All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
43:45
126 Feminism Part 1: The 'Bait and Switch'

How women got sucker-punched by one of the biggest cons in history

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody.
Steph, I hope you're doing well.
It is 8.29 in the morning on Monday, the 6th of March 2006.
I hope you're doing beautifully, and we are going to leave the frightening and, for me, rather a dead subject of the relationship between Judaism and Communism.
And it's possible role in why we view socialism as more benevolent than fascism.
And we're going to move to another topic.
And this topic is feminism.
Because, you know, I just can't get enough of tweaking groups that might end up with real problems about what it is that I'm saying.
But I'm sure that just as intelligent people who listen to this, whether they agree or not, will at least understand that when I talk about things like the relationship between Judaism and Communism, it's not because I dislike anything to do with Judaism.
I mean, other than the crazy collective cult thing that I talked about yesterday.
or anything to do with Jewish people individual other than I'd like really like them to be free of this crazy collective cult and I feel that for all men and women and children and children and children in particular but it's because I have a particular horror of violence and I want to find violence wherever it is justified
I want to seek out brutality wherever there is a conceptual or ethical justification or imperative for it, because I care about suffering.
I don't want suffering to happen in the world.
And certainly at this, and you start with the worst, right?
When you're in a doctor, you don't worry about who's got a cold.
If you're in the middle of a plague, you do triage and figure out what's the best thing you can do or the best you can do with the time and resources that you have.
Now, of course, I, in terms of time and resources, I have myself this microphone and I hope another 40 or 50 years on the world.
So, boy, can you just imagine how full your iPod's gonna get?
It's gonna be amazing.
Actually, I've bought tons of stocks in both iPods and in CD, the people who make CDs, burnable CDs, because there's quite a few downloads going on.
500 downloads of the podcast just yesterday, and we've had about 25 A thousand downloads since we've started, which is good!
I'm waiting to chart, and as I mentioned on the boards, I'm working on my rap name.
Big Chatty Forehead or something like that is going to be my rap name, just so, you know, when I do the acceptance speech at the Grammys for Best Spoken Word Rant, then I'll know exactly how to introduce myself.
So, I hope that people understand that when I talk about the possible effect that The introduction of communism had in the world, in terms of murders, that my major motive for doing that is to try and do what I can to prevent such recurrences.
And we can only prevent recurrences of evil if we are honest about its source, and we can only prevent recurrences of evil if we try as best we can to have honest conversations about our concerns and our thoughts about how it spreads.
And I think that while we have a fairly clear idea of the brutality that is inherent in the Muslim world, and until relatively recently, and to some degree, and ask the Iraqis if this isn't the case, the brutality that is inherent in the Christian world
And I think that when we say that communism or socialism has gotten off without the same level of moral condemnation as, say, fascism, then I think what we're really saying is that we have let Judaism off with a much lighter moral condemnation in terms of its contribution to violence within the world as we have to
Christianity and Islam.
So I haven't got a whole bunch of emails or communications about my discussion of the violence that has been caused by Christianity.
I also have not got, as you can imagine, a number of emails regarding the violence that has been caused by Islam.
However, I am certainly not expecting for my communication about the violence that has been caused by Judaism, I am not expecting my inbox to remain empty of such topics.
I think that it's scary as heck to listen to it.
Trust me, it's scary to talk about it.
But I do think that it's essential.
Because as I mentioned yesterday, if we still have within our minds the idea or belief somewhere that a crazy collective cult can do good in the world, and you do hear a lot of this stuff about Judaism, I mean the contribution to the The arts and culture and science and so on, and that's great.
As I said earlier, the fact that they reveal with the right guidance just what human beings are capable of is great.
But it's a crazy collective cult whose philosophy, when projected onto the political stage, becomes virulent.
This is sort of the theory behind the relationship between socialism and Judaism.
When you get Christianity uniting itself with state power, it becomes genocidal and brutal.
Even now, when you get Islam uniting itself with state power, and in fact in Islam there's no real word even for secular, everything is a reflection of the religion, the state doesn't, there's no secular state, there's no church-state relationship, the state is the church and vice versa.
When you get Islam united with state power, you get genocidal brutality and murder.
When you get Judaism united with state power in the form of socialism and communism, then you get, oh, what?
Yes, yes, you get genocidal brutality.
And that's the part of the puzzle, I think, I think, my theory is, that's the part of the puzzle that we're missing.
And So I think that it's important for us to talk honestly about this and it's important for us to try and have a conversation about it that is rational without the horror of the Holocaust
stopping us from having a moral examination, because I would submit, and I'm sure I will raise some hackles in this way, but I would submit that people who are horrified about the Holocaust, but afraid to talk about German perceptions, German propaganda, and the possible roots of Communism in Judaistic philosophy, are not really doing as good a job of preventing another Holocaust, which of course is our major, major, major goal.
And this is my selfish personal goal, because I want to have kids and, you know, eight to a dozen of them, and I want them to grow up in a world that is not threatened by such brutality.
So, it is the moral horror of one of the major genocides of the 20th century that should propel us to find its cause.
To find its cause.
And the brutality of collectivist thought, the brutality that I have always talked about being thrust and bullied upon children when they're young, is entirely based upon collective concepts and the subjugation of the individual to the group.
And you can certainly talk about that in Judaism as much as you can in any other religion or collective group.
So that is my major concern.
And don't get me wrong, I like Jews.
Individually, I am as against Judaism as I am against communism and fascism and Christianity and Islam and Buddhism and every other collective irrationality that you can lay your hands on.
So, if you want to brand me terms, brand me terms.
But that I will confess to openly until the end of my days.
So, given that we're talking about crazy collective cults, let's turn to the ladies.
So, this is going to be, I think, kind of eye-opening.
I mean, I do have a theory.
Believe it or not, I have a theory.
I know it's shocking, but I have a theory about what happened to women in the 20th century, and I do think that it is one of the most awful, horrifying, and destructive cons that has ever occurred in the world.
And it's, again, another one of these things that is real obvious, I hope, really obvious when I point it out.
Not so obvious that I'm still not going to take half an hour to tell you, but not so obvious.
Sorry, it's obvious enough when you point it out, and the fact that it's never talked about is something that Should again give you pause to consider just what is the content of the education or the popular culture or the popular narratives that you receive when growing up and as an adult.
So, I'll give you the con very quickly, and then we'll go into more detail about it.
That way, if you think the con that I'm talking about is total nonsense, if you think that I've just gone off the edge of the world in terms of rationality and my analysis of cause and effect, by all means, skip this one, baby!
So, this is the con.
Okay.
End up.
Capitalism provides labor-saving devices, and so women have less to do.
And so it no longer is a full-time occupation to manage a household.
So simultaneously, or shortly subsequent to, women gain control over their own reproductive systems through the introduction of the pill.
Isn't that amazing?
I even remember as a kid saying, well, which pill?
No, no, the pill.
I mean, that's how important it was in people's psyche.
And this combination of the ability to defer motherhood, the ability to control reproduction, the ability to have as many children as you want, the need to have far fewer children because of industrialization providing families with enough children that the old can be taken care of by The children that grow up wealthy rather than needing 12 kids to support you in your old age because they're all dirt poor.
So you need far fewer children.
Women are in control of their reproductive systems.
Women are much less busy.
So this frees them up for whatever the heck they want to do.
Now that's fantastic!
The wonderful thing about labor-saving devices is they free us up from the drudgery of day-to-day maintenance.
I do the bathrooms in our house every week.
We have three bathrooms.
And it takes me about an hour.
It's one of the times that I listen to audiobooks or my podcasts just to see how they're going.
And it's, you know, if you could get a little robot...
To do it, that would free me up for whatever it is that I wanted to do otherwise, which would be a magical addition of productivity to my life.
Similarly, a labor-saving device could be considered to be both this car and the computer that's sitting in the passenger seat.
I get to get a bunch of podcasts done in my commute, which formerly would have been not exactly lost labor, but a means to an end.
Now I enjoy doing these podcasts and the times when I work at home and I don't get to do an hour, an hour, 10 minutes a day of podcasting.
I don't miss the drive, but I miss the podcasting.
And I was just when I was stacking dishes last night in the dishwasher.
Since I got married, it's the first time I've ever had access to a dishwasher.
And it's just wonderful.
So, this is another labor-saving device.
Now, sitting there and chatting with Christina while I do the dishes, when we have dishes to do that won't fit in the dishwasher, is not the end of the world, but we still would both rather be sipping a little wine and sitting on the couch and chatting instead, so...
It is a wonderful thing and it frees up a lot of human imagination and human creativity.
So the introduction of these labor-saving devices, so in particular I'm talking about things like the washing machine, the vacuum cleaner, the dishwasher, which I think was a little bit later.
Um, and the automatic dryer, and the fridge, and the improvements in ovens, and so on.
So, I mean, the things that allow, and in grocery stores, all the things that capitalism came up with to make the life of the housewife, the housefowl, that much easier, or, you know, less labor intensive.
So, women, Of course, when this stuff all gets introduced, they end up with a lot of time on their hands.
And they feel discontented because they're no longer busy doing the mindless, drudgery, busy work that basically having a house and running a house, especially with children, so inevitably and naturally entails.
So you get a bunch of women writing about this.
Betty Friedan was talking about the problem that had no name.
The discontent that is suddenly going to hit you when you are an intelligent woman dropping off your kids for the 12 millionth time to soccer practice.
It's going to suddenly hit you.
She called it, I think, a click experience, where everything just clicks and you go, My God, I'm a breeding machine, and a driving machine, and a cleaning machine, and I want to be so much more!
And, you know, to that degree, of course, fantastic!
I mean, who wouldn't want women to achieve, as we want everyone to achieve, their greatest and deepest and richest potential?
And I certainly wouldn't think that for the majority of women, or the majority of anyone, for that matter, that involves cleaning the tub for the 8 millionth time.
So, I think that women had all this time, and they could have done some fantastic things.
Boy, oh boy, oh boy!
If they hadn't been subject to so much propaganda, they could have done some fantastic things.
What could they have done?
Well, they could have all banded together, and they could have brought down the state.
How's that for a Sunday afternoon brunch topic with the ladies?
Women in the 1950s and early 1960s could have said, you know, we have all this time in the world, Let's learn about politics.
Let's learn about economics.
Let's figure out what's going on.
Because, you know, taxes are going up.
We have a war in Korea.
We have a cold war.
We don't really know if this whole state thing is going so well.
So let's band together and figure out how we can bring down the state.
And the best way we can do that is to educate our children, and to educate our husbands, and to get together politically, to wake up, to be aware.
They could have done it.
They could have brought down the state.
But no, this was not part of their thinking, because they had all been subject to so much pro-state propaganda that it's just unthinkable that this should be the approach.
So, what did they do?
Well, they began to get together and rally for a lot of expansion to state programs.
So, there's two major sequences, and I don't have proof for this.
This part is theoretical, unlike the rest of it, which is only largely theoretical.
There are two major expansions in state power that don't result from wars.
Wars are always expansions of state power.
But the two major expansions of state power in North America for sure, I believe the West as a whole, but North America for sure, is in the 1930s and in the 1960s.
Now, to me, it's no particular accident that the first expansion of state power occurred after women got the vote.
So, once you get the vote for women, what are women concerned about?
You know, women are concerned about, in the 1920s, Well, I've got to take care of my old parents, so hey, you know, let's get old-age pensions.
That's going to make things easier.
Let's get expansion of public health systems.
Let's expand the welfare state in case their husband gets unemployed.
You know, all the things that would appeal to non-politically aware, and of this I mean not just women, but it's true for everyone since the introduction of public school, or just about everyone, except we few.
You are going to get platforms that appeal to women.
Child support payments, better alimony protection, introduction of old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, and the raising of the minimum wage, which directly makes women happy because their husbands get more money.
All of these things are introduced is as a direct appeal to the new legion of female voters so you get that of course you know that was a great depression going on so i'm not saying it's all to do with women but i think it's not completely coincidental
Now, the second major expansion in state power occurs with the Great Society programs in the 1960s, which was when women were basically mostly emancipated from the home and women are politically aware and were, because women have not had the same experience of state brutality as men have, right?
Until the 20th century they were never bombed and in North America they were never bombed.
They don't get drafted.
They don't very rarely end up in prison.
So women don't get exposed to the same level of state coercion as men do, at least up until more recently.
And please forgive me for a lack of statistics.
You know, dig them up.
They're there.
And I'm driving, so sorry.
Don't take it on faith, of course.
If the theory is of interest to you that I'm laying out, then by all means look up the statistics and please let me know if I'm wrong.
So, women don't get subject to the same degree of state power that men do, so women don't have the same suspicions of state power as men do.
And so, If you look at the relationship that women have with cops.
Women view cops as sort of friendly and helpful.
Men, at least most of the men that I knew, view cops as sort of threatening and vaguely dangerous.
And that's sort of one way in which the sexes differ in their perception of the state.
So, for the idea that women could generally use the idea of the state as a benevolent entity to get material advantage for the issues of certain types of women, I think that that's generally understandable.
Men have a certain amount of suspicion for state power.
For women, at least I'm talking about women in the fifties and sixties and also in the twenties and thirties, they didn't have a strong conception of the brutality of state power.
Of course, the women who came from Eastern Europe probably did, to the West.
But, in general, it's not really the case.
I mean, I've had less difficulty convincing men, in general, that the state is violence than women.
Or, of course, if women say, if women do understand the state is violence, and this has happened on a number of occasions, where the man resists it, and the woman says, sure, the state is violence, but so what?
That's sort of an abstract concept for them.
They don't get the sort of reality of people getting gunned down, or people's doors getting kicked in, or people being dragged off to state gulags called prisons.
And so they just like, yeah, okay, so I pay my taxes, I get money back, it's coercive, but so what?
Because it's all too abstract for them.
So, sorry, when I say too abstract for them, just for my female listeners, I certainly don't mean to imply that women have any less capacity for abstractions or conceptual thinking than men do.
It's just that they generally don't have the same relationship with police that men do.
Or, you know, again, this is sort of maybe 51%, but it sometimes can be enough for a political movement.
So then, women end up with the state taking over a good chunk of their responsibilities and What happens then is that... And I don't know the catalyst for this.
I don't know enough about the history of feminism.
Perhaps somebody out there does and can let me know.
I don't know enough about this to really be able to make a strong case based on evidence.
So I'm just sort of working on logic here.
And I'll tell you what the government wanted so, so badly for these women to do.
Anybody?
Anybody out there?
Give me a guess.
Give me a shout out, brothers!
Well, what the state really wants these women to do is to go to work.
Now, why does the state want the women to go to work?
I'm sure we all know the answer.
Because it can tax them, them, them, them!
So, when a woman is at home doing useful things around the house, the state cannot tax that woman.
So there is a limit, a ceiling of money that the state can grab from people when only one person in a family is working.
Because you start messing with people's ability to survive as families, you start to fester the possibility for revolution.
of one kind or another.
You certainly raise the ire of people against the state pretty considerably.
And you get a legitimization of state defiance in terms of a complete respect for the black market.
In the same way that nobody, if they hear someone telling a story about smoking a joint, calls the cops and has them arrested.
Whereas if you heard a story about somebody knocking over a bank, you probably would do something.
They don't want a legitimization of resistance, and when you start to mess with people's families and their ability to survive, there isn't an instant legitimization of hostility towards the state, a legitimization of resistance towards the state, and thus the costs of collecting taxes go up enormously.
They don't want that.
What they do want is to get women working so they can tax the family double, and the families can still survive.
And this is the con.
This is the con, and oh my god, is it horrible.
The con is that women are told, hey, you know what?
You're really going to be free if you go to work.
You, girl, should have a career.
You should get out into the workforce, and you should get yourself up and running with a career so that you'll be free and fulfilled and happy and great.
It'll be lovely.
And, was that vaguely Southern accent?
I certainly don't mean that.
I don't have much control over my impersonations, so they just kind of happen.
And this is the con.
So, women, you will be free and satisfied if you have a career and it will make your life so much more rich and fulfilling and all that.
And what actually happens to women who go out and have a career?
Well, lo and behold, the state simply raises the taxes on incomes as a whole, so women don't end up any richer, the families don't end up any richer.
And so now, women are far worse off in terms of the labor that is required as their members or sort of keystones of family participation.
They're far worse off than they used to be.
Oh my God, it's wretched!
So before, a woman had to do sort of, you know, four hours or three hours of housework, four hours of housework max a day if it's a big house and lots of kids.
And, you know, she runs her kids around and she does the groceries and so on.
And that's it, right?
And then everything's done.
But now, I mean, a woman has to get up, she has to get ready, she's still got the beauty commute, right?
Because she has to look very presentable when she goes to work, and it's harder for women to do that than men, because A. they care more, B. they're judged more, and C. they have more hair and they have makeup.
So, it's more complicated for them to get up and running.
So they've got the beauty commute.
They've got to manage to juggle the kids while they're trying to get ready for work.
They've got to drive the kids to the daycare if they're not lucky enough to have a family member close by.
Otherwise they have to expose their children to potentially retrograde parenting methods from grandparents.
And then they've got to go to work.
They've got to go to work for eight hours a day.
They then have to come home.
They have to pick up their kids.
They get home by like 7, 7.30.
And now they've got to do all the housework!
I mean, not all right men help out, but let's just say they have to do half the housework.
Let's say it was four hours a day, now it's only two hours a day.
So, what's the net gain for women?
Nothing!
It's complete the opposite!
It's a complete con!
So women... It's just awful, I'm telling you.
Women used to be able to get by with three to four hours of work a day and have time for self-education.
And they worked hard, please don't get me wrong.
I mean, it's wonderful now that Christina's working from home.
She always did a magnificent job of running the household, but now we don't have to spend all her Saturdays and half her Sundays doing chores and banking and taxes and groceries and I mean, I do sort of clean up after dinner, and I'm happy to do vacuuming, and I'm happy to do the bathrooms, and I'm sort of getting the hang of doing the laundry, although there's lots of girly things there with complicated instructions, but I'm doing my best!
I've sort of got a chart up in the laundry room so I don't end up giving her everything the size of Barbie clothes.
But when women were home and the households ran, and in the 1950s you could be a guy with an okay job and you could support a family of two or three kids relatively comfortably with a house and a car.
Now, with a middle-income job in a big city, you haven't got a hope in hell of doing that.
It's been a huge step back.
Women have lost everything.
Women have just lost everything.
I'm not saying that women should go back to the home.
If you want to go out and have a career, fantastic!
But the fact of the matter is that the best that almost everyone can hope from for their career is something which is a relatively pleasant way to do something you have to.
And there are very few people who, if they weren't paid a penny...
Would come to work.
Now, some people would.
I wouldn't.
I enjoy my job as a job.
It's about the best job that I could get.
But still, relative to writing about freedom, to making speeches, to doing podcasts, to running the message board, to interacting with people about really vital matters more than, you know, you really need this piece of software, that would be a much richer and more pleasant way to spend my day.
But given that I do have to work for a living, I have about the best job that I can get in terms of passing the time pleasantly.
And so that is the big con.
Women now got stuck in the workforce, and because they're hobbled by having children, and I'm sorry, I mean, I know this is politically incorrect, but I've been a manager.
It's really not easy to work around women who are having kids.
It's really not easy up here in Canada.
They get a year off.
I mean, to keep a job open for a year, to hire someone temporarily, we have a million lines of code that I manage, and you try getting somebody in for six to eight months or a year to become productive with that million lines of code, it's going to take them six months to become useful.
and then you get six months of relative utility out of them, sort of still slowly growing, and then they leave just as they're getting good so that a woman can come back.
It's really not easy.
So the fact that women randomly jump out of the workforce to have kids does influence their career.
I know that everyone has this magic snap your fingers and work family is going to be wonderful, but the fact of the matter is that women do have to be much, much better at their careers to get the same kind of treatment as men, because if I said to my employer when I'm about to be hired, listen, I'm going to maybe take listen, I'm going to maybe take a couple of years off over the next five to seven years, and as part of my employment contract, I want you to keep my job open,
And I want you to pay me my maternity benefits and this, sorry, I want my, what is it they call with academics, take that time off.
The word completely escaped me for some reason.
But I'm going to, you know, when I take this year off, I am going to want you to continue to pay my benefits and to top up my salary.
And so on and so on and so on.
Well, look, if you're a movie star, you can demand a big trailer and all the chocolate M&Ms in the world.
But if you're just some actor, you can't.
So I would have to be some kind of incredible, brain-bendingly efficient and great worker if I was able to legitimately make those demands and expect people to accede to them.
So if you're Brad Pitt, you can do it.
If you're just some extra or just some sort of two-line actor, you really can't.
So...
So if I were to say that to an employer, I would not get the job.
I would simply not get the job.
They would even take somebody less competent.
If I said, you gotta let me take A couple of years of sabbaticals over the next five, seven years.
You've got to top up my salary.
You've got to hold my job open.
You know, I've just got to tell you, economically it's not going to work.
I mean, and the only way it is going to work is if women are just fantastically better than men at their jobs, which is sexist, right?
You can't say to women, you have to be so much better at your jobs than men, that it's a net equal for you to take a couple of years off in your 20s and 30s, and after that to be less available because you're going to be the primary caregiver, so if your kid is sick.
It's just lots of economically negative things about having children.
Now, your children are wonderful, and who cares about the money?
But from a management standpoint, got to tell you, it's just a fact.
And I think I mentioned this before, but for those who may have missed this podcast, when women argue with me about this, I ask them this.
I say, well, if you've got two men who want to marry you, and one of them is going to be around for the long haul, and another one says, well, you know, I'd like to get married, but...
I'm also going to take a couple years where I'm going to travel the world and not be available, but I'd really like it if you deposited money in my bank account anyway, and so on.
Well, you know, a lot of women would sort of feel like that was not necessarily the best guy to get married to because he'd be in and out of the marriage, he'd be unavailable for years at a time, and so on.
Well, where's this other guy who's just going to be around full-time, he's not going to travel?
I mean, this is sort of what employers are facing when they're hiring people.
I've never had a woman who say, oh yeah, absolutely, I'll take the guy who wants to get up and travel the world for a couple of years and still have me pay him and also not to break up with him or get remarried.
And if I do break up with him, then I'm going to get thrown in jail, which is sort of what happens to employers if they stop paying women on maternity leave and so on.
So I think that It is just negatively problematic for women from an economic standpoint in the workforce.
And it's not sexist.
It can happen with men too.
If men are going to be the primary caregivers, then that's also going to be harmful for their career.
Sorry, but it's just a fact.
So, what's happened?
Well, women have been sort of lured into the workforce.
So, it's too awful, I just gotta talk about it.
Okay, I'll try.
So, women have been lured into the workforce where they've gotten these relatively sort of sub-rent jobs.
And, you know, this idea of being the high-flying lawyer doesn't occur for many women, unless they decide to give up on having children, in which case the supposedly sexist workplace gives them almost exactly the same wage as men.
Women who have had the same education as men, and who've been in the workforce the same amount of time, and who have not had children, earn like 98.9% or almost exactly the same, within statistical error, almost exactly the same as men.
And women, of course, will complain that, well, why should I earn less because I'm having children?
It's because you're unavailable, because you're going to be out of the loop, because your focus is now split.
It's like moonlighting.
If you take two jobs, you're not going to be as good at either one.
So, you know, women don't end up being high-flying executive lawyers jetting around the world with a baby on their lap and having the most exciting stimulation while still being great mothers.
That's a complete fantasy.
That's as strong a fantasy as the fantasy of the benevolent sort of state program or, you know, as I've mentioned before, the sort of piston-armed Soviet worker in those Art Deco pictures in the 30s.
It's a complete fantasy.
What actually happens?
Well, women get sucked into a job, and they get sucked into a career, at some level, whether it's sort of high, low, or indifferent, they do get into this.
And then what happens?
Well, they end up having kids, and they're really not getting that far ahead in their career, because everybody knows they're gonna have kids, so there's gonna be a hesitation about putting them in positions of responsibility.
And I could be completely wrong about this.
I mean, and I did have women in my employ who had kids and, you know, we worked something out and it was relatively fine and they're pretty hard workers and they do great jobs and all that.
But overall, I still would rather have not spent the time working it out and just had a guy or a bachelor who was just going to keep working away.
So, I mean, I followed all the laws and there were some benefits to it, but still overall, I've got to tell you, all the time we spent working it out, And all the time I had to... it's all a net loss of the company, right?
It's not just the woman who suffers, it's everybody else who suffers because of the split focus of management and all of the rearranging of the projects and all of the communications with clients and all of the training of the... everybody else who has to help carry this burden as well.
So I can pretty much guarantee you that any employer who's honest, women included, are going to say that they'd rather not have this situation.
So women end up in the workplace.
Do they have exciting careers?
Yeah, a few of them do, right?
There's Angelina Jolie.
There's the woman who ran Pepsi.
Oh, no, wait.
She quit because she just hated being away from her kids so much.
But they end up with these careers.
They're, you know, okay.
They're not exactly satisfying and enriching.
Not many of them are professors of, you know, comparative literature at Radcliffe.
And so they end up with these careers and these jobs that really aren't that exciting.
And they get their tax so highly that they got lured into the workforce so they had 50% more income and then, well, the government increased taxes by 50% so it was a net loss.
So now you're out in the workforce and you're stuck.
You can't even quit.
You can't even go back to the house to start taking care of your kids because taxes are so high that a single income family, it's pretty tough to survive on these days in any kind of major metropolis.
So you don't get a real satisfying career, and you also then end up with this nightmare of slavish overwork with your children.
So, you know, as I mentioned, you've got your beauty commute, which you just don't have as much when you're a stay-at-home mom.
And I'm not talking about your whole life.
In the first five years, seven years, if you want to have kids, whether you're a man or a wife, STAY HOME WITH THEM!
Don't hand them off to other people to raise.
They're YOUR CHILDREN!
And I don't care if Christina's started her own private practice.
It's really taking off.
If she's making a fortune, I will stay at home with the kids and joyfully too.
So stay home with your children.
Don't have children, go back to work and hand them off for other people to raise.
It's pointless and destructive to the children.
They want You!
They want their parents around.
They want you to love them and to cuddle them and to interact with them.
They don't want to be dumped in some daycare with other kids and distracted teachers and bullies.
Just stay home!
Okay, that's it.
That's the end of that rant.
So they don't get to stay home.
They have to go to these jobs.
They have to spend an hour getting ready, an hour driving, eight hours at work, an hour coming back, half an hour getting unwound.
It's like 10 hours, 11 hours of stuff that's sucked right out of their day.
For nothing!
For nothing!
One person used to be able to support the family with minimal taxes.
Now two people.
The woman's simply going to work for the government.
She is an absolute slave to the government.
She goes So, boy, isn't that freedom?
You used to be able to be home and work part time, or go out and have a job if you wanted.
You had all this freedom, and your husband, or if it was the opposite, your wife, brought enough money home to take care of the family.
And now, that's not an option anymore!
So this is where women have ended up with, after the supposed feminist revolution.
With no choices whatsoever!
The choices are you either live in some crap hole and survive on one income, or if you want any kind of decent environment or decent capacities for your kids, or God forbid, you want private school for your kids, both people have to work!
Which means the children are farmed out to other people, the woman's either paying daycare or she's paying for the taxes for the family as a whole, and she doesn't get the pleasures of motherhood anymore.
Her children are now a real stress for her because she's always got to be managing them and moving them around, and especially with young kids it's like herding cats!
She's always stressed.
She's always got demands from work.
She's got work to come home to.
She's got to go on a business trip.
Her kids get sick.
It's a complete nightmare.
I've seen this with my own brother and his wife.
What a nightmare existence when two people are working and you have young children.
It is a complete slave camp.
And nobody's happy.
Everybody's overworked.
You hate it in your very bones.
The kids are stressed.
They're whiny.
They're upset.
They're aggravated.
They have emotional meltdowns because they're constantly being run around and nobody has any time for them.
And their environment is constantly changing, which is very stressful for young children.
So it is a complete nightmare.
This supposed revolution and liberalization of things for women, feminism, one of the greatest betrayals in the history of the planet.
What the hell have women gotten now?
They had all the choice in the world before, and I'm talking after the invention of labor-saving devices and the gathering of this deceptive freedom called the vote, all the choice that they could have done anything they wanted.
They could have organized to bring a libertarian society around and it would have happened in about six months because nobody can resist women, I think.
And they didn't, though.
What they did was they said, you know, let's get these women out into the workforce.
They had no understanding of the political consequences of that, where the government says, ah, women are out there working.
Hey, you know what?
We can crank up the taxes, and families can still survive.
Yippee for us!
It's like the pinata of political joy, with all the money filling out.
And all that happens is that women end up stressed, families get completely undermined and destroyed.
Even if they're intact, it's a nightmare of overwork and stress.
And children end up being things which you have to manage.
So children's behavior gets worse.
I mean, there's a reason there's all this super nanny and nanny 911 crap on TV.
So it's not crap, it's actually interesting for me.
It's because in all these situations you have two people working.
Of course the kids are going to be jungle children and not have any trust or bond with their parents and not know any rules.
Everywhere they go there are different rules.
You've got daycare, you've got one set of rules.
You've got grandparents you're being dumped at, you've got another set of rules.
You've got your mom staying home, you've got another set of rules depending on whether it's Saturday or whether it's during the day and she has to check her email and go to work or make phone calls.
So there's just no consistency for children.
There's no relaxation.
They're constantly stressed and pushed around, and they resist, and they get angry, and they get upset, and they have tantrums.
And that makes things even worse.
So overall, and I'll talk a little bit more about this this afternoon, this is just a desperately negative con for women and for men, of course.
You can't be any happier than your wife is if you're married or if you're living with a woman, and vice versa for the woman to the man.
What a desperate nightmare!
What a sick joke upon the idea of freedom or independence, and what a desperately sad situation for children.
These are the ones who've really sacrificed.
I mean, the women still have choices.
They can give up the income and live in a little apartment rather than a house or a condo or a nice condo.
But the children have no choice.
They're just born into this environment where the parents aren't available for them, where the parents are always stressed, where everybody's running around all the time.
And you hear this complaint from parents all the time.
We have no time at all.
We are getting up.
We are getting the kids going.
We are sending them off here.
We are sending them off there.
We are going to work.
We are picking them up.
We are dropping them off.
They have these evening activities.
We've got to drive them everywhere.
Everything's very expensive.
We have no time.
The quality of relationship between parent and child deteriorates.
Between sibling and sibling deteriorates because there's no consistent rules.
Between husband and wife is the greatest danger in terms of the family as a whole.
The relationship between the husband and wife in these situations deteriorates enormously.
This is why you end up with a lot of divorces.
Once a woman has had a divorce, This is where this illusion of freedom, this illusion that you don't have to deal with state violence but can just aim for freedom for yourself as a group, this is where it ends up, right?
So let's say that this level of stress within the family ends up with a divorce for her.
So now she gets custody, because that's generally the case based on the sexist court system that we have.
So the woman gets custody and then what is her life?
What is her life?
She doesn't even have the man around anymore to pinch hit for when the kids are difficult or to help her discipline the kids.
What kind of life does she have now?
She still has to work because she's not going to get enough alimony or if she does, it's taxed to be able to not work.
So now what has she got?
Well, she's got a job.
She's got kids that she has to raise.
She's got very complicated arrangements and an additional set of arrangements to make with her ex-husband.
She's going to have a tough time attracting a decent man, because no man really wants to raise another man's kids, nor does no woman ever want to.
And you can't.
After the age of four, you can't be the primary disciplinarian if you're taking on somebody else's kids, because you just don't have the credibility or the history with them.
There's just no possibility that this woman is going to have anything other than a life of slavish misery and unhappiness.
And if you want to sort of see this, just talk to single moms and ask them about their lives.
It's a nightmare.
So this is where this sort of illusory freedom has ended up.
So this particular con of, hey, come out into the workforce and become self-actualized, realize and have a better life.
Oh, what a nightmare.
And I sure wish if I could turn back time to go back to talk to the feminists of the 50s and say, look, this is what you're doing to your sisters of the future.
This is what's coming.
You are creating a nightmare for women and for men, by the way.
And you are creating a hell for children.
And nobody's going to end up better off except the government.
And the worst and most ridiculous con of all is that the women who pay taxes, the government, the government takes the taxes from the women who are working and from the men who are working.
And what does it do?
This is the worst and final irony of all.
It uses that money as leverage to borrow more money, and with that additional money, it puts it in as a national debt.
So not only do the children end up with miserable childhoods because their parents are stressed, harried, busy, and overworked, but they also get, oh, thanks so much, Mama Dad, they end up with this crushing national debt that's going to destroy their economic possibilities completely.
So how well has this worked out for the family?
And the children in particular?
It has been a complete con, and one of the worst in history.
And the only reason that it's not the worst in history is it's not directly openly violent, right?
Other cons are socialism and communism, which is, you know, we'll make the world a better place.
Oh wait, sorry, actually what we're going to do is have gulags of washing blood.
This one is more subtle, and the effects of it are going to be worse in the long run, I think.
I'm sorry, let me take that back.
That's not accurate.
The effects of it are more subtle, and they are escalating over time in a subtle manner.
Communism came in and was a bloodbath almost immediately.
This is going to take some time, and therefore is more subtle, and it's harder to combat.
So it's more challenging to oppose this particular problem.
It's like opposing monetary policy.
It's all very subtle, but it's very real.
And the costs are enormous, and they are going to show up in the next generation in ways that are hard to predict right now, but are not going to be very good.
Thank you so much for listening as always.
▲
Export Selection