All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 19, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
24:10
The Evolution of KARENS!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
It's Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain.
Freedomain.locals.com.
If you'd like to help out the show, we hugely appreciate it.
Freedomain.locals.com.
You can also go to Subscribestar.com.
Sign up for a great community experience.
I hope that you'll enjoy that.
And you can also go to Freedomain.com to help out the show.
All right.
Women in power!
Especially the HR Karens hell-bent on turning every organization into their personal power play fantasy.
Not a particularly brilliant question, but I would value your insight.
Your thoughts.
Alright.
Do not fall into the trap of disliking women.
Do not.
Well, and women, of course, don't fall into the trap of disliking men.
Like, you know, you know for an absolute fact that that's what the government wants, right?
What does the government want?
The powers that be, the political entities that run this, that and the other.
What do they want?
They want you to dislike women.
They want the women to dislike men.
That way we're at odds with each other.
We're fighting with each other.
We're losing respect for each other.
And you know, we're not having kids.
We're not forming foundational families that protect freedoms and so on.
They want you to dislike it.
So what happens is you end up in this situation a lot of times where State power gets infused into female nature thus corrupting female nature as power corrupts and therefore you think that what you're disliking is female nature.
I mean it's like somebody pees into your wine and you say wine is pee.
It's like this is a foundational logical error.
It's just a foundational logical error.
If somebody gets shot, we don't evaluate their health without noticing that they got shot.
If somebody is drugged, let's say that somebody gets roofied and ends up in a really chaotic situation, they lose all their inhibitions, they yell at people, they go and punch a security guard or something, and then they get tested and it turns out somebody administer it against their will, some crazy hallucinogenic drug, we would not evaluate that person's behavior in the absence of accepting that they had been drugged.
And power is a drug, you understand?
You are looking at drugged people when you're looking at the modern world.
Now normally in the past there was a modicum of protection With a massive amount of exploitation.
So you look at the serf, right?
You look at the serf, there was a modicum of protection from the Lord, but there was massive amounts of enslavement and exploitation.
If you look at the modern world, though, because wealth has been generated by the free market, or the remnants of the free market, what's happened is now we don't have protection, really, From violence, we have protection from consequences, from reality, from choice, from bad decisions, from foolish behaviors, from promiscuity, from laziness, from a lack of preparation for the future, from not saving from your time.
Now, instead of protection from violence, we have protection from consequences.
And when you protect people from consequences, they act in Ways that seem irrational and frustrating and annoying.
It's sort of like if somebody's playing a video game where there's, you know, that F9, F6 was it?
F5 save, F9 load, or whatever it was.
They've got some instant key load and save.
So, if you play a video game, and there's a few that have been out there where you have to play as if it's real life, and if you die, you die, you can't save.
But if you have a game where you can insta-save, insta-load, You tend to be more reckless.
You tend to be more careless.
You tend to go in guns blazing.
You tend to try out all these various things because you can just save and load.
You are protected from consequences.
A. Because it's just a video game and B. Because you can save and load the game.
So, right now we're in a situation where women as a whole, as a voting bloc, and again tons of exceptions, we're just talking generalities, but women can vote for protection from consequences and consequences are the greatest for women and therefore their desire to be protected from consequences, negative consequences, is huge.
So, if you're looking at the world that is, And thinking that, wow, people are just crazy, they're corrupt, they're bad, they're Karens, they're monsters, then you're not understanding that they have been drugged.
Right?
If you look at something like alcohol, alcohol is a disinhibitor.
It's a disinhibitor and when I was working up north among the people I was working with there was kind of a joke.
It was called the wolf sex.
And the wolf sex is you go to a bar, you've been in the bush for a long time, you go to a bar and you end up sleeping with a woman.
Who is so homely, so ugly that when you wake up in the morning, it's called the wolf sex, right?
You'd rather chew your own arm off because she's got her head resting in your arm.
You'd rather chew your own arm off rather than wake her up because you want to slip out, right?
So that's a disinhibitor.
When you have alcohol, it's a disinhibitor.
You make decisions you otherwise wouldn't make.
You take chances you otherwise wouldn't take and you don't really think of consequences because you're drunk.
So the modern world is roofied by the bottomless alcohol of state power.
So people are in a state of... they're in a mind-altered state.
They are disinhibited because the government flies in and flushes in and sprays money everywhere and protects people from the consequences of their actions.
So you're not looking at women.
You're looking at human beings as a whole that are in a mind altered state of consciousness where their inhibitions are lowered because they have been protected from a lack of consequences.
They don't see consequences which is why you need morality and virtue and all these.
They don't see consequences because the consequences don't exist.
In fact what used to be horrendously negative consequences such as having a child outside of wedlock can now be a massively positive consequence in that you get free stuff from here to eternity and you don't have to work.
Right?
To have a child out of wedlock in the welfare state in the West gives women a better lifestyle than being a queen a hundred years ago.
Because she gets all the modern amenities, right?
And modern medicines.
So just please understand that and stop looking at current human behavior and think it has anything to do with human nature, right?
It's not human nature.
It's human nature roofied by power.
So, if we look at women, I mean, women rulers start wars a little bit more, females commit much more coercion against children and so on.
So, if we look at women, we say, well, there could be a bit of a dictatorial element, a bit of an aggressive element, a bit of a controlling element, and an element that is quick to take offense.
Okay.
Why is that?
Rather than just condemning it, oh, human, female nature, and this and that, MGTOW, and monk levels, and Eve, rather say, okay, well, be curious, just be open and be curious about what's going on in the world, on the planet.
So what's going on?
Why on earth, let this bug go over my camera lens, well, that would make sense, right?
They are attracted to bright, shiny things, and it's daylight, and I'm bored.
So why is it That women would have these tendencies.
So please please please remember, women evolved to take care of a conveyor belt of babies and toddlers.
They had two plus decades of fertility themselves and at the end of that fertility their first children would be having babies so they just are designed from the age of their teenants onwards to constantly take care of a conveyor belt of babies and toddlers.
And if you've been around people with big families, you understand that.
A lot of people have no families or just a few kids or one kid.
But if you've been around people, and a lot of my friends have very big families, then you understand that the women are just taking care.
I have a friend, a good friend, who's embarking with a new baby when the oldest kid is in college.
Right?
So, it is just a conveyor belt of babies and toddlers.
How do you deal with babies and toddlers historically?
When you have a bunch of them, right?
When you have a bunch of them.
Well, do you have to be dictatorial if you have three children under five?
Do you have to be kind of sharp?
Do you have to be dictatorial?
Do you have to be kind of aggressive to keep them safe?
To keep them safe.
I'm not justifying it morally.
I'm talking about this evolutionarily.
Do the children have to be a little scared of you if there's dangers everywhere?
Because remember, you know, you're the hunter-gatherer, there's dangers everywhere, there are wild animals, you can eat berries that will kill you, you can get injured even on farms, you know, like bad things can happen if you go through the wrong fence and get gored by a bull or fall down a well.
There's dangers everywhere!
We didn't live in these bubble-wrapped McMansions in the suburbs, right?
We evolved in a situation or an environment of significant danger.
I mean, honestly, just think about this.
One toddler wanders into a goat paddock and gets kicked in the head by a goat or butted by a ram or something like that.
And then you've got massive injuries, brain damage, concussions, subdural hematomas, whatever it's going to be.
So you need to have that level of aggression in order to keep children safe in a dangerous environment prior to the rise of moral philosophy.
So looking at the evolution of the species.
So yes, women can be sharp.
Women developed a certain amount of verbal aggression and women developed the capacity And developed a very strong capacity to control with language rather than coercion.
Men generally control with coercion, women generally control with language, which is why we've got this tone
policing, woke stuff, as women have gained more and more power
through the state.
So, women need to control with language, which means they have to be harsh, sharp, and they have to have the ability
to massively and strongly and deeply disapprove, because they're around babies and toddlers.
Now, babies and toddlers are in a symbiotic relationship with their mothers, right?
Babies and toddlers.
Say toddlers, right?
So toddlers are in a symbiotic relationship with their mother.
They're two sides of the same coin.
They're one flesh.
The mother, how have they evolved?
How have the babies and the mothers evolved?
Toddlers and mothers have evolved.
The mothers have evolved to be verbally sharp and aggressive, and the toddlers have evolved, or the only toddlers that survived, were those who really, really cared about their mother's disapproval.
Because when she says, stop, those babies who were like, you know, to heck with you mom, I'm going on, they didn't make it statistically, right?
Or they made it less.
So, the toddlers have evolved to care enormously about the mother's sharp tone and disapproval because they can survive all that.
What they can't survive is falling down a well or getting head-butted by some big goat, right?
So, when the mother says stop, the baby has to, or the toddler has to stop.
My baby's a little young, but toddlers, right?
So, the moment they become ambulatory, and especially boys, right, especially boys, to disapprove of boys As opposed to like girls more is a common facet of motherhood.
Right?
It's that Sarah Silverman commercial.
Oh, you've had a son.
I'm so sorry.
Or whatever it is, right?
Boys are stupid.
Let's throw rocks at them.
Boys are just broken girls.
All the Warren Farrell stuff.
War on boys.
So, and why are mothers more sharp and disapproving of boys?
Because boy toddlers are more aggressive and exploratory and will throw themselves into dangers a lot more, right?
The boys are climbing trees while the girls are having tea parties, to take a kind of cliché.
So the mothers have to be sharper and more aggressive with the boys, which allows the boys to become more aggressive.
So we need a society with aggressive boys to defend, to hunt, all of these things, to wage war if necessary.
So we need a society with aggressive boys.
How do boys become aggressive?
They become aggressive because they're very susceptible to disapproval from their mothers.
So the mothers become the early warning system, the radar that keeps the boys safe.
If you're climbing too high, get down!
Don't walk over there.
Come back here.
Don't climb that.
Like they're just constantly correcting, right?
And that allows the boys to go and explore and be aggressive and they have to listen to their mother.
When they're toddlers.
When they get older, that's a different matter.
But they have to have all that stuff inlaid to begin with.
Now, who transmits culture?
Right?
Who transmits values?
It's the mother.
The father transmits skills, the mother transmits morals, the mother transmits values, which is why, you know, church, kitchen, and children, right?
That's the old German phrase about women, right?
So women transmit values and the reason for that is that the men are busy when the babies and toddlers are growing and the morals need to be embedded in the child's mind by the age of four or five or it's virtually impossible to do it later.
The morals absolutely, completely and totally need to be embedded.
Because empathy develops 13 systems in the brain that all have to work in coordination to develop empathy, the values of the tribe and so on, have to be inculcated in the babies and toddlers.
So by the time the adult males are teaching the children skills, in particular they're teaching the children The males, the hunting and gathering.
So by the time the adult males are teaching the children skills, it's usually the age of six or seven, and by then the window for language development and moral development and cultural transmission has largely passed.
So it is up to the mothers to transmit the values of the culture, which is why getting kids into daycare destroys the values of the culture.
And also, by the by, every month that you spend in daycare.
For affluent families, every month the child spends in daycare, it drops the IQ by 4% of a standard deviation.
0.5% of IQ as a whole, 4.7% or something like that, of a standard deviation.
Every month.
Every month.
Because there's less one-on-one interaction, there's less training and so on.
This shows up at 8 or 9, I don't know if it resolves later, but that's the data for when the kids are young.
So, the mothers have to transmit the values of the tribe, the morals of the tribe.
And they have to do that when the children are immune to reason, evidence, and arguments.
Because they're babies and toddlers.
Now, again, I'm talking evolution, not talking morally and so on, right?
So the babies and toddlers have to be trained on morals before they can be reasoned with.
So how do you train children on right and wrong before you can reason with them?
Now, maybe the babies and toddlers can be reasoned with, but, you know, before peaceful parenting, before the whole ethics of childhood, women are not philosophers, men are not philosophers in general, so they just don't have the tools, right?
So, how do the mothers teach the toddlers about the values of the tribe, the morals of the tribe, the appropriateness or inappropriate behavior, right and wrong, and so on?
Well, they do so through Verbal aggression and emotional punishment through emotional withdrawal.
The child does something that's wrong and the parents and the mothers strongly disapprove of that child.
The child panics and then conforms because the child can't survive without the mother.
There's a lot of resources that are needed for a bunch of kids.
You don't want to be the kid who's the black sheep and doesn't conform and is less, you know, savable.
Right?
When the toddlers, particularly the boys, do something that goes against the emotional grain of the mothers, the mothers will react with aggression and hostility at times, and they will react with emotional disapproval, ostracism, and withdrawal.
And that frightens the children into being compliant with the values of the tribe.
There's no way the tribal values, prior to sort of modern philosophy, there's no way the tribal values can be transmitted rationally, because the tribal values aren't rational.
It's just tribalism.
So how do the mothers get the children to accept that which is not rational?
They train them through approval, good job, through disapproval, you're bad, through emotional withdrawal, through iciness, through manipulation, through verbal aggression and sometimes physical aggression too.
They're training the children by transmitting the values of the tribe, to recreate the values of the tribe, to have the tribal values continue and to view that tribe as the best and other tribes as bad.
You know, how do you transmit tribalism?
Through aggression against children.
So if you take that and you combine it with the power of the state, this is why men tend to be into free speech and women tend to be into censorship as a whole.
Because men are out there Organized in a hunting party, and if someone sees something wrong, but is too frightened to speak up, the whole hunting party could fail and everything might go really badly.
So, like, speak your mind is really important for men.
In war, in hunting, in scouting, and all of that, men need to work together as a team, and if you're silenced, that tends to be bad.
Which is why men tend to be more into free speech.
Women tend to be more into censorship and top-down hierarchy because Culture is censorship.
Culture is not rationality.
Culture is not philosophy.
Culture is not syllogisms.
Culture is, in a sense, a kind of prejudice.
If it's actually factual, true, empirical, and evidence, then it's philosophy and science.
It's not culture.
So how do you transmit the irrational to little children?
You do it through emotional aggression and manipulation, through punishment, withdrawal, affection, positive, negative, all that kind of stuff.
And that's how culture has been transmitted.
And again, I'm not judging any of this.
I'm just telling you how it all evolved.
You can't transmit culture if children have the full right of questioning skepticism and reply.
Right?
So children are full of that question.
Why?
Well, we believe this.
Well, why?
Well, this is true.
Well, why?
Well, prove it.
So you can't have free speech and transmission of Anti-empirical, anti-rational cultural values at the same time.
So women have to be censorious, they have to shut down free speech so that they can transmit values.
And what that means is that women who were not able to transmit values, those tribes generally did not survive.
Because you have to have in tribalism, which is how we evolved, you have to have my tribe good, your tribe bad.
And that is not foundationally rational.
It is something that just has to be instilled.
A prejudice for the ingroup has to be inflicted as a moral absolute.
And it's not rational, so you have to do it through aggression, reward, punishment, ostracism, and so on, disapproval.
Right?
So if you look at this sort of scolding that goes on from women, well that's inappropriate, well that's wrong, well that's offensive, that's upsetting, you know the old meme that one guy's making a joke to the other guy, and the other guy finds it hilarious, and then the liberal woman steps in and says, no you don't, and she's offended on his behalf, or something like that.
Well you understand, that's women's, this is how we survive, this is how we evolve.
Women did a massive service to mankind.
By doing all of this throughout the course of our evolution.
It's a beautiful thing.
It's why we're here.
It's why we got to the top of the food chain.
We have men and women to thank for getting to the top of the food chain, the apex predators.
So women were responsible for inflicting irrational absolutist doctrines on naturally skeptical and curious children, particularly boys.
So they had to escalate aggression, censoriousness, that's inappropriate, that's wrong, how dare you, that's offensive, that's upset, like they had to inflict injurious ostracism and Rejection in order to transmit the values of the tribe so that the tribe could survive.
In a world where every other tribe is doing this, you have to do it too, right?
I mean, can you imagine being on a sports team and not caring if your sports team won because every sports team wants to win, it's not a moral battle, it doesn't really matter, and so on, right?
Well, that would be a traitor, right?
And you would then Not play as well and you wouldn't be part of the team and you'd evolve out of that, right?
Or that would not be supported in the long run.
So, women's nature to transmit values to toddlers is to be aggressive and censorious and finger-wagging and what you would call a Karen.
And that's a beautiful thing when you have, you know, good values, good reasons, and the best thing we can do to make women less censorious is to give them rational values to transmit to their children so they can ask the question of why should I believe this with empirical and rational and philosophical answers.
So they don't have to be aggressive.
But that's not happened yet.
I'm working on that.
Hasn't happened yet.
But then saying, well, women are just Karens and they're censorious and they're against freedom and free speech and they nag and they're... No!
They're following their instinctive drive to reproduce culture through censorship and through aggression and through ostracism and emotional attacks and withdrawal and and so on right that that's how culture got transmitted it's how we all evolved it's how we got here and women are utterly because I love life and I love being a human being and I love freedom and society as you know as it stands there's still a lot of great stuff in it right I mean for me
Hopefully for you too.
So I love the fact that women had all of this.
It's how we got here and the best thing we can do for women is to give them good reasons to explain morality to their children and that way they don't have to be aggressive in the same way that the free market allows you to be productive rather than to pillage others.
Philosophy allows you to reason with children which will replace aggression over time, which is why I've been working so hard on PeacefulParenting.com.
I hope you'll check it out and share it.
Peaceful Parenting.
There's even a short version there that you can get through in a couple of hours of the whole book, so there's really no excuse.
It's free, it's engaging, it's passionate, it's audiobook, it's e-book, it's a shortened version, it's about as easy as I can make it to get a hold of, so PeacefulParenting.com.
I hope that you will check that out.
All right, well...
I will only get to one question today.
I hope that's all right, but I thought it was a big one.
Don't hate on the women.
Recognize that they're drugged by power, and you're drugged by power, and we're all drugged by power, and we've all been... have consequences have been stripped from us through debt, and money printing, and borrowing, and all kinds of stuff.
So...
Let's have some compassion for each other because we're all drugged by power and to blame another person when they're drugged.
You can slowly wean them off the drug by pointing them out that they are drugged and after that they have some responsibility but most people are not even close to that.
So let's have some gentleness and some kindness and some curiosity.
FreeDomain.com.
FreeDomain.com slash donate.
Hey, I'm going through puberty again.
FreeDomain.com slash donate.
I hope you'll help out the show.
Thank you so much for your time, care and attention.
▲
Export Selection