Latest / Honey Badger Radio / The Religion of "Women's Ways of Knowing" With TL;DR Part 2 | Rantzerker 177

Transcript

The Religion of "Women's Ways of Knowing" With TL;DR Part 2 | Rantzerker 177 · Honey Badger Radio

0:00
Hello, everybody, Welcome to Honey Badger Radio. Or we could say coming
0:04
to you live from Deep within Icy et cetera, et cetera, because this
0:08
is Rantzerker number one seventy seven. Yeah, I know we didn't do that
0:13
last job. Yeah, we can do that. I can do it all
0:16
right, all right, coming to you live from Deep within a headachy wasteland.
0:23
We are the survivors of alt the alt right apocalypse. The few,
0:28
the brave, the bitchy, once more wading into battle again, the incomprehensible
0:35
hordes of women's ways of knowing. This is rant with the religion of Women's
0:42
ways of Knowing with Teal Deer rant Zirker number queuing one seventy seven, one
0:50
seventy seven. This is part two of however many this is gonna take?
0:55
No, this is not gonna take more than one. This is this is
0:57
it? Maybe I don't know til dear. This is the deep rabbit hole,
1:00
isn't it? Yes? But this we've we've only gone about half of
1:07
this book left to go, and there's a few other things that I do
1:10
want to bring in that might just be amusing that I'm home to get it
1:15
all done today. I'm all for amusement, truly, we we should,
1:19
we should find out more about the inner circle of the women's ways of knowing
1:25
religion like that, you know, you know, you jest, but that
1:30
is a system that I that I've read about, this idea of uh,
1:37
the outer school, the inner school, and the inner circle, which is
1:41
like how this cult operates. That is the way cults operate, but it's
1:45
it is also the way this cult operates. So you're not You're not off
1:49
by that much, Allison. But I think the person wrote this book might
1:55
be not even from the inner circle, but of the inner school, where
1:57
they have like academic knowledge of the material and they may even have like an
2:04
understanding of how it's used and all that, but they may not know exactly
2:07
what it's for. So she's deeply embedded within the spiritual vagina. Yeah,
2:16
I mean yes, the void right, the void, the void that must
2:23
be filled by a man no pun intended. No, you are either a
2:27
man or by patriarchy theory. Well, yes, which is like I don't
2:31
know, well, you know what, I don't know. This Tilder is
2:34
the one that when all hp Lovecraft to figure it out. So well,
2:38
if we're ever, if ever our conjectures are not hitting the mark, please
2:40
tell us Tilder I was just the void of female sin where women look to
2:46
men to fill the void in themselves, but they shouldn't because process. Okay,
2:53
but here's the thing. If you constantly basically say that you're nothing but
2:57
a reaction to men's actions, you're still filling the void with a man,
3:00
just in a negative way. Though it's an inverted void. Yeah, the
3:06
void within the void within the void, and eventually at the at the very
3:12
center of the void there is the void. Cat mm hm Okay, all
3:17
right, let's get into it. We were talking about the book Women's Reality
3:25
by Ann Wilson Chafe, and we were looking through how this book asserts that
3:32
reality don't reels, there are basically everything is just a social construct. Yo,
3:38
It's all how we interpret things. And we currently live under the white
3:42
male system, which is evil and toxic and bad and literally called pollution in
3:47
this book, and we should just all move over to the female system,
3:52
which is this undefinable, wibbly, wobbily woman nous of process that just makes
3:57
everything better. Since writing this book. A few times in this book,
4:02
Chaff says that she doesn't think that either system is inherently better than the other
4:06
one. And then in the nineteen ninety two edition, which is this one
4:12
that we're going through now, she says, nope, she is completely reneged
4:16
on that previous position. The white male system is everything that is terrible about
4:21
the world and needs to be destroyed because it feeds into something called the addictive
4:26
system. And I would actually like to take a few moments here to talk
4:30
about the addictive system, because that is what she ended up going on to
4:34
later on, and she even said that the female system feeds into the addictive
4:40
system in some capacities as well, because it seems to just be like some
4:44
sort of cope or something like that. I'd have to read a little bit
4:48
more into some of her stuff, and I really don't want to, but
4:53
let's touch on the addictive system for a little while, because I think people
4:56
continue to doubt the wide reach implications of some of this stuff that we've we've
5:02
talked about. We will talk a little bit more about the mail system and
5:05
whatnot as we go through the second half of this write up, but I
5:09
want to introduce this now specifically because I've mentioned the addictive system So this book
5:15
by Ann Wilson Schaf, this was written in the original one was nineteen eighty
5:20
one, I think it was. It is a women's studies book. It
5:25
is given to people on women's studies courses. If you go on to Anne
5:30
Wilson Chafe's Wikipedia page, it will even talk about how this book is used
5:34
in universities to teach university courses, so it is a book in their cannon.
5:42
As this book boasts on its cover, over three hundred thousand copies sold
5:46
and that was at nineteen ninety two and this second edition was printed, so
5:50
it will be a lot more since then. But in mentioning the Addictive System,
5:55
I would also like to point out something about Schaf and what she went
5:59
on to do after this book. So the interesting thing about the addictive system
6:04
is that the addictive system is one of the models of understanding which is used
6:09
by the twelve Step program in the United States of America. And the reason
6:15
that that is very important is because it is the twelve step program, as
6:19
in the Alcoholics Anonymous twelve Step program. You can literally find information about this
6:25
on the website which runs it. As people probably know the Alcoholics Anonymous in
6:30
the US is run by Jesuits. It is. Their website is www dot
6:35
Theway dot Org. There's also another one in the UK as well, which
6:41
is the Way dot org dot UK. So alcoholics anonymous. This actually it
6:46
seems to be both both used in the UK and the US. You makes
6:53
use of the Addictive System, which is basically just a repackaged updated version of
6:57
the white male system and female syst thinking. You know the thing that Shaf
7:00
said, well, we need to destroy the white male way of doing this
7:03
and institute the female way of doing this and then everything will be better.
7:08
And I found that very interesting because there is actually even a little book that
7:14
you can find. It is posted on the Way dot org dot UK,
7:17
which is the UK jes organization, called the Addictive System by Ann Wilson Shafe.
7:24
It's just a small few pages where she just outlines what it is and
7:29
obviously, because it's a Jesuit in nature, a lot of it comes down
7:31
to, well, you need to find higher power, you need to It's
7:35
interesting because she kind of alludes to God and mentions God, but she also
7:40
talks about how religion is basically just a structure, and so she differentiates spiritualism
7:46
from religion in that, which I found a rather interesting from someone who is
7:49
working within a nominally Christian organization to basically just say, oh, we need
7:55
to talk about the spiritualism behind all of this as opposed to you know,
8:00
God, which I found somewhat interesting. But okay, so that's pretty sinister.
8:07
So then the twelve step program is you it's modeling itself on this this,
8:16
uh, these writings or this this idea from this woman that this this
8:22
the process, the male process. Yes, sorry, well, white mail
8:26
system which needs to be removed and replaced with the female system, which is
8:30
undefinable, unknowable, unmeasurable. But the process is the most important thing because
8:35
that just makes everything better. Don't focus on objectives or anything that can be
8:39
measurable or seen or actually understood, because that's white male system thinking. This
8:45
is literally the framework that that informs alcoholics anonymous and other addiction based models like
8:52
this in psychology and in therapy. Wow, okay, well, remember the
9:00
stuff has no power, it has no meaning. Why are you just why
9:03
are you just wrecking feminists online for views? This stuff doesn't matter, it's
9:07
not real, it's not my I'm just something just came across our desk,
9:11
The New York Post has written speaking of how this stuff is infiltrating psychology.
9:16
The New York Post has written something titled cowboy mentality blamed for worsening suicide rate
9:22
among men, And I just want to highlight something that I just noticed.
9:30
The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculine masculinity that would be
9:35
in the parlance of the women's ways of knowing the mail system marked by stoicism,
9:41
competitiveness, dominance, and aggression, is on the whole harmful. It
9:46
harms both. So they're essentially making traditional masculinity into a mental illness. Well,
9:58
I wonder where they got that idea from. Yeah, it's I mean,
10:03
this is the process here, guys. At some point, and when
10:05
they mean traditional masculinity, as far as I can tell, they just mean
10:09
identifying as a man. Okay, So seeing men, being a man is
10:16
having its own kind of unique worth separate from being a woman. So if
10:20
you feel like being a man in masculinity has its own worth that women don't
10:26
necessarily share, then you are a bigot, a misogynist, and a traditional
10:31
man. So a traditionally somebody who engages in traditional masculinity. So having any
10:37
positive identity at all for men is basically traditional masculinity. Believing that men have
10:43
any quality unique to them that they bring to society is traditional masculinity. Doesn't
10:48
matter what the quality is, if women are excluded from it, then you're
10:52
a bigot and wrong and you are also you are also causing yourself to kill
10:58
yourself because you don't won't identify as a woman, but don't actually identify as
11:03
a woman. Just identify women being the people who have all of the positive
11:09
qualities of being human, uh and or all or that. There's no concept
11:16
of masculinity having any positive qualities. And if you can manage that, then
11:20
you won't commit suicide. Guys, give up your identity. It'll make you
11:24
feel better, Lord, like good grief. Yeah, I mean it's not.
11:33
It's not surprising, we kind of. It's it's that we have chosen
11:37
the form of our destructor guys, and this is it where we are now.
11:43
We are going to go into a future with no masculinity, no male
11:48
virtues, no male identity, and we're going to see what that looks like.
11:52
It's not looking particularly good so far. I mean, did you enjoy
11:56
the Kouf hysteria, you know, and all of the mistakes that were made
12:03
as a result of fear in that situation. I mean, did you enjoy
12:07
that? Did you enjoy suddenly waking up and having certain rights taken from you?
12:11
I'm probably getting our channel nuped by saying this, because that's what's going
12:16
to continue and just get worse, because we are going into the future is
12:22
feminine, while the future is defined by a group of people, and it's
12:26
not even women. It's women who hate, despise, and have contempt for
12:33
masculinity. Okay, so it's not even women who like men. It is
12:39
the most insular, infantile, and childish verse version of femininity. It's the
12:43
femininity that blames everything but itself for its problems. That is the future is
12:48
female femininity. Okay, that's what we got. That's where we're going to.
12:54
A dystopia of the feminine, a rule a world ruled by mistaking freedom
13:03
for freedom from fear. Thank you, Lindsay for putting the finger on exactly
13:07
what this is. It's not freedom, it's freedom from fear. Except the
13:13
only problem with fear is that the more you indulge it, the more it
13:16
breeds. So your life is going to be defined If you find the most
13:22
fearful woman on the planet, your life is going to be defined by her
13:26
neuroses. What you are able to do in your life is going to be
13:31
defined by what doesn't frighten her, and everything frightens her. Women's ways of
13:39
knowing everyone otherwise known as men know nothing. They should shut up, go
13:46
away, and stop identifying as men, but not, you know, become
13:48
transwomen, because then that's opening up in another tire can of worms. Okay,
13:56
so can't continue, all right, So pick up where we left off
14:03
from last week. So we're going to go into chapter three of this book
14:07
that's getting along male female relationships in the white male system. Throughout this the
14:13
author basically asserts that men are garden, have some sort of need to be
14:18
God, and that that is what the white male system is telling them all
14:22
to be in all to do so. On page sixty, she specifically says
14:26
that women hate men's superiority and their birthright to superiority that they have just in
14:33
the world. She goes on to also assert the men can't learn the female
14:37
system that well because they have no impetus to do so, whereas women have
14:41
a lot of impetus to learn the white male system. She even says,
14:46
quote men are brainwashed by society and by women into thinking they are superior.
14:50
Now the quote, many women devote their lives to caring about the fragile male
14:56
ego, and this is why women struggle to break free from the white male
15:00
system. Which is quite interesting, I thought, because it's okay, so
15:03
women seem to be taking some sort of value from men in actually caring about
15:07
them, but that is somehow away that the white male system is enslaving them
15:11
and preventing women from leaving the matrix. Interesting. Yeah, no, I've
15:20
not seen it, but you no, no, you don't want to.
15:24
But he brings patriarchy to Barbie Land and the Barbies they are all happy to
15:28
be serving the men and like working with them, and that is bad because
15:33
they're actually brainwashed by patriarchy. It's the same argument, just done in the
15:37
silliness that it deserves to be. That's quite interesting. About forty years later,
15:45
that stuff seems to have gone into something in the mainstream and seems to
15:50
be not getting that much pushback from a lot of women who watch it.
15:52
They seem to be celebrating it, but it's almost like that was the point.
15:58
But yeah, O, carry on. I'm sorry now, it's fine.
16:02
Honestly, if you can more any of this stuff to the anything that's
16:06
happening now, that is actually somewhat the point of this, because I want
16:10
to point out this book and the other half dozen which I mentioned last time.
16:14
The point is I'm pointing out to people that this stuff has very spiritual
16:19
origins to it. This book a little less so on the spiritual side because
16:25
this was sort of the time when they moved away from the spiritual stuff.
16:27
But there's a little bit of the sort of New Age wibbly wobbily niss in
16:30
this and that the whole higher power and spiritualism niss. But I want to
16:36
prove to people that it was always there. And the point is that if
16:40
we can anchor all of that history to stuff that's happening now, as you've
16:47
just done there. This is a book written forty years ago, and an
16:49
idea being expressed in that book is in something in pop culture now. And
16:56
it's something in pop culture now which, for lack of better terminology, fucking
17:00
huge. It's massive. And the gnostissism that is which is what all of
17:07
this is sort of another part of what this is based in, right,
17:08
this idea that the earth as it is is shit, and that you have
17:14
to be able to escape, and only people who have the appropriate knowledge can
17:18
find the way. This is what patriarchy is as a concept. I see
17:22
and when and I think about this, like this twelve step program. I
17:26
was looking at the Way dot org dot UK and they describe it as an
17:30
international journal of contemporary Christian spirituality published by the British Jesuits. But I don't
17:36
think it's Christian. I know it's gonna the Church was infiltrated a long time
17:41
ago, and especially the Protomosticism is Christian. Well it is. It is
17:47
one of the main cults that branched out of it, so they share an
17:49
origin point. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess it's not like it's
17:53
not what it was originally, I think, because there was a lot of
17:57
places where it branched off. But that is the Gnostics. I think that's
18:04
I'm not super like knowledgeable on this stuff, but I think there's a difference
18:10
between the Catholics, the Protestants, and the Orthodox, and I think that
18:15
the Gnocissism is probably more in the Protestant space. But I could be wrong
18:22
about that, so but I don't, I don't, I don't know.
18:25
I mean, I'm just saying that when I see contemporary Christian spirituality, it
18:32
makes me think that there is a lot that has been changed to fit the
18:37
modern day. This is why you have so many today. There's a lot
18:40
of progressive churches which basically just you know, they just include sort of wokeness
18:45
into the say two, into the into mass and into sermons and whatnot.
18:52
And those those are are they've gone so far away from what they were originally.
18:57
I don't think it resembles what it was originally. So I think that
19:03
it's a it's a it's a handy scapegoat though, because like then you know,
19:08
you get like a guy he's he's an alcohol like he's looking for help.
19:12
He goes here, he gets his twelve step program and they include Christianity
19:18
in as part of it, and then he becomes Christian for a while,
19:21
and then he falls off the wagon. And they don't blame you know,
19:25
like this man's flaws or whatever. They blame Christianity itself. And I don't
19:30
think that that's appropriate, Like, I don't think that's correct, But you
19:33
know what do I know, I'm just saying that when it's sort of like
19:37
taking something that already exists, which is this religion, and what I think
19:45
this woman is doing and these women are doing, is they're just taking that
19:48
and repurposing it for themselves. But in order for them to do it,
19:51
they have to invert everything, and so you get like an equation something as
19:56
that they are just as if not more dogmatic about. So I don't know
20:00
that anyway. Those are just I'm just sort of rambling. I apologize.
20:04
It's fine if you're actually on the way the org dot UK one, if
20:10
you actually read a little bit on that. I think it's actually on the
20:12
front page. They actually talk about how they use critical methodologies, so they're
20:18
very open about it, is like, yeah, we use critical x Like
20:21
okay, cool, So you're just using a nostro Marxism to inform your way
20:26
of doing Yeah, right, so that's the that's the methodology that you're using.
20:30
Okay, great, I mean I'm glad that you're all open about it.
20:33
Also talking about how churches and religions and whatnot are getting infiltrated by this
20:41
and getting taken away from what they were previously. There was actually a news
20:48
thing not all that long ago, was in the UK. I can't remember
20:51
which church it was. It might have been the Church of England. Actually
20:53
I can't be one hundred percent sure, but there was one where they were
20:59
actually saying, we are going to change the Lord's prayer to not refer to
21:02
God as a he or father or to make it more inclusive. Yeah God
21:07
was this this, This was the head of the church that said this.
21:10
It's like, okay, so right, cool, literal heresy, Okay,
21:12
cool, that's right. Again. This shows that you know just where it's
21:19
all going and how it's all going wrong. It's like, okay. Yeah.
21:22
So there was this really cool guy, you know, Jesus, and
21:25
he said like, oh, I'm going to teach you this press or that
21:26
you can you know, stand humbly before God and address him as he should.
21:30
Now, that guy he was just wrong about everything, screw up exactly.
21:36
And he wasn't and he wasn't male. He was. Now like I've
21:38
seen the like a progressive priest who was a woman by the way, and
21:44
she was saying God is non binary. So like this this is what I
21:47
mean, Like say that the you know, what you can find on what's
21:51
happened to the church is to most churches unless they're like super orthodox, right,
21:56
Like you're not gonna like Catholicism is compromise eyes and all that. So
22:00
it's almost like it's it's like it's hard to criticize it for what it is
22:04
because it's so different, you know. Anyway, I'm I know this is
22:08
really really off topic. I apologize. I just want a cave for Christians
22:14
like and so, because I think they get treated really unfairly. And I
22:17
think it's the point because this shit that's happening right now with this woman's writings
22:22
is like nothing like what it was supposed to be. And I think it's
22:26
just being used because it is such a popular sort of like you know,
22:30
launching point. And of course, you know, yeah, go ahead,
22:34
out, yeah. I just wanted to point something out and criticizing or saying
22:40
that this your example of the guy on who goes through AA and then goes
22:45
off the wagon. He becomes a Christian, he listened to the Christian mession,
22:48
becomes a Christian, falls off the wagon, and people blame Christianity.
22:53
People could say, well, you guys, blame feminism. But there's a
22:56
bit of a difference there because feminism basically says booze is the answer, you
23:02
know, and if the guy falls off the wagon after being told that booze
23:06
is the answer, yeah, that's that's a little bit more. There's a
23:10
little bit more of a direct causality there between feminism and what I mean by
23:14
that is is feminism says blaming men is the answer. Literally, blaming men
23:19
is the answer. Yeah, I mean, I mean, is there any
23:23
part of feminism that doesn't do that. I mean, even when they celebrate
23:27
men or sorry women achieving things, it's always with blaming men for for making
23:33
it so other women weren't. Only this woman could do it, or this
23:37
woman rose above the horrible uh headwind of men's hatred of women to achieve this
23:47
thing that she achieved. All right, Sorry about the digression, til dear.
23:55
Yeah, sorry, and sorry about hijacking your digression. It's okay.
23:59
I I just yeah, anyway, I just think everything is being twisted and
24:03
turned upside down, and that includes God. So go on, till dear.
24:08
It is all related. So again we are talking about the spiritual and
24:14
religious origins of this feminist practice. So projecting that into not that much of
24:21
a future and realizing how that religion is going to clash with other religions and
24:25
start subverting them as religions and certain faiths. I want to do as Christianity
24:30
once did with paganism, and as is now happening with Christianity in the form
24:34
of this particular religion. M it's just all ties together. Worship of women's
24:42
women's stand like women's perspective. Worship of women is basically the only way to
24:48
be human. And I just I remembered that I probably should do the business
24:55
right right, Brian, which is telling people how to get Yeah, yeah,
25:00
go ahead. I'm sorry we didn't even do that. I didn't know
25:03
yet doing a thing, but go on, yeah, I was still doing
25:07
a thing. It's gonna be we all right. Let me let me just
25:11
lay out everything in organized fashion. All right. If you want to send
25:14
us a message, please do so. Feed feed the Badger dot com slash
25:18
just the tip. We will get the full benefit of whatever moolah you send,
25:22
and you'll get the full benefit of avoiding YouTube's sieve of mystery. In
25:26
other words, it's censorship that nobody understands. So once again, let's feed
25:30
the badger dot com slash just the tip you can can send a message up
25:36
to about two thousand characters. Oh well that is a lot, so maybe
25:40
maybe keep them a little bit more brief and we will read it out.
25:44
So if you have any comments, you want to thank us for this show
25:47
covering this topic, showing that we actually probably know more about feminist academia than
25:52
most feminists. So when they say, well, just read some more books,
25:56
it's not my responsibility to educate you. We have. We have read
26:00
their books, we have read their papers, and we know exactly what they're
26:04
about. You can always you can never go wrong in feminist scholarship if you
26:10
just blame men when in doubt, blame men when in doubt, find something
26:17
and blame men from making women victims of it. Doesn't matter what it is.
26:22
Lighting and yeah es, central heating, indoor plumbing, all of these
26:26
things were constructed by men to make women victims of something, and you will
26:33
you will never go wrong when you do that with feminist theory. Get really
26:37
nuanced. You know how women are victims of men saving them from fires?
26:45
Okay, get get get really nuanced. Figure it out, make it work,
26:49
do some song and dance to construct a to z and you will embrace
26:56
the paradox. That's new. It's not lying, it's haunts, all right.
27:02
So anyway, I once again, if you want to say that you
27:06
like the content, you want to give us a tip, you want to
27:07
make sure we keep going and don't feel like we're screaming into the void,
27:11
please go to feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip and send us
27:14
a message. If you send us after the show, we will endeavor to
27:18
read it on the very next most relevant show. And also, I'm still
27:22
doing my fundraiser for my book The Captain, I which the more I see
27:26
what's happening in the world, the more I think it's critical for stories like
27:32
the story I've told that is pro mail and actually ask the question should men
27:38
offer unconditional loyalty to people who do not care about them? And maybe maybe
27:45
answers in a way that today's society isn't it wouldn't appreciate. But anyway,
27:48
if you want to see stories like that, please go to feed the Badger
27:52
dot com slash the Captive or sorry I E y E and help me out.
27:56
I am that the fundraiser is on till this Friday, So two more
28:02
days and there's about three hundred and twenty dollars left to go on this goal,
28:07
which will bring me to the ability to do either another round of developmental
28:14
editing or alternatively start moving towards being doing line edits, which is a very
28:21
complex and very painful process. But anyway, So feed the badgeer dot com
28:25
slash I E y E, or send us a message at feed the badgeer
28:29
dot com slash just the tip. All right, there you go. I've
28:33
done the things I apologize for not doing them at the beginning. Please send
28:37
those super chows in everyone. Okay, go out, take it away,
28:41
Brian or Tildier. Tild are geting to take it Okay. Two sentences into
28:47
this write up, I think we're making really good time on this. So
28:52
a page sixty two of this book, the UFA has an interesting anecdote here
28:56
that basically says that women they know about politics and whatnot and economics and the
29:03
fires, but they pretend not to care, specifically so that men will go
29:07
out and do the dirty work for them, which I thought was a rare
29:11
moment of honesty from someone writing in that particular camp. But it's sort of
29:17
just an interesting little note there. The second interesting part on page sixty two,
29:22
seeing as we're talking about male egos in this particular chapter, she refers
29:29
to male's egos as being sudopod like men's egos pull in women and devour them,
29:37
making women indistinguishable from the male ego, and then women play out their
29:41
lives according to the male ego so as to validate themselves to men. Somewhat
29:49
an interesting way of looking at the relationship between men and women there, And
29:57
it's interesting that she introduces, I think, a predatory angle to women receiving
30:03
any sort of positive validation from men at all. Now. I happen to
30:07
think that men and women should in a functioning society receive validation from each other,
30:14
especially if they're in like a marriage or a relationship or something along those
30:18
lines, and that there should be sort of a mutual, healthy exchange there.
30:23
But the idea that men giving any sort of validation to women is some
30:30
sort of predatory thing to benefit themselves, Oh my god, nonsensical. But
30:34
this is what, you know, you know, what we're going with That
30:37
That reminds me of I did a patron only show. I went through an
30:42
article. It's kind of an older one, but it was about, uh,
30:48
this like this idea that that princes and fairy tales are creepy stockers and
30:55
an old hat thing that I've heard before. And they use a clip from
30:57
the Disney film Sleep Beauty where Aurora is dancing with the you know, forest
31:03
creatures and Prince Philip kind of sneaks up behind her and starts dancing and singing
31:10
with her. And at first she's you know, shocked and surprised, but
31:14
then she immediately you know, like becomes comfortable and so on. And they're
31:18
trying to imply this. But the thing is he's trying because he knows her,
31:22
he has a familiarity with her, and he's trying to like express that
31:26
and that he's you know, it's it's a fairytale. He falls in love
31:29
with her immediately she falls in love with him, right. And but it's
31:32
funny because the author is trying to demystify sort of like remove the you know,
31:38
the the sort of magical romance from the entire thing, de romanticize it
31:47
and makes it sound predatory, which sort of suggests what you're saying is that
31:51
when a man is trying to be you know, good to a woman or
31:55
helpful to woman. There's something predatory happening, and that's what she was suggesting.
31:59
So there's another away in which this has sort of come into the mainstream.
32:02
So yeah, it wasn't funny, yeah, because it wasn't perceived that
32:08
way when the film was made in the fifties, but it is perceived that
32:12
way today. And I said that because of the you know, these like
32:15
leaked, well not leaked, but they're like clips of this woman, Rachel
32:22
Ziegler, who's supposed to be playing snow White in the remake of Snow White,
32:25
and she's talking about how the nineteen thirty seven animated film was creepy and
32:31
you know, predatory and all of this stuff. And again the prince is
32:35
literally saving her life by kissing her because she was essentially dead. And this
32:39
is so you see what I'm coming from, right, You see this where
32:43
this comes from, where this idea comes from, long time in the making.
32:49
It's really interesting how they've captured this idea of women's consent. And because
32:53
I would argue that women's consent is the most valuable commodity in the world.
33:02
And I'm not saying that as in, this is the way it should be,
33:06
because honestly, I think it should be rever the ifs. If women's
33:08
consent is the most valuable commodity, then men's consent should also be. But
33:13
of course, could you imagine a society where men had to consent to things,
33:19
like, you know, we actually cared about getting men's consent to the
33:22
sacrifices they make. Well, well, there's the draft out there's cutting boys'
33:29
genitals out there, and oh, we have to actually accept equitable laws around
33:37
sexual violence. And uh, could you, like, could you honestly imagine
33:43
because a lot of our social institutions that are predicated on this idea that we
33:46
don't have to care about men's consent and if anyway, but I think that
33:53
in our society, somehow, in this kind of mythical, mystical sense,
33:57
it's women's consent that is the most important thing ever, which is why we
34:04
can create these horror stories dystopias around cultures that somehow don't care about the things
34:09
that we care about and think make people human, like the Handmaiden's Tale,
34:14
which is absurdly based absolutely absurdly based on a story that completely ignores the man's
34:21
consent, Like you read that story in its original form and take a shot
34:25
every time Jacob is either extorted into having sex outright, raped through deception,
34:34
or or prostituted, and you're gonna you're gonna be pretty drunk by the end
34:38
of that fricking story. And yet, what did Margaret Atwood turn that into
34:43
the story that was based on nobody caring about this guy's consent? Like none
34:51
of the women, neither of the women that he married, gave one fat
34:54
fuck about this man's consent anything that they forced me into, and they and
35:01
what did Margaret Atwen looked? She looked at that, and she said,
35:05
oh my god, could you imagine a world that didn't care about women's consent?
35:10
Like literally, she took a world that didn't care about men's consent,
35:15
and all she could see was that, because that's the lens our entire world
35:22
looks through, and they and and they think that we, somehow we live
35:29
in a society that doesn't care about women's consent. They think that for the
35:32
same reason that no offense fundamentalists in the past thoughts sin and satan was everywhere,
35:43
because they see the defiance of their own beliefs it's like it's like a
35:49
spot of black on a field of white, and people are like, oh
35:52
my god, there's black everywhere. Well, it's just one spot. It's
35:55
one spot, but you see it because it's it's so contract asking to your
36:00
actual virtues, the actual virtues of your society that you were brought up in,
36:04
that it's so visible to you. It's not everywhere, it's just the
36:08
only thing you look at. Okay, I will get off my podium and
36:15
allow you guys to continue. All right, So we get to a little
36:20
part about divorce here, regarding men's pseudopod egos and divorce. Yeah, so
36:30
I'm just going to read a couple of short paragraphs here because I think we
36:34
need a laugh at this point in time. Prime example is a pseudopodic of
36:38
men's Pseudopodic egos is often seen during divorce cases. When the time comes to
36:45
divide up the property. The woman usually knows what she had when she and
36:49
her husband were married, what he had, and what they acquired jointly.
36:53
The man, on the other hand, just assumes that everything belongs to him.
36:58
He literally cannot enguish between his wife, his wife's things, and his
37:02
and it is the old adjuge corrupted. What's mine is mine and what's yours
37:07
is mine too, No wonder, so many women feel as if they are
37:10
nothing more than men's possessions, and no wonder men become so upset when their
37:15
wives or secretaries try to claim their own possessions and their own beings. My
37:23
notice is this is the opposite of reality. Yeah, I'm feeling that.
37:29
Yeah, okay. So if men have an opinion on what property they should
37:35
keep after divorce, then that is them defying women, because you see,
37:42
when women choose their property, that's what they've consented to, and if men
37:46
disagree, then they're violating women's consent. They're violating the ascendancy of women's decisions.
37:57
Do you see how this has allows absolutely no personhood when it comes to
38:00
men. They literally exist merely to provide things and disappear Like, I don't
38:10
why would a woman if if if a man doesn't get half his half the
38:17
time with his children, why does a woman get half the income during the
38:22
marriage? Like? Because equality? And also I would I bet she'd be
38:36
the first to scream if I'm a higher paid woman had to pay out half
38:39
of her income during the marriage to a man. And then also continue to
38:44
pay half of her income to her her husband. It's not about equality,
38:52
it's about presenting men's identity solely as things as extensions of women. This really
38:59
ironic that they constantly talk about men treating women as property, which never happened,
39:02
by the way, never ever in human history did women when treat women
39:09
as property absent some other factor, either the legal position of slavery, or
39:15
ethnicity or race or religion. This didn't happen. Okay, it just didn't.
39:20
Let it go. But this is treating men as a physical extension of
39:25
women's egos and women's desires. Like if he did the work, Let's just
39:32
look at it this way. If he did the work, if he went
39:36
out and did the work, why does she deserve any of it? I
39:43
mean, they'll say. Going to answer this actually with a couple of sentences
39:46
from later on that very same page, because I think it actually hits something
39:52
very interesting to what you're saying, Like, if a man does this thing,
39:55
why should she be entitled, et cetera, et cetera. Well,
40:00
there's an interesting note here on the bottom of the same page, which is
40:06
the women have long complained they have difficulty getting their ideas across in professional and
40:09
staff meetings, we are left with two choices. We either propose our ideas
40:15
ourselves and run the risk of them being rejected because they came from a woman,
40:20
or we give them to men and let them present them as their own.
40:23
Then at least our ideas have some chance of being accepted and implemented,
40:29
which I just found very interesting because it's like, Okay, so you're talking
40:31
here about power by proxy and no risk, but still get in your way
40:36
because someone else is willing to shoulder the risk of doing the thing that you
40:39
want to do. Does that not jive interestingly with what we yes? It
40:51
does. Also, if you present something new, you are going to risk
40:55
rejection. In fact, I guarantee if you present something new, you will
40:59
get rejected. You will get rejected until the person decides that they thought of
41:04
it themselves if you're presenting something genuinely new. So what what? So?
41:10
Yeah, you're right, like the man takes the risks because it's not just
41:15
inventing the thing, it's also standing up for it and taking the knocks when
41:19
everybody around you says no. And actually also you you you need to be
41:23
removed because you're suggesting this thing. You know, you you you can't.
41:28
You gotta look at look at what happened to the guy who'm just invented washing
41:31
your hands in a medical scenting. He died in an insane asylum. Ladies,
41:38
that that is the risk you take when you present something new, and
41:43
men have taken that risk. And then you turn around and say, well,
41:45
oh, if you take the ri you don't deserve the credit. Nope,
41:50
he does, he does deserve the credit. Yeah, you're right,
41:54
deil dear. It is an example of this. Okay, So moving onwards,
42:01
shall we? Yes? Yeah. So the next part of the book
42:05
talks about perfect Marriages, an American fairy tale in which the author completely misunderstands
42:13
the concept of complimentary forces within marriage and offers, frankly, the typical feminist
42:17
it's just an institution for oppressing women sort of thing, you know. She
42:22
talks about how, you know, men own women and decide who deals with
42:27
the outside world, and how and what money has made and how the money
42:30
is spent, and I just have a note to that. It's yes,
42:35
this is why women control eighty percent of consumer spending, despite the fact that
42:37
they earn less than men. I wonder where all that money comes from,
42:42
that she is deciding how it is spent. And there is also another note
42:47
which I've got here concerning her view of history. It ties into something we
42:53
actually said before or the last week, when she talks about in the book
43:00
about how women doesn't know how to support herself or doesn't have any particular skills
43:04
because she's been being cared for by a man and hasn't had to develop them.
43:08
And my point of this was, well, this is a very sort
43:10
of myopic view of history, because actually, if a woman stayed at home,
43:15
there would be the home industry, there would be the home economy,
43:19
and this is something that feminism has actually helped to obliterate along with the Industrial
43:24
Revolution. In fact, I would say the industrial revolution was the main driver
43:29
of what destroyed the home economy, which seemed to be the thing that gave
43:32
a lot of women their worth and value in society. Yeah, so there
43:43
is an interesting point here and goes onto the consent thing that we just mentioned
43:50
in a small chapter here called the question of who goes first? And this
43:54
is just dealing again with male and female relationships in the Dynamics of b On
44:00
page sixty nine, very nicely. The author asserts that men can touch women
44:06
whenever and wherever they want as a means of exerting power over them, and
44:09
if a woman touches a man, everyone is appalled. Oh man, And
44:20
here in the real world she looking what the My note to this is,
44:28
My note to this is forty years on men cannot touch or look at women
44:32
without social shaming. Well, I'm pretty sure at the time men couldn't touch
44:38
men couldn't touch women without as my second note was, quote men are made
44:45
to touch first end quote was never true because it wasn't like you can't just
44:51
walk up to a woman and grab a handful of any part of her without
44:57
damn good reason, like literally your p her out of the way of a
45:00
boss. Because any other sort of scenario, you're going to be labeled as
45:05
something you don't want to be labeled, and even then you still probably would
45:09
be Okay, So I just have to interrupt this. This this is fascinating
45:15
discussion about this insane woman, Like, okay, this is absolutely insanity,
45:20
guys. This is what academic feminism is based on. This is influencing academic
45:25
feminism. And then academic feminism goes on to influence uh the educational system and
45:32
the psychology. The the American Association of Psychology and APT is expressly mentioned on
45:40
this page. Would you like me to read the three paragraphs here and then
45:44
you can beak at them as much as you like. Do it, because
45:50
before you do, before you do, I just need to I just need
45:52
to attend to this. Okay, So okay, great indoors attempted to break
45:55
the system by putting in a phrase over and over again, the phrases all
46:01
work and no play makes Jesus a part of the doll patriarchy. And he
46:06
did this about umpteen billion times. And he I believe he was trying to
46:12
break the system because he's Dutch, and it didn't. What happened was this,
46:15
if you do more than two thousand characters, you can put in war
46:21
and peace, I believe into the system. Please don't. It will not
46:25
go to discord because discord will stop you at two thousand characters. That's how
46:30
it works. You know. You don't have to try to find all the
46:34
exploits. But anyway, he gave us ten ten dollars, so thank you
46:39
for that. I just needed to tell you this myself because it doesn't go
46:44
through discord if you do over ten thousand characters, and I'm pretty sure it'll
46:46
cut you off at some point at the bread at the blog too. So
46:51
not war and peace, but somewhere larger than two thousand characters, but probably
46:58
not as long. War in peace. Okay, but don't do this,
47:01
like, just send your message. Don't try to break things please cue everyone
47:07
trying to break things. Okay. And I had to say this because it's
47:12
not going through to you, Bryan, it's not going into the discord,
47:15
no problem, okay, Tylor let's hear about this apa thing. I'm I'm
47:19
chomping at the bid here. Yeah, so there it is. Chomping.
47:25
Champing is something that you do to round off edge pieces of wood with a
47:30
champing tool. So four paragraphs of five, they're quite sure. I'll just
47:36
blast through them. So this is regarding just the initiation of relationships, and
47:40
because everything has to be a power struggle, of course we'll just go through
47:45
it. The initiator is the one who controls the relationship. Surprisingly, this
47:50
role is often assumed by the person who is willing to touch first. The
47:52
politics of touching is an important issue that women are just beginning to understand.
47:59
Several years ago, up paper on the politics of touching was presented before the
48:02
American Psychological Association. The general thesis was that the person who touches another person
48:08
within a particular situation immediately gains the power and control. Touching is also used
48:14
to maintain power and control. Bosses in general feel much freer to touch their
48:19
secretaries than secretaries due to touch their bosses. Are you kidding me? A
48:24
man in the audience stood up and began expressing opposing ideas without saying a word
48:30
the speaker. A woman left the stage, walked up to him and firmly
48:34
grasped him on both upper arms. The man was appalled. The next day,
48:38
a complaint several pages along was delivered to the suite of the Association of
48:44
Women in Psychology. In it, the man stated he felt he had been
48:47
raped in public. The woman speaker had dared to touch him first. If
48:52
he had touched far, would he have felt like a rapist? Probably not.
49:00
This is utter delusion. I mean, I don't even know if this
49:04
is worth arguing. This person is deluded. And second, first of all,
49:09
how are they they are literally using their bizarre understanding of reality this accusation
49:15
that so called patriarchy makes it so that men can touch women but women cannot
49:20
can touch men to justify assaulting this man, and I doubt he used the
49:24
term raped like nevers anecdotes never happened pretty much every anecdote this author relais.
49:34
I just have a posted note that says this didn't happen next to it,
49:37
because they all sound like like literally thing in reality. If this genuinely happened.
49:44
This woman came, went into the audience, put her hands on another
49:49
human being, and then when they objected, said that their objection was proof
49:57
of her thesis. This I don't well, I mean, could you imagine
50:02
the funny thing is? I mean she descended from her position of power because
50:08
obviously she was on the stage giving this thesis, so she she was the
50:12
center of attention. She was a woman as part of this association of women
50:15
in psychology thing, so she is the person with the power in the room.
50:21
Even if you wanted to do the over analyzing things, you know,
50:23
the point of a room with a stage and a bunch of seats facing the
50:27
stage is that the person on the stage is the center of attention. They
50:30
are the director of the proceedings, and she came down from that position to
50:34
grasp this man and put him in his place. Okay, that's an interesting
50:40
way of doing it, isn't it, while also saying that men do this
50:45
thing to oppress women, And okay, if you say so, I'm reminded
50:51
terribly of that thing that happened not all that long ago, where another famous
50:53
woman stood on a stage in a position of power and started insulting someone in
50:59
the audience who had done nothing to her. So the fact of them disagree
51:06
with her, the idea that women at all have to respect men and men's
51:12
existence is in fact oppression of women. But I'm still sort of gone.
51:19
I'm still sort of amazed at this entire logic, Like, yes, a
51:23
strange woman cannot put her hands on a strange man, although they do and
51:30
nothing happens, And the men have every right to be offended by that behavior
51:37
and that treatment, And because they have that sense of offense, that justifies
51:42
this idea that men men are offended by being touched by women, and but
51:47
women have to tolerate men being touched. Are you insane? Do you realize
51:52
that you if you were a man doing that to a woman, you would
51:55
have lost your job or been arrested. Think about that. I don't think
52:05
she does realize that. I think that she is so deep into this way
52:08
of viewing the world that she's just actually incapable of seeing anything other than than
52:15
this bizarro world way that she sees things. Oh, we're going to continue,
52:24
but I got a super chat I should read. So Albert Nada rich
52:28
Hogs is five dollars Canadian and says the person who wrote this needs to go
52:31
to a strip club with male dancers and see how the women behave. That
52:35
will set her straight. Thank you for that, although I don't think that
52:38
it will. Remember, these people are not concerned with hypocrisy. They are
52:45
only concerned with hierarchy, and they want power and it doesn't matter. So
52:50
I get that that would a normal person with a normal brain would see that
52:54
and say this is a contradiction. But this these people are not like that
53:00
at all. So but I appreciate the super chat anyway. All right,
53:04
you can move on now, yep. So it goes a little bit further
53:07
onto this and talks about the controllee controller relationship. One I just say,
53:13
forty years after this book near forty years of fragile female ego. Men must
53:19
now approach women so that they can be told no, women demand veto power.
53:23
And this is specifically in regards to relationships. And this is the dynamic
53:28
that we're seeing happening now, what with the loneliness epidemics which are rising,
53:35
which interestingly enough, is starting to affect both sexes, which is actually why
53:37
it's being spoken about now. It was affecting men a lot more for a
53:43
much longer time. Women's numbers are actually catching up now, probably because a
53:47
lot of men are just like Ali, well, I'm just not even going
53:50
to bother. So now women don't even have the veto power and they're noticing
53:54
they don't even get the veto power, so they're getting lonely and complaining as
53:58
well. Yep, and now it's a problem. Yes, now it's a
54:04
problem, and now people are talking about it. And I think that's part
54:06
of the reason why you're seeing a lot of these left void people talking about
54:09
the male loneliness thing. Now it's not actually about the men, it's because
54:14
it's affecting women. They just they're just basically saying to men, you know,
54:16
come back and start being rejected by women again. Because if you don't,
54:21
then women are going to get sad. Well, also, they must
54:23
realize that they'll run out of they'll run out of their great grandchildren's money if
54:31
they don't have any. Yep, I don't think those people think that far
54:36
in advance. Well, socialists, somebody must be well, the thing is
54:39
if they're not having kids, and they're also not invested in the future,
54:44
so you know, like well unless you just care about human beings, but
54:47
like, well that's not that's not us. I mean, you know,
54:52
so yeah, I think it's I think that it's they aren't thinking that far
54:58
ahead. Some maybe, but like they're voices are going to get smashed if
55:01
they say, you know, maybe men and women should be maybe we should
55:05
be bridging the gap so that men and women can fall in love, get
55:09
married and have kids like most of them want to. Sorry, but it's
55:13
true, most of them want to, so you know, we should allow
55:16
and then for those those who don't, then you know, do whatever you
55:20
want. But like the majority do and we're keeping them apart. So I
55:23
think that's a problem. And yes, we are going to run out of
55:27
the money from children who are not yet born and many who will never be
55:30
born. So so this author does talk about a little bit here Nesta's helpers
55:40
new Age men than others, in which she talks about different kinds of men
55:45
rather interestingly. She notes here that some women are becoming the gypsies while men
55:52
are becoming the nestors. Women are feeling more free to try out all the
55:55
lifestyles and move around, while men are marrying women who will make nests for
56:00
them. So she sort of talks about women being all empowered and going out
56:06
and doing who and whatever is a rising phenomenon, whereas men still attempting to
56:13
form families is interesting and just generally there, and well, forty years on
56:20
we can start seeing the impacts of that sort of behavior and how it's screwing
56:24
everything up. We do actually have something a little bit nice here. The
56:30
author trashes new Age men and basically points out their chameleon like nature and how
56:37
they're just coming into this New Age spiritualism to convince women to sleep with them.
56:43
She expressly calls them wolves in sheep's clothing. I could read through that
56:49
trashing of them, but I don't really see the point. We've had enough
56:52
trashing of men in general. I'd rather not just continue with trashing of one
56:58
kind of men. Yes, yes, yes, it's it is. It's
57:02
something that's kind of nice insofar as she's basically trushing left wing men, but
57:08
it's like, yeah, everything else and they are yeah yeah, but it's
57:13
yeah, but they are still men too, So do we really need to
57:15
hone in on this quite so much here? It could be nice, but
57:20
I don't think it's worth it. Yeah. And also those men are just
57:22
trying to operate within the framework that they're given, right, So, like
57:25
I can't really blame them for like operating in a way that they think is
57:30
going to work for them at the end of the day, though, what
57:32
we should work for women, Yeah, well that's what I mean, work
57:36
for women in the hopes that in turn they will be rewarded right as men.
57:40
And that's so they're just they're just working within that framework. And that
57:45
framework shouldn't exist, because we already have a nature and we could just follow
57:49
that. But because it does, because these feminists are putting this out there,
57:53
then those men, the feminist men, they're like, well, you
57:57
know, I want to respect women. My mother, you know, told
58:00
me like how it should be done. I learned this from my teacher.
58:01
I saw it on TV, I saw it on the internet everywhere, right,
58:06
So I'm just gonna fundamentally, yeah, men want to protect and provide
58:09
for women. It's instinctual. Yeah, so that they're just working within that
58:14
framework. That's why the feminist men are some of the most aggressive towards other
58:19
men, because they're doing it for women. So you know, away,
58:23
and I'm not saying that to say that that's the way it should be.
58:25
It's I'm just saying that that's the way it is. Yeah, that's the
58:30
way it's been made. They they've created, they set the rules, they
58:34
set up the board, and now those men are just playing that game.
58:37
Because that's what I'm saying, is that the instinct to provide and protect for
58:40
women is innate to men. Feminism has exploited it in a particular way,
58:49
and well, that's incredibly damaging. But at the same time, I mean,
58:52
I think that there is a functional reason for why it happened, but
58:54
I won't get into it. It's a bit too long winded to get into
58:59
here. But regardless, the point that I wanted to make is that we
59:06
get into this idea that men's desire to protect and provide for women is somehow
59:10
created by things like feminism, or created by things like Christianity, or created
59:15
by being a democrat or a Republican or whatever ideology, when it's actually innate,
59:22
and these particular focuses use that idea that they have to you have to
59:30
be this thing in order for men to care about women in order to justify
59:34
themselves, like the government. A big justification now for a government over each
59:38
seems to be that government is the one thing stopping women from being oppressed by
59:44
men having a jackboot on women's necks. Men's jackboot on women's necks. I
59:49
mean, that's a very powerful narrative for justifying government being even more tyrannical and
59:55
fascist because it got protect the women. Okay, I will let go all
1:00:02
right. Chapter four stoppers keeping women in their place. Oh, yes,
1:00:10
we're getting into the patriarchal man Quran part of the part of the book.
1:00:15
Here she's gonna reveal how men keep women down because it's it's all very obvious.
1:00:22
And maybe this is the book that Ken got and brought back to Barbie
1:00:27
Land and he just read this chapter and was like, wow, this one
1:00:30
chapter is amazing. Actually, the books in the movie are real books.
1:00:34
I'd have to figure out what those books are and see because she was actually
1:00:37
using real books, all right, So go ahead, Yes, keeping women
1:00:44
in their place, So a number of techniques are used to make women back
1:00:46
off from their own perceptions. I call them stoppers. A stopper is anything
1:00:52
that keeps us where the white male system wants us to be whenever we overstep
1:00:57
our bounds or become upperty women. There is nothing like a good stopper to
1:01:00
make us grab our solo plexus and run a nice little bit of the new
1:01:07
age. Wu. They're relating back to the solo plexus and her void of
1:01:10
female sin, which I'm going to try and use that phrase more often than
1:01:15
I really do. Quite enjoy it. It is the one good thing that
1:01:17
I got out of this book. So interestingly, on page seventy five,
1:01:23
here she actually references but what about the men's rhetoric? Which is somewhat interesting.
1:01:30
So whenever women start discussing issues that are important to them, someone in
1:01:35
the group will inevitably say, think of the poor men. They don't have
1:01:38
it so good either. This stopper immediately evokes guilt feelings and fears of being
1:01:45
labeled a man hater. Interestingly, that assumption is somehow implicit that if a
1:01:51
woman is concerned about women, she is not concerned about men. When confronted
1:01:57
with this charge, we typically reassure one another that we do indeed care about
1:02:00
men, and I'm not abandoned our roles as their caretakers just because we care
1:02:05
about women too. We spend so much time defending ourselves that we become distracted
1:02:10
from other more important issues. This is bullshit. First of all, you
1:02:16
are constantly talking about men, Like when did you stop talking about men?
1:02:22
This is what's so infuriating. They bring up the subject. And then when
1:02:25
you talk to the subject they brought up, they said, well that that
1:02:30
you aren't you're off topic. Bullshit. You're constantly bringing up men and talking
1:02:36
about men and conjecturing about men. This entire book actually has very little to
1:02:42
do with women's ways of knowing and everything to do with well, at least
1:02:45
as it's presented. Maybe there's a difference in the text everything to do with
1:02:49
how men's ways of knowing harms you, supposedly and is wrong? Am I
1:02:55
am I wrong? Am I appraisal here? Well? That I mean the
1:03:00
reason that I put it into the women's ways of knowing, which well wasn't
1:03:06
my choice of words for it. But it's just interesting that the author,
1:03:09
what the author sert's about ways that men and women both behave and both interact
1:03:15
with each other. That's part of what I found very interesting. And obviously
1:03:19
there are somewhat the New Age spiritualist parts of it, which was what was
1:03:23
leading throughout this this project of mine. But yeah, that is something another
1:03:30
way of taking it, and it is a definitely an interesting one which I
1:03:34
hadn't been paying as much attention to probably should have. So they're basically they're
1:03:38
basically like sitting there gossiping about Joe, and then Joe walks in and says,
1:03:44
your appraisal of me is incorrect, and was like, well, we're
1:03:46
not talking about you, you know what about the Joe's like really like,
1:03:53
well, you don't get to opine on men and then not allow men to
1:03:59
have a some kind of opinion on that, and then too, and then
1:04:02
when men do have an opinion on that, you're like, oh, you're
1:04:05
making us guilty. Well maybe you should go with that feeling of guilt and
1:04:11
stop what you're doing. Oh it's it's interesting also that it's just they talk
1:04:15
about how it's it's evoking guilt because you're like, you're trying to be concerned
1:04:23
about yourself as a woman, and then someone's like, well, you know,
1:04:26
men's lives also kind of suck, and it's like, oh, so
1:04:29
now I'm supposed to feel guilty and like stop looking after myself or something like
1:04:34
that. It's it's just such a bizarre way of I don't know how I
1:04:40
want to phrase this, because it's it's I'm trying to think of my wording
1:04:49
for this. It is the sort of basic men's rights activist sort of position
1:04:56
that's like, yeah, men have issues when then have issues, like you
1:05:00
can always point to issues, but the point is that to not lose sight
1:05:05
of some because others exist. Like you can talk about times for the needing
1:05:11
of prioritizing, but you can there are also times to point out that there
1:05:14
are other things, like one thing being bad does not make another thing that
1:05:17
isn't as bad not a thing, and so that that I think is just
1:05:21
an interesting interplay. I've always sort of found that somewhat interesting between those two
1:05:26
positions. The way you get some people who will say like, oh,
1:05:28
this is a not as bad fallacy, where you point out something that's worse
1:05:32
than one thing. It's like, well, yeah, you can argue about
1:05:35
how you're standing in a pile of shit that's smaller than someone else's pile of
1:05:40
shit, but the end of the day, cleaning out the ship will solve
1:05:43
both of the problems. It's also it's not just that they don't talk about
1:05:49
men's issues. That's fine. The problem The real problem is that they make
1:05:56
an assumption about reality. So what they're doing is they're saying X is greater
1:06:03
than why. Women's issues are always greater than men's issues. Are there,
1:06:08
that women are always more disenfranchised than men, always more disenfranchised than men,
1:06:14
So they are making a statement on men's issues. They are in fact opining
1:06:19
about men and their issues when they say that. They want to be able
1:06:23
to say that, and they don't want to have to deal with or measure
1:06:27
or look at men's issues because they never do. They never have measured why
1:06:31
before they've declared that X is greater than why, And they don't want to
1:06:34
have to measure why before declaring X is greater than why, and they don't
1:06:39
want any whys to come out and say, hey, you didn't measure this
1:06:42
how. What's what's the formula here for deciding that X is greater than why?
1:06:46
They don't want to because it completely destroys their entire framework on reality.
1:06:53
Like you, they have declared X is greater than why without ever having measured
1:06:59
why, cert never measuring why in the same way that they measure X.
1:07:02
So it's a complete bullshit statement. And then when somebody calls them out on
1:07:06
it, they're what about the men's ing? Well, yes, because you've
1:07:12
already made a definitive statement about men's issues being less than women's issues. And
1:07:16
if you do that, it does need to be called out because that's something
1:07:20
that needs to be proven if you really want to prove such a thing.
1:07:25
Seems a little bit difficult, but at the very least, we should be
1:07:28
transparent about how the equation is measured. What is the mathematical formula you've come
1:07:34
to this conclusion? How have you've waited the various harms that men and women
1:07:40
face separately? You know you can't just say, oh, no, X
1:07:45
is greater than why without ever having measured why. And if you have measured
1:07:48
why, then it shouldn't be an offensive thing. To explain how you've got
1:07:54
to that conclusion. Oh but of course I'm right because boobs, all right,
1:08:03
I'm done. I'm right because I tend to complain more. Therefore my
1:08:08
problems are more real. All right, So we've got an interesting no here,
1:08:13
seventies, page seventy six. This is the white mail system just can't
1:08:17
stand women being happy. So another stopper emerges when women become more confident and
1:08:23
continue their journey towards self discovery and definition. At this point, we tend
1:08:29
to become more joyful beings. We laugh more, enjoy more, and recapture
1:08:33
the art of playing. This upsets the white mail system, which responds with
1:08:38
comments like I can't stand all this silliness or what are you women so happy
1:08:44
about lately? Too much joy is a threat to the system, which does
1:08:47
its best to quell our joy and make us feel guilty about feeling joyful.
1:08:55
When that has ever happened? I don't know, but apparently it does.
1:09:00
Just people just randomly see happy women and they're like, oh God, you're
1:09:03
such an awful person. Why won't you just stop? But apparently that just
1:09:11
happens all the time. Yeah, apparently I've never seen it but it is
1:09:15
a continuous subjection. I think this is projection. The only people I've ever
1:09:19
seen that hate happiness in the opposite sex are feminists with female feminists, yeah,
1:09:27
especially when out doing anything. They even hate happiness in women if those
1:09:31
if what's making those women happy are men? Right? And you know what
1:09:38
I'm saying, like, yeah, yeah, so it's not even I think
1:09:42
they're just they're just nihilists I'm speaking of. Which would you like to know
1:09:47
why humanism is bullshit? Apparently? Okay, well sure, let's let's hear
1:09:53
it. Let's let's just make everyone miserable, because that's the why male system
1:09:58
job here. So there is no the stopper I like to call the great
1:10:00
humanistic leveler. This is more frequently and adeptly used by men in the helping
1:10:05
professions, by which she means therapists, basically her competition. As soon as
1:10:12
we start opening up to them, they take on an expression of deep concern
1:10:15
and sincerity. Then they say something like, let's not talk about women's liberation,
1:10:19
Let's talk about human liberation instead. There are already too many things that
1:10:25
divide us. Let's not look at the ways in which we're different. Let's
1:10:28
focus on the ways in which we are alike. This sounds so reasonable and
1:10:31
humanistic that we are immediately tempted to fall for it. Unfortunately, though,
1:10:39
the only persons who can really afford the luxury of these sentiments are white men.
1:10:44
They do not need to explore differences because they run the system. When
1:10:48
we are deprived of the freedom of exploring what it means to grow up female
1:10:51
in a white male system, we are robbed of our experiences and our souls.
1:10:57
Our differences give us our identity. You know, it just occurs to
1:11:01
me that this is like listening to an aristocrat talk about the people under the
1:11:05
stairs, you know, all the servants. They run the system. I
1:11:10
mean we we sort of direct it because we control the vote and most of
1:11:13
the spending, but they run the system. Yes, So what the system
1:11:17
is there to be a life support system for you as a woman, And
1:11:24
you know that because otherwise you wouldn't get away with this crap? I mean,
1:11:27
I don't know. I mean, even like even slave owners had to
1:11:30
be good to their slaves because they needed them to be healthy and well fed
1:11:35
and sheltered and stuff so that they could, like work. I don't even
1:11:39
think that these that this woman gives that much consideration. Let's say, no,
1:11:46
yeah, I mean. And the funny thing is that she's allow She
1:11:49
has this vague notion of the evils of the mail system, but the concrete
1:11:54
goods, like, you know, the fact that she can write this.
1:11:57
She has the leisure time to write this non sense instead of being out in
1:12:01
the field with a whole uh you know, actually making something productive out of
1:12:05
her life. And she has is because you know, electricity, indoor plumbing,
1:12:13
all of these things brought to you by men and the mail system.
1:12:15
But of course we can't accept those aspects of the mail system are actually actually
1:12:21
gender neutral. And the reason why they're gender neutral is because women would totally
1:12:26
do them if they were given the chance, but men stop them. Even
1:12:29
though women absolutely have every opportunity to go into and take over utilities at this
1:12:35
moment, there is nothing stopping them except their own desire not to do the
1:12:40
work. That it is a completely gender neutral things, absolutely because as this
1:12:47
woman said last week when we went through this, so you know, women
1:12:50
are just more accepting of the environment. So women totally wouldn't go and work
1:12:57
in air condition of factories or anything like that because that it's more likely to
1:13:00
accept the world. The only reason electricity and plumbing exists is because men have
1:13:04
to control everything. God damn them. She was four show anaco feminist primisivists
1:13:15
unite. Oh God, well good, go go live in your fucking mud
1:13:19
hole somewhere else. Don't publish books, just like the will never do that.
1:13:27
The peasantson just go farm mud somewhere. Right. There's an interesting part
1:13:35
here, page seventy eight, And this is well, it tells us kind
1:13:41
of what we already knew, and that is apt fundament. Women must feel
1:13:45
equal in order to be equal. So as I'm trying to quickly find the
1:13:54
start, they have to feel equal in order to be equal. Yes,
1:14:02
uh, okay, okay, I will explain it because it comes on the
1:14:09
heels of the humanistic stopper. There's an interesting corallie to the great humanistic leveler
1:14:16
that I have heard expressed any number of times. It has to do with
1:14:19
the assumption that there is no difference between men and women. When someone treats
1:14:24
a woman differently, he or she is accused of being discriminatory and robbing her
1:14:29
of her equality. This stopper is also used by men in the helping professions,
1:14:33
especially if they get to set if they get sexually involved with their clients,
1:14:38
and it goes something like, I have to believe that this woman is
1:14:42
an adult and can take responsibility for her own actions just like a man.
1:14:45
If I don't, then I'm not treating her as an equal. Although he
1:14:49
feels that he has the power to assign equality, he has after all in
1:14:54
the past, he does not have the power to dictate the internal feeling.
1:14:59
Whenever I'm eat a man with ideas like these, I remind him that equality
1:15:03
cannot be externally assigned until it has been internally perceived. What the fuck it
1:15:13
does that even mean? That's amazing you said a whole trontload a word that
1:15:16
had no meaning, wibbly wobbly, undefinable woman. But it's the paradox.
1:15:28
I make the rules. Yeah, embrace the paradox seriously. But yeah,
1:15:33
it's basically just like, a man can do anything to make a woman feel
1:15:39
like she isn't equal to him, but until she actually feels internally like she
1:15:45
is truly equal to him, than nothing he ever does. So there's no
1:15:50
there's no objective standard of equality except whatever a woman feels like it is yes,
1:15:57
I have the boobs, I make the rules. Okay, fine,
1:16:00
fine, but literally that you're you're appealing to a biological factor for the reason
1:16:05
why your epistemological privilege is supreme. Okay. And the other thing is that
1:16:12
that is against That is malpractice, lady. A male therapist having a sexual
1:16:18
relationship with his client is malpractice. That is against that. He can lose
1:16:26
his license for that. So what are you even talking about. You're using
1:16:31
an anecdote that society has chosen as unacceptable behavior for men. Okay, what
1:16:40
are the hell are you talking about? How about new Okay, this is
1:16:53
all starting to make sense. I think that I think that this is standard
1:17:00
because I still didn't have a fucking clue what's going on off the time.
1:17:03
I honestly like, again, I think it's just I have the boobs,
1:17:08
I make the rules, and the problem is that I have the boobs,
1:17:15
I make the rules, and biology don't exist. So the so the roles
1:17:20
in the past for women that were unequal weren't due to or just different,
1:17:26
weren't due to biology. It was due to oppression, all right, So
1:17:30
there nothing should be nothing should be inaccessible to the girl's cell even though,
1:17:40
you know, at the same time, men can't identify as women and have
1:17:44
access to being human. No, I'm I'm guessing is this woman a turf
1:17:49
too, No idea. She probably would be by a modern standards, perhaps,
1:17:56
Yeah, yeah, this this book was he came out like in the
1:17:59
eighties. She's still alive. No, she's she passed I think about ten
1:18:04
years ago something like that, so not around anymore. Unfortunately, you couldn't
1:18:10
get her on to have an interview, which would probably be fun to do.
1:18:14
Yeah, just like, please explain explaining. Maybe she has we can
1:18:19
look into it. Maybe she's well, her protege is all feminism. Yeah,
1:18:25
yeah, okay, I mean this. You could see the threads of
1:18:29
this all the way into the American Association Psychology Association, which is now tasked
1:18:34
with treating men with mental illnesses based on this model that she has proposed,
1:18:41
which essentially terms men's being like men, men having a mind and a way
1:18:47
of processing things, and a psychology separate from women. It terms it as
1:18:54
male systems which are immoral and also probably criminal. She would go with criminal,
1:19:00
and of course the APA simply terms it a mental illness. Now,
1:19:04
just like you know, at one point slaves running away was considered a mental
1:19:09
illness in our society for the benefit of men at the expense of women.
1:19:15
Being a man is a mental illness is seen as a mental illness. Oh
1:19:21
good lord, we're just going to ride this to the death. This is
1:19:27
the face of our destructor look at it, look at it on weep and
1:19:31
even hold, as the author explains how feminism will kill people as well.
1:19:36
Fascinatingly, Okay, yes, this is another psychological stopper that the patriarchy uses
1:19:46
to hold women down, and that thing is feminism. Apparently, so many
1:19:50
stoppers are used to quell our incipient feminism. Oddly enough, though, feminism
1:19:56
itself can be a stopper, especially when it is u used against women by
1:20:00
men or even other women who espouse women's liberation. To be told you are
1:20:05
not a true feminist can paralyze a woman who is concerned about her own rights
1:20:10
and those of all women. The result is that she backs off from her
1:20:13
own perceptions and issues, and the movement loses her contributions. Yes, because
1:20:20
you know, equality might require actually integrating the male situation into the equation for
1:20:29
equality, and might also might also require appealing to external measures like laws and
1:20:36
consent well, or a equal measure of consent. So if if a woman
1:20:41
is seen to consent to something, she needs to be regarded as having the
1:20:45
same ability to consent as an adult male, right, not that we really
1:20:48
care about men's consent, but regardless. So, but what she wants is
1:20:54
not a system based on objective measures of equality, but a syn system simply
1:20:59
based on whatever ever a woman feels benefits her in that instance. Like,
1:21:03
she's basically the extreme version of well, our instinctual imperative. Men provide and
1:21:12
protect for women because that's what they do, that's what in our species successful.
1:21:17
Women are sort of the word like, women are even more examples of
1:21:23
ambulatory spam than men, and so men sort of took up the slack.
1:21:28
I mean, like I've said many times, if if if a human woman
1:21:31
was a tiger, she would be able to to kill to execute bin Lauden
1:21:40
nine months pregnant, you know, in the middle of the mission, squat
1:21:43
down, give birth, and then continue on. Human women are not capable
1:21:49
to the same degree of other female animals of taking care of themselves through the
1:21:55
process of pregnancy, gestation, early childhood, et cetera. They need a
1:21:59
social group to do so. So we have this instinct to provide and protect
1:22:02
for women almost the same way that other animals have an instinct to provide and
1:22:09
protect for offspring. And this woman literally is the extreme version, the extreme
1:22:16
concentrated version of that instinct. Everything, every morality in society should be judged
1:22:25
by whether or not a woman feels like it benefits her. Do you see
1:22:30
that? And even the idea that feminism is supposed to be about equality is
1:22:35
too much oppression because women might be held to an external standard based on the
1:22:41
idea of equality, whereas there should be no external standards. Everything should be
1:22:46
judged by whatever a specific woman feels like she needs in that instant. If
1:22:51
a specific woman feels like she needs, I don't know, a house,
1:22:59
then she should have that house. And if she feels like she needs no
1:23:02
house, she should have no house. And if she feels like she needs
1:23:05
house and no house at the same time, she should have that. Everything
1:23:11
should be judged by the vagarities of a female's desires. That's what she's saying.
1:23:17
Well, what she cannot have is the mojo dojo kasa house. No,
1:23:24
because that is patriarchy, that is a male system. But she can
1:23:27
have male system as long as we ignore the fact that it is male system.
1:23:30
Like I mean, I'm pretty sure that she's doing a lot of selective
1:23:32
reading of what is male system, male system, domestic violence, rape,
1:23:38
male system, even though there are great many more men fighting those very small
1:23:44
minority of criminal men engaging in that who are themselves engaging in it due to
1:23:48
genetic and environmental factors. But let's forget that male system. Domestic violence,
1:23:55
sexism, being prejudiced against women, wanting to touch women without allowing the reverse,
1:24:01
whatever else. That's all mail system. But what isn't mail system?
1:24:06
Utilities, delivery systems like transport, uh, interior like all of the stuff
1:24:15
that she likely wants. She would redefine it as not being mail system,
1:24:19
even though if men disappeared, these things would disappear. And if men disappeared,
1:24:25
Get this, ladies, if men disappeared, rape would not disappear,
1:24:29
Domestic violence would not disappear, Women dying from being killed by their partners would
1:24:34
increase, the death of children would likely increase. So all of the shit
1:24:40
that human beings do would not disappear if men disappeared. But what what disappear?
1:24:46
Indoor plumbing, electricity, trains, delivery mechanisms, grocery stores, the
1:24:56
supply chain in general. Electricity. I say electricity, Well, I'll say
1:25:00
it again because that's really important to me. The Internet, publishing, publishing
1:25:05
systems publishing because there be books being printed. Okay, so all of that
1:25:12
ship would disappear. But that's not mail system, you see, because she
1:25:15
wants that. So if she wants something, it's not Maile system. But
1:25:20
if she doesn't want something, it's mail system, even if it would still
1:25:25
continue to exist were men to disappear. Remember last week we also mentioned how
1:25:31
she specifically said that women can use the white male system as part of the
1:25:38
female system as long as they're aware of the fact that they're using it.
1:25:43
It's just another one of those get out of jail free cards, which basically
1:25:45
just reinforces what you've said. So, yeah, I like this thing.
1:25:47
Therefore it's totally female system or I'm just exploiting the white male system, mon'ment,
1:25:53
but I know that I'm doing it, so it's totally okay, and
1:25:55
that part doesn't have to be abolished because I know I'm exploiting it. Un
1:25:59
river, So something like that sounds like the speed that the thing that Baine
1:26:04
said, and dark night rises right, you know, y'are you think the
1:26:10
patriarchy is your ally? I was born in it, mourned by it.
1:26:16
I mean that's why if women use it, it's it that you know,
1:26:23
it becomes theirs. Yeah, it becomes theirs. So literally, this is
1:26:26
just the argument that men are an extension of women and should have no other
1:26:30
presence outside of women's needs, which itself is an extreme, a psychotically extreme
1:26:38
version of our own instincts, like just concentrated into the most insane and insufferably
1:26:44
impossible version of them. It's like basically subsisting entirely off of fat, fat,
1:26:48
salt and sugar. Just just just walk the gigantic wads of fat covered
1:26:54
in salt and sugar. That's it, That's all, that's that's gonna be
1:26:57
it. This is this woman, This is this woman, just pushing an
1:27:02
instinct to the to the breaking point. And that's basically what feminism is doing.
1:27:08
It's just pushing our instinct to provide and protect for women to the absolute
1:27:14
breaking point. They're just like, let's see, let's fucking let's let's turn,
1:27:17
let's strap, let's strap the rocket engine to the top of this fucking
1:27:21
car and letter blow go directly towards the cliff. No Pasco, We're taking
1:27:27
it to the max. We have chosen the face of our destructor it will
1:27:31
be very burdson. We're doing it. We're doing it live. Shall we
1:27:43
talk about innocence and wisdom? Oh? Please, all right? Page eighty
1:27:48
three. Innocence and wisdom, The author says the society creates a difference between
1:27:55
wisdom and innocence, and the idea that knowing things means that you on not
1:28:00
innocent, because being wise means that you are not innocent of the world.
1:28:04
The author asserts that you could be both, as she says, quote have
1:28:09
your feet on the ground and head in the stars end quote. On top
1:28:12
of this being generic basic bitch new age WU, this is Hegelian dialectic thinking.
1:28:17
Thesis and antithesis have synthesized, and now you can be both things within
1:28:21
the contradiction at the same time. There's just a nice little note there that
1:28:28
shows you the intellectual origin of some of these. Yeah, I'm glad that
1:28:31
you mentioned the Hegelian thing for sure. Yeah, it comes up every so
1:28:36
often. Like I said, it's she doesn't mention the ideas or the people
1:28:41
explicitly, but you can see by the process that she uses the origin point
1:28:45
of it. So let's now talk about children, because let's just make this
1:28:51
as depressing as possible. So page eighty five, as the author asserts here,
1:28:57
a mother loves her son, but he is part of the class that
1:29:00
has oppressed her, and so she cannot help but feel rage and hostility towards
1:29:05
him, which I'm not even surprised, but okay, let's keep going on
1:29:11
Page eighty six. Quote the power that these little beings, our children have
1:29:15
over us, and the fact that they can validate our existence makes us hate
1:29:19
their guts. We love our children, but hate what they stand for.
1:29:24
End quote. This ties into what we talked about last week, where part
1:29:30
of this dynamic that she's using here is that women can and should hate their
1:29:33
children because it gives them some sort of material validation, is something that ties
1:29:41
them to this warb and gives them some sort of investment and as such prevents
1:29:44
them from being spiritually free, which is where we talked last week about how
1:29:49
this has a lot of the underlying notes of being a bizarre kind of deaf
1:29:56
cult. How where are we at like, are we getting to the end
1:30:03
here? We are halfway through this, half through some of this, because
1:30:12
some of it is just kind of like I should hold my art. But
1:30:16
I'm actually starting to realize that I think that pointing to men might be a
1:30:23
bit of a cover because demonizing men, nobody really gives a crap. I
1:30:29
think these I think this cult hates children. And I mean, I'm not
1:30:34
the most fond of children myself. It's not that I just doesn't mean that
1:30:41
you hate them, Allison, like, you're okay with people having children and
1:30:45
families. Yeah, yeah, I'm I don't know. Maybe my thoughts would
1:30:50
change if I had ever had a child and children didn't freak out my dog.
1:30:58
But the thing is that this is I think when they talk about how
1:31:03
their servants, and I was thinking about this, I'm like, ladies,
1:31:08
you realize that you're not really serving men that much. Like when when there
1:31:13
are two people who get into a relationship a man and a woman, and
1:31:16
they do not have children, almost every like so the split is almost completely
1:31:23
gender neutral. I don't know, like the statistics are that if you are
1:31:27
in a relationship with a man and you do not have children, it's very
1:31:31
much likely that you share the bills, you share the housework. Maybe one
1:31:39
or more the does a bit more because they maybe earn more or spend more
1:31:42
time this or that. So there's a much more equitable division of labor quote
1:31:45
unquote equitable. I'm just using the nomenclature. I don't necessarily believe it.
1:31:49
But once you have children, that's when there's a greater division of labor,
1:31:55
with women staying at home doing more housework, doing more childcare, and men
1:32:00
doing more actual work. So when you see these kinds of this condemnation of
1:32:10
relationships with men, if you actually look at the statistics, it's not condemnation
1:32:15
of the relationship with men, because if you have a relationship with men with
1:32:17
no children, you're not going to see this kind of division of labor.
1:32:21
It's a condemnation of children, and they just hide it behind a condemnation of
1:32:28
men. These women fucking hate children, and I think that I think that
1:32:35
conservatives need to look at this and actually internalize it. There is a group
1:32:41
of women who absolutely fucking despises children, period, and they often have children,
1:32:48
and they were the minds behind those little girls picking up their dollies and
1:32:53
smashing their heads on rocks. There is this kind of intense, almost sociopathic
1:33:02
hatred of being constrained by something that needs you that much right, And this
1:33:10
is why abortion seems to have such an energy of triumphalism. And this has
1:33:15
nothing to do with men. This is in women, Conservatives, This is
1:33:21
in women. They don't like the process of becoming subservient to children, and
1:33:32
they hate them as a result of that, and they hate them even more
1:33:38
when they become autonomous beings and aren't just sort of an egoistic extension of themselves
1:33:45
that really can't make its own choices. They despise the entire process of motherhood.
1:33:51
They want to murder the little slugs that force them into it. And
1:33:57
this is nothing, nothing, It has nothing to do with men, and
1:34:02
you cannot blame it on men, Conservatives. This is in the female psyche.
1:34:10
This is the horrible truth of women, or at least some women.
1:34:15
This is where the whole mythology of the devouring mother comes from. It doesn't
1:34:19
come from men, it doesn't. You cannot blame this immorality on men.
1:34:24
This is in women. And until you recognize that and do something to control
1:34:31
it, it will rule your society. Our society will become more and more
1:34:38
and more of a death cult. Okay, real quick, before we continue,
1:34:47
I do have a super a super chow, So thank you, a
1:34:55
super chow from great Indoors. Thank you, great Indoors. And he goes
1:35:02
a ten box and says, one thing that is worse than being a slave
1:35:05
of a private owner is to be a slave within the public system, because
1:35:10
everybody knows how public goods are being treated by society. Thank you, great
1:35:14
indoors, appreciate that. Okay, can I just get into briefly. I
1:35:19
know I'm making this take much longer. Whenever I look at these systems in
1:35:26
which the law actually restricts women but it always obligates men, the honest to
1:35:31
God truth is that there almost seems to be like this instinct where men become
1:35:36
extensions of women's needs. And in the face of that instinct, all of
1:35:41
these laws that supposedly disenfranchise women are meaningless because wherever they enfranchise men, men
1:35:47
will use that in service of their women. Period. Now, Okay,
1:35:54
if there's a law to say that men can go out in the desert and
1:35:57
go kill I don't know, leper and bring back the pelts, but women
1:36:01
can't. Then who do you think is going to be sleeping on the fucking
1:36:04
pelts? Think about it. This is inevitable in human history, and denying
1:36:12
that leads to this belief that men have oppressed women. Whenever men have power
1:36:18
or resources, they give them to women because they have an instinct to do
1:36:24
so. And denying this fact leads to a distortion of the understanding of history
1:36:28
and human nature. Okay, excuse me continue. Yeah, I just think
1:36:35
it's very interesting to look at feminism and basically say, like, yeah,
1:36:40
your fundamental problem is children that you don't like them. And I think there
1:36:45
is something to be said for the relative loss of freedom that comes with someone
1:36:48
being dependent on you. But the point is you're supposed to grow from that
1:36:53
experience, not to resent it and want it to go away. It's simply
1:36:59
a different mode or a different part of your life that grows going forward.
1:37:02
And I might be tempted to perhaps over psychoanalyze this and say that perhaps some
1:37:09
of that resentment that these women feel towards their children is that it stops them
1:37:13
being children themselves, and that's what they really want. And yeah, and
1:37:17
the funny thing is is that they because I'm sure you've seen you know that
1:37:21
joke where the joke panel that went around where a woman took a bunch of
1:37:28
men's relationship references like, Okay, you want someone younger than you, someone
1:37:32
you can take care of you, someone shaves their body, blah blah blah,
1:37:38
Okay, loading, loading, loading, You just described a child,
1:37:41
and then men wrote one back rather sarcastically, Okay, so you want a
1:37:45
guy taller than you, earns more than you, takes care of you.
1:37:48
Da da da da da loading, loading, loading, You just described your
1:37:51
father? Yeah I would, And honestly, I think a lot of these
1:37:57
divorces is maybe mother's projecting their own dismay over having become a mother onto the
1:38:04
father, and yeah they don't. And honestly, if you can't handle accommodating
1:38:14
an adult who can wipe their own ask, feed themselves and does and works,
1:38:17
how the hell are you going to accommodate a child, Ladies like you've
1:38:23
just proven that you are completely non functional as parents. If you can't negotiate
1:38:30
some kind of compromise with a person who can walk away from you and doesn't
1:38:33
need you to wipe his ass, like literally wipe his ass, I'm pretty
1:38:36
sure, there's no man. There are very few men out there who are
1:38:40
not seriously disabled that need their wives to get in there with the toilet paper.
1:38:45
Okay, So don't even bother saying that that you do that you do
1:38:48
that kind of I don't know, sanitary labor or some shit. Okay.
1:38:54
If you can't handle a relationship with okay, if you can, I wan't
1:39:00
handle relationship on easy mode, which is a relationship with another adult. You
1:39:05
are not going to be able to handle relationship on hard mode, which is
1:39:10
a relationship on with a being that's a bit sociopathic and utterly selfish and utterly
1:39:15
reliant on you. All right, If you resent the fact that you're you
1:39:25
on a hard day day at work, your partner might like you to bring
1:39:30
him a beer. You know, he might enjoy that, he might even
1:39:32
ask for it. But you know, oh my god, his enjoyment of
1:39:36
that makes is oppressing me. Okay, then you are not going to be
1:39:42
able to handle a child. Hell, you're not even gonna be able to
1:39:45
handle a dog or a puppy. Okay, all right, we got to
1:39:49
get through this because we do you. But I just like to make another
1:39:56
note here, and this is for the I suppose the cycle of empires people,
1:40:00
you know, the year, Well, we're currently in the weak men
1:40:04
and all of this stuff, and look what it's causing because we don't have
1:40:09
the strong men and the good times and all of this sort of stuff.
1:40:12
If you took the hierarchies that this woman in this author in this book has
1:40:17
suggested, it is true that you basically have like God, men, women,
1:40:20
children, animals, earth, etc. Etc. And you did look
1:40:26
at things like that, and what we have said here about women resenting birth
1:40:30
or feminists resenting birth to be part of the problem here, then you do
1:40:36
have to accept that they are the ones dropping the ball. Because for all
1:40:40
the people saying, oh men weak creating bad times and all this stuff,
1:40:45
well, I'm still seeing men trying. They're still going out, they're still
1:40:48
working, they are still trying to form the relationships. Now what's not happening
1:40:55
in those relationships, Well, we're not seeing women holding up the side of
1:41:00
it with the children's part. In fact, they're doing everything possible to acquire
1:41:05
even post birth abortions, you know, like either up to indeed the moment
1:41:12
of birth. And some are even saying that you should be able to have
1:41:15
the baby in the next room for a couple of days, and then you
1:41:18
wake up and are just like, oh, you know, I don't want
1:41:19
to go go drop a brick on its head or something like that. Well,
1:41:24
we're seeing one side of this equation holding up their end of the bargain
1:41:28
and the other side seems to be doing everything possible to avoid their half the
1:41:32
responsibility. And I think you need to think about that very, very carefully.
1:41:40
Conservatives resist that conclusion. I mean not all. There are some who
1:41:46
will listen to what we have to say, but I'm telling you from my
1:41:50
experience, conservatives really resist the idea that they need to hold women are responsible
1:41:57
and stop blaming them because it's so easy to blame men and hold women blameless.
1:42:03
Yeah, I guess all I'm gonna do to say to those people,
1:42:06
your utilities are still working, all of your basic needs are still met.
1:42:12
You still have food, you still have shelter, you still have electricity,
1:42:15
you still a plumbing. Who does that internet? Yeah? Who does that?
1:42:17
Exactly? I do think, though, if all of those things go
1:42:20
away, then you can start telling me about weak men fucking things up and
1:42:26
creating bad times while those things are still in place. Gut up, Yeah,
1:42:31
shut up. I was just gonna say, though, I do think
1:42:35
that that that's that saying. Maybe if it wasn't because it sounds gendered.
1:42:44
But I wonder if when it was originally said, it wasn't meant to be
1:42:46
referring specifically to men or males or rather to man, you know, which
1:42:51
is both, because I do think there is definitely a we are going through
1:42:58
a very difficult time, and Tilder is right. I think that women are
1:43:02
a big part of that problem. That men and women are drifting apart,
1:43:06
and there are people dividing us against each other, and women don't want to,
1:43:11
you know, form families and all of these other things, and I
1:43:15
think it's weakening our society, or it has weakened our society, and I
1:43:20
think that's why we're dealing with hard times. But maybe if you removed the
1:43:27
sayings gender specific language, which I don't know if that was in the intent,
1:43:32
because I know that we used to think of the word man or men
1:43:35
as like unisex because men used to have their own word right wheremen, then
1:43:44
maybe that that makes more sense. And we are sort of like in a
1:43:47
downturn because of all of the prosperity and comfort, which I think is unprecedented,
1:43:54
Like we haven't lived this well and this long, and this is when
1:43:58
things are so good. Then there are people that just want to self sabotage
1:44:02
right their entire society, and they find new things to complain about, new
1:44:06
struggles, new dragons to slay, whatever it is, and it so happens
1:44:13
that. I mean, I think Tillier is right. I think it's women
1:44:15
that are causing it because they are they and men kind of allow it,
1:44:20
you know, like they go along with it in a lot of cases.
1:44:24
So I don't know if it's I don't think it's a gendered issue, but
1:44:28
I think if you remove the gender aspect it could still apply. Well,
1:44:34
honestly, the problem is that at this point it's women just deciding they don't
1:44:42
want to have children. And the irony is that that would be fine,
1:44:45
like if we weren't if we were still a very productive society, if we
1:44:51
weren't basically borrowing on our grandchildren's labor, and then women are just like,
1:44:56
yeah, but we're not having the grandchildren. Well no, I agree,
1:45:00
Okay, then you're you're, you're we're all going to be falling off a
1:45:02
cliff pretty soon because eventually the rest of the world's going to be like,
1:45:06
you know, why are we why are we supporting uh Western welfare? Yeah,
1:45:15
like why are we why are we underwriting your women's refusal to to actually,
1:45:21
you know, construct a future that's worth having, you know, and
1:45:27
and you know like that that there is that element. There's an immaturity in
1:45:31
women that hasn't been addressed by our current system. And I can get more
1:45:38
into this because I think it's very complicated or not very complicate. There's depth
1:45:42
to this that's really interesting. It's it's something that intrigues me how we have
1:45:45
gotten to this point of fucking ourselves so badly. But but that be that
1:45:51
as me. The whole weak men argument again just puts the puts the honest
1:45:59
on men. But if you look at the if you look at the discourse
1:46:01
around this with when men point out that relationships aren't happening, women say,
1:46:10
well, we aren't interested in them. So it's it's it's it's you.
1:46:14
It is your problem. It's not our problem. We're not we don't want
1:46:17
any relationships with you. It's not our problem that we don't want any relationship
1:46:21
with you. That's your problem. I mean, what what a conservative is
1:46:25
going to say with that? Like, and then the other thing is that
1:46:29
we have really screwed ourselves because in embracing this narrative that utterly condemns men and
1:46:34
masculinity, we are forcing men to try to create relationships with the largest handicap
1:46:43
in human history ever. Okay, Like, men have never labored under this
1:46:49
level of a handicap when it comes to attracting a woman, unless you're talking
1:46:57
about maybe like Middle Eastern society at the height of the like the Harem Empires,
1:47:03
but a very least they had some kind of role. But it's like
1:47:06
there's nothing there. How could it be worse? How could we be selling
1:47:13
men less than we are now with all of the condemnation of masculinity and being
1:47:18
in a relationship with the men being the equivalent of slavery or being owned like
1:47:23
property. Like there's every time there seems to be an equilibrium of missentry and
1:47:31
doing the opposite of selling men as as partners and husbands and boyfriends and all
1:47:38
of this other stuff. Every time there seems to be like something we we
1:47:41
we break it with some new way of telling women how awful it is to
1:47:45
be around men. And it's like, well, how do you expect men
1:47:49
to be able to fight through all of this to actually form relationships with women?
1:47:55
Oh, there's no god damn way. And what do we do?
1:48:00
What do we do? We blame men even more, We make them even
1:48:04
more seem more pathetic and useless and cringe e and creepy. And it's like,
1:48:12
this is the death spiral of our civilization. It literally is this.
1:48:15
It literally we have chosen the face of our destructor and it is misinjury.
1:48:23
And it's like a word that we don't even recognize. The thing that's going
1:48:27
to destroy us is going to be this. And anybody who thinks that their
1:48:30
politics means of hot damn, wait till the wait till the lights go out,
1:48:38
and then you'll realize that the only politics that matters is misinjury. Can
1:48:42
I say that? Like, literally, this is it. This is what's
1:48:45
going to turn the lights out, guys, because at some point men are
1:48:49
just not going to understand the relationship between their labor and the production of society.
1:48:55
And at that point there won't be anybody keeping the lights on. Well,
1:49:00
women already don't, No, they don't, They're not having kids.
1:49:04
Stuff is just running, and that it will never in In the femtopia,
1:49:12
women will have to be forced to take the jobs that went men take willingly
1:49:15
now with the incentive structure in place. But of course there won't be a
1:49:19
phemtopia because women will not sacrifice themselves for the sisterhood period. Okay, so
1:49:30
we are missentry is going to be our destructor as a society. We have
1:49:34
embraced our end and it is missentry. Missengry should be like a fifth horseman
1:49:41
of the apocalypse, you know, plague, Uh what were they? Plague?
1:49:51
Women, war, war, and death and Missentry that's gonna be the
1:49:57
one that gets us. The new fangled Missentry might be the one that heralds
1:50:00
in the other four. So maybe it's sort of like a predecessor, like
1:50:04
Gabriel rowing the trumpet, you know. Yeah, all right, we got
1:50:10
we gotta continue because like we're getting like it's been getting up on two hours,
1:50:14
and I have super chats and a super chow, So I'm going to
1:50:16
read the super chow first. Zerenx gives us ten dollars and says there's a
1:50:24
YouTube video titled has modern American Feminism Failed Us? Within five minutes of the
1:50:29
video start, the guest speaker identifies Second way feminism as being anti family,
1:50:33
shortly after Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique was released in nineteen sixty nine. I'm
1:50:39
not surprised that some of these women hate children. Would be a revelation following
1:50:44
the sentiment of Charles Foyer for women to compete with men where men dominate,
1:50:48
forsaking areas women dominate would logically yield the outcome of women sans motherly inclination.
1:50:55
They would be separated from their natural desires. But the record, I regard
1:50:59
the quote weak men, strong men end quote, But to refer to humans,
1:51:03
I agree with til Deer and I think a lot was left on the
1:51:06
design table considering how we've allowed women to have the same voice as men without
1:51:11
equal responsibility to the state. Women will engage for their wants. Thank you
1:51:15
Zarank's very thoughtful post. Appreciate it. Guys. Go to Feedbatchel dot com,
1:51:20
forward slash just the tips. You can leave a lengthy comment like this
1:51:24
one. Then I got easy. That's for easy access. Baby gives us
1:51:30
five dollars and says kindness is like a muscle. You need to use it.
1:51:34
Regularly, or else it will atrophy. This author is absent of any
1:51:39
kindness muscles. That is correct. Thank you for that. TV Dinner Master
1:51:44
Chef gives us ten pounds and says, hey, y'all not been around these
1:51:48
parks often lately pursuing other interests in such some well earned moolah for your efforts.
1:51:54
Apologies, it isn't more getting married on Saturday. So skinned at the
1:51:59
moment, we'll congratulates TV Dinner Master Chef. I really hope that this works
1:52:03
out and she doesn't take you to the cleaners. I assume that if you
1:52:08
have been watching our content or similar content, you're probably more discerning than the
1:52:13
average bear, and hopefully that will work out for you. So I will
1:52:15
just say a general congratulations everybody offer TV TV Dinner Master Chef, and congratulations
1:52:21
in the chat. All right, So that's all of those, So thank
1:52:27
you, and let's I guess till dear what what what's next? Yes?
1:52:32
We shall, we shall go, all right. I was going to make
1:52:35
one very quick point here, and that is when we when we talk about
1:52:40
the men and women dynamic here, I suppose more an anecdote from my own
1:52:45
life and everyone that I've known, but it seems to shake out quite a
1:52:48
lot across the board. And that seems to be If you ask a lot
1:52:51
of guys in their late teens and early twenties, what do you want?
1:52:56
Almost all of them say they want to get married, to have a house,
1:52:58
have kids. That attitude is gone by the age of thirty, and
1:53:03
it's gone because they can't achieve it. Why not women? And to the
1:53:10
whole society phemutopia thing. Again, I'm reminded of the psychological experiment between the
1:53:16
two choices. You know, you get one hundred dollar payout, but someone
1:53:20
else gets two hundred, And that was the option that men overwhelmingly chose because
1:53:25
it benefits them the most as the person getting the hundred. It doesn't matter
1:53:30
that someone else gets two hundred. You're getting on a hundred. But the
1:53:31
option that women overwhelmingly chose, you get fifty while someone else gets nothing.
1:53:38
Which one of those two parties would you rather have a society run by the
1:53:43
party that says, yeah, I'll take half of what someone else is getting
1:53:46
because hey, I'm still benefiting. Yeah they're getting double, but whatever,
1:53:49
we're all still better off. Or the party which spitefully says you don't get
1:53:55
anything, even if I get less, even if I get less than what
1:53:59
we could do, because it's not a fixed pie. I want to make
1:54:00
sure you get nothing because I have to benefit more than you. It sounds
1:54:04
like communism actually that which which society would you rather be run by? In
1:54:11
that? You know, the male system, which is the will take a
1:54:14
one hundred and give someone else two hundred, or the female system I want
1:54:17
fifty and you get nothing? Yeah? Where? Yeah? Because if you
1:54:21
divide, that s that psychological experiment along lines of gender. The male system
1:54:28
missile a lot more productive and less spiteful than the female system. But we
1:54:33
must carry with the write up and power through the rest of this. There
1:54:39
is not that much more to go, so page eighty seven. Women raise
1:54:44
their daughters to be oppressed by the white male system by teaching them to be
1:54:46
ladylike. Women recognize each other as an oppressed class and become simpatico as a
1:54:53
means of survival, and they feel this bond traveling from solar plexus to solar
1:54:58
plexus. This is a specially true for daughters. This is a bond built
1:55:02
through suffering. If we are to be bonded, we must suffer, and
1:55:05
if we stop suffering, then we lose all connection. Interesting way of looking
1:55:12
at it. There again, I reference Sir Williams twenty twenty three. There
1:55:15
is no sisterhood. Just please stop trying to do this. Women have this,
1:55:23
They don't have this symbatico relationship. They have automatic in group preference,
1:55:27
but it does not extend to a personal level. That is just not not
1:55:30
how it seems to work. They will push back against men, an incourasion
1:55:34
by men, and then once that's done, they will continue to fight over
1:55:39
the resources. It's sort of a warlord mentality versus a republic mentality. And
1:55:45
I just wanted to say, I think one of the things that men bring
1:55:48
to the table, and this is something that people do not want to recognize,
1:55:53
is that men are able to cooperate and sacrifice in the process of cooperation
1:55:59
far more and women. And that anecdote that you gave about the man who's
1:56:02
willing to take a hundred if somebody even if somebody else gets two hundred,
1:56:05
and a woman who will not take a hundred if someone gets else gets two
1:56:10
hundred, but we'll take fifty if someone else gets nothing. That is an
1:56:14
example of men's sense of fairness to a woman, Fairness is is I I
1:56:25
benefit, and you can only benefit as much as I do or less who
1:56:30
men, Fairness is even if you benefit more, if I benefit, I'm
1:56:33
okay. That's that's that is the source of a merit of the of the
1:56:39
tolerance of a meritocracy, especially when you add in, okay, I recognize
1:56:44
you've done the work to earn two hundred, and I've done the work to
1:56:46
earn one hundred, like and we need that or we cease to have a
1:56:51
society. Men's psychology is part of the human tool kit. Without it,
1:56:59
we don't have a future. And if you get rid of it, because
1:57:02
feminists like this in infiltrating academia and everything else, and and the American Psychological
1:57:11
Association, which is just unbelievable that they're allowed to even touch a man in
1:57:15
need, like those fuckers, they are just parasites and h this nonsense is
1:57:25
infiltrated. That means you are don't we don't have a future. Men's psychology
1:57:30
is of benefit, It's valid, it's important. It's a tool kit.
1:57:34
It's part of the human tool kit. It evolved for a reason. We
1:57:40
embrace it, or we embrace it to our benefit, and we reject it
1:57:44
to our destruction. All Right, continue Tilder. Sorry for interrupting. That's
1:57:50
fine. There is a thing written on page eighty nine here about how women
1:57:57
voiced motherhood onto their daughters a means of validating their own misery, which I
1:58:01
think is very relevant to the thing that we've been discussing here. So as
1:58:05
it says, on one hand, mothers give their daughters the message go out
1:58:10
and become educated so you can do better in the world than I did.
1:58:14
But and this is a very important but they're also saying get married, have
1:58:17
children, keep house, and clean toilets, just like I did. The
1:58:20
real messages. I did not feel very good about the way I've lived my
1:58:24
life and choices I have made. It is your responsibility to validate my life.
1:58:29
You must do this by making the same choice as I made, and
1:58:31
do other important things in the world as well. Okay, I want to
1:58:39
direct I don't know if you can pop that up the table that I just
1:58:44
put into the live chat there, Brian, it might be valid in relation
1:58:49
to what she's saying here. Women just the moment I'm doing it. Go
1:58:57
ahead, Okay, though we need like some intermissionary music. But this will
1:59:00
verify what I'm ready up already. Okay, look at it. Look at
1:59:06
the column of married, and this is from the General Social Survey, which
1:59:12
is between twenty and ten and twenty eighteen, so this is fairly solid.
1:59:15
I think the Institute for Family Studies are the ones who are doing the analysis
1:59:20
of the of the results, married women without children, forty five percent of
1:59:29
them are very happy, okay, very happy. And then there's there's also
1:59:35
the happy, and then the somewhat unhappy, and then the very unhappy.
1:59:40
But we'll just look at the very happy. Forty five percent of women who
1:59:44
are married without children are happy. Forty one percent of women who are married
1:59:49
with children are happy. Okay, right, what does it look like when
1:59:56
we get to the divorced and never married all right, separated, divorced,
2:00:01
twenty seven women percent of women who are separated are divorced with no kids are
2:00:06
happy. Twenty percent of women who are separated or divorced with kids are happy.
2:00:14
Okay, twenty four percent of never married women are happy. Nineteen percent
2:00:21
of never married women with children are happy. So when your mother says get
2:00:30
married, you can be like, yeah, that's that's a that's get married,
2:00:34
you'll have that's really good advice because you will be almost twice as likely
2:00:41
to be happy. Okay, now, you'll your happiness will decline a bit
2:00:47
because you have children. Most likely it's because you are extending yourself to take
2:00:54
care of a little sociopath who needs you for everything and does not care about
2:00:59
you, which will make you grow as a person. But let's be honest,
2:01:02
that sounds like a tall order. So your happiness will decline in that
2:01:05
case. Maybe it will recover when the kids are out of the home and
2:01:09
you can reconnect with your partner. But regardless, if you get married,
2:01:15
that is the best advice anyone could give a woman to be happy. Get
2:01:21
married, get a man, you will be happier. And she's saying and
2:01:30
interest patriarchy, and she's essentially saying that these women, these women's mothers want
2:01:35
them to be miserable as they are. Bullshit. Maybe they want them to
2:01:41
be as happy as they are, and maybe they do want us, maybe
2:01:45
they do want grandkids, and they're okay with like a four percent hit in
2:01:48
your happiness for that to happen. Well, maybe we should look at what
2:01:55
it's like on the tail end when women don't have children versus children when they're
2:02:00
in their old age. Maybe there's some benefit there, but it doesn't matter.
2:02:05
The point is that if women want to be happy, they should get
2:02:11
married the end. There's no way around it. And it's not it's not
2:02:20
a coincidence that women are becoming less and less happy the more they embrace this
2:02:26
death cult. And you know it would it would be great if people would
2:02:33
lead with that. But the other thing is that marriage is not easy.
2:02:41
It's easy to be alone and miserable. It's hard to be happy because in
2:02:46
some ways you have to choose to do it. Like nihilism is the childish
2:02:54
impulse in the face of suffering, happiness is the adult impulse in the face
2:03:01
of suffering. Okay, I'll get off my podium or what is it called
2:03:09
plinth, pedestal, no elevated surface. I'll get off of my elevated surface.
2:03:18
All right, let's talk about female rage because it seems somewhat relevant to
2:03:26
some of this. Right some page ninety, the author begins talking about female
2:03:30
rage and giving red rage to the green light. So she says women are
2:03:34
convinced their rage is dangerous as an atomic bomb, what gets a woman mad?
2:03:40
And when what happens When a woman gets mad, men avoid her or
2:03:43
abandon her. She is left alone, and that is where it stops.
2:03:47
My note to this is actually when a woman gets mad, men die,
2:03:53
because that is what happens. When woman actually gets mad and gets properly mad
2:03:57
about something, she will normally direct that at the nearest man who she can
2:04:01
blame for something, and other men will kill him for it. That is
2:04:04
what has historically happened, and it is what happens now. It's normally just
2:04:09
that the men doing it come dressed in blue uniforms. So she notes that
2:04:15
women are thought what okay, I'm sorry, go ahead, was that too
2:04:21
esoteric? I mean the blue uniforms. So men kill women get mad at
2:04:28
women get mad at men, and police come and kill him. Oh they
2:04:30
come and kill a man. Yes, Oh yeah, sure, yes,
2:04:34
that happens. Yeah, that's what I was alluding to there. So women
2:04:40
are taught from birth to not be violent, aggressive, or angry, and
2:04:43
the author says this must be changed to validate how women feel. The author
2:04:46
states on page ninety two that it doesn't matter if it makes sense. What
2:04:51
women feel is valid and can never be inappropriate. So this is more just
2:04:58
typical feminist wretch Rick feels before reels, whatever you feel is valid and is
2:05:02
real and no one can dissuade you. But it's not your reality. But
2:05:06
it's not, it's not whatever anybody feels, because it's it's again, I
2:05:11
have the boobs. I make reality because men don't even they're not even on
2:05:17
in the anywhere, they're not allowed to have at a place at the feels
2:05:21
are reels table at all, which is which is because feels are reels is
2:05:27
ultimately a hierarchical, exclusionary idea. There are only some people who are allowed
2:05:38
to dictate the terms through their feelings. By definition. That's why a reasonable
2:05:44
like a discussion and a debate about what reality is is equitable. It is
2:05:50
a way of everyone respecting each other's opinions while moving towards a consensus, whereas
2:05:57
feels be reels is simply agmatism and authoritarianism and top down leader and top down
2:06:06
control. Only one person and that person is the top of the progressive stack
2:06:13
can rules. It's the most draconian system of control you could possibly imagine,
2:06:21
because not only do they rule, they're the only person that's legitimate, legitimately
2:06:28
human. It's like, it is so funny when they're talking about women's ways
2:06:32
of knowing. It's not communal. It's like bullshit, it's not communal at
2:06:36
all. It is one person has the right to even dictate the reality,
2:06:43
the mind, the emotions, the being of everyone else. And that person
2:06:47
is whoever rules the progressive stack. And it isn't always the person who's most
2:06:51
victimized. It's the person who's most like often so shepathic, who can exploit
2:06:59
everyone else and put herself as the grand central victim. Pooh bah all hail
2:07:05
all bow all all vomit up their own freaking sense of self for the grand
2:07:12
victim, poohba like it's it's unbelievably and in poscent comparison the Maile system,
2:07:19
unsurprisingly considering that men again have that interesting form of fairness, which is,
2:07:26
well, as long as I get something, I'm okay with you getting twice
2:07:28
as much. You know, the mail system that she so decries is actually
2:07:34
one where everybody gets a chance to contribute to what the consensus view of reality
2:07:41
is. Everybody does through reason and logic. You can supply evidence, you
2:07:46
can supply a logical argument. If it's persuasive, it gets included into the
2:07:53
consensus view of reality. You see what I'm saying. Yes, it's in
2:07:58
the field. Shall we Shall we talk about this author's ideas around therapy,
2:08:03
since we're talking about that and about how reality actually exists. Yes, don't
2:08:09
worry, it's just page ninety two and ninety three, so hopefully I can
2:08:13
just blam through this bit. So the female system therapists, as this author
2:08:18
suggests, they must validate female feelings. Denying female feelings is white male system
2:08:24
thinking. Quote. Therapy for women must confirm the female experience, whatever that
2:08:30
may be. In the past, reality testing has often meant testing out the
2:08:35
white male system reality, which may have nothing at all to do with the
2:08:39
female system reality. The therapeutic approach must validate women's experiences of her own reality
2:08:45
and help her understand it. Women must never be talked out of her perceptions.
2:08:50
If a woman feels she is discriminated against her work, then of course
2:08:54
she is. If she feels she is married to a chauvinist, then of
2:08:58
course she is. End quote next quote here from a little bit later.
2:09:03
Women know a great deal about healing themselves. They do not need to be
2:09:09
encouraged nor judged. They need to be set free, not led along.
2:09:13
Most of all, they need to feel good about what they are doing.
2:09:18
They so rarely have this experience that therapists do their best to facilitate it.
2:09:22
End quote. Pretty typical woo that we expect from feminists to women. They're
2:09:30
just great, They just know everything. You just need to give them space,
2:09:31
just let them, let them do whatever the hell it is. Interestingly
2:09:35
enough in the therapy section here talking about a female rage, because they do
2:09:39
kind of go together a little bit. Here on page ninety two, there's
2:09:43
a fascinating little thing here. The author asserts that there is always some degree
2:09:50
of truth in blaming people, specifically when women blame things. And a quote
2:09:56
that I've just got highlighted here from the author, I have never met a
2:10:01
woman who can go on blaming forever end quote. My note to that is
2:10:05
this author has never met a woman age ninety nine. I'm trying to inject
2:10:18
a little bit of humor to lighten this up, so not all of my
2:10:20
notes are just black pilling misery. Some of them might try to be somewhat.
2:10:26
I try to introduce some levity here. Of course, I did notice
2:10:30
some of my time of writing these notes. Part of the reason again it
2:10:33
took so long for me to go through this was I would become increasingly annoyed,
2:10:37
and eventually the notes I would be writing wouldn't be describing what was on
2:10:41
the bit I was highlighting, but would basically just be me saying you are
2:10:43
wrong, please please just stop. And at that point I was like,
2:10:48
Okay, I need to stop and go away for half an hour and then
2:10:52
come back and so I can stop telling this author they're just incredibly wrong and
2:10:58
stupid and wrong and all the words. But yes, page ninety nine,
2:11:01
let's sir, not bog this down anymore, shall we. Quote When a
2:11:05
woman is working through her rage phase, her therapist should never try to get
2:11:11
her to see the other side. End quote. So women must not try
2:11:16
to empathize with or understand the feelings of others. Only her feelings are valid.
2:11:20
The final stage of this therapy is what the author calls the awareness stage,
2:11:24
in which women are aware of the white male system. They trust themselves
2:11:28
and other women for some bizarre reason. If she is accused of being white
2:11:33
male system, she may actually be being white male system, but she's just
2:11:37
using it. Because it is congruent with her needs. In other words,
2:11:41
the white male system may be part of the female system when used correctly by
2:11:46
women, the female system once again being this undefinable, wibbily wobbily womanness.
2:11:56
I have the burbs, therefore I'm right. Yes, it's just interesting that
2:12:01
this author's entire thing about therapy is just listen and believe woman is always right
2:12:07
no matter what. I would be intrigued to know what any other therapist might
2:12:13
say about this, who is not indoctrinated into this absolute insanity. Yes,
2:12:18
I did toss Prim's name into into this in the email that I sent first
2:12:26
over to Brian, I was like, given so much of this is about
2:12:28
therapy, would is this something Prim would like to do? And honestly,
2:12:35
going through this, I'm kind of thinking maybe no, because she'd like to
2:12:39
spare her sanity. I certainly wouldn't blame her for doing so. Absolutely well,
2:12:45
we need to trace the origin of the current the APA's current guidelines for
2:12:50
men and masculinity. This this, this woman is informing how men are treated
2:12:56
when they have mental health issues. Yes, so I would say prayer if
2:13:01
you are listening, or if someone can inform her of this, point her
2:13:05
to these streams, and point her to this book and say like, look,
2:13:07
this book has very solid connections, especially through like the twelve step program
2:13:13
and whatnot that the author help had, Like there is a solid link between
2:13:18
this and what the APA is doing. Now it might be of interest to
2:13:20
you, even just from like an academic perspective, knowing where it came from.
2:13:26
Frustrating as it will be to read it, it might actually help in
2:13:31
some capacity in her practice. So chapter five, the Female System and the
2:13:37
White Male System, New Ways of looking at our culture. Throughout this chapter,
2:13:43
the author relates the white male system to pollution, because, of course
2:13:50
she does a rather interestingly, there's a subsection in this called defining time quote.
2:13:56
In the female system as well as other racial systems, times perceived as
2:14:00
a process, a series of passages, a series of interlocking cycles, which
2:14:03
may or may not have anything to do with numbers on a clock. Frequently
2:14:07
the clock is irrelevant and may even be seen as interfering with the process of
2:14:11
time. Early, late, and on time. I just concepts with no
2:14:16
real meaning end quote. You're probably immediately thinking of that Smithsonian thing about how
2:14:22
white supremacy is being on time, A bunch of recent yes and a bunch
2:14:28
of the recent viral TikTok crap of women complaining about time blindness and how they
2:14:35
have time blindness and thus them being held to any standard of being on time
2:14:41
by their employer is unfair. My question to them in those sorts of situations
2:14:46
would always be, so you forget to show up on time? Do you
2:14:48
ever forget to punch out on time? When you always get that at the
2:14:52
right time, and you know, when you when you order things off the
2:14:56
internet or you know, you get like takeaways or you order an uber or
2:14:58
something like that, do you ever notice if they show up on time?
2:15:01
Or do you ever notice if they show up late? Or does it not
2:15:05
concern you? Or is it? Is it only when you're expected to show
2:15:07
up on time suddenly it becomes an issue. That's exactly how it works,
2:15:11
isn't it every single time? It's whenever the onus is on you, you
2:15:15
have time blindness. Everyone else must definitely keep a very strict schedule, though,
2:15:18
because you will certainly notice if they are off in their timing. MM,
2:15:24
it's it's entirely it's judging the world entirely by women's benefit. And if
2:15:31
if standards must be kept when serving women, but when women are being held
2:15:35
to a standard that that's not acceptable, even a standard that is pretty much
2:15:43
neutral, like time, I was just, I'm just It reminds me of
2:15:46
again my mother's experience when she was she was a feminist in the seventies,
2:15:52
in the early eighties, and she was an editor of a newspaper, and
2:15:58
because she wanted to maintain standards of grammar and legibility, she got drummed out
2:16:05
because standards are patriarchal. But here's the problem, ladies, how do you
2:16:09
run a society without standards? But the thing is that those aspects of society,
2:16:18
like you know, she's not calling out utilities as part of the mail
2:16:22
system because those aspects benefit her, so she doesn't have to Anything that men
2:16:26
do that benefits her is thus part of her system because it benefits her.
2:16:31
But as soon as it ceases to benefit her, then it's the mail system.
2:16:35
You see, how it's so arbitrary, Like even though most of utilities
2:16:41
would disappear if men disappeared, and all of the domestic violence and rape,
2:16:43
Nope, that's not going to disappear if men disappear. But that's part of
2:16:46
the mail system because she don't like it, or men thinking they can touch
2:16:52
women as part of the mail system even though it doesn't happen. All this
2:16:54
shit that's part of the mail system is stuff that doesn't benefit her or she
2:16:58
finds harmful, but anything that does is part of her system, even if
2:17:01
it wouldn't exist without men. That's how freaking arbitrary this is, and how
2:17:09
meaningless at the end of the day, and how much it really at the
2:17:15
at its heart is simply an extension of our instinct to make sure that men
2:17:20
women are protected and provided for. Men's instinct to make sure women are protected
2:17:24
and provided for, and to see themselves as valid based on how well they
2:17:28
protect and provide for women. That's what this is an extension of. She
2:17:33
has invented nothing new. She's just concentrated something she's inherited from someone else,
2:17:41
and she will never escape it. That's the great irony is that these femtopianists,
2:17:48
they want men to cease to exist, but they still rely on men
2:17:50
for everything. These pemutopianists. All right, well, let's hear about how
2:18:00
time would work in the phemutopia. So the author goes on to assert that
2:18:03
women have brought most into the white male system time and as such, they
2:18:07
will usually show up within about fifteen minutes or so of being on time.
2:18:13
Black people are usually within half an hour of being on time, and Native
2:18:16
Americans might be days or weeks late. Is this what she said? Yes,
2:18:22
this is what the author said. And then men will be on time.
2:18:26
Yes, men will be on time. Everyone else will be varying degrees
2:18:30
of late based on this weird racial casting system. Okay, just I gotta
2:18:35
mentioned this. Okay, So guys, who would you rather be served by?
2:18:39
Who would you rather be running the utilities and everything else that's required for
2:18:45
society to continue to exist? People who are on time and hold themselves to
2:18:50
standards or every anyone else. Yeah, when you read through how the author
2:18:58
defines the like this, it's just kind of like, yeah, no,
2:19:01
I want why men to be running everything because they'll actually be reliable according to
2:19:09
this. I mean, Native Americans might be days or even weeks late from
2:19:13
a time. It's well, okay, their societies must suck then, because
2:19:20
surely they're incredibly unreliable. But hey, whatever this is those are author's words,
2:19:26
not mine. I happen to think anyone's capable of being on time,
2:19:28
they just have to learn to be somewhat reliable and actually respect the time and
2:19:33
value other people. I'm guessing that these people can't. Time is not this
2:19:41
like arbitrary standard. And I know the irony of me saying this, considering
2:19:48
Honey Badger's Radio's reputation on starting on time, although I will point out that
2:19:54
other YouTubers often don't even like just completely band in a stream, and we
2:20:00
usually do not do that unless you know somebody's been hit by a meteorite.
2:20:05
But the overall my point is that time is a recognition of the value of
2:20:11
other people's lives. Right. So, once again, the process of reason,
2:20:18
the process of determining reality through reason, is an equitable process in which
2:20:24
everybody can contribute evidence and logic. That's its very nature. It's a space
2:20:28
where nobody has priority over anyone else except for as they can, as they
2:20:35
can persuade others. It's an incredi it's a completely equal playing field. Of
2:20:41
course, there will be some variation and skill, whereas this idea of feels
2:20:46
not reals means that only one person can dominate. Only one person is at
2:20:52
the center of the victim hierarchy, and there feels be reals and everyone else's
2:20:56
feels be not reals. Okay, so they don't even have a right to
2:20:58
the feelings. It's a horrible imposition of dominance and dogma onto the individual.
2:21:07
And then once again time. What does this mean? What is the time
2:21:11
system? It's so that we can coordinate our activities to better benefit everyone.
2:21:20
So you're like, no, my time is the most precious and everybody else
2:21:24
has to abide by when I think I should arrive, when I think I
2:21:30
should do things, when I think I should be able to get things done
2:21:33
by. That is exactly what the author says in the anecdote that follows this
2:21:37
section. Oh good, okay, good, gree So the author anecdotes at
2:21:43
this point in time that people who show up on time to things, they
2:21:46
aren't really there because they stopped doing something else in order to come to a
2:21:54
meeting. So the author ran an experiment in there wherever they did this,
2:21:58
and they said, at the start of a meeting, go and do whatever
2:22:01
you were doing before, you were doing before you came here, and then
2:22:05
come back. And this meant that all of the meetings would usually start according
2:22:11
to clock time, they would start between ten and twenty minutes later than they
2:22:16
should. The author then asserts that the remaining forty to fifty minutes of this
2:22:22
time was more productive because everyone was truly there in they were truly mind and
2:22:28
body in the room, using her method of time. No evidence or metric
2:22:35
is used to demonstrate this supposed improvement in output because of ignoring clocks. But
2:22:41
that's just white mail system thinking. Obviously, if she says things were better,
2:22:46
they were better. I have the boobs, I make reality. Yes,
2:22:54
good grief. No, it's definitely not right defying relationships. Soo,
2:23:01
this is where things get a little more fun, and by fun I mean
2:23:03
substantially worse. So page one O eight, the author asserts, white male,
2:23:09
white male system thinks only in hierarchies. There is only above and below.
2:23:13
There are no other possible interactions. Men cannot into having peers, apparently
2:23:22
quote. In the female system, relationships are philosophically conceived of as peer until
2:23:28
proven otherwise. This is only true of women who feel clear and strong and
2:23:33
have come to trust their own system. In other words, each new encounter
2:23:37
holds the promise of equality. One does not have to be one up or
2:23:41
one down, superior or inferior, one can be peer end quote. My
2:23:48
note to this is women never get cattie or backstabby. They only ever see
2:23:52
each other as never ending equals or and Williams twenty twenty again, Yeah,
2:24:01
there is no sisterhood. Well, also, what the hell is she even
2:24:05
talking about? This sounds like absolute one hundred percent projection. Everything she doesn't
2:24:09
like about herself is mail system, just like everything that she likes about the
2:24:13
world is part of her system, and everything that isn't his mail system.
2:24:18
This is you cannot like, there's no way to argue somebody out this kind
2:24:22
of mental illness. Yeah, I just love this. It's just men can't
2:24:24
have Pia's. Apparently we all see each other as one off, well one
2:24:28
down. There's no sense of equal there's no camaraderie, no sense of brotherhood,
2:24:37
no sense of things like no man left behind. All these things don't
2:24:41
exist. And also even camaraderie within a hierarchy. And men, in my
2:24:46
experience, men will construct a hierarchy and that's the best way to get something
2:24:52
done. They'll construct this sort of weird lateral hierarchy where you know, the
2:24:56
dude that has this skill is the master of this particular domain and the dude
2:25:00
that there's EO, etc. If that's the most efficient way to get things
2:25:03
done, it's I think I've talked about this before regarding psychological difference between men
2:25:09
and Women's like, when it comes to men and women, they will or
2:25:11
men they will hierarchy themselves, but they tend to hierarchy themselves to areas of
2:25:16
expertise. So you could take the same group of men and in different situations,
2:25:20
different men will take on leadership roles according to what they do, whereas
2:25:24
with women, it's a sort of wider horizontal hierarchying across everything else. As
2:25:31
in, there tends to be one sort of most socially dominant woman and she
2:25:37
will insist on maintaining that position no matter the circumstances. And you can see
2:25:43
that born out in reality. I mean, even if you just go and
2:25:46
look at some of those dumb ass reality TV shows where it's like women versus
2:25:50
men on a desert island. Well, the men there might be a bit
2:25:54
of jostling. Some of them will take initiative in some areas, some will
2:25:56
take in other areas, but they will sort themselves out into from areas of
2:26:00
expertise, and some will go an experiment with this thing, and some will
2:26:03
go an experiment with that thing, and whoever has success in whatever area tends
2:26:07
to sort of take up a then a mentoring role and shows like, Okay,
2:26:11
I've done this, this is how it works, and they will show
2:26:13
the other men and but it will never be a universal thing. So it's
2:26:18
like, okay, so we've got one guy here. He experimented with this
2:26:20
thing fishing. It was successful. Okay, that's his thing. You want
2:26:24
to learn it, go and talk to him. But then the women never
2:26:28
achieve anything because they basically just spend all of their time bitching at each other
2:26:31
because they want to work out who's the alpha pitch while they achieve nothing.
2:26:35
And that, Yeah, and that just seems to be a general psychological difference
2:26:41
between men and women. It's I'm not even actually going to say that one
2:26:45
is necessarily better than the other, because they both clearly serve different objectiveness in
2:26:50
evolution. But what it seems to be is the queen be well. First
2:26:56
of all, I think women's quote unquote hierarchies are more about divving up resources.
2:27:03
Make sure that I guess resources are equal in some way, the queen
2:27:07
bee can either make other women comply to the system of divving up resources,
2:27:13
or she has demonstrated a means by which to get those resources in the first
2:27:16
place, usually by developing some way of getting men to release their resources to
2:27:26
her. And it's it's so that's sort of the that's sort of the way
2:27:31
women work. It's it's more about making sure that everybody gets equal resources,
2:27:37
because again that whole idea that if if if somebody else, if somebody else
2:27:41
gets something more than you, anybody else can get as much as you get
2:27:46
or less. Otherwise you reject it and you don't want to uh, you
2:27:52
don't want to see anyone else getting more. It's being able to control that
2:27:56
that I think that the queen bee sort of comes in is to be to
2:28:00
so she will be able to make sure every all the women get as much
2:28:05
as they think that they deserve and nobody gets any more than that. And
2:28:13
so I think that's where she comes in. So it's just a means of
2:28:16
keeping the women from engaging in that kind of that kind of resentment, I
2:28:22
suppose. And again, like when women look at what men do, they
2:28:26
don't understand it because they don't understand. First of all, they don't say,
2:28:31
understand taking identity from achieving a goal. That's one thing, like men
2:28:35
will live in a hole in the ground and eat juniper berries and be happy
2:28:41
taking an identity from being of benefit to something, and women don't understand that.
2:28:48
They'd be like, but but how do you need to make sure everybody
2:28:50
gets equal numbers of juniper berries? And it's like, well, it's not
2:28:54
really about that. It's about taking an identity from generating resources or being of
2:28:58
benefit to something greater than myself. And they just don't like it. Just
2:29:01
planned they do not fucking understand that. Most women just don't understand it.
2:29:07
It's like a dog trying to understand Latin. It's like, and they misunderstand
2:29:13
the nature of men's hierarchies, and they project their own hierarchies onto men,
2:29:20
because one thing that women are is when somebody is outside the hierarchy of women,
2:29:28
they are fucking nobody. They are meat on the hoof to be killed,
2:29:33
like they once they're outside the light of the camp fire, they might
2:29:37
as well be demons. So when women look at men's hierarchies, they're like,
2:29:43
well, who's who's being cast out. Who's being who's having their humanity
2:29:48
revoked, must be the men underneath the guy on the top, you know.
2:29:52
And and they don't understand a hierarchy based on merit and worth and cooperative
2:29:58
sacrifice through cooperation, because they don't understand taking an identity from that. To
2:30:03
them, it's some kind of subjugation because they see the guy you know,
2:30:09
in the middle, and he's working and he's receiving one hundred thousand, and
2:30:13
the guy on the top is receiving two hundred thousand, and he's like,
2:30:15
well, that's oppression, whereas it's just an understanding that the guy on the
2:30:20
top is must be doing something more, or is being rewarded for having a
2:30:26
greater insight or having a skill that others don't have, you know. So
2:30:31
it's like in a lot of this as kind of think is coming out of
2:30:33
this. She does not understand how men think or work. And because she's
2:30:41
an ape, she doesn't understand. She has to kill it. She has
2:30:46
to use all of the tools at her disposal to ostracize it, to throw
2:30:52
it out of the tribe, to make it wrong. All right, all
2:31:00
right, I hope that wasn't too negative. People say I'm too negative towards
2:31:03
women, but I mean, honestly, you have to You have to understand
2:31:07
that men have their own virtues through their own psychology, and women do not
2:31:13
understand them. They don't understand. They're going to complain about being negative towards
2:31:18
women. I'm just going to say, it's not necessarily negativity to women.
2:31:22
It's simply recognizing what they do in attempting to hold them to a standard that
2:31:26
should not make you feel uncomfortable, and the fact that it does says something
2:31:31
well about the situation that we're in. Women can understand these things, but
2:31:37
first they have to know that they are valid, like men's way of being,
2:31:43
when men's way of thinking is absolutely one hundred percent critical to our survival
2:31:48
and the fact that we're rejecting and marginalizing and ostracizing that the missentry is going
2:31:54
to destroy our future. And if women don't understand them, they can't do
2:32:01
what they do to advocate for men and masculinity and bring it back into its
2:32:07
proper role in society. So women have to understand this and they can actually
2:32:13
legitimate It's it's this funny thing where it's not necessarily that it's women. It's
2:32:20
women who are not adults. It's this kind of undifferentiated, emniotic femininity that
2:32:30
has never developed itself, never held itself to a standard, and never opened
2:32:35
itself to understand the other. Okay, and I mean, I'm being pretty
2:32:41
harsh, but I think it's deserved at this point, because that's what we're
2:32:43
looking at. We're looking at society being devoured by the feminine, the feminine,
2:32:50
the feminist fetus. Okay, all right, let's have a funny anecdote,
2:32:56
shall we that the author thinks demonstrates that this is of course, because
2:33:01
it's one of the author's anecdotes. It didn't happen, but it's still a
2:33:05
funny mental image, which is why she put it into the book. So
2:33:07
the author asserts that she had a conversation with a man, and because men
2:33:13
and the white male system only ever think in hierarchies and one up, one
2:33:18
down, they adopt postures according to who is one up and one down,
2:33:22
And this man didn't go and when she, as a woman, didn't go
2:33:28
down towards him, she didn't physically make herself smaller. He saw this as
2:33:33
a threat to himself somehow, and so he started stooping down lower in front
2:33:39
of her. He would stand a little bit shorter, and then she would
2:33:43
do the same thing. She would she would hunt herself down a little bit
2:33:46
to be on the same level, and the guy just kept going down and
2:33:52
lowering himself and lowering himself and luring himself because she wouldn't ever go lower than
2:33:56
him in this physical standing situation that they were in. And so it leads
2:34:03
to this comedic scene where this man is standing with a back stooped over like
2:34:07
a cooked prawn because he couldn't accept that a woman wouldn't go down before him,
2:34:13
and so he just had to go down before her. And when someone
2:34:18
commented on this on this thing she said, asked her what the hell was
2:34:22
going on? She responded at, well, I'm just trying to stay on
2:34:26
peer level with him. Wouldn't wouldn't that have her extend upwards? Like I'm
2:34:35
okay, sego didn't happen. Yeah, I know I didn't happen, But
2:34:39
I'm trying to understand how it justifies her point, because it sounds like this
2:34:43
guy is going down to be eye level with her. No, no,
2:34:48
he's like bowing in submission because she didn't bow in submission to him. It
2:34:54
hasn't any like how okay, but how does that? How does a man
2:34:58
crouching in front of do you mean that he wants to dominate you by being
2:35:01
taller than you? It doesn't. It's it's because she didn't bow down to
2:35:07
him. He immediately felt threatened, and so he had to go down in
2:35:13
front of her because she was taking a dominant position. I swear to fuck
2:35:16
this woman is just an ape gets her brain. She just has got ape
2:35:20
brain. He was trying to make it so you didn't have to crane your
2:35:26
neck. The guys do that. They'll crouch a bit so you are looking
2:35:31
eye level. It's what you know adults do with children sometimes or animals that
2:35:37
are particularly sagianed, like sometimes I'll do it with my dog, you know.
2:35:43
So it's it's like you're getting down an eye level so you are equal
2:35:46
with the person you're talking to, so they don't feel uncomfortable because your stature
2:35:52
is greater than theirs. How did she turn that into some kind of dominance
2:35:56
display? Should I just read the anecdote because ahead going quite funny in some
2:36:01
ways. It might explain it a little better than I can In my short
2:36:05
form. So when two persons are physically present in the same place, this
2:36:09
shuffle from superior to inferior is obvious. For example, let's say that a
2:36:15
man and a woman meet and begin a discussion. The man assumes that the
2:36:18
woman will go one down, and when she does not, he does not
2:36:20
know quite what to do next. He shifts from one foot to the other
2:36:24
and actually moves his body from side to side like a game cock. It
2:36:28
is almost possible to see in his face when he's thinking, Oh, my
2:36:31
goodness, she's not going one down. She's supposed to go one down.
2:36:35
What do I do now? Someone has to go one down? Gulp.
2:36:39
I guess it will have to be me. At this point, his posture
2:36:41
visibly changes. He seems to sink and get smaller, assuming a stooped position
2:36:46
and hating every minute of it. He also hates the person who has made
2:36:50
him go one down, and this colors their conversation from that point onwards.
2:36:56
Of course, no one made him go one day. He chose to go
2:37:01
one down because that is the way he believes encounters and relationships have to be.
2:37:05
If the woman will not go one down, then he must. But
2:37:09
he resents it this is more or less what happened during a conversation with my
2:37:13
client's father. When I chose to stay peer and did not go one down,
2:37:18
he went one down. I happened to be talking to him on a
2:37:22
wall telephone. My husband came into the room and started laughing and saying,
2:37:26
what on earth are you doing in that funny position? He asked, I
2:37:30
was leaning over to the side in what must have looked like a very uncomfortable
2:37:35
and contorted posture. In response to his question, I whispered very seriously,
2:37:39
trying to stay peer with this fellow. When I refused to go one down.
2:37:45
My client's father had shuffled and gone one down himself. I had stooped
2:37:50
to stay level with him, and he had shuffled and gone one down again.
2:37:54
His belief in his system prevented him from taking the opportunity to be peer
2:37:58
with me. All he knew was that relationships had to be one up,
2:38:03
one down. That was his reality, that was the way he saw the
2:38:07
world. He could not relax into accepting a peer interaction, and trying to
2:38:13
stay peer with him nearly gave me a backache. What else, So she's
2:38:20
married? Okay? What the hell? Everyone in the room stood up and
2:38:24
clapped. Alison, you don't understand, okay, so oh so she probably
2:38:31
starts out shorter than him, right? Is that peer to peer at that
2:38:35
point? What's peer? What is pier in her logic? Like she stands
2:38:41
up, he stands up, and he's like, oh, oh this,
2:38:43
this woman's eyes are lower than mine. I'll crouch over a little so so
2:38:48
that we can be looking eye to eye. And then she's like, oh
2:38:50
my god, this is a dominant display. He thinks that I haven't bowed
2:38:56
to him, so he's bowed to me. Like, what what do you
2:39:00
think it's supposed to happen? Are you supposed to like when when he comes
2:39:03
to talk to you, you crouch and stare at his nipples? Like?
2:39:07
Is that? Is that? That? Going one down? Like? I
2:39:11
don't even understand what the fuck she's talking about. She just seems to think
2:39:13
that any time two people, like especially men, talk to each other,
2:39:18
one of them always like hunches over and becomes shorter and like submissive to the
2:39:22
other, which just like doesn't happen, but she seems to think that it
2:39:28
does. Well, wouldn't that be because one man might be shorter and he's
2:39:31
just trying to the eye level. Like, I mean, she's she's clearly
2:39:37
never seen like shorter men talking to taller men. It's actually shorter men tend
2:39:43
to stand up taller. But yeah, you know, and maybe maybe Tom
2:39:48
and might crouch a little. But but I don't even understand what the fuck
2:39:52
she thinks this means. Like it seems like she's interpreting key brain shit.
2:39:56
She thinks it means monkey brain shit. That isn't because she monkey, She's
2:40:01
she monkey, she returned to monkey. Yes, Okay, so basically this
2:40:07
is all solved by simply saying that she she is a monkey. Okay,
2:40:13
how are you doing there, Brian? You've been quiet. I'm just taking
2:40:18
it all in, taking just taking all the are you are you trying to
2:40:24
one one up? No? No, I don't. I don't even want
2:40:30
any part of that competition. But I mean no, I'm just I'm just
2:40:35
I'm just like, I'm not even sure how that would even fucking work,
2:40:39
Like, are you trying to crouch down? Therefore, oh, dominating him?
2:40:46
Look, all I'm gonna say on this regard is doge my aunt list
2:40:50
can give exceptional belly scratches. Yes, that's all I'm just gonna float that
2:40:54
out there. That sounds like dominant crap to me. Here, I'm gonna
2:40:58
make myself bigger so that I dominated, no smaller, smaller, so I
2:41:03
can establish dominance in the reverse sense. There we go. I see what
2:41:09
you did with the stream? All nicely done? Yeah? Anyway, right,
2:41:20
so shall we talk about how women perceive relationships now, because it's obviously
2:41:24
superior? Okay, how much? How many more of these little segments are
2:41:28
there? Uh, there's basically this one. There's a little bit about sexuality,
2:41:35
and then we hit chapters six and seven, which is where we get
2:41:37
into the really weird religious shit. But we kind of covered that in the
2:41:43
last stream. I don't know if you still want to do that again or
2:41:46
not. No, no, no, let's not repeat any kind of well
2:41:48
we can do maybe the quickest amount of the religious ship just as Yeah.
2:41:54
Alright, so a page one twelve women to find the world by relationships.
2:41:58
This is why they achieve less than men. Apparently men lie to women to
2:42:03
get them into relationships by focusing on the woman at first, and then as
2:42:09
time goes on, they go back to focusing on work. Women know that
2:42:13
this means he loves her less apparently, but because his thinking is white male
2:42:16
system, he doesn't realize that to be the case. Apparently, women literally
2:42:22
do need to be the center of the universe. It's just basically all I've
2:42:26
got written about how this author thinks women see the world. They define everything
2:42:31
by relationships. And apparently if men don't focus on a woman as much after
2:42:37
several years as he did when they were dating, that means he loves her
2:42:39
less. Definitely loves her less. It's not that he's like going out and
2:42:43
spending time working harder to provide for her because he loves her possibly more now.
2:42:50
It's definitely definitely that he loves her less. Absolutely, I'll trust this
2:42:54
woman's conjecture on men Nope, page one nineteen sexuality who things are going to
2:43:01
get very warm. The white male system defines everything by sex, including inanimate
2:43:07
objects, because of course, female system doesn't define things bisexuality at all.
2:43:15
Sex is not even a focus. However, the female system sees sex as
2:43:18
important, fun and sacred. It does not define the world because if it
2:43:24
did, it would be white male system, and that preoccupation would mean that
2:43:28
you would have to focus on estophobias. This is the stupidest shit i've ever
2:43:31
heard. Yes, Because, according to this author, the white male system
2:43:37
just everything is sex and always has to be. You either must be hetero
2:43:39
or homo, or buy or a or all the other words didn't exist yet,
2:43:46
but the list could go on. It's really weird. So the white
2:43:52
male system created the LGB alphabet. People, yes, somehow, that's why.
2:44:00
Interesting way of phrasing that, and actually, yes, potentially there is
2:44:03
one way of looking at it, which would be really interesting to ask the
2:44:09
author about forty years later. M Well, she'd probably be a turf,
2:44:13
so there you go. Okay, Yeah, so she just asserts that the
2:44:18
female system doesn't see the like it sees. Sex is important, but that
2:44:22
it doesn't define everything. This is just fairly typical Freudian nonsense, honestly.
2:44:30
But on page twenty one, oh yes, actually no, page one twenty
2:44:35
we can talk about that one. Some guy actually just literally blurts out in
2:44:39
one of the author's anecdotes that everything is about sex. It's another funny anecdote
2:44:45
that didn't happen here. One day she was walking through a wood with a
2:44:48
friend who one day it was a spring dame. One day, he suddenly
2:44:52
threw his hands up in the air and just said, ah, sex.
2:44:56
And she was startled and asked where, and he said, all around you,
2:45:01
the flowers, the butterfly, is the grass. Everything is sex.
2:45:05
This anecdote didn't happen. Is not mentally stable. This is not a conversation
2:45:11
that any person has ever God just but yep again that everyone everyone on the
2:45:18
bus stood up and clapped. So page one twenty one, the author talks
2:45:22
about sex as transcendence in focusing on sex, men use sex as a means
2:45:28
to transcend Women do not focus on sex, and so they use literally everything
2:45:33
else in reality as a means of transcendence. My note on this is that
2:45:37
this is just more new age wo women are more spiritual than men. And
2:45:41
it's interesting that she mentions transcendence here because that's also somewhat tied to the Hegelian
2:45:48
concept of al Faber and even though she doesn't mention it, because transcendence and
2:45:54
ascendance are very important things in that because of we've covered that before. Well
2:46:05
yeah, well, on page one twenty three, the author literally asserts that
2:46:11
the white male system sees love as actions, as forms of action, and
2:46:15
as doing things, and the female system sees love as a flow of energy
2:46:18
from a solar plexus to solar plexus. More new age WU here, but
2:46:24
also actually not technically wrong from male and female psychological standards, as the author
2:46:33
mentioned earlier, you know, talking about men seeming to be more absent in
2:46:37
relationships as they go on, but it's because they're doing other things in order
2:46:41
to provide, because that's how they show affection. But the author just doesn't
2:46:45
know that or understand that when she also then notes somewhat correctly that women focus
2:46:52
more on relationships and the emotional side of it and somewhat fail to understand that
2:46:58
the provision is how their man is showing that they love them. And this
2:47:03
just seems to be a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding between the sexes that someone needs to
2:47:09
explain to people, but we already do. It's just that no one seems
2:47:13
to listen, because god knows why. She talks about friendships on page one
2:47:20
twenty six. Interesting this one. Here men see friends as people who can
2:47:28
be relied upon as part of a team. She previously stated that men are
2:47:37
only able to see the wall as one up and one down, but now
2:47:41
men can be teams and team players and the men can team play with friends
2:47:48
but never actually know anything about them or be that close to them. Yeah,
2:47:54
it doesn't understand doesn't understand how men can drive a shared identity from a
2:47:58
shared goal. Yeah, and this is something that is a pathological thing about
2:48:03
our society. We don't really understand male psychology at all the APA they're basically
2:48:11
just spider monkeys masturbating themselves at this point. They're just so freaking primitive and
2:48:16
dumb. They have no concept of male psychology because they don't choose to actually
2:48:20
recognize it as something a valid area of study, so that it's just there's
2:48:26
a complete void. And in terms of how men operate, how they develop
2:48:33
identity, how they develop a sense of fellow feeling, what is required for
2:48:39
men to be emotionally, they get their emotional needs met all. Everything in
2:48:45
psychology comes down to do it like women. That's it. Okay. So
2:48:54
she goes on to talk about friendships, a female system of us friends as
2:48:58
people who can be open with and express dealings with because it is safe.
2:49:03
Sure, she talks about parenting a little bit here. Interesting given what we've
2:49:09
talked about. You know, I just last topic. I just wanted to
2:49:15
say one thing. Okay, particularly for men, but masculine individuals doing something
2:49:22
can help process emotions. So this idea that men are they have these shallow
2:49:28
relationships as they come together for a goal. What if they are processing their
2:49:35
emotions in parallel and moving through the process of recovery psychological recovery in parallel.
2:49:45
We don't really know because we haven't looked at it in the context of men
2:49:50
being their own valid way of being. But that's the thing, Like she
2:49:56
talks about talking as being the only way to process emotions, but you can
2:50:01
also process them through doing things with a companion, with the teammate in the
2:50:11
that is a way of being social. Like we have this kind of inability
2:50:16
to recognize that when men are in the same vicinity doing something together, that
2:50:24
that could be a means of being social and deriving benefit from each other socially.
2:50:33
They don't have to express themselves the way women do in order then for
2:50:39
them to be engaging in a companion it activity is what I'm getting act And
2:50:43
we don't seem to recognize this because again, psychology's only statement towards men is
2:50:50
do it like women or it's it's not right. Okay, continue, okay,
2:50:56
yeah, so parenting. This is actually kind of me. I didn't
2:51:00
miss a paragraph earlier when we were talking about children. It is irrelevant because
2:51:03
the author does mention her children in this part. There was a point earlier
2:51:09
in this book, in the children's section, where the author related an anecdote
2:51:11
about giving birth to her children. Her first child was a daughter, and
2:51:18
she alleges that she was told by one of the nursing staff who was present,
2:51:24
too bad or first was a girl, better luck next time. And
2:51:28
when she had her second child, who was a son, she alleges that
2:51:31
a member of the nursing staff said, you finally did it. I guess
2:51:35
since you've got a son now, you won't want any more children. This
2:51:37
is bullshit. Didn't happen. Yeah, that's just my note on it didn't
2:51:41
happen. But it's just a guaranting there is nursing staff would lose their jobs.
2:51:46
There's nursing staff would well, or at least they would at the time.
2:51:50
If it wasn't like the eighties, they would probably be firmly talking to
2:51:54
if you make it. A patient uncomfortable with statements like that, unless it
2:51:58
was intended to be A Joe who knows I'm just happy to chalk them up
2:52:03
to didn't happen. Yeah, so parenting. The white male system views parenting
2:52:11
as having instilling values and goals into your children. The female system means new
2:52:16
age wu. It means facilitating a child's development and unfolding. The emphasis is
2:52:22
not on making a child into something, but on participating in the children's discovery
2:52:28
of who they are. Just typical woo nonsense here, as she actually says
2:52:37
later on the important language to look out for. Here, the female system
2:52:39
emphasizes the process of growing and becoming. The white male system emphasizes the content
2:52:46
of being a white male system person. What the growing and becoming based on
2:52:56
what external metric? Like grown dialectic hence the term becoming, the racing your
2:53:03
paradoxes and your contradictions. Yes, yeah, but even the Hegelian dialectic synthesis
2:53:13
could be seen as an external standard. This is nothing. This is like
2:53:18
the Hegelian dialectic. Like using the term but not understanding that there is an
2:53:26
Okay, yes there's a process, but there's that, but the process is
2:53:31
an external thing Like in this instance, she would have to recognize something other
2:53:37
than herself and then form a kind of synthesis with it. But she's not
2:53:41
doing that because that would be an external standard. So the Hegelian process absent
2:53:46
any kind of real process, but it is still process. Again, like
2:53:52
I said, this is this is a bunch of new age spiritualist woo.
2:53:56
A lot of it does not make sense. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that
2:54:03
at the end of the day, the revolution of nothing, because there is
2:54:07
it's it's end of history. Nonsense, there is nothing else. There are
2:54:11
no more contradictions. It's just a continual process from that point. Okay,
2:54:15
but there's But this is the problem within the Hegelian dialectic is the recognition of
2:54:22
something other than yourself that you synthesize with you. You are the thesis,
2:54:28
there's the anti thesis, and then you synthesize the two. There is no
2:54:33
recognition of anything other than self in this, the validity of anything other than
2:54:37
self in this, this is there's no process. There's only being. There's
2:54:41
no becoming in this, there's only being. She has conflated becoming with being.
2:54:48
Do you think she would recognize anything that she has to learn or evolve
2:54:54
into or integrate into herself? No, I have the boobs. Therefore I'm
2:55:00
right, that's not becoming, That is not even the process, that is
2:55:05
just being just just it's just an eternal state of epistemological privilege with no other
2:55:13
to integrate into. Do you see what I'm saying. That's not the process,
2:55:18
that's your analyzing it with logic, so kind of wasting your time.
2:55:24
It was system therefore invalid at this point. At this point, we're talking
2:55:30
about the very essence of conveying meaning of a recognition. Oh where here we
2:55:35
go of the recognition as somebody other than yourself is having a legitimate point of
2:55:39
view. That's the problem, literally, unless this is a revolution against meaning
2:55:46
itself, and it's a revolution against recognizing that anyone else has any legitimacy.
2:55:52
Yes, so it's just basically, I have the boobs, and I am
2:55:58
the supreme boob have her being the person who wrote this fucking book. Therefore
2:56:05
I am right, and you are wrong. Even if you have boobs,
2:56:07
you are wrong. I am the supreme havever of boobs because I believe that
2:56:13
the only truth is the boob, and I am the grand boob paw.
2:56:24
Yeah, all right, so power, because everything has to be about power.
2:56:30
But nope, but the it's fortunately These sections are all quite short because
2:56:35
this is just I don't know why I excited getting really really short towards the
2:56:39
end here. I guess the author started losing interest in what she was writing.
2:56:43
Who knows. Defining power. In a white male system, power is
2:56:46
conceived of as a zero sum fashion. In the female system, power is
2:56:52
limitless. Yeah, this is just fairly generic new age woo become female vibration
2:56:58
or being set yourself free from material constraints, and everything follows from there.
2:57:01
It basically just follows from there. It's yeah, there's really no other way
2:57:07
to describe it. It's just new age nonsense from this point on. And
2:57:11
the female system, power is viewed in the same way as love. It
2:57:15
is limitless, and when it has shared, it regenerates and expands. There
2:57:18
is no need to hoard it because it only increases when it is given away.
2:57:22
You see, it's just new age spiritualist bollocks. Basically. From that
2:57:26
point onwards, there's a small section here about money, which relates to the
2:57:35
white male system. Money is absolute and real and has value, It has
2:57:39
an intrinsic value. And in the female system money is relative and symbolic.
2:57:43
It has no meaning or value in and of itself. Yeah, and I
2:57:46
wonder you're mining it like it's fucking candy. Yeah. My note to that
2:57:52
is what was it? Yes, see women in divorce court, because it's
2:57:58
all symbolic, you see, it doesn't actually mean any thing, and it's
2:58:01
all relative. Of course, she relates a little bit of anecdotes about how
2:58:05
different people see money differently, and how women perceive things as having more or
2:58:09
less value relative to what it was, So then the value of men's labor
2:58:18
is completely arbitrary in the eyes of women. They are somewhat I'm trying to
2:58:26
go through some of these notes a little quicker, oh yes, page oh
2:58:37
yeah, because unfortunately my write up actually stops here. So I'm just sort
2:58:41
of thumbing through these last half dozen pages to get the bits which I would
2:58:45
have written about but apparently I didn't, which is annoying. But it's okay.
2:58:50
I will wing this bit. It's fine. So on page one thirty
2:58:54
four, the author makes a very interesting assertion when it comes to leadership roles.
2:59:00
She talks about how the white male system, leadership means to lead,
2:59:03
obviously, but in a female system, leadership means to facilitate and enable others
2:59:07
to make contributions to something. So in the female system, the leader's job
2:59:13
is to find people who have knowledge and skills and delegate responsibility to them.
2:59:18
So literally, female system is delegation, which I thought very interesting because it's
2:59:22
like, well, yeah in some ways because women just say and men do
2:59:28
things. So technically yes, in some capacity, but not the way that
2:59:33
you seem to think that it is. And then you get into the bits
2:59:39
about thought and actual thinking, which is interesting. So on page one thirty
2:59:48
five she talks about defining thought. In the white male system, thought is
2:59:50
perceived as a linear process one moves from A to B to C and so
2:59:54
on in order to reach some sort of conclusion. The female system thinking is
3:00:00
seen as multivariate and multidimensional. Welcome to new age Woo Again, female system
3:00:09
does not logic. So while the author even admits the linear thinking is efficient
3:00:18
and it allows you to reach conclusions, it is apparently not creative, whereas
3:00:24
multivariate thinking read female system thinking, on the other hand, takes more time
3:00:30
and makes more use of data like your feelings, intuition, process awareness.
3:00:39
These are all data. Now, apparently that female system thinking just takes into
3:00:45
account somehow. Also, decisions reached by linear thinking seldom fold or have full
3:00:54
support of the group concerned, while decisions reached by multivariate thinking do tend to
3:01:00
hold and have full support of the group. Again, it's the difference between
3:01:03
the purpose of female groups versus the purpose of male groups, and the fact
3:01:07
that females do not understand male groups like it's a female group is there to
3:01:13
divide resources in such a way that they do not trigger women's resentment over anybody
3:01:18
getting too much. Male groups exist in order to structure themselves, to build
3:01:24
something, or to exploit a resource, or to protect a goal. Okay,
3:01:31
so they take some kind of psychological sustenance from simply working together towards a
3:01:37
shared goal. And women do not understand this. So they turn and they
3:01:41
look at male groups and think that they must be doing what they're doing,
3:01:46
which is dividing up resources. So they think, and this is the great
3:01:50
delusion, they look at male hierarchies and they think that the resource that the
3:01:56
male hierarchy must be dividing up is the status. Let's you know, you
3:02:03
notice when we watched the Barbie movie, how all the Barbies all they did
3:02:09
was just sit around congratulately congratulating each other's for each other's statuses. Did you
3:02:13
notice that that is because that's what women think men's groups are. They somehow
3:02:24
are dividing up status is among the among themselves. Therefore, when you the
3:02:31
way that you get the benefit of the male group, and that's the way
3:02:33
they see their entry into the male system is by gaining the status. They
3:02:39
do not understand the process of gaining a sense of self and efficacy and understanding
3:02:46
of self through sacrifice for a shared goal. I'm trying to like bridge the
3:02:50
gap between male and female here. Men understand this. I honestly, I
3:02:56
think that men don't understand that. Women don't understand this. Women do not
3:03:01
understand that the status is not the point for men, it is the process
3:03:09
of developing a shared goal. The status is just a recognition of the merit
3:03:13
that you've attained so that you can effectively, you know, so people know
3:03:18
to go to you for the widget thing, to go to you for the
3:03:22
computer thing, to go to you for the mechanical thing. It's not about
3:03:28
the status. Isn't about isn't a resource. It is a marker of what
3:03:33
you can deliver others and women don't understand that they look at the male hierarchy
3:03:39
and they see, oh, the status must be a resource, so I'll
3:03:43
go in, I'll get the status, and that'll be the resource. They
3:03:46
don't understand everything else that's going into it. It's complete, it's it's actually
3:03:52
sort of humiliating to watch women misunderstand how men operate and how men and groups
3:04:00
operate, and reproject their own understanding of a group onto men and then functionally
3:04:07
completely misunderstand everything that's going on. And I'm not saying all women do this,
3:04:11
because there are some women who are more masculine in their thinking and they're
3:04:16
just like, oh, yeah, I'm going in and I'm just going to
3:04:18
do this is the role that I'm going to occupy in this group. I'm
3:04:22
happy with that, I understand it. But when feminist women who for whatever
3:04:28
reason, everybody thinks they're very masculine in my opinion, they're just really feminized
3:04:33
in their thinking but really bitchy about it, they absolutely cannot understand what is
3:04:39
going on. They don't understand the women. The women are engaged in some
3:04:45
kind of black magic. If you're like a more masculine woman who's just in
3:04:48
her little you know, doing her particular form of you know, your particular
3:04:54
thing that she has learned how to do. So she's just occupying a space
3:05:00
in the male hierarchy doing her thing, and everybody's fine where they're because she
3:05:03
does her thing. So it's just like the other men in the hierarchy,
3:05:05
and she understands that. She understands that her label means that she is able
3:05:11
to offer this kind of service to the overall goal. Okay, Feminist women
3:05:18
come into that and they're like, how is this woman doing that black magic?
3:05:22
She's got something I don't got. I want it. I honestly,
3:05:26
this is why women who have a great deal of wisdoms say that women need
3:05:31
to stay out of men's stuff, because they know it's not because the woman
3:05:35
shouldn't have the right to be able to do the thing. It's because they
3:05:39
know the other women will come along and say, why is that woman there?
3:05:43
Why does she get that? I get that I should have it,
3:05:46
And they do not understand. The woman in the position understands I'm here because
3:05:50
I can functionally do this thing. That's why I have this status, because
3:05:56
it's a recognition of what I give to the group. And a feminist woman
3:05:58
gets in and she's like, why don't I have that? I deserve it.
3:06:01
I'm a woman too, But she doesn't understand that it's a recognition of
3:06:05
what she gives to the group. She sees it only as a resource that
3:06:09
she has and doesn't have access to. And then she gets in and she
3:06:13
forces her way in by throwing around the weight of I got the boobs,
3:06:18
I make the rules, I'm the boobta and fox everything up. And those
3:06:24
women in the past we're like, no, we just don't start the process
3:06:28
because that's gonna because and it's not even because of the women who can manage
3:06:31
it. And it's not even about the women who have the wisdom to say
3:06:35
no, don't do it. It's about the women who are ape brained and
3:06:41
cannot see outside of themselves and outside of the world as they conceive of it
3:06:46
as women, as as as a woman without any understanding of the other conceives
3:06:52
of it. I am sorry for that long, rent, but there you
3:06:54
go. All right, share we talk about data processing and logic. I
3:07:01
feel like you're you're presenting this and you're just waiting for me to blow up.
3:07:05
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Also, it's a way of
3:07:11
getting through this somewhat quicker. But yeah, some of these last bits here,
3:07:16
they are just like quick little snaps of like differences between male and female
3:07:22
system According to ride Is, it's just it's just off in the distance,
3:07:26
just being like I'm done, let me do it. Okay, that's fy
3:07:31
okay, yep. So method of processing data. Men and women are not
3:07:35
not only think differently, they also process data differently. In general, a
3:07:39
man takes in information through the sense organs in his head. It is then
3:07:45
sent to the brain, where conclusions and decisions are made, and the brain
3:07:48
in turn transmits these conclusions and decisions to the rest of the body for action.
3:07:52
This type of rational thinking usually occurs in the left brain. A woman
3:07:56
takes in information through her solar plexus. It is received and processed there before
3:08:03
being sent to the right brain, then to the left brain, and then
3:08:07
back into the body for action. While white male system processing appears to be
3:08:13
more rational thinking, while female system processing is more similar to intuitive thinking.
3:08:18
Female system processing is often slower than white male system processing, and it is
3:08:22
very difficult to support it with logical statements. When questioned about their processing,
3:08:28
women can often do no more than throw their hands up and say I just
3:08:31
feel it or it feels right, and men will respond with what do feelings
3:08:37
have to do with? Thinking? I, you know what, that's so
3:08:46
stupid. I don't even have a response. Yeah, some of the stupids
3:08:50
in this section speak for themselves and do not need commentary. Honestly, I
3:08:54
think the logic one is somewhat similar. Logic is also used differently in the
3:09:00
two systems. In the white male system, logic is a tool one uses
3:09:05
to win. It does not matter if it is used with internal consistency or
3:09:09
balance. In the female system, logic is perceived as a clear, balanced
3:09:15
progression in which both grace and power are possible. Defining communication, in the
3:09:22
white male system, the purpose of communication is often to confuse, win,
3:09:26
and stay one up. In the female system, the purpose of communication is
3:09:31
to bridge, understand, and be understood. This is bullshit, yes,
3:09:37
but it is quite good. Actually, these little bits they basically all have
3:09:41
like a paragraph which is just maile system is this female system is this?
3:09:45
And then like three or four paragraphs of anecdotes that didn't happen, which I
3:09:48
can just ignore, which is quite useful. Yes, that's right. Defining
3:09:52
the mail stability. The male system that runs everything is not about communication,
3:10:00
merely about establishing dominance over resources, projection. Okay, continue now she talks
3:10:07
about well that a little bit later. So defining responsibility. In a white
3:10:11
male system, responsibility involves accountability and blame. The responsible person is the one
3:10:18
who is blamed if something goes wrong. In the female system, responsibility means
3:10:22
the ability to respond. A responsible person is one who does something when it
3:10:28
needs to be done, and blame never enters in met a woman. No
3:10:39
author has never met herself. Yeah, she's literally writing a book on blame
3:10:43
and she says the female system does not blame. Really, I take issue
3:10:48
with that because you just wrote a book blaming men. All right, let's
3:10:54
okay. Process, we can probably lose Brian. Yeah, this one might
3:11:01
actually be somewhat useful because it does mention process specifically, so process versus product.
3:11:07
The white male system has a product goal orientation. The ends almost always
3:11:11
justify the means, and it does not matter how a goal is achieved,
3:11:16
just so long as it is what counter outcomes. Men are constantly arranging their
3:11:20
lives in a series of goals. The female system is a process orientation.
3:11:26
A goal is less important than the process used to reach it. We have
3:11:28
little difficulty in changing goals and seldom feel guilty for not attaining our original ones,
3:11:35
except when men in our lives accuse us of failing. Oh God,
3:11:41
conservation make the rules also, you know, like if a chemical plant blows
3:11:46
up, it was about the process, yo, not the goal of not
3:11:50
blowing up a chemical plant. Like, all she's saying is that she doesn't
3:11:54
have an understanding of what it takes to run the male system that she doesn't
3:11:58
recognize as the male system because it benefits her, even if it would cease
3:12:03
to exist without men can keep going. Okay, I think there's like three
3:12:09
or four more that I can basically blitz through with like just the first paragraph
3:12:15
of them. Then then it's all the paradox dualism and religious stuff we did
3:12:20
in the first video. So it's fine, we can skip that. So
3:12:24
conservation and exploitation, many of the goals set up by the white male system
3:12:28
persons involves exploitation and using up. In contrast, female system goals require one
3:12:35
to conserve and live with. The white male system assumes that people, animals,
3:12:39
and the earth as a whole exist to support and be used by it.
3:12:43
Individual needs are overshadowed by the urge to generate more money and more things.
3:12:50
A well known hotel in New York City is a good example of this
3:12:52
attitude. It has piped in heat, piped in air conditioning, piped in
3:12:56
music, piped in smells. One can say they're indefinite lee and have no
3:13:00
relationship whatsoever with the city environment. Needless to say, it takes a tremendous
3:13:05
amount of energy to keep the hotel running. Then again, controlling the environment,
3:13:09
or in other words, being God, is a primary goal of the
3:13:11
white male system. The female's system is concerned with conservation and saving the planet.
3:13:20
In that respect, it is very similar to the Native American system.
3:13:22
One is expected to become attuned to the process, cycles, and seasons of
3:13:26
the earth, to live and move in harmony with them, rather than control
3:13:31
them. In conforming with these subjectives and this philosophy, female system persons often
3:13:39
get involved in ecological issues such as saving the whales, redwoods, and wilderness.
3:13:43
There are the forefront of movements which aim at stemming pollution. Okay,
3:13:50
so whatever, at any point mentions the women are the primary beneficiaries of these
3:13:54
things that men do. Yeah, that's the thing, Like you just think
3:13:58
that men are starving these resources just to fuck with the earth. I mean,
3:14:03
look, just take take into account the photographs of a single chair with
3:14:07
a TV and a game station in front of it, and women, just
3:14:11
like men, really think it's okay to live like this. Women how hate
3:14:16
how little it takes for us to be happy? And also what was it
3:14:22
twenty five percent of all rubbish which is generated is fashion for women and their
3:14:28
hygiene products? Or was it half? It was some ridiculous number. Well,
3:14:33
actually it's like fifteen percent or something like I think it was eight not
3:14:37
all rubbish, because if you include like commercial rubbish that I think it's like
3:14:43
fourteen percent of all rubbish. But like eighty percent of just consumer rubbish is
3:14:50
women's shit. Yeah yeah, Like when it comes to this who's destroying the
3:14:56
earth, who's producing the waste and all this, I was like, no,
3:14:58
I'm sorry when and not just way more consumerist than men. And the
3:15:03
reason men do all of this exploitation and stuff is because women demand it.
3:15:09
Yes, feeding why would a woman want like most women want to have a
3:15:13
billionaire if they could, Why so he can buy a billion dollars worth of
3:15:20
environmental degradation, Like what else would you want him for? Like this is
3:15:28
the thing? Like what is it? What is it that women are saying?
3:15:31
Why aren't why aren't men living up while they aren't making enough money?
3:15:35
And you can't get away from that? Is this one hundred percent? What
3:15:39
women say? They want men who make more money. And also, if
3:15:45
you just look at their behavior, they want more men who make more money.
3:15:48
Why do they want men who make more money so they can have that
3:15:52
much more money to buy material? Shit? Literally, if women, if
3:15:58
men, let's say tomorrow, let's snap our fingers and every woman has the
3:16:05
man of her dreams, you realize the rate of environmental degradation would increase eighty
3:16:11
percent, something like eighty percent, because well, let's let's look at it.
3:16:18
Men would need to double their salary, which would mean that they wouldn't
3:16:20
be able to double the amount of shit that they can buy. Women could
3:16:24
double the amount of shit they could buy. What does that do to the
3:16:26
environment? It makes it twice as bad the destruction, the environmental destruction.
3:16:33
Literally, if men right now snap their fingers and became the men that women
3:16:41
wanted, the environmental degradation of the earth would increase twofold. Think about that?
3:16:50
Are you guys thinking about that? Am I wrong? No? Because
3:16:54
they would suddenly be able to purchase twice as many much stuff suckers like,
3:17:03
So think about this, Conservatives, when you say that men need to accommodate
3:17:07
women's needs or liberals, they're like, oh, well, you know,
3:17:11
if men aren't aren't what women want, they should become what women wants.
3:17:13
Well, literally, the earth would have to accommodate doubling of the would need
3:17:20
a second earth. We would need a second earth for men to become the
3:17:24
men that women want them to be. We are fucked unless women get their
3:17:33
shit in order. Okay, Beyond that, the finishing part of the chapter
3:17:39
basically just highlights all the differences. And but it's basically just like white male
3:17:43
system thinking is just analytical, It values results and doing things and achievement,
3:17:48
and female system is just process wibbily wobbily wo blah blah blah, etc.
3:17:56
And I'm done done. Okay, Yeah, it's I'm not didn't do the
3:18:01
last two chapters because we covered those in the last stream, and I just
3:18:07
like to check in with Brian. I'm here, I'm still five. It's
3:18:11
just the fact that all your communication for the last half acurs been done by
3:18:16
like a Stephen Hawking style soundboard system. We're just doing a wellness check on
3:18:22
Brian right now. Yeah, you're communicating via soundboard clips, and that's not
3:18:30
a good sign. I'm still here. I'm just kind of out of different
3:18:35
ways to say fuck. So all right, Well, that's that's this thing
3:18:43
that that til Deer has been And there's more. Right, there's like a
3:18:48
like dozens of or eight half dozen books. I do think it's important that
3:18:52
people like check it out because demonstrating that this is essentially yeah, this is
3:18:58
essentially women's study, is this is this is cult thinking. This is the
3:19:05
stuff that James Lindsay has been talking about. It's the stuff that I have
3:19:11
this book. I'll show you guys. It was. It came out a
3:19:13
long time ago. I'll just display it here. Nihilism the Root of the
3:19:18
Revolution of the Modern Age? I would I would. It's it's similar,
3:19:24
but it doesn't go as in depth in this book. But you can see
3:19:26
that this is what's being touched on. And I guess the one of the
3:19:31
only ways we can potentially fight this is to demonstrate that we're not dealing with
3:19:39
a logical thing. We're dealing with a wooy religious thing, like a culty
3:19:45
thing. Imagine a school that took something from an Abrahamic religion and modeled everything
3:19:54
on that, and like the most ridiculous thing, like the most ridiculous,
3:19:58
the most nacle, what the tavern, the dimensions and colors of the tabernacle?
3:20:03
Yeah, like literally everything, and then just said this is the lens
3:20:07
through which we have to view all of reality. I mean, I I
3:20:11
you know, personally I think that's it's anti Christian, but you could.
3:20:15
But if you have a problem with Abrahamic religions, then you should certainly have
3:20:20
a problem with this because it's it's that, but it's far, far,
3:20:24
far more destructive. So I think it's very important work. I'm really glad
3:20:28
that Tilder shared it. Honestly. Yeah, I'm not tuned out. I
3:20:31
was listening, but it's just like I said, I'm just like, you
3:20:35
know, running out of ways to complain, I guess or react, and
3:20:39
it's just like exhausting. But it does make sense in the wider context of
3:20:43
everything that we've been doing for the past ten years on this channel talking about
3:20:50
this stuff and and and and I also want to thank til dear for putting
3:20:56
his mind through all this stuff, and I hope that he recovers. But
3:21:01
I think that this is a level that this is being discussed that you're not
3:21:05
seeing basically anywhere else, even amongst the places that I have mentioned, you
3:21:11
know, how how James Lindsay is doing it, or how fathers there from
3:21:15
Rose did it. We're doing it on a different in a different way.
3:21:18
We're making it friendly and so that you got it well, Lisa, as
3:21:22
friendly as it can be. And I think that makes it extremely crucial.
3:21:26
So I'm looking forward to when Fielder's stuff, when he makes you're making a
3:21:33
video on it or a series or something. Yeah, I am bringing up
3:21:37
I don't know, Yeah, I don't know the form that it's going to
3:21:41
take. But I am going through this and half of us not other books
3:21:43
which are just expressly like women's rights and spirituality and where all of it came.
3:21:48
Yeah, yeah, this book, Like I said this, this is
3:21:52
a little lighter on the spiritual and religious side. You see it creep in
3:21:56
every so often, but that's because obviously this was in the eighties when a
3:22:01
lot more of the more direct spiritual side of stuff was ripped out, but
3:22:05
you sort of see it, you know, talking about the flows of energy
3:22:09
through the solar plexus and all of this stuff, and not naming the Hegelian
3:22:15
method, but making use of it and things that you see the little touches
3:22:18
of it. And as we go back further and further in time, you'll
3:22:22
see that sort of stuff becoming more and more prevalent. And I would kind
3:22:28
of like to put a note here regarding the religious underpinning of it, because
3:22:33
it comes from spiritualism and it comes from a Gnostic tradition and whatnot. I
3:22:39
don't think that all of the people who hold these beliefs believe that stuff like
3:22:43
they don't. They don't know this stuff. They don't they don't read these
3:22:48
books, and so pointing it out and being able to point it out to
3:22:54
them is in some ways kind of moot because they don't know it, and
3:22:58
it's this stuff being true of the beliefs that they hold is in some ways
3:23:05
kind of irrelevant because of that. But equally, you're not You're not going
3:23:11
to change their minds because they are in yeah, zealots. But it's useful
3:23:22
for other people because it lets you know, where all of this stuff came
3:23:26
from, and then you understand the roots to it. And I think that
3:23:30
stuff is interesting if nothing else, Like, I do enjoy knowledge for knowledge
3:23:37
sake, and I think that this is something that is just fun to know.
3:23:41
Yeah, agreed, it's true. All right, Well, thank you
3:23:46
again. Whatever form it takes, we will follow up. I will definitely
3:23:50
check it out. So I do have some a rumble rant and some super
3:23:56
chats, So I'm gonna start with a rumble rant because I give the Rumble
3:24:01
Gang priority. Noba Fan twenty one gives us a dollar and says, does
3:24:07
the author not realize lots of women, even with similar values, will,
3:24:11
by nature of being human, prioritize different things and thus create conflict no matter
3:24:16
the desire for peace. You're not embracing the paradox correctly. But there you
3:24:22
go. That is one wonderful thing that this book has given us. It's
3:24:28
anytime you see any contradictions reason, you can now just embrace the paradox.
3:24:31
Yeah. Yeah, well, it literally does not have to make sense.
3:24:35
This author has expressly said it does not have to make sense. Whatever she
3:24:39
says is true is true. You cannot deny it. And if it is
3:24:43
paradoxical or contradictory. Embrace it because that's part of the female system, because
3:24:48
it is process. Don't be focused on the results, don't be focused on
3:24:52
the logic, because that stuff is wrong and it's destroying the planet. And
3:24:58
that's what I've been in, and that's what I've been saying. I say,
3:25:01
you know, don't bother pointing out the hypocrisy. They don't care about
3:25:05
hypocrisy. They care about power and that and that's it's a whole different,
3:25:11
you know, vehicle. So pointing out their hypocrisy, it's a it's a
3:25:16
useless exercise. They don't care. Thank you, NOBA fan twenty one.
3:25:22
Then we got let's see, let's see uh m xeranx gives us five bucks
3:25:30
on the super chat and says this is where the idea that women would share
3:25:33
men at the top rather than have their own individual man comes from. Allison
3:25:39
Yes, the Harem TV dinner master chef the guy who's getting married gives us
3:25:46
five pounds and says this is worse than the anality article. Has the peer
3:25:50
review system completely lost the ability to tell someone their work is worthless shite?
3:25:58
Well, this is not new, so Yes, excellent. I mean this
3:26:05
is from like this the eighties, so it's not even a new thing.
3:26:09
So that that just should give you an idea of at least how long this
3:26:13
ship has not made sense. So yeah, And also what you've got to
3:26:18
consider when you talk about the whole peer review and everything like that, simply
3:26:24
because of how old books like this are, they will have been cited,
3:26:28
and then those citations will have been cited, and those citations will have been
3:26:31
cited, and eventually you just end up with these academic woozls where things have
3:26:39
been cited so often for so long they effectively become truths, whether or not
3:26:43
they were actually true. You see this all the time with feminist stuff,
3:26:48
you know, like they're all of their rape numbers and whatnot. They're all
3:26:52
wrong, but they've just been cited over and over and over and over again
3:26:58
until you get to that point. I think one of the most amus ones
3:27:00
was was it Brown Miller on like false rape accusations, And if you follow
3:27:05
it all the way back, it's like one area in New York where one
3:27:09
police officer said something off a record and that was the source, and that's
3:27:15
been used for like forty years as proof is that the one that is it
3:27:22
might be that, but I think it might also be rates of false rape
3:27:24
accusation. I can't remember exactly which one it was, but it was something
3:27:30
ridiculous like that. It was altrually like like an anecdote, but it was.
3:27:33
But it's basically seen as gospel because of how many times it's been sited
3:27:37
over the decades. All Right, So what I wanted to say to that
3:27:43
is, and this is why their their colonization of academia is so dangerous,
3:27:50
because they have constructed a reality and people like Normies grow up in this reality
3:27:54
and they have no idea that it's completely false. And the feminist approach to
3:28:00
history is total bullshit. It's wrong. And the other thing I wanted to
3:28:05
mention is I think it actually is really important to construct the hypocrisy. It's
3:28:09
not because we are going to convince them, but it's because people who are
3:28:16
stuck in this and need a way out. It's basically telling them, you
3:28:20
know, pulling them out of the mire and giving them a clear understanding of
3:28:24
why it's wrong. It's using the reason system to deconstruct the dogmatic, authoritarian
3:28:33
female system. Well, she's the one who called it that, and I
3:28:37
think that's really critical because people are stuck in this and they don't know how
3:28:41
to get out of it, and the only way out of it is to
3:28:45
use reason. And like, we're never gonna the people who are benefiting from
3:28:48
this are never going to deny it until until the Nuremberg two point zero.
3:28:56
But the people who are stuck in this and floundering in it and can't get
3:28:58
out, they need a hand out. And that's what these kinds of these
3:29:03
kinds of streams are about. We're exposing where this stuff comes from. We're
3:29:07
exposing the hypocrisy of it, We're exposing the illogic of it so people can
3:29:13
grip onto something and pull themselves out of the quicksand of feminist thought. And
3:29:18
I think that's absolutely critical. It has really nothing to do with convincing feminists
3:29:22
of anything, or really convincing academia of anything. It's about providing a firewall
3:29:28
for their bullshit into the mind of the part of people who are at least
3:29:33
open to hearing what we have to say. And it's really the stuff is
3:29:39
really seductive because it has the power of authority, it has the power of
3:29:45
everybody believes it so it has to be true. So the only way to
3:29:48
deconstructed is to cut it open and show the hypocrisy of it, the absolute
3:29:56
hypocrisy and what is the word for it, mendacious kind of self righteousness,
3:30:05
and the hierarchy of it, and all of how it is unfair and illogical,
3:30:13
basically, not just illogical, but unfair. All right, So I
3:30:18
think that's absolutely critical. But don't bother trying to argue with people whose livelihood
3:30:24
is based on supposedly believing this crap. I don't think they actually do,
3:30:28
but they will definitely pretend to believe it, so they'll get you to believe
3:30:33
it. And that's where we come in. Yeah, they're either movid or
3:30:37
they are lying, and I think that it would be more respectful to say
3:30:41
they're lying. Yeah, they don't believe this crap. And what they're doing
3:30:46
is they're using people's mirror mirror neurons against them, mirror neurons. So we
3:30:52
have a tendency to believe. If somebody is saying something with absolute conviction,
3:30:58
we will tend to believe them absent evidence to the contrary. And they're abusing
3:31:05
your your mirror neurons to make you agree with their crap. They're just basically
3:31:09
trying to pretend they agree. There's this game in I think it was either
3:31:13
in Latin America or Africa, where one the winner is the one who makes
3:31:20
the other person look the most ridiculous. So they will just point and laugh
3:31:26
and try to pretend like they've said something ridiculous or hilarious, and whoever makes
3:31:31
the other looks the most ridiculous wins. That's what they're doing, except they're
3:31:35
just basically pretending that this makes sense and that they believe this, so that
3:31:41
you believe it, and we are are we're stepping in in the middle and
3:31:45
saying, no, I don't even think you believe this crap. I don't
3:31:48
even This woman had a husband, I don't even think she believed this crap
3:31:52
and two children. She had a husband and two children. I don't think
3:31:58
she believed this crap. I think this was a paycheck to her, This
3:32:03
was a means to gain resources, and if she ever really sat down and
3:32:07
thought about it outside of the most shallow appraisal, she would have rejected it
3:32:13
herself. But she got money for this, and she got a job,
3:32:20
so she didn't, So don't get taken in by people who don't even believe
3:32:24
their own shit, like they are literally playing that game of if I pretend
3:32:31
to believe it, maybe you will. Okay, let's I'm done unless you
3:32:37
want me to do the things, and then we'll take it out because well,
3:32:39
I still have some super chats I think to read. Oh and I
3:32:43
got one rumble rant that's and then I think we can wrap it up.
3:32:46
So No Fan twenty one gives a dollar and says, Tatil dear, will
3:32:50
you be posting your notes from the book? I can do I'm not sure
3:32:58
where or how I was thinking of just actually recording myself just reading through the
3:33:03
write up, similar to what I've done here, but just more condensed to.
3:33:09
I might just do that as like a forty minute or hour long thing,
3:33:13
however long it takes. That might serve suitably in lieu of it,
3:33:18
because some of my notes are not for public consumption, and I mean that
3:33:26
in some sort of weird way. It's just there phrased in ways where you
3:33:31
have to know things from some of the other books, and so it might
3:33:35
not make sense for people who haven't done all that extra reading as well.
3:33:39
Yeah, because obviously they're my notes for how to make this video project thing.
3:33:46
So I think a translated version might be more useful. All right,
3:33:54
all right, sounds good. So yeah, well let's do And if you
3:33:56
if you want to come on and do a discussion of another book, may
3:34:03
very well end up dragging you through all of them. Honestly, it serves
3:34:09
as a sort of a sanity check for myself as well. There's there's something
3:34:15
to be said, there's something to be said with for you know, a
3:34:20
party going through the swamps of sadness and stupidity, alright, taking taking party
3:34:28
members with you, just to maintain your sanity. Okay. So given that
3:34:33
metaphor and our relative forms, I'm concerned that I will be the horse.
3:34:46
Well, who knows, maybe I guess my my particular form would not be
3:34:54
the best to be the horse. Yeah, you might actually be Well,
3:35:00
are we just or we just we just walked side by side, Okay,
3:35:03
nobody's the beast of burden? Yeah, arm in arm together the wonder We're
3:35:13
gonna go see the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Okay. So, if you
3:35:16
enjoy this content and you want to see more more of it, specifically,
3:35:20
if you want to vote to see more of this kind of dragging up the
3:35:24
deep lore of feminism so that we can prove that it's always been like that,
3:35:30
folks. It's just you're finally seeing its true self. I mean people
3:35:33
are always like, oh, well, feminism was good once. No,
3:35:37
that was before you recognized its true nature. Yes, that's the only difference.
3:35:45
Now you're actually seeing it for the first time. The shadow in the
3:35:48
mist was always a horrible men eating tentacle monster. You just didn't notice it
3:35:58
until you got close enough. And you're finally close enough to feminism to actually
3:36:03
notice what it really is. Anyway, if you enjoy this content, if
3:36:07
you want to see tilde Er come on again and talk more about these issues,
3:36:11
please consider sending us a message at feed the Badger dot com slash just
3:36:15
the Tip. And you if you enjoy how we're approaching this, if you
3:36:18
want to send a message about what we covered on this show and we will
3:36:22
address it at the next available or next relevant show, then once again,
3:36:28
let's feed the Badger dot com slash just the Tip. And once again,
3:36:33
I am doing my fundraiser for my story The Captive I Game of Thrones meets
3:36:39
Alice in Wonderland, And if that sounds interesting you want to help out.
3:36:43
It's again, I didn't intend to make it pro mail content, but it
3:36:46
sort of just ended up that way. I guess I have a theme in
3:36:48
my subconscious or whatever. Please go to Feed the Badger dot com to make
3:36:52
sure that kind of stuff. Where's more of that kind of stuff, because
3:36:56
let's face it, there is a lot of antimail stuff out there, including
3:37:00
this entire book. Feed the Badger dot com slash ship yea, Feed the
3:37:03
Badger dot Com slash I E y E every You know, we're about one
3:37:11
and twenty from the goals and about two days left, so if you can
3:37:13
help out with that would be great and I'll hand it back to you Brian.
3:37:20
Okay, so, if you guys like this video, please hit like,
3:37:24
subscribe. If you're not already subscribed, hit the bellf notifications, leave
3:37:28
us a comment, let us on when you guys think about what we discussed
3:37:30
on the show today, and please please please share this video because sharing is
3:37:33
caring. And by the way, if any of you guys saw a particular
3:37:37
moment in here that you like, feel free to you know, clip those
3:37:41
and post them on your channel or whatever. I think that it's always like
3:37:45
helpful. I have like, you know, little tiny like highlighted bits,
3:37:50
and I know that that there are ways to do that. I noticed that
3:37:52
people on streams, especially when they're longer, like this one, you know's
3:37:58
it might not be a bad idea. So maybe if you if you have
3:38:01
a channel, I see Baine is in there, so Bain feel free to
3:38:03
use whatever you want from here on your own channel. Just spreading the word.
3:38:09
And yeah, so I guess most importantly at the already said share,
3:38:13
but share the video because sharing is caring. Thank you guys so much for
3:38:16
coming on today's episode of The rant Zerker, and we will talk to you
3:38:20
all in the next video.