Andrew Wilson, Jennifer Galardi (@Straighterade), and Ian Crossland clash over feminism’s role in America, with Galardi—now at Heritage Foundation—claiming it undermines motherhood, increases SSRI use among women, and fuels gender conflict (e.g., Minnesota’s reproductive decline). Wilson counters that economic necessity forces women to work, not ideology, while Crossland argues tech (drones, AI) could shift power dynamics. Galardi insists enforcement jobs like ICE should be male-dominated due to risk, blaming Trump’s policies for escalating confrontations, but struggles with consistency when pressed on exceptions. The debate exposes feminism’s alleged contradictions and reliance on male-led systems, while Galardi pushes for "post-feminist" pragmatism—acknowledging progress but demanding focus on family over activism, even as Wilson highlights internal tensions in her arguments. [Automatically generated summary]
It's got 340 GSM of bearskin fleece, 10 legit pockets, a muscular fit, and even zips into the heavy storm rain jacket to turn into full winter waterproof armor.
Whether you're into hiking, hunting, traveling, just hate being cold, it's the last hoodie you'll ever need.
You'll get the free U.S. ship.
You'll get free U.S. shipping, fast delivery, and you're finally kitted out properly for winter.
Do yourself a favor, text the word Tim to 36912 to lock in your 60% off.
Again, text Tim to 36912.
You'll get a link sent straight to your phone so you can check it out later if you're busy right now.
And when you shop with Bearskin, you're not just getting killer gear.
You're also supporting the fallen outdoors and the Hope for the Warriors veterans programs.
Don't wait till you're freezing to realize your hoodie socks.
Get Bearskin Now.
Wallet 60% off.
Text Tim to 36912.
You can also check out B-A-E-R.skin slash Tim.
Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys.
It is Rumble Wallet on the App Store.
My friends, you got to check it out.
They can cancel your accounts.
They can freeze your cards.
Decide what you're allowed to buy.
Say or support.
Big banks and financial institutions have total control and they use it.
That's why financial independence matters now more than ever.
Go to wallet.rumble.com.
It's non-custodial.
Okay, let's break this down.
What does it mean?
On the Rumble Wallet, you can trade crypto with people who have accounts on Rumble.
It's like an app where you can send people cash, but it's either Tether, Tether Gold, or Bitcoin, making it really easy for you to tip people on Rumble and pay somebody money you owe them.
Maybe you're going to the store and you're like, hey, man, I want to get a slice of pizza.
Before we do, I want to go around the table, have everybody introduce themselves, kind of tell you a little bit just briefly about themselves, where you can find them.
I'm a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
But for the purposes of this conversation, I was a former feminist 20 years in Comifornia.
Kind of got brainwashed and then saw the light around COVID, started questioning things and finally came back to being a normal woman, I'd like to say.
And I would say that most, a lot of people that identify themselves as socialists are communists.
But because communism is like a dirty word in America due to the red scare, people generally in America not being so far left or whatever, they say socialist, but these are used largely like interchangeably.
As far as ideology, they're more interested in preserving, you know, some state apparatuses have more, I think, priority over the sort of short term, but there's not really a major distinction between them.
So since wokeness is such a nebulous term, and both of you have kind of agreed that that's a nebulous term, let's leave that off of the table for the purpose of the debate and we'll focus on whether or not feminism is destroying America and whether or not it's moving us towards communism.
And if that's a good thing, you think it is, you think it isn't.
So with that, I'll open the floor here a little bit so we can get kind of back and forth into this debate.
Pro side, I see a lot more upsides and downsides to the promotion of the social equality, economic equality of women alongside men.
I largely think that this promotes, you know, better social attitudes and relationships between genders, the sexes, however you want to, you know, whichever lines you want to divide it amongst.
I see more participation in the economy as a net good.
But overall, I also really care about, and I think most feminists care about personal liberty, personal freedom.
And the primary thing I'm always concerned about is people just being able to have the ability to kind of make the choices in their life that they feel comfortable with.
If that means embracing motherhood, the family, being a stay-at-home mom, that's great.
If that means working and raising a family simultaneously, that's fine.
If that means solely working and you're not interested in kids, I think all of these things are fine.
It just, yeah, I just want people to, women specifically, to largely be able to be in charge of the decisions that dictate their life.
Well, I think the opening is kind of pushing back on all those points because feminism never was about, well, we're okay with you doing what you do and you do.
It was, it was very antagonistic towards women who wanted to stay in the home, especially if we want to call it second wave sexual liberty, whatever it was.
It was you're a slave, it's enslavement, you know, the drudgery of motherhood.
It was constantly framed as you are trapped by motherhood.
Motherhood is a trap.
So to say that feminism promotes, oh, it's just you do what you do.
I would say the promotion of social equality between men, women, sexes, genders on economic grounds as well, and prioritizing liberty, independence for women.
Within that, obviously, I think it's not really, you know, the characterization you just gave of what you understand to be feminism.
I find a lot of people that push back against feminists or like feminist goals, feminist aims, kind of have this caricature of what they believe the goals of feminism are, which is supremacy to men, supremacy over men rather than equality.
And I think to the extent that you can make that argument, you know, the promotion of social equality between the sexes might be.
The technical definitions with something with a movement, right?
It is what people think it is, and it is what the consequences to society has been.
And the consequences have been taking women out of the homes, trying to, you know, it's weird because feminism says it's for women, but what it's resulted in is women becoming more like men and almost regarding men as the superior sex.
The other thing is that first, what we consider first wave in America feminism, which wasn't really the first wave because it goes back further than that.
But in America, the first wave, the suffrage movement, you know, the right for women not to be defined as property, they didn't identify as feminists.
They didn't call themselves feminists.
No, I can argue that I didn't even believe that their understanding of taking over the patriarchy was correct.
You did say something earlier, like Andrew was saying, just like broadly, we've agreed upon this definition for the purposes of the debate.
But as Ian mentioned, there have been different iterations of, you know, first wave feminism, which is primarily what you talked about, women's suffrage, political representation via voting.
And then you had like second wave feminism, and that is where you actually did see more attitudes where feminists were speaking out against women being confined to the family.
You have feminists like Betty Friedan, who talked about, you know, the problem that has no name and has a communist.
Suburbia and these sorts of things.
And while they may promise a kind of dream life for women where they have the nuclear family, they're raising their kids, they're supported by a husband, these don't actually fulfill or live up to what they promise.
And they leave women feeling alienated, depressed, et cetera.
And then you have, you know, third and fourth wave feminism that are more often than not coming in contradiction now with second wave feminism as they're more interested in expanding equality for women beyond the basis of sex solely.
But there are a few times where you do see differences like second wave feminists more likely to identify as like TERFs, the Andrew Dorkin and whatnot.
Because they see how they protect women in a different way from their view, but they're still attempting to deconstruct the patriarchy on behalf of egalitarianism, right?
Yeah, you would agree that each wave has this in common.
Because the promises that those women made that you'll be happier when you're independent.
You'll be happier when you can work like a man, when you can make money like a man, when you can have consumer purchasing power like a man, it doesn't seem to be working out so well.
There is an inherent anger at the way God has made women.
They are rebelling against what women would see as God, as the patriarch.
They are rebelling against their own form and function, their wombs, their innate design.
You can call it God.
You can call it natural law, whatever you want to call it.
There's just this anger for themselves, at who they are and what they were made to do.
I think I would agree with you that the social ills and issues that you're talking about with increased loneliness, that pertains to women and men alike, economic anxiety, people not feeling like they have the ability to start a family, et cetera.
I don't disagree with you that all of these problems persist throughout society.
I think I just disagree with you that it's the result of feminism, largely to the extent, or like when you talked about there being higher instances of use for women like with SSRIs, like what do you believe is the reason for that?
Do you really think it's just feminism?
I think it's a big part of it.
I think it's they believe the lie that independence is the primary virtue for women.
I think that, you know, men and women are meant to be complementary.
They're meant to support each other's strengths.
I don't think men and women are equal.
I think they're equal under the law.
I don't think they're equal under natural order.
You know, and I'll play devil's advocate.
I've been in a hospital with my mother the past week.
And I have to say the women doctors, I enjoyed them more because they weren't so offended when I asked them questions.
I know enough about the medical field to be dangerous.
And when I would ask them questions, it was like their ego wasn't bruised, right?
So I like their bedside manner more.
So there's certain careers that I think women and men can both excel in.
But when it comes to a surgeon, I don't care what his bedside manner is if he's working on my mother.
I want him.
And what I don't want is unfair, that they're not, they're being hired based on their sexual characteristics, right?
Not on their, not on their merit, right?
So anyway, I kind of went down, I veered off a little bit with that, but all that to say is like, I'm not saying women can't work.
What I'm saying is they, the second wave feminist, what they promised has not come to fruition, just like you said, what the family promised.
And I would say the family, the main cause of women being kind of depressed, needing mother's little helper, right, in the 50s and the 60s was because it was the industrial era.
Everything used to be centered around the home.
The whole economy that we used to have with agrarian culture was almost like communist.
And so when the Industrial Revolution took the men out of the home, I understand why women felt burdened.
They lost their partner.
They lost their mate.
So we're going to have to shift.
Like there's, I'm not saying there can't be changes to how the family functions, that we need to go back to the agrarian.
We're not going back there.
But you can't, I don't think you can deny the fact that a family unit, a mother and a father in a loving relationship with children is the best to build a society.
I do think that the most important thing is that children feel supported.
And right now, given the current economic order, dual income households are necessary for people to be able to adequately support all children that they have.
But returning to a claim that you made earlier, you said you don't believe that men and women are equal, right?
I haven't, to be honest, I would need to think about it more because I don't give...
You haven't thought about whether women ought to be able to vote?
Yeah, no, I've thought about that, but I can see the pros and cons of both.
I do think that, you know, as a single woman with no children, married couples, men and women, have more skin in the game about what happens to this country when you have something to pass down.
I would say I'd like to see things, but it's not as, it doesn't, it's not as visceral for me.
I don't have children.
So what happens to this country after I'm gone, I can say, yes, I care, but I'm not passing anything down.
My kitty's not going to outlive me.
You know, I love that cat to death, but, you know, the truth is, so I can see why that only married couples with children should vote.
Now, assuming they are looking after the best for the whole country because of their children, they want to see this country thrive.
I want to see it thrive too, but I don't have, I don't have skin in the game as much.
Let's say I don't have as much skin in the game as parents.
So I can make the argument.
Would I really want it to happen?
Probably not.
But I can understand the argument.
So why wouldn't you want it to happen?
Because I like selfishly, I like having a say in what happens.
But I went, I was out in California completely apolitical.
Well, not apolitical.
I kind of got brainwashed and tugged along, but I didn't vote for years.
So I guess it's unclear to me why you would view that as selfish when I think the principle being, you know, no taxation without representation is generally defensible.
And I don't see that as any more, you know, particularly self-interested or selfish.
I do think it's reasonable for participants in a society, regardless of their sex, gender, et cetera, to want to be able to vote and have representation within, you know, representative or constitutional republic, representative democracy, et cetera, within the United States.
So you wouldn't push for it, right?
Not only because you think it's unrealistic, but I think that you also seem to believe that it would be more unjust than just to push to repeal the 19th Amendment.
I just don't see the policies that would come down from an institution from institutions of which I voted for, and they actually don't change my life a lot.
I mean, maybe taxes, but like, let's say for like medical care, I don't know.
I've always kind of lived outside the system.
So personally, I don't think it would really matter to me.
But again, would it matter to you if you have the right to vote or if the 19th Amendment were repealed?
I don't think it would change how I lived my life one way or another.
I think it would change your life significantly.
And I do think that you believe it's important to be able to vote because you participated in our last political election.
And since you don't believe that, you know, if you believe that women's role should primarily be relegated to the home, what are your thoughts on the Trump administration having an unprecedented amount of women in power?
I think because it would be very naive to think that just because you're appointing or elevating women to positions of status and authority, even ones as great as like political authority, secretaries, et cetera, that that means the, and you're like presupposing that those women in those positions of power being appointed are fine with the social equality of women.
So sometimes it takes me a while to form my argument.
So I do want to go back to your like the voting thing because I do believe that any policies that consider children first will be fundamentally good for all of society.
So if the people that are voting for those policies have a vested interest in the continuation of our country as, you know, a free democratic republic, if they consider the children first, I think that's good for everybody.
So that would kind of be my argument for that.
And then you asked me about his administration being women.
I didn't say women can't work.
I didn't say they will only be fulfilled by a family.
Like I said, I am single.
I don't have a family.
I just think for the most part, for most women, the lie that they were sold.
And I guarantee you, if you ask any of these women in the administration, if they were asked to give up their job to put their family first, they would.
I know Caroline Levitt would.
She's probably the worst example you could have picked.
She had her baby and then declined to have a maternity leave.
I think after like maybe two, three days after giving birth, she was right back on the job because she said it was her duty to do this because Donald Trump had faced, I think, I can't remember if it was one or two assassination attempts at that time, but that's an example of a working woman that actually put her motherly duties secondary to her professional life.
But she's also working for someone that she sees that is going to secure the future for her child.
So it doesn't change the fact that she is prioritizing girl bossing it up and going to work and her attainment.
You're drawing inferences, but you don't know why she's doing what she's doing.
I bet if you asked her, she would say, I want to secure a future for my child that isn't going to tell me that my daughter can become a boy.
And it's temporary.
Her job is only three more years.
That's her cope answer.
I do think when you, regardless of her three years, subjective intent, when you analyze the effect that she's having on the world, her actions, yeah, she's putting herself first over her domestic duties of being a mother when she could have taken that maternity lady.
That would be P and not P. Andrew, I'm doing an internal critique.
I'm saying that based off of Caroline Levitt's espoused personal values, that her actions are at odds with that.
Now, I personally don't believe that there's an issue with a woman who is able to provide for her child via hiring nannies, private child care, if her husband, et cetera, returning to work and declining to have an extended family.
Okay, well, then the argument that you have then is pretty weak here, isn't it?
Because isn't, well, isn't your argument here that women who are in a position where they're forced to work, right, they have to in order to take care of their families.
It sort of, I think, supports the claim that feminism has or is destroying the United States in that it in the 50s, they were like, hey, ladies, you should go get a job.
Well, I think there's a difference between what I'm criticizing is that, yes, under our current economic order, if you want to maximize the outcomes for your children, be able to provide for them adequately, dual incomes is ideal.
But for one, I also champion change to be able to support young people, families, et cetera, being able to have access to paid paternity leave, not have it all fall solely to the money.
Well, if I could just finish, paid maternity leave.
And as far as, yes, Caroline Levitt has to work, but does she have to be part of the Trump administration?
I do think that there's a difference between a woman getting a lot of people.
I think there's a difference between a woman getting a job just because she needs to be able to survive and then trying to allocate the majority of her time, like minimize the amount of professional time that she needs to spend working to earn an income for her family and then maximize the time in the home versus Caroline Levitt, who is going out of her way to maximize the time that she spends outside of the home advancing her professional career.
If that's the case and you're saying there's no avenue to do that because you need two incomes, then she's not even in, she's not, she's congruent with your worldview without being a feminist right this second.
Do you really think that there's nothing to the fact that you think this?
No, I'm about to ask you thoughts on my position.
Do you think that there is not sort of any tension that exists between Caroline Levitt's stated views or our guests' stated personal views as like contrasted against their choices that don't align with what they espouse?
Do you think that there's not a tension that undermines their own ideology there?
Yeah, you can make descriptive observations, but I think what we're more interested in is exploring the normative claims surrounding these descriptive observations.
To answer your question, Jen, why you wouldn't bring kids into work if they disrupt the work environment, if they create a vulnerability, like they might get sick?
So there's a lot of reasons why little children should not be around a work environment.
I'm not saying 24-7, but I'm saying we can, I'm not, what I'm saying is we don't need to go back to the agrarian age to make more accommodations for family-friendly policies.
I do think that this more, as like society is becoming more secular, I think that's something that has kind of been lost, but would be a positive thing to reintroduce would be more communitarian values.
And I do think it takes a village to raise a kid.
And, you know, if workplaces want to be more accommodating to young families, to be able to help assist them with child care, et cetera, providing them support for child care.
Or, you know, some offices I know have like child care centers where their employees are able to bring their children while they're working.
I think these sorts of things are positive changes.
Andrew, when I say it takes a village to raise a kid, did you mean that I was, did you mean, did you believe that I was saying it literally takes a village or did you, what sentiment did you make a lot of money?
But I don't think you need an entire community of people to literally raise a children because as you're saying, we have plenty of historical examples where one or two people is more than enough to suffice to raise a child.
And do you think child care is of equal value to an auntie or a godmother or a grandparent?
So under your Marxist lens, right now what's going on is that the proletariat is being exploited by the evil bourgeoisie and forcing these poor women who would rather stay at home with their little kids suckling at the teat into the workforce where they must slave away in order to help their capitalist overlords.
They can bring the paycheck home when they'd much rather be at home.
I'm not saying that absent any economic coercion that you wouldn't see women opting to not have kids or still participate and do labor, et cetera, throughout their day.
It would just depend on that individual person at that point.
I think you would be able to see people being able to actually like live true to their values absent this like massive economic force of anger.
But as I said, I think that there is a tension there that exists when you're going so far as to maximize your professional outcomes as opposed to doing the minimum that is necessary to be able to provide for yourself.
That doesn't make any sense under that analysis either.
Why would you not try to maximize your earning outcomes if it's required that you earn money in order to give your kids a better life in this particular environment?
There's more to life than money, just because I think it's rational for people, women included, to try to maximize their professional achievements.
If you really truly believe that a big part of your life ought to be centered around domesticity, then I think that there would come a point where you would deprioritize taking every single professional step, promotion, et cetera, to maximize those earnings and say, if the entire point of working, if the entire point of earning money is to be able to enable a domestic life that makes my family happy, I don't think that's going to go so far as to become like the press second skills and vibes.
I don't even disagree with you that a lot of it does come down to what you're saying is vibes, but I would say kind of subjective or arbitrary lines.
But just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean that we couldn't introduce some sort of like subjective rubric to try to see what's the subjective rubric.
Would you rather her go just work at a restaurant now or do something that she's not good at?
I think Caroline's fine making the professional choices that she does.
That's the trajectory she's on, right?
Whether the way I see it is God's given her talents.
She is using the talents and treasures God has given her to the best of her ability to provide for her family.
There is no reason she should start a new career because, you know, if she can manage, she also was obviously healthy enough to get pregnant.
When you talk to a lot of women in the workforce, and if we want to go to the fertility thing, they will say to you, they will tell people, women who want to get pregnant, I'll get pregnant in a minute if I quit my job.
It's the stress of that workplace environment, the, you know, trying to act like a man in the workplace environment that doesn't allow them to be feminine.
Somehow she's kept her femininity.
She's still getting pregnant.
Her health is still there to allow her to have children.
And she happens to be on this career trajectory.
Let's come back in three years and see what decisions she makes after this job is finished.
Again, her job is temporary.
And you look at someone like Susie Wiles.
This is kind of like late stage careers.
She's had her children.
They're out of the house.
So this is good for her now.
I truly believe, you know, women can work.
It's just they can have it all, but not all at the same time.
If the time and dedication and stress it takes to become a good lawyer is a lot more demanding, right?
So if a woman wants to be a lawyer, that's going to take a bigger toll on her physical health than, say, if she wants to, I don't know, be an artist or have something that's more, that's a little softer.
But the fact of the matter is law, medical fields, they're kind of dog eat dog if they're based on skills, if they're based on skill set, if you're going by medical fields.
But you just said that when you were at the you said a hospital, you're recently visiting your mother, that when you were interacting with the female health care professionals, that you actually found them to be more suitable to those roles.
And I also don't judge her for whatever choices she's made.
I don't know her family life.
Again, so this is where like, I think the debate comes of, you know, what is good for women?
But they've made their own choices, but I don't think it's at odds with feminism.
Andrew's saying that like he feels that too much of my, you know, internal critiques or whatever rely on sort of cutoff lines that like vibes and arbitrary red lines that I'm drawing.
What you're outlining sound or outlining really does sound very vibes based, which is that you're fine with women, you know, taking certain professional roles or whatever.
And every time I ask you for specificity, you're kind of like, well, it's really going to depend on the individual.
unidentified
And if we don't know their life story, we don't know.
It just seems like you're incapable of making kind of broad prescriptive claims that don't lead to a bunch of examples that you will say, well, that's an exception.
And that worked in that case, and that's an exception.
But then, just how many more examples would you need to what I need to introduce to you before you're like, you know, maybe these standards that I've outlined just really don't hold up to scrutiny?
And it's a lot more complicated than just saying women ought to be doing this, but not up to that point because now it's just coming down to like your vibes.
Overwhelmingly, they have the monopoly on force and they always will have the monopoly on force.
My proof and evidence is half of the world.
Half of the world right now, if they decide women are enslaved and did, they were.
And women could never appeal to anybody except men for their rights because they don't have force.
So because that's true, you tell me how it is that women, feminists, how it's actually logical for them to say we're going to dismantle the patriarchy, even though via the force metric, they're going to infinitely have to appeal to it for their rights.
I do remember you presenting this in a conversation that you had with Max Carson where you laid out this general premise, you know, the force doctrine.
And I largely agreed with his view, which is that he feels that you would set up a system that presupposes that there is sort of this like unity that exists between like among men and among women very, very neatly.
So you're saying like if all men wanted to enslave women, like they would be able to do it because men are stronger than women, et cetera.
But I mean, what she presented to you is just that it would be like saying, like, if you have a group of people whose names start with the letter A, and then you have all the people whose names start with the letter B to Z, and all of those people work together to overcome the people whose names start with A, then yes, almost by definition, they would be able to like overcome the people with A, probably.
Having a queen there doesn't mean that the people who have the monopoly on force weren't men because it's always men who have the monopoly on force.
And so the reason she can't point, the reason she can't point to any time ever in history that slave revolts and things like this were ever in operation by women, women can never successfully take their freedom back from a patriarchal.
What happens is with these equalizers is men take the equalization away from women because they're much stronger, which is why you see all these police officers getting disarmed and women in combat getting their asses stomped.
That's why you don't see female Navy SEALs.
That's why you don't see any of that because they can't do it.
They're physically incapable of doing it.
Now, even if I grant you an outlier, even if I grant you G.I. Jane, who never came to fruition, G.I. Jane never existed, never came to fruition because they can't do it.
But even if I granted you a G.I. Jane, an outlier, the exception, would prove the rule.
So the thing is, is like the reason she can't name a single time that there's been a successful slave revolt or women gaining their rights by force from men without appealing to men is because it's never happened and it can't.
So because of that, my argument is simply this.
How do feminists ever take out the patriarchy without appealing to an enforcement arm, which is going to be necessarily patriarchal?
Hey, I'm tired of wearing this really hot burqa in the middle of this sun and we got like, you know, millions of us, so we're just gonna take out this patriarchy, why not?
So answer me this question, how is it that women feminists, how is it, how is it even a logical position to say that you want to repeal the patriarchy, with full knowledge that you'll always have to appeal to the patriarchy in order to enforce your deconstruction of the patriarchy?
It's like it's the most circular, stupid thing i've ever heard.
The sense that I got from your arguments is that, right now, the domain of force is and this is your view as well one that is overwhelmingly uh, dictated by, supported by and led by men.
But there exists a world potentially, where women could get access to this domain of force.
That either, I don't even think you're saying entirely excludes, but leads them to have an upper hand over men.
Right, because you're saying all of this technology is basically the great equalizer because, between drones tanks guns, etc.
Where, if it's just a matter of yeah, where what?
No, I don't think that you're saying it's happened yet, but you're saying that we can't just say, because it hasn't happened yet, that it necessarily won't in the future.
Advocate for feminism in 200 years where it's possible, but it's definitely not right now.
There's no world, right this second, which exists, or has in the last 7 000 years, where women can do anything but address their grievances to those who have the monopoly on force.
That's always men.
So you're necessarily always going to have a patriarchy.
Then, when it does happen where, if we're asking about logical possibility remember Superman's logically possible, I can grant a logical possibility where aliens come down and put shot collars on men and if they look at women cross-eyed they get zapped.
That's logical, it could happen.
Its possibility pragmatically is like fucking zero though.
So because of that, i'm going to look at this from pragmatic logic, practical logic.
If i'm looking at pragmatic and practical logic Ian, i'm going to ask you again, right, this second, if men want to appeal anything by power of law, who do they have to appeal to to enforce it?
And if men decide to collectively enslave women tomorrow, let's just say they no, that I don't agree with, because i'm not saying that you agree that it's morally correct.
If a bunch of dudes came to enslave the women in your neighborhood and you and your wife and your kids grabbed their rifles, you would all be appealing to what?
There has been many rebellions which were successful led by men, of all men.
Not a single one by women.
Hang on.
Ever, not a single one.
Will you ever be able to point to historically where women were enslaved in mass by men and ever were able to successfully use force stop, Ian to get out of their enslavement?
It usually does, because men are physically stronger.
But then we built guns.
It's a relatively new invention and now you started to see like like, even men kind of don't have a monopoly on force, like we have robots that can drone, bomb shit, like we don't.
You don't have to be out into warfare anymore, like always, or you're in the Ukraine and you're in trenches and you're fighting combat and the women all flee.
What's going to happen is this, is that if men want to change the conditionals of the state they're in, they have the option to and women don't.
And that's a fact.
And so the thing is, is that if men universally decide that they're going to enslave women, there isn't a fucking thing in the world women can do about it.
But if portions of men decide that they're going to enslave men, there is something men can do about it.
Yeah, well, any place you want to look at across the world where women are second-class citizens, can women do shit about that without appealing to men?
Okay, the question I want answered is right this second, in the Middle East, okay, if women wanted to determine to get their rights back themselves, right, without appealing to men, can they do it or not?
You have to be like, there's just, there's differences between men and women.
And we can go swirl down in these arguments over and over and over again.
But there's differences.
And the more we deny that and the more we deny that those differences have consequences out in the real world and jobs in the military.
It's just, it gets exhausting.
I'm listening to the two of you and I'm like, oh my goodness, there's differences.
And usually the menu is not.
And then if somebody denied that there are differences between men and women, because obviously there are.
I don't dispute that.
But then you're going to be a good person.
Because that's how we've gotten to this point where some people believe there are no differences and a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man.
Feminists just paved the way for that.
I think that they recognize those differences because if you're talking about trans individuals, they want to transition because they recognize differences between themselves as men and versus right?
No, I was trying to transition so they can go from being a man to being a trans woman.
I'm only talking about you said that there are these people that think that there's no differences between the sexes.
And if that were the case, why would they be bothering to undergo a physical transition or a medical transition if they really believe, oh, men and women, there's really no differences between us or whatever.
You wouldn't even see trans people if that were the case.
Or to the extent that you saw it as a phenomenon, it would literally be refined to just like social transition and like cross-dressing and changing their names.
But they take cross-sex hormones, they take puberty blockers or whatever because they recognize that there's differences between the sexes.
So given that this is your view, how do you explain there being like social rights movements for women and like more parody now between men and women than there existed yet?
The fact of the matter is that we've had many republics in the past that have failed.
And they Up coming back, right?
It ends up coming back to the idea of force.
And then you have empires, and they end up falling because it comes back to the idea of force.
And while all this great technology and electricity and all this stuff that women like to take for granted, which makes them believe in some crazy fucking world that they're the equals of men physically, which is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard in my life, or that they some way how have equity with men or ever could, at least in that domain, right?
I wouldn't say that they're they have less moral value.
I would never make that claim.
Only the claim there can never be equity and that that's stupid and it's based on the technological marvels which allow modern women to do any of these jobs successfully at all.
And if men decide at any time that they want to take that away, women can't do shit about it.
But men can.
Meaning, if groups of men want to take rights away from other groups of men as collectives, men have choices there.
Yeah, there were tons of deaths, obviously, but the Viet Cong were able to make significant dents and cause high casualty rates.
We had to have a lottery to conscript men to go fight in this war that they were not really interested in fighting.
The Viet Cong had a ton of women in it, you know, so it's not, even though you can, you know, here's what actually high likelihood that one party is going to succeed or another.
But like, you know, would you say like the first of all the United States lost?
The thing is, is like ultimately, it's always coming back down to the idea of force and who has the monopoly on it.
And I've never seen any historic evidence ever that women have ever had the monopoly on it nor ever successfully fought for any sort of independence or freedom where they don't have to appeal to men, but I've always seen men do it where they never had to appeal to women.
And so the historic standards on my side, the strength of force, and half of the conditions of half of the world right now is on my side for my argument.
What you guys have is vibes and maybe one day.
Vibes and one day though, Andrew, one day we'll be able to overthrow that evil patriarchy with fucking robots and shit like that.
I think in regards to like maintaining authority, you need the strength to seize the authority and then you need the wherewithal to maintain the authority.
And that's more of the feminine energy of the leadership.
You need wisdom.
You need to see your own flaws.
You need to admit when you're wrong.
Like that's how you, but you do need strength to take it and to protect it.
Well, the Constitution operates on an axiom that all men are created equal under God, right?
This is axiomatic.
I'm not saying I don't think it's grounded, and I don't think it's well philosophically grounded.
While I, as a Christian, would argue that there's some positive rights, or at least could argue that there's positive rights, from her view, there isn't rights at all.
From your view, rights are a social construct, aren't they?
There's something about my answer intuitively that wants to say no, I don't believe it's just like a social thing or a social phenomenon or a construct.
You conceive of these things and look at them through lenses that I just don't find useful or I have not thought to do so.
They could be useful.
No, I'm saying from a Marxist materialist lens, yes.
But like, I mean, my general opinion on rights is that they're useless if you only have them du jour, but you don't actually have a way to enforce them.
Or similarly, it is, I wouldn't say equally as futile, but it's also a precarious position to be in where you can enforce your rights, but you have not actually secured the legal protections and the du jour actually gotten them ensconced in writing in a constitution, et cetera.
I think that the only argument that you can give to men, the benevolency of the patriarchy, is the entire appeal from people with your worldviews to appeal to us and our view who believe in rights because of God and say to us, don't we deserve them too, even though we don't actually even share the view?
To which I tell Christians, no, fuck them.
Give them nothing because they're appealing to your benevolence and they should beg, beg for you to be as benevolent as you are because from their worldview, they have nothing to ground it in.
Because if we're operating off of your view, I'm just going to grant that it's false.
Who cares?
If we're both building it off of a house of sand and I just made up divine command theory and you just, which by the way, I don't believe in divine command theory.
I'm going to appeal to my worldview, whether it's true or not, because it's the only one, right, which I'm going to postulate I'm going to ground rights in.
You just got done saying rights are not grounded in fucking anything.
And that's why you have to appeal, you moral anti-realists, to moral realists who believe in moral facts because that's what prevents us from enslaving all of you.
I think that the founding fathers sat around and had this conversation and they're like, look, we know through all human history, rights were dictated by who had the guns, who had the strength.
We have to change that because it constantly goblin king switches hands, the next strongest guy overthrows.
There's actually several foundational contributors who talked about how a morality, there has to be a shared sense of morality inside of a public in order for there to be a republic.
So that's true.
I think that that's true of any society.
I think there has to be some shared glue, right?
Here we used to have like patriotism.
We used to have all sorts of things that were a shared glue.
That's all gone, right?
Now I have to share my country with communists, right?
That's, and it used to be that we persecuted communists.
We get back to fucking persecuting the communists.
But the point is, is like that this type of poison, in my opinion, is so invasive to the fabric of the United States that people who literally tell me they can't ground anything in nothing, know that they can't ground anything in nothing, that there's no such thing as moral facts, then tell me it's wrong if I stuff them in a rape cage.
And it's like, what are you talking about?
That's the stupidest shit that I've ever heard in my life.
But that's my opposition, unfortunately.
And so they appeal to the benevolence of those like me in order to prevent us from doing the thing that they don't want, that they don't even believe we shouldn't do because there are no moral facts.
That's the retarded state of the world that we're in.
So wait, wait, what's your, you know, what if you believe that, then one, I think that goes to show that there are, you know, more powerful means than simply force to be able to enact your political will amongst the masses and the population.
You're saying that there are soft power and institutions that you can access that can erode these sorts of protections for Christians, for moral people, et cetera.
And there's not even a single drop of bloodshed.
There's not a shot.
But there could be.
If they wanted it to be happening, they're using soft power, and that in and of itself is pretty strong.
We'll win, soft power or force in the world.
Force will win, but I'm saying that I don't think that the, you know, even under his view, he's not discounting that there is a significant advantage in having these sorts of soft power and having access over these institutions, even if they're, you know, academia or whatever.
Maybe the only reason it works is because you're appealing to people that say, if you, if you kind of just come in here with force, that that's wrong.
And we have a moral order that would tell you that it's wrong.
So what you're doing is, and what a lot of women do, we can maybe go back to the feminism thing for a bit, is appeal to emotion and say a morality, an objective morality to say it is wrong to enslave other people.
It is wrong to use violence against people because they don't believe, and this is what the left has done.
This is why they've worked, because they appeal to the goodwill of Christians, particularly women, and empathy that says, oh, I feel bad for this immigrant who's just murdered an American child or a nursing student.
The amount of tears that were wept for somebody like Lake and Riley over some arbitrary person they don't know that isn't from this country, a small child that hasn't like a five-year-old who supposedly was taken in by ICE, it's unbelievable.
It's selective empathy.
It's empathy in this broad, I'm not saying compassion isn't there, but these women have this empathy for broad, abstract people more than the people closest to them, more than the family.
This Renee Goode woman put her own family in jeopardy.
She is now has her son or daughter is without a mother because of this abstract idea of that we should protect some boy that she doesn't know.
I think empathy should work in the particular.
If you're going to put yourself in someone else's shoes, know who that person is.
But this kind of broad, abstract, we should feel good.
We should feel for everybody.
You can only do so much.
And she put some broad abstraction of children in cages, whatever the moral appeal was over her very own family.
So you don't think it's virtuous to have concern for other people, even if you don't know them?
No, I think that's compassion.
But I think there's an order of virtue.
I think she misplaced her priorities.
She misplaced her emotions.
She misplaced who she should be caring for first.
You have a child.
Are you going to put that child's life at risk to go fight for some cause where you could potentially die and leave that child alone?
Are you going to go fight for some abstract cause and abandon your child for that?
So your argument is that her duties were misaligned or out of order because she was prioritizing other people's kids, strangers, et cetera.
But I don't think that Renee Goode woke up that morning thinking that she was going to be shot in the head three times, even with the actions that she was through.
But why would you take that risk?
You know you're going to an armed conflict where there's force, where there's no way an armed conflict.
Yeah, but why would you go into potentially dangerous situations?
The tensions have been known to be heightened in Minneapolis, right?
Why would you just abandon your duties and responsibilities as a mother to your child to go fight for some abstract cause where the reality is you're not going to make much of a difference?
So, well, there's, I guess, two things that I have to dispute with that.
For one, again, I don't think that she views this as sort of like an all or nothing thing.
I don't believe that she thought that as she was doing that, she was going to be abandoning or one, she didn't anticipate that she was going to be shot in the head three times.
Two, I don't think that she believed that she as by making that choice, it's mutually exclusive.
And therefore, by going to this ICE protest, that she was going to be abandoning her family for one.
So I think that kind of explains her subjective state of mind.
But then you're at the second part of your question was like, why would you do that?
And it's the same reason that Kyle Rittenhouse decided to take up arms and head to Kenosha and take matters into his own hands as far as he saw and try to defend the police, defend buildings or whatever, because he had a superseding moral principle and duty that he felt he was compelled to act on.
But he didn't have a family.
Did Rittenaus didn't have a family?
No, he doesn't have a father.
He's not a father.
I wonder if that would change his decision-making process to go into a risky situation.
So then single people, you're fine with doing this because they don't have a duty to their children because they have no children to speak of.
Or no, that wouldn't be okay there.
Well, no, my risk calculations of what I do on a day-to-day basis are much different than probably a woman with children.
Yeah, absolutely they are.
Different, but would you can, if Renee Goode had been single, would you be saying, oh, well, it's okay because she wasn't in violation of her moral duty to her son?
I would say that the calculation would be different.
You're just saying it's different, but in what way would it be different?
Well, she's not considering she has to take care of a family when she goes home or she has a moral responsibility for her son.
So I'm going to be more risk tolerant to go into situations that's highly charged where there is the possibility of force, whereas the possibility of her getting hurt.
And she didn't back down.
That was the thing.
They were very antagonistic to these ICE officers.
It just seems like a red herring because I think that you fundamentally believe that she was fighting for a cause that was not righteous and that is unjust.
And why not make the criticism on that grounds instead of saying, well, it's actually immoral because she has a duty to her family and to her son?
But again, then the disordered priorities just seems like a red herring to me because it doesn't really seem like that's the thing that you're really sanctioning her for or indicting her for.
It does seem like the issue is that you don't really think that the cause was just because if the cause became just enough, then it would reach a threshold where suddenly you would say that the duties maybe could be, there could be leniency as far as them being reordered.
And then there could be other social cause in your family or you as an individual.
I don't think there's any social cause worth risking your life for and risking leaving your child without a mother.
I don't.
So how do you feel about ICE agents then?
Because they're putting themselves in a risky, difficult position.
These ICE agents have family.
They're going out there with guns.
They're not charged to their family.
They're not charged with the nurturing and taking care of their children.
But they still charge their duties to their families.
They do, but they have different, they have different capacities.
Like we said, they're more forceful.
They're more likely to be safe in that situation than a woman is.
But you're just saying they're different.
They're different.
agree that they're different, but why this leniency for men to be engaged in these sorts of behaviors and not following their duty of caring, not putting themselves in situations because fathers and mothers have different roles within the family.
Their charge is to protect and defend.
A mother's role is to nourish and so male ICE officers, okay.
Female ICE officers, how do you feel about that?
I would probably argue it's not, I mean, again, do you have a family?
Does she is she's a female ICE officer with a family?
Do you think that she's engaged in something immoral?
If Kyle Rittenhouse had been a woman or a teenage girl instead of a boy, would you be condemning them?
I'm not condemning anybody, but I would say does that mean their character, their actions, their choices because it was a girl doing it now instead of a boy?
You're talking about people getting whipped into a frenzy, like a moral frenzy to go fight some for some purpose that they barely understand.
And I keep thinking like the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, they rallied the men to go fight some conflict.
They garnered my empathy with 9-11 and then they used it for conflict.
But do you think that feminism, this whole bet, has made it so that they're drawing women into that frenzy?
Because seeing women out on the street marching like this, it feels like it does feel like, I mean, it feels like the United States is being manipulated by the world through the internet.
Like liberalism is being obliterated with new ideas.
And so I do think that people are like, yes, break up the family, poison yourselves, eat bad food.
This is how we'll defeat you from within.
But I mean, the argument I'm getting is that feminism has led to now enticing women into this toxically empathic state of being.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's appealing to, I think there's positive attributes to male qualities and positive attributes to female qualities and vice versa.
You can have what you call toxic empathy.
I don't like the word toxic in general.
I don't think, you know, masculinity is toxic.
I don't think femininity is toxic.
I think them aimed in the wrong direction leads us to where, to chaos, as opposed to order and compassion in the right direction.
I think these women are placing their empathy in the wrong direction because they don't, it is natural instinct.
It is biological difference.
Women are more empathetic.
They're more agreeable by nature, these kind of five personality traits.
And I think they have been manipulated to feel things to redirect what would normally be directed at a child or a family to these kinds of abstract social justice causes.
So what is your prescription for these women?
I'll go back to the female ICE agent with her family.
Do you think that any female ICE agent who has a family ought to resign from ICE?
I don't think that most women, because of their differences, because of their physiological tendencies, the way they think, the way they are in their femininity, would want to be a female ICE agent.
And you see this like, I guess this kind of cuts against your kind of vibes argument because you're finally drawing lines in the sand with what professional achievements that you're willing to accommodate women making in this society.
ICE is already struggling with recruits, even getting men, even with all of the generous benefits that they're offering.
And under your worldview and your normative claims that you've laid out in this conversation, you would be fine with working against the goals of the admin that you voted for and supported and channel and whose policies you champion.
You'd be only aware of that.
Let's say that ICE, 40% of it, again, comprised of women with families, you'd say it's more important that they ought to resign and work against your goals for the domestic gender with agenda within this United States to be able to prioritize that.
And I find that to be futile under your worldview, and I find that to be strange, honestly.
I think that at that point, it just seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot.
And you're not pragmatic whatsoever.
I would call on more men to step up and fill those.
They're calling on men and they're struggling to even get men to recruit, even with the incentives that they're laying out.
But it just seems self-defeating to me.
It seems like at that point, you know, a little feminism could do you some good because if ICE were, you know, 40% of it were comprised of women and that works in your favor because they're effectuating deportations, you know, detainment of undocumented citizens, and you ultimately think that that's a righteous cause.
It's a righteous goal.
I don't see why you would get tripped up over the fact that like, oh, well, I want that to happen, but it needs to be men doing it, not women.
Then it just seems like you're getting needlessly picky and working against your own interests.
I mean, I mean, typically, if an ICE agent or ICE agent was just to do their job, they would go in, take the illegal immigrants or whomever they're supposed to deport and take them out of the communities, right?
They wouldn't be involved in these violent conflicts if there wasn't this.
Mass deportation program underway, which I assumed you supported.
But you're saying when you said, like, well, they're doing things that they're not supposed to be doing, I got the impression, you can correct me if I'm wrong, that they're coming up against conflict where that's not normally in the job description.
It's not normally in the job description that ICE is going to come up against conflict.
Well, no, if they're, they're coming up against mass and blocking traffic.
There's plenty of cities where ICE agents are doing their job and they're not encountering all of this crazy behavior, the whistles, the things that put them into kind of a sympathetic state of mind.
The whistleblowing, people standing on the sidewalk blowing whistles or whatever.
You think that's the best craziness.
You think the behavior you're seeing in Minneapolis and Los Angeles and the rioting, that that's kind of normal behavior of people who are whose emotional nervous system is well balanced?
You're saying that the people that are demonstrating protesting against ICE, they're doing so because they're hormonally imbalanced?
No, I'm saying they're not exhibiting behavior.
Somebody like Alex Petty, who's who is punching out lights, that's not calm protesting behavior.
They are antagonizing people.
They are intentionally antagonizing people.
They are blowing whistles.
They are screaming.
They are asking people for papers when they are not law enforcement.
So my moderation style, as I'm a debate participant here too, I wanted to make sure you had plenty of time to also engage in your views with the side of the table.
I think I did a good job of that and also engage with my views, which you've lost on.
But the thing is, is that I do want to point out a couple of things.
First and foremost, I want to give you both kind of a chance to wrap your thoughts up.
So let's start with you, Aaron.
Like, just take a quick minute and kind of wrap your thoughts up on the conversation that we just had.
As a closing statement, I think the conversation that we just had is that if you want to indict my priorities as a feminist, as a communist or whatever, look no further than the arguments that were laid out by my interlocutor over here that were, to me, filled with internal contradictions, had a bunch of that were, even though I was being indicted for appealing to arbitrary morals or non-existent ones for going off vibes and feels or whatever that there were many times, and Andrew even granted this to me,
that my debate opponent was doing the exact same thing.
And then from there, I would ask the audience and the viewers and participants to evaluate our performances, evaluate our arguments and see if we're if I'll even grant we're both just going off vibes.
So I also work in the realm of, I like philosophy to undergird my arguments, but I also work in the realm of policy and what is politically viable, what is practical, what is policy is always an alternative between solutions.
It's never a best solution.
I don't think policy and politics will ever be the same.