All Episodes
Previous Next
June 23, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
49:29
2413 The True Cycle of Violence
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
This is a very important presentation entitled The True Cycle of Violence.
I hope that you will stay and hang into your seat for some incredibly startling information.
So let's start with gender-related sentencing and conviction disparities as I begin to slowly weave together the case for The True Cycle of Violence.
So there are 13 times as many men as women in US prisons.
And so, some examples are of all offenders convicted in the U.S. District Courts in 2003, 82.8% of the men were sentenced to prison but only 57.5% of the women.
Among offenders convicted of violent crimes, 95% of the males but only 76.4% of the females were incarcerated.
For these offenses, the average sentence for men was 90.7 months, but for women, only 42.5 months.
In Cook County, Illinois, 28.3% of the females and 63.9% of the males were sentenced to prison.
In Jackson County, Kansas City, 16% females, 45% males were sent to prison.
Dade County, Florida, were 60 60.2% females and 69.2% males.
So it's quite important.
Many more men are being sent to prison for a much longer time.
Now, is this because the female crimes are less serious or there's fewer weapons involved and so on?
So to test the assumption that gender differences will disappear when crime seriousness and prior records are held constant, research has compared to sentences imposed on male and female offenders who were convicted of the same offense, possession of drugs with intent to deliver, and who had no prior felony convictions.
Males were still twice as likely as females to be sentenced to prison.
33.6 of the males were incarcerated, but only 17.4% of the females.
The mean prison sentence for men, 48.6, was slightly longer than the mean sentence for women, 45 months.
Gender was statistically a significant predictor of the decision to incarcerate or not.
Judges were two and a half times more likely to sentence male offenders to prison than to sentence female offenders to prison, even when holding legally relevant factors constant.
This is very important stuff.
This is how subjective and arbitrary government justice is.
Females charged with violent crimes were more likely than males charged with violent crimes to have all the charges against them dismissed.
Females convicted of violent crimes were also less likely to be incarcerated and received shorter prison sentences than their male counterparts.
And also, it's not just sexism against men, but it's also racism.
So further analysis reveals an interaction between race and gender.
So white females, but not black females, were more likely than males of either race to have their charges dismissed.
And black females were sentenced less harshly than either black males or white males.
In Chicago, the estimated probability of incarceration for a typical offender was 48% for white men, but only 18% for white women.
It was 55% for black men and 32% for black women.
In Kansas City, the probabilities range from 7% white females to 10% black females to 20% black males and white males.
So what's that?
Almost three times more white males are being sent to prison for the same crimes than white females.
In America, there's an overwhelmingly male prison population.
A commission examined both the odds of imprisonment and the length of the sentence imposed on male and female offenders From 1998 to 2002, they found statistically significant gender effects for both drug offenses and non-drug offenses.
For each of the five years examined, male offenders were twice as likely as female offenders to be sentenced to prison, and their sentences were 25 to 30 percent longer than those imposed on female offenders.
Ninety-three percent of the prison population is male.
So what happens, of course, is that there's this perception that the cycle of violence for many people in society It comes through the men.
Men are aggressive.
Men are testosterone-driven.
Men are violent.
Men are aggressive.
And this is why we end up with this cycle of violence that, you know, husbands beat wives, husbands beat children, and then children grow up to be aggressive, and husbands, boyfriends beat girlfriends.
It's all sort of seen as coming from men.
But, of course, if you have significantly higher chances of going to prison for longer, if you're a man, this is not the cause but the result of some other prejudice, some other form of sexism.
Let's look at the death penalty.
The authors of a study found the gender of the victim was a statistically significant predictor of the death penalty decisions in Georgia.
Even after controlling for a crime seriousness, the offender's prior record and other legally relevant factors.
Offenders convicted of crimes against females were more than two and a half times more likely to be sentenced to death than offenders convicted of crimes against females.
You see, because men are the disposable sex.
We are like toy soldiers to be thrown into whatever fire the current rulers have in their sights.
Women must always be protected, women and children first, and so on.
Although offenders who killed black males faced lower odds of death sentence than did offenders who killed black females, white males and white females, the differences were particularly pronounced for those who killed white females.
Offenders convicted of murdering white females were more than 14 times more likely to be sentenced to death than were offenders convicted of murdering black males.
I guess we have a ratio then, a white female.
It's worth 14 black males in the justice system, which government justice kind of antonyms.
There's other areas in which the law is biased for women and against men.
Let's take an example of female statutory rape in the teaching profession.
In January 2002, Pamela Dale Moore, a 43-year-old teacher from Lindhurst, New Jersey, pled guilty to sexual assault for having had sexual relations with a 13-year-old male student.
I think that's actually disclosed sort of pedophilia.
Under New Jersey law, sexual assault is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
As part of the plea arrangements, the prosecutor assigned to the case agreed to treat the crime as a third-degree felony and to recommend a minimum sentence of three years in prison.
At the sentencing hearing, the court judge Bruce Gato instead sentenced the teacher to five years probation.
In 2004, Deborah LaFave, a teacher at Greco Middle School in Temple Terrence, Florida, was arrested and charged with two counts of lewd and la vicious battery for having had sexual relations with a 14-year-old male student at her school.
A year later, LaFave pled guilty and was sentenced to three years of house arrest, followed by seven years of probation.
She could have faced up to 15 years in prison for each count.
I mean, all you ever hear about is molesting priests, but your children are many, many, many more times likely to be molested by a government public school teacher than by a priest, but that doesn't fit the left's agenda.
In July 2008, Michelle Morano was sentenced to three years probation after she bled guilty to having had sex with a 17-year-old male special education student.
Yeah.
The prosecutor in the case had asked the judge to sentence her to a year in jail, but the judge imposed a more lenient sentence, noting that there is a difference between justice and vengeance.
These cases and others like them have led some commentators to argue that there's a double standard for female teachers who have sex with students.
I think one of those would be David Lee Roth.
As Susan Estrich, a law professor at the University of Southern California, has noted, quote, there is no question that there is a double standard in sex abuse cases, and nowhere is it more apparent than in what seems to be the growing number of teacher sex cases.
Let's compare this with a male Hudson County prep math teacher, received a nine-year prison sentence after pleading guilty in 2011 to charges stemming from a relationship with a 16-year-old girl.
Now, let us enter the exciting world of rape.
We will deal with rape in a moment.
So rape allegations are when a woman accuses a man of rape and then recants or is disproven by circumstances or witnesses or whatever it is.
And these are wildly estimating figures.
Feminists put it at 2%.
Some people put it as high as 40 or 50% of rape allegations are proven false or recanted or withdrawn by The woman, nobody knows.
So I'll give you the spread of numbers, and you can, of course, do further research.
All the sources will be in the low bar.
So Professor Cannon studied a mid-sized Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years and found that 41% of all rape claims were false.
In other words, a woman had accused a man of rape, and then it turned out that this was false.
These were false allegations.
He also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities and found that in three years, 50% of the rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs.
In other words, it wasn't that there was a polygraph which then, quote, proves that false polygraphs are not perfect, but these were determined to be false through cross-examination, through recanting, and so on.
A landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations.
It found that 27% of the accusers recanted.
And an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%.
Now, a woman may have been raped and recant for other reasons, career reasons, pressure reasons, and so on.
So a recantation doesn't necessarily...
But here we're in the realm of who knows, right?
All we can do is go with the numbers and the facts.
You can make up anything you want if you go into the realm of supposition.
Now, if you compare this, a group of American, British, Canadian, and New Zealand studies that surround a rate of 8% to 10% for false reports of rape.
So, low is 8% to 10%, high is 40% to 50%.
The FBI has compiled statistics to show that women lie far more often about rape than other crimes.
It is therefore erroneous to assert that only a small or insignificant percentage of rape claims are false, because no one can make that assertion with any degree of certainty, and all the available evidence suggests that it is wrong to imagine that it is A low percentage.
This is astonishingly brutal, of course, on the man.
If you are accused of rape, of course, your life is going to be quite messy, ugly, and expensive for many years.
And even if the woman recants or even if the charges are withdrawn, the stain so often still sticks.
And this is brutal.
And what punishment do...
What was it?
The woman who accused the Duke La Crosse students of rape.
It turned out that the allegations were completely false.
She went on to do arson, burglary, and eventually she killed someone and is now in prison.
That person could have been alive if she had been punished for the false rape allegations, which would be the case.
I mean, if you would accuse someone of rape and then it turned out that you lied, you should get the sentence that they would have gotten if it had been true.
Of course, right?
But this never happens.
So...
Who is raped more, men or women?
Most people would say, of course, that women are raped more, and it would be odd to even ask the question.
However, this is not the case.
So in 2008, there were 216 victims, not instances, but victims, and most of these victims would have been raped, or many of them would have been raped multiple times in a single year.
There were almost a quarter million victims of rape in U.S. prisons.
Prison rape accounts for the majority of all rapes in the U.S. The U.S. is the first country in the history of the world to count more rapes for men than for women.
So, who has raped more, men or women?
Why?
Men are raped more.
Now, before you jump into your moral high horse and say, well, you see, but they're in prison and therefore they're bad people and guilty and so on, are you going to blame the victims or people who are put in prison?
Well, the U.S. federal prison population has risen almost 800% since 1980.
Only 8% of them are held for violent crimes.
So in a fair, common law, just society, you wouldn't be thrown in jail for things like prostitution or gambling or drug use or drug selling because these things are all non-violent crimes where there's no complainant other than the state.
And how many of these violent crimes are related to the drug war, which is related to the profits and the illegality of drugs fueled by the drug war and so on.
And before you jump to the conclusion that people who are in jail are in jail because they're guilty, you might want to remember that more than 90% of criminal cases are never tried before a jury.
Most people who are charged forfeit their constitutional rights and plead guilty.
Why do they plead guilty?
Why?
Because the truth is that government officials have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used.
Says Timothy Lynch, director of the Criminal Justice Project at the Cato Institute.
The system is rigged.
So the men who are getting raped in prison, I would argue that the vast majority are there, not guilty of any moral crime, only there as a result of pleading their way out of imaginary crimes made up by the state.
All of this started in the 70s.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that threatening someone with life imprisonment for a minor crime in an effort to induce him to forfeit a jury trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to trial.
The criminal justice system is just insane in the United States.
Most people are simply threatened with outlandish sentences and they just plead out to something lesser because they simply will not take the risk, expense and stress of a trial by jury knowing that, or at least they're told that, The judge is going to hand them an even harsher sentence if they're found guilty after a trial.
So, threatening someone with life imprisonment for a minor crime does not violate their right to a trial.
This is madness.
But you understand, the prison industrial complex could not function.
It could not function if those caught in its jaws actually had the right to a trial.
The entire system would grind to a halt if even half the people had access to a trial, let alone less than one in ten.
Thirteen years later, in Harmonland v.
Michigan, the court ruled that life imprisonment for a first-time drug offense did not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
So you see, a lifetime of being raped while incarcerated for selling someone some weed does not violate a ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
People ask me, I'm an anarchist, right?
People ask me, well, how would justice possibly be served without the government?
Because they watch more TV than reality.
Let's just take one example.
Irma Faye Stewart, a single African-American mother of two who was arrested at age 30 in a drug sweep in Texas.
In jail, she had no one to take care of her two young children.
She freaked out.
Though she maintained her innocence, her court-appointed lawyer told her to plead guilty, since the prosecutor offered probation.
Ms.
Stewart spent a month in jail and then relented to a plea.
She was sentenced to 10 years probation in order to pay a $1,000 fine.
So then the real punishment begins.
She's saddled with a felony record, can't get a job, she's destitute, she can't get food stamps, she's evicted from her public housing, and once they were homeless, her kids were taken away from her and placed in foster care, and so she lost everything, and this is what we call It is a meat grinder.
It is a gulag that is not that different from the gulag apicalago described by Solzhenitsyn, with the exception that I don't think that Solzhenitsyn described a whole lot of rapes.
The military.
The Defense Department estimates 19,000 sexual assaults occur each year, but only 17% are ever reported.
In 2010, 8,600 victims of sexual assault were females and 10,700 victims were male.
So we got over 1.2 million military personnel in 2010.
That's almost 63,000 military men who were raped by other men that year.
It's over 5% of those who were enlisted are raped by other men.
I think this is before Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Ah, the punishment for false rape allegations.
Well, this is a blank screen because there's almost none.
And that's quite important.
So let's look at women's role in child abuse.
So biological mothers are three times more likely to commit abuse against a child than biological fathers.
Here we go.
See, this is a graphic for those on just the audio.
So, victims by parental status of perpetrator.
This is from 2001.
So, mother only, 40.5%.
Father only, 17.7%.
Mother and father, almost 20%.
Mother and other, 6.4%.
Father and other, only 1%.
Non-parent perpetrators, 11.9%.
And unknown or missing, 3.1%.
Now, I know what you're going to say, and I know what you're saying to yourself already.
What you're saying to yourself is, well, of course, mothers abuse children more.
That's because mothers spend a lot more time with children.
That is exactly what I'm arguing against in this presentation, that knee-jerk reaction to making excuses for women, right?
This is important.
Whenever the statistics of violence point towards women, the first thing we instinctively do is Is to invent excuses for them.
Well, because of this.
Or, you know, whenever I was reading these statistics about women in prisons, oh, well, a lot of these women were abused as children.
Right.
And a lot of the men in prison, most of the men in prison were abused as children too, but we don't hear that.
So as soon as we come across anything which points the finger of responsibility, of aggression, of violence towards women, we immediately want to make up excuses.
That is incredibly sexist.
I don't want that kind of world for my daughter to grow up in.
I want her to not get a free pass because she's a woman.
I want her to get as much moral responsibility as we place on men.
We either have to start making excuses for men to match the excuses we make for women, or we have to start imposing the same things on women that we impose on men.
But we just have this incredibly sexist and condescending and paternalistic response To female immorality, which is to make excuses, to take away their moral authority, their moral responsibility.
I won't do that.
I have too much respect for women.
To hold them to a lower standard, that soft bigotry of low expectations.
A British retrospective prevalence study of almost 3,000 young adults aged 18 to 24 found that mothers were more likely than fathers to be responsible for physical abuse, almost half of all incidents compared to 40%.
In a large representative study that examined the characteristics of perpetrators in substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect in the U.S., Neglect was the main type of abuse in 66% of cases involving a female caregiver compared to 36% of cases involving a male caregiver.
So almost twice as likely to neglect, which in many ways is the worst abuse.
In a study comparing male and female perpetrated child sexual abuse using data from the 98 Canadian Incidents Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, 10.7% of child sexual abuse incidents were found to be perpetrated by females.
Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse could be much higher, as many cases go, under-reported, to say the least.
Approximately 40% of child victims were maltreated by their mothers, just the mothers acting alone.
Another 18.3% were maltreated by their fathers acting alone.
17.3% were abused by both parents.
So, of course, you say, well, but the mothers are stressed and the mothers are, you know, they're not getting enough support.
But this is not what we say about men who abuse their children.
Do we say, well, the men are stressed, the men are not getting enough support?
You see this incredibly condescending attitude that we have towards women.
I want to treat women as equal.
I want to treat women as equal to men, which means calling them out when they are violating foundational Moral rules.
Let's look at spanking.
Okay, so more than 90% of parents of toddlers say they have spanked their child at least once.
About 61% of mothers of three to five-year-olds have spanked their child in the past week.
Three to five-year-olds.
My daughter's four and a half.
This is just incomprehensible.
And boys are much more likely to be spanked than girls, right?
So let's talk about what's the thesis here.
The thesis is that we have a cycle of violence.
A report came out recently, tragic, that one in three women around the world are victims of domestic violence.
Why is it that men have such aggression towards women?
Could it be that men as boys were hit very hard, very repeatedly by their mothers and grow up with a lot of aggression towards women as a blowback?
It's a possibility, let's at least be open-minded enough and responsible enough to the future to look at it as a possible thesis.
I will continue to make it in this presentation.
Spanking continues in adolescent years in places in the U.S. 40% of those in high school are still being spanked.
So people in rural areas and in the American South are more likely to spank.
Mothers spank children far more often than fathers do.
Very important.
Do early childhood experiences of being hit, do they have an effect on how we grow up in terms of aggression and our perception of the opposite gender?
If the opposite gender is the one who's hitting us the most, of course it does.
Which is ever talked about in the cycle of violence?
No.
The economic status of a family makes no difference in the odds of spanking.
I've heard some differing reports on this, so take that with a grain of salt.
African-American parents are more likely than white parents to use corporal punishment.
This is something I've never understood about the black community.
I mean, why do you continue to let the white man's guard justify you hitting your lovely black children?
It makes no sense to me.
I mean, if you really want to be free of the white man, get rid of, spare the rod, spoil the child.
Conservative Protestants are more likely to use corporal punishment than parents with other religious affiliations.
Religious fundamentalists are more likely to spank or hit children than other belief systems.
And parents who value positive reinforcement tend to view spanking as inappropriate.
Well, it's not inappropriate.
It's immoral.
You hit a child, my God.
Let's look at maternal spanking.
So, in India, only 22% of fathers spank their children.
Well, 78% of mothers do.
Again, this is self-reporting, and we would assume that it's probably higher.
I would imagine more mothers say that they don't spank when they actually do rather than say, well, I do spank when they don't.
So 2011 study indicating the percentages of mothers who spank their children increase with age.
So 15% of mothers spank at 12 months, 40% at 18 months, and 50% at 20 months.
Can I just say something here?
I mean, I can't believe it's the 21st century and this still needs to be said to at least half of the women who are taking care of babies.
Moms, can you please stop hitting your babies?
I find it astounding that this even needs to be said at this point in human history.
Moms, can you please, please stop hitting your babies?
Because remember, a power disparity is a bad thing, right?
So a husband who beats his dependent wife, who hits his dependent wife, is doing bad because he has more power.
But you as an adult wife have infinitely more power than a baby does, right?
So if power disparities mean that you have to have greater moral sensitivities, and there's no greater power disparity than that between a parent and a baby, Then perhaps you can listen to your own complaints about men and stop hitting your babies.
Would that be something you could perhaps consider?
Because we're all going to have to live in the world that these catch-and-release babies grow up into being.
So fathers who were spanked as children are actually less likely to spank their own children.
Mothers who were spanked when they were young are much more likely than fathers who were spanked when they were young to continue to hit their own children.
So, dads learn, moms repeat.
Second-generation mothers who were spanked at least once a week were found to be nearly half as much more likely to spank their own children compared to mothers who weren't spanked.
Fathers spanked as children were less likely to spank their own children, as mentioned.
So only 28% of the second generation of fathers reported spanking their children compared to 43% of mothers.
The second generation is I was spanked and therefore, right?
So moms are hanging on to this spanking like grim death.
And I repeat, you know, for the sake of the peace of the world and the future and the stability of your relationship with your children when they grow up, please stop hitting your babies.
Would you maybe put that on the list of things to get done this week?
I've done a whole presentation, I'll link it to this, on the effects of spanking.
But this is, you know, since the post-war period, the statistics, the research, all relentlessly the same, that spanking is destructive to children.
Moms freak out about BPA in baby bottles, but then will just continue to hit their babies.
When one trains parents to stop using corporal punishment and use other techniques, child aggression decreases.
We've seen that for 30 years, says Alan Kasdan, a professor of psychology and child psychiatry at Yale University's Child Study Center.
But don't listen to Dr.
Kasdan.
What you want to do is listen to your grandmother who spanked.
Don't listen to the facts, because I'm sure you still use her gramophone and typewriter as well.
Researchers examined data from more than 34,000 adults and found that being spanked significantly increases the risk of developing mental health issues as adults.
I mean, we know that wives who are beaten get depressed, but somehow we think that children who are hit...
Anyway.
According to their results, corporate punishment is associated with mood disorders, including depression and anxiety, as well as personality disorders and alcohol and drug abuse.
So spanking ups the risk of major depression by 41%, alcohol and drug abuse by 59%, and mania by 93%, among other findings.
So you know how many American kids are being drugged for being manic?
Well, it's many more boys.
Do boys get hit more than girls?
Yes.
Is there a relationship with this?
Of course it is!
If you hit your boys, they're going to grow up kind of manic, and then you get to add drugs into their system which cause permanent brain damage.
Suicidality, homicidal rages, lassitude, torpor, weight gain.
The things we're doing to our children, the future will not understand how we could have any sentimentality about our kids when we treat them this way.
So 94% of 3- and 4-year-old children have been spanked at least once during the past year, according to a study.
74% of mothers believe spanking is acceptable for kids ages 1 to 3.
There's no such thing as a one-year-old kid.
That is a baby.
So the baby is still probably trying to figure out how to walk with any kind of stability, but smacking them is by far the best way to teach them how to do the right thing.
I mean, this is sadistic.
This is sick.
Women, what are you thinking?
61% of parents condone spanking as a regular form of punishment for young children.
And as we mentioned before, so children South spank the most, less money means more spanking.
African-American mothers spank their children more than other ethnic groups, and parents who are more fundamentalist in their religious beliefs spank more often than those who are less so.
Now, let's turn to adult violence.
So did you know that men are actually half the victims of domestic violence?
Let me say this again because this is something that, I mean, it's a general blackout in the media about this because it doesn't conform to the women as victim central narrative of our times.
Men are half the victims of domestic violence.
And they are 26% of intimate partner homicides.
26% of intimate partner homicides.
When did you last see a cop show where the woman killed the boyfriend?
Now, men, although they're half the victims of domestic violence, they're denied services at most of the taxpayer-funded domestic violence shelters.
That was a tragic case in Canada where a man recently killed himself after 20 years of trying to get any kind of support for a men's shelter for victims of domestic violence.
CDC reports that in cases of non-reciprocal intimate partner violence, one-directional, that women are more than twice as likely to be the aggressor.
The report cites that women comprise 70% of perpetrators, men are only 29% of perpetrators.
But you see, women have to portray themselves as victims because, in general, when a group begins to portray itself as a victim, it is to cover up victimization that they're doing elsewhere, right?
So because women don't want to be called out on hitting their own babies and children, they have to pretend that they're victims all over the place and nobody will.
Well, I'm sorry, but I am an empiricist and I follow the facts.
And of course, you know, I mean, women do say that they're so terribly oppressed and so on.
In 2010, women have the majority of wealth in America.
Women influence two out of every three dollars of the three trillion dollars spent in the U.S. each year.
Women control 88% of all purchases.
Men pay the majority of Social Security taxes and outlived by six years by women.
There's no compensatory mathematics for this.
And I don't want to go into all of these numbers.
You can find them all over the place on the web.
About the degree to which men are shortchanged in society.
Again, it doesn't matter because men don't matter still.
We have this incredible sexism towards men.
Let's talk about paternity fraud.
This is a very interesting topic.
This is something that came about somewhat more recently, although it's been talked about even in biblical times.
So geneticists have stumbled upon this phenomenon in the course of conducting large population studies in hunting for genes that cause diseases, such as cystic fibrosis.
So in cystic fibrosis, both parents need to have a particular gene.
And so, if a child is born with cystic fibrosis and the mother is tested positive, if the father tests negative, that means that the father is not the father.
I mean, the in-house father is not the biological father.
So, geneticists have found full siblings to be half-siblings, fathers through genetic strangers to more than one of their children and uncles who are much closer to their nieces and nephews than anyone might guess.
And these are lumped under the heading of pedigree errors.
These are mispaternities, false paternities, and non-paternities are all science jargon for the unwitting number of us who are chips off someone else's block.
In the research world, when scientists come across a father in a mismatched family, they toss their sample.
If pedigree errors are not caught, they can wreak statistical havoc with a study.
So people have made careers designing software just to catch the number of Children who are passed off as some guy's child by the mom, who isn't in fact that, right?
It's important if you're doing statistical studies of the prevalence of genetic diseases to find out whose genes they actually are.
People are coming across some pretty shocking numbers.
So some peg the range at 5% to 10%.
So 5% to 10% of us are being told that someone is our father when that person is not in fact our father.
Others, such as Jeanette Papp of the University of California at Los Angeles, feel that 15% is reasonable for the Western world.
So 15% of us are being passed off as the son and daughter of some guy.
It's not that guy.
So about 1 in 10 children are not fathered by the man who appears on their birth certificate.
According to a recent study in New Hampshire, as many as 30% of those paying child support are not the biological fathers of the children being supported.
One in 25 children are conceived with more than one man's sperm in the mother.
In fact, the design of the penis has been suggested as being designed to scoop out other men's sperm and deposit your own in the mom.
Classy.
The American Association of Blood Banks reports that 30% of men who suspect they are not biological fathers are right.
Now, this is an unbelievably egregious crime.
To say to a man that this is your son when...
It's not, or there's a good chance that it's not.
Not getting the paternity test is an unbelievable crime because it robs a man of decades, of hundreds of thousands of dollars, of the chance to pass off his lineage, of the chance to start again with somebody new.
And it means that you have to lie to him every day of his life for the rest of his life or the rest of the time that you're together.
It is an unbelievable crime of soul-raping fraud.
But in the UK, it's actually illegal to get a paternity test without the mother and the child's permission.
Can you imagine if one in ten moms went home from the hospital with the wrong baby because the hospitals just mixed them up or switched them around or might assault them, right?
If one in ten moms went home with the wrong baby, Everybody would go completely insane.
But if one in ten fathers or one in ten kids is told that if the woman lies about this to the man, well, it's illegal to even test, you see, because of this prejudice.
Men's feelings don't matter.
Men are just workhorses to provide resources to women.
In 2004, a South Korean man was awarded $42,000 for pain and suffering when a DNA test showed that his ex-wife's paternity claim regarding their child was false.
This is a Mr.
Doe It's not a pseudonym, actually.
That's a Korean name, I guess.
Who had married a Miss Doe based on her paternity claim, right?
So she went to him and said, this is your child.
So he started a lawsuit against the hospital for switching his child at birth because he couldn't imagine that the woman would lie about something so astonishingly important.
But then she confessed to having been pregnant with another man's baby.
Some of the reasons are, you know, a woman finds she's dating a lot of guys.
She finds out she's pregnant.
She basically picks the richest guy and says, this is your baby.
Lots of other reasons, too, but...
A British survey conducted between 1988 and 1996 confirmed the 10% figure.
This seems high to skeptics such as Dalhousie University geneticist Paul Newman, although, love your salad dressing, although even he admitted that my colleague who's a woman tells me women have no trouble believing it.
It's the men who can't believe this amount of lying about paternity.
Bernard Dixon, a specialist in health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said that in another British example, the non-paternity rate was three times that, 30%.
So here's an example.
In the early 1970s, a schoolteacher in southern England assigned a class science project.
So the students were supposed to find out the blood types of their parents, and they used that information to deduce their own blood types, because a gene from each parent determines your blood type.
And in most instances, only a certain number of combinations are possible.
Instead, 30% of the students discovered that their dads were not their biological fathers.
In other words, that the mothers had lied to the fathers about paternity.
So between 30 and 50% of women cheat on their partners, says Dr.
Lipton, a psychiatrist with the Swedish Medical Center in Washington.
He wrote the myth of monogamy.
Sorry, she wrote the myth of monogamy with her husband, David Berash.
And what is the law here?
Well, a large majority of states in the US, 38 in total, still have laws on the books that require a man to pay child support, even with DNA evidence showing he is not the father, right?
Because men's feelings don't matter.
And the fact that a man might actually want a biological child and not pay money to a woman who lied to him and had affairs and slept with other men and then passed off a child as his doesn't matter.
The man's feelings don't matter because he's just a workhorse.
He's a resource provider.
You don't ask the coal if it wants to be pulled out of the ground.
You don't ask the man whether he wants to pay child support for A child that's not biologically his.
This is an old tradition, right?
So in the past, why is marriage an important institution?
Because men can't be sure of paternity.
So the man gives massive amounts of resources to raise his children, and the monogamy of the marriage contract is the way that the man can determine that the child...
Like all women know, as a screen book wrote about this years ago, all women know that the child is theirs, right?
But men don't know.
And the whole point of the marriage contract was That if you're married to a woman, those are your kids.
That's the whole point of the monogamy thing, right?
So there's an English common law doctrine that a married man is always legally presumed to be the father of a child born of the marriage.
Now this, of course, is before you could get paternity tests.
Now you can get paternity tests.
We don't need this box, right?
But if you're going to dissolve marriage, then you need to introduce paternity testing.
I mean, what?
When babies are born, they already test them for like 40 various things.
You know, why not spend the 40 bucks in tests for the genetic reality of the father?
I mean, why not?
It's important.
It's important.
It's not just important emotionally.
It's important medically to know who your actual father is.
It's quite important because you may be looking at the family history of somebody who's not actually genetically related to you.
Quite important.
Why won't they throw this test in?
Because men's feelings don't matter.
So, Dr.
Lipton said, the moral transcription of infidelity cannot compare with the deception of lying about paternity.
She thinks paternity fraud should be considered a crime of the highest order.
Reproductive deception is morally similar to rape, Dr.
Lipton said.
If you trick someone into raising a baby not his own and he puts 20 years of his life into an endeavor based on a falsehood, that is appalling.
It is.
It's completely appalling.
How many women go to jail for paternity fraud?
Zero.
It's actually illegal, in England at least, but nobody's ever been prosecuted for it.
And lying.
So we're just talking about ethical issues.
The whole media focuses on the ethical issues of men, which is fine.
We're just focusing on some of the ethical issues of women, which I think is important.
19 out of 20 women admit lying to their partners or husbands.
A survey on attitudes to truth in relationships is found.
83% owned up to telling big, life-changing lies, with 13% saying they did so frequently.
Half of women said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby's real father.
Ladies, I invite you to up your game just a little.
42% would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner, which is to enslave a man financially and legally for two decades or so.
An alarming 31% said they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease.
This rises to 65% among single women.
Gentlemen, it really matters where you put your dick.
So 98% of teachers in pre-K and K programs are women.
Among full-time and part-time public school teachers in 07 to 08, over three-quarters of them were female.
So it's only a quarter of US teachers are men and they're heavily concentrated in the upper grades.
Current statistics show that about one-quarter of all classroom teachers are male and that the proportion plummets to approximately 10% in the elementary grades, right?
So it really thins out as the children are younger.
So 8% of teachers in Hamilton's Canada's 44 elementary schools are men.
So where's the patriarchy, right?
Almost 90% of all single-parent families are headed by women.
Women get custody of the children in the vast majority of cases.
Now, many female teachers, according to researchers, have a pretty low tolerance for boys, who are more active in light competition, according to psychologist Michael Thompson, co-author of the 2000 book Raising Cain.
So, he said, it's very hard to change the suspicion of men who are going to elementary education when there are so few of them, he said.
Schools ask me to talk to men on their faculty, and when I sit with them behind closed doors, they say the moms look at them like potential pedophiles, like, why do you want to work with children?
Can you imagine that?
Mom sitting down with the principals and saying, you know, I really don't want a black man teaching my children because black men, a lot of them were pedophiles.
I mean, that would just be astonishing racism.
No, no, no.
You see, Jews can't be kindergarten teachers because Jews are very grabby of children's genitals.
I mean, that would be incredible antisemitism.
But it's men, so it doesn't matter, right?
So...
This is some of the female culture that is inflicted upon boys, right?
The boys are growing up.
Single mom households, daycare workers are almost all women.
I mean, I worked in a daycare when I was a teenager, and I was just swarmed by daddy-hungry kids.
I mean, actually, I've really enjoyed it.
I think I did some real good, but I was like the only male in the whole place.
And so there's a female culture.
When you grow up in a single mom household and most of the other – and when you're a single mom household, you're around a lot of other single moms, right?
Because a lot of married couples don't want single moms around because the married women are concerned that the single moms are going to start preying on or having affairs with their husbands.
And just a lack of – usually there's income disparities and responsibility disparities and – Maturity disparities between married couples and single moms or single dads.
So there's not a lot of mixing.
So when you grow up in a single mom household, your friends all come from single mom households for the most part.
That was certainly my experience.
So it's not like there are any male role models around.
You end up in this pink ghetto.
So, for a researcher, she said, "When I discovered three times as many boys as girls in my Head Start program were labeled with some kind of disability, I conducted a small action research project to determine reasons for this imbalance." He said, "I discovered that many of our boys played on the floor, loved active games and activities, preferred the block area and the woodwork area, and tended to be rather noisy.
However, most of the teachers, female teachers, preferred tabletop activities, art, and reading to the children.
I also discovered that newly purchased woodwork tables were being used as teachers' desks and stands for fish aquariums." Kay Sanders, a researcher, recollects that most of the teachers she observed played in the housekeeping area, primarily with girls, and were usually involved in typical housekeeping themes, not that gripping for boys.
So just think of your average boy, right?
Born to a woman, nurses all around when he's a baby.
Most of the people who come around are women.
A single mom household, lots of women, he gets put in daycare, women, kindergarten, women, women everywhere.
Women are always in positions of authority, always in positions of power.
He goes through his school and maybe he starts to see a male teacher or two by the time he's 10, 11 or 12.
The first decade of his life is almost entirely ruled by women.
And then women say, well, we're mere victims of the world.
What do you mean we might be contributing to how the world is?
Sorry.
I mean, again, facts are facts.
Percentage of married couples, families with stay-at-home mothers or fathers.
This is from the U.S. It's creeping up very slowly, but you can see it's mostly stay-at-home moms, stay-at-home dads are very, very much in the minority.
I'd be one, but I think that makes two.
So, for huge numbers of children, massive absence of male role models.
One of the major problems we have in the world is the diminishment of empathy and the rise of sociopathy.
I mean, this is one of the main reasons the world is just getting worse and worse.
Let's go through some facts.
A study conducted by Dr.
Kyle D. Pruitt found that infants between 7 and 30 months respond more favorably to being picked up by their fathers.
Pruitt also found that a father's parenting style is beneficial for a child's physical, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development.
Mothers reassure toddlers when they become frustrated, while fathers encourage them to manage their frustration.
That's true, for me at least.
This helps the children learn to deal with stress and frustration.
A long-term study Pruitt conducted proved that a father's active involvement with his children from birth to adolescence promotes greater emotional balance, stronger curiosity, and a stronger sense of self-assurance in the child.
Additional studies show that during the first five years of a child's life, the father's role is more influential than the mother's in how the child learns to manage his or her body, navigate social circumstances, and play.
A 1996 study by McGill University found that, quote, the single most important childhood factor in developing empathy is paternal involvement in childcare.
Let's repeat that again.
The single most important childhood factor in developing empathy is paternal involvement in childcare.
The study further concluded that fathers who spent time alone bonding with their children more than twice a week brought up the most compassionate adults.
This is prejudice, which says that it's the mom's nurturing that teaches empathy.
This is not true.
It is the father's involvement that teaches empathy primarily to the child.
And as we've had the rise of single motherhood, we've had the rise of sociopathy, we've also had the rise of diminished empathy problems.
Again, these are facts.
Don't shoot the messenger.
So women are part of the cycle of violence.
Women have an overwhelmingly dominant effect on early childhood experiences for the entire human race, and it's been growing and growing in the West.
And until we recognize and accept this, we can't solve the problem of the cycle of violence.
Women who are beaten, it's terrible, wretched, monstrous, awful.
But the question is, why are men aggressive towards women?
Well, the answer has been because men are bad, and that's just retarded, right?
If men beating women is bad because men are bigger and stronger, Well, moms are infinitely bigger and stronger than babies, so isn't that much worse to hit babies?
Adult women can leave.
Babies can't leave.
Adult women can protect themselves.
There are shelters for adult women.
Oh, shelters for babies.
They can't go anywhere.
Can't even speak.
Can't say anything.
Can't escape.
Can't hit back.
Can't hide.
So all the things that women complain about in terms of power disparity and exploitation and patriarchy apply about 10,000-fold to mothers' relationship with their children, which is a violent relationship for the most part.
Two-thirds of moms with kids aged three to six are spanking them three times more per week.
Per week.
150 hits a year.
By the time they're 10, they've been hit 1,500 times by their nurturer.
Well, women, please stop doing this.
Just stop hitting your children.
You know all that stuff that you've been lecturing men about?
Don't hit because you're bigger and stronger.
Don't hit because there's a patriarchy.
Well, you are the keystone of the arch of the matriarchy, and you're much bigger and stronger than your children.
So please stop hitting them!
Making excuses for women is sexist.
I have huge respect for women.
I think women can handle the truth.
I think women need to be called on their shit just like men need to be called on their shit.
Hitting children is wrong.
If men do it, I call them on their shit too.
Stop hitting children if you're a man.
Stop hitting children if you're a woman.
Recognize that you are part of the cycle of violence.
Women are not mere victims in this world.
To make excuses for female immorality is to treat women as less than human.
As less than people.
You know, when you want equality, which I think is a great thing, you get all equality.
You're not just equality for the good things, you get equality of moral responsibility as well.
Which means we don't make excuses for women hitting children.
We simply say, don't hit children.
What did women say about men who hit children?
Did we make excuses for them?
No.
We say, that is absolutely wrong.
Under no circumstances do you hit a woman.
Under no circumstances do you hit a child.
Under no circumstances do you hit a child.
The data is clear.
The morality is clear.
Spanking violates the non-aggression principle.
It is immoral to hit a child.
It is far more immoral to hit a child than it is to hit a woman.
So women, stop doing wrong.
Stop doing bad things.
Learn how to negotiate with your child.
Grow up and stop hitting people.
We can't solve the problem of human violence until we acknowledge all contributing factors.
And the matriarchy is a massive contributing factor to the cycle of human violence.
And I would really like to live in a world that was a whole lot more peaceful, that was a whole lot less predatory, that was a whole lot less exploitive, that consumed far fewer resources, and put fewer people in prison, that was less rape of people in prison.
I would really like to live in that society.
But in order to live in that society, we've got to stop hitting our children.
And if you want to stop children getting hit, you need to talk to the ladies first, because that's who's doing it the most.
So...
This is Stefan Molyneux from freedomainradio.com.
Thank you so much.
I look forward to your feedback.
Please check out the sources at the low bar.
And if you enjoy this conversation and find the information valuable, please share it.
And also please donate at fdurl.com forward slash donate.
▲
Export Selection