Timothy Gordon Explains: What Womanly Submission Really Means
Timothy J. Gordon, a Catholic apologist with a JD and philosophy background, argues that biblical "patriarchy" (men as household leaders) isn’t sexist but divinely ordained, citing Pope John Paul II’s ecclesiola and Pauline epistles like 1 Corinthians 11:9, where women are called to obey husbands. He frames feminism—rooted in Seneca Falls (1848)—as "functional gender dysphoria," linking it to societal decline, including drops in female happiness since the 1970s and health issues among working women. His documentary What a Woman Is contrasts scriptural womanhood with red pill ideology and feminism, which he claims treat women as flawed or subhuman, while warning that Protestant churches have strayed from biblical gender roles. Gordon insists traditional patriarchy, not coercion, is the solution to broken families, comparing its restoration to resisting pornography through habituated virtue. [Automatically generated summary]
I am so glad we are almost at the weekend, but thank you very much for joining us today, spending a little bit of your time with us.
Recently, I gave a very simple prescription for women, and it created a bit of controversy.
And I understand why, but I understand that red pillars and maybe guys that are on the far, far extremes have gone too far.
They've maybe identified a problem correctly, but their prescriptions are all terrible.
But the prescription that I gave wasn't really in line with what they believe.
It's actually a very simple prescription, and it turns out that it's biblical.
And so here it is.
I'll give it once again, just to make sure everybody is on the same page as we start today's episode.
Women, stop being whores, start prioritizing motherhood, and start listening to your husbands.
That seems pretty easy to do.
Maybe you don't want to listen to your husbands.
Maybe you don't want to stop being whores.
Most people watching this, I don't think you fall into that category.
But if you think about those things, get past the shock of the word whores, even though it's a biblical word, you start to think, well, these are pretty reasonable.
It shouldn't be controversial.
But in today's society, making that statement is very controversial.
You'll be called sexist.
You'll be called all kinds of names.
And people will just say, oh, that's just one more guy who's in the patriarchy.
No, that's a guy who is wanting what is best for women.
And that's a guy who's wanting what's best for men.
And I think it's a pretty simple prescription.
And it should be easy to implement and produce results.
So my next guest is a prominent Catholic apologist.
And I'm a proud Protestant.
So we're not going to agree on everything.
And I'm sure things will get a little bit spicy here and there.
But listen, it is worth it to have real conversations about the battles that we are fighting in this culture and in society, whether you're Christian, not Christian, curious, not curious in Christianity at all.
It matters when you are fighting against feminism and the society or societal impacts that it is having on this country.
Debating Faith00:07:09
So please welcome my guest to Gerald Apologizes Apologetics, Timothy J. Gordon.
Gerald Apologizes Apologetics.
It doesn't mean that.
Does not mean that, but well, they told me I had to do it, so I did it.
All right.
So my guest with us today here in the studio is Timothy J. Gordon.
How are you, sir?
I'm so well.
You're so well?
I'm excellent.
First off, I just want to congratulate you on having a really, really, really fine shirt for the day.
I love that shirt.
So here's the fun part, and I wore it just for you.
Here's the fun part about this shirt.
It's hard to come at me correctly on this shirt because you don't know if I'm like, man, Jews are like the best basketball players ever and I'm just like stealing the Michael Jordan dunks, the menorah, or they're the worst and it takes someone jumping on everything that they've got to put the menorah on the fireplace.
You don't really know which way I'm going in support of or in mockery of, and so everybody gets equally angry.
Well, I know what I'm hoping for.
I know what I'm calling for.
Nice.
We're just playing on old stereotypes, the old Jew, super high vertical, talented NBA player, jump out the gym stereotypes.
They actually invented the sport, I hear.
John Wooden and the Jews.
Yeah, right.
So, Timothy Gordon, thanks again for being with us.
Where can people follow you right now?
What's the best place for people to go just to keep up with what you're doing?
Thanks for having me.
Twitter, I'm Timothyology with 2Es, T-I-M-O-T-H-E-E-O-L-O-G-Y.
And then on, well, on Facebook, on YouTube, actually.
So Timothy Gordon, and my show is called Rules for Retrogrades.
There I also have an Instagram, but the first two are most relevant for the kinds of things we're going to be talking about today and free content, exciting free content that's coming out soon.
Yeah.
Awesome.
So Rules for Retrogrades, is that a daily show, weekly show?
How often do you do that?
Three times a week show.
Three times.
Yeah.
I've been on the road the last two weeks.
So we've done three times a week, literally all year from January 1st.
No, it's a show I've been doing since for seven or eight years.
And I got my start with Dr. Taylor Marshall on his channel, did a three times a week show there.
And I just kept that three times a week format.
At some point, I'd love to go to five times a week, but that just feels like a lot.
It is quite a bit to do.
It takes a team of people to be able to do that.
So make sure you guys go give him a follow and check him out on YouTube.
I think it looks like the best place to find you Rules for Retrograde show.
That's typically where I watch when I'm looking for the content.
Look, you're known for a number of different things, right?
I've kind of labeled you a Catholic apologist, a debater.
Does that seem to fit with what you've heard?
Other people, I don't know if you'll say it.
I don't want to put you in a non-humble position necessarily, but is that kind of how you see it?
Like your specialty would be kind of debating and apologetics.
Yeah, that's fair.
I mean, I'm a trained JD and philosopher, and I was a debate coach for a while when I taught high school.
So it's not unfair.
I'll say that much.
My training is all in Thomistic philosophy, Aristotle and St. Thomas.
So I'm more on, in terms of the Catholic tradition, the tradition of the perennial philosophy and Catholic Catholicism.
I'm on the side of philosophy more than theology, but there's a big Venn diagram share in the middle there between Thomistic philosophy and theology.
And I've picked up a lot of theology along the way.
So whereas back when I was trying to be an academic, I tended to debate philosophers.
What I've done in the popular square for the last seven years is debating other Catholic theologians like Trent Horn.
We had a big debate seven years ago on feminism.
That was about.
How'd that go?
Oh, it went extremely well from it didn't go so well for Trent, but he's a good debate.
He's a good debater, though, right?
I mean, I'm not, yeah, he articulates his points pretty well.
He can kind of think quickly on his feet most of the time.
You may not agree with where he goes, but he doesn't get run over completely most of the time.
No, not at all.
He's skilled.
And as a matter of fact, after that one, Trent was Catholic Answers on Trent's behalf was asking me there, like, do you want to bury this one?
And I was like, you know what?
This is not going to surprise you, but I don't want to bury this one.
They're like, we think it's not a good look for the both of you.
And I said, you know what?
You're exactly half right.
And you can go find that one, but they've kind of buried it.
They buried the video, not the audio.
But trend is good.
And I've spent a lot of the last five years debating Orthodox.
Those tend to be friendly but intense debates.
Like Jay Dyer, I'm also very close friends with Andrew and Rachel Wilson, who are Orthodox.
And then I've had some really good debates with Protestants over the last two years as well.
Who's the best one on the Protestant side that you would think?
That I've debated or that I there's a guy, the other Paul, that gets a lot of love from Catholics.
And I think with good reason, I would say he's probably the best one I've debated.
In terms of who I'd like to debate, we've seen that the Horn White debate happened.
It's like Rumble in the Jungle Times 153.
They've debated like so many times, but he's a good one.
And of course, most Catholics respect.
I mean, there's a lot of love to go around, but I would say those two names.
Are you familiar with Gavin Orland?
Oh, yeah, Orland.
Yeah, I thought he'd love to.
One of the best for me as a Protestant of kind of actually not just saying this is because it's just like this is.
And here's why I believe that.
I feel like it's really important and it's missing in so many circles, especially I'll be very self-critical here on the Protestant side.
You've got a lot of people out there espousing different views and beliefs and not really backing it up very well and completely running away from tradition in ways that I think is very, very unproductive.
He's very skillful, rhetorically skillful.
And yeah, I'd love to do a solo scripture or something debate with Ortland at some point.
But I mean, yeah, so I'm not just an apologist.
I'm also a very certain kind of Christian nationalist.
And my first book was actually called Catholic Republic.
And I'm a state's rights Christian nationalist, which is the least of a LARP and the most represented, the most robustly exampled in our early Americana.
And of course, what you want to talk primarily about today is the patriarchy.
This is not a LARP at all.
This is entirely realistic.
And I'm also known for doing a number of initiatives for adult education and homeschooling.
I'm a big advocate for homeschooling, but people get the maddest about patriarchy, so that's why it's the most important.
Did you kind of expect that, though, going into it?
Absolutely.
Patriarchy: The Maddest Topic00:15:48
That's what's fun about it.
Yeah.
It is a very interesting topic.
And I'll save my personal journey for somewhere where it fits into the rest of the show here.
But you recently released a documentary.
And I really enjoy documentaries that are well produced.
And Joel Webbin had a lot of positive things about the production value at the very least and also the content of the documentary.
So I can't wait to watch it.
I've seen clips of it, but I haven't seen the whole thing yet.
But it's called basically what a woman is.
And it seeks to answer essentially that question, right?
So kind of playing off of Matt Walsh's what is a woman, trying to find out like, okay, what exactly is a woman?
And seeing how comically bent over backwards people get to try to not say the actual definition of a woman, you came along and said, okay, well, now that we've gotten that out of the way, we actually need to define what a woman is.
How did this come about for you?
So believe it or not, because I'm a controversial figure on the Catholic far dissident right.
But believe it or not, we actually pitched this thing, made it as a sequel to Matt Walsh's Daily Wire documentary, What is a Woman?
And you could take it two ways.
You could say, I'm also close friends with Michael Knowles, and he made this joke first.
Matt Walsh, his friend, made a documentary that is an interrogative by its titulate nature.
What is a woman?
And it didn't really answer what is a woman.
It answered what a woman is not.
And that's because it ably, very capably, in a very entertaining way, answered what a woman is not a man.
And it responded to the gender dysphoria question.
Gender dysphoria is hating the sex that God gave you.
And that's great.
But all we got, the only three-second clip of that film that tended to answering the question, since it was an interrogative title, after all, what is a woman, was Matt and his wife standing in the kitchen, and she said, a woman is an adult human-female.
I mean, that's really the only one.
It could have been the whole movie, really.
Yeah.
All credits, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's not quite as interesting.
Not quite for some reason.
But we wanted to answer that question.
So we pitched it to Daily Wire as how about a sequel.
We pitched it to Matt.
We showed it at Daily Wire Studios on that amazing LED screen.
And they seriously considered buying it.
Ultimately, they're like, this isn't going to surprise you.
I have friends in the brass there at Bent Key.
And they're like, it's not going to surprise you.
This is true.
This is beautiful.
It ultimately goes a little bit hard for what we want to do.
But it's very close to being because it's not inflammatory, which is what everybody expected from me.
They're like, it's very close to being what we would want to do as a sequel to this, which actually answers the interrogative in the title.
But that's the whole point.
And I guess it's a runway for the discussion we're going to have is when you consider what gender dysphoria really is, it's ontological gender dysphoria.
It's a claim or a suite of claims about what the two sexes are.
And it's really irrelevant because no one really knows many people, if any, that suffer from this.
Ontologically hating your own gender or thinking that you can actually be the opposite of what you're born.
But there is a kind of gender dysphoria, what I call functional gender dysphoria or behavioral gender dysphoria.
Everybody else calls it feminism, where you act like the other sex.
And I don't mean in some LARPy way where we look at some, you know, Black's Law Dictionary and try to reclaim the way we never were.
I mean literally just the way everyone knows in their heart that men are supposed to be and we're wired and women are supposed to be because they were wired that way.
And the way the Bible reflects it, the way the natural law advocates did, the way Homer and Hesiod talked about it, the way Christians did 100 years ago, 150 years ago.
And functional gender dysphoria, it turns out, afflicts about 99 out of 100 households where their dad's acting like their mom and their mom's acting like their dad because of this, because of feminism.
And it's much more subtle.
It's more pervasive.
There's an old law formula by Judge Learned Hand.
It goes, B is less than PL.
The burden to make a change to better, to right a wrong, is less than the probability of a loss times the size of a loss.
Well, in this analysis, we would say it's a huge P, huge probability because it affects almost everyone.
Functional gender dysphoria, feminism.
And it's a huge loss.
And arguably, this is what's causing or caused people to have sexual identity questions, whether they're L or G or B or T.
But at the very least, it's making men and women miserable.
And there's a bunch of stats showing women are miserable.
There's a famous study that Time magazine checks in on every five years done in the 70s called the Paradox of Declining Female Happiness.
Since women went to work in 1970, they get less happy every year.
And if you watch TV, you know from like XLACs commercials, 40% of all working women have crippling chronic diarrhea.
They're being placed into a context that makes them miserable.
And then they come home.
And because they know they really belong there and haven't been, and they're coming home to not a home, but an empty house, they're making their husbands miserable.
And everyone's sharing the female duty or duties.
And it turns out that all you have to do is follow the scriptural prescriptions for what a man is, what a woman is.
Or you could, by the way, you could just follow natural prescriptions, things we already know.
Even Aristotle or Virgil, or I don't know, Homer or Hesiod get this much correct.
But on this matter, on this score, scripture is really affirmative.
Yep, that was right.
What you thought a man was and what he ought to spend most of his time doing.
That was right.
Same thing.
What the naturalists thought a woman is and should do got it right as well.
Scripture codified that, not just in the Old Testament, but most explicitly in the New Testament.
Man's the main character.
His wife is his helpmate.
There's great dignity in both functions.
Man was not made for woman.
Woman was made for man.
That's the Pauline epistles.
Man was not made before, man was not made after woman, but before.
So this means something.
And the fact that 99 or so out of 100 households aren't tending to it means I thought we should make a movie on it.
Because when you actually answer what a woman is, turns out it's the most dangerous cultural and political question you can set out to answer.
Yeah.
In the conversations that I've seen you have about this, I would tend to agree.
And look, I understand a lot of people in our audience right now are probably in an uncomfortable position because of where we are today.
And I would say that I found myself in that uncomfortable position of really not having given a ton of thought to this in a broad way, right?
I've understood what feminism is and how it has been something that the left has really used as a tool and a weapon in this fight.
But I, until recently, didn't really grab a hold of how much feminism had invaded and kind of infected in a way the Protestant church.
And I'm sure it's not limited to that, but in my experience, some of the churches that I had gone to, and I was just really shocked by that and shocked by some of the experiences that I had at other churches that didn't have that.
And I was like, wow, there was a very stark contrast, a very different approach to things.
And so I think it's a very important conversation to have.
Now, one thing that, and I keep mentioning Joel Webbin, I recently watched that interview with you and Joel.
And I've seen some of Joel's stuff.
And I know he's gotten some criticism in a number of different areas.
I'm not leveling any of those things against him.
I know that we probably will disagree on a few things, but probably agree on the vast majority of things.
One of the things I think you guys did a really good job of is pointing out that, look, like the red pill guys have gotten it wrong.
They've accurately, to some degree, identified a problem that we have, but the prescription is actually completely immoral.
Yeah.
Right.
And is absolutely separate from the Bible.
So when you approached solving this, and Joel held the same belief, you know, right?
You guys both agreed that that is, you know, like we don't want to take Andrew Tate's advice on how to fix this problem necessarily.
Identifying the problem, I think he's probably gotten a lot of that part correct, maybe not all, but a lot of it.
When you set out to kind of diagnose this and to define what a woman is, Where did you draw from the most, right?
So I know, you know, the patristic fathers, scripture, like all those things are going to influence, but was that your basis for going, hey, here's what a woman is, guys?
You may not like it.
You may love it, but this is what God says a woman is.
Yeah, I think that that's a good way to approach the answer.
Think about it like this.
I don't want to hedge over much when I critique the red pill.
And the end of our documentary, What a Woman Is, tends to this in about five minutes.
It tends to the red pill really effectively.
It's very powerful, Sue, by the way.
I saw that, and that was really strong ending.
Well, thanks.
Thanks.
Yeah, those last four minutes hit hard.
Yeah.
They hit you in your feels.
Think about it like this.
Everyone is softcore feminist, almost everyone.
And it's pervaded Christianity wholly.
The host is infected, basically.
And I don't care whether you're talking Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox is smaller, but Catholic and Protestant are really, really, really pervaded by feminism.
In the 1970s, I think 1976, twice as many women identified as a feminist, but they were far less afflicted by it.
And there are ways there are metrics you can show this.
Suffice to say, qualitatively right now, half or less, half or fewer of the women that 50 years ago identified as feminist identify as feminist, but it's more been normalized.
The over-to-tin window in the 80s and 90s, and then again in the early aughts, really aggressively normalized and shifted that O window left.
So what used to be considered feminist isn't anymore.
So the reason that the red pill did do some good, because my book, The Case for Patriarchy, and here it is right here, I brought you a copy.
Oh, yeah, thank you very much.
It came out in 21.
And I thought it was going to be totally overlooked.
But in late 22, 23, the red pill really popped off, even with the kind of girl red pill, Pearl Davis, who we were friendly with.
And all they were really doing was saying correctly there is a problem.
And it had been really hard to say there is a problem with women in society.
It just like without making a joke, without making it like you're caricaturing it.
It's so true, though.
Guys, come on.
Even if you're right to say, hey, there's a problem in this group.
And it's not, again, it's not all women, but we have a problem generally.
Like you'd get met with some pretty sharp criticism very quickly, not just from women, but from other men.
From other men, from white knights, because the first rule of feminism, the way they guarded their color revolution was to inoculate against any, any, any criticism.
So the first rule of feminism is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, for any reason at any time, say anything negative about a woman.
If women, I don't know, are murdering their babies to the tune of however many million abortions happen every five years, blame it on the nearest man.
Even though legally, it's pretty much a guarantee men aren't allowed to decide.
Even a married man can't stop his wife from getting an abortion.
But somehow make that a man issue.
Andrew Wilson calls this, what about the men, though?
The problem.
So if you can't ever attack women, then no one can just say, look, women are out of control.
The average weight of an American woman for a five-foot, three and a half woman is 170 pounds.
That's fat.
Wow.
I'm not trying.
Five, three and a half, 170 pounds.
Five, three and a half, 170 pounds.
Now, there's some ethnic, you know, we could, we could get into that, but, but let's just take the broad thing.
Body positivity, you know, it varies by ethnicity, but that's still too fat.
You can't say that, or you couldn't say that before the red pill.
Women's bodies counts are just shooting through the roof in the first two years of college.
I have all the stats on that too.
So, women who are supposed to be little women, you know, demure, thin, pretty helpmeats.
Literally, they're made out of man's rib meat to guard his heart are fat and slutty.
I don't know how else to say it.
By and large, not all of them, but that sums up what you've said.
Yes.
That sums up what I said.
So this is a problem.
And the red pill was really starkly calling this out in the last few months of 22 and 23.
I watch it closely because I have a vested interest.
But all they're doing, and that's better than all of the white knight cucked Christian men in the longhouse.
That's better than all the normie white knight secular guys, better than most of normie conservatives.
So I'll take it.
It's a little better.
I mean, it's better, but it's only a little better.
Here's why.
All they did is diagnose, I have a raging headache.
That's all Red Pill did.
All they did is they said, this is a raging headache.
And everyone knew we had a raging headache, but they just gotten used to it or accepted it.
That on the average, women in Western civilization are a raging headache.
And the Red Pill provided a valuable service.
This is it.
That was their diagnosis.
Now, like their prescription was terrible.
What are they saying to do?
They're saying to be vile man sluts and to bastard.
Actually, they're saying MGTOW is what it's called.
They're saying the same thing feminists are, but for men, it's a gay cruiser lifestyle.
For men, it's all population control advocacy, both feminism and red pill, because they're all saying the solution to the other side, like Spider-Man pointing at each other.
One side's got a, you know, external pee-pee, the other side doesn't.
All they're saying is don't have lots of kids, don't have any kids.
And if you have any kids, don't have them within the context of a Christian family.
Red pill and feminism, when you look at it, is some combination of Judeo-Muslim.
Basically, if you look at all the operators, that's who it is.
And so great.
I slightly favor Red Pill because they're saying there is a huge headache.
Judeo-Muslim Feminism00:14:28
Right.
Well, that's as wrong as feminism.
In diagnosing that we, in fact, do have a problem.
Like, I think Red Pill kind of pushed the envelope.
And, you know, I think you see similar situations like this for us.
We obviously on this show were demonetized and we were pushing the envelope and being called every kind of, I don't know, abusive name under the sun saying that we are racist or sexist or homophobic or all these things.
And so at certain points, you just go, well, I'm just going to lean into it a little bit and do it as kind of a way to be edgy or joking, you know, and just be like, you can't tell me what to say.
And it seems like a bit of that is what Red Pill's doing.
It's like, well, this is, we're just going to lean completely into it.
And whether or not they believe it or not, or if they're just doing it for clicks or doing it because they just want to sleep with a bunch of chicks and have some kind of a backing for it in their mind, they are at least exposing a real problem.
So the problem's not fake.
It's there.
And they're exposing that.
So that's good, but they take tragic turns with it, unfortunately.
So tell me, I mean, without giving it too much away, kind of finish your thought on what a woman is and how that's different from what the red pill patriarch guys are pushing.
Because I throw patriarch on there because they would be in that category to a degree, but probably not by the same definition that you are.
Make no mistake, patriarchy means power to fathers.
So, because it means power to fathers, you have to advocate for siring children within a Christian family, and they don't.
So, I wouldn't say they count or qualify, but the question still stands: what are we saying a woman is that they don't?
Well, for one thing, patriarchy is a synonym for Christianity.
You know, Catholic and Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox say Christianity is a bimodal patriarchy.
There's a clerical patriarchy, all men, it's comprised of the episcopate.
And there's a lower familial patriarchy, which are fathers leading their household.
Pope John Paul II called it the ecclesiola, the home, the church in miniature, and men are the priest, prophet, kings of the home.
Pope John Paul II actually called himself the feminist pope, so he was of sort of two minds on this, but he said a lot of good stuff.
Don't worry, it wasn't ex-cathedra, so I guess we're fine.
No, it wasn't, but no, that wasn't.
Oh, heavens.
If that had been ex-Cathedral, we'd be sunk.
Is it Cathedra or Cathedra, or does it matter?
It doesn't matter because no one, there's no real Latin accent speaks it anymore.
Yeah.
Except if you go to a Tridentine Latin church.
But here's the thing among Protestants, yeah, they acknowledge Christianity is the patriarchy too.
So when feminists say F the patriarchy, I'm not sure if we could say it here, but when they say the patriarchy, they are saying F Christianity.
And it's really naked.
When you look at the history of feminism, which I'd like to talk about in a second, I just want to allude to it right now.
It's really clear that the first feminists in the late 1840s were all witches.
They rewrote the Bible.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was kind of the leader, said you need a new Bible if you're going to do Christian feminism because the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, is completely unapologetically patriarchy.
Christianity is patriarchy.
It is male leadership.
And women, what are they?
How do you answer what a woman is from a Christian perspective?
Well, they're fundamentally a helpmeet.
And this is the term that's been used for hundreds of years.
Help meet.
They are made from the rib.
And even the first patristic fathers say she was made not from the head.
That would mean she's an equal in all things.
She's equal in dignity, but not equal in rank, not equal in rights.
She's made from the rib, not from the foot.
She's not to be trampled under the way the red pill would have it.
But she is not man's equal.
And saying this is not something I'm saying, I'm announcing triumphalistically or I'm not making it making jokes because you could eschew that.
I'm saying literally it's a different answer to the question than the Jewish or Muslim red pill would give.
You know, they give this view of like, ha ha ha, women are like dogs or children, treat them that way.
No, they're adults.
They're second in charge in the family.
But they are, as the scripture says eight times in the New Testament, they have to obey their husbands in all things.
That's really stark.
They are there to guard man's heart.
Man is to guard them and their bodies and lead them to heaven.
That's not at all what you get from the red pill.
The red pill says a woman will betray you.
They're all Jezebels.
This isn't just, this isn't some accidental property of modernity where women have veered off what God designed them to be.
The red pill thinks women are fundamentally flawed.
Christianity teaches in scripture.
I really want to stick to scripture.
Yeah.
Hey, I'm Protestant.
That's totally fine.
Yeah, yeah, let's go.
Let's go.
We're back, bro.
Let's stick to scripture on this one.
The popes all verify this and draw out the teaching in a way you would really like.
You'd be fine with.
But a woman has as much dignity as a man, but she's far lower in rank here on earth than man.
She needs to be protected.
She reigns as queen, second in charge in the home, but nowhere else.
So Pope Pius XI was really clear on this.
If a woman leaves the home to go to, I don't know, do a show like we're doing, a couple of men talking to each other in the public square the way we should be, she's no longer queen.
She is now subject to all kinds of, you know, sexual belittlement and physical assault.
And even if she's not belittled or assaulted in a way she knows, she's being gawked at.
She's not queen outside of the home.
She's queen inside the home.
Her king loves her, but is in charge of her.
And she does everything he says, and it works really beautifully.
Whereas when women are invited out of the home, the way they were really robustly encouraged to leave the home, starting in 1848, that's the red letter date of first wave feminism.
They were basically all Luciferians, theosophists, all of the women at this first feminist convention, the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848.
They prove, if you look at the notes, they knew what they were doing.
This was the uncoupling, the diswiring of Christendom as we know it.
If you do, you just start the battle of the sexes when you start with functional gender dysphoria, telling women they need to be men functionally.
You need to go out into the public square where women never had a place.
Women are supposed to be passive.
Man is the active principle.
Women are supposed to be receptive.
Man are the expressive principle.
All these things we even know from the marital act are true when we look at the oikonomia of society, the way it functions.
Women are best there in the home.
And once they start going out of the home, you get troubles.
Maybe we can talk about the history, but that's the good starter, I think.
Well, yeah.
So how, you know, and I want to make sure that I present some questions that I think the audience might have or somebody who's just kind of walking through this at an early stage, looking at what feminism is and does and looking at what the Bible prescribes.
How do you answer detractors?
I think it's very important not to strawman a detractor's argument, but to try to find like the legitimate real question that people can go, okay, that seems like a genuine answer to it.
So if somebody is a detractor and says, well, yeah, but aren't you limiting the agency of a woman by doing that?
Or doesn't this become a little bit overbearing?
Or isn't feminism really something that is an outgrowing of maybe oppression in the home?
And yeah, maybe women should have been in that role, but men abdicated their responsibilities to effectively be kind of like Christ is to man, like that to their women and not really laying down their lives and loving them and having kind of a sacrificial love for them.
Like, how do you answer kind of that critique and that challenge to this from somebody who is well-meaning, not somebody who's just trying to start an argument?
Yeah, I get you.
I get you.
Well, the first and best answer in law, we always talk about a last and a best offer, but here's the first and the best.
My audience is Christian, not just Catholics, but Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox.
We all agree on scripture.
This is a non-negotiable set of principles about intersexuality.
Man was created first.
Woman was made from his rib before the fall, mind you, pre-lapsarian.
So we're not just talking, oh, as a function of original sin, post-lapsarian.
That's why man, it would still functionally mean man has to be in charge.
But sometimes quasi-feminists will say, oh, pre-lapsarian, we were equal.
We were never equal.
Man was made first.
God made first.
I don't think there's a lot of debate there, right?
So kind of the starting, the jumping off point is this.
The question then becomes, okay, well, then what does that mean?
And how does that mean I should live my life in a way that honors Christ?
Well, what we object to as right-wingers, I think you as much as me, but I could definitely speak for myself is a dissident right-winger.
It's a function of gynocracy and gynocentrism is that we consider tone before truth.
I mean, first, let's make sure we're getting the truth right.
And then let's make sure that our tone of voice is appropriate.
Like the show is called, you know, Stephen's show is called Louder with Crowder, right?
And that's, it's like, you know, if I'm speaking a little loud, then excuse me.
Do some apologies with Gerald about being louder with Crowder, you know?
But first, let's just tend to it.
And let me put it starkly.
I think this puts a lot of the tonal concerns, the equipoisal concerns that people might have to rest.
If you are a Christian, if you're a Christian, not if you're Jewish, not if you're Muslim, not if you worship Vishnu, by the many arms of Vishnu, I'm talking only to Christians.
We all agree that every word of scripture is inerrant.
Can't be wrong.
Okay.
So so many places, it's almost in every Pauline epistle of scripture.
Paul inerrantly says woman was made for man, not man for woman.
This is not what you see out in the, when I leave this door, I see a giant exit sign.
You go out into the gynocracy.
It's the matrix.
This is what the red pill gets right.
Once we step back into the matrix of society, no one talks about it like that, even though most people are Christians.
So I am 100% comfortable if we have a room of 100 people in here and let's say 90 of them identify as Christian.
Some of them are serious and practicing.
Some of them aren't.
But I'm just like, I'm addressing anyone that even nominally identifies as a Christian.
The other 10, it would be like, could you please, could you please leave for my speech?
But 90 out of 10, I'm totally comfortable with those numbers, right?
And we can evangelize the other 10 at some other time.
That's another, that's another issue.
But I'm talking about core Christian creedal scriptural teaching that all three major types of Christian agree with.
Women are not equal in rights with men.
That doesn't mean we like talk about them like they're dogs the way the red pill does.
That's terrible.
And that really, I think, is a limited hangout.
I think the red pill is ultimately a limited hangout.
All those guys have agency, ABC, Intel connections.
And I think it's just disinfo.
And Jay Dyer agrees with me on that much because they're just making it look silly, like, oh, get back in the kitchen.
Well, I mean, women are happiest in the kitchen.
You know, in our documentary, we talked to women that were in law school, med school, business school, Ivy League.
And they're like, all I was doing on my laptop in law school, business school, med school was fantasizing about how to cook, how to bake extra cool stuff and how to be home with my kid.
So it's not like get back in the kitchen where you kick them, you know, by force.
That's where they want to be.
Michael Knowles cites in his book, Speechless, a great, great, fascinating dialogue between Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan.
And Simone de Beauvoir was like, we're doing feminism in France the forceful way.
How are you Americans who love freedom going to do it?
And Betty Friedan was like, we use shame because force doesn't work in America.
We have to use shame.
We shame women out of the home.
And both of them agreed, whether force or shame, if you left women to doing what they really want to do without shaming them or forcing them, they will stay in the home.
They'll be into baking, cooking, cleaning, sewing, needlework, all the product, beautifying the home, tending to kids, all the stuff that in law school, when I went there, I would always see all the girls, their laptops from the back of the classroom where I always sat.
They're always just looking into girly stuff.
But they've been shamed or, you know, if they're like Muslim students or something, forced by their parents into law school by the patriarch of their home, they've been forced to law or med school.
What career do you want to do?
It's an op.
And so really, the tone follows the truth on this one really easily.
Once everyone gets their head around the idea that every bit of this from the cradle to the grave has been an op and that girls who want to follow their inclinations and just go home, play with their baby, not be stressed out.
I like that my wife can sleep in.
Get your beauty rest.
That's why it's called beauty rest.
Women shouldn't have to be getting up and grinding and hustling the way their husbands are.
Catholicism's Spiritual Headship00:12:12
Let the man do that.
They can get up at nine, homeschool your kids, bake.
I have seven daughters.
Teach your daughters to do their thing.
This is what they naturally want to do.
And once you let them do that and you get away from the Betty Friedan shame or the Simone de Beauvoir force, women all want to be home.
What about, so what about women today that might say, you know what, I don't know that I would.
I don't know that I would like to be home.
For whatever reason, maybe they really actually would and don't really understand that.
Maybe they've been steeped in feminism so long.
It's just such a drastic change.
Or maybe genuinely they just are like, no, I don't.
How do you answer that?
Because this would be a dramatic societal shift for this country.
And it was a dramatic shift, obviously, to come to where we are today.
And it happened over, you know, 1848.
It's approaching 200 years.
It's getting very, very distant.
Is that the same kind of process?
Kind of, I guess, as a second question that you think it would take to reverse that.
But how do you answer them first off?
Okay.
Zeroth position before we answer first off is this would be a broad restoration of Christendom.
Imagine if just when you went to work, it was all dudes.
Yeah.
And when you were out and about during the day, it was mostly dudes.
Because single women have always worked and had to work until they were.
This is a prescription for married women, essentially.
Yes, all of the Christian prescriptions are for married women.
This does influence the expectation at the outset of single women, though.
They're just doing something so they don't starve until they get married within the Christian parameters that I'm describing.
We're not talking like go build a career first, have a family later either, because that seems to be a perversion of that.
That would be a perversion of that.
But yeah, women who have to work a part-time job or it's better to work a better part-time job.
Everyone understands that until you get married.
But we're talking about not just when you have kids, which was the limited hangout sort of half conservative thing that even Laura Schlesinger was talking about in the 90s.
Don't work after you have kids.
Don't work after you have a husband.
That's the clear scriptural prescription.
The Roman catechism from the Council of Trent says it very clearly.
Women are to stay home.
They're to love staying home.
Very rarely does the church or the Bible tell us not only what we should do, but what our disposition about it should be.
You should enthusiastically love to stay home, obey your husbands in all things.
What I would, okay, so having said all that.
So Christian married women who hear this and go, I don't know that I just want to stay home.
How do we answer that?
Right.
We would answer like virtue is not an act, but a habit, right?
So, of course, this is true.
Like, what I would answer with is men who are steeped in prawn.
Let's let's call it that.
Again, I don't know what you're they, a lot of men who are really, really steeped in a really nasty habit, like prawn.
We'll say porn, you can say, Yeah, we'll clip for YouTube and stuff that we get around that.
They have stupid word rules on these other platforms, not on Rumble.
No, it's it's annoying.
It's very annoying.
I don't, I don't like having to self-censor.
So, men who are steeped in pornographic habits, um, the really bad ones, the ones that are, who are really badly trapped by it, would say, no, I don't, I don't want to, you know, I'm happy where I'm at.
And it turns out happiness is a broadly equivocal term.
It can mean from the base animal conception of it, it would just be pleasure.
And pornography does confer some pleasures.
That's why men get trapped there.
But when we talk about the highest Christian estimation of it, it's Aristotelian eudaimonia.
This means a moral, true happiness that's aimed at the good.
And so along the spectrum of men who are not at all ready at the bottom to get rid of their pornographic habits, to men who are considering it because they know it's toxic, to men who are one, they're ready to get rid of it.
They just don't know how.
Think of that as the spectrum of.
I've been through all of that, by the way.
Praise God, I'm at the last part.
Sure.
Oh, God bless you.
So it's the same thing with women with the pornographic habit of, or I should say the dysphoric habit of acting like dudes.
And they've been groomed, usually in most cases by their fathers to act like a dude since they're, do you want to be a lawyer, a doctor, an astronaut, or a football player, little girl?
You know, this is how we're grooming them.
Or a WNBA star.
15 people to watch.
Don't worry.
Or an NBA star.
Yeah, you can.
WNBA.
You can have literally dozens of fans if you go into the WNBA.
It's an interesting product.
So let me, really quickly, as I hope I'm not interrupting you too much, but I want to highlight something.
It is in the convincing of virtue.
You don't have to convince a man that a pornography, a Christian man, that pornography is bad and that ending a pornographic addiction would probably be in line with scripture and be also a good thing potentially, even though they may resist it and not want to.
At a base level, scripture's pretty clear on how we should approach sex as a man, right?
I think scripture's far clearer on intersexuality.
Maybe so, but I don't think for this specific topic that most men would have to be convinced that watching sexual acts of other women and men together would be a sin, right?
And go, okay, we don't really have to have that conversation.
It's mostly like, okay, how do you defeat this?
How do you actually get to a point where you get on, you know, like you said, you kind of get entangled by it or entrapped by it, but how do you unwind that is really most of the conversation that you have.
And I'm sure there's a segment of people that would say, no, it's actually not bad, blah, blah, blah.
There may be reasons for that, but it doesn't seem like there's much argument there for the practice of patriarchy, not the idea.
And I want to separate those two because the idea of patriarchy, yes, I'll listen to my husband.
He is a spiritual head of the household, kind of satisfies a part of that for a lot of women, I would think, not really taking it down to the level of the famous red dress questionnaire.
You know, if you do you have the right to ask your wife to wear a red dress, right?
If you have enough red dresses, exactly, right?
Do you have enough red dresses theoretically?
Can a husband do that?
So what do you say to that Christian woman?
And that was the question.
And for me, the answer that you kind of just gave me is like, well, you have to convince them of the virtuousness of the acts, not just the first act of, well, he's a spiritual head of the household, but all of the subsequent stuff that I think maybe is the gray area for a lot of women.
Is that, do you see that?
Like, do you see some women grab a hold of it in part, but not in full?
What I've seen, and we're also marriage coaches for Catholic women, my wife and I.
So what we see when we get in there and we start getting our hands dirty talking to the man and the woman involved in a Catholic relationship is a lot of propaganda and a lot of flat out nescience and ignorance by teaching, which we call propaganda, by churchmen and Catholics.
And there's a lot of this in the Protestant world as well, on what scripture requires.
So that's why I'm not trying to beat a drum, but all I'm saying is you could go to scripture and it says eight different times.
Wives must obey their husbands in all things.
Women are not allowed to teach.
The only thing that they're allowed to teach are younger married women to follow and obey their husbands.
And that's really what they need.
So to your point, the churches have been taken over in a lot of ways.
So they're not taught that.
Men are taught that porn is bad by other men and by the church typically sex is reserved for marriage, right?
I've had a lot of Christian men tell me, look, I don't think it's bad.
I've had this conversation with a lot of Protestants, actually, because they don't have the benefit of the magisterial kind of gloss on scripture.
They say, where does it?
It talks about pornea one time, but pornea is the Greek term for any kind of sexual impropriety.
That doesn't just mean pornography.
There's not as much scriptural teaching against pornography.
And I'm not saying pornography is not that.
No, I'm making the case for it.
No, I'm making the case that it's much clearer a scriptural case against feminism.
But not taught is my thing.
Maybe that's why I have to do it.
No, that's why it falls to.
Look, this is perverse.
Yeah.
It's less perverse to a Protestant, but it's completely perverse to a Catholic or an Orthodox that the main expositors of the teaching here comes from a Catholic.
I mean, a Catholic layman.
And that's what it is.
It's fallen, ironically, after Vatican II, liberalizing Vatican II, which wanted to see the lay people step up.
Maybe it's not so ironic.
Maybe it just makes sense.
It's fallen to the right-wing Catholic laymen to step up and say, well, the priests aren't teaching this.
The priests are white-knighting for the women, just like the rest of society.
So all I'm going to do is point you to this line or that line or that line in scripture.
And I'm a little surprised, by the way, to hear, and sorry, I know your throat's a little sore right now.
You got your voice back a couple of days ago, so that was good.
Good timing there.
Thank God.
I'm a little surprised to hear that it is that pervasive within the Catholic Church.
As a Protestant, I know that one of the benefits and insane drawbacks of Protestantism is, well, at least from my perspective, I doubt that you would agree with me, is the lack of central authority.
And I think it's good in some ways because it protects against kind of the sin of man.
Anytime man is involved in something, it has a tendency, like the Jews prior to Christ coming back, to become completely different than what God had originally intended, right?
Men trying to do what was right in their own eyes, essentially.
But one of the horrible things about it is it doesn't have that kind of central driving force of people to say, no, this is how we've always done it.
And here's why.
There's like this very well thought out tradition from the patriarchs.
And I think that's where Protestants really miss the boat a lot.
But in Catholicism, you have that.
In Catholicism, you should just be able to be like, hey, guys, what are we doing here?
Like this entire system is set up and being passed down from the early church fathers to us after these councils to kind of get together and say, what does this really mean to live as a Christian now?
Not just taking these words, but applying them to our lives.
I'm surprised they can't just point back and go, get in line.
Well, it does work well, but we church improves in God's time, not our time.
So after, and this is a whole other topic, but after the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965, with all of the trappings of those hippie-ish years in the world, that was the 21st Ecumenical Catholic Council.
And it, upon that council, followed something called the spirit of Vatican II, which was liberalizing.
The documents aren't really so bad, but they were written in a way that has been referred to as weaponized ambiguity to pave the way for feminism.
There were zero doctors of the Catholic Church before Vatican II.
In 2000 years, now there are four doctors of the Catholic Church who are female.
There are zero female doctors.
Oh, female.
I was like, huh, what?
What are you talking about?
Sorry, I'm recovering from this flu.
I still have this haze, but zero feet.
You're like, well, why talk about doctors of the church at all then?
There are also zero basketball players of the Catholic Church.
There are zero female doctors of the Catholic Church before Vatican II.
Now there are four.
All kinds of sexual ethics.
Bishop Robert Barron calls them the pelvic issues, which have been made leniency by the so-called spirit of Vatican II.
All kinds of liberalizing and modernizing after Vatican II.
Zero Female Doctors00:02:30
And only now, really during Francis' tenure as Pope number 266, I was a major critic of Francis, as you could probably guess.
Only during, he like accelerated it all and people woke up to it.
And a lot of Zoomers now, the only Catholic, more Catholic than Protestant American generation ever, they're going back to the true teachings that were always on the books, but were not really being properly enforced.
So what you're saying you'd like to see happen, vis-à-vis feminism, is happening.
And that's, I guess, what I'm a part of.
Is it at the infancy stage, essentially?
Yes.
Yes.
Because I'll tell you this much.
I went on Matt Frad's show, who's now a part of Daily Wire in 2019.
And I announced on his show, this is when I was still on Taylor Marshall's channel.
I announced the writing of this book, shared some stories, shared my motivation for writing it.
Women are out of control.
And Matt was aghast.
He was terrified.
He's a non-controversial fellow.
And shortly after that, his friend, Trent Horne, said, I want to bring Tim on to debate him about some of the things he said on Matt's channel the previous month.
I think this was August 2019, then September 2019.
And we did this double debate on Trent Horne's show in Catholic Answer Studio.
One was on feminism, creamed him there.
The other one was on the death penalty.
Same story.
But in 2019, this is how much the O window has shifted to the right, which never before happened in my lifetime or your lifetime.
In the last six or seven years, you couldn't even say the things that I was saying were motivating me to write the books, much less cite the things I'm citing in the book and prove the case.
But I published it two years later, and there wasn't a huge reception, bad or good for it, until after the red pill sort of busted all this stuff loose in the popular culture.
And now people are here for it.
Now we have a major documentary on a major channel, another Catholic channel, another Catholics channel.
Okay, you can say it.
Did I say it?
I'm like, okay.
Yeah, so the host of our documentary, What a Woman Is, is not Daily Wire.
It is Candace Owens.
So you can go to her site on February 4th and 5th.
Supporting What a Woman Is00:06:10
It'll be free.
It's $1.99 the rest of the time.
If you want to see it today, you can see What a Woman Is.
It's one of the best.
Joel Webbin said it's one of the best documentaries he's ever seen.
It's really fun.
It's really beautifully shot.
And the director's Nick Stumphauser, I was the producer, who's based on my book.
But February 4th and 5th, it'll be absolutely free on candaceowens.com and maybe on my Twitter.
Yeah, we're looking into that.
That was one of the strategies they used for What is a Woman.
And look, we obviously, we have some issues.
That's fine.
That's okay.
But just you can go to the website and you can watch it.
I know.
I'm not going to hold anything against you for that.
But really quickly, let's take just a second right now to watch just a quick trailer of this and get an idea for just how well done this is.
It's been answered simply, a woman is not a man.
But in our age, it's never been answered with any specificity.
What a woman actually is.
The main thing that people need to grasp is the patriarchy is reality.
Feminism is one of the key elements they had to do first to bring about all the other revolutions.
So whether it's the 60s counterculture revolution or whether it's the biological trans revolution, all of that had to be preceded by the feminist revolution first.
But in the first place, the mutual agreement to swap sex roles was not called gender dysphoria.
It was called simply feminism.
Super Bowl Champion Chiefs kicker Harrison Butger getting some backlash after his commencement speech at a Catholic university.
Because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lives told to you.
I thought about being a doctor my whole life.
I had this picture in my head where it was just going to be me.
Women were getting more and more unhappy as they were pulled out of the home.
The most important counter strike by the feminists against Christianity comes in the form of a move known as mutual submission.
It's absurd.
It is absurd.
In marriage, the reason you can't have mutual submission is because there will be times in which decisions have to be made in which the wife and the husband do not necessarily agree.
This is why ultimately, in the end, the husband has to be the head of the household and make the final decision.
Scripture does not give us a safe place from the directives of God.
If I didn't want to submit to him, then I should not have married him in the first place because I should not marry somebody who I don't trust to lead me.
That's stupid.
We're so deep into the framing, the battle of the sexes now that it's difficult to see it anymore.
Whether it's feminism or the red pill, which is really just a kind of feminism for men.
The idea of men and women being opposed to each other, you've already let in the fundamental lie of feminism.
There's an intimate relationship between feminism and witchcraft.
Most people don't know this, but it has a very easily documentable history.
So any woman who's truly feminine, according to a feminist, is degraded.
Are you interested in knowing what the truth is?
Are you willing to submit to the truth?
Now you need to be ready to change whatever plans you think you had.
You have to decide what kind of woman you want to be.
All right, guys.
So make sure that you go support this, I want to say movie, but documentary, movie, docu-movie.
I don't even know.
There's so many different things.
I love watching good ones.
So make sure you go support this.
What is it?
Candice Owens.com and February 3rd and 4th, it's free.
Outside of that, it's $1.99.
Fourth and fifth.
Sorry, February 4th.
No, see, I did that on purpose just to mess with people so that they'll go there on the wrong dates.
Sorry, the free dates are gone.
You have to pay.
No.
Pay for it.
I will say this.
I do, you know, much like we talk about here all the time, you support the content that you love.
Having a free day is fantastic.
And I think that's a great way to expose people to the message that is there and to kind of build some, I guess, momentum behind it.
But if you like it and you want to see more of that content, please support it.
Are there other ways that people can support you before we kind of jump back in?
Yeah.
I mean, like books.
Can they buy books and subscribe to your channels?
I have five books.
I've written what I consider to be the early modern version of Christian nationalism.
It's called Catholic Republic.
It's a state's rights.
We were progressive.
I mean, we were Protestants at the founding here.
We're going to have to do an entire new episode to unwind this.
On the ideology, not on the future.
And we didn't let you guys vote for a long time because of dual loyalties.
Now, that'd be a really interesting conversation about the founding fathers.
But so we're going to jump right back in.
But where can they go to buy or to support Timothy J. Gordon?
Not just like by clicking subscribe.
I'm talking like, where can they like, you know, without sending you money and treating you like, you know, worker of the night, where can they go?
TimothyJGordon.com.
You can buy all my books there.
Okay.
I have five of them.
The case for patriarchy, there's a his and a hers.
My wife wrote one called Ask Your Husband by Mrs. Timothy J. Gordon.
And again, just support us by following us on YouTube, which is Timothy J. Gordon.
And of course, we have a locals.
I've been kicked off of Patreon.
I was kicked off of Patreon a couple years ago.
I lost my job during the 2020 scare when BLM insanity, when in June, most Americans supported that terrorist organization.
I lost my job as theology department chairman in California, moved to Mississippi.
You could support me on DonorBox, but if you want to get cool stuff, so it's a transaction, locals, rules for retrogrades at locals.
Perfect.
Thanks a million, man.
So let's jump back into the conversation we were having about the Catholic priests because one of the heart, let me just set it up this way, because I think this really encapsulates, like I am trying to get at the heart of this, right?
Breaking The Patriarchy Cycle00:05:48
The motivation for me matters a lot, right?
Where this comes from, why this is happening, what it's fighting against, what it's pushing back on and against.
But understanding that if you want people to change, if you want society to change in a positive direction, and I think a lot of men and women out there would agree that the way things are going right now, it's broken.
The relationships between husband and wife, very broken, especially in the home where you have children and that relationship is not modeled correctly.
It just continues to perpetuate this problem down through the generations.
We're taking this beautiful gift of having children and taking it and throwing it to the side so that we can go and have mom pursue a career in the workforce and make probably 50%, 40%, 30% of take-home of what dad is making after you pay for all the childcare that's involved with that transaction change.
Plus the fact that mom might probably earn a little bit less than dad.
So for not very much gain, we're taking and sacrificing the greatest gift that God ever outside of his son gave us, right?
These kids, these human beings that we're entrusted with to raise and to train up correctly.
And we're outsourcing that to whoever happens to be at the daycare center that day or happens to be at the elementary school.
And I think a lot of people can grab a hold of that as a problem, but they may not understand the solution to it.
And so I really want to get down to, okay, well, how do we get people to say, you know what, I'm uncomfortable and this idea is different, man.
It feels weird for me as a man to tell these things to a woman, for a woman to change everything that she has been conditioned and told in an instant.
So I really want to get down to how we do that.
And really what we've zeroed in on is, well, it's the virtuous nature of the Acts and telling people like, hey, it's virtuous here, here.
And really the biblical nature of the Acts is probably a better way of saying this.
Here it is scripturally.
This is the prescription for how we should do it.
And why the Catholic Church, the priests, and I was surprised to hear it, is not really doing that.
So do you think they can get back to that in a broad way?
Or is it a limited revival essentially right now from kind of more traditional teaching?
Patriarchy is inevitable and it's coming back.
And you see it with the Zoomers and you see it in superficial ways with the Trad Wife movement.
Here's the thing.
When we distinguished earlier between immoral pleasures and moral happiness, not all pleasure is immoral.
In the Nicomachean acts.
end of that in in the nicomachean ethics aristotle distinguishes that pleasure is still useful even in the good life in the virtuous life as a test as a test for whether or not someone has rightly habituated virtue whether he's because once you start like a run after new year's if you're out of shape you hate it right yeah And this is also the answer to the first question you asked me about.
What about the woman that, or the guy that's still addicted to a bad lifestyle, the woman that's still addicted to a bad lifestyle?
When you try the virtuous thing on day one, on January 1st, you go for your run, you get off the couch, you hate it.
Stick with it every day.
Ask me again on April 1st after I've done 90 runs.
And I start liking it.
So this is the way that virtue is gradually accumulated and it changes the soul.
So your intellect is what realizes before your will, I'm doing something bad, bad for me, whether it's pornography or just being fat and staying on the couch, or I'm a woman who has been conditioned by all of society, including my father, to act like a man.
And it's making me miserable the way all vices ultimately make us miserable, even if they carry with them their incipient pleasures.
Well, your intellect tells you go for that first run.
Your intellect tells you stop with the pornography.
Your intellect tells you stop with the potato chips.
But your will will rebel.
Your will takes longer.
So this is why I'm not a voluntarist.
Will follows intellect.
So you check in with your will or your second nature 90 days after you try to get a new habit, right?
That's why you don't.
Just put your head down and get it done.
But put your head down those first 90 days.
You do a daily jog.
You're going to hate it.
Don't even ask yourself, are you hating this?
Same thing with any of the virtues that we're urging society to acclimate.
And this is really what my broad project is at Rules for Retrogrades.
It's just we need to get back to Christendom.
We need to get back to Christian nationalism, rightly conceived.
We need to get back to the patriarchy, rightly conceived, not the red pill.
So women who don't think that this is the way forward, we understand that.
But what you can recognize is you're not happy now.
You're miserable in the life that unfortunately everyone, including your family members, led you to from kindergarten on.
Kindergarten is a creature of John Dewey, the communist at the University of Chicago, by the way.
Same exact principle.
Add in another year of school, get kids away from their mothers earlier.
Our film we have um Aaron Russo talking to Nick Rockefeller or discussing something Nick Rockefeller told him he's like.
My family of the Rockefellers were in on women's lib for two reasons, get kids away from their mothers more and have someone else they can tax twice as much.
Taxabilities like.
That's why we did where Women's LIB and Aaron Russo was like.
At the time I was a Normie, I didn't know, but the, the general principle that the communists and the you know, you know the people who run society.
Pleasant Home Dilemma00:03:33
Come on, the Jews don't all run society.
Well, it's all i'll.
I'll make everyone here comfortable.
The communists and the freemasons um, I got to push back on you a little bit for fun right people, for fun, it makes it fun.
The people who, who decide to to you know, brown society and to to feminize men and to masculinize women and to um, do a what to destroy the patriarchy, destroy Christianity, to destroy Christendom.
They knew what to do and what to do fundamentally and I say this with seven little girls that I love more than anybody with a wife.
I love more than anybody say for for, for Jesus alone is to to get them out of the home and and to for one thing, it also makes the home place very, very unattractive.
When you go to a home where no one's home during the day, it's just a house.
Yeah, it's dirty, it's.
There's no nice smells the only smells are going to be probably dirty laundry and it's cold.
And if everyone is arriving home at the end of the day together, this is just a house, whereas if you arrive, your wife greets you, there's baked goods on.
We homeschool, so it's been very warm, there's been a lot of activity during the day, everyone's sort of bored and readying for you, for dad, to get home and to have fun.
It's an attractive place.
When I taught young men in high school and college for all those years my wife would come visit me with baked goods or just come with my lunch or something from home, if I forgot it, and she's so pleasant.
You know, Nick Fuentes recently has talked about what women used to just be pleasant.
They'd bake cookies and smile, and now they have rbf and they don't bake anymore and they don't know how to bake and they don't know how to do any of the home eck.
Female arts needlework stitchcraft painting, pianoforte these are the things women should be at home doing and they're all about beautifying and pleasantifying the home place.
That makes people actually want to spend time around it.
Yeah, and what I noticed with a bunch of the dudes around the suburbs is it's go and it generates more philosophy of go, get away from the home because it's not this pleasant place.
I go around my home because the way my wife makes it, I just want to stay there.
We all the kids just want to stay there.
We, we just live our lives around the home.
It's a real oikonomia yeah, and I think emphasizing this speaks to what the internal yearning of of women really is.
They want to return to that.
Like I told you that the laptop screens are all filled by home place uh products, home place services, home place crafts and hobbies that these girls that have been forced to act like pre-lawyer men or pre-doctor men, they all naturally want to do this.
And men want to be around those kinds of women too.
So it also reattracts men and women to each other when women can give this much needed commodity back to society and men are looking for it desperately, desperately they're looking for it.
Well, and I definitely see that in the dating scene right now.
Not that I'm in the dating scene, but some of the statistics that we have for some of the generations that are struggling through this right now are pretty stark.
Men not really even wanting to get married or pursuing marriage or pursuing a relationship with a woman and just essentially escaping into some virtual world, whether it be video games or just online social media fixes.
Uphill Battle for Ideas00:17:23
It's a really big problem.
And I think finding a solution to this and approaching it the right way, I think people can smell authenticity a mile away.
And a number of men, and I've said this before and I've taken a little bit of heat for it, but I don't think it's something that's really controversial at all.
In fact, I think it's more like Christ approached this problem or any problem, really, not this problem.
When talking to people, it's that some people come off as like the patriarchy needs to come back.
And they're exactly what you would think that the women who are complaining about the patriarchy would point to, not these virtuous men who love their wives and take care of their families the way that the Bible instructs them to, but these very difficult, hard, ruling it over them kind of men.
And I think that's, I think with the early stages of this message getting out like as a return to pre-feminism, really, that's what it is.
It's a return to pre-feminism.
The messenger matters a lot.
Are you seeing a receptiveness to this no matter who's putting this out there?
Or are you seeing kind of what I'm saying?
And who's, you know, obviously you're one of the people doing this.
Is there another person doing this, doing it well?
Because listen, if it's not coming from a heart of love for women and for men and for families, then you're not going to get a lot of success, I don't think.
If it's just like beating people over the head with the truth, you might get some success, but I don't think you're going to experience as much as you want.
The closest fellow travelers that my wife and I have in this are actually Andrew and Rachel Wilson.
Andrew does the blood sports debates, but he's, he's a really sweet guy behind the scenes.
We're good friends.
You know him.
Yeah.
And Rachel's very sweet, and you can even see that online.
And she and my wife's staff have always had each other's backs.
They each have a book against feminism, addressing it, attacking it from a different angle.
I wish there were more fellow travelers within Catholicism that are really aggressively pro-patriarchy and anti-feminist, but that's a burgeoning number.
This is a new thing.
We thought, like Soren Kierkegaard said, our last refuge would be shaking our fists at the sky and saying the future will show I'm right.
I thought this was going to be decades of wilderness living for my book, Case for Patriarchy or Steph's book.
And suddenly, 2023, 2024, things turned around and everyone's really receptive to it.
So I wish there were more, and I think there will be more advocates for it in the immediate future in Catholicism.
But we're happy to have Joel Webbin within Protestantism.
He loves his wife a lot, and he's a good advocate for it.
And we're really happy to have Andrew and Rachel.
So whether they're other Catholics or not, we're happy to have fellow Christians.
I would address this major issue this way.
There's a couple other things I'll kick myself if I don't say.
One of them is this.
When people immediately, it's a rhetorical ploy leftists always use.
They, you know, exception makes bad law.
They'll define something by its perverted, inverted example.
And that's not how the West works.
That's not how proper logic works.
I was also a logic teacher in philosophy departments, logic instructor.
You define something by its operative self.
So whether we're talking about the good regimes of government, according to Aristotle and the later Republican theorists, there's three good regimes, right?
You could do rule by one well.
That's called a monarchy.
When we talk about rule by one in the home, people always associate it with its perverted form, rule by one in a wicked or a tyrannical way.
That's called a tyranny.
We also have good rule by few.
That's an aristocracy.
That can be perverted, and that's called an oligarchy.
We also have good rule by many.
That's called polity or republic.
And its wicked form is called democracy.
Well, whenever you talk to a feminist, I mean, literally, this just comes from books.
No, it's very descriptive of stuff.
Yes, you're right.
This is just Aristotle.
It just sucks except for all of the forms, I guess.
But so when you talk to a feminist or even a non-politically charged, just sort of normie who has his head full of gynocratic feminist mush, they'll always say, well, if we return to Christendom, if we return to patriarchy, won't women get beat?
Isn't there a history of abuse?
There's just not.
And that's where we have to just take back history as an institution.
The right really needs to take it back because this is a Marxian lie that there's this broad history of abuse of women.
The abuse all began in earnest, if we scale it in major, major, you know, much greater numbers in spates when women left the home.
And this is what the popes at the turn of the 20th century predicted.
If women leaves the home, she will be abused as among the pagans.
Whereas when she's home, the only people that are around are her husband or her sons or maybe her father.
And those people all care for her.
And if you say, well, what if they're abusive?
Well, that's a more systemic problem.
I mean, yeah, what if a comet falls out of the sky?
But we know turning women over to society at large, we know there are bad guys out there.
That's a certitude.
I mean, systemically speaking, when women are home, doing what they're naturally, they have a natural aptitude for, what they all want to do, and being cared for by their husband, being safe.
99 times out of 100, this works out very nicely.
Whereas only one time out of 100 at the most does the current regime of women just being sort of booted by their fathers and their husbands out into economic society, into the economic mainstream, does that ever work happily?
No.
Go look at literally, it's a joke.
I made Tucker Carlson laugh with this, but it's true.
Women are crippled with diarrhea and they're taking happy pills at twice the rate of men.
And they're all saying they're struggling with mental health.
It's because they're in a place that is not a natural forum for them.
And they're being told that they're leaders, which is not an aptitude they have.
They can't lead.
But they are good sort of second in command because they were made from the ribs of men.
And they all want to be at home.
They all want to have children.
And they all want to do the things around home, beautifying it.
By the way, in the ancient days when men farmed and farming was the main preoccupation, The primary profession that man, particularly in the American South, supported his family.
Women were literally, this is such a recurring issue in the papal encyclicals in the Catholic Church.
Women can work from inside the home or in the curtilage, which means they can help their husbands farm.
This is still natural.
It's still a natural thing to do.
And we know that it's natural because it was such a mainstream occupation for men and women to do together around the home, and even the kids.
But it's natural because they're around their family, their employers, someone who cares for them, who loves them, who's going to let them take an extra 15 minutes after lunch if they need a nap or whatever.
G.K. Chesterton put it best: you can either have a boss who loves you, your husband, or you can have a boss who doesn't love you at all.
And feminism says that the latter is better.
And Christianity says the former is better.
It's that simple.
Yeah.
We've got a really big uphill fight, I think, on this one because these ideas are so entrenched.
Fortunately for me, my wife, and I didn't, like I said, I didn't really have my head screwed on very well on this topic, probably because a lot of these ideas just kind of like I thought, okay, well, yeah, this is kind of natural, but I didn't really look at the battle of the fight against feminism.
It was just like, well, this is kind of what scripture says.
I would never lord it over my wife.
I would never be abusive in how these things happen.
But I am looking for a woman who wants to be led and to be, you know, this word submission.
People are like, oh my gosh.
It's like, no, but I'm just trying to use the word that the scripture uses to understand what we're really talking about.
And I married a brilliant woman who could go and be, you know, a mid-six-figure earner in the hospital system.
She was a nurse, very skilled.
And by the grace of God, you know, we came together and had the right ideas about, hey, I want to be home.
And she's a career woman that could go earn a lot of money and find a lot of purpose.
But man, the more that she has been home with our children, we have three young boys right now, almost two, almost four, and five and a half.
So we're in the thick of it.
I don't have eight or seven right now for you, but we're doing our best.
But she's come to that conclusion.
Like, man, this is just so much more purposeful.
But I think there are so many women who didn't have the matriarchal figure that mom or grandmother that was passing down those home economics, like you said, like these things that women would do, how to attract a man, how to please a man, how to make a home for your husband.
That seems to have gone completely by the wayside.
And if you find somebody like that, like I have in my wife, it seems to be pretty rare.
I feel like we just have such an uphill battle.
How do we make sure that we tell that we present this message in as winsome a way as possible without watering down the truth?
And I don't think you'll have some pretty good answers.
I don't think a lot of people do, though, right now.
I think there are very few people that will have good answers to this.
I think you're underestimating nature and female natural aptitudes and natural desires are strong.
Watch the film.
First off, I mean, one rhetorical resource that you have is this film that will be free on February 4th and 5th.
And you can go watch it right now if you're willing to pay a buck 99 at candaceowens.com.
What a woman is.
We present just beautiful, smart, Ivy League, talented women who are in business, law, medicine, Veterinary medicine who are like, I just was, I knew this wasn't right.
Everyone in my family was telling me I needed a career and I knew it was wrong.
It felt wrong.
And I feel like to the degree that you, Gerald, think it's that uphill a battle.
I'm not saying it's not.
I've been in this fight for six years, but I don't think it's as much an uphill battle because what you have at the end of the day is nature.
And the feminists, like all gender dysphorists, are fighting against nature.
People know a dude in a woman's dress ain't beautiful.
People know, I don't know, a 400-pound chick ain't beautiful.
People, women themselves know, and this is the strongest lie, the most pervasive one.
It's not natural for them to be away from the home place during the day.
They know it, they feel it.
And even the ones that have been groomed for it or are now on their way, if they're smart, they're willing to turn back.
It does take a bit of courage.
I think it takes quite a bit of courage because you said that you're fighting against nature.
Yes, but the nurture is very strong in this.
Absolutely.
And it's been entrenched for, at the very least, decades with modern women.
But things are turning around.
And now, environmentally, it's because the Overton window is being ripped back to the right.
You're no longer going to be considered a weirdo.
I'll give you an example: homeschool was for weirdos in the 90s.
But now everyone's doing it.
And it's so much better.
And it also enhances the home economy and it enhances women's life.
She doesn't have to schlep kids around all day long in the minivan, and you can set your own schedule.
And once you, it takes a fourth of the time that they take at school.
So yeah, it's not an eight-hour workday for a first grader.
It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
Also, does it cost $15,000 a year for private first grade?
No, and they're not learning to sentence diagram.
They're not learning Latin.
They're not learning the things they actually need to learn.
You can do this all in an hour and a half.
And my, you know, I have nine-year-old girls doing Latin and sentence diagramming and algebra.
I'm like, I don't even know what the math that they taught us first through eighth was.
They just, they keep you in school to keep you away from your mom.
And that's, that's really what it is.
But I would say the battle is less uphill than I think you're assuming now.
But that's why the truth has to lead the tone.
The truth is just, do you consider yourself a Christian?
Read these books if you do.
Even if you, young lady Jane Doe out there, if you consider yourself a Christian, then look at the passages of scripture.
I have the books upside down.
You can read the resource of my wife's book.
This is written specifically for ladies.
Can read my book for the men out there and watch our movie.
The case is made in scripture.
It is made.
If you're any kind of Christian, there is no feminism that can coexist alongside it.
It is a disjunctive syllogism, as we say in logic.
So the early feminists were far more honest about this, and we have to get back to that.
I just think far too many people don't know that.
I think it's an educational kind of gap, too.
And it's a huge cultural shift to get people out there.
And, you know, I think it's important.
I think it's important to really understand why you believe what you believe.
And, you know, you would obviously have a lot of backing for why you think women would be better in the home doing kind of these more traditional things.
And I think there's, you know, there was a trad wife movement that seemed to be full of a lot of people that don't actually want the trad life.
It's kind of a mockery of trad life.
Superficial.
Yeah, very superficial.
And look, I know there's probably two or three other episodes that we could do on some of these topics, and I'd love to have you back.
But before you go, I think that the truth does need to lead the way, and that's really how Christ spoke.
He was the truth in love, right?
Like he did give you the truth, but there was like a call to repentance associated with that, not usually a condemnation, unless it was some of the more dramatic scenes with the Pharisees.
There was a little bit different fighter coming out to play.
But I do think it's really important for you.
And look, this has been helpful for me.
It's very important to know why you believe what you believe.
One of the things that I did in searching out the best apologists in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and also as a Protestant, was to say, like, am I wrong?
And I think asking that question was very helpful just to coming to a better understanding of what I currently believe because I've tested that truth.
That's why I said I look for debaters.
I don't look for debaters because I think debaters are the best to listen to.
I think it's because their ideas are constantly being attacked by very skilled people with other ideas.
And hearing that interchange, I think, or that dialogue, I should say, really does help you understand what is true and what is not.
Not just listening to your favorite creator say what they say.
I mean, that's a baseline.
That's fine.
But people defending their ideas.
And so here's the question.
It's a long lead in for a pretty short question.
And I think it'll be helpful and hard to answer.
Who is your best detractor?
Who is the best person who says they have a different perspective on this in making the argument for an alternative or a slightly different path to be able to take?
Is it most compelling?
Probably most compelling, but also most well thought out.
Not just in performance, right?
But somebody who's like, yeah, no, that's a really good argument that you will hear a lot of people make.
And I want them to hear it well.
Like I want a steel man argument so that when if you do say, you know what, I agree with you, Timothy, that we should return to this.
We need to push this direction.
I want to be prepared to go out into the world and make the case and understand the arguments that I'm going to get back.
Not straw man arguments, but steel man.
Who's the best at doing that right now?
Do you think?
I think it would have to be a non-Christian.
I was going to ask, is there anybody in Christendom that would disagree with you in any material way?
Why Men's Rights Matter00:09:56
Well, lots, but they can't do so.
They're a circular square.
Christendom, Christianity is the patriarchy.
Well, maybe put it like this.
They agree with you that patriarchy, yes, but they don't define it quite the same as you.
Is there somebody who's just a slightly different, like saying, listen, if you've got a man going out to work and you've got a woman staying in the home and her work is taking care of the kids, taking care of the home, the man comes home, obviously you would probably agree, comes home, gets acclimated.
But listen, at that point, he needs to help out a little bit.
That would be a little bit of a difference, right?
To your kind of perspective on this.
Is there somebody who has those kinds of differences?
I think the man, when he comes home, needs to play and pray with the kids.
I don't think the man comes home and needs to assume female duties, but the man is the primary priest of the home.
So you can't just play with them and you can't just pray with them.
So everybody kind of agrees with that.
The more cucked people out there would want to see the man doing more of the female tasks around the home and vice versa.
I mean, I'm trying to.
That's what I said.
It might be a hard question to answer, but I think it's instructive if, and maybe, you know what, if you can't think of anybody, think about it and get back to me because, again, I like to steel many arguments and I'd like to hear.
So let me, maybe, you know what?
I'll give you an argument that, and I know you're having a little bit of a coughing fit right now.
I'm so sorry.
Sorry over this blue.
I'm sorry.
And then we'll kind of tie a bow on this.
Here's an argument that can be made, right?
All right.
I believe that my wife should submit to me.
I believe in the patriarchy in a very positive Christian version of the patriarchy, not in any kind of perverted version of it.
I believe that is what is going to make the relationship that I have with my wife and the relationship we have with our children the very best that it possibly could be.
And it will be better for society if that is a normative thing, that if that's how society functions.
But when does my wife get time off?
Because I go to a job from, say, nine to five.
I come home.
That's my time off to play and pray with the kids.
My wife's job is to take care of the house and to take care of us and try to encapsulate that into all that she does, but she never gets to go home from that.
How do you that would maybe be a question you would get?
Where's her time off?
Does she just work every seven days a week all day?
Yeah, well, I address this in a couple of my books, including Catholic Republic.
Profession being confused with vocation by the Puritans is a big part of the problem here.
Okay.
For a Catholic, quatidian or daily grace comes from the sacraments, not from labor.
In the Reformation, post-Reformation, you have to have daily grace have a source somewhere.
It's got to come from somewhere.
So for the Puritans, which was deeply informative on American psyche on work, it came from a cobbler huddled over his shoe doing the Lord's work.
That's where grace came from on a daily basis.
And therefore, God loves men and women equally.
Women have to get it somewhere too.
So actually, feminism grew out of the Puritan view of work quite naturally on that version of the telling.
Whereas for Catholics, the grace comes daily from the seven sacraments.
So, first off, we would say your profession's not your vocation.
Man's profession is to be a husband and father.
Woman's vocation is to be a mother and a wife.
And unless, of course, they become a priest or a nun.
So that's the answer.
Now, a man's work schedule allows him to come home and just sort of naturally give a break to his wife by take all the kids, go outside, go to the park for an hour or two, and she'll have a loan time.
Also, I would say on the front end of the day, my wife gets up at 9, 9:30, and starts school then, homeschooling with the kids.
So if I have to go do something at seven, there's give, maybe more at the beginning of the day and the end of the day for a woman for a man.
I wouldn't call going to a nine-to-five job.
I mean, I don't have a nine-to-five job anymore.
This is my job.
But I would say that due to the ebb and flow of the man's day, if he's going to work and his wife's day is she stays at home, they're not at all comparable.
A wife's day is beautiful.
And I mean, I could tell you how it was when I still went to work at a job.
I was a lawyer for a year.
I was a landman for a year, but I was a teacher for eight years.
My wife would get up late, do homeschool for two hours, feed the kids lunch, send them outside, and then she would watercolor.
She would play the flute.
There's when the home place is your workplace, not to be too Puritan about it, it doesn't really transfer to say, Can I get a 15-minute smoke break?
It doesn't work like that.
Women are just who stay at home, stay-at-home moms and wives, have the grace and the loveliness of, you know what?
I'm going to have the kids sit and read.
I'm going to watercolor.
You know, my wife loved to do that.
I'm going to draw or I'm going to journal or I'm going to garden.
I'll bring the kids out with me.
She plays the piano.
Yeah.
Beautiful.
That's that's beautiful.
My daughter plays the piano.
My wife plays the flute.
It's so lovely because you're at home and it's not a job.
It's your vocation.
Now, if she needs all alone time, which is kind of rare, that's why men, you know, take the kids out to the front yard and tumble with them or go to the park.
But my wife doesn't really like that anyway.
She likes to come with us.
Well, not necessarily just looking for that, but I think that would be kind of the, well, if he gets to come home and I think, again, maybe that's the perverted view of patriarchy from both angles, really, from women saying, well, I need a break from all of this and men going, I'm just going to come home and sit down and do nothing.
It's like, well, a man comes home and greeted by the family and kind of gets acclimated to being home, whether that's a 10 or 30 minute process or whatever it is, and then jumps in to be dad.
So you're not just going to work, coming home and doing whatever you want.
You're jumping in to be a father and a husband at that point.
And so you're just essentially switching roles.
You need CEO or the manager here.
Now I'm coming home to this role.
You need energy for the day at home.
Right.
And therefore, it is important.
I want to stick up for men's rights somewhat here.
There's a great 20th century saint, actually, the founder of Opus Day, for people who know, Saint Jose Maria Escriva, that says, look, not to be too caricatured on the other side, but wives need to look beautiful, pray improper.
If you didn't do makeup before your husband gets home, you know, help him to acclimate because it is a kind of hard transition.
You work to home, look beautiful, have some lovely smelling thing, whether it's perfume or something in the oven, and just give him a little time when he gets home because it's not a seamless transition.
It was weird.
Some of you just have, okay, I have to get my child rearing hat on or my husbanding hat on and give him a half hour and bring the man his slippers or whatever, whatever he needs.
And then if he's a good man, he's going to take off from there and not just do the greatest gen thing, the greatest gen thing, which created the boomers who are the worst generation ever on parenting and wifing and husbanding.
They were terrible because their model of the patriarchy was the greatest gen, who I guess the dads were told, maybe it's revisionist history, just came home and sat in their chair and yelled at everyone.
Hey, like, get the hell out of the way.
I'm watching the TV.
No one talked to me.
That's non-vocational.
That's not Christian.
And, you know, it's still the dad calling the shots.
He can do it in the way he finds best, but he needs to play and pray with the kids.
And have this perhaps as are more important.
Have a robust, convivial relationship with the wife where you're talking, joking, laughing.
You got to also date your wife.
Try to go on a date once a week.
Have sex.
Have sex lots.
Have sex lots.
I mean, that's the point of marriage is procreation.
Yeah.
To have lots of sex and, you know, you can't be a dipshit at home.
You can't.
I'm glad.
See, listen, a lot of people don't hear that.
You know, a good man is going to come home and do these things.
He's going to take off from there.
I like that.
That's the kind of balanced approach that I think women want to hear.
And I know why maybe some people don't include that because men seem to get beat over the head with their duties and responsibilities all the time.
Right.
And women don't necessarily.
And so that's the correction that's going on.
But women have to stop being bitches.
Man, don't be a dip shit.
Women, the first problem, first order, women in society need to stop being gigantic bitches.
There we go.
Okay, so that's the title of men stop being dipshits and women stop being bitches.
I'm quoting here female talks.
And everything will be fine.
Well, you had one question that I didn't answer well earlier.
Two Foundational Figures00:02:27
Can I this be the outro?
If I can get it out without a coughing fit.
You said, why is feminism the beating heart of leftism?
And I think any Christian will connect with this.
It's really, really important.
There are two foundational figures for feminism.
The real beginning of so-called first wave feminism, which even normie conservatives were taught for too long, was good.
It's not.
It's actually more diabolic than second or third wave.
But originary feminism has two figures, a tragic hero.
Can you guess who it might be?
And a sort of superhero.
If you haven't watched the movie yet, they're scriptural figures or scriptures, a kind of scriptural.
Tragic heroes and a superhero.
A tragic feminist hero and a superhero feminist hero.
Can you imagine who they might be going way back?
From scripture or?
One of them's from scripture.
One of them's from the Talmud.
Well, I'll just get to it.
Thank you because I'm like, oh, now I'm.
This is telling.
Yeah, no, there's no way to really know unless you see the angle.
So what feminists, there's this feminist called Katie Scott Marshall, and she talks about this at great length.
This is Eve.
Eve, Eve and Lilith.
Ah, okay.
Eve is all of the first wave feminists said, look, she's kind of our template, but she's a tragic hero.
Eve disobeyed the two enemies.
The enemies of feminism are God and man, God and Adam.
She disobeyed God and Adam.
Eve did, but she got caught.
So she's a tragic hero.
But we're going to look to the Talmud, the Jewish Talmud, source of so many evils, and we're going to look to Adam's apocryphal first wife.
We know she wasn't really his first wife, but she's an important literary figure.
Lilith, demon goddess Lilith, Adam's apocryphal first wife.
She refused to have sex with Adam, had sex with demons.
She's the mother of Sids, considered the mother of abortion and witchcrafted baby deaths, and she got away with it.
So she is our superhero.
And this is the first wave feminists, right?
This is what we want.
This is 1848.
Yeah.
And broadly speaking, remember in the 90s, Lilith Fest, Lilith Fair, Lilith Crane, Fraser's wife.
Defy God and Husbands00:01:32
This is what they're after.
This is this figure from the Talmud.
And she was their superhero.
Eve, she's pretty good, but she got caught.
We want what we feminists want is to defy God and to defy our husbands, Adam, and get away with it.
So it's the center of all leftism.
It all proceeds from there, defiance.
It's all not right versus left.
It's right versus wrong.
Yeah.
Important stuff.
Very important.
Well, thank you very much for fighting through the flu, giving us some more information.
Look, I highly recommend that you go watch What a Woman Is right now and go show some love to Timothy J. Gordon.
Is it TimothyJGordon.com?
Oh, yes.
They can purchase books.
They can follow you on X.
They can follow you on YouTube.
They can join at locals.
But make sure you show them some love.
And we will definitely have to have you back.
I think this is definitely a fight worth having.
We've got some, I think, some challenges that we have to overcome, some messaging issues that need to be addressed so that men approach this from the right perspective and so that women can see that there might be a better way to fix some of the problems that are out there.
And it's the scriptural way that we can make sure that we are pushing society in a direction that will be better for both women and men and for your children.