All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 17, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:31
2589 The Dangers of Criticizing a Single Mom

Stefan Molyneux responds to the criticisms of his podcast on the dangers of dating a single mom.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, hello everybody.
Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
So, the maledictions, the curses, the shock and horror doth resound around the internet about my blatant and unrelenting and unrepentant misogyny.
I have been outed as a He-Man woman hater Member of the Little Rascals He-Man Woman Haters Club, and generally down on all the breasties and their holders and carriers out there.
Now this is interesting, and it is a depressingly common tactic.
A little bit more on the left, but it happens sort of all over.
Wherein there's this horrible collectivization and sexism that goes on in the view of women.
Nay, yes, I dare turn the canons of internet trollery around on my detractors and say that you are in fact the sexist.
So there's this fallacy which is collectivist in nature.
And the fallacy runs like this.
This group all has the same characteristics and therefore to criticize one member of this group is to criticize all members of this group.
That is pretty much the long and the short of it and it's so ridiculous and so sexist and if it applied to a race it would be horribly racist.
Let's say that I say this red-haired guy who was a bank robber was a bad guy for being a bank robber.
Now, if someone were to say, Because of this, you hate all red-haired people.
I mean, that would just be such an obvious logical fallacy and so hysterical and so petty and so silly that nobody would really take it seriously.
But this idea that if I criticize certain women, I hate all women.
It's so silly and it's such a sexist.
Look, women are not all the same.
I mean, come on.
Come on, people.
It's half the goddamn human race.
Let's stop being two-year-olds about this.
Sorry.
Sorry for all my two-year-old listeners.
That's kind of an insult to you.
Women are not all the same.
I can criticize some women without hating all women.
I can criticize high crime rates among blacks without criticizing all blacks.
Do you know why?
Because most blacks are law-abiding.
Right?
So if I'm criticizing crime rates among blacks, then I'm not racist.
It's actually racist to say that that's racist.
Like if I say 97-98% of black people voted for Barack Obama, And that's racist.
And if people get upset with that, it's because they're racist.
Because I apply the same standards universally.
Shoot me, I'm a philosopher.
That's kind of what we do, right?
We look for universal standards, reason them out, and make sure that they're applied consistently.
That's kind of the gig.
People who get upset at that, it's like...
What do you mean you're a scientist who's using the scientific method?
You must hate whatever.
I mean, that's kind of what we do.
Mathematicians use numbers, scientists use the scientific method, and philosophers use universals.
That's kind of the deal.
Now, if there were a whole bunch of black candidates in an election and only one white candidate, And 98% of whites voted for the white candidate only, that would be that they would be making decisions based on race alone.
Or at least race decisively, and that would be racist.
Now, if we don't say that the vast majority of blacks voting for Obama is not racist, then we are holding different standards for blacks and whites, which is racist.
Sorry, that's just the way it goes.
So, I criticize female child abuse, right?
And I criticize single motherhood.
And I have statistics and moral arguments and so on to back this up.
Now, if I criticize irresponsible single moms, and then people imagine...
I'm sorry, I know it's a serious topic, but the logic is so bad and so obvious and so ridiculous, it's hard to take it seriously.
If I criticize single mothers, And show these statistics and give the moral arguments and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
And then people think that I'm anti-woman?
They, those people, are the sexists.
Look, women are not one big indistinguishable blob.
Like if I say I hate green jello...
Then that applies to all green jello.
If you keep handing me different bowls of green jello, look, here's some green jello from across town.
Look, here's some green jello from Philadelphia.
I mean, no, I hate green.
I don't like green jello.
I dislike it as a whole.
And so it doesn't matter which individual piece of green jello you give to me, I'm not going to like it.
Now, if I say I dislike green jello, And then you say, well, that must mean you hate food.
I mean, that would be embarrassing for somebody who pretends to have any grasp of logic or argumentation or basic, competent human thinking.
You know, the tie your shoelaces and don't walk into walls kind.
Just because I dislike green jello does not mean that I dislike food or desserts or jello as a whole or anything like that.
Plus, dislike is a subjective term which has no particular place in philosophy.
It doesn't mean I never talk about it.
It just means when I do talk about it, I remind people that it has, yay, verily, nothing to do with philosophy, really.
But it in no way indicates that I dislike women if I criticize the actions of certain women.
To say that criticizing the actions of certain women means that all women are the same, and if I criticize the actions of certain women, I'm showing hatred of women as a whole, is incredibly sexist and does not admit of the different and opposing interests among human beings as a whole and women as a gender.
So, for example, there are women who work hard and who pay taxes and wait until they're in a stable, secure, perhaps even married relationship before having children, or who don't have children at all for their own particular preferences, which of course is fine and dandy.
There are women who irresponsibly spread their legs for thugs and gangsters and other forms of masculine lowlife and end up with too many kids.
They're on welfare, and the odds of those kids becoming criminals and rapists, these murderers and so on, is predominantly higher.
So there are women who pay into the tax system by coercion, and there are women who pull out of the Tax system.
Are these women's interests perfectly aligned?
Well, of course not.
Because women, you see, are different.
And women make different choices.
And you can criticize some women's bad choices without criticizing women as a whole.
Because not All women are green jello.
Do you see where I'm going?
Sorry, I don't mean to be snarky, but you kind of see where I'm heading with this.
If by criticizing some women's destructive choices, I am then accused of misogyny, requires that all women have the same interests, that all women have the same motivations.
Which is not true.
Women are not all the same.
Let me sort of give you another example and maybe this will make this clearer.
I have a daughter.
My daughter is going to grow up and is going to live in a world where there are a lot of men who've come out of single mother homes.
Now those men are far more likely to be rapists.
I, call me crazy, I do not want my daughter to get raped.
My daughter does not want to be raped, I assume, when she gets older.
And so if I, as a father and as a man who loves my daughter, I don't want her to get raped.
I don't want my wife to get raped.
I don't want women as a whole to get raped.
I think it's just a wretched, horrible, destructive, vicious, violent, unholy action.
So if I don't want women to get raped, Then it behooves me to look upon the conditions which produced rapists and oppose those conditions.
Is that a fair thing to say?
I don't want my daughter to get stolen from.
I don't want my daughter to experience crime.
I don't want my daughter to experience abuse in relationships.
So it behooves me, because I love my daughter, I love my wife, and I want women as a whole to have the best experience in the world possible, it behooves me to look at the conditions which produce actions destructive towards women, and men, of course, but some of those are rape in sort of outside of prison, it's more specific to women, and to oppose those.
Now, a man who is a rapist is 80% likely to come from a single mother home, right?
So, to criticize the decisions of single mothers is to criticize some conditions which are more likely to produce rapists.
And so if there are fewer single mothers, then fewer women have to pay taxes and can actually choose to stay home with their children, right?
If there are fewer single mothers, the welfare state is fundamentally a single mother cash transfer system.
And if there are no single mothers, then children will grow up far less poor.
Right?
Like 75% of children currently classified as poor will no longer be poor if the moms had simply found a man and married a man before they had children or married the father of their existing children.
When children are less poor and when there are more resources available for children, Well, the children do better.
Do I want children to do better?
I do!
In fact, I want children to do better.
I want children to have more access to parental resources, time, love, emotion, money, and so on.
And when you are a single mother, it's just kind of math, people.
When you are a single mother, you have far less time for your children because you're busy earning a living or other such stuff.
You know, you don't have anyone to share the housework with and all that.
So I want children to do better.
I want there to be fewer rapists, someone there to be fewer criminals, and I want there to be less taxation.
And all of that is driven by a significant proportion of single mothers.
So when I criticize single motherhood, I am not criticizing all women.
In fact, I am criticizing the conditions that make it really hard for a lot of women.
Women who feel they have to work because the taxes are too high because they have to pay for all the single moms out there.
Women who have less time to spend with their children because, of course, they have to work and that makes things tougher for their children.
And women who are threatened with higher incidence of rape because of the decisions of single mothers and so on.
So to say that to criticize single motherhood is to criticize all women is insane.
And it's incredibly sexist because it's looking at women as just one big undifferentiated blob who all have the same interests.
One big giant sisterhood of the traveling rants that can't possibly have interests that don't coincide or interests that might even be in opposition.
That is incredibly sexist.
It's collectivist, it's irrational, and it's inhuman.
Look, my daughter does not have the same interests as a single mother because my daughter will not be a single mother unless there's some tragic accident and she's widowed, which, you know, people sort of crabbing at me about that.
A widow is not a single mother.
Because we already have a word for that.
It's called a widow, right?
And a single mother is a mother who is single by choice, either by divorce or by not getting married or whatever, right?
Or by choosing the wrong guy and even if the guy leaves her, she still chose the wrong guy or acted in such a way that the guy left her.
Either he was a bad guy and she shouldn't have had sex with him and had kids, or he was a good guy but she drove him away by being a bitch, in which case it's bad, right?
So single mother means that you had a say in the matter.
If your beloved and steady and virtuous husband gets hit by an asteroid, then you are not a single mother, you are a widow.
That's the reality of the language.
But, of course, people like to muddy those terms to classify genuine victims with self-created, quote, victims.
That's a good way of confusing the mix, right?
So women have opposing interests at times.
Hard-working women who have stable men and so on, they do not have the same interests as women who choose thugs, idiots, and deadbeats to have kids with.
And then there's this giant financial sucking sound as these economic vampires drain the lifeblood from men and women all around them.
I mean, you can criticize men for being deadbeat dads and I don't think that anyone has ever then suggested as a result that you must hate all men.
Or you can say, I think that the majority of bank robbers are men.
I think stealing from banks is terrible.
And then people say, well, you must hate all men.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
So that's sort of one.
I mean, women are not the same.
They don't have the same interests.
And you can criticize the bad decisions of women.
Without hating all women.
In fact, it's out of my love for the women in my life and for the good women of the world that I criticize the women who are making bad decisions that threaten them with crime and theft through taxation.
It's not good.
So anyway, I just wanted to mention that the people who are accusing me of misogyny are unbelievable sexists and just petty, sophisticated manipulators of the lowest kind.
Anyway.
Other people say, well, you see, Steph has mommy issues.
Oh, my God.
Mommy issues.
So, I was raised by a single mother in a neighborhood full of single mothers.
I knew maybe like two or three fathers in the whole neighborhood.
So, I grew up surrounded by and raised by and my friends grew up surrounded by and raised by single mothers.
And that means that...
I shouldn't be taken seriously because my dislike of single motherhoods has its root in psychological origins and a dislike of my own mother.
And therefore, you see, I should not be taken seriously despite the fact that I have facts.
Despite the fact that I have facts, actually, the facts apparently.
Even the facts, you see, are somehow colored by my dislike for my mother.
My dislike for my mother, you see, is so powerful that it can alter the behavior of millions of people Hundreds of millions of people all over the world to produce the statistics convenient to my own hatred of my own mother.
Supposed hatred.
And therefore, like some sort of time and space bending demon, my hatred has the power to change reality.
And therefore, the facts are somehow a product of my dislike for my mother and other single mothers I knew and blah, blah, blah.
First of all, I mean, let's say that I have this, you know, brain-bending, soul-eating hatred for my own mother and single mothers.
It still doesn't change the facts, right?
It still doesn't change the statistics.
So that's the number one.
Number two is I'd love to see that argument against a black scholar or a black researcher.
So let's say a black researcher experienced significant racism at the hands of whites when he was growing up, and he then criticized racism.
When he was older, or criticized racists and racism, would somebody say, well, he's just got whitey issues because he was beaten up by whites and was surrounded by vicious racist whites when he was growing up.
So he's just got whitey issues, so we're going to dismiss all of his facts.
In other words, because he's actually experienced that which he criticizes, his criticisms are somehow invalid.
Well, I try not to review movies that I haven't seen.
I try not to give my opinion on the culture and immediate experience of countries I've never visited.
And I don't think that actually having experience of something means that your arguments are invalid.
I think actually having experience of something Could lend some credence and weight to your arguments.
It doesn't make your arguments true.
But to say that my arguments about single moms are false because I was raised by a single mother, surrounded by single mothers, in a single mother culture in the 70s and 80s, which was...
The staggering rise in single motherhood.
So because I have direct multi-year experience and my friends have direct multi-year experience, my entire community and school and surroundings and Boy Scouts and so on were all populated by the offsprings of single mothers, to say that therefore my arguments about single motherhood are invalid because I have direct multi-year,
multi-person experience of the phenomenon backed up with research is to say You cannot talk about racism if you've ever experienced racism.
Do you see how?
You see how insane that is, right?
So the idea that because I was raised by a single mother and surrounded by single mothers...
And almost all my friends came from single mother households who I visited and got to know very well and so on and saw the long arc of all of this stuff for 20 odd years and now even further, right?
That somehow because I have direct, multi-decade, multi-person, entire neighborhood, three-quarters of my school experience of the causes and effects of single motherhood that somehow that means I cannot speak about single motherhood.
It's completely mad.
And I would love to see that argument, as I said, applied to a black person.
Well, you experienced racism and violence at the hands exclusively of whites for 20 or 30 years, and that means that we can dismiss everything that you say about racism.
We can dismiss all your facts because you just have whitey issues.
I mean, you see that this is nonsense.
And it's so ridiculous that it can only be driven by blank-eyed white knighting, right?
Like just rushing to women's defense.
Anytime the women get upset, we must rush to their defense and throw up our paladin shields against the malefactor who dares besmirch the honor of women.
All right, I mean, come on.
Women are kind of made of tougher stuff than that, right?
They don't need everyone crowding around and defending them when somebody has a criticism of negative actions of some women.
Now, I've also...
This is not exactly being accused of misogyny.
Oh, it's so funny, you know?
I mean, it's so funny It's like I'm being accused of racism despite the fact that I'm married to a black woman and have adopted a black child and have publicly listed my greatest intellectual influences as being black, as having Many, many black people call into my show and always treating them with respect and all of that.
I'm still a racist, right?
So I apparently hate women, despite the fact that I'm married to a woman and absolutely worship and adore my daughter, and despite the fact that I've openly proclaimed that my greatest intellectual influences have been women.
Ranging from Ayn Rand to Christina Hoff Summers to Phyllis Schlafly to Ann Coulter to Margaret Thatcher to, you know, a lot of, I think, really smart and witty and erudite and amazing and impressive women.
I have not cited many men as my intellectual influences.
It's mostly been women.
So the idea that I hate women, I'm married to a woman, I love my daughter, my greatest intellectual influences have been women.
But apparently, I hate them.
I hate them.
Why?
Because my mom was bad, and therefore I hate all women.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, come on, people.
People, people, people.
I mean, feel free to criticize me, but make it a little harder to rebut.
That's all I'm asking.
Make me move more than one tiny muscle in my little finger to knock over your arguments, because I really have better things to do than to pretend I'm fencing with babies.
So, the other thing is I say, well, women choose men.
Right?
So, women Who choose men can't really claim to be victims.
Nobody makes women date men.
Nobody makes women get married to men.
Nobody makes women have children with men.
And so if a woman chooses a bastard, a deadbeat, a jerk, an abuser, a deserter, a philanderer, there's a word nobody uses anymore, If the woman does that,
or if the woman acts in really destructive or negative ways in the relationship, if she's naggy, if she's hostile, if she uses sex as a weapon, if she has affairs, if she flirts, if she drinks too much, then the claim is made that women are victims.
That's highly insulting to women.
Highly insulting to women.
Because if I... Have inherited a vast amount of money and don't actually have to work.
But I decide to train in a certain profession.
Say I decide to become a lawyer.
And I studied law for years and really like it.
And I decide, wow, this is the best thing.
I'm going to make this profession.
And then I go and interview at 10 or 20 different companies.
And I then take a job at one of those companies.
And I love it there.
I say, this is the best job ever.
And I say to my boss, you are the best boss that could possibly be.
And I know because I've interviewed and had internships at a wide variety of other companies ranging from weeks to months.
This is the company I really, really want to be with.
And I work there for 10 years.
And then I say, I hate it here.
I'm a victim.
Wouldn't you say, what now?
You don't have to work.
You got to interview a whole bunch of different companies.
You got to intern and try working in those various companies and you chose this company over all the others when you didn't even have to work in the first place.
You spent years studying for your profession.
You worked here for 10 years.
You said it was the best place to work.
You have the same bosses when you started and now you're complaining that you're a victim and you're going to quit this job but they need to keep paying you for the rest of your life.
This would be the actions of a rampant narcissist.
And if a man tried that crap, like a man inherited $10 million, decided to become a lawyer, interned at a bunch of different places, and then whined that he was a victim when after 10 years at the place he chose as the best, he didn't like it anymore and demanded that people pay him for the rest of his life when he quit the job because he was a victim.
I mean, nobody would even know what to say about such a mad proposition, but this is the reality of women and marriage.
Women and children.
Women and dating.
A woman of any reasonable level of attractiveness, I mean like four or five and above out of ten, has the pick of the men.
She can...
She's going to get asked out a lot, and men in general are going to pay for her to go out.
So there, of course, she has the advantage.
Men go to ask her out.
She doesn't ask men out.
And men will pay for a lot of the dates early on, if not for the duration, if not the majority.
So there she's in the position of the picker and chooser.
She is in the position of saying yes or no.
So men propose, women dispose.
Men propose, will you go out with me?
Women dispose like yes or no.
That's the way it works.
And men can take a woman out and they pay for dinner and the woman decides if she wants to see the man again or not, generally.
I mean, this may change if you're some stunning looking guy or whatever, but it also changes if you're a stunning looking woman, wherein men will pay for your entire education if you're a really attractive woman.
So, In these situations, the men ask the women out.
Lots of men are clustering around a particular woman asking her out.
And she gets to pick and choose.
And the picking and choosing is I can date no one or I can date any one of these 10 or 20 guys who ask me out.
Right?
That is called being in a position of privilege and being in a position of choosing.
I mean, the men choose who to ask out, but the women choose who they would go out with.
The men say, will you go out with me?
And the women say, yes or no.
That's how it works.
And the woman will date a bunch of different guys and she will have relationships ranging from weeks to months to maybe even years with different guys.
But then she finally settles on some guy that she wants to get married to or wants to settle down with or wants to have children with or live in common law with or whatever it is to set up something stable and permanent.
And commits to that man.
After having had many men ask her out, after having dated many men, and having opportunity for therapy or self-knowledge.
So, this is a pretty privileged position.
It would be fascinating to be an attractive woman for a couple of days, just to see what life is like.
It's quite different.
I mean, I see my daughter is...
Gorgeous.
And I mean, I see the way that people respond to her.
And I just, my wife is gorgeous.
I see the way people respond to her.
Yeah, yeah.
Life is pretty easy for you pretty people.
It's true.
It's true.
I mean, maybe it's easy for the pretty guys too.
But that's, it's kind of a different dynamic, right?
So women get lots of free stuff and dates, and they're in the position of picking and choosing who they want to date, who they want to settle down with, and then they finally choose one guy.
One guy to settle down with.
And then, later, they cry victimhood.
Now, I mean, it's a pretty sweet gig if people let you get away with it, right?
I mean, if you say you're working from home and you get raises and promotions even though you never do a thing, yeah, you're kind of exploitive, but, you know, kind of people are letting you get away with it.
And most people have no inner compass of morality.
They just do whatever they can get away with.
And women get away with picking and choosing and being in a privileged position and having men buy them stuff and pay for dinners and take them to concerts and all that kind of stuff.
And they get to pick and choose.
And then later...
They get to play the victim when their choices don't work out the way they want.
They get to be the victim, right?
So in California, if you're married for 10 years, then you owe the woman money for the rest of her life.
You have to pay for the woman for the rest of your life.
I mean, my God.
I've mentioned this before, but alimony is insane and so sexist.
Look, if you're married, you have a job.
Let's say you get married to a guy and you don't have a job, right?
So your job is the marriage and the kids or whatever, right?
That's your job.
Now, let's say that the man, after 10 years, divorces you.
Well, it means you got fired from your job.
But you made money and you were paid when you had your job.
If you're a wife and all that, you get to go to Pilates, you become a lady who lunches, which is a reference to my novel, The God of Atheists.
But you've been paid.
The man's been paying the bills for 10 years.
So you've had a job called being a wife.
Now, if you're bad at that job, Or if you've chosen the wrong boss, in other words, of all the men who you could have married, and if you're a woman that the man is going to pay for in a marriage, you're probably very attractive, so you could have had your pick of any number of men.
So, the boss that you chose, you did a bad job at your marriage, or you chose the wrong boss.
Either way, you did a bad job at your marriage.
And so, if the man divorces you, then you had a job called being a wife, and you got fired.
Or if you divorce the man, you had a job called being a wife and you quit.
Now, I mean, if I have a job for 10 years and I get paid for that and then I decide to quit, I don't get to show up in two weeks for my next paycheck every two weeks for the rest of my life or have it comfortably deposited into my bank account.
I mean, that's insane, right?
I mean, imagine you quit a job and then you say, all right, so you guys are going to pay me half my salary for the rest of my life, right?
Or you're going to pay me my salary for the rest of my life.
People are like, no, you quit.
You're not working here anymore.
Right?
A man says, you're not having sex with me.
You're not my companion.
You're not cleaning house.
You're not whatever it is, right?
You're not living with me anymore.
You don't even like me anymore.
So why on earth would I pay you when you have fired me, when you've quit?
Or when I fired you.
If I get fired from my job, the idea that I then am entitled, well, I worked here for 10 years, so I got to have a paycheck now for the rest of my life, even though I did a shitty job and I got fired?
I mean, that would be insane.
Try passing that.
Maybe in France you'd get that passed, but that would be insane.
Child support is sort of a different matter.
I've talked about that before.
The concept of alimony is completely ridiculous.
I mean, try putting that in any other economic transaction, in any other relationship, and it would be revealed for the rampant insanity that it is.
Women don't have to get married, but they're responsible for getting married.
And if a woman has a job called being a wife and she quits or gets fired, she's entitled to nothing.
Nothing!
Right?
Nothing, nothing, nothing.
And...
Well, when I worked at that company for 10 years, the company made some profits, so I'm entitled to have a share of those profits for the rest of my life.
It's like, no.
You were paid out of those profits as your salary.
And as long as you work there, you get paid.
But if you quit or get fired, you don't get...
Anyway, it's just so insane to have to say any of this stuff, but...
This is just the rampant sexism that we have.
If it's a great principle that if you work at a job for 10 years and you quit or get fired, that you're entitled to a salary for the rest of your life, let's institute it for everyone.
In the workforce, forever.
Everywhere.
Make that a law.
Now, we know that if we made that a law, the economy would collapse in about 12 nanoseconds.
And people would do terrible jobs.
And why would they do terrible jobs?
Because they'd get paid either way.
I mean, you'd want to get fired.
If you suddenly didn't really like your job for a while, you'd want to get fired because then you wouldn't have to show up to work and you'd get your money anyway.
Why bother, right?
So, again, this is just rampant sexism, right?
The rampant sexism of having wildly different standards for women than for men.
I criticize women who hit their children.
I criticize men who hit their children.
You know, I criticize the military-industrial complex, which is disproportionately men.
And men don't pull the bullshit petty card called, well, you just hate men as a whole, because you criticize the military-industrial complex.
You criticize soldiers who are mostly men, so you just hate men.
You knew a soldier when you were growing up that you didn't like, and that's why you don't like...
I mean, come on.
I mean, men don't pull this stuff.
Women, come on.
Or men defending women.
Come on, work a little harder.
I mean, at least make it not so transparently, emotionally ridiculous.
I mean, that's all I'm asking.
Just make me lift more than half a finger to eradicate the nonsense that you're saying.
It is actually out of my love and respect for the women who are Who I love and respect.
That I wish to protect women from the bad decisions of bad women.
And I wish to protect children from the bad decisions of bad women.
And I've criticized men as a whole.
I don't think that I pull any punches in shows where people talk about bad fathers.
But people are also saying, well, you did an hour on...
Why you shouldn't date single moms?
I guess you'll be doing an hour.
Why not to date single dads?
Well, I guess I could, except in Canada they represent like 0.001% of the population.
A vast majority of single-parent households are headed by women.
And so, yeah, I try to, you know, appeal to the numbers and work to the facts.
So, anyway, thank you, of course, so much for listening.
Thank you to all the female listeners who write in to support.
And, you know, listen, I refuse to look at women as one undifferentiated blob who all have the same interests.
And I refuse to reject my genuine experience of single motherhood and the experience of having been raised by a single mother.
And if my experience, which has prompted me on this journey, combined with the facts that I've gleaned from objective research...
If they bother you, then, you know, you need to start criticizing black people for talking about racism.
Oh, not about to do that?
Then, you know, you might want to get on some more rational case and stop spewing nonsense at me.
Thank you so much, everybody.
If you like the show, fdrurl.com forward slash donate.
Appreciate your support.
▲
Export Selection