Whatever Podcast - Michael Knowles vs. 3 Feminists | Whatever Debates #4

Feb. 2, 2024 - Whatever Podcast

03:05:25

Michael Knowles vs. 3 Feminists | Whatever Debates #4

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to a special debate edition of the Whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
	I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
	A few quick announcements before the show begins.
	This podcast is viewer-supported heavy YouTube demonetization.
	So please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of Super Chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
	Some quick maths for y'all.
	So if you super chat 100, YouTube takes 30.
	If you donate 100, Streamlabs only takes 30.
	Streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	Link is in the description.
	Donations and Super Chats $10 and up will be displayed in Stream Overlay.
	You can see the rest of the various triggers in the description.
	If the TTS, we do have TTS here.
	If it's too disruptive, we may either delay it or boost it.
	Just for the sake of a smooth stream and debate, please see the description for all triggers and full details.
	Without further ado, I'm joined today by Michael Knowles.
	He is a conservative political commentator, actor, thespian, author, rap critic, music critic, and media host.
	He graduated with a BA in history and Italian from Yale University.
	He is the host of the Michael Knowles Show at the Daily Wire.
	Welcome, Michael.
	Thank you for having me.
	Good to be back.
	Good to have you back.
	His feminist debate opponents are: we have Jasmine Jafar, the self-described, her words, not mine, ho lawyer.
	304 lawyer.
	Excuse me, 304 lawyer.
	She received her JD and has a bachelor's in psychology.
	She also does porn and OnlyFans.
	I do.
	Hence, ho.
	Have you ever litigated while doing this?
	I can.
	I still have my license.
	Okay.
	But there's no reason to make women here.
	She's joined by Farha Khalidi.
	She is an online content creator.
	She received a bachelor's degree in English.
	And Pixie, as she goes online, she graduated from the University of Florida with a triple major getting her BS in psychology and a BA in philosophy and economics.
	So this is sort of a sort of generalized debate here we're having.
	We have Michael Knowles here, conservative versus, if you guys want to articulate your political leanings, feel free, maybe one by one.
	But I suspect you're both, you're all, or excuse me, you're all progressive, left-leaning, liberal-leaning.
	Yeah, depends on the issue, but I would say center left to left on most things.
	Okay.
	I generally consider myself a progressive overall.
	Okay.
	And do you all consider yourselves feminists?
	Depending on the definition.
	I hope none of you bamboozled me here.
	So I think a good jumping off point here, and I think we'll start with you guys and then we'll have Michael respond.
	What is feminism?
	I think the most common definition is the social, political, and economic equality between the sexes.
	So according to that definition, I would definitely identify as a feminist.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	In general, I agree with that definition.
	I believe that we should not be discriminated unfairly on the basis of sex.
	If I had to add any addition to feminism.
	I would agree with all that.
	And then I'll also add on just kind of adding more cultural currency to just female spaces, women's interests, and just women's proclivities in general.
	That last if that's what it were, but I don't, I actually think feminism does the opposite of that in practice.
	And frankly, going all the way back to the beginning of feminism in the 18th century, probably my definition of feminism would be Gloria Steinem's definition.
	She was the very famous feminist of the second wave, which is that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
	Feminism is the idea that men and women are not complementary.
	They're not different and helpful to one another, but they're identical and indiscernible.
	That they're, you know, there are some superficial differences.
	You ladies might be a little prettier perhaps than I am.
	But all in all, we're basically exactly the same.
	And I don't think that's true.
	I think it's a false view of human nature, and I think it's harmful to everybody and especially harmful to women.
	Right.
	I've worked with Gloria Steinem's company, Women's Media Center, for like four years back.
	My condolences.
	And obviously that's like a more crass interpretation of, I think, what she meant by that, which I think is more so.
	She's more so characterizing the fact that women in general, when they're taught how to self-actualize, it's typically tied to a contingency on a man and getting married and starting a family versus men when they're told the ways to self-actualize.
	It doesn't necessarily require a woman.
	So obviously her saying a woman needs a man the way a fish needs a bicycle sounds crass and like she's being a bit misandrous.
	And obviously some radical interpretations may take it that way.
	But I think what she's trying to say is that women, you can like define yourself and your career and your potential outside of simply marriage and children.
	What do you mean by the phrase self-actualize?
	Just like live up to your potential, you know, use your rational faculties, you know, use the design of your potential in your brain.
	I agree that I want to live up to my highest potential.
	I want women to live up to their highest potential.
	I want total human flourishing.
	But I think you've given away the game on the radical and liberal foundation of feminism, which is the notion that it comes purely from the self.
	It's a matter of self-liberation that I can do totally self-sufficiently as if I were an island unto myself.
	But no man is an island unto himself.
	And so I didn't make myself.
	I didn't create the family that I was born into.
	I didn't create the community that I was born into, the country that I was born into.
	I take the opposite view of the liberal view.
	The liberals say that man is fundamentally an individual.
	The conservatives would say, no, man is a social creature.
	You know, man is a political animal.
	And so the irony, I think, of someone like a Gloria Steinem saying that we, or insinuating that we just want women to live up to their fullest potential is that the way that she and the feminists have done it is to totally erase women.
	And I think this goes back way further than the second wave.
	You sometimes hear conservatives, the squishy kind, they say, we love the feminism, but only the second wave, not the third wave, or we like the first wave, not the second, or whatever.
	We're on like the 10th wave now.
	But it's been a problem from the beginning.
	Even Mary Wollstonecraft, who founds feminism with the vindication of the rights of woman, she writes that Providence has created men in such a way that they are more inclined to virtue and they're more endowed with virtue.
	And I think that's exactly what Gloria Steinem thinks, because the way that second wave feminism actually was practiced was it denied the virtues, particular to women, and it said the only way to be virtuous and to flourish is to be a man.
	So if women want to be virtuous and flourish, they got to dress like men, and they got to have the same attitudes towards sex as men.
	And they got to work in the workplace exactly as men do.
	And they just have to pretend to be men.
	But I think that's very disrespectful to women and harmful to them, because if a woman tries to be a man, she's always going to fail.
	Just look at the Penn Swim Team now when the men compete against the women swimmers and defeat them.
	This is why some feminists wisely are turning against the transgender ideology.
	I think women are great.
	Women have a wonderful nature.
	And when women are fully women, they can really flourish.
	And when they pretend to be men, they get miserable.
	I think what a lot of feminists would push back on or worry about is this idea that we have ascribed gender to certain things are kind of agendered.
	So for example, when it comes to the workplace, the idea that like, oh no, a woman must stay at home, going out and working is a man's job, seems to be something that a lot of people have contention with because it seems like I'm not saying that women don't have a place at home taking care of children, but it doesn't seem like it should necessarily be limited to just that.
	So for example, even like throughout history, you still have women who, despite taking care of home, also have like side jobs or side hustles or stuff like that to help contribute to the family.
	So I think this whole idea that's like, oh no, like women are just trying to be men, sometimes I wonder, oh no, we are just saying that this is for a man to do, even though it seems like there's more opportunity for women to participate in those arenas as well.
	I think you've just made my point though, which is that you say throughout history, including long before feminism ever came onto the scene, women did plenty of things, you know, in addition to just being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, right?
	They were involved in their community.
	They had side hustles, as you put it.
	So they did all these things.
	I mean, I think of the most famous anti-feminist American of the 20th century, it was Phyllis Schlafly.
	Phyllis Schlafly had six kids.
	She was a housewife.
	She said the only person whose permission she needs for her political activism is her husband's, which irritated feminists to no end.
	She's one of the most important political figures of the whole century.
	She single-handedly killed the Equal Rights Amendment, traveled all over the country, one of the most vaunted figures in the American right.
	She was able to do a lot of things in public, but she recognized that her particular role that her husband never could have, that no man on earth ever could have, even if he kids himself, is to have children, to be a woman, to be graceful, to do the things that men can't do.
	And so she can do things beyond that as well.
	But if you erase the particular advantages of women, then women are put at a disadvantage.
	I mean, the problem is women are also excluded from doing a lot of things.
	So I don't think anyone here thinks there are no differences between men and women.
	But there's a lot of overlap as well.
	And while men and women may be different on something on average, to look at a woman like I think you and some of your other conservatives are under fire for saying, oh, if it's a female pilot, I'm automatically going to assume that this person is incompetent.
	I've never said that.
	Though if an airline tells me that they are prioritizing DEI over merit in the cockpit, I would probably book another airline.
	Okay, and that's, I guess that's a little different.
	I get what you're saying.
	I get that.
	But my point is like to say women are just emotional, more emotional than men.
	may be true on average but to then look at a woman and just be like automatically i'm going to assume this woman is more emotional i think that isn't that so why is it true on average though It may be true on average because we're different.
	I've never said we're not different.
	But the problem is to say we're different and then put us into categories and be like there can be no overlap.
	Women have to do this role and men have to do this role.
	That's I think what feminism is pushing back on.
	What you're arguing for is a kind of feminism that says actually all the differences between men and women, that's totally true in the aggregate, you know, in these two different types.
	But on rare occasion, there's going to be someone.
	It's not that rare.
	Like let's say like, okay, gender roles.
	Like let's say most people, like let's say 70 to 80% of people will fall into natural gender roles.
	But then there's still 20% of our population that may not.
	And do we make a society where we force that 20% into these roles or do we allow choice?
	I think a lot of feminism, the cornerstone of feminism is choice for women.
	You can't stay at home.
	I'm not so sure about that.
	I'm not so sure, because there was a famous debate between Betty Friedan, who was the prominent American feminist, and Simone de Beauvoir, one of the most famous feminists of the 20th century.
	It was in 1975.
	And Betty Friedan said what you said.
	She said, look, I think we should give women a choice.
	Maybe they want to go out into the workplace or maybe they want to stay home and raise their kids, but they should have a choice.
	And Simone de Beauvoir, who was a more consistent and intelligent feminist, said, there can't be a choice.
	And the reason there can't be a choice is that if given the choice, most women would stay at home.
	And if most women stay at home, women will not be free.
	If we want true women's liberation, women must be forced to be free.
	And Friedan recoiled from this because she knew it wasn't going to play well in Peoria.
	But Simone de Beauvoir had had the right point.
	And I think the more consistent feminists have agreed with her.
	I don't know.
	I mean, feminism has, like, it's gone so many different directions.
	So to pick the feminists that we don't agree with for this debate, I don't know if that's conducive to.
	Also, I'm not necessarily sure when you're saying, like, oh, no, most women would stay at home.
	That's a choice that they would have.
	Because when you look at the uprisings of feminism or when they gained the most traction, it was post-war era, partly because of the reason why is because during these war eras, men went out, they were drafted, they had to go fight, et cetera, et cetera.
	Women were expected to take up more traditional male spaces, work, and when the men came back.
	Yeah.
	What ended up happening is that a lot of women did not want to leave the jobs that they had.
	They wanted to keep the somewhat level of financial independence that they were able to gain.
	And that's why we see these huge feminist uprisings during those periods of time.
	So it seems to me if you're saying that most women would stay home, that just wouldn't happen.
	Women would have not had these feminist movements go forward.
	Well, the feminists didn't want to leave their jobs.
	But women broadly perhaps did.
	So anecdotally, people write in a lot and they tell me, Michael, at least while my kids are little, I'd love to stay home and raise them.
	Maybe I'll go back to work after, but I just can't.
	You can't raise a family in America for the average person today on one income.
	And that's a result of women entering the workforce and wages decrease, which is why not only the radical left, but also the more commercially minded right-wing was in favor of that.
	It's the same reason they're in favor of mass migration.
	It just lowers wages for people.
	A lot of women, however, seem to feel not that they have the choice to go to work, but that they have to.
	And this is expressed in a famous study that came out of UPenn and was published by Yale in 2008, which was the paradox of declining female happiness.
	And I love the way this study opens up.
	Right in the abstract, it says, despite the past 35 years, I'm paraphrasing, but despite the past 35 years showing so much marked progress and improvement in the lives of women, women's happiness, according to this meta-analysis, has declined, both absolutely and relative to men.
	So it's not even just that everyone got more miserable because of, I don't know, a bad economy or something.
	Women in particular became less happy despite all these objective improvements to their lives.
	So to me, the obvious rejoinder to that is, well, maybe those objective improvements, namely feminism, that's the thing that happened between 1973 and 2008, maybe that wasn't an objective good.
	Maybe that was just illusory.
	To me, the obvious rejoinder of that is that women are becoming disillusioned with the life they had prior.
	They're like leaving the cave, so to speak, allegorically.
	And also, I don't think you should use self-reported happiness as a metric of justice or any like objective good, because you can plot self-reported happiness with pretty much any variable.
	Like highest reported crime, violent crime in the United States, also is directly correlated to self-reported happiness.
	Does that mean one causes the other?
	No.
	Does that mean we should think about violent crime?
	The highest violent crime is criminal.
	I'm just saying in the periods of time when we've had the most violent crime in the United States, there's also a correlation between highest rates of self-reported happiness.
	Well, not according to the survey I just cited, right?
	If happiness has been declining steadily, especially for women since 1973 to 2008, you had a major crime spike in the early 90s, but you didn't have a major spike in happiness.
	So perhaps there's some survey that you're referring to in some cities.
	But it wouldn't.
	But also even women living traditional lifestyles are seeing a downfall in happiness.
	So why is it that the women who are still living the type of lifestyle that you would probably prescribe to women are also having a decrease in happiness?
	I'm not convinced of that.
	The Institute of Family Studies are a big, and there's a lot of data out there that actually children make you less happy.
	So there is this problem happening where we're like, okay, why are people less happy?
	But we don't know.
	We don't know what it is.
	And then you would expect then that the, like, if you looked at the most unhappiest countries, you would expect Canada, the Nordic countries, Scandinavian countries, because they're very egalitarian, and you're not seeing that they actually have higher happiness levels.
	Well, they have the highest rates of alcoholism in the world.
	You think of Denmark, Norway, Iceland in particular.
	So I don't know how happy they are.
	Now you're changing, but if we're going to just go by what makes alcoholic.
	I don't know if, I think there are arguments to be made about community and those things may make people less happy.
	But this idea that's because women aren't having children, when we also have data, a lot of data that shows children, especially in the United States, has the biggest happiness gap.
	And then we're seeing that other countries that are more feminist are also not having, like, if you compare like Scandinavian countries to the East.
	My parents are immigrants from Iran.
	Iran has really high unhappiness levels.
	A lot of countries do.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So I don't know if you can say that this is causing that, right?
	So yeah, Nordic countries also have much more homogeneity, which is correlated with physical happiness.
	So they're all of those differences.
	But I think the point about children making you unhappy and the point about leaving the cave, I think those are both a little bit of a cope because they're belied by the fact that if it were just that women were coming into their own now and they were recognizing the oppression of which they were not conscious previously, then why would they keep getting less and less happy?
	You know, at a certain point, aren't you supposed to turn the corner and become more happy in your independence?
	But that's not what's happened.
	For 35 years, it just gets worse, worse, and worse, including relative to men.
	And then for children, you look over the past, what, 70 plus years now, 74 years, 1950 to present day, the marriage rate has dropped by 60%, and the birth rate has dropped by 50%.
	So just looking at the whole society, we are having many, many fewer children than we were before.
	And yet we're much less happy.
	Even like places like Pakistan are having less kids.
	Sure, I'm just pointing out, you're saying that having fewer children makes you happier.
	And I'm saying we're having many fewer children and Americans are much less happy.
	And you see this even beyond just randomized.
	I kind of want to push back on this idea that we've gotten more unhappy as time has progressed because at least to my understanding, what's happened in the last 20 or 30 years is an increased awareness of mental health and what that means.
	So it's not necessarily that people were really happy before and now suddenly are miserable.
	It's just that now we're actually having data where people can talk openly about their mental health, unhappiness, and not be as stigmatized as before.
	If we look at the 1950s and even housewives around that time, we see there is actually a huge rate of narcotic usage and basically prescriptions to that level.
	So I'm not necessarily, if I would go as far to say, yeah, we've gotten unhappiness this time, we've gotten more unhappy as time has gone by.
	I would say more likely, oh no, we've been able to properly report, measure, and assess mental health as time has gone by.
	And educate.
	Listen, I'm very inclined towards your view that social scientific studies are bunk.
	I mean, there's a major replication prices.
	I think it's all ridiculous.
	I will cite those social science stats when they serve my argument, because why not?
	That's what we do these days.
	But I agree.
	I'm skeptical of measuring happiness and all the rest of it.
	But on the mental health point, I think here we do have some pretty firm data, and it contradicts the argument you're making, which is right now, one in five middle-aged women in the country is hooked on anti-depression drugs.
	On any given day they're taking them.
	Women are two and a half times as likely as men to take these depression drugs.
	It is ubiquitous at this point.
	And the rates of taking depression drugs are going up.
	It's getting much worse.
	So if we're not getting less and less happy, why do people keep taking more and more depression drugs?
	Well, why were housewives in the 50s downing like a bottle of wine at lunch every day?
	I'm just saying.
	I'm not so sure.
	I mean, these are anecdotes.
	We're supplanting self-medication now with actually like medically backed drugs that actually help women with their mental health issues.
	I don't know this.
	But it's also now that when you're sad, you just go to the doctor and they give you antidepressant drugs.
	I don't know how much more depressed people actually are other than the fact that they're just dishing them out to everybody.
	And they're dishing them out more and more and more.
	Sure, you can blame the pharmaceutical industry or the medical industry.
	I'm just pointing out, you know, in order to argue against these social science statistics, one has to just turn toward unfalsifiable anecdotes and memes.
	You know, though, the housewives were all miserable in the 50s.
	They were secretly drinking behind their husband's backs.
	But I don't know, maybe they were, maybe they weren't.
	All I have are the data of the people.
	It's saying that more people are on antidepressants.
	It's not telling you why.
	It's not telling you what caused it.
	It's not telling you that.
	Well, that's what we're debating here, is what could have caused it.
	You're saying, oh, it's not.
	No, but I'm not saying maybe they hate their husband, maybe they hate their kids, maybe they don't like the weather in their town.
	I think ADHD is a great example of this.
	Anyone now can just be like, oh, I have trouble focusing.
	Does everyone have ADHD or are people just getting these drugs?
	These are questions that we should ask before we jump to a conclusion to discuss.
	No, I agree.
	Look, I think that they're pathologizing a lot of ordinary aspects of human nature.
	But I think part of the reason that we do that is because we're so radically misinterpreting human nature, which brings us right back to feminism.
	The clearest example of this is the transgender argument, which is all anyone ever talks about these days.
	I'm frankly sick of it.
	We know that men and women are different.
	But that shows you a major confusion about human nature.
	If a man can become a woman, then we have been really wrong about anthropology for a long time.
	And most reasonable people know a man can't become a woman.
	But that error in human nature goes back much earlier than transgenderism.
	This is why I have pity for the feminists who are trans-exclusionary radical feminists, because they don't realize that it was their own ideology that led to this.
	The premise of transgenderism is that men and women are basically the same, so much so that one can become the other.
	But if that's true, then that has to come from somewhere.
	And where it came from was the redefinition of marriage, to say that a man and a woman is the same as a man and a man is the same as a woman and a woman.
	And that comes from the sexual revolution, and that comes from feminism, which says a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
	So, yeah, I agree.
	These errors in human nature can lead to all sorts of problems.
	Did you say transgenderism is people thinking that there's no differences, and why would they need to transition?
	That's a great question.
	I don't think that's what transgenderism believes, that there's no difference between men and women.
	Transgenderism believes that men and women are so similar that one can become the other.
	Which is different than the feminists, to say men and women are so similar that a woman can do anything a man can do.
	But transgenderism takes that principle to the extreme, which is men and women are so similar.
	They're not complementary.
	Sex is not immutable.
	It's not an inseparable accident of being, as an Aristotelian or St. Thomas Aquinas might say.
	But no, it's actually just kind of a social construct.
	And it's so socially constructed that I can go down to my doctor and have him reconstruct my chest, and all of a sudden I've magically become the opposite sex.
	That error comes from feminism.
	Okay, before we pivot to transgenderism, can we go back to the happiness-feminist conversation and tie it up?
	So I wanted to ask you, do you think that should be the ultimate good and the metric for which we base our justice system and our overall societal progress on is self-reported happiness?
	Well, I don't know even what you mean by societal progress.
	I mean, you know, justice is a habit of virtue that inclines the will to give to one what he deserves, right?
	So it's about desserts.
	And so we protect certain rights and we enforce certain laws, at least we used to.
	We don't really do that as much in this country anymore.
	And an aspect of political justice would be human flourishing.
	So when we talk about happiness, I'm very interested in happiness, but I'm interested in happiness in the way that Aristotle's interested in happiness, which is eudaimonia, a way to live the best possible life.
	And I think that we can know something about that through our faculties of reason, which are objective.
	And if reason weren't objective and at least somewhat reliable, we couldn't have self-government.
	Now, the way that happiness is often used in our modern culture is just hedonism, like the utilitarians, right?
	It just means getting pleasure and avoiding pain.
	Or is just totally subjective to the point where you say, well, don't yuck my yum.
	You know, what's de gusti bus non disputant de mest?
	You know, maybe I like this and you don't like this.
	Well, sure, I mean, restaurants have menus for a reason, but there must be some limiting principle here.
	We must know something about what is conducive to human happiness.
	And if we don't, then how do we have self-government?
	I want to go back and agree.
	I just don't know if self-reported happiness is more congruent with the subjective reports of happiness or that eudaimonia that you're referring to.
	Sure, it's just the best we've got.
	Well, I totally agree.
	Something you said in the beginning about individualism, like, do you prefer sociocentric countries?
	Do you not love America?
	What do you mean sociocentric?
	countries where like you're like oh part of the problem with feminism is so focused on the self well i think that is one of the cornerstones of like western civilization is instead of being it's a very liberal view of western civilization yeah Yeah, which I think is what makes Western civilization so wonderful.
	I think we are like the only one founded on individualistic rights, like principles that we have.
	I don't think we really are founded that way.
	I think that's what people say we were founded on now.
	But you hear a phrase like liberal democracy.
	That's the popular way to describe our country now.
	That phrase appears basically nowhere in the English language until the 30s.
	Then it jumps a little bit in the 40s.
	It really doesn't take off in English literature until the 80s.
	America, the Founding Fathers didn't think of us as a liberal democracy.
	They were influenced by some Enlightenment thinkers, John Locke and Montesquieu say, but they were also influenced by the classical tradition.
	And the classical tradition is one of the common good.
	Not in the communist sense of that.
	But again, I don't.
	But they thought the common good was best pursued by having individual rights instead of like that's one of the reasons we founded ourselves on a separation of church and state.
	You have the right.
	We were not founded on a separation of church and state.
	I mean, we can get into that, I think.
	No, sure.
	It's incidental to this point, but it appears in no founding document.
	There's one errant letter from Thomas Jefferson to a friend that mentions the phrase.
	And the Treaty of Tripoli makes some little knock on Christianity to appease the Muslim pirates who were capturing our sailors.
	But, you know, when the First Amendment established no church at the national level, the reason for that is not that there was a firm separation of church and state, it's because there were already established churches at the state level.
	In many states, that persisted for decades after that.
	The only reference to God in the whole thing is that you can't have a test for political office.
	No, I'm just purposely left it out.
	You're saying that they didn't know.
	They refer to religion explicitly, and they say we won't have a church at the national level because we have churches established as a privilege.
	Wait, it says that?
	Where does it say then in the Constitution that we're only doing this because we have churches?
	Not only doing that, but we can see it in history and in the ratification debates.
	That's why in a number of states for decades after the ratification, you had established churches.
	And this changes through 19th century jurisprudence, unfortunately.
	But that has nothing to do, obviously, with the founding of the country.
	Furthermore, you have in the national anthem, which also comes from the 19th century, the notion that this be our motto in God is our trust, which is from a forgotten verse of the Star-Spangled Banner.
	You also have it in our money.
	You also have it in the benedictions and the invocations of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention.
	So you also have it in the speeches of George Washington.
	And so, you know, John Adams says that the American government will be based on the Christian morality.
	John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States, says the same thing.
	He goes even further.
	Yeah, and I'm sure you know there's a bunch of quotes I can pull out from the other side.
	You can put it in the future.
	There aren't really.
	There aren't.
	There's one from Thomas Jefferson.
	God took the Bible and cut out every reference to the supernatural and kept the rest for wisdom.
	Thomas Jefferson did make a commentary on the Bible that, and his views were a little odd, I grant you, but I've already granted to you that in a private letter, Thomas Jefferson advocated for a separation of church and state.
	And our Constitution does, right?
	Yes, there's a separation of church and state.
	You have the First Amendment.
	Where do you see that?
	Congress shall make no.
	I mean, I'm going to pull it out.
	We can read it word for word.
	I mean, like, it is there.
	Do we just all know that?
	Listen, I didn't go to law school, so.
	While she looks that up, one of the other questions I wanted to get in.
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof.
	Right.
	So now, where do you see a separation of church and state?
	Well, when you say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, that is that separation.
	Right.
	And so what is the Congress?
	The federal government, is that what you're saying?
	So you're saying it's the lawmaking body for the federal government, right?
	Yes, but if like before the incorporation of the state of California starts to be like, actually in all our schools, we're going to start enforcing Christian ideology in our public schools, that would be unconstitutional under this First Amendment.
	In fact, that was the way that basically all schools operate in the country until the middle of the 20th century.
	Until the Supreme Court said that you cannot have prayer in schools and you can't do that.
	Because of the First Amendment.
	Well, no, the middle step was the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the Church.
	Sure, but that's been incorporated unless you don't want that part.
	Right, but you're just saying the country was founded on the separation of church and state.
	I'm saying that that wasn't even brought up as a matter of jurisprudence until many, many decades later.
	And then it wasn't enforced in schools until a century after that.
	Yeah, because no rights were, right?
	That's what the incorporation is.
	I guess I'm just confused.
	Do you believe the Bill of Rights is like a founding document or not?
	The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
	Do you believe it is a founding document when it comes to basically the United States as a whole?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So then to me, I don't understand why the conversation is continuing because if you believe the Bill of Rights is integral to the founding of this nation and the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment states that no religion shall be just.
	I think you're misunderstanding what that phrase meant to the people who wrote it and the people who lived under that government.
	It just seems to me, where would the misunderstanding be?
	I think you're misunderstanding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states at the time, and the lack of an establishment of a church at the national level does not imply that there cannot be an establishment of a church at the state level, which we know for a fact there was at the time of ratification.
	I guess I am a little bit confused because I don't understand if the Bill of Rights is part of the federal, basically legislature, right?
	It's part of the federal law.
	But we have a lot of people.
	And we are under, yeah, but the whole point of creating the Constitution, and according to the Federalist Papers as well, is that, oh, no, we need some overarching law that goes throughout the nation so that way that we can be a united nation.
	Not exactly.
	So federalism refers to the principle of subsidiarity, to the view that there would be different levels of government, frankly, all the way down to the individual, right, and the family and the community and the state and the national government.
	And so certain powers and rights were reserved to the federal government, but they were relatively small at the ratification of the Constitution.
	And then many, many rights and laws and powers were reserved to the states, and then some were reserved to the people.
	So do you think it's bad that the First Amendment now applies to all the states?
	Let's try to keep it a little bit on this.
	So I have a question for you guys.
	One, do we live in the patriarchy?
	And if so, and I want everybody to respond, do we live in the patriarchy?
	And if so, is the patriarchy good or bad?
	We'll start with Farah, come this way, and then we'll have Michael.
	I think it's such semantics at this point.
	As of now, I'm going to say I don't think we necessarily live in a patriarchy.
	Do I think women are marginalized in a disproportionate way in relation to men?
	100%.
	But would I use the term patriarchy as a blanket term?
	Not necessarily.
	Yeah, I guess it depends on how a person is defining patriarchy.
	Well, let's maybe start off by defining patriarchy.
	Okay.
	If we're defining patriarchy as a system of power where men uphold most of governance and social power, I would say that there is an argument to be made that we currently live in a patriarchy.
	Whether that's good or I personally am of the thought that that's bad, but yeah, it depends on what definition you guys want to use.
	I'm open to it.
	Do you guys concur with her definition of patriarchy?
	Can you repeat it?
	Sorry.
	Basically, it's a system of power where men hold most of the capital, social power.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Capital, social, political power.
	So obviously, we know historically this is true.
	And if we're looking at a global level, are we going to refine it to the United States?
	Because these are going to be very different conversations.
	And West, we hope that.
	Yeah, in the West.
	So I would say, and you see this, that it's more prevalent in countries that are poorer, that have less technological advancement, as industrial machinery became a thing and education and all that.
	And so now I don't think in the West, I'm not going to sit here and say women don't have equal rights.
	I think some of that history in certain ways, like in maybe culture and our perception of men and women, is still here, but no.
	And I would say that it hurts men and women to the same degree, in some ways.
	Yeah, I would say that.
	Okay.
	So far, you don't think that there's a patriarchy, or are you unsure?
	I think the word patriarchy is a bit harsh, and I don't know if I would apply it to how we live in the West, no.
	Okay, but you two do believe there is a...
	There's an argument to be made depending on what level you're talking about when it comes to power or how much power you have to have to establish patriarchy.
	Yeah, Michael.
	I guess I kind of think more than you do that we live in a patriarchy.
	Not as a matter of law.
	The law says we don't.
	The law, if anything, is inverted.
	We're closer to a matriarchy, except we don't have kids anymore, so there are fewer mothers.
	But as a matter of practical living, I think we still do live in a patriarchy.
	I think men wield probably more power than we ever did.
	It's just in a very perverted way.
	So men wield the power to have casual hookups.
	Women statistically tend to not prefer casual hookups.
	Men tend to like them quite a lot more.
	And women prefer a longer-lasting relationship.
	That's what I would agree with.
	I think that's what I meant by cultural currency.
	I think men have the monopoly on the cultural zeitgeist, and then women move in lockstep to men's desires and the male gay, so I would agree with that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	In terms of politically, I don't know if I would agree as much, but I agree with that definition.
	Totally, totally.
	And so, you know, the irony, though, is that all of that sexual revolution came about because of feminism.
	But it didn't really give women, I think, what they thought they were going to get.
	I think if anything, it gave men more power.
	I remember thinking about this many years ago when I was in college, and the hookup culture was really burgeoning.
	I thought, is this the greatest trick that men ever played on women?
	That these women who call themselves feminists think that they're going to be empowered by letting men just use them whenever they want and then cast them aside and go sleep with some other woman.
	Girl power.
	I completely agree, and I actually don't think women are the culprit or feminists are the culprit today of hookup culture.
	I think it's more like neocons, trad cons, pickup artists, the one who says that you need to unpack the female psychology.
	Socialists don't support hookup culture at all.
	I say as a proud traditionalist.
	Yeah, I would say that also there's a distinction between the moral question, like if you're a woman and you hook up, like that's part of what the sexual revolution was there to do, to give women autonomy, to be able to consent to things, to not have a scarlet letter attached to them forever because they decided to do a hookup.
	And then the other question is, is it healthy?
	No, not the same.
	Of course they do.
	If you look at social attitudes.
	Yeah, but if you look at social attitudes in the last 20 years on things like casual sex, basically, it's moving in this direction.
	The whole reason you have a show is because most people think like me and you have something to fight against.
	I don't think so.
	I think I have a really popular show because a lot of people are living under our cultural zeitgeist, but they realize that it's wrong.
	Some people, but if you look at polling and stuff, especially if you look at where the institutional power is, like in media and academia and stuff, we have that power.
	We definitely influence the culture.
	And if you look at polling and you look at like 30 years ago, 40 years ago, how people felt about casual sex.
	So I agree that there's a moral question and what's actually good for you.
	And the truth is there is a small number of people.
	Women tend to have more restricted sociosexuality than men do, but there are some women.
	What do you mean by sociosexuality?
	Sociosexuality is how open you are to casual relationships.
	There's like an inventory and they like look at your desire, your behavior, your attitudes towards it.
	And men typically are more open to it than women are.
	But there is some like, you know, there's like 10% or 5% of women who still, and I don't think there's anything wrong with those women going out and doing that.
	But I do think we need to put more of an emphasis on like, okay, the moral question, whether you're a whore if you do this, that's separate from is this good for you?
	Is this going to make you feel good?
	Is this what you do?
	Is it separate?
	I think it's separate.
	Why would it be separate?
	You know, if morality is concerned with what is right and what is wrong, and we are rational beings that recognize that some things are better than other things, then wouldn't it stand to reason that if you do more good things and fewer bad things, if you pursue more virtue and less vice, that you would be happier and flourish.
	But is eating a donut immoral?
	Well, it depends if you've had like five donuts already.
	Well, we just have a different, like to me, I don't think eating fast food is immoral.
	It may not be good for you, but it's not immoral.
	And so, and there isn't like this stigma associated with it where it's like, oh, nobody, like, you know, sex is obviously, I think, even more fundamental to human nature than donuts are, and I like donuts plenty.
	But, you know, sex is very, very important to human nature.
	That's true.
	In part because the action is what propagates the species, or in our sterile age, does not propagate the species.
	But, you know, you point, you're a trained lawyer, passed the bar exam.
	And you have spoken publicly about how because you've made other career choices, you really can't work in the law.
	A firm would fire you.
	So it would seem to me, putting aside the justice or injustice of that fact, that there is still a major stigma associated with that.
	A lot of firms would actually hire me over you, probably still in trouble.
	No, but my point is that some of the things you say are so controversial that with how, I think I saw a little bit clip of your last thing where you said like Yale would like deny you even went there.
	I think they want to burn my diploma.
	That's my point.
	Is that society is shifting and we're becoming more okay with things like sex work, but we're still not there 100%, but we still are very quick to cancel misogyny.
	And I'm not sure what I'm saying.
	I wouldn't say Yale is representative of the broader society, though.
	You know, it's a kind of, and I love my own.
	I mean, if we're talking about law firms, if we're talking about good, like, big-time law firms, like, they would have a harder time.
	Wait, just a clarifying question.
	So you're thinking, broadly speaking, people will find a conservative political pundit more objectionable than a business.
	In higher education and in corporate America?
	Yeah.
	I think you're probably right about that.
	It tells you a lot about the society.
	Yeah, you can argue that, but to say like, like, there are firms out there that would still take me over you.
	But in reality, look, I mean, it's a funny line, and there is a lot of truth to that.
	But, you know, a lot of these videos that go viral, from this show, in fact, and in the broader, like, Red Pill, Manosphere stuff, it's women who are being shamed for their sexual behaviors.
	Putting the justice or injustice of that aside for a second, those videos get a lot of views.
	Those attitudes are still very, very prevalent.
	And I think it's because no amount of feminist indoctrination is going to alter basic aspects of human nature.
	And I think men broadly don't want their wives to be promiscuous.
	And look, everybody has a past, and I think there's all sorts of redemption and repentance.
	And I think that can all be great.
	But no one, you know, as La Roche Foucault said, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
	No one, I think, really deeply desires that.
	So men who watch the show are going to be, you're going to selection bias there because they're going to be more likely to not desire that.
	They're probably going to spend more time on the internet.
	There's all these.
	It's a very popular show, though.
	But like this idea that men want a body count of zero is not really replicated, I think, in normal society.
	They may not like, obviously there's a spectrum here.
	Like your girl doing porn is different than having three bodies, right?
	Like different, there's going to be different levels of men who are okay with one and not the other.
	But we do have a culture war for a reason because there is enough people on this side who are like, actually, there's nothing wrong with having casual sex.
	Actually, there's nothing whatever about doing OnlyFans.
	And I think tradcons can be super happy living a tradcon life, but you guys are the ones telling us we can't be happy and there's nobody out here on our side.
	No, no, look, we're observing certain facts of society and mentioning them.
	But also, we're recognizing that the liberal view of society, that we're all just individuals and don't yuck my young men, that that doesn't really work because we live in society.
	So I keep bringing up the trans thing because it's just the clearest example of all these different topics we're talking about.
	The pro-trans argument was, just let me dress up in a skirt.
	How does it bother you?
	I'm doing it in the privacy of my own home.
	Stop yucking my yum.
	Okay, fine.
	Okay, well, if I'm going to wear a skirt, you're going to call me Shelly.
	All right, Steve, like, I'll call you Shelly, fine, whatever.
	Okay, and if you're going to call me Shelly and I'm going to wear a skirt, then I'm going to go use the women's bathroom.
	Now, hold on, Steve.
	Sorry, Shelly.
	Like, you can't, my daughter goes into the women's bathroom.
	Well, I'm a woman, and I say I'm a woman.
	You have no damn right to say that I'm not a woman.
	Well, no, I do have a right to say you're not a woman.
	I do have a right to suggest that you not behave like a weirdo in public.
	And I do have a right to say you get out of my daughter's bathroom because I've got faculties of reason and I live in society.
	And to quote Jon Stuart Mill, who's one of the most important liberal thinkers of all time, in his essay on liberty, he points out, you know, we want a lot of protections for privacy, but you're right.
	There are not really any totally private vices.
	You know, if a guy is just a big drunk and he just drinks all the time, maybe he does it in his own home and it doesn't bother you, but then maybe he neglects his family and his family can't eat.
	And then maybe he doesn't go to his job and maybe he doesn't pay his taxes and maybe he doesn't contribute to the community that he lives in.
	And maybe we have a right in the political community to put some limits on individual autonomy because it's degrading to individuals and you get all the individuals together.
	That's your society.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I just kind of want to push back on the idea that basically being trans is the same as being a drunkard.
	And I think the reason why is because you're not going to be able to do that.
	I'm not saying they're the same.
	They're just both a bit deviant and suffer defects of will and intellect.
	Okay, I guess my question to you is, when does something deviant become harmful?
	Because there's a lot of deviant behaviors out there.
	I don't think most of them are harmful.
	I don't think most of them are bad.
	But obviously you think that there's something bad about being trans and being drunk enough to do that analogy.
	So my question is, when does deviance become harmful?
	And do you believe this should be enforced through law, or are you just talking social?
	Like, do you think we should put in, because there's a lot of rights that we hold up, even when they're like free speech, people say mean words, but we still are like, the right is so important.
	Guns, you know, they're not.
	Sometimes we have limits on something.
	Of course, I think I agreed with everything you said.
	There should be limits.
	The question is, where should those limits be and how should they be enforced?
	And that's my question.
	We should probably arrive at them through prudence and very carefully, I think.
	I don't think there's like a right five bullet points on a napkin answer to this, as some ideologues do.
	I think we have prudence for a reason, and it's the, sorry, my dear.
	It's the consummate political virtue.
	But also, when you say should it be enforced through social norms or through the law, I'm not sure there's a total firm distinction here.
	It's very fashionable of the libertarians to say politics is totally downstream of culture.
	Oh, yeah, sure, that's true in as far as it's true.
	But also, the law is a tutor.
	And so the law creates certain incentives and disincentives.
	If you're going to punish certain behaviors, you're actually going to get less of that behavior.
	And if you encourage certain behavior, you're going to get more of that behavior.
	So it comes back to the trans.
	Well, I mean, there's still a big difference.
	Like, I actually like what you guys do.
	I watch it because I like to hear different opinions.
	No, I like to listen to different opinions and stuff, but I have no problem with you getting on and trying to advocate for getting rid of things like no-fault divorce.
	Now, if you guys pass the law, like I think you should have the complete right to do that, convince people, but passing the law is a very different thing.
	Well, you would have to pass a law if you're talking about a law, right?
	Yeah, but I think it's much different to try to get people to not get divorced or advocate for that position.
	Well, look, I think everybody, unless you're the most hardened, radical, feminist maniac, you don't like divorce, right?
	You're not saying we want more divorce.
	But I think people should have the freedom to die.
	Right, so you're just, you're merely talking about the right.
	And so I guess my question then is, put aside legal divorce for cause, what is gained by no-fault divorce?
	What's the good of that?
	Oh, there's a bunch of good when it comes to no-fault divorce.
	previously when we had fault divorce people would literally have to like lie or commit vices in order to be able to get divorced so whether it was like why don't they just not get divorced though if there's no fault um The problem is if they decide to not get divorced, usually that leads to higher rates of unhappiness.
	It leads to people having more tension within their marriage.
	It prevents, well, yeah, there is tension.
	I don't know.
	I'm not convinced of that.
	Well, yeah.
	Again, because I think happiness has declined for everybody, especially for women over the time that we've had these.
	But we can look at people who, what is it, reportedly stay in marriages where they're unhappy and the long-term effects of that, even like psychologically health-wise.
	We can look at abusive relationships, situationships where the woman feels like she can't leave, even in an era of divorce.
	That would be fault.
	Right.
	That's not no-fault divorce.
	That's like a lot of people.
	The problem with fault divorce, right, is that you're already instituting a burden of proof onto these abuse victims that would basically prolong the process of them getting away from their abusive partner.
	Even now you can't.
	No, no, no.
	You could separate and you could move out the same night.
	So basically you're saying that you're okay with advocating for a system where they're basically not married in all the ways that matter, but just not legally?
	I don't know what matters.
	Well, they're not living together.
	They're not being intimate together.
	Their children are in basically separate homes because you're saying the woman can leave.
	I'm opposed to divorce.
	But we're speaking specifically now about no-fault divorce, because we're probably not going to agree on divorce broadly, but we might at least agree that no-fault divorce is very, very bad.
	Because you're saying, well, if one is not able to have a no-fault divorce, then they might have to stick with that spouse that they don't like that much, or the spouse got kind of fat and I don't like him anymore, whatever.
	But first of all, it's definitely better for the kids, inasmuch as the studies are reliable on this.
	Kids who grow up in a home of a mother and a father bound together in marriage do better across every single criterion.
	But furthermore, you're neglecting the negative aspects of divorce.
	I mean, when people do get divorced, and then if they have kids, you know, and God forbid they get divorced, then if you introduce a stepfather into that relationship, the odds that those kids are abused or sexually assaulted go through the roof.
	The odds that a—and actually, at a more basic level, because we can rattle off the statistics all day, at the basic level, we recognize that the marriage is the fundamental political unit.
	The liberals say the individual is the fundamental political unit, but I think that's bunk.
	I think it's the family, because political means multiple people, you know?
	Just to go on the data really quick, I mean, staying in a household with conflict is worse than the money.
	But they'll have the conflict in divorce.
	I mean, this is the problem.
	No, but yeah, it's better for, like, yes, you're right.
	But also, when you factor in education and socioeconomic status, a lot of that dissipates.
	So what's happening usually is that poor people are more likely to.
	So it's all jumbled up.
	Poor people are less likely to get married in the first place and more likely to have a doubt.
	But being a child in a home with conflict between the parents is worse than having children.
	Then why isn't the answer resolve the conflict?
	Because people can't.
	We're human beings.
	You're the one who talked about human nature.
	Human nature.
	We're clearly not successful at staying with one person forever.
	We have been at much higher rates in the recent past.
	So, you know, unless we're suggesting that no one can progress, that no one can improve their behavior, then I think we can get better at that.
	And I think part of the reason why divorce rates spiked is because the law encouraged divorce rates to spike.
	And because, to give the red pill guys their due, because family courts have been horribly unjust to men, and because we have a liberal idol in our society of radical individualism that says, who cares what happens to my spouse?
	When in recent history were we really good as a human species on lifelong, healthy bonds?
	Like we serial monogamy.
	In the United States, I don't, but this thing, you don't know just because of someone staying together.
	Like, there's a lot of people who had parents that stayed together that are all sorts of messed up because the parents thought there was alcoholism in the house.
	There's all types of people staying together isn't what isn't a good metric for childhood well-being.
	Well, it's a good predictor of outcomes, but I totally grant to you that, yeah, there are bad marriages.
	I just think, if the law is then going to intervene, the way the law has intervened is by dissolving the marriages and creating all sorts of incentives to get divorced and to not get married in the first place.
	But if the law is going to intervene because of all these problems, why wouldn't the law intervene to make marriage more sustainable?
	Well, the law isn't really encouraged marriage.
	The law really isn't intervening per se.
	Are choosing whether they want to apply this law to their life or not.
	So people are choosing that they want to get divorced or choosing if they want to work things out.
	The difference is that now you have a choice on whether you think the person you're with is actually somebody you can continue having a sustainable relationship with.
	But if the answer is no, then to quote Simone de Beauvoir, that famous feminist, if you give people a brand new choice, if you give people a preferable choice, given their social circumstances, they might just take it.
	And women fare off this idea that women are, like, to fight back on the red pill, that women are just incentivized to divorce.
	Women fare off far worse financially after divorce.
	They're way more likely to seek government assistance, be in poverty.
	They're less likely to repartner.
	So this idea that women are just running to the divorce court to get money is just not true.
	Well, no, they are divorcing at much higher rates.
	That's undeniable.
	And I'm totally with you.
	Divorce is horrible for women.
	So sometimes feminists make the argument that I think perhaps we were getting to a little earlier, the argument that you just contradicted, which is, oh, divorce is so good for women.
	It's a wonderful choice.
	They really need to have this choice.
	It makes their lives better.
	No, it doesn't.
	Basically, all the time, it makes their lives much worse, to say nothing of the ways that it harms their children.
	Well, no, what it's basically saying is that if a person is willing to take all these worst outcomes, like economically, socially, whatever, imagine how bad that relationship must have been.
	Or imagine that a woman decided, like, hey, you know what?
	Instead of trying to continue this, it is so toxic and so unhealthy that this is a better alternative.
	Or they have been deluded by a lot of propaganda over the years, which is a very important thing.
	You seem very sane.
	I'm sure you and your wife have really great ways of communicating and resolving your conflicts.
	Do you know how crazy people are?
	They can be.
	Yeah, like to say that that's going to work for everybody and everybody should just stay in this when people are not emotionally even mature enough.
	Look, I certainly style myself Prince Charming, so I'm glad we all agree.
	But you're right.
	Maybe people engage in more vicious and harmful behaviors.
	So I guess my question is, if we agree that certain cultural practices can make people behave better, and certain cultural practices can make people behave worse, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to make people behave better?
	And that's what we did in the classical political arrangement of society, right?
	The basic point of politics is do good and avoid evil.
	Then, under liberalism, you had a new point of society.
	The new point of society was to just expand individual autonomy maximally on the, I think, false supposition that that would make people happier.
	And we've had a couple hundred years now, and we've seen how it's played out, and it hasn't played out very well at all.
	So why don't we go back to the one that worked for all of human history?
	One, do you think that's possible or going to happen?
	And two, would you then be in favor because education, female education, seems to be a big predictor of, one, we're the only ones whose marriage rates are not falling, they're going up, and we're less likely to get divorced.
	So do you then, would you advise women instead of getting married really young and living this traditional lifestyle to maybe go get education?
	The best predictor of women staying married and flourishing and having lots of kids and being happy and not even trying to get divorced, it's not education, though education is some predictor of that.
	Everyone is religion.
	Yeah, you're true.
	But you can't make people, we're just becoming less religious as a society.
	This thing you guys have, let's turn the clock back, let's turn the clock back.
	I don't want to turn any clocks back.
	I just want to turn our heads back to reason.
	And that's why we're not understanding who is God.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But the logic and the reason and the age of information, a lot of people now have access it and they're going, actually, this kind of seems like bullshit.
	And they can't, you can't make it.
	I don't think that's why people have become irreligious.
	I don't think it's because they've all gotten much better educated and read a lot of people.
	They read Christopher Hitchens.
	I agree with you.
	No, I think they like heard a Christopher Hitchens video once.
	It's undeniable that more and more people are identifying as non-religious, that this is just the trend that it's going in.
	I don't know how much, as great as The Daily Wire is, how much you guys are going to be able to reverse that.
	So maybe we should look at how we can move forward with the society we have instead of trying to turn the clock back in a way that we can't.
	But it's not a clock.
	It's not a clock.
	I'm not making a time machine.
	I'm just saying that there's truth and there's falsehood.
	And we are embracing a lot of falsehood in society, and that's leading to a lot of ugliness and a lot of depravity.
	And if we want less of all that stuff, and we want more good, true, and beautiful things, maybe we should use our reason to recognize really basic things like God exists.
	I'm not telling you you've got to come to traditional Latin Mass tomorrow.
	You could wait until Sunday.
	But at the very least, we should recognize, hey guys, some things are better than others, right?
	The minute you grant that some things are better than others, ultimately you have to grant that there is a maximal good, a summum bonum, who is God, right?
	We should recognize, hey guys, effects follow causes.
	And if you go back on the list of causes far enough, there's going to be an uncaused cause, who is God?
	And there are really great arguments against that.
	Jasmine, before I have you go, I would like to hear a little bit more from Farah if you'd like to weigh in.
	I was going to ask, maybe I missed it, so what do you think the ideal form of marriage is, like the woman goes to college and then she meets a guy in college and then she taps out of her career?
	I don't know that going to college is really great for anybody these days.
	I'm pro-education, obviously.
	I mean, I'm not even one of these conservatives who says, you know, you should all just study engineering or whatever.
	I think that's bunk.
	I think you should read old books and acculturate yourself.
	But I don't think most colleges accomplish this these days, including the really fancy colleges, Harvard, Yale, Princeton.
	I don't know that maybe you can get an education there.
	I'm not totally convinced you can.
	And so, yeah, women should be educated.
	But, you know, frankly, these days, you send your kids to a homeschool co-op.
	They'll start learning Latin in the third grade.
	You send your kids on the track to go to Yale or Harvard, and they're probably not going to know anything by the time they graduate.
	So, yeah, I would love my wife to be educated.
	My wife is extremely educated.
	And I would love my wife to be a wife and a mother.
	And I guess the image that I think of for marriage is not as the modern way of talking about it where you say, this is my partner.
	It sounds like a gay accounting firm.
	Oh, this is my total indistinguishable partner.
	No, I want a wife, man, and I want a mother for my children.
	I want to be a father.
	And that involves different roles, and that involves complementarity.
	Well, that's what I'm asking.
	So are you saying that maybe they'll get educated outside of college reading books or whatever?
	And then after that, they should focus at age 23, 24, getting married, and then not pursuing a career.
	They focus on family life.
	Yeah, I'm not going to prescribe exactly at what age people ought to get married.
	They certainly ought to get married younger.
	I wish I'd gotten married younger.
	But yeah, I don't know if you can.
	But you're going to prescribe that they focus on a career with precedence to do that.
	Generally speaking, I think women will be less happy if they are going to the widget factory to work for Mr. McGillicuddy so that they can make money that I will then receive from my wife to pay some other woman to raise our children.
	I think that's an extremely inefficient and disordered way to have a marriage, and I don't think it makes anybody particularly happy.
	I guess it confuses me coming from a tradcon because you guys believe in the design of a lot of things.
	You believe in the design of sex and what's the most optimal use of sex.
	Why did God give us sex?
	Yes, and you would say the end of sex would be to pair bond and reproduce.
	So if women were not meant to pursue careers, why would God, according to your Christian purview, you're Christian, right?
	Yeah.
	Like equip us with so many rational faculties.
	Like why are women so good at like aerospace engineering, nanotech, PDF?
	I don't know if I'd say they're so good at aerospace engineering.
	Why are women scoring higher than you guys?
	And I'm just saying that's the same thing.
	Why is it that they're not totally represented in these fields?
	My question is, if tradcons use God as their purview for, you know what I mean, use our faculties as the message of the people.
	Well, you don't even have to be religious.
	Why is it that women are now outgraduating men like basically two to one, but then you guys are the first person?
	Because colleges are total nonsense now and they have a bunch of fake majors and it's a scam.
	Is law a fake major?
	Because now we have more female first-year associates.
	Right, and law school is largely a scam.
	I think you've got a glut of lawyers in the world.
	Well, my question is, why would God equip us with these things, these faculties, if God did not want us as women to pursue these faculties and instead abandon a first step for marriage and kids?
	The premise of your question is that raising children and running a family in the domestic economy is not a rational activity.
	It's not that it's a rational activity, but why equip us to be so good at STEM and college and all these pursuits?
	What could be more important than raising a child?
	I'm saying why give women the ability to both have a child and still be able to read intellectual texts or aerospace engineer.
	Well, that's a thing.
	You can explain to me.
	Wait, raise your kid to be an aerospace engineer.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	But you can't be an aerospace engineer yourself.
	Women can if they like.
	They generally don't do that.
	No, I'm asking.
	So is that your position that God equipped women to be as good at STEM to out-graduate men all to just pursue homeschooling in the world?
	You don't have to look at Fields Medal recipients.
	Larry Summers got fired from Harvard for pointing this out, but this is the top prize in mathematics.
	Until about 10 years ago, no woman had ever won the prize, and now I think one woman has won it.
	And I'm not knocking, there are plenty of women who are much more intelligent than me.
	The reason Larry Summers, who's, as far as social scientists go, is a very respected one, and he's a big lib, but he pointed out that the reason why men tend to dominate in the highest intellectual fields is because not because men are simply smarter than women, but because the bell curve of intelligence for men is wider than that of women.
	But for a society, isn't it like societies that allow women to work?
	Even us, if we hadn't had women, we brought in like trillions of dollars to the economy to take out half of the minds in the world.
	I agree, but if you want a flourishing, wealthy society, you can't do that by eliminating women from the workforce.
	I agree that we're wealthier today than we were 50 years ago.
	I'm not sure that we're flourishing more than we are.
	I mean, we are literally a dying society, right?
	We haven't had above replacement births since 1971.
	Would you be okay with immigration as a way to do that?
	That's why we have mass migration, but mass migration causes all sorts of social problems, which is why it's deeply uncomfortable.
	Before we pivot, I do want to pin down your position on this.
	So, yes, the bell curve is wider for men, but on average, the average women are smarter than the average men.
	Obviously, at the ends of the curves, there's more unintelligent men and more high-intelligent.
	The first thing you said that wouldn't imply the second, right?
	That's not imply, that's just the fact, is the bell curve is wider for men.
	Like, there's more unintelligent men and more intelligent women.
	Are you talking about the greater male variability hypothesis?
	Is that I'm saying there's on average women are more intelligent than men, but if you look at the most intelligent people, they're more likely to be men.
	If you look at the least intelligent people, they're less likely to be men.
	So I'm asking you, from your Christian purview, because if you're a nihilist, you're an atheist, you could just be like, oh, that's randomized, who cares?
	It doesn't necessarily mean it's best for society.
	If you're a nihilist, you can't say anything at all, you know?
	Because nothing means anything.
	Well, that was my point.
	If you're a nihilist, you could just say those curves should not be indication of how we should live society.
	But as a Christian, if you think sex is most optimized for certain purposes, you would probably think intelligence is best optimized for certain purposes.
	So why would God equip the average woman to be smarter than men?
	Do you think it's just for homeschooling their children?
	Again, the claim that you made at first, which is that men and women have bell curves, the men's bell curve being wider than the woman's, would not imply that the average woman is smarter than the average man.
	No, no, no.
	You would line them up to the.
	But the curve itself implies or actually indicates that on average.
	No, no.
	If you actually look at the curves at the top, it's women, the women's curve is taller than the men's curve.
	But the IQ of the curve would be on the X-axis, right?
	That's where you get the extremes.
	So are you disputing that on average women are more intelligent than men?
	Yes.
	As would Larry Summers, as would the people who have studied this.
	But again, I think it's secondary to the point.
	Your point is, the more interesting thing is we're so good at school and STEM.
	If women on average were doing really, really poorly in STEM and all these, like if men were the one out graduating us two to one, then I can understand from a Christian purview saying, like, see, God doesn't want you to be good at school because God wants you to focus on these more domestic pursuits.
	But how can you look at all this evidence and think that we're, you know what I mean, we're so specifically designed by God and then deny that?
	I think you've bought the big lie of feminism that goes back to Mary Wollstonecraft, which is that men are endowed with greater virtue than women.
	And I think it's just bunk.
	No, you're saying the opposite.
	She's saying that.
	No, you're saying what you're saying is that the most important things to do, the most impressive things to do, just the greatest stuff to do, is to do what most men do, which is go out and work some jobs.
	No, I didn't even moralize.
	I didn't even say that STEM and aerospace and all these industries that women are good at are even morally good.
	I was just saying they happen to be good at these things.
	So from a Christian purview, you're the one who would ascribe morality to that.
	But you're saying it's better to do that, I think.
	Because you're saying— From a Christian purview, because you think from a Christian purview, what you're good at is what you should do.
	So if women are better at child rearing, they should do that.
	If sex is best used in this specific use, then people should do that.
	In that narrow reading, then I think it's pretty clear most women are better at raising children than building rocket ships.
	So I think probably most women would prefer that.
	But even more broadly, I think you're exalting male professions in a foolish way.
	I think that you're...
	I'm not even hyping them up.
	I'm just asking you from your theist purview, why would God make women so good at STEM and college and all these pursuits if God just wanted us to tap out as soon as we met a man?
	Yes.
	I'm not sure.
	Look, women do fine on certain tests, but I've got a lot of tests.
	Sure.
	Better than you.
	Well, perhaps.
	I don't know.
	No, I mean, the future is.
	I defer to your knowledge of your future of academia is unequivocally female.
	Do you deny that?
	I agree that the future of academia is bleak.
	So if you think that it implies that women will dominate academia, then you said it, not me.
	But I don't think that the future of anything is female.
	I think the future of the human race will be the complementarity of the sexes and marriages and children, or there will be no future of the human race.
	This is something I also wanted to point out to earlier.
	You're saying that, like, oh, people are having less children.
	You know, that's a bad thing, but I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing.
	And the reason why, at least from what we see when we compare better developed countries to less developed countries, is that, yeah, people are choosing to have fewer children, but they're choosing to invest more in those fewer children.
	So back in agricultural times, yeah, people had to have a lot of children because they had to have those children work, work in the farm, basically take over chores, take over a bunch of stuff.
	So they would have seven or eight children, a lot of times malnourished, a lot of them died, versus now where it's like, okay, yeah, they might have one or two children, but those children are well-fed, they're getting well-educated.
	They're getting all the best psychiatric drugs in the country.
	Well, do you think that, okay, I guess here's the other problem.
	Earlier on, we were talking about like, hey, you know what?
	Things are getting better measured now than before.
	That's why the whole thing about like, oh, people are less happy now is not necessarily true.
	Do you think that, let's say, middle of nowhere country in Africa or something where they're malnourished, have a family of seven, do you think those people are happier because they can't report it?
	Or they're living technically more of a traditional lifestyle than like somebody in a Nordic country or a European country?
	Yeah, I think the word traditional is doing a lot of work there.
	I agree that sub-Saharan Africa and Oklahoma are different, but I don't think it's a totally fair comparison.
	And I agree it's better to be nourished than to be malnourished.
	I agree with that as well.
	But I don't think that one necessarily needs two lawyer incomes and a Tesla and a big screen TV and five iPhones to be able to thrive and flourish.
	I think we've become far too materialistic.
	And we now know the price of everything and the value of nothing, so we've got more money than ever, but we're all miserable.
	So when you recited the data on the two-parent households, sorry, but socioeconomic status and education, especially maternal education, are big predictors of childhood outcomes.
	So how come the data on two-parent households, we should follow that, but not the one on...
	Yeah, no, I'm fine with women being smart.
	I like when women are smart and well-educated, you know, because they're raising my children.
	Well, one is raising my children.
	If I were living in Africa, I'd be able to have five children.
	So you deviate from the red pill.
	Right, true.
	But, you know, it is said that the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.
	So when a man chooses a woman to be his wife and to raise his family, he is entrusting her with his life.
	And so I don't think he wants her to be a dummy or to be vicious or to be anything like that.
	He would have no incentive to do so.
	But it's better to have fewer kids that you can, it seems like, provide more for and make sure than to have 10 kids and none of those kids end up being a flourishing.
	I think it's good to be open to life.
	You know, I think that one of the big problems in our society is that we've embraced sterility.
	So we're sterile intellectually, artistically, philosophically, and literally.
	We don't have any kids and we exalt as some kind of supposed political right.
	right sterile forms of sex.
	So I wouldn't recommend that at all.
	And I think when you get married, you are, to my earlier point, you're giving yourself wholly over to another person.
	And so you shouldn't withhold anything.
	You should be totally open to life for the unity of the specialty.
	Is that practical?
	In modern society?
	I think you have a very idealistic view.
	Oh, no, I think I can tell you from experience.
	Well, you're very successful.
	It's totally practical.
	You're very successful.
	You're not struggling to feed your kids.
	No, I'm not.
	I haven't been totally canceled yet.
	That's true.
	I know people who make less money than I do.
	I have a lot less money.
	And they've got a million kids and they're very good.
	Pixie, you go ahead, and I will shift gears a little bit after you go.
	Okay, I just have some points of clarification quickly.
	So if you believe that people should be open to life, do you believe basically should we have universal child daycare?
	Do you believe that we should have?
	No, I think we should have mothers and fathers.
	Okay.
	Do you not see, if you're talking about how women should be more traditional or stay at home more, but you agree that our current economic circumstance doesn't necessarily allow for that household, it seems to me like one potential solution to this would be like, hey, you know what?
	Better paternal and maternity leave.
	So then that way the household doesn't suffer the income, but the woman can go.
	I support 18 years of maternity leave.
	Forget about 18 months.
	I think it should be 18 years.
	Do you believe women should be paid for staying in the house?
	You know, in principle, I'm not opposed to it.
	The problem is it would create so many bad incentives and it would be so inefficiently managed by the central government.
	18 years.
	But you wouldn't be tough.
	But maybe have at least something.
	But to your point, in principle, look, there's one country in the West that has managed to turn around the birth rate problem, and they haven't solved it yet, but they've ticked it up a little bit in the opposite direction, and that's Hungary.
	And the way they did it was they said that once you have four kids, you don't have to pay income tax anymore.
	And that's a great way to encourage people to have kids.
	I would disagree with that.
	Yeah, you know, like, would I suggest that we just start sending checks for each baby that you pop out?
	That's probably an overly simplistic way to do it.
	But should the government, which is really an expression of the people and self-government, should we encourage and support having families rather than passing laws that discourage families?
	100%.
	Yeah, I'm for pro-family policy.
	I think we all are.
	Pixie, did you have more?
	No, I was just trying to see if you agreed with that or not, because I've met a couple conservatives who are like, oh, no, we shouldn't pass laws like that.
	Yeah, well, the libertarians get feisty about any time you say that we should do anything in politics.
	But no, I'm fine as long as it's prudent.
	The point that you raised at first, though, would be terribly wrong, which would be to say, all right, now we've got guaranteed daycare.
	That would only make the problem worse, right?
	If we want families to be stronger and we want families to be incentivized to have more children and to raise their own children.
	Sorry, I do have one more thing.
	I guess what I don't understand is that earlier you were talking about the community.
	The community is important.
	Like, liberals are, like, too individualized.
	But to me, it seems like programs like universal daycare or such of the matter do foster a sense of community.
	I don't think a child was meant to be raised by just one single person, like, not even just a mom.
	Nor do I.
	I think there's at least two people involved.
	Yeah, I think more.
	I mean, the whole society that, you know, should take care of the children.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So your insight is, or your inclination is right, which is, you know, it takes a village.
	Much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, that phrase itself is not objectionable.
	But it takes a village.
	It doesn't, I don't think it takes a contrived product of some technocracy that creates the sterile and clinical preschool program daycare program.
	That's not a real organic community.
	That's not a community where people are accountable to one another, where people have natural bonds that begin with the family and extend to the extended family and then to the neighborhood and to Mrs. McGillicutty down the street.
	How would you make because religion has done a really good job at this creating these fostering communities?
	But the bottom line is people just don't believe in it.
	There's a question if it's beneficial and if it's true.
	How are you, how's your plan to convince more people that it's true and that they should follow it?
	Because everything is pointing the opposite way.
	We're going the opposite way.
	Beneficial means it's good, and true means it's true.
	And some people think these are divorced.
	I don't think they're divorced.
	Well, I think I hold to an old-fashioned view that there are the three transcendentals, which is goodness, truth, and beauty, and that they involve one another.
	So something that is good is likely to be true, and something that is false is likely to be harmful.
	Okay, so if, let's say, if transgenderism was shown to be beneficial, I know you don't believe that, would it then be true?
	I'm confident that it won't be shown to be beneficial.
	But if it was, would you then say, is that really?
	You know, you're asking me if 2 plus 2 equaled 5, would that change my view of mathematics?
	I suppose it would.
	But the reason that I'm so confident, every time some pro-transactivist comes out and says, there's a new study that shows the brain scans of Bruce Jenner mean that he's really a lady or whatever, and then it never turns out to be a reality.
	So you're doing the whole perception is real?
	Like if it was beneficial to me to believe in unicorns, does that make unicorns real?
	I don't think, I guess our disagreement would go back one step even further.
	don't think it's beneficial to believe in fantasies I think that so that's what people don't like religion I agree that atheists and liberals have denigrated religion for centuries now, but I don't think it's a fantasy.
	I don't think that it's just a comforting thought.
	Neither do transgender.
	My point is.
	Right, but they're wrong and I'm right, I guess.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But one of us is going to be right.
	What makes you believe that Catholic doctrine is true?
	Well, I believe, to quote the First Vatican Council, that the existence of God, I'm not saying all the other stuff, but the existence of God can be known with certainty by natural human reason from the created world.
	Yeah, I'm not debating about the existence of God.
	I'm saying specifically Catholic doctrine, that it goes beyond the truth.
	So if we all agree that God exists and can be known through reason, and maybe we're making a leap there, but you seem at least to grant it.
	But at least you grant it.
	Then the question is: okay, well, who is God?
	And here is where revelation gets involved.
	But is Revelation not just wait?
	Is Revelation not just like the word of somebody else, essentially, claiming to have these truths revealed by God?
	Well, the word of a great many people played out throughout history.
	So, you know, for instance, it was very recently Christmas.
	And so the revelation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is in the incarnation, and then he lives for 33 years and then suffers a passion, is crucified, and is resurrected on the third day.
	At least that's how the story goes, right?
	Well, why would I believe that story?
	What reason do I have to believe?
	That's a crazy story, isn't it?
	People don't just rise from the dead.
	Well, part of the reason I might believe it is because the gospel accounts were all written within living memory.
	Part of the reason I might believe this is because 11 men went to their deaths to defend what, a fable?
	To defend 11 men just all suffered the same defect of perception.
	One of the reasons I would believe it is it's attested to in non-Christian history.
	One of the reasons I might believe this is that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection.
	And then another reason I might witness this, which gets to your point of the relation between goodness and truth, is that that religion spread to the entire world, and we haven't even gotten into the other historical coincidences of this, and led to a civilization that was extraordinarily powerful, flourishing.
	I mean, nothing like it has ever existed on the face of the earth, never would again, if it were to go away.
	This would all seem to point to at least some little kernel of truth in that.
	I just, okay, I guess.
	Final thing, and then I will move on.
	Final thoughts on that.
	To me, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because a lot of people believe something, it means that there's a kernel of truth to it, right?
	I feel like It seems to me that people, the same arguments that you used could be used when it comes to trying to justify Islam, for example, that a lot of people have gone and fight and.
	Islam didn't spread peacefully as Christianity.
	But yeah, the fastest growing religion, still isn't it?
	Yeah, it's still the fastest growing religion right now, but the point that I'm trying to get across is that ultimately it seems like your belief in the Catholic faith and doctrine goes back to like, hey, a lot of other people seem to believe this, so then that leads to...
	Perhaps I misspoke.
	Quick response.
	Yes, a quick version of it.
	Perhaps I misspoke.
	My faith in the Catholic religion comes down to the existence of God being knowable through reason and the identification of God with the logos.
	This would be something different than, say, in Islam, where Allah is totally transcendent.
	And as Ibn Hazm, the medieval Islamic writer, said, if God so willed it, he could make people worship idols.
	So mine identifies God with reason.
	So it's not just mere hearsay.
	Then there is a little bit of hearsay because all these people saw it and believed it and spread it throughout all of the world.
	And the religion was extraordinarily successful.
	And in that spread, one final difference, I suppose, is that, with maybe two exceptions, Christianity spread peacefully everywhere that it spread.
	The two exceptions would be Charlemagne and I guess the Spanish Inquisition.
	With Islam, Islam spread violently everywhere that it spread.
	And so I'm not even knocking the Muslims.
	I'm just pointing out one was reliant largely on reason, and so it would seem to me that the faith is reasonable.
	Okay, shifting gears here a little bit, kind of back to feminism.
	Are women oppressed?
	Are men oppressed?
	Who is more oppressed?
	And I think, let's start with Michael on this, and then we'll switch over to you guys.
	Go ahead.
	Yes, women are oppressed.
	Men are quite oppressed.
	But what oppresses us is not, you know, like the patriarchy or whatever.
	What oppresses us is sin and vice.
	That's what actually does it.
	True freedom is not, as the feminists and the liberals who preceded them would believe, the ability to do whatever we wish.
	The right to do wrong.
	I don't think there's any right to do wrong.
	I think that's why the word is called a right.
	I think that liberty is the right to do what we ought to do.
	And so I think that the truth will set you free, and I think that falsehood will enslave you.
	And I think that the real oppression we see today is a result of following our appetites, our lower will, disconnected from our rational will.
	So, you know, I go out and eat a lot of donuts, or I shoot up a bunch of heroin or something, or I am addicted to porn, or I'm sleeping around with all these women, or I'm even, forget about porn, I'm just indulging my pride on social media, and I'm just doom scrolling all day, not doing any of my work.
	Those are oppressions because you can't escape them.
	Even when your rational will says, I've had enough drugs, I've eaten enough doughnuts, I've looked at enough porn, your appetite comes back in and says, ah, give me more, right?
	And so you lose your freedom.
	To quote St. Paul, the things that I want to do, I don't do, and the things that I don't want to do, I do.
	So we are oppressed by patriarchy, because didn't you define patriarchy as like male sexual appetite and things like hookup culture?
	No, no, I think patriarchy truly is just the reflection and the symbol of marriage of the relation between Christ and his church.
	Oh, because previously you defined it as things like hookup culture.
	No, no, I said that we live in a patriarchy inasmuch as women are not dominant over men, right?
	And so I agree that women are still bearing the brunt of a lot of terrible things, but it's a perverted patriarchy, were my exact words.
	And so the true one would be the notion that man is the head of woman as Christ is the head of his church, which makes a lot of liberals freak these days.
	But the way that this perverse patriarchy would be practiced today is that man is not like Christ to his church.
	Man is like a little demon in the Garden of Eden tempting Eve.
	So you define current oppression as basically modernity, like things like you said social media, pride, gluttony, lust.
	No, I think real oppression really can only come from sin.
	I think that's, I think, and the wages of that are death.
	So, you know, the law can come in and act in a way that is contrary to justice, and that does happen a lot.
	But that doesn't really matter.
	You know, you can be free in a prison cell.
	The problem for us, the far greater threat to our liberty, is the lack of ability to control ourselves and to live virtuous, flourishing lives.
	And you can't just blame some guy on TikTok for that.
	You can't just blame a law for that.
	Oh, did you want to respond?
	Yeah, I guess I had a question.
	I do want to ask if you think religion is really good at suppressing that proclivity for vice and you would probably label something.
	You'd probably label something like pornography consumption as unequivocally a vice and something that oppresses us.
	Then why is it that in states that have the most evangelical Christians, we see the highest subscriptions to things like Playboy, OnlyFans, Pornhub.
	They still have Playboy.
	Playboy's wholesome.
	I'm just painting more of a historical progression.
	It went from obviously penthouse to Playboy to Hustler to now then to the strip clubs, pornography, restaurants, things like that.
	Why is that most rampant in red states, specifically religious red states?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I mean, I can't speak specifically to evangelical Protestantism because I'm not totally, you know, I'm not one and I'm just not as familiar with it.
	I do know that in some of the Protestant denominations, they get a little bit more loosey-goosey on the sex stuff.
	Obviously, the Lambeth statement permitted contraception and a little bit weirder sex stuff for some Protestants.
	So I remain a mackerel-snapping papist, and I kind of believe the old-fashioned way that to quote the great philosopher Norm McDonald, sex is a filthy, shameful thing that should only be for the purpose of procreation within marriage.
	And so I don't know.
	You know, if you say, well, in Utah or something, they're looking at porn more, and therefore the Mormons are, you know, hypocrites.
	Okay, maybe they're hypocrites.
	First of all, Utah just effectively banned porn because they forced porn companies to have an age.
	And then Pornhub, very tellingly, said, okay, we're not going to do business there anymore because we rely on kids for our business.
	I guess my point is it doesn't seem like religion is a compelling antidote against the vices that you deem to be oppressive in these states that have the highest populations of religious people, your type of religion, Christian, why is it that they're indulging in these vices more disproportionately than liberals?
	Well, again, you know, I love my Protestant friends, but some of them take a looser view of sexual morality than the Catholics do.
	The Catholics still have a very rigid view.
	So I think you're making a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison.
	Yeah, but furthermore, to quote La Roche Foucault, again, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, and religion is a public thing.
	So we want to pray.
	We can pray individually.
	We can avoid looking at porn individually.
	We can do whatever individually.
	But we're social creatures.
	And so if we live in a community that is more likely to put us in the near occasion of sin, we're more likely to fall into that.
	You know, today, porn is everywhere, right?
	You can't drive down the street.
	You certainly can't open social media without that.
	And if there's more temptation everywhere, you're more likely to fall into it, even if you know it's wrong.
	And so now we point to those people.
	We say, well, they're hypocrites.
	No, they're not hypocrites.
	They're human beings.
	They've had standards and falls.
	Do you think they're victims to just the rampant porn industry?
	Yeah, I think the porn industry certainly victimizes people.
	Do you think porn worsened it more than prior?
	Like, do you kind of blame the porn industry?
	Yeah, I think the porn industry is awful and should be wiped off basically.
	Can we talk about what consequences you're seeing since the proliferation of porn that makes society so much worse?
	Totally.
	Yeah.
	Well, you see, I mean, you know, again, to go back to all those studies, you see a big spike in sexual aggression.
	You see a big spike in the world.
	Wait, wait, no.
	Crime is down since porn, what, early 2000s?
	Crime is way down.
	Well, okay, just a moment of time.
	Anti-destructive violence.
	And abortion is way down.
	It seems like abortion.
	No, from the early 2000s, yeah.
	Abortion is unfortunately slightly up even after the Dobbs decision.
	Though if you go into the state-by-state data, babies still have been saved, and it's somewhat complicated.
	But since porn became widely available, what's worse?
	So what you're saying is, because there's porn now, people are getting married less, they're having fewer babies, they're getting pregnant lessons.
	You're saying if porn made society just so catastrophic, what are the outcomes you're seeing?
	Because it's not violent.
	Well, I think you would say porn is bad as an end in itself, right?
	Yeah, it's intrinsically evil, but also if you're interested in some studies or something, and again, I don't even really buy studies, but I think it was 2010 out of the University of Arkansas, a survey of the most popular porn, not all porn, but the most popular porn videos showed 88% depicted sexual aggression, verbal or physical.
	There was a study that came out about 10 years ago out of Denmark that showed that regular porn use increased misogynistic attitudes, which I totally agree.
	There was another study that came out of, I think it was Indiana a few years ago, which showed that regular porn consumption was correlated with sexual aggressiveness in both men and women, which I don't think is a very good thing.
	And then there was another study, I forget which state it came out of, in like 2015 or 2019, which showed that porn use and sexual interactions online for women were a reliable predictor of in real life sexual violence committed against them.
	So again, I grant you that, you know, I do got your studies, I've got my studies, but in as much as you do believe the social scientific data, there is a lot of evidence that porn has had disastrous consequences.
	Pixie, you had something, I think, a little bit before this.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, basically, earlier when you were saying, like, oh no, people aren't doing porn or watching pornographic content more often because they're surrounded by it.
	They can't help it.
	So even if it comes to a virtuous person, if they're surrounded, they're still going to fall prey to it.
	But to me, that doesn't necessarily check, and I don't want to be offensive here, but the Catholic Church, especially priests who are supposed to be surrounded by those who are holy, tend to have some of the highest rates of child abuse.
	No, they don't.
	I mean, there's obviously a child sex abuse crisis.
	It was 20 years ago, especially in the Catholic Church.
	And even recently, if we looked at the past 10 years, enough has been done.
	Obviously, there's a lot of media tension on that, and it's a terrible problem.
	But if you compare rates of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church to any other religious community, among Christians, it's flat.
	It's exactly the same as the Protestants.
	Among certain Orthodox Jews, it's actually significantly lower.
	And then my favorite statistic here, though it's very dark, is that the rates of sexual abuse from the Catholic Church against children is about half the rate as public school teachers against children.
	So, you know, it's not that.
	Yeah, it's all bad, but it's not particularly.
	From what I've seen, at least from what I've seen, that's not necessarily true.
	What I've seen is that.
	It's true.
	I can promise you.
	Okay, we'll back check later.
	Or right now, actually, we could.
	But one of the specific reasons, and I'll grant you this, or grant this to the Catholic Church at least, is that the reason why the Catholic Church has higher rates of sexual abuse compared to Protestants is not because Protestants are necessarily doing it less, but it's because the Catholic Church investigates it more.
	But we do investigate it a lot.
	It depends on which Protestant group you're comparing it to, and some Protestant groups.
	I do want to go to the question for this side, Farah, Pixie, and Jasmine.
	Are women oppressed?
	Are men oppressed?
	Who is more oppressed?
	Starting with Farah, and then we'll come this way.
	Kind of like patriarchy, I think oppressed is a hefty word.
	I prefer just the term marginalized.
	And I think women are marginalized more than men.
	Okay.
	Didn't we just say that women are graduating college at a higher rate than men?
	Like there are more women in college than men?
	But didn't we also say that the culture of women move in locks up to male desires in terms of things like hookup culture and just the culture at large?
	Didn't you also admit that?
	Yeah, no, I'm not saying women are in a good spot.
	I'm just saying, how is it that if women are represented, or the majority of the population, and they're represented as the majority in these apparently desirable places such as universities, you couldn't say they're marginalized because they're the majority.
	So they're not the margin.
	I think you could still be othered even if you're a majority, if there's a louder minority.
	Yes, that's why I didn't use the term oppressed.
	That's why I use marginalized opportunities.
	Do you think men are louder than women?
	100%.
	They speak more words per minute.
	I mean, that's just a fact.
	That's because Shapiro brings up the extra.
	Your answer, Pixie.
	Men and women are both oppressed.
	They're both oppressed in different ways.
	I do not like playing Oppression Olympics because I think that menu.
	You can play.
	No, I don't want to play.
	They both have very, very legitimate reasons to feel oppressed.
	So that's where I stand.
	Jasmine, what about you?
	Yeah, I agree with that.
	I think men and women are oppressed, but I think if you're looking at who's more oppressed in a society and you're looking at what metric to use, I think the male-female one is really terrible.
	I think class and privilege and stuff has a way bigger effect on how oppressed you will be rather than your gender.
	Like if I was a guy, I think maybe my life would be maybe a little bit worse.
	Maybe a little bit if I was in a different family, it could be different.
	It just depends on so many factors.
	But class, I think, is a big, is much bigger than men versus women.
	That's like the old school leftist view where you focus on class over racial or sexual identity.
	You know what's weird though is when you look at rates of like actually depression drug use, you would think that it would vary by class.
	I think of the average person on prescription drugs as like a fair upper middle class white lady with maybe one or two kids in the suburbs somewhere.
	But it's not.
	There's actually very little difference among all classes.
	We're all just depressed on drugs.
	I don't know.
	I'd be curious to see that exact data point because I also know that it's harder for people like in the lower classes to be covered properly by health insurance and probably get proper medication in general.
	Well the lowest classes are in Medicaid.
	That's the kind of that lower middle.
	The opioid crisis isn't affecting people at Yale and law school.
	It's like there is a class.
	The cocaine crisis is the cocaine.
	Yeah, but cocaine people are still highly functioning good attorneys and whatever on cocaine.
	You can't really do that as much on fentanyl.
	But so yeah, I think class does affect especially the kind of drugs you get addicted to and all that.
	Well and especially to your point on class, like the fact that people in the lower socioeconomic classes are much less likely to get married and much more likely to have kids out of wedlock.
	To me, this is one of the most, bringing it all the way back, this is one of the most evil aspects of feminism, is that a lot of the supposed feminists don't really practice what they preach.
	In fact, I think a lot of elite liberals don't really practice what they preach because they're more likely to get married and they're more likely to go to some school and they have less sex as well, less casual sex.
	Less casual sex and they do so, but the way they talk is they say, no, man, we need total liberation.
	We need a revolution, man, whatever.
	And then unfortunately, it's the lower socioeconomic classes who buy that garbage and they ruin their lives.
	I agree with you there.
	I think we need to do a better job of explaining to people, like, like for me, I do sex work.
	I don't like tell other, I don't advocate for everybody to do that.
	Why not?
	Because I think you have to have a specific type of temperament for it.
	You have to be willing to understand the consequences for it.
	Like me, it really, I thought about my values.
	I thought about who I was and it aligned with that.
	If you're like 18 and you don't know what you're doing, I don't know if it's a good option for you to jump into sex.
	I don't even think it's a good option for you to jump into marriage either.
	You have to think about who you are and who you're valuing.
	I thought you were going to say you didn't think it was a good idea for me to jump into sex work.
	I think you would be fine.
	I think you'd be fine.
	I think you'd make a lot of and he must be.
	Come on, you're going to make a difference.
	What if Michael Knowles started like a cigar review OnlyFans?
	I was thinking I'd recite Italian poetry on OnlyFans.
	That would be good.
	Do you speak Latin?
	Shirtless?
	A little bit.
	Sorry, come.
	Whoa, okay.
	Pump the brace.
	Do you think you would come to regret doing the?
	Not me, but I think some people would.
	You don't think there's a chance you'll come to regret it?
	No.
	Why would I regret it?
	If, say, you wanted to get married and have kids and you found it harder to find a husband.
	I don't think so because I think that I typically like men.
	Like, for instance, I always tell this story.
	I didn't have any social media before I started OnlyFans.
	And one guy I was on a date with was like, oh, I love that because you're not showing off your body.
	I just ghosted him.
	Like, I just, I don't like men like that.
	I like men that have similar values to me where they don't correlate modesty with morality and that they don't really care.
	Do you think that guys who look at a lot of porn and are very pro-porn and stuff, do you think they tend to make better or worse husbands?
	Well, we know that the ones that actually have issues with porn, the biggest predictor of that is moral incongruence.
	So Catholics should not watch porn.
	It seems to have really negative impacts on your marriages and lives.
	But if you're not Catholic and you don't have negative attitudes towards porn, you are way less likely to have issues with it.
	Do you think that if you watch porn a lot, you're really into it, you're more or less likely to step out on your marriage?
	I don't know if there's any data on that.
	Well, you said a lot, so you're adding kind of like in the middle of the morning.
	Upwards of 90% of men watch porn.
	don't know if men who watch porn are more likely to cheat i haven't seen anything to indicate that nor would that even be my the social scientific data that i've seen would suggest that uh regular porn use is associated with all sorts of vices and pathologies and including infidel marital infidelity And so that would be one thing you wouldn't want.
	You wouldn't want your husband sleeping around with other women.
	I don't mind if he watches porn.
	And I think a lot of women don't.
	But if what I'm saying is, if watching porn made him less virtuous, and even just the fact that you're trying to cook for the kids, right, and you're trying to, I don't know, you're trying to do something and he's just in the bedroom somewhere selfishly doing something that's kind of shameful and you don't brag about it even if you're wrong.
	I watch porn.
	What am I supposed to do?
	Am I supposed to tell him you don't do it and I'll do it?
	Yeah.
	Well, no, neither of you should do it.
	Neither of you should do it.
	I want that cliff.
	Neither of you should do it.
	But you should not let your own personal eccentricities or call it vices stop you from recognizing them as vices per se.
	It's not hypocrisy to have a standard and fail it.
	And I fear that because we today have suggested that it is, a lot of people recognize their problems with what they're doing.
	You know, maybe you like porn a lot, but there are a lot of people who worked in the porn industry who have had terrible outcomes.
	They leave the industry, they say it was just awful and abusive.
	And, you know, I'm with the sex negative feminists on this.
	I think it's really degrading to women.
	And another statistic, 97% of the recipients of violence and aggression in pornography are women.
	It's usually not the men.
	Maybe in some cases.
	That's like OnlyFans.
	You should be pro-OnlyFans then, because it eliminates a lot of that.
	Democratizing the pornography industry I don't know that that would shrink it Which would be my goal It would shrink the abuse Which it has It's the most ethical form.
	It's the most ethical form to watch and to answer.
	I don't know.
	And ethical porn to me is sort of like a vegan lion.
	Well, you just said, like, you have to hold yourself to a standard.
	You're deciding that standard based on your values and your religion.
	But I'm coming to my values through reason, I guess, is what I'm saying.
	I think that people have a conscience.
	I think that broadly speaking, our faculties of reason can tell us that, you know, we all agree murder is bad, right?
	And we just think it's objectively wrong.
	It's not just wrong because we kind of feel it or we've decided it in some social science committee.
	It's just objectively wrong because there's a transcendent moral order that's objective and we can reason about it.
	So I think we can all come to certain conclusions.
	And why haven't we?
	Why?
	Well, we have for most of history.
	Well, no, murder, we're pretty much like all, and that's an interesting thing, even abortion, like social attitude hasn't shifted much because murder, people are still like, this is wrong.
	But things like casual sex, porn sex work, a reason is obviously failing.
	Maybe we malfunctioned evolutionarily in 2024.
	Yeah, no, we're fallen for sure.
	We have all sorts of reasons.
	Why?
	Why is that reason, whatever reason you're having, why is that not, why is that not spreading?
	Why is that not persuasive enough to convince people?
	Because we're much less reasonable today than we've been in the past.
	And because, in fact, a lot of people deny objective truth.
	I mean, it would seem you've all accepted my premises that I've just articulated, that there is objective truth in a transcendent moral order.
	And so, you know, you're the creme de la creme, I guess.
	But a lot of people, if you went onto the street and you said, is there such a thing as objective truth?
	They would say, no, there's no such thing as objective truth.
	And there's good arguments.
	But there's good arguments for that.
	There's good arguments.
	You could even argue that you subjectively came to the objective truth of Catholicism.
	You use your subjective opinions to follow that.
	No, no, no.
	An opinion is a statement of fact from one's perspective, but it's a statement of objective fact.
	It's not like a preference.
	Why are you not Muslim?
	You just didn't find it as compelling.
	You didn't personally find it as compelling.
	Like applying my reason to facts, I found one to be more reasonable than the other person.
	And you could find a very reasonable Muslim who could say across and maybe in future debate you here.
	And they would have to give the Muslims.
	Ben Shapiro used his reason to go to the museum.
	That man is not a Muslim.
	No, no, I know, I know.
	But he thinks Judaism is the truth.
	So you're all using your, you're still, it's still a subjective.
	Listen, Ben's, he's a very smart guy, but he gets a few things wrong.
	Yeah, okay.
	So sure, people disagree and they, you know, come to wrong conclusions plenty of times, sure.
	But, you know, without believing that our reason is somewhat reliable, then we can't even really communicate, right?
	I mean, there's just no objective reality that we could, that would even make this intelligible.
	Quick thing, Pixie, and we are going to shift gears.
	Go ahead.
	I was going to shift gears right now.
	I was going to say, or do you want to?
	What topic?
	It's biology, basically.
	Or I'll just say, and then yes.
	Let's hit one topic, but we will come back to that.
	How's that sound?
	So I think when it comes to feminism, something that a lot of feminists fight for is abortion rights for women.
	So I think I'd like to touch on that for a little bit.
	So a good jumping off point for each of you.
	What is each of your basic stance on abortion?
	We'll have you guys go first, then we'll have Michael respond.
	And starting with you, Farah, go ahead.
	On a personal level, I'm pro-life.
	I wouldn't get an abortion, but on a macro level, I'm pro-choice.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I have very mixed feelings and thoughts when it comes to abortion.
	I am, generally speaking, pro-choice.
	Do I think abortion at any stage is moral?
	No, not necessarily.
	However, I do have strong reservations about the government being able to dictate when exactly, or like been just deciding, like, oh, like, let's have not have any pro-choice, pro-life all the way.
	I have like very strong reservations of the government being able to dictate a law to that nature.
	So I have a mixed bag right now.
	Jasmine?
	Yeah, I think abortion is one of the hardest moral issues.
	Like it's so unique.
	And I think anyone who thinks it's so easy on the other side just hasn't delved into this topic enough because there's really good arguments for both sides.
	I typically hold like what the question is, when is that fetus or whatever you're going to call it, depending on the stage, a person?
	And I think the strongest argument for me is the consciousness one.
	So to me, having a baby that's alive and something in a Petri dish, I don't see those two things as exactly the same.
	But I do think there are really good arguments about this.
	It's just a really hard topic.
	Why would you not have an abortion for your own child, but you would permit it or even maybe recommend it for others?
	Same reason I've been vegetarian my whole life, but I don't force it onto others.
	Like I have my own personal visceral reaction to certain types of behaviors, such as hunting, factory farming, and even possibly abortion.
	But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm deducing some sort of moral imperative from that.
	Well, I should hope if you care about a bunny rabbit and you won't eat a hamburger, then certainly you would care about a human being.
	And it seems like that's the logical connection, sure.
	But doesn't that then seem to be like saying, look, I would never murder my precious baby, but all you often poor black people, you can kill your babies.
	That's just fine.
	No, because I never said I do it because I view it as murder.
	I said it's more of a visceral reaction.
	So it's unreasonable.
	You just think it's yucky.
	Yes.
	I found it yucky.
	I would open the doll's mouth and put a cigar in it, but I don't think that's wrong to do.
	I find this girl.
	It grosses me out when I was going to ask you.
	That was Michael's.
	That was not my idea.
	He was very excited to do it.
	I did think it was very funny, but that was not my idea.
	Look, I love what you just said.
	It was what a beautifully honest thing you admitted.
	You said, I find abortion to be wrong.
	I didn't say wrong.
	For you.
	Wrong for you.
	When we say wrong, we're usually moralizing it.
	I just said I found it gross, and I had to look away when I opened the sex doll's mouth.
	That doesn't mean I think it was wrong to do it.
	Abortion boo for her.
	Yes, you're saying I find abortion repulsive, and therefore I wouldn't do it, even though I can't reason as a person.
	The process grosses me out.
	I find it gross to use a tampon.
	I don't use one.
	I don't think people shouldn't use it.
	I personally don't want to do it.
	I find it invasive.
	I find the process of, you know what I mean, certain things to be invasive, but that doesn't mean I'm going to prescribe it for everyone or even moralize it.
	What you've just articulated is something called the wisdom of repugnance, which is an idea that was elaborated on by the bioethicist Leon Cass.
	About 20 years ago, he had a famous book on this.
	We don't write a moral treatise on every single thing.
	I get out of bed.
	Should I have eggs or pancakes?
	I don't know.
	Let me write a 10-page essay.
	No, you just kind of go on your prejudices a lot of the time.
	And I know prejudice is a really nasty word these days, but most prejudices are right.
	You know, it's just you can't.
	But sometimes they're wrong, like slavery.
	Sometimes.
	But there were also plenty of people who recognized the moral.
	But that argument doesn't pan out because they said I should deduce some sort of correctness and morality from my prejudice.
	But if I just said I enjoy getting abortions, like I love the process, it gives me pleasure the same way getting a tattoo would.
	You wouldn't then say that I should moralize it.
	Virtually no people would say that.
	What most women say when they support abortion is exactly what you just said, which is, well, I wouldn't do it, but I think it should be a right.
	And so now I think, okay, I'm glad you've said you wouldn't have an abortion and you've arrived at that through prejudice or however.
	I don't care how you arrive at it.
	But now I think at that point we have to apply reason to this, which is, okay, why do you find it repulsive?
	Well, because it's invasive.
	Well, because I don't like stirrups.
	Well, okay, fine.
	All those reasons.
	But at a certain point, especially, you really seem to care about living things because you don't want to eat animals either.
	Okay, I think there's a moral difference between a human being and a cow.
	But what you're recognizing is there's something monstrous.
	There's something morally significant.
	There's not.
	That's why I use the analogy again of you putting the cigar in the doll's mouth.
	It also grows up.
	Merely having a sex doll is morally significant.
	I mean, I'm glad that she's just being used as my debate partner here to help me so it's not three-on-one.
	But if one were to use this sex doll in the way for which it was built, that would be depraved and disgusting.
	And so, frankly, having her advertise my cigars is probably one of the most wholesome uses for the sex dollar.
	Right, so I personally wouldn't get a tattoo.
	I find that process very repulsive, and the idea freaks me out, and I would pay to not get a tattoo.
	Does that mean I'm moralizing it, and I should be, you know, moralizing that proclivity towards not getting a tattoo and prescribe that other people don't do it?
	Like, why is abortion, why are you assuming that I'm not getting an abortion for some moral reason?
	No, I don't think you're doing it for a moral reason.
	I think you happily have arrived through your own natural tastes and preferences and prejudices at a correct moral conclusion.
	But the moral conclusion, the reason abortion is wrong is because you're killing a baby.
	You said you'd cow.
	Why is it different than a cow to you?
	Come again.
	Why is a human different than a cow?
	Because human beings are rational.
	So is a retarded person less of a person than a non-retarded person?
	No, all people have defects.
	You know, none of us, even me, none of us is perfect.
	But the species of human beings, the thing that separates us from the animals, is that we have will and intellect.
	This is why we don't have to.
	If you found out that cows have it, or if you found a person, or if you have a person who, there's people who have really significant brain defects, etc.
	Yeah, there are people who have all sorts of disabilities and defects.
	Well, if we're just going on rationality, yeah, but that was the whole thing quickly.
	Do you believe in contraception?
	I believe it exists, but I would strongly discourage it.
	Even for married couples who want to child plan?
	Yeah, I think couples should be open to life.
	I think married couples should be open.
	Even though there's an overwhelming amount of data that suggests that contraception lowers abortion rates, basically, right?
	If it never gets pregnant.
	Yeah, I think people should have more babies, and once they conceive of the babies, they should also not murder the babies.
	But I don't think that's a good idea.
	Okay, married couples should just, every time they have sex, should get pregnant or should be aiming towards getting pregnant.
	You know, believe it or not, it's actually, it usually doesn't work quite like that, but I think they should have more kids, yeah.
	Totally.
	And there also, by the way, there are, again, it's morally controversial, but there are modes of a more natural process that would be able to quite accurately time a woman's.
	Until we're at the point where we're getting rid of abortion, then, are you then in favor of contraception?
	No, I also reject the premise that you've just made, which is that contraception reduces abortion rates.
	I think, you know, there's a very easy way to cherry-pick those data because you can say, well, in this very small subset of data where we give condoms to college kids or whatever, they have lower abortion rates.
	But broadly speaking, over the past 60 years, we've had a proliferation of contraception and we've had a proliferation of abortion.
	The rates have spiked and they've lowered it sometimes, but they've remained fairly high.
	And the reason is more fundamental than statistics, which is that we have a mentality now that sex can come without consequences.
	And so condoms can be very effective.
	And whatever women put inside themselves, that can be very effective too.
	But sometimes it's not.
	And by accepting the mentality that sterile sex is a right, it then implies a right to kill the baby so you don't actually have to face the consequences when it happens.
	I think I pushed back on the idea that people were not having sex prior to contraception because you never suggested that.
	I thought it was suggested because when you're saying like, oh, no, abortion rates have gone up since contraception.
	I'm not sure if that's true.
	They were having kids before contraception.
	And they were also getting abortions before.
	No, no, I mean, you know, the other reason why it's, I think, silly to try to separate these two phenomena is they occurred basically at the same time.
	So you had legal abortion beginning in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, though it had been legalized in other states prior.
	This was, you know, the 1960s and 1970s, the sexual revolution when contraception became much, much, much more popular and available, and abortion did at the same time too.
	So it's simply a fact.
	As contraception became more popular, the abortion rate went up.
	Now you might say, well, those are disconnected phenomena.
	Okay, maybe they are, but they certainly occurred at the same time.
	At least to my understanding, and maybe we can even search this up right now, people did have abortions or did have a high rate of abortion before, even like Roe v. Wade, what would happen is that they were like more like back alley abortions, illegal abortions, such abortions that basically put the mother's life in danger.
	No, none of that's true.
	They were having abortions.
	It wasn't at a particularly high rate.
	The rate spiked after Roe v. Wade.
	And it is true sometimes women died from back alley abortions.
	There's a fake statistic that went around that was cooked up by the abortion industry, which said that thousands of women a year were dying of abortions just before Roe v. Wade.
	Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was the head of Nehrality Abortion Rights League, admitted it.
	They just made that statistic up out of thin air.
	And we can fact check it because we have the statistics from the CDC.
	So the year before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal nationally, do you know how many women died of back alley abortions?
	I don't have a specific number from this holiday.
	39 is the number.
	And do you know how many women died of legal abortions?
	24.
	And so almost the same, but you'd say what's a little bit higher for the illegal abortions, except that if you look at the number of states that had legal abortion versus illegal abortion, if you control for that variability, it comes out to almost exactly the same number.
	And it was a very, very low number.
	So, you know, that wouldn't be a recommendation of legal abortion.
	To my understanding right now, if we decide to take a state or a county where one county has a greater amount of contraceptive access, promotes it more, teaches kids about contraceptive use versus a county that there isn't that necessarily the same level of sex education, the one that has the less amount of sex education and contraceptive access would have higher amounts of abortion.
	Do you dispute that?
	The one that has higher, did you say the one that has higher rates of sex education would have higher rates of abortion?
	No.
	The one that has higher rates of sex education and higher rates of contraceptive use will have less abortions than the one where there is no sex ed.
	Basically, places that have less sex ed have higher abortions.
	It depends.
	It depends on if we're talking about a community that strongly discourages contraception and premarital sex and abortion.
	That would be less likely.
	If we're talking about a community that has very low rates of religiosity and low rates of getting married, but also low rates of sex education, which is just kind of liberal sexual revolution teaching, then maybe you would have higher rates of abortion there.
	I don't dispute that at all.
	I mean, we live in a culture now that is broadly supportive of abortion and of contraception, including religious communities.
	But if you, you know, to use my own group of religious people, if you look at Catholics compared to the rest of the country, and then if you look at traditional Catholics, you know, guys who like the Latin Mass and smells and bells compared to regular Catholics, the rates of divorce plummet.
	The rates of abortion plummet.
	The rates of contraceptive use plummet.
	The rates of childbirth go through the roof.
	And so the reason I pick that group out more than the others is they seem to have all of the pieces that I'm talking about here.
	And whereas others, they might have one but not two.
	They might have three.
	And so there it's much harder to compare.
	How do you make people more Catholic?
	Well, you know, I'm doing my best, aren't I?
	Yeah, you are.
	I'm doing my very best.
	If it doesn't work, what's your plan B?
	Because it seems like...
	No, look, even beyond, if someone says, well, Michael, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm not a Catholic or something, okay.
	Okay, fine.
	You know, I'm just, all I'm doing is stating the truth as I see it, as clearly and often as I can.
	And, you know, that led me to certain conclusions.
	I hope it leads them to the same ones.
	But if people are just, if first they recognize that the truth exists and that we have faculties of reason that can be noble, that's good.
	And if people recognize that we can, that there are better things and worse things, and we can do better things and worse things, that's good.
	And if people recognize that having self-discipline is good and will lead to a more happy life, then I'm very happy about that.
	And down the line, maybe I haven't gotten to the point.
	Is that not what people are doing right now?
	Like you don't think people are, like you think people, like, it is the fact that people actually think it is better for the well-being of society to not stigmatize like gay marriage.
	They believe that.
	Now, you know.
	I don't think there's any such thing as gay marriage, you know, because I think it gets back to the feminist problem, which is I think marriage either has sexual difference at the heart of it, or it just doesn't mean anything.
	You know, it's just another group of people.
	So then why don't you let them get married by the state if it just doesn't mean anything?
	It's not up to me.
	Marriage either means the union of a man and a woman, the complementary sexes, for the good of the spouse is sure, and for the creation of children, for the creation of a family, or it's just like your buddy.
	But you said it's your buddy who used to be a marriage.
	So it's beneficial.
	Let's say it's beneficial as a society to recognize those marriages.
	It creates less turmoil.
	Whatever.
	Then is it true and is it good?
	Is it beneficial to recognize a vegan lion?
	You know, it's just not real.
	And so we can pretend.
	Is it beneficial to pretend that a man is a woman?
	I don't know.
	He might think it is for a short period of time.
	But it's not.
	I mean, this is one of the problems really with the proliferation of porn and other vices and the drugs and all that stuff, is it causes people to lose perhaps what little control of their reason they previously had.
	I mean, this is one of the really bad problems about all porn, OnlyFans included, but obviously the big industrial stuff too, is it appeals most basically to the prurient interest.
	The thing that it does is arouses people.
	And I, listen, none of you are women.
	You're all women.
	I'm not a woman.
	None of you are men.
	I'll speak from the male perspective.
	I think I'm relatively reasonable.
	Relatively at least.
	I think I'm in.
	Pretty reasonable.
	Pretty reasonable.
	Do you think all reasonable people would necessarily come to your conclusions?
	Yes.
	At least a lot of them.
	But I will tell you this.
	If I am in a state of passionate excitement, if you know, this is why I don't look at these things.
	But if a man were to look at those things, he would lose control of his reason very, very quickly.
	And that's degrading, even taking the actions outside of it.
	To have an industry out there, the purpose of which is to make men less reasonable and to do things that can be destructive to themselves or to their families or to whatever, is not going to lead to a flourishing society.
	We all have sex drives though.
	That's just true.
	If you could eliminate sex drives from people.
	we all have sex right but there's a i'm not Are you reasonable when you're having sex with your wife in that light?
	I think I am, actually.
	I think I'm pretty more reasonable than I'm ready.
	In the midst of it, you're joking.
	I think so.
	Look, I mentioned Dante before.
	I love Dante and Divine Comedy.
	I'm not saying we should deny our desires or suppress them or pretend that we don't have sex drives.
	I got red blood, man.
	I think that we need to sublimate our desires to the right ends and to the good place.
	So you say, if I'm doing the thing that men and women do with each other within the context of marriage, am I doing it in a reasonable way?
	I like to think I am.
	Meaning, is it open to life?
	Is it going to produce children?
	Is it degrading to one partner or the other?
	I hope it's not.
	Is it irreasonable with reasonable?
	But you're assuming the only reasonable way to, I guess, procreate.
	Yeah, or this urge that you have, the sexual urge, is if you do it in this context.
	Yes.
	But that's just your assumption, I think.
	No, it's the conclusion I've arrived at through reason, because I think there are ends to things.
	You know, like the end of this delicious Mayflower cigar would be for me to smoke it.
	The end of this cup of water would be.
	But if you use the cup to kill a bug, are you misusing the cup?
	You are misusing it.
	It won't kill the bug as well.
	I mean, I'm not saying that that's immoral necessarily, but it won't kill the bug as well as it will bring you water.
	And so the purpose of my eyes is to see, the purpose of my mouth is actually to smoke cigars, but maybe to eat is a secondary purpose.
	And the purpose of my sexuality finds its expression in procreation, which is not going to happen between a couple of fellas or three dudes and a billy goat.
	It's going to happen within the context of marriage.
	Speaking of the cup, do you need a refill?
	You know, I could.
	You're too kind, my dear.
	Thank you.
	I feel very patriarchal.
	That's very kind.
	I do have a question for you.
	I just want to find out what the threshold is.
	Obviously, you morally condemn porn, and I guess I want to know from your TradCon purview, do you also condemn strip clubs, obviously prostitutes, brothels, Playboy Magazine, Victoria's Secret.
	Especially Play Films.
	Fashion shows.
	What about Victoria's Collection?
	Well, Victoria's Secret fashion shows now feature dudes and plastic bags.
	So I don't even know if that's the same thing.
	I mean, the traditional VS Angel shows do you condemn?
	Because I guess I get annoyed when people just morally burden porn stars, and I feel like it's just because of the financial component, but then they're still, like I said, going to Hooters all the time.
	And I feel like a lot of conservatives, especially TradCons, are okay with, you know what I mean, lusting after women in those fine settings.
	I'm very opposed to lusting after women, and I think it's tantamount to adultery.
	So you would morally condemn Hooters and Victoria's Secret fashion shows and any of those matters.
	I mean, again, there are different, obviously these are differences of degree.
	So Hooters, you know, it's women wearing tight clothing and getting you chicken wings.
	And I'm not saying it's ideal.
	I wouldn't recommend having Christmas dinner there.
	But I think it's far less objectionable than, say, going to a strip club or going to the Red Light District or looking at pornography.
	You know, the thing about pornography that's really in particularly bad about this, too, is it's so unnatural.
	So, you know, on the one hand, you'd say, well, it's better to look at porn than to cheat on your wife.
	Wouldn't recommend doing either.
	But porn is even more unnatural because there's not even another person involved.
	You know, it's just glittering images on a screen and then you're doing a shameful act with yourself.
	What if you were watching it with your partner?
	And there is data out there that actually, a lot of people report watching porn together actually makes their sexual relationship better and they report higher sexual satisfaction.
	In that context, do you think it's okay, or is it just immoral for you because you're a Catholic?
	No, I think the reason that it's bad is one, it would turn your sexual desire to another woman.
	And it would view, it would cause you to view women as sexual objects rather than as proper subjects.
	And I think one of the other problems with porn that shapes the way you would view all women, including your wife, is that it treats people as commodities.
	So what it does is it causes you to sell yourself as though you were just merely flesh, you know, for the irrational excitement of some other person.
	And that is intrinsically degrading because you're a rational creature with a mind and heart.
	That's why I think OnlyFans is the best iteration of sex work because sex work, as they say, is the world's oldest profession.
	It's never going away.
	Even in 2005, which is over 10 years before the advent of OnlyFans, 16% of American men were buying sex and over half of them were doing it regularly from prostitutes.
	So I don't like that we blame porn when sex work has always been a thing.
	Even a lot of Christian men will go to the strip club like a week before getting married and that's considered like traditionally acceptable.
	Exactly.
	And I feel like OnlyFans is the healthiest iteration even by your characterization because it reinstates the soul because the biggest OnlyFans stars are famous for their personality, people like Amaranth, Belle Delphine, Bella Thorne.
	It reinstates that personality.
	So I feel like it's actually reducing this idea of only lusting after a woman for her flesh.
	It's actually three-dimensionalizing her again.
	So do you think OnlyFans?
	But it still reduces the relation of the sexes to a mere monetary transaction.
	And it commoditizes the woman because she's the product.
	I mean, isn't that capitalism, though?
	Like when you have a cashier, aren't you objectifying as a person?
	There are major problems with capitalism.
	The cashier scenario, I don't think, is a good question.
	But you, like, if you're using, like, when someone, the mechanic, is working on your car, you're not, like, super interested in his thoughts and feelings.
	You're using him as a means to.
	So what is so bad about sexual objectification when we objectify celebrities, athletes, all these things?
	Because the mechanic is performing a rational and edifying action for me that benefits the two of us.
	A prostitute, say, is turning herself into a mere instrument for my own lower pleasure.
	So, you know, I totally agree with you that prostitution's been around forever, and there have actually been moral arguments, including from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, against prohibiting this as a matter of law too aggressively, because one might say that then society would be convulsed by lust, so you have to strongly circumscribe it but not totally get rid of it.
	And I don't know what that is.
	So you're pro-OnlyFans?
	I'm not pro- But you think it's the healthiest iteration or the least dangerous arsenic.
	I don't know.
	I guess there's some diluted form of it, but they're all deadly.
	They're all going to get you.
	I guess I just didn't like this argument that the reason prostitution or pornography is worse than maybe like a Hooters is because it's reducing people, you said, to like glittering prostitutes.
	Yeah, the woman at Hooters is having a nice conversation with me and bringing me my chicken, and she's not actually stripping down, she's not actually performing sexual acts.
	I find that more immoral.
	I feel like that's the more reductionist flesh version of sex work because she has to more perform a role versus if you're subscribing to a Twitch stream or you already like, it's based off her personality.
	Like she sets the rules, she sets the personality.
	I think she sexy interactions.
	I think the audience sets the rules really.
	No, they're subscribing more for her personality and Hooters.
	It's already a predetermined role in uniform and costuming that they're assuming.
	I suspect if you talk to the top earning performers on OnlyFans, they would tell you that the customer is always right.
	They tell you the same thing that the cashier and the waitress are.
	I'm the top performance.
	I'm on top performing.
	That's not true.
	I have very strict boundaries.
	I make the rules.
	And you don't take into consideration the desires of your audience.
	I don't believe that.
	I mean, so do you?
	Commodifying yourself to the day like when you're doing a show in the video.
	The thing that I'm selling is my opinions about the world.
	Oh, I do like philosophy live streams naked.
	Well, then half of that is probably a good idea.
	But the problem with doing it naked is it's kind of cheating, isn't it?
	It's cheating because you're attracting eyeballs with something that is irrational, and then maybe you're giving them some philosophy.
	They don't have to be completely separate at all times.
	Even in marriage, when you're horny, you're not at that moment having this deep conversation and you're so interested in their thought.
	You can channel that in a healthy way.
	So something that I found is a lot of men, when they would see me speak and they're like, I really like what you say, but now it's hard to jerk off to you because I have this weird thing.
	But then once they get exposed to it, now they're like, oh, actually, it's really cool.
	I love it.
	We might have this inclination to see people in these categories, these categories, but it doesn't mean that just because you're a sexual object in this context, that you are in every context.
	Yeah, I guess it's just if you're, I think they probably make a good point, which is I have viewed you in this degraded way, and now I'm surprised to see you in a different way.
	And that's why it's important to expose them to that, because that's.
	Perhaps.
	But even the way you're talking about sexual desire still seems to be very self-regarding, right?
	You're saying if you want to sleep with your wife, it's because you're Randy or something.
	But that would be the difference between, say, love and sex.
	I forget who wrote this.
	Maybe it was Chesterton or Lewis or one of these guys.
	The, you know, sex is, oh no, it was Fulton Sheen, actually, the archbishop and former TV star.
	Sex is totally self-regarding.
	So when one looks at porn, it's to gratify one's own lusts.
	When one is married and or just even in love, one is willing the good of the other person.
	And so you can, this is not just pie-in-the-sky mamby-pamby stuff.
	The result of self-regarding sex, solo or with other people, is sterility and the instrumentalization of other people for your own desires.
	The end result of love, which is giving to the other person, is to edify the spouse, but it literally becomes so real that another person is created as a result of it.
	Pixie, go ahead.
	This doesn't have to do with the porn usage, but I just want to circle back to something that's just been stuck on my mind.
	Earlier, you were talking about basically these kind of biological imperatives that women and men have naturally fallen to.
	And then basically feminism is trying to destroy that.
	That's my understanding of your argument.
	But I don't think it's just biological because I don't think we're just bodies in flesh.
	I think we're also souls, souls and bodies to flesh.
	Okay.
	Because what I was going to say is that when people make these biological arguments of men having to be this one way and women having to be this other way, to me that doesn't necessarily follow because we've literally had laws after law in place trying to prevent women from getting into the workforce from having being able to open a bank account, from even being able to pursue certain legal matters.
	So when people make this biological argument of like, oh no, you know, men are just more naturally inclined towards working roles.
	It would follow then that there would be no need for these laws.
	It would just be a biological imperative.
	There's no need for you to have a law where blood flows through you or where you have a heart.
	These are just things that are true.
	But when it comes to our roles in society, and I think this is what feminists push back on, it seems like instead of it being a real biological imperative, it is forced upon the social structure.
	Yeah, are you suggesting that women are as happy working in an office as a man is?
	They could be.
	Depends on the work.
	Hypothetically, I guess they could be.
	But do you think talking to your female friends and looking at what social scientific data there are, you really think women are as satisfied and happy in office working?
	I definitely.
	I'm just saying in the aggregate.
	Yeah, I think.
	If you're really being honest with me right now, I think you would say probably women are less happy.
	Well, I don't think either of them are happy.
	I think we're not happy.
	Yeah, no.
	Well, what I think is interesting about this argument is that we do have a clear period of time where, hey, women had more staying at home, whatever.
	Then when men went out to war, they went towards these jobs, and when the men came back, they didn't want to leave.
	So to me, to be saying, like, oh, no, like, you know, they're all in general happier at home.
	Well, we had a clear period of time where women are expressly against that.
	No, we did, and then we, as I mentioned earlier, we measured against it, and we measured how it turned out, and all but one of the surveys showed that the women became less happy.
	So I'm totally willing to take these surveys with a grain of salt, but in as much as we can measure them, they undercut your argument.
	If there was a survey that showed that men are happier just sitting on their ass all day on like some island just watching TV.
	Do you think that they should strive towards that?
	No, because they wouldn't be happier in the long term because happiness is an objective matter.
	It's not purely subjective.
	So like men, though, truly, this is why Genesis 3 is written the way that it is.
	Men do not want to lord over women.
	They don't want to dominate women.
	They don't want to be knuckle-draggers.
	You know what men want to do?
	They want to sit on the couch and eat potato chips and be left alone.
	That's the broken dark artist.
	I'm just saying I think everyone would be happier in the short term sitting at home on a couch, which is why I think those studies of self-reported happiness refers to that type and not you just want to say that.
	I think women would be happier in the short term playing the girl boss and having all sorts of color-coded notebooks and pens and stuff, but they would find that they don't actually like it.
	They don't really want to work at the law firm.
	They don't really want to be in the widget factory.
	They would rather do something that is more naturally feminine.
	think it's also interesting how you're ascribing these surveys of like self-reported happiness going lower as a result of in the being in the workplace when i wonder if you start off yeah because yeah exactly I wonder if when you start looking down into the specific reasons why a person might report greater amounts of unhappiness, I'm sure there's a lot of reasons that could range, right?
	So for example, higher, like, let's say experiencing some sort of sexual harassment in the workplace, for example, which in that case, it's not necessarily, oh, they're less happy doing work.
	They're just less happy experiencing sexual harassment, for example.
	I'm not saying it never happens because obviously, you know, you hear some Me Too stories, Matt Lauer, whatever, you know, Vince McMahon.
	I'm not saying it doesn't happen.
	But these days, the law and the culture are so radically opposed to men and in favor of women in the situation, the frequency of sexual harassment in the workplace is basically zero.
	Can you give me an example?
	And the reason why I'm asking for an example specifically is because I actually, as a feminist, think one of the failures of the Me Too movement was not being able to legislate a lot of the grievances put into place.
	So even if a company is not supposed to sexually harass, or you're not supposed to sexually harass your subordinate, whatever, whatever, most of these cases will ever be criminal.
	They'll just be at most civil, maybe, if they're even prosecuted.
	Sure.
	But what are we talking about?
	We're talking about an errant comment, or we're talking about, you know, I like your shirt today, Sally, or something?
	Or are we talking about a rape or something?
	Yeah, I guess what I'm asking you is what specific laws have been put to place that heavily favor women against men.
	Well, there are laws against sexual assault, right?
	But the HR practices that have been put into place throughout corporate America totally favor women.
	If a woman comes in and says, let's say a man and a woman in an office had a consensual affair, the minute that woman reports it, that guy is gone.
	A guy is gone at every major company in America.
	Let's say that a man just kind of seems a little creepy or makes a woman feel uncomfortable because he compliments her glasses that day or something.
	That guy is very likely going to be gone.
	Corporate America has so taken the feminist position to heart that men don't even want to speak to women in the workplace.
	It's one of the reasons that companies often don't want to hire women is they recognize that their legal liability goes through the roof.
	That seems like an exaggeration.
	Do you actually think that if a guy complimented a girl's glasses?
	I'm not saying she would report it because people are usually nice and men and women generally like each other.
	Do you think that's how much the institutions have over-corrected that a man will get fired for just complimenting a woman innocuously and unsexually?
	I think he very easily could be punished for that.
	Yeah, maybe not outright fired, but he would face professional.
	I mean, it'd be cool to see stories of that.
	I haven't seen anything anywhere close, and I feel like any type of conservative media outlet would jump on that hardware.
	All I've got are anecdotes here, but no, I don't think the conservative media would, because I'm not pro-sexual harassment.
	Also, to go back to happiness and feminism and girl bosses and females in the workspace, another reason that women could have lower reported happiness is because they're still shoring up on most of the household duties, despite now also taking up, you know what I mean?
	They're doing still a line of domestic work.
	They don't get married anyway, so they don't even have households.
	That's not true.
	They're still cohabitating.
	They're still even within marriage.
	Cohabitation makes women unhappy too.
	I mean, even within marriage now, you don't think a majority of, there's a ton of marriages in which women are also working and then also showing up a lion's share of the household duties, and that's why they're unhappy because now they're being burdened in two directions.
	Yeah, sure.
	But so what's the solution to that?
	The solution to the majority of the menu.
	I think the solution is men showing up more on domestic duties, but they won't because of freaking tradcons and neocons who are telling them that it's gay and beta if they do these certain tasks.
	It is gay and beta most of the time.
	I agree.
	And I also think that's why men are suffering.
	So for instance, like the unemployment rate of men returning back to the workforce is very, very high right now.
	And that's because everything men and us, like tradcons and neocons, so for instance, you mean like the warmongering?
	You're a neocon?
	I'm not going to go to the hay to Libya or something.
	What does that mean?
	I'm not the politics guy.
	No one's going to be able to do that.
	I think we're using neocon in a way I'm not familiar with.
	I'm seeing Don Rumsfeld next to me.
	A lot of just men and not actually hurting men, and I think they're also hurting women.
	They're also hurting women because, like I said, women are doing worse mentally because they're showing up on domestic duties and men won't take up these responsibilities because it's seen as gay and beta.
	And we're, you know what I mean?
	You guys are an easy solution.
	Wait, can I finish?
	Sure.
	Men and us are kind of pushing for this like revanchist return to just like older times.
	And even though you claim you're not trying to turn the clock back, a lot of the solutions that men and us are advocating for just won't help men because the burgeoning sectors right now are overly feminized.
	It's stuff like nursing, childcare, hospitality.
	And these industries are actually reaching out to men and they're trying to recruit them, but a lot of men will turn them down.
	And instead, they're sitting on their ass, they're addicted to opiates.
	Like over half of unemployed men are addicted to some sort of painkiller.
	They're playing video games all day.
	They're jacking up to porn, which is, yes, one problem.
	But there's so many others.
	And feminism is telling men, like, you know what I mean, leave your toxic masculinity behind, join a nursing career, join a teaching career, but they won't do it because of tradcons and neocons telling them that they're gay and beta if they do these kind of like unwarrior-like positions.
	I don't know.
	Am I in a warrior-like position?
	What's that movie with De Niro and Ben Stiller?
	Meet the Parents, where he's the male nurse.
	Do you agree with Richard Reeves?
	Do you want to take on men should be the way we pushed women to join STEM?
	We should be pushing men to join HEAL, which is health, education, administrative literacy jobs.
	Do you think that there should be a push, instead of saying men do this job and women do this job?
	I don't think TRADCONS do as much as Red Pillar.
	I'm not pointing if you say you're Red Pillar, but that men, your role is to be an ATM machine and to make money and to be strong and fight.
	And if you don't do that, then you're not a man.
	You're not as much of a man if you're a teacher.
	Do you agree with that?
	No, I've had wonderful male teachers.
	I don't really care to push people to any particular field or other.
	I'm no libertarian, but I think the market will generally sort that out.
	And I think interference in that regard usually does more harm than good.
	But no, but teaching is a very manly thing, actually.
	You're imparting wisdom and knowledge and you're shaping a young mind.
	It's a very manly field.
	I agree, but you said women are better at domestic tasks than men are.
	Yeah, being a teacher or a nurse is not a domestic task.
	It can occur inside the home and frequently does.
	But why does it seem like domestic means within the home?
	No, but why do people see it as feminine?
	Like people see nurses and teachers as feminine.
	Third grade male is a matter of money.
	Deserving nurturing.
	Yeah, so is that something that you think is better suited for women?
	Yeah, I think women tend to be more nurturing than men.
	But that's because of their experience in the domestic life.
	That's why they're now more configuring with these burgeoning industries such as nursing, teaching, childcare, hospitality, food preparation.
	It's because of what they're being trained to do at the home.
	So when tradcons say that men should focus on public life while women should focus on these more domestic errands, they're actually hurting men in the long run because now men aren't equipped to do these burgeoning industries.
	I think also, you know, don't forget, life isn't just set and static all the time.
	A woman could say go to school and then work a job.
	I don't know, she teaches for a few years and then she gets married and she wants to leave teaching, or she's a nurse for a few years.
	We don't just sign up like serfs for the rest of our lives.
	We're just doing one task.
	But I do think that it's not just a matter of social construction.
	I think women are more nurturing.
	And so are nurses more likely to be women?
	You know it.
	Are elementary school teachers more likely to be women?
	Yes.
	That's interesting to say because when we look historically, the reason why women tended to take those roles is because those were the only roles that society would let them take.
	It was not.
	So says you.
	don't really buy that no we can like look at the last study uh the last name was woo on the researcher where like if right now we have like a certain percentage of women in stem and a certain procession of men in uh like heel types of jobs if people were actually choosing based on their interests you'd get you would still get more You're right.
	But it would be like 30% men in the world.
	But people are often deluded by their interests, and people have a view of what they will excel at and what they're inclined to do that is often out of step with reality and virtually not.
	And probably influenced by what society tells them they'll do.
	Totally, totally.
	But ironically, I think we all concluded earlier that today it's the liberal feminist view that dominates all the major institutions, right?
	Didn't we?
	No, I think so.
	I thought that's what we said.
	When men cite not wanting to join nursing and teaching, as part of the reason is because they see it as very feminine.
	You think liberal feminism is the culprit and not menism or neocons slash treadcon?
	You know, the neocon thing keeps shaking me because neocons refer to like Irving Kristol and Norman Pethoris.
	Okay, we'll just say conservative.
	Do you think when men say that they don't want to join nursing and teaching, because the nursing programs and teaching programs have like put out, you know what I mean, research of why men won't join these industries despite them reaching out.
	And one of the biggest reasons is because they feel like it's overly feminine.
	Do you think that's due to liberal feminism or due to conservatism, that fear?
	No, I think it's just natural.
	I think it's just a natural thing about men.
	They are not inclined toward those more nurturing professions.
	But the alternative is sitting at home unemployed right now.
	They're reaching out to unemployed men.
	It's not men in STEM.
	They're reaching out to men who are disaffected right now.
	And they won't do it still because it's seen as gay.
	Yeah, I think the men should work, but they should maybe do things that they're more inclined to do.
	I don't think we need to conscript men to go become nurses wearing frilly little dresses.
	But they're not liberal feminine because, you know what I mean?
	Manual labor jobs are basically getting eradicated.
	And a lot of these men, not to be mean, aren't necessarily smart enough to go into STEM.
	So I think other industries might be better for it.
	But they won't do it.
	They'd rather sit at home to preserve their masculinity.
	And I think conservatism is to blame for that.
	No, I think mass migration is actually to blame for the problem of the working classes not having as much employment as they used to, which is something that conservatives generally haven't pushed.
	I think there are all sorts of political reasons that that happens.
	But I don't think that any amount of feminist indoctrination and brainwashing is going to convince a man that he really wants to do an extremely feminine role.
	It's not about what he really wants to do.
	You know what I mean?
	That's an entitlement.
	It's not just gay for doing.
	That's a different thing.
	I think liberal feminism is that liberal feminism has done a lot to push up women, but it has left, I think, men behind in a lot of ways.
	And this is one of those things.
	Also, we're painting with way too broad a brush.
	I mean, a man can be a nurse, and there are aspects of the nursing profession that can be perfectly masculine.
	Obviously, same goes with teaching.
	But broadly, if we want to zoom it out even further and say, well, these loser men who are all addicted to opiates and they're just like, you know, sitting around with porn, these guys need to get off their behinds and take the only job available to them, which is to put on a frilly dress and be a girl.
	I think that's a ridiculous, false dichotomy.
	Why do you see that as putting on a frilly dress to go into like nursing and hospitality?
	Because you're using that.
	You're presupposing that it's feminine and gay.
	You're doing the thing.
	It is more feminine, yeah.
	It's frilly dressy to go into nursing.
	That's what you're doing.
	That's what you're telling your family.
	You're telling them that they're preserving their masculinity to sit at home and half of them being addicted to painkillers.
	I'm telling you, I think it's a false dichotomy.
	And I think the reason that you're picking those fields, which are...
	Those are the most burgeoning 15 sectors right now.
	Everything...
	A lot of other things are getting wiped out.
	Nursing is like a good challenge.
	What are the other 15?
	What are the other 13?
	Janitoring, nursing, childcare, hospitality, food preparation.
	Food preparation.
	That's not true.
	So which ones are frilly?
	Just out of the way.
	That's making math.
	Which ones are for that in the first section of the world?
	Like Emerald Legasi, right?
	Which one's most dickliness?
	Yeah, Emerald Lagasse is not.
	That's not too frilly.
	You know, if you're a big man chef, you're just like, bam, throw it.
	That can be a bit of a trendy thing.
	Don't you feel like you're hurting men with this kind of rhetoric of being like, you need to add so much machismo to these professions?
	Be like, okay, I'm not adding anything.
	I'm observing reality and articulating my perception.
	The reason you chose nursing is because you know that it's a general.
	It's a nursing, teaching, childcare, food practice.
	Well, there are plenty of male teachers.
	They tend to be more at the little bit more at the middle school level, than more at the high school level, than many more at the college level.
	That's true.
	Where those teaching jobs require much less nurturing and a lot more just reciting facts and logic.
	So, okay, I just want to ask, do you think it's better for a guy to sit at home and be unemployed than go into nursing?
	No, I think it's better to work than not to work, as long as the work is not intrinsic.
	But ideally, they shouldn't pursue nursing because it's gay.
	They can pursue whatever they like to pursue, but you're asking me, why are these men not inclined to pursue careers that they consider feminine?
	Because they're men and because the differences between men and women are natural and they're not contingent on what you say and they're not contingent on what I say.
	Okay, my question is that, again, if these things are so natural, and we can search it up right now if you don't believe me, but why have there been laws in place preventing women from working in fields that are not nursing or teaching historically?
	If this is a biological imperative, there would be no need for these laws.
	I'd be curious to know which laws.
	I'm not disputing that women have been encouraged to stay home and that socially that's changed because of the Second World War or because of the advent of sexual revolution and contraception and all of these other things.
	That's certainly true.
	But I think that for a long time we recognized that the family is the building block of society.
	And so we wanted to encourage family formation and family stability.
	And part of family formation and family stability is someone being able to raise the children, someone being able to take care of the home while the other partner was outside of the home.
	And you might say, well, why can't the man stay home with the kids and why can't the woman go to work?
	Yeah, it can happen.
	They're just generally not inclined to do that because women are the ones who have the babies and who are much sweeter with the babies and who are much more responsive to the baby's needs.
	And men are the ones who generally are a little bit more outgoing and a little bit more publicly working.
	You've been very nurturing to keep it.
	I have.
	I even gave her one of my precious Mayflower cigars, available at MayflowerCigars.com, but you have to be 21 years old or older, some exclusion supply.
	We're going to read a couple chats, then we have two quick topics, and then we're going to wrap up here.
	So we have Baby B. Michael, love you, dude, and your reaction to Ben's Facts Rap.
	First time watching live, love the stupidity and facts on this channel.
	Looking forward to more this year and maybe coming on sometime.
	Okay, thank you.
	So he's talking about my buddy Dr. Dreidel.
	Michelle is that.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	And then we have Scipio Californius.
	Even mad experts, expers don't agree that human life begins at conception.
	20 to 50% of women experience miscarriages in the first 13 weeks.
	Does that make those women murderers for not taking proper care of health?
	Well, everything about that was wrong.
	You know, to be a murderer, you have to commit an action.
	So if a woman miscarries, she obviously hasn't committed an action.
	Her child has died, and it's terribly sad, and women suffer for that, and we don't even talk about it because we have to all pretend that the babies aren't really babies, so the women usually have to suffer in silence.
	But I also love this idea.
	The experts say that logic isn't real anymore.
	What is a baby at?
	Conception means the beginning, right?
	So a baby is conceived when the sperm and the egg come together and they form a distinct human being with all of the building blocks and processes of a human being.
	You might want to bury your head in the sand and deny that, but I don't see how you can say it's obviously a human being.
	It's not a platypus or a cow.
	And it's obviously alive because it demonstrates all of the processes of life.
	So you might say, well, the baby's not morally significant.
	I think we should kill him anyway.
	But don't you think that's a good idea?
	Would you run over a tea tree?
	If you had to choose one, I'm trying to like a weird crawley experiment where it's like a live two-year-old and then like 10 zygotes.
	Do you feel like you should save the 10?
	You're saying a zygote meaning that very earliest stage of conception.
	Maybe like embryos were put into a freezer or something.
	Yeah, isn't that life?
	Well, it would depend who the two-year-old is.
	Because there are gradations of charity.
	You know, I owe greater charity to my family than I do.
	A stranger.
	It's a two-year-old child and it's 10 zygotes.
	And you have to kill.
	Which one would you choose?
	would be dependent on more factors than you're giving me because the way you're setting it up Oh Bairns donated $200 Men find fulfillment in providing for their families financially, which is why typically most men won't want to stay at home.
	Taking time off with nothing to do for a work-oriented man is mind-numbing.
	And yet they're doing that.
	I think that's for anybody.
	Yeah, but they go crazy, or they all get addicted to drugs and get really sad and depressed.
	So, yeah, they do it, but it's not fulfilling to them.
	To your point, though, what you're setting up is premised on a utilitarian ethic.
	So you're asking me to choose maybe, I don't know, the greatest good for the greatest number.
	But that's not how I view ethics.
	No, I understand that.
	My point is that do you view a xylote?
	Like if I knocked it in 10 people, did 10 people just die?
	Because 10 zygote?
	Okay.
	Yeah, I do.
	I'm not saying that I reflexively, in a moment, if a fire came, I wouldn't grab the two-year-old instead of the zygote or whatever, but that is a human being, yeah.
	We have a chat here, and Burns, thank you for your TTS, by the way.
	Juan Gomez, hey, thank you, man.
	Appreciate it.
	Men tend to be more interested in things, and women tend to be more interested in people.
	That's going to play out on what people choose as their career.
	Yeah, I agree with this.
	I'm just saying that, like, let's say we have fifth, that's what the study showed.
	Like, we have 15% of women in, and then what if people were actually choosing, it would be now 30%.
	It still would be on average that more women are interested in people and men are interested in things.
	But if people are free to choose their own interests out without having any cultural or social factors in it, it's still true that more men may do this and more women may do this, but more men than we see now may be in certain fields and more women would be in other fields.
	I don't even know what that means, though.
	Like, women are more interested in people and men in things.
	I guess my debate partner is a thing who looks like a person, but I'm very interested in people.
	I don't even know really what that means.
	I agree universally when you look at careers, women tend to work with other people while men are more interested in things like STEM and they use the example of like little boys with trucks and little girls with dolls.
	That's what they're's garden donated $200.
	My sprinkler goes like this.
	Okay.
	Comes back like this.
	Interesting.
	Yep.
	Do you have a sprinkler system in your...
	I did, and I gave him a phone, actually.
	Okay.
	I did.
	And I thought, I just said like to my garden system, I say, call me if anything goes wrong.
	But he's abusing that what I gave him.
	And now he's subscribing, giving away $200.
	Where'd you get that $200, Garden?
	That comes from me.
	That sprouted from my land.
	Last two things, since we were talking about professions for a little bit, an often thing that often topic that I hear in feminist discourse is the wage gap.
	Do you guys believe that there is a wage gap?
	I mean, yeah, there is a wage gap.
	Like, women generally make less money than men.
	Whether it's morally okay or not is a different question, but it's undeniably there.
	Pixie?
	Yeah, there is a wage gap.
	Jasmine.
	I agree that there technically is, but the reasons for it may be, like, I do agree with that argument that men may take on longer hours, et cetera.
	Women leave to take care of their kids.
	Now, would women choose, like, the way the system is set up to take that negative impact of going home with their, because when women leave to take care of their kids, it's really hard to get back into the workforce.
	Would they choose that?
	Is that ideal?
	No, but that's the way our system is set up.
	So I think there's a lot of variables.
	And it's the way all work is set up, right?
	You're always going to prioritize more consistent experience.
	Yeah, I totally agree with your view.
	Sure, it exists, but trust me, if any business could save 25% of labor costs by hiring women, only women would be working.
	It's obviously because women don't work as long hours.
	They like to spend more time with their kids.
	They take time off, of course.
	And that costs that they take for that is unfortunate, but yeah.
	Maybe I think it's good.
	I think it's good for them to spend time with their kids.
	I think it's better than working in the widget factory.
	Pixie, do you think that the gender wage gap, gender earnings gap, is it due to some of the reasons that Jasmine articulated, or do you think it's due to perhaps sexism?
	No, there are obviously cases where this is a case, right?
	Where there's difference in hours and stuff.
	But there have been a decent amount of studies showing that even when things are all equal between resumes or even between like job performance, when conducted blind, you know, the woman will get the proper appraisal, approval, whatever.
	But if it's a gendered name or even if it's just like viewed as gendered or whatever, women will suffer.
	So there is like a pre-societal connotation on the idea that like, hey, women are less able or apt to do certain X or Y tasks.
	I do have, I know I'm kind of monitoring this.
	I just want to jump in on one thing.
	This was a couple years ago.
	I think Google did a very thorough and in-depth review of how they were, I believe, paying their engineers.
	Perhaps it was a different segment of their employees.
	And they actually found that they were underpaying the men and overpaying the women.
	Would that then be evidence that Google was or is sexist towards men?
	It could be.
	I would have to see the study specifically and what they accounted for.
	But yeah, it's theoretically possible for a company to also be sexist towards men.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, for sure.
	I recently was negotiating my contract with my beloved employers, and I was talking to my wife, who gives me a lot of advice, and I said, should I ask for a little bit more on this thing or that?
	She was like, I don't know, Mac.
	I don't know.
	I would just take what they offer you.
	It's really nice.
	I would just.
	I said, yeah, but I don't know.
	They want me to kind of.
	I'm not, you know, they're going to not respect me if I don't.
	And she was like, ah, Mac, this is why women make 25%.
	There's money because we just don't want to negotiate.
	And I totally.
	Is your wife a South Parker?
	She is.
	She's a mixture of Minnie Mouse and Hartman and like Consuela.
	I don't know.
	I've been doing that voice for her for like 15 years now.
	I was like, I got to Google his wife after this.
	Yeah, that's amazing.
	It's so accurate.
	Okay.
	Any other, anything else on the wage gap, Michael?
	No, it's real, but it's fine.
	You know, raising kids is good.
	Who cares, man?
	Money is great.
	I like money.
	I like being able to pay my bills.
	I like being able to buy nice cigars, like Mayflower Cigars, MayflowerCigars.com, 21 years old or older to buy them.
	Exclusion Supply.
	But like, there's more to life than money.
	This is only $14 a stick.
	That's a great price.
	After a box discount, it's like $9 a stick.
	What are you going to do with all this money?
	You're going to just pile it up and buy more stuff?
	Who cares, man?
	They used to say that kids were the poor man's wealth.
	And kids, I'll tell you, I take my job seriously.
	I love my career.
	I love being in public life and having whatever political influence I have.
	It's awesome.
	It means nothing compared to having children.
	I finished my first book with words, speechless, when I was in the delivery room with our first child.
	And my wife's there pushing out this kid, and I'm there finishing the final edits on my book to send in.
	They were both due on the same day.
	They both came.
	And I thought, okay, I've finally done.
	I poured my heart and soul into this 18 months of writing.
	And I look over at my kid and I realize that my book doesn't matter at all.
	And I think it's a good book, and it became a number one bestseller.
	And nothing.
	It matters nothing compared to a baby.
	And so I just think, good grief woman, you know, you're going to put off having a family, this wonderfully edifying thing, to go make like an extra 50 grand a year, 150 grand a year.
	Who cares?
	Like, are you kidding me?
	What a terrible deal.
	There's two things I want to say on that topic.
	The first one is: hopefully, we both can agree that the wage gap is a problem if, let's say, two people are doing the same exact work or whatever.
	One shouldn't be looked down upon by their sex.
	Again, we said that there's cases where we understand the wage gap, but hopefully we can agree on that when all factors are equal.
	That should not be.
	If my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
	Sure.
	If things were different, they'd be different.
	Okay.
	And I guess the second thing is that I think the misconception or what's being downplayed here is that there are strong correlation, if not just straight up causation, of being able to have a kid that's healthier, more educated, has better life prospects, just overall a better life if you can afford a better life for them.
	So I think there is something to be said about like, hey, you don't have to be the top 1% owner.
	You don't need that extra 25% in your income.
	Yeah, but I think there is also something to be said about like, hey, a lot of these women, the reason why they still want to work or they're still interested, because they want to provide the best possible life they can for their family.
	So I think there is a balance to be struck there.
	I don't think it's all just like, oh, it's kind of frivolous money.
	We have a bad political economy right now that basically forces women to work even when they don't want to.
	So it's no longer a choice.
	It's more an obligation for most people.
	And I agree that's bad and we should take political action to change that.
	I'm all for that.
	I think that would be great.
	However, you can raise kids on not a lot of money.
	You know, I didn't come from a ton of money, and I know a lot of my friends didn't come from a ton of money.
	And, you know, yes, you need to be able to eat.
	You need a roof over your head.
	You need some clothes.
	But you can do that for a lot less than we have now.
	The problem is, the two-income trap is that once you start living that dink lifestyle, you know, dual income, no kids, or the dinky lifestyle where it's like no kids yet, you get accustomed to a standard of living that you don't want to give up.
	But it's worth it.
	Yeah, make sure you can feed your kids, but make sure you have kids to feed.
	Last two things here on the wage gap.
	When it comes to things like sports, for example, you know, we've had in the national U.S. women's soccer team, they actually filed a lawsuit.
	I don't know if you guys are familiar with that at all.
	So do you guys think that, for example, between the NBA and the WNBA or the women's national soccer team compared to the men's, do you think there should be an equalization in what they're paid?
	No, because one generates more money.
	Pixie?
	Yeah, I feel so good.
	Let's go.
	These guys are the most patriarchal feminists I've ever met in my whole life.
	I'll have to say that.
	But then in OnlyFans, we make more money, you know?
	Yeah, should there equal pay for men on OnlyFans, I think, is our next.
	You're just mad at beating you.
	Pretty much.
	And last thing?
	For his fee, right?
	Soon.
	Oh, I know.
	What do you sell on OnlyFans?
	I don't have, we don't.
	We do technically have onlyfans.com/slash whatever.
	There's one clothed picture of Kiki.
	That's it.
	Wow.
	So it's not you.
	No, no, no, no.
	I could sign up for Kiki.
	Yeah, obviously not.
	With her beautiful cigar.
	You know what?
	Well, okay.
	Last thing on the wage gap.
	Do you, I have a question for the three of you.
	Do you, when it comes to like dating, right?
	And we are going to have a dating talk after this with Michael joining us on that.
	When it comes to dating, do you guys want a guy to be a provider?
	Do you want him to, for example, pay on first dates?
	Just starting with you, Farah, going across?
	Do I want him to be a provider necessarily in terms of like rent?
	Not necessarily.
	Like I'm planning on buying my own house regardless of what my partner makes.
	Sure.
	When it comes to paying on the first date, I would prefer a partner who does that, not necessarily because I need the money or I'm gold digging, but I think as a woman, we are just way more sexually selective.
	And so the chances of me even swiping on a guy in a dating app and then actually pursuing the date are so slim versus a guy who's going to take up any woman.
	So I think actually having to shore up resources shows like an equal measure of selectiveness.
	Sure.
	Go ahead.
	Personally, I don't really care about splitting on a first date.
	I do think it is more attractive when a guy does that, but I think it's for one of the reasons that far are listed.
	Dual, what is it?
	I want somebody who makes around the same income as me or higher.
	I'd be okay dating somebody who makes less on the condition that they're taking up more of the household labor, which is statistically not likely.
	And Jasmine, what about you?
	First date, I just feel like if the person who asks should pay, and I feel like if a guy doesn't, I just get this idea he's stingy, and I'm definitely not stingy.
	Like I like to pay for as many people as I can.
	And then when it comes to the other question, I actually, like, I have such high standards when I look for things like intellect, humor, that I don't, that's why I make a bunch of money myself.
	Like, I'm actually looking for a really hot chef.
	He doesn't have to make money.
	He'll just stay, because I can't cook.
	So I'm looking for a homemaker.
	Right in my DMs.
	You want a wife?
	Yeah, but like a hot chef.
	You did say whoever asks should pay more often than not, though.
	Are you asking men out?
	Do you ask men out?
	I don't ask men out.
	It's sort of almost like a message.
	I agree.
	I think it's funny when feminists say like, no, whoever asks should pay.
	It's like the fact that you're not.
	Well, that's because you're more selective.
	Well, it's more selective.
	The thing about you, you just said it's we're more selective.
	So it's funny the semantics to just say like, no, no, I don't think the man should marry whoever should be.
	Yeah, that's what I mean.
	Why do you want your own house?
	So I could just be financially dependent, pick where I want to live.
	Even if you're married?
	Yeah, like I would probably buy a house before pursuing dating for marriage, yeah.
	So what if, and then he would have his own house and you'd select it?
	I guess from there we would figure it out.
	From there, if we wanted to sell the house or both live in the house, like I'd be fine moving a guy into my house, yeah.
	But and you would still own the house or you'd split the house with him or he or you'd transfer it to him.
	I wouldn't transfer it to him.
	It would be my house for sure.
	You would have separate finances.
	I don't know about that, but in terms of like where I want to live, I'm 100% picking that on my own and getting my own house.
	So if the man comes and goes.
	So our bank accounts would go together, but you'd keep the house in your name.
	If we're married, I guess we'd figure it out as we go, but I'd probably date someone and then, I don't know, I just don't want to be dependent.
	I don't want to be a marriage.
	You don't want to be dependent.
	Right, exactly.
	You don't want to be dependent.
	So why get married?
	Why get married?
	Yeah.
	I could be independent.
	I could live on my own.
	I could hire a maid.
	I could hire a cook.
	I could just whatever.
	I don't want to be independent.
	I want to be dependent on my wife.
	I love my wife.
	I want to make a vow that I'm going to stay with my wife forever and have a nice big family.
	And I don't want to be separated at all.
	I want to be one flesh with my wife.
	If I didn't want to do that, if I wanted to just be on my own, but have someone to mitigate the loneliness and occasionally sleep with, why get married at all?
	I do want to get married.
	I am going to eventually date to marry, I think.
	Like, my goal is to eventually start dating in like a year, date in under three months, get engaged, get married.
	I don't want to do the like multi-year dating and like cohabitating before.
	I think that's a joke.
	I think it's a waste of time.
	But I'm also cognizant of the fact that men today are a joke and there's a one in four chance that your husband's going to commit infidelity.
	And I don't believe in necessarily pursuing the money.
	There are things you can do to mitigate those stats, though.
	Mitigating infidelity on my husband's part, what?
	Being a fucking glow doll for him?
	No, I wouldn't recommend that either.
	No, the things you could do is marry men who, for instance, don't recognize the sacramental reality of divorce.
	Just because I'm not sure.
	He thinks that I said infidelity.
	Or who recognize that infidelity is.
	Every man I've ever dated has been Christian conservative.
	And at least one of them, I found an Oculus in his closet where he's watching VR porn.
	In my experience, like I said, at the macro level, it's usually these Christian conservatives who are the most porn addicted.
	And at a micro level, these men have dating out of the market.
	You date a lot of these Christian conservatives.
	There's something about them that attracts you.
	Well, I'm waiting till marriage.
	Good.
	Oh, good, so you don't, okay.
	Well, look, I think that's fabulous.
	And I love that you, as a feminist, are very attracted to Christian conservative men.
	I think that's good for society broadly.
	It's bad that these guys are looking at porn or whatever.
	I don't know that that necessarily implies that once they get married, they would either continue to do that or would step out on you and cheat and have an affair or whatever.
	It does seem to me, though, that certain groups of men are less likely than others to sleep with other women.
	And so, you know, if you want to have that good, stable life and maybe overcome your fears of being dependent on someone who might be a total loser, then you might want to make sure you don't pick a total loser.
	But even stepping out aside, I mean, I give you those stats about correlation between religious men and pornography consumption and prostitution purchasing.
	So how can you say that?
	Some people who are broadly religious of some sect or other do that, and all people are tempted by things.
	But I don't think that we can just throw our hands in the air and fall into a kind of romantic quietism and say, well, they're all just, these men are all dogs, they're all cads.
	No, actually, some men are more inclined to virtue than others.
	And, you know, that might, if you But based off the stats, it would seem the religious men are less inclined to virtue.
	No, that's porn and buying sex.
	ridiculous you're you're telling me that that uh christian men are more are more like no no you You gave me a stat and said, you know, certain red states with certain religious groups consume certain kinds of porn or whatever.
	But the more Christians are in a state, the more pornography consumption and surges there are in prostitution purchases, yes.
	It would seem that perhaps there are other factors at play there.
	When you're talking about a full state, I don't know, when you're talking about class, income, when you're talking about education, when you're talking about family formation in the first place, when you're talking, for goodness sakes, when you're talking about geography, we're talking about whole states here, and you're pulling one variable out and saying, see, there it is, the correlation is the causation.
	That's crazy.
	Oh, you were cutting.
	It's okay.
	You can cut me off.
	That's fine.
	My only question to you is.
	You're saying that the thing that is preventing you from wanting to be codependent on a man, actually engage in this marriage, totally getting away from that.
	Is because I've become disillusioned with the state of tradcons, and I think they're a hoax.
	No, you don't think it's true.
	You're picking on tradcons because you think that they're your ideological opponents.
	I don't think they are considered.
	I don't think so.
	If that was the case, I wouldn't date them.
	Well, I think that if one identifies as a liberal feminist, then necessarily tradcons are your ideological foes.
	I completely disagree.
	But I agree.
	I agree that you're attracting similar perceptions of hookup culture and a lot of things, depending on the sect of feminism I am.
	I actually find way more common ground with conservative men than liberal men.
	I like that.
	That's fabulous.
	But you think they're not living up to it.
	Okay, well then, you know, fine.
	I think they overcorrect.
	They will vouch that they don't watch porn.
	They're going to be like, you know what I mean?
	The more they talk about how disgusted they are by porn, the more likely I am to find out that it turns out that they are watching porn.
	Like I said, I found that at like the micro anecdotal level of my dating life and then also at the macro level just based on statistics.
	Wait, you'd object to your partner watching pornography?
	it wouldn't be ideal yes but you you my understanding is you don't do any nudity in your only fans content but you wait you have an only fans too Yeah, she doesn't watch shit.
	What?
	Are you kidding me?
	I've been...
	Oh, man.
	I thought...
	You strung me along so well, and now you're gonna pull the rug out.
	Hold on.
	You're the one who's trying to entice these men to look at this stuff.
	And then you're trying to put all of the blame on them.
	My OnlyFans, I started a year ago.
	I'm talking about, this is why I became disillusioned and pink-pilled, is because I did everything, right?
	I was a virgin all through college.
	I'm still a virgin.
	I do all these things.
	I date these Christian conservatives.
	They talk about waiting till marriage.
	They talk about going to church every Sunday.
	Porn addicts.
	All of them.
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, look, I don't doubt that porn addiction is totally prevalent.
	And if they're not watching porn, they're following Instagram models.
	They're going to Hooters.
	It's mostly conservative men.
	What right?
	Conservative men that I'd go on dates with, they'd have these like posters of like nude playgirls and stuff like that, like Playboy Bunnies and stuff.
	And that's huge.
	Play are you dating like 65-year-old men?
	What are you talking about, playbooks?
	It's more of these conservative, like Midwestern boys who have that type of paraphernalia.
	That's like more.
	Hold on, now are we talking about that?
	That's more native to their own.
	Are we talking about a pin-up thing in your garage from the 40s?
	Or are we talking about actual porn addiction where people are all the same?
	I'm just saying that like, why is going to Hooter is more acceptable?
	Why can't I throw my chips at him?
	Wait, one question.
	But you do make OnlyFans content, so I guess how do you reconcile that with objecting to your partner watching that sort of content, but you also produce that kind of content?
	I don't necessarily, well, go ahead, go ahead.
	I mean, I just think it's funny because always on these red pill shows, they'll talk, men will get on here and be like, yes, I watch porn, but I wouldn't date a porn star.
	So what's the issue?
	And you're saying I do porn, but I wouldn't date a guy who watches it.
	Yes, because I'll tell you why.
	If you actually look at pair bonding, watching porn does affect your neurochemistry and your pair bonding.
	Me being lusted after does not affect my neurochemistry or my pair bonding.
	But you're enticing them to do it.
	Like, I'm maybe the least judgmental person on the right when it comes to this stuff because all sin and fall short of the glory of God.
	But you are part of the problem.
	And the thing that you're inveighing against is something that you are encouraging and profiting from as you encourage it.
	That's only if you consider lusting to only exist within pornography.
	I think even if my boyfriend were lusting after like 18-year-olds, like a cashier at a grocery store, I would think that's just as wrong as pornography.
	And pornography in the encourages and inflames.
	Same way, even if I didn't do pornography and I was just an attractive woman, that doesn't mean I'm enticing men by putting on makeup every day.
	It's up to them to not be watched after.
	Putting on a little bit of rouge is going to be less exciting to a man than doing pornography.
	I don't know if you've heard JP talk about it.
	He says women blush to simulate sexual orgasm in their face.
	Actually, if you want to get into female cosmetic coalitions, there's a very interesting anthropological point to that very thing you've just said.
	But clearly there are gradations also.
	A 1940s pin-up poster and hardcore porn on the internet, one is going to excite one more than the other.
	Yes, and if we're talking gradations and where I fall in those gradations is probably on the more mild side.
	I don't do nude content, but you don't do nude content?
	What is OnlyFans?
	I thought OnlyFans was pornography.
	I do content if anyone wants to check it out.
	You can post whatever you want.
	Cardi B just gets more gaps and is one of the top 10 creators.
	But I mean, regardless, like I said, even if I did do nude content, even if I did necessarily touch myself on camera, that doesn't affect my neurochemistry in terms of pair bonding.
	But I'm watching that.
	You're doing something bad to these men and then complaining that the men are bad.
	Well, that doesn't follow because if I wore a bikini and went to the beach, that doesn't mean that it's my fault then if my boyfriend checks out women and just stares at them on the beach.
	I'm not responsible for women for his inordinate amount of flashes.
	Yeah, I do.
	I do think they should.
	I don't think most people would subscribe to that.
	I don't think most people would say that if I wear a bikini on the beach, that means I'm a hypocrite.
	If I say I don't want my boyfriend just ogling women at the beach all the time, I don't think that would make an improper partner.
	You're not really complaining about men who go to the beach and maybe take a little gander down the shore.
	You are specifically complaining about men who look at pornography.
	No, I didn't write it.
	No, I didn't.
	That's why I brought up VS Angel shows.
	That's why I brought up Hooters.
	That's why I brought up the posters.
	Why would I bring up all these things if the threshold for me was just pornography?
	That's why I walked it back and said all these other things.
	You did walk it back and included these other things, which I think are totally legitimate.
	But, you know, there are plenty of things that I think are bad.
	And plenty of sins that I fall into, like all the time, right?
	But I don't complain about them being bad while actively promoting them.
	There's no cognitive dissonance there.
	No, I think it's bad if you're in a relationship and you're lying to your partner and saying, I don't watch porn, and then you do it.
	And then you consume it.
	That doesn't mean I think.
	That's also bad.
	That doesn't mean I think watching porn is morally bad on its own.
	If I'm saying I don't want that, that's why same reason I said I don't think necessarily dating women is bad, but if I was married to a man, then yes, I would say him dating other women is bad.
	Doesn't mean I'm condemning dating in general.
	So you're coming back to the same thing that you said about abortion, which is I would never do it, but I'm not going to say it's wrong.
	i think once you're in a relationship there are certain activities that you should not do because such as dating other women so what if What if your partner says that it's okay to do that?
	What do you mean I would find someone who has moral congruence to me?
	Right.
	You're saying if you're in a relationship, you shouldn't date other women.
	But what if, not you, but some guy were dating some girl and dating you, you really?
	Oh, no.
	And you would say, okay, it's fine if you date other women.
	Then you would say, in that relationship, it is fine to sleep with other women.
	Or no.
	Like, are you asking me, do I have objective moral guidelines for what dating should look like?
	Yeah.
	Hmm.
	I think if your goal is to have the most optimal marriage, there's lots of things you should not do, such as I think you should have a low body count if you want to optimize longevity of marriage.
	I don't think you should watch porn.
	At the same time, I don't like that it stops at just those two things.
	Like, I think those are just the two things we use to shame women and try to force them into modesty.
	But there's other things.
	For instance, like, you shouldn't even cohabitate with your boyfriend before marriage, even if you're not sleeping together, if you technically want to increase your chances of longevity.
	Why shouldn't you cohabitate?
	It's not about shouldn't.
	I'm saying it more.
	Why would you discourage cohabitating?
	It's not about discouraging.
	That's why I'm saying I'm not moralizing.
	Whatever you just said about cohabitating, why are you saying it?
	If your aim is to have the longest, most healthiest, most happiest marriage possible, statistically speaking, not having previous sexual partners, not living together before marriage will optimize those things.
	That doesn't mean I'm moralizing it.
	Same way again, if you're not.
	Why are you cohabitating?
	Because it's an important point on what we were just talking about.
	You desensitize, you kind of shore up on wifely duties before actually getting wife.
	It gives the guy this incentive where he doesn't have to buy the cow because he's getting the milk for free, all that bullshit.
	But that actually pans out statistically.
	But my point is, we talk...
	And because it's enticing, right?
	Because it's tempting.
	You're not going to cohabitate and not sleep together.
	That's not true.
	You think you could cohabitate and not sleep together?
	I've done it, yeah.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	Wow.
	Was the man a homosexual?
	Are you saying he's going to transgress my barriers if I'm like, don't fuck me?
	No, I think he would find it.
	I think he would move out before he would deal with that.
	Regardless, I'm just saying there are certain things that will optimize your marriage.
	For instance, even once you're married, if you guys don't sleep in the same bed, that will actually lead to a stronger marriage.
	That doesn't mean I necessarily prescribe it.
	It just depends.
	What are these variables that you want to add into your relationship to strengthen it?
	So it's not to say that I would say a guy shouldn't necessarily watch porn if his girlfriend's okay with it.
	Same way again, technically I wouldn't prescribe don't sleep in the same bed together, even though that could also disaffect your marriage.
	You come to so many, so many of the right moral conclusions, but you just don't want to take credit for them.
	You don't want to say that they're true.
	You just want to say that you just accidentally you want to make a difference.
	Let me ask you this.
	You probably prescribe that people don't have premarital sex, right?
	Yeah, I would say that.
	Were you a virgin until marriage?
	No, listen, I was an atheist for 10 years.
	I did a lot of naughty things.
	Okay, and you would probably prescribe that people don't watch pornography in marriage.
	Yes.
	And the reason being that that would disaffect your chances of marital success and happiness.
	No, I don't, as we were talking about earlier on ethics, I don't view ethics from the perspective of consequences.
	But you also said what's true is typically what's good, so they're kind of hand in hand.
	That's what you're saying.
	Right, but I don't consider means in light of ends.
	I don't think that good ends would justify immoral means.
	What I'm saying is that actions are good or bad depending on the actions, and more importantly, actually, on the character of virtue of the person who is acting in them.
	So the way that I would ascertain what's good or bad is according to virtue, not according to some weird calculation of like statistics.
	Say I'm going to be married longer or whatever.
	Final thought from the both of you on this.
	Go ahead.
	I was just going to say, well, statistically speaking, couples are happier together when they don't sleep in the same bed.
	Would you not prescribe that then?
	Because there's no virtue tied to it.
	That's more important.
	No, there's a lot of virtue tied to modesty and restraint and waiting until marriage.
	No, no, no, that's not what I meant.
	Even once you're married, you'll have a more successful marriage, statistically speaking, if you don't sleep in the same bed as you are.
	Well, it's very aristocratic.
	I'm too middle class to do that.
	But yeah, the aristocratic classes sleep in different beds.
	I guess my point was that people pick and choose what level of pair bonding they want to create with their partner, whether it's not watching pornography, having premarital sex, and then not sleeping in the same bed.
	I'm skeptical that you actually have more marital satisfaction if you don't sleep in the same bed.
	But the British Royals have been doing it for a long time, and they all cheat on each other, I guess.
	Right, I guess I was trying to add is that there's a lot of money.
	I am going to have to move it on.
	We have Seaberg here, no wage gap, it's an earnings gap.
	The 77 cents to the dollar stat is a labor stat that took total earnings by each sex divided by total workers.
	Feminism tends to look only until proof of victimhood is found.
	Hey, Seaberg, thank you, man.
	I appreciate it.
	Actually, and to come back to my point I was actually trying to make earlier, asking all of you if you would prefer a man to pay on the first date, couldn't it be the case?
	I mean, even if we remove the fact that, for example, men tend to work more hours, they're more likely to relocate for work, they're more likely to work hazardous jobs, and there's a whole bunch of other variables.
	Given the answers that you provided to my question about if you would prefer a man to pay for the first date, let's assume that somewhere between 30 to 50 percent of women also hold that.
	It might be more.
	Couldn't it be fair to say that just on that sole thing, that sole the sole thing that women prefer men to be providers or prefer men to pay on that first date, wouldn't that be enough of a mating pressure, of a mating force, to be a stronger motivating factor for men to occupy higher positions of or positions of higher status, positions that pay more money?
	Whereas women don't have that corresponding mating pressure, men are really not having a putting a pressure on women to pay for first dates, for example.
	What is it?
	That's certainly possible.
	The problem that I think most feminists would point out is that when it does come to the women who are putting that self-pressure or whatever, performing highly, trying to get like that next pay raise promotion, when it comes to studies that do like double-blind, who try to account for other factors, they're still not being picked because of gender bias.
	That's the problem.
	It's not necessarily that men want to get these higher positions of power.
	To me, that's not a problem.
	What's a problem is that if we start making all things equal, women are still being punished for it, then that's weird to me.
	It's very difficult to make all things equal.
	So even, you know, even when you drill down, and I'll just take those statistics for what they're worth.
	Still, if you have a society that gives an advantage to women as a matter of, say, affirmative action or some DEI policy, and that begins very early on.
	It begins in high school and then it goes on to college, and then maybe get a little bonus on your SAT, and then maybe you get into the medical school because we want more women.
	They're underrepresented in the field.
	And then maybe the firm looks at you or the medical office and says, well, I don't know that this woman, she's got, she went, she graduated college, but she didn't graduate as good a college as this man.
	Or she did graduate the same college as the man, but I don't know that she really deserved it.
	I'm not saying that's just exactly, but I think they are at least justified in that prejudice because we've got a whole system right now that says that if you're a woman, you get bonus points.
	And this is the, I mean, Clarence Thomas has written about this extensively.
	He says, I had a trouble getting a job after graduating Yale Law School.
	Yale Law School is the best school in the country.
	I'm Clarence Thomas.
	I'm like one of the greatest judges in American history.
	But he couldn't do it because he was black and they assumed he was an affirmative action case.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, just to move on, we only have a few more minutes here, five, ten more minutes, then we're going to wrap up.
	This came up earlier in the conversation.
	I believe I said we'd get back to it.
	So, Pixie, I know you've kind of had some thoughts on this on your previous appearances.
	You know, when it comes to feminism, obviously that's typically advocacy for equality, advocacy for women.
	I think it's important when we're talking about that to, again, define our terms.
	So as a nod to the Daily Wire and Matt Walsh, what is a woman?
	You're going to hate me for this one, Michael.
	Late on that.
	Before I have Michael respond to you, I want all of you to respond while we have PixieGo, then Farah, and then Jasmine.
	Go ahead.
	A woman is a person who acts and is perceived as our societal perception of a woman.
	That's at least half of it.
	Farah?
	I'd like to do more research on this topic before publicizing an opinion.
	Are you joking?
	That's really your answer?
	That is my answer as of now.
	Come on.
	So even if you couldn't, even if you're not going to reason about it, let's just talk from your own personal prejudices and stuff.
	What do you, come on, just between us gals?
	Just between us.
	Just between us gals.
	We can talk after the show.
	I like to thoroughly think out of my opinion.
	Even Shia LaBeouf wants to.
	I like to thoroughly think out my opinions before publicizing them and platforming them.
	Come on.
	You don't have a hunch?
	I bet you have a hunch.
	I didn't say I don't have a hunch, but that doesn't mean I want to perform my hunches.
	You do.
	Okay.
	It's too dangerous to venture an answer these days.
	Just give a hunch.
	I would take kind of Pixie's view.
	I think women can be.
	I don't think trans women and biological women are the same, but I don't think trans women are men either.
	Like they're, you know, you can have an umbrella term for women and have both trans women and biological women under it without realizing that without also saying that they're exactly the same and they have all the same issues and everything's the same.
	If they're neither men nor women, what are they?
	They are women.
	But I would say they're a part of the umbrella of woman.
	Okay.
	Not a part of the umbrella of men.
	Yeah, they are because they're biological men.
	So they're both.
	You can be a trans man or a biological man, or you can be a trans woman and a biological woman.
	So depending on how you're looking at it, if you're looking at biology, yeah, they're not the same.
	Can you, though?
	Can your identity be different, you know, your metaphysical identity be different from different things?
	Your biological identity can definitely be different than your social identity.
	How?
	Easy.
	When this goes back to the whole chromosomes argument, but like you didn't check any of our chromosomes or biology before calling us a woman, right?
	Which kind of.
	I think there are enough indicators.
	Enough indicators, but you base those indicators on like appearance.
	So obviously.
	That's all of my perception.
	Yeah.
	You know, you look like women, you walk like women, you smell like women.
	I think you're women.
	That's her point.
	It's a performance and you're basing all of that.
	The secondary sex characteristics is what you're basing them on, and people can change their secondary sex characteristics.
	Yeah, your bodies is what I'm basing it on.
	Which you can change that.
	But you, but I'm not sure that you can, actually.
	Because I think what's here at the basis of it is a Gnostic idea that you can separate your soul and your body.
	And I know we don't like to use the word soul anymore, so we'll say, your identity, man, or whatever, but you can separate that from your body.
	And I just don't think you can.
	I think a woman is the sort of person who isn't a man.
	I think that's the basic definition of a woman.
	What's a man then?
	A man is the sort of person who isn't a woman.
	How did you know we were women?
	Because you look like women.
	Okay.
	And you sound like women.
	And when I talk to you, you give the impression that you're women.
	So if a really good passing trans woman is here and you were mistaken?
	Then I would be mistaken, but he would not be a woman.
	No, but my point is that what you're- But I can be mistaken.
	I'm not sure.
	What you're looking at is secondary sex characteristics, and those are things that people can do.
	Those are the signs that you're talking about.
	So to pretend that, oh, this is all men and women.
	But I'm not saying the signs are synonymous with their sex.
	I'm saying the signs are signs, and the signs symbolize something.
	But there is something to say about somebody that, like, like you said, walks, talks, looks like a woman, and to say that this is now 100% a man, 100%.
	No, there's, you have to say that.
	No, he would be performing as a woman, and he might even fool me, depending on how much surgery he is.
	He would socially be a woman.
	He would try to do that, but I don't think society should recognize this.
	He would succeed to the point where you don't even realize it.
	Usually you do realize is the thing.
	I know they convince themselves that they really love it.
	Yeah, but I've met plenty of transsexuals because they protest my speeches.
	And they usually you can tell.
	Because, again, it gets to what we're talking about at the very top of this debate, which was the question of human nature, right?
	I think, me and old Uncle Aristotle believe that you're a body and a soul together.
	I'm not just my soul trapped in a useless body.
	I'm not just my body without a soul or totally separated from my soul.
	I think I'm a soul and a body together.
	So my body gives me much of my sex.
	To use the technical term, it's an inseparable accident of the individual.
	And I think that pertains to my whole person because you can't separate those two for the whole of my life.
	Pixie, can men get pregnant?
	Can men get pregnant, not biological men.
	Okay.
	Yeah, trans men can.
	Okay.
	Can we really divide men up like that?
	Like, I'm a biological man, but I'm a spiritual woman, and I'm a...
	I mean, we do, what is it?
	We do classifications within gender all the time.
	Black woman, white woman, for example.
	That would be racial.
	Yeah, no, but that's still within the scope of women.
	You're still saying, oh, there's women who are black, there's women who are not black.
	There are women who have had SA experiences.
	There's women who haven't had experiences.
	Race is real, though it's actually more difficult to pin down than sexual difference, but it's real.
	Yeah, there are different races, sure.
	So black people and white people are different races, and men and women are different sexes.
	Last thing on the one can't become the other.
	Except in the case of Michael Jackson, who he got the closest, but he was still, I think he was still a black guy.
	Wasn't that Villa Lego?
	That's what he said.
	Well, that's what he said.
	I don't know if I believe Michael Jackson.
	Actually, you stumbled.
	I don't want to say stumbled because that's condescending, but whatever.
	You stumbled onto something quite interesting.
	I'm glad I did.
	Because the whole idea is that when it comes to the notion of race, the reason why Michael Jackson was technically never white, he was always black, is because we treat race as a historical question, basically.
	What we're asking when we ask somebody, what's your race, is basically what is your ancestry?
	Like what got you here to be here now?
	Versus sex or gender specifically, where we treat it more of a societal conception.
	Like what are you performing as?
	Yeah, I don't treat it that way at all.
	And I think that sexual, I mean, I think racial difference is real.
	The reason Michael Jackson's black is because he did thriller.
	I don't think you can't really change your race.
	Rachel Dolla's all tried and she ruined her life because of it.
	But if you could, I mean, I'm kind of swarthy, right?
	You might think I'm like Arabic or Mexican or something, even though I'm Italian and WASPY.
	I don't know.
	Waspy, which you see in the Mayflower Cigar, actually.
	But I certainly couldn't change my sex because the difference between a black guy and a white guy, I'm not saying there are not differences, that there are physical differences, there are cultural differences, sure, maybe.
	But those differences are nothing compared to the difference between a man and a woman.
	Okay, the point is, I think what we're trying to get at here is that when it comes to our conception of sex versus gender, we base our conception of gender on how social media is.
	More than anything else.
	Michael, with your talk and logic about soul and body, do you believe it's possible for the wrong soul to be placed in the wrong body?
	No, because I think, following old Uncle St. Thomas Aquinas, that the sex derives mostly from the body.
	So it would be incoherent to say that the soul is another sex.
	Because if the soul were a different sex, the soul being the substantial form of the body, it would mean that men and women are different species.
	And men and women have a lot of differences, but we're not for you.
	Dustin, thank you.
	Last thing on this, and I think, Pixie, you've had on your previous appearances, you've maybe had thoughts on this.
	And I think feminists tend to differ on this last topic that we're going to hit on when it comes to the trans discussion sports.
	Do you think that there should be separation?
	What are your thoughts on, for example, trans women, trans women participating in women's sports?
	Yeah, so I think what I've currently seen of the data and studies is that even after taking hormones and such, there might still be advantages in certain ways.
	So to me, it would be like, it's a theoretical question.
	Like, I would have to have more data.
	But basically, if it seems that some of these biological advantages are too high or it cannot be mitigated enough through the use of hormones and such, then yeah, it would be too much of an unfair advantage versus if the data shows otherwise and it's like, no, actually, it is like mitigated well enough.
	So that's my general status.
	Isn't it that aren't we just all slaves to like the data?
	The study shows up.
	I love the data.
	Yeah, maybe, but the data are so manipulated.
	I mean, social scientific data, they're in a major replication crisis.
	Well, if it wasn't, the scientific method is our best way to get to the truth.
	I'm not sure about that.
	I would say so.
	So I think it's the best we have.
	Otherwise, we just have our anecdotes and our feelings.
	No, but look, I'm all for empirical scientific analyses of the things that it can measure.
	But those are all physical things.
	And what we're talking about here is deeper than a physical thing, right?
	Because we're not mere flesh.
	I don't think we think we're mere flesh.
	This is where we disagree, because we think that you're not.
	Do you think you're just flesh?
	No, no, no.
	We disagree on whether you're like, oh, the issue here isn't the data.
	The data on whether this would be unfair to women is what I care about.
	Because if it wasn't, then I would say, yeah, they couldn't.
	But the data on whether this is unfair to women are not going to come from some dork economist.
	Those data are going to come from the reality of the difference.
	It's going to come from natural scientists, certainly.
	It's going to come from people who have an understanding of what human nature is and what justice is.
	No, I don't think this is a human nature debate.
	I think this is about does your muscle mass give you an advantage?
	And if you take hormones, it seems to not, like you said, reverse all of the advantages that you have.
	How does a scientific study conclude something about fairness or justice?
	How do you measure that?
	No, it doesn't jump to that conclusion, but we use their conclusions to then make our opinions.
	Oh, you're saying you're so you would look at a scientific survey and say, wow, that big husky dude who swam against the women turns out he was a lot faster than all those little women.
	And therefore, I conclude that men competing against women in a women's sport is unjust.
	No, what you should do is you should be like, hey, okay, how do we realize it's like, okay, I don't know.
	Should trans women compete with real women?
	I don't know.
	Do they have an unfair advantage?
	I think you slipped there and you said real women.
	Well, biological women.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Biological women.
	You just accidentally.
	Yeah, I think that makes sense.
	Yeah, I would agree with that.
	Yeah, biological women, you could argue, are real women, but that doesn't mean trans women are not.
	Which implies that the trans women are not really under the category.
	They're not under the category of biological women.
	No, you just said they're not under the category of real women.
	Okay.
	Well, you can harp on that.
	My point here is that.
	No, I think it's, I'm not.
	I'm not trying to get you.
	I'm just trying to point out.
	The point I'm trying to make is if I'm trying to figure out the answer to this question, and the question for me is not what is natural or what does Catholicism say, is this unfair to have trans women compete with real women?
	Well, I want to know, and the way to know that is to look at the science, not to just look at somebody.
	How do you know what's fair and what's not fair?
	In sports, to have an unfair advantage, and that you can't.
	You have to compare the average.
	You'd have to compare, like, right?
	Like, you would have to see, okay, this is why they banned certain drugs.
	I don't know anything about sports.
	I'm assuming all this.
	I'm just saying, how do you know what fairness is?
	We all have, I would say that the only way you really know how fairness is is that we all have kind of like a, you know, we have a feeling about it.
	That's all I can say.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Is it a reasonable conscience?
	You can compare averages.
	You can compare averages, yeah.
	But also the hunch, even the idea that we all want things to be fair is like an evolutionary, in my opinion, just thing that we all kind of want to be able to do.
	Michael Phelps is a faster swimmer.
	Michael Phelps is a faster swimmer than some guy we've never heard of.
	Does he have an unfair advantage over the guy we never heard of?
	They have different average swimming times.
	Is the average swimming time going to imply something about fairness and justice?
	No, you need something else to come to a conclusion about justice and fairness.
	And that's not going to be scientific.
	Well, it's not going to be philosophical.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Philosophical.
	Quick, quick, quick, last points.
	Go ahead, Pixie.
	I'm going to say I do think that comparing averages does give us greater insight what's like fairness or not.
	So for example, Michael Phelps competing with other Olympic swimmers is much more fair than Michael Phelps competing against like a completely average swimmer.
	So obviously there's something to be said about people within like the same leagues or performing around the same level.
	And that's why we have like golden versus bronze versus like silver categories.
	Well, no, that would just be awards for the language.
	Yeah, no, no, but I'm saying like, sorry, I should have said division one, division two, division three.
	Sure.
	So you're saying people who are of the same type, it would be fair for the people of the same type to compete against each other.
	So we've already established that trans women and real women are not of the same type, so they shouldn't compete against each other.
	That's why that's why we're also saying that when it comes to like hormones or certain supplements, if the divide gets bridged enough, then it might open to new discussion or different discussion.
	So that's why we're saying that.
	If you keep yourself full of enough hormones, then the trans woman who is not a real woman could become a real woman.
	It's not about being a real woman, because as we said before, these are not just matters of the flesh, as you stated before.
	A lot of this is about societal perception of what a woman is, and that goes back to certain actions and certain looks.
	So in our day-to-day life, that's what we rely the concept of woman on.
	Actions and looks.
	But yeah, but I just guess I wouldn't trust society more than I would trust objective truth.
	I think that 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong.
	I think that actually the majority of people can be aware of.
	How do you think what's the best way to arrive at objective truth?
	I wish we could go there.
	Unfortunately, we have five more hours.
	What's that?
	We'd have five more hours.
	We do have to wrap up here pretty soon.
	I do want to give you guys, if you want, make a brief final thought or closing statement.
	And before you guys do that, though, do know that we are in about an hour.
	We will be live again with our dating talk at about 5 p.m. Pacific.
	But if you guys want, I'd like to open it up to you guys to make some closing statements if you'd like.
	So, ladies first.
	Ladies first.
	I guess I'll just say what I was going to say.
	Yeah, our principles on fairness are, it is a philosophical question, but you could say, okay, the principle here is we want to make sure that nobody has a really big unfair advantage to another person, and then you use science and data because that is better than anecdotal evidence.
	We have levels of evidence that are stronger and weaker to information.
	We want to use philosophical.
	Yeah, to inform.
	That's my point.
	Yeah.
	Okay, that would be, and thank you for coming.
	You're great.
	And it was really fun.
	Get at it.
	Yeah, and she was great too.
	I think she won.
	Okay, I guess my general closing statements are thoughts.
	I'm going to take it out of the trans debate right now.
	I do wish that we went more a little bit about the nature versus nurture of women and men.
	I do think that there is something to be said that there has had to be consistent laws in place that prevent women from getting a bank account, from being able to pursue higher education, being able to get certain jobs.
	I think that speaks to this idea that there is more of a sociological component than a biological component of why women haven't necessarily been as interested in finances or other fields as such.
	So that's where I stand when it comes to the nature versus nurture stuff of things.
	I think things sometimes are greatly exaggerated when it comes to women's natural proclivities and all.
	Thanks for coming.
	Before the show, you said it's morally depraved to be a munch.
	Do you stand by that statement?
	Oh, yeah, we were discussing the previous version.
	I learned a lot of jargon.
	I learned 304s.
	I learned munch.
	I learned.
	There were a few other.
	Do you remember the other ones I learned?
	Luckily, I've forgotten.
	But yeah, you raised the question of, you know, it confused me because you have no problem simulating Fallatia right next to you.
	But why is it?
	What I would say is a simulation is very different from the actual act.
	Do you condemn this act?
	I certainly condemn this act.
	Yes.
	This is deeply different.
	It's all her existence and stealing.
	No, no, no, no, not her existence, fellatio.
	Oh, yeah, I think that sex ought to be turned to proper ends, which are open to life.
	Wait, what?
	It's a cigar.
	He said anything.
	Sometimes a cigar is just a mess.
	That's why I was asking about it.
	Sometimes it's not.
	Yeah, I think sex should be turned to proper ends.
	That's your closing.
	Is that about my preference?
	He said we get into it.
	We didn't do it, so I was kidding.
	That's my closing statement.
	Yeah, that's.
	Okay.
	With that image in my head, I guess my closing statement would be the point that you brought up that we haven't talked about the nature versus nurture and why women don't go into finance as much and why they don't do this and why they don't do that.
	And women were barred by law and custom from having certain financial responsibilities and from voting even.
	We even talk about voting.
	And I guess my question with all of that is, if in some unforeseen future women really all want to take over Wall Street, and there are some women on Wall Street, but generally not that many.
	And if they really want to do that, okay, all right, I guess.
	I just, I don't see any particular good in that.
	Even if I don't see bad necessarily, and I'm not saying I don't, but I don't see any particular good.
	Why do I care?
	Why do I want some woman to work on Wall Street?
	Why do I care?
	One brings up the vote.
	I like voting, I guess.
	But it's just, I vote because I want as an instrument to have good government.
	If you told me right now, Michael, the millennials lose their right to vote and you're going to get, millennials are big libs anyway, and you're going to get more conservatives, I'd say, okay, here's my right to vote.
	I don't really care.
	I mean, I just think there are all sorts of forms of good government, and we want government to do good and avoid evil.
	So, you know, before feminism, we had a far greater focus on the family and family cohesion and a view of the sexes that was complementary and not merely commercial.
	And, you know, we talked about the excesses of capitalism.
	I'm with you, girl.
	I totally agree.
	You've got to circumscribe capitalism.
	And we had views of the sexes that were not at each other's loggerheads.
	You know, these stupid men who are just, you know, vicious and who aren't up to your standards.
	Yeah, they probably aren't up to your standards.
	I agree.
	And we have to grow and help edify one another and ideally, you know, help each other get to heaven, but at least have good lives here and have kids.
	And, you know, I totally agree with all of that.
	But that requires not just thinking that feminism's gone too far.
	That requires recognizing that feminism gets it wrong at the very beginning.
	Like the first lady who ever was a feminist got it wrong.
	And so I think that we need to, if you want to run away from natural roles, be my guest.
	I don't really care.
	Do what you want to do.
	But we need to recognize that women ought to be allowed, and our economy doesn't currently allow it, to pursue those natural roles.
	And for that, maybe that for a woman means she's going to raise kids and she's going to cook, and maybe she will be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
	And for men, maybe that means they're going to go out and they're going to work in an office and they're going to come home on a nice Saturday night and they're going to smoke a Mayflower cigar by going to MayflowerCigars.com and ordering them.
	I think they're back in stock, but you have to be 21 years old or older to order.
	And some exclusions may apply.
	All right.
	Okay.
	There you go.
	Can we pull out the colours?
	Only buy judgment jafar.me.
	What's that?
	Can we plug our OFs if you plugged his company?
	Oh, was that a plug?
	I was just waxing philosophy.
	We actually only allow tobacco-related plugs, unfortunately.
	I mean, if you guys have Cigarellos or cigarette brand you'd like to plug, then I think you know a six million.
	Oh, there you have it.
	There it is.
	Mayflower.
	Oh, hey, okay.
	Okay, oh, nice.
	So we call it my OnlyFansa?
	Yeah, well, I'm not sure about that one.
	But, all right, guys, thank you for tuning in, everybody.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you to the wonderful panel here.
	Appreciate you guys coming.
	As previously mentioned, we will be live in about another 45 minutes with our dating talk episode.
	Michael Knowles will be on that.
	Are you sticking around?
	We have a different panel for that.
	Totally different panel.
	If any of them flake, maybe we can wrangle in one of the gals here.
	So thank you to everyone who tuned in.
	And yes, we will be live again at 5 p.m. Pacific.
	Thank you again to the panel.
	07's in the chat.
	We'll be live again.
	Stay tuned.
	About 45 minutes.
	Thank you.

▲