Andrew Klavan’s Trumpy Bear vs. The Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys mocks Hillary Clinton’s 2020 comeback with fabricated drunken rants, then pivots to Florida recounts and Trump’s legacy—praised for policy but criticized for "bad manners"—while framing urban-rural divides as a clash over freedom’s definition. Fiorella Nash, author of The Abolition of Woman, exposes radical feminism’s dogma, detailing her ejection from a Cambridge event for opposing abortion and accusing the movement of ignoring global oppression (e.g., China’s forced sterilizations) while policing dissent. She champions a "new feminism" rooted in male-female collaboration, contrasting it with exclusionary ideologies that bar pro-life women from marches. The episode ties these threads to societal fragmentation, from Macron’s anti-nationalist snubs to Kiko Kondo’s hologram marriage, warning that rejecting human conflict risks losing shared reality. [Automatically generated summary]
Hillary Clinton is thinking of running for president again, and word has spread through the political world like wildfire that destroys property and homes, killing people and animals alike, while firemen bravely sacrifice themselves in a desperate attempt to put it out.
Clinton made the announcement in an interview with a shadowy Clovenhoof figure telling him, quote, I was sitting in my living room drinking a glass of Chardonnay and thinking and drinking and thinking and drinking and drinking and thinking and drinking.
I'm sorry I forgot what I was talking about, unquote.
Expert political observers point out that Hillary's lifetime of public service includes a healthcare plan that crashed and burned, a major scandal in which she attempted to destroy the lives of women who threatened to expose her husband's abusive sexual practices, and a brilliant plan to unseat the leader of Libya, which led to chaos in the Middle East and degraded the United States' reputation in the region beyond repair.
As one expert put it, quote, if she can just bring that level of experience to the American presidency, we will be screwed in ways mere language couldn't possibly describe, unquote.
In a rambling interview with the lamppost outside Archie's Bar and Grill in Chappaqua, New York, Mrs. Clinton explained her motives for considering yet another presidential run, saying, quote, the first time I ran for president, I was defeated by an inexperienced second-rate senator, and that was pretty humiliating.
The second time I ran, I was defeated by a loudmouthed businessman, and that was extremely humiliating.
This time, I'm hoping I can fall face first into a spotlight during a debate, set my skirt on fire, and run naked in circles around the stage while on national TV, because that would be unimaginably humiliating, and I've just really gotten into that sort of experience, unquote.
Mrs. Clinton said she planned to discuss the decision further with the gigantic pink elephant who lives on her ceiling.
She says he's been guiding her career for years.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm a hunky-dunky.
Life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing hunky-dunky donkey.
Shipshaw dipsy-topsy, the world is appity-zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hooray, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
You know, Hillary Clinton is really saying that the Wall Street Journal says she is going to run.
I just hope she doesn't because I can't stand to listen to Shapiro for the next two years tell me she's going to win.
Whatever the worst possible thing can happen, that's what he thinks is going to happen.
Tomorrow, the mailbag, more importantly, you are just one day away from all your problems being solved.
You know how to do this by now.
Go to dailywire.com, hit the podcast button, hit the Andrew Clavin podcast, hit that picture of the mailbag.
You can ask me anything you want about politics, about religion, about your personal life, and I will solve your problems.
My answers are guaranteed 100% correct and will change your life sometimes for the better.
You know, but the one catch is you got to subscribe.
And at this point, we're giving you so much stuff.
You know, we're sending you, I'll take my shoes off and send you my shoes.
We give you Another Kingdom.
We give you the Shapiro show and the Knoll show and my show and Walsh's show.
You can be in all the mailbags, ask all the questions.
I mean, you only have to come to my mailbag because I will answer all your questions and solve all your problems.
You get just about anything you want.
It's only 10 bucks a month.
100 bucks you get the whole year, which is actually less than 10 bucks a month.
If you, you know, one of my listeners, I can't imagine you being able to do that math, but it's $100 you get the whole year.
And of course, the famous now famous leftist tears tumbler, which you can use to shatter Crowder's mug.
Just hammer it about three times and Crowder's mug just breaks into pieces, which you can then use to throw away.
Also, you know, a bunch of people wrote in, I mentioned before that, you know, Another Kingdom is now, we're now up to episode seven.
Is it seven for subscribers, and that'll be out for on Friday.
And if you'd like to get the first season in novel form, and the novel is a little bit different than the actual podcast, you can order, pre-order it at anotherkingdom.editorsexclusives.com, and you'll get all bunches of free gifts that come along with it, including a prequel that I wrote that comes with it and an author's guide that I also wrote that comes with it.
That's anotherkingdom.editorsexclusives.com to get all the free stuff up ahead.
If you pre-order, you got to pre-order the books out in March.
And, you know, while you're doing that, you might want to send a letter.
And if you do that, you got to use stamps.com.
Why?
Because the post office gives you so many great services, but you want to stuff those services into your computer where everything else is too.
I mean, you just don't have time, especially if you live in LA.
You don't have, definitely don't have time to get to the post office because it's like a block away.
So that's three hours of driving through traffic.
Wherever you live, you want your good stuff in your computer.
And with stamps.com, you can access all the amazing services of the post office right from your desk 24-7 whenever it's convenient for you.
You can buy and print official U.S. postage for any letter, any package, using your own computer and printer.
And the mail carrier picks it up.
You click, you print, you mail, you are done.
It could not be easier.
And right now, you can use Clavin for a special offer.
This includes up to $55 free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
So don't wait.
Go to stamps.com before you do anything else.
Click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage and type in clavin.
That's stamped.com.
Enter Clavin.
You will be able to send a letter directly from your desk, including the question, how do you spell Clavin?
How do you spell Clavin?
Do we know?
Do we?
So, well, there it is.
You should check our sponsors.
You'll love what you'll be saving.
But you must remember, there are no E's in Claven.
There's jobs and flowers, crates and wine, and all the folks are raving.
But you have to spell it right.
There are no E's in Claven.
There's stamps and sheets and mattresses.
There's magazines and shaving.
But if you want the discount, there are no E's in Claven.
You can even help bring the meals that you are craving.
There is an E in Andrew, but there are no E's in Claven.
Are no E's in Claven.
V A in, there are no E's in Claven.
The entire staff is dancing.
It's a wonderful celebration of life.
Knock it off.
No E's in Claven00:08:05
I love that song.
I think it sticks in my head all day long.
And it's true, too.
There are no E's and Clavens.
So, you know, the numbers now coming in from the election results and they're doing the recounts in Florida and Arizona.
I can't believe they voted for that woman in cinema, but do not think, you know, I'm hearing a lot of things that the election was stolen in Arizona.
It wasn't.
I hear from John Gabriel, who is an Arizonan, that McSally's campaign, obviously she was a much more appealing candidate to us, but she ran a kind of prevent defense campaign.
It was not a good, not an aggressive campaign.
Cinema sold herself hard as a moderate.
So she's ahead.
But the thing I wanted to get to, you know, when the election first happened, I talked about what a victory it was for Donald Trump culturally, the thing that I really care about, because I think the culture affects what you're going to be seeing 20 years down the line.
And Donald Trump has changed the culture in a lot of ways.
He has made it permissible to speak up when the NFL is not saluting the flag.
Permissible to say, hey, I'm going to say Merry Christmas.
Permissible to say to the news media, you know what?
You stink.
You lie constantly in favor of Democrats.
We hate you.
You do a bad job.
And he has shown that you can do that and walk away without a scratch.
On the other hand, on the other hand, I think it's important to point out that he did not walk away without a scratch for the thing that I complain about all the time, which is his bad manners.
You know, he was so successful as president, the economy, the war against ISIS, which he won essentially, his regulation, dialing back regulations, his judge picks, he's been so successful that the only reason people have turned against him really is because of his manner, because of the way he does things, and everything he does could be done with a little bit more grace, but that's not the way he is.
Okay, that's fine.
But Henry Olson, who is one of my favorite observers of the political scene, he saw something else in these elections as the numbers come in.
And one of the things I like about Olson is he doesn't say, he doesn't announce his conclusions on the day of the election because he takes some time and he thinks about it.
And he's talking about the fact that our country is continuing to divide.
And it is a division of places.
It's a division between the cities and the suburbs and the countries, and the country and the towns.
This is not necessarily a question of race.
It's not necessarily a question of education, though education plays into it.
More educated people tend to congregate in cities.
But it is a question of a way of life.
And he says, there are two nations now.
The first nation, the U.S.'s large cities and suburbs, was Democratic before last week and became much more Democratic on Tuesday.
The second nation, the U.S.'s smaller cities and towns and countryside, was Republican before last week and remained Republican on Tuesday.
And what he says about this is this is good news for Trump 2020 because it means he has a clear path to winning the Electoral College again, even if, again, he loses the popular vote.
And, you know, we decide our elections with the Electoral College, but it's not necessarily a good thing to continually win the Electoral College and not be able to deliver the popular vote.
I mean, even the founders talk about this in the Federalist Papers, that you want ultimately a sense that the majority is ruling the country.
And so it would be good if we could get a little unity going together, coming together.
And I feel this.
I feel this kind of moving.
It wasn't just that Crenshaw thing on Saturday Night Live, the Dan Crenshaw reconciliation video.
It's a whole feeling that the outrage that I noticed I was talking about yesterday when you go on and everybody's outraged about every little thing is that addiction that Glenn Beck talks about, that addiction to outrage, that in the wake of this election, that nobody won.
There was a little bit for everybody.
There were losses for both the Democrats and for the Republicans.
And not only that, there was a sense that this battle, this pitched battle that we're in with each other, is not going to be resolved.
It's not like the left is going to disappear and it's not like the right is going to disappear.
It is going to be this continual struggle.
And if we keep the radicals out of it, I mean, obviously the alt-right, who I reject completely, and if you keep the radicals, when I talk about the radicals on the left, I'm talking about the people in power and the news media.
I think that is really the problem.
But when you keep them out of it, liberals and conservatives are in this kind of dance that we can go use to move forward.
They talk about, we talk about the need to preserve our institutions and traditions.
They talk about the fact who those institutions and traditions are not serving and how we can serve them.
The problem is the difference between what the cities want and what the country wants.
Now, we'll talk about that in a minute.
But first, I have to talk about QUIP.
And you know Quip, they have made this beautiful electric toothbrush that is so well designed, so sleek, so easy to carry around that you can take it with you anywhere.
That is the big deal because your teeth look and are better with an electric toothbrush.
And Quip was designed to make brushing your teeth more simple, more affordable, and even more enjoyable.
It's got a built-in two-minute timer that pulses every 30 seconds and that reminds you to switch sides, which helps guide a full and even clean.
And it's one of the first electric toothbrushes accepted by the American Dental Association.
But the big thing for me is that it's just so portable and I'm just always somewhere.
I'm not where I'm supposed to be.
And I just can't take out that big bazooka of an electric toothbrush and charge it and get it done.
This operates by battery.
You don't have to charge it.
And that's why I love Quip.
And they're backed by over 20,000 dental professionals.
Quip starts at just 25 bucks.
And if you go to getquip.com slash Clavin, right now you'll get your first refill pack for free with a Quip electric toothbrush.
That's your first refill pack free at G-E-T-Q-U-I-P.com slash, how do you spell it?
K-L-A-V-A-N.
That's it.
So the Mickey Mouse theme doesn't really work with that, but I tried.
I gave it a try.
The thing is, the difference between the cities and the countries is the same difference we have when we talk about the Supreme Court.
When we talk about the Supreme Court, I always say it's not a fair, it's not a fair debate because it's not like the right is saying we want judges to give us right-wing decisions and the left is saying we want judges to give us left-wing decisions.
The left is saying we want judges to give us left-wing decisions and the right is saying we want judges to give us constitutional decisions.
And the same thing is true of town and city, okay?
Or country and city, let's call it.
Cities tend to be A, more liberal, and they're creative places.
They've got a little bit more chaos.
The thing is, when you live in a city, and I've lived in cities for a lot of my life, even though I don't like cities, I prefer living in the country.
I've lived in cities for work most of my life.
And when you live in cities, everything is taken care of for you.
And so you live your life.
The garbage disappears.
You put it in a chute in your apartment.
It's gone.
You don't have to think about when the trucks are coming or take the garbage down or anything like this.
Everything is kind of regulated, and you think that that's a good way to live.
And you can go and do your work.
It's all dedicated to work and sort of the arts and all that.
And that's the way they think of freedom.
Whereas in the country, you do your own life.
You mow your lawn, you rake your lawn, you fix your house, you do stuff, and you have your neighbors, and you have a lot of social capital.
You have churches, you have associations, things that exist in cities but don't dominate the landscape in the same way.
So what country life and small town life and small city life contribute to the country is this kind of social capital that turns into moral capital that is the way that we hold up the roof of a civilized society.
Cities don't have that.
If all the world were run like cities, all the world would be as chaotic and as violent and as dangerous as cities are.
It might be as creative, but I don't think so.
I think it would just lead to chaos.
The problem is it's not a fair debate.
The people in the country want to be left alone.
They don't want to tell people in the city how to live.
Nobody out in the country is thinking, you know, I just want somebody to tell those people in New York to stop chasing each other around the desks and live like I live.
Trumpy Bear's Social Capital00:08:33
They're not thinking that.
That's not what they're thinking.
They're thinking, I want to be left alone.
That is the conservative idea of freedom.
Leave me alone.
The cities want to tell everybody what to do.
The cities want to tell everybody what to do.
I mean, I remember in England, it was about fox hunting.
They would sit in the city and say, this is cruel fox hunting.
You don't know what fox hunting is.
You're living in London.
Shut up and let the people in the country have their traditions and do their thing.
If people in the cities did not want to dominate countries, did not want to yell at them constantly from their perches where they run the media, where they run Hollywood, where they run the academies, they wouldn't have the same problem.
The problem is they are not listening.
They do not listen to what the country wants.
And we know this from the ceaseless attacks on Donald Trump.
You know what?
That's why we need Trumpy Bear.
I have to pause in the middle of this.
I want to go on and talk about the fact that they're not listening.
Have you seen this ad?
I love this ad that I saw it on Fox News.
Here is an ad for a new stuffed bear for Christmas, Trumpy Bear.
You got to see this.
The wind whispered through the forest.
A storm is coming.
You cannot defeat the storm.
From the trees rose the resounding voice, I fear nothing.
I come when the trumpet sounds.
I am the storm, the great American grizzly, introducing the original Trumpy Bear, the fearless, super plush American grizzly.
Trumpy Bear was born June 14th, Flag Day.
Just find the secret zipper and pull out the flag blanket.
Then wrap yourself in the red, white, and blue for comfort and warmth.
Show your patriotism and proudly display Trumpy on Flag Day.
And on any American holiday, Trumpy can even honor your own family heroes.
God bless America and God bless Trumpy Bear.
Trumpy Bear sits proudly at the front of the motorcycle for all the world to see and loves to cruise with his brother.
I'm a former Marine and I'm proud to have Trumpy Bear ride by my side.
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
Everyone knows Trumpy Bear loves to go to the golf course.
When I ride with Trumpy Bear, he makes my golf game great again.
Thank you, Trumpy Bear.
Simply style his trademark hair and place him in his favorite chair.
Even the toughest guys will love Trumpy Bear.
Even rhymes.
Simply comb his trademark hair, place him in his favorite chair.
Even the toughest guys will love Trumpy Bear.
I just love that.
And what I love about it too, first of all, what does that bear cost?
10 bucks to make?
And they're selling it for $50.
They're going to make a fortune.
That's the first thing.
But the other thing is what I love is the commercial itself is clearly mocking itself and being serious at the same time.
So you can read it any way you want.
You can read it with irony.
You can read it as serious.
And they know they're going to sell to both people.
If no one gets me a Trumpy Bear for Christmas, I am going to be severely disappointed.
I want a Trumpy Bear.
And, you know, just send it to me here because even, you know, I can comb its trademark hair, put it in its favorite chair.
I love my Trumpy Bear.
Unbelievable.
Anyway, I had to play that.
I'm sorry.
It was the highlight of my day yesterday.
But, you know, this thing about leaders not listening was what you were seeing in France over the weekend.
Everybody made a big fuss about this.
Emmanuel Macron.
It started off with Emmanuel Macron saying, Europe needs an army because, you know, we can't surrender enough people as it is.
You know, the French, they just want to surrender.
They want a big army.
They can surrender instead of just surrendering their little French army.
So he wants a European army so they can all, as one, the European Union as one can say, we surrender.
We give up.
Please do not kill us.
So he said he wanted an army so Europe could defend itself against Russia, China, and the United States.
So it was obviously this zing.
I thought that Macron and Trump were supposed to love each other, but I guess they're on the outs.
So Trump said he took that as an insult.
And then there was all this fuss about the fact that Trump didn't go to the ceremonies for Veterans Day and he didn't go to a cemetery.
I mean, of course, we had to be outraged by this.
It was an outrage.
It was a terrible outrage.
But then at the ceremony that Trump was at, Macron got up and he gave this speech where he attacked nationalism, all right?
And he said, patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.
So Trump is sitting there and looking very stony-faced.
It's the exact opposite of nationalism.
Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism because it says our interests first.
Who cares about the others?
We erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential, its moral values.
Now, the problem with this is it makes absolutely no sense and it's entirely untrue.
Other than that, it's great, but it makes no sense and it's entirely untrue.
Nationalism is an essential part of patriotism.
You are a patriot because you love your nation.
Who's he talking to?
Well, he's talking to Trump because Trump has made a big deal about being an American nationalist, nation first, and all this stuff.
He's talking to Donald Trump, but he's also talking to all the countries in Eastern Europe and saying, you know, you having all these nationalist movements, you know, this is not right because we are friends.
We are the hero to tell us all how to behave.
And this does arise.
It does arrive out of World War I. You know, World War I is this incredible, I mean, like I said, Americans do not understand World War I like the Europeans do.
We didn't lose as many people there.
We weren't as involved in it.
It wiped a generation off the face of the earth, changed all these empires.
Russia became the Soviet Union.
The Austrian Austro-Hungarian Empire vanished from the face of the earth.
The Ottoman Empire ultimately vanished.
Everything.
And here in America, it was kind of the beginning of the progressive movement with Woodrow Wilson, the first anti-constitution president, starting to install that kind of deep state that we're still fighting with today.
So it really had a big, big effect that is still haunting all of our countries today.
But the left, as it always has managed to do in the past, sees the narrative.
What was the reason we lost all these millions of men, all this disaster?
Well, it was nationalism.
That was the problem.
It was nationalism.
You could just as easily have said, since nobody can really understand why and how the war got out of hand the way it did, you could just as easily say, well, it was because of unions like NATO.
It was because everybody was sworn to defend everybody else.
So when a war started, everybody had to take sides and the entire continent went up in smoke.
I mean, that's another thing you could possibly say.
But for Western Europe, the idea was we have got things figured out.
Everything should be Western Europe.
Our values are eternal, universal values, and therefore we don't need nations.
We just need to share our values.
That's kind of the basis of the European Union in the same way.
It's the basis of the United States.
But the United States doesn't expect everybody else to fall in line with our values.
That is the whole thing about the U.S.
We are an experiment, a big experiment on whether you can spread values without taking over other countries.
In the old days, everybody hates imperialism.
Everybody says empire was a bad thing.
Not so bad.
It was a way of spreading good values.
So we are an experiment in spreading values.
And the thing is, Macron is not listening.
He's not listening to the Eastern Europeans who for 70 years were dominated by the Soviet Union, their nationalism stripped away and forced into this kind of multinational structure where they said, oh, no, you're not Poland.
You're just one of the union of Soviet socialist republics.
Oh, and by the way, you're not a republic either.
You're just a slave state.
They're fighting back from that.
They want their nation.
They want their identity.
And France is secure in its identity.
And as Trump actually tweeted out, he said, there is no country more nationalists than France, very proud people, and rightfully so.
And of course, the French, you know, the French have laws about how many American movies they can show because they don't want American culture taking over their culture.
So for Macron to get up and denounce nationalism is really a nationalistic move, okay?
It's just slapping Trump around for no reason, slapping all these movements around.
The leaders are not listening.
The people in the city are not listening to the people in the country.
The people in the capitals are not listening to the people in the other cities.
It is a real problem.
It is a real problem, and we've got to start.
We really have got to start to listen.
One of the problems with Trump, and one of the things I keep complaining about, is a lot of times he says true stuff in such a way that nobody will listen to him.
Listen Up!00:04:06
Like when he was talking about the California fires we're having here, he said a lot of this is to do with forest management and the firemen were out there with the hoses and the people were running from their houses and driving through flames.
And it was like, you have to bring that up right now.
I mean, it is true.
Forest management is messed up in California and on the federal lands in California because an environmental movement has made it too hard to clear out the debris, to clear the forests of all the debris that just turns into Tinder.
And so their fires go up, you know, like a matchbox.
And he's absolutely right about it, but just a little bit of timing there, Donald, and you could actually have gotten that message across.
We're not listening to one another, and it doesn't help when everything is outrageous, when everything is about screaming, when everything is about beating the other guy.
And that's why that Saturday Night Live moment was so impressive to me.
Why it is, hey, you know, we've got a great interview coming up, and we're going to break for that.
But I do have to mention the death of Stan Lee, obviously the master of the Marvel universe, a guy who really changed comic books in a unique way by making characters who were not like Superman untouchable.
They were not just square-jawed all-American icons.
They were human beings like Spider-Man who had problems.
He's, you know, in a lot of ways, comic books themselves and Stan Lee also are a testimony to e pluribus unum.
And I'll tell you why.
When you make everybody part of the country, when you're good to everybody, the people who have always been outsiders start to contribute in new ways.
Comic books and superheroes are almost entirely an invention of Jewish people, of Jewish Americans like Stan Lee.
And they're a reflection of a sort of desire to be part of this wonderful American enterprise that turns you into a superhero by identifying with this super country.
And what Stan Lee was, he was a little bit more honest about his superheroes because they were little guys, troubled guys, neurotic guys, like the old, you know, kind of cliched picture of Jews.
And so he brought that into the superhero mix.
When you allow people to become part of your country, they contribute so much because they love the country and they show you different ways to be a part of it.
And I mean, if it's true, you know, take Irving Berlin who wrote White Christmas, that yearning, longing to be back in Christmas comes from a Jewish guy who was never part of Christmas, right?
That's where that yearning sound that you hear in White Christmas comes from.
In the same way, with Stan Lee, that idea of the wish fulfillment of the little guy, Peter Parker, who becomes Spider-Man.
And suddenly that is a very Jewish statement in a very big country.
And it's a wonderful part of not having multiculturalism, of saying, no, we're all one culture.
You contribute in your own unique way.
Stan Lee, let's just play a minute of his, this is his last interview, I believe, him talking about what he was trying to contribute through his superheroes.
I would like to think that everything we do in our stories helps the readers to just understand the world and to have a little more tolerance and to take the peaceful and intelligent route instead of what some people do.
I've always felt it would be nice if, while enjoying the adventure, if the reader also gets the feeling that we should all be good to each other and the world is a small place, we only have a short time in it, and we must make it as pleasant for ourselves and for other people as we possibly can.
And doing the right thing is better than doing the wrong thing.
Behind everything, there should be a good moral tone.
I've always tried to put that in.
They try to do that now with Marvel, and I hope they keep doing that forever.
Stan Lee, who's 95 years old, is funny.
On Saturday night, I went out for a birthday dinner with friends, and we went to one of my favorite, very fancy restaurants in Beverly Hills.
And I said at the dinner table, I said, oh, you know, every time I've been in here, I've seen Stan Lee was in here too.
Why Isn't Feminism's Voice Clear?00:14:58
I don't see him tonight.
He's dining at a better restaurant still, I'm sure.
All right, we've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube, but come over to DailyWire.com.
Tomorrow is Mailbag Day.
If you subscribe, you can ask me anything you want.
My answers are guaranteed 100% correct.
I mean, that's a pretty good deal for a lousy 10 bucks a month, guaranteed 100% correct, will change your life now and then for the better.
Rest of the time.
Yeah.
All right.
Come on over to dailywire.com.
So this is a fascinating interview.
I'm going to talk about why after the interview, but listen first to Fiorella Nash.
She's the author of The Abolition of Woman, how radical feminism is betraying women.
Fiorella is an award-winning novelist as well as a bioethicist in the United Kingdom with over 10 years experience researching life issues from a feminist perspective.
Here is Fiorella Nash.
Fiorella Nash, thank you so much for coming on.
I appreciate it.
Let's begin with the title, The Abolition of Woman.
Obviously, it calls to mind C.S. Lewis's abolition of man.
He was talking about some essential ideas going out of the world.
What do you mean by the abolition of women?
Well, as you say, it's a nod to C.S. Lewis.
I'm looking at really the way in which our understanding of womanhood is being affected by the ideological position of radical feminism.
The title is as controversial as the book in many ways.
I put forward the argument that women who oppose a particular understanding of womanhood and a particular understanding of sexuality are being squeezed out of the movement.
In a sense, a new patriarchy is being established in which women are told what they must believe about themselves.
You know, that certainly seems true to me watching it happen.
Can you be a little more specific?
What sort of woman is being squeezed out?
Well, I talk specifically about women who oppose abortion, of which there are millions around the world.
And in fact, if you look at the surveys and the studies, more women than men oppose abortion.
And yet it's always a given that women will support abortion.
So if you happen to disagree with abortion, you are very quickly removed from any discussion.
I have been escorted from the premises before by two men, in fact.
Really?
Can I ask where that happened?
That was when I was in Cambridge.
I was a student and I was in the most left-wing college doing a stall.
It was King's College.
And two men had me removed from the Freshers Fair because I might offend other women.
Wow.
Wow.
That has always stuck with me.
You know, they were a lot bigger than me and were claiming that they felt in some way threatened by my presence.
And, you know, I've been shouted down at meetings and seen other women being threatened at meetings.
And, you know, it's not the way it should be.
If we really believe in empowerment, if we want to give women a voice, then that means giving all women a voice, not just those who say the right things and follow the narrative.
You know, it often seems to me that all of these identity movements, and the only thing about women and men is women and men are different, whereas black people and white people are pretty much basically the same.
So women and men actually do have different positions to stake out.
But it always seems that these identity movements attach themselves to a form of leftism so that they're not anymore about the actual identity of the person they're defending.
Why?
Can you explain why a feminist would take the attitude that you must be in favor of abortion to be a feminist?
I think abortion has become almost a sacred cow in the movement.
It's become almost a matter of dogma.
I think any movement, you mentioned identity politics and all of that.
There tends to be a tendency to demand conformity.
Even if it starts off as a dissident movement, you very quickly get a sense that everyone should be thinking the same way.
And I think with abortion, we forget that, you know, in the early days of feminism, abortion was not regarded as a positive thing.
It was regarded as yet another way in which society was failing women as a form of exploitation of women.
It was only really in the 60s that that started to change.
And there can be a kind of cult-like element, I think, to any ideology.
And therefore, anyone who doesn't toe the line becomes almost a heretic.
Right.
who has to either be pushed out or who has to be retrained or bullied into thinking in a particular way.
I've heard it described as a colonization of the mind or colonization of the intellect.
That's certainly the way I would see it.
Why don't it seem to me that feminists are always complaining about treatment in countries like England and America where women, after all, have been treated historically better than anywhere else, Even in times when they weren't being treated as well, as equally as they are now, it was certainly better than that.
And yet they fall silent when talking about Saudi Arabia, China, where women really can be terribly oppressed.
Why aren't we hearing more from the feminist movement about those places?
It's one of my major points of contention with radical feminisms.
I think that we are very, very narrow in the way we tend to see the situation involving women.
And that has always been a criticism of feminism.
There was a joke when in the early days of the suffrage movement, it wasn't so much votes for women, it was votes for ladies.
It was very, very middle class.
And perhaps the voices of women, even at the time, from different classes and different ethnic groups were not really properly heard.
But I think certainly I contend that one of the major reasons why feminist groups are not speaking out enough about injustices involving women is because of the issue of abortion and so-called reproductive health.
If you look at China, for example, there's very little concern expressed about the one-child policy, even though millions of women for the period of a generation, the one-child policy is as old as I am, so guess, you know, have had their fertility sabotaged and suppressed by the communist authorities.
They have been forcibly aborted, forced to contracept, forcibly sterilized.
And so little is being spoken about this.
You know, we fall back on the, oh, well, population, and, you know, we fall into this sort of Malthusian argument that somehow it's, you know, it's a lesser evil when millions of women are suffering.
China is the only country in the world where more women than men commit suicide.
Wow.
And the majority are women of childbearing age.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's brutality.
It's obvious brutality.
I don't understand why that should not be a feminist issue.
I don't understand why they're silent on the way that women are treated in countries where a woman is put to death for being raped, you know, or where women have the most basic rights are denied, the right to show your face if you want to.
I don't hear anything about this from feminists.
It is quite varied, actually.
There are groups that do speak about this.
And you do get sometimes, for example, I don't know if you remember some years ago a film was made called the Stoning of Soraya.
Yes, my friend made that film, yeah.
Yeah, right.
And you know, that was promoted right around the Western world.
You know, I saw it and a lot of people did.
So I think there are some attempts made to try to draw attention to what's happening to women in Afghanistan, for example, in Saudi Arabia.
But it is pretty muted when we consider the things we spend our time worrying about, you know, the gender pay gap or whatever.
It does rather pale into insignificance when you've got women going through female genital mutilation or child brides and whatever.
But I think in fairness to many of the feminist groups, there is an attempt at least to try to draw some attention to issues like this.
And there was a stunt some time ago.
I don't know if you came across it about, I think it was in the States, an older man, he's in his 60s with a 12-year-old girl dressed as a bride.
And he's saying, oh, we're getting married.
And people were saying, well, hang on a second, how old is she?
No, she shouldn't be doing this.
This is illegal.
And what they were drawing attention to were child brides in other countries.
And they were drawing attention to the fact that if it happened in your own country, you would say something about it.
You know, what about though, outside of abortion, things like the Rotherham scandal, which really is only one of a number of scandals where young girls were being groomed for rape and unimaginable abuse from my point of view, and people kept silent because the perpetrators, I assume it was because the perpetrators were Islamic and they didn't want to be called Islamophobic.
Is that fair?
Well, one of the major problems actually was that we have over here, and you probably have a similar situation in the States, the idea of no worries sexual health clinics where they don't ask questions.
They pride themselves in servicing, as they see it, young people who are sexually active without wishing to appear to be judgmental.
They won't ask them if a 13-year-old girl, for example, comes in to get an implant or a contraceptive injection, what's going on, who she's sleeping with, how old is the man.
And so, of course, these abuses can just go completely undetected because nobody's asking questions.
And in fact, when there were the inquiries about Rotherham and also in Oxfordshire, that was one of the points that was made that these girls were quite often in contact with sexual health clinics, but nobody asked.
One question might have been enough to expose what was going on.
We leave our young people so vulnerable.
Yeah.
Now, I always tell people that I am not a feminist because I am, I believe that women are covered by, women's rights are covered by what we call here, I'm not sure they use this phrase in England, but that we call classical liberalism, which is basically our declaration, the declaration in the declaration that all men are created equal, that that should cover women, cover everybody the same.
And we don't need feminism.
What is it that makes you a feminist?
I think it is that I do believe we need feminism because I do believe that women still face struggles, including in our own country, perhaps more so in other places, as we've discussed.
But I still feel that there is a need to really fight for equality in certain fields, that women are more vulnerable in certain areas.
For example, when it comes to sexual violence, intimate partner violence.
And as things are going, my feeling is that they are becoming more vulnerable with, ironically, because of the sexualization of society.
I think women and girls are being placed at much more risk than they ever have been.
So I think there is a need for a very clear voice from a strong movement saying that violence towards women is wrong, that women and girls have a right to protection.
But I very much see it from the point of view of what's sometimes also called the new feminism.
Pro-life feminism I see as being very much a part of that.
I think it was John Paul II spoke of the need for a new feminism.
And the point of the new feminism is that it's about men and women working together.
It's not about men and women pitted against one another.
It's not about women blaming men for everything.
It's about men and women working together, complementary gifts, but as equals in pursuit of the common good.
Because we should all be searching for that.
You know, I couldn't agree with you more.
I guess maybe it's just phraseology.
I don't know any man who doesn't put violence against women at the top of his list of things that he opposes and would stand up against.
And yet, and yet we keep hearing men, at least over here, I don't know if this is happening there, we keep hearing men demonized, you know, wholesale.
And I think that that's, it's very difficult.
When you know we, they have this slogan here where they say it's not all men I think not all men, it's most men that would, would lay down their lives to protect certainly, the women in their lives, and sometimes random women that they just see uh, being attacked, you know, at random.
So I, I guess again, I want to ask why?
Why is this particularly a feminist issue?
Why isn't this just like a human issue?
Um, I suppose in the grand scheme of things, it should be.
Uh, when feminist groups disrupt pro-life gatherings and say women's rights are human rights, I completely agree with them.
We are talking about I don't know, I just I would say more grown up about it, but you know, I completely agree with them.
Um, and I also feel that that's another area, something I certainly look at in my book that men can be predatory.
They can also be protectors.
And because of this loss of our understanding of chivalry, I think we have lost that sense of the positive role that men play in the lives of women.
Um, and quite often, when i'm giving a talk on the subject of pro-life feminism, for example, some young man will put his hand up and say, um, where do I come into all of this or you know, i'd never do this to a woman, i'd never hurt a woman, and I made the point that actually, if a woman you knew god forbid was raped, it would really hurt you.
You know, if it was your wife, your girlfriend, your sister, your daughter, even a woman you worked with a colleague say, you know someone you cared about, it would really hurt you.
You would, you would want so badly to make it okay for her, to protect her, and that's a positive thing.
And I think maybe we have lost um, you talk about men being demonized, but maybe we have lost that sense of the role of men in actually helping women and working peaceably with women.
Um, but I would hope that the new feminism is a little bit more men-friendly as well as woman friendly, because if men lose their role in society, it hurts women as well as men.
It's funny, when you're talking, you seem to be talking complete common sense.
To me, I never hear feminists say any of this, at least in America I.
I never hear people.
It's why I say i'm an anti-feminist, because that's, this is not what I hear.
It seems to me you're talking about humane, human life.
I mean that's, this is the way of course, we should all live is is, how?
Women's Different Realities00:06:27
How big a voice do you have?
How many people like you are there?
Um, i'm a pretty small voice and they say that the the path of the pro-life feminists is a pretty hard one, but it's a it's a path worth walking.
Um, I think there are growing numbers of women who feel this way.
Uh certainly, i've been speaking out on this subject now for over a decade And I always have women, particularly young women, coming up to me afterwards saying, yes, this is exactly what I've always felt.
I've never quite known how to phrase it.
You're seeing groups in the States, for example, Feminists for Life of America, in Australia, you've got Women's Forum Australia, who are putting forward this sort of message.
So I think we are a small but a growing voice and becoming a little bit more bold in terms of giving out the message.
I mean, there was, I don't know if you picked up on the story when there were the women's marches going on and the women in their pussy hats and things like that.
There was a pro-life feminist group who were refused entry into the march because they were pro-life.
Yes, I agree.
And they turned up.
Yeah, and they turned up anyway.
They brought in their banners and they led the march.
And I think that is what I'm enjoying seeing.
That's what I'm encouraged by, is I think you're getting women, particularly younger women, who are questioning this very negative, very ugly vision of feminism, saying, no, this is not what we want for women and who are making their voices heard.
Well, I have to say, you are the first person who self-identifies as a feminist that I've agreed with completely, Fiorella Nash.
The book is called The Abolition of Woman.
I appreciate your coming on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's nice talking to you.
You know, the thing is, the thing that got me about this interview is she insists on being called a feminist.
But if she and I are agreeing, I don't think she is a feminist.
I think that the feminists have so sold themselves on the idea that feminism equals good for women, that nobody wants to let go of the label.
But the fact is feminism is not good for women.
Freedom and classical liberalism extending itself to women as it should, that's what's good for women.
I mean, freedom, America, the Constitution, that's what's good for women.
You don't have to call it feminism.
You just have to include people.
Women will go off and do different things because they like different things.
They desire different things.
They have different demands on their lives, different demands on their souls than men do in general, in general.
Some women will not.
Some women will want to do the more manly things.
But that's fine.
We don't care.
It's like each his own.
But why do you have to call it feminism?
I think we should start a new movement for chivalry where women act like ladies and men act like gentlemen toward ladies.
I think that that would be a really popular movement and we could just dump feminism altogether.
All right, sexual follies, speaking of which.
I'm running out of time.
I got to do the story faster than I'd like.
But here is a guy in Japan who has married a hologram.
Okay.
Hologram for those 3D projections.
A guy named Kiko Kondo.
Kondo has married Miku, an animated 16-year-old who is, I have no idea what she is.
She's like, and he married her with a doll, but she basically is a hologram who sits on the desk and he calls her before he leaves work and she turns on the lights for him and she's waiting for him when he gets home.
And he talks about how, you know, in the old days, he was a geek and girls were mean to him and drove him, the women were so unkind to him, they drove him to a breakdown.
So he married this hologram instead.
His family is not too thrilled.
You know, like all these hilarious stories, it's really a sad story.
I mean, it's a story of, you know, something that is happening in Japan, but happening around the world.
I mean, it's kind of this idea that technology, that all marriage is really about is this kind of feeling of love and maybe the experience of sex, which you can give to yourself through porn.
And that the idea of two human beings finding a way together is too difficult, you know.
And I think that I think that the whole thing, what other human beings, you know, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a play called No Exit About Hell.
And the whole thing in it, the whole play is I think it's three people locked in a room together.
Each one of them is in love with the wrong one.
So nobody is satisfied.
Everybody is yearning.
And the line in the play, the famous line from the play is hell is other people.
Hell is other people.
And why is hell other people?
It's because they don't conform to your desires.
They don't respond to your desires.
They don't agree with your opinions.
They don't confirm your reality.
And that's kind of what we're seeing in this country where nobody wants to listen to anybody else.
Nobody even wants to sleep with anybody else.
I mean, obviously, this is happening in Tokyo, but it's true here that people are giving up sex for pornography because they think hell is other people.
But the fact is, it's other people.
It's other people are the road to heaven.
I mean, that's why God said, love God, love your neighbors.
Because other people, by breaking into your opinions, by thwarting your desires, by showing you a different reality and not allowing your imagination to hold sway, bring you to the place where your imagination and reality can kind of meet.
You know, I've often talked about how women and men, each of them, possess half the world.
We see the world so differently.
I mean, it's the only different kinds of people there really are.
The only people with substantial differences, women and men.
They see the world differently, but each one is seeing half the world.
And when you marry somebody after about 10 years, you know, you start to think like, oh, wait, maybe she's not insane.
You know, maybe actually she sees something that's there that I can't see.
And you start to meld that vision and you start to see in three dimensions.
That ain't going to happen with a hologram.
It is not going to happen with a hologram.
A lot of other things, you know, that are not going to happen with a hologram.
But I think the most important one, the most important one is having somebody to get in your way a little bit, to sort of say, no, you know, I see it a different way.
I feel about it a different way.
You know, I'm actually thinking in a different way.
That's something that only happens really between men and women when they've lived together for a long time and feel bound together by all the things that bind us.
I think that when we walk away from that, we are walking away from the only path to reality we have, which is other people.
I See It Differently00:00:45
That's what I have to say about that.
I got to go tomorrow.
We'll be back with the mailbag.
Be here, then all your problems solved.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
The Andrew Klavan Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Technical producer, Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
And their animations are by Cynthia Angulo and Jacob Jackson.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing Production.