Andrew Clavin’s Canceling America dissects Joe Biden’s racial insensitivity gaffes—like dismissing rap music and a debunked "Cornpop" story—as media-manufactured scandals while exposing cancel culture’s hypocrisy, from firing SNL’s Shane Gillis over old jokes to weaponizing the Kavanaugh allegations as politically motivated libel. Guest Karen Strawn’s men’s rights advocacy reveals how Title IX and Me Too disproportionately harm Black men by eroding due process, mirroring historical racial injustices like lynchings. The episode ties these battles to a war over human nature: leftist perfectionism vs. constitutional self-governance, where institutions now bend to ideological control rather than justice. [Automatically generated summary]
Joe Biden is trying to firm up his support from black voters.
Biden so far leads the Democrat presidential pack in black support because black voters aren't really paying attention or they'd vote for Donald Trump.
Recently, however, the media, hoping to push a more radical Democrat like Elizabeth Warren or Nicholas Maduro, has been trying to undermine Biden's black support by pointing out that he's old-fashioned in his approach to race relations.
For instance, at the recent debate, Biden said black parents needed to learn how to teach their children more vocabulary words by making sure the kids were listening to the radio and the record player so they could laugh and learn along with the Abbott and Costello show and hear good music from Bing and Dinoshore instead of that gall darn rap stuff that rots their dadgum brains.
Journalists think this is old-fashioned because they feel modern black parents should instead have children out of wedlock, accuse the police of racism so their neighborhoods aren't patrolled, and then become outraged at white people for something that happened before any of them were born so that rich white liberals will be able to blame conservatives while doing nothing to help anybody and sipping Chardonnay.
Mmm, Chardonnay.
Biden tried to reestablish his street cred with black voters by telling a story about how he once faced down a black gangsta named Cornpop.
Cornpop had a razor that he soaked in water to make it rusty, and Biden had a length of chain.
And when the dust settled, Cornpop lay dying on the ground while all the other gangsters trembled in their shoes and promised that from now on, they would all vote for Joe Biden, who had proved himself the biggest gangster of them all.
Then Biden woke up to find it was 2019 and he was a racist.
The voters agreed the story was utterly fantastical and incredibly insulting to black people.
But then, so are most of the Democrats' policy ideas.
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-dunkity.
Ship-shaped ipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty-zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
I don't know if you're following the news out of Saudi Arabia, the Iranians just bombed all their oil fields, and people are wondering whether we're going to retaliate.
But meanwhile, our energy supplies are in disarray.
Not ours, but the world's energy supplies.
You know that the gas tank price of gas is going to go up.
These things affect the economy.
You want to be sure that you are safe.
You want to hedge against inflation.
You want to hedge against uncertainty and instability with precious metals.
And that's why you go to Birch Gold.
Gold is a safe haven against uncertainty.
And the company I trust with metal purchases is Birch Gold Group.
They will help you determine what a proper diversified portfolio should look like.
And right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver.
Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
So contact Birch Gold Group and get a free info kit on physical precious metals.
See if diversifying into gold and silver makes sense for you.
This comprehensive 16-page kit reveals how gold and silver can protect your savings and how you can legally move your IRA or 401k out of risky stocks and bonds and into a precious metals IRA.
To get your no-cost, no-obligation kit, text Andrew to 47-4747.
Again, text Andrew, my name, to 47-4747.
So today is Constitution Day.
Did you know that?
Today is Constitution Day, which makes it a good day to think about the Constitution because it's Constitution Day.
It's interesting to remember, for instance, that the Constitution was the founders' attempt to replace the Articles of Confederation, the 1781 document that reflected the determination of the original states to preserve their sovereignty and independence.
The problem was the Articles of Confederation, the AOC as it was called before that became an insulting term for a bubble-headed dingbat, did not give Congress enough power to hold the states together as a single nation.
So the founders went back to the drawing board and brought out the Constitution.
The states were so wary of giving the federal government even more power that a long debate ensued in which both sides argued for and against the new document.
That was how we got the Federalist Papers, which gathered the arguments for the Constitution as made by John Jay and James Madison and Alexander Hamilton before he embarked on his legendary career as a rapper.
What is amazing when reading the Federalist Papers, and every American should read the Federalist Papers, is the deep fear the founders felt about the vagaries of human nature, their tragic sense of man as a flawed and fallen creature given to power hunger, corruption, and greed.
Their awareness of the human history where freedom rose up rarely and always collapsed into tyranny.
They had read their Plato and their Cicero and their Shakespeare, and they knew what men were and where they go wrong.
As Hamilton rapped, if men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this.
You must first enable the government to control the governed and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.
That quote is just full of an awareness of how fallen human nature is.
So how to solve this problem of how to make a government that would control itself is a riddle, and the Constitution solved that riddle by creating a sort of Rube Goldberg machine, the sort of machine you see in the old board game mousetrap, where every action would trigger another action that would check and balance the first.
That way, ordinary, corrupt, stinky little humankind would be able to govern itself while the machine played one off against another to keep all of them in line.
It's a great idea.
And after it had successfully constrained the government and the people in it for about 100 years, the frustrated power grabbers began to disassemble it, often through Supreme Court cases that changed the original intent of the founders' words.
Why did they do it?
Because, as the poet T.S. Eliot said, humankind cannot bear very much reality.
The Constitution is a constant reminder of what we constantly want to forget.
We are fallen creatures, every single one of us, who can only be free through humility and virtue and the fear of God.
When politicians run from the Constitution, those are the self-evident truths they are running from.
And it's up to us to stop them.
It's up to us to remember, in the thick of our most heated battles, if we do not play by the rules of the Constitution, we may win the day and lose everything.
Constitutional Humility00:15:00
Today, tomorrow, I mean, it's the mailbag.
Mailbag is coming up.
So get, you know, Lindsay, that beautiful scream, that delightful scream, is Lindsay Boring, the God-King sister-in-law, who used to work at the Daily Wire.
And every time I would say it was the mailbag, she would do that in the background.
And so we taped her and got it when she left.
We wanted to keep her around because we miss her so much.
And we love you, Lindsay, and you're still screaming somewhere, probably where you are as well.
So go on dailywire.com, hit the podcast button, hit the Andrew Clavin podcast.
Little picture of a mailbag, hit that picture.
You've got to be a subscriber.
You have to subscribe.
It's allows you $10 a month, $100 for the year.
You get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Plus, you get to ask any question you want.
You can ask about politics.
You can ask about religion.
You can ask about your personal problems.
All my answers are guaranteed 100% correct and will change your life, maybe for the better.
You'll find out tomorrow.
Great night last night at the Shapiro Roast.
We all said nasty things about Ben, and we all meant them from our heart of hearts, but it was really, really fun.
I got to say, everybody was introduced according to their credits.
I was introduced as a writer and a guy who had been film business and won awards and all this stuff.
Very all, very nice.
You feel good when they introduce you.
Then Dana Perino comes on, and everybody says the same thing.
She is the nicest human being I have ever met.
That's an introduction.
That's what you want.
You know, when you get to Heaven's Gate, nobody's going to care about your awards.
Nobody's going to care about your books.
They're all going to say, yeah, are you Dana Perino?
Sorry, you're out of here.
Anyway, it was a lovely evening.
I thank you to John Podhoritz and Commentary for including me.
So I'm going to begin talking by something that may seem minor, but it's not.
It's this shameful story about Shane Gillis.
Shane Gillis is one of three cast members who was recently added to the Saturday Night Live show, and he was just fired.
He was fired because this cancel culture helped by the New York Times.
I don't know who the original clown was who came up finding some podcasts.
I looked at the podcast.
He makes a lot of jokes about Chinese people.
It's, you know, comedian boys being boys.
It's absolutely nothing.
It's not harmful.
It's not offensive.
It's just funny and silly.
It's not that funny, but it's just silly.
But they fired him.
And shame, shame on Saturday Night Live for not showing a little courage, for not standing up through the mob, for bending over to this mob culture, this cancel culture.
It's disgusting.
Here's a little clip of Gillis.
His thing is, he's white trash.
That's his thing.
He's white trash kind of come to the big city.
And here he is talking about the election Trump v. Hillary.
Do you guys remember how confident you guys were?
Going into that last one?
Huh?
You remember that?
A little borderline arrogant going into that.
All right.
Don't let it cost you again.
No, relax.
Relax.
I did not vote for him.
Yeah.
No, I actually did not vote for him, which that was tough.
Look at me.
His whole campaign was at me.
I was watching TV.
He was like, are you a fing fat idiot?
I was like, yeah, dude.
Yeah, what are we doing?
What the f are we doing, dude?
We're building walls?
Hell yeah.
I took skull out of my mouth to come up here.
And I didn't vote for Donald Trump.
Makes me like a Nelson Mandela of Central Pennsylvania.
Hey, if he can joke about himself, if he can joke about white people, he can joke about other people.
That's the rule.
The rule is not, you can only joke about your own kind.
That's garbage.
We can all joke about one another.
We're in this great big country poured in here from all different places in the world, from all different ethnicities.
There's going to be hostility.
There's going to be humor.
It sounds funny to English-speaking people when Chinese people have an accent.
Nothing wrong with teasing each other and making fun of one another.
And if you're offended, try some other country where there's only one kind of person, and then you won't have that problem.
It's disgusting.
And shame on Lorne Michael.
Shame on everybody over there at SNL for not standing up for the guy.
This is a guy's dream.
He makes it.
It's terrible.
You know who makes the great moral point, and you would expect it from him, is Bill Burr.
He's on that show.
Oh, I forgot the name of the show, but I'll get it when you come back.
But Bill Burr makes the point of what is at the heart of cancel culture.
Do they go back and also try to look at good things that the person might have done?
Or are they just looking for the bad stuff?
Is it you just scroll through help cat out of a tree?
That's not it.
Help grandmother walk across the street.
That's not it.
You know, I said something on a podcast.
There it is.
Yeah.
You know what?
I mean, you could do that.
You could honestly do that to anybody.
So I don't get it.
And then I don't get if you say something like that, you can't work in a sketch show, but like it's okay from what?
He can work in a lumber yard.
Yeah.
You're certainly going to meet more Asians there, right?
Than on SNL.
It's a joke about our SNLs not hiring Asians.
Oh, I'm in trouble?
Yeah.
We're not running for office.
When is this going to f ⁇ ing end?
Is it f ⁇ ing millennials?
You're a bunch of rats.
Well, good for Burr.
And what a great point, right?
It's all finding the flaws in people, not finding anything good that they did, not finding their true nature, not finding out who they are.
Just destroy, destroy.
And you can do it to anybody.
I always make this point when I talk to college students and all they've heard is Howard Zinn and how evil America is.
I say, how about if I tell your life story starting with your porn searches?
How about I do that?
You know, what would your life story look like then?
What would it look like if I talked about the things you did to your sister when you were little?
I mean, it's absurd.
It's an absurd view of human life.
And of course, it's not meant to do anything but scare people.
You know, there are these guys on Showtime, I think, Diaz and Miro, is that their name?
I've never seen their show.
But they go on, listen to this.
They go on and explain why they haven't been caught up by cancel culture.
Why do you think you've avoided the problematic police, at least in a big PR disaster way?
Is the key Deesus to just say allegedly and qualify everything that way?
I think it's more we self-centered.
Yeah.
There are certain things you know that you could have gotten away with saying in O-9 that you should not even formally as a sentence in your head.
Don't even put it in your drafts, okay?
You know what I'm saying?
Don't even try it.
If you've watched the progression of our comedy, there's certain jokes we used to do that we won't do anymore.
Because as we've experienced the world and we've come across different people, we realize that the humor hits differently.
That a certain joke that might have been funny four years ago, like you actually meet a person from this specific group and you're like, oh, like, I didn't even know that was offensive.
Oh, like, yes, we were from the Bronx.
It's like, I suck my d ⁇ and all that shit.
But we're not in the crosshairs of PC culture like that because we're not like fighting against it.
Like, we're not out there like, oh, PC culture.
You can't see what you want anymore.
Nah, you can say what you want.
You just got to be funny about it and be smart about it and approach it the right way.
And don't just say something for shock value because that's what a lot of people do.
A lot of people are just like, oh, you're offended.
Oh, I triggered you.
Sorry.
He's like, triggered you, Liptard.
You're like, nah.
And you know, like, we say, there's people who sung out or read us doing that, but it's just like, at the end of the day, what's the expectancy on there?
How long can you do that for?
I mean, they're intimidated.
They're intimidated.
They're broken.
They're broken people.
They have been told that they can't say anything.
Why don't we come into cancel culture?
Because we censor ourselves.
We cancel ourselves.
They are in cancel culture.
They just did it to themselves.
That's the point.
And the point is that you can be perfected, but you can only be perfected by obeying the left, right?
Nobody ever attacks anybody.
Well, that's not true.
The right does it to the left too, but the right is striking back, which is just as wrong.
It's just as wrong when the right does it to the left.
You can do it to anybody, not only because we're all flawed, but because you can make anything sound bad.
You know, you can make anything sound like it's untoward.
Especially when people are making jokes, especially when we're teasing each other, you take it seriously, you get offended.
Oh, boo-hoo, I'm offended.
It's absurd.
And these guys are just products of that.
They're not bragging as far as I'm concerned.
It's shameful what they're saying.
This is all shameful.
But they're trying to eliminate the idea of human frailty and human flaws.
And this is what the left believes in because they ultimately believe that if they are in charge, they will perfect everything and everything is going to be ideal because they know how to spend our money.
They know how to spread the wealth.
They know what to do to tell us what to say, what to think.
How can you ever say that?
How could you ever think that you are the person or anybody you know is the person who should tell other people what to think or say?
It's an offense to everything that makes America what it is.
And that brings me to the big story, which is this continual attack on Brett Kavanaugh, which has now been joined by all of the corporate media.
They're all of them trying to bring him down with this absolute slur, absolute unfounded rumor that the New York Times is touting to spread the book written by reporters at the New York Times.
And I call them reporters.
I use the word loosely.
And we'll talk about that in a second.
But first, let us talk about Raycon.
I carry these with me.
I can't reach my bag right now, but they're right beside me.
These Raycon headsets.
I know what you're using now.
These are more comfortable.
They're more attractive.
They can fit in your ear better because they have different ends that you can put on.
It's not one size fits all as Silicon Valley tells you it should be.
Instead, you can make it fit yourself.
And they sound great.
I mean, they sound great.
Raycon's E50 wireless earbuds.
They've totally changed the game.
They're so comfortable, so easy to take anywhere.
And they are stylish.
They're discreet.
They don't have that dangling wires that makes you look like an alien.
Raycon offers their wireless earbuds for everyone in a range of colors and at an unbeatable price.
Go to buyraycon.com slash Clavin to get 15% off your order.
That's buybuyraycon.com slash clavin for 15% off Raycon wireless earbuds.
If you've been eyeing a pair, now's the time to get an amazing deal.
Even if you haven't, now's the time at buyraycon.com slash clavin.
And you can tune them in and just speak into them and just say, how do I spell Clavin?
And they won't answer because they're just earbuds.
But it's K-L-A-V-A-N.
So they're still at it.
The New York Times, still going after Brett Kavanaugh, right?
And it's this unbelievable, unbelievable piece of garbage slur that two anonymous sources told them that a guy said who won't talk to them said that Brett Kavanaugh, when he was in Yale in the 80s, was pushed naked into a woman so that his genitalia touched her hand.
The woman won't talk to them.
Friends of the woman say they don't remember it.
It shouldn't be in print.
It's a terrible, terrible thing to do about somebody.
If the guy weren't famous and kind of, so it's very hard to sue, he could sue.
I mean, it is a terrible, terrible libel, and it's disgusting.
It has a point.
Just like cancel culture, it has a point.
And we know it has a point because Christine Ford, the woman who came up with the original unsubstantiated accusation, an accusation that didn't even deter her father from supporting Brett Kavanaugh, an accusation where she said her best friend was her corroborating witness and her best friend said she did not believe the story.
This accusation is Christine Ford, her lawyer, said in a speech that basically it was an attempt to ruin Brett Kavanaugh and intimidate him into supporting Roe v. Wade, or if he wouldn't support Roe v. Wade, it was to make his voice seem illegitimate.
This is Deborah Katz, Christine Ford's lawyer.
Aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine's testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court.
We were going to have a conservative.
Elections have consequences.
But he will always have an asterisk next to his name.
When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is.
We know his character.
And we know what motivates him.
And that is important.
It is important that we know.
And that was part of what motivated Christine.
That, I mean, that is amazing.
It was a mission accomplished.
Mission accomplished.
So they think.
They've destroyed the guy.
They've tainted his name.
If he says Roe v. Wade is not constitutional, we'll know it's because he hates women.
It's a way of delegitimizing the court.
And you know who is striking back.
You know who's speaking the truth on this.
And you know who's defending the American way and standing up for our Constitution and our values.
You guessed it.
Mean Mr. Donald Trump, mean evil Donald Trump is getting it right.
He was at one of his rallies.
I think it's in New Mexico.
Let's play the first clip of him.
They'll do whatever they can to demean you, to libel you.
They try to blacklist, coerce, cancel, or destroy anyone who gets in their way.
Look at what they're doing today to Justice Kavanaugh.
Look at what they're doing.
Did you see the New York Times?
Did you see what they're doing?
Did you see what Democrats, they're calling for his resignation?
They're calling for his impeachment.
And the woman involved said she didn't know anything.
She doesn't, but they still, so the New York Times had to put out a major apology.
And they had to change their story.
The woman said, I don't remember that.
And they still want him to be impeached.
And then brilliantly, he turned cancel culture back on them.
I thought this was great.
I just put out a statement on social media that said, I don't think they'll do it, but they should for the good of the nation.
I call for the resignation of everybody at the New York Times involved in the Kavanaugh Spearstone.
And while you're at it, the Russian witch hunt hoax, which is just as phony a story.
They've taken the old gray lady.
Did you know the New York Times for years?
The old gray lady, so prestigious.
They've taken the old great lady and broken her down, destroyed her virtue, and ruined her reputation.
She can never recover and will never return to greatness under current management.
The Times is dead.
Long live the New York Times.
Long live the New York Times.
And I do want it to live.
But they have to be, they have to change their ways.
See, you know, if you don't want Donald Trump to look like the good guy, if you hate him so much, you want people to hate him and you want him to look like the bad guy, don't be the bad guy.
Don't be the bad guy.
Defending Men In Conflict00:15:47
Don't try to destroy.
You know, this is a concerted effort to intimidate a conservative Supreme Court because the left used the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution, to unwrite the Constitution because they want their hands on that power because they think they know how to run our lives.
That is what it's about because they don't like ordinary people.
They think they're better than everybody else.
You know, there are five Democratic senators, they sent what's called an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, and it contained the words.
This is from Sheldon Whitehouse, who pulls these tricks all the time.
It contained the words.
It was on a case about a New York City gun law, right?
It was a gun law, and they were afraid the Supreme Court might overturn this anti-gun law.
And they wrote, the Supreme Court is not well, and the people know it.
Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.
In other words, they're threatening to pack the court if they don't give them the decisions they want.
It's like gangsters, nice court you got here.
Shame if anything happened to it.
Cocaine Mitch McConnell, God bless him.
He's now got, I think, 150 conservative judges appointed during the Trump administration.
He called them out on this.
This is not normal political behavior.
These are the actions of a political party whose agenda is so alien to the Constitution that they feel threatened by fair and faithful judges.
Well, Mr. President, this is what I would say.
When the simple notion that judges should be faithful to the Constitution looks like an attack on your agenda, maybe it's your agenda that needs a makeover, not our independent judiciary.
When you are this willing to launch unhinged personal attacks, you reveal a whole lot more about your own radicalism than about the men and women you target.
So this is my commitment, Mr. President, and the commitment of all my Republican colleagues.
As long as we remain in the Senate, we will fight to preserve our fair and independent judiciary.
He's absolutely right.
The Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2020 when they run the, this is an attack on our Constitution.
It's an attack on the Supreme Court.
They've already gone after the Electoral College.
They've let us know.
And this is what cancel culture is.
It's this idea we're supposed to be controllable, adaptable, infinitely malleable, and ultimately perfectible so that we can rule the little people.
That's the idea.
Instead of saying we're all equal, we're all flawed.
We need restraints on power and we need to leave each other alone because if we're all equal, then we're all capable of ruling ourselves and governing ourselves.
This is an entire philosophy, an entire philosophy meant on canceling the things that made this country what it is.
They keep saying America was never great.
You can't make America great again because it was never great.
They're wrong and they're trying to force it on us when we all know they're wrong.
That's what's going on.
All right.
I got to take a break, say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube, but come to dailywire.com and subscribe and then get in the mailbag.
Hit the podcast button, hit the Andrew Claven podcast, hit the mailbag picture, ask me your questions.
All your life's problems will be solved for a lousy 10 bucks a month, a lousy 100 bucks a year.
it's a pretty good deal.
Karen Strawn.
Karen Strawn is a spokesperson for Men's Rights Edmonton and contributor to AvoiceForMen.com, a prominent men's rights advocate who came to public attention through her infamous YouTube channel called Girl Rights What.
I talked to her.
You may be wondering why a girl is defending the boys.
She'll tell you.
Here's the interview.
Karen Strawn, thank you so much for coming on.
I appreciate it.
Oh, no worries.
Thanks for having me.
It worries me.
Now, you are an outspoken defender of men, and it worries me a little bit that men need a woman to defend them.
Why do you think that is?
You know, I think honestly, you have to give men moral permission to defend themselves in conflicts with women, right?
You know, if you see these sort of social experiments all the time on YouTube where they'll have a man sort of menacing a woman and all kinds of people come in and intervene to stop that.
And if it's the opposite, if it's a woman, even sometimes physically assaulting a man over and over, sometimes for minutes or even hours, people just walk by.
So I think that really it is kind of a case of we see when men and women are in conflict, we always are prepared to defend the woman and to see the man as the bad guy or as the potential bad guy.
So I think that women really need to step up and defend their fathers and their husbands and their brothers and their sons from what is an increasing amount of discrimination against them in our culture.
So it's like women are taking advantage of their traditional roles while trying to destroy their traditional roles.
Yeah, well, I don't think they're trying to destroy their traditional roles.
I think that they are exploiting them for sure, 100%.
But, you know, what are they, what are feminists asking for?
Greater protections for women, greater leniency in criminal sentencing.
I mean, the sentencing gap between men and women is actually six times wider than the gap between blacks and whites.
So, you know, you're looking at they already have this massive advantage.
And then you get all these feminist articles saying, well, we need to just shut down women's prisons altogether.
And we need to be in Britain, they had a mandate come down in 2011, I believe it was, that a mandate from on high dictating to magistrates and judges to actually be more lenient with women than they were already being.
So, you know, and when somebody broke down the numbers in the UK, they found that if men were treated exactly the way women are treated in the criminal justice system there, five out of six men currently in prison would not be there.
So you're looking at a huge, huge gap in treatment.
And feminists are actually engaged in attempting to widen that rather than narrow it.
They're attempting to, you know, they're exploiting women's, I guess, what Ernest Belfort Bax back in the turn of the last century would have called sex privilege, women's sex privilege.
They're actually exploiting it in order to get more privilege, more of the exact same thing.
Greater protections, bigger exemptions, all of those things.
I have to ask you, I want to talk about a couple of things, but before that, how did you get into this?
How did you personally get to be the chosen one here?
Oh, the chosen one.
The chosen one.
Yeah, no, I just kind of, I had always kind of thought that feminists were a bunch of kooks, you know, and that they were living in an upside-down land.
So like even from the time that I became aware of their existence as, you know, a 10, 12 year old girl watching the news with my parents.
And, but I, you know, I was raising, you know, when I got to be an adult and I was raising a family and you're busy and all of that.
And it's just kind of like this swarm of gnats outside your screen window.
And you think there's got to be something under that window that's attracting them, but you don't have time to go and deal with it.
Then when I was negotiating my divorce, when I was, I believe, about 38, I noticed how the system actually wouldn't allow me to be even as fair as I wanted to be to my ex, right?
I mean, like, like my lawyer said, there's no way a judge is going to sign this thing that you have offered your ex.
And so, I mean, that kind of made me go, hmm.
And then over time, I started realizing that, you know, I stumbled across a men's website.
And of course, they, you know, men's issues websites tend to have a lot of citations to research and, you know, maybe sometimes even 40 links in, you know, underneath the article proving that what they're saying is true.
And I'd go and I'd read it and I'd be like, you know, this is bizarre, right?
You know, when you have a situation where a man who's been stabbed by his wife, right?
And the kids are saying that he didn't touch her, right?
And the police still arrest him because it's policy.
It's policy to do that.
And I'm thinking to myself, how, how is this?
So I just started talking about it.
And then after multiple accusations from feminists and sort of far left wingers that I was just some sort of right-wing reactionary, fat, middle-aged man living in his mother's basement who couldn't get laid, right?
I decided to come out on camera or that I was some kind of traditionalist Michelle Duggar type, you know, who was just like living in a house dress all the time, you know, with her sleeves pulled down, you know, to cover her elbows because you've got to be modest.
And I just want to take women back to the baby mills and the sandwich mines, right?
That's really, I just came out on camera and said to heck with it.
And then it just went from there.
It just snowballed.
So interesting, interesting.
So what do you think?
I mean, the latest attack or the latest serious attack from the feminists has been this Me Too movement, which, you know, when in individual cases, I have a lot of sympathy for.
I don't think men should be abusing women at work or anywhere else.
But you've made a lot of points that it's kind of a, as the left would say, it's problematical.
Well, you know, I think probably if you want to actually get a leftist's attention in terms of Me Too, you have to, you have to actually put it to them.
You know, when it came with Title IX and the guidance from the Department of Justice, Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights under Obama and all of the curtailing of due process rights for the accused.
Well, you know, who was disproportionately affected by that?
It was Black men, right?
Black men were disproportionately accused, disproportionately, disproportionately railroaded relative to their population among men in universities.
And so when you actually look at the Me Too movement and, you know, you have this hashtag, believe survivors, believe victims, believe women.
Well, you know, that's what the wife of the woman who pointed the finger at, the husband of the woman who pointed the finger at Emmett Till did.
He believed women, right?
And, you know, just because you're saying men and not black men doesn't mean that or minority men, doesn't mean that black and minority men are not going to be hurt by this complete disregard for due process.
And, you know, and you really have to sometimes put it in terms of, you know, the Ku Klux Klan way back in the day, they argued that due process of law and the presumption of innocence unfairly advantaged black male defendants who were accused of raping white women, right?
And that's why they had to take matters into their own hands.
And here we have it all playing out on a grand stage, but because we're not singling out black men, because we're just lumping black men in with all men, right?
Suddenly it's okay.
And so, you know, it's just, it boggles my mind that they can't see the parallels to what has happened before that we have not learned from history and that they're just going full steam ahead trying to destroy due process protections for people accused of wrongdoing.
And one of the most hilarious things too is, you know, the American Law Institute, very prestigious organization, they have a cadre, sort of a large ish minority cadre there who have been trying to bring affirmative consent, which is what has turned campus sexual misconduct tribunals, adjudications into a complete nightmare, right?
They have decided that they want affirmative consent, right?
The idea that every single sexual contact must be preceded by a request for permission and verbal consent, right?
And so, and every escalation.
So, if you hugged your girlfriend without asking her first, you're guilty of sexual misconduct.
And if she kissed you, escalated the hug to a kiss without asking you first and getting your verbal consent, then you're both guilty, right, of sexually assaulting each other.
And I mean, this is not the way normal adults have sex.
This is not the way anyone has sex, right?
But the American Law Institute, this small group, they've been trying for like three or four years to get this instantiated into the model penal code, which is sort of the suggestion from the Law Institute as to what they want criminal statutes to look like, right?
And so we have this situation where, you know, they keep on just throwing it at the wall and they keep trying and trying and trying and they adjust it and, you know, to fix one problem, you know, the over criminalization and, you know, due process and burden of proof.
You know, this is essentially a reversal of the burden of proof and all of these problems, these legal problems.
They like, okay, we'll fix it and try again.
And, you know, every time they do, it opens up another set of problems.
Right.
And then they try and go over the ALI's head and try and get the American Bar Association to adopt, to essentially endorse affirmative consent as a standard, as a legal standard.
And it took an actual letter writing campaign by the majority at the American Law Institute of the Council to convince the American Bar Association to not go along with it.
So, I mean, like, we have this huge push to completely disassemble a set of processes and standards, right, that make the American and Western in general legal systems and criminal systems the model for the world.
They're trying to undo all of that.
So, right.
So, you take on the feminists who obviously are out of control loons, but you're also not a traditionalist.
You say you kind of make fun of the traditionalists.
What should men be looking for?
What do you think makes a man happy that would give him a happy life?
Well, you know, I think honestly, being married to a good woman makes men happy.
Having children makes men happy, right?
Being married for life makes men happy, right?
But being married to a dysfunctional woman or to a personality disordered woman, that's not a recipe for happiness.
Being married to a woman who's going to divorce you, take your kids, take two-thirds of all of your stuff because she made a, she, in an ex parte hearing, said to a judge, you know, he's never really hit me, but I'm, I'm concerned that he might, right?
And then she gets the restraining order and he's booted out of the house and now she has de facto custody of the home and the children.
And then six months later, when he gets his say and gets to tell his side of the story in a hearing, right?
Then the judge says, oh, well, but it would cause further disruption to the children to actually change the way things are right now.
Socrates Questions Silverman00:06:36
So we might as well just leave things.
I'm cutting you off because I'm running out of time.
And I want to ask you, is there a way in which marriage, aside from that, that marriage has become a bad deal for men?
I mean, I've had this great marriage.
I feel very fortunate.
But my wife did a lot of stuff for me.
She made a home for me.
She raised my kids.
You know, she made it so I could go and do the things that mattered to me and I could support her doing what she liked doing, which is raising kids and having kids.
If that model falls apart, is there anything in it for a man?
You know, I think that there is something to say for companionship between equals, right?
Even between people who have similar roles.
That's absolutely fine.
That said, it makes my husband, current husband, very, very happy that I bring him a bite to eat and a cup of coffee.
You know, men are so easy to know.
In bed every morning.
It's like he just absolutely loves that.
He says, it makes me feel like you care about me.
And I do care about him, right?
And he does things that make me feel like he cares about me.
And so it's, it's, I mean, honestly, but, you know, you even saw this in the 1970s and 80s.
My mother, my dad follows her around and picks her dirty socks up off the floor and puts the toilet paper on the roll.
And, you know, she left it on the counter and puts the caps on the shampoo bottles and all of those things, right?
He does all of those things.
And she would dish up his plate for him at dinner.
And her friends would tell her, I can't believe you do that.
That's so subservient.
And she's just like, what are you even talking about?
Right.
And she was like a total tomboy like me, right?
You know, like she'd pour cement and screed it and do all of these things that women wouldn't do because they'd break a nail.
All these friends who are telling her she's like being too traditional, right?
They wouldn't even touch.
And she's doing that, but because she pours his coffee for him and brings it to him, then she's his slave or something like that.
Yeah, no, I've had this same experience.
Karen, it's really nice talking to you.
I hope we will talk again when issues come up.
But I'm glad you're out there.
I'm glad you're doing what you're doing.
Awesome.
Thank you so much for having me.
Thanks a lot.
All right.
Some final reflections.
Something that was tweeted out by Sarah Silverman really got to me.
We covered it on the Daily Wire.
She's been watching this girl, Greta Thunberg, who I talked about, I don't know, a couple of weeks ago.
She's this young girl.
I don't know.
She's a teenager, but a young teenager.
And she's got some kind of mental glitch, like autism or something.
And the left is using her as a spokesperson for the environment.
And she's sailing around.
She's doing all these kind of publicity things about global warming.
And I feel it's abusive.
I feel that it's child abuse, essentially.
They're putting her out there.
She doesn't look like she entirely knows what's going on.
She doesn't look like she entirely knows what she's saying.
And it's like, why is a child the spokesman for these things?
So Sarah Silverman, the comedian who, you know, comedians are comedians.
They're not the most stable people in the world.
I've known a lot of them in my life.
Not one of them is stable.
It's just not something you do if you're a stable person.
As a creative person, I can tell you that there's a certain amount of bloodletting that goes into being a creative person.
It's not a job for somebody who's actually as straightforward as other people are.
And comedians are just among the most crazy.
And she sees this girl and she says, she tweets out, you think you will recognize Jesus when he comes back.
He is this girl and you all don't even see it.
And she's absolutely right.
I don't see it at all.
I see a girl who's being used unfairly.
I think children should be kept out of the public eye as much as possible.
I'd certainly not put in the public eye politically because they have nothing to say politically.
Their ideas are unformed.
Their brains aren't even shaped properly for a reason until they're about 25.
It's just shameful what they're doing to her and to all the kids who were gun rights activists or anti-gun rights activists.
It's like, take it easy, dude.
You know, they'll grow up at some point.
They can have their opinions.
Just using them is in and of itself abusive.
And the thing that just made me think about this, Sarah Silverman comes out with this.
She started out.
She was pretty funny.
I don't think she's that funny anymore.
She's clearly, I don't know what the word I'm looking for is.
She's clearly a little agitated.
And, you know, I was reminded of the apologia of Socrates by Plato, where Socrates gets up and he talks about why he was put on trial and ultimately put to death.
And he's defending himself.
And he says, you know, he started to go around an oracle told one of his friends that there was no man wiser than Socrates.
And Socrates said, how can that be true when I don't know anything?
I don't know anything.
And he went out to prove the oracle wrong and he started interviewing different people, hoping to find somebody who was wiser than he was.
And what he found, he went to the politicians and he went to the artisans and he found that each one of them was a fool because he thought he knew something, whereas Socrates knew he didn't know anything.
And so finally he went to the artists and he writes, Plato writes, I went to the poets in order that I would catch myself in the act of being more ignorant than they.
And I'm ashamed to tell you the truth.
Almost everyone present would have spoken better than the poets did about the poetry that they themselves had made.
So again, concerning the poets, I soon recognize that they do not make what they make by wisdom, but by some sort of nature and while inspired.
They're like the diviners and those who deliver oracles, for they too say many noble things, but they know nothing of what they speak.
And it's just a reminder, just a reminder that people who have talent are not necessarily wise.
They might be, but the fact that they are famous and talking about things that they don't know anything about and using their fame to talk about anything.
things they don't know anything about is itself abusive.
They don't know that they know nothing.
That was why Socrates was wiser than any other man because he alone knew that he knew nothing.
Our celebrities, I have to say, are embarrassments.
It's embarrassing that they just can't do the thing they do.
You know, Sarah Silverman, she's a good actress.
Let her act.
Let her make her jokes.
Let her say the things she wants to in her comedy when she's inspired.
But all of these people, it's just like, why do we even have to have them interviewed?
Why are they being interviewed?
Why are they telling us what to think?
Just because they, you know, it's like Laura Ingram wrote a book called Shut Up and Sing.
Why Celebrities Embarrass Themselves00:01:42
Shut up and sing.
Do the thing that you are supposed to do.
Socrates' wisdom was that he knew nothing.
Sarah Silverman and the Democrats have forgotten that as well as they have forgotten our flawed humanity.
They have forgotten all these things, these basic essential truths, and that's why they're trying to rewrite reality and that's why they're trying to rewrite our country.
I have got to stop here.
I'm going to get on a plane, fly back to California, and then I will be there to answer your mailbag questions tomorrow.
So get those questions in today.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'll be back tomorrow.
And if you want to help spread the word, give us a five-star review and also tell your friends to subscribe too.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Matt Walsh Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Austin Stevens and directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
And our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Assistant Director, Pavel Wydowski.
Edited by Adam Sayovitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
Animations are by Cynthia Ngulo.
And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
On the Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.