All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:07:26
Modern Women are Selfish?!?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
Hope you're doing well. 7th of October 2024.
And I did put out a little thing recently where people were invited to give feedback on what they wanted more and what y'all wanted more.
And I'm sure it was like randomly during the day with no forewarning or little to no forewarning.
What y'all wanted more was apparently...
Voice chats, which I like.
I like too. They can be pleasantly chaotic.
So, let me just make sure our recording is running here.
And we are good to go.
If you have questions, comments, issues, challenges, disagreements, raging hostilities, incontinence, eczema, just click on the Want to chat?
And you are welcome to join in the conversation.
And I suppose while we are waiting for that, and I'm happy to be interrupted at any time, as a general principle I was thinking about this morning, that every irrationality you indulge in has to be paid by someone else.
Every irrationality that you indulge in has to be paid for by someone else.
If you have an irrationality like, uh, I don't need to get food, then someone else has to get you food.
If you don't think you need water, somebody else has to get you hydrated.
Whatever is anti-rational.
And I'm going to just use irrational and anti-rational.
Irrational is when you do things that are crazy.
Anti-rational is when you weaponize crazy to attack rationality in others.
and all irrationality attacks and exploits rationality in others.
If you are like Grasshopper and the Ant, you say, ah, I don't need to.
I don't need to store up food for the winter.
It's important to learn guitar and sing and play all day.
Well, that irrationality, assuming that winter is coming, and it always is, assuming that winter is coming, it means that You have to attack and exploit the rationality of other people who do, in fact, plan for winter.
Now, people could say, and I understand the argument, people can say, ah, but Steph, but Steph, what you don't understand is that...
I can just go and live in the woods, and I can be irrational on my own.
How does that? Like, I go into the woods, and I think that two and two make five.
Now, yeah, of course, you could be irrational in your own mind in a passing phase, but if you are consistent that way, it develops bad habits that other people have to pay for.
Other people. Like, if the government wants to continue to exploit you, the first thing it does is teach anti-rationality to children.
And the way that you teach anti-rationality...
Well, you don't teach anti-rationality.
You inflict it through punishment.
You inflict it through punishment.
So what you do is you say to children absolutely absurd things.
Absolutely absurd things.
And then you punish them If they question that, if they oppose that, if they have issues with that, you punish them.
And so, you know, basic categories of biology, hatred of people who are productive, you know, all of the stuff for girls provoking hostility towards boys, for boys provoking fear of girls, all of this stuff that just doesn't make any sense.
And if our ancestors had practiced it, we wouldn't be here at all.
So anti-rationality Cripples people, makes them easier to program, manipulate and control, and dependent on others.
If you cripple people, they become fearful, dependent upon authority,
and easy to program to hatred.
If you cripple people, they need an authority to transfer resources.
If you cripple people in terms of their rational processing capacities, the capacities to trust their own thoughts, to trust their own senses, their own instincts, their own mind, body, sensation, and so on.
If you cripple people that way, then you shift the burden to others, You make people dependent on others, and when you are dependent on another against his or her will, you must dehumanize that other.
So one of the things that I can see happening quite a bit on social media is men waking up to the basic fact that at least as it is presently constituted, women seem to have Many women, not all, of course, seem to have, it seems like a foundational, almost genetic inability to empathize with men.
So one of the things that happened, which is, I think, in line with this, is Kamala Harris went on a Call Her Daddy podcast.
Now, I don't know much about this podcast.
The host is very pretty.
And because it is popular, very popular, I assume it's about disassembling any modesty, restraint, decorum, or dignity among young women.
I assume it's just trash sex talk and celebrity gossip and just, you know, the absolute detritus and garbage that swills through the sewage of modern communications, because if it had any truth or rationality to it, then it would be...
I'm sorry if this assumption is wrong and I'm happy to withdraw it, but I mean, Call Her Daddy is an attack on rationality just in the very title.
It's an invitation to anti-rationality.
So Kamala Harris went on this podcast.
At a time when hundreds or thousands of bodies are floating down the Appalachians, she's going on a sex-taught trash-girl podcast.
Eh, whatever. It's one of the reasons I don't do politics anymore.
So, anyway, she and the hostess were absolutely stymied and stumped by the question...
Well, are there any government policies that control men?
Are there any government policies that control men's bodies?
Now, they say control men's bodies as if the man is different from his body.
So, basically, they're saying, are there any laws that affect men?
All laws control the body.
All laws control the body.
If you're speeding, your body is going too fast, right?
If you take something from a store, or at least until recently, if you took something from a store, you were shoplifting, and so you were then detained, which meant that you were not in sovereign control of your body, and then You would be charged with theft, and then you would have to show up to court, and then you would have to pay a fine.
All of this is control of your body.
So, I mean, it's wild.
And, of course, everyone was saying the obvious answer, like, well, what is...
What is a law that controls men's bodies?
And again, women couldn't figure this out, at least these women.
Yeah, yeah. And it's like, well, of course, the obvious one, which I'll just mention here because it is so obvious that it only needs to be touched on in passing, the obvious one is the draft.
Yes, Selective Service.
The draft.
Which seems to be a little bit more vivid now.
A little less theoretical.
Now that the warmongers have been back in power for a couple of years.
A little bit less theoretical.
And so that is an obvious one.
That is the ultimate control.
Of a man's body is to turn him into a murder slave.
A slave who is thrown into gunfire and is going to be attacked by a swarm of vampiric blood-seeking drones.
Yeah, I would say, obviously, that's pretty much control of a man's body.
But... Of course, we've got family courts, which disproportionately control men's bodies to the point where, like, it's a funny thing that a woman, many women, get this argument, they get this argument, it's control over my body, which is fallacious.
The baby inside of you is not your body.
It's not your body. It's not your body.
It's like saying that a passenger on a ship that's going to disembark is the ship.
The ship and the passenger are one and the same.
And it's like, no, not at all.
Now, the bulkhead and the ship, yeah, the bulkhead is part of the ship because it's not going to get off and walk around in Mallorca or go and see some eagles in Alaska.
Your spleen doesn't get up, walk around, become defiant, try drinking and go to college.
It's not what your appendix does.
They don't take out your appendix.
Give it a suit and tie and try and sign it up for business school.
Different DNA, different blood type, perhaps.
It's not your body. Anyway...
Yes, when I go on an airplane, I am the airplane.
I go on the airplane, I sit on the airplane, and then I leave the airplane, because I'm not the airplane.
Therefore, I could do that. So...
What a lot of women don't really follow is, and they used to, but they don't anymore, and we'll sort of talk about why in a second.
Again, I'm happy to take your questions and comments and disagreements and feedback, just to click on the want to talk, request to talk button.
But women seem to have a very tough time these days.
Again, it wasn't the case in the past, but women seem to have a really tough time conceptualizing That taxation is control of a man's body.
Again, we talk of family courts, child support, alimony, that is control of the man's body, and it's overwhelmingly male.
But taxation is control of a man's body.
Because As men, it's true for women too, but taxation is disproportionately a male issue because men pay about twice into the system than they get out in benefits, and women get about twice the benefits than they pay into the system.
So the modern welfare state is a massive transfer of wealth from men to women as a whole.
And women seem to have a tough time understanding that taxation is control over a man's body.
Because all wealth is produced through the body.
I mean, you think of sort of Paul McCartney, it's his hands that play the bass.
He's a superlative bass player, and of course he plays piano and guitar.
Paul McCartney writes down the music with his hands, plays the music with his hands, sings with that glorious rock voice.
All of Paul McCartney's wealth is produced from his body.
If you have a wonderful tune in your head that you never write down, never tell anyone and take to the grave, it's the equivalent of non-existence.
It's the equivalent of it never existed.
So, all wealth is produced from the body and all forcible Transfers of wealth are taking control of the body.
So laws that affect men's bodies would be taxation.
Now, of course, it affects women as well.
I'm just talking about the overall intersex transfer of wealth.
There's a massive, slippery slope that transfers wealth.
Well, from testosterone to estrogen.
Some men are controlled in that way.
And we understand, of course, that if you have a slave, if slavery is legal, and you have a slave, and the slave works, and you take the products of the slave, then that is part of enslavement.
But the fact that you get to choose your own job and all wealth is taken after the fact, because it has to be created in order to be taken.
The farmer has to plant in order for some warlord to come along and steal his crops.
Now, all theft is retroactive slavery.
All theft is retroactive enslavement.
Because... It is like forcing someone to work for you in the moment, but you just take the products of their labor later.
So it seems to be very hard for women, a lot of women, not all, right, to understand that the state that gives them resources is taking those resources mostly from men.
And that is laws that control a man's body.
Because whenever you use force to coerce someone into doing what they would not choose to do, you are taking control of that person's body.
Let me say this again. Whenever you use violence to force someone to do what they would not choose to do, which is the definition of violence, because if they would choose to do it, then you don't need to use violence.
Whenever you use violence to force someone to do what they do not want to do, you are taking control of their body.
Because the mind...
It cannot be taxed.
Only the products of the body can be taxed.
Now, of course, I understand that the mind produces the effects of bodily emotion and so on, but if you had, let's say you had in your head a billion-dollar business idea, let's say that you worked ruthlessly through your body to execute on that business idea, you made a billion dollars, then you'd pay a lot in taxes.
If you have the billion-dollar business idea and do not act on it, it cannot be taxed.
You cannot tax the mind.
You can only tax the body.
You cannot control the mind.
You can only control the body.
Even in the strictest censorship you can indulge in thoughts that, at least now, up to date, cannot be tracked.
Now, this used to be well understood.
This used to be well understood.
It's less understood now because of the exploitive nature of the relations between the sexes in statism.
And the exploitive nature of the relationship of the sexes in statism results in a lack of empathy.
A lack of empathy.
Which is why all of these women are, and again, I don't want to overly focus on the sort of trashiest aspect of these social media posts, you know, like they go to drunken women in the street, hey, what do you think?
It's like, I don't, but I have cleavage.
So, they go to these women, do we need men?
No, men are trash!
No, men are useless!
No, men are liars!
We don't need men!
Blah, blah, blah, right? Well, why would they?
I mean, in the past, it was deeply and viscerally understood that women knew this.
They needed men. Well, why don't they need men now?
Or why do so many feel that they don't need men now?
Or can denigrate men? Well, because those you exploit, you must dehumanize.
Those you exploit, you must dehumanize.
Because if you can't dehumanize them, then you can't exploit them.
And this is really a foundational, a fundamental devilish bargain, which is, I'll give you something.
The devil says, I'll give you something for free.
It'll cost you your soul.
Sign on the dotted line.
You'll get all this free stuff. It'll cost you your soul.
Well, that's an analogy, a very powerful analogy, for the basic reality.
The basic reality is...
Whoever you exploit, you must dehumanize.
You must view your slaves as thoughtless, mindless beasts of burden with no essential humanity of their own.
And why?
Have so many modern women, and men, but we're just talking about women at the moment, right?
Why have so many modern women become so cold, so cruel, so unfeeling, so narcissistic, so unsympathetic towards the plight of men?
If women are unhappy, Men lean in to listen.
When men are unhappy, a lot of modern women lean back to scorn.
You say, well, male suicide rates are higher.
It's like, well, that's because men choose not to express their feelings.
It's their fault! Men are having trouble finding dates because so many women are pursuing the top 10% of men.
Well, that's just needy, pathetic incels.
They have no right to a woman's attention.
Yes, but apparently single moms have a right to a man's paycheck through the tax system.
Totally different! Get something for free.
Lose your soul. What that means is be bribed with the coerced fruits of someone else's labor, other people's labor.
You must then dehumanize those other people.
And through dehumanizing those other people, you lose your humanity.
You lose your humanity.
I mean, the powers that be, bribing one section of the population with the coerced labor of another section of the population, cause narcissism, a lack of empathy, coldness, cruelty, unfeelingness, hostility, impatience, and Like an ice climber whose clampons are failing, so many men are just kind of hanging on to this frozen cliff of female hostility and indifference,
trying to find purchase and escaping through screens to a dimension where they have some capacity to affect an outcome, whether it's video games or something else, right?
Why are so many modern women so cold?
Well, because the system has been set up to largely exploit men and bribe women.
And when you take that which is, quote, free, you cannot empathize with someone who is taken from.
When you are given something for, quote, free, you cannot empathize With those who are taken from.
If you're a slave owner, you cannot empathize with your slave.
You must view the slave as an object that exists only to serve your own selfish needs and preferences.
You must view whoever you're exploiting as an object that exists only to serve your own selfish needs and preferences.
And once you become dependent On a group, as some women are dependent on many men through the state, once you become dependent on some group, you can't see them as human, you can't see them as independent, and you can't empathize with them.
And you can't say, well, gee, women are taking a lot of money out of the tax system.
If I were a man, how would I feel about that?
In the same way that this call-her-daddy woman and Kamala Harris seem to be genuinely unable to think about men's needs and preferences.
Which is these lists.
And lists are fine in terms of who you want to date.
Lists are fine. They're great.
I love the lists. Make a list of what you want.
In your dates. Please, make a list.
Make a list. But don't just make one list.
Make two. One list is narcissism.
Two lists is empathy.
Right? One list is narcissism.
Two lists is empathy. So one list is to say, here's what I want.
Six foot tall, six figures, six back, six plus inches of penile girth.
Or maybe not girth. Maybe length.
So this is what I want.
And that's fine. That's one list.
The second list is what does he want?
What does he want?
How many women...
We're asking men, what do you want?
What would make you happiest?
What do you need?
What are your preferences?
I mean, some women do, of course, but that's the foundational question.
You make one list, and you see this, and this is why these lists on social media bother men so much.
Because it's an I, me, me, I. I want, I need, I prefer, I won't settle for.
Like, they saw this one yesterday, and it's kind of, I don't know if it's just troll engagement farming or whatever, but it works, and there's a reason why it works.
So the woman was like, I'm not going to date any man who doesn't spend at least $200.
I mean, that's just like a reasonable dinner and one glass of wine.
And it's like, if you're not even that committed to me, why would I go out with you at all?
And men see that, and they're like, okay, so that's what you want, and that's fine.
Nothing wrong with wanting things.
Nothing wrong with having standards for wanting things.
It's a beautiful thing. But it's kind of like sitting in front of an employer, like you just kind of barge into some guy's office, and you're like...
Well, I want $150,000 a year.
I want a company car.
I want my own corner office with lots of light and I want windows that open and I want an expense account
And I'd like access to the company private jet and just list off all these things
In exchange for what What?
Is the question.
That's the empathetic question.
In exchange for what?
What do you bring to the table? Well, I am the table.
And that question from modern, I mean, women in the past, women pre-welfare state, absolutely had to ask that question.
What do men want? What do they like?
What do they prefer? I mean, I'm doing it all the time.
I'm asking people with regards to the show.
It's one of the reasons I'll do the show today.
Happy to chat. What do the customers want?
Making a list of demands without making a list of offerings is narcissistic.
This is what I want.
Okay? And why should you get it?
Why should you get it?
This is what I want.
Okay, sure. Yeah, you can make a wish list.
That's what children do. That's what little kids do.
My brother and I, when we were little, oh, what if we got a million pounds?
What would we buy? 747, you know, parachutes.
You know, whatever we would come up with, right?
That's just a wish list.
There's nothing wrong with a wish list when you're five.
Nothing wrong with a wish list.
But when you're an adult, you have to negotiate, and that's what empathy is.
But getting things by force from others for, quote, free, kills your empathy.
Because you can't empathize.
The thief steals but doesn't want to be stolen from.
You see all these heist movies where the thief steals something and then someone else steals from him, or like Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, where the Steve Martin and Michael Caine characters, spoiler, it's an old movie, right, so they are conning a woman, but it turns out she was conning them, right?
I thought I'd stolen, it turns out I got stolen from, damn, right?
Okay. So the thief steals, but doesn't want to be stolen from.
And the reason that the thief is able to steal is the thief refuses to empathize with his victim.
He refuses to say to himself in his heart, well, I don't like to be stolen from.
I suppose other people don't like that either.
He has to dehumanize It's victim.
And of course, a lot of modern ideology is saying, you're not stealing, you're stealing back.
Right? And that way, you can dehumanize, right?
The factory workers are told by the socialists and the communists, you're not stealing the means of production, you're taking them back.
Which is a reversal of cause and effect.
It's like saying to airplane passengers, well, the plane wouldn't be flying without you, and therefore, you own the plane.
No. No, that's not.
The plane is built, and then you get to fly it.
And the plane is built with the anticipation of you flying it, but you don't own the plane, right?
It's like, ah, yes, I remember that time when I ordered a McDonald's Big Mac and became an owner of a franchise.
This cause and effect. So it's a way of offering people things for free by convincing them that they're not stealing anything, they're just stealing it back.
Right? So women, female supremacy, which is a huge issue in the modern world, female supremacy, is saying to women, well, you're not mistreating men.
You are taking your power, which was taken from you, for hundreds of thousands of years.
Men oppressed you.
Because, you know, for the, what was it, maybe a generation or less than that, that men had the vote and women didn't, in the entire span of human history.
So you say to women, well, this is patriarchy!
And this patriarchy keeps things from you.
It stole from you. It stole from your mother, your grandmother, your great-grandmother, all the way back to Eve herself.
And therefore, men owe you, and you're just taking back what is rightfully yours.
Well, I can remember when I was on Twitter, and a lot of people from India would say, well, but the only reason that England became wealthy is because it stole everything from India.
Excellent. Good job.
Good job, everyone. Completely reversing cause and effect.
So, this dehumanization is foundational.
Here's another example of how men's bodies are controlled by the government.
If you have hiring policies that are enforced by mandates, where there are checklists and there are quotas, you say, well, you have to hire women.
You are controlling men's bodies.
Why? Because you are preventing men from being able to get paychecks.
You are preventing them from getting jobs.
You're preventing them from getting paychecks.
That is controlling a man's body.
He is not free to go in and apply for a job and get the job.
That is controlling a man's body.
He can't go into that interview.
He can't get the job.
He can't go into the office.
He can't get the paycheck.
That is controlling men's bodies.
In the same way that women say, well, if I'm denied access to abortion, that is controlling my body.
It's like, oh, well if a man is denied access to employment, that's controlling his body!
I would say it's also tiresome, but I think it's good to explicate in a kind of direct way.
you Oh, the coldness.
What do men want?
What do men like?
I mean, you can see the rising rates of obesity.
As a whole, it's dipped, I think, this year, maybe because of Ozempic, or maybe inflation in the grocery store is a way of trying to combat inflation on the waistline, when food simply becomes too expensive and people have to eat less.
And maybe that's one of the reasons it's dipped.
But what men emphatically don't want, except for a few freak-ass chubby chasers, what men explicitly and emphatically don't want is obese women.
Like, I saw this woman, facially quite pretty, and she did an extreme close-up.
Now, she's heavy-faced, but, you know, some people just are.
Some people can have a fairly slender body, but chipmunk cheeks.
And she's doing this extreme close-up, and it's like, I just spent three hours getting ready for a date.
I'm going for a date. I got my fingers crossed.
I hope I'll be happy. I think it'll be fun.
And then afterwards, she's in her car, tears streaming down her face, and she's, you know, basically the guy met her, and then within a couple of minutes said, I'm just not feeling it, I'm sorry, and he went home.
Right. Well, I mean, did she fatfish, right?
Did she... Did she pretend to be more slender than she really is?
I mean, you've seen this, right?
You've seen the women who have slightly slender faces or more slender faces and then they step back and it's like kaboom, right?
Suddenly you're all kinds of jab at the heart slash oompa loompa, right?
And men can do this too, right?
So, women are emphatically saying, of course, that a man is not entitled to a single shred of attention from a woman.
And that's true. I mean, and I'm fine with women saying men are not entitled to a shred of a woman's time.
It's like, okay, great. Then women are not entitled to a shred of a man's time in the form of coerced taxation transfer.
Oh, no, no, that's different.
But it's funny because the women, of course, were all sympathizing with this woman, but the woman is not so...
She obviously chose a guy who looked at her and said, you're unappealing.
Now, it could be because she kind of lied.
About how obese she was.
I don't know how obese she was.
But she said dating isn't fun when you're fat.
So she referred to herself as fat.
So I assume that she's significantly fat.
Because she didn't say, I'm big boned, I'm thick, I'm heavyset, I'm curvy.
All the Rubenesque euphemisms for obese.
So she went for a guy who looked at her and said, Mm-mm-mm.
Mm-mm-mm. And so then he left and everyone was like, ah, that's so terrible, that's so rude.
And it's like, but I'm sorry, I thought we weren't entitled to each other's time, energy, effort, resources.
So... If...
A woman shows up and the man is, you know, 30 years older than he claims to be, or obese while he hid it on the photos, or something like that.
Then, you know, women always have this thing when they go on blind dates where they set up something with a friend and the friend calls them and then they leave in the middle of the date, usually without paying, right?
And that's considered, you know, good common sense.
If the guy's weird or creepy or unpleasant or stinky or yellow teeth or whatever, right?
Then women have ways of getting out of the date.
Oh, I'm sorry, my mom's the only one.
Oh, they just go to the bathroom and have an Irish goodbye and don't come back.
So, would anyone say to these women, you are obligated, you must, must stay to the end of the date?
No. The man's not obligated to her time at all.
And that's true. And so this woman complaining, right, that the man said, I'm not feeling it, and left shortly, I mean, within a few minutes.
Well, that's fine, right?
I mean, he didn't want to stay.
Of course, he shouldn't be compelled to stay.
He shouldn't be shamed into staying.
But this is just this bewildered lack of reciprocity that occurs.
Right, so... When women don't get what they want in the dating market, men are deficient.
When men don't get what they want in the dating market, they're weak, chicken-chested incels who need to go out and touch grass, and they are also deficient.
In what, and this is an important question, I think, in society as a whole, in what are modern women considered to be deficient?
I mean, we hear a lot about how men are deficient, and that can be helpful, that can be helpful.
But in what conversations are we having about modern women being deficient in anything?
But that's the vanity.
In the relationship between the master and the slave, the slave takes all the criticism and the master takes none.
Criticism, or lack of criticism, is a function of power.
Whoever can criticize has the power.
You can see this in race, you can see this in sex, you can see this in class.
Whoever can criticize has the power.
Whoever is shielded from criticism or cannot be criticized.
Sorry, whoever, yeah, whoever criticizes has the power.
And if you can both criticize and be shielded from criticism, you have the ultimate power, right?
This is an old Voltaire line.
I don't know if it's misattributed, but it's cool enough that it doesn't matter who it came from, that if you want to know who rules over you, look at who you were not able to criticize.
And, you know, women, to a large degree, what feedback do they take?
And this is a function of female in-group preference, and it's also a function of the simping, right?
The simping.
Because men have this odd idea that if they jump to a woman's defense, she might sleep with them.
I mean, my God, like, they've never read Fifty Shades of Grey or Ayn Rand or the upcoming Nicole Kidman and Dewey Face Intern film, where it's considered really sexy for a female CEO in her 50s to take orders from her apple-cheeked 21-year-old intern.
It's not an imbalance of power!
No, no, no! It's sexy!
So... And this is partly a function of not female nature or anything negative towards women.
It's just a function of biology.
It's just a function of biology.
It's hard for a young man to make a mistake that enslaves himself to some degree for 20 years and costs a quarter of a million dollars.
Young men's mistake tend to be drinking too much, Doing risky things, maybe driving too fast, maybe being kind of lacy and preferring screen time to productivity, gathering, maybe not pursuing much of an education, whether self or institutional self is better these days.
It's really the only education that's possible.
Everything else is propaganda.
But a young man, in general, finds it hard to make A few minutes mistake that costs him 20 years of independence and a quarter of a million dollars.
And really, if you look down to just the orgasm, right?
You know what I'm talking about, right?
If you look at just the orgasm, the orgasm lasts, what, 10, 15, 20 seconds, unless you're Sting, in which case it's half the tour.
But orgasm, you know, 10, 15 seconds or whatever.
Now, except in some orgy of preternatural violence, a young man cannot, in 10 to 15 seconds, make a mistake that costs him 20 years of his life at a quarter million dollars or more.
But women can, because women get pregnant.
And when women get pregnant, What is society supposed to do?
Right? This is the whole reproductive rights.
It's just, when I hear the sort of reproductive rights, I simply hear consequence-free sex.
I want to remove consequences from sexual activity.
And I completely and totally understand that.
I mean, we can empathize with that, right?
I think we can. We can empathize with that.
We can empathize with a young woman who, in a fit of lust, gets pregnant to a guy who's a himbo, right?
Hot but dumb. He is not a suitable, long-term, productive partner to her and husband to her child.
Now, of course, in the past, this was all healed with shotgun weddings.
Oh, you got my daughter pregnant?
Well, you're getting married, kid.
And that was considered, you know, fairly acceptable, fairly okay.
Not the worst way to start a family.
Not necessarily ideal, but not terrible.
I look at the math of my parents' marriage.
Anyway, so...
That...
Slip up that 10 to 15 seconds resulting in the need to raise a child for 20 years and a quarter million dollars of cost.
That is the foundational thing that society has to figure out how to manage and handle.
And that's what I mean when I say at the beginning of this that all anti-rationality must be paid for by someone else.
So if the woman has a child out of wedlock, or with the guy who doesn't provide, someone has to provide.
Or the child dies. Someone has to provide.
Or the child dies.
Or, you know...
Yeah, so someone has to provide.
It's not the father, right? So that issue of making a terrible mistake and wanting to be excused for it is perfectly natural.
It's perfect in normal human nature.
Men do it too. People forget, of course, that abortion on demand serves male sex addicts as well.
Abortion on demand means that men can have consequence-free sex.
So the sex addicts Want the free, quote, healthcare, right?
STD treatments and they want abortion and so on, right?
It's just usually the result of addictive behavior, which results from prior trauma in childhood and so on.
So the fact that 10 to 15 seconds, right?
If you don't pull out or whatever, 10 to 15 seconds, you now have an obligation for massive amounts of resources.
For decades and massive costs.
Well... How does it get paid?
So then the state, of course, rushes along and says, we'll take care of it for you, and the women are so relieved and grateful that they'll take the, quote, free stuff extracted from men, right?
They couldn't extract resources from men based upon their charm, their helpfulness, their lovability, their good nature, their sense of humor, their willingness to be of service to the family or the man, right?
They couldn't extract resources by peace, so they extract resources by force.
They couldn't extract resources by negotiation, so they have to extract resources by coercion.
And when people make those kinds of mistakes, and I've talked about this before, so I won't go into it in depth here, but of course women, When they got pregnant out of wedlock, often would end up as prostitutes dying of syphilis before the age of 30.
And their children would be orphaned, abandoned, often trafficked, rented out to pedophiles.
Like, it was really a complete nightmare of an existence for women who got pregnant out of wedlock prior to the welfare state.
And men, of course, know that people have to suffer in order for civilization to continue.
Civilization is, in part, significantly allowing bad decisions.
The people who make bad decisions have to suffer.
And that way they act as instructions for other people to not make bad decisions.
And women don't like watching anyone suffer because they're Evolved to take care of babies and toddlers, and you can't watch babies and toddlers suffer and say, well, it serves them right, because they're babies and toddlers, so it doesn't serve them right.
I told him not to play by those stairs.
Serves him right if he fell down and his head's bleeding, right?
That's not what you want to do as a parent, as a mother for sure.
So, the unique and massive disasters that young women
are susceptible to that young men aren't.
Now, young men are susceptible to them in the case of the shotgun wedding, right?
If there was a law that said, I'm not saying there should be, but if there was a law that said, now that we have paternity testing, if there was a law that said, if you get a woman pregnant, you're automatically married, well, people would be a lot more careful about birth control, right? People would be a lot more careful who they slept with.
They'd engage in forms of non-procreative sex.
They'd have double-wrapped condoms.
They'd have whatever, right? But that's how it used to be.
In many ways.
I mean, I mentioned this in my truth about the Wild West.
Like a third of weddings in many parts of 19th century, 18th century America were shotgun weddings.
And it works. To a large degree.
So, because women are capable of, you know, the 15-second multi-decade catastrophe, either we work to prevent that catastrophe or we have to pay for the consequences.
Now, working to prevent that catastrophe means that nobody can be forced to pay for the consequences.
If nobody can be forced to pay for the consequences, then the negatives of bad decisions Accrue to the woman, accrue to her immediate family, accrue to the man who might have to marry her or whatever.
but it doesn't accrue to society as a whole.
And that's sort of the male-female response to disaster.
The female response to disaster is to provide resources.
The male response to disaster is to provide judgment.
So the little three-year-old Turkish boy who washed up on the shores of the Mediterranean, the women were like, well, this is terrible.
We can't have borders because, right?
And for men, it was like, I think that dad should be in jail for putting his kid on an overloaded boat and sending him out or sending everyone out in a storm.
For the women, it's like, well, we're responsible for that kid dying on the beach.
And the men are like, no, no. I mean, I can get fined for my kid riding a bike without a helmet, right?
I mean, the dad should go to jail for reckless child endangerment for putting his kids on a boat and heading out into a storm because he wanted free dental care in Canada.
That's the difference, right? And both are beautiful in the free market.
Both are beautiful in the free market.
So, a woman who has a child out of wedlock, which is really the foundation of the welfare state and one of the reasons why marriage has been destroyed, a woman who has a child out of wedlock needs resources so desperately she cannot afford to empathize with those she takes from.
It's the starving man analogy, like if you want to know what that's like, right?
Imagine that for some reason, You're starving and penniless in some foreign land, and if you don't get food in the next hour or two, you're probably going to die, and you can't speak the language, and you're probably going to steal, right?
You're probably going to, you know, steal a loaf of bread and just eat it, and then you'll say, oh gosh, you know, I'll get my strength back up, I'll get a job, I'll pay it back, you know, but you're going to die.
And so, because you're going to die, Because the stakes are so high, empathy becomes impossible.
Or to put it another way, anybody who was starving and had some genetic predisposition to empathizing with the baker so he wouldn't steal the bread just died and those genes died with him.
Whereas those who are like, okay, if I'm in a situation of extremity, then I'm going to get resources by any means necessary.
Those genes survive, right?
Women who are like, well, I guess I had a kid out of wedlock, but I don't want to impose on the dad, and I don't want to impose upon my family, and I don't want to get resources that I haven't voluntarily earned.
Well, those genes just didn't last.
Because those kids didn't last.
So genes of turning off empathy in a situation of extremity are those that last.
I mean, for men, it's the equivalent of war.
If you empathize with the enemy soldier, you're going to get killed.
If you empathize with the deer, you're going to starve.
You have to kill the deer to get the meat.
So human beings are produced from a situation of emergency.
So we come out of the womb and we need tens of thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to make it to adulthood.
So we are birthed in a situation of extremity.
That situation of extremity puts women in a panic, has them run to the state.
The result of that being That they have to not have empathy with the men who are disproportionately forced to pay for their children and themselves.
It's the same thing with the elderly.
With pensions and healthcare and so on, right?
They're not empathizing with the young because they're exploiting the young.
Because old people voted for Lots of social programs and not high enough taxes to cover them, and therefore they can't empathize with the young.
Because if they empathize with the young, they'd have to say, well, we have to severely cut Social Security because the young people can't get ahead.
The taxes are too high.
The burden is too high. We didn't have enough kids.
The boomers are boarded like a third of their offspring.
We didn't have enough kids.
We weren't nice enough to our kids.
We didn't save enough money. We have neither the financial, familial, or social capital.
To survive comfortably in our old age, so we're going to be nice to the young and cut our pensions.
Well, you could never win on that, right?
So the old can't empathize with the young, which is what happened over COVID, right?
COVID was a giant transfer.
I mean, I was talking to a friend of mine whose kid is in a school.
Schools were completely broken over COVID, and from what I've heard, schools were completely broken over COVID, and I don't know if and ever they're going to recover.
I mean, things in the free market can recover because you can adapt, right?
Like when Intel had this issue with its calculation, software, hardware, software, it was able to recover, right?
When Tylenol, when some crazy guy was poisoning Tylenol tablets, they were able to recover.
So free market systems can recover, government systems can't, because there's no strictness, there's no reform, there's no wheeling to meet the needs of the customer.
School system is absolutely broken because, you know, kids were home for a year or two, not listening, cheating on all their tests.
So the knowledge hasn't been gathered.
The teachers got comfortable staying home.
Nobody wants to be there. There's no control.
Everybody knows it's a farce.
And COVID broke the school system.
I mean, it's fairly broken before, but it completely shattered it.
And it shattered most people's most reasonable skeptics' faith in any kind of alphabet institution.
And it also broke the covenant of the generations, which is, you know, old people were scared into sacrificing the freedoms and autonomy of young people.
It's a break, right?
As the old saying goes, civilization is sustained when old people plant trees whose shade they will never live to see or feel.
I mean, as an older person myself, I have been relatively content to burn my reputation to the ground for the sake of planting seeds that I will not see.
Planting seeds for trees whose shade I will never experience, right?
Which is, the credibility of the future will be at war with the slander of the present, for me, right?
But you have to make some sacrifices to move civilization forward.
As best you can. There's still free will on the part of those who listen, but you have to make some sacrifices as the old in order to secure a better situation for the young.
And so I had to throw my reputation on the bonfire in order to have the best chance or
hope for securing a better future for the young.
And it certainly has happened.
I mean, I'm certainly living to see that now.
It's all the people who email me saying that peaceful parenting is what they do and how
happy they are with all of that and how grateful they are that I talked about it.
And I thank you, of course, for all of your support over this tumultuous time of the last,
I guess, 20 years almost.
So because women face a unique set of catastrophes regarding pregnancy, they have to be able
to shed empathy in order to provide resources for their children.
you This is also part of, you know, why did women evolve to have this sort of nagging thing?
Well, because they need resources, and if the man is lazy, they need to nag him.
They need to If he's hedonistic, right, then they need to make it less comfortable for him to be home so he goes out and works, right?
Get out of here and get me some money too, as the old song goes.
They have to get the resources.
They have to get the resources.
And you can, you know, hear this in some of the sort of rap songs, you know, the women just sort of screeching about getting the money, getting the money, getting the money.
The Moulin Rouge thing.
They need the money. They need the resources for their kids.
Now, the last thing I'll say here, and again, happy to take any questions, is that women have two routes to gain resources.
Love and hostility.
Women have two routes to gain resources, love and hostility.
Now, love, of course, is the man loves her, respects her, treasures her, and is happy to provide whatever he can to make her comfortable, goes to work with a spring in his step and a song in his heart because he just loves his family so much that he is happy to work and provide for them, and, you know, all this kind of stuff. It's good, nice, juicy, lovely stuff.
And that's one way that the woman can get resources.
Now, the other way that the woman can get resources is to nag, to be full of hostility and negativity and contempt and so on.
And that is sort of the modern feminist thing, right?
That the women are getting resources by being hostile.
And so a woman can get resources through empathy or through selfishness.
What matters, of course, is that the kids get the resources, so women have to have that dual nature in order to be able to survive.
Now, the best way to get resources, of course, is through love.
But failing that, you have to get resources through contempt, hatred, hostility, and dehumanization of the other.
To nag a man, you have to not empathize with him.
For women to catawall in the streets and say how they don't need men and men are trash, clearly you have to not empathize with men and how that lands.
But of course, the sultan or the pasha who had a harem didn't have to care about the preferences of the women who were enslaved to his sexual desires.
And modern women who can get money from the state don't have to care about the feelings of men who can be enslaved to their desires.
It's the same. It's a harem, not a harem now.
The harem of male taxpayers.
And this is why men are going on strike.
Because a man, you can get resources out of a man by nagging him, but it's a diminishing return.
Because he just tunes you out, he stops caring, he gets depressed, he doesn't have motivation to work, he doesn't have enthusiasm or happiness or joy.
So you just kind of grind him down.
You'll get resources in the here and now at the expense of his happiness and enthusiasm and productivity in the future.
A man who goes to work out of love will always outcompete a man who goes out of work out of nagging or hatred or hostility, right?
You know, these poor husbands, you sort of hear these stories, right?
These poor husbands who say, you know, like, oh man, I drive for an hour to get home and then I just sit on the street a block or two away for like, I don't know, like just 20 more minutes just to get a few more minutes of peace.
So, a woman who nags a man, he will go on strike over time.
And you can see this, of course, happening in the world as a whole, that the men are going on strike considerably.
It's not just MGTOW or monk mode or anything like that, but men just as a whole are going on strike.
Because if they're not loved by women, Why would they work hard?
I mean, men work hard because we are loved.
And the best way to destroy an economy is to turn women against their men.
these bitter memes about like me and the boys fighting in Taiwan because Taylor Swift
convinced a bunch of childhood liberals to vote for the warmonger.
So, hatred and contempt and dehumanization always collapses in
on itself because it removes the joy that is required for productivity and growth.
And why are the economies slowing down?
I mean, I get the regulations and taxes and debt.
I get all of that. But foundationally, these things can be overcome.
And we saw that in the Trump era, right?
We saw that in the Trump era.
Lower taxes, less migration, lower housing costs.
It caused motivation for men to start founding families.
The fact that men can't get jobs these days means that men can't found families.
It kills the birth rate.
It kills enthusiasm, motivation.
And men become hedonists because there's no practical value to sacrifice.
And all of this will be restored.
All of this balance will be restored.
The only real question is how much suffering What will people have to go through to restore the balance?
All of this gets restored because all irrationalities have to be paid for by others.
and the irrationality that women have, that they don't need men, has to be paid for largely by men.
All of this will be restored.
It may take a hundred years or more.
All of this imbalance, probably a lot less, but all of this imbalance will be restored.
It's just a question of how much suffering has to happen before then.
And, of course, my goal has been less suffering would be good.
Less suffering would be excellent.
I mean, there's no suffering, right?
It's not a case that there's going to be a possibility of no suffering.
But we can, of course, aim for less suffering, which is generally the goal that I'm after.
All right. So that's my particular topic and talk for today.
And I'm happy to take any questions or comments if you are all at work and in a Fairly listening type mode.
That, of course, is beyond totally fine.
So I'll just pause here for a sec and see if anybody has questions, comments, issues, challenges.
You can just click on the want to talk button and I'm happy to take that.
Otherwise, we'll close off and I'll talk to you soon.
Yes. Hello, Stefan.
This is Helen. Oh, hey, Helen.
Um... It's a coincidence.
I just listened to a video you put up recently about women and society where the way I interpreted your conversation was how essential we women are for society.
I understand you have your opinions and I have my own but I appreciated you taking the time to Share with us the perspective of society as a whole and us, men and women, how necessary we each are to create the environment for our children to grow and thrive.
So I just want to say thank you.
Oh, you're very welcome. I mean, one of my major goals is love is the greatest joy that is.
And one of the reasons that I Speak so strongly against coercion is that coercion leads to narcissism because you can't empathize with those you're exploiting and narcissists can't be loved.
Selfishness is the opposite of love.
And so I want people to be in love, to be loved, to have that joy and support and goodwill of those in their life, which means we have to cast aside exploitation and we have to work to mutual benefit.
With sympathy, with empathy, with understanding, and that's one of the reasons that I am such a foe of violence.
Obviously it's immoral and all of that, but the real cost of violence is the capacity for love.
The real cost of exploitation is happiness.
And while exploitation will give you short-term relief, like a drug, it destroys your soul in the long run, which is again that devil analogy of I'll give you something for free but it will cost you your soul, that means I will tempt you to exploit others and that will cost you Your empathy.
And through the removal of your empathy, you lose the capacity to love and be loved.
And everything just becomes predatory and false.
So I appreciate your comment, though.
Is there anything else that you wanted to add?
There could be a little bit, but I wasn't prepared.
It's unexpected that I have this opportunity to speak with you.
I'm going to have to...
And hopefully, I'll have a second opportunity.
Yes, and maybe I'll actually do some work ahead of time to schedule these things, but I just had a little bit of time window open up.
All right. Well, I thank you for your comments.
I thank everyone for dropping by.
If you would like to help out the show, freedomain.com.
Your support is most gratefully, gratefully accepted.
You can also join these two great communities.
And freedomand.locals.com.
And if you sign up there for a subscription, you get access to a lot of AIs, a lot of bonus shows, and premium shows, and the History of Philosopher's Series, and all kinds of great stuff.
So I hope that you'll look into that.
freedomand.com slash donate is a good place to start.
And thank you for your time today.
Lots of love from up here.
Don't exploit. Be generous.
Have boundaries. Be happy.
▲
Export Selection