Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Ex Patriarch destroys female men's rights activists with this one simple trick! | Rantzerker 232

Transcript

Ex Patriarch destroys female men's rights activists with this one simple trick! | Rantzerker 232 · Honey Badger Radio

• 1:37
  Speaker 1: One coming to you live from deep within an icy,
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: radioactive wasteland. We are the survivors of the ex patrie
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: No it's not XP, it's ex patriarch Apocalypse. The Few,
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: the brave, the bitchy, once more wading into battle against
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: the history distorting zombie hordes with Rand Zurker number three
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: two three two. Yeah, my dyslexia just engaged there. Ex
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Patriarch destroys female men's rights activists with this one simple trick.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: I'm your host, Alison, and with me is Hannah, Karen
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: and Brian, who will be our our.
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: Ceremonies master of ceremonies.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: There we go, all right.
• 2:27
  Speaker 3: So yeah, he's the one that'll tell us to shut
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: up when we.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: Talk, to try to keep to some kind of schedule.
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: Now, now you can get the sound effect from Big Red.
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: Shut the fuck up.
• 2:43
  Speaker 4: Time?
• 2:44
  Speaker 3: Will you shut the fuck up for the fiftieth billions time?
• 2:49
  Speaker 3: Patriarchy Patriarchy fuck face.
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: I still think we need to have a cartoon character
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: called Patriarchy Face. Oh yeah, it just goes around and
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: rex for women.
• 3:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, patriarchy Patriarchy Face.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: Oh, this guy's the page.
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: There we go. Well, things going, good, men and women
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: getting along incomes patriarchy fuck face to mess it all up.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, just a bit of of the uh house cleaning,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: house cleaning, thank you. I I need I need a vocabulary.
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: I need like a card that just has common words
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: on it, or I need AI to do my vocabulary
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: thinking for me. All right, So I just want to
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: point out that the tech, the the vertical stream seems
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: to be stalled. And also if you want to sport
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: the show, yeah, it looks like it. I don't have
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the fundraiser open yet, but you know, in the future
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: you probably could go to feed the Badger dot com
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: slash support help us out. In the meantime, you can
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: go to feed the Badger dot com slash just the
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: tip to send us a tip and maybe send us
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: a message if you would like to have us respond
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: once again, that's see the badger dot com slash just
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: the tip.
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: And yeah, don't tell us not to accept rides from
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: three legged camels. We already know.
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, okay, you okay, my my brain has scrambled
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: today for some reason.
• 4:26
  Speaker 3: I'm really sorry, all right, Hannah Hannah, mm hmmm, it's
• 4:31
  Speaker 3: too early for that ship.
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: Can't be too early. For that ship, that's ancient. I
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: literally stole that from Bazuka, like you remember the old
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: Bazuka gum that you get. Then there was comic in there, joke.
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: Come on and.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: Look at this.
• 4:50
  Speaker 5: I can.
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: I can play with this thing behind me. Look at that.
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: Us with that texture on them. Yeah, look at that somewhere.
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: Look look at the plaid, isn't it?
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: Plaid is always beautiful?
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: Exactly, Alison, Yeah, I object. Well, okay, it's just notly
• 5:13
  Speaker 3: for for a seizure from that mild animation of plaid.
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: No, I just just as long as it's not a company.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: Look at the ship, Look at that beszed I'm not.
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: No, give me and this one I agree with Karen.
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: I'm not looking all right.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: Well I'll put this one up. How's that nice little pyrotechnics?
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: Okay, the New Year? That's fine for the New Year,
• 5:49
  Speaker 3: and in honor of this Tesla cyber truck.
• 5:54
  Speaker 5: Mm hmm.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: I don't know if I should do it. Actually, you're right,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: because it did have all those those little spinny fireworks
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: coming off.
• 6:06
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 6:06
  Speaker 3: No, it was like cast hands and all kinds of
• 6:10
  Speaker 3: shit and like and fireworks and then he uh apparently
• 6:16
  Speaker 3: apparently he parked in front of the building and then
• 6:19
  Speaker 3: shot himself in the head just after he pushed the
• 6:24
  Speaker 3: button to explode everything, which is probably prudent because if
• 6:30
  Speaker 3: you know that there's gonna be a fire engulfing your body,
• 6:36
  Speaker 3: you probably want to die before that happens.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we avoid the probably don't.
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: Want to feel it, the.
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: Extra excruciating pain being roasted to death like a yeah.
• 6:48
  Speaker 3: Apparently, like pretty much everybody who kind of has an
• 6:53
  Speaker 3: idea of you know, what things feel like. Contrary to
• 6:59
  Speaker 3: what feminist would say, uh, dying by fire is probably
• 7:04
  Speaker 3: the most painful way. They'd say dying by childbirth is
• 7:12
  Speaker 3: the most painful. And you know, I can vouch for
• 7:16
  Speaker 3: the fact that it's pretty fucking painful giving birth.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: But you know, all right, so I did at least.
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: Have a baby at the end of it, hopefully.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: So I took a deeper look at his sources. That's
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: ex patriarch. I'm always going to say, ex patriot. You
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: know that it's always gonna be in the tip of
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: my tongue. Ex patriarch sources which are in his low
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: bar as far as I know from the last time
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: I checked. Also, we had a back and forth in
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: his comments until he stopped talking to me for whatever reason. Actually,
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: what he did was he said, I don't want to
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: debunk you anymore because I feel like you are too
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: fragile to.
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: Oh my god, what.
• 7:58
  Speaker 5: It's like something the brain would say from thinking in
• 8:01
  Speaker 5: the brain.
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: You're too I have done too much damage. I never
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: hear that from our in argument. In arguments with mr men,
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: they don't pull their punches. You know, I like arguing
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: with them a lot more because feminist men always do this.
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: They use the pretense of pulling their punches to get
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: out of arguments when they are losing. Yeah, and and
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: they just pretend, oh, well, you know you're a woman,
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: you can't keep up.
• 8:31
  Speaker 3: Yeah, oh well you're a woman I wouldn't want never feelings.
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I've never heard any of that sexist bullshit. Yeah,
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: Mr A men, not even Mick tau right. Everybody claims
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: that migtow are so sexist. No, they're just defending themselves.
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: And they don't act like that. They don't act like
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: women are fragile and can't handle stuff. They they acknowledge
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: that some women choose not to m but feminists feminist
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: men either treat us like we're fragile, little delicate flowers
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: that can't be expected to handle the same shit that
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: men do, or like we're not as intelligent because we're
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: not men. And it is because we're not men that
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: that that they're viewing us this way, or that we're
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: manipulated because we're not men, that we can't hold the
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: same opinions as men without being made to hold them
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: by men. And you know, to me, I think that's
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: kind of pathetic. It pretty much undermines their entire.
• 9:34
  Speaker 3: Arguments that women, that women are like equal intelligent, equally capable,
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: equally competent, equally.
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: Strong, and they're believing any of that.
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I suspect he said that as a way of
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: bowing out of the art.
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: Oh yes, yes, exactly.
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: In the most snide way possible. It's like, oh, you
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: just too You are too weak to handle my bants.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: So I going to I'm going to leave now because
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: I don't want to be responsible. I don't want to
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: be an accessory of manslaughter or something.
• 10:08
  Speaker 3: What a woman's slaughter, a woman's slaughter, irre.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: Femicide. I don't want to I don't want to risk
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: a femicide by subjecting you to my my superior arguments.
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: Okay, you know that's that's one that really gets me, right,
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: because homicide means killing a human being, not killing a man.
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: So in inventing a term femicide, feminists just made the
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: claim that women are not human. Yeah, so there goes
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: the argument that women's rights or human rights.
• 10:42
  Speaker 4: Yeah, or the intention is to essentially elevate womanho something
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: men above.
• 10:50
  Speaker 5: It's like it's a kind of murder, that is.
• 10:55
  Speaker 3: Women are a special kind of human.
• 10:59
  Speaker 5: Kind of human men.
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: Exactly when they elevate men as a special kind of
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: human that has special kind of responsibilities and special kind
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: of obligations, they use that as an argument to take
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: away rights.
• 11:10
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 11:11
  Speaker 4: Yeah, it's almost like they do this stuff as what
• 11:14
  Speaker 4: they do has nothing to do with logical arguments.
• 11:17
  Speaker 5: It's just about grasping power.
• 11:21
  Speaker 3: Talking about special kinds of humans. There's also the special
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: Olympics mm hmm true, which you know, as a woman,
• 11:34
  Speaker 3: I don't want to be uh, I don't. I don't
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: want women to in general be lumped in with special
• 11:43
  Speaker 3: I would just rather have us be like maybe equal
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: but different mmmm, like back in the day.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that could be uh, that could be beneficial.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: All right, So here is the stuff that I I searched.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: All right, So first of all, Smith is the person
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: that he cites the majority of his information from is Smith.
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: And as we went through, Barbara Smith is I'm not
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: sure if she's a lawyer, but she is definitely looking
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: at things from a feminist point of view. And after
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: she does her rundown of the law, which doesn't actually
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: cite law, it's just a series of summaries and very
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: much taken from Blackstones commentaries except where it doesn't benefit
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: her argument, and then she gets into the opinion piece,
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: which is what he cites. So it's remarks. She calls
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: it remarks, but it's essentially an opinion law on the
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: intent of the law. And she proposes that the intent
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: of the law is too is to benefit men over women,
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: so to make it so that men can derive benefit
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: from their wives finances. And we previously we went over
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: the fact that prior to prior to changes as a
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: result of the Industrial Revolution, most women didn't have jobs
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: outside the finances finance, yeah, outside the home in which
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: they would have their own income. And it wasn't because
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: it was a it was a bias against women. It
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: was because the only jobs available literally required men's physical
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: strength to do. It was after the Revolution that you
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: see after the Industrial Revolution that you see the rise
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: of a clerk class or department store workers, or work
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: that basically is function women functionally capable of doing. Prior
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: to that, it was it was a lot more dangerous,
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: it was a lot more difficult. It was had involved
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: a lot more physical strength to even survive it. So
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: that's that's one thing to put out. And yes, women
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: worked in the minds, but they didn't work in the
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: more dangerous aspects of the minds, which is why they
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: could be like in the Victoria era, they could be
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: excluded from that work. But anyway, so there wasn't really
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: a situation, especially for upper class women, where they were
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: capable of earning an income outside the home. Now, for
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: lower class women, they often had an income coming from
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: like being domestic servants, being lawn dresses, you know, other
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: like governesses, governesses and stuff like that.
• 14:22
  Speaker 6: So working class women might have an income like that
• 14:25
  Speaker 6: forli was pretty lucrative in fact. Yeah, But however, when
• 14:30
  Speaker 6: you're talking about working class you're talking about people who
• 14:33
  Speaker 6: don't have the luxury of extra income. So everything was
• 14:38
  Speaker 6: just going to necessities.
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: So this wasn't something that became an issue. It wasn't
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: until upper class women started to earn their own income
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: and that income didn't have to go to necessities. That's
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: the critical point. Nobody's arguing about income if it's all
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: going to necessities. So these upper class women did not
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: want their husbands to have control over their income. Now,
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: their husbands were still obligated to their debts and their upkeep,
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: but the basically what she had the attitude. These upper
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: class women had the attitude of what's yours is mine,
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: and what's mine is mine?
• 15:15
  Speaker 5: Yeah?
• 15:16
  Speaker 3: Yeah, well what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours? Honey?
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, yeah yeah, all right. So because of this
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: change the laws that covered marital finances, and again has
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: Hannah brought up, you could arrange your finances merrily in
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: any way you wanted prior to getting married. You didn't
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: have to go with the default your family could create
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: a stress for you. You could put property outside of
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: what your your husband would be able to control.
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: So essentially, if you were an adult, yeah you were,
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: you were fem's soul before you got married, you could
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: do anything that any fem soul could do, including make
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: legal exceptions prior to the marriage.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so, so that you have to consider that as well.
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: But the real issue here is that the law hadn't
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: wasn't keeping up with the changes in what was happening
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: in terms of job market, in terms of property in
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: the old mills circumstances on the croud. In the old world,
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: you couldn't get rid of land. Like in the new
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: world you could buy and sell land. The old world,
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: it wasn't possible you had that land. It was to
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: your family, that was it. So if a man in
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: like took control of a woman's land there, it wasn't
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: going to go anywhere. He couldn't sell it. It was
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: only the property market existed in North America, which is
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: why you have all of these amendments to the law
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: in North America related to protecting women's property against sale
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: by their husbands. All right, So, but in the old
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: world you weren't selling that. Like the value of the
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: land is the living you could make off of it,
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: It wasn't selling it.
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: So I mean to the fact, I don't think people
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: understand today that the way that that evolved, because if
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: you look at English common law. In the old Land,
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: it wasn't that the land was your property and your right.
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: It was that the land was your place and your responsibility.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: So if you were a land baron, if you were
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: a lord, if you know, if you were a property
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: owner on any level, it wasn't that you were a
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: property owner. It was that you were a property controller
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: in the name of the king, and you were responsible
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: not only for the administration of that property, but also
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: of the people who lived on it and worked it,
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: your serfs. Where when people moved to the new countries
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: that became the United States and Canada and Australia and everything,
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: there was land that had not been owned by anybody
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: in the old country. And so when you got that property,
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: you weren't controlling it in the name of the king.
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: It wasn't part of somebody's barony, it wasn't part of
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: somebody's responsibility. You didn't have serfs, you didn't have people
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: you were responsible except for your own family. It was
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: for your use and it was your right. And that
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: was a huge change, a huge difference. It's like the
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: difference between uh your job and your responsibilities at your
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: job and your home and your responsibilities at your home,
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: a home you're responsible for.
• 18:24
  Speaker 3: You saw a small business that.
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: Right, you own a small business. Well, that's that's been
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: my experience with my home all my life. So I
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: don't really I didn't even think of that, but yeah,
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: it's like the difference between your workplace and your home business.
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: And I've actually never lived in a home where a
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: home business wasn't you know, even when it was my home.
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: I have a home business now.
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: So the ultimate point is that things were changing on
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: the ground, and the proposal by Barbara Smith is that
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: instead of just simply being a situation where circumstances were changing,
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: the law is a very conservative institution, so it doesn't
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: always go in lockstep with the circumstances that exist. She
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: proposes that this is a deliberate effort by men to
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: actually suppress women, all right, And then one of the reasons,
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: one of the downstream effects of this is that the
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: situation for men as a result of this law is
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: ignored because it's just assumed that they have a better
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: situation than women and their deak, they don't have to
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: be considered when changing the law, which then leads to
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: the situation that Karen was talking about with the suffragette
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: I believe who got.
• 19:37
  Speaker 3: Her husband, Elizabeth Wills Cousban.
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: Jailed for her debts, her taxes on her income. So
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: he was responsible for paying her taxes on her income
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: and he was unable to pay He did not have
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: her income. He had no access to her income. As
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: a result, he.
• 19:56
  Speaker 3: Has no access to her private financial information. Yeah, so
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: even if he had the money to pay it, he couldn't.
• 20:04
  Speaker 3: He had no right to know how much he was
• 20:06
  Speaker 3: required to pay.
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. So this this was the downstream effect of
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: the advocacy of women like Barbara Smith in ignoring the
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: situation for men so that we don't change the situation
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: for men. So excess is like a sick man going
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: to jail and then subsequently dying. Don't happen. This is
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: you know, So this is the situation. He's using this
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: particular document to propose or to under or gird his
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: narrative about patriarchy in the past. And again it is
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: cherry picked. It's looking at a very narrow situation. It
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: is somebody who herself is biased and has presenting an
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: opinion on intention, which is something that I really really
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: hate about what people do with history is we what
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: we're looking at when we're looking at legal history and
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: written history is basically just a skeleton fragments of the scale,
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: and from that we are inferring all kinds of things
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: about our ancestors' motives. I don't think that's that's a
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: reasonable thing to do, but regardless, this is the situation.
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: This is what he's presenting. He's presenting a feminist opinion
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: piece from the eighteen fifties. I believe as fact, a
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: feminist opinion piece that went on to influence law that
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: became extremely destructive towards men because they hadn't considered the
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: obligations placed on men. Because she framed it in a
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: way that it was just anti woman. And once she
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: framed something as anti women, people's brains turn off. They
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: open their wallets and they tell me insert instructions please.
• 21:39
  Speaker 3: Well you can, okay, but you know, going back historically
• 21:43
  Speaker 3: right and looking at you know, drawing opinions from like
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: what was actually happening, right, you can do that, right.
• 21:49
  Speaker 3: You can see by reading the federalist papers, say what
• 21:54
  Speaker 3: the founders, what the framers of the Constitution were thinking
• 21:57
  Speaker 3: when they actually wrote the Constitution? Why did they do things.
• 22:03
  Speaker 3: Why did they arrange things the way they did? Right,
• 22:06
  Speaker 3: you can infer that from all of those documents, Right,
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: you can infer that. You know, everybody in England, including
• 22:18
  Speaker 3: women thirty five and older and then later twenty one
• 22:23
  Speaker 3: and older, got the right to vote because men were conscriptable.
• 22:29
  Speaker 3: And there's no class system in a foxhole, right, you know,
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: like it doesn't matter if you're a baron or if
• 22:36
  Speaker 3: you're a peasant. You know, like you're still in the
• 22:40
  Speaker 3: same fucking foxhole. Right, And if he's fit to fight,
• 22:43
  Speaker 3: he's fit to vote. You can look at all of
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: the arguments. You can actually do an examination of those
• 22:49
  Speaker 3: arguments that were made before laws were changed, right before
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: a constitution was written. All of those discussed, those those
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: are generally documented and uh, and so you can you
• 23:06
  Speaker 3: can actually ascertain the intent behind a given set of
• 23:09
  Speaker 3: laws laws. But when it comes to like coverture, nobody
• 23:16
  Speaker 3: wants to look at what the actual intent was. And
• 23:19
  Speaker 3: we know what the intent was, right, We know what
• 23:21
  Speaker 3: the intent of marriage is. It's called matrimony. It's not
• 23:24
  Speaker 3: called patrimony. It's called matrimony. And matrimony is a state
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: of motherhood, right, And the whole purpose of marriage, the
• 23:33
  Speaker 3: holy state of matrimony was to assign a man right
• 23:38
  Speaker 3: to support uh and protect the mother and any children
• 23:44
  Speaker 3: that were born within that that state of matrimony. Right, Okay,
• 23:49
  Speaker 3: so we can we can infer all kinds of things
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: from history, right, and all kinds of things from etymology.
• 23:58
  Speaker 3: But you wouldn't normally include arguments that involve the documents
• 24:08
  Speaker 3: and the discussions and the debates and all of that
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: that precede these changes or these the establishment of these laws.
• 24:18
  Speaker 3: You would include all of that, You would look into
• 24:20
  Speaker 3: all of that. You wouldn't just bald face say it, right, Oh,
• 24:25
  Speaker 3: men only had coverture in order to oppress women and
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: control their incomes. No, No, that that's absolutely not the
• 24:35
  Speaker 3: fucking case. You know, like the economic unit, like the
• 24:42
  Speaker 3: family was always an economic unit unit. And so you're
• 24:47
  Speaker 3: you're looking at a situation where you have a pardon me,
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: you have a household with a family, and everybody's working,
• 24:55
  Speaker 3: Like everybody's working. Moms working, dad's working, all the kids
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: are working. They're all working, right, and they're all contributing
• 25:05
  Speaker 3: to the economy of the household, right, and you know,
• 25:11
  Speaker 3: the women were largely the arbiters of what went on
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: within the household economically, and the men were the arbiters
• 25:19
  Speaker 3: of generally what went on outside the household economically. And
• 25:25
  Speaker 3: I mean even look at it, even looking at it
• 25:27
  Speaker 3: from like the perspective of how farming used to used
• 25:32
  Speaker 3: to work, right, when you look at cultures where they
• 25:36
  Speaker 3: don't use animals in farming, right, women do a lot
• 25:42
  Speaker 3: of the gardening. They do a lot of the planting
• 25:44
  Speaker 3: and the and the harvesting and all of that. The plowing, right,
• 25:48
  Speaker 3: they plow with a hoe right, with a hand tool basically,
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: and they can do that, and soa can kids, right,
• 25:57
  Speaker 3: But once you get into this this situation where you
• 26:02
  Speaker 3: need an ox and an ox pulled plow right, only
• 26:09
  Speaker 3: men are really capable of operating that, of doing that.
• 26:15
  Speaker 3: So once you scale up, yeah, no, the man is
• 26:18
  Speaker 3: working further away from the house and the woman is
• 26:22
  Speaker 3: working closer to the house. And that's just how it goes, right.
• 26:28
  Speaker 3: So it's like, I don't know, it's it's infuriating that
• 26:34
  Speaker 3: that they would say that, that anybody would say unevidenced,
• 26:39
  Speaker 3: unevidenced by any of the debates, any of the you know,
• 26:43
  Speaker 3: like sort of the philosophical and legal debates behind it
• 26:48
  Speaker 3: that oh yeah, no, cuverture existed solely to oppress women
• 26:52
  Speaker 3: and control their their earnings and their and their property.
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: Well, they do it because it's a very convenient narrative
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: to get what they want. Let's face it, like they
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: do it because it's the opposite. When you look at
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: the history of all of these laws relating to men's
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: control over aspects of their wives, whenever a man used
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: that not to benefit his wife, there was an outcry
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: to benefit himself in instead of his wife. There was
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: an outcry and a removal or a change in the law.
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: That's what you see historically this stuff. Nobody had the will.
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: Our ancestors did not have the will or the desire
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: to create a situation where men could benefit themselves at
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: the expense of their wives. Then you see this consistently.
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: There was that one law where a man could put
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: his wife, commit his wife not without the not without
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: the consent of actual professionals in the field. But he
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: had the ability to commit his wife to a to
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: a sanatorium, right And there was a man who did
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: that because his wife was disagreeing with him, and the
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: actual the actual psychiatrists at the time. The guy who
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: is the head of the sanatorium said, I'm not doing
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: this anymore. She just disagrees with you. There is nothing
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: wrong with her. We are not continuing to keep her here.
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: And then the man, the husband, subsequently subsequently kept her
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: in the house and that was absolutely against the law.
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: That was unlawful confinement, unlawful and that isn't Blackstone. That
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: is against the law. People found out about it because
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: so this is a criminal at this point. This is
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: a man who is kidnapping a woman at this point,
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: and that there was a huge outcry over this entire situation.
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: They not only got him on unlawful confinement, which again
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: was it's illegal for a man to do that to
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: his wife. At that time, they also changed the law
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: so that men couldn't couldn't commit their wives to sanatoriums.
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: And again, this isn't a situation where they expected men
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: to be like, oh this our wife disagrees with him,
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: a way to the away to the madhouse with her.
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: This was a situation where they thought that women would
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: be would need some kind of medical care, wouldn't be
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: capable of or sound mind, and capable of committing themselves
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: to it, and a man would do that for them
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: for their own benefit. The instant a man used it
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: for his own benefit. Everybody was like, what the hell
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: that guy has to go? And that's consistent throughout the
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: law when it comes to men and women.
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: And there's another thing that can be added to this,
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: all right, and it's now this is this is not
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: in in English law, but this this existed in English law.
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: I don't know if everybody remembers the story of the
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: Igna's simil vice hit and how he was committed to
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: an institution. His wife did that, right, This was just
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: went both ways. She was conspired with another individual, but
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: she was empowered to do that. And in in English
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: law and in US law, if a woman declared her
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: husband mentally unfit, the same process existed to put him
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: in an institution as existed to put her in an institution.
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: It's just that women had. You know, if you put
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: your husband in an institution, if he didn't have a
• 30:39
  Speaker 2: source of income that you could access without him having
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: to work to earn more of it to replace what
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: you were using up, it was, you know, cutting your
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: nose off despite your face. But if if a guy
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: had property and he had a source of income, that
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: just was self repat unishing because of its nature. Yeah,
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: woman could yoututionize him and take control of that.
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah. No. I actually read Laura Kinsale is one of
• 31:10
  Speaker 3: the greatest, greatest romance novelists of our time. And she
• 31:18
  Speaker 3: wrote a book about a Quaker woman and uh and
• 31:25
  Speaker 3: I guess he was like an earl or something like that.
• 31:28
  Speaker 3: But he had a stroke and his family wanted to
• 31:33
  Speaker 3: have him committed, and you know, like they conspired to
• 31:37
  Speaker 3: and she was his like his caregiver right after he
• 31:41
  Speaker 3: had this stroke. And but it's it's like, yeah, no,
• 31:46
  Speaker 3: they because this is mostly passive income. It just needs
• 31:51
  Speaker 3: to be managed, right, he just needs somebody to sign
• 31:55
  Speaker 3: the checks and you know and forward the the stuff, right.
• 32:00
  Speaker 3: And yeah, no, they tried to you know, take his
• 32:05
  Speaker 3: They tried to commit him and just usurp his entire estate.
• 32:09
  Speaker 3: And because he had a stroke and he wasn't able
• 32:13
  Speaker 3: to communicate properly, right, And it's like so you kind
• 32:18
  Speaker 3: of when you look at how all of these things operate, Yes,
• 32:26
  Speaker 3: a woman can commit her son or her brother, or
• 32:31
  Speaker 3: her husband or her father, right, could always commit them
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: to a sanatorium, right, always, always, always, And it bears
• 32:43
  Speaker 3: mentioning that Igna Semlewise died three weeks I think after
• 32:50
  Speaker 3: you're committed, because he suffered such a beating that he
• 32:57
  Speaker 3: died of sepsis, which was the condition that he was
• 33:02
  Speaker 3: trying to cure with his program of washing washing their
• 33:07
  Speaker 3: hands in chlorinated lime between when they were examining corpses
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: and doing autopsies and when they were delivering babies. So
• 33:19
  Speaker 3: this man was responsible for a ninety percent reduction in
• 33:23
  Speaker 3: child bed death okay, child bed fever deaths okay, over
• 33:29
  Speaker 3: the course of his I don't know. I think it
• 33:31
  Speaker 3: was like twelve eighteen months of his experiment where he
• 33:35
  Speaker 3: had he had the doctors at his hospital washing their hands,
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: and then when he presented his data to the hospital
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: administrators and said, like, he couldn't explain it. Germs hadn't
• 33:48
  Speaker 3: been discovered yet or invented yet. I guess you could say,
• 33:53
  Speaker 3: you know, he went and he presented the data, but
• 33:56
  Speaker 3: it didn't fit the medical model of the time, which
• 33:59
  Speaker 3: was theous excitation theory of disease where and miasma, which
• 34:04
  Speaker 3: is like, so you either get sick because you get
• 34:06
  Speaker 3: too excited and aroused, or you get sick because of
• 34:10
  Speaker 3: bad air, and so yeah, they canceled his little project. There,
• 34:17
  Speaker 3: they fired him, canceled his little project, and all the
• 34:20
  Speaker 3: death rates went right back up through the roof.
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: But the point and.
• 34:25
  Speaker 3: Feminists, feminists would probably tell you that the reason that
• 34:30
  Speaker 3: the doctors caused more deaths than the midwives, because this
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: is what he noticed, was like, why are all these
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: poor women having better outcomes than all these rich women? Right, Well,
• 34:41
  Speaker 3: it's because the rich women get their babies delivered by
• 34:44
  Speaker 3: doctors and the poor women get their babies delivered by midwives. Right,
• 34:49
  Speaker 3: And so all the feminists would say, well, that just
• 34:51
  Speaker 3: means midwives are more skilled, when what it really means
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: is midwives don't don't engage with people who have communicable diseases,
• 35:05
  Speaker 3: and they don't do autopsies, they don't do pores motors.
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the the midwife argument is basically the argument that
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: none of the advancements that took place in medical science
• 35:17
  Speaker 2: over the last few centuries should have happened because those advancements,
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: a lot of them, occurred due to the process of
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: studying dead bodies. Midwives didn't do that. And you know,
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: but the whole point of that little diversion to him
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: was this thing that feminists have said men could do
• 35:38
  Speaker 2: to women and it was evidence of sexism because men
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: could do it to women, women could also do it
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: to men, and he was and he was an example
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: of it, and he was an example of it.
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: Okay, so let me let me continue on with my
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: with my write up pointing out that one he's referring
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: to an opinion piece that's framing the law as in
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: he woman. And the reason why people do this is
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: because it just gets people to do what they want.
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: It gets attention on issues this is we have as
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: a culture, and this is statistically proven. We want to
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: save women from things. Now, whether or not that that's
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: biological or or cultural, it's a debate for another day.
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: Let me continue with the rest of this. So going
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: through his sources, he's sort he he sources, he's sort.
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: He cites Blackstone, which you know that makes sense, even
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: though Blackstone himself may have dealt in some uh misinterpretations
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: of the law. Then he cites the history of pleas
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: to the Crown by a hail what w And I'm
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: not exactly sure why because most of what he covers
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: is in Blackstone. Perhaps he's just I don't think he
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: actually talks about it, so who knows. But anyway, and
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: also like there's no way to go from Barbara Smith's
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: opinion piece, which is the majority of what he's talking about.
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: So again he's looking at a feminist opinion on the law,
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: a feminist from the eighteen fifties opinion on the law
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: of the time, and presenting that as the actual law.
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: He's presenting an opinion on the law as the actual law,
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: and his own sources actually contradict him. If you look
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: at Blackstone, one hundred percent men were obligated to women's debts.
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: One hundred percent they were. The assumption was that if
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: a woman engaged in crime, she did so as a
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: result of her husband's influence. If he was in the
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: same if he was in the room, he likely had
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: no ability to say that it was it was you know,
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: my husband, my wife Pilford the silver while I was
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: in her presence. But I didn't intend her to do that.
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: I was trying to stop it didn't matter. He was
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: going to be considered to be responsible.
• 38:04
  Speaker 3: For it because he didn't stop her.
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: Because he didn't stop her. But so this is in Blackstone.
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: So in the stuff he cites actually contradicts a lot
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: of the stuff he says because he's basing it mostly
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: on a feminist opinion on the intent behind law, on
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: the actual effect of the law, and that feminist I mean,
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: it's an opinion piece. It's basically, like I said before,
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: a Guardian article of the time. And then he cites
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: a case in which a woman attempts to gain the
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: system by appealing to coverture. I'm going to just try
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: to find that case because it's so in this case.
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: Just a second, it's in nineteen sixty six, or wait,
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: was it in nineteen sixty six, Just let me see, Yeah,
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: it was in nineteen sixty six. It was the United
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: States versus Yazl. And what I believe happened, to give
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: it just a brief brief summary, is she appealed to
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: coverture to get out of something that in a law
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: or a obligation that she had agreed to. Let me
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: just pull it up here. The Small Business Administration made
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: a disaster loan to Yasele and to his wife whose
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: respondent here, following flood damage to their shop in Lampsaw, Texas. Lampasas, Texas.
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: The loan was individually negotiated the chattel mortgage which secured
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: the loans specifically made reference to Texas law and several respects.
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: After default by the Yazls on the note and foreclosure
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: of the mortgage, the government brought this suit against the
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: Yazls for the deficiency. Respondent Missus Yazle, moved for summary
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: judgment on the ground that under Texas law of coverture,
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: she had no capacity to bind herself personally the contract
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: on the facts of this case, and hence the contract
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: could not be enforced against her separate property. During the
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: negotiation of the loan, the SBA had at no time
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: indicated an attention that the text this law in this
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: regard would not apply, nor had the SBA required respondent
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: to have her disability of coverture removed pursuant to Texas law.
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: The District Court granted the motion for some rejudgment, and
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: the Court of Appeals affirmed against the government's contention that,
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: even in the absence of any expressed federal statute or
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: regulation on the matter, in any cation of the loan,
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: contract itself questions of capacity to contract with the SBA
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: and to subject property to liability on such a contract
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: or governed by federal and not local law, and that
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: federal law should not recognize the state doctrine held there
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: is no federal interest which requires that the local law
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: be overridden in this case in order that the federal
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: government being able to collect supervention of the state law
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: of coverture. To collect in supervention of the state law
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: of coverture is not necessary to decide whether the state
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: law applies by reason of adoption of the federal law. Okay,
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: so essentially as usual.
• 40:53
  Speaker 2: The banks won.
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: But the point was that this woman attempted to use
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: the law in her favor. Law.
• 41:03
  Speaker 3: No, no, wait.
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: Wait, if the law was one hundred percent men exploiting women,
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: how is this a situation where a woman uses it
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: in her favor?
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: She wouldn't have expected that to work.
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah, How would this not have occurred in history where
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: women would use this law in their favor, not just
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: against the government, not just against the banks, but against
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: their husbands and their husband's interests.
• 41:31
  Speaker 3: Okay, there's a more recent example of a woman appealing
• 41:35
  Speaker 3: to coverture, particularly the law basically requiring that husbands be
• 41:44
  Speaker 3: obligated for the criminal acts of their wives, and that
• 41:49
  Speaker 3: happened in the UK. It was like less than ten
• 41:52
  Speaker 3: years ago. It was less than ten years ago. And
• 41:55
  Speaker 3: there was like some politician and his wife and they
• 42:00
  Speaker 3: were driving and I think he was a little tipsy,
• 42:04
  Speaker 3: and so when they got into a crash, they switched
• 42:07
  Speaker 3: places before the police arrived. And she claimed that that
• 42:15
  Speaker 3: she was not responsible because she was under the influence
• 42:20
  Speaker 3: of her husband and under coverture laws, she cannot be
• 42:24
  Speaker 3: held responsible for things that her husband told her to do.
• 42:31
  Speaker 3: Hm hm.
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: And what was the outcome?
• 42:38
  Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, no, it got like knocked down, She got
• 42:41
  Speaker 3: like kicked out of the courtroom, right, But I think
• 42:44
  Speaker 3: I think it was over a drunk driving incident. It
• 42:46
  Speaker 3: might have been out of over a money wandering incident.
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: Like it was just like, yeah, that she participated in.
• 42:56
  Speaker 3: And then she tried to to you know, claim.
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: Well, even today, even today, if a man and a
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: woman commit a crime together, or a woman commits a
• 43:07
  Speaker 2: crime and she thinks there's a chance she will blame
• 43:12
  Speaker 2: the man to throw it under the bus, to get
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: lenients from the court, or to get concessions from from
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: the court, or to get get out of accountability. And
• 43:22
  Speaker 2: it's it's to the degree that the Star report Sonia
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: Starr when she was investigating the discrepancies and disparities between
• 43:35
  Speaker 2: conviction rates for women and conviction rates for men in
• 43:40
  Speaker 2: cases where they have the same contributing factors. That's one
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: of the things that she found was that anytime there
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: was a man in association, even loose association, with a
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: woman's crime, the woman could throw the man under the
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: bus to get less likely arrested, less likely prosecution, a
• 44:02
  Speaker 2: lower rate of conviction, and more lenience and sentencing, and
• 44:06
  Speaker 2: also even after the fact of sentencing, to get into
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: programs or appeal to people in administrative positions within the
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: prison system to get her sentence shortened. So and then
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: there are some programs that are just available to women
• 44:27
  Speaker 2: to to get early release as well. So yeah, it's
• 44:31
  Speaker 2: just yeah, it's it's always it still.
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: They're basically with coviture, they were basically just putting in
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: law this custom that we have where we want to
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: absolve women of the responsibility of their actions. It's like
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: we want to protect the physical body of the woman
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: over recognizing the moral agent inside it. And it's just
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: it's it's it's a continuous thing throughout history, and COVID
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: sure just seems to be codified in law. That particular custom,
• 45:03
  Speaker 1: which continued after coviture was challenged, went away, but.
• 45:08
  Speaker 3: At least it placed limitations on you know, and for
• 45:12
  Speaker 3: all of you guys listening on the vertical or wherever
• 45:16
  Speaker 3: the hell you're listening, I got four words for you.
• 45:20
  Speaker 3: Paul Bernardo, Carla Hamolka, Oh God, Paul Carla Homolka. Right,
• 45:27
  Speaker 3: these were two serial rapists and murderers. Right. She she
• 45:33
  Speaker 3: groomed and lured her sister and drugged her little sister
• 45:38
  Speaker 3: right so that she and her husband, Okay, Paul Bernardo
• 45:43
  Speaker 3: could could uh rape her and and uh and kill
• 45:49
  Speaker 3: her while she was unconscious, all right, And she was
• 45:54
  Speaker 3: given a plea deal on a promise to uh to
• 45:58
  Speaker 3: sing against her husband and uh hours later, less than
• 46:06
  Speaker 3: a day later, the investigators after this deal was made,
• 46:11
  Speaker 3: investigators found videotapes of her. She said she was an
• 46:16
  Speaker 3: abused woman and she really didn't want to go along
• 46:19
  Speaker 3: with it, and she was reluctant the whole time. Right,
• 46:22
  Speaker 3: found videotapes of her eagerly participating in every single rape
• 46:28
  Speaker 3: and every single death. And also and the court ruled
• 46:34
  Speaker 3: that the prosecution couldn't go back on their deal. So
• 46:38
  Speaker 3: now she's somewhere in freaking Quebec with three kids, married
• 46:43
  Speaker 3: to a fucking doctor, right, and everybody's trying to protect her.
• 46:49
  Speaker 3: She's like in the witness protection program. It's not fair.
• 46:53
  Speaker 3: It's not fair that other parents don't want to let
• 46:55
  Speaker 3: their kids go on playdates with this bitch.
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah. And uh, not only did she, she also was
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: an instigator and a lot of it wasn't oh yeah, yeah,
• 47:07
  Speaker 1: she was choosing victims and actively telling him what to do.
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: And no, she was this is this is par for
• 47:14
  Speaker 2: the course. Guys, you guys, you got to understand.
• 47:17
  Speaker 3: And she and okay, just and she she wasn't just
• 47:20
  Speaker 3: choosing the victims. She was the one who got the
• 47:23
  Speaker 3: victims to trust her because she's a woman, right, So
• 47:28
  Speaker 3: she was she was like, oh yeah, no, come on over,
• 47:31
  Speaker 3: it's fine, it's fine. We're both women. You know, I
• 47:35
  Speaker 3: understand you might feel a little weird going over to
• 47:38
  Speaker 3: a stranger's house. What you got to understand because I'm
• 47:43
  Speaker 3: in the car and I'm a woman, Okay.
• 47:46
  Speaker 2: What you gotta understand is, in general, when men are
• 47:50
  Speaker 2: criminally violent, it's mercenary. They want property or they want uh,
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: you know, to get out of a situation or to
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: get a situation, and it's not usually an act of
• 48:05
  Speaker 2: just blatant torture is cruelty to hurt someone and enjoy
• 48:10
  Speaker 2: being sadistic. But when women are predatory, and I can
• 48:14
  Speaker 2: tell you this from experience, when women are predatory, and
• 48:18
  Speaker 2: when women are violent, they do it to be mean,
• 48:22
  Speaker 2: They do it to hurt someone. They do it to
• 48:24
  Speaker 2: enjoy seeing your suffering. They will look at your face
• 48:28
  Speaker 2: when you're crying and snot is running down your lip,
• 48:30
  Speaker 2: and they will laugh at you, and they will smile
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: and they will get off on it. And it's not
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: that women in general are horrible people, or that men
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: in general are amoral. It's that when you get somebody
• 48:44
  Speaker 2: that is at level, the cruel ones are usually female,
• 48:49
  Speaker 2: and well, the mercenary ones are usually male.
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: Well, let's put it this way. Like the majority of
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: workplace bullying is done by women to women, the majority
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: of online bullying is done by women to women. The
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: majority of domestic abuse is done by women to women,
• 49:04
  Speaker 1: at least proportionately. The majority of sexual abuse in prisons
• 49:08
  Speaker 1: is done by female inmates to female inmates. Like, it's
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: the funny thing is is that men are definitely the
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: targets of women, and they when a man is a target,
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: it's almost like he has no defense. It's just like
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: a woman can destroy his life. But often women go
• 49:29
  Speaker 1: after other women even more than they go after men.
• 49:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, she'll show her worst self, her cruelest, most heartless,
• 49:41
  Speaker 2: evil self, her lizard self to you and do the
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: most harm she possibly can, and do cause the most
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: pain she possibly can. And then the moment accountability steps
• 49:54
  Speaker 2: in the room, whether it's in a form of an adult,
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: when your kids, person, who's in charge of whatever forum
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: you're in, if it's if it's a forum or police,
• 50:07
  Speaker 2: when a crime has been committed, she turns into a kitten. Right,
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: she will. Her eyes get wider, her cheeks get pink,
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: her tears will flow, her hands will be folded. It'll
• 50:20
  Speaker 2: be your fault, it'll be a misunderstanding. It'll be something
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: she didn't mean to do. It wasn't as big as
• 50:27
  Speaker 2: it really was, It wasn't as bad as it really was.
• 50:30
  Speaker 2: Most of the things you said didn't happen. You know,
• 50:33
  Speaker 2: all of that will come out. And if she's if
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: you're male, you're fucked. But if she's prettier than you,
• 50:43
  Speaker 2: and you're female, you're also fucked.
• 50:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah, or she can ask she can affect victimhood better
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: than you can. You're fucked, even if she's not as
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: attractive as you. If you are more stoic.
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: If you've learned to handle trauma without openly pain and crying.
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, if you're more spoken any way, or more masculine anyway, Yeah, Fox.
• 51:07
  Speaker 3: And Brian, Brian, we haven't watched a single moment.
• 51:15
  Speaker 1: Of well because we're going through his his his sights
• 51:18
  Speaker 1: in his low bar. But anyway, so we we we
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: went through this uh with particular case in which a
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: woman tried to use coviture to gain the system and
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: avoid a debt, and you Karen brought up a series
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: of of cases or at least one case in which
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: a woman used the coverture law to try to avoid
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: legal culpability for criminal action. And then then we got
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: into on Carla Homolka, which understandably led to us talking
• 51:49
  Speaker 1: about when women do things, they tend to be much
• 51:53
  Speaker 1: where women are psycho vindictive, and so that's where all
• 51:59
  Speaker 1: that happened. Now he can continue on with his sights.
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: So the next citation he has refers to a a
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: husband taking out a mortgage on their house without his
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: wife's knowledge. He used the loophole in the law to
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: try to defend his actions, all right, So essentially he
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: got her on the hook, like he basically took the
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: marital property used it as a mortgage. For some I
• 52:26
  Speaker 1: think it was some shady business. It failed, and he
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: was trying to get you know, make her leave her
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: with the debt essentially.
• 52:34
  Speaker 3: Or no, no, with half the debt.
• 52:37
  Speaker 2: Well I'm not.
• 52:38
  Speaker 1: Sure if it was half because he but regardless, So
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: the the ultimate decision of the court in that was
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: to actually appeal to federal law to quash the the
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: the the man's claim. So again we see a court
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: deciding whenever. The way it works is if a woman
• 52:59
  Speaker 1: goes up against the bank or the legal system, they
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: will essentially say nope. If it one goes up against
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: the husband, they will usually or as far as I
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: can tell, not just find in favor of the wife.
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: They will end up looking at the law in terms
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: of is there any way for men to exploit this
• 53:18
  Speaker 1: and start changing the law, which is what's been happening.
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: But my overall point is that she he uses this
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: case and this is an edge case like this is
• 53:28
  Speaker 1: something that came about through a confluence of very specific
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: factors that doesn't apply anywhere in the US. Louisiana was
• 53:37
  Speaker 1: part of French territories, so the law in Louisiana is
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: either an inheritance of the Spanish or the French legal system.
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: So it's it and probably in it.
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: It's a little more complicated than that. It's also it's a.
• 53:55
  Speaker 7: Mix because as the United States expanded across its territory,
• 54:05
  Speaker 7: English common law spread with it, because the original colonies
• 54:09
  Speaker 7: were under English common law, So you end up with
• 54:11
  Speaker 7: sort of a mix of French tradition and English tradition
• 54:16
  Speaker 7: and American ingenuity.
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: But you know, what you're talking about is essentially this.
• 54:24
  Speaker 2: Anytime a man would lose a case going up against
• 54:28
  Speaker 2: an entity from outside of his household, a woman wasn't
• 54:33
  Speaker 2: necessarily always able to use womanhood and coverture and all
• 54:37
  Speaker 2: of that to win the case. Right, Sometimes she was,
• 54:41
  Speaker 2: but when it was banks, when it was the government,
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: a lot of times she wasn't because they ran over everybody.
• 54:50
  Speaker 2: But when it was the husband versus the wife, anytime,
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: you know, anytime covertures, protection of women was called into play.
• 55:02
  Speaker 2: Whatever factor was being tried based on Coviture's protection of
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: women would rule to day. So if women would find
• 55:11
  Speaker 2: a way to argue that what their husband was doing
• 55:14
  Speaker 2: was abusive, they would win. If the man could find
• 55:19
  Speaker 2: a way to argue that her actions that he was
• 55:22
  Speaker 2: trying to stop or whatever conflict they had involved her
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: putting herself at risk and he was trying to protect
• 55:29
  Speaker 2: her from that risk, then that was the only way
• 55:31
  Speaker 2: he could win. Coviture was the shield between the woman
• 55:37
  Speaker 2: and the state, between the woman and the law, between
• 55:41
  Speaker 2: the woman and the establishment. That was all.
• 55:44
  Speaker 3: It was the outside world right.
• 55:46
  Speaker 2: That made it made him her bodyguard. It made him
• 55:51
  Speaker 2: her legal personhood guard. It made him and it did
• 55:56
  Speaker 2: not eliminate women's legal personhood. Blackstone was wrong about that,
• 56:02
  Speaker 2: and there have been multiple critics who have proved that,
• 56:07
  Speaker 2: And we read one last week, and the guy that
• 56:11
  Speaker 2: we're looking at on this screen here turned around and
• 56:15
  Speaker 2: pointed back to Blackstone and said, Blackstone can't be wrong
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: about that. This woman who said he was wrong about
• 56:21
  Speaker 2: that doesn't know what she's talking about, because Blackstone said this, yeah,
• 56:27
  Speaker 2: which was exactly the same thing. That is, he pointed
• 56:30
  Speaker 2: back to the thing that we debunked as evidence of itself.
• 56:34
  Speaker 2: That is circular reasoning only it does that.
• 56:38
  Speaker 1: Okay, and I wanted to just speaking to that. So
• 56:43
  Speaker 1: a lot of these protections are being well, we're destroyed
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: over the last century. So the function of a man
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: as protecting his wife from the state no longer holds.
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: So now when women appeal to these old laws to
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: try to protect themselves from the interests of banks or
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: the state, they're like, yeah that nope, nope, no sale. However,
• 57:07
  Speaker 1: this particular case in I'm gonna read from the summary
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy four, the husband of Appeale Appela Apple. Okay, Karen,
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: and how do you pronounce this?
• 57:22
  Speaker 3: You're going to have to spell it A p p
• 57:25
  Speaker 3: E l l e E.
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: A Pelly A Pelly finestro that Pelly. I just needed
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: to help with that finestro pp E l l e E.
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: We got it. So, without her knowledge, executed a mortgage
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: and they're jointly owned home as security on the husband's promisory.
• 57:48
  Speaker 1: Note to that appealant, the husband executed the mortgage pursuant
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: to an now superseded Louisiana Statute Article twenty oh four.
• 57:57
  Speaker 1: They gave the husband the unilateral right to dispose of
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: jointly owned prop community property without his spouse's consent. In
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: nineteen seventy six, after appelee refused to pay her husband's note.
• 58:09
  Speaker 3: Appealans it's the appelle.
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: Appelle refused to pay her husband's note. Appellent commenced for
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: closure proceedings and instituted the instant action in Federal District
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: Court District Court for declaratory relief. Appelee asserted a counterclaim
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: challenging the constitutionality of Article twenty four to oh four,
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: and Louisiana and its governor were jointly joined as third
• 58:34
  Speaker 1: party defendants on the counter claim. The District Court granted
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: the state's motion for summary judgment while appells allie appelles.
• 58:44
  Speaker 3: There's an appellent and an appelle.
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: An appellent who is repellent an appelles.
• 58:52
  Speaker 3: Okay, it's like ant an e okay. I'm the litigant
• 58:58
  Speaker 3: and you're the litoghee. I'm the payer and you're the
• 59:03
  Speaker 3: paye okay.
• 59:05
  Speaker 1: Appeal to the Court of Appeals with pending. Louisiana completely
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: revised its community property Code provisions so as to grant
• 59:12
  Speaker 1: spouses equal control of the disposition of such property. Because
• 59:16
  Speaker 1: the new code did not take effect until January first,
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty, it did not control the mortgage executed by
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: the appell's husband. The Court of Appeals held that Article
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: twenty four violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• 59:31
  Speaker 1: but limited its decision to perspective application because the ruling
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: would create a substantial hardship with the respective prair property
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: rights and obligations within the state of Louisiana. Now no
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: doubt that that law that allowed the husband unilateral right
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: to depose of jointly owned community property was an inheritance
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: from maybe Salik law, where I believe the situation for
• 59:57
  Speaker 1: men is for men and women is a little bit
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: more strict. But here's the thing. A lot of the
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 1: cultural traditions that co lockstep with those kinds of laws
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 1: have a big expectation that men protect and provide for women,
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: and that if a man doesn't do these things, he's
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: basically social uh uh, persona non grata like I've I've
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: experienced that kind of thing like the South, and this
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 1: this would be the the the cultural inheritors of this
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: particular Ladel system. So these are the customs that are
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 1: paired with these laws. If a man doesn't provide for
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: his wife, he is scum.
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 2: It is it is.
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: Actually just like he's he basically might as well not exist.
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 1: And this is this is this is also the law
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 1: that gave rise to pride and prejudice. That that that
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 1: that initial phrase or initial uh sentence, and a man
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 1: with a kind of in wealth is in search of it.
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: It's a well known truism that if a man has
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 1: any kind of wealth, he's in search of a wife.
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 1: Essentially that that is an expression that the community believes
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: that that wealth belongs to one of their daughters. So
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 1: these are the customs that come parcel with these kinds
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 1: of laws, that inheritance goes strictly to the first son
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: or the first relative according to some kind of mathematical formula.
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 1: That this this is the custom that these laws come
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 1: out of, which is this kind of strict depersoning of
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: men who do not protect and provide for their women.
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: And also incredible an incredible suspicion of bachelor's. So even
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: if a guy is a wealthy bachelor, he is expected
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: to get a wife by the community or he is
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 1: going to be frozen out. And if he gets frozen out,
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: he may find that his fortunes dwindle rapidly because all
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 1: of the business opportunities are going to dry up. So
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 1: this like and this is this is what I was
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 1: talking about. You can't take these laws outside of their
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 1: social customs, because their social customs inform their application and
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 1: inform where they're going to be, like where they're going
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 1: to be an issue if a woman lives in a
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 1: world where a man, uh, if he doesn't provide for
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 1: a woman, if he if a bachelor doesn't take a wife,
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 1: if if that husband doesn't provide for his wife, he
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 1: is going to be socially ostracized and basically face his
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: own financial ruin. If if the if the community can
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 1: do that, then the idea that he's disposing of their
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: property doesn't become a danger to her because she has
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 1: the power of social custom to call upon to ensure
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: that he only disposes deposes it in a way that
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 1: benefits her. And if he doesn't, he's going to catch
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 1: shit from the rest of his community. And that may
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: be why for a long period of time these laws
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 1: weren't challenged because they became part and parcel with the expectation,
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 1: the strict expectation that men put their wealth to the
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: service of women, and an absence of that expectation, you know,
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: you could have a situation where men just were gay
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: bachelors for all their entire lives.
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 2: Well the net, you couldn't really because throughout history, when
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 2: there have been laws that addressed even suspected same sex relationships,
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 2: women a happy bachelor as women could get away with it.
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 2: Women could be bosom buddies, right, But men were killed
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 2: for being gay historically women were not. Men were punished
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 2: even when they weren't killed, they were punished by institutionalization.
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 2: Before women were, they were punished by incarceration. Uh when
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 2: women were not, and they were punished by forced marriage
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 2: just as much as women were. So being single, like
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 2: a woman might get embarrassed by being single, she'd get
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 2: called an old maid, she'd get told she should be
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 2: married and stuff like that. But nobody did anything legally
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 2: to her to you know, she was suspected of being
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 2: an old maid because she had a preference for women
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 2: instead of men. People thought that was a curiosity. If
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 2: a man was accused of being single, yeah, you know,
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 2: or it was men's fault. Right. But if a man
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 2: was accused of being single because he had a preference
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 2: for men over women, that put his life in danger.
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 2: And even when it didn't put his life in danger,
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: it put his whole livelihood, his social life, his ability
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 2: to move about in public, every aspect of his life
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 2: basically in danger was huge, huge thing. And the other
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 2: end of that historically is this, women couldn't be single
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 2: parents without pointing a finger at somebody, whereas men, if
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 2: they were single parents, they had to deal with the
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 2: fact that if the mother who abandoned the child was alive,
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 2: she would continue she could continue to fight their parenthood
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 2: throughout history. And although Carolyn Norton faced issues because her
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 2: husband was rich, if you know Joe Blow, the poor
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 2: guy was in that situation, it was an entirely different story.
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 2: The entire community would rally against him if he kept
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 2: his wife's children from her, whether they were his children
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 2: too or not. And during the reforms after the Great
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 2: Plague in Europe, when when Queen Elizabeth First was trying
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 2: to address you know, the dirty bomb that that hit
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: the economy with, she did a bunch of things that
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 2: would be very familiar to people if they read through
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 2: the Welfare Reformact of two thousand in the United States.
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 2: One of those things was if a woman was a
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 2: single mother, the state had the right to obligate her
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 2: to point the finger at the father and they would
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 2: track him down for money. If she was reliant on workhouse,
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 2: the workhouse could go after the father. If you had
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 2: a family member that was reliant on a workhouse, you
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 2: might get tracked down by the state if you had
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 2: any property or any money and asked to pay for
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 2: their keep, their upkeep, even if they were working. So
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 2: you had this situation where even even if a man
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 2: abandoned a pregnant woman, even if a man abandoned his
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 2: wife and children, the state would track him down and
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 2: go after him for money. Like women were protected, and
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 2: it was because the state didn't want its coffers being
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 2: drained by women who did not have an attached man
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 2: supporting them. So this this protection wasn't just between married couples,
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: It wasn't just between women and their families. It was
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 2: it was a whole protection of the state from women's
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: lack of accountability, as well as protection of women from
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 2: the long arm of the state MHM.
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 1: But just to get back to this particular case, so
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 1: the husband used the loophool in the law to try
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 1: to defend you know, well, essentially what happened is they
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 1: used the loopool on the law to take out a
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 1: mortgage that he then left in his wife's like dumped
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 1: in her lap. And the people that he took out
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 1: a mortgage with wanted to basically collect, but they were
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 1: then prevented by this ruling in which they said no.
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: The court basically appealed to the fourth Amendment or the
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment to throw this out, right, so they protected
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 1: the woman's assets. And despite the fact that you know,
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 1: this was a woman up against the bank. Now, so
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: that in this case, they ruled in favor of the woman. Okay,
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 1: So that's but it's interesting because again they rule against
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 1: coviture when it's the interests of a woman. So it's
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 1: like it's you know, it goes, it goes back and forth.
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: As the cultural attitudes change, you see different different assumptions
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 1: being made, different results happening in the law. But what
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 1: I wanted to point out is that this law is
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 1: apparently unique to Louisiana, right, and the way that they
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: approach changing this law, and this is why I brought
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 1: up that it had a different legal inheritance like this.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 1: The Louisiana law I believe comes from French and probably
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 1: a combination of French and Spanish. There's a debate, but regardless,
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: it's more distinct from the usual English common law, which
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: is the rest of the country. And if you think
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: about it, when people correct English common law in terms
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: of coviture and attempt to protect women from its supposed excesses,
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 1: those corrections aren't going to easily apply to another legal
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 1: system from a different inherence. Okay, So what happened with
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: the Louisiana law is that it's been revised piecemeal since
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: like the early twentieth century. So they've been trying to
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: fix this. They just haven't been They've been like the
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: Jenga to tower. They're just trying to carefully pull out pieces.
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 1: And they know that the only way that this is
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 1: going to totally be fixed and all of these loopholes
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 1: removed is by letting the Djenga tower crash and we
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: rebuilding it. But they don't want to do it because
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: it's going to be an absolute legislative pain in the ass.
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 1: So they've been patching it piecemeal. To try to protect women,
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: but still, you know, you patch it one here and
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: then there's another loophole and all of this other stuff.
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 1: But the overall thrust of the changes to this law
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 1: have been trying to protect women while retaining the very
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: conservative nature of law itself. And this is being presented
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: this edge case. So we're looking at a situation where
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 1: the law itself is from a different inheritance, So it's
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 1: from a different system, or at least it inherited it
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 1: inherits from another system. So fixing it is going to
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 1: be complex. They have been fixing it in favor of
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 1: protecting women's rights, but they can't apply the fixes that
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: of the English common law to this particular law system,
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 1: so it's more complicated. Lower And he's presenting this like
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 1: people in Louisiana off doing their own thing, as some
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: kind of commentary on all women in the States. Yeah,
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 1: you can present.
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 2: I'm curious, where is this guy from.
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: You could present this as a legal oddity, but you
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: can't present this as a case that applies to women
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 1: generally in the States, and in.
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 3: Fact, for women generally anywhere.
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, rights the opposite, it says the opposite.
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 2: It might be that he doesn't understand. If he's not
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 2: from the United States, he wouldn't understand. Oh is he?
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 2: So he's just being disingenuous. Then that's a common thing
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 2: feminists do with regard to women's experiences versus men's experiences.
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 2: If something happens to one women on one woman, it's
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 2: common to all women to them. If one man does something,
• 1:11:54
  Speaker 2: it's common to all men to them. But if a
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 2: man experiences something, or a hundred or a thousand men,
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 2: those are all anecdotal evidence and they don't count. And similarly,
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 2: if women do things, those are all anecdotal evidence and
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 2: they don't count. That's a consistent issue with arguing with feminists.
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 1: Okay, so he basically he basically found the edgiest of
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: edge cases to argue his point. And the only reason
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 1: that these laws ended up this far into the you know,
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 1: the late twentieth century, is because of the complexity of
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 1: the legal issues in Louisiana, and they were trying to
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: fix it without destroying like totally bowling over the Jenga tower.
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: They were trying to fix it, and the history of
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 1: that law is a history of piecemeal fixes. So they
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 1: had the will to fix it. They just didn't want
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 1: to have to tear everything up and start over again.
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 2: They might also not have had an instance where they
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 2: needed to do anything about it in a moment. There's
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 2: another thing that I don't know if this is.
• 1:13:02
  Speaker 1: Every instance that existed where they where women were being
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 1: taken advantage of, they went back to the law and
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 1: tried to patch it. But because they didn't want to
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: start from scratch replacing it. That has nothing to do
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: with oppression of women. That's just bureaucrat's gonna bureaucrat, you know.
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 2: Well, there's another aspect to this, right, A lot of
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 2: these fixes are case law. Case law only happens when
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 2: there's a case yes, and so again I don't know
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 2: if other countries probably do have to do this as well.
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 2: But in the US there is an actual profession among lawyers,
• 1:13:38
  Speaker 2: like a sort of subsect of being a lawyer, where
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 2: you take the job of working with cities and counties
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: and states because there's city law, there's county law, there's
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 2: state law, and then there's federal law. To go through
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: their books and find laws on the books that are
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 2: outdated and remove those laws because it doesn't need to
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 2: be illegal in a particular community to walk down the
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 2: street with an ice cream cone in your back pocket
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 2: because somebody's horses are not going to come after that
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 2: and cause a complete and utter chaotic accident in the
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 2: middle of the street. Now, you know, like that's that's
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 2: that's one that actually are.
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 3: You talking about? Why the Postmaster of General of I
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 3: think it was Illinois was not allowed to shoot ducks
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 3: right right? And why you're not you're not allowed to
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 3: walk an elephant down Market Street in New York City
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 3: without a leash.
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 2: And you know, like there there are some cities that
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 2: have removed spinning on the sidewalk laws because tobacco doesn't
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 2: eat through concrete the way that it eats through wood,
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 2: and sidewalks aren't wooden anymore so, But those those are
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 2: usually not Northern states because it does freeze, so if
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 2: you spend a lot on the spittoons are not out
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 2: in front of businesses anymore. So, a lot of those
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 2: laws don't really matter. So in cases with coverture type laws.
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 2: When when something like that survived on the books for
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 2: years and years, it was because there was no contention,
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 2: there was no challenge, there was no abuse of it.
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 2: That was so bad that the woman felt compelled to
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 2: take legal action, and there was no take legal action
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 2: taken against a woman that on the basis of that
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 2: law where it was, it was drawn to the attention
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 2: of the court that hey, this is unfair and wrong.
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 2: It needs to be changed.
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 1: Okay, So that particular law twenty four to oh four.
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 1: Let me just go back here. I've got a lot
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 1: of stuff I'm juggling.
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 3: Okay, Okay, just at to.
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 1: Twenty four oh four Civil Code Law twenty four oh four.
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: It has a history of being amended. The need for
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 1: modernization of the Louisiana umany property law was seriously discussed
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: as early in the nineteen thirties in the may in
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 1: This reform was contained in LA Acts nineteen seventy eight
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: and nineteen eighty, which was which were instigated by this
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: particular case. But it has been attempted to be It's
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: been being addressed for a long time.
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 3: Like so, okay, okay, let me just let me just
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 3: give you an example of how things change in the law. Okay,
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 3: Roe v. Wade was overturned after fifty years. Okay, how
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 3: did that happen? Because miss I think it was Mississippi.
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 2: They they.
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 3: Signed into law a fifteen week abortion ban. Fifteen weeks, right,
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 3: so you can get abortion on demand for fifteen weeks
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 3: for no reason or any reason. Isn't at all? And
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 3: then you know, like you're going to get a haircut,
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 3: might as well have an abortion while you're at it, right,
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 3: And then after fifteen weeks, it was life of the
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 3: mother or you know, serious deformity, you know, rape incests,
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 3: stuff like that, right, Okay, the abortion clinic in Mississippi,
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 3: Jackson Women's Health, decided that this was not good enough.
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 3: This was not a good enough compromise. Right, abortion for
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 3: no reason or any reason up to fifteen weeks, and
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 3: then after that you can still get an abortion if
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 3: you have a good reason. Okay, not good enough. So
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 3: they and this was in twenty eighteen, twenty seventeen, something
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 3: like that. Anyway, they launched this lawsuit. They sued the
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 3: state of miss sippy or Mississippi's public health director or
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 3: what secretary sued him. Uh and in federal court. And
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 3: uh because it wasn't it wasn't good enough, right, And
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 3: of course it takes time to but it's important to realize. Okay,
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 3: they knew Trump was in office. Okay, they knew that
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 3: uh Briars was resigning and Trump would get to appoint
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 3: his replacement. They knew that uh uh Scalia had died
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 3: and and Trump was had replaced him. And they knew
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 3: that RBG could barely hold her head up, could barely
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 3: hold her head up. She was on her fucking deathbed,
• 1:18:59
  Speaker 3: right about to die, right, and they still poked the
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 3: fucking hornet's nest. Right. The only reason Roe v. Wade
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 3: was overturned was because Jackson Women's Health didn't think a
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 3: fifteen week free for all on abortion was good enough
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 3: and launched a lawsuit when they had to have known,
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 3: had to have known that there would be a six
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 3: to three majority conservative court coming soon, right, Yeah, and
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 3: they did it anyway, So congratulate yourselves. Congratulations, you played
• 1:19:44
  Speaker 3: yourself right. Play that sound like Brian right, Congratulations, you
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 3: played yourself right, because that's the only reason, because you
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 3: need to have a court case. You need to have
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 3: a loss in order for case law to happen, in
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 3: order for a previous decision, a previous precedent to be overturned, right,
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 3: you need to.
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: So brought the case that destroyed by things.
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 3: Brought the case that destroyed Rony Wade and now they're
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 3: whining about it.
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 2: Okay, but this is a thing that women do and
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 2: have done repeatedly throughout history of waiting until just the
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 2: wrong moment to poke like that and then having a
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 2: fit when it doesn't go their way, or.
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 3: Just repeatedly slapping a man and then like acting like
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 3: the victim when he hits them back.
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but let's get into back into this. So, the
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: the history of this particular law, uh, the legislature, So
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 1: I'm not going to talk about the commentary on this
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 1: particular law. Legislature has over the years adopted stopgap measures
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: to bring Louisiana women just louise Saniana women because the
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 1: law that we're talking about.
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 3: Only applies to Louisiana.
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, only applies to Louisiana because they have the particular
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 1: patchwork of Spanish and the legal uh to the twentieth
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: first century, so to bring Louisiana women into the twentieth
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: century along with every other woman in America. So he's
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 1: presenting this as evidence of something and we just I
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 1: just learned from the from the good from the vertical
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: or the horizontal chat that he is from the UK.
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 1: So but regardless, nevertheless, In the even of the reform,
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 1: the legal regime bore a striking resemblance to the model
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: of French and Spanish inspiration contained in the digestive Civil
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 1: Laws eighteen oh eight. Certain things acquired by the spouses
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 1: during marriage were classified as community assets and we're controlled
• 1:21:48
  Speaker 1: by the husband as head and master. During the series
• 1:21:51
  Speaker 1: of laws beginning in eight nineteen twelve led to the
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 1: requirement that the wife's consent be obtained to mortgage, lease,
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 1: or sel commune property when her name appeared on the title.
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: So I'm guessing this guy sort of gained the system
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 1: by putting her name on the title of something that
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 1: she hadn't wasn't on, or taking a mortgage out on
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: something that she may not have been on title. After
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 1: nineteen twenty one, the wife was able to file a
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: declaration required her consent to the mortgage or sale of
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 1: the family home. In nineteen seventy the Code of Civil
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 1: Procedure was amended to give the wife the exclusive right
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 1: to sue for her earnings. In nineteen seventy five, the
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 1: wife was giving the power to obligate her earnings for
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 1: debts she had incurred before or during the marriage. All right,
• 1:22:38
  Speaker 1: So and then there's a debate on where this particular
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 1: Louisiana law comes from. So he's talking about a state
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 1: that's sort of floating off in its own world right,
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 1: And that's why you can see that these laws have
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: continued into the later half of the twentieth century, because
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 1: this is complex situation, because Louisiana has a complex history.
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: It wasn't just an English colony. I think it was French,
• 1:23:06
  Speaker 1: and looks like the Spanish were involved somehow. So not
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 1: only does he not clarify that we are talking about
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: a very complex legal situation, and that the legal situation
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 1: the people involved with it or were aware of it.
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 1: We're trying to fix the situation for women, probably based
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: on cases brought before the court, you know. So each
• 1:23:28
  Speaker 1: each one of these corrections probably represents a case by
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: a woman and then the legislators wanting to protect her
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 1: from or protect future women from the problems that she faced.
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 1: So we are looking at a very strange law. We
• 1:23:43
  Speaker 1: are looking at the social will to fix it to
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 1: protect women, but not necessarily the social will to scrap
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 1: it all. And we're looking at a legal system that
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: is difficult to extrapolate. The changes to the English common
• 1:23:57
  Speaker 1: law to it. So we're looking at a very strange situation,
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: like this man has presented a purple sheep and said,
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 1: all sheep are purple. No, sir, this sheep had died.
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 1: It is dyed purple. But the other thing is is
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 1: that he omits. And this is what I was talking
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: about with the customs, the expectations in these particular cultures
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 1: that men protect and provide for women. Like they're more
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 1: conservative cultures, they have a higher expectation that men protect
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: and provide for their wives. So he completely omits the
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: liability of the husband for the contractual obligations of his
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 1: wife Louisiana legislation and jurisprudence. So he emits. Not only
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 1: is he presenting his purple sheep as a commentary on
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 1: the color of all sheep, he's also omitting all of
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 1: the expectations put on men in this legal system, which
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 1: who knows if they were actually addressed. Okay, So, so,
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 1: as a result of their marriage, the husband owes his
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 1: wife certain duties. Article nineteen and one nineteen states the
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 1: owser support and our Article one twenty provides that he
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 1: is obligated to furniture with whatever is required for the
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 1: convenience of life and proportion to his means and condition.
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 1: So no, this is this is another thing that feminists
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 1: constantly bring up. Well, yeah, he was obligated, but not more.
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: You would let her live in poverty. No, he had
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 1: to have she had to live in the same mean,
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 1: within his means. So that is, if he was a
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 1: rich man, she had to live richly. Okay. If he
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: was middle class, she had to live middle class. He
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 1: was obligated to hers his own like his own material standing,
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: he was obligated to provide his wife.
• 1:25:48
  Speaker 3: Yeah, no, and and okay. This this also uh translates
• 1:25:53
  Speaker 3: into alimony law, which used to be not tied to
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 3: the ex husband's income. It used to be tied to
• 1:26:01
  Speaker 3: like the ex husband's current income, used to be tied
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 3: to the conditions under which she had become accustomed to
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 3: being supported. Right, that was, that was what he had
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 3: to pay. He had to pay her to live within
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 3: circumstances similar to those to which she had become accustomed
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 3: during the marriage. Right, regardless of what his current financial
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 3: situation is today. Right regardless of whether he the divorce
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 3: made him like Dave Foley of Kids in the Hall
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 3: and News Radio, fame right, Dave Foley, his his alimony
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 3: and his child support was assigned based on the year
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 3: before news radio. The year before Phil Hartman was killed
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 3: by his his wife and news radio was canceled, okay,
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 3: And so it was like the number one show when
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 3: his wife divorced him, and that's what he had to pay,
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 3: and that's what he continued to have to pay according
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 3: to Ontario law, right because reasons right. So here's this guy.
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 3: He goes from like making millions of dollars a year
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 3: right to being lucky if he can get a twenty
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 3: five thousand dollars gig right over the course of a week.
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 3: And and he's just like, yeah, no, And he he
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 3: ended up having to move permanently, seek refuge, seek asylum
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 3: in the United States. He never set foot in Canada
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 3: again until all of this finally was resolved because what
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 3: the courts were telling him was, well, you know, millions
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 3: and millions and millions of dollars right in child support
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 3: and alimony, and if you ever set foot in Canada again,
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 3: you're gonna be arrested, You're gonna go to prison. We'll
• 1:28:14
  Speaker 3: hold you in prison for six months and demand that
• 1:28:17
  Speaker 3: you pay up because we think you're hiding the money.
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 3: We think you're just refusing to pay, right, And and
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 3: then we'll let you out and you'll have another hearing,
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 3: and if you don't have the money, then then you
• 1:28:32
  Speaker 3: go back to prison for another six months, which is
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 3: basically a sentence to spend the rest of your life
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 3: in prison with a hearing every six months that you
• 1:28:44
  Speaker 3: can't win. Right, And that was that was his situation,
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 3: because she divorced him at the optimum time, right, And
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 3: so she's traveling all over the world with the kids
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 3: and everything, and and she's like going to Morocco on
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 3: vacation and all of this, right, And he's like desperately
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 3: seeking gigs from some like little bachelor freaking suite in
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 3: La right, trying to find enough work, right to just
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 3: pay the interest on his child support debt.
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we hear all the time how debtors prison has
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 2: been eliminated, and there is no such thing. But if
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 2: you're a man who owes child support, it's very very real.
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 2: And it's it's that way in the United States, it's
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 2: that way in Canada, and it's that way in the UK.
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 2: I believe it's that way in pretty much every country
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 2: where English common law was the predecessor to the legal system,
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 2: and probably also in countries where it wasn't, because the
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 2: government doesn't want to take responsibility for women who don't
• 1:29:54
  Speaker 2: take responsibility for themselves.
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 8: Do it.
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 3: If you're in a round and you're your wife divorces
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 3: you with cause or you divorce her without cause, you
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 3: owe her that. I don't know what it might be.
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 3: You know, some of the men that I've taught, Muslim
• 1:30:11
  Speaker 3: men that I've talked to, say it's like often between
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 3: thirty thousand, one hundred and twenty thousand dollars right paper debt,
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 3: and and you owe her that, and you owe her
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 3: that within a very limited timeframe. I think it's like
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 3: a month, right, and if you or your family can't
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 3: pay her that, you go to prison.
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 5: All right? Can I read the superchow that's sitting there.
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 2: After you read the.
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 1: Superchow, we're going to go back to this Louisian.
• 1:30:47
  Speaker 3: I want to I know, I want to go.
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 7: I think you kind of killed it already, you already well,
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 7: let me read destroyed him on it?
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 1: What I've destroyed? Like, I know I've darn him to ask,
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 1: but I'm wanted.
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 4: I want to there, Okay, can I just know I'll
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 4: read the super Child. Then I'm gonna mute and you
• 1:31:07
  Speaker 4: guys take over. I'm gonna make myself some coffee. So great,
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 4: Indoors gives us ten dollars. This was from a while back,
• 1:31:15
  Speaker 4: so it's it's referencing Hannah and he says, no, no, no, no, Hannah.
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 5: From what I've learned.
• 1:31:20
  Speaker 4: By a genuine professor, genuine professor is that when women
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 4: are being a bit to each other, it's because of patriarchy.
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 4: I learned that from a review of the lyrics of
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 4: a remix of an awful proposed pop song. So basically, shit,
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 4: it's up there with peer reviewed Pew research. Absolutely, it's
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 4: a pop music research. It's the same thing.
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 5: All right, go ahead and do you guys get back
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 5: to it.
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 1: Okay, So, because again this is this is again, and
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 1: I also got into arguments with people on that particular
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 1: the particular travesty. Again, guys, I'm just using his own sources.
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 1: In fact, that was what I said to him. He's like, well,
• 1:32:04
  Speaker 1: you your sources are wrong. I'm like, yeah, I'm using
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 1: your sources to debunk you. I haven't even I had
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 1: in this entire time that we've been talking, I haven't
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: even brought up anything that he doesn't reference.
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 5: You beat him to death with his own arm, Yes,
• 1:32:20
  Speaker 5: I should death.
• 1:32:23
  Speaker 1: Stop hitting yourself, ex patriarchy. But it's like this, this statue.
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 1: He brought it up, but he brought it up without context,
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 1: and he brought it up without saying no, actually, this
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 1: is extremely This doesn't apply to the rest of the us.
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 1: This is a purple sheep, sir.
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 2: Okay, well, or a green patch on a patchwork quilt
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 2: that he is now using to say that the whole
• 1:32:48
  Speaker 2: quilt is green.
• 1:32:49
  Speaker 1: Green because okay, So he's obligated to furniture with whatever
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 1: is required for the convenience of life and proportion to
• 1:32:56
  Speaker 1: his means and condition. Because he owes his wife these duties,
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 1: she may be able to bind him to third parties
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 1: without his consent if he fails to satisfy his obligations.
• 1:33:09
  Speaker 1: All right, So his wife has an unlimited credit to
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: go out and get anything that he gets. He gets
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 1: himself a Porsche, she gets herself a Porsche. He gets
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 1: himself an expensive penthouse. She is owed the same thing.
• 1:33:26
  Speaker 3: All right, mistake for everybody.
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: Waguh you know every expensive I don't know goldflecked scotch.
• 1:33:34
  Speaker 1: She gets that too. So the comments underneath that video,
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 1: because they are being led astray by a man who
• 1:33:42
  Speaker 1: apparently doesn't actually read his own sources, basically asserted that
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: men weren't couldn't be made obligated to their wives debts
• 1:33:52
  Speaker 1: right here in black and white. Yes they can. Yeah,
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 1: and that's in the case in Blackstone. They very clearly
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 1: stated that if you are going to just assume a
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 1: feminist with motivated reasoning is an actual reflection of the law,
• 1:34:11
  Speaker 1: you are a fool, right. This like going to a
• 1:34:15
  Speaker 1: Guardian article and saying, oh, this must be the legal
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 1: regime that they No, it's an opinion piece. That opinion,
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: and it's an opinion, a piece with no citations of
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 1: the actual law. Go read it. In this case, she
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 1: finds him not just because he is she is his wife,
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 1: but because she is his obligee obligee. If, for example,
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 1: the husband did not supply his wife with sufficient clothing,
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 1: she might purchase these articles in her husband's name and
• 1:34:43
  Speaker 1: he would be bound according to the principles of Nigorum
• 1:34:46
  Speaker 1: gestio embodied in articles two to five, nine to five
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 1: to twenty three hundred of the Code. Under the same
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 1: factual situation, the wife might even conventionally subrogate a creditor
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 1: supplying these goods to her rights against the husband. This
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 1: subrogation would require an express statement that she was transferring
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 1: her claim against the husband, and would only be possible
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 1: the husband had not provided as he required. Oh geez okay.
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 1: So basically his protection is that if he doesn't give
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 1: her the stuff that she asks or she demands, if
• 1:35:18
  Speaker 1: he doesn't give the.
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 3: Stuff that she deserves, that he could.
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 1: Relative to his ability to provide. If he is he
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: actually gives her that stuff, she can't then contract for
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: more of it. Woof that What a protection there. The
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 1: possibility that the community of quets and the thing is
• 1:35:36
  Speaker 1: that this is the legal expectation. So if the husband says, hey, no, this, this, this,
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 1: this sum this debt isn't fair, he has to go
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 1: to fricking he has to actually sue to get rid
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: of it. Yep, like this is this is an insane
• 1:35:51
  Speaker 1: level of liability. I don't know how to pronounce these words,
• 1:35:56
  Speaker 1: but regardless, you get them.
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 3: Obligation.
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 1: The possibility of the community of equets and gains accords
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 1: the wife power to bind her husband.
• 1:36:07
  Speaker 3: Equities and gains.
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 1: No, it's not equities equets.
• 1:36:12
  Speaker 8: There's there's how is its spelled A C q U
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 8: E T s equetes?
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 1: Are we going with it?
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 2: Look at it? Actually?
• 1:36:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I've had French accent equites.
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that does look like equts. I'm gonna sometimes.
• 1:36:39
  Speaker 5: Legal language was so much more sophisticated back then.
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 2: Equets are assets purchase acquired by purchase a gift or
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 2: other means than inheritance. So it's probably acquits and concept
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 2: and community and property law because I would be acquired
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 2: acquisition equests.
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 1: Okay. Examining the specific provisions of the community contract, it
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 1: is seen that no provision accords to the wife the
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 1: power to bind her husband, and under the agreement, the
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 1: husband owes to the wife no explicit duties. So when
• 1:37:11
  Speaker 1: it comes to buying new property, the wife can't be like, hey,
• 1:37:14
  Speaker 1: I've bought. You know, I bought a Porsche and a
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 1: pit bull. Yeah, no, I bought, I bought like I bought. Well,
• 1:37:23
  Speaker 1: he has.
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 2: A cat, Well it's a cat or a quite depending
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 2: on what.
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 1: Well, if he buys a portion of pit bull, she
• 1:37:32
  Speaker 1: can make the argument there, Karen, But you know if
• 1:37:35
  Speaker 1: she buys I don't know, beachfront property, she might not
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 1: be able to force her her husband to pay for it,
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 1: which could result in a liability to a third person
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 1: discharging them in the husband's name. In addition, the acts
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 1: of the wife in relation to community assets cannot subject
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 1: him to liability, as Article twenty oh four makes clear
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 1: that the only acts of the husband are to affect
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 1: these assets. There's at least one instand this is this
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 1: is where that one woman got in was like, I
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 1: can't be responsible for the mortgage because my husband made
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 1: me do it. There's at least one instance, however, in
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 1: which the husband's liability for his wife's act is dependent
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 1: on the existence of the you know, you know, this
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: is getting into the weeds anyway, it's probably boring, but regardless,
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 1: he did it. He omitted, He omitted. The expectations placed
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 1: on the husband.
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 3: Of course he did. They always do like you're acting
• 1:38:24
  Speaker 3: like it's some kind of fucking surprise. Okay, headache, you've
• 1:38:29
  Speaker 3: been giving me a headache for the last twenty minutes,
• 1:38:33
  Speaker 3: all right, okay, and you want to talk fine minute
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 3: of law, medicine, like freaking biology, anything like that. Psychology.
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 3: You want to talk that kind of manuchie. I'm happy
• 1:38:45
  Speaker 3: to do it, but you you just freaking bludgeoned this
• 1:38:51
  Speaker 3: dead horse into a fucking pulp, into a.
• 1:38:55
  Speaker 1: Paste, and then pete on the pulp and then that
• 1:38:57
  Speaker 1: pits all over the clue.
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 3: Yeah, because okay, it's so and we still haven't gotten
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 3: to the video.
• 1:39:07
  Speaker 2: You know what's funny about this. I'm going to make
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 2: a prediction.
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 3: I've been up since four thirty this morning. I have
• 1:39:13
  Speaker 3: not eaten yet, other than a few handfuls of peanuts.
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 1: Okay, watch it is.
• 1:39:22
  Speaker 3: Now. I I am, I am angry, I am cranky.
• 1:39:32
  Speaker 1: Think I'm watching this video is going to change any
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: of that.
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 3: Let me give me a reason to fucking live because
• 1:39:40
  Speaker 3: listening to you say stuff that I already know, like
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 3: watching you say stuff that I already agree with, it
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 3: doesn't feed my soul, honey, Okay, what feeds my soul
• 1:39:55
  Speaker 3: is idiots spouting bullshit on the internet.
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 2: Well, let me make my prediction here, because this is
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 2: something that I know is going to happen, and my
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 2: soul is black.
• 1:40:07
  Speaker 3: It's black, and it's cold.
• 1:40:09
  Speaker 2: Can you guys hear me, Yeah, we can hear you.
• 1:40:12
  Speaker 2: I wasn't sure because like it's it's the same thing
• 1:40:15
  Speaker 2: that happens when my my mic mutes without my preparation.
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 1: Go ahead, speak, speak your speak.
• 1:40:20
  Speaker 2: This guy is going to ignore everything you said. He's
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 2: going to go back to the source material and claim
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 2: that something in it that you just completely debunked proves
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 2: you wrong. That's what he's gonna do. We are we
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 2: are hold on that we're weird. No, he hasn't. She
• 1:40:42
  Speaker 2: has debunked him, like she's.
• 1:40:46
  Speaker 3: Talking about the video. Yes, yes, she has debunked him.
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 3: Then we have when he filmed this video, which I
• 1:40:56
  Speaker 3: hope that we will eventually be able to watch a
• 1:41:00
  Speaker 3: little bit of. Okay, felt that she.
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 1: Had actually we watched.
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 2: Okay, But listen, she has debunked him in two ways,
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 2: all right. The first way she has debunked him has
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 2: gone has been going through and proving wrong a point
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 2: that is a fundamental point of his, that that coviture
• 1:41:26
  Speaker 2: behaved a certain way, or the society behaved a certain
• 1:41:30
  Speaker 2: way around coviture, because this one obscure little case is representative,
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 2: and clearly it's not, and he is mostly citing obscure
• 1:41:39
  Speaker 2: little cases here and there where society had to come
• 1:41:43
  Speaker 2: along and fix an outdated law. She has debunked the claim,
• 1:41:49
  Speaker 2: the insinuation that all of the laws caused society to
• 1:41:55
  Speaker 2: behave a certain way, based on these little anecdote bits
• 1:42:01
  Speaker 2: that actually prove that the problem was that society didn't
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 2: have to change the law until there was a conflict,
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 2: that things were not the way that that he was
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 2: claiming that his own anecdotes, because of their nature, prove
• 1:42:18
  Speaker 2: him wrong.
• 1:42:20
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 1:42:20
  Speaker 2: And the second thing is she proved that he doesn't
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 2: know what he's talking about, doesn't understand his material, and
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 2: none of his arguments can be taken seriously because if
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 2: he did that with those anecdotes that he has used,
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 2: he's probably doing that with his entire argument. So pretty
• 1:42:39
  Speaker 2: much debunked the entire video at that point. I mean,
• 1:42:43
  Speaker 2: we can continue to watch, we can watch the last
• 1:42:46
  Speaker 2: minute and use the seconds, but two minutes forty four seconds.
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 1: But yeah, I'm gonna put it my own prediction is
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 1: in a comeback and claim this is what he's this
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 1: is what he's already said. He's going to tell me.
• 1:43:00
  Speaker 1: It's gonna tell me that he can't de boot me
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 1: because he fears that it will put me in a
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 1: in the unself a living state, because I will be
• 1:43:12
  Speaker 1: so absolutely shattered by the massiveness of his pulsating brain. Absolutely,
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 1: all right, he's.
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 5: Going to listen. Can literally.
• 1:43:32
  Speaker 3: I'm gonna have one job, had one job?
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 5: Well, you know you all spoke.
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 2: I'm going to be honest. I enjoyed listening to that teardown.
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 4: Was right, let's just can we can we just let's look,
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 4: here's the thing. I think I think we should listen
• 1:43:59
  Speaker 4: to some of it because you're gonna get people in
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 4: chat saying, how do we know you debunked anything?
• 1:44:06
  Speaker 5: If you didn't watch the video you're responding to, so.
• 1:44:11
  Speaker 4: You know that, But that doesn't change the fact that
• 1:44:14
  Speaker 4: that's how it's gonna be perceived.
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 2: Okay to our previous video on this subject, because that's
• 1:44:19
  Speaker 2: where most of this is.
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, we watched most of it in our
• 1:44:23
  Speaker 4: last stream about this. But I'm gonna finish this now.
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 9: The marriage to conduct legal contracts to some degree. It's
• 1:44:30
  Speaker 9: also worth pointing out that while this case made its
• 1:44:33
  Speaker 9: way to the Supreme Court, Texas's legislature repealed this protection,
• 1:44:37
  Speaker 9: granting married women general contractual powers and sole control over
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 9: her own property. In Louisiana in nineteen seventy four, Joan
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 9: Fienstra charged her husband with abusing their daughter. Her husband
• 1:44:48
  Speaker 9: then mortgage their home without her knowledge to pay for
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 9: an attorney.
• 1:44:51
  Speaker 5: She ended up.
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 9: Dropping the charges and the couple separated. Two years later.
• 1:44:55
  Speaker 9: The wife learned about the mortgage and refused to pay,
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 9: arguing that the state's Head and Master law, another law
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 9: based on cuverture that granted a husband the right to
• 1:45:03
  Speaker 9: make decisions about jointly owned property without his wife's knowledge
• 1:45:07
  Speaker 9: or consent, was unconstitutional. And again this went all.
• 1:45:10
  Speaker 2: This is something, there's something important in this, And again, okay,
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 2: so the first thing he said there is the first
• 1:45:21
  Speaker 2: this isn't something that we talked about, all right. The
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 2: first thing he said about this, yes, this isn't the
• 1:45:29
  Speaker 2: thing that he I'm bringing up is not something we
• 1:45:31
  Speaker 2: talked about. The first thing he said about this case
• 1:45:34
  Speaker 2: was that the wife accused him of abusing their daughter,
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 2: and then and then dropped the charge. Right now, if
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 2: someone abused my kid and I went to court over that,
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 2: or went to the police over that, there is in hell,
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 2: in heaven, or on this earth, in this universe that
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 2: would stop me from protecting my kid, right I would
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 2: go to jail if I had to to protect my
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 2: kid from abuse, from from wrongdoing. Yes, what did this
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 2: woman do? Did she falsely accuse her husband to try
• 1:46:12
  Speaker 2: to manipulate him and force him to go to court
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 2: and then drop the case because she couldn't win because
• 1:46:17
  Speaker 2: it didn't happen. I'm curious.
• 1:46:22
  Speaker 1: Is this self inflicted?
• 1:46:24
  Speaker 2: Did she do this because she thought she was going
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 2: to get something out of it and then when she wasn't,
• 1:46:30
  Speaker 2: she dropped it? Is this self inflicted situation?
• 1:46:35
  Speaker 3: She No, she accused him, okay, m M, in order
• 1:46:40
  Speaker 3: to secure a divorce right and then she dropped it,
• 1:46:45
  Speaker 3: so it was dropped it when she got it.
• 1:46:48
  Speaker 2: So it was a false allegation. She inflicted this situation,
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 2: this financial situation, on herself by making a false allegation
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 2: against her husband to manipulate the courts in her favor.
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 5: But women literally don't do that.
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 2: I just wanted to win out, That's it, and it
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 2: would It would have taken two seconds.
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 5: Okay, let me just play more of this.
• 1:47:10
  Speaker 4: I think, I know, I know we heard this story,
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 4: but this is kind of where we left off last time.
• 1:47:17
  Speaker 9: So court agreed that this was unconstitutional and again, as
• 1:47:21
  Speaker 9: this case was making its way, through the courts. State
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 9: lawmakers took steps to repeal this law in nineteen seventy nine.
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 9: In both cases, we should point out these laws were
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 9: not repealed in order to give women greater equity, freedom,
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 9: and autonomy, but rather because coverture was inconveniencing and preventing
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 9: collection of the debt incurred by the husband by taking
• 1:47:41
  Speaker 9: the wife's assets. The seventies was also when the Equal
• 1:47:43
  Speaker 9: Opportunity Credit Act was passed, preventing women from being discriminated
• 1:47:47
  Speaker 9: against when applying for credit.
• 1:47:49
  Speaker 3: Or this no, no, wait wait, wait, wait wait no,
• 1:47:54
  Speaker 3: this wasn't done to protect women from men. It was
• 1:47:58
  Speaker 3: to protect banks from being unable to collect on the debts.
• 1:48:09
  Speaker 1: Even though what even though, even though this this particular
• 1:48:14
  Speaker 1: case did indeed protect.
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the woman from being liable for the debt, and
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 3: then the law was changed to make her not liable
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 3: for the debt.
• 1:48:28
  Speaker 1: And also this is in defiance of the history of
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 1: all of these laws attempting to protect women from abuses
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 1: by men, like all of the changes to this law,
• 1:48:38
  Speaker 1: to this statute, which he completely ignores, like he's not
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 1: even talking about the history of this particular statute now,
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 1: Like honestly, when I hear what they what he talked
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 1: about with this woman apparently taking a charge of abuse
• 1:48:51
  Speaker 1: against her husband, it sounds like law fair. That's what
• 1:48:54
  Speaker 1: it sounds like. Is happening. Yeah, with his family or
• 1:48:57
  Speaker 1: these two people, they're engaging in law fair against each other,
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 1: which is irrelevant. That's like this, this is just poisoning
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 1: the well, it's creating irrelevant detail. The point is that
• 1:49:09
  Speaker 1: this statute had been challenged far prior to this woman.
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 1: For whatever reason, they didn't want to scrap the law entirely,
• 1:49:18
  Speaker 1: probably because it would be a hellish amount of work.
• 1:49:22
  Speaker 1: But they had been piecemeal correcting the law. And in fact,
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 1: what's interesting is that when you look at the history
• 1:49:31
  Speaker 1: of the changes, even in like nineteen thirty, I believe
• 1:49:35
  Speaker 1: they were questioning the use of this law or they
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 1: had changed it so that let's see, So the first
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 1: one is in so a series of law beginning in
• 1:49:51
  Speaker 1: nineteen twelve led to the requirement that the wife's consent
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 1: be obtained to mortgage, lease, or sell community property when
• 1:49:58
  Speaker 1: her name appeared on the title. So I'm actually wondering.
• 1:50:03
  Speaker 3: If her if her name because the title.
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 1: How how is it that this law, like if it
• 1:50:13
  Speaker 1: had been amended in this.
• 1:50:14
  Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, Alison, I can tell you exactly
• 1:50:17
  Speaker 3: what happened, It would happen, can tell you exactly what happened.
• 1:50:20
  Speaker 3: Her name was probably uh not on the title, but
• 1:50:26
  Speaker 3: she had a life interest in the property, and and
• 1:50:30
  Speaker 3: she had a right to refuse to allow him to
• 1:50:33
  Speaker 3: sell it out from under her, and and yeah, well
• 1:50:39
  Speaker 3: and she probably her name was probably on the mortgage,
• 1:50:43
  Speaker 3: but not on the title. And I can understand why
• 1:50:47
  Speaker 3: one's name would be on the mortgage but not on
• 1:50:49
  Speaker 3: the title, or on the title but not on the mortgage.
• 1:50:52
  Speaker 8: Right.
• 1:50:52
  Speaker 3: I've known men who their wives, you know, uh, were
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 3: on the title and not on the mortgage. That's very
• 1:51:02
  Speaker 3: convenient for those women when they decide to fuck off
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 3: and take the kids back to Scotland. And a certain
• 1:51:12
  Speaker 3: person will if he ever stumbles across this, we'll understand
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 3: who I'm referencing. But but yeah, no, and it's and
• 1:51:21
  Speaker 3: just leave you there with a mortgage to pay and
• 1:51:25
  Speaker 3: a property that you can't sell. So yeah, no, there
• 1:51:30
  Speaker 3: there are plenty of situations where someone might be on
• 1:51:34
  Speaker 3: the title but not on the mortgage. Somebody might be
• 1:51:36
  Speaker 3: on the mortgage but not on the title, and and
• 1:51:42
  Speaker 3: it's like it was one of those confusing situations because
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 3: it it used to be that it didn't count as
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 3: joint property of the marriage until it did. Right, Like,
• 1:52:01
  Speaker 3: I have a fifty percent financial interest in this house
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 3: even though my name is not on the title, right,
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 3: legal interest in it because I lived here. I've contributed
• 1:52:18
  Speaker 3: to the mortgage, I've contributed to the renovations, I've contributed
• 1:52:22
  Speaker 3: to the upkeep, and my husband and I have lived
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 3: here together for like what fifteen years or something, or
• 1:52:30
  Speaker 3: actually this house twelve or thirteen years now. So yeah,
• 1:52:38
  Speaker 3: he wouldn't be able to sell it out from under me.
• 1:52:41
  Speaker 3: He'd have to I'd have to sign off on it, right,
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 3: even though I'm not on the title and I'm not
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 3: on the mortgage, and I chose not to be on
• 1:52:51
  Speaker 3: the mortgage because it would have been a higher rate
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 3: if I was. But yeah, it's like, like all of
• 1:53:02
  Speaker 3: this is all extremely fucking complicated, right, because it's financial shit.
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 3: It's financial law, it's marital law, it's like property law.
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 3: It's all kinds of different law that comes together that
• 1:53:20
  Speaker 3: makes these situations where you know, I'm sorry, but she
• 1:53:27
  Speaker 3: probably did not jointly own that property except as someone
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 3: who could jointly benefit from a life interest in that property.
• 1:53:40
  Speaker 2: It's just the thing that I found really interesting about
• 1:53:42
  Speaker 2: this is the whole conflict over whether or not the
• 1:53:49
  Speaker 2: mortgage applied to her could have been avoided if she
• 1:53:52
  Speaker 2: had just not lied about her husband in the first place.
• 1:53:57
  Speaker 4: That's the funny thing about how these all these feminists
• 1:54:00
  Speaker 4: theories like they intertwined with each other. So if you say, well,
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 4: it looks like, based on all the things we know
• 1:54:06
  Speaker 4: about the case she lied about, you know, the situation
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 4: with her husband, she made a false accusation. Then the
• 1:54:15
  Speaker 4: the you know, the feminist fucking you know, twine ball,
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 4: like the rats nest of wires and theories, someone would
• 1:54:24
  Speaker 4: just say, oh, but women never lie about that. So,
• 1:54:26
  Speaker 4: like you, you end up going, you know, in these
• 1:54:30
  Speaker 4: uro Boros style loops, these movie strips of concepts, because
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 4: in order for this thing to be debunked, then you'd
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 4: have to also debunk this other myth over here, which
• 1:54:42
  Speaker 4: is couching this other myth over here.
• 1:54:45
  Speaker 2: So you know, well exact that's what he gave was
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 2: that coverture was sexist essentially because this woman could not
• 1:54:55
  Speaker 2: exploit legal loopholes. The fact that she could lie, go
• 1:55:00
  Speaker 2: to court and everything and not get punished for it,
• 1:55:04
  Speaker 2: and not have damage splatterback on her from the damage
• 1:55:09
  Speaker 2: picted on him. That is the situation in reality, whether
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 2: whether he likes the legal applications that led to it
• 1:55:17
  Speaker 2: or not.
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, no, no no no, no, yes,
• 1:55:23
  Speaker 3: yes it is no Hannah, Okay, nobody knows whether she
• 1:55:30
  Speaker 3: lied when she dropped it.
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 2: Anymore.
• 1:55:38
  Speaker 3: There are plenty You don't have to believe her, but
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 3: you can't say she lied. There's like of women. There
• 1:55:45
  Speaker 3: are plenty of women out there who will make a
• 1:55:50
  Speaker 3: complaint and then when it turns out that it's going
• 1:55:54
  Speaker 3: to make their lives difficult, right and make it cause
• 1:55:58
  Speaker 3: all kinds of problems for them, right when it's gonna
• 1:56:02
  Speaker 3: it's gonna like maybe make them lose their livelihood, you know, Like,
• 1:56:08
  Speaker 3: there are plenty of women out there who would choose.
• 1:56:11
  Speaker 2: Money, not the situation though she was where she didn't
• 1:56:16
  Speaker 2: need it to win a divorce, right, she got the divorce,
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 2: and as soon as she got the divorce, she stopped pursuing.
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 2: The came, we're.
• 1:56:23
  Speaker 1: Basing this all on his nose, all right, So I
• 1:56:27
  Speaker 1: think we're getting into weeds over this.
• 1:56:29
  Speaker 2: I'm not I'm not buying it like that's just it.
• 1:56:32
  Speaker 1: Your interpretations, okay or or okay, okay, okay, I'm not
• 1:56:39
  Speaker 1: saying that's not possible.
• 1:56:40
  Speaker 3: But what I am saying is if you have if
• 1:56:44
  Speaker 3: you're a mother and you have a child, and you're like, okay,
• 1:56:48
  Speaker 3: so I can charge I can get a divorce from
• 1:56:52
  Speaker 3: this abusive man by making an by accusing him of
• 1:56:57
  Speaker 3: being abusive, right, and then I uh, it brings all
• 1:57:04
  Speaker 3: of this nightmarish doctor or an amite. I did an
• 1:57:09
  Speaker 3: interview with him ages ago, right, Okay, he's a psychologist,
• 1:57:13
  Speaker 3: and he says, well, you know there's two types of
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 3: people right who get screwed over and divorce that he
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 3: sees in his office, right. And one of them is
• 1:57:22
  Speaker 3: men married to any woman, okay, and the other is
• 1:57:28
  Speaker 3: a woman married to an extremely intelligent and sociopathic man. Okay.
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 2: In to be true, this guy had to be an
• 1:57:40
  Speaker 2: extremely intelligent and sociopathic man, which is possible.
• 1:57:44
  Speaker 3: I'm not saying. I'm not saying that that's what happened.
• 1:57:48
  Speaker 3: I'm just not if I was married to that man, Okay,
• 1:57:53
  Speaker 3: that man who the extremely intelligent sociopathic man, right, very charming, okay,
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 3: very convincing. And uh, and I I obtained a divorce
• 1:58:06
  Speaker 3: and he gave me a settlement, okay, And and I
• 1:58:10
  Speaker 3: could just walk away. No, I would do that because no,
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 3: but okay, and I made a mistake. I made a mistake.
• 1:58:27
  Speaker 3: Oh well, nobody else would make that mistake thinking that
• 1:58:31
  Speaker 3: they could just walk away. Okay. So I'm sorry, but.
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 5: Like a.
• 1:58:41
  Speaker 2: Situation like that, when you're in a situation, you know
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 2: you can't just walk away.
• 1:58:45
  Speaker 1: Okay, But but I'm.
• 1:58:50
  Speaker 2: She could have. I'm not putting him in that position.
• 1:58:54
  Speaker 1: We might, we might want to have. We might, we might.
• 1:58:57
  Speaker 5: I'm just gonna I'm just gonna.
• 1:58:59
  Speaker 1: Have opinions on this guy's throwaway sentence. We don't even
• 1:59:03
  Speaker 1: know if it actually happened. We don't know how, we
• 1:59:07
  Speaker 1: don't know the particulars. So it was just an anecdote
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 1: with an anecdote. And the real issue with that anecdote
• 1:59:14
  Speaker 1: is he's using it to poison the well. Now. But
• 1:59:18
  Speaker 1: the point is that this man somehow figured out a
• 1:59:22
  Speaker 1: little loophole. It looks like it was in the context
• 1:59:25
  Speaker 1: of some kind of law law fair so warfare through
• 1:59:29
  Speaker 1: law between these two people, right, so he didn't just
• 1:59:32
  Speaker 1: do this for no reason. He did this in response
• 1:59:35
  Speaker 1: to something that that's that's obvious, but it was like
• 1:59:39
  Speaker 1: But ultimately, the point is that he found a loophole
• 1:59:43
  Speaker 1: in a very weird legal situation that doesn't exist in
• 1:59:47
  Speaker 1: the rest of the US. He this guy omitted all
• 1:59:50
  Speaker 1: of the obligations placed on men. Okay, so it's starting
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 1: to make more sense if a man is obligated to
• 1:59:57
  Speaker 1: the upkeep of his wife, that he'd be able to
• 1:59:59
  Speaker 1: take out a more mortgage to do so.
• 2:00:02
  Speaker 2: Right, of course that situation. The reason that I brought
• 2:00:06
  Speaker 2: that up is because I deal with this all the time.
• 2:00:09
  Speaker 2: I get dms all the time from guys who are
• 2:00:11
  Speaker 2: dealing with false allegations being used to facilitate divorce. It
• 2:00:15
  Speaker 2: is well that part of the law that loophole he
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 2: had with regard to the mortgage may have been eliminated,
• 2:00:23
  Speaker 2: the bit where women use allegations of either abusive themselves
• 2:00:28
  Speaker 2: or abuse of their children to manipulate the divorce course.
• 2:00:31
  Speaker 2: That never stopped. Yes, so the part of the situation
• 2:00:36
  Speaker 2: that shows that men could in some way inconvenience or
• 2:00:40
  Speaker 2: harm women using the law was fixed because it was
• 2:00:44
  Speaker 2: a threat to women. But the part where a woman
• 2:00:47
  Speaker 2: could just run rough shot over a man in divorce
• 2:00:50
  Speaker 2: court using allegations of abuse that was never fixed and
• 2:00:55
  Speaker 2: in fact current law exacerbates it. Yes, yes, and then
• 2:01:00
  Speaker 2: the US has exported that all over the world.
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 1: Let's get a little bit more into the.
• 2:01:05
  Speaker 4: Video, right, there's literally like one minute and some change left,
• 2:01:09
  Speaker 4: So we can do this.
• 2:01:10
  Speaker 9: We can do this, guys, why in their husband's name?
• 2:01:14
  Speaker 9: The notion that a wife's body belonged to her husband
• 2:01:16
  Speaker 9: also wasn't challenged until the nineteen seventies, with MARRIDL. Gray
• 2:01:20
  Speaker 9: remaining legal in some states until the nineteen nineties.
• 2:01:23
  Speaker 2: The fiend kick, Well, it wasn't that it was not
• 2:01:26
  Speaker 2: It was not legal because during the time that that existed,
• 2:01:34
  Speaker 2: that you could not accuse your partner your spouse of rape,
• 2:01:38
  Speaker 2: and or you could, but it wasn't legal to accuse
• 2:01:43
  Speaker 2: your spouse of rape and get them convicted. It was
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 2: still illegal to beat up your spouse, at least if
• 2:01:51
  Speaker 2: a man did it. You know, it was technically illegal
• 2:01:54
  Speaker 2: if a woman did it, but that wouldn't be pursued
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 2: and under the laws during that time, right under the
• 2:02:01
  Speaker 2: yeah or physically restrained under the laws during that time period,
• 2:02:04
  Speaker 2: rape was not like it is today, where you can
• 2:02:07
  Speaker 2: go out for drinks and dinner and go back to
• 2:02:09
  Speaker 2: somebody's apartment and have sex with them and then say, well,
• 2:02:12
  Speaker 2: I had two beers and it's not consensual, so he
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 2: raped me like you had to prove that you tried
• 2:02:20
  Speaker 2: to fight back, that you screamed, that there was some
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 2: effort at subduing you and using force or coercion. Those
• 2:02:28
  Speaker 2: things were illegal. So if a wife accused her husband
• 2:02:33
  Speaker 2: of beating her up and holding her down, restraining her
• 2:02:36
  Speaker 2: in order to obtain sex, the fact that he did
• 2:02:40
  Speaker 2: those things, the fact that he did them to obtain sex,
• 2:02:43
  Speaker 2: didn't excuse the fact that he did them, and he
• 2:02:45
  Speaker 2: would still go to jail. They just didn't call it
• 2:02:48
  Speaker 2: rape under the law. Now, feminists argue to men who
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 2: say that it's legal for women to rape men today
• 2:02:58
  Speaker 2: in the UK, they argue to men that no, it's not,
• 2:03:02
  Speaker 2: because a woman will be charged with a crime and
• 2:03:07
  Speaker 2: will face the equivalent sentencing range for that crime. It
• 2:03:13
  Speaker 2: just isn't called rape. So you get it one way
• 2:03:16
  Speaker 2: or the other. Feminists either rape is legal because the
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 2: crime you get charged with for doing it is called
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 2: something else, instead of calling it rape, or you have
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 2: to concede that it was never legal for men to
• 2:03:33
  Speaker 2: rape their wives, well at.
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 1: Least not not Yeah, and of course completely omitted from
• 2:03:39
  Speaker 1: the entire discussion. It was also legal for a woman
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 1: to grape her husband, yes, and still is effectively illegal
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 1: because there are no protections. There's no real protection in law.
• 2:03:50
  Speaker 1: All right, let's listen to the last bit there, Brian,
• 2:03:53
  Speaker 1: do it, put it in the shoe.
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 9: This was then brought up again in another major Supreme
• 2:03:57
  Speaker 9: Court case, a Bergefell versus Hodges and twenty fifteen, which
• 2:04:00
  Speaker 9: guaranteed the right of same sex couples to marry, and
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 9: part of the opposing argument was that allowing same sex
• 2:04:05
  Speaker 9: marriage was changing the quote societal meaning of what marriage is,
• 2:04:09
  Speaker 9: with Justice S. Ginsberg arguing that marriage today is not
• 2:04:12
  Speaker 9: what it was under the common law tradition. The civil
• 2:04:14
  Speaker 9: law tradition, marriage was the relationship of a dominant male
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 9: to a subordinate female, and that ended as a result
• 2:04:21
  Speaker 9: of this Court's decision in nineteen eighty two when Louisiana
• 2:04:24
  Speaker 9: the Master Rule was struck down.
• 2:04:27
  Speaker 1: I wonder if men felt very dominant when their wives
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 1: were taking out expenses in their name well like the
• 2:04:38
  Speaker 1: laws and asks from Dickens felt very dominant when they
• 2:04:41
  Speaker 1: were fingered as responsible for things that they had no
• 2:04:44
  Speaker 1: control over because their wives did them.
• 2:04:47
  Speaker 2: He just undermined gay marriage because that's not really the
• 2:04:51
  Speaker 2: basis for why the law changed. The whole common law
• 2:04:55
  Speaker 2: system wasn't about dominating women. It was about shielding this
• 2:04:59
  Speaker 2: state eight from the expenses of women's sexual impropriety, women's
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 2: choice with the guy and his babies, and Ginsburg's Ginsburg
• 2:05:15
  Speaker 2: was a feminist, and so she had that attitude and
• 2:05:18
  Speaker 2: she ignored the fact that common law marriage and the
• 2:05:22
  Speaker 2: laws that were common to marriage were to protect the
• 2:05:27
  Speaker 2: state from the expense of women's reproductive choices. That's why
• 2:05:34
  Speaker 2: marriage exists. It exists to protect the state coffers from
• 2:05:39
  Speaker 2: the expenses of women's reproductive choices. So if a woman
• 2:05:44
  Speaker 2: reproduces outside of a marriage, the state holds the man
• 2:05:48
  Speaker 2: responsible so that the state doesn't have to be responsible
• 2:05:51
  Speaker 2: for her and her children. If a woman reproduces in
• 2:05:54
  Speaker 2: a shacked up situation, the state holds the man responsible.
• 2:06:01
  Speaker 2: And believe you me, if if she doesn't want to
• 2:06:05
  Speaker 2: state hold a man and to hold a man responsible,
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 2: she has to fight tooth and nail because I did
• 2:06:09
  Speaker 2: that and I had to fight it right, and we
• 2:06:12
  Speaker 2: eventually got married, but ultimately the state held him responsible,
• 2:06:20
  Speaker 2: not me. The state treats the man as at fault
• 2:06:23
  Speaker 2: in those situations, regardless of who chooses to have the baby,
• 2:06:28
  Speaker 2: regardless of who chooses to consent to sex, regardless of
• 2:06:33
  Speaker 2: who chooses to move into the home or to not
• 2:06:36
  Speaker 2: associate with the father of her baby. So all of
• 2:06:39
  Speaker 2: this is the state protecting women from being put into
• 2:06:45
  Speaker 2: poverty situations and the state from being responsible for its
• 2:06:50
  Speaker 2: female citizens who do not take responsibility for themselves in
• 2:06:53
  Speaker 2: those situations. Right, I'm abnormal because I did take responsibility.
• 2:06:59
  Speaker 2: I've had two three jobs my whole life to make
• 2:07:02
  Speaker 2: up for my stupid choices. I don't like that the
• 2:07:06
  Speaker 2: state pays women to make stupid choices. It's cutting our
• 2:07:10
  Speaker 2: feet off to protect us from what success. But this
• 2:07:15
  Speaker 2: guy and his claims about marriage, and feminists and their
• 2:07:20
  Speaker 2: claims about marriage treat the situation as if the state
• 2:07:24
  Speaker 2: just put men in charge of women for no reason.
• 2:07:27
  Speaker 2: That's wrong. So if that's the basis for the state
• 2:07:31
  Speaker 2: allowing gay marriage, that well, since we don't dominate women anymore,
• 2:07:35
  Speaker 2: gay marriage is okay, they just undermined gay marriage. Marriage
• 2:07:40
  Speaker 2: is supposed to be a partnership. The state can recognize
• 2:07:44
  Speaker 2: it or it cannot recognize it, and the church can
• 2:07:48
  Speaker 2: recognize it or it cannot recognize it. But if you're
• 2:07:52
  Speaker 2: going to make the basis a lie, you undermine all marriage.
• 2:08:00
  Speaker 5: All right, let's finish it off.
• 2:08:01
  Speaker 4: I'm going to play the rest of this and then
• 2:08:03
  Speaker 4: you guys, we can wind it down.
• 2:08:07
  Speaker 9: Bake into our governing laws with civil and criminal law
• 2:08:11
  Speaker 9: explicitly stating the expectation of subjugation of wives by their
• 2:08:15
  Speaker 9: husbands and enshrining their inability to own property, to make
• 2:08:19
  Speaker 9: their own income, and generally be self sufficient. But we're
• 2:08:22
  Speaker 9: seeing them to be at the mercy of their husband's providence.
• 2:08:26
  Speaker 9: But a number of these laws were only repealed within
• 2:08:29
  Speaker 9: our lifetimes. This is living memory, not ancient history. If
• 2:08:33
  Speaker 9: you think patriarchy is a myth, and I strongly suggest
• 2:08:36
  Speaker 9: you go pick up a history book and uh, while.
• 2:08:42
  Speaker 10: You're at it, bowed out of actually responding to me
• 2:08:51
  Speaker 10: by saying I was too fragile to take.
• 2:08:54
  Speaker 1: His rebuttal and every single one of his sources throughout
• 2:09:00
  Speaker 1: this video as you saw, and I use them to
• 2:09:03
  Speaker 1: rebot his own arguments, and he just fucked off because
• 2:09:08
  Speaker 1: he's scared of a strong woman.
• 2:09:11
  Speaker 2: Okay, well I'm gonna point something out, all right. He
• 2:09:14
  Speaker 2: talks about the the the disciplinary laws regarding men and
• 2:09:23
  Speaker 2: their wives. If I had a choice between you know,
• 2:09:31
  Speaker 2: you you you violate a lot that maybe you're not
• 2:09:34
  Speaker 2: in full understanding of. If I had a choice between, well,
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 2: you can you can let your husband castigate you for that,
• 2:09:42
  Speaker 2: and uh, and then that's it's settled. You know, maybe
• 2:09:46
  Speaker 2: maybe maybe maybe yeah, maybe you get spanked, you know,
• 2:09:51
  Speaker 2: like or or maybe he doesn't allow you to go
• 2:09:55
  Speaker 2: into that that location again, in that store or whatever. Okay.
• 2:10:00
  Speaker 2: Or you are as liable for your actions as you
• 2:10:04
  Speaker 2: would be if you're a man and you go to
• 2:10:06
  Speaker 2: jail for committing that crime. I'd take this banking or
• 2:10:11
  Speaker 2: being grounded, you know whatever, and reform my actions so
• 2:10:16
  Speaker 2: that it didn't happen again, because that's a lot easier
• 2:10:20
  Speaker 2: than being locked up for a period of time and
• 2:10:23
  Speaker 2: unable to do your normal life activities, your responsibilities, you know,
• 2:10:28
  Speaker 2: and so on. But yeah, sure, it was dominance and
• 2:10:34
  Speaker 2: not a protection from going to jail, not a protection
• 2:10:37
  Speaker 2: from the long arm of the state. If that's what
• 2:10:39
  Speaker 2: you want to believe, if it makes it easier for
• 2:10:43
  Speaker 2: you to be around women, to be around the women
• 2:10:46
  Speaker 2: that you have to be around, if you're going to
• 2:10:48
  Speaker 2: be a feminist, you know, go ahead and believe that
• 2:10:53
  Speaker 2: it was beneficial to women to be able to go
• 2:10:56
  Speaker 2: to jail instead of having their husband say do that again.
• 2:11:01
  Speaker 2: I'm going to take away the purse springs and purse
• 2:11:03
  Speaker 2: strings for a while, or don't do that again, or
• 2:11:07
  Speaker 2: I'm gonna smack you on the ass.
• 2:11:13
  Speaker 3: All honestly, some of us like a smack on the
• 2:11:18
  Speaker 3: ass now and then.
• 2:11:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but you have to get both cheeks or it's
• 2:11:21
  Speaker 2: not equal.
• 2:11:23
  Speaker 3: No no, no, no, no.
• 2:11:26
  Speaker 2: No, Yeah, you have to get both cheeks or one
• 2:11:27
  Speaker 2: gets cold.
• 2:11:28
  Speaker 3: You want all the bruising, all the subcutaneous hammer chase,
• 2:11:33
  Speaker 3: not that, but yeah, norow it off to your friends
• 2:11:37
  Speaker 3: at the water park.
• 2:11:39
  Speaker 2: There you go.
• 2:11:44
  Speaker 5: Okay, all right, So that's the end of the video.
• 2:11:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah, apparently he doesn't like my hat. I really like
• 2:11:50
  Speaker 1: my hat though, And this is why I say that patriarchy.
• 2:11:55
  Speaker 5: Doesn't he does.
• 2:11:57
  Speaker 4: He has nothing to say about the poppy on There
• 2:11:59
  Speaker 4: is not a relevant part of the Oh wait, it's.
• 2:12:03
  Speaker 3: A British no, but it's a British thing too, write like,
• 2:12:07
  Speaker 3: I don't know whether Americans do the poppy.
• 2:12:09
  Speaker 2: No, yeah, it's not really how how we do things
• 2:12:16
  Speaker 2: in America. We honor by putting up flags, and everything
• 2:12:20
  Speaker 2: is about the flag.
• 2:12:21
  Speaker 1: All right, let me just get really quickly, but the poppy.
• 2:12:24
  Speaker 3: The poppy is common to both Canada and the UK.
• 2:12:28
  Speaker 1: He is supporting his allegation that patriarchy exists in living
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 1: memory based on one extremely exceptional legal situation in Louisiana,
• 2:12:39
  Speaker 1: where you're talking about a territory that inherited a lot
• 2:12:41
  Speaker 1: of different legal systems and had a very elaborate I
• 2:12:46
  Speaker 1: guess legal situation from more.
• 2:12:49
  Speaker 3: Conservative like like I said, Okay, like I said. Back
• 2:12:55
  Speaker 3: in the nineteen sixties or seventies, Canada made all of
• 2:12:58
  Speaker 3: its cover or Alberta made all of its coverture laws
• 2:13:02
  Speaker 3: gender neutral right, so life interest in property, which would
• 2:13:07
  Speaker 3: be called dour rights, applied to both men and women.
• 2:13:11
  Speaker 3: And my mother in law had a big frickin' problem
• 2:13:17
  Speaker 3: selling us this house because her husband, she had power
• 2:13:22
  Speaker 3: of attorney over him, because he was non compostmentous and
• 2:13:27
  Speaker 3: confined to a facility, because he was. She couldn't, she
• 2:13:33
  Speaker 3: couldn't look after him. There was just no way he
• 2:13:35
  Speaker 3: could be looked after in the house. He escaped several
• 2:13:41
  Speaker 3: times from that facility. It was a fairly high security
• 2:13:47
  Speaker 3: and he just had he just had issues with starting
• 2:13:54
  Speaker 3: confrontations with people. And he was six foot four and
• 2:14:00
  Speaker 3: special former Special Forces right British British SAS and New
• 2:14:06
  Speaker 3: Zealand SAS right, so you know he, uh, he could
• 2:14:13
  Speaker 3: kill you with one thumb. And uh. So he couldn't
• 2:14:18
  Speaker 3: like just let him leave him on his own right
• 2:14:24
  Speaker 3: to with a coloring book or something, right, But so
• 2:14:29
  Speaker 3: he was he was uh institutionalized back to the dam
• 2:14:35
  Speaker 3: and okay and uh and so then she goes to
• 2:14:38
  Speaker 3: sell us the house that was solely in her name
• 2:14:43
  Speaker 3: and uh and he had already said I don't want
• 2:14:46
  Speaker 3: any you know, like I he he had already like
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 3: years before, said you know, like it's not my house,
• 2:14:54
  Speaker 3: it's her house in writing. But but yeah, she still
• 2:15:01
  Speaker 3: had to go and get guardianship over him. So she
• 2:15:06
  Speaker 3: had sent her lawyer to go explain to a court
• 2:15:09
  Speaker 3: why she needed guardianship over him, because he was not
• 2:15:14
  Speaker 3: capable of signing away his dower rights. Because all he'd
• 2:15:18
  Speaker 3: signed away when he put it in writing that he
• 2:15:23
  Speaker 3: had no interest in the house was his financial rights,
• 2:15:27
  Speaker 3: his financial interest. He hadn't signed away his life interest right,
• 2:15:31
  Speaker 3: and his life interest was his right to live in
• 2:15:34
  Speaker 3: the house. And so he had to consent to her
• 2:15:39
  Speaker 3: selling it, even to his own son. And he was
• 2:15:45
  Speaker 3: non compost mentis by then and unable to actually sign
• 2:15:51
  Speaker 3: on the dotted line to authorize the sale. So it
• 2:15:55
  Speaker 3: held everything up for like, I think it was about
• 2:15:57
  Speaker 3: six weeks. And that's that's just because the coverture laws
• 2:16:06
  Speaker 3: in Alberta were gender neutralized at some point, right, it
• 2:16:14
  Speaker 3: used to be that they only protected women from so.
• 2:16:18
  Speaker 1: In the in the Great, the Great, you know, annals
• 2:16:22
  Speaker 1: of history, they only protected women. But you know, but
• 2:16:26
  Speaker 1: that's the point. He looks at this law. It is
• 2:16:30
  Speaker 1: extremely like an extremely bizarre circumstance because we're talking about
• 2:16:37
  Speaker 1: atypical law within the US because of the history of Louisiana.
• 2:16:42
  Speaker 1: And he looks at that and he's making an assumption
• 2:16:45
  Speaker 1: based on an extreme outlier. Like Hannah said, there's one
• 2:16:49
  Speaker 1: square of the kilt quilt that's green, therefore it's all green. No,
• 2:16:53
  Speaker 1: that's not how it works. So he's making an assumption
• 2:16:55
  Speaker 1: that all of this stuff applies up to the current era,
• 2:16:59
  Speaker 1: even though even this particular statute was subjected to a
• 2:17:02
  Speaker 1: whole bunch of revisions throughout the twentieth century to try
• 2:17:06
  Speaker 1: to bring it in line with the modern era and
• 2:17:10
  Speaker 1: the modern era's economic system. Because again we're talking about
• 2:17:15
  Speaker 1: law from previous economic systems. It doesn't necessarily apply to
• 2:17:19
  Speaker 1: and it's not a situation where the law is oppressing women.
• 2:17:22
  Speaker 1: It just simply hasn't caught it up to the current situation.
• 2:17:25
  Speaker 1: But everywhere where you see that, you see lawmakers trying
• 2:17:29
  Speaker 1: to make this better for women consistently. And he omits
• 2:17:34
  Speaker 1: all that. He also omits all of the expectations in
• 2:17:38
  Speaker 1: Louisiana law that men provide for women commiserate to their
• 2:17:44
  Speaker 1: particular their station, So a man has to provide for
• 2:17:47
  Speaker 1: a woman equal to his station, equal to his income.
• 2:17:51
  Speaker 1: He omits all of that. He omits the fact that
• 2:17:53
  Speaker 1: women can contract debts to their upkeep, that their fought,
• 2:17:58
  Speaker 1: that their their husbands have to honor amidst all of that,
• 2:18:02
  Speaker 1: and presents a very one sided view of this. And
• 2:18:06
  Speaker 1: if you buy into it, it is because you choose
• 2:18:09
  Speaker 1: the position of a victim as a woman, and you
• 2:18:12
  Speaker 1: have to deal with it yourself. You have to deal
• 2:18:15
  Speaker 1: with that ship yourself. All right, I gotta go me too.
• 2:18:21
  Speaker 3: I just ate. I'm gonna starting.
• 2:18:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, if you want to, if you want to send,
• 2:18:30
  Speaker 1: if you want to, send us a tip, and with
• 2:18:31
  Speaker 1: that tip, if you like, you can send a comment.
• 2:18:34
  Speaker 1: Very best way for you to send us whatever funds
• 2:18:36
  Speaker 1: you want to to support the show, feed the badger
• 2:18:39
  Speaker 1: dot com slash just the tip and our Munti fundraiser
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 1: isn't live yet, so we'll stow that. I'm gonna hand
• 2:18:45
  Speaker 1: it back to you, Brian. Sorry, we're stopping so abruptly.
• 2:18:48
  Speaker 1: If you guys want to continue without me, that's fine,
• 2:18:50
  Speaker 1: But it looks like Karen has to go.
• 2:18:52
  Speaker 3: Oh we all, I'm done. I'm for everybody freaking done.
• 2:18:57
  Speaker 3: I've been up since four thirty. It's eleven thirty.
• 2:19:00
  Speaker 1: So I find it really obnoxious, Like it really is
• 2:19:03
  Speaker 1: pissing me off. He has my hat, like he's showing
• 2:19:06
  Speaker 1: my hat just and the fact that he gets a
• 2:19:09
  Speaker 1: more attention more subscribers for repeating bullshit, unsubstantiated bullshit. Again,
• 2:19:16
  Speaker 1: I took them all down. These are his sources. These
• 2:19:19
  Speaker 1: are the things that he thinks supports his position. They
• 2:19:22
  Speaker 1: only do so because they are cherry picked, and they
• 2:19:25
  Speaker 1: are he removes the context. All Right, I'm done. I'm done.
• 2:19:28
  Speaker 3: I'm their edge cases. Yeah, all right, all right, well okay,
• 2:19:33
  Speaker 3: I'm going we're.
• 2:19:34
  Speaker 5: Wrapping it up.
• 2:19:34
  Speaker 4: If you guys like this video, please hit like subscribe
• 2:19:37
  Speaker 4: if you're not ready, subscribe with the bell falification that
• 2:19:39
  Speaker 4: leaves a comment. Let us know what you guys think
• 2:19:41
  Speaker 4: about what we discussed on the show today. And please
• 2:19:43
  Speaker 4: please please share this video because sharing is carrying. Allison
• 2:19:46
  Speaker 4: and Karen already gone, but thank you guys so much
• 2:19:48
  Speaker 4: for coming on today's episode of The Rant Zirker, and
• 2:19:51
  Speaker 4: we'll talk to you guys in the next video.
• 2:19:53
  Speaker 5: Have a good men's right.
• 2:19:54
  Speaker 11: Activists are machines, dude. Okay, they are literal machines. They
• 2:20:00
  Speaker 11: are talking point machines. They are impossible to fucking deal with,
• 2:20:03
  Speaker 11: especially if you have like especially if you have like
• 2:20:06
  Speaker 11: a couple of dudes who have good memory. On top
• 2:20:08
  Speaker 11: of that too, holy shit, you're fucked