All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:19:42
The Mythology of the Working Mom - Peter Schiff Radio Show
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners.
One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next, boom.
Your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your Bentley.
Are you with me?
The revolution starts now.
Starts now.
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
Turn those machines back on!
You are about to enter the Peter Schiff Show.
If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.
This is the last stand on Earth.
The Peter Schiff Show is on.
Call in now.
855-4-SCHIFF.
That's 855-472-4433.
I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.
Your money.
Your stories.
Your freedom.
The Peter Schiff Show.
Good morning, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
This is Stephan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
I'm sitting in for Peter Schiff, who is currently, I believe, auditioning for The Daily Show, if I remember rightly, in a strange turn of media events.
So, looking forward to your calls.
That was 855-4-SHIFT.
There is no guest in this show today but you, my friends.
You are ready for the fireside chat of The Peter Schiff Show.
As you may have heard, if you, for instance, turned on the TV, looked at skywriting, read your tea leaves, there was an incident, yo and lo, this very weekend in Nevada.
And I guess it started late last week.
So this is Guy Cliven Bundy.
Oh, don't you wish he had a slightly better name?
Being Hitler is fighting the Feds.
But he is a Mormon whose family has been ranchers for 150 years or so.
They've been working this land.
In Nevada.
And the federal government, using the magic property rights fill program, just basically has said to about 84% of Nevada and a little over 80% of Utah, do you know what they've said?
Mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!
It's ours!
Why, did we grow anything there?
No, of course not!
Did we build any houses?
No!
Why would we do that?
Fences?
No!
Build any oasis, any disco balls out there, anything to just spit on a cactus.
No, they probably never even visited the place, but magically...
It's theirs!
And now, you have to pay rent!
Isn't that great?
Don't you wish you had that magic wand?
Like you could just dance down the street like Richard Simmons on crack, touching cars with your magic wand, and say, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!
And now, you must pay me for the privilege of using that which you already have.
Oh wait, they have that, it's called property taxes.
I remember now.
And this guy's allowing his cattle, 900 head of cattle, to graze on these lands which are claimed to be owned by the federal government under the management of the Bureau of Land Management, BLM.
And there's this, these public lands are like 158,000 acres of land and 900 cattle.
But the BLM is saying, dude, seriously, the tortoises.
Don't you care about the tortoises?
I mean, OK, it's true.
Millions and millions and millions of bison used to thunder through there on a regular basis.
But your 900 head of cattle are going to totally destroy these tortoises.
And this was sort of the cover story.
We can't let this guy graze his cows because of these tortoises.
Now, if you remember, those of us who are over 40, I'll speak into your good ear.
You may remember back in the day, there used to be a few nuclear bombs exploded as tests in America.
Where did they choose that?
Manhattan?
Sadly, no.
It was, in fact, Nevada.
They detonated literally hundreds of nuclear weapons in Nevada.
I don't imagine that came out of a deep, pedestal concern for the tortoises.
My thought.
My thought.
I mean, while it's true that you can produce some pretty cool cartoon characters by exposing turtles and tortoises to excessive amounts of radiation, I think that's how it happened.
I was too old to get into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, although I was into Renaissance painters, which made me very cool.
But they irradiated these turtles.
I mean, blew them into atoms.
And also, they've been taking money from some of these ranchers' fees, and they've created a sanctuary for turtles.
But now that they've driven most of the ranches off the land, they actually have to euthanize about half of the 1,400 turtles that they have.
So it's kind of hard to see how Cliven Bundy is somehow hostile to the turtles with his 900 cattle in 158,000 acres, when they have regularly detonated them into tiny little nuclear shield shadows, and are currently, I don't know how you euthanize a turtle, I guess with nuclear weapons, calling in an airstrike on the conservation area.
But it's all quite mad, and he's basically not complying with their fees.
He's not paying their fees.
It's been going on for about 20 years.
Now, I'm a big fan of questioning the automatic Windows Paint Fill Program government ownership of everything, which seems, you know, a little bit on the fascistic side.
This guy is willing to pay his fees, but he says, I'm only going to pay them to Clark County, to my local government.
I'm not going to pay them to the federal government.
And they're saying, no, no, no.
We've got to protect all of these poor turtles.
Which is, of course, nonsense.
I mean, the idea that the government really cares about the environment.
Ask your average Iraqi how their environment is doing as a result of the government's concern for the environment.
Do you know that the American military burns in one day?
The oil consumption of the entire economy of India, with just massive amounts of people.
The government has something called the Species Protection Act, and it has a success rate of about 1%.
Now, sorry, ESA.
And it has a success rate of about 1%.
It has, unfortunately, a success rate of close to 100% of destroying the economy, but only 1% in terms of saving The species.
So, I mean, you can't look to government for the protection of animals.
They're not even very good at protecting people.
They tend to throw them in cages quite a bit for having the wrong piece of salad side dish in their pocket.
They tend to invade other countries, support dictatorships.
America's the biggest arms dealer in the known universe.
But I'm sure they care about the spotted owl, the snail daughter, and the desert tortoise.
I think let's start caring a little bit more about human beings and let our care for animals flow from that.
So this guy's basically refusing and what the BLM has done is dropped about 200 armed agents into his neighborhood with helicopters, low-flying aircraft, basically everything except tanks and photon torpedoes is circling this guy's ranch.
And I do have to give a, you know, a healthy male shout out to his sperm, which appear to be like, it's basically like a toad in a river.
I mean, the man has like about 400 children.
Ah, he's a Mormon, right?
So it's easier to breed than convert.
But his kids have run up against these guys who are stealing their cattle.
Coming down, they're spending three million dollars to steal their cattle.
I mean, the desert sanctuary only costs a million bucks a year.
They could keep More of these tortoises alive by taking that money and giving it to the tortoise sanctuary, but of course it's not about the tortoises.
That's just sort of a cover story.
And they're capturing this guy's cattle.
His son went out to film them with an iPad.
He was on the road.
He wasn't interfering.
And they basically tossed him to the ground, set attack dogs on him, beat him up, according to witnesses.
It is unholy stuff.
This is, of course, exactly the kind of government that I have been talking about the moral reality of low these 30 years since I first got into it.
31 years now.
I'm 47.
Started getting into politics when I was 16 because I heard it was way better than a fretless guitar for getting chicks.
But we're going to talk a little bit more about this when we get back.
I welcome, I welcome this, particularly if you're in Nevada.
Use that rotary dial phone.
No, I'm kidding!
Call in.
We'd like to chat with you about this if you know anything more about it.
If you're in Nevada, Utah, or any of the fine states that produce the meat which clogs our hearts, 8554-SHIFT.
But we're going to talk about What has been discovered about why this is actually going on?
It is like a Bond villain in its nefarious schemery.
We'll be right back after the break.
Thank you so much for listening.
The Peter Schiff Show.
The Peter Schiff Show.
If knowledge is power, then the Peter Schiff Show is a uranium-enriched 10,000 megawatt nuclear reactor.
Stay plugged in.
Stay brilliant.
This is the Peter Schiff Show.
Good morning, everybody.
Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
We are talking about Clive and Bundy and the standoff at the Nevada Ranch, which has resulted in a back down from the federal government.
They have retreated to their desert lairs like sand people walking in single file to obscure their numbers.
And they have retreated back into their lairs.
And whether they will return, what's going on, they have vowed to continue their fight against the rancher and hopefully take his cattle using the soft fascism of the American court system.
But I really want to know what you think.
Let's take a pulse of the nation, shall we?
What do you think?
Are we going to see more of these mini rebellions in the future?
Why do you think the feds backed down?
Do you think the Bundys are in the clear?
Do you think Bundys are in the right?
Was it right to take a stand?
So often governments become what they despise.
George Washington led a rebellion against King George over a 3% tea tax, then turned around and imposed a 25% whiskey tax in Pennsylvania, which fermented a rebellion that he rode down with armed troops to suppress.
I mean, can you imagine living in Pennsylvania sober?
No.
It sends chills down my spine.
I'm trying to think if there are any states I haven't insulted yet.
Actually, I love America.
But why is all of this occurring?
Why is all of this occurring?
Well, InfoWars managed to dig up something that was quite interesting that I think had a significant role to play in ending the escalation, at least in its current form.
The Bureau of Land Management The director of the BLM was Senator Harry Reeds, Democrat from Nevada, of course, his former senior advisor.
And the BLM has just purged documents from its website, which openly states that the agency wants Nevada ranchers Clive and Bundy's cattle off the land that he and his families worked for over 140 years.
in order to make way for solar panel power stations.
Oh yes, and it gets even better than that.
First of all, from the document from the BLM website, it says, Clive and Bundy has no legal authority to graze cattle on federal lands in the Gold Butte area.
I'm sorry for those, uh, I talked on the weekend or I called it Gold Buttes, not my fault if you all name your country like a barn villain.
No legal authority.
Isn't it fantastic to see the government really concerned about the legal authority to do things?
I mean, it's a great thing that they haven't declared war without congressional approval in direct contradistinction to the constitutional requirement to do so.
Isn't it great that they never did that?
Isn't it great that they haven't changed Obamacare hundreds of times since it was passed?
In Congress, without Congressional approval, isn't it great that they're applying the law unequally, indirect contradiction to the law of the land?
Isn't it great that they didn't end up wiretapping every known carbon-based life form on the planet, without approval, without legality?
They're so concerned about legal authority, isn't it great that they prosecuted all of the crooks in high places with Empty, cold dollar bills where their hearts and souls should be, where their conscience should be.
I mean, they did manage to round up about 2,500 protesters in the Wall Street protests, but it's really fascinating to see the degree to which government pulls out the no legal authority card when it comes to 900 cattle, but when it comes to something like war,
When it comes to something like endless fascistic wiretapping and the spying on diplomats, on supposed allies, on everyone who draws a breath, When it comes to the takeover of one-sixth of the U.S.
economy and the healthcare debacle, then they don't seem to care that much about legal authority.
But by God, if your cattle are in the wrong place, legal authority becomes their reason for living.
Oh, the hypocrisy that we have to live with!
If it wasn't so important, it would be side-splittingly funny.
So, Harry Reid.
Dirty Harry, I believe, as he's known, came out of Las Vegas.
He was a chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, well known for its transparency and virtue and lack of underworld influence.
So his son is a lawyer, and Reid and his oldest son are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, E&N Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert.
Reid has been one of the project's most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project.
In Nevada, his son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre or 3,600-hectare desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County.
where Rory Reed formally chaired the county commission.
Oh, isn't it just a lovely, delicious map of the London subway, lower intestine, web of deceit, lies, and possibly treason.
So you could not think of a more iconic contradiction and a more tragic end to what used to be called the Cold War, war that an american cowboy is being pushed off his land to make way for a communist giants boondoggle project in the desert boy isn't it great that we beat communism
Now, our politicians are bought out, not just by domestic interests, which is bad enough, but by foreign interests as well.
It's bad enough that the Fed doles out billions of dollars of loans to foreign banks, even the banks of enemies.
The people that the United States is contemplating military action against get money loaned to them by the Fed.
It's bad enough that the American government sells arms that are used to destroy American lives in the inevitable imperialistic intervention or invasion.
But now you have American politicians pushing cowboys off the land at the behest of quasi-fascistic communist corporations from former enemies.
If that doesn't get you in the gizzard, I really don't know what will.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts though, 8554CHEF.
Looking forward to telling me what you think about this.
There is one thing that I think is quite a delicious Irony.
If we could get cut 26, I think we could chew that up a little bit if you don't mind.
My fine audio friends.
Speaking in the Senate... NASCAR fans can easily find their favorite drivers by simply looking at the cars as they fly by, because there are corporate emblems on the hood of the car.
In fact, they're all over the car.
Though our clothing, here in the Senate, We don't bear any commercial logos.
Many Republican senators these days might as well wear Coke Industries' insignias.
But as members of the United States Senate, there should never be any doubt as to our sponsor, the American people.
There is a little asterisk there.
You can read it in the transcript when he says, Shouldn't never be any doubt as to our sponsors, the American people.
And there's a little asterisk that says, by American people, I mean giant communist state corporations.
So there's a little translation there.
Maybe his English isn't that great.
Probably he misspoke.
So yeah, OK, let's put the logos on.
Then the Democrats can wear the logos of giant public sector corporations that are sucking the taxpayer dry like bottomlessly thirsty vampires.
They can wear the logos of the Hammer and Sickle in service of corporations controlled by a state that requires only one child per family, denies basic human rights, but still has fewer prisoners than the American prison system, which currently has more prisoners in it than was ever in the Gulag Optical Logo under Joseph Stalin.
We will be right back.
Looking forward to your calls.
This is Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
The Peter Schiff Show.
We now return to the Peter Schiff Show.
Call in now.
855-4-SCHIFF.
That's 855-472-4433.
We're on the radio.
The Peter Schiff Show.
Good morning, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
This is Siddharth Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
So, looking forward to your calls, 855-4-SHIFT.
Let's chat about anything that's on your minds.
I do a philosophy show called Free Domain Radio, so there's pretty much no topic that's off-limits to me, except topics that are defined as off-limits to me.
Ooh!
Put that in your logical sack and shake it around a little.
So, our dear friend President Obama was speaking to a group of ladies.
Now, it seems to be a constitutional impossibility, both physically and legally, to talk to a group of ladies without somehow pretending that they are oppressed.
It's just the rule!
It's the way it goes.
And what he was doing was complaining that it costs more for Michelle Obama's blouses to be dry-cleaned than for his shirts.
First of all, if you're the president, I don't think you should know that.
Like, I don't think that should be what you're up to.
Sorry, can't get to Benghazi.
I mean, the dry cleaners closes in like half an hour.
Gotta get out, gotta hitchhike my way over there, man.
Anyway, can you check behind the couch, see if we got any change there?
Because, you know, there's this thing called tax right here.
You probably should be outsourcing that, and of course he is.
But, There's a very simple reason why it costs more for women's blouses to be drier than men's shirts.
It's a little word called vanity.
Because men... Look, dudes, do you really care how well your shirt hangs?
You know, it keeps your tie attached to your breathing space, and goes into where yesterday's pork roast dinner is hanging over your belt.
That's what we're kind of all about.
Ah, you sit down and stand up, it always looks like you're being covered by a deflated air balloon anyway.
But, the reason that it costs more, and all you have to do is ask, but of course that would not play into the general narrative of the poor oppressed victim women!
It's because women's blouses are all different shapes and sizes and can't be put through an automatic presser.
Men's shirts can be put through an automatic presser because they're kind of all the same, more or less.
But blouses can't.
They have to all be done by hand.
At the moment, as you know, labor touches anything, the price of it skyrockets.
It's not a conspiracy, unless you consider female vanity, i.e.
wanting your blouses to hang exactly where they're supposed to in some incomprehensible manner, involving girders, Lego, and construction blocks.
That is a conspiracy, maybe just a vanity.
And then he was going on to talk this oldest trope of all, which is how women are underpaid relative to men.
Oh, man.
The great economist Walter Sowell was, you can find this clip on YouTube, was destroying this piece of quasi-Marxist propaganda decades ago, and still it hangs on!
It can't be killed, the lie!
It takes 4,000 stakes, you can't even find the heart of this particular piece of undead propaganda.
You can't kill it.
It doesn't matter how many facts there are, you tell a woman she's oppressed, The vast majority of women were like, yeah, I am oppressed!
Those men!
Now where's my blouse?
I have to iron it with a tiny iron!
Study after study has shown repeatedly that women earn less because they tend to work part-time.
Women earn less because they tend to take time off to raise children.
And it's really that simple.
It's sort of weird.
It's like women complain about wages and they don't even notice that they have children around them.
It's like they're invisible, or something.
It's like, I should earn the same as somebody who works all the time, full-time, and doesn't have children.
You know that there are children there, right?
I mean, you can see them.
I mean, this isn't like the sixth sense.
They didn't die in some godforsaken accident.
You can see them!
They're real!
Tousle their hair.
Feed them.
Remember those things hanging off your breasts?
They're real!
And they have an economic impact.
Look, if you're going to be a halfway decent mom, The recommendations from the World Health Organization are to breastfeed your babies for 18 months.
18 months.
18 months quite a few times a day.
I was a stay-at-home dad, have been since my daughter was born.
And there's quite a lot of breast milk flying around the place.
And they wake up a lot at night, inconsiderate, selfish little monsters.
They are highly inconvenient to a business career.
I still think it's fairly frowned upon to breastfeed at high-level executive corporate meetings.
And it's tough to be a waiter, you know, with three kids hanging off some Navajo shoulder sack.
So yes, when you decide to have children, it will have an economic impact on your life if you don't want to be a bad mother.
Stay home with your children and breastfeed them.
It is essential for brain development.
It is essential for the development of the immune system.
It is essential for the parent-child bond.
No, it's okay!
I have a breast pump and a bottle!
Oh, please!
Machinery does not replace the human touch.
Otherwise, let's have marriage ceremonies for creepy Japanese men with sex robots.
It doesn't equal the same thing!
So if you're going to be a decent mom, if you want to have kids and having kids is a great thing, I love being a dad, then yeah.
Now it doesn't have to be the woman, it should be the woman because she's got the udders to feed with.
Maybe it could be the man, but basically biology designs it to be the woman.
Stays home.
That has an economic impact.
Study after study has shown That women who have the same degree of education as men, and who've been in the workforce for the same amount of time, and who don't have kids, they used to earn a little bit less, now they earn a little bit more than men.
So if you choose to have children, guess what?
You can't spend as much time at work.
It's so weird to even have to say this stuff.
But you read these articles where there's this income... It's so unfair!
No, it's not unfair.
You make choices.
And those choices have consequences.
Now, I know a lot about society is to some degree shielding women from the consequences of their own bad choices.
Which is why we have so many single moms.
Statistically producing so many under-functioning, addicted and quasi-criminal children.
Sorry, don't shoot the messenger.
These are the facts.
There is no single greater predictor of a negative outcome from a child than coming from a single parent, which is basically a single mom household.
Used to be a woman had to choose a really great guy because she would be dependent upon him to bring her resources while she was big with child and feeding them.
That's kind of the way the nature is.
You gotta... I mean... Yeah, there's hot guys.
There's players.
There's unstable guys.
There are drummers.
But you have to be responsible with your uterus.
At least you used to have to be.
You used to have to find a guy who would actually hang around and bring you resources, and love you, and care for you, and therefore you didn't have to look for the pretty boy with 9,000 abs who looks like he jumped off a movie poster for 300.
You have to find a guy who's steady, who's reliable, who's good, who's virtuous, who's dependable, and who's productive.
No thug breeding used to be the order of the day.
Now, well, Big Daddy Alpha Male State will come in and provide to you what a husband should be providing.
The growth of the welfare state largely is the growth of single moms.
And it tends to feed in and of itself.
Right?
The more resources you provide to single moms, the more you tend to get single moms.
Which is why the majority of women under 30 who give birth are now unmarried.
The institution of pair bonding, which developed over tens of thousands of years, designed to give the best possible outcome to children, has been cast aside in a generation.
And now women are wed to the state.
What does that mean?
And not all women, of course.
I mean, lots of women are victims of the irresponsible women.
But women now vote for more government, because they literally cannot afford less government.
And once they have kids, well, men of quality have more choices, right?
And they're not necessarily going to want to get enmeshed in a complicated, messy family situation, raising somebody else's kids, maybe with some creepy ex floating around.
So this idea that women are victimized by some vast conspiracy.
Patriarchy.
Oh, patriarchy.
Don't even get me started.
Everyone knows the old saying, women and children first.
Women and children first.
Basically, that men are disposable, like toy soldiers you can throw into the fire of war.
Men are disposable.
Why should it be women and children first?
Children, I can sort of understand.
They're victims and, you know, they're not there by choice and all that, but why?
Does a man not want to live as much as a woman does?
Why is it women and children first?
Why is it women first before men?
Well, biologically, we can understand that, right?
Eggs are more rare and harder to grow than sperm.
Yeah, but we are supposed to surmount biology and civilization, right?
That's sort of the point of civilization, is to not be run by our base animal instincts.
Now, who were oppressed were slaves.
They were really oppressed.
And if a riverboat went down, there was no ethic that says, slaves first, on the lifeboat.
Save the slaves, first and foremost.
Let the rich, white, slave-owning jerks die, but save those slaves!
But the ethic throughout almost all of human history has been, save the women, at the expense of the men.
That doesn't really sound a lot like patriarchy to me.
You want a view of patriarchy?
I'll give you a view of patriarchy.
The woman, Margaret Thatcher, sending tens of thousands of men to go and fight in the Falklands.
Can you imagine?
I mean, if it was a real patriarchy, then it would be a man sending tens of thousands of women to go and fight in the Falklands.
If there was a man ordering tens of thousands of women into battle, can you imagine the outcry?
I'll give you another example of patriarchy.
One out of ten children does not have the father that the woman claims, that is on the birth certificate.
One out of ten children!
Oh my goodness!
Horrendous!
Can you imagine if one out of ten women's babies were switched in the hospital and they took the wrong home baby by mistake and didn't even know it?
There would be a massive outcry.
But men can be forced to pay for this kind of paternity fraud for twenty years.
So don't talk to me about patriarchy.
But what we do want to talk about is entirely up to you.
855-4SHIFT That's 472-4433.
Give me a call, brothers and sisters.
Let's talk about what's important.
The Peter Schiff Show.
The Peter Schiff Show.
You've heard of Karl Marx, right?
Well now, meet his worst nightmare!
This is The Peter Schiff Show!
Good morning, everybody!
Hope you're doing well.
It's Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
We are talking about the ladies.
So we do have a caller on the line.
Is it Andrew?
Are you there?
Yeah.
All right.
What's on your mind, brother?
Yeah, you know, I heard you mention this a couple of times before about the unwed mothers.
Is that really, though, the problem?
I mean, you know, I know there's... the way I see it, there's a couple of factors at play.
One is more of a tendency for the government to support, you know, these types of relationships.
But, you know, what about the rise of secularism?
You know, just the way that people aren't wanting to get married as much for religious reasons or non-religious reasons.
Well, I think that that's an excellent point, and a sort of complex series of thoughts flash through my brain, and I'll try and sort of distill them really quickly, but the rise of secularism in the absence of philosophy is generally fuel for fascism.
Because religious edicts and ethics evolved along with our sort of biological necessities to restrain our more animalistic impulses and turn them towards something productive in the long term.
So the religious edict of no sex before marriage obviously arose before birth control when it was highly dangerous to have sex before marriage.
It could destroy a family.
Because then the parents, who may not live that long, end up having to provide for the daughter who has a kid, and then the parents die, as the average life expectancy in the Roman Empire was like 23.
Now, if you made it to 20, you probably made it to like 50 or 60, but the daughter then would be without resources, and the kids could starve, or she'd have to sell herself into slavery just to keep her kids alive, or whatever.
So, it was a genuine disaster, and this is why you had such a strong ethic of no sex before marriage.
Now, when you then become a secular society with a government, then you look askance at all of the religious edicts.
And, you know, some religious edicts I think are obviously quite silly.
The injunction to murder homosexuals, not really one of the favorites of the Abba-based communities.
But there were lots of great religious edicts which get thrown out When you get secular, secularism.
And then, when the edicts get thrown out, the disasters mount.
And when the disasters mount, and there's a government, people then turn to the government.
And say, yeah, we had all these great rules about don't have kids out of wedlock, no sex before marriage, find a virtuous person, don't just go for looks, just don't go for style or flash, look for the substance.
Oops!
Made huge mistakes.
Now, normally when society makes huge mistakes and there isn't a giant government ready to dispense its pellets of democratic virtue to everyone, then what people do is they say, wow, that's really bad, I guess I have to put this kid up for adoption, or I guess I have to find some guy to marry me, that's really, oh my goodness, that's terrible, right?
But when there's a government, what happens?
Oh, I guess I had a baby with an idiot.
You know, a guy who knows where and what to point, but not how and why to stick around.
So, listen, Big Daddy Government, would you mind stepping in?
I'd be happy to vote for you.
And so what happens is, what used to happen is, single moms would give up their kids to adoption, and adopted kids do just as well as kids born to a nuclear family.
But if they stay with single moms, they do terribly.
Terribly.
Terribly, terribly, terribly.
But the women can vote, and they say, Give me the goodies!
Give me the goodies that a good man would have given me!
And the government say, Sure!
And then all the media says, Those heroic single moms!
Man, oh man.
Heroic single moms.
Oh, if only having sex with men could make you a hero.
Richard Simmons would have statues in every town square.
Freddie Mercury would be the greatest moral human being who ever didn't live too long because he had too much sex with men.
It's not heroic.
It's not heroic to have sex with men without birth control.
So, yeah, I mean, when you lose religious values and there's a government, you don't have philosophical values to take their place.
It tends to fuel fascism.
I'm sorry for the rant.
I mean, I ask for calls and then I just rant on you.
But, Andrew, what else you got to say?
Yeah.
Oh, I mean, that's interesting.
When you bring up those figures, those numbers, I have a hard time digesting them.
Because of those different factors, I don't know if the majority of that change is due to religious changes or really due to these societal, government and welfare states.
Oh no, I can guarantee you that it is largely due to the government.
I mean, it tends to be self-reinforcing.
The government is Free foolery and free evil.
If you make bad decisions, you should bear the cost yourselves.
That's what keeps people from making bad decisions.
And the examples of people who make bad decisions keep other people from making bad decisions.
Like, oh yeah, you remember that girl who got pregnant when she was 17?
She had to drop out of school.
She's living in her mom's basement.
No guy wants to date her.
She's got breasts down to her knees.
I mean, it's all terrible, right?
And that way, other people are like, well, I don't want that!
So, right?
So, shielding people from the bad consequences of their bad decisions only encourages other people.
There was a group of high school girls who all made a pact to get pregnant at the same time somewhere in the States.
Well, how could they possibly do that?
Because they can socialize the cost of their bad decisions.
So, thank you for your call.
We do have a lady on the line.
I believe we have Nicole.
Do you have something you would like to add?
Yes, good morning.
I just wanted to bring a perspective from a working mother and a career woman.
While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I think there are some generalizations that are being made on the types of jobs that working mothers have where they may be getting paid more.
I took a route where I went to college, I got my degree, and then I got married.
Then we waited a few years before we had children.
Um, when I decided to have children, um, you know, obviously it does take away from work a little bit, but most, I can say that, honestly, all of the women that I work with, and, you know, I have a very well-paying job, that we actually work just as hard, if not harder, than our male counterparts.
Because we know that there's a stigma out there that, well, we have kids, so, you know, it appears that we aren't working as hard or that we're not working as much.
But when you're looking at someone that has You know, a business career.
We all have laptops and cell phones.
We're working around the clock.
When my kids go to bed, my laptop comes back out, and I work some more.
It doesn't mean that I'm taking away from my kids.
Nicole, you've got about 8 million fantastic points.
If you can hang on until after the break, I will do my best to continue the conversation in a productive fashion.
Thank you so much for calling in.
Hang on if you can.
And we'll talk more about this right after the break.
Bye.
Bye.
Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners.
One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next, boom.
Your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your Bentley.
Are you with me?
The revolution starts now.
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
Turn those machines back on!
You are about to enter the Peter Schiff Show.
If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.
This is the last stand on Earth.
The Peter Schiff Show is on.
Call in now.
855-4-CHEF.
That's 855-472-4433.
I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.
Your money.
Your stories.
Your freedom.
The Peter Schiff Show.
Good morning, everybody!
Hope you're doing well.
Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio, sitting in for Peter Schiff.
We are chatting about the disparity in income between men and women, and we have a fine caller on the line.
Nicole, are you still with us?
I am.
All right.
Got a couple of questions for you.
We've got a lot of ground to cover, so if you keep your answers short, I would be thrilled beyond measure.
How many kids do you have?
I have three.
You have three kids.
And how long did you stay home with them after they were born?
I stayed home with them about seven weeks each.
Seven weeks each?
Mm-hmm.
All right.
So I guess not so much with the breastfeeding, right?
No, I still pumped for several months.
How many?
In fact, three to six months, depending on child and my supply.
But I even traveled for a living and I would pump while I was traveling and I took a cooler through the airport.
So that I could continue to breastfeed while I was traveling for work.
Alright, and so where did your children go when you went back to work?
We have a family daycare that they go to.
It's a certified daycare down the road from us.
And how, so they would be in there for what, 40 hours a week?
Yeah, yeah, from 7, 7.30 in the morning I drop them off, my son off before my girls go to school, and then We pick them up at five after work.
Okay.
I don't know if you know this, but studies seem to be fairly clear that children who don't see their moms for about 20 hours a week experience the same psychological effects as children who experience maternal abandonment.
So where do they go currently after school?
After school, they go to the daycare for about an hour, and then I pick them up after school.
So you have to go and pick them up, obviously, right?
I mean, if you have something to do at work that's taking longer, you have to say, sorry, I gotta go pick up my kids, right?
Yeah, absolutely.
Where do they go in the summer?
In the summer, they go to daycare during the day.
I do take a lot more vacation during the summer, so they have a lot more time with me during the summer.
Right.
And how many hours a week do you think that you work, on average?
It depends on the week.
The job that I have is managing a business that's cyclical and so winter months are much heavier.
I would say in the winter months I was working upwards of 80 hours a week at times and during the summer it's closer to the 40 hours.
And does your husband work lots of hours or is he a little bit less intense in his career?
He works about 30 hours a week.
Okay, so he can give a little bit more primary care to the kids, right?
But why doesn't he pick the kids up from work?
Sometimes he does, it just depends.
It just depends on what we've got going on, you know, we manage it day by day.
Right, right.
So you have a hard end to your day, which is going to pick up your kids, that single women and... Most of the time.
Yeah, most of the time you do, right?
If my husband can't pick them up at five, you know, and I have to, or my kids have activities, After school, so sometimes I have to leave at 5 o'clock, which is technically the end of my working day.
So I don't feel guilty by any means for leaving right at 5 if some of my male counterparts stay until 6 or 7 at night.
But then once my kids go to bed, I have the ability to turn my Computer back on and do some more work.
Or on weekends, you know, if they've got an activity, I can bring my computer with me while they're doing their activity.
Hang on, Nicole.
Do you not like your husband very much?
I love my husband.
We do spend a lot of time together as well.
No, you don't!
No, you don't!
We do.
No, you don't!
If you're working 80 hours a week and bringing home work nights and weekends, then mathematically, you are not spending a lot of time with your husband.
I mean, there's only so many hours in the day, right?
Yeah, the 80 hours was... that's atypical.
That was because we had a very heavy season.
But you travel, right?
You said you travel a lot.
You're breast pumping in airport toilets and stuff, right?
So, you travel a lot.
I assume you get up, you get your kids out, get them to daycare, go to work, pick them up from daycare, cook some food, help them with homework.
I mean, this is a merry-go-round going at Mach 12, isn't it?
We have a very busy lifestyle.
Which means not much time for quality interactions, right?
We have a lot of quality time in the evenings and we have a lot of quality time on weekends.
No, no, no, no.
Come on, come on.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't tell me, look, I work at night so I'm the equal of people who stay late and then say, well, I also have a lot of quality time with my family at night.
You can't have it both ways.
There's only so much time in the day.
If I turn my computer on at 10 o'clock at night when my husband goes to bed and my children are sleeping and work for a couple hours, it's not taking away from either of them.
What time do your kids go to bed?
They go to bed at 8.
Your kids go to bed at 8.
You pick them up from daycare at 5.30?
5 o'clock.
5 o'clock.
And when are you home?
So you have to leave work before 5?
I work virtually.
Oh, you work from home.
Okay, so you go and pick them up.
You get them at five.
So you leave a little bit before five.
You said it's just down the street.
So then you get home and you've got to, I guess, make some dinner or maybe your husband's making some dinner.
And how many hours of homework or how many minutes of homework do they have a day?
They have homework twice a week for about 15 minutes.
Oh, so they're pretty young, right?
Yes.
Right.
It kind of goes up from there though, right?
Are they involved in activities as well?
Yes.
And a couple of activities.
A couple each or a couple as a whole?
As a whole.
Right.
As a whole.
In fact, when I was busy working, we decided to cut back on Taekwondo over the winter because I was working so many hours and that gave us additional family time.
So that's less time with your children.
Right.
That's less time with your children because other people are interacting with them.
I assume you're not a Taekwondo teacher as well.
No, I'm not a teacher.
I watch and I help them.
I do help them with their routines.
Right.
Well, I mean, I'm just telling you as a stay-at-home dad, I mean, you're not having a lot of time with your kids.
I mean, you're there for seven weeks after they're born.
And then you're going back to work.
You're traveling.
I mean, that's a lot of not time with your kids, right?
We're a two-income family, and most families with two incomes, I mean, that's... Why are you a two-income family?
Nicole, why are you a two-income family?
Why doesn't one of you stay home?
I guess if we could afford it, we probably could.
You can afford it.
You can always afford it.
I mean, if you live in a studio apartment, you can afford it, right?
I mean, you're paying for daycare, you're paying for two cars, you're paying for dry cleaning, you're paying for gas, you're paying for everything to do with a second income.
Right?
So you can afford it.
This idea that somehow in the first world you can't afford for one person to stay home, I mean, unless one of you is currently homeless, that's not the case.
We could certainly afford it if we made the choice, you know, to cut back in other areas.
We have some activities that we like to enjoy as a family.
My kids understand that.
They understand that the reason Mommy's working and Daddy's working is so that we can have all of these fun toys and do things together on weekends.
And honestly, I think I spend more time with my children than a lot of moms out there that stay at home.
I'll see moms at the school.
I go and have lunch with my girls because I work from home so I can do that.
So I'll take my lunch hour and I'll go to the school.
I'll sit with my kids and all of their friends and I'll have lunch with them.
I'll go out on the playground with them and play with them for the next 45 minutes after lunch before I come home.
I go on every single field trip that they have for school.
I do fun stuff with them every single weekend.
A lot of times at nights we'll go and do fun things together as well.
I see some moms who don't work, who sit at home on their bus all day, and they still don't do anything with their kids.
Well, look, I mean, if you're going to compare yourself to the laziest people on the planet, you're always going to look like a hard worker, right?
I mean, I know people who are shorter than I am, so I'm really tall, right?
Look, I obviously, I commend you for your commitment to your kids, but the reality is that they are being raised, in the majority, by other people.
I mean, that's just the basic, nuts-and-bolts, time-based reality that other people are spending more time raising their children than you are.
And, I mean, that's a choice you make.
I don't think it's a great choice.
I think if you decide to have kids, you owe them the first at least four years for each child being home with them.
That's when 80% of the personality is developed.
That's when the parental bonds happen.
So I think that if you're going to have kids... But you know what I... Yeah?
I don't understand because you were just bad-mouthing how awful, you know, lazy single moms are who decide to stay at home and collect welfare.
But then if you're a hard-working mom and you go out and you work for a living Yeah, that's what you call a false dichotomy, Nicole.
The only alternative is not to be a working mom and have very little interaction with your children, compared to someone who stays home, or to be a stay-at-home mom on welfare who doesn't interact with her children.
There are other opportunities, and the fact that you're drawn to compare yourself to that, I think, tells me something about your conscience.
So, look, you can look up the facts, don't look up the science, don't take my word for any of this sort of stuff, but look up the degree to which not being around your kids harms the bond.
Now, your kids are young, so prior to the teenage years, the lack of bonding with parents really shows up in the teenage years.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, maybe it'll all be smooth sailing for you, but the shortcuts that you've taken in your parenting, allowing other people to parent them, what happens when they don't have enough adults around, when you give them to daycare workers and teachers, They end up bonding with their peers, and then they end up incredibly influenced by their peers when they become teenagers, and parents don't have much authority anymore.
The peers are doing the influencing, which is almost always the lowest common denominator.
These are challenges that you may face.
I could be wrong, but this is what the science tells me.
Sorry, we gotta cut this off, but thank you so much for your call.
I really appreciate your openness, Nicole.
We'll be right back after the break.
The Peter Schiff Show.
The Peter Schiff Show.
Nine out of ten historians agree, if Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were alive today, both would be Schiff Radio premium members.
Somewhere up there, Thomas Jefferson is looking down with great pride.
Schiff Radio continues, right now.
Good morning, everybody.
It's Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
We were just talking with a working mom.
Ah, the oxymoron continues.
And look, this is something that happens when you talk about this stuff, particularly with women, right?
So you say to women, look, you're not spending much time with your kids because you're working really hard.
They say, well, I should be paid the same as single women and men who don't have childcare responsibilities because I work really hard.
And then you say, well, of course, that means that you're spending less time with your kids.
And then they say, no, I spend lots of time with my kids because I'm working a 49 hour day.
I have a time machine.
The restrictions of you mortals do not apply to me.
Right?
So with this lady, I say, look, so you're not spending much time with your kids if you work in 80 hours and blah, blah, blah.
No, no, no!
I go and pick them up right at five o'clock.
And I go and have lunch with them.
And I do activities with them.
And I do weekend activities with them.
It's like, well, then you have less time to work a high-powered career.
No!
I work a high-powered career.
And it's like, no, you can't have it both ways.
Either you're working the same as people without child care responsibilities, which means you're living like you don't have children.
Or you're spending more time with your kids, which means you're not spending as much time on your high-powered career.
This is why.
And then she's saying, well, I know lazy women.
Well, I'm a hard-working... Look, people who say there's an exception to a generalization add nothing to the discussion.
Do you know that Chinese people are often shorter than Europeans in general?
I know a tall Chinese person!
Well, good for you!
I think that's great.
Now, here's a lollipop.
Move along.
All right.
Ellen.
You had some issues with my conversation.
Please go ahead.
Yeah, I mean, you talk about using a false dichotomy.
I mean, you just gave an either-or right there.
Either you're a hard-working woman and can't spend time with your children, or you do nothing but spend time with your children and you can't produce... No, no, no, no, no!
Don't you give me these exaggerations!
Don't strawman me, brother!
No!
Did I say it's either-or 100%?
You said either.
That's a false dilemma.
You're... Oh, Alan.
Oh, Alan, Alan, Alan.
Okay, tell me this, Alan.
This is a yes-no question.
If you are parenting, can you be working at the same time?
No.
Okay.
If you are working, can you be parenting at the same time?
Not properly, no.
But that's the reality.
It is either or.
It doesn't mean 100% of one and 0% of the other, but the more time you spend working, the less time you spend parenting.
But that doesn't mean you can't spend time with your children.
I never said she didn't spend any time with you.
Do you listen to the radio?
Do you have anything going in the input part of your brain?
I didn't say she spends no time with her children.
I just repeated and said that she spends all this time with her children.
She spends lunches with them, she picks them up from school, she does stuff on the weekends.
Did you hear that part of what I said?
And she also works hard.
Right, so you're incorrect in saying that I said she never spent time with her children, right?
Now, can I tell you where I agree with you?
I think for the first four to five years until they're ready for school, someone should be home with them.
Those are important.
And it should be the person with the feeding bags, right?
I agree.
Yeah, that's what nature designed.
That's what is best for the child.
We all say, what's best for the child?
For brain development, emotional development, social development, development of empathy and a conscience, which is kind of what we want in our fellow human beings.
We have to live within the human zoo called the city.
We kind of want all that stuff for immune system development, for lack of allergies.
You need that breast milk.
It is literally like mother's milk to these babies, right?
So someone should stay home and it should be the woman.
But by compliments of inflation, that being said, unfortunately we live in a society where two people, unless you have one who makes a large chunk of money, food prices are rising, everything's rising.
No, no, no.
Look, we have a higher standard of living per capita than they did in the fifties when most women stayed home.
If they could do it, we can do it.
I mean, the fact is people don't need a 4,000 square foot house.
They don't need two new cars.
They don't need all of this stuff.
Houses in the 1950s and the 1960s were like a third the size that they are now.
People want big houses, they want the prestige, they want to be out there, and they want the immediate positive feedback that comes from, good job, here's your money, Kibble, that comes from a boss, whereas the slow appreciation of children is something we don't have as much patience for anymore.
But if people in the 50s can do it, we can do it.
Sorry, go ahead.
Stefan, people in the 60s were paid three ounces of silver.
You know, look at what it is now.
It's a quarter ounce of silver that people are paid.
You can't make... We're talking apples and oranges.
People in the 60s got paid... Their dollars were worth more.
You can't make the same argument.
Yes, we have cell phones.
Yes, we have technology.
But inflation's there, brother.
I mean... Well, I understand that.
I understand that.
I understand that.
But people are buying houses three times the size that they used to.
They're buying cars that are more expensive than they used to be.
Right, so it is possible for someone to stay home if you have to downsize, if you have to rent an apartment rather than buy a house, if you have to have one car.
It's not like going to work is free for your kids.
You've got to pay for daycare, you've got to pay for gas, you've got to pay for all of that extra stuff that comes with not working from home.
Yeah, people need to take that into consideration when they do their finances.
If they have a job at Walmart, it probably makes no sense Then don't have kids!
You know, if you can't... I mean, this is... Why do I even need to say this?
If you can't afford to raise your children, don't have children yet.
I agree with that.
Work until you've got some money saved up.
I mean, people save up to go to school.
They go in debt just to go to school.
That's four years.
Why not go into debt or save up to pay for something a little bit more important than a piece of paper that stamps you for intellectual conformity and pay to actually be around and raise your children?
I mean, if your parenting is based on productive and positive first four years, you have a blast.
If you decide to go out and make money and be the big shot and travel, you are going to have a tough time as a parent, statistically.
But don't blame it on the economy.
It is a personal choice.
If you don't have the money to have kids, don't have kids!
That's the way I was raised.
We'll be right back after the break.
Thank you so much for listening.
This is Stefan Molyneux.
The Peter Schiff Show.
The Peter Schiff Show.
We now return to The Peter Schiff Show.
Call in now.
855-4-SCHIFF.
That's 855-472-4433.
Rubio Radio.
855-472-4433.
The Peter Schiff Show.
Good morning, everybody.
Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
We are talking about, can you be a working parent and a good parent at the same time?
My answer, based upon my understanding of the fact that we can generally only do one important thing at a time, which is why I am currently not knitting, means you can't do both.
Whatever you do for one, you take away from the other.
So if you're going to be a good parent, you're going to make less money.
If you're going to make more money, you're going to be a less good parent in general.
Yes, there are exceptions.
Forget about the exceptions.
We're looking for a trend here.
James from Woodland Park, thank you so much for waiting for so long.
What's on your mind, brother?
Uh, Mr. Malinow, uh, nice to talk to you again.
I, full disclosure, my wife doesn't make more money than me, but I, in general, uh, why don't men say, instead of, instead of trying to get women to make more money, why don't men talk and, you know, wait, work less and we'll make less?
Because then women would literally revolt.
That's when they would start to get angry because the, the little hidden secret is A lot of women want men to make more money than them, because while women might make less money than men, women's, I think I read a report, their spending power is about 80-90% of all dollars.
So while they might make less, they get to spend more than men.
So it's actually a good deal for them.
Yeah, like women control like 80 to 90 percent of household spending.
I mean, you don't even need studies for this.
Just go to a mall.
You know, there's like two electronic stores for guys to wait while the women destroy the planet through vanity shopping, right?
I mean, this is just the way it is in society.
Yeah, I mean, women are hardwired.
And again, this doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.
This doesn't mean you can't overcome it.
But women are hardwired to look for men with the most resources.
And unfortunately, right now, that's the welfare state.
Those are the men with the most resources, and that's why a lot of women are marrying the government.
I mean, it's just how we're hardwired.
You know, as men, we're hardwired for fertility signals, right?
Particular waist-to-hip ratios, even features which meet good genes, a little excess body fat, particularly in the form of breasts, which indicate good nutrition, capacity to bear children, and youth, of course, fundamentally, right?
Our expiration date is like three days after the grave, and women's expiration date generally goes with their eggs.
And this is just biological facts!
So yeah, women are hardwired to look for men who provide resources, which is why a charismatic, good-looking politician who offers women free stuff...
is catnip.
I mean, it's hard to resist.
I mean, it's like good-looking women offering men free sex.
I mean, you might have some abstract principle that denies it, but you are going to have a pretty strong response either way.
And so, yeah, women do biologically want men who make more money.
They also want taller men, which is a big problem, right?
Because women are getting taller, and genes, better nutrition, and all that kind of stuff.
So yeah, these are just realities.
There's nothing really right or wrong about it.
It's just not really talked about, I think, to the degree to which it should be talked about.
The degree to which women want to trade up.
Yeah, men want trophy wives.
Yeah, for sure.
But women also generally want to trade up, right?
To find a man with more resources.
It's called hypergamy.
And to trade up.
But, sorry, you were going to say?
I also, like, one more comment about that whole situation.
It's similar to the minimum wage and the fact that it's almost like the government, the state wants to, you know, pass a law because the problem's disappearing.
So they need to get credit for the solution.
Right?
You know, like, as less and less people are making the minimum wage, and as there's less and less wage disparity, you know, as you get younger, men and women, you know, women make more.
It's almost like We have to pass a law because if this problem goes away on its own, it's going to look like they don't need us.
Yeah, no, I think that's a fair and a valid point.
But, you know, for instance, this is the degree to which patriarchy works, right?
And of course I'm being kind of sarcastic here.
You can't see my eye roll on the audio.
But let's look at something like alimony.
So alimony is money that you pay to a woman At gunpoint, who's no longer having sex with you.
And, I mean, this is so fundamentally insulting to women and to men, that only the greed of short-sighted women could want this.
Look, if you're a stay-at-home mom, or let's just say you're a stay-at-home wife, let's take the kids out of the equation, if you're a stay-at-home wife, then you have a job called being a wife.
And the man pays the bills.
For you.
Because you're his wife.
That's your job.
Now, if you quit your job, let's say you say, I don't understand this guy.
He's got halitosis, he's got six toes, and you know, I'd still have trouble finding that third nipple he claims he has.
I don't want to be married to the guy anymore.
Okay, fine!
You just quit your job!
Hey, you know what happens when I quit my job?
I don't get paid anymore!
If you quit your job being a wife, well, you quit!
And let's say that you put on 50 pounds, you start chain-smoking menthols through your ears, and you get into some stuff that your guy is not into in the boudoir.
And let's say you scream at him, you yell at him, and he doesn't want to be married to you anymore, and he says, I'm getting divorced.
Well, guess what?
You just got fired.
Now, any job that I either quit or get fired from means no more paycheck.
I mean, imagine!
It's like this George Costanza thing from Seinfeld, where he gets fired and then just keeps showing up to work, expecting a paycheck.
I mean, this is how lunatic it is.
In California, after 10 years of marriage, you owe alimony for the rest of your life.
For the rest of your life.
Get married at 20, get divorced at 30, live to 80.
50 years of paying for a woman Who's not around?
Not cooking you anything, not cleaning your house, not having sex with you, just plain not chatting with you, not being your companion, your support, your friend.
Gone.
No wonder men aren't getting married.
Sorry, go ahead.
When they do the wage disparity, I mean, issue, when they talk about 77, I mean, really, do they take into account transfer payments, alimony?
People that are married really shouldn't even fall into this category because if you're married to a man who makes more money than you, That's your money, just as much as it is, so I mean... Look, if you're married to a guy who makes $100,000 a year, and you live equal to him, you have a salary of $50,000 a year.
Yeah, I mean... But that's not counted, right?
So women who... And look, there's nothing wrong with this arrangement whatsoever, right?
One of the reasons the man can make $100,000 a year is he's got a supportive woman he can bounce ideas off, who takes the finances and the taxes or whatever off his mind so that he can really focus on his career, who raises the kids, who has a stable, efficient running household.
The contributions of that woman to the $100,000 a year is $50,000 a year.
I have no problem with that.
I hugely respect I mean, I'm incredibly happily married, 11 years, going strong.
I hugely respect what women can bring to a marriage and the degree to which a man's economic success can rest on the shoulders of a great woman.
Massive!
You know, behind every good man is a great woman.
So, I think it's fantastic.
But this, of course, is not counted as a woman's income.
It's all the man's income, and suddenly, whoa, women are making less.
Well, holy crap, if I could live for free on half a hundred thousand dollar income, I would consider that a pretty good income.
But it's not, I mean, it's not counted because it doesn't serve the discontented feelings of wrongness that so many women are prone to.
You're being oppressed!
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Kind of like, you know, if you're a slave owner, you just pay all your slaves a bunch of money, then you take it, and then you say, Well, see, you make tons of money.
I mean, you're getting, you know, it's not even fair, because they're making a bunch of money.
I mean, but you're taking it all for like... Yeah, look, I mean, a woman can... I'm not saying this is a common scenario, but let's talk about some real oppression here.
Let's talk about real oppression, measurable oppression.
A woman can lie about birth control, have sex with a man, get pregnant.
Now, she has the option to end her pregnancy.
She has the option to go get an abortion and he can't do anything to stop it.
If he's willing to pay for the child, to raise it, she can just go kill that fetus in the womb.
Although it tries to scurry away using its little squid arms from the needle, she can just go kill that child in the womb.
Man can do nothing about it.
Ah, but if she decides she wants to keep the child.
Maybe it was a one-night stand.
Maybe she lied about birth control.
The man doesn't want to have anything to do with it.
Too bad.
Maybe it's not even his child.
Maybe it's not.
Oh, well.
You know, in England, you have to have the mother and child's permission to get a paternity test.
Because, well, for obvious reasons.
But the woman can then have the child, and she can take the man to court, and he literally will be her wage slave for 20 years.
Now that is oppression!
Even if you can prove it's not your child, That doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to have to stop supporting that child.
I mean, once the precedence has been set, you can still be liable for the child, even if you can prove it's not your child.
So, I mean, that's ridiculous on its face, too.
And it's so destructive.
I mean, if a woman has a child by another man and stays in the marriage... In Wales in the 1970s, a science teacher, in his naivete, he gave a sort of take-home science experiment for his kids.
He said, go home, ask your parents their blood type.
And then you can calculate the possible blood types that you can have, because only certain combinations can produce certain blood types.
This'll be fun!
You'll learn a lot!
Well, boy, did they learn a lot!
They learned quite a lot about mummy's wide-open hoo-hoo hole of reproduction.
Which was, they came back in, and one-third of the children were not fathered by who they thought was their father.
One third of the children!
One third!
Does that barn door even close?
Oh my God!
And imagine what it's like.
Your wife is distant.
What's wrong, honey?
Nothing!
Can't tell you what's wrong.
Can't connect to someone who has a terrible secret and a lie.
What about you have some suspicions?
I uh... I don't remember.
My straight-haired blonde child seems to have... All my other children are straight-haired and blonde.
This child has nappy hair and a tan.
Hmm.
Right?
And can you be close to that kid, always wandering?
It's always on your mind, keeps you distanced.
Terrible for the kid, doesn't know the real father.
And genetically, the kid's gonna say, oh, my parents have these health issues, so I have to watch out for this.
Not even the right dad!
The destruction that occurs in these situations to families, to health, to peace of mind, to love, is wretched.
And it's one out of ten children.
And are women ever held to account for this?
Ever called to task for this?
No!
But I want to treat women as equals.
That's my big goal.
And if men were switching at birth, one out of ten women, women's children, I would be taking them to task.
But this is unholy.
It is a multi-year economic rape of a man to pass a child off as his that's not his.
And we barely ever even hear about it.
And certainly, women don't get prosecuted.
We'll be right back after the break!
Thank you so much for listening.
This is Stefan Molyneux for the Peter Schiff Show.
This is Stefan Molyneux for the Peter Schiff Show.
The Peter Schiff Show.
Nine out of ten historians agree.
If Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were alive today, both would be Schiff Radio Premium Members.
Somewhere up there, Thomas Jefferson is looking down with great pride.
Schiff Radio continues, right now.
Good morning everybody, Stephen Molyneux from Freedomain Radio sitting in for Peter Schiff.
I can't believe it's the last segment already.
My heart, it pines for the audience.
I miss you already.
Big squishy digital virtual hug to everyone.
So we've been talking about women, parenting choices, single moms, all that kind of stuff.
Let me go on the record here.
I really want to be clear why I talk about this stuff.
I have a daughter who is Amazing and fantastic and, you know, my heart is a supernova of parental devotion to her.
There are things that I worry about as a parent.
I don't like the fact that she's borne hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt.
I don't like the fact that we have to pay for government schools we'll never use.
I don't like the fact that a lot of her peers are indoctrinated in various forms of secular and religious superstitions.
I'm concerned about that, so I'm doing my very best to try and create people she can relate to in the future by spreading truth, reason as passionately and positively and hopefully entertainingly as possible.
But you know what I worry about sometimes the most?
I worry about her growing up in a world that does not hold her responsible.
Responsibility, like integrity, like conscience, is a muscle that develops against resistance.
And the degree to which women are not called to account for the things that they do that are wrong is the degree to which we are not treating women respectfully.
We are not treating women as equals.
The other day I posted a study which said 40% of moms say parenting is helped by alcohol.
Alcohol helps their parenting.
People were outraged.
No.
Look, if 40% of men said, you know, a couple of shots of whiskey really helps me relax when I'm driving, people would go insane.
I do not like, in fact, I really loathe the degree to which we exempt women and rush to their defense whenever Things are critical, things that happen that women do that are wrong.
That, to me, is not treating women with respect, not treating them as equals.
And I want my daughter to grow up in a world where she is held as morally accountable as men for her choices.
That is the best chance for her to stay a good person.
Nineteen out of twenty women admit to lying to their partners or husbands.
Eighty-three percent owned up to telling, quote, big, life-changing lies.
Eighty-three percent of women.
Own up to telling big, life-changing lies.
What those big, life-changing lies are?
I don't know, but I do wake up screaming sometimes thinking about it.
Guess?
Ask?
What are these big, life-changing lies?
Well, we know one of them.
Half of women said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby's real father, which a female researcher said is morally similar to rape.
Half 42% of women who became pregnant with another man's child would lie to stay with their partner if they wanted to stay.
42% would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner.
42% of women would lie about contraception.
Don't worry, I'm on the pill.
It's the IED.
Yeah, it's the IUD that turns into an IED.
42%!
That's the creation of a human life and the legal and financial enslavement of man.
42% would just lie about it.
31% of women said they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease.
This rises to 65% among single women.
65% of single women will not tell you if they have a sexually transmittable disease.
These are appalling statistics.
And yeah, you can say, well, women should tell more truth, but they're getting away with it.
It's found money, so to speak, because we make up excuses for women all the time.
All the time.
Just go, go read, go, go look on the web and look at websites about domestic violence.
Did you know that half of domestic violence is initiated by women?
Bet you didn't.
And whenever women do bad things, we always give them excuses.
Well, it's stressful being a single mom.
They had a tough time.
They were low on money.
The man abandoned her!
Well, women choose the men.
Men propose, women dispose.
Men say, can I?
Women say, yes or no.
So, if she had a bad man in her life, that's her fault.
Is the man morally to blame?
Sure.
But the woman said yes.
So to treat women with respect, to treat them as equals, we must raise the standards, which currently are kind of down in some subterranean mines of Moria gutter for women.
Get away with crazy amounts of stuff.
I don't want my daughter to grow up in a world where she gets a pass because of her gender, where she's not held to the same standards as men.
I really want her to be treated as an equal.
I treat her as an equal.
I treat her as I would treat a son.
And I want the world to do the same.
I want the world to achieve the true dream of gender equity, which is no passes!
If you lie about a man being the father of your child, you are a truly despicable, vile human being.
If you don't tell a partner about your sexual disease, you are a vile, despicable human being and you should go to jail.
If I go and inject you with some illness, I go to jail.
If you don't tell a partner about your STD, you should go to jail.
If you don't tell a man that he's not the father of your child, you should go to jail!
We need to have these standards.
Or we need to vastly lower the standards for men.
I'm just saying, let's bring these slider bars to some level of equality.
Women certainly have it within themselves to rise to the occasion.
But when we constantly make excuses for women's bad behaviors, we are subsidizing their irresponsibility.
We are keeping them in a state of perpetual childhood.
Oh, it's okay.
You were stressed.
Come on.
Two children are murdered in America every day, mostly by women.
And all we talk about is how husbands hit wives.
Well, they're not killing children, for the most part.
Well, you see, but the women were stressed.
It was difficult for them.
It was tough.
Don't see a lot of that with people like Adam Lanza or Ted Bundy.
He was stressed.
It's tough being pretty.
Come on.
Women are part of the cycle of violence.
Women hit sons.
Sons grow up angry at women.
Sons hit women.
Women then hit sons.
Sons grow up angry at women.
It's a cycle.
All we think about in the cycle of violence is men.
If we miss the estrogen factor, we cannot solve the cycle of violence.
We cannot bring peace to the world unless we hold women accountable and morally responsible, particularly for their attacks upon children.
For more, freedomainradio.com, this is Stephan Molyneux saying thank you to Peter Schiff for allowing me to create his show.
I will see you again soon.
Thanks to everyone in the booth.
▲
Export Selection