Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 28, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:27:11

2983 The Truth About Male Privilege

Male Privilege is a term for social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are made available to men solely on the basis of their sex. Feminists tend to believe that they are living under patriarchy - where men hold the power and women are unfairly exploited. Stefan Molyneux looks at the statistics and data in an attempt to answer the question - what is The Truth About Male Privilege? | Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/male-privilege

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	I hope you're doing well.
	So we wanted to put a presentation together about male privilege, something that you have probably heard about, patriarchy and dominance of men in society.
	And like all good philosophy shows, we look at the data rather than the potential sophistry.
	And what we dug up was really quite astounding, and I hope that you will cast aside your preconceptions and join me on a journey of discovery into the wonderful world of male privilege.
	Without further ado, this is The Truth About Male Privilege.
	So let's start with life expectancy.
	How long do men live?
	A lot of these...
	Statistics and this data is US-specific.
	The sources, of course, as always, are in the description bar below.
	So men live for 76.4 years on average.
	Women live for 81.2 years on average.
	Now, men pay the majority of Social Security taxes, which are retirement benefit taxes for those outside the US. But are outlived by almost five years by women.
	But of course the government makes no fair adjustment as to how these funds are distributed.
	This means that on average women can receive almost five years extra of Social Security benefits having paid much less into the system.
	This does not speak to me of male privilege.
	This would speak to me of female privilege.
	But let's continue with the data.
	So Social Security recipients by age and gender.
	So the difference in life expectancy at 65 years of age between males and females is only 2.6 years.
	In other words, if you make it to 65, then you are more likely to have a closer mortality ratio if you're a man.
	So 2.6 additional years of benefits for women among those who make it to 65 years of age.
	So again, women are paying much less on average into the Social Security or retirement system, but are receiving much greater benefits.
	Of all adults receiving monthly Social Security benefits, 45% were men and 55% Were women.
	80% of the men and 63% of the women received retired worker benefits.
	14% of women received benefits as survivors, widowers or parents.
	And 8% received benefits as spouses of retired and disabled workers, compared to only 0.5% of men in both categories.
	So half a percentage of men receiving benefits as survivors or spouses of retired and disabled workers versus 14% and 8% of women.
	Is this male privilege?
	Hmm.
	Well, of course, we live in a pretty untrammeled democratic system throughout the West, which is somewhat akin to mob rule, but with a few more lineups than usual.
	Women, of course, vote much more than men do, so it would be strange if there was male privilege in a democratic system where women make up the bulk of the voting population.
	So let's look at the contributions versus the benefits received.
	So women contribute 40.7% of retirement benefits throughout their working life.
	Men contribute almost 60% of the retirement benefits, so almost 20% difference.
	The benefits received, of course, is almost on parity, 48.7% versus 51.3% for men.
	So men contribute $126.6 billion.
	To the Social Security or retirement system, 18.6% more per year than women.
	Men only receive 2.6% more per year than women in benefits.
	So they pay almost 20% but receive a little more than 2.5% of benefits.
	Again, this does not speak to outright male privilege.
	Now, in the realm of healthcare, one of the things that is true throughout the lives of the genders is that women consume far more medical resources than men due to, obviously, what are for most men fairly incoherent plumbing schematics, And childbirth, childcare, and so on.
	So there are lots of things that are going on for women.
	A man, basically, if you find a piece of you on the floor, if you can jam it or screw it or twist it or pop it back in, you will generally...
	Walk it off.
	That's generally no matter when I was a kid, no matter what happened, I was told to walk it off because I guess movement has magical healing powers for the body.
	So as far as contributions to Medicare, and Medicare is health care for those who can't pay for it themselves in the United States, comparing Medicare contributions, men were taxed an average of almost $1,500 each compared to only $933 each for women.
	This is annually.
	So, men are taxed almost 60% more than women, but women receive 26.4% more spending in healthcare, right?
	So, this is one of these fundamental imbalances.
	Now, of course, if there was male privilege, then we should see this women being forced to contribute massive amounts of money and men getting the bulk of the healthcare and so on.
	But men contribute 60% more almost in taxes for Medicare, but 26.4% more is spent on women than on men.
	Now, this has been a voting issue in most of the Western countries for many, many years.
	That women want to slough off the cost of their extra health care requirements on the general population.
	Not all women, but most people have a respond to incentives, rent-seeking, try and find a way to use the political system for personal financial or legal advantage.
	Now, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, does not allow discrimination between genders.
	In other words, just because women consume many more health care resources does not mean that insurance companies are allowed to, quote, Against them, which is a giant subsidy.
	Obamacare is basically a giant subsidy of the healthy to the unhealthy, and in particular for men to women, whether healthy or not.
	We've got the truth about Obamacare on this channel if you want to look out into more about that.
	So again, this does not speak to massive male privilege.
	Chronically homeless people, three quarters of them in America are men, and only 25% of them are women.
	Again, if there was male privilege, we would not expect to see these kinds of numbers.
	Homicides in the United States.
	In 2011, the murder rate for males was 7.4 homicides per 100,000 males, compared to two homicides per 100,000 females.
	Now, I understand a lot of the men are being shot by other men, but imagine if these statistics were reversed.
	In other words, almost 80% of homicide victims were women, and only 20% of them were men.
	There would be a national call to action, and there would be many meetings of pear-shaped people in comfortable shoes.
	What about American combat deaths and casualties?
	Again, if there was male privilege, shouldn't we be seeing men comfortably puffing on cigars at the head office while women did frontline duties?
	Well, women make up almost 15% of all active duty US military personnel, but are currently excluded by the Pentagon from frontline combat duty.
	That is supposed to change in 2016, after the election, as you can imagine.
	But even mentally challenged and physically disabled men are required to register for the draft, but women are not.
	And although women make up almost 15% of active duty U.S. military personnel, 97% of the combat deaths and casualties since the Gulf War have fallen to men.
	And only 3% of combat deaths and casualties are injured.
	And that is quite different from the video games that I've played, where there seem to be a lot of tough women with lots of weapons.
	This is not how it works.
	So where is the male privilege here?
	You would assume that privilege means getting other people to shoulder your legitimate burdens, but here 97% of the deaths are men and casualties.
	Suicides.
	Again, this is similar to the ratio for homicides.
	79% of suicides are men.
	21% are women.
	And this is a tragic statistic.
	30,307 male suicide deaths were reported in 2010.
	83 men kill themselves every day.
	Three and a half men kill themselves every hour.
	So three and a half men are going to kill themselves probably during the course of this presentation.
	In other words, every 16 minutes and 36 seconds a man commits suicide.
	Try setting your smartphone to that reminder and you will get a vivid sense of just how tragic this is.
	And again, if these statistics were reversed, what would happen?
	Where's the male privilege in the criminal justice system?
	Emphasis on criminal.
	So studies have repeatedly found, quote, dramatic and unexplained gender gaps in federal criminal cases.
	Conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables, men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do.
	Right?
	Same district court, same offense, same criminal history, same offense level.
	Men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do.
	Boy, if that's privilege, I think we could scale that back just a little bit.
	Women are also significantly likely to avoid charges and convictions and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
	There are large unexplained gaps across the sentence distribution and across a wide variety of specifications, subsamples, and estimation strategies.
	Not that unexplained.
	I mean, just a little bit of evolutionary biology, of course.
	Women have rare eggs.
	Men have plentiful sperm, which is why the ethic throughout most of human history has been women and children first into the lifeboats, because male disposability from a biological standpoint is well established, again, by the plentiful sperm and the rare eggs, and by the tiny investment a man makes in the reproductive act of And the massive lengthy requirement of parental investment to raise a child to maturity,
	which in the modern age, given that the brain finally matures a mere quarter century after birth, putting us in slow elephant category, the massive maternal investment as opposed to the tiny male investment means that men are relatively disposable.
	And this you can see occurring throughout history.
	History and across time, not so much with the privilege.
	Again, we'll continue to make the case.
	Actual execution, death penalty, executions by gender in the U.S. It's pretty rare for women to be executed.
	Only 571 documented instances as of December 31, 2011, beginning with the first in 1632.
	These executions constitute about 2.9% of the total confirmed executions in the U.S. since 1608, yet women commit 10% of all murders.
	Some people say that it's a little higher than 10% because women will often use poison or other undetectable or at least Not detectable prior to modern forensics for murder and so on.
	Only 12 female offenders have been executed since 1976.
	Where's the privilege here?
	Death penalty falls 97.1% on men and 2.9% on women, despite the fact that women commit 10% or at least a court for 10% of all murders.
	So not seeing a lot of privilege there either.
	Education is a huge topic, and we'll touch on primary school education later in the presentation.
	Let's look at the college enrollment.
	So, in the past, there were twice as many men as women in college.
	Was this due to sexism?
	No!
	In general, it was not a very intelligent and accomplished woman named Phyllis Schlafly, who's been on my show twice.
	It speaks to that, that she was able to achieve whatever she wanted as far as getting educated and getting a law degree and all that sort of stuff.
	It's just that prior to the invention of labor-saving devices, when people had a lot of kids, you didn't really have a lot of time to pursue other things, when you had to wash by hand and clean by hand and do dishes by hand and so on.
	And so the fact that as soon as labor-saving devices plus the pill hit the marketplace, women began to move into higher education without a huge amount of resistance from men.
	I mean, there weren't men protesting out front of colleges that started accepting more women.
	They were like, ah, go for it if you want.
	So in the late 70s, we saw a crossover.
	You can see here from the graph.
	And sorry if you're just in the audio.
	This might be one of these presentations that you should dip into the video for.
	A lot of graphs.
	But as you can see...
	There was, you know, 56-57% males and 45% females in 1970, crossed over in the late 70s, and now college enrollment as of 2015, 57.7% females.
	Males and 42.3% are females.
	And have you heard a lot of feminists talking about the inequality?
	Because feminists always say that they want equality.
	Have you heard a lot of feminists complaining that there aren't enough men in college?
	Well, no.
	Of course not.
	It's female advancement, not gender equality.
	That is the driving force for most of those, I guess you could say, philosophies if you were feeling generous.
	In 2003, there were 1.35 females for every male who graduated from a four-year college and 1.3 females for every male undergraduate.
	Men make up only 44% of college applicants.
	Colleges can't accept students who don't apply.
	Why are so few men applying?
	So, studies have repeatedly shown that while boys perform better than their female peers on standardized tests, they get lower grades from their teachers, a disparity which has been attributed to classroom behavior.
	So, basically, and we'll get into more of this later, boys are generally perceived in the government educational system as defective girls.
	In other words, the standard of good behavior is girls and boys are not meeting that standard.
	So, when an almost exclusively female elementary school teacher System evaluates boys.
	It marks them down for misbehavior.
	In other words, misbehavior means not sitting placidly like the girls, but being more rambunctious and restless and so on.
	And so they grade boys down and grade girls relatively up.
	Even though the boys are actually performing better than the girls on standardized tests, they're getting lower marks in the classroom.
	And it's hard to explain how outrageous this really is because it's...
	It's so common.
	It's like trying to remind you that you're breathing air 24 hours a day.
	You're just likely to get distracted and focus on other things.
	Squirrel!
	But let me sort of give you an analogy that hopefully will make sense.
	So imagine if all white male teachers were routinely giving 15% lower marks To black female students, right?
	To black girls who were in their classes.
	White male teachers were routinely giving 15% lower marks to black girls in their class, even though the black girls in their class actually did significantly better than the whites.
	This would be evidence of huge, massive systemic racism.
	And it would be something that would be outrageous.
	And people would go mental.
	And that would be horrendous.
	And...
	It doesn't show up for boys.
	Christina Hoff Summers has written a great book called The War Against Boys, which is worth checking out here, but it doesn't show up on us.
	Male disposability is foundational to all civilizations and all cultures throughout history.
	The idea of reforming society...
	To further and better serve boys and men is incomprehensible to us.
	And this is why the myth of male privilege, or what is called male privilege, and we'll make this case as we go forward, I'll just give you a teaser here.
	Male privilege fundamentally is the infliction of guilt for the extraction of resources.
	You know, similar to saying, well, you're born with original sin, so pay us.
	To take away this imaginary curse and then you'll be better.
	You're born with this imaginary sin as a male and as a white male.
	You're born with this imaginary sin called privilege and we must tax you and take resources from you to create equality.
	And so it is really in the form of religion rather than any rational analysis.
	Which is why it's so impervious to data.
	Not for you, I hope, because I hope that we at this channel have the maturity to follow the data no matter where it goes.
	Men are more likely to drop out of high school than women in nearly all states in the US. Male students are also less likely to take advanced placement courses and exams, which have long been used to earn college credit hours before enrolling in college.
	When we were doing this presentation, one of the researchers put AP courses, and I was like, what are AP courses, guys?
	I was educated in England and Canada.
	And he's like, oh, everyone's going to know what AP means.
	It's like, you US-centric, don't confirm all these stereotypes.
	So we typed it out.
	The National Longitudinal Study of Youth revealed that student loans were likely to make men feel discouraged about their debt levels $2,000 sooner than women and to drop out of school even when accounting for other factors.
	This could be due to men's slightly better achievements in the realm of mathematics and probability we shall see.
	STEM fields, so science, technology, engineering, and these mathematical fields, so science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
	I was getting confused with medical for some reason.
	A recent study Not Wendy O. Williams, Wendy M. Williams and Dr.
	Stephen J. Cece examined these claims about male bias within the STEM field.
	So very few women go into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
	In general, they go into the softer, quote, sciences.
	And Christina Hoffsummer has recently got in trouble because there is this kind of hysterical response to a lot of information that goes counter to people's prejudices in higher education.
	We've lost some of the robustness of, I disagree with what you say, but we'll defend to death your right to say it.
	She said, when a woman said, well, what about this gender disparity in income?
	And she said, well, if you're really concerned about gender disparity, why don't you go into science, technology, engineering, or mathematics where you're likely to make more money?
	And then you won't complain as much about that.
	So the study said, Contrary to prevailing assumptions,
	men and women faculty members from all four of the STEM fields preferred female applicants two to one over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles, single, married, divorced, with the exception of male economists who showed no gender preference.
	Okay, this is really important to understand because people say the only reason that women are not in the STEM fields is a sexism, but here we see that people are preferring Female applicants 2 to 1 over males.
	Now, there have been these studies where people send out ethnically identifiable names with the same qualifications as whites or others, and there can be favoritism.
	This is considered to be really bad.
	So imagine if there was black applicants and white applicants, and in the STEM fields, people preferred the white applicants 2 to 1 over the black applicants.
	Everybody would go insane.
	But this doesn't even show up.
	But what does show up is this idea that there's just this rampant sexism.
	Now, the degree to which male and female brains have evolutionarily developed with certain differences, neither good nor bad, just evolutionarily adaptable, is highly debated.
	But what is known is that when women achieve more economic freedom, they tend to gravitate towards more people-friendly occupations.
	In other words, they leave technology fields and go into more helping and person-to-person occupations and nursing psychology and teaching and so on.
	There does seem to be a preference in a state of freedom for women to go into more face-to-face and for men to go more into technology.
	And that has some effect on earning potential and so on.
	So, um...
	So if women's brains are slightly different or if women's preferences are slightly different, then that would explain some of this stuff.
	But the idea that we would explore that is incomprehensible because that doesn't actually get resources out of men, right?
	I mean, if men can be accused of sexism and then accept that, then men will provide resources to remediate the sin of sexism.
	if there are biological differences, then men don't get to be guilty and therefore men won't give up resources, right?
	Any more than basketball teams will pay for short people who aren't accepted, will give them money, right?
	Because they'll just say, well, sorry, you're not tall enough or you're just not good enough at basketball, so you can't do it.
	So guilt is essential.
	Guilt is a mindable resource.
	If you want to look at the natural resources, oh, yeah, there's energy, there's oil, there's wind power, there's water power and so on.
	But certainly in a modern society, Post-free market democracy, the most mindable resource in the world is guilt.
	And this has been, of course, the people who used to do it in the religious context have now moved into the politically correct context.
	And when you can provoke a guilt in people, you can get them to give you resources to buy, release from that guilt.
	Of course, like almost all shakedowns, it only escalates.
	No matter how much you pay off people to make you feel less guilty, they will never give up their hold on your guilt.
	Let's just say twin orbs of hearts and minds.
	So comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not.
	Our findings say the research is supported by real-world academic hiring data suggests advantages for women launching academic science careers.
	So it is not, according to the data, because of any sexism...
	In fact, the only sexism that can be discovered in hiring practices and documented in hiring practices in the STEM fields is rampant, massive two-to-one sexism preferring females to males.
	So here's the hirability of identically qualified candidates with matching lifestyles by a field.
	So the faculty voters for who would get hired, you can see male faculty voters and female applicants, male applicants and female applicants.
	I'm not going to, you can pause this if you want and look at it in more detail.
	I don't want to get into this into too much detail because a lot of people are listening to this just in audio.
	And so you can pause this and have a look at it.
	But as you can see, there's massive preferences for women in the STEM field employment.
	Domestic violence, of course, there is a huge tragedy in domestic violence of any kind.
	The greatest tragedy is the degree to which female initiation of domestic violence is obscured and hidden and buried.
	And this, of course, is horrendous.
	If there was genuine male privilege, then male violence in the household would be ignored and diminished, and no resources would be made available to women who were the victims, and all the resources would go to men.
	This is not the reality.
	So, despite oft-repeated allegations that the vast majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women, it is simply not true.
	This is one of these...
	You have to just reorient your brain.
	You know, I feel so incredibly frustrated and angry and robbed at the degree of propaganda I was force-fed throughout my entire life.
	When you start to look for the underlying data, I feel like we're living in this weird fascist matrix of misinformation and counter-information.
	It's incredibly frustrating.
	It's like being an astronomer in the 13th century, believing that the Earth is the center of the solar system.
	You really just have to reorient yourself.
	Although that, to some degree, may...
	Be the result of religious propaganda, but the earth doesn't move, saith the Bible.
	But it's just, it's incredibly frustrating.
	I have to feel like I'm constantly going through these thick, gooey, ugly spiderwebs of propaganda to get to any kind of basic facts.
	And domestic violence is always portrayed as men beating up poor, helpless victims of women, never had any choice to be there, and he was so nice, and then he suddenly turned mean, and so on.
	Dr.
	Martin S. Fiebert.
	Has compiled a collection of 286 scholarly investigations, 221 empirical studies, and 65 reviews and or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive or more aggressive than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.
	I'm going to say this again without all the numbers.
	That is about as comprehensive a meta-analysis as you could conceivably come up with.
	Women are as physically aggressive or more aggressive than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.
	And if there was male privilege, we would know that!
	And everything else would be buried, like men's attacks on women would be buried, and all we know is this, but the reality is quite the opposite is true.
	Male aggression against females is constantly portrayed as pretty much the whole problem, and you can't find this data, you can't find this, this should be common knowledge, it's so well established, but where's the male privilege?
	That points this out.
	So, There's a biased, and not just a name only, Office of Violence Against Women.
	Boy, talk about stacking the deck.
	Office of Violence Against Women quotes sources which say 34% of domestic violence is against men, right?
	So even though the Office of Violence Against Women, they've shaved it down by 16 percentage points, 34% of domestic violence is against men.
	And of course, is there an Office of Violence Against Men?
	You could say foreign policy.
	We've got a video presentation to strongly, strongly urge you.
	You need to know this stuff.
	You need to know this stuff to be safe, to be aware, to understand the world as it is.
	You can't sail out of sight of land if all of your compasses are backwards.
	And when we embark on relationships, when we embark on family building, we need to know the facts.
	And evaluate the risks, which we'll get to in particular with divorce in a moment.
	So we've got a presentation called The Truth About Domestic Violence to strongly recommend.
	We'll put a link to that below.
	You should really take time.
	It can save you half your life and more than half your money.
	So women will just be as generous as possible and say, women initiate violence in domestic relationships as often as men and are as violent as men.
	Can men get help?
	Remember?
	Men have all this privilege, so we should have massive resources and great favoritism in the legal system and in the criminal system and in the social services system.
	All of these resources should be available to men because privilege, remember?
	So Dr.
	Denise Hines, a research assistant psychology professor at Clark University, what does she have to say about it?
	She details her findings on what happens when abused men call domestic violence hotlines or shelters seeking help.
	About a third of all domestic violence injuries are suffered by men that are reported.
	Remember, men's stoicism and male disposability is an internalized state.
	It's not something that's just inflicted.
	It must be internalized to be efficient.
	Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that the domestic violence hotlines only help women.
	In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterer's programs.
	In other words, I'm being beaten up by my wife.
	Can you help me?
	We are going to give you the number to help you stop beating up your wife.
	Again, this is so absolutely astonishing to take an extreme example.
	This is like a woman calling in, saying that she's being raped and being referred to a hotline that helps her stop raping other people.
	Should that happen, this would be astounding, incomprehensible.
	But men, it doesn't register with people because disposability.
	Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batter's program.
	So some of the men were directly referred to a batter's program And 25% were given a phone number that turned out to be a batterer's program.
	A little over a quarter of them were given reference to a local program that helped.
	Overall, only 8% of the men who called hotlines classified them as very helpful.
	69% found them to be not at all helpful.
	16% said the people at the hotline dismissed or made fun of them.
	I'm being beaten up by my wife.
	I'm terrified.
	She's got a frying pan.
	I need stitches.
	And 16% of the men who called domestic violence hotlines are told, say that they are being dismissed or being made fun of.
	You're being beaten up and you're referred to a program supposed to help people who initiate violence.
	Again, I hope that you're getting this...
	It's hard.
	I know it's really hard.
	I'm trying to really gently and positively but energetically penetrate the fog of propaganda that surrounds you like Saturn's rings and surrounded me, right?
	Again, this is all shocking information to me.
	Can men get help?
	This is a website from Western Australia, still up to my knowledge.
	This is the Department for Child Protection and Family Support.
	Domestic Violence Helplines.
	Remember, women initiate domestic violence as often as men do.
	Women's Domestic Violence Helpline The Women's Domestic Violence Helpline is a statewide 24-hour service.
	This service provides support and counseling for women experiencing family and domestic violence.
	This includes phone counseling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary, and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence.
	This service can refer women to a safe accommodation if required.
	So the Women's Domestic Violence Helpline is to help women who are being assaulted.
	Sounds good to me.
	Men's domestic violence helpline.
	The men's domestic violence helpline is a statewide 24-hour service.
	Fantastic.
	This service provides counseling to men who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive.
	See, this is male privilege.
	Not working.
	In fact, doing the reverse of working.
	So if you're being beaten up by your spouse and you're a woman, you get massive amounts of help.
	The only domestic violence helpline for men is, here's how to stop assaulting your partner.
	Astonishing.
	It says information and support is also available for men who have experienced family and domestic violence, but not relative to how much support is available to women.
	So again, where is the privilege?
	Violence Against Women Act in the U.S. And, of course, it's discriminatory in its title alone.
	I mean, can you imagine blacks and whites murdering each other with equal ratios and saying, well, there's a Violence Against Whites Act?
	That would be racist in its essence, right?
	States are encouraged to enact mandatory arrest policies relating to domestic violence.
	This means that when someone calls the police, alleging partner abuse and arrest must be made, even if the allegation appears to be false, even if the person recants, even if they say, oh, I made a mistake.
	These policies completely ignore the constitutional protection of probable cause.
	And the degree to which...
	Women in distress, short circuits, the legal protections that have been embedded in Western common law since at least the Magna Carta is astonishing.
	A woman in distress causes human rights for men in particular to simply evaporate.
	The predominant aggressor aspect of policies means that husbands who call the police on their violent wives are often arrested or threatened by police with arrest.
	And so there's a bias that if a man calls and says, my wife is beating me up, he risks being arrested or threatened by police with arrest.
	And by the way, over half the women who do get arrested aren't prosecuted because their cases are dismissed by either the prosecutors or the judge.
	So a man complains, his wife is beating him up, and again we go back to this privilege that women have in the legal system, It's called the Slang for Cat Pass, if you want to look it up.
	But they're just dismissed.
	Like, oh, you little old crying lady, how could you possibly beat up your husband?
	According to a study from the United Kingdom, police threatened 47% of male victims of intimate partner violence with arrest.
	Police outright ignored 35% of male victims and 21% were actually arrested instead of the female perpetrators.
	So you call up the cops.
	You say, my wife or my girlfriend is beating me up and the police threatened almost half of these victims with arrest and arrest over 20% of them.
	Instead of the female...
	I mean, imagine.
	Imagine again if the numbers were reversed.
	Women calling up...
	Saying, my husband is beating me up, my boyfriend is beating me up, and the police threaten to arrest almost half the women who are being beaten up, and then actually do arrest 20% of the women who call for help.
	Everybody would go mental.
	But, it happens to men all the time.
	Another study found that when abused men call the police to report domestic violence committed against them, they are three times more likely to be arrested than the wife that is abusing them.
	Man calls the cops!
	My wife's speeding me up.
	They're three times more likely to be arrested than the wife who is abusing them.
	Where the hell is the privilege in that?
	Here's another example of male privilege.
	The Violence Against Women Act also provides women with free legal counsel to pursue her allegations of abuse.
	But the men are on their own to find and pay for their lawyer or make do without one.
	This is the exact opposite.
	Of male privilege.
	Much more likely to be arrested if you call the cops because your wife or girlfriend is abusing you.
	And any woman who calls the cops gets free legal counsel, but the men have to pay for their own legal counsel.
	Again, it's shocking, and this is something that we would really notice were the situations to be reversed.
	I mean, we're really not just talking about an absence of male privilege.
	We're talking about rampant Rampant, staggering female privilege.
	Since women are rarely, if ever, prosecuted for making false statements of abuse, the Violence Against Women Act incentivizes women to make false charges in the case of divorce.
	This is horrendous stuff.
	Dr.
	Stephen Barskeville's book, Taken into Custody, The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage and the Family, describes how wives seeking child custody are instructed by attorneys to accuse the husband of abuse, which guarantees a rubber-stamped restraining order.
	Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse is required.
	Any allegations virtually ensure that the woman will receive child custody and the monetary support that goes along with it.
	It's a complicated topic, and we're going to do the truth about divorce to really help you understand the staggering danger and risk that you enter into by getting married in modern America in particular.
	But...
	There are arguments which say that if a lawyer, if a divorce lawyer, does not instruct the woman on her capacity to make unsubstantiated charges or allegations against the husband, any divorce lawyer which doesn't do that can actually be sued for malpractice.
	So the lawyers have to say that.
	If you accuse the husband of abuse, bang!
	Restraining order.
	He's out of the house.
	He can't see the kids.
	You get the kids automatically if that If it turns out that your allegation is false, you're not going to receive almost any negative repercussions.
	In other words, here we have allegations that result in one of the most catastrophic things that can happen to a man, which is being barred from his house and being barred from access to his children.
	No due process.
	No trial.
	No review.
	Bang!
	You get this restraining order.
	You can't see your kids.
	Your wife or ex-wife, soon to be, gets primary custody, which means that you're on the hook for up to 40% of your income for the next X number of years.
	This is not male privilege.
	This is rampant subsidies for male.
	Family-destroying, father-alienating potential for lies on the part of women.
	Again, this is not to say that sometimes the women are not fleeing abusive men.
	Of course they are.
	But where is the burden of proof?
	It has always been, you're innocent until proven guilty.
	Ah!
	Except in this situation, where the woman-in-peril gene kicks into men and everybody turns into a brother betrayer.
	Divorce.
	Who files for divorce?
	And again, I don't want to spend too much time on this.
	We've got another presentation coming up, but it's so relevant to this that we wanted to put a little bit on it.
	So men filed for divorce 34% of the time.
	Women filed for divorce 66% of the time.
	Up until the 1960s, you used to usually have to prove either infidelity or abuse in order to get out of your marriage.
	Reagan, in one of the things that he regretted most in his political career while governor of California, signed no-fault divorce.
	You just walk up and get out of being married.
	Even though you had said and legally signed a document set and were together forever and so on, You could just walk away from that at any time.
	Try doing that with your cell phone.
	But, you see, that's a cell phone, not just a man.
	So, from the study, these boots are made for walking.
	Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce, as in the case of leaving when they have received the benefit of educational investments such as advanced degrees.
	However, individuals may also file when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty.
	We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.
	What does all this mean for divorce reform and for predictions of future filing behavior?
	It suggests that as men and women's labor force becomes income becomes more nearly equal, the difference in filing rates should disappear and will likely be determined by custody alone.
	In other words, women file for divorce twice as often as men because women win in family court.
	And they have a wider range of mechanisms by which they can win, which puts tens of millions of men in America in the underground legal gulag of being controlled by arbitrary family courts.
	And we'll get into that more in a moment.
	Child custody.
	It goes to men 18% of the time and to women 82% of the time.
	The courts will not adhere to any previous contract regarding the custody of children.
	All divorcing or unmarried parents are subject to having their lives controlled by family court judges who rule depending on their own subjective opinion of what's in, quote, the best interests of the child.
	And we did a video presentation called The Truth About Single Moms.
	Generally, by far, what is in the best interest of the child is for the parents to stay together.
	That's number one.
	If the best interest of the child drove family court, the family court would say, guys, I've got to operate in the best interest of the child.
	Figure it out.
	Work it out.
	Go to counseling.
	Do whatever is necessary.
	But for God's sake, don't get divorced.
	Because that is so destructive for children.
	The destruction of divorce on children lasts for the rest of their lives, statistically.
	Decades afterwards, there's still bitterness and insecurity and dysfunction.
	So stay together.
	And if you can stay together, the second best option in the best interest of the child is equal time between parents.
	But women get custody despite staying together best for the child, equal custody, but second best for the child.
	Well, women get custody in 82% of cases.
	Now, some of the men get custody because the women don't even show up.
	It's uncontested, right?
	So it's not like men are winning 18% of the ones that are contested.
	Some significant proportion of those are uncontested.
	The woman doesn't even show up.
	The best interest of the child is something that can't be defined objectively.
	You've got a whole army of experts who are trying to figure this stuff out.
	It can't really work.
	It is just a recipe for arbitrary totalitarian edicts.
	The Nebraska Administrative Office of the Courts published a remarkable landmark study on child custody awards between 2002 to 2012.
	It was revealed that mothers were awarded sole or primary custody in 72% of cases compared to just 14% for fathers.
	Feminists rightly point out that some custody decisions are made without family court involvement.
	But so what?
	The fact that there is a family court where the man is almost guaranteed to lose and often has to pay for his wife or ex-wife's legal fees which go $15,000 to $20,000 to pretty much it seems like infinity has a huge effect.
	I mean, if someone has a hitman outside the room, that's going to have a huge effect on my negotiations inside the room.
	Female-friendly bias of the family court systems.
	Fathers are generally incentivized to avoid custody, even if it doesn't go to court.
	Let's look at the data of children living with their mother only in the United States.
	It went from 8% in 1968 to 24%.
	In 2012, a three times, 300% increase in just over 50 years.
	And 60%, according to some data, 60% of all the child abuse in the country is committed by single mothers.
	So that's not good.
	Child support payments.
	The amount due to fathers, $5,527.
	Mothers, $6,115.
	The amount received, 3,015 fathers, 3,862 mothers.
	Custodial mothers are awarded child support in 53.4% of cases compared to only 28.8% for custodial fathers.
	So this is the average child support payments per year.
	So, custodial mothers are more likely to receive full or partial child support payments compared to custodial fathers.
	32% of custodial fathers receive none of the money owed to them compared to 25% of custodial mothers.
	This is, again, where is the male privilege?
	You've heard of deadbeat dads, the term that was basically invented by feminists who badmouth dads.
	And, of course, a lot of the dads don't pay child support for two basic reasons.
	Number one, paternity tests have indicated that the child is not theirs.
	And 30% of the 300,000 or so paternity tests that are run in America each year result in the father not being the actual father of the child.
	In other words, the woman has...
	Intentionally or otherwise deceived the man about paternity and This is truly astounding so a lot of men are not paying child support because the children aren't in fact theirs and A lot of the men aren't paying child support because they never get to see their kids The fathers who get to see their kids are far more likely to pay child support so 7% more men,
	actually no, more than 7%, 25% of custodial moms don't receive any of the money owed to them.
	32% of custodial fathers don't receive any of the money owed to them.
	So women don't pay, proportionately, more than men don't pay for child support.
	But have you ever heard the term deadbeat moms?
	Of course not!
	Researcher Terry Brennan has estimated that women behind in child support payments are incarcerated at approximately one-eighth of the rate of men.
	And their debtors prisons were abolished in the 19th century as inhumane and brutal.
	However, feminists have pushed for, and governments have pushed for, in order to recover welfare payments from men, have pushed for the incarceration of men for child support deaths.
	And this is the only debtors' prison that remains in the civilized world, and it generally applies almost exclusively to men for non-payment of child support.
	And some of it, of course, is not by choice.
	Child support payments, we'll get into that in a sec.
	Custodial fathers and employment.
	So the custodial fathers are employed, as you can see here, from 1993 to 2011.
	The vast majority of them...
	are employed full-time a few of them work part-time and you know ten or so percent work I don't work at all so this is custodial fathers right men who've got sole custody or primary custody of children custodial moms well you know 24 25 28 percent of them don't work far few of them work full-time a lot of them work part-time so again where's the male privilege here at least the situation should be reversed if there's male privilege Ah, women are paid 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.
	Of course, you've probably heard this statement in one form or another.
	And this is supposed to be all about the male privilege.
	In examining the information collected by the 2009 United States Current Population Survey conducted for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, researchers found that in the total sample, women on average earned $36,278 a year, compared to $47,127 for men, 23% gap.
	The figure was essentially unchanged from 2007 to 2008.
	So this 23% gap is calculated by averaging the annual earnings of all men and comparing that number to the average annual earnings of all women.
	No additional variables are controlled for.
	This is a forehead slap, a face palm that, if all men did it simultaneously, would probably shift the orbit of the entire planet.
	So why would they not control for variables, such as amount of time in the workplace, education, content of the education, whether you have children, whether you took time off for having kids and so on?
	Why would this be the one place where you would not control for the variables?
	Well, where's the propaganda value of truth?
	12% of men and 25% of women work part-time jobs, which are 1 to 34 hours.
	22% of men work overtime compared to 11% of women.
	Hmm, could that have an effect on earnings?
	Well, if it didn't, then nobody would work overtime and everyone would work part-time jobs.
	In the United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employees to be paid 1.5 times their regular rate if they work over 40 hours a week, except in management.
	Given that more men work overtime, this is not insignificant in terms of the pay gap.
	I read a study that said male doctors work on average 500 hours a year more than female doctors.
	Weekly earnings by marital status.
	So married women...
	Make $708 a week.
	Married men make $936 a week.
	Never married, women make $577 a week versus $608 for men.
	Women are more likely to work part-time.
	Men are more likely to work overtime.
	So people who work overtime earn five times more than those who work part-time.
	Women generally occupy lower-paying fields.
	Women who have never been married earn approximately 5% less than their male counterparts.
	Marital status accounts for about 78% of the pay gap.
	And of course, never married doesn't mean...
	Never had kids, right?
	I mean, if you have kids, the World Health Organization recommends that you breastfeed your children for at least six months.
	It is essential for their IQ development, for healthy development, for their immune system.
	In particular, it seems to counter-effect airborne pollution problems.
	And so you're supposed to breastfeed for six months.
	Breastfeeding, never done it, been around it.
	But really committing to your job is not particularly compatible, right?
	So you can be a really great worker, or you can be a really great mother, but you can't be both.
	You can't be in two places at the same time.
	I mean, yes, you can.
	I had a woman, when I was doing the Peter Schiff radio show, call in and say, oh yeah, no, I worked so many, 80 hours a week or whatever with my baby's But it's okay because I pumped my breast milk in airport toilets into a tube and into a bucket and God knows what.
	And yeah, you can, but boy, that's kind of a mess.
	So, I mean, I've been a stay-at-home dad for over six years working on this show whenever I can.
	And I used to write to all these books.
	And since my daughter has been born, I really haven't written any books because that takes a lot of time and energy.
	So...
	I have cut back on the amount of work that I can do in order to be a good father.
	As far as my boobs go, I'm all taps and no plumbing.
	There's no milk flowing.
	I mean, the fact that it's not men's fault that women should breastfeed their kids.
	And it's really sad how few women do.
	In the UK, about 1 in 100 women breastfeed their babies for six months as recommended by the World Health Organization.
	So it's not really the fault of men that women...
	Provide milk to babies.
	I'm sure that some men feel guilty about it, but I was not in the blueprint and design committee for this and so on.
	Otherwise, I definitely would have voted to have testicles on the inside.
	Ooh, soccer.
	It hurts.
	It hurts.
	Alright.
	Workplace deaths in the United States.
	Here's male privilege not working again.
	Boy, male privilege seems to be this giant laser on the lives of men.
	93% of workplace deaths in the United States are men.
	7% of these workplace deaths are women.
	So, do men get thanks for that?
	Of course not.
	Now...
	I mean, can you imagine a woman having to pay for her rapist therapy for 18 years, right?
	A woman who's raped being forced to pay for her rapist, a male rapist therapy for years so that he'd be a better person.
	We would find this to be appalling.
	But courts in several states have forced male victims to pay child support to their rapists.
	And these are rapists who are statutory rapists.
	In other words, the women are older and the...
	Boys or men are basically boys or women who have just what's called forced to penetrate or envelopment.
	So underage male rape victims have been forced to pay support for children fathered during sex they did not consent to and legally could not consent to at the time.
	In other words, a statutory rape, which is, you know, one shade lighter than pedophilia, a boy who's been the victim of statutory rape has been forced to pay child support for the resulting offspring.
	In California, an appellate court upheld an order which forced a 15-year-old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.
	I can't even tell you just how...
	I'm still processing just how completely insane and evil this is.
	I mean...
	The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to provide consent to the sexual act, he was a willing participant and thus liable to pay support.
	So a 15-year-old boy who's raped by a woman is called a willing participant.
	Now, of course, a woman should not be blamed for being raped or being sexually assaulted because she's wearing provocative clothing.
	Of course, wear whatever you want.
	Men are still responsible for what they do.
	But a 15-year-old boy who is still 10 years away from intellectual maturity, he is still 10 years away from final brain maturity, he is raped, statutorily raped by a woman, but he's called a willing participant.
	Imagine this.
	An adult male statutorily rapes a 15-year-old girl, and she's called a willing participant and is forced to give birth to the baby, is denied any, and forced to raise the baby.
	People would go insane, and rightly so, but it's just men.
	Biologically, we're like dandelion fluffs.
	An adult male in Louisiana was forced to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex.
	The woman took the condom, extracted the sperm, and impregnated herself without his consent.
	You see, my body, my choice is about women and abortion and birth control.
	It's got nothing to do with men.
	My body, my choice.
	Right?
	A woman can steal your sperm.
	It's called sperm jacking.
	A woman can steal your sperm, impregnate herself, and then put you in baby jail for 18 years.
	Where the hell is the male privilege in that?
	The National Legal Research Group refers to this as a strict liability theory of sperm, i.e.
	a man is liable for his sperm no matter what the circumstances.
	So women have no choice in the matter apparently whatsoever, so bag it up and flush it yourself, that's all I can say.
	So one of the most shocking elements of child support in the US is the Bradley Amendment, which forbids child support debt from being retroactively reduced or forgiven.
	So payment must be enforced regardless of any change in income, military deployment, incarceration, hospitalization, ability to see children, or even if false paternity is conclusively established and recognized by the court.
	So even if it turns out that the woman lied to you, Told you, whether it's lied or not, but certainly did not inform you of the risk that it might not be yours because someone else had sex with another man at the same time or similar time.
	So even if the court accepts that it's not your child, even if you are in hospital, even if you're in jail, even if you're deployed militarily, nothing can change with regards to your child support.
	Corporations can declare bankruptcy, settle debts for sometimes pennies on the dollar.
	Even if a man can conclusively prove he is not the father of a child they're paying child support for, legally required to make all payments or they will be jailed.
	And this jailing occurs without a hearing.
	Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly wrote, Most of the reservists called up to serve in the Iraq war paid a big price, a significant reduction of their wages, as they are transferred from civilian to military jobs, separation from their loved ones, and of course, The risk of battle wounds or death.
	Regrettably on their return home, some divorced fathers faced either other grievous penalties, loss of their children, financial ruin, prosecution as a deadbeat dad, and even jail time for failing to pay child support.
	Dave Foley is a Canadian comedian whose income, like a lot of people in the media or in entertainment, goes up and down.
	And he got divorced and then his income changed, but nothing changed in terms of the payments he was required to make.
	Quote, this is Phyllis Schlafly again, Reservist child support orders are based upon their civilian wages, and when they are called up to active duty, that burden doesn't decrease.
	Few can get court modification before they leave.
	Modifications are seldom granted anyway, and even if a father applies for modification before being deployed, the debt continues to grow until the case is decided much later.
	Does this really support the troops?
	No.
	Although there are no official statistics, it's estimated that over 100,000 fathers are jailed each year for non-payment of child support.
	And you can end up with child support with no knowledge of what the hell is even going on.
	A 1996 federal welfare law requires mothers to name fathers.
	They don't have to prove it.
	No questions asked.
	Just name the father and you'll get welfare payments.
	So then what they do is they mail a paternity notice to the man's last known address.
	Of course, people move.
	And people get deployed overseas if they're in the military.
	You don't require it to be signed for.
	It's nothing like that.
	They're not served with this.
	It's just mailed to their last known address.
	And then, of course, if you don't contest it, if you don't even get it, it doesn't matter.
	You are then on the hook for child support.
	You may never have even had sex with this woman.
	You may never even have met this woman.
	In fact, the woman has an incentive to name you as the father if you were just some guy around who had a nice car.
	Because then she thinks, oh, this guy's got money.
	I can get child support from him.
	And she just puts him down as the father.
	And then something's mailed to his last known address.
	He gets it.
	He doesn't get it.
	He fights it.
	He doesn't fight it.
	Boom!
	He's the father.
	He's on the hook for child support.
	If he doesn't pay, he goes to jail.
	In what insane planet is this considered to be male privilege?
	And these Bradley Amendment stories are just astonishing.
	And this will really change her perception of deadbeat dads.
	Frank Hadley.
	Spent 19 months in jail for failure to pay child support despite the fact that he doesn't have any children.
	In 1986, his girlfriend became pregnant and gave birth to a son, which she claimed was his.
	The relationship ended shortly after the boy's birth and the couple never married and had never lived together.
	When the child turned two, the mother applied for public assistance.
	And under Georgia law, the state can go after the non-custodial parent to recoup any welfare assistance paid to the mother.
	For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state of Georgia until 2000, when a DNA test confirmed he was not the father of the child.
	And in England, you can't even get a DNA test or a paternity test without the permission of the mother.
	Because male privilege!
	This poor man returned to court where he was relieved of making any future reimbursement, yet he was ordered to pay the $16,398 which had accumulated before the ruling.
	He continued to make payments but was jailed for six months in 2006 after he became unemployed and was unable to pay.
	After his release, he continued making payments, even using his unemployment money after losing another job and becoming homeless.
	In 2008, he again became unable to make the payments and was jailed.
	But his case actually gained significant media attention.
	In 2009, Frank was released after 13 months in jail, and in an incredible rare occurrence, his back payments were waived.
	However, the state still did not restore his driver's license, which makes it pretty hard to get a job in most locales.
	Despite her infidelity and falsely naming Frank as the father, the former girlfriend faced no repercussions whatsoever.
	I guess he didn't check his back pocket for his giant gold Visa card of male privilege.
	State alimony laws, many of course which were passed in the 1960s and 1970s, were originally designed to help non-working or lesser-earning spouses after divorce.
	Many states allow for recipients to receive payments for life.
	In California, you divorce after 10 years, you've got to pay your wife for life.
	And also, in many places, if you get married again, your new spouse's income can be used as foundation for how you can pay your alimony and child support.
	Low is your sexual market value just a tad.
	So here you can see from 93, 8.4 billion to 2012, 11.2 billion dollars.
	Big driving factor.
	Alimony payments per year.
	Adjusted for inflation.
	Alimony payments per person.
	1993, 13,148 has gone to 17,541 dollars.
	The money compensates some spouses who have sacrificed careers for families and is particularly vital to low- and middle-income women.
	Detractors have long called the laws unfair in an age where many women work, with people making payments for years that their former spouses don't really need.
	Where is the focus on equality?
	Alimony payments by gender.
	Right, so men receive 6% of alimony payments, women receive 94%.
	Now there's a wage gap.
	361,000 women and 23,000 men received alimony payments in 2012.
	So, $11.2 billion in alimony payments for 2012.
	Women received $10.5 billion for that year.
	See, women complain that men don't do half the work in the household and that men don't do half the work in raising children.
	So if feminists and women are often complaining that men don't do half the work, then why isn't split custody how it works with kids?
	Because then the man has to do half the work.
	Ah, well, you see, women don't mind doing all the work if they're compensated for it in that way.
	So rape culture.
	We've got the truth about rape culture, which I hope that you will check out as well.
	A study by the CDC found that in the 12 months prior to administering a survey, 1,270,000 females were raped, and 1,267,000 males were made to penetrate, raped.
	1 in 21 men were made to penetrate another person during their lifetime.
	About 80% of them reported a female perpetrator.
	And, I mean, just biologically, a man can get an erection under terror, under stress, under a wide variety of negative stimuli can produce an erection in a man.
	This is the first large study to estimate male victims of rape.
	It did so unintentionally.
	A large percentage of men think they can't be raped by a woman.
	The widespread belief that an erection is a sign of consent is yet another example of how male rape is enabled and minimized by society.
	Females can have lubrication in their vaginas during rape.
	That's not a sign of consent.
	A man's erection is not a sign of consent.
	A 2010 analysis of the Bureau of Justice Statistics data found that 46% of male rape and sexual assault victims reported a female perpetrator.
	Up until 2013, the FBI defined rape as the common knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.
	This definition was adopted in 1927.
	So, pretty much for as long as the United States has had countrywide statistics on reported rape, men have been excluded from those numbers.
	You can't find the data.
	We've got the truth about rape culture again.
	We'll link to it below.
	So, let's go right back to the beginning.
	I've often thought, with some success in some, I've often thought, why am I open to these kinds of ideas?
	I'm shocked by them.
	I'm probably as surprised as you are.
	But why am I open?
	Well, most of us, these days, grow up in a matriarchy.
	Reminds the old Fight Club.
	We're a generation of men raised by women.
	I'm not sure another woman is going to solve our problem.
	We're raised by single moms.
	And we are put in daycares where like 98% of the workers or 97% of the workers are female.
	I myself actually worked in a daycare for years when I was a teenager.
	And yeah, it was a matriarchy.
	And so we're raised by single moms.
	We're put into daycares.
	Where women are in charge.
	We then go to a kindergarten and to elementary school where the vast majority of teachers are women.
	Certainly recently middle school, which is where the majority of men begin to drop out, boys begin to drop out of school, used to have more men.
	Now they've largely vanished.
	It's really not until you get to high school that you get any kind of significant proportion of men.
	The increasing irreligiosity of the population also means that a lot of boys won't get exposure to male priests or any kind of male authority figures.
	So it's hard for women to see this Because asking for men's perceptions of the world is somehow an estrogen traitorous act or something.
	But the idea that there's some sort of patriarchy is genuinely, foundationally, almost at the DNA experiential level, incomprehensible to most men.
	Because we grow up in an out-and-out matriarchy, and it's not until our early teenage years that most of us will see a male authority figure.
	This is hard for people to understand who I'm in.
	Now, I myself was, I went to boarding school, I was sent to boarding school when I was six years old, and went for a couple of years, and we had gender segregated.
	Not just classes, but the whole school was gender segregated.
	And so I was all around boys, there were a lot of male teachers and so on, so...
	Maybe that's one reason why I'm able to pursue this information with more of an open mind.
	It's hard to say.
	Although I was raised by a single mom, and everyone around there were no dads around my entire neighborhood, because when you're the kid of a single mom, you go to these low-rent matriarchal manors, which is where all the divorced moms go, because it's cheap and rent-controlled and so on, and there really weren't dads around.
	And the kind of men who generally date single moms, not high quality men, right?
	Because single moms generally have a low sexual market value.
	So you get kind of trashy men rolling through the place and the idea that there's any kind of patriarchy.
	Again, it's incomprehensible, but whoever asks men about their experience, we're going to tell you about your experience.
	We're going to tell you about your privilege.
	We don't want to ask a single question about your actual experience of the world.
	Can you imagine me going up to black guys and saying, I'm going to tell you about the experience of being black.
	Don't tell me anything.
	I'm telling you about what it's like to be black.
	People would say, what an arrogant douchebag.
	And rightly so.
	So...
	In 1997, a study by the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that even at the age of 15 months, boys in child care receive lower quality and less positive interactions from their caregivers compared to girls.
	There are many explanations to why that could be the case.
	Boys may be more likely to reject an authority figure and act aggressively, thus eliciting a negative response from their caregiver.
	Of course, the 1997 study didn't delve deeper into this peculiar dynamic.
	Why are boys receiving lower quality care even at the age of 15 months in daycare?
	A 2012 landmark study documented the same discrimination against boys and elaborated on the drivers behind it.
	Quote, As hypothesized, the caregivers of the toddlers in this sample revealed significantly more negative perceptions of boys than of girls.
	See?
	The women who were in charge of these boys prefer girls.
	Women prefer girls to boys.
	They not only portrayed boys as displaying more problematic, active, and disinhibited behavior, but also indicated that their relationships with boys were characterized by greater conflict and less closeness than their relationships with girls.
	Importantly, the caregivers' portrayals of their relationships with boys and girls as conflictual or close were significantly intercorrelated with their portrayals of whether the children displayed behavior problems and active-slash-angry temperaments, suggesting a strong, generalized negative boys' or positive girls' view of the children in their care.
	Their perceptions of the children were also associated with caregiving quality such that more negative views of a given child, regardless of gender, predicted poorer quality caregiving rated by independent observers for that child.
	So we're putting sexist women in charge of boys, which is like putting racist white men in charge of black children.
	Where they say, oh, you know, if you said to child care providers, what's your relationship like with the whites and the blacks?
	You'd say, oh, much closer with the white kids, much happier with the white kids.
	Those black kids are really difficult, and they've got mental problems.
	We need to drug them.
	And we'd be like, wow, you racists, right?
	But again, nobody asks.
	And this negative sexism towards little boys...
	And the fact that little boys don't feel that same warmth and closeness in general with child care providers is foundational as to why men don't fight back when outrageous lies are told about masculinity and patriarchy and male privilege.
	We're broken right after we're born, right?
	The umbilical cord is snapped and the balls are busted.
	So then expecting men to grow up and stand for masculinity and stand for the values and virtues of masculinity and stand against this rampant sexism that is so prevalent in our culture that it is like a noise that nobody hears anymore.
	Expecting men to do that is tough.
	It's tough.
	Starts at 15 months.
	The boys and girls in this study, say the authors, did not differ in their peer interactions or compliance with caregivers' requests in childcare, despite their extensive experience in childcare with peers, nor did they differ in lab-based observations of temperament.
	So this is how you know it is rampant and hostile sexism.
	Independent observers did not show any more aggression on the part of the boys or any more denial of compliance with requests by the childcare providers.
	They did what they were told and they didn't fight more than girls.
	But the women in charge rated the boys as more prone to conflict and more prone to disobedience and more prone to negative behavior, although it was not observed by independent observers.
	I also wonder, I couldn't find the data, just throw it out there, I wonder the degree to which teachers and daycare providers are single moms who have had divorce and problems and negative use of their husbands and so on.
	I don't know.
	Quote, importantly, this gendered pattern of childcare experiences is evident at two years of age, prior to the age at which boys and girls differ significantly in their play behavior, as reported in the literature, and as confirmed by our observations of the toddlers in this study.
	So boys and girls, to some degree, do deviate later in terms of play behavior, but all of this rampant anti-male, anti-boy sexism occurs before this differentiation between boys and girls in terms of play.
	Quote, the finding regarding caregiver portrayals of their relationships with the children is of particular concern in light of substantial evidence that positive student-teacher-caregiver relationships play an important and perhaps predictive role in fostering children's positive engagement in both academic and social aspects of early schooling.
	So, I'll just tell you how weird this is.
	For hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years, of ape, Neanderthal, Homo sapien development, evolutionary development, children needed men and women, needed mothers and fathers together.
	Now, in the last 50 years or so, we've done this massive giant experiment where there is a giant smoking crater where the man used to be in the raising of the children.
	This massive experiment.
	We are going to remove men from the parenting of children.
	How is that possible if there's such a thing as male privilege?
	How is it possible for men to be so denigrated in our culture and in our society if there is such a thing as male privilege?
	It's an old statement.
	If you want to know who rules over you, all you have to do is look at who you are not allowed to criticize.
	That is a very true statement.
	Who are you not allowed to criticize in modern society?
	Are you allowed to criticize men?
	Of course you are.
	Men are not in charge.
	We've got this giant experiment of massive matriarchal dominance for the early to middle life's Of young men and women.
	We've taken men out of the equation.
	And those men who are there are so terrified of divorce and family court that they fear asserting themselves in any kind of way.
	Male privilege.
	The researchers also made an interesting remark in their study.
	It is difficult to believe that caregivers of two-year-olds have developed gender-linked stereotypes that disadvantage boys.
	Although this is precisely what our findings imply, a possibility that it's important to examine in future research.
	Gender-linked stereotypes that disadvantage boys?
	Of course.
	I mean, a lot of these teachers go to a teacher's college.
	The degree to which there's Marxist, leftist, anti-male, radical feminist influences in teacher's colleges is something to explore yourself, I suppose.
	Childcare workers, the overwhelming majority, 94.1% of whom are women, Treat boys badly because of their gender, because they're boys.
	This is a clear indication of sexism towards toddlers and children, no less.
	Towards little boys, little toddler boys of 15 months.
	So, I'll just do a very little brief thing on schools.
	I think we've made a pretty compelling case.
	I hope so, anyway.
	And let us know if you've got, you know, more information, more feedback.
	Put it in the comments.
	We'll check it out.
	In schools, boys are falling far behind girls.
	Boys are diagnosed with ADHD and other mental disorders far more than girls are.
	Boys are routinely marked as lower than girls, even though they score higher than girls in standardized tests.
	Clear anti-male bias.
	This is particularly true in middle school, where there used to be more male teachers and now there are not.
	A 2012 study by Christopher Cornwell, who's head of the economics department at the University of Georgia.
	Found that boys on average score 15% lower on an assessment of non-cognitive skills.
	Engagement in class, ability to sit calmly, interpersonal skills, then girls.
	Well, yeah, I mean, there are, of course, a lot of theories.
	Let's say that boys learn more experientially and they need their recess.
	They need their playtime to burn off energy.
	They are not well suited to sitting like zombies in rows watching somebody squeak away at a blackboard or a whiteboard.
	That's not how boys tend to learn.
	And, you know, boys are rambunctious.
	The boys like to...
	I played cops and robbers.
	I played Indians and cowboys in politically...
	Horrifyingly politically incorrect ways.
	Now everybody's heard of this.
	There's a kid in America who bit his Pop-Tart into a gun and went pow, pow...
	And was expelled!
	This study also found that primary school teachers generally graded boys lower than girls, even though the boys scored similarly or better than girls on standardized tests.
	Although boys outperform girls on math and science tests scores, girls are assigned the higher grades by their teachers.
	This misalignment is because teachers factored behavior and comportment into the mix.
	Are you being nice?
	Are you being polite?
	Are you being compliant?
	Boys don't work that well in hyper-compliant environments.
	Generally women.
	So there's...
	Very briefly, there's a study that was done by, it's called the Milgram experiment, where guys in white coats told people to apply increasing electrical shocks to subjects who were just acting and pretending it out.
	And not all men, a significant proportion of men, refused to obey and apply this lethal force in the simulated, although they didn't know a simulated environment.
	But in many of the studies, all the women complied with those in authority.
	And again, the biological reasons for this in terms of evolution are pretty clear, but women in general, again, very broad strokes, tend to be more compliant in hierarchical environments.
	So if you want to expand the state, women will not be the enemies of that, but boys will be.
	And of course, as you've got this increasing feminization of government schools, you have girls doing better and boys doing worse.
	As I mentioned, many girls absorb academic lessons by listening and looking, but many boys rely on what's called kinesthetic learning, movement and touch, and so on.
	Typical classrooms rarely involve moving around.
	You go to sit in rows, the teacher delivers a lesson.
	I just remember being so...
	I was radically and unbelievably and stultifyingly bored in school.
	Oh man, I just, I felt like my whole brain, my whole body was just becoming dusty and rotten.
	It felt like being, you know, one of those ancient Egyptian mummies trapped in those tombs.
	It was so boring.
	And I don't think I'm alone in that.
	And of course that happens to girls too, but it happens a little bit more to boys it seems.
	The opportunities for boys to be exposed to male role models, well, doesn't really happen.
	Dominance of women in teaching.
	Dominance of women in the family court system.
	Dominance of women in voting.
	Dominance of women in household spending.
	86% of domestic household spending is by women.
	Men tend to save, women tend to spend.
	There's nothing wrong with it.
	It's just the way that the cycle works and that tension within a marriage is very productive.
	But the government has a huge incentive to put money in the hands of women because that drives immediate economic activity.
	Men's saving drives future economic activity because it creates the capital reserves that are used for capital improvements in businesses and so on.
	But women go out and buy stuff more in the here and now, which drives economic activity now, which is what politicians want so they can stay in power.
	They don't care about the state of the economy 10 years from now.
	They want economic activity now.
	So politicians have massive incentives to put more money in the hands of women.
	And that drives a lot of the family court stuff.
	Female teachers kind of reinforce female behavior.
	here.
	Thank you.
	And they fail to acknowledge or even, and then they sometimes even punish the gender-specific behaviors of boys.
	This is a standard leftist thing where there's no such thing as biological differences and therefore all inequalities are due to prejudice.
	And let's just say that's an open question, to say the least, right?
	But you'll see this, that there's no such thing as innate differences between any group, except for homosexuals who are considered to be born homosexual.
	That's purely genetic.
	But males and females have no difference genetically whatsoever, no difference in terms of brain patterns.
	And if there is a difference that can be measured, it's entirely due to sexism.
	So there's no differences between anybody and any resulting inequalities Must be remediated by the government getting bigger and more powerful and moving more stuff around.
	It's a fundamental way to buy votes.
	So if you can convince everyone of radical legalitarianism, then any inequalities that result must be due to prejudice and therefore must have a big government to remediate.
	Except that when the inequalities result, If you disfavor elevated classes, then they don't exist, right?
	So when boys are doing badly, that doesn't exist because it just doesn't matter.
	Not only does it not even matter, it doesn't even get acknowledged as an issue.
	And I'm telling you, I mean, again, I'm not all proven.
	It's just my thoughts.
	But this giant smoking crater where dads and male role models used to be is significant.
	Boys do better when taught by a male teacher.
	And so there should be a mix of males and females.
	The rampant anti-male prejudice is truly staggering.
	Imagine if I put out a show saying, you know, there was a black man in a school where my children are.
	A black man was teaching my children.
	Now, I thought immediately, I bet that black man is a pedophile.
	People would be like, that is like the vilest racism I've ever heard, and they'd be right.
	But the fact that any man who wants to teach children, particularly young children, It's automatically thought of as a pedophile is just part of the rampant, horrifying anti-male sexism that goes on in society.
	The fact that people say, well, you know, black kids could do better in school if they're taught by black teachers and so on.
	Well, boys need dads!
	Hello!
	I don't know why this needs to be said, but it needs to be said.
	Boys need fathers.
	Boys need fathers.
	Fathers, boys need.
	Just assemble that however you want.
	But this is considered to be like a radical notion, the idea that boys need fathers.
	Boys and girls who grow up without fathers are at risk of horrendous social and interpersonal dysfunction, at risk of health issues, educational issues, concentration issues, criminal issues, promiscuity issues, substance abuse issues, criminality issues, you name it.
	The single biggest predictor of a negative outcome for a child is being raised by a single mom.
	Moms suck!
	I believe dads suck at parenting alone.
	There's some data that suggests they suck a little bit less.
	But single moms suck at parenting.
	And an all-female teacher environment sucks at teaching.
	For boys, the data is clear about both propositions.
	Children need mothers and fathers.
	And this giant, massive social experiment of men being ditched by women so that they can go and marry the state and gain their resources from politicians rather than a husband is a staggering disaster.
	People will look back and say, this disaster of taking men out of the family and the lack of recognition of the clear information that it was a massive disaster to take men out of the family...
	It was a disaster for children.
	It was a disaster for men.
	It was a disaster for women.
	It was a disaster for society as a whole.
	And needs to be fixed if we really care even a tiny bit of what we claim to care about the best interests of the children.
	Get men back in the family!
	It is essential.
	It must be done.
	We cannot throw away millions of years of two-parent evolution And say, well, we don't need the men.
	Ah, you know, it's a check from the government.
	It's pretty much the same thing.
	Because the only thing that men provided were resources so we can replace that.
	If I said, the only thing that women provide are holes for men to ejaculate in, and therefore a warmed-up watermelon and an applechlorer is the exact same as a female, people would say, oh, you're just reducing women to holes?
	To sexual vessels?
	That's called objectification.
	That's sexist.
	And they'd be right.
	But saying that the government can provide what the Father provides, because the Father provides only resources and the government can provide those resources, money and healthcare and food stamps and government schools and Title IX egalitarianism and rent control and subsidized housing and you name it, is saying that men are just wallets, which is exactly the same as saying women are just wholes.
	The objectification in society is directed at men.
	The idea that the government and its resources can substitute a father and his involvement is ridiculously and horrifyingly and repulsively sexist towards the value and virtues that men provide in families, in societies.
	Male privilege?
	Male privilege?
	Are you kidding me?
	We can only pray for the possibility of male equality.
	Let's not aim for any kind of privilege for either gender.
	Let's at least start to aim towards male equality.

▲