All Episodes
Previous Next
May 6, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
36:58
2687 Not All Women Are Like That! Estrogen Based Parasites Criticism - Rebutted!

Stefan Molyneux responds to criticisms of the Estrogen Based Parasites #killallmen show.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Feed the Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Some feedback from my call-in show, Estrogen-Based Parasites Kill All Men, the link of which will be below.
I'm going to assume you've listened to it.
Steph loves your show most of the time, but when you spoke to the Brazilian guy, you lost me with your shock therapy.
I think his father and mother are definitely guilty of putting the same pressure.
And values on their son, despite the fact that times have changed and they don't live in poverty like in 60s and 70s in Brazil.
But I think you were a bit arrogant this time when you judged his grandmother as a parasite.
This is a grandmother who said, go to work, young man, give up your dreams.
Give me money.
I need the money because my husband's pension has run out.
So, um, arrogant is one of these terms that you might as well say, Steph, you have way too much schnerfackle buckle bucks, pass, pass, pass, mmm, fatang, fatang, ole, biscuit barrel, is too bluish unicorn-y heady.
It's just some random syllables thrown together.
I don't know if it's designed to provoke self-attack, like, ooh, arrogant, whatever that means.
But, um, uh, arrogant is not a philosophical term.
Uh, it is, uh, You might as well say, you know, Zeus has whispered to me, Steph, that you're incorrect, so hide your head in shame!
What nonsense.
Adjectives are not an argument.
And if you think they are, then this is not the show for you.
He says, I think you don't know enough about widows in Brazil in the 20th century to call his grandmother names and destroy this man's feelings about his heritage and previous generations.
Poverty is difficult.
It's not black and white like you have presented.
Again, these are just words.
I come from Poland, grew up in communism.
Women's roles were still to look after their brothers, old and sick parents, and to help raise nephews and nieces.
Ideally, we could all say to our relatives, go and fuck yourselves.
I don't know that that would be ideal.
I don't think that would be ideal at all.
But I have learned it won't get you anywhere in second and third world countries.
What if you end up in difficult situation as old man?
Wouldn't you expect your daughter to look after you?
Good God, no.
Women are nurturers and have their limiting roles as well.
I think you are very stubborn when it comes to certain views.
I'm guilty of it too.
So stubborn and adjectives and so on.
Arrogant doesn't mean anything, doesn't make any arguments.
So if I understand it correctly, Then we should say to women who've had limited roles in the past, that's okay.
You can continue to have those limited roles in the present, and we should understand that as...
A sort of echo of history or the momentum of history where you should not be expected to change your views and so on.
Well, let me tell you, as a man a little bit on the wider shade of pale, I consider that insulting to everyone except white men.
See, let me tell you what it's like.
Let me tell you what it's like to be a white man.
So, let's take blacks.
When you point out massive dysfunctions in the black community, you know, crime, illegitimacy, underachievement, and so on, what you hear is, well, you see, but there was slavery a hundred plus years ago, and therefore we should excuse black dysfunction on the grounds that there was slavery a hundred plus years ago.
Okay, well, let's say that's true.
I don't believe that it's true, but let's say that that's true.
If that's true, then the next sentence should be, well, there are some whites who are still racists.
But remember, whites had a history of racism 100 plus years ago, so we should forgive white racism because whites were racist 100 plus years ago, in the same way that we should forgive Black family or black culture dysfunction because blacks were slaves 100 plus years ago.
I have never heard in my entire life white males being forgiven for the momentum of history.
But any time you point out dysfunction in other communities or, say, alternate genders, you get this momentum of history argument.
Are white men allowed to be sexist pigs, let's say, because there was a history of sexist piggery among white males?
Let's say that that argument is true.
That's a general argument, right?
I mean, when the feminists came along in the 60s and basically said, leave your husbands, be independent and so on, because your husbands are sexist, that didn't make any sense according to this argument, right?
Because what should have happened is you said, ladies, you need to understand that your men have been patriarchs, they've been dominant, and therefore it's going to take a couple of generations to get rid of that.
We should embrace them, we should stay married to them, and also we should embrace white racism and forgive it and understand it and not criticize or condemn it because whites have a history of racism and patriarchy and so on.
Or colonialism, right?
I've never, well, you see, but whites have a history of colonialism, therefore we should forgive and we should understand.
That never happens.
And I'm a philosopher, which means I'm sort of into universals.
What that means is that you cannot apply a standard to white European males that you're not going to apply to everyone else.
Right?
And so I assume that the standard that's been applied to me throughout my life, which is that there is no excuse for white Western European males for the momentums of history, and we're not allowed to be sexist, we're not allowed to be racist, we're not allowed to be culturalist, we're not allowed to take pride, right?
I mean, what is a proud black man is a hero.
A proud white man is a racist, right?
So I can't accept Arguments around the momentum of history forgiving women or blacks or Irish or Jews or you name it, right?
I don't accept that argument because that argument has never been applied to white males.
Now, if you have higher standards for white males than you do for women, that's sexist, right?
If you have higher standards for white males than you do for blacks, that's racist, right?
So I will start saying, okay, well, we can excuse dysfunctions in the black community because of a history of slavery the moment I start hearing arguments like, we can excuse residual racism on the part of white people because of a history of slavery as well.
But if you don't give the momentum of history excuses to white males, then you can't give the momentum of history excuses to everyone or anyone else.
So I think that's nonsense.
So let's move on to the next one.
Western men and their elevated egos are a huge part of the problem.
Ah, you see, again, you can talk about whites and males and Western and Europeans and so on and all that kind of stuff.
That makes no sense.
Steph, tell my daughter about marriage, children, and tell her about MGTOW, which is men going their own way, which is the argument that it is far too risky for men to get married.
I mean, if a woman has sort of four or five sexual partners, your risk of being divorced or getting divorced after 10 years is 50 or 60%.
And it sort of goes up as women have more sexual partners before they get married.
One sexual partner or marrying a virgin gives you 80-85% chance of success in your marriage.
And once you start to get to, say, 15 or 16 partners that the woman has had before she gets married, then your chance of success in marriage goes down to 20% or so over 10 years.
And that means, by success, that simply means not success.
Getting divorced.
It doesn't mean being happy necessarily.
It just means not getting divorced.
So men basically are arguing it's far too risky and hazardous given that the state is so hyper-involved in marriage for us to get married and we end up with $50,000 plus divorces that can go on for many years.
We can end up with alimony, palimony, child support and so on that go on for the rest of our lives for the privilege of getting married.
And alimony is Complete nonsense.
It has nothing to do with a free society.
It's simply vote-buying for women, right?
You go to women and you say, hey, if you want to get divorced, we'll force the man to pay for you for the rest of your life.
I think that's the law in California.
Like, after 10 years, you have to pay her alimony for the rest of her life, which is a fine idea.
I'm looking forward to the moment when people come to men, the government comes to men and says to them, listen, if you vote for us, if you quit your job or you get fired, Then we will force your employer to pay you your salary for the rest of your life.
Because that would be the equivalent, right?
If you're a wife, you have, let's say that you're a wife and you don't work, then you have a job called being a wife.
And the man pays your bills because you are being a wife to him.
Now, if you decide to quit your job called being a wife, which is you initiate divorce, which happens 70% or so of the time in marriages, then, you know, guess what, honey?
You have quit your job.
And I don't know about you, but anytime I've ever quit a job, they kind of stop paying me.
So if you are a stay-at-home wife and you decide to divorce your husband, then you've quit your job.
Why the husband would continue to pay you for years or the rest of your life makes no sense.
In an irrational context, it only makes sense when you are bribing women with stolen money from ex-husbands in order to buy their votes and have them wallow in vats of Botox and self-pity.
If you are fired by your husband, if you do a bad job as a wife or you've chosen the wrong husband, I may be a good employee, but if I've chosen the wrong employer, then the employer might fire me.
If my employer is immoral and I want to stand up for that which is right, then he or she will probably fire me.
So if I, or I may just be lazy and do a bad job and sit around, you know, with the proverbial eating bonbons and watching soap operas on YouTube all day, in which case I'm going to get fired.
So if you are a woman and you get fired, in other words, your husband divorces you, then it's like getting fired from your job and...
You should not receive any money, right?
If I'm lazy or my employer doesn't like me for whatever reason and fires me, I don't get to take that employer to court and say, you must keep me in the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed.
And if you don't, I will get the cats in blue to descend upon you with grappling hooks and drag your ass off to jail where it will meet many male penises in most unfortunate circumstances.
That's not really how it works.
It's hard to see the world from a male perspective in some ways.
So this is all nonsense.
So they say, look, it's too dangerous with the government involved in marriage, and that's why we don't want to get married.
And I think that it is quite important to be, if you want to get married, recognize that it's polygamy with you.
The woman or man and all the weaponry the state has to bring to bear on your finances and testicles.
So I didn't really want to get married throughout my life until I met my wife.
We met.
We never spent a day apart again, and we were married 10 months later.
We've been married 11 years, known each other for 12, and we will stay married until one of us is carted off in a box.
I would say I'm lucky, but I did years of therapy.
She herself practices psychology, runs a clinic, so we had a good deal of self-knowledge, and we share values, of course, and so on.
So, will I tell her about MGTOW? Of course, yeah, absolutely.
I think it's a fact of life for a lot of men, and you can read the book Men on Strike, which is interesting as well.
So, I think I really wanted to sort of point that out.
And what I would also want to mention, which is...
So, this problem of generalization, oh man, if there's one emotional, ridiculous, brain-retarded, actually-makes-my-computer-run-slower defense that I would scrub from human consciousness, it would be the generalization defense.
So, here we go.
You have a point about some women, but your generalizing leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
As a regular listener, who is a female who isn't like this?
It's extremely alienating.
Maybe you don't care, but we might be a section of your audience you should keep on board.
Women like your wife.
It might have taken you a lifetime to find a woman like her, but that doesn't mean there's not a lot more out there.
Is it possible it was your own fault?
Just like in other videos, you blame women for their poor choice in partners.
Goes both ways?
Okay, honey, that's a fine thing to say, but this...
I know exceptions to the rule, therefore the rule is invalid, or the tendency is invalid, is so eye-rollingly retarded that it's hard to respond to it with a straight face.
It's like responding to a baby making a spit bubble, as if it's an argument.
Good point there.
Very poppy.
In general, Orientals are shorter than Caucasians.
Right?
This is a generalization.
Now, for you to stick your shaven armpit arm up in the air and say, I know a tall Chinese guy, is so stupid.
I don't even know what to say.
I mean, I don't even know how to respond to that.
I mean, just try that.
Try that.
Summers are generally warmer than winters.
Summers are generally warmer than winters.
Can you handle that?
Oh!
I knew a cold day in summer once, so no!
Summers are not generally...
Oh, I mean, my God, what do you even say?
There's a monsoon season in India.
Oh, I knew a day in the monsoon season where it didn't rain, so no, there's no monsoon season.
I mean, how do you even respond to this?
Without rolling your eyes so far in your head, you can see down your spine to your own ass.
I don't know how it's possible.
One thing that Karen Strawn, aka Girl Rights What, said when she was questioning, she said, one of my big advantages as someone who talks about gender is I can take generalized statements about women in a non-personal way.
Right?
The more you emotionally react to a generalization, The more that generalization fits you, right?
So, if you're a tall Chinese guy and you hear that Chinese guys are generally shorter, say, than Caucasians, you look around and you say, yeah, I get that.
I see mostly the tops of people's heads, so I accept and understand that.
But if you are a really short Chinese guy, that's going to sting you, it's going to upset you, and then you're going to want to respond.
The more emotional you get about an argument that you perceive as critical, almost for certain, the more that argument applies to you.
And I don't know what to say.
In fact, in sort of the men's rights movement, Which is really just human rights movement or universally preferable behavior.
There's even an acronym for it called NOWWELT. Not all women are like that.
So I dated, I don't know, 30 plus women before I settled down to get married.
And they were terrible, you know, compared to my wife.
I mean, okay, she walks on water and can levitate, but they were terrible, terrible people overall.
And so there's a sample size.
I know a lot of men who got married.
I know a lot of men who dated a lot of women, and I heard all about those relationships.
So it's not a tiny sample.
In the actual show, I produced statistics to back it up that half of women would lie to their partner if they got pregnant by another man and passed the child off as their own if they didn't want to leave him.
That 65% of single women will not tell you if they have an STD. That 90 to 95% of women tell enormous lies in relationships and maintain them.
These are facts based upon pretty, I was going to say broad, pretty large sample sizes.
Or when I say that women tend to cluster around the center of the intelligence map, whereas there are more dumb and more brilliant men.
It's a shallower bell curve.
These are established facts about IQ that have been replicated all over the world.
People saying, I know a smart woman.
I don't believe people are that stupid.
I really don't.
This is my gift to you, I guess.
People just aren't that dumb.
I mean, my daughter understands that an exception to a trend does not invalidate the trend.
I mean, she gets that, and she got that around the age of four.
So unless I'm willing to assume that the people who say, I know an exception to the trend, therefore the trend is invalid, I have to assume that they have the mental age of three-year-olds.
And in fact, even babies seven or eight months old can do statistical reasoning.
This has been well established.
You can read more about this in Alison Gopnik's work.
She's been on the show as well.
So unless I'm willing to assume that the majority of people have the average intelligence of a two- or three-year-old, I have to assume that it's an emotional defense, that there's a truth about it which stings them, and therefore they are responding to it by attempting to invalidate the argument.
It is really, really terrible.
Most men approach women, and most women make themselves attractive to draw men in to their Venus flytrap, so to speak.
And then saying, well, I know a woman who approaches a man is just so irrelevant.
You're basically just standing up in front of some beautiful philosophical music, squeaking out a juicy M16 trombone-like wet fart and thinking you've added to the music.
You've just embarrassed yourself and do not pat yourself on the back for your contribution to the intellectual life of the species.
Why do men constantly hate on makeup?
Good God!
It's amazing how much this show in general complains about the vanities of women, when time and time again it shows that it's obvious men fall in love with beauty and youth.
So your advice is what?
My advice is...
Let's just be honest about it, right?
I mean, it's everywhere you look.
Let's just be honest about it, right?
So, I asked a woman who called in recently for an example of a rich man with an ugly wife, and she pointed out that Pierce Brosnan, who is a very good-looking and charismatic American actor, has a wife who's a heavy set, right?
And, okay, I went and looked up.
Now, of course, they've had real tragedies.
I think Pierce Brosnan lost his first wife to cancer They just lost a daughter to cancer.
So, I mean, that's a time when you're probably not going to the gym quite as much.
But the woman when he married her was a complete stunning 10, right?
I mean, so they had been married a long time.
He's put on some weight.
She's put on some weight.
And they've had all these tragedies.
But that really is an exception.
So, my advice is for men to be aware of this, right?
That women...
Bring beauty to the relationship, which is what they have to bring.
Men bring resources to the relationship.
There's nothing wrong with that biologically.
Nothing wrong with it at all.
I just don't like the degree to which women are not honest about it.
That's empowerment and feminism and lean in and ban the word bossy and so on.
I mean, it's so funny to be Sheryl Sandberg in the band Bossy.
She gets the most beautiful, famous women to make these statements, right?
Jennifer Garner and Beyonce Knowles, or I don't know what her last name is now.
They are the women who are getting this message across to other women.
Incredibly, like one in a million people.
Physically beautiful women.
Well, why are we listening to them at all?
Because they're beautiful.
So ladies, you should be empowered.
And the way you should be empowered is to listen to women who basically are famous because they're beautiful and, I mean, talented, of course, right?
Lots of talented women around.
But it's harder to find the talented ones who aren't beautiful.
So...
Let's just be honest about it, that women spend a lot of time and money and effort to look beautiful in order to get richer men.
That's how, I mean, this idea that we shouldn't just discuss this openly and it's just an obvious fact.
I mean, do you think we don't go to malls as men and see that there's like two electronic stores where the men can go while the women scoop up the rest of the knickknacks and bric-a-brac and face painting?
That the planet has to offer.
So, nothing wrong with it.
I just want us to be honest about it, right?
And the lack of honesty about it is really the manipulation.
That is the problem.
Okay, and this guy, I don't know if it's a man or a woman, says, and this is where I decide to unsub from this channel.
Stefan oversimplifies just about every subject he approaches, especially psychology.
Women aren't X just as men aren't Y, where X and Y are generalizations.
Right.
So...
When I say women in general are X, then he says not all women are X. And again, this is the generalization, retardation, that occurs.
Yes, I understand.
Right?
I understand.
But anyway.
So people come to their own situations based on institutional and individual circumstances.
So to call women or men or children parasites in any capacity is really just a typical tactic of the weak-minded.
Oh, so a typical tactic of the weak-minded.
So when I put forward recent arguments from evidence with statistics to explain some gender relations, That is not...
Oh, that is a typical tactic of the weak-minded.
However, to say that there are exceptions to general rules is not a typical tactic of the weak-minded, right?
And to call women or men or children parasites in any capacity...
Yes, there are some women who are parasites.
There are some men who are parasites.
There are no children who are parasites.
No children who are parasites because parasites, I mean, you choose to have children.
Now, of course, you do choose to get married as well, but most men, for instance, who get married aren't aware of the risks and the costs of divorce until they're caught up in the horrible machinery of the state.
So there is no...
There are no parasitical children.
Children don't have the option to work and be economically independent.
Children don't have full rights of contract, of voting, of property ownership, and driving, and all these kinds of, they can't sign a lease.
So children can't be parasites, and I never call children parasites.
Again, this is the kind of emotional reactivity.
That literally turns people into hyperlinguistic lizards, right?
When you get defensive, like you can see this in brain scans, you get defensive, your neofrontal cortex shuts down, the higher reasoning shuts down, and all you do is respond emotionally and defensively.
And so it's really like if you could speak a lizard to talk and scared it with something, it would give you a long lecture on the evil of you scaring it, but it wouldn't be activating any neofrontal cortex because it wouldn't actually have one.
The fact that the kill all men hashtag was largely satirical in nature.
Wow, that's impressive.
So my generalizations, which I provide with significant evidence, are invalid.
But you can say that the kill all men hashtag was largely satirical in nature.
While providing no evidence for that assertion, and I'm the one who's creating unjust generalizations or invalid or non-empirical generalizations.
Do you see how foolish and silly this is?
How do you know whether it was largely satirical in nature?
And would you apply that standard to, say, if a bunch of Austrians and Germans put out the kill all Jews hashtag?
Would you find that offensive if they talked about How reducing the Jewish population by 90% would be a wonderful thing for the planet.
And if we stripped away the rights of Jews and put Gentiles in charge, that everything would be just wonderful.
And if we only kept Jews around to do our taxes and our health care, that would be wonderful.
And we'd keep them in camps and so on.
And then you'd say, well, no, you see, but it was largely satirical.
Well, fuck you, buddy.
You know, for something to be satire, it has to be the least bit funny.
And talking about killing all men, which includes killing Jewish men and black men and Hispanic men, it's monstrously evil.
You cannot make a joke out of calling for the reduction of the human population by about 2.8 billion people.
And say, well, no, you see, but it's only satire.
That's bullshit.
And that's cowardly bullshit, too.
It's like me telling something absolutely horrible about you to your face.
And then when you got shocked and offended, saying, oh, man, get a sense of humor about yourself.
Can't you take a joke?
Come on.
So, bye, Steph.
And I think this is great.
You know, I invite people who are upset by my arguments and where they can't say where I'm rationally or empirically wrong, please unsub.
You know, people were saying, oh, I hate this argument.
You're an idiot.
I'm not going to recommend your channel to anyone.
Please, please don't recommend my channel to anyone.
Don't be that stupid and say that you like my show.
Because then people will judge my show by your approval and they'll say, well, this guy's an idiot and he really likes free domain radio.
So if you are offended and upset and emotionally reactive to the arguments I put forward, Then please tell people that you dislike my show.
Please, oh, that Freedom Aid radio show, it's horrible.
It's sexist.
It's misogynistic.
It's raced.
It's escatological.
He swears.
It's just the worst show.
It's terrible.
I'm so offended.
I'm so upset.
And then tell people about, you know, the stuff that you like.
So, you know, I guess when people leave...
I don't know if I'm supposed to be upset.
I mean, this happens like a dozen times a day when people storm out of Free Domain Radio website or YouTube channel or, you know, and they always make a big show of telling us that they're leaving and they're upset.
Please, you know, please go.
You can send me all the emails you want and please tell people how much you dislike my show.
That's so important.
To be disliked by idiots.
That's really, really essential that you tell people that.
So please go and publicize how much you dislike the show and all of that.
As the old saying goes, I don't care what you say about me, just make sure you spell my name right.
So, yeah, it's good to go.
It's really, really important that you leave.
In fact, people have left and just for funsies, I banned the channel and I get email messages saying, how come I can't access your channel?
It's like...
Because you stormed out, said you weren't coming back, changed the keys.
I mean, I listened.
I'm sorry if I listened.
It's just kind of funny.
So, let's see here.
Stop talking about women as if we're commodities, Stefan.
We are just people, and we deserve the same amount of respect as men.
No more, no less.
We are not objects to be used or bought or traded up from or endured where we are past our expiration date.
Your words.
Yeah.
The fact that you give women a rating of 1 to 10 speaks very ill of you as a human being.
Why don't you get that?
You have a great brain that seems to stop functioning when you address the topic of women in marriage.
So stop talking about women as if we're commodities.
He's Stop behaving like commodities, in general.
Stop behaving like commodities.
Posing for pictures looking your very best.
Stop getting all this plastic surgery.
Stop spending so much and destroying the environment and hurting rabbits and mice on makeup and Botox and furs and handbags and ridiculously expensive dresses and stop putting dyes in your hair and stop spending a thousand dollars a year on haircuts and I mean, stop treating yourself as commodities and perhaps you'll stop being described as commodities.
And then we'll say, not waltz, right?
Not all women are like that.
Yeah, I understand that not all women are like that.
In which case, the women who aren't like that start ganging up on the women who are and help them to realize the error of their ways.
So stop, and stop taking stuff for free for men, right?
Stop basically holding out the promise of sex in return for free dinners, free drinks, and free movies, and so on.
Just stop trading on the vagina, and then I think that more men will stop looking at women in general as commodities, right?
I mean...
So we are just people who deserve the same amount of respect as men.
Who on earth says that I respect men enormously?
I mean, I am a mad, ferocious critic of the military, which is mostly men.
I'm a mad, ferocious critic of the finance industry, which is mostly men.
I'm a mad, ferocious critic of the prison industrial complex, which is mostly men.
I am a mad ferocious critic of the government or the state as a whole, which is mostly men.
I go on and on.
I am a mad ferocious critic of people who prosecute on the legal side victimless crimes.
They're mostly men.
So it's funny, you know, when I talk about the evils of the military, nobody accuses me of man bashing.
But when I talk about some of the shallowness and vanities of women, suddenly I am female bashing.
And please, if you use the word bashing, don't Expect to be taken seriously by anyone with more than 3.1415927 brain cells.
It's just not going to happen.
Bashing is one of these words that shoots up like a flare that says, I can't think, so I'm going to sneeze syllables out of my nose, wipe it on your screen, and assume I've won.
Yay!
So, I just wanted to point that out.
You were ranting too much.
You need to let the other guy talk more too.
Oh yes, these are all the people who say, Steph, don't interrupt your listeners.
Let them talk.
Hey, if the listeners are talking, I'm happy to listen.
But I'm sort of a broadcaster, and if you're not a broadcaster...
I mean, I started doing campus radio when I was 20, and I've done a lot of stuff in between.
I've been doing this full-time for over seven years, and it's the biggest and most popular, most challenging philosophy show the world has ever seen.
I might know a little bit about what I'm doing.
You could ask, why do you do this?
But people always give me advice, and it's basically like you're watching an expert surgeon from the gallery and saying, cut left, cut deeper!
No, left, right, up!
Ah, more suction!
I watched The Grey's Anatomy once!
And there's a reason why we soundproof the gallery when we're trying to think, because, you know, all these idiots are pressing their clown noses up against the glass and yelling at people trying to get some thought done and not knowing how ridiculous they're being.
So if people want to talk, I'm happy to let them talk.
But the show is not a listener show with a few comments from me.
It's people asking questions and me answering them.
And in general, the questions are shorter than the answers.
So if people have a lot to say, I will be happy to listen.
I do have to interrupt at some point because people are tuning in to hear me, in general, not the listeners.
Although I'm certainly happy to have the listeners talk and have had many conversations like that.
But where the topic is really important and somebody needs to listen, then I will do more talking.
I'm actually an anti-feminist, but Steph, you're getting a bit ridiculous with how you're painting women.
Kind of an unfortunate phrase, since one of the quotes from the estrogen-based parasites show was, women, stop painting yourself up like sex clowns in order to extract money out of penises.
Yes, there are biological realities.
Non-self-examined, culture-conforming women act in lockstep with...
But you're saying women want to paint their fingernails as retarded, and describing women as being bought is a way of choosing words that hints at your view on the subject being reactionary and misanthropic, not even misogynistic.
I mean, I basically, I have a shortcut on my keyboard, which I basically say, you do realize you're not making an argument, right?
I mean, just shooting up the adjective can and firing at it and hoping that it lands on some button called self-attack in me, those buttons don't exist.
So, Stefan, you do oversimplify how inexpensive it is to live and how easy it is to get a job.
You are a little isolated by your success in life and a little unaware of how difficult life is for some people.
Just my opinion.
I grew up absolutely dirt broke poor.
I mean, I've said this before in the show, so I had, you know, I kicked my mom out when I was 15.
I've been my own since then.
I've mostly paid my way through school and college and graduate school.
I've been working since I was 10 years old, fairly full-time, sorry, fairly part-time, fairly consistent.
There's never been a time really where I haven't had a job because I really needed the money.
And we had no car, no color television, no cable.
Of course, there was no internet back then.
And we faced eviction notices all the time.
I went hungry a lot when I was a kid.
And when I was a student, as I talked about in the show, I lived in like $600 a month.
So the idea that I don't know anything about how to get ahead in life.
The funny thing is, too, as somebody who made it out of poverty, it may be worthwhile to listen to what I'm saying.
Rather than just tell me that I'm out of touch.
This is not philosophy.
This is sexist bigotry, plain and simple.
Have lost all faith in Stefan Molyneux because of this terrible video.
I think that's wonderful.
The fact that a philosophy show is helping you to lose faith is wonderful.
Faith is pretending to know things you don't know.
And so the fact that you would lose faith in someone or anyone because of a philosophy show is fantastic.
That's great.
Is there not a level of respect for parents anymore?
Who the fuck are you?
Ah, that must be Roger Daltrey.
Is there not a level of respect for parents anymore?
Who the fuck are you?
You know what's great about that?
I am a parent.
So I'm afraid that you don't have enough respect for parents if that is your response.
Because you're telling me, who's a father, to go fuck himself.
And given that I'm happily married, don't really need to do that anymore.
This is Van Molyneux for...
Free Domain Radio, thank you so much if you'd like to help out the show.
Always massively appreciated.
We are upgrading, going to show off the new studio soon, and all of that costs shekels.
And so if you could, scrapes and denaro together, fdurl.com forward slash donate.
Come on, if you're watching the show so you're listening, you don't need me to tell you.
▲
Export Selection