Nov. 25, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
40:07
4252 An Introduction to Female Evil (Part 2)
Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio, takes you deeper into the heartlessness of evil as it manifests in some women.▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour 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▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneux
Hope you're doing well. This is an introduction to Female Evil Part 2.
Sorry a little bit about the sound quality on the first one, but well, sometimes recordings don't go exactly as planned, but I thought the material was good enough and hard enough to reproduce, that I wanted to keep it that way, and hopefully this will work out better, I'm sure it will, but let's talk about this.
A bit of a sort of larger picture perspective on this stuff, though, I think is important to talk about, which is Why talk about female evil?
It's a very interesting question.
There is a phenomenon in psychology termed WOW, which sounds like the beginning of PewDiePie's WOW, but The idea is that women are wonderful.
It's just kind of ingrained into our society.
Women are nice, caring, nurturing, pleasant.
And this is something that is put forward in a democracy where women vote, right?
Men have weaknesses.
Weaknesses to the pursuit of status, weaknesses to dominance, and weaknesses to aggression.
But, as has been often talked about in the past, when men had more of a voice, women's weakness is vanity.
One of the weaknesses is vanity.
So, we all have a habit to want to take our own personal attributes and turn them into universal virtues.
And I have to watch this with myself.
I'm sort of good reasoning, debating, arguing.
And I think these are virtues, or they're positive things to work on, but not quite the same as universal virtues.
Now, women score high on two traits in personalities as a whole, personality traits as a whole.
They score high on neuroticism, and they score high on agreeableness.
Now, of course, for women, the great danger in a democracy is that the political leaders and their lickspittle worm-tongued toadies known as the media will praise women's innate agreeableness as a universal virtue.
And they will say, well, you know, you can be too agreeable, and it's not this praise and get along and go along.
It has good aspects to it, but it also can be kind of stifling, kind of conformist, and can also lend women to be very open to manipulation.
So for men, sexual access to high-quality women is a great weakness.
There's an old Simpsons joke.
Where there's a car show and there's a pretty woman with the car and the first guy walks up to her and says, do you come with the car?
She titlers and then the next guy comes up, do you come with the car?
You understand, right? So that is a man's weakness.
But a woman's weakness, of course, is believing that her agreeableness has no dark side.
That her compliance to authority and her susceptibility to praise has no dark side.
And it has an enormous dark side.
I mean, it is largely women's...
Nature or women's behaviors that have opened up the borders of Europe to endless waves of third world migrants.
Because, you see, they care.
The idea that they're caring for the drowned boy on the Turkish beach and others, the idea that they're caring might in fact be used to manipulate them for sinister political ends is not something that is part of our general conversation.
Male aggression can be manipulated into war, but women's compliance can be manipulated into surrender, which is even worse.
So, it is important to talk about the dark side of femininity.
Now, before we get into that, I wanted to talk about this idea of female nature.
Female nature...
And I believe this to be equally true of male nature, but female nature is not fixed.
Neither is male nature.
What I mean by that is people say, ah, you see, hypergamy is female nature, and if she can find a better man, she'll just trade up.
Well, no. Divorce was very rare prior to the welfare state.
If you look at the Amish community, separation or divorce rates are like 2%.
So you tell me where female nature is.
If divorce rates are very high, where there is a welfare state, and divorce rates are very low, like in the Amish or in the past, where there was no welfare state, you tell me, where is female nature?
In that equation, right?
It makes no sense. It makes no sense to talk of female nature.
Female adaptability is the key.
So if there was some country where everybody suddenly got, you know, a magic socialist paradise of infinite resources, everybody suddenly got a quarter million dollars a year of universal basic income.
Would people's behavior change enormously?
Well, of course it would. If someone wins the lottery, Does his behavior change enormously?
Of course it does. If a woman is born slender and beautiful and so on, does her nature change because of those physical attributes?
Of course, right? You need what is called the resting bitch face to make sure that men don't approach you ad infinitum.
You can flirt, you can become a model, and these will all have very powerful and positive effects.
You can glide statuesquely across the mall, and men will trail after you like ducklings after an orange balloon.
And if you try and do these things, if you are a pimply, physically ugly, obese woman, you will look insane.
Who do you think you are?
So what is female nature?
Is it to have resting bitch face?
Is it to glide statuesquely across the mall?
Is it to have great power in flirting?
Or is it to be open and positive and friendly and all that stuff, which the homelier women need to do?
What is female nature?
Well, if there's one thing we know about humanity, we are adaptable.
We adapt. So, don't talk to me about female nature like it's some fixed thing.
I think it is female nature to prefer security over opportunity, which we talked about or I talked about in the last podcast.
Yeah, that's female nature, for sure.
But the adaptability to the changing sources of resources, whether it's men or the state...
Well, female nature is to adapt to the environment to gain maximum security and maximum resources for her children.
Female nature is very often to be in compliance with the most flattering or the most aggressive authority figure in the environment.
Now, in a free society, that will tend to be her husband and the other women around and so on.
Whereas in a welfare state society, that tends to be politicians and the government.
It's not female nature to ditch the man whenever a new, better man comes along.
It's not female nature to be promiscuous and to try and Pin down the alpha chads with the force of vagina power.
It's not female nature.
It's female nature to adapt to the environment.
Just as it is in male nature.
To adapt to the environment.
There are some things none of us can change around our personalities and levels of intelligence in general and so on.
But we are fundamentally adaptable.
So... When I'm talking about female evil, I'm not talking about anything innate to women.
We all have a dark side.
And I'm not talking about that which is fixed no matter what social circumstances there or political opportunities or political circumstances are there, whether there's a welfare state or not, whether there are the old age pensions or not, socialized medicine or not.
I'm just talking about current Circumstances and situations and women's response to them, which is rational from an evolutionary standpoint.
It is rational from an evolutionary standpoint to prefer the state to A husband.
In the short run, of course.
But evolutionarily speaking, women have a shorter time horizon than men.
Which is why, as I said before, women prefer hate speech laws, which make them very uncomfortable if they're violated.
And men prefer free speech.
Men look down the tunnel of time.
Men contribute more to the realm of ideas, and so men prefer more freedom in the realm of ideas.
So, I just wanted to mention all of that as a backdrop.
And the other thing... Okay, one more.
I'll start in a sec. It's important.
So here's another one. Women complain about the patriarchy.
I was just having a conversation with a friend about this last night.
Women complain about the patriarchy.
Oh, men are in charge.
Men run these big companies.
Men run political institutions.
Men are in control. Blah, blah, blah, right?
And that's true to a large degree.
I mean, there are female political leaders all over the West.
Merkel, May, New Zealand.
Ah, that's right. But if you look at the gender ratio...
In Fortune 500 companies and so on.
Yeah, it's a lot of men. Now, part of that is due to testosterone, aggression, workaholism.
Part of that is due to the fact that men prefer often things and status to relationships and intimacy, which is why men go into engineering and women go into social work as a whole.
And it's also because of the IQ differences between men and women.
Men have... Not insignificant levels of IQ that are higher, right?
So, in the past, you know, I've talked about how men and women are kind of equal, but as it turns out, funny story, that study was all done very early on, relatively early on, in boys and girls' lives, and by the time physical brain maturity hits,
which is in the 20s, late teens, early 20s for women, mid-20s for men, if you start testing The Saxes, at the age of 25 or 30, men, on the whole, outstrip women fairly considerably.
So there's the higher IQ thing.
There is, of course, also the not having kids thing, right?
Not getting pregnant, growing a baby, having a baby, breastfeeding a baby, all that kind of stuff.
So, you can have a civilization, or you can encourage all your smart women to give up reproduction in return for a career.
And then you have nothing, right?
There's not enough smart babies being born.
So, yes, men have some significant and sometimes overwhelming dominance in the political and business world.
And scientific spheres.
If we're talking about the hard sciences, otherwise known as, for the most part, the real sciences.
Yeah, men have a lot of power.
But that balances female power.
What am I talking about?
Well, the two great female powers are, number one, to compel a man to provide resources for her and their children.
To compel a man to provide resources for her and their children.
So, a man can live on about 10% of his income if he doesn't have a wife and kids.
So, you have to produce 10 times more if you have a wife and kids.
Which means you've got to work 10 times harder slash smarter if you have a wife and kids.
And throughout history, in general, men could be legally compelled, and generally were legally compelled, To provide for their wives and children.
In other words, the woman didn't have to work in an economic sense, or she certainly worked at home, but the man was enslaved to his family.
Now, I know that that's a strong word, and I use it advisedly, right?
I'm not saying it's the same as outright slavery.
But, in general, when religious and social pressures meant that virtually every man got married, when there was no birth control, and particularly with Catholicism, where birth control is banned or was from most of Western history, a man was virtually compelled into becoming a wage slave for his wife and children.
Now, that's fine.
Again, I'm not equating it directly with economic slavery.
But there's cause and then there's effect.
And effect is basically the same.
That whether he loved his wife, whether he liked his children, whether he enjoyed being married, he was compelled to provide for his wife and children until death do they part.
And that is quite a big deal.
Now, of course, a guy could choose to become a monk.
He could choose to remain unmarried.
And I get all of that.
There was more choice. I'm not saying it's equivalent directly.
But it's not totally different either.
Now it's different.
You go MGTOW and all that.
But in the past, you understand, this is how things went.
So a man was legally required to pay for his inevitable wife and children.
Until death do they part.
It was a lifelong serfdom or servitude of economic requirements for the rest of his natural-born life.
It wasn't just when the kids grew up, it was he had to provide for his wife.
And of course, what would happen is His kids would grow up.
Historically and generally, they'd start having kids themselves.
You know, late teens, early 20s at the latest.
And then, wouldn't you know it, his wife, well, she can't work because now she has to go to help with the grandkids, right?
So he had to provide for all of that.
And that's a big deal. That's a very big deal.
So, women have power to compel resources out of men.
To compel not just resources to keep women alive and in the style to which they had become accustomed, but the children as well.
Number one. Number two, men have control or majority influence over the political and economic spheres, but women have control over early childhood.
And the first five years, you know, crucial.
Crucial. If not downright decisive when it comes to raising children, right?
Very, I mean, it's decisive. So, that is a huge amount of power.
The power of culture, the power of values, the power of submission to authority and what type of authority, the power of inculcating philosophy and morality in the children.
That generally fell Into the laps of the women, of the mothers, and the aunts and the grandmothers, and so on.
Also, a very big deal.
There's an old Jesuit saying, I'm sure you've heard it, give me a child till the age of seven and he is mine for life.
And, yeah.
Women raised the babies and inculcated the values in the babies.
It's a huge power in society.
Arguably, it's greater than political power.
Political power tends to follow these days because we have had an anti-rational society for half a century or more.
Political power tends to follow emotional prejudice.
Emotional prejudice tends to follow emotional programming.
Emotional programming is imprinted in babyhood, infancy, and toddlerhood.
And that's in control of women.
Women control all of that, right?
These days, you could argue more than ever in terms of single motherhood and prevalence in daycare as daycare instructors and prevalence in primary schools and so on.
It's a girl's world, my friend.
It's a girl's world.
It's a woman's world. And certainly since women get to vote, women outvote men and rights.
So we're just talking about through history.
Yeah, there was a patriarchy, and what can happen is sort of like, I remember reading this great little bit in economics, where somebody was making the argument, well, you know, what you want to do is you want to not buy a house, just rent, and take the money you would have spent to buy the house, your down payment and the extra money in your mortgage, take that and invest it in the stock market, you see.
And that's so much more economically efficient.
And the economist was just laughing at this, saying, like, this is retarded, right?
Because you're comparing the benefits of renting and investing in the stock market without comparing the benefits of buying a house and not investing in the stock market.
Because if you say, well, at the end of this process, you have a lot of money in stocks, it's like, sure, but you don't have a house, right?
You don't have a house. So, if you don't invest your money in the stock market and buy a house instead, well, you get a house.
And maybe the house goes up in value.
Maybe it goes up in value more than the stock market does.
Maybe there's a stock market crash and the housing boom.
So, if you take all the benefits of one thing and none of the benefits of the other, the decision looks easy.
But it's not easy because there's things to balance, right?
So, you can say, oh, here's where men have authority and power and strength, therefore patriarchy.
Or, you can be subtle, intelligent, nuanced, accurate, and say, yes, men have authority over here, but women have authority in compelling the man's income and controlling early childhood.
Which power is greater?
I don't know. I would lean more towards the matriarchy, even prior to women getting the vote, but...
Also, women, of course, have the power to accuse a man of sexual misconduct, of sexual assault, of rape, and so on, at least in the non-Sharia-compliant countries.
So, that's a great power.
And, of course, as you know, in the Muslim world, that power is controlled or minimized or diffused to a large degree by requiring independent witnesses and counting the woman's testimony at half that of her man's and so on.
Which, after the Kavanaugh hearing, I've heard rumblings of some vague sympathy for that position.
So yeah, if you just look at where men are strong and men have power, and say, well, you know, gosh, compared to men, women don't have much representation in higher political office, in corporation, executive boardrooms, okay, sure, you can look at that, and you can say, well, that means that women don't have power, or you can be intelligent, and you can say, okay, well, where do women have...
It balances. It balances.
It's a yin and it's a yang. And it is, of course...
The power of women to appear powerless, right?
It is in the controlling nature of femininity, at least in the West, that to appear vulnerable is The source of control to appear helpless gives women great power and control, and so nobody wants to remind women, no, no, no, you guys got great power to compel money out of men, you have great power to influence and control early childhood, so it balances.
No, we're victims, you see, therefore give us stuff.
A man cries, he is scorned, a woman cries, and everybody wants to throw resources at her.
So yeah, there's patriarchy and there's matriarchy.
It's a yin, it's a yang.
It balances in a free society.
So, that all having been said, thank you for your patience.
The aspect of female evil that I want to talk about here, and just to remind everyone who may be twitching in reaction, I'm not saying that all women are evil.
I'm not saying that women are only evil.
I'm just saying that there is the capacity for evil in female nature, which differentiates itself slightly from men, and it's worth talking about.
So, Women get dopamine from being agreeable.
Now, being agreeable is not the same as being honest.
It's not the same as being right.
It's not the same as being good.
It just means that if a woman sees a picture of a dead boy on a Turkish beach, her ovaries cry out for something to be done and for babies to be saved.
And you can say, that's nice.
Yeah, I understand that.
But it's not really what female emotional apparatuses were designed for anymore.
Like, we're not designed to see endless cavalcades of internet pornography as men, right?
I mean, the reason why we get turned on when we see sex is because if we see sex, it means we're in our selected rabbit-based, hypersexualized environment.
Somebody's having sex, and we might as well get some too.
But it's not the same as having a family and having children and all that.
And for women, their emotional apparatuses were...
I keep wanting to say apparati, but that's probably not correct at all.
But for women, their emotions were designed that if you see a dead baby, well, that's approximate, that's close.
We're not designed for screens, we're designed for eyesight.
And so, yes, you want to save that.
But... When women want something to be done because they feel such great ovary-twitching sympathy for the dead boy on the beach, well, men often say, well, what kind of ridiculous father puts his son in an overloaded boat crossing the Mediterranean in a storm?
That's criminal negligence on the part of the father.
The father is responsible for the death of the child and should be punished accordingly.
Whereas women are like, we have to open our borders because the child died on the back, you know what I mean?
So women feel great sorrow, great sympathy and tearfulness and so on when they see a picture like that.
Yeah.
And they find it unbearable to experience it, and then they want people to make that unbearable feeling go away.
And the answer to that is, well, if you open the borders, I'll feel better.
I'll feel that people are being taken care of.
I won't wake up and see another picture of a dead baby that makes my generally non-reproductive ovaries twitch.
Like the donkey's reaction in Shrek.
Get a facial ticker.
Now, if you open the borders, women will praise you, and they'll feel better, and they'll feel good, and they'll feel virtuous.
But if you say, no, no, no, what we need to do is prosecute the father for putting his child in harm's way, then the women get really angry, and it's recoiling from that female anger that is a big driving force in this kind of appeasement.
It's the appeasement of women, not enemies, so to speak, or potential opponents.
Because if you deny women that which relieves them of immediate emotional suffering, they get very angry at you.
Very angry at you.
I know it's like my mom used to talk like my ears half off about, you know, crappy, boring, go nowhere little dating troubles she was having.
And I guess it gave her some immediate relief to pour all of this crap into my youthful ears, like I'm talking from the age of, well, it's as early as I can remember onwards.
And some creepy, nasty stuff too, which I won't get into here.
Now, if I tried to set up some boundaries and say, Mom, I'm eight, I don't want to know about this stuff, she'd get really angry.
Rage, right? Why?
Because I was denying her the emotional relief of talkie-talkie-talkie.
And that's not very empathetic, you understand?
It's not very empathetic.
It's not very nice. And so if men say, no, we can't open the borders, it's going to mean, like you understand, men get this, right, as a whole.
Which is, okay, well, let's say we open the borders.
Okay. What that means is that more people are going to try and cross the Mediterranean in a storm, which means more children are going to die.
You're actually making things worse.
And then there are fewer men in the countries these men are coming from to do labor, to protect women, to fight whatever battles need to be fought.
And so, you look at the longer-term perspective, but then, women have to deal with their emotions, which is not always easy, because they are, you know, it's a peculiarly female word, overwhelmed, I'm overwhelmed, right?
You feel too much, overloaded.
And when women feel overloaded, you know, one solution is, well, stop looking at pictures of dead boys on a Turkish beach.
If you can't handle it, don't look.
Or the other solution, of course, is, well, open the borders.
So I'd have to feel bad about it.
And then, of course, because there are pretty sinister people in charge of the media, if the borders are opened, women know that they won't see more pictures of dead boys on a Turkish beach.
Because they got what they wanted, right?
They got the women to open the borders.
Whereas if they don't open the borders, they will see more pictures of dead children on a Turkish beach or other beaches, and they...
Can't handle it. Don't want to deal with it.
Now, men, in general...
Now, it used to be the case when I was a kid that you'd believe that it was men who were more physically aggressive and initiated physical abusive relationships.
And maybe it was. I don't know how far the data goes back, but these days it's 50-50 or so.
And so women have become physically aggressive.
Now, of course, women have also been programmed to be far less feminine and have been given this delusion of physical competence because of these endless female superheroes, you know, like these...
98-pound women who can beat up 200-pound men with spectacular CGI roundhouse kicks to the brain and stuff like that.
It's all nonsense, right? I mean, in the marine training program, I think no women have made it.
I mean, it's just silly.
I mean, women are relative to men, generally small and delicate.
Lighter and 40% less muscle mass in the upper body.
Oh, it's all... I mean, they're not designed for war.
They're not designed for manual labor, physical labor of that kind.
So, women have been told that they're, you know, tough and Charlize Theron ass-kicking Trinity crap, right?
It's all nonsense, but it is a fantasy that had been given to women.
And so, I think as a result of this, they have become a little bit more punchy, a little bit more physically aggressive in relationships.
And... Generally though, we...
are physically aggressive when we have, we believe, a chance of dominating the other person.
Now women can't physically dominate men, but of course they can make phone calls.
And then the men show up, right?
Women who don't like the patriarchy, the moment they get in trouble, they yell at their politicians, which they describe as the patriarchy.
We hate the patriarchy.
Oh wait, do I need something? I love the patriarchy now.
And so they'll call up men and the men will overpower.
The man that they're upset with, right?
So this calling in the airstrike of other testicle-based muscle forms, that is a female habit, and it's well understood throughout history that the woman can't beat up the guy who insults him, but she can tell her brothers the guy insulted him, and, you know, he'll go and beat that guy up for her, right? Or they'll go beat that guy up for her.
So, where we have the capacity for physical dominance, and that has changed now because in a lot of Western countries, if there's Any kind of sign of abuse or any claims of abuse then the man is automatically arrested and goes to jail and it doesn't matter.
So that's just the reality of how things work these days.
Now Where we have a strong belief in our capacity to dominate physically, what we do is we will, if we are bad-tempered and lack self-control and self-knowledge, we will act out and we will physically attack others, right?
That's kind of inevitable.
Now, for men, historically, that often was women.
Men are bigger and stronger.
But for women, it's children.
There's no greater power disparity in the world than between parent and child.
No greater power disparity.
A man beats up a woman, she can flee, she's got shelter, she's got protection, she's a legal adult, she can sign contracts, she can get resources.
A woman beats a child, or a man beats a child for that matter.
He's got nowhere to go, nothing to do.
He can call in the airstrike on his family of children's aid services, but that might end up with him being in an even worse situation.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
All that kind of stuff. So, that is the reality of size and strength disparities.
Women are bigger and stronger than children.
And the disparity is far greater between women and children than it is between men and women in terms of physical size, strength, independence, and so on, right?
So, that is a basic reality that needs to be understood.
If men are aggressive because they're bigger relative to women, then women can be aggressive because they're bigger than children.
And that's where...
Significant female evil occurs, and given how formative childhood is, female aggression against children is one of the great sources, if not the greatest source, of violence in the world.
When a woman is violent towards a child, the woman teaches the child that size and strength matter, that morality doesn't matter, and that hypocrisy is the foundation of human relations, because she only does it in private, right?
So I've had tons of people call into the show and say, oh, my mother beat me, but, you know, she lost her temper, she was not in control, blah, blah, blah, right?
To which you simply ask the simple question, well, did she ever beat you in a mall, or in front of a policeman, or in front of a teacher, or in front of any other authority figure?
And the answer, of course, is always no.
Now, if you have epilepsy and you have an epileptic attack, It is beyond your control.
You will do it in a theater, you will do it on a plane, or it basically will happen to you.
It's an electrical storm as far as I understand it.
You have no control of it. You can't will it to happen later.
But when it comes to physical abuse...
Of children? Well, that's a different matter, you see.
If the woman can postpone it until you get home, if the woman can postpone it until the cop isn't around, if the woman can postpone it until the guests leave, then she's fully in control of whether it occurs or not.
And therefore, she's 100% responsible for enacting the abuse.
So, Tourette's, right?
I mean, you understand the difference, right?
And recognizing women's capacity to dominate and brutalize children, which then, of course, you know, say, oh, where does all this misogyny come from?
Well, I'll tell you one pretty important place that it comes from is the basic reality that women hit children a lot.
Women beat children a lot.
And it's true, of course, that men sexually abuse children more than women.
And that's something we have talked about as a society, and rightly so, and in a healthy way, for a long time.
Long way to go still.
But women's beating of children, and also with single moms, the fact that single moms invite pedophiles into the home, or marry pedophiles, and so on, right?
I mean, that's important too.
Women are the gatekeepers of sexuality and access to children.
And there's another reason why pedophiles are so much on the left, right?
Pedophiles are on the left because the left is the welfare state, the welfare state is father absence, and father absence opens up access to children.
The more single moms, the more you can prey on children.
And it is leftism that generally produces and exacerbates the single mother phenomenon.
So, Women's violence towards children is one of the great unspoken, if not the great unspoken cause of evil in the world.
And women not controlling access to children of bad men is also significant.
Also significant.
Women's leverage of the legal system To abuse and punish men through accusations of sexual misconduct against children and divorce, which are incredibly common, in false accusations against men of sexual misconduct, from sexual assault to rape to inappropriate touching to harassment and so on.
That is also something that is unspoken.
I'm not blaming women here, you understand.
I mean, I'm giving women responsibility, but when you have a system, it's hard not to use it.
It's sort of like saying to a Soviet worker under Stalin, well, you're just lazy.
It's like, yeah, okay, it's kind of lazy, but there's no incentive to work harder, and people respond to incentives.
And if women can't bully men through calling in the airstrike of the legal system on their men, well, that'll be a great temptation.
It'll be a great temptation. So...
All of this is very, very important.
And the fact that women can go on strike sexually in a marriage, but men can't go on strike financially is also very important.
And please understand, I'm in no way saying that women should ever be compelled to have sex in any way, shape, or form, but this is a discussion that needs to happen, right?
So a man cannot decide after he gets married to not provide for his wife and children if he's a father.
And if his wife is home and doesn't have children, in many places and in many cases, he still has to provide for her if they get divorced, even without kids.
So the man cannot choose to no longer provide material resources to his wife.
But the wife can choose to just not have sex with her husband.
And, well, that's her right.
And I agree. It is her right.
She should not be forced to have sex with a man.
She doesn't want to have sex with, of course, of course, of course.
But, equally so, a man should not be forced to provide resources to a woman he doesn't want to provide resources to.
My body, my choice, completely agreed.
My wallet, my choice, also completely agreed.
But we can't even have these discussions, right?
Usually. Well, we can on this channel.
And hopefully we can over time.
So I hope that gives you some sense of how female evil can be approached and discussed and how important it is to do so.
We've got to break the cycle of violence.
We've got to bring women into the circle of darkness known as man's capacity and woman's capacity for evil.
Otherwise, we're just not going to be able to solve these problems.
To acknowledge a problem, to solve a problem, you have to first acknowledge it.
We're not really even at the stage of acknowledging yet, but I hope that you will like and share this.
with other people so that people can have the chance to discuss these issues.
It will be very liberating for women.
I believe we should treat women as equals, and that means the good and the bad.
Now, of course, a lot of women want the good without the bad.
That's understandable. That doesn't mean that they should get it, right?
You know, kids want candy doesn't mean that they should live on it.
So, I hope that you found this helpful.
Please let me know what you think in the comments below.
Let me know what your thoughts are.
If you'd like a part three, there's certainly more to talk about.
It's a big topic, but let me know.
And please help out the show at freedomandradio.com slash donate.
That's freedomandradio.com slash donate.
You know, you can't really get this material anywhere else.
And I certainly do appreciate having the resources to be able to continue to do it.
freedomandradio.com slash donate.
And, oh yeah, don't forget to pick up.
It's a great new book. Essential Philosophy.
Essential Philosophy. You can find links to it at freedomandradio.com.
