Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 1, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

55:19

3332 Where Social Justice Warriors Come From

Stefan Molyneux offers a theory on the origin of the Social Justice Warrior phenomenon. Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, hello everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	I hope you're doing beyond magnificently.
	Superlatively, I might say.
	A question's been sort of rolling around in me old noggin for a wee while.
	And the question is, where do these social justice warriors come from?
	Where, oh where, oh where do they come from?
	And I'm going to take a swing at it.
	Please understand, this is in the realm of speculation.
	This is not in the realm of hard and fast proof.
	This is not in the realm of data.
	This is not in the realm of surveys.
	This is in the realm of rank hypotheses that hopefully has some compelling arguments and semi-anecdotal evidence.
	So this is not hard and fast philosophy.
	This is in the realm of speculation.
	But that's fun too, wouldn't you say?
	I certainly would.
	So, what are we talking about when it comes to Social Justice Warrior?
	Well, of course, everybody knows the definition.
	I'm not really going to bother.
	So, if you want to understand the origins, at least the possible origins, of the Social Justice Warrior set, you have to understand the WWW principle.
	World Wide Web, no.
	It is Words Wound Women.
	Words Wound Women.
	And that's for two basic reasons.
	Number one, women are physically much weaker than men and are disabled, of course, through various times if they're youth to middle age by pregnancy and childbearing and wet nursing and all that sort of stuff, breastfeeding and so on.
	So women are physically a lot weaker than men and are relatively disabled, so they can't fight.
	They can't fight.
	And because they can't fight, they have to use words.
	Which is why, you know, women have this troll-like ability to say wounding and emasculating and destructive things and so on.
	And they can't fight, so they work on humiliation.
	That's sort of number one.
	Number two is that women need other women, evolutionarily speaking, women needed other women to raise children.
	Right?
	You've got to sleep.
	You've got to have other people watch your kids because if you're breastfeeding and your five-year-old is running off into the jungle, someone's got to pull him back or stay with him or take care of him and all that so that he doesn't get eaten by jackals.
	Someone else, other than the male hunter-gatherer providers, are going to have to give you food while you're breastfeeding and exhausted.
	The exhaustion of females, I mean, that's crazy, right?
	So there's this sort of bloom of youth and energy, biologically or evolutionarily speaking, when they're young, very young, and then what happens?
	Well, they biologically get knocked up, and pregnancy is exhausting, you've got morning sickness, you give birth to a baby, and you've got a not insignificant chance of dying in childbirth, and And then what?
	Well, for 18 months or whatever, at least, you are up all night breastfeeding, your kids don't sleep, and then you have another kid.
	Like, you're tired.
	Women are tired.
	Being a woman, I mean, it's exhausting just thinking about it.
	I see them everywhere.
	It's exhausting just thinking about it.
	And then what happens?
	Ah!
	After your ex...
	Go sour, you get the wonderful joy of menopause where you get hot and cold flashes that do what?
	Oh, prevent you from sleeping and make you tired.
	And that is really, really tough.
	Oh, and then you're old and you're tired because you're old and you can't sleep then because you're old.
	Elderly friend of mine said, why would I retire?
	I can't even sleep in anyway.
	It's a long day to have nothing to do.
	Oh, brutal.
	So, women being debilitated and so on, they need their own parents, right?
	You need grandparents around to help raise the kids.
	And they need solidarity, right?
	From other women.
	Without that solidarity, they simply cannot raise their children.
	Or at least, let's put it this way.
	Their children have a much less...
	The children are much less likely to survive if they don't have the cooperation and approval of other women, which is why women don't like offending other women, which is why there are these horizontal verbal attacks among women, which is why there are cliques, which is why there is the mean girls phenomenon, and which is why women who are excluded from peer groups tend to deal with it, you could say, less well than men who are excluded from peer groups.
	Women are evolutionarily hardwired to seek approval of the peer group, to not give offense, to not raise difficult issues, which is why women don't tend towards philosophical arguments like I was sort of thinking back on the show when preparing for this interview.
	Talk.
	And, you know, I've spoken to countless people.
	It's going to be counted, but I've spoken to lots of people throughout the course of the show.
	And I couldn't remember a woman who's called in, say, to be talked through UPB, like universally preferable behavior, or some other aspect of abstract philosophy.
	It doesn't mean that there aren't any.
	I couldn't sort of remember any off the top of my head.
	But that's just not how they roll.
	Which is why a lot of times when men start talking politics, women go into the kitchen.
	Which is why women like to talk about inoffensive subjects.
	They like to gossip.
	They like to talk about Tips and tricks on weather and fashion.
	Just pick up a woman's magazine.
	Men's magazines aren't a huge amount better, so I'm not sort of saying one good, one bad, but this is just the way it works.
	So, women's susceptibility to wounding through words is a very, very important aspect to understand.
	I had...
	Last night I had the strangest dream I'd ever had before.
	So I had a girlfriend once who was listening to me chat with a friend of mine.
	He's an economist.
	And what we did was we talked about abstract ideas, we talked about philosophy, we talked about economics, we talked about current events.
	I had a right old lovely chat.
	And she was, like, appalled.
	She was just appalled.
	She's like, well, you didn't talk about anything you think or, like, you feel.
	You didn't share any feelings.
	You didn't, right?
	And somehow this was bad.
	This was wrong.
	This was alienated.
	And it's, you know, sorry, I'm not a woman.
	This is how I talk to my male friends.
	This is...
	What we talk about.
	If something big is important, then we might talk about that.
	I don't nag you to talk to your female friends about abstract philosophy, so don't nag me to talk to my male friends about feely-feels.
	This is really important to understand.
	When a conflict arises between two women, It's very hard for them to navigate that.
	Men routinely insult each other as part of bonding or companionship or friendship.
	Women don't have the same habit.
	And the reason that men insult each other is that they are helping to build immunity from The danger of bad words.
	Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
	That's the male.
	But, you know, for women, that's not the case.
	Words wound women.
	WWW. The three W's of the modern world.
	Words wound women.
	Which is why, with the political ascendancy...
	We have hate speech, right?
	Words that wound, words that can't be spoken, arguments that can't be made, because it genuinely wounds women when they hear certain thoughts or ideas or whatever.
	And ideas which lead to conflict are anathema to women, which is why they vacate the living room When talk turns to politics, when talk turns to race, when talk turns to the economy, because these are areas in which there could potentially be significant disagreements, and women avoid disagreements because they need other women to help raise their children.
	But men are more competitive, and men are far less risk-averse, right?
	Because Men like taking risks because if you take risks, you could end up with additional rewards.
	Additional rewards get you better eggs.
	I'm sure you understand all this.
	So, men like combat.
	Men are very competitive.
	Men are comfortable with win-lose because win-lose increases sexual market value.
	Whereas if a woman is in conflict with other women, it lowers her sexual market value because her offspring have a less likely chance of survival.
	You need the cooperation of the women, of the tribe, to keep your children alive while you're disabled and exhausted from endless rounds of having, getting, making, birthing, suckling babies.
	And so conflict avoidance, the shallowing out of conversation, the avoidance of going down the dark paths of logical consistency.
	Well, these are feminine traits.
	Yes, I know there are exceptions.
	And I say this, of course, as I've said before, that I don't know about a majority, but a significant portion of my intellectual mentors have been women.
	But we're talking about the exceptions.
	Thank you.
	And they generally are childless women.
	So, what does this have to do with the social justice warrior phenomenon?
	The important thing to remember about women is that threat is quite significant for women.
	The feeling of being in danger is quite significant for women.
	I mean, if you're a man, this is something a friend of mine told me decades ago, he said, like, if you're a man, imagine being half your size, half your strength, with premenstrual cramps and with Being disabled through practice.
	Just imagine that.
	Imagine that you were that vulnerable as an organism.
	And that feeling of vulnerability is very central to being a woman.
	You are vulnerable.
	And that vulnerability is extremely dangerous.
	Because if you're a woman and you die or you're kidnapped or whatever, Or your man abandons you and you have no resources.
	It's not just you who die.
	Often it would be your children who would die.
	If you're rejected by the women of your tribe, no one takes care of your kids, they don't bring you food, you won't survive, and neither will your offspring.
	And you can't just go around making more because the amount of time investment for a woman to make a baby is huge versus a man is tiny and so on.
	You understand?
	Women are exquisitely vulnerable And have no capacity for physical aggression.
	Right?
	Evolutionarily speaking, not talking morally, but evolutionarily speaking, a man who can't find a woman to have sex with him can engage in rape.
	Women, a little tougher.
	Not impossible.
	Female on male rape, forced to penetrate, is a very big thing.
	Truth about rape culture is one of our presentations.
	But women are extremely vulnerable.
	They're kind of continually in danger.
	I mentioned Mindy Kaling's The Mindy Project.
	And her boyfriend comes, I think, into her apartment or something to surprise her.
	And she's like, oh, rapist, serial killer!
	Ah, grabs a knife, right?
	I mean, that's a comic exaggeration to some degree.
	But there certainly is a grain of truth in it.
	That women live in fear.
	I mean, imagine if you were some white guy and you have to walk through a hostile neighborhood every night to get home.
	People are jeering at you and people are threatening you and you read reports that white people get beaten up in this neighborhood all the time or just disappear.
	Well, that's a lot of women's perception of the world they live in and walk through every night.
	And this is why it's so easy to provoke women's anxiety about security, why it's so easy to make women feel afraid.
	Because evolutionarily speaking, being small, being vulnerable, and being targets of rape, and being part of the spoils of war, right?
	I mean, this is all over a lot of religious texts, you know, the commandment that if you take another tribe, you kill the men, you kill the children, and you rape the women.
	Which is why women have an ambivalent relationship to sexual violence.
	Again, we're not talking moral, just talking evolution.
	This is why Fifty Shades of Grey would never work if it was a book aimed at men.
	Women who resisted sexual violence to the death, their genes wouldn't be passed along.
	Women who are willing to accommodate the new conquering rape horde, well, their genes survive.
	Again, we're not talking the ethics.
	A rape is a heinous moral crime, but in terms of just survivability, the women who were able to adapt and have sex with the conquering males, well, their genes survived.
	And the women who didn't adapt to that, their genes did not survive, which is why so many women have rape fantasies.
	Again, evolutionarily speaking, we can understand it.
	So women are in danger.
	Oh, danger, danger, danger, danger, danger.
	And we can understand why.
	Vulnerable, weak, disabled, tired.
	Targets of the true rape culture of antiquity.
	And we're not talking the West, right?
	But just like really, really antiquity, like tens of thousands of years ago.
	And this sense of danger, of a threat behind every bush, of anxiety, it's very difficult for women to live in this state of fear.
	And the other challenge, of course, for women is that they want to make themselves as attractive as possible in order to get the most...
	Alpha male they can.
	To get the highest status male they can, they have to make themselves as attractive as humanly possible.
	But at the same time, that is inevitably going to attract lower status males that the woman doesn't want to have anything to do with.
	Right?
	So they want to attract the high-status male, but they also have to, you know, Elizabeth Hurley has this dead-eyed sneer stare that drives away the betas, right?
	Because she wants to look as great as possible to attract the highest-status male, but that is going to attract lower-status males that she wants to keep away, so it's a challenge.
	A woman wishes to be as attractive as possible, but does not want to attract a low-status male who even...
	Because if you have a low-status male around you, if you're even talking to a low-status male, the high-status male will not want to approach you because he will view you as having lower sexual market value.
	So you can't even just talk to them politely for a little while because, you know, while Angelina Jolie is chatting with Danny DeVito, Brad Pitt might look at her and go, okay, well, I could just move it on.
	At least that's the concern.
	So the woman wants to make herself as sexually appealing as possible, which further increases the risk that either a beta or a sexual aggressor is going to target her.
	It's very complicated.
	It's hard being a woman.
	I know the blues because I'm a woman.
	Thanks, man.
	So this, putting yourself in the softer skin, it's a challenging and complicated bunch of everything.
	That feeling of danger, that feeling of anxiety, that feeling of courting danger, literally courting danger, making yourself as attractive as possible, but being able to rebuff sexual advances of betas or sexual aggressors without any physical strength to back you up, well, that's a complicated thing.
	So, with this in mind, like understanding all of this, hopefully you can see why I have said women will always choose security over freedom.
	Men will choose freedom over security because security reduces their sexual market value, certainly reduces their potential increase in sexual market value, which risk and freedom facilitate.
	Which is why when men vote, you get a free market, and when women vote, you get socialism, you get the welfare state, you get old-age pensions, you get free health care, you get whatever, right?
	In the 19th century, the height of the free market, well, only male property owners in general could vote.
	So you automatically had an IQ limiter.
	The highest IQ males were the ones who were voting, and so you had a free market.
	Starting from the 18th century up through the Corn Laws, in the mid-19th century, the free market.
	Can we really imagine that if it had been the founding mothers rather than the founding fathers, that America would have started off with a small government and a free market?
	Of course not.
	The moment women get the vote, within 10 to 15 years, you've got a full-on socialist fantasy land of expropriation, debt, decay, and eventual destruction.
	And of course, we see this all the time with parenting.
	If you happen to be passing by a park, I'm not saying go hang out by one if you don't have kids, because Lord knows there's that paranoia.
	But if you're passing by a park and you see a husband and a wife with the kids, well, the wife is anxious and the husband is encouraging.
	And both of those are important.
	I mean, this is not man good, woman bad.
	These energies are both very important for the well-rounded progression of the species and its individuals.
	But, yeah, the mom is be careful, and the dad is go for it.
	That's great.
	That's great.
	The mom reduces injuries, and the dad increases confidence.
	And it's a balance.
	And as women have taken over society, then we have this, you know, let's bubble wrap kids, let's keep them safe, let's keep them close, let's not let them wander about outdoors.
	The kind of freedom that I have, that I had as a child, I think about this with fair regularity, of course, as a father, the freedom that I had as a child.
	At the age of six, we got on an airplane with my brother, who was a couple of years older, and we flew off to Africa.
	We were allowed to, at the age of six or seven, I would get on trains and go to boarding school, which is a long way away, navigate the whole thing and get off at the right stop and find the buses.
	At the age of eight, I was allowed to roam the neighborhood at will, walk to school on my own, walk back from school on my own, be at home unattended.
	That degree of, okay, I mean, maybe a bit too much to put it mildly, but that degree of being unsupervised?
	Well, now, of course, there are windowless vans parked on the corner of every street in women's imaginations.
	And this bubble wrapping of children to the point where they're actually, children are more at risk now from obesity and heart disease and diabetes from inactivity because you can't roam the neighborhood.
	Well, that's also partly to do with multiculturalism and so on.
	Women's anxiety means that they have a great desire for security.
	Now, how did women achieve security in the past?
	In other words, why anxiety?
	Why couldn't they just get giddy joy out of risk, as a lot of men do?
	You got serious thrill issues, dude.
	Well, because anxiety is an emotional mechanism that evolution lays into the brain to stimulate you to take actions that reduce that anxiety.
	A man's level of sexual desire is far higher than his anxiety.
	A woman's anxiety is far higher than her levels of sexual desire.
	So, the way that women allay the anxiety of their vulnerability is to get married We're going to get married to a strong, stable provider.
	Someone who's going to protect her.
	Someone who's going to take care of her.
	Somebody who's going to get and keep the resources flowing that she needs to survive in her state of near constant being debilitated-ness.
	And so a woman felt anxiety.
	And the way that they allayed that anxiety was to get...
	The best provider that they could get.
	And of course to stimulate gentlemanly behavior and high standards and all of that in society among men, among their sons.
	And the other way that women...
	We're able to allay the ever-present sense or potential for anxiety is, you know, find a stable provider, a good man, a good, solid, stable guy who's going to remain employed and not drink and not have affairs, or if he does, it won't destabilize the family and so on.
	So that's the first step.
	And the second step is relentlessly provide value.
	Like, in the free market, value is the only security you're ever going to have.
	And there is a free market in marriage.
	Even after marriage, right?
	I mean, the man could get so depressed he becomes unemployed or unemployable.
	He could turn to drink because he's stressed and anxious and unhappy.
	There's so many things that can happen, even in a marriage, that's going to threaten the woman's security, even if divorce is off the table, which for a lot of human history it was.
	So up until the 60s in...
	In Canada, you needed an act of parliament to get divorced.
	So the way that the woman maintained her security in the marriage was by relentlessly providing value to the men.
	Now, we all know that the division of labor is key to economic efficiency.
	As I said in the show last night, if you have a company and you hire 12 people, you don't say, well, everyone's going to have one twelfth of everyone else's job.
	That would be ridiculously inefficient.
	The division of labor is key to the economic efficiency of marriage.
	And there is an old saying that says, behind every good man is a great woman, or behind every great man is a good woman.
	And it's true.
	In a lot of ways.
	Because a great woman, a great wife, will organize your household, will deal with your finances, will raise the kids well, will keep your clothes clean, will, you know, again, soon she's a stay-at-home mom, she's going to run a household.
	Which is far from brain-dead work.
	Particularly throughout history when resources had often to be stretched.
	And she would grow the vegetables and she would tend the very localized livestock and she would go to market and she would haggle and she would Make a penny, stretch a pound.
	And that allowed the man to be free to go and pursue his vocation, which was incredibly efficient.
	And so this division of labor into homemaker and provider created far greater wealth in the long run than the man could have achieved on his own if he had to split his focus among other things.
	Could Madonna tour in her drunken, pathetic, late 50s tirades, but could Madonna tour if she didn't have anyone to take care of her kids?
	No.
	She hasn't cooked a meal, and the last time she cooked a meal was probably the last time Hillary Clinton drove a car.
	So, having a wife, a good woman who raised your kids, kept your house, provided sustenance, and allowed you to concentrate on becoming as productive as humanly possible in your chosen career, well, that was a no-substitute, wonderful provision of value that a lot of wives these days can't really comprehend.
	A lot of men can't even comprehend it.
	Just, you know, do me a favor.
	I think it's on YouTube.
	You can have a look at the movie Old Yeller.
	Y-E-L-L-E-R. Oh, the hydrophobe!
	And just look at how the man had to go off and do his thing, and the woman had to run the household and deal with all the robust, strong-backed woman of strength, character, and excellence.
	Of integrity, of compassion.
	Of hard work, and she is irreplaceable in his life.
	No one else is going to love his kids, or his property, or him as well.
	Maybe him, but not the kids for sure.
	So how do I keep you listening to this show?
	Well, with the relentless provision of value.
	I mean, I'm not charging you.
	I hope that you'll donate.
	freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	You know you need to.
	You know you should.
	Just do the right thing.
	But how is it that I can get you to keep listening to this conversation, to what I say?
	Well, I have to continue to relentlessly provide value, which means providing new insights, new arguments, new facts, new data.
	That is going to be valuable in your life.
	Difficult, yes, but valuable.
	And so my only security is to continue to formulate new arguments.
	I hope that people don't, you know, want to hear the same arguments I was saying 10 years ago.
	So new information, new arguments, new guests, new perspectives, tempered by the times, informed by the facts, and extended by the evidence.
	Now, there are some people who will provide value by reassuring you with the same stuff they did say five years ago or ten years ago, but that's not me.
	So how can I get you to keep listening to what I'm saying?
	Well, I have to relentlessly provide value.
	That's the only security that I can possibly have.
	I'm sure you understand.
	And it's the same thing.
	How do you get your man to continue to commit to you and to hand over the majority of his resources for you and his children, if you are the wife?
	Well, what you have to do is you have to relentlessly provide value, and that means the division of labor.
	And that means, in general, the man does that which is outside, and the woman does that which is inside.
	You know, man maintains the roof, and the woman does the laundry.
	I mean, for various reasons that aren't particularly important, mostly having to do with the fact that men don't mind bad weather as much.
	And this is the sexual dimorphism manifested in the division of labor within a family that is really, really important.
	And this is why, as I talked about in shows recently, when men and women end up doing the same chores, women are less sexually satisfied.
	Because their sexual satisfaction is driving them to perform the actions or encouraging or incentivizing them to perform the actions that most benefit the man, and that is the division of labor actions.
	So all of that is kind of fundamental and hopefully Hopefully it ties together a whole bunch of information that, you know, we've talked about in this show.
	And hopefully this ties together.
	Like, you just have to look at your life and, you know, obviously these are just arguments or hypotheses.
	Hypotheses?
	Hypodermic hypotheses, apparently.
	These are just arguments for which you can peruse your own immediate family, the families that you know, your history, and all of that, and the world as it stands.
	Now, one of the ways in which, you know, if you provoke anxiety, then you provoke statism, right?
	So one of the ways that you can get women to want more and more government Is, instead of saying, the world is dangerous and safety lies with a good man, which is what biologically is the case for women, the world is dangerous, and safety lies with a good man, and this is statistically borne out by the fact that the very safest place for a woman to be is in a stable marriage.
	The very safest place for a woman to be is in a stable marriage.
	But if you can provoke anxiety among women, which is not hard, since it's always there anyway, at least until they're in a relationship with a good man, but if you can provoke anxiety In women, and then say that men are the source of the anxiety, not the sanctuary from the anxiety.
	The source of the anxiety, not the sanctuary from the anxiety.
	Then you provoke the anxiety, which has women say, well, I feel anxious.
	I can't run to men because patriarchy and sexism and misogyny is the problem.
	So I feel anxious.
	I can't run to men.
	Who am I going to run to?
	I'm going to run to the state.
	I'm going to run to the state.
	Which is why leftist feminism Provokes anxiety.
	Rape culture!
	Sorry.
	Sorry if you were dozing off.
	My apologies.
	Go to sleep.
	Right?
	So, feminists provoke anxiety and deny women the sanctuary that that anxiety is designed to move them towards.
	Right?
	The anxiety that Women feel, of course, is designed to have them move towards men for a century.
	But feminists provoke the anxiety and deny the relief of comfort and security with a good man, and therefore they run to the government and need more from the UN standards.
	And then the government promises protection.
	But because women don't like to hear unpleasant facts, migrants come in.
	Oh, how our fears create that which we fear if they are unmanaged.
	So social justice warriors are the products of a matriarchy.
	They're the products of a matriarchy.
	The vulnerability of women is solved by the protection of good men.
	When the good men aren't there, the vulnerability of women creates a generalized social anxiety, and the vulnerability of single mothers, the vulnerability of divorced women, and they can run to the state, of course, right?
	And that will alleviate immediate physical needs, right?
	They'll get resources from the state, from more responsible people than themselves.
	But the mere alleviation Our physical needs doesn't solve the anxiety.
	Like if a man wants to be loved, and if you're loved by...
	Like a man wants to be loved by a woman, and if you're loved by a woman, she'll have sex with you.
	But the sex is an effect of the love.
	The sex does not create the love.
	So for a woman to try and get...
	Love from the state or security from the state is like a man trying to get love from a hooker.
	I guess, in the woman's case, a hooker that somebody else is paying for.
	So you have the sex, which is the mechanical effect of love, but you don't have the love.
	This is why it doesn't work.
	Now, a woman getting resources, a woman should get resources as the result of a dedicated man who loves her.
	Now, she can run to the state and get the resources, but it's not going to solve the anxiety.
	Because the resources should be coming to her as a result of being loved.
	And the state mechanically granting her resources in return for her vote is not the same as being loved.
	You know, it's like that old made with love, right?
	The chicken soup made with love.
	So, this is why it constantly escalates, and this is why women never feel like they're getting enough from the state, because the anxiety is supposed to drive them into the arms of a good man, and instead, they're surrendering to the power lusts of bad men, and as a result, they get the resources, sure, just as a man who pays a hooker will get sex, right?
	But they're not getting what emotionally will alleviate the anxiety, which is love, connection.
	And of course it's lazy.
	A man paying a hooker doesn't have to earn her love or earn the sex through affection.
	He just has to earn the money and pay for it.
	A woman getting resources from the state isn't earning those resources by providing massive value to a good man, making his life better and easier and happier.
	No.
	She just checks off a box every couple of years, and lo and behold, infinite flag-wrapped sugar daddy will sell her children into slavery to buy her allegiance in the moment.
	And so this is why with social justice warriors, the idea that words wound, well, that's a feminine idea, it's a feminine experience, which we've talked about.
	The idea that women are scared and the idea that men are the source of women's fear, well, that ties in perfectly.
	It provokes anxiety and keeps women away from the only solution to that anxiety, which is the love and protection of a good man.
	Understand, I'm not talking about a patriarchy.
	The man provides value and the woman provides value.
	And, you know, anything which is a substitute...
	Causes in general a never-ending escalation, right?
	So if you have social anxiety and you drink to, quote, combat your social anxiety, well, then your social anxiety is generally going to get worse.
	And that's what addiction is.
	If you're unhappy, you take cocaine to get happier.
	You're probably going to get addicted to it, right?
	And...
	If your body is crying out as a woman for the love and security that comes from a good man, and instead you listen to feminists, hate men, and run to the government, well, you're never going to be satisfied.
	And this is why women are in a state of addiction with regards to the state.
	They live in a state.
	They are subjects of a state called addiction.
	And this is why, since the Second World War, women have become unhappier and unhappier and unhappier.
	Because they're getting the resources which deals with their immediate physical needs in the same way that Penn Hooker deals with a man's immediate physical needs.
	But they're not getting the love.
	And therefore, the anxiety continues.
	Because if you have the love, you have the commitment.
	If you have the state, you don't.
	Right?
	If you have the love...
	You have the commitment.
	If you have the government, you don't.
	Because someone could come in and say, well, you know, we don't really think that this welfare state is a good idea, so we're going to change it or adjust it or reduce it.
	And of course, women also know that women are often not great with saving money, but they're very aware of debt.
	And so the other reason why there's this insatiable anxiety escalation among women It's because they know that the government can't fulfill its obligations.
	Now, with a good man, a good man will buy life insurance, so if he gets hit by a bus, the woman is taken care of.
	He will set up savings accounts for kids to go to school.
	He will set up pension accounts to take care of himself or the woman in their old age.
	He will pay off the house as quickly as possible.
	So she gets security because of the man's Dedication and love and respect and appreciation for everything that she's doing to maintain the household, to raise his children, their children, and to make his life better.
	So his income doubles or triples because his wife is taking care of a bunch of stuff.
	So she shares in that wealth because she's central to the creation of that wealth.
	If she is not just a wife, but a worker.
	And so the woman gains genuine security by having a man who loves her.
	But when all she does is get paid off by politicians who don't give a tiny rat's ass about her long-term security, well, she knows she's in a situation of dependence, not security.
	The relationship between women and the state is somewhat akin, or can be analogized, as the relationship between A woman in a harem and a sultan.
	A woman in a harem is just one of many women that the sultan takes his sexual pleasure with, and she has no particular security because the moment she gets old or gains weight or has too many pimples or whatever, gets endometriosis and whatever, the moment that she is no longer sexually satisfying to the sultan, then...
	She's cast out on her ass.
	And generally, that happens when her sexual market value is in freefall.
	So, she is going to want to please the Sultan, but knowing that there's nobody over the age of 35 in the Hiram, and nobody whose looks fades earlier than that, right?
	She could get smallpox.
	I mean, back in the day, right?
	She could get some sort of infection.
	She could, you know, just her sexual attractiveness might diminish considerably.
	You know, obviously you're possibly through no fault of her own.
	So a woman who's in a harem, she will get resources.
	She may even get a lot of resources.
	She probably won't be allowed to save that much or save that many.
	But she is not in a state of security.
	She's not like, oh man, I'm set for life.
	I am set for life.
	Because she knows that this is a temporary phenomenon.
	She's going to get kicked out of her butt.
	Without skills, without youth, without sexual attractiveness, and she is not going to be able to easily find someone to take care of her going forward.
	Not a lot of grannies in the harem.
	And women with regards to the state know that The government's going to run out of resources.
	The debt is going to overwhelm what has been promised.
	It's not a sustainable situation.
	The love of a good man who's hardworking and responsible is as close to security as a woman's ever going to get.
	And that's Love is relief.
	You know, I hate to sort of put it this way, but for a lot of women, love is the gratitude that they experience by being relieved of the anxiety that they feel about their vulnerability.
	Love is, whoo!
	Right?
	I think it's Blanche Dubois who said, I finally found a safe harbor.
	I finally found a safe harbor.
	And she had tried as, I mean...
	As Tennessee Williams said, I am Blanche Dubois.
	She had tried to create value to men through promiscuity, but that doesn't work.
	Love is the relief that women feel when they know their anxiety is going away and is not coming back.
	Relief from the anxiety of being unloved and therefore vulnerable, in danger.
	The love that women feel It's the relief that their anxiety is finally under control.
	And feminists, again, being leftists and pro-statists and fundamentally totalitarians, have shut women off from the only relief of anxiety they will ever feel.
	Because that anxiety causes women to flee to the state.
	Just as a woman whose husband is killed might join the harem because how else is she going to survive?
	Especially if the The Sultan offers to take care of her children, too.
	Yep.
	We'll blow for baby food.
	It's a perfectly valid evolutionary strategy.
	And women these days exhibit the general characteristics of a young widow with children.
	I mean, because men are unavailable to them.
	Not because men aren't around, but because feminists have taught them to hate and fear men, which has them run further to the state.
	So basically, young women these days are in the sort of mindset of low-sexual market war widows, And they have no good men around.
	At least that's the perception.
	There's no good men around.
	And so you have to run to the powerful.
	And you have to be willing to be part of a harem.
	Which is why women these days, young women these days, are seeking high-status males and willing to be part of a harem.
	Like the alphas who sleep with everything and won't commit.
	This is a harem situation.
	And the state is a harem situation in that you have one political leader who's willing to take care of, I guess in this case, literally millions of women, like it's a super harem.
	And the harem, the woman can eat, but the anxiety is always floating around.
	And the attachment to powerful men that results from a dearth of good men is women's allegiance to the Democrats, right?
	When you want to attach yourself to a powerful man as a woman, which is the survival strategy when good men are not available, which feminists have almost made inevitable or certainly made the case through propaganda.
	When you attach yourself as a woman to a powerful man, what happens is you have to lower your standards.
	You have to lower your standards.
	Because you don't have a high enough sexual market value to demand monogamy from an alpha.
	Because when there are few men and lots of women, the women have to lower their standards.
	And when the women lower their standards, men behave more poorly.
	Of course, right?
	And then women also can't enforce higher standards with each other.
	Which is why women swooned over Barack Obama.
	And this was the Beatles phenomenon as well.
	So, when women have to congregate around an alpha because of a dearth of good men, they have to lower their standards in order to just get the resources, right?
	I mean, the one woman in a harem can't bitch at the sultan and demand monogamy.
	She has to basically watch him pick other women on a regular basis and go and have sex with them.
	And she has to swallow her pride.
	She has to swallow her K from the K selection from the Gene Wars series.
	She has to go full R in order to survive.
	And this explains why women, and feminists in particular, but this is why women did not revolt against Bill Clinton.
	Bill Clinton was providing them with resources, free abortions, welfare, and so on.
	And as his harem members, how could they possibly get very angry at him for getting a blowjob from another woman?
	They have no right to demand monogamy because they're in a harem.
	It's a political harem.
	The Democratic Party, female voting patterns are in a political harem.
	And you can see this because, of course, single women vote left and married women tend to vote right because married women already have a man, already have that security, can demand monogamy, can have higher standards and therefore are morally repulsed.
	By the squid-like, amoral gratitude of the left.
	So social justice warriors are serving the anxieties of single women, of single mothers, of mothers who do not have the security and protection of good men.
	And this is why they demand that society work to constantly reduce women's anxieties, female anxieties.
	I was aware growing up that my mother was vulnerable.
	I mean, she was a tall but slender woman.
	My mother was vulnerable.
	I mean, sometimes she struck me like the last leaf in fall hanging on by a thread.
	It was a vulnerability.
	And because the West is case-selected, case-selected means higher investment in parenting.
	Because in the West we try to raise children to think for themselves, that's a whole lot more difficult and complex and complicated than just raising them to be propagandized and repeat the slogans of their forefathers.
	There's this creative intelligence and curiosity and rationality and dedication to empiricism and science and freedom and so on in the West, which means that we need women who are more highly invested in our children.
	Which means that we need the voluntary participation of women in the successful raising of white Western children, and that means men have to defer to women because women have to be there enthusiastically and voluntarily.
	If all you're going to do is propagandize some kid into believing everything that everyone's believed for the last thousand years, well, you can put that out to some sort of priest.
	It's not that complicated to traumatize and Bully and propagandize children, especially if they're not so smart.
	But if you want a child to grow up and succeed in a free market, voluntary, scientific, empirical, rational society...
	Well, you need the voluntary, enthusiastic participation of the women.
	You can't beat a woman and propagandize your kid to have him succeed in a free market.
	And this is why men have deferred to Western women, because in order to raise children who will succeed in a Western society, Western women need to be fully on board, enthusiastically there, and can't be bullied and beaten and all that.
	You understand, right?
	And so, men wish to defer to women.
	And because Christians are not allowed to have any in-group preferences, certainly whites and certainly white males are not allowed to, but Christians are not allowed to have any in-group preferences, feminism, which, you know, was to some degree, though certainly not exclusively, a Marxist, leftist Jewish phenomenon, well, they couldn't say, well, maybe that works well for you, but it doesn't work well for us.
	Sorry.
	Not our thing.
	And, of course, you know, some women were concerned with and regretted the rise of socialism and preferred the actual security of a good man to the mere material gratification but continued in escalating anxiety of a state-based transfer of resources.
	They just weren't enough, or they weren't loud enough, or men deferred to the leftists, right?
	And leftist women, being our selected, are easier to have sex with, and so men got dicknapped into selling the future for the sake of spilling the seed in the present on, I dare say, fairly barren soil.
	Social justice warriors...
	Our people who gather around the anxieties of women have absorbed the anxieties of women.
	Why do we have such an anxious male population?
	Because they're raised by single mothers who are dependent on the state often and who have a hole in their heart the size of their heart because they get the resources from the state just as a man gets a blowjob from a hooker but don't get the love.
	That is the genuine way to reduce the anxieties of female vulnerability.
	And they're lazy, of course, because they get the resources without having to provide value.
	They can sit on their ass all day and they don't have to actually do anyone's laundry or organize anyone's finances or tend to anyone who's ill or anything like that.
	They don't have to keep house.
	All they have to do is keep voting.
	So the social justice warriors have this sort of twisted...
	approach to trying to solve women's anxieties with more and more state power.
	It's never going to work.
	It's not designed to work.
	It's designed to fail.
	Because when statism fails, and you're addicted to statism, well, you go for more statism, right?
	If you're addicted to alcohol, well, alcoholism is a progressive disease, and the effects of alcohol wear off, so you've got to get more alcohol.
	So they're trying to turn the government into a husband, but at the same time they hate the patriarchy or they hate men.
	And so all they're doing is it's like trying to cure a man's loneliness by buying him more hookers.
	No!
	It doesn't work.
	It is love that cures loneliness.
	And love has the effect of sex, but sex increases loneliness.
	It is love that cures female anxiety, but getting resources from the state only increases female anxiety, and that's why it's an addiction.
	There's temporary relief.
	I got my check this month!
	But there is a long-term escalation.
	And that's what we're seeing at the moment.
	And this is why this idea of empowering women by having them turn to the state is literally the same.
	It's close to literally the same as trying to empower women by saying, join this harem instead of finding a good husband.
	Go join this harem instead of finding a good husband.
	Well, if you're sexy enough, you can join the harem and you'll get resources right away.
	But you won't get the security of genuine commitment.
	Shortcuts always destroy.
	You know, you want sex?
	Find a woman who loves you, court her, win her, woo her, marry her, and your buffet will be full.
	But if you just go and pay for sex, you're turning yourself into the kind of person that will turn the stomach of a good woman.
	And for women, if you try to achieve security...
	Through running to the state, yeah, you will get the immediate effects of love, so to speak, which is resources, but you will not get the emotional experience of love and the genuine and sustainable resource transfer that is a man's love and protection.
	You run to the harem, yeah, the guy will give you money right away.
	Yeah, he'll set you up and give you a silk bed to sleep on and he'll give you All the gold you can eat!
	But you won't gain any long-term security.
	Being in a harem comes at the expense of...
	Often having children.
	And being wed to the state comes at the expense, not always of having children, but it certainly comes at the expense of your children's futures.
	And that is the price, I think, that a lot of women are beginning to understand.
	I hope that this is helpful.
	Please let me know what you think of this type of conversation.
	Been a while since I've chatted in this way, but I hope that it's helpful.
	And I look forward to your donations.
	Please, please remember to pay for what you consume.
	If you find this valuable, if you find this helpful, if this clarifies things in your life, please help us out.
	Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	You can follow me on Twitter at Stephan Molyneux.
	FDRURL.com slash Amazon for our affiliate link, FDRpodcast.com.
	Please like and subscribe and share.
	And give me your comments below.
	I look forward to hearing them.
	Thank you so much.

▲