Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 13, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:06

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #197

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus Eaters.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello!
	Today is the 13th of August 2021, and the reason I'm laughing is because I just read in The Guardian that Priti Patel's appointed a hard-right anti-tax activist.
	So, based, is what we're saying.
	I don't get how you're far-right and anti-tax, but good god.
	Anyway...
	Okay, no, no, no, that's fine.
	Let's make the far-right position the anti-tax position.
	See how many people vote for that?
	If you're against taxes, you're far-right.
	Anyway, so today we're going to be talking about Scotland's transgender preschoolers, also 70s feminists.
	They were lying the whole time, which is always nice to get an admission.
	And also, what are women looking for in men?
	So another data sermon, I assume.
	Yeah, but no, this is coming from female professionals and TikTokers who are saying all this stuff.
	So it's not just me preaching from the position of the patriarch.
	This is what the ladies themselves admit to.
	Ready to go.
	First things to mention is the stuff on the website.
	So firstly, the premium book club we did, the long march to the institutions, how the left won the culture war, and what's good about it.
	As you said, it was a good book for normies, isn't it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Very good book for normies.
	Last few chapters are made for people like the audience and us who care about this stuff a lot.
	Because it turns into Goldstein's book from 1984, which is like, yeah, here's how your world really works and how you deal with it.
	I've been reading some of the comments in there, and one of the comments that got me is someone pointing out that some of the options aren't technically incompatible with each other.
	So he gives six options of what to do about the fact that the rights lost the culture and what to do in response.
	And yeah, some of them aren't incompatible.
	Like option six, just anti-socialist action.
	Destroying institutions is not necessarily incompatible with, I think it was four, which is just persisting, you know, breaking a rightist cathedral.
	Make your own institutions, defund any taxpayer-funded left-wing institutions, conservatives, if you're still there.
	Yeah, good comment from that guy.
	I can't remember his name, but good comment.
	Also, I wanted to mention the free video, The Personal is Political.
	So this is the video you did, the right one.
	I don't know if you want to describe it enough.
	Yeah, well the the implications of the phrase the personal is political is totalitarianism because it means there's nothing outside of the remit of the state because the state of course deals with politics and that's not good and so I just explore the ideas and what these lead to and examples of where we can see it ruining people's personal lives.
	It also destroys a fundamental principle of a liberal order which is a civil society in which I can go to my bowls club and we don't have to argue about politics.
	We just beat people who like bowls.
	And also it destroys the concept of constitutional limits on government.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, so go and check that out because that's fantastic.
	But without further ado, let's get into the Scotland's transgender preschoolers.
	Scotland.
	I hate Scotland.
	I don't know what it is.
	Scotland's always been kind of based, and now it's just a joke.
	Scotland is kind of a toxic dump at this point, and I don't mean toxic dump as in the area is unlikable to be in because of the environment or something.
	No, it's a toxic dump because the toxic waste in question is progressive policies, and these progressive policies are being enacted.
	So here's the first thing.
	This is the story.
	Scottish four-year-olds can change gender at school without parents' consent.
	Right.
	I mean, a joke.
	A kind of thing the Babylon Bee would have written, I don't know, a month ago?
	Just the very nature of that sentence is driving me mad.
	I can see a red mist descending, and so I'm going to just enhance my calmness.
	I'm going to make it worse.
	Let's go to Labour subreddit real quick, and then we'll be right back to check out the article.
	So the Labour subreddit is something I love to keep up with, as I've mentioned, and someone posted this in there, which I wasn't expecting, because they don't usually post stuff that makes them look bad.
	Maybe they don't even realise it makes them look bad.
	That's how far down the rabbit hole they are.
	Yes, because the responses were amazing.
	So if we go to the next image here, you can see someone asking, Surely 4 is a tad young to change your name and gender?
	I can't wait for a Scottish register composed primarily of Spider-Man's and Elsa's.
	That's exactly what you're going to get.
	But anyway, this is a dissenter, a bad comrade, new user, probably a Tory.
	So let's see what the established users have to say about all of this.
	Why?
	You're old enough at 16, and my god, I was stupid at 16.
	You're stupid now.
	I was stupid at 4 too.
	So why being stupid is good enough reason to change your sex.
	Being stupid is why you should change your gender.
	Because look at all these idiots.
	They're not going to change their gender if they're not stupid.
	What an amazing admission that is!
	It's like, we need stupid people to buy into our ideology, because smart people won't do it.
	Verified Labour member as well, as you can see.
	But you're old enough to know who you are at four.
	What?!
	Okay, look, right, as a dad who's raised children through the age of four and up, they're not.
	And you're old enough to do something completely reversible at four.
	Okay, it's not completely reversible.
	And no, you're not.
	And also, if he's talking about not shopping off your genitals, well, then he's also going to be arguing that you can do that at 16, therefore why not at 4?
	His argument still stands, which is absurd.
	Seems to me that it'll do no harm at all.
	Oh, well, if it seems the pie-eating bastard on the Labour subreddit, then go ahead.
	He clearly knows all about this.
	There's a small group of people that might act greatly help.
	Oh, I'm sure there is.
	There was also the response I saw on there from loads of members just typing based.
	So if we go to the next one, you can see here.
	Gotta admit, pretty based.
	Based?
	Based on what?
	Based.
	This is their response.
	This is their response to four-year-olds being able to change their gender in schools without the parents' consent.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Let's go back to the article.
	I thought we'd just enjoy that, so you know the kind of lunatics we're dealing with.
	Newly inclusive guidelines say teachers should not question pupils, but instead ask them for their name and pronouns.
	Their new name and pronouns.
	The four-year-olds.
	Children as young as four will be able to change their name and gender at school without parents' consent under the new LGBT inclusive guidelines drawn up by the Scottish government.
	They're insane.
	A 70-page document issued to schools.
	Why does it have to be 70 pages?
	Every time there's leftist ideology, it's always a brick, isn't it?
	Issued in schools north of the border on Thursday, calls on teachers not to question pupils if they say that they want to transition to live as a boy or a girl, and instead ask them for their name and pronouns.
	That's right.
	The child.
	This four-year-old.
	Yeah.
	I also love the idea that they're saying, well, boy and girl, what happened to non-binary?
	What happened to demigender?
	Wow, yeah, good question.
	I suppose the brick's already 70 pages, we don't need to be at 400, but whatever.
	The controversial guidance claims that it is possible to come out as transgender at any age, that's a quote, and that the views of young people should be respected if they do not want their parents to be informed.
	Just want to say, is that the views of young people should be respected?
	No, under all circumstances.
	Four-year-olds, especially.
	Yeah, well, just the views of young people are dumb.
	But just the four-year-old tells you, I'm a boy, as you say.
	You're four.
	Yeah.
	Tomorrow, you'll be a car.
	The Scottish Government wrote these guidelines.
	The SNP, the Fruitcake Progressives, and they probably could see anything wrong with us.
	They're acting as if four-year-olds can be moral and intellectual legislators, as if they know anything, which they don't.
	They also say Scotland's schools have also been told that trans pupils should be able to use whatever lavatory or changing room they choose to develop gender-neutral uniform options.
	I presume that's just trousers for everyone.
	Much gender-neutral.
	And to include transgender characters and role models in reading material and lessons.
	Because if they didn't artificially insert this into the curriculum, it wouldn't be present.
	Because transgender people are like 0.05% of the population.
	But also, I have some real-world experience of how this works, which is that what will end up happening is there's some books, which are just political activism, made for kids by weirdos, and no one's going to buy them.
	So what do they do?
	They make the state enforce that you must buy them.
	Because otherwise no one's going to see them.
	Yeah.
	So that person gets a load of royalties.
	Yeah.
	Funny, that.
	Taxpayer money.
	A weird leftist gets loads of money out of the state from this.
	How did that happen?
	I'm sure that was a mistake.
	The LGBT advocacy groups such as Stonewall...
	Oh, fuck.
	Which helped draw up the guidance.
	What a shock.
	Welcomed the move and claims the rules would help all children to thrive.
	Oh yeah, I'm sure those children who would otherwise have led perfectly normal lives in the gender binary are now going to be essentially demented by all of the stuff that they're going to be taught by the authority figures around them, not know who they are, and aren't going to be deeply confused at all.
	Just to mention, Stonewall are subsidised by the Conservative government.
	The Conservative government that has been in charge for 15 years, running on to 16 now, still giving them money.
	You can see here the story, Stonewall receives £1 million a year of taxpayers' money to offer guidance, guidance should be in quotes, on issues such as transgenderism.
	The controversial LGBT charity received almost £500,000 from the NHS. And then there's everyone else as well.
	The House of Commons, the DVLA. I think M.O.D. paid them money for guidance on pronouns.
	And this is why you end up with the RAF talking about total inclusivity and saying we need to use Zerper pronouns.
	Conservatives, you don't have to allow this to happen.
	You can stop this from happening.
	You can just put a moratorium on taxpayer money going to activist groups.
	I mean, not to mention just the insanity in general, but also you should be defunding all kinds of these.
	I mean, it's literally just an emissive you can sign and send out.
	But it's also just a massive waste of money if they weren't doing this stuff as well.
	Anyway, but let's go to their financial statement.
	So on page 23 on here, I don't know if you can get to it, they have the funding for them.
	And in the section of funding that is committed, or whatever they call it, restricted funds, you can see the precise amount the government gives them.
	£1,046,568.
	Precisely.
	There you go.
	That's my money, goddammit!
	That's your money that went into the coffers of Stonewall.
	Their financial statement, 2019.
	God knows what it was for 2020 and all other years around this.
	What's interesting, though, is it makes up 12% of all of their funding, 12.5%.
	It's government-subsidized.
	I can't even notice they make over £3 million in fees.
	Fees to various probably private institutions who are paying them for protection money.
	Diversity is big business.
	They also have a net end-of-year statement of £808,000 as their net profit.
	So they're a profitable business.
	Very profitable.
	But you see, they're only really profitable there because of the government grant.
	If you take away the £1,046,000, they're actually losing £200,000 a year.
	Which is how it should be.
	Yes.
	So this is why Liz Truss is the golden girl.
	I mean, the perfect person who should be put in charge of the entire country at this point.
	Lord Protector against wokeism.
	So Liz Truss urges official withdrawal from Stonewall Diversity Scheme of all government departments.
	Remember this.
	And the reason given at the time was that the Times understands that responsibility for coordinating participation in the scheme rests with the Cabinet Office.
	Not her, which is unfortunate, but the Cabinet Office essentially being run by Boris Johnson as the Prime Minister in the Cabinet.
	Yeah.
	Why haven't they done this?
	No idea.
	Like, you've got one of your ministers here, a sound one, soundly advising you to do a thing, and it hasn't been done, which kills me.
	The scheme counts 250 government departments and public bodies, with its 850 members, which pay for guidance on issues such as pronouns and gender-neutral spaces.
	You can pay me for that guidance.
	I'll take that money.
	I'll do it for a pound.
	Yeah, I'll do it for literally one pound.
	I'll do it as a public service, in fact.
	And trust me, it will be much more popular with the public.
	Nancy Kelly, its chief executive, came under fire that weekend for likening gender-critical beliefs to anti-Semitism.
	This was the perfect opportunity to defund them.
	So, do you remember this?
	No.
	So, Kelly said, although Stonewall believed in freedom of speech...
	Oh yeah, but...
	Although...
	It was not without a limit.
	Oh, there we go.
	She told the BBC, with all beliefs, including controversial beliefs, there is a right to express those beliefs publicly and where they're harmful or damaging.
	Whether it's anti-Semitic beliefs, gender-critical beliefs, beliefs about disability, we have legal systems that are put in place for people who are harmed by that.
	Right.
	Harmed by gender-critical beliefs.
	So going out in the street and yelling the Holocaust was a good thing, we should do it again, is the same as saying woman means adult human females.
	According to Stonewall.
	Amazing.
	So, all the other nonsense they charge you for and that, the people in charge are just nuts.
	They are insane leftists.
	Perfect opportunity to defund them.
	That's so stupid.
	Destroy a leftist institution, option six.
	What beliefs about disability?
	I mean, what are you talking about?
	I don't know who's anti-disabled.
	I don't know who's doing that.
	Even the neo-nazis don't...
	I suppose, actually, the eugenics.
	Well, I suppose, yeah, great.
	There's that, but...
	If the only position of opposition to a thing is neo-nazism, you don't have to worry about opposition to it.
	They don't exist in Britain.
	They're nothing burger.
	They're prescribed.
	We don't have to care about what they think.
	But no, they're just as bad as Posey Parker.
	Posey Parker, Hitler, basically the same.
	Women are a thing.
	Yes, you're a Nazi.
	Let's go back to the article with Scotland.
	I was talking about the book club we did, the Long March of the Institutions.
	Conservatives, option six in there, that's a perfect example.
	It is a structurally leftist institution that you have the power to defund and destroy financially because you're the ones giving them a million pounds every year.
	I can't get over it.
	And literally, as you've shown, if the government didn't give them money, they wouldn't be able to exist as they are.
	They'd be unprofitable.
	£200,000 in the hole every year if they continued.
	So, the quote from the article about the four-year-olds, again.
	Campaigners claimed a dangerous ideology was being pushed into schools and warned that children who displayed normal behaviour, such as playing with toys stereotypically associated with the other sex, risked being wrongly labelled a transgender.
	Yep.
	So, true there.
	Oh yeah, they're looking for anything, no matter how tenuous.
	Say, oh, actually, this is a transgender child.
	You know that they're doing this.
	Which is why Stonewall gets joked as, as the organisation that claims that there are no gays anymore.
	Every gay is transgender.
	Which, yeah, is obviously ridiculous, but it's an example.
	Oh, yeah, I remember this being framed as essentially an attack on lesbians.
	Yes, like a bunch of gays and lesbians were like, no, no.
	Autistic girls.
	You can't claim that there are no more gay and lesbian children, and they've all become transgender.
	It's nonsense.
	So, Four Women Scotland gave their statement on this.
	So, it shows a failure in safeguarding and a removal of parental rights.
	It used to be commonly understood that children should be able to play and experiment with gender roles, with clothing, their likes and dislikes.
	Without some ideological activist group coming along and trying to inject hormone-delaying chemicals into their bodies and things like that.
	Well, that's where you're wrong, kiddo.
	Bring it to the world now.
	Those children are now being encouraged on a medical pathway, potentially for the rest of their lives.
	We should not be teaching children, and especially primary school children, that you can change sex because you can't change sex.
	True.
	True.
	And not even the contention from the LGBT activist lobby is that you can change sex, you can change gender.
	Oh, I mean, occasionally they do slip up and claim it.
	Well, yeah, yeah.
	They forget their own distinctions.
	Yeah.
	The guidance also includes a recommended reading list for primary schools.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, I bet that's good.
	Designed to promote trans inclusivity and calls for posters which challenge gender stereotypes to be put in classrooms.
	It sounds like a joke.
	We're going to put our political posters in the classroom to change the kids' minds about transgender...
	Literally to undermine their understanding of what it is to be a boy and a girl.
	Who's getting paid to do that as well?
	There'll be some other useless artist in a leftist university who hasn't got a job.
	He's not going to get a load of tax money to print posters.
	I mean, literal propaganda posters.
	I mean, not even political parties make propaganda posters anymore.
	No.
	That has long since gone.
	And they certainly wouldn't be allowed to put them up in the schools.
	In the classroom.
	Specifically as they say to influence the kids life.
	Imagine if you had posters of Boris Johnson with Vote Conservative underneath it in the primary schools.
	If they're going to do it, why not?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Why not?
	But it would look like North Korea.
	It would look like the Chinese regime.
	It would be unacceptable in Britain.
	One book included tells a story about a blue crayon which suffers an identity crisis because it was mistakenly labelled a red crayon.
	That's a really stupid analogy.
	Because a blue crayon is essentially As in, the blueness of it is unquestionable, but it doesn't have to go through some sort of transition to show people it's a red crayon or something.
	It is essentially blue.
	It just changes the wrapper on it, which would mean that it's just changing clothes, would be the human example.
	Or the label, but the redness of it is there.
	But then why would you need surgery or hormone treatments or anything like that if you were essentially that thing already?
	It would be a red crayon who decides it's blue and then redyes itself.
	Yes, exactly.
	Yeah.
	Another features a primary school age narrator who says she has, quote, a girl brain, but a boy body, and claimed she knew that she was transgender as a toddler.
	Brainwashing.
	Pure brainwashing.
	No kids care about this.
	When I was two, I knew I was transgender.
	Yeah.
	That brings up the question as well.
	Why stop at four?
	Well, yeah.
	Why not?
	Why not go to two?
	One.
	Zero.
	And the thing is, there are loads of psychological studies that show that kids just don't have these levels of self-awareness when they're that age.
	No.
	And again, as a parent, any parent will be able to tell you they're not really that self-aware.
	No.
	They continue in here.
	The character claims, quote, pretending I was a boy felt like telling a lie until, quote, an amazing day when she went to a doctor who diagnosed her as transgender.
	Mm-hmm.
	Right.
	It's a story, but yeah, carry on.
	No, it's not a story, is it?
	Because it's a real thing that happens with...
	What's the Tavistock Clinic?
	You're just telling everyone, yeah, you're just transgender after, what was it, two meetings?
	Yeah.
	Let's get to the surgery, folks.
	Yeah, this isn't rushed at all.
	The guidance has been published ahead of a new school year in Scotland and weeks after Richard Branson's eldest daughter, Holly, revealed she had lived as a boy between the ages of four and ten, only to revert back to her female identity.
	So when puberty starts kicking in, she realizes, actually, I feel like a girl.
	Because apparently it's something like 90% of children who claim to be transgender just revert to their normal gender identity upon puberty.
	They mention in here later on that studies show that the vast majority of children revert to their biological sexual identity if untreated.
	So if you don't interfere, the children just revert back to what they are, because they are what they are.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, puberty has that kind of affirming way of changing your view on the world.
	So if we go to the next link here, this is the guidance, so if you want to go and read through it in your own time, there's just one thing in here I read through that I thought was really funny.
	So they advise the teachers, don't say it's just a phase, as this can diminish the importance of the issue for the young person.
	Sure.
	The four-year-old who's like, I'll wear a dress today.
	Don't say that's just a phase.
	No, that's permanent.
	He's gonna wear that dress every damn day of his life from now on, four and up.
	Jesus Christ.
	Ask what name and pronoun should you use to address them, the four year old.
	Check if it's all the time or in certain circumstances.
	I can't imagine that a four year old knows what a pronoun is.
	Or that they have certain times of the day where it changes?
	Yeah.
	But I would be shocked if any four-year-old actually knew what the definition of the word pronoun is.
	Ugh.
	They also end this section where there's don't agree to anything you're not sure of.
	Seek further information and support for yourself and the young person if needed.
	And I'm just like, anyone coming to this is unsure of the crap you're promoting.
	So we shouldn't do anything we're unsure of.
	We shouldn't do anything you're promoting.
	I tell you, parents in Scotland, if this isn't enough to get you up and protesting this at the schools, then nothing will be.
	This column might be a lost cause if nothing is done in response to this kind of stuff.
	So if we go back to the article there's just some stuff I wanted to end on here.
	Despite a prominent Scottish lawyer Adrian O'Neill recently writing a legal opinion which argued a school supporting child's wish to switch gender without informing the parents was potentially illegal teachers have been urged to respect children's wishes.
	No!
	Children's wishes.
	No.
	The children should be dressed normally, sat in class, and be taught whatever lesson they're being taught.
	No, no.
	She's a princess.
	She says so.
	We must take her to Buckingham Palace.
	Yeah, exactly.
	No.
	Children need structure and guidance, not this kind of interference.
	Quote from the document again.
	A transgender young person may not have told their family about their gender identity.
	disclosure could cause needless stress for the young person or could put them at risk and breach legal requirements.
	Oh, really?
	Therefore, it is in the best interest to not share the information with the parents or carers without considering and respecting the young person's views and rights.
	The four-year-old's right to insist that at school I'm a girl...
	If I found out that the school had been keeping any of this kind of stuff from me, I'd be furious.
	Should be.
	So we'll just end with a statement from the SNP. Oh, good, yeah.
	Why not?
	So the SNP Education Secretary denied that the guidance promoted transitioning.
	What a liar.
	What an obvious liar.
	Quote, We know transgender young people can face many issues in schools and that teachers and staff must have the confidence and skills to support their mental, physical and emotional health.
	Then leave them alone.
	Leave them the goddamn alone if you care about their health.
	health.
	Just talk to them normally.
	This guidance outlines how schools can support transgender young people while ensuring that the rights of all pupils are fully respected.
	respected and yet you wanted what was it there there are no uh uh sanctions on who can go into these places also the parents rights and uh feelings i suppose no concerns for the fact that a bunch of left-wing bureaucrats are interfering with the biological and gender understanding that their own child has of themselves i think that's a i think that's cause of concern
	She ends this with, it provides schools with practical suggestions, such as telling a four-year-old child, yes, you are a girl because you wore a dress today, and for the rest of your life, you shall also be a girl.
	You played with a Barbie?
	You're definitely a girl.
	That's it.
	You're done.
	There's no going back.
	That's unbelievable.
	I love the idea.
	It's almost like hyper in reverse, where it's like, if you touch a Barbie, that's it.
	You're a gay.
	You're a gay.
	That's the position of the SNP. And they're saying that that's totally normal.
	That's a practical suggestion.
	Look at the language that they're using.
	You know, the school and the teachers must have the confidence and skills to support their mental, physical and emotional health.
	It's like, what's that mean?
	You know, that's all like abstract nonsense that isn't really connected to any essential thing on the ground.
	Have you read more leftist theory?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	Anyway.
	Look forward to the gulags.
	This is not going to age well.
	This is all going to age really, really badly.
	That's all I'm saying.
	The people who are like, yeah, I'm absolutely certain that I'm right, you're not right.
	Anyway, moving on.
	It's interesting how, as the feminists of the 1970s have grown into their dotage, they have come out and started saying things like, we were lying to women.
	We were literally making it up.
	They couldn't have it all and actually maybe abortion is something we feel a bit guilty about.
	Really interesting how that took so long, isn't it?
	Well, I suppose they grew up.
	Yes, they grew old.
	That was the thing.
	They grew old and they looked back on their lives and they said, hang on a second, that was bad.
	So, this is an article on the Daily Signal where they interviewed Sue Ellen Browder, who was a cosmopolitan magazine writer for 20 years back in the 70s, beginning in the 70s, and describes what she wrote as, quote, propaganda.
	The goal was to sell women on the idea that sexual liberation is the path to a single woman's personal fulfillment.
	Didn't happen.
	Just didn't happen.
	She says propaganda is very sophisticated.
	It's half truth, selected truth, and truth out of context.
	Propaganda is not just used to sell products, it's also used to sell ideas.
	This was a conscious decision that they made.
	They knew what they were doing, as she goes on to say.
	The year was 1969, and getting fired for being pregnant was a wake-up call.
	And just to be clear, I'm not saying things were perfect for women in 1969, or anything.
	Being fired for being pregnant, not really something we should be doing.
	If you get pregnant, Callum, I'll tell you.
	No, I'll try not to.
	Yeah, good.
	Women could not apply for credit in their own name.
	There were help-wanted ads, help-wanted male, help-wanted female.
	Women couldn't go on to law school or medical school in some cases.
	There was a lot of discrimination going on, and that's why in the late 60s and early 70s, so many women of my generation identified with the feminist movement.
	So it's not to say there weren't real issues of injustice or unwarranted discrimination or things like that.
	There were in the 60s.
	But we are not in the 60s now.
	We are, what, you know, like 60 years on from that.
	And these old women are now like, hmm, hmm, hmm.
	Didn't go well.
	The feminist movement was fighting for equal opportunity for women in education and the workforce.
	The sexual revolution, on the other hand, was fighting for all sorts of sexual freedoms.
	So how did the two become intertwined?
	In part, Browder says, through the propaganda she wrote.
	So she's making it clear that wanting equal rights is not the same as the sexual revolution.
	But she purposely conflated them.
	Exactly.
	So, in 1971, Browder worked under the legendary Helen Gurley Brown, who was Cosmopolitan's editor-in-chief for more than 30 years and the author of the best-selling 1962 book Sex and the Single Girl.
	Taking cues from Playboy magazine...
	Yes, that's the place you'd look to for inspiration.
	Playboy.
	Brown turned the struggling magazine into an international empire.
	She gave her writers a printed list of rules to follow, which included instructions about how to make up parts of their stories to sound more convincing.
	Deliberate lies.
	Hang on, but also, who's reading the articles on Playboy?
	I thought that was a joke.
	Like, yeah, I put it for the articles.
	I've never bought an issue of Playboy.
	So, I don't know.
	But the point is, Brown literally had them lie.
	Just make it up.
	Make it sound more convincing.
	Tell them untruths about abortion, about sexual liberation, about all of these things.
	And that is how they turned their magazine into an international empire.
	Browder details the story of how a small group of feminists inserted abortion into the agenda of the women's movement in her 2015 book, Subverted, How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women's Movement.
	Just coming out and saying it.
	I'm glad we're having a mission, at least.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Nice to have.
	Women, this is what they did to you, right?
	She documents the disgust of many pro-life feminists, but from that point on, the narrative was set.
	Essentially, she says, all women want this, and that's how the propaganda works.
	So, lies.
	Feminism has never been a majority position for women, ever, right?
	Suffrage wasn't a majority.
	Exactly.
	Suffrage wasn't a majority position.
	This kind of feminism wasn't a majority position.
	And of course, abortion on demand is not a majority position.
	And yet, here we are.
	I mean, the modern inclination of the polling was at 8%?
	Something like that, yeah.
	Of British women describing themselves as feminists?
	Yeah.
	I mean, most of them were for women's rights.
	You know, for the 89% were like, well, I want men and women to be able to have the same job opportunities.
	And that's why I don't want feminism.
	And that's why I don't want feminism.
	Exactly.
	And who doesn't agree with that?
	You know, of course, if a woman wants to apply for a job, she should be allowed to apply for a job.
	No one cares.
	But anyway, more lies.
	And the irony of all of this, right?
	She's like, oh, you can be a single successful woman who has sex with different men every night and you can have it all.
	While she was married and living a traditional lifestyle, she was married with two kids.
	She wasn't practicing what she preached.
	So she was literally getting paid to lie to women to ruin their lives and futures, right?
	But she says that she too was corrupted by the influence of Cosmopolitan and these views that she was espousing.
	A 27-year-old, she was happily married with two children at home, and then she became pregnant with a third, and she and her husband decided to get an abortion.
	It was 1974, the year after Roe v.
	Wade, which is how she was enabled to do it, she had the abortion in the same hospital where she previously gave birth.
	She says, I did not realise what a traumatic experience that would be later in my life.
	How much that would haunt me.
	About 20 years later in 1994, in her last piece in Cosmopolitan, well, she did her last piece in Cosmopolitan.
	Ten years after that, she converted to Catholicism and sought the help of the church to heal her from her abortion.
	You did this to yourself.
	And you did it to loads of other women as well.
	When you start betraying the truth, she says, it will come back to haunt you.
	It will get you in the end, and that's why, even though I knew we were making up stories, I still got sucked in and thought abortion would be okay.
	We were making up stories.
	It persuaded me.
	The stories I made up persuaded me abortion was okay and I'd be fine with it.
	And now I'm a devout Catholic desperately trying to seek salvation for the life I took.
	That's what she's saying.
	Just openly, right?
	Anyway, she says, I don't want to take more credit than I deserve for all of this evil, but I think that I, I was certainly part of the evil empire, if you will.
	And what I would like is for young women today is to tell them the truth so that they could see how my generation got it wrong, why we got it wrong and how they can do better.
	How your generation can do better.
	There is such a thing as pro-life feminism.
	In fact, pro-life feminism is the authentic feminism of the 21st century.
	The true communism, basically.
	But what she's saying is that women's equal rights in the workplace and under law, that's what feminism is supposed to be.
	Sure.
	The sexual liberation movement is not what feminism is supposed to be.
	Sure.
	Split them apart.
	I suppose the textbooks would describe the initial position as liberal feminism before they then describe radical feminism and Marxist feminism and all that crap.
	And that's the position of equal rights under the law and all the societal stuff.
	Well, that's a different conversation, isn't it?
	Yes.
	And so why did this hijacking of the women's movement happen?
	Well, the answer is, of course, money.
	That's why.
	Obviously.
	Why was Cosmo so successful?
	Because it attracted advertisers.
	Why did it attract advertisers?
	Because it worked.
	Yeah, lying to people works.
	You know, they want to believe things, and if you tell them the things they want to believe, even if they're not true, then they'll buy it.
	And she herself bought it.
	Her own lies she bought.
	When a young woman, an insecure young woman, reads these magazines and thinks that she has to have perfume, cosmetics, hair products, beautiful clothes, singles, travel, abortions, contraceptions, when she thinks she has to have all of these things, she's going to spend a lot of money.
	Which is ironic because that shows that feminism is capitalist exploitation.
	Of women.
	Of women.
	That ruins their lives and their emotional sense of their selves.
	Which modern feminists then try to cope and be like, yeah, this is the pink tax and men did this to us?
	Yeah.
	I don't think so.
	No.
	This is all done by women to women for the purpose of profit.
	She's now 74 and she giggles at the ridiculousness of the ideas that she once told women were the secret to success and happiness.
	But then she turns serious, reflecting on the damage she's done and the damage such magazines and websites continue to do.
	Jezebel.com are feeling personally attacked at this point.
	Now there's the other side of it.
	I say we're all liberated.
	Are we?
	You know, on one hand, yes, we can get a college, we can get a degree, we can be doctors, lawyers and engineers, we can do all this stuff, we can make all the money.
	But does that make women happy?
	No, not really.
	But we'll get to that in a minute.
	So there was another feminist, very old at this point, in 2017, did an interview with Newsnight, and she basically regrets feminism as an old lady.
	Let's play this clip.
	If you're young, healthy, energetic, have a career, it's wonderful to go out to work, but most women have jobs, or end up with jobs, not careers, often because they've had children.
	The social change in the last 40 years has been enormous, thanks to feminism in a way.
	But you can't say, oh, it's all wonderful, because the original feminists really didn't think about the children.
	We saw a world of young, healthy, intelligent, striving women.
	And we didn't really honestly take much notice of those who were not like us.
	But you seem to be suggesting, broadly, that feminism hasn't turned out as well as you thought it would when you were younger.
	No, it hasn't.
	I mean, there are many, many advantages.
	Earning a living gives women economic independence, which means that there are I mean, they have freedom, they have power, they have all these things, but they have no rest, and they look tired, and they look exhausted.
	I mean, I don't think feminism...
	Feminism is wonderful for any woman under 30.
	There we go.
	Sorry, I was laughing because I can't get over corporate press mouthpieces, like interviewers like that.
	Emily Maitlis.
	Only blaspheming.
	Yeah.
	It's like Kathy Newman.
	Yeah.
	But feminism is wonderful for any woman under 30.
	So if you're a young, 20-something, attractive, healthy woman, feminism's great for you because then you get to essentially abuse your power.
	But for any woman who's getting older and so less interesting by men, getting a bit tired because she's working all of the hours of the day for corporate masters, again, capitalist exploitation, you could frame it if you were a left winger, it's not good for you.
	And this is what the old feminists are saying, the people who have been there and lived this.
	And it's not surprising that there is famously a 2008 paper from Yale, Yale Law School, called The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, where, and I'm just going to read you out the abstract of this, because this is just, you get what you deserve, really.
	By many objective measures, the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, and yet we show measures of subjective well-being that indicate women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men.
	Lying feminists exploited you and they're ruining your personal happiness by promoting all of this feminist bollocks.
	That's what they're saying.
	The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various data sets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups in industrialised countries.
	So everywhere, everywhere in the industrialised West, women are less happy than their mothers and grandmothers were.
	Why?
	Why is that?
	Because you were taken advantage of.
	Relatively also less happy than men.
	Oh, absolutely, yeah.
	Men are more happy than women.
	Men of the same era.
	And it used to be that the men were less happy than the women, and now it's like, sorry, you know, we didn't get taken advantage of by the feminists.
	It was you.
	You got taken advantage of.
	So the relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness, which women in the 70s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men.
	So under patriarchy, women were happy.
	Freedom, women are not happy.
	Basically what they're saying here.
	These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging, one with higher subjective well-being for men.
	Well, too bad.
	Not my problem.
	That could be the response.
	Yeah, I know.
	Just memeing, obviously.
	Obviously, I obviously have women in my life whose happiness I care about.
	And so, yes, this is something that concerns me.
	In 2013, this was a big cope.
	Psychology Today, we're like, hmm...
	We've got to deal with this five-year-old study that shows that women aren't happy.
	And what can we do?
	Well, cope, right?
	While it appears that women's happiness levels have been on the decline for decades, women also possess very specific strengths that, when leveraged, promote not only happiness but resilience.
	So cope.
	Cope with it, women.
	That's what they're saying.
	Women have strengths, so you can stop being happy and just be successful.
	But I want to be happy.
	I want to like my life.
	I don't want to have to cope over this.
	But you could have bigger numbers.
	Exactly.
	Anyway, in 2018, The Guardian published an interesting article about a study that was made.
	So apparently a sharp decline in women's happiness among girls and young women in the UK, with the majority of them blaming exams and social media for causing the stress.
	So it's not like there are, it's just like this one thing that's caused the decline.
	There are other things, modern things, that weren't affecting women in the 60s and 70s that are now piling on the pressures that are on women and young girls.
	The social media is.
	But anyway, one in four girls and young women between the ages of 7 and 21 describe themselves as very happy.
	And the latest attitude survey for the Girl Guiding Organization.
	And in 2009, that was 41%.
	So a notable and measurable decline in the number of women who describe themselves as very happy.
	The oldest were the least happy.
	More than a quarter of young women aged 17 to 21 said they did not feel happy, up 11% in 2009.
	So not exactly a good trend, right?
	Their unhappiness in turn affected their confidence, health and relationships and studies.
	While 7 out of 10 girls identified school exams as the key cause of stress, pressure from social media was blamed by 6 out of 10 girls, and increasing numbers said they experienced unkind, threatening and negative behaviour online compared to 5 years ago.
	From who, I wonder?
	Right now, my own experience with my 12-year-old daughter using WhatsApp is women are cruel to each other.
	In all stages of their lives.
	Everywhere.
	And so yeah, this is obviously compounded with the COVID crisis.
	And so I couldn't find this.
	So if we go to the next one, I had to find reporting in the New Indian Express because this wasn't reported in the West, basically.
	But this is a series of Western studies, I think it was.
	But a study found that the COVID-19 pandemic, women, especially mothers, spent more times on tasks such as childcare and household chores than men, and in turn, this time spent completing household chores is linked to lower wellbeing and decreased happiness during the pandemic.
	So women's happiness has got all of these things piling on top of it for various different reasons, and it's just plummeting through the floor.
	Mad.
	Absolutely mad.
	And everyone's like, oh yeah, we're feminists, we're progressives, we're fighting for women's liberation or whatever it is.
	It's like, yeah, but is that what women actually want?
	But they're also not, because now they've just come out and said, yeah, we effed up.
	We effed up big time.
	The older feminists are like, yeah, we were lying to you.
	We actively knew we were lying.
	This wasn't good for you.
	Well, the old lady there who advocated feminism didn't say she was lying, but she also...
	Not her.
	The other one.
	I understand.
	But the other one, the older lady, she did say at least, well, in our perspective, we didn't take account anyone who wasn't us.
	Yep.
	We were incredibly selfish, myopic.
	We didn't consider the future.
	We didn't consider that people grow older and as women grow older, if they aren't in a secure family system where they have a husband and children and then, you know, grandchildren get older...
	They become left over.
	They become lonely.
	And nobody is interested in them.
	Nobody is concerned about them.
	It's like, sorry.
	I mean, the Chinese term particularly brutal, what is it?
	Leftover women?
	Yeah.
	And this is what the West is now facing.
	Generations of leftover women.
	And the feminists who created these leftover women, like, not good.
	Not good.
	Either we were selfish and didn't think about it, or we were actively lying to you.
	Anyway, moving on.
	Let's talk about what women want from men.
	Because I think that young men probably would need to think about this sort of stuff.
	And again, this talks about you.
	Bonjour.
	Expressly.
	No, they don't mention you.
	But anyway, so this is an interesting article on Refinery29 where they begin with a quote from John Berger, art critic.
	Men look at women.
	Women watch themselves being looked at.
	Sorry, is he American?
	Probably, yeah.
	She's just last name, Burger.
	Can you Google that?
	I have no idea, actually.
	I can't Google it.
	I suspect he is American.
	But anyway, so this leads into the feminist male gaze theory that has been discussed and dissected countless times.
	It should come as no surprise that an idea first posited five decades ago still resonates today, given that this culture of objectifying women is still very much alive and well.
	He's English.
	Ah, right.
	But he didn't move to America, did he?
	No, he actually moved to France and died.
	Sorry.
	The meme didn't come to life.
	But anyway, I love this.
	The culture of objectifying women is very much alive and well.
	Yeah.
	On Instagram.
	Where women objectify themselves all day, every day.
	What are the statistics for Instagram?
	Because I know YouTube's like 70% of women.
	But that's interesting though, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's wild.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	On a social media format where it's just put up pictures of yourself, women flock to it.
	Really interesting, that.
	And you've probably seen the various, like, behind the scenes, like, you know, mini documentaries that, like, some websites do, where they're like, you know, this is how much effort, like, takes three hours to get this one picture of yourself and say, yeah, but who's doing that to you?
	You're doing that to yourself.
	You don't have to do any of these things.
	Well, for the influencers, it's kind of a one-time thing usually.
	Unless they're the kind of occasional freak lady who really does do that.
	Yeah.
	Actually, I have known people who have spent a ridiculous amount of time on their face.
	Exactly.
	They spend all of this time painting their face.
	Then they get the perfect angle.
	Right.
	And now people look at me and I will look nothing like I look in real life.
	But anyway, so yes, the objectifying women culture is driven by women on Instagram.
	But what happens when women look at men?
	Now, this is where it's interesting.
	If the male gaze lingers on the most sensual parts of a woman's body, from the curve of the hip to the waist to the swell of the cleavage, where does the female gaze linger?
	What do women see when they look at men?
	So, Tori Telfler, writing in Vulture back in 2018 had a simple answer, the female gaze sees people as people.
	John's sniggering in the corner there.
	Yeah, because it's always bollocks.
	I suspect that they actually see men, when they say people, they mean men.
	And when they say people, they mean beasts of burden.
	Agents is what they mean.
	And I think women are much more socially attuned than men and aware of a sort of invisible web of social connections that people have.
	And I think that's what women tend to see first in men that they're looking for, right?
	Just on a scientific level, I don't know if it's going to be relevant at all, actually, but there was a study I remember watching QI talk about where they found out if you did scans on people's eyes where they look and present them with the opposite gender, men and women both look at genitals and then face first.
	Really?
	Very quick.
	Like, it's not quick enough for you to know it's from real life.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But if you very slow down the footage, it does happen.
	Right, okay.
	That's very interesting.
	Anyway, they say the idea that the female gay sees men as people, not objects, is currently all over TikTok.
	And when they say people, they mean agents, right?
	They see men as something that can act, as in will act.
	And you see this kind of behavior all the time.
	Like in any sort of working class environment, if there's some trouble in the street, go and get the man, the father, the husband, the brother, go and get them, right?
	Because they see them as the agents who are going to enact some sort of physical change on their behalf.
	Well, they're the strongest.
	Exactly.
	It's totally natural for women to see men in this way.
	And so anyway, the app is brimming with videos from men asking for feedback on their dating app profiles, with many questioning why photos of them looking conventionally attractive don't do so well.
	Women in the comments are quick to point out that they aren't as focused on their partner's appearance as men.
	And I've said this many times, women are not really that bothered how you look.
	Don't get me wrong, everyone likes a good-looking person, right?
	This is a universal characteristic.
	Nice aesthetics are always preferable, but that's not women's most important concern.
	Unlike men, of course, where it is the most important concern.
	Good looks are very, very important to a man, but they're much less important to women.
	So you have one example, right?
	Alen Jaro, 29, was a straight man who thought muscle picks would be a surefire way to rake in the matches from straight women.
	He probably got a lot of, like, well-done king on there, but not from chicks.
	Also, a lot of gay men would probably be interested as well.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But the women...
	We're into it.
	He realized that he was having much more success with photos in which his muscles weren't center stage.
	And so he made a TikTok video asking women why this was the case.
	He says, I was curious to find out why I was getting more matches when I wasn't as fit compared to when I was super fit.
	Before I saw the responses, I honestly thought that girls wanted a guy that's fit, has muscles, abs, biceps, triceps, and all that.
	I was very surprised to find out it's the opposite of that.
	So he approached this from the perspective of a man.
	What are you looking for in a woman?
	Well, I'm looking for toned, attractive body.
	So he thinks, right, that must be what women look at.
	Fitness and fertility.
	Exactly.
	Fitness and fertility.
	Exactly.
	That's what men are looking for.
	And so he presumes that's what women are looking for, but that's not what they're interested in.
	The top comment read, the first guy looks like he would cheat on me, so that one of him tensing looks like he would cheat on me.
	Absolutely.
	Because just to be clear, it's not to say that women aren't attracted to, you know, men who are like bulked or anything like that.
	But what that is, is not looking at a relationship prospect.
	What that is is looking for sex, right?
	So yes, you would look for sex for like, you know, someone who I guess we call an alpha or something like that.
	But that's not what they're looking for when they're dating.
	And another user writes, Honestly, only men are impressed with muscles like that, and so women care about something else.
	Social status, loyalty, other concerns.
	And Dr.
	Clare Hart, an associate professor of social and personal psychology at the University of Southampton, suggests that women aren't judging the content of these photos, but their implications instead.
	Again, the woman saying, well, he looks like he'd cheat on me.
	He looks like he'd be able to cheat on me, is kind of what she's saying, because lots of other women will look at that man and say, oh, he's attractive, and so he'll be given lots of options.
	And so she's thinking, well, hang on a second, if he's got lots of options, and I'm slightly insecure about my own status, perhaps, maybe I'm not interested in that guy, because I think it's just going to lead to ruin.
	Research suggests that women, and indeed men, find well-proportioned, muscular men more attractive, obviously.
	Based on our ancestral pasts, signs of physical strength would be linked to an increased chance of survival.
	But without knowing much else about that person, other than what is presented on their dating profile, you may make certain attributes about them which negatively impacts their desirability.
	For example, how much time do they devote to maintaining their muscular body?
	Would they do this at the expense of spending time with you?
	Do they have narcissistic tendencies?
	You might not stop to find out.
	All fair.
	But as you can see, what they're talking about there is sort of a connection to a social web.
	How is he going to be acting in relation to me, or in relation to other people, or in relation to other women?
	What's his concerns about himself?
	Because no one likes a narcissist.
	So, a totally different set of priorities.
	Claire, a 23-year-old student, is one TikTok user who replied to her video and she said, his video and said, the reason you don't get matches when you were super fit like that is because what you were subscribing to was the male power fantasy, not the female gaze.
	That's kind of true.
	I think that's true.
	You know, that's a definitely, I hate to say it, but an accurate representation of what's happening there.
	The truth is that men tend to care a lot about aesthetics and their partner, but women don't really care about it that much.
	I think that's all true.
	I think women tend to just put the focus less on appearance and more on emotional intelligence and what kind of a man he is.
	I don't know about emotional intelligence per se, but because women are attracted to guys who don't have any emotional intelligence a lot of the time, but I think it's a status thing more.
	But anyway, Dr.
	Clare carries on and says, And there are obviously lots of other examples of women looking for status in men because,
	of course, status implies an ability to provide resources and to provide protection.
	Because status is not just about raw physical resources.
	It's also about one standing in a community.
	And so, like, will the community come to that person's defense?
	And will they be supportive?
	Or is that person, you know, a rich outcast, is probably not getting as many women as a poorer, high-status, community-focused man?
	But anyway, in this one, if we can go to the next one, the science director one.
	So in one study from 2018, they found that...
	Did you see the email of the lady on the last one at the end there?
	No.
	I found it funny.
	It's just at the.claire.bwood at gmail.com.
	Okay.
	We found the ratings of attractiveness were a thousand times more sensitive to salary for females rating males compared This should be a crystal clear description that, ladies, there is no point getting a career if you want a husband.
	Men don't care how much you earn.
	1,000 times more sensitive Women care a lot about that.
	Men don't care about that at all, right?
	These results that indicate that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men and much more easily than in women.
	Neither raters, BMI, nor age influence this effect for females rating male attractiveness.
	The difference explains why many features of human mating behavior may pose a barrier for male engagement in low-consumption lifestyles.
	So what they're saying is just, if you're a woman, don't worry about your earnings.
	And if you're a man, worry about your earnings.
	This matters.
	Hate to say it, right?
	And there's another study on psychology today that demonstrates that high status is actually an unattractive quality in a woman.
	So if you say, well, I earn six figures a year, I've got a PhD, I've got my own business, blah, blah, blah.
	Why can't I find a husband?
	It's because of those things.
	Those things are unattractive to men, right?
	Several studies have indicated that high-status women may be less appealing to men than their low-status counterparts.
	Perhaps because their status violates traditional gender norms.
	They start giving some examples which find that well-educated women with high incomes were seen as men as less likable, less faithful, and ultimately less desirable.
	There are studies that, like, you know, muddy the water a bit here.
	Other studies indicate that status may at times make no difference to a woman's appeal.
	Therefore, more research is needed to pinpoint the circumstances under which status matters.
	One study posits that because beautiful women possess femininity through their looks, they may be able to circumvent the negative effects of high status on their romantic allure.
	So, if you are a spectacularly good-looking woman, and also high status, you are as attractive to a man as a regular woman of low status.
	Some brutal truths coming out here, aren't there?
	Across the three studies, the researchers found the same striking pattern.
	While the status of moderately attractive women did not affect men's attraction to them, higher status boosted men's attraction to highly attractive women.
	The researchers then conducted a meta-analysis across these studies, finding that, in fact, higher status dampened the romantic appeal of moderately attractive women while boosting the romantic appeal of highly attractive women.
	So highly attractive women are desirable across all of these categories.
	Moderately attractive women are desirable only when they're of low status.
	So yeah, basically what they're saying is that don't out-compete the men.
	They're not into that.
	Men are not into women who beat them in the professional realm.
	I'm not the one making the rules.
	I'm just the one reporting what they've found.
	Psychologists.
	Yes.
	They're the ones who have found this, right?
	And so women, men, are looking for high-status men who are not like, you know, They're bulging gym bros who are narcissistically showing off their muscles everywhere.
	They're looking for men who look like they could be responsible and competent.
	Sorry, don't you mean women are looking for this?
	Sorry, yes, women are looking for this.
	Sorry, yeah, I meant women looking for this.
	Maybe in the gay community.
	And conversely, men are not looking for women who, you know, earn $100,000 a year and have their own business.
	That's just not what they're into.
	And if you end up in this position, there are a million articles out there of women who are like, I'm 47 and I've got my business and I can't find a man.
	It's like, yeah, yeah, I know.
	I've got to send you, I think it's iHypocrite, who's a really good guy.
	He did a tweet a while back, I saw it.
	It was some lady he'd clipped.
	Who did a TED talk.
	And the entire TED talk is, why can't I get laid?
	And she's just stood there.
	She's not fantastic.
	And she's...
	I think I know the one you're talking about.
	Yeah, she's like, I've got a PhD.
	I'm doing so well.
	And she lifts off and off.
	And by the end of it, I'm sure I'm bored anyway.
	But it's really embarrassing.
	Yeah, because she's quite an average looking woman as well.
	So it's not like...
	I know the one you're talking about.
	Yeah, she's quite an average looking woman.
	So it's not like she couldn't get a man.
	The problem is her status is actually preventing her from getting a man.
	Her personality doesn't seem great either.
	Sure, but again, if she was of lower status, unironically, she'd be more attractive to more men.
	She'd probably have to spend less time listing her achievements of PhD.
	It does seem a bit narcissistic, but we could probably argue that she was doing that for the TED Talk, right?
	Because she's looking at herself, her career achievements, and sitting there thinking, well, I've worked really hard.
	Aren't I entitled to a man now?
	It's like, apparently not.
	I never knew that about the science there.
	It's incredible.
	There we go.
	And so don't out-compete the men.
	That's not how you get a man.
	And if you have achieved this high status, play it down, frankly.
	Don't emphasize it when you're dating or trying to get this guy to like you.
	Because if he thinks you're lower status, he's more likely to find you attractive.
	And it probably is.
	You can probably go, oh, well, this is heteronormativity.
	This is patriarchy.
	Okay, yeah, sure.
	But it's also part of the lizard brain of a human being.
	And if you want a man, you're going to have to deal with the fact that his lizard brain is not telling him to get the highest status woman he can find.
	What kind of complaint is heteronormative anyway?
	Well, a feminist one.
	Where they're just like, do you want to act in a way that's heterosexual?
	I am heterosexual, so maybe.
	Yes, if that's okay.
	Why would I want to act in a, I presume the opposite is homonormative way?
	Why would I want to do that?
	I don't know.
	But that's kind of what the women are doing.
	They're essentially setting themselves up as husbands.
	Do lesbians do this?
	No, but this is the whole point, right?
	What I'm saying is, if you're a woman and you're like, I'm a career woman, I've got a PhD, I earn 100 grand a year, I'm the husband in the relationship, and most men just aren't looking for that.
	Well, that's why I mentioned the lesbians.
	I wonder what the dynamic is there.
	I would have to go and look into it.
	I have no idea.
	If anyone knows, I'd like to see that.
	Yeah, but this is just not good for you ladies, and it's not good for the men that you want to date either.
	Nature has endowed us in a certain way.
	Let's go for the video comments.
	Carl, you let me down.
	I'm sure somebody's told you by now.
	The first clip was Nero fiddling while Rome burns, and the second clip was AOC dancing at the prospect of destroying the US Constitution.
	History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
	Okay, very good.
	Are you going to be doing that podcast on the French Revolution any time?
	Because I'm very, very interested to hear it.
	Yeah, at some point me and Beau will get to it.
	Carl, I know you're a fan of Aristotle.
	I want some recommendations from his collection of books, particularly to provide a grounding for a stoic, resilient, reality-derived worldview.
	Also, is the Republic worth reading in comparison to Aristotle's works?
	I think your perspective on Plato is less favorable than that of Aristotle.
	That's only because Plato's for shit.
	I like how enthusiastic you are about ancient people talking about stuff.
	Ancient history for me, it really doesn't have much bearing.
	It's just like, they're so far in the distance.
	I know their ideas are important and all the rest of it.
	Well, they still dominate our collective lives.
	Yeah, I get that.
	But it's just like the idea of being like verily hatred for some guy in like 500 BC. Well, I get quite annoyed about these things because I read about them recently.
	Okay.
	I suppose with Aristotle, the place to start is Nicomachean Ethics.
	And to get the sort of overview of what it is to have a good human life and to achieve eudaimonia...
	I will do some stuff on this at some point.
	They won't be history-related, it'll be just philosophy-related.
	So I will get to it, it's just a bit busy with other stuff.
	I'm just doing the critical race theory stuff at the moment, so I don't have time to go through them and prepare a proper presentation.
	But I will.
	I suppose we'll do the critical race theory stuff before then.
	Oh yeah, I want to get all of that out of the way.
	So that'll be a doorknob at least.
	So it'll be a while, unfortunately, but hopefully we're not going anywhere.
	Be thou no longer bros, but dads.
	Now go home and be a family man.
	Dear Sargon, this week's sermon went well, and the Tulsa, Oklahoma chapter of Daddism grows daily.
	I prepared mentally by spending several hours of my study pondering the various execution methods for nunsery.
	With my wife's help, I next plan to begin scriptures of Daddism dating.
	I do hope it will be met with your approval.
	Tell Brother Callum to take heart, and while his peers may chastise his methods, we mean him well, and we still believe he has space to chat.
	Your humble scholar, Fox.
	That is amazing.
	I'm sorry, how is this king not winning?
	Is there anything there, lads, that you're looking at and thinking, I don't want that, you know?
	I've got a lovely house, I'm grilling, I've got a barbecue, I know what I'm doing, I'm enjoying my life, I'm having a drink, I've got a beautiful wife coming over and giving me affection.
	What about that?
	Are you looking and going, oh, I don't want that.
	Yeah, you know I'm right.
	I'll tell you what I'm annoyed of, and why I don't think that I'm still worthy of my black belt and have to earn it back.
	Right, this is my favourite throw, lapel shoulder throw, and I'm not gripping his tricep hard enough, I'm not pulling his weight down on his tricep hard enough, I'm not lowering down low enough, and my girlfriend says she's still proud of the fact I can throw 120 kilograms of a man.
	That's not good enough.
	I need to do it properly.
	I need to regain my skill, because this is inexcusable.
	I'm rusty and I hate it.
	Gotta keep practicing.
	Alrighty.
	Is there any way to fix it?
	Behold, Kyber, the origin of racism.
	Oh my god, a giant rock!
	That's right, Kyber, a giant rock.
	I can't believe what I'm seeing!
	A giant rock!
	It's a rock and it's giant!
	Yes, and that's not all.
	Come over here, Kyber, and prepare to witness something incredible.
	Okay, but it's gonna be tough to beat that giant rock.
	What you're about to see will change your life forever.
	We are ironically going to have to put together a compilation of all of these amazing things.
	About The Rock.
	Not about The Rock, but just the funny videos people have sent us.
	There was one that we got sent that I had to put on my social medias because we couldn't play on the podcast for copyright reasons, but it was just like The Rock getting deported on the truck with sad music playing.
	So good.
	Racism is over.
	We did it, boys.
	Yeah.
	Hello.
	How do you do, Ken?
	As my project of passion for video game and electronic history, I spent a year rebuilding this arcade cabinet.
	I found it rotting in someone's storage unit.
	It makes me happy seeing people get to enjoy this piece of history so many years later.
	What do you think of this project?
	Also, there's a dog.
	I'm too young to have gotten to enjoy the arcade era.
	I feel like I've missed out on a lot.
	Am I right?
	Hey, who do you think's gonna win this matchup?
	Easily guile if you're any good.
	I absolutely adore Street Fighter 2.
	Amazing, but I have to say Chun-Li is clearly the best character, or Dalsim.
	Controversial statements, and I look forward to people in the comments being wrong about my selections.
	But I think that's amazing.
	I used to love Plague Street Fighter 2.
	Love it.
	You are right, this guy does seem to be living the dream.
	He is absolutely living the dream.
	This is the peak life for the ordinary man.
	Go out there and get it.
	It's out there, you can do it.
	He's got a dog too.
	Yeah, and he's got a good boy.
	So yeah.
	Since Callum appreciated my last blip on Orthodox thinking, here's another one.
	We're used to obedience as meaning military obedience.
	Do as you're told and that's it.
	The Greek word for obedience roughly translates to to give ear.
	It means to listen, and not just to one perspective, and to assess, and also assess your own perception of the situation, and make a decision of your own based on all of it.
	Very interesting.
	I'm quite liking that.
	So there's someone I follow on Facebook who is in charge of the, not in charge of, but one of the people highly involved in the men's rights movement in the UK.
	And what's funny about the men's rights movement in the UK, this is still run by women, which is really strange.
	It's run by women in the US.
	Yeah, in Canada.
	Interesting.
	Okay, because we went to one of the men's rights conferences and it was a weird fact to learn from me.
	Who runs it in the UK? I don't know.
	Running it, I don't want to give them, because I don't know what the situation is.
	Oh, okay.
	Someone who's very involved in the organisation.
	And I read that she had been going to, I presume, the Church of England for years, and she's now going to Orthodox Church, because the Church of England has just become this woke asshole.
	Woke crap, yeah.
	And she, like, occasionally posts the crap they post, just be like, this is why I've gone Orthodox.
	No choice.
	She's got a point.
	Yeah.
	If they're going to allow themselves to be subverted by communists, well...
	Like, I'm not even a Christian.
	I believe any of it.
	But, good God.
	I mean, like, the Protestant church, at least in England, I'd say, certainly has no morals.
	No.
	I would certainly like the Christians to be Christian.
	Even if I personally am not.
	So at least they're a known quantity.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They should be Christian.
	Why?
	Because they're the Christian church.
	Any other questions?
	Atheists are coming in.
	Be Christian!
	Exactly, yeah.
	Anyway.
	I don't know if you've heard the term environmental justice, but it's something you may want to look into.
	You can learn more about it in this book published in 2007.
	From page 7, the primary impetus for the environmental justice movement's criticisms was the failure of the environmental movement to make racism a priority.
	Those wishing to attend medical school in the United States are required to study this material for the MCAT.
	I expect this concept and this term are going to become much more prominent in the coming decade.
	That's fantastic.
	There we go.
	I do want to know, as someone who likes editing, how you made that book move as well in 3D space, because I know how to do that, and that's a really cool effect.
	Yeah, it is.
	That's a horrible look at the future there, isn't it?
	Oh, well, it's the look at the past as well.
	Diamond in 2007.
	What, Environmental Justice?
	Yeah, that's when the book was published.
	Oh, I thought you meant there was a big push for it or something.
	Oh, well, no, they just subversively put it in whatever it is you're doing.
	Oh, I suppose he's referencing the BLM UK tweet, where they were like, what is it, the climate crisis is a racist crisis?
	Yep.
	Like, yeah, brown people breathe different air or something, and it's a nonsense argument.
	Anyway.
	So yesterday, Cal was talking about certain books which are banned on Amazon.
	I sell antique books for a living, and a lot of antique books have non-PC things in them.
	For example, I'm not allowed to sell certain Enid Blyton or Well, I thought all men were created equal, but then I saw this brown guy in a book.
	Then I read Enid Blyton.
	But also the idea that you can't sign anything with a swastika in it after 1933.
	Why that kind of date?
	I don't know.
	That's when they came to power, so it's like, well, surely...
	What?
	Like, before they were in power, they were kosher?
	They were cool guys?
	And then, well, they came to power.
	I'm not selling this anymore.
	I was happy disputing Nazi propaganda before they were in office.
	I wish I had more time with software engineering to better myself.
	So I really focused on my studies, losing weight, and my hobbies, and not much else.
	Halfway through my sophomore year, my first and only girlfriend asked me, There we go.
	I didn't hear any of that except Carl's right.
	That's all you needed to know, really?
	That's all the takeaway.
	But basically, like with the other chap, in fact, he was busy working on himself and then the girl was like, hey, I really like you because you're working on yourself.
	Do you want to go out on a date?
	And he was like, yeah.
	And so I'm right.
	No, I still disagree.
	We'll do like a proper conversation at some point.
	Because at the moment I just keep saying I disagree.
	That's because you haven't got an argument!
	An actual debate, but anyway.
	Because I'm right!
	It's not a topic I really care about either, that's the thing.
	Good.
	So this is a response to the guy who was asking about Warhammer books to read.
	Now, if you took Callum's advice and listened to Adeptus Ridiculous, you know that they have their book club they do where they're reading different books.
	And based on what they've read of the three books they've read so far, It sounds like Infinite and the Divine about the Necrons is a very, very good book.
	And also the Nightlord trilogy.
	I think the first one is Soul Hunter.
	They already did that one, and they're doing the part two in a week or two.
	And then the third book next month.
	And that would probably be the best books they've recommended.
	Yeah, it's a great way of doing it.
	Have you watched any...
	I think I sent you some of the animated stuff.
	So, like, the story of the guardsmen who run out of ammo, and they're fighting the orcs, and the orcs keep coming.
	So the commander just shouts, bang!
	And one of the orcs dies.
	Yeah, he doesn't.
	Yeah, and then all of the men just start, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang!
	And all the orcs keep dying.
	And then all of a sudden, this little crowd of orcs comes towards them, and they're shouting, bang, bang, bang!
	And they're not dying.
	And then you hear in the distance, they get closer, I'm a tank, I'm a tank, I'm a tank.
	But there's so many good memes in Warhammer that also just make sense with the lore.
	Like, do you know about Trezon the Infinite and the Necron?
	Not a fan.
	Right, so this is an amazing story.
	This guy is a Necron, but he just really loves preserving things in his museum.
	Like, he's got this, like, city-sized museums of stuff, right?
	So he just goes around just nicking stuff that he thinks is historically important because he can't trust any of the other races to live long enough because they're all going to die out.
	So he's got custodies, which is one of the guys who guards the Emperor.
	He's got one of them.
	He's got certain bells from historical periods.
	He's got a setup of one massive battle.
	I think it's like the Battle of Cadia, where he's got loads of little dressed-up Imperial Guard fighting dressed-up Chaos Space Marines.
	I assume these are preserved or something, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's just really funny.
	He's even banned from loads of Necron worlds because he keeps turning up and nicking their stuff.
	So they're just like, right, see him, shoot him on sight.
	Anyway.
	Hey, Ludus Eaters, Tony D and Little Joan here to tell you about the Pine Barrens of South Jersey, the setting for the Pineys.
	Imagine if you would...
	Sand with pine trees growing out of it and that gives you kind of an idea of what South Jersey is like.
	It's very rural.
	There are a lot of farms down here and there are a lot of unique plants and animals that only grow in the Pine Barrens.
	It's good soil for blueberries and wine grapes.
	Check it out online.
	It's going to sound really rude, but I want to know the dog's name and what it's looking at.
	Like every time, every one of the videos, it has been looking in a certain direction as well.
	Right.
	Like dogs.
	Dogs are cool.
	Jonathan Moore, if you don't mind, can you post a list of the 40k book titles in your collection in the comments or wherever you'd like to?
	Also, Carl, what do you think of putting up an article-like post on the site of reading recommendations?
	At the very least, I'd be interested, and I think it'd be good to provide some trustworthy literature recommendations aside of the books that you take the time to do book clubs on.
	Well, maybe, but that's basically what the book club's for.
	So I'm like, oh, can we have a recommended reading as well?
	These.
	Yeah, like we keep getting, I remember when we were just talking about it, we keep getting messages about, oh, what books do you recommend?
	And then that's part of why we did this, because it was like, well, these will be good.
	Yeah.
	But of course it's not exhaustive because time and all the rest of it.
	Alright guys, we gotta stop cyberbullying Callum.
	But what I think is a really good idea is that the Lotus Eater should have like a vlog section and have Callum go out and go on dating websites or trying to go and meet women and try to vlog and catalog all that stuff and put it in that section and We should do it.
	Just see what 20-year-olds are doing right now.
	Trying to find penis.
	I'm not up for doing that series.
	Oh, what?
	That sounds great!
	Not for me.
	Well, sure, but for 10 out of 10 content suggestions, you know?
	I'd watch that!
	But also, just in my mind, I was like, you know that tweet of how is cyberbullying real?
	Just close your eyes.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I do subscribe to that, so I'll give you the next one.
	There was a request for some Warhammer 40k stuff.
	So here are some of my personal favorites.
	First, the Gone's Ghost series, which is really good.
	The Caiaphas Kane books are also really good.
	They're really funny too, and especially if you can get the audiobook version, the guy who plays Kane does an exceptional job.
	Hell's Reach is really, really good.
	And then in terms of Warhammer Fantasy.
	The Gotrick and Felix series is really good.
	Dark Harvest is an excellent horror novel and an even better audiobook.
	And then the Witch Hunter series in Warhammer Fantasy is also really good as well.
	I really don't like Warhammer Fantasy.
	I don't know what it is.
	It just puts me to sleep.
	But 40k are just ecstatic.
	It's amazing.
	I don't mind Warhammer Fantasy.
	I just always used to play 40k because everyone else I knew was playing 40k.
	I mean, I'm not like a big lore person on the fantasy stuff anyway, but 40k is definitely where it's at.
	There's loads more memes in there.
	It just gets funnier and funnier the more you learn as well, in my opinion.
	I'm sure there's plenty of stuff in fantasy that is definitely funny.
	Is that the last one, John?
	As a follow-up to my comment on freedom of speech and the death penalty, to Josh, it doesn't have to be the death penalty.
	The point I was trying to make was that there is a line that once an individual crosses, we deem it acceptable for the state to punish them by taking away their rights.
	It's just that the death penalty is a very final version of this.
	To Callum, the example I was thinking of was Donald Trump's censorship off of Twitter.
	They claim that they're using their freedom of speech to take away somebody else's freedom of speech.
	I see this as the same argument of, I'm using my right to life to take somebody else's right to life, but yet we punish that.
	So I don't see why we allow censorship.
	There should be one limit on freedom of speech, and it is the ability to censor other people.
	Okay, yeah, that's a valid example, I think.
	The difficulty is...
	So the argument, of course, being that Twitter and Facebook are wanting to say, oh, it's our platform.
	We can have whoever we want.
	And it doesn't make sense if it's a platform for everyone or a human right, Jack.
	So therefore, it's their freedom of speech to ban users they don't want, even if they haven't broken the terms of service.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	But that's their argument, which apparently holds up in the court of law, but I don't know why.
	And yeah, it's BS. So yeah, I agree.
	That's a BS. Know how all of those posts that you get on Instagram that'll say something along the lines of Imagine your masculinity was so fragile that a man in a dress upsets you.
	I have this response to that.
	Imagine your identity, whatever it may be, It's so fragile that not only do you have to constantly assert it everywhere you go, but you also have to destroy the competition, as if masculinity and femininity and everything else, as if it's not supposed to work together and complement each other.
	It's good, but I also have the idea in my head of talking to the political lesbians.
	They're like, oh, your lesbianism is so fragile, you won't even have sex with this female penis.
	But the thing is, they're not even a big problem now, so what's the point?
	Yeah.
	It's kind of a shame, because they were funny.
	Yeah.
	I used to love political lesbianism.
	Let's go to the next one.
	A reading from the Book of Strength.
	A weak man is not as happy as that same man would be if he were strong.
	This reality is offensive to some people who would like the intellectual or spiritual to take precedence.
	It is instructive to see what happens to these very people...
	As their squat strength goes up, the word of Rip.
	Alrighty.
	Yep, probably true.
	Back to where we started?
	Right.
	Heathcliff says, the state trying to come between parents and their children.
	Ha!
	Classic socialism.
	Yep.
	Omar says, kids can't even choose their own clothes, but life-altering transition procedures are a human right.
	There is no informed consent for children.
	They literally do not understand the situation, let alone comprehend the ramifications for such actions.
	And that, I think, is the ideal way of leveraging this point.
	Children can't give informed consent.
	That's true.
	And the practical example just being like, well, can they give consent to sex?
	No, of course not.
	So either you're against pedophilia or you are pro-transitioning four-year-olds.
	Anyway, Radnell says, How does Scotland go from such a glorious past of freedom to this?
	Worrying.
	And even more worrying that England seems to be following behind them.
	Actually, I think the main resistance is coming from England, to be honest.
	Yeah, the Scots, as nice as four women is as an organisation, the ladies have been fighting there, the resistance is quite petty.
	Yeah.
	It's wild.
	The Scots are like, yes, transition my child, but with a Scottish accent, which I can't do.
	At least in the UK, you have, sorry, in England, you have people like Liz Truss who's like, yeah, women have a giant, just get lost.
	There's no debate.
	The men down here aren't taking it for a second, but the men in Scotland seem to be taking it all night.
	Can we make a joke about kilts?
	If you want.
	If the Scottish men are wearing skirts all their lives, I'm not surprised.
	Anyway, moving on.
	Chet says...
	Just teasing.
	Chet says...
	When I was four, I wanted to be a Ninja Turtle.
	In retrospect, I'm glad my parents did not let me play in the Toxic Ooze.
	Sam says, I'm rather happy I'm pushing 30 and was a child since the 90s.
	If I was born more recently, I may have been identified as a Triceratops and gotten surgery to match.
	Man, was I obsessed with dinosaurs?
	Was?
	Honestly...
	Tiber says the next step is to let four-year-olds identify as old enough to vote, which is doubtless the next Labour policy.
	Long Talks on the Neach says...
	They actually do want to lower the voting age.
	Of course they do, 16.
	Yeah, and it's obviously just a ploy, but the argument doesn't end there, because of course, why would it?
	No.
	Why not 15, 14?
	The irony being that 16-year-olds aren't going to go out and vote anyway.
	You get like 10% of them going out to vote.
	But I suppose if you're Labour, you need that 10%, don't you?
	We don't let four-year-old children make their own dinner without their parents' consent because they know they just eat candy and sugar.
	Or if they actually try to cook, they burn themselves.
	If you're too young and inexperienced to make a prudent choice without hurting yourself, you're too young to make your own medical choices.
	Correct.
	Ed Wood says, I honestly think that someone left the logic out when making leftists.
	I was dumb at 16 and 4, therefore at 4 I should make important decisions.
	Rather than the same conclusion of ergo, 16 is also too young, it seems.
	I know, right?
	Yes.
	Every day.
	That's why I love the Labour subreddit and I check it out every day because there's always something magical in there.
	Yeah.
	I was dumb at 16, so I was also dumb at 4, so I was able to make dumb decisions.
	I'm still dumb at 13.
	That's why I'm a Labour member.
	Henry says, the whole without parents consent bit is just horrific.
	Can't think of many other things as a child could do without parental approval.
	Imagine the uproar if they were doing something like baptizing children instead of changing genders.
	That's a great comparison, because this is kind of like baptism into leftism, isn't it?
	Also, children are impressionable as all hell, so if a teacher authority figure says you can change a gender if you like, almost all of the children will do it because they see it as an invitation to try something.
	Think of it like saying you could have some banana if you like.
	Yes.
	There's also another point on that baptism point, which is very good, which is that they are advocating for changing death certificates to reflect the non-binary or gender you want, as if the corpse is going to mind.
	Yeah, well, you don't want to be misgendered after death.
	But that's why the baptism, or what is it, with children, you don't want to go into limbo, unless the Catholic Pope is just like, yeah, limbo doesn't exist anymore.
	He's basically progressive at this point.
	And I got into an argument with a bunch of people on Facebook, on the Pink News' Facebook, They're like, well, if the Pope says it, it must be Catholic.
	And I'm like, look, I'm not a Catholic, but if the Catholic Pope says God thinks gays are great, then he's not a Catholic.
	And they're like, but he's the Pope!
	And I'm like, yes, but he's still not a Catholic.
	Because Catholicism has a doctrine and he's not following it.
	Isn't this the Protestant complaint, though?
	Does that work within a Catholic framework, truly?
	Because surely the Protestant complaint is like, yeah, but the Bible.
	You know, F the Pope.
	Like, in a Catholic framework.
	In the Catholic's defence, that is in the Bible.
	He's the vicar of Christ on earth, upon the holy sea, which makes him infallible.
	Hey, I'm not a Catholic.
	Sorry, I'm an atheist here.
	I'm not a Catholic and my religion hasn't been subverted by leftists.
	Honestly, the Pope is a progressive.
	I didn't know you were Muslim.
	Well, I'm our work bar.
	Simon says, you can't drink, smoke, have sex, or get a tattoo as a child because these are life-altering choices you don't have a developed mind to understand as a child.
	Chopping a few bits now, that's perfectly fine.
	Yep.
	Ross says, the day I started primary school because I didn't know my real name as my parents used the nickname for me.
	How the hell was I supposed to know that my preferred gender at four when I didn't know my name?
	All I knew is I want to be a milkman and a bin man at that age.
	Nurse now, so go show that I didn't even know the truth of that.
	Henry says, I find the crayon analogy actually rather good.
	It goes to show just how deluded they are.
	No matter what you say, no matter how you relabel it, the red crayon still reflects red light and absorbs all the others.
	Physics is not like orc magic.
	Believing in something won't make it true.
	Alpha of the Beta says, my son has autism and insisted he was Thomas the Tank Engine at ages four, five, and six.
	You better respected those pronouns.
	Yeah, exactly.
	If I had amputated his arms and legs, put him in a wheelchair and painted him blue, I would have been supporting his authentic self.
	He wouldn't have been a train, but he would have been a Frankenstein approximation of a train.
	Trans trains are trains.
	Choo-choo, just pushing them down.
	Imagine being a parent.
	You're at the park bench and kids are in the climbing frame.
	You're just sat there, I don't know, you're eating some popcorn and you just see some parent running past with a kid in a wheelchair.
	Everyone painted it blurred.
	She's just screaming, choo-choo, trans trains are trains.
	Someone comes up to you and says, oh, your son's pretending to be a train.
	You just put your paper down and say, trans trains are trains.
	Look at them deadly seriously, and they're just like, oh god, what do I do?
	Imagine being the, you know, because I think the government's going to start mandating that you have to have children at a certain age within schools, and it's like two years old or whatever it is, and you bring them in, in the wheelchair, in blue, as a trade, here is his pronouns, Tom Mass.
	I just, I... Honestly, it's very much the, the TERFs have a great response for the trans women and women thing.
	It's just trans women women and pantomime horses are horses.
	And it's just like...
	That's brutal.
	It brutally undercuts the point.
	Well, I guess if we do want to see Thomas the Tank Engine acceptance and Thomas the Tank Engine rights, we'll just look north to Scotland in two years.
	Trans trains rights.
	George says, all of feminism is a giant lie.
	The notion at any point in history men as a class oppressed women is absurd.
	That's right.
	Ever since its inception, feminism was about man hatred and power politics.
	In order to sustain the women are oppressed narrative, they need to add more lies and grievances like workplace quality, sex as air conditioning, and female representation in video games.
	Sorry, just the chat being like, yeah, Thomas the Tanky Engine.
	But no, I mean, that's right.
	The idea that society wasn't structured for women's comfort and happiness is wrong, which is why when you unstructure society to liberate women from the structures that made them happy and content, their happiness goes down.
	That's how you know.
	He had a really weird way of putting it.
	I think it was in one of the direct videos where he said it was from foreseeable harm.
	Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
	Because, again, society was structured around families, which meant structuring around women's needs and desires in order to be able to raise their children.
	But also to protect them from foreseeable harm.
	That's a great way of putting it, and I think a far more effective way of putting it.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Absolutely.
	But this is patriarchy.
	The advocacy that getting an abortion isn't a normal thing or something that won't scar you.
	Yes.
	That is a method of preventing women from foreseeable harm, of getting multiple abortions, and then standing there with confetti being like, get an abortion, as they did on Samantha Bee's show.
	God, I hate that so much.
	Midpoint Mindset says, the best way to respond to a feminist is with the Ricky Gervais quote, you found it offensive, I found it funny, that's why I'm happier than you.
	Done.
	That's great.
	Alex says, sounds like 70s feminists were subject to the active measures of the Soviet state, quite possibly.
	Callum, I really encourage you to read, and my fellow load-seaters, to read Active Measures by Thomas Ridd.
	We've got it on my desk.
	Yeah, I brought it, yeah.
	A hundred years of Soviet-Russian disinformation.
	I haven't had time to read it yet, I only read the first chapter, but it's really good.
	I'm really enjoying it.
	Bucketbot says, the statute of limitations must be expired on radical feminism.
	Yes.
	David says, former feminist saying feminism was a mistake is like Miyazaki saying anime was a mistake.
	Accurate.
	Based.
	Harry says, why do these radical feminist types always want to throw the baby, no pun intended, out with the bathwater?
	Why isn't it enough to reform within the current tradition and just be happy that we have improved the bad things about marriage and women in the workplace?
	Well, that's because of Marxism.
	That's why.
	Generico says, Why is it that the rationalising impetus behind women's liberation that trading their security for liberty is readily accepted by society, but that same rationale is outright denied, usually by the same people when it comes to the virus with no name?
	I don't know, but, I mean, I find it interesting that the trading security for liberty thing was readily accepted, probably because it resonated with men.
	What would you as a man want?
	Well, I want my liberty.
	But as we were talking about the other day, in fact, with the conversation with Chris, a female friend of mine years ago now, I was like, would you rather be, if you're a medieval peasant and you're being invaded by the Turks, would you rather be a sex slave to the caliph or would you rather run away and live on the land or something?
	I was like, well, I'm not going to be a sex slave to the caliph.
	She's like, oh, I'd do it.
	So it'd be safe.
	You know?
	Once a day you're going to have to have sex with this gross sweaty old calf.
	Who's this person who said they would?
	Oh, just an old friend of mine.
	She's from Eastern Europe.
	Where?
	Slovakia.
	I was going to, if it was Romania or something, I'd be like, well, they did.
	Well, that's the point.
	But it was just a completely different worldview.
	I was just like, God, you know, I'm not having that.
	I'd rather go live in the forest or something.
	She was like, no, it's just once a day.
	Because they were conquered by the Soviets in the same way.
	Yeah.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	They appealed to something that appeals to men, I think is what it was.
	But anyway, Catastrophic Regression Threshold says, maybe the decline in women's overall happiness is tied to what seems like a general uptick in mental health issues that seem to crop up in the last 10 years or so.
	Nope, it's been happening since the 70s.
	Since the 70s, it's just been a steady decline.
	So now men are the happy ones and women are the miserable ones.
	And it's still going.
	James says, surely there's grounds for a class-action lawsuit against Browder from these women who are lied to for political reasons.
	Possibly.
	I mean, she literally was scamming you with lies, ladies.
	You can't sue anyone for lying to you.
	Yeah.
	Chet says, women also watch closely how a man treats animals, as it often mirrors the level of patience and kindness they will have towards children.
	Yeah, that's a fair point.
	Probably do.
	I hadn't noticed it myself, but it's probably true.
	Ghost of Adelaide says, Consider yourselves told Scotland.
	Like, Jesus.
	That's a great point.
	Great point, though.
	If you were a gay man, who would you have sex with?
	You're having sex with a trans woman.
	Yeah.
	Not a trans man.
	Yeah.
	What am I going to do with that?
	A twink or an online Nazi.
	Yeah, what is the difference between twink and femboy?
	Well, twinks aren't girls.
	They're just, like, feminine-looking men.
	Oh.
	Whereas femboys are...
	They're actually trying to be women.
	They're trying to, yeah.
	Right.
	And so, as far as I understand it, I'm no expert on these matters.
	But anyway...
	That was a really interesting comment, actually.
	Chris says, I think there's a mischaracterization of our goal when we refer to not trying to get a girlfriend, Callum.
	I think you feel this and can't accept the idea of simply working on yourself unless this point is clarified.
	Yeah, I think I know he's going to read the rest of this comment, but basically working on yourself is how to get the woman, right?
	The process of working yourself is to attract a mate requires the aim of a relationship.
	That is understood.
	The dads aren't saying don't accept a girlfriend.
	They are saying that the game is played best when both people are treated as the hunter and the hunted.
	When a man creates himself into an apex creature and the female begins to hunt him.
	Ah, see?
	Well phrased.
	The goal is not to hunt the lioness.
	The goal is to hunt so well the lioness can't stand being without you.
	That's right.
	I'm not against self-improvement, of course.
	Yeah, but the point of the self-improvement is to make the lioness essentially find you irresistible and come to you.
	I get your argument for that, but you're also suggesting that one should never go and hunt a woman.
	Yeah.
	That seems silly to me.
	Why?
	Like, if there is a woman you like and you want to get with her, why not try?
	I'm not saying you can't ask her out for a date or anything.
	Sure, go ahead.
	But don't...
	John's got it.
	Think that it's fishing.
	Basically, you're the bait.
	You're the thing that she should be looking at.
	And that's how you know you're going to get a committed woman.
	But you can also go and get a fish.
	Again, you're making it sound like you shouldn't go out and try and get the woman if you think it's a good prospect.
	Another time.
	Another time, yeah.
	We'll hash this out properly at some point.
	To be honest, I don't really care.
	Good.
	Stop caring.
	Right.
	About what women think.
	Just saying.
	Right.
	Alfred Bates says, What do women want from men is a cunningly subversive segment designed to get Calum a girlfriend.
	Good job, Calum.
	That's what I was...
	Got to subvert, haven't you?
	If I've learned nothing from the Soviets, you know.
	Azrael says, it makes total sense that women look at men's genitals first, back when we didn't wear pants that would yield vital clues towards the man's intent.
	The only gross part of that study was that when women look at animals, they look at the face.
	When men look at animals, they look at the genitals and the face.
	Which was really weird.
	Do we?
	Apparently, yes.
	Hmm.
	Don't know what that's about.
	Maybe just, is he bigger than me?
	I don't know.
	Maybe it's self-protection.
	What's this animal's intent?
	Dave says that when a woman says he looks like he'd cheat on me, she means I'd F him if I had the chance, even if I had a boyfriend.
	She's only seeing him as he relates to her, not how he is in the world.
	Alexander says, women see men as people.
	BS. A lot of modern women don't see 80% of men at all.
	They effectively don't exist.
	That's correct, as John is going to be typing furiously about in a minute, I'm sure.
	See the number of Tinder profiles and count how many demand.
	Don't talk to me unless you're six foot.
	Yeah, but Tinder's just a sex app, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Muscles don't matter.
	Looks wise is about height and face.
	Women still see you if you're older and have accumulated status and wealth, but not only wealth in the financial sense.
	What women don't mention even then is that this applies mostly to white men.
	Woke dating is extremely racist.
	Most incels are immigrants and not all white Trump supporters, as the narrative will have us believe.
	Speak One's Mind says, one of the things I have always been clear about when dating women is that if you want me for what I am instead of who I am, then I am not interested in you.
	Although my dating history mostly consisted of gold diggers and women who are not even interested in my personality and just interested in my looks.
	Oh, I see Speak One's Mind is cursed with good looks.
	Man, I know how that feels, trust me.
	I like making dad jokes.
	Don't look at me like that.
	Elliot Smith.
	Women do care a lot about the looks.
	It's just that you look like a loser on a dating app if you're showing your muscles trying to get attention.
	If you've ever been out with a mate who is tall, muscular, and good-looking, they will get a lot more attention than your rich, short mate who's a good talker.
	The other thing is that when women are younger, they go for looks, and when they get a little older, they will start looking for more secure relationships to their family.
	Sure, I'm not saying it's like a one-size-fits-all thing.
	Duffy says, Probably true.
	I was thinking in my head, you know you mentioned earlier, if women are going on a date, they should play down their status.
	And then the reverse is true, that the man should play up his status.
	What does that even look like?
	Well, if you're a woman, don't sit there and be going, I've got a PhD now and you need to date me.
	Sure.
	And if you're a man...
	Don't give the TED talk.
	Yeah, if you're a man, say, I'm working on something that will come to fruition, so that's why I'm a healthy and appealing prospect.
	Building an arc.
	Yeah.
	Hey, Noah wasn't an incel, was he?
	No, no, he wasn't.
	Yeah, so there we go.
	He also had a lot of good boys.
	Anyway, we're out of time, so we're going to end the show, but if you want more from us, go to lodoses.com.
	We have the premium book club that we did, the Long March of the Institutions, How the Left Want the Culture War.
	Loads of other premium content that we put out because it's great.
	Yeah, also we've done the Roger Scruton book club now.
	Yeah, it's coming next week.
	Editing and putting up.
	Also, you're going away next week, aren't you?
	Yes.
	Just to let people know.
	So you're off to look after the kids.
	Yes.
	Kiddos.
	Taking kids down to my folks, but I'll be back the week after, obviously.
	Yeah.
	Also, check out the direct video, The Personal is Political.
	And, oh, very sad, Lindsay Ellis.
	Anyway, we're out of time.
	Thank you and goodbye.
	We'll be back Monday, one o'clock.

▲