All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
31:20
3571 The Ugly Truth About The Women's March
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Savan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Quick question!
Do you feel like being an entirely different human being in, say, 10 or 15 minutes having a drop bomb of massive celestial illumination dropped into your neofrontal cortex?
Well, you have come to the right place because we're going to talk about the March of the Ladies.
Because buried in the sordid and socialized mess of the post-Trump Women's March is an essential truth that is really worth evaluating.
And understanding.
Now, let's just clear up a few things right up front.
First of all, calling it a Women's March is questionable, particularly if it is billed as a feminist event.
Only 20% of Americans call themselves feminists.
Actually, only 7% of British people do.
So, Women's March?
Sorry, ladies.
Not all women are like that.
Secondly, it was called a Women's March, so it would not have to be called what it really was, an anti-Trump march.
Duh, the day after the inauguration, not too hard to figure out.
By calling an anti-Trump march a Women's March, are the organizers and participants trying to make the case that all women are anti-Trump?
Perhaps it is only real women who are anti-Trump.
Actually, from the photos.
And you can brace yourself and have a look at them if you want.
Or you could just poke yourself in the eye with a spork repeatedly.
From the photos, it does sort of seem that a certain type of woman is anti-Trump.
But let's just hold that thought.
We'll get to that in just a moment.
Now, of course, if all women are anti-Trump, then, well, generalizing about women's political preferences is not sexist.
If all women are not anti-Trump, or not all women are anti-Trump, then calling this event a woman's march is a falsehood designed to play upon men's sympathy and white knighting and chivalry towards women.
Not exactly damning the patriarchy, now are we ladies?
Kind of relying on it.
Oh yeah, we'll get to that in a moment too.
Now, as it turns out, you can in fact generalize about women's political preferences Pretty accurately.
American women vastly prefer the Democrats to the Republicans.
It's a little under two to one.
Why?
Well, it's basically for the same reason that lottery winners like the lottery.
See, the Democrats take money by force, largely from men, and give it to a certain kind of woman.
Ka-ching!
It's not complicated.
It's not political philosophy.
It's just basic, immoral self-interest.
Now, Turning to the participants of this Women's March, it's hard to avoid seeing a certain pear-shaped pattern to the participants.
It has become kind of a cliché that feminists are physically unattractive, but there is actually some fairly solid science and research behind it.
One study of American women indicated that women generally pursue careers or have a greater desire to pursue careers because they fear they are too unattractive.
To land a man.
In another study, the more attractive a woman thought she was, the less feminist she was.
Women with more stereotypically feminine features tend to be Republicans or small government or lower-taxes people.
Women with more masculine features...
Handsome women tended to be Democrats.
And I don't know why anyone finds this even remotely surprising.
It's blindingly obvious.
See, Republicans are for smaller government and lower taxes.
Now, attractive women marry high-income men, and so they want lower taxes, these women, because their family, their husbands, they're on the paying end of the redistributional equation.
Less attractive women marry lower-income men, or don't marry at all, and so they want higher taxes because these less attractive women are on the receiving end of the redistributionist equation.
So, and look, I understand.
Please don't bore me out of my gourd by telling me it's a continuum.
It's not 100% one or the other.
And there are exceptions to every rule.
Yes, I understand statistics.
There are tall Chinese people and short Danes.
I mean, don't be either defensive or dumb.
I'm really not sure I understand the difference or it immediately means anything, but I guess these are generalities.
I understand.
Just hang on to your big number of panties and stay with me, people.
See, for women, the left versus the right is the plain girls or the homely girls wanted to take money from the husbands of the pretty girls.
It's high school, but with voting swords.
And this is why the fight gets so personal and so vicious.
It's actually kind of a genetic war, not even an ideological one.
And they tend to be the most vicious.
And you can check out more about this in my presentation on R versus K, Gene Wars.
Actually, one study, Americans can reliably pick out whether a woman is a Democrat or a Republican just by looking at a picture of her face.
So, we like to think we come to our conclusions.
Oh, so ideologically, mostly we're just giant levers being pulled by our jeans to make more of them.
And this is a strategy, right?
Genes need energy, and whatever gathers you energy is going to be a successful gene strategy, so we understand this.
Okay, so whenever there's like a clear pattern that's almost never discussed, or if it's discussed, not really understood, it's worth pursuing to the end.
You know, like how testosterone levels among Western men, particularly white men, are catastrophically dropping and have been for the past couple of decades.
And testosterone is largely environmental, so women are raising men.
And testosterone levels are going down.
So, again, these are things that we should really be talking about, but it involves men.
So, radio silence!
Do not ever bring awareness to the male service of the taxpayer farm.
So, as a question I've pondered, why hasn't ugliness been selected out of the gene pool?
So, for instance, women, in general, on average, I'm looking at you, Jennifer Aniston, prefer a man with hair to a bald man.
Yet baldness, like, not just on this channel, but in general, remains extraordinarily common.
Here are some statistics from America.
It is estimated that by the age of 35, approximately 70% of all American men will have some experience with some degree of hair loss.
All the balance apparently goes to Brad Pitt.
And the fat guy from Lost.
It is also estimated that by the age of 50, approximately 85% of all American men will have some significant amount of hair loss.
Don't worry, boys.
On the other hand, it does migrate to your nose and your ears, and that's always joyful.
You know you've hit middle age.
You go to the barber and say, well, can't do much about the top.
Maybe you could trim my ears so I could hear something.
That would be excellent.
25% of American men actually begin the process of hair loss before the age of 21.
So yes, it is quite common.
The question is why?
If women prefer Astute men, then why do us baldies get to make babies?
So why is it so prevalent?
And, you know, there's a lot of men who say they prefer large breasts on women to small breasts on women, which, of course, would beg the obvious question.
So why has ugliness or unattractive characteristics not been more or less weeded out of the gene pool, you know, like the genes for six toes or something like that?
Well, to understand this, well, you can listen to my theory.
I'm not saying this is scientifically proven.
I'm not saying it's a slam dunk.
I'm not saying it's 100%.
But if you get it, it's really going to change your life and you'll never look at news the same way again.
Basic fact.
Women, okay, I know modern women and so on, but you know what?
Guess what?
Our biology didn't exactly prepare us for the past 150 years of post-industrial revolution civilization.
It's kind of what was evolved over the last 150,000 years across a wide variety of landscapes as we have swarmed around the planet.
Women, basically biologically drawn to economic security.
To a relationship with a provider, a male, who gives them resources.
Why?
So the women don't starve when they're pregnant and breastfeeding and otherwise disabled by having children.
It's an exhausting business.
I've seen it up close.
I can't unsee it.
So, when women feel unattractive to men, or are unattractive even if they don't feel that way, then they will feel the need to get the resources they need from some other source.
Which is why the women who feel unattractive are inevitably drawn to having careers and leftist state redistribution of other sources.
People's incomes, right?
So the smart, less attractive women go for careers, and the less smart, less attractive women go for big, giant government programs that snatch money from smarter, often more attractive people, and redistribute it to them.
It's a perfectly valid biological strategy.
It's a form of parasitism, using the power of the state.
And, of course, using the power of the state, you go and vote, the government goes get the money for you.
You don't face any of the personal risk of direct theft, you know, where people can protect their own property.
You can't really protect your property from the state.
So...
Now, modern feminism comes to a large degree out of the left, right?
Marxism, socialism, and the goal of the left is to destabilize the nuclear family unit in order to destabilize capitalism and freedom in general.
So, what do leftists and feminists do?
Well, They convince gullible women, you've got to work!
That motherhood is serfdom!
Marriage is slavery!
And so millions of these women scurry up to their little jobs and what they do?
They dump their kids in daycare.
Now children dumped in daycare for more than 20 hours a week experience all the symptoms of maternal abandonment.
In other words, leaving a child by the ditch is the same emotional response.
A child has the same emotional response as if you put him in daycare.
For more than 20 hours a week.
And it's not like 19 is great either.
It just, that's the tipping point, it seems to be.
So this experience of millions and millions and millions of children throughout the West of being dumped in daycare, this maternal abandonment syndrome, well, it's produced this snowflake generation.
You know, they're unstable, the volatile, aggressive, cowardly.
And, for obvious reasons, they're fearful of and hostile toward the free market and its demands for providing value in a voluntary way, mature negotiation, and so on.
Now, there's a reason why leftist feminists largely target unattractive women.
And if there aren't enough unattractive women out there, they tell them all about body positivity.
And it's important for you to love yourself and you're beautiful at any weight.
And it doesn't matter whether your hair color is this big, giant, often literally red flag for men to run screaming and so on.
Because, you know, if you're fat, if you're freaky looking, if you've got weird piercings, weird tattoos and so on, Guess what, ladies?
Biology is going to dictate that you're never going to get a high-resource provider to provide for you.
So there's a reason why the leftist feminist target or create unattractive women and tell them that men are untrustworthy and shallow and patriarchy and rape culture.
So if women feel that men are untrustworthy, then they may still get married, but they will still want to get an education and maintain a career just in case their husband decides to leave them.
Now, this habit is highly beneficial to the state.
Why?
Because women complain about a lack of women in STEM fields and then pursue arts degrees.
So, women generally pursue art degrees where they can be heavily propagandized with further leftist indoctrination.
It's great to get people to pay for and go into debt to indoctrinate themselves and your ideology.
And, of course, having women in the workforce is wonderful for governments.
Working women contribute taxes, right, in terms of their own payroll and, of course, the payrolls of the underpaid amateurs who are called in to take care of the children of working mothers.
It's no accident that within 10 years of women gaining the right to vote, the U.S. government doubled both its tax revenues and its overall expenditures.
Also, just by the by, Tangent City, Feminists endlessly complain about this 70% gender pay gap, which is nonsense that results from women's choices, not sexism.
But, you know, I've never heard a feminist complain that there's a 200% gap in the taxes paid by women and the taxes paid by men.
200%.
That's...
That's almost 3 times 70%, so that seems important.
200% gap in the taxes paid by women and the taxes paid by men.
I guess I'll just leave you to ponder which gender pays more in taxes.
So, this is important as well.
Governments love getting women to defer childbirth and stay in the workforce because Governments have to provide services to children, and if women are raising children, they're not contributing taxes.
So the costs of government goes up while the income of governments go down.
And since governments are now this big, giant bribe factory of stealing and getting votes for money, they want you to defer having children.
One of the greatest psychs, I just got to tell you, one of the greatest psychs in the history of the known universe is, you know, for decades, when I was growing up.
Zero population growth.
Overpopulation is a giant problem.
Don't have children.
It's irresponsible.
It's environmentally destructive.
Don't have children.
More population is terrible.
Fast forward a couple of decades.
Oh, sorry, not enough children around, so we're going to have to import third world migrants.
Yeah, sorry about that.
We should have probably mentioned that when you were choosing whether or not to have children, but now there aren't enough young people to pay for old age pensions, so we're going to have to bring in migrants who end up on welfare even more than the children would have.
Anyway, psych!
I can't believe people aren't more angry about this, how much was robbed, but we'll get to that as well in a moment.
So, yeah, basically, unattractive women nagging men to get resources.
Yeah, that's totally not a cliche.
Totally progressive.
Totally empowered.
Now, let me just drop another truth bomb on you here, my friends.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, right?
This creeping socialism that came in after the crash of 1929, the hyper-growth of the American government.
I've got a whole couple of presentations on this.
Just search for Great Depression on this channel.
So the New Deal, all this creeping socialism, it all got started after, after, you see.
Women got the vote.
See, there was a crash in 1920.
It was actually worse than the crash of 1929, but nothing was done.
Everything got better within about 18 months and chugged along.
Then there was a crash in 1929.
And how did the Western governments respond?
Well, massive government spending, giant socialist programs, which created a 13-year depression that culminated in World War II. What was the difference?
Well...
A lot of it had to do with female suffrage.
See, I said it.
Yeah, yeah, I said it.
Got a problem?
Let me know in the comments below.
Yeah, female suffrage helped pave the way to World War II. Female suffrage caused the government to become hyper-proactive in responding to economic recessions and depressions rather than letting them ride out, which has been the pattern ever since.
Because, you see, men can be allowed to suffer for the case of economic realignment.
You know, when economics go kind of haywire.
Well, a lot to do with the war and the Spanish flu.
Tens of millions dead.
Men can be allowed to suffer.
Ladies can't be allowed to suffer, so whenever there's a drop, you've got to go in with your Keynesian stimulus!
Which is basically, well, women can't suffer, men can.
And because we can't allow women to suffer, a lot of men died in World War II. Some women too, to be fair.
Now, Think of a woman's beauty.
And if you look at, this is particularly true in British newspapers, like some women with big tits.
They say, so-and-so displays her ample assets, you know, and the butt or whatever.
So a woman's beauty is actually considered her asset.
And I saw this in a mall.
It was a beauty store.
And over some cosmetics was a sign that said, tools of the trade.
Your daddy's rich and your mama's good looking.
So a woman's beauty is considered her asset.
In fact, female body parts considered to have high sexual market value indicators are directly called assets.
Now, a woman who is physically unattractive can still attract a man.
But she has to do it through the positive force of her personality.
Her sense of humor, her trustworthiness, her affectionate nature, her intelligence, her conversational skills, household management skills, maybe even money, earning skills, can all contribute to this.
So here's the fascinating thing.
Ugliness of the body can stimulate perfection.
Of the spirit.
Because you've got to compete with the hotties.
And if you can't compete with the hotties on looks, you have to improve your personality.
I mean, you know this cliche.
I'll mention it in passing.
You know, hot women tend to be crazy.
You know, the oft-reported hot mess!
In other words, if you are a woman and you're crazy, that is considered, in the weird upside-down world of the modern socialist state, considered to be...
A sign of your attractiveness.
You're so attractive that you can afford to be crazy and you're still going to get men to want to date you.
So here we have it.
Imperfections in the body can stimulate perfection within the spirit.
Ugly people have to become better people to compete with the hot people.
Perfection of the body, physical beauty, can stimulate or maintain ugliness of the spirit, being a sort of hot, crazy mess.
And, you know, you know the cliché.
It's been known and commented on for literally thousands of years that physically unattractive women tend to have great personalities.
It's like this old joke among bachelors being set up on blind dates.
You know, the moment you hear that the woman has a wonderful personality, well, you kind of know exactly what she looks like, or I guess more specifically what she doesn't look like.
So unattractive women can make up for their lack of physical beauty by developing positive personality traits, which actually makes them better partners and mothers and friends and companions in the long run.
Now see, this, improvements in personality, this is how genes for unattractiveness compete against genes for attractiveness.
They compensate, as we all do for our deficiencies.
So in an interesting way, being a good woman, a nice woman, can be seen as a confession of physical unattractiveness.
Women are good, sometimes it seems, almost resentfully as a backup plan.
You know, since their bodies have failed to give them automatic value, they have to work to earn it.
You know, like, fine, I'm not pretty, I guess I'll just be a good person then.
I mean, think of, you know, when you're young, right?
If you're young, you might envy your friends whose parents are wealthy.
Because your friends are not going to have to, like, painfully earn their own money over time.
Man, I remember, I would grab dirt poor.
And, like, eviction notice poor.
And...
When I was in high school, there was this school trip.
You could go to Russia.
I think it was like $1,400 for the whole thing all in.
It might as well have been $14 billion.
We couldn't afford any of it.
But my friends who went, ah, I would have loved to have gone.
I dreamt about it.
I dreamt about it.
I couldn't go.
So if you're born poor...
I mean, you kind of resent having to get jobs at a young age because you want to buy anything even remotely fun.
Now, of course, you know, in the long run, that's great.
You know, earning money rather than just being given money makes us better and happier people in the long run.
But that doesn't seem to matter too much in the moment.
So, of course, ladies, you will most likely be a better person if you're not born pretty.
But that never seems to matter too much in the moment.
Now, since unattractive women need to develop sterling positive personal qualities in order to attract a man, putting these shallow and often venomous personalities of physically beautiful women to shame, and advancing not just female virtue but social virtue as well, leftists actually have a rich target to focus on.
Because here's the thing, here's the most fundamental thing to understand.
When you get confused about biology and male-female relations, just return to this.
It's a great foundation.
See, women aren't designed to attract men.
I know, it seems odd.
They're not designed to attract men.
You know, like television shows are not designed to deliver shows, like television stations, they're not designed to deliver shows to you.
They're designed to deliver you to advertisers, right?
That's the deal, right?
And they use the shows to get you to watch ads.
Women don't attract men.
They're not designed to attract men.
They're designed to attract resources through men to get men to give them resources.
Biologically, the goal of a woman is not the love of a man, but the provision of resources for her and for their hopefully shared children.
The goal of a woman is not the love of a man.
The love of the man is simply the means to get the resources, not the end.
So, physically unattractive women in a free society become better people in order to gain resources.
Just think of the first Kevin Smith movie, Clerks.
Watch it.
It's all about the hot girl versus the nice girl.
Now, this works the same for both genders.
The short man, the homely man, the bald man.
You generally have to make more money in order to attract a more attractive mate.
You've got to become a better, more productive person, satisfy people in the free market in order to raise your sexual market value if you're not a gorgeous man.
So, you know, you work to add the value that you're not born with.
Well, that makes you a better person.
So for homely women, they become better people in order to get resources.
Now, what happens when the government gives them resources instead?
Well, when the government gives plain or unattractive women resources, they don't have to become better people in order to gain those resources.
They're not in competition anymore.
In general, the upward march of virtue is rarely propelled by the attractive.
Socrates was famously ugly, and Nietzsche looked like he was trying to inhale some form of muskrat in just about every photograph I've noticed.
Virtue is pursued often to make up for a lack of beauty, since either path is valid in the pursuit of resource acquisition.
If you're gorgeous, people will bring you stuff.
Maybe you can get really smart, maybe you can be really productive, and so on, and get stuff that way.
So if women get resources without having to attract men, then physically unattractive women have no direct incentive to improve their personalities, or even to make themselves more physically attractive to men.
It even becomes cool to make yourself even more physically unattractive to men.
You know, the blue hair, strange piercing, weird tattoos, obesity, and so on.
So, this is the basic thing that always needs to be remembered.
Women, biologically, historically, evolutionarily speaking, are vulnerable and largely helpless for 20-odd years.
Yeah, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, childminding, exhaustion, particularly when the kids are young.
So those women who were not able to successfully use men to get resources did not do well, and their children were much less likely to survive.
Now, if you take away this vulnerability, the vulnerability of women, then women lose their most essential reason to be attractive to men, to get resources anyway.
Don't need to be attractive, get the resources anyway.
Now, of course, women are still going to have the desire to have babies.
Of course, When the socialist government redistributionist scheme set in, they still have babies.
They're kind of larping at families.
They have babies though with the government playing and paying the role of fathers.
This of course guarantees continued single mom votes for big government programs and a tasty herd of dependent dysfunctional pseudo-families.
So this is important to understand why is all this hostility towards men?
Because women no longer need men to provide their resources, they get it from the government instead, and they're free to insult and attack men.
They create these dystopian projected fantasies like rape culture and patriarchy and male privilege and so on.
Now, since the government uses force to deliver resources, mostly from male taxpayers, to these women, they are free to abuse their helpless victims, just like any other slave owner.
Men are in a democracy inevitably outvoted by women.
Women have a higher incentive to vote because they're on the receiving end of the resources in general and they live longer and so on.
So men are outvoted by women.
Men have their resources stripped from them by force by women.
Men are ridiculously discriminated against in the so-called family court systems.
And women collect vastly more out of government retirement pension schemes than they ever paid into them.
Yeah, it's all about the patriarchy, right?
Because in general, whoever you exploit, you must first denigrate.
Like if you want to take a bunch of factories from capitalists, you have to portray capitalists as downright evil and exploiters and ugly and vicious and nasty because you want to steal from them, so you have to dehumanize them so that no vestigial empathy kicks in to slow your predatory claws across their wallets, souls, lives and families.
So, yeah, if you want to exploit someone, you have to denigrate them.
And you have to set up the situation where success equals exploitation, which is why mental illness, depression, and dysfunction have become a badge of honor among the left, because it means that, for sure, they're not exploiting anyone, and therefore they're good people.
They're on the receiving end.
If you're a victim, you're virtuous in a system where you have set up all success as exploitation.
If you're a So, yeah, if you want to exploit someone, you've got to denigrate them.
The level of female predation upon males through the power of the state is so high.
But this crazy, massive, hysterical denigration is the inevitable result.
You can't pillage if you don't first dehumanize.
I mean, like, one of the central organizers of this Women's March is a big fan of Sharia law.
This is the company these women prefer to keep while they endlessly rail against white Western males.
And why not?
It's kind of inevitable.
They weren't born physically pretty, and they don't have to learn to be attractive in their person, to be kind, to be nice.
So this is what they're left with.
They're left with like pussy hats and dressing up as vaginas and leaving a tsunami of trash behind them, celebrating fetus killing and praising tampons and fantasizing that they're so sexy that President Donald Trump will indeed want to handle them by the cat.
You know, remove people from reality, particularly like economic voluntary reality, and they seem to shift from surreal to unreal in just a few short years.
Thank you.
Now, what are we left with?
Left.
An entire phalanx of women ugly in both body and spirit.
With no more will to be attractive than a lottery winner offered an early morning garbage-hauling job wants to set his alarm, get to work.
Power corrupts.
The welfare state is the single mother state, being on the receiving end.
Of trillions of dollars of government subsidies corrupts people, mind, body, and soul.
These mistresses are the new masters we must all bow to.
We must all pay for, or they will screech for you to be hauled off to jail.
Thus, Madonna X... Pretty woman, now carousel-haunted, yellow-skulled, professional Skeletor, whose child basically bites at security guards trying to wrestle him on a plane to be forced to see his own mother.
Madonna now screams as she fantasizes about blowing up the White House.
And she says, it's the love revolution, in a completely incomprehensible nonsense speech.
It's a love revolution, we're all about the love, so F you, F you, and F you!
Dropping F-bombs on the people carrying the live broadcast.
Excellent job, lady.
Ashley Judd.
Childless Ashley Judd.
Ex-pretty woman.
See the pattern?
Now screams that the President of the United States has wet dreams about his own daughter.
This is the elegant and brilliant Ivanka Trump.
She appears both beautiful in both body and spirit, and Ivanka Trump stands as a split-road treadmill not-taken path to these demented harpies.
And advocates of Sharia law find these women extraordinarily useful.
This is the great tragedy.
Look, I don't speak about these matters like some abstract thing.
This is my direct personal experience.
Listen, have a look at this.
See, I was a very good-looking young man.
Then I began to lose my hair.
When I was physically beautiful, I was not actually a very good person.
When my looks took a blow, I wasn't an idiot.
I became a better person.
This opportunity was given to me because the government does not force women to go out with me.
I had to win their affections in the free market of dating.
If the government had forcefully provided me women to date, I would never have become the great person that I am now.
You see how this works?
I don't want to deny other people the same opportunity.
The freedom to fail is how we find or at least approach perfection.
These women are broken.
And it is our pathological altruism that has broken them.
These women could have had great lives with loving husbands, community children, if they wanted them.
Children to crawl into your lap when they're tired and nestle into the nape of your neck, their tiny breaths warming your heart like a sleepy firestorm.
These women could have grown old in the loving embrace of kith and kin, anchors of kindness and charity in their communities.
They could have been, after they died, lovingly recalled by dozens.
Soon enough they will be remembered by none.
They could have had all of this, and more, more than can ever be described, but they have been seduced by the state, used Think of what they could have had,
what they could have been, and then look at the pictures of the trash they leave behind as they self-righteously waddle away and understand that all that happened in this women's march is that these women got probably the only exercise they're ever going to get this year, while across America, half a million cats went hungry and everything fell apart.
Live in anger.
▲
Export Selection