Feb. 10, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
19:56
3994 Weaponizing Women
Women have become weaponized against men in a battle for the political future of western civilization. As accusations of sexual assault and harassment cascade along the social landscape, a growing backlash is growing against the #MeToo phenomenon. Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
It's an old story about a US president who was desperate to have on his staff a one-armed economist.
Somebody said, why? He said, so I can finally have an economist standing in front of me who's not going to say, on the other hand.
Now, this, of course, is where the MeToo movement is now.
There have been some positive aspects, of course, the rooting out and bringing to light predation upon women by men in power, and that has been welcome and long overdue.
On the other hand, There is a spate of pretty wild allegations floating around that seem to be like random lightning strikes on the hearts, minds and futures of men, and that's making men just a little bit jumpy.
And I kind of want people, particularly women, to understand that your experience of all of this may be slightly different from men's.
And if you want men's help, which of course is what's being asked for at the moment through the mentoring request programs or the mentoring request tweets, Put out by people like Arianna Huffington, please men, mentor women.
Well, here are some of the risks that you need to understand.
You can use your famous female capacities for empathy to understand where men are coming from when they're a little bit jumpy about this kind of stuff.
So, the problem of...
What goes on in unverified ways without physical evidence behind closed doors and it becomes word against word the he said she said problem has been foundational to civilization ever since human beings struggle to develop a conscience and The fact that a woman can accuse a man of sexual predation, of sexual assault, of...
And now, of course, it's been redefined down to the point where it's like hands on knees and hands on shoulders and so on.
It makes me uncomfortable, where there's no physical evidence of any abuse or trauma or violence, and you can't do a rape kit for the hand on the shoulder.
And so what's happened now is that men are...
Pulling back from mentoring women.
Men are not having closed-door meetings with women.
Men will have meetings with women only if there's someone else present, and therefore that sort of private mentoring stuff is not really occurring.
Men in college are not buying drinks for women.
Men are not going out of the way to help women for fear of something untoward happening in response.
For the man, the upside of mentoring a woman is, you know, the personal satisfaction of helping a woman develop her talents and get ahead in her career and so on, and that's nice stuff and so on, but if you have to balance the risk-reward ratio, and one thing men are very good at is balancing the old risk-reward ratio as a result of tens of thousands of years of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, Then you have to say, okay, well, there's that upside, but what could be the downside?
You could say, oh, well, you know, she seems cool.
She seems like she's fine.
She seems like she's not going to take anything the wrong way, but you never know.
Men have been scanning the sort of before and after Pictures of women who go to the social justice warrior indoctrination camps, loosely termed modern universities, where they pay you to scoop out any vestiges of Western civilization and replace it with the hysterical command that if you can't control your own emotions, somehow it gives you the magical legal right to control everyone else's actions.
They look at these before and after pictures and they say, well, these women seem pretty cool before they went to university, but as the old Eddie Murphy routine about mfufu goes, she's going to get around a bunch of American feminists and is going to be convinced that That every time a man had garlic breath in her direction, something terrible has occurred, so she might change down the road.
Now, the way that this he said, she said problem was solved in the past was through a ruthless and relentless patrolling of sexuality prior to marriage.
Prior to marriage. And this, of course, is why they were chaperones.
Everyone thinks that they were chaperones just because the man was going to get all handsy grabby, but also There were chaperones in case the woman cried a false allegation, there would be somebody there to correct the record and prevent it from escalating further.
So there were chaperones, then of course there were relentless social controls.
Over sex before marriage.
Because once you were in marriage, right, once the man had signed up for a lifetime of providing 90% of his income to a wife and children, and once the woman had signed up for the protection and sexual access granted to the man of marriage, and marriage is the safest place for women to be in the West,
certainly far safer than out and about with the random A junk of one-night stands and just as college campuses are safer for women to be than in the general population.
But once you had signed up for marriage, then the he said, she said stuff became less relevant.
And so that was like, you know, now they're married.
Now we don't have to worry about the he said, she said stuff because there is sexual access in marriage and there are resource transfers in marriage.
Now that may seem cold, that may seem brutal, but given what's happening with false allegations these days, it may have been the best solution available at the time.
So the challenge now becomes this.
There used to be There used to be checks and balances on false allegations.
So for instance, before the internet, before the internet, if a woman made an allegation against a man and the police took it seriously enough, then it would be investigated.
Now, if it was investigated and grounds were found to proceed, then and only then usually could the newspapers report upon it.
So there was that.
But now, of course, allegations can race without checks and balances like wildfire across the social landscape and reach millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of people in just a few minutes without the checks and balances of Whether or not these allegations ever made it to the media as a result of the police opening a formal investigation or moving forward in such a way.
So, that has become a big problem in that reputation, a man's reputation, or a woman's reputation, if a false allegation is made against her, which is certainly not unheard of, Then a man's reputation can be destroyed with no checks and balances.
I guess you could go and sue the person who first created this allegation, but you can't disprove something for which there is no capacity for proof.
The law cannot deal with situations where there's no null hypothesis.
The law cannot deal in situations where there is no objective proof, where it is one person's word against another person's word.
The only way That the law can pretend that it's dealing with a he-said, she-said situation is either, as you see under Sharia law, discounting the woman's word and thus elevating the man's word to that of over a woman,
because in Islam you need multiple witnesses to proceed with rape allegations, Or in the West, which is the opposite and equally unjust situation, to elevate the woman's word over the man and say, she just must be believed because that's what she's saying.
And here's where you can see where the left and Islam have these particular aspects in common that they try to solve these issues of he said, she said, through raising either the man's or the woman's word over the opposite genders.
And that is not a great solution.
Frankly, it's not a very just solution.
And so, how do you say that 10 years ago, or 15 years ago, or 20 years ago, these things that happened in private did not occur?
Well, you can't. These cannot be proven or disproven.
And when these kinds of allegations arise, The real question should be not, is this true or not?
Because it cannot be established beyond a shadow of a doubt, or even beyond reasonable doubt, of course, or even on the preponderance of evidence required for civil cases.
So the question should be, how do we prevent these situations from coming into being, rather than how do we attempt to juggle hot-tempered syllables regarding unprovable events from decades ago?
Well, there are two other ways in which They do attempt to find out whether or not these things may be true or not in the past.
So the first, which showed up in the John Gomeschi case, which I did a whole video on, the first of these is to say, okay, if 20 women, independent of each other, come forward with similar allegations with similar details, Then, that lends weight to what it is that they say.
Now, the problem is, of course, that this standard of proof was developed prior to the internet, prior to social networking, prior to text messages, prior to encrypted phone calls and encrypted chats and so on.
And so now, it can be very easy, of course, for women or men to find out allegations that others have made and tailor their own Allegations accordingly.
So this sounds similar to what other people have said, to me becomes far less credible, far less possible.
Also because the allegations can be printed prior to the police doing their thing.
well, printed, they can be broadcasted through social media, through the internet, then it means that before any particular interviews by police, women have access to the allegations of other women and if they are so inclined, can tailor their own allegations accordingly.
So this similar story kind of idea tends to go out the window.
And we also know, and men see, men study this kind of stuff.
Women don't as much, of course, right?
I mean, I don't look for lions because I live in the snow this year anyway.
Snow leopards maybe, but not lions.
And so in the John Gomeshi case, which many men followed very closely, the women who claimed that they're, well, the police said, well, they're telling similar stories and they didn't coordinate with each other.
Why? Because they said we didn't coordinate with each other.
It turns out that they did coordinate with each other.
And lied to the police and perjured themselves, it would seem.
And what happened to them?
Well, nothing.
Nothing whatsoever. The women who bring false allegations are very rarely prosecuted.
It usually takes multiple, multiple allegations for a woman to end up in any trouble legally for lying and destroying a man's reputation and life and marriage and career and family and savings and peace of mind and possibly even his life if the stress drives him to suicide or ill health.
Well, what happens?
Nothing. Women can even say, I lied.
I lied and it did not occur.
You can say, oh well, you know, they didn't prove it.
Well, even if the women recant, it is extraordinarily rare for anything bad to happen to these women, for any repercussions to accrue, for the heinous, wrong, horrible, Iniquity of lying about a man's sexual behavior, sexual aggression, sexual assault, rape.
I mean, it's absolutely egregious.
It is one of the worst things that a human being can do, primarily because there's so much emotions involved.
If someone accuses someone else of murder, Well, I mean, you have to have physical evidence.
There can't just be a he-said-she-said situation there, because it's so serious.
Somebody accuses someone else of theft, and they say, well, do you have any evidence?
Well, theft isn't considered that important, but sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape, and so on, is such an emotionally charged topic, and...
The fact that the standard of proof is lowered.
Well, it has to be lowered again if we're talking about he said, she said.
If a woman shows up in an ER with a torn and bloody vagina or anus or is beaten black and blue or a chipped tooth or whatever it is, then okay.
There's physical evidence there that an assault took place and you take your rape kit, you get your samples, and you go and try and find your guy.
And there's no he said, she said there because there's empirical objective evidence.
But when it is, Stuff that happened behind closed doors for which there is no proof.
Well, all of society has organized itself to try and deal with this particular issue.
And then, of course, starting with the second wave of feminism, particularly third and especially the fourth, this has all been tossed aside.
Like, society just didn't really have a problem trying to deal with this stuff in the past and so on.
And then you create what's so funny.
Is that you create this system wherein women will not be treated equally to men, which of course, according to the backstory of feminism, that's the worst thing in the world.
Women are equal to men. But of course, you want equality when there's goods to be had, but you want privilege when there may be negative repercussions.
That would accrue to you. So you want equality when it comes to salary, but you want privilege when it comes to your word against his.
It's natural, and women are just like everyone else, just like men.
Women are corrupted by proximity to state power, just like men are, and just like I'm sure space aliens, should they ever be elected to office, would be as well, and their tentacles would be in your pockets forever and a day.
So this is the big challenge.
The other way that It's dealt with, these allegations, is the police would ask, did you tell someone else at the time?
And is that someone else willing to testify?
Now that may help to some degree.
But if the person you told is a family member, then we do have the problem of genetic and group preference loyalty.
And so if you say, well, I told my mom, okay, well, your mom's going to come and testify.
Well, sure, but your mom was probably the first person to clap at your high school play.
So it may not be the most objective source of these kinds of things.
And of course, telling someone else doesn't make something true.
So, if you had an unpleasant experience and you go and say to your mom, I had a bad date, and the mom says, yes, well, you do seem upset and so on, and then a couple of years later, you take a female empowerment class and then somehow come out feeling like an endless victim.
It's kind of funny and tragic how that works.
Then what happens is you may end up going to speak to the authorities, and the authorities will say, well, did you tell anyone else?
They say, yeah, I told my mom.
But then you have the problem of telling someone else doesn't make something true.
I saw a UFO. Hey, look, I'm telling the world I can see a UFO right here, right behind this camera.
Doesn't make it true. Also, of course, if you want to set someone up, then you would tell people that something happened without having to provide a shred of proof.
And then those people would say, yes, she did tell me, but if it was a setup, then it's a big problem.
So, these are the costs of taking sexual immorality out of the social sphere, and these costs have escalated because we have depressed the costs of sexual irresponsibility through the welfare state, through endless programs to Support single mothers and so on, and through free healthcare for the sexual addicts' endless parade of STDs, sort of like rats coming off a Middle Eastern ship in Europe in the 12th century.
And we have suppressed the costs of sexual irresponsibility, and therefore the costs are going to accrue to something else.
So yeah, men don't want to have meetings with women alone.
Men don't want to mentor women.
And this is the cost.
Because if the woman goes straight to the police, Then at least something can be done in the moment.
You can question the person when the memories are fresh.
You can question the man in question.
If the memories are still fresh, you can maybe look for some physical evidence, even if it's minor and so on.
There could be skin under the fingernails.
There could be all the stuff that would be gone days or months or years later.
And that's some possibility.
And also because an investigation has been launched, there may be some Quietness regarding it.
If the woman then waits for years and goes to social media, then the man's reputation is destroyed.
Because we all know, I mean, as the old saying goes, a lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its boots on, and this was a saying that was invented prior to the internet.
So you can have a multi-million simultaneous character and reputation destruction with very little capacity for recompense.
Because once the accusation is out there, you can't disprove it.
How can you disprove it? You can't.
There's no physical evidence of either kind.
No witnesses. You can't disprove it.
So the cloud is always going to hang over you, and that's really the point.
Now, providing this level of power to women is extraordinarily destructive for society as a whole.
Because we are not on either sides of the equation.
Men and women are not opposites.
They're not on either sides of the equation.
Our lives are all blended in with each other.
Our lives are all blended in with each other.
There is no attacking of the opposite gender.
Or the complementary gender would be a better way to put it.
There is no way to attack the complementary gender without hurting yourself.
If you have any compassion, empathy, or relationships at all.
It is, as I think it was William Golding who said in Lord of the Flies, a spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.
You put it into someone else, it also goes into you.
So, if you're a mother with sons, the fact that women have this kind of power to destroy lives is not good for you.
If you care about your sons, if you have brothers, if you have a father, if you have a male friend, if you have any man in your life Who you care for.
Giving this level of power to destroy lives with zero accountability or close to zero accountability is not good for you.
If you have a daughter, if you have a mother, if you have a sister, if you have an aunt, if you have a niece, The state handing this kind of power to women.
When women have this kind of power then ideologues will seek to attach themselves to women in order to exercise this power against their enemies.
They will fasten upon This power, the holders of this power, which is the women, which means that women become attractive targets to be manipulated by ideologues to be weaponized against the enemies of the ideologues.
And in general, it's socialist, communists in particular, leftists as a whole, who are weaponizing women against men.
And of course, what that does is it means that men and women are suspicious, men and women don't get together, men and women are more rare to get married and more rare to have children.
And that means We're kind of a very soft genocide in a way, and that is chilling or should be chilling for everyone involved.
So, rather than trying to deal with the symptoms, let's look at the source of the problem.
Let's allow for nature to reallocate the true costs of irresponsible sexuality to the participants.
You get pregnant, well, it's up to your family and up to your charity and up to you to deal with it if you get pregnant outside of wedlock.
If you have an STD, well, I'm sorry, that's a voluntary Illness to a large degree.
And that means that you've got to pay the bills.
And you'll be amazed. You know, there was a study that was done wherein when the hospital or a government agency no longer paid the costs for circumcision, a couple of hundred bucks, circumcision went down enormously.
You'd be amazed at how sensible people can get when the costs of being not sensible accrue to themselves directly.
