changed it from that to a positional symbol, a debt instrument.
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, let's talk about that. Let's talk about why we
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: would have fundamentally changed our thinking like that. Going from
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: something that's focused on how money works, how it needs
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: to be accountable to an external standard, to something that
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: people can't just magic up like astrology, like magnets, and
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: it has to be accountable to the real world. I
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: wonder what kind of thinking that is and why it's
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: suddenly sprouted up everywhere. in the 80s, right? That kind
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: of positional, relational thinking about symbols rather than what those
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: symbols represent. The kind of thinking that people who don't
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: pass the water line challenge, the water level challenge tend
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: to get. So if you don't know what I'm talking about,
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: the water level test is essentially, you have a drawing
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: of a glass that is on a horizontal surface So
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: you just imagine a drawing of a glass, glass of sides,
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: the water in that glass is a horizontal line that
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: is parallel to the surface of the table. Now, the
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: water level test simply asks, if you tilt that glass
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: 45 degrees relative to the horizontal surface of the table,
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: what is the, draw in the water level. A significant
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: portion of women cannot do this correctly. Now, why can't
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: they do this correctly? Because they don't take the symbol,
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: look through the symbol to the substrate, to the reality
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: it represents, and realize that they have to draw the
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: line still parallel to the table. So instead, what they
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: do is they draw the line parallel to the bottom
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: of the glass because they think what they're being asked
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: is to rotate the symbol. not how the symbol represents
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: a reality beyond the symbol, that the symbol is based on.
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: Men get that, right? They get that symbols represent realities
• 18:07
  Speaker 2: and that when you manipulate the realities, the symbols have
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: to change. Guess what fiat is? It's a symbol divorced
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: from reality. So all of that comes from divorcing men
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: from recognizing that their form of cognition is valid, That
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: looking through the symbol to the substrate, the reality underneath it,
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: is not being a Cro-Magnon. It's not old. What was it? Old, pale? No. Pale, stale,
• 18:38
  Speaker 2: and male. That was what they called the free market system.
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: And also the opposition to removing ours from the gold standard,
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: which kept money tied, the symbol tied to the substrate.
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: The glass tied to the reality behind the glass. Now,
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: if women have trouble seeing that there's a reality that
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: the symbol represents, and men don't, who do you think
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: you want dominant in your economy if you want to
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: move from a gold standard to a fiat standard? from
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: a reality standard that has to tie back to something
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: into reality to something that's completely divorced from reality. And
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: it's just a churn of symbols. Which group of people
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: do you want to make sure is in HR and
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: PR and academia? and making the decisions about who gets funding,
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: international banking, which group of people? Do you want the
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: ones who are going to be like, wait, that symbol
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: doesn't relate back to reality. What are we doing? Or
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: do you want the ones being like, oh, yeah, you
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: can flip the glass of water upside down. It doesn't matter.
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: The water will stay in the glass because it's just
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: a symbol. It doesn't really relate to anything. It doesn't
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: have to refer back to reality. We can just have
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: a whole bunch of water glasses spinning around and the
• 20:04
  Speaker 2: water does nothing in them. Well, I guess it's centrifugal
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: force would tend to make, nevermind. Anyway, So what do
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: you want to do? You want to change the game.
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: And you want to make sure every position, every node
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: where somebody is deciding who gets to speak, they either
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: decide the guys who are willing to lie about whether
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: or not symbols ever relate back to reality, or it's
• 20:26
  Speaker 2: a woman. Because you're more likely to find women who
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: just they just do the relational web thing what does
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: this represent in the vast cosmos of astrology which things
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: are all about their position alright I have laid a
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: lot on you guys and I'm going to step off
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: my podium and we'll watch a.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: Little bit more so not so erudite trying to basically
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: say oh it's because gold standard nothing else so let's
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: see what Rachel responds and.
• 20:58
  Speaker 5: Joined the economy. But that might explain economic changes, no? No,
• 21:03
  Speaker 5: it doesn't. The gold standard.
• 21:05
  Speaker 3: Because what you're not understanding is it's about the birth rate.
• 21:07
  Speaker 3: It's not that women working is a problem if they
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: were still having 2.2 or 2.5 babies per woman. But
• 21:13
  Speaker 3: when you tell women, hey, spend all your fertile years
• 21:16
  Speaker 3: going to college and starting a career and don't even.
• 21:18
  Speaker 5: Think about settling down and having kids until you're 31.
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: Probably hasn't considered that the removal of the gold standard
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: was preceded by something.
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: No, no, she doesn't. It's not that she didn't consider it.
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: I mean, maybe she did, maybe she didn't. It's that
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: that truth that you're about to reveal would be inconvenient
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: for her position. So she's going to pretend as though
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: the gold standard is the reason why feminism was necessary.
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, honestly, this... the thing is going away
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: from the gold standard and embracing fiat is something that's
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: happened multiple times in the, like the history of money. Right.
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: So this isn't the first time that's been done. The first,
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: this is the first time that's been done and then
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: combined with a, okay. Most of the jobs that I'm
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: talking about, like if you look at jobs that actually
• 22:22
  Speaker 2: produce stuff, move stuff, create electricity infrastructure, and you look
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: at the jobs that are just about moving symbols, most
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: of the other jobs in that category or are government-mandated
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: are female. There's a huge influx. That group of jobs
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: that's either about moving symbols around, controlling the culture or government-mandated,
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: it has been flat in terms of growth for men.
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: So men have stayed in the jobs they pretty much
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: always did. So a lot of this, like we have
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: the combination of taking money off the gold standard and
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: then creating a culture that divorces everything from production, from
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: the substrate, from the reality. So money is a symbol.
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: The symbol is supposed to touch something, touch grass somewhere,
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: and it doesn't. And then you have a whole workforce
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: that is controlled by people who also don't touch grass.
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: That's new. So I mean, yeah, we could bring up
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: the gold standard, but Rachel's right. It's not the only
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: thing that's happening. Okay, let's, and I think, honestly, I'm
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: going to diagnose this. She's not bringing up the gold
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: standard because she wants to talk about it. She's doing
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: it to try to show that Rachel's ignorant.
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, that's right. That's one of Kyla's tactics is
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: to try to sound smarter and more educated than her
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: opponents so that that discredits them right off the bat. So,
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: all right.
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: I'm curious what she's, okay, this is my question. What
• 24:01
  Speaker 2: is Kyla gonna do now that she's brought up the
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: gold standard? Is she going to make an argument? Or
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: is she just going to do pot shots at Rachel? Right,
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: because that's what it's, right now that's all she's doing.
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: She's just like, oh, are you saying the gold standard?
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: Are you trying to say all economic changes can be
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: tied back to the gold standard? All workforce compositional changes
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: can be tied back to going from the gold standard
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: to fiat, Kyla. So you're using, she's using that as
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: I'm going to let, I'm going to load all of
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: Rachel's argument onto the gold standard. And then I'm going
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: to kick out the gold standard because Rachel doesn't apparently
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: want to address it. Right. So I'm going to just say, oh,
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: she's ignorant of economics because she doesn't want, she just,
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: she's like, let's talk about something else. You know what
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: I'm saying? So anyway, let's keep going. All right.
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: Let's keep going.
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: For Jade's, that a woman is having her first child now,
• 25:04
  Speaker 3: that's a serious problem, and we have historical examples of
• 25:07
  Speaker 3: countries who've gone through this.
• 25:09
  Speaker 5: Russia is a great one.
• 25:11
  Speaker 3: They made abortion legal and paid for in state hospitals
• 25:15
  Speaker 3: under Lenin, and it was so bad, like the demographic
• 25:19
  Speaker 3: cliff was so bad for Russia that by the time
• 25:21
  Speaker 3: Stalin came to power, he had to roll all of
• 25:23
  Speaker 3: that back. But because they were communists, they wanted to
• 25:25
  Speaker 3: push women into the workforce. You need workers to have communism.
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: Women needed to be working, and they tried to do
• 25:32
  Speaker 3: women workers and pronatalism at the same time, it did
• 25:35
  Speaker 3: not work.
• 25:36
  Speaker 5: They've never recovered their birth rate. All economies need workers, right?
• 25:38
  Speaker 5: The most important piece of basically capitalism.
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: This is not correct. When you look at the demographic,
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: what's going on demographically in the East Bloc and the
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: former Soviet Union states, they had replacement level. After the
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: fall of the Soviet Union, They had a dip in
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: their fertility and then they actually recovered to replacement level.
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: It wasn't until the international banking cartel came in and
• 26:10
  Speaker 2: started injecting Western feminism into their cultures that they started
• 26:14
  Speaker 2: to see the big declines that we're seeing now in
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: their fertility.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: So you say you said that it happened like yesterday.
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: Around the fall of the Soviet Union, they were at
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: replacement levels?
• 26:29
  Speaker 2: No, after. So they fell, the Soviet Union. After the fall,
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: because it was a huge economic devastation and restructuring. Then
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: they recovered... And then the international banking cartels came in,
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: brought their usual, injected their usual feminist poison into everything,
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: Western feminist poison. So not, womanomics is the way I'm
• 26:54
  Speaker 2: trying to distinguish it because there is the feminism where
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: get women into the workplace, get women into education. And
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: in the, they used to call them the second world countries,
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: which were like the communist countries.
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: That didn't actually result in a huge crash in fertility.
• 27:16
  Speaker 2: They did decline, but that's what's happened with every post-industrial nation.
• 27:22
  Speaker 2: What you see when you look at their fertility curve
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: over time is that replacement, fall of the Soviet Union, under-replacement, recovery,
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: international banking comes in, drops. further than it was, I think,
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: after the crisis of the fall of the Soviet Union.
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: And I know this because I was looking into international
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: banking policy, feminism, and birth rates around the world. So
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: there's all kinds of different international development banks. Some specialize
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: in Again, I need to take a breath. Some specialize
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: in former Soviet countries, so Eastern European. Some specialize in Asian, African,
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: and Caribbean, that kind of thing, like South America. But
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: they all tend to ride with feminism, with this kind
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: of feminization of the workplace. So it's not just getting
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: women into work, it's... bringing in the whole class of
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: anti-male thoughts and conjecture. So right now, the big push
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: with the European Development Bank, ERDB, I think, is this
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: masculinity survey, which is based on the psychology of men
• 28:59
  Speaker 2: and masculinities field. And it's essentially, it's not even a
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: masculinity survey because men reject it outright. What it is
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: is something based on feminist conjecture about men. So it
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: would be better termed the feminist male stereotype survey. So
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: how much do men resemble a feminist stereotype of a man?
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: Not very much, guys, but they keep pushing this, and
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: I'm still looking into trying to figure out how it
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: relates to developmental bank decisions, but that is one component
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: of it, is that they are trying to change, they're
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: trying to push in and change the way that men
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: approach the world, the that men take custodial responsibility for
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: women and children all around the world. And when they
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: push this stuff, right, with their development, they start to
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: install these beliefs. Like South Korea is their big poster
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: child for this. for after the the crisis in the
• 30:00
  Speaker 2: 90s the development banks came in and gave them a
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: bunch of loans and what was contingent on those loans
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: was to break the customs that men protect and provide
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: for women and why did they want to break them
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: because when they do that that when they remove that
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: social expectation that men work, they create a fungible workplace
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: or workforce. And when you create a fungible workforce, you
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: actually increase the value of these companies. Because part of
• 30:30
  Speaker 2: the value of the company is to fire the workplace
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: or the workforce, to reduce it, to move it, like
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: move the company anywhere, it becomes a symbol. You divorce
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: it from the substrate and you sell it as a symbol.
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: And the symbol is more valuable than the thing that
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: actually does it. And in order to do that, you
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: have to break people of this idea that men are
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: responsible for women and children, therefore they're owed jobs. And
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: there's this kind of expectation that men work and be
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: able to work a job for the rest of their lives.
• 31:03
  Speaker 2: And if the local population won't accept that men should
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: be replaceable because they associate men's labor with the protection
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: and provision of women, then you can't, again, turn a
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: Korean business into a saleable asset in the world economy.
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: So you cut it off from the substrate, you make
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: it more saleable as a symbol of what it was.
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: And in order to cut it off from the substrate,
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: you have to delegitimate all of the social expectations about
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: men's provision of women. And then part of that is
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: you also get women in there. So you have a bigger,
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: and this ties back into Rachel's assertion about having a
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: bigger workforce. Well, the more workers you have, the less
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: each worker has to negotiate. And think about it. In
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: those places where men, men's jobs are responsible for the
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: upkeep of their women, their female relatives, their children, not
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: only are there fewer workers, Thus, the climate of the
• 32:13
  Speaker 2: society around those workers is much more protective, protectionist. Because
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: when you fire a man, you're making a bunch of
• 32:22
  Speaker 2: children and his female relatives go hungry. So you got
• 32:27
  Speaker 2: to get rid of that. You got to make everything fungible,
• 32:30
  Speaker 2: everything exchangeable for everything else. And you got to increase
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: the workplace. And that's what makes these assets that these
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: developmental banks go in and sort of pirate valuable. Now,
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: I'm laying a lot of stuff on you, but the
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: sum total of all of this, if I get this
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: back to where it was, is that it is not
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: women in work and it is not women in education
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: because they've always done that. And it's not the situation
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: in the Soviet Union that caused the real, real dire
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: fall in fertility in East Europe. It's the European Developmental
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: Bank And it's particular form of feminism that broke up
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: the traditional arrangement between men and women. Even the Soviets
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: didn't do that. It took Western feminism to do that.
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: Western feminism to install this kind of contempt, this kind
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: of zero-sum thinking in heterosexual relationships, this kind of refusal
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: to recognize the worth. of what a man brings, and
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: that's where the birth rate starts to tank. Again, it
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: is not women in jobs or women in education. Read
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: Proverbs 31. This has been something that's been happening forever
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: because human children require the, they can't have a single
• 33:59
  Speaker 2: one of their parents or their grandparents sitting on their ass.
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: They're that difficult to raise, that difficult to find the
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: resources for. Throughout all of our history, women have worked.
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: The 50s was an aberration that we're still paying for
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: because it spawned feminism. It spawned an unbelievable level of
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: entitlement in women. And so, I mean, it's not that.
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: It is feminism.
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: And feminism will say, oh, well, if you're against feminism, oh,
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: you're against women working. You're against women having education. Yeah,
• 34:39
  Speaker 2: but here's the thing. Feminism would sacrifice all of that
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: to protect feminism. I've seen it. Feminism sacrifices battered women
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: to protect feminism. Feminism sacrifices female rape victims to protect feminism.
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: I think based on its previous behavior, if feminism had
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: a choice between women's rights and feminism, it would protect feminism.
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: Just think, if there was a culture that got rid
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: of women's rights, which is a ridiculous notion on its face,
• 35:12
  Speaker 2: but let's just imagine that that happened, how much resentment
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: that would create, which would increase feminism. So there's this
• 35:20
  Speaker 2: connection that people make between feminism and women working and
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: women having education, which is false. Feminism appropriates that for itself,
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: stolen valor to justify itself. All feminism is, is hatred
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: of men, blaming them for women's failures, for women's restrictions,
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: which are biological, not legal. It is a hatred of
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: the idea of men and women getting together and having children.
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: And what a surprise. The Soviet Russia didn't have the
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: level of animus towards family that the average feminist does.
• 36:04
  Speaker 2: And certainly not the feminists in the 70s. These women.
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: The Soviet Union. I'm sorry to say it. And I'm
• 36:10
  Speaker 2: not saying it to defend the Soviet Union. I'm saying
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: that feminism is so much worse than fucking communism.
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: The Soviet Union was like, no, people should get married.
• 36:21
  Speaker 2: We should respect fathers and mothers. And I'm not saying
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: this to laud them, but they were not as antinatalist
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: as feminists. Feminists came right out and said, we want
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: to destroy marriage. And so they did.
• 36:36
  Speaker 6: They said they wanted to do it and they did it.
• 36:39
  Speaker 6: It's feminism's greatest success story. It destroyed the relationship between
• 36:44
  Speaker 6: men and women. And it destroyed it by instilling tremendous
• 36:48
  Speaker 6: amounts of resentment in women towards men. It absolutely undercut
• 36:55
  Speaker 6: men's values and relationships. It insulted and stigmatized and shamed
• 37:01
  Speaker 6: women for choosing men.
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: There is nothing that is worse than feminism. I'm trying
• 37:13
  Speaker 2: to think, maybe Nazism? Can I say that?
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: I think it's worse than Nazism. I mean, Nazism and
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: communism are basically the same thing.
• 37:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but communism isn't worse than feminism. Feminism is worse
• 37:27
  Speaker 2: than communism.
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay.
• 37:29
  Speaker 2: It is worse.
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: I don't think Rachel would disagree with anything that you've said.
• 37:32
  Speaker 2: No, I'm not saying that she would. I'm saying, I
• 37:36
  Speaker 2: don't know what I'm saying.
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: I think Kyla is trying to make an argument and
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: Rachel's trying to debunk the argument.
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, the problem is that Kyla is probably going to, okay,
• 37:45
  Speaker 2: maybe I'm talking too much, but Kyla is probably going
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: to try to say that feminism is all of these
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: other things. No, it isn't. Feminism isn't women working. Feminism
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: isn't women having education. Feminism is men dominate women, right?
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: They dominate women through rape and domestic violence. And when
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: men express custodial protection and provision of women, that is
• 38:15
  Speaker 2: making women dependent on men, which is the site of
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: women's oppression. That's feminism. Nothing else. That is their foundational document.
• 38:28
  Speaker 2: That is what everything points to in academia, right? They
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: wanted to destroy the relationship between men and women. Full stop.
• 38:39
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: I mean, Communism isn't as bad as that. I hate
• 38:44
  Speaker 2: to say that as a narco-capitalist. It is not as
• 38:49
  Speaker 2: bad as taking aim directly at the relationship between men
• 38:53
  Speaker 2: and women. Because even in a communist society, men and
• 38:56
  Speaker 2: women can still have children. In a feminist society, there
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: are no men. There are no children. And ultimately, there
• 39:05
  Speaker 2: are no women. Like, it's a death cult. And I'm
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: not saying this to say that communism is good.
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: All right, let's keep going.
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: Let's keep going then.
• 39:18
  Speaker 2: Human capital.
• 39:19
  Speaker 3: Which is why you could also look at South Korea,
• 39:22
  Speaker 3: which is a very capitalist, Western-style economy, but has also
• 39:26
  Speaker 3: been taken over by feminism.
• 39:27
  Speaker 5: And they have 0.7 births per woman. right now.
• 39:30
  Speaker 3: There's not going to be a South Korea in the
• 39:33
  Speaker 3: next 20 or 30 years if they don't turn it around.
• 39:35
  Speaker 5: I'm curious. What's the number one correlate to declining birth
• 39:38
  Speaker 5: rates in a nation? Women's access to higher education.
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: Correct.
• 39:41
  Speaker 5: Yes, women's access.
• 39:42
  Speaker 2: No, it's feminism.
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: Well, I think that she's saying that when women go
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: into higher education, they come out feminists.
• 39:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, the problem is that.
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: It's the education system that radicalizes women.
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: Yes, but it literally is feminism.
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah, sure, but I think that if... Look, let me
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: just try to... Because I know where you're coming from, Allison.
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: I don't know if you know this, but I've been
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: working with you for like 12 years. I know where
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: you're coming from. But I'm trying to explain that Rachel
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: can't just say feminism did that, that's why feminism bad,
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: because that's kind of like a circular argument. She has
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: to say, well, if the number one correlate is women
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: getting higher education, then that's the reason why they're not
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: having kids. It's not just that they're delaying it, but
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: They're going to become politically activated in schools. They're going
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: to come out pink haired and nose ring carrying, and
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: they're going to denounce men. And I think if you
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: said that to Rachel, if you asked her, is that true?
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: I don't think she would disagree. And I'm not saying
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: that to Cape for her, but I know what she's good,
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: where she's going with this. I know what she believes.
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: So she's not making an error, but I think it's
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: even better to say, well, it's because they're going into
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: higher education and they're That's because it doesn't just have
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: the effect of causing them to become feminists and therefore resent, fear,
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: and hate men, but it also... because she's concerned about
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: the birth rates, it also pushes back their fertile years
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: even more. So they come out of college and they're
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: in their mid to late 20s and they're 80 grand
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: in debt and there's no men around, plus they don't
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: like them anyway. So that's what it produces. It's like
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: looking at all of what's left of a woman after
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: she goes to college. And obviously not in every case.
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: There's plenty of people who go to college and they
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: get something useful out of it, but a lot of
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: people don't. Maybe most of them don't.
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: So no, I'm not going to Cape for college.
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: No, no, I know.
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: No, I'm just double checking now. Okay. Um, but yes,
• 41:52
  Speaker 2: the ideology gap is 0.58. The education gap is 0.41.
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: So ideology explains more fertility than education, but you're right.
• 42:03
  Speaker 2: There is a huge correlate when women go to higher education,
• 42:07
  Speaker 2: they come out feminists and they also delay childbearing. But
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: my counter-argument is that this is not an uncommon pattern
• 42:16
  Speaker 2: for Northern Europeans. For most of the Middle Ages, up
• 42:21
  Speaker 2: to the High Renaissance, the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance,
• 42:25
  Speaker 2: women in Northern Europe tended to start their families later.
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: They just caught up because they had children very rapidly
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: once they got married. So it's not.
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: Just the education, because women have always had quite a
• 42:40
  Speaker 2: bit of education when it comes to Northern Europe, like
• 42:43
  Speaker 2: other cultures do this differently, right? It is the ideology.
• 42:49
  Speaker 2: And again, the education delays childbearing, and I don't want
• 42:54
  Speaker 2: to deny that because we're not actually in a regime
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: that can really absorb how many singles there are, how
• 43:03
  Speaker 2: long women delay marriage. you know, the level of relationships
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: that don't have children. Like, we can't absorb all that. In, like,
• 43:13
  Speaker 2: in the 1500s in the Middle Ages in Northern Europe,
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: they could, because once a man and a woman got
• 43:20
  Speaker 2: married between, like, late 20s to early 30s, they immediately
• 43:23
  Speaker 2: popped out seven kids. Right? You know, within a decade. Like,
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: so they could absorb their Aunt Gladys, who was, like,
• 43:32
  Speaker 2: a nun. And, you know... Joseph, who became a priest, right?
• 43:38
  Speaker 2: And then the other thing is that Singleton still had
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: a contributing role with the entire community, usually a religious
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: role or with the guilds or something, right? So it's
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: a completely different society. So yes, women are delaying children.
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: Not a big deal if at the age of 28,
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: they start popping out one every two years, right? But
• 44:04
  Speaker 2: that's not what they're doing. So the delay becomes a
• 44:07
  Speaker 2: problem and the singleton rate becomes a problem because Northern
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: Europe also had a long amount, like a lot of
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: people who remain single, unusually large amount. All of which
• 44:20
  Speaker 2: was fine because it was all carried by an incredible
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: birth rate in marriage, which itself was carried by a
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: lot of Christian customs around courtship. But I'll set that aside.
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: So yes, we have a problem with women delaying marriage.
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: More importantly, we seem to have a problem with women
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: once they get into marriage not having sufficient children to
• 44:42
  Speaker 2: compensate for everybody else. But the real problem is ideology.
• 44:49
  Speaker 2: Because ideology is what prevents the relationships in the first place.
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: I mean, we might be able to fix the birth
• 44:56
  Speaker 2: rate with stripping out all welfare for Stripping out all
• 45:02
  Speaker 2: subsidies and maybe like Israel subsidizing IVF. Like that might
• 45:08
  Speaker 2: be an option. I know everybody probably is horrified by that.
• 45:10
  Speaker 2: And yes, people should be having children later. But if
• 45:14
  Speaker 2: we fucked ourselves to this level, that's one way we
• 45:17
  Speaker 2: could possibly start to unfuck ourselves. Strip out every subsidy
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: for women to have children without a man. Get rid
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: of feminism. And then somehow... Make it so that they
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: can extend the fertility window at this point in time.
• 45:34
  Speaker 2: And then maybe in the next generation, we can not
• 45:37
  Speaker 2: do that again. Just not do it. But regardless, it
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: is ideology. And it's also ideology that encourages women to delay.
• 45:52
  Speaker 2: It encourages, it's basically telling women not to get into relationships.
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: And it's also telling women to delay child rearing. In particular,
• 46:01
  Speaker 2: it's telling women not to get into relationships. That's the
• 46:04
  Speaker 2: big thing that ideology does. It makes it so that
• 46:08
  Speaker 2: women don't get into relationships with men. And the only
• 46:13
  Speaker 2: group of people, especially in the U.S., because you guys
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: don't shack up like everybody else does, Like in Canada, well,
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: Quebec and in Europe, people tend, or actually Northern Europe,
• 46:27
  Speaker 2: people replace common law with marriage. That's not the case
• 46:29
  Speaker 2: in the U.S. So in Canada, if you're in a
• 46:35
  Speaker 2: common law relationship, you generally have about as many children
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: as you would in a marriage. In the U.S., in
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: a marriage, married women are having about 2.3 children. to 2.5
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: if you go back further. Common law, 1.1. And never married,
• 46:54
  Speaker 2: never cohabitated, 0.19. Single women do not have children at all.
• 47:02
  Speaker 2: And the more an ideology convinces women to be single,
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: the more it tanks the birth rate. So I just
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: feel like this is a digression. I don't necessarily disagree with...
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: rachel's overall overall thrust but this is like saying um
• 47:24
  Speaker 2: you you have there's a hit here for feminism if
• 47:27
  Speaker 2: it is ideology that drives this more than education then
• 47:31
  Speaker 2: that points right back at feminism but anyway let's continue
• 47:37
  Speaker 2: yeah i.
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: Got another super chat from senior sticks for two dollars
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: and he says that can happen at the expense of
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: human society I don't know what that means, but thank
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: you for that. Okay.
• 47:47
  Speaker 2: What can happen at the expense of human society?
• 47:48
  Speaker 1: Well, I don't know. He sent it while you were ranting,
• 47:51
  Speaker 1: so it could have been about any number of things
• 47:53
  Speaker 1: that you said. I just don't know which thing it was.
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: Maybe put some context in there somewhere.
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 48:01
  Speaker 5: So I'm curious, would you consider Saudi Arabia particularly feminist?
• 48:07
  Speaker 5: Not particularly feminist, no.
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: Qatar?
• 48:09
  Speaker 4: No.
• 48:10
  Speaker 5: Okay, so the Gulf states also have declining birth rates,
• 48:12
  Speaker 5: but feminism isn't causing that. What's happening there? Because they've started.
• 48:17
  Speaker 5: Saudi Arabia, famous for feminizing. Qatar, famous for feminizing. They
• 48:21
  Speaker 5: have started letting women work. I have an answer to this.
• 48:26
  Speaker 2: I have an answer to this. First of all, yes,
• 48:28
  Speaker 2: there is a decline in post-industrial birth rate. If Rachel
• 48:34
  Speaker 2: is arguing this, and I don't think she is, I
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: think that Kyla is just dragging her into the weeds, well,
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: that's not an argument. Yes, after the post-industrial revolution, post-industrial cultures,
• 48:47
  Speaker 2: cultures that are increasing their living standard see reductions in
• 48:52
  Speaker 2: their fertility. But They don't see the kind of reductions
• 48:57
  Speaker 2: we're seeing, necessarily. What is actually the difference between the
• 49:03
  Speaker 2: Gulf states and something like Korea is the Gulf states
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: are creditor nations, not debitor nations, which means that the
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: international development banks haven't marched in to start injecting feminism everywhere.
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 49:19
  Speaker 2: And kin selection cultures, which are the Gulf states, rely
• 49:24
  Speaker 2: on custodial laws to, so men taking responsibility for women
• 49:29
  Speaker 2: and their female relatives and children, et cetera. They rely
• 49:32
  Speaker 2: on all of that to maintain their relationships, all right? So...
• 49:39
  Speaker 2: If they stop being creditor nations and they were forced
• 49:43
  Speaker 2: to submit to the international development banks, they too would
• 49:48
  Speaker 2: likely see a massive spiral down of their fertility. But yeah,
• 49:56
  Speaker 2: this is two different things. Post-industrial societies see a decline
• 50:02
  Speaker 2: in fertility as.
• 50:07
  Speaker 2: Life's standard of living goes up. But look at the 60s.
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: The 50s and the 60s, huge increase in standard of living,
• 50:18
  Speaker 2: gigantic baby boom. You have the example of the Gulf
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: states and they're declining. Then you have the example of
• 50:28
  Speaker 2: the 50s and the 60s with their gigantic baby boom.
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: both of which were a society experiencing an incredible elevation
• 50:37
  Speaker 2: in standard of living, opposite results. How do you explain that?
• 50:42
  Speaker 2: Does Kyla's model of the world explain that? No, because
• 50:47
  Speaker 2: she doesn't have one. She doesn't have a model of
• 50:49
  Speaker 2: fertility around the world. What she has is a bunch
• 50:52
  Speaker 2: of jibes, a bunch of ways of attacking Rachel. And
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: this is yet another one. And again, yes, post-industrial societies
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: see a decline in birth rate. That doesn't mean they
• 51:05
  Speaker 2: have to decline to seven like South Korea.
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, Rachel is also saying that these Gulf states
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: are adopting feminist ideas now, too. So that was another
• 51:17
  Speaker 1: thing she was saying, is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: are starting to adopt feminist ideas. I mean, they're behind,
• 51:27
  Speaker 1: I guess, but they're still doing it. And that's why
• 51:30
  Speaker 1: she's like, yeah, their birth rates are going to collapse too.
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: So I think she also understands that it's the ideology.
• 51:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they're going to collapse if they end up being
• 51:40
  Speaker 2: debitor nations and they have to take International Development Bank
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: largesse and their feminism, sure.
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 51:48
  Speaker 2: But again, like there's like there's two separate things. First
• 51:50
  Speaker 2: of all, post-industrial nations with an increasing standard of living
• 51:54
  Speaker 2: send to see fewer births. However, there are counterexamples to that.
• 51:58
  Speaker 2: The 50s, the 60s, Israel.
• 52:00
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 52:01
  Speaker 2: So you can't just say this is blanket what's happening.
• 52:03
  Speaker 2: You have to look deeper into the data. So all
• 52:06
  Speaker 2: this is on Kyla's part is just a I gotcha,
• 52:08
  Speaker 2: like a gotcha.
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah. That's mainly how she debates, for lack of a
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: better word. OK, I'm going to hit play now.
• 52:18
  Speaker 5: Things like birth control. Their birth rate's been declining for
• 52:20
  Speaker 5: a long time. Actually, it's below replacement now.
• 52:22
  Speaker 3: Yes, everybody in first world economies where there's urbanization, industrialization,
• 52:27
  Speaker 3: as I explained, that's what.
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 52:32
  Speaker 5: So isn't it urbanization that we're blaming here?
• 52:34
  Speaker 3: Not until you push women into the workforce and they
• 52:39
  Speaker 3: stop having kids. Again, if women were working as nurses
• 52:43
  Speaker 3: and still having two and a half kids per woman,
• 52:45
  Speaker 3: I would have no problem with it. But nothing you're
• 52:48
  Speaker 3: addressing tells me what we're going to do about this.
• 52:50
  Speaker 5: Nothing you're pointing to says it all falls at the
• 52:52
  Speaker 5: feet of feminism, right? Why do the women stop having babies?
• 52:56
  Speaker 5: because of modernization through increased education? Saudi Arabia. I'm so sorry.
• 53:04
  Speaker 3: No.
• 53:05
  Speaker 2: First of all, the Gulf states aren't seeing those kind
• 53:07
  Speaker 2: of declines. The below replacement is because of the huge
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: influx of immigration. They use a lot of temporary workers
• 53:17
  Speaker 2: in the Gulf states to do their projects. So if
• 53:20
  Speaker 2: you remove that, the native-born are still well above replacements.
• 53:25
  Speaker 2: All right, so that's wrong on its face. But also
• 53:31
  Speaker 2: this is all, again, this is all like fundamentally this
• 53:36
  Speaker 2: argument is in the weeds because women don't have babies
• 53:40
  Speaker 2: when they're single. And the biggest driver for women to
• 53:43
  Speaker 2: become single is feminism, is ideology. Like ideology ruins, like
• 53:51
  Speaker 2: the feminist ideology ruins well, it ruins liberal men's ability
• 53:56
  Speaker 2: to attract a mate and it ruins the family formation.
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: And I don't see why this is so confusing to people.
• 54:02
  Speaker 2: They said that's what they wanted to do. And they
• 54:05
  Speaker 2: specifically situated the site of human evil in the relationship
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: between men and women, specifically men's oppression of women and
• 54:13
  Speaker 2: specifically how men make women dependent by engaging in custodial
• 54:19
  Speaker 2: behavior towards them, protecting and providing for them. Like they
• 54:24
  Speaker 2: literally targeted the relationship between men and women. And that's
• 54:29
  Speaker 2: where the fertility, like it all, if, well, let me
• 54:35
  Speaker 2: put it this way. If women and men were married
• 54:41
  Speaker 2: at traditional rates, like the rate that was stable from
• 54:45
  Speaker 2: the 1980, or sorry, 1880 up to 1870, While we
• 54:52
  Speaker 2: would be a lot closer to actual replacement, we probably
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: need to boost the rate up at that point a
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: little bit, but we would probably be okay. The issue
• 55:08
  Speaker 2: is singledom. It's single women. It's the party of single women.
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: And that party is ideological. And it's not even like
• 55:16
  Speaker 2: ideological in almost like you could squint and say like
• 55:20
  Speaker 2: a sort of a twisted virtue sense. These women engage
• 55:24
  Speaker 2: in this because it justifies their social climbing. It justifies
• 55:29
  Speaker 2: why a woman who's a two is owed a man
• 55:32
  Speaker 2: who's a four. But what do the women who are
• 55:35
  Speaker 2: tens get? What do the women who are eights get? Well, nothing.
• 55:40
  Speaker 2: I guess they stay single. Because when you're at that point,
• 55:44
  Speaker 2: you can't go up any further. You can't get a
• 55:50
  Speaker 2: man who's significantly better than you. So what do you do?
• 55:52
  Speaker 2: So that's the positional thing. That's the big thing that
• 55:56
  Speaker 2: feminism did. By taking away the value of men, the
• 56:01
  Speaker 2: only value left for men was their rank relative to
• 56:05
  Speaker 2: other men. But a rank can rise infinitely.
• 56:10
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 56:11
  Speaker 2: So women, if you actually look at income versus relative rank.
• 56:15
  Speaker 2: So what this means is you look at the rate
• 56:17
  Speaker 2: of marriage around the US and you look at absolute income.
• 56:22
  Speaker 2: So 80,000 in Seattle versus 80,000 in Missouri.
• 56:28
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 56:29
  Speaker 2: That doesn't explain as much as relative rank. So if
• 56:34
  Speaker 2: you hold relative rank constant, so somebody who's earning like,
• 56:40
  Speaker 2: I don't know, 150,000 in Seattle is probably in the
• 56:43
  Speaker 2: 80th percentile. And somebody who's earning 80,000 in Missouri is
• 56:49
  Speaker 2: in the 80th percentile. Those two men, even though one
• 56:53
  Speaker 2: is earning 70,000 more, even accounting for cost of living,
• 56:58
  Speaker 2: both have the same marriage rate because women are not
• 57:02
  Speaker 2: selecting based on income. They are not selecting based on
• 57:06
  Speaker 2: any kind of inherent worth. They're selecting based on a
• 57:10
  Speaker 2: man's rank relative to the other men around him. And
• 57:15
  Speaker 2: not literally all men cannot be in the top 10%.
• 57:18
  Speaker 2: And this is what liberalism does to women. It takes
• 57:22
  Speaker 2: away the worth of having a man, you know, a man,
• 57:26
  Speaker 2: which is, you know, I don't want to describe or
• 57:28
  Speaker 2: explain the worth of having a man. It's a little difficult.
• 57:31
  Speaker 2: I don't think men really relate to it. But it
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: takes that away. It paints it. It destroys it. And
• 57:37
  Speaker 2: it replaces the only worth that men have left, which
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: is their rank relative to other men. But not all
• 57:43
  Speaker 2: men can rank in the top 10% of men. By definition,
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: only 10% of men can. Which means that every generation
• 57:55
  Speaker 2: that this is in operation, women want a man who
• 57:58
  Speaker 2: ranks higher and higher relative to other men. Which means
• 58:01
  Speaker 2: that it reduces... the amount of available men more and
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: more and more, or the men that they will consider
• 58:07
  Speaker 2: more and more and more every generation. And this is
• 58:09
  Speaker 2: what feminism has done by removing the worth of a man.
• 58:13
  Speaker 2: Like in 1940, a woman wanted a man, okay? If
• 58:19
  Speaker 2: he got himself up in the morning, he went to
• 58:23
  Speaker 2: work and was paid, that was good enough, right? He's
• 58:28
  Speaker 2: pumping gas, fine. I'm gonna put a ring on it,
• 58:31
  Speaker 2: we're gonna have kids. That was fine. In the 1880s,
• 58:36
  Speaker 2: if he was shoveling manure, but he just got up
• 58:39
  Speaker 2: and did a day's work, that was good enough. Because
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: they wanted a man. In 1990, which is when this
• 58:47
  Speaker 2: really started to get bad, men no longer were a
• 58:52
  Speaker 2: benefit in and of themselves. Now they had to rank
• 58:54
  Speaker 2: better relative to other men to be wanted. But that
• 58:57
  Speaker 2: only goes up, up, up the ziggurat. Generation after generation
• 59:01
  Speaker 2: after generation. You have to kill that. And the problem
• 59:05
  Speaker 2: is that it isn't just in feminists. It's also in
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: conservative women. Not as bad, but it's there. The whole
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: attitude that a man is not good enough for a
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: woman is the problem. And feminism created that attitude. There
• 59:24
  Speaker 2: is absolutely no fucking reason that the average woman should
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: think that she is better than the average man.
• 59:31
  Speaker 1: None.
• 59:33
  Speaker 2: There's no anthropological reason. There's no evolutionary reason. There's no
• 59:37
  Speaker 2: genetic reason. All of those reasons I have looked at,
• 59:41
  Speaker 2: they're false. They are all caping for feminism. There's absolutely
• 59:47
  Speaker 2: no reason why the average man is not good enough
• 59:49
  Speaker 2: for the average woman. And that is the problem. Singledom
• 59:52
  Speaker 2: in women is the problem. If we don't fix that,
• 59:55
  Speaker 2: we are never going to recover our fertility. So to me,
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: all of these are digressions. Oh, how much education she has,
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 2: how much work she has, right? How late is she? Well,
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: up to about 35. After 35, you're done. Like your
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 2: fertility is marginal. And it's not because you necessarily jump
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 2: off a cliff at 35. It's because if you're not
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 2: married by 35, you still have to find someone, which
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 2: is going to take time. So now you're not married
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 2: until you're 40. And then, you know, are you going
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 2: to have kids? Probably not.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: So you have to get married by 35. That's absolute. Right.
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 2: But all of this is a distraction. Why are women single?
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 2: Why are women single? That's the question we need to
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 2: be asking. Why does an average woman think that she's
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 2: so much better than the average man to the point
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: where he has to rank in the 90th percentile against
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 2: other men for her to even consider him? Well, how
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: did that happen? Why is that still happening? Why did
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 2: liberal women who supposedly think that being provided for is oppression, right?
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 2: Remember all that? And then they turn around and demand
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 2: five times more of it. audacious. Can we shame them
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 2: for that? For making it harder for men to provide?
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 2: For lambasting men for wanting to do so as oppressors,
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: as troglodytes, as having patriarchal privilege and then turning around
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 2: and demanding five times more oppression for men? Can we
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: have a crumb of shame for that? We need to
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 2: get rid of singledom. Well, maybe not get rid of it,
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 2: but reduce it or just them the tie to the
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 2: things that are making women be single.
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 3: All right. Okay.
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: Sorry guys.
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 2: I'm going to play more of the video. Yeah. Sorry.
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 5: As much as you might want to insist Saudi Arabia
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 5: is feminist. It's certainly not. In fact, do you know
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 5: why women in Saudi Arabia are pushed into education?
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 1: She's scoffing at the notion that Saudi Arabia is feminist,
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 1: but I, I know that gynos, um, Islamic countries are
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 1: very gynocentric. I mean, it's like built into their laws,
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: even Sharia. Yes. So it's not really that much of
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: a stretch, but it's one of these, like, what do
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 1: you call it? It's like these canards or whatever. They
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: all look to Middle East, right? And this is a
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: problem because a lot of like people on the right
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 1: also try to use that tool to make the arguments
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: against feminism. And it's stupid. And it's a mistake because
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 1: they are basically just trailing a little bit behind. If anything,
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: it could be worse, too. But yeah, they're very gynocentric countries.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: Roboto gave us a dollar on Rumble and said, Feminism
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: added fuel to the fire, to be fair, but the
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 1: decline in fertility seems inevitable based on history. The real
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: question is how to keep traditions relevant while not holding
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: back progress. All right, thank you. Progress towards what? Okay,
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: let's play.
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 2: Can I just say something really quick?
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead.
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 2: Per Kyla's point is stupid. First of all, again, in
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 2: the 50s and 60s, massive increases in standard of living,
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 2: gigantic baby boom. Right. Israel has probably the best standard
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 2: of living in the Middle East and has a comparable
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 2: birth rate to a lot of those Gulf countries.
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: And presumably they're more feminist and education and women are
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 2: working more. All of that. So this is not the problem.
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: Post-industrial culture is not the problem. You have counterexamples. Anyway,
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 2: but like I said, I think this is just her
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 2: trying to do a gotcha, not actually.
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 5: It increases their dowry value. That's why. That sounds like
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 5: an Islam problem. Well, Victoria, England did this as well,
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 5: where essentially they view proof of education as good genetic stock.
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 5: So it makes that wife a more valuable woman.
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but the dowry wasn't just an education. It was
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: also a bunch of money and property. So that's probably
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: why they made it work. Because the women were not
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 1: the table. They actually had to bring something to it.
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 2: I'm going to point something out here. First of all,
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 2: do you notice how... Women being educated is not feminist
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 2: if it encourages men to value them as wives somehow.
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 2: Did you see that? I wonder what really feminism is
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 2: about there. And the other thing is that they were right.
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 2: The Victorians were right. I actually did more statistical analysis.
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 2: I know that's a shocker to everyone. A child who
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 2: was raised by an educated mother So a Victorian mother
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 2: who probably had a number of children, she wasn't just
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 2: having like one, if she raised the children, that's where
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: a lot of the genius inventors and capitalists and scientists
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 2: came from, from an educated mother. So that was literally
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 2: a value. And her problem with it is it's a
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 2: value to family and to men who want a family.
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 2: So she does not value women's education if it results
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: in a mother. Now, in Victorian times, they were probably
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 2: also running a household, so it was a little bit
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 2: more involved than stay-at-home. But a mother who didn't go
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 2: into the workplace but focused on educating her children. And
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 2: the Victorians recognized that and said, hey, that would make
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 2: a good wife because if I get an educated wife,
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 2: I will have smart sons who will do well in
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 2: their respective careers. And that became a value. But you
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 2: see how she does not recognize that as a value?
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 6: Why?
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: Because for her, I guess women's education is going into
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 2: the workforce and remaining single because she's a feminist. If
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: an educated woman is a value in a relationship and
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 2: raising children, that's not feminist. And it's also even more
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 2: what she revealed there, if that is something to appeal
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 2: to men. So if it makes a woman more marriageable,
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 2: it makes her appeal to men, that's not feminist. Do
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 2: you see what she's revealing here? Even education in women
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 2: is not feminist. if it leads to marriage and children
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 2: and being valued by men. So what is feminism really about?
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 5: It's in Victorian England. Well, the thing that you have
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 5: to disentangle here is why is Saudi Arabia having the
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 5: same problems that you're falling at the feet of feminism?
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 5: And I'm saying it looks more like modernization might be
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 5: the problem here. And Saudi Arabia certainly has both modernization
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 5: But it certainly doesn't have feminism, so you're going to
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 5: have to answer the Qatar gold problem.
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 3: The CDC and the United Nations both say that the
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 3: main correlate for declining birth rates is sending women to
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 3: college and sending them to work.
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 5: I didn't disagree with that.
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 3: As a mother of five, you cannot have more than
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 3: maybe one child and work full time because you have
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 3: to outsource motherhood to daycare, which is expensive.
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 5: What do you mean why? Why do we have the
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 5: runaway cost issues in America? Runaway what? Cost issues in America.
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 5: It's not runaway cost issues. It's the fact that. It's
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 5: not affordable right now. You can't make daycare.
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: She wasn't saying it wasn't affordable. She was saying that
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: if you have, if you're a working woman and you
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 1: have children, you have to outsource the childcare. That's just
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 1: obvious stuff. And Kayla's like, well, why is it so expensive?
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 1: It's not about expenses. It's about, you're just not going
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: to be there for your kids as much. But go on.
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 2: But again, it's like the... It is an income because
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 2: wealthier people don't have more children. They have less. And
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 2: if you're a wealthy liberal man, you're probably less... You
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 2: are less likely to have two children than a conservative
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 2: man making under the median income.
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 5: Right?
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 1: So.
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 2: It's not wealth, right? And it is, how is it
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 2: that poor people are affording children, right? And then, okay,
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 2: I'll leave it at that.
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 1: Okay, I'm gonna hit play.
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 3: Care cheap enough for it to offset the cost of
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 3: a woman working full-time.
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 5: That's math.
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 3: How are you going to make daycare cheap enough that
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 3: a woman can have five babies and work a full-time job?
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 5: And why would you want that? Why don't we want mothers?
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 3: Any mothers here love having to send their kids to
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 3: be raised by someone else all day?
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 5: Do you guys like that? Well, the question, again, you
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 5: can narrativize, but the question I'm actually trying to pose
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 5: you and get an answer to is, what changed in
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 5: the 70s, as you claim, where women started becoming dual-income earners?
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 5: What changed in families? What was going on? And you
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 5: were like, the gold standard. Are you asking what? That
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 5: doesn't matter. No, I'm telling you exactly what happened.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 2: Wait a second. Wait a second. Now that's really gotcha
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 2: territory because the gold standard, like, because societies have gone
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 2: off the gold standard multiple times in history. Fiat is
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 2: an amply, you know, we just, we haven't, true fiat
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 2: hasn't been tried yet. It's been tried constantly throughout history
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 2: in various forms. This is not unusual. So going off
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 2: the gold standard can't explain these cultural changes because traditional
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 2: societies have done it. And I really hate this women
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 2: didn't work. Women were still in the home, but the
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 2: home was work because it was basically like a domestic factory, burglar-less.
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 2: But my point is that she keeps pulling it back
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 2: to the gold standard. But that doesn't apply here.
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 1: No, she's trying to get a gotcha. That's all. She's
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 1: trying to get a gotcha. It's a simple, like, people
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: will have an emotional correlation with certain buzzwords or terms.
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 1: One of those is, well, it's because we got off
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 1: the gold standard. because that's something that's in people's consciousness,
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 1: and like, oh yeah, that's right, that was awful, it
• 1:10:46
  Speaker 1: must have something to do with that, even though they
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 1: don't really know the full historical context of what that
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 1: even means, it's like invoking, you know, you can just
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: say things like data centers, and people are like, oh
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 1: my god, I hate those, they're bad, you know, and
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: so I think that's what Kayla's trying to do, she's
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 1: trying to basically say don't you guys hate you know
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: group x or or action x or place x or
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 1: corporation x i'm going to invoke that and say that
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: this might have something to do with it because you
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: know here's some correlations and then people will be like
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 1: oh yeah sure because she's trying to win a debate
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: she doesn't actually care about the truth so yeah she's
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 1: gonna say whatever she has to say i think this
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 1: is an attempt at a gotcha What?
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 2: She's throwing down to her audience of feminist Austrian economics.
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and she's using symbols in the same way that
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 1: you said. She's using symbols like the symbol of McGold Standard.
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: And that is going to be enough for people who
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 1: don't think too much about it. Because all she wants
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 1: to do is win the debate and increase her clout
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: so she can make more money appearing on more panels
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 1: and debates. It's not really about trying to solve the problem,
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: I think. I think Rachel wants to solve the problem.
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 1: I think that's the main difference.
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 2: Can we have a debate between people who want to
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 2: solve the damn problem?
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, right, I know. Well, there wouldn't be much of
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 1: a debate, though, because people who want to solve the
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 1: damn problem will probably be mostly on the same page. Yeah.
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, there might be room for debate in
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 2: terms of what the proximal cause is here.
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 2: But anyway, like, yeah, you're right. She's just bringing up
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 2: the gold standard. It's a little bit weird, right? She's, like,
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: bringing up... Usually that's associated with crank masculinity. But I guess,
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 2: I think what she's... Like, she's just using it to
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: discredit Rachel.
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and she's... Yeah, she's trying to discredit. And also, she.
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 1: She capes for men to some degree all the time.
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 1: She tries to play the moderate. So be careful of that.
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 1: But anyway.
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 2: I did want to say, still no clue where she's
• 1:13:02
  Speaker 2: going with the gold standard. I mean, I'm going to
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: sit in here. I'm pending, right? Okay, Kyla, what about
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 2: the gold standard? What is your interpretation of its effects
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 2: on the economy? So far, still pending on that. So
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 2: how does this relate? And Rachel's right. I don't know
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 2: if Rachel does the economics thing as much, but she's right.
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 2: This is not relevant here. Plenty of societies have gone
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 2: off the gold standard or the silver standard.
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's happened multiple times. And it even happened,
• 1:13:35
  Speaker 1: like I said, it's not a new thing. But look,
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 1: let's keep going.
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 3: This is not me, this is the US Department of Labor,
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 3: the US Department of Commerce, all the sources in my
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 3: slides say that in the 70s the reason was because
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 3: we had a huge income tax deficit because of the
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 3: Vietnam War at the same time that they had passed
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 3: birth control legislation making it legal and not only that
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 3: making it free and cheap and socially acceptable.
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 5: We had Roe v. Wade. Now everybody can get an abortion.
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 3: And at the same time, you start pushing through the
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 3: culture through a massive propaganda campaign, through things like, remember
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 3: the Stepford Wives movies? Remember the Mary Tyler Moore show?
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 3: The 70s were just saturated with.
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 5: Girl boss empowerment stuff.
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 3: I was born in 1980 with She-Ra and Madonna and,
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 3: you know, telling women that motherhood is a ball and chain,
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 3: that the smart girls go to college and have their
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 3: own money, and they don't need a man. So you've
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 3: got this cultural propaganda campaign. You've got government money subsidizing college,
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 3: which is why it's.
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 5: So expensive, by the way. And then you've got birth
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 5: control and abortion.
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 3: So the trend becomes, go get your bag, go get
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 3: your career. Men are icky and bad. They're going to
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 3: abuse you. Children are a ball and chain that are
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 3: going to hold you back.
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 5: You need to go to work. And that's what women do.
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 2: They.
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 5: Still haven't gotten an answer to the Gulf States. Seems
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 5: like that one is just like mysterious Islamic.
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 3: Still haven't gotten an answer to how you're going to
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 3: do feminism with no more babies.
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 5: Rachel, you have to let me talk for us to
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 5: have a conversation, right? I'm letting you speak. Give me
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 5: some space to speak as well.
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 5: So let's talk a little bit.
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: Sorry.
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 2: Well, I wish this was a tag team debate.
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 1: I feel like I have like a slimy film on me. Okay.
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 1: Let me keep going.
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 5: But about the 70s.
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 4: Go ahead, Kyla.
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 5: If you want, Rachel, just monologue. I can just sit
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 5: here if you want. But if you want the debate
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 5: and show, I have to participate too. So let's talk
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 5: a little bit about the 70s. So the 70s is where,
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 5: what did you say? What percentage increase? It was something
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 5: over 20%. Until 20%, so 70s to what? What was
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 5: the 20% point? Was it the 90s, 2000s?
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 3: No, just in the 70s alone, I believe it went up.
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 3: Female labor force participation went way.
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 2: Up in the 70s.
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 3: It was the biggest jump, and then it continued in
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 3: the 80s and 90s, and now we have about equal numbers.
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 5: So I'm going to show you a beautiful thing that
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 5: we can do in the world, okay? This is a graph.
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 5: This is a very, very wonderful graph that makes your
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 5: point look true. This is your point, okay? So we've
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 5: got 1975, we've got 39%, it's from the Bureau of
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 5: Labor Statistics, okay, you're gonna love it. And by 1990s,
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 5: we have that almost 20% jump to 58%. And look
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 5: how steep that looks, very spooky, spooky graph. The issue
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 5: with cherry-picked data is that if you zoom out and
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 5: include all data that's relevant, suddenly spooky lines don't look
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 5: so spooky. In the 70s, nothing magically happened at all, actually.
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 5: We had a consistent trend of women since the 1950s
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 5: going into workplace, particularly married women, because unmarried women always
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 5: participate in the workforce. If you actually want a spooky
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 5: graph with a big jump, the major point when women
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 5: entered the workforce at astronomical numbers was a 10% leap
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 5: in like four years is this graph. It was World
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 5: War II. This is the only notable moment. If you'll notice.
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 2: All right. Well, my problem with this is, oh, so
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 2: it wasn't, you know, what happened in the 70s wasn't
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 2: women going into the workplace. Okay.
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah. All right.
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 2: What else happened in the 70s?
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah. What else happened?
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 2: I'll tell you what happened. I'll tell you what happened.
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 2: There was a argument, well, not an argument, a debate.
• 1:17:24
  Speaker 2: between the Marxist feminists and the Rad Femmes. They were
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 2: attempting to derive the material basis based on the Marxist
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 2: material dialectic. They were attempting to derive the material basis
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 2: of men's domination. So with Marxism, you actually have to
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 2: find benefit in order to declare oppression, which is why
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 2: they situated in the capitalist class. The feminists were attempting
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 2: to find material benefit for men in the relationship with women,
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 2: but they couldn't. And why couldn't they? Because men have
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 2: a custodial relationship with women, one of protection and provision.
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 2: So the material benefit does not go to the man
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 2: in the relationship, it goes to the woman. So they
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 2: couldn't find it. They couldn't derive patriarchy from Marxist material dialectic,
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 2: which is like trying to find oppression on easy mode, right?
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 2: Trying to finish a dot, like one of those draw
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 2: in the dots illustrations with two dots. And they couldn't.
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 2: They couldn't derive it. So what happened was, but they
• 1:18:41
  Speaker 2: did not get rid of the idea of patriarchy. They
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 2: did not get rid of the idea that men benefit
• 1:18:48
  Speaker 2: from their relationship to women at women's expense. And that
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 2: the relationship between men and women is defined by oppression.
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 2: So what ended up happening is the RadFem formulation. It's
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 2: the very custodial relationship that men have with women. their
• 1:19:07
  Speaker 2: willingness to protect and provide, to sacrifice for women, to
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 2: make sure that women accrue the material benefits of men's work,
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 2: that makes women dependent on men. And by making women dependent,
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 2: which is ridiculous, men don't make women dependent. Women are
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 2: dependent to begin with, and even more so human offspring
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 2: are dependent. But they make women dependent on them as
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 2: men in order to create patriarchy points. So oppression is
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 2: situated in men protecting and providing for women, in men
• 1:19:44
  Speaker 2: protecting and providing for women, in men serving women, in
• 1:19:48
  Speaker 2: men sacrificing their lives to protect women. That's where oppression,
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 2: men's oppression of women is situated, right? That divorces, it
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 2: removes men's side of the ledger. So it means anything
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 2: that a woman does in a relationship is even more oppression.
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 2: is him extracting from her because you can't see men's
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 2: custodial input into the relationship as a good because it's oppression.
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 2: So men's side of the ledger in a relationship was
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 2: erased and replaced with oppression. That happened in the 50s.
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 2: So that argument, they couldn't situate the material benefit because
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 2: the material benefit flowed to women. So they situated it
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 2: not in the material benefit, but in masculine ideology, patriarchal privilege,
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 2: which is the feeling of being a man because you've
• 1:20:48
  Speaker 2: provided for your woman. Or, you know, taking the bullet and,
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 2: you know, a split second before the blood runs out
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 2: of your body and you die. Oh, I saved my wife. Boy, howdy,
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 2: do I feel like a man? And that man has
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 2: just oppressed his wife. by sacrificing his life for her
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 2: because he got man points. At that point, you completely
• 1:21:11
  Speaker 2: sever men's side of the ledger in a relationship. You
• 1:21:15
  Speaker 2: completely corrupt it and you replace it with a constant
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 2: debit or sorry, yeah, a debit, a constant debt that
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 2: men have to women. And you also remove whatever value
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 2: men bring to a relationship. I mean, if a man
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 2: who sacrifices for his wife has brought her no value,
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 2: because why did she need him to sacrifice her in
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 2: the first place? Well, why did he make her so dependent?
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 2: Why didn't she know how to protect herself? You know,
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 2: that kind of shit. You've heard this stuff before. It
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 2: is erasing men's side of the ledger. And erasing men's
• 1:21:51
  Speaker 2: side of the ledger means men bring nothing to a
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 2: relationship except their relative rank relative to other men. Cue
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 2: the ratchet in which more and more and more men
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 2: don't qualify as marriageable because they can't get up into, oh,
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 2: I mean, it started at the 20th percentile, the 50th percentile,
• 1:22:12
  Speaker 2: the 70th, the 80th. It's now at the 90th. And
• 1:22:16
  Speaker 2: in 2033, no men will qualify at the same level. No,
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 2: there will be no income. at which men marry at
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 2: the same level as they did for a century between
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 2: 1880 and 1970, because men's side of the ledger was
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 2: severed by feminism, was removed. So men's existence in a
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 2: relationship is a continuous debt, which is where they get
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 2: nonsense like emotional labor and the time use surveys. Right.
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 2: And the fact that they don't recognize at all that
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 2: the the sacrifices men make in the jobs that they
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 2: take to support their families. So all the workplace death
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 2: and stress death deaths due to stress because men take
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 2: jobs that make a lot of money. But when you
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 2: make a lot of money, you usually have a lot
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 2: of stress associated with it. Those also erased from the ledger.
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 2: Everything men bring to a relationship is erased. They're shitty lovers.
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 2: They don't support women emotionally. When they protect and provide
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 2: for women, that's actually to induce dependence in women so
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 2: they can lord it over them and teabag them.
• 1:23:40
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 2: And when they sacrifice in workplace, that's other men sacrificing
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 2: for them so that they can lord more over their
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 2: own wives. Everything is erased. That means men bring nothing
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 2: but their rank relative to other men into a relationship.
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 2: And once you take the mating market from something that
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 2: is a material ask, I want a man. I want
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 2: to build a family with that man. A man who
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 2: pumps gas is fine. It's just about getting a man.
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 2: to build a family with, once you divorce marriage from
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 2: a goal, that goal, and you turn it into a
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 2: positional demand, that positional demand only escalates generation after generation
• 1:24:27
  Speaker 2: after generation. It only goes one way. And right now,
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 2: we're basically at over 50, like the newest cohort, we're
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 2: at over 50% of them. No man can rank high
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 2: enough relative to another man for them to consider him
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 2: for marriage because of feminism severing the ledger, men's side
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 2: of the ledger. That's what happened in the 70s. Okay, sorry.
• 1:24:59
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 2: Let's continue.
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 1: That's all right.
• 1:25:02
  Speaker 5: Just on this graph. It's all the same trend line.
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 5: So if you're going to blame everything... Well, what happened?
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 6: Wait a minute.
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: Hold on.
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 5: Let me finish my thought. Then you can attack it.
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 5: If you're going to blame everything from 1970s forward, you're
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 5: going to have a tough time because the data shows
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 5: that it's the identical trend since the 1940s. And if
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 5: you zoom out 200 years, you get this graph, which
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 5: is a U. So once you actually look at the
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 5: whole comprehensive story, your narrative falls apart really quickly because
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 5: nothing remarkable happened in the 1970s except for one thing.
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 5: And I'm curious if you know what actually happened in
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 5: the 1970s. Well, instead of playing pop quiz Kyla, first
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 5: of all... Here's my.
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 5: So good.
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 3: It's just your typical debate mood.
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 5: I just want to be clear. If you don't know words...
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 5: What do you think happened to this? What do you
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 5: think about this? What happened here? Okay. I just want
• 1:25:54
  Speaker 5: to be very clear before we get to the personal...
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 5: I thought we were going to take turns. Well, if
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 5: we're going to get to the personal insults, I'm just
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 5: going to quickly respond. I didn't insult you.
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 3: I just pointed out that your strategy is to pop
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 3: quiz your opponent.
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 5: It's something you do in every debate. So, thank you.
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: Are you familiar with Agrippa's Trilemma, Allison?
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 2: Sorry?
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 1: I guess you lose. You didn't know what it was.
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 1: That's Kyla's approach. I'm serious.
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 2: I think I heard half of that.
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: Agrippa's trilemma. It's like a meme based on her approach,
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 1: let's say, her tactic. But anyway, all right, let's keep going.
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 5: Outloading of saying my opponent, Kyla, will just happen to
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 5: know way more technological information and knowledge than me. When
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 5: you're done being offended, I'll respond to the actual point.
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 5: I mean, I'll take it. I know you wanted to
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 5: have a girl debate, but I would like to stick
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 5: to the actual argument. No, you said the boy debate.
• 1:26:44
  Speaker 5: So here we are, baby girl. You want the boy debate?
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 5: We're here. Yeah, we're doing it.
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 2: What happened?
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 5: So what happened in the 1970s? Again, that's so magical.
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 2: I'm confused. So the boy debate is superior? I mean,
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 2: it is, but okay.
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: Apparently, yeah, I guess. All right.
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 5: World War II. To all those women who went to work.
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 5: What did they do? Did they go back home?
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 2: Yes, they did.
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 5: They went back home. And then look, the same line
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 5: of best fit from before World War II. Because you
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 5: know what made women go back into workplace? Access to
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 5: new technologies that made it easier to go back to
• 1:27:22
  Speaker 5: the workplace.
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 2: Of course.
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 3: That's what made them go back. You haven't heard me
• 1:27:26
  Speaker 3: say this the three times I've heard it. Industrialization and
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 3: technology are allowed for this.
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 5: Yes, obviously. But we want to throw it at the
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 5: feet of feminism. That doesn't address my point.
• 1:27:36
  Speaker 3: That doesn't address the point of what you're going to
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 3: do about the demographic cliff we're about to fall off of.
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 3: Do you understand how you can possibly have feminism in
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 3: a world?
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 5: If you're going to keep interrupting me, I'll just ask
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 5: for time. I'll just ask my question after you're done.
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 3: Because if I interrupt you, it's a big problem, but
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 3: apparently I can't speak.
• 1:27:55
  Speaker 2: Okay, so what's happening here, as far as I can tell,
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 2: if I'm to wade in and add some spurgery... Is
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 2: and maybe maybe this is something that that Rachel's formulation
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 2: is inviting because the women's movement into the workplace didn't
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 2: actually change that much, at least in terms of the
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 2: slope in the 70s. That means feminism is off the hook.
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: Well, that's what Kyle is trying to do. Yes.
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what.
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 6: Yes.
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 2: All right. No, like, I mean, the thing is that I'm,
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 2: you know.
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 1: Another reason why women may have had to enter the
• 1:28:32
  Speaker 1: workforce after World War II might have something to do
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 1: with how many men died during World War II and
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 1: that there weren't as many people. There's also the reason
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 1: for the baby boom, right?
• 1:28:43
  Speaker 2: Yeah. But, I mean, also, like, why is it that
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 2: women were entering in the workforce like that but still
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 2: managing to have children?
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: I mean, okay. I mean, that also speaks against Rachel's point.
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 2: But like I said, I think that introducing women in
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 2: the workplace or women's education is a red herring. It's unnecessary, right?
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 2: I mean, if you get rid of feminism absolutely destroying
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 2: men's value proposition in marriage, you probably will find a
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 2: lot more women who are like, you know, why would
• 1:29:18
  Speaker 2: I spend six years in college rather than just getting
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 2: married to a man and having children, right? So it's
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 2: like the cart before the horse. Yes, feminism encourages singledom. Yep,
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 2: that's feminism. So don't worry about women in workplace, which
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 2: is they always done, or women in education, which they've
• 1:29:38
  Speaker 2: always done. Worry about feminism making women single or encouraging
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 2: women to be single. Once you fix that, probably the
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 2: number of women who go to college will naturally fall.
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 2: And the number of women who choose to stay at home,
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 2: even though that's not as feasible now, or figure out
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 2: some other way of managing things, but want to have
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 2: children in the appropriate window for having children, which is
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 2: married prior to 35, if not well before, will increase.
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 2: But we've got to start with doing something about the.
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 2: Ideologically-possessed harridans who said, literally said, we are gonna destroy
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 2: marriage and then proceeded to do so.
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:30:27
  Speaker 2: Yeah, okay. All right, but, because I feel like this
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 2: is going around in circles, but let's listen to some more.
• 1:30:33
  Speaker 5: Participate in order for this to be a conversation, Kyla. Ideally, yeah.
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 5: When you monologue for five minutes straight, yeah, typically I
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 5: need to be able to respond.
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 3: None of this, none of, we don't have to spend
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 3: 30 minutes on what happened in this decade or why
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 3: women worked.
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 5: You certainly don't want to.
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 3: Again, the point of everything we're talking about here is that, yes, thanks, James.
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 3: Nothing you're saying addresses the fact that we are about
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 3: to have a collapse of our first world.
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 5: Standard of living.
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 3: This economy in the west and it's it's ubiquitous across
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 3: all western nations in fact it's so congruent across all
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 3: of them that it's kind of crazy like uh statistics
• 1:31:12
  Speaker 3: canada has the same gp numbers gdp numbers that the
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 3: united states has that australia has that western europe has
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 3: which is when you push women to go to college
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 3: and have careers and have their own money and be
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 3: financially independent They listen, and they do that, and they say,
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 3: if that's what's expected, I'm not going to have kids. Now, again,
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 3: we can go back and prove this is what happened
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 3: in Russia, and it didn't matter how many pro-natalist campaigns
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 3: they had. Women said, if I got to work full-time,
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 3: I can't have three or four kids.
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 5: It doesn't work. You look at South Korea, same thing.
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 5: They don't have communism. They don't have pro-natalism.
• 1:31:50
  Speaker 3: It's a capitalist Western-style economy, and they can't even reproduce
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 3: the Korean woman. It's a serious problem that arguing over
• 1:31:59
  Speaker 3: the gold standard or the 70s.
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 5: Or women should have choices. First of all, they've always
• 1:32:04
  Speaker 5: had choices.
• 1:32:05
  Speaker 3: Second of all, if you don't address this problem, you
• 1:32:09
  Speaker 3: can kiss feminists.
• 1:32:09
  Speaker 1: She said, yeah, just less. What are you talking about?
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: Like men had more choices? Goodbye.
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 5: You won't have it anymore. It won't exist. There's this
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 5: really famous.
• 1:32:19
  Speaker 2: Rachel has just sold me on the end of the world.
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 3: Sorry.
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 2: Sorry, Rachel. If we don't deal with this, you can
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 2: kiss feminism goodbye.
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 1: Hmm. It's true.
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 1: I mean, feminism will be killed off by this, by
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: the end of feminism.
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 2: Goodbye.
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 1: I mean, it'll take, we'll take it down with us,
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 1: I guess. But yeah.
• 1:32:40
  Speaker 5: This researcher, Joseph Miller, because you cite him a few times.
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 5: There's a great conversation that the anti-suffragettes had where they
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 5: insisted that, oh, by God, if the feminists, you know,
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 5: if all this happens, the world is going to collapse.
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 5: People have been insisting that the world is going to
• 1:32:55
  Speaker 5: collapse in the next 10 years. I mean, the climate
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 5: people as well were insisting that we were going to
• 1:32:59
  Speaker 5: die in the next 10 years as well. It's just
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 5: fear-mongering that's not typically based in reality. Now, I know
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 5: you want to run away from counter information.
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 4: That is disconcerting.
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 2: That argument is like... Somebody's saying, well, I made it
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 2: to 80. I guess I'm never going to die. I
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 2: made it to 85. Looks like I got plenty of
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 2: data points.
• 1:33:22
  Speaker 1: I'm basically immortal.
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 2: I'm basically immortal. You have to update your position on
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 2: the likelihood of collapse, population collapse, based on the numbers,
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 2: the fertility numbers that we're seeing now, not in 1880. Right, Kyla?
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 2: And this is the problem. Honestly, this debate needs to
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 2: be happening between people who look at those numbers and say, hey,
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 2: that's a problem. But it's not. It's happening between Rachel
• 1:33:53
  Speaker 2: and this woman who apparently thinks that if she can
• 1:33:56
  Speaker 2: just gotcha, she can gotcha herself out of population collapse somehow.
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 2: Just as long as she keeps gotcha-ing Brian, that she'll just,
• 1:34:07
  Speaker 2: it's like double jump.
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 1: The thing is, Kyla's not planning on having any kids,
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 1: I don't think. She's probably not going to get married,
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 1: or at least not at this point. So she doesn't
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 1: have to think about the future. I mean, that's like,
• 1:34:20
  Speaker 1: I think that's what it comes down to. Rachel does.
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: She has to think about what she leaves behind when
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 1: she dies, because she has like four or five kids.
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 1: So it completely changes your perception. But okay, let's keep going.
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 5: Affirming of your narrative, but you still need to deal
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 5: with the Gulf states, right? Qatar having declining birth rate.
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 5: It's not feminism. It's modernization. Is that a first world
• 1:34:42
  Speaker 5: country you want to live in? No, I want to
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 5: live here, which has feminism and a booming GDP and
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 5: like one of the best countries on the earth. That's
• 1:34:49
  Speaker 5: why I'm here. Well, what are, what are we going,
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 5: what are we going to do? Yeah, it's great.
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 3: It's great right now, but, um, your field of psychology
• 1:34:59
  Speaker 3: that you got your degree in is so oversaturated.
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 5: We have, and it's almost all women. It's like 88% women.
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 5: Not going to deal with the gulfs though. We're just
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 5: going to run from that one. I'll just come back
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 5: to it. I'll write it down.
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 1: Adderall, Adderall, Adderall.
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 5: It doesn't address the problem that you have. Hey, I
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 5: feel personally called out. Are you on Adderall, Allison?
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 2: No, I'm not. I'm just, I'm just, I'm just joking.
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 1: Kyla is a disciple of destiny. So she debates the
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 1: same way he does, except that she tries to come
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 1: across as more reasonable.
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 3: The paradox of pushing women into work and telling them
• 1:35:47
  Speaker 3: to be career women like you, and then they don't
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 3: have children. How are you going to perpetuate the next generation?
• 1:35:53
  Speaker 3: Do you realize that the complex systems first world economies
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 3: rely on can only suffer about a 5% loss of
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 3: skilled male workers? And right now in this country. And
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 3: all across the West, we have all of the Gen-X
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 3: and Boomer men who know how to run complex water
• 1:36:12
  Speaker 3: sewage treatment centers, keep the power grid up and running.
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 5: Like these are highly skilled.
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 3: You can't just get someone from Pakistan, put them in
• 1:36:19
  Speaker 3: a six-week course or whatever, and make them a power lineman.
• 1:36:22
  Speaker 5: You can't do that. These men are not replaceable. We
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 5: have to start having babies, or you're going to have
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 5: short-term boom. That's what we've got now.
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 3: At the expense of long-term stability. And it's not fear-mongering,
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 3: it's math. The World Health Organization, the UN, and Elon
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 3: Musk talk about it all the time. Like, hey, we're
• 1:36:41
  Speaker 3: already seeing supply chain shortages. We're already seeing problems in
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 3: keeping up the infrastructure. Trump ran on the fact that
• 1:36:49
  Speaker 3: most Western nations, like including the US.
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 5: Have shit infrastructure. We have.
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 3: uh water lines in la that are 100 years old
• 1:36:56
  Speaker 3: blowing up all over the place what six or seven.
• 1:36:59
  Speaker 5: Of them in the last two weeks okay i we
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 5: have to do like a timer at this point i
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 5: don't even so if you want to i want to
• 1:37:05
  Speaker 5: talk to you and if we want to talk to
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 5: each other we have to go point by point like
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 5: if you monologue at me for five minutes straight with
• 1:37:11
  Speaker 5: multiple points they're all that wasn't five minutes i just.
• 1:37:14
  Speaker 3: Have one question how are you going to solve The
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 3: birth rate crisis.
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 5: Answer mine first. How do we do that? There's no
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 5: future without more people. How do you reconcile the fact
• 1:37:23
  Speaker 5: that you're claiming in the 1970s feminism infused a bunch
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 5: of women to the workplace, but we actually see the
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 5: largest boom of women.
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 1: Okay, I'll just grant it.
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 2: Hold on.
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 5: I'm not done. I'll just grant it.
• 1:37:31
  Speaker 2: I'm not done.
• 1:37:32
  Speaker 5: It doesn't even matter for my argument. The largest boom
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 5: of women entering the workplace is right before the golden
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 5: age of capitalism in America, right? That's what we see
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 5: when the American currency becomes the gold world reserve currency.
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 5: So if you wanna blame it at the 1970s, my
• 1:37:48
  Speaker 5: question to you again is, what actually magically happened because
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 5: Based on all of the actual data, nothing transformative happened.
• 1:37:56
  Speaker 5: Manufacturing was starting to die by the 1950s, right? We
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 5: have the Triffin Dilemma, which is a much better understanding of,
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 5: if you don't know the word, just ask, just saying, okay?
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 5: The Triffin Dilemma is a huge issue that causes massive
• 1:38:12
  Speaker 5: trade deficits for America, and it causes an issue where
• 1:38:16
  Speaker 5: people are always going to want to invest in America because, frankly,
• 1:38:19
  Speaker 5: we're the best. We're the best at everything. So again...
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 5: If you're going to say it's the 1970s. I didn't.
• 1:38:24
  Speaker 5: That's a straw man. It's not a straw man to
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 5: say that you said the 1970s is when this took off.
• 1:38:29
  Speaker 5: and the chic economy happened. And I'll tell you.
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: No.
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 5: That's not a straw man.
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 3: That was not in any way a pillar or linchpin
• 1:38:36
  Speaker 3: of my argument.
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 5: So it's the 1950s?
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 2: No.
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 3: Birth rates have declined since industrialization.
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 2: You're right.
• 1:38:42
  Speaker 5: It accelerated.
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 3: Wait.
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 2: Isn't that like the 1870s?
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 3: What? What?
• 1:38:51
  Speaker 2: What? Okay, I'm just sort of tuning out a bit.
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 2: So what are we talking about? She's going in the
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 2: Industrial Revolution again?
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 6: Or.
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 2: At this point, it seems like it's incredibly circular.
• 1:39:07
  Speaker 1: The Triffin Dilemma is what she's talking about. Well, this
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 1: is Kyla's tactic, though. But look, let's see where it goes.
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 5: I have already... Maybe you mean those 70s. Okay, when
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 5: she's done, then I'll talk.
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: She's avoiding the... Essentially, like, Rachel's just saying the prompt is, again,
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 1: is feminism doing more harm or good? Kyla's operating in
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 1: favor of feminism being more good. Rachel's arguing that it's
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: doing more harm. When asked, Rachel just simply says the
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 1: birth rate. And that is her saying feminism caused this.
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 1: And the effects of, like, the symptoms of feminism are
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 1: women entering higher education the propaganda campaign against men marriage
• 1:39:55
  Speaker 1: and children um and all of that and kyla doesn't
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 1: she's like well it can't be that because you know
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 1: the 1970s the gold standard and uh what why are
• 1:40:07
  Speaker 1: you dealing with the gulf states and all this other.
• 1:40:09
  Speaker 2: Stuff oh oh there's just an extra step that doesn't
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 2: need to happen here Feminism directly, directly destroys relationship. Doesn't
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 2: matter what it does with women in the workplace or
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 2: women in education.
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:40:24
  Speaker 2: Right. Like literally feminist said, we're going to destroy relationships.
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 2: And then they constructed a massive propaganda, like just a
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 2: massive threat narrative directed at men, specifically men in relationships
• 1:40:36
  Speaker 2: with women. That that's the site of female oppression. All
• 1:40:42
  Speaker 2: of the argument over women in the workplace or how
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 2: many women are in education is irrelevant to that fact.
• 1:40:49
  Speaker 2: Feminists targeted the relationship between men and women. The only
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 2: people who produce a replacement level fertility are married women.
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 2: So when you attack the relationship between men and women,
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 2: you destroy the fertility of a nation. Done. Like, what
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 2: more do you need to argue? Like, I feel like,
• 1:41:17
  Speaker 2: I think that if I were to give a criticism,
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 2: I think that, I mean, I'm not there, so I'm
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 2: just like quarterbacking, but like armchair quarterbacking, is Rachel is
• 1:41:26
  Speaker 2: giving her a lot of surface area to start attacking, right?
• 1:41:30
  Speaker 5: Mm-hmm.
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 2: And that surface area doesn't exist because we don't need
• 1:41:36
  Speaker 2: to talk about the gold standard. We don't need to
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 2: talk about women in the economy. We don't need to
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 2: talk about women's education. We don't need to talk about
• 1:41:45
  Speaker 2: Triffin's dilemma.
• 1:41:47
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 1:41:47
  Speaker 2: Or the U.S. Reserve or the Brenton Woods system or
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 2: Nixon taking us off the Brenton Woods system and taking
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 2: us off the gold standard. Right. We don't need to
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 2: talk about any of that. We can. Like, I wouldn't
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 2: mind just sitting down with Kyla and we can talk
• 1:42:03
  Speaker 2: about all of that.
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 2: We could do economics. We could talk about it for hours.
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 2: But none of that is relevant. Because the simple fact
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 2: is that feminism said they were going to destroy the
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 2: relationship between men and women. They were going to destroy marriage.
• 1:42:17
  Speaker 2: And they did. And unfortunately for the world, married women
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 2: are the ones who produce children. Or if they're shacking
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 2: up in Northern Europe. Women in relationships with men. regardless
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 2: of how those relationships are formed. If they're in countries
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 2: where cohabitation is considered the same as marriage and marriage
• 1:42:39
  Speaker 2: is just seen as the party that you throw to celebrate, right?
• 1:42:43
  Speaker 2: Then they basically have the same fertility as a marriage.
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 2: So whatever marriage custom that the local area has, when
• 1:42:50
  Speaker 2: women are in those marriages, they have replacement level fertility.
• 1:42:56
  Speaker 2: If women are not in marriages, they do not reproduce
• 1:42:59
  Speaker 2: at replacement level. Single women do not have children. They
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 2: barely have children by accident. They have abortions. Full stop.
• 1:43:10
  Speaker 2: Single women have abortions. Married women have children. Period. If
• 1:43:13
  Speaker 2: you get rid of marriage, if you destroy marriage, which
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 2: feminism said they did. I mean, I don't even know
• 1:43:18
  Speaker 2: why this is controversial. Like how many feminists said, yeah,
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 2: we're going to destroy marriage. Well, they did. And now
• 1:43:24
  Speaker 2: our birth rate's in the toilet. Why? Because they destroyed marriage.
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 2: The end. Can we now talk about how we, but
• 1:43:31
  Speaker 2: this is the problem. The answer is we cannot have
• 1:43:34
  Speaker 2: feminism because feminism has nothing to do with any of
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 2: this other stuff. It has to do with how feminists
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 2: framed the relationship between men and women. And that's it.
• 1:43:46
  Speaker 2: Like feminism is just that.
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 2: Like they didn't like the red stockings didn't start with, oh,
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 2: the world is going to be a better place when
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 2: there are more women in education and workforce. No, they
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 2: said we're going to smash the patriarchy and and destroy marriage.
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 2: That's that's their focus. This other stuff is just stuff that,
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 2: I don't know, gets pulled into feminists orbit. Because after
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 2: they've smashed marriage, I guess women still need to work.
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 2: They still need to feed themselves unless they're part of
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 2: some universally funded by the American government lesbian collective. Right.
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:44:33
  Speaker 2: But yeah, like like to me, this is just the
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 2: reason why I'm sort of like fading is because this
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 2: is this is off topic. And it's getting very circular now.
• 1:44:46
  Speaker 2: And I think it's because Rachel is trying to put
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 2: in more steps than there needs to be. Feminism puts
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 2: women into the workplace. No. Feminism increased the number. Maybe not.
• 1:45:00
  Speaker 2: Maybe it did. Well, it did because it made more
• 1:45:02
  Speaker 2: women single. But that's not necessary. You don't need that
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 2: extra step. You don't need the step of feminism made
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 2: women go into the workplace and have education. Because feminism
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 2: itself is the death of marriage. That's all you need.
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 2: Feminism said we're going to kill marriage, and they did.
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 2: That's all you need. Do you get what I'm saying, Brian?
• 1:45:24
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I get what you're saying. Yeah. Well, I mean,
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: I guess maybe Rachel took the bait and ended up
• 1:45:31
  Speaker 1: in Kyla's frame, but she's doing her best, too.
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 2: They're very good sophists. They're very good sophists.
• 1:45:41
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: All right, let's keep going. All right.
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 4: I do want to make sure there's not too much interrupting.
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 5: Let's do a game. We both talk for two minutes
• 1:45:51
  Speaker 5: at a time.
• 1:45:51
  Speaker 2: We'll have timers.
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 5: How about that? So condescending.
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 7: I appreciate that, but I'm okay with keeping it organic
• 1:45:58
  Speaker 7: as long as there's not too much interrupting.
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 3: Mrs.
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 5: Turner, is it my turn to speak? Can I talk
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 5: to you, please? Because you're the only person actually being
• 1:46:06
  Speaker 5: sane right now. If she talks for seven minutes straight
• 1:46:08
  Speaker 5: with multiple points....
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 2: Sure.
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 5: I just want to, let's go point by point.
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 4: You guys agree on that? That's progress.
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 5: All right.
• 1:46:17
  Speaker 4: You guys are both okay with two minutes.
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 5: You're welcome to interrupt me when you need to.
• 1:46:20
  Speaker 4: I'm setting the timer. Give me one second. And Rachel,
• 1:46:24
  Speaker 4: you want to go first?
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 2: Sure.
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 3: So the whole, you're totally fighting a straw man. You
• 1:46:30
  Speaker 3: completely made up this idea that my whole argument rests
• 1:46:34
  Speaker 3: on something fundamental changing in the 70s. I'll just grant
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 3: everything you said. Agrippa's trilemma, whatever you want. Birth rates
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 3: have been on the decline since industrialization. I didn't say
• 1:46:45
  Speaker 3: that no women ever worked before the 70s. I said
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 3: that's the point where it really accelerated and took off
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 3: and became mainstream, totally socially acceptable, the norm. Now if
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 3: you're a stay-at-home mom, that's the weird, creepy thing. That's
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 3: when that changed.
• 1:46:59
  Speaker 2: Doesn't matter.
• 1:47:00
  Speaker 3: It started in the 1800s with industrialization, urbanization, and women
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 3: going to work. Yes, that's when the birth rates began
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 3: to decline. And the sexual liberation stuff, whether it's no-fault divorce,
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 3: birth control pills, abortion, the overall thing and the only
• 1:47:18
  Speaker 3: thing that matters in this argument is what are we
• 1:47:21
  Speaker 3: going to do about demographics? Because it doesn't matter what
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 3: they're doing in Saudi Arabia. It doesn't matter when the
• 1:47:25
  Speaker 3: gold standard happened. It doesn't matter when or how women
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 3: got into the workforce. We are now in a position
• 1:47:31
  Speaker 3: where all Western nations are in the exact same boat
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 3: that when you shove all the women into the workforce
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 3: and tell them this is what you need to be
• 1:47:39
  Speaker 3: doing and focusing on, and you need a two-income household
• 1:47:42
  Speaker 3: now to survive, no one has babies.
• 1:47:45
  Speaker 5: Do you think that that's not going to be a problem?
• 1:47:48
  Speaker 1: I think that.
• 1:47:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:47:52
  Speaker 2: Just congratulate her. Kyle is a feminist. They destroyed marriage.
• 1:47:55
  Speaker 2: Marriage is where people have babies, and now we're not
• 1:47:58
  Speaker 2: doing that. Congratulations, Kylie, your movement that specifically said they
• 1:48:01
  Speaker 2: were going to destroy marriage destroyed marriage. Now what? I mean,
• 1:48:09
  Speaker 2: I don't know. It's hard to talk about these particular
• 1:48:12
  Speaker 2: debates because, you know, I guess I'm arguing with both
• 1:48:15
  Speaker 2: sides a little. Maybe I'm not trying to be a both-sider, though. Sorry, Brian.
• 1:48:21
  Speaker 5: Oh, it's fine.
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 1: It's fine.
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 2: There's a lot of surface area here. And I don't
• 1:48:28
  Speaker 2: see why we can't simply start the debate by saying
• 1:48:33
  Speaker 2: feminism wanted to destroy marriage and it succeeded. Now what?
• 1:48:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 1:48:40
  Speaker 2: Now that we've done that, right? Now that we've tried that,
• 1:48:46
  Speaker 2: can we try not dying as a species?
• 1:48:49
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 2: Let's move from there.
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 1: Okay? Yeah, but Kyla's whole point is to say, well,
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 1: feminism didn't do that. And that's why Rachel has to...
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 1: She's sort of being put in a position where she
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 1: has to contend with the... you know, Qatar and the
• 1:49:09
  Speaker 1: Middle Eastern countries and the gold standard stuff because Kyla's
• 1:49:12
  Speaker 1: whole goal is to say, yeah, all of that stuff
• 1:49:15
  Speaker 1: could be happening, but it's not feminism's fault. It's something
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 1: else's fault. And so if you open your argument by
• 1:49:20
  Speaker 1: saying feminism set out to do this thing and it
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 1: did it and you guys won, all she has to
• 1:49:25
  Speaker 1: say is, no, we didn't. We didn't succeed at that.
• 1:49:28
  Speaker 1: Because here's the 70s and here's the gold standard and
• 1:49:30
  Speaker 1: here's Qatar and here's Saudi Arabia.
• 1:49:34
  Speaker 2: That's not relevant to the fact that feminism explicitly said, right,
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 2: that relations, like you look at the, you just have
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 2: to look at the founding documents.
• 1:49:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, you could do that. I'm just saying I think
• 1:49:46
  Speaker 1: that she's going to pivot away from that. Like if
• 1:49:49
  Speaker 1: you brought that up, she was just going to say, well,
• 1:49:51
  Speaker 1: you know, even if they said they wanted to do it,
• 1:49:53
  Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that that's what happened. Like she'll just
• 1:49:56
  Speaker 1: pivot to something else.
• 1:49:58
  Speaker 2: What other ideology that has any clout with international development banks,
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 2: with NGOs, with governments, with academia, with policy? What other
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 2: organized ideology said that they wanted to destroy marriage or
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 2: framed marriage as the site of oppression for women? None.
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 1: I know that, but all she has to do is
• 1:50:20
  Speaker 1: deny that and say, well, maybe it's capitalism because it's industrialization.
• 1:50:24
  Speaker 1: Maybe it's capitalism. Maybe it's patriarchy that did it. Maybe it's,
• 1:50:28
  Speaker 1: you know, like the corporations, Christianity, like you can, she
• 1:50:34
  Speaker 1: can just find something else and blame that.
• 1:50:38
  Speaker 2: That's not the way this particular argument is going. It's
• 1:50:40
  Speaker 2: going towards, well, the job, the employment of women in
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 2: the seventies, women in education and whatever, right? That's giving
• 1:50:49
  Speaker 2: a lot of surface area. Bring her down to the
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 2: actual stated on the record Statements and policies and conjecture
• 1:50:59
  Speaker 2: of feminism is what I'm saying. I feel like that. Yes,
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 2: I am armchair quarterbacking. But right now we don't. And
• 1:51:09
  Speaker 2: Rachel is correct. We don't need to argue about the
• 1:51:11
  Speaker 2: gold standard. We don't need to argue about all of
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 2: this other stuff. But we also don't need to say
• 1:51:17
  Speaker 2: it was women in the workplace that did it. or
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 2: education that did it, because that's not what the stats
• 1:51:24
  Speaker 2: actually show. What it shows when you look at it,
• 1:51:28
  Speaker 2: and I've done the work, I've controlled for education, I've
• 1:51:32
  Speaker 2: controlled for workplace participation, everything is bodied by ideology. Women
• 1:51:40
  Speaker 2: who do not credit men for their half of a relationship,
• 1:51:44
  Speaker 2: for their custodial protection and provision, do not get married,
• 1:51:49
  Speaker 2: and they do not have children. When they're in marriages,
• 1:51:52
  Speaker 2: they have even less. I'll just run you down the
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 2: numbers really quick, comparing ideology to education. Just give me
• 1:52:02
  Speaker 2: a second, because I have to pull up my tab.
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 2: No problem. Okay, so a liberal with a BA plus
• 1:52:15
  Speaker 2: has 1.39 children if they're married. Of course, they're much
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 2: less married. Not liberal with a BA plus has 1.91.
• 1:52:23
  Speaker 2: That isn't at replacement, so that's not good, right? And
• 1:52:29
  Speaker 2: that's partially also because even conservative women are somewhat feminist.
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 2: But a no BA is 1.84 for a liberal and 2.18
• 1:52:37
  Speaker 2: for not a liberal. So overall, being a liberal kills
• 1:52:46
  Speaker 2: your birth rate as a woman. Having a BA does
• 1:52:51
  Speaker 2: not kill it as much. Like it brings it down
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 2: from 2.18 to 1.91. That's not good, but it's not
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 2: as bad as being a feminist, which being a liberal
• 1:53:03
  Speaker 2: is usually a one-to-one correspondence with women. So it's like,
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 2: you can say this, you can say, oh, it's education.
• 1:53:11
  Speaker 2: I'm like, no, it's being a feminist. It's women in
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 2: the workplace. No, conservative women who are working are also
• 1:53:20
  Speaker 2: having babies or married. They're married and they're having babies.
• 1:53:27
  Speaker 2: It is feminist women who are not getting married and
• 1:53:31
  Speaker 2: not having children in particular. And when they're married, they
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 2: have far fewer children. The ideology bodies everything. The entire
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 2: problem with this ratchet upwards of the expectations on men
• 1:53:46
  Speaker 2: and rank-based expectations, not income-based, started with liberal women in
• 1:53:52
  Speaker 2: the 70s. I can show you the sequence. It starts
• 1:53:56
  Speaker 2: with liberal women, and by the 80s, conservative women start
• 1:54:00
  Speaker 2: to get the same attitude towards men. And again, The
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 2: problem is that women are not marrying. If you compare
• 1:54:14
  Speaker 2: a married woman's fertility, you hold everything else constant. You
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 2: compare a married woman's fertility to a non-married woman. You
• 1:54:22
  Speaker 2: are looking at the difference between two children and no children.
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 2: The one factor, the one most critical factor is marriage
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 2: for women. And the reason why ideology destroys it is
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 2: because ideology destroys marriage. And I know that it could
• 1:54:44
  Speaker 2: be that it was the underpants gnomes, but I'm going
• 1:54:47
  Speaker 2: to lay my bet on the ideology that explicitly said
• 1:54:51
  Speaker 2: it was against marriage and situated the site of female
• 1:54:54
  Speaker 2: oppression in marriage as the reason why marriage lost its allure,
• 1:55:01
  Speaker 2: its luster for women. I think I'm going to put
• 1:55:05
  Speaker 2: it there. But yeah, I guess we could propose that
• 1:55:08
  Speaker 2: a unicorn or a fairy, the I hate marriage fairy
• 1:55:12
  Speaker 2: came and touched every young girl in the 70s or something.
• 1:55:17
  Speaker 2: We could propose all kinds of shit. But there is
• 1:55:19
  Speaker 2: only one ideology that said that marriage is the site
• 1:55:24
  Speaker 2: of oppression for women. And then grew like Kudko over everything.
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 2: That's all I'm saying. Okay.
• 1:55:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah. All right, well, we got like five minutes, so
• 1:55:37
  Speaker 1: I guess we'll have to do another part to this.
• 1:55:38
  Speaker 1: But let me play one more bit.
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 2: I mean, we're not doing too bad for time, considering.
• 1:55:44
  Speaker 1: No, we're not doing too bad. It's all right.
• 1:55:46
  Speaker 5: Do you think that that's not going to be a problem?
• 1:55:49
  Speaker 5: I think that the, yeah, I think that we absolutely
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 5: need to incentivize.
• 1:55:52
  Speaker 7: Just to be clear, I'm going to give you a
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 7: full two minutes. If you want to use all of it,
• 1:55:55
  Speaker 7: you can. Otherwise, you can kick it back to her
• 1:55:57
  Speaker 7: when you want to.
• 1:55:57
  Speaker 5: Here's what I'll say. Let's just talk. If I start
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 5: listing off like a bunch of points, just interrupt me.
• 1:56:02
  Speaker 5: It's pretty simple. I don't know, guys. I know conversations
• 1:56:05
  Speaker 5: are hard for the autism in the room, but that's.
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 4: How they can work. We're not going back. It was
• 1:56:09
  Speaker 4: your idea to do this.
• 1:56:11
  Speaker 5: Sure, I'll take two minutes precisely. Sure, we can do that.
• 1:56:16
  Speaker 7: No, what I'm saying is, Rachel took a minute and
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 7: 40 or so, and then she let you go for
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 7: your two minutes. If you want to use a minute.
• 1:56:24
  Speaker 5: I want 10 seconds.
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 4: Okay?
• 1:56:28
  Speaker 5: Oh, I'm so fast.
• 1:56:30
  Speaker 4: It's the Red Bull. I'm going to kick it over
• 1:56:31
  Speaker 4: to Rachel to use two minutes.
• 1:56:32
  Speaker 5: You just said, industrialization is when women started going to work.
• 1:56:36
  Speaker 5: That's false. Industrialization is when women stopped going to work.
• 1:56:39
  Speaker 5: That's when women workforce participation declined in the 1800s.
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 3: What?
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 1:56:45
  Speaker 5: So hard for your narrative.
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 3: It's no when when you talk about women working, nobody
• 1:56:51
  Speaker 3: thinks that working on your family farm or in your
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 3: family business with your husband and your dad and everyone.
• 1:56:56
  Speaker 3: Nobody thinks when we say women going to work, we're
• 1:56:59
  Speaker 3: talking about dad leaves the house in the morning.
• 1:57:01
  Speaker 5: Goes to his place of business.
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 3: Mom leaves her house in the morning, goes to her
• 1:57:04
  Speaker 3: place of business and the kids get sent to daycare
• 1:57:06
  Speaker 3: or public school.
• 1:57:08
  Speaker 5: That's new. That's post-industrial.
• 1:57:11
  Speaker 3: Nobody thinks that agrarian pre-industrial society where you're working the
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 3: farmstead with your husband is women going to work. They
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 3: were having seven babies on average before industrialization per woman.
• 1:57:22
  Speaker 5: That was fine.
• 1:57:23
  Speaker 3: Even post-industrialization could have been possibly sustainable had we not
• 1:57:28
  Speaker 3: introduced sexual liberation, sending women to college, delaying the.
• 1:57:32
  Speaker 5: First birth until you're 31.
• 1:57:34
  Speaker 2: That is... doom.
• 1:57:36
  Speaker 3: It's demographic doom and you don't have a way out
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 3: of it and you don't have an answer for it,
• 1:57:41
  Speaker 3: which is why you want to talk about anything else.
• 1:57:44
  Speaker 5: Speaking of wanting to talk about anything else, still haven't
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 5: gotten an answer to the 1970s question, which again... I
• 1:57:49
  Speaker 5: granted it. You can laugh. I granted it. It is
• 1:57:52
  Speaker 5: a hinge point of your narrative.
• 1:57:54
  Speaker 1: It's not.
• 1:57:54
  Speaker 5: I granted it. I asked you when. You're completely right.
• 1:57:58
  Speaker 5: I asked you when. You're completely right about the 70s.
• 1:58:00
  Speaker 4: I'm just going to grant the... You get the whole.
• 1:58:03
  Speaker 5: Point for you. Now, what are you going to do
• 1:58:05
  Speaker 5: about demographics?
• 1:58:06
  Speaker 4: Just so the speakers can be heard, I do need
• 1:58:08
  Speaker 4: you to keep it quiet in the audience.
• 1:58:10
  Speaker 7: It is not so hard. You have two minutes if
• 1:58:12
  Speaker 7: you want to use it. Otherwise, we kick it back
• 1:58:16
  Speaker 7: to Rachel for two minutes.
• 1:58:18
  Speaker 5: No, I'll use my two minutes.
• 1:58:19
  Speaker 2: I think that we need to probably stop it, Brian.
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fine.
• 1:58:24
  Speaker 2: I mean, I don't mind listening to erudite a bit more. Um,
• 1:58:27
  Speaker 2: like I said, I think I'm, I'm arguing something different
• 1:58:30
  Speaker 2: than Rachel at this point. Like I, I like, well,
• 1:58:34
  Speaker 2: I'm listening to this. I'm like, well, that doesn't, that's
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 2: not actually relevant. That's not actually relevant. That's not actually relevant.
• 1:58:40
  Speaker 2: What's relevant is that women are not marrying. That's it.
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 2: They should that. Yes, they probably should be marrying younger. Um,
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 2: but you know, Northern European managed it with older marriage. Um,
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 2: when they didn't have this kind of a, when they
• 1:58:58
  Speaker 2: weren't laboring under an ideology that situated the site of
• 1:59:01
  Speaker 2: female oppression in marriage. Right? So it's like, all of
• 1:59:05
  Speaker 2: this is just, it's just so much noise. And it's
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 2: unfortunate that we can't actually have the conversation. And, um,
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 2: like the, the let's, let's acknowledge that this is a problem. Okay.
• 1:59:20
  Speaker 2: Just finish, um, what, what Kyla is saying.
• 1:59:22
  Speaker 1: I'll let Kyla say what she was going to say.
• 1:59:25
  Speaker 5: So the Gulf states, again, so the reason why you're
• 1:59:28
  Speaker 5: acting like this isn't relative at all is because it's
• 1:59:30
  Speaker 5: bad for your narrative, right? For example, Japan. Do you
• 1:59:34
  Speaker 5: think that Japan was like a highly feminist country? Yes,
• 1:59:38
  Speaker 5: it's highly modern and industrial. Post-1970s?
• 1:59:41
  Speaker 1: It's 100% very feminist, Japan. We had the ICMI 2019.
• 1:59:46
  Speaker 1: There was a Japanese guy that had Dr. Warren Farrell's books,
• 1:59:50
  Speaker 1: and he wanted to talk about feminism. He flew in.
• 1:59:54
  Speaker 1: from Japan because of how bad it is there, or
• 1:59:58
  Speaker 1: at least how much worse it's gotten. So yes, Japan
• 2:00:00
  Speaker 1: has feminism in spades, but okay.
• 2:00:03
  Speaker 5: Women are absolutely expected to work in Japan. Post-1970s specifically
• 2:00:07
  Speaker 5: is when that feminist infusion really came out. I don't know.
• 2:00:12
  Speaker 5: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. It doesn't matter to
• 2:00:15
  Speaker 5: my argument at all.
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 2:00:20
  Speaker 2: So I would ask Kyla what marriage regime Japan has
• 2:00:25
  Speaker 2: versus Northern European versus Southern European versus the Caribbean Gulf States,
• 2:00:30
  Speaker 2: South America or North America, right? Does she know if
• 2:00:33
  Speaker 2: it's a key selection? Does she know if it's a
• 2:00:35
  Speaker 2: Maai culture? Does she know if it is a romantic
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 2: plus family veto culture like Southern Europe, right? Or is
• 2:00:46
  Speaker 2: it a pure Christian romantic culture like Northern Europe, right?
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 2: Is it a matriarchal key selection culture like the Caribbean?
• 2:00:56
  Speaker 2: All of these things matter because all of these things,
• 2:00:59
  Speaker 2: all of these factors affect how a culture absorbs feminism, post-industrialization,
• 2:01:05
  Speaker 2: increases in standard of living, education, women in the workplace, right?
• 2:01:13
  Speaker 2: Is this a, so for example, there's a lot of,
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 2: cultural transference between, like we are a very Christian romantic culture,
• 2:01:25
  Speaker 2: so we have a sense that a romantic relationship in
• 2:01:28
  Speaker 2: and of itself is a good. This is an attitude
• 2:01:33
  Speaker 2: that's transferred more, I think, to Japan than Korea. And
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 2: the Far East is my marriage matchmaker culture. So what
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 2: they have is they have a strong sense of marriage
• 2:01:49
  Speaker 2: as a social obligation, like having a job. but they
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 2: don't necessarily recognize the courtship, the romance as being its
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 2: own kind of good like Northern Europeans do. Very different
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 2: when feminism hits that surface, it's very different than when
• 2:02:03
  Speaker 2: it hits a social obligation surface. Because when it hits
• 2:02:06
  Speaker 2: a social obligation surface, and you basically say that marriage
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 2: is a site of female oppression of women, the social
• 2:02:13
  Speaker 2: obligation surface dissolves completely under that onslaught. And you end
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 2: up with a seven, a 0.7 earth rate. Whereas in
• 2:02:21
  Speaker 2: the Northern European culture, you might not because it still
• 2:02:26
  Speaker 2: is operating off of it itself being its own good.
• 2:02:30
  Speaker 2: This is all stuff that you need to even start
• 2:02:33
  Speaker 2: asserting the things that Kyla is asserting. She's none of it.
• 2:02:36
  Speaker 2: This is frustrating to watch this debate because I can
• 2:02:45
  Speaker 2: tell you that Every single location is going to respond
• 2:02:50
  Speaker 2: to industrialization differently. Well, not even industrialization. That's done. What
• 2:02:56
  Speaker 2: about the second industrial revolution, Kyla? Okay, let's put that aside.
• 2:03:04
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 2:03:05
  Speaker 2: Every place is already post-industrialization, so how it responds to
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 2: increases in standard of living, how it responds to feminization
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 2: or feminism, How it responds to being a debitor versus
• 2:03:15
  Speaker 2: a creditor nation? Like, does she know about that? Does
• 2:03:18
  Speaker 2: she know that the Gulf states are creditor nations, which
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 2: is why they've resisted cultural imposition from the international development banks? Like,
• 2:03:25
  Speaker 2: does this woman know any of this? And I'm talking
• 2:03:29
  Speaker 2: about Kyla when she brings all of this up because
• 2:03:32
  Speaker 2: she thinks she has gotchas. When you drill down into
• 2:03:35
  Speaker 2: the data, everything has an explanation. Like you can't just
• 2:03:41
  Speaker 2: throw out, oh, Saudi Arabia. Well, Saudi Arabia is a
• 2:03:46
  Speaker 2: kinship selection culture, right? That still has custodial laws on
• 2:03:50
  Speaker 2: the book, right? So, and also it has a gigantic
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 2: influx of immigration that changes its fertility. If you just
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 2: look at the native fertility, they're doing fine. Yes, they
• 2:04:01
  Speaker 2: reduced like everybody does post-industrialization because babies aren't dying anymore. Like,
• 2:04:07
  Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, a pre-industrial woman has seven babies, but
• 2:04:10
  Speaker 2: two of them live, right?
• 2:04:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 2: Okay, so yes, but that's not relevant. What's relevant is
• 2:04:19
  Speaker 2: their family formation, whether or not they're a debitor versus
• 2:04:22
  Speaker 2: a creditor nation, right? What kind of feminism? Are they
• 2:04:26
  Speaker 2: getting womanomics or the full blast of the devil's headwind
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 2: that is Western feminism? Right. What's going on? You have
• 2:04:38
  Speaker 2: to have all of these different factors. So it's just
• 2:04:41
  Speaker 2: it's a frustrating argument for me. You see what I'm saying?
• 2:04:45
  Speaker 2: And Kyla's Kyla's using gotchas. And I wish that she
• 2:04:52
  Speaker 2: would engage. Maybe she does. Maybe she does engage with
• 2:04:55
  Speaker 2: Rachel's point because Rachel's sticking to that point. Right. We
• 2:04:59
  Speaker 2: got to do something. What do we do? Feminism is
• 2:05:02
  Speaker 2: somehow responsible for the birth rate. Well, I would say
• 2:05:08
  Speaker 2: it's because feminism ended marriage. Everything else is just secondary.
• 2:05:15
  Speaker 2: But it doesn't matter. It's feminism. And she's arguing that
• 2:05:18
  Speaker 2: it isn't. So what do we do next? That's the
• 2:05:23
  Speaker 2: argument I want to see. Right? And I don't know.
• 2:05:27
  Speaker 2: It's just getting a little frustrating. But I know we
• 2:05:30
  Speaker 2: need to go through this process. Anyway, I know that
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 2: you have to go.
• 2:05:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I have to go.
• 2:05:35
  Speaker 2: I would like to direct everyone unless you wanted to
• 2:05:38
  Speaker 2: say anything.
• 2:05:40
  Speaker 1: No, I think I'm good. We'll definitely finish. We'll do
• 2:05:44
  Speaker 1: more of this next.
• 2:05:47
  Speaker 2: Week, I guess. I could have played the gotcha game
• 2:05:50
  Speaker 2: and it would have been fun. I could have played
• 2:05:52
  Speaker 2: the gotcha game and it would have been fun. Yeah,
• 2:05:55
  Speaker 2: I don't know. We could just do economic gotcha, Kyla. Like,
• 2:05:59
  Speaker 2: that would be so much fun. Ugh. Anyway, so if
• 2:06:03
  Speaker 2: you would like to send a message at any time
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 2: after the show is over, you can do so at feedthebadger.com
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 2: slash justthetip. That's feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. I don't think we
• 2:06:11
  Speaker 2: got anything, so... Yeah, it's kind of quiet on the.
• 2:06:15
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of people watching. We got, like, 4,000
• 2:06:19
  Speaker 1: views on the vertical.
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 4: Oh, wow.
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 1: A thousand on the horizontal.
• 2:06:24
  Speaker 2: They didn't even talk. They didn't even talk. Interesting. All right.
• 2:06:28
  Speaker 2: So if you want to send us a message, feedthebadger.com
• 2:06:31
  Speaker 2: slash justthetip to do so. Anytime after the show is over,
• 2:06:34
  Speaker 2: if you are curious about anything I've talked about, I
• 2:06:36
  Speaker 2: know I've talked a lot. I'm like a squirrel not
• 2:06:39
  Speaker 2: on Adderall. And I put out a lot of different concepts.
• 2:06:44
  Speaker 2: And if you want to support the show, because you
• 2:06:47
  Speaker 2: think what you've heard here is worth supporting, you can
• 2:06:49
  Speaker 2: go to feedthebadger.com. It's just feedthebadger.com now, guys. That's where
• 2:06:53
  Speaker 2: you can find the fundraiser for the month, plus the
• 2:06:56
  Speaker 2: amount of days that are left. So please do help
• 2:06:59
  Speaker 2: us out because we're still well over from close to
• 2:07:02
  Speaker 2: getting it done. So once again, that's feedthebadger.com slash support.
• 2:07:06
  Speaker 2: And if you want to join us in our community,
• 2:07:09
  Speaker 2: maybe take part in some of our game streams where
• 2:07:12
  Speaker 2: we do repo, not Beat Saber. I can only imagine
• 2:07:17
  Speaker 2: what that would look like and how technical difficulty laden
• 2:07:20
  Speaker 2: it would be. But if you want to do that,
• 2:07:21
  Speaker 2: it's at badgernation.online. All of the links are in the
• 2:07:25
  Speaker 2: low bar. So pick your poison. And I will hand
• 2:07:28
  Speaker 2: this back to Brian to take us out.
• 2:07:30
  Speaker 1: Okay. Well, if you guys liked this video, please hit like.
• 2:07:33
  Speaker 1: Subscribe if you're not already subscribed. Hit the bell for notifications.
• 2:07:36
  Speaker 1: Leave us a comment. Let us know what you guys
• 2:07:38
  Speaker 1: think about what we talked about on the show today.
• 2:07:40
  Speaker 1: And share the video because sharing is caring. Thanks so
• 2:07:43
  Speaker 1: much for coming on this episode of Maintaining Frame, and
• 2:07:46
  Speaker 1: we will talk to you guys in the next one.
• 2:07:49
  Speaker 1: Have a good night.