All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2025 - Whatever Podcast
04:55:01
1v1 DEBATE: Woke Male Feminist vs. Jimbob -- Feminism Debate | Whatever Debates #14

Whatever Debates are LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever

|

Time Text
Welcome to a special debate edition of the whatever podcast.
We're coming to 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 soup chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut that's streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
Link for that's in the description.
We do prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs to read a message as TTS.
It's going to be $99 and up, and we will pull those up in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
We're also live on Twitch right now.
You can pull up another tab, go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a follow in a Prime Sub if you have one.
Without further ado, I'm going to introduce our two debaters.
I'm joined today by Jim Bob.
He is a political commentator and a political cartoonist for the Washington Examiner.
Also joining us today is Oliver Niehaus.
He is about to graduate from Oberlin College.
He's triple majoring in political science, philosophy, and legal studies.
He plans to attend law school after graduation.
He's also a political commentator and content creator.
The debate topic for today is, is feminism good for society?
Each of the debaters will have a five-minute opening statement, and then the rest of the show will be open conversation, and there will be some breaks for messages from the audience.
Oliver, you get the opening statement, so go ahead.
Awesome.
Well, thank you very much, Brian, for having me on the show.
And thank you, Jim Bob, for being here and agreeing to have this debate.
I look forward to having a productive exchange of ideas.
So the resolution we're debating, as Brian mentioned, was is feminism good for society?
And I'll be arguing in the affirmative that yes, feminism has been good for society and will continue to be good for society.
Before we dive in, I think it's important to clarify how we're defining feminism or how I'm defining feminism in this debate, since definitions matter in any productive conversation to ensure we're not talking past one another.
The version of feminism I'll be defending is the belief that individuals should have the same rights, opportunities, and basic respect and should be given equal opportunities to succeed and not be prevented from doing so on the basis of their sex or gender.
Now notice what this definition does not say.
It doesn't claim that there must be equal outcomes in every field.
One common strawman of feminism is that feminism demands strict 50-50 representation in every field.
Plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, garbage collectors, doctors, members of Congress, and so on.
That's not what I'm arguing for, and that's not really what any feminist is really arguing for.
Feminism doesn't seek to erase all difference and disparities, but what it does seek to do is remove the unjust barriers that often prevent women from entering or advancing in certain fields due to bias, discrimination, or certain expectations of what a man or woman's proper role is.
Another term worth defining, because I think it's going to come up a decent amount, is patriarchy.
Patriarchy is typically understood as a system that advantages men over women, granting them primary power across nearly all domains of society.
So political leadership, moral authority, even epistemic authority, the idea that a man's knowledge or judgment should be inherently trusted more, and control over things like property and wealth.
As with feminism, there are many strawman arguments surrounding patriarchy, so let me address a common one.
Some argue that if men are suffering, whether it's because they dominate in dangerous jobs or are more likely to be victims of violent crime or of higher suicide rates, just to name a few examples, then patriarchy must not exist.
But this misunderstands what patriarchy means.
The existence of male suffering does not disprove patriarchy because patriarchy refers to who holds power, not who experiences hardship.
While men are absolutely harmed by many aspects of the patriarchal system, the people in positions of authority and control remain overwhelmingly male.
So yes, patriarchy can and does harm men as well, but it systematically privileges men in ways that it does not for women.
I have several concrete examples of how our society functions in a patriotic way, or patriotic, patriarchal way, and I'm happy to share those if needed.
But from what I understand of Jim Bob's previously articulated positions, although maybe that's not what we're operating under, he doesn't deny that patriarchy exists.
In fact, he appears to embrace it as a good and natural thing.
So at least for the purpose of this debate, it seems unnecessary to spend time proving that patriarchy exists, so we can instead move on to a more substantive question, which is rather, should it exist?
So, and this is going to be the claim of this debate, I think, largely, is whether patriarchy should exist in some capacity.
Something I've seen Jim Bob do in previous debates is embrace what I view to be another straw man of patriarchy, in which it defines, he defines it narrowly as the idea that men serve as the enforcement arm of society, that only men can uphold law and order, and because they are on average physically better equipped for physical enforcement, they must have this authority.
But this view is not only reductive, it's historically and sociologically incoherent.
Patriarchy is not simply who can win in a fist fight, it's about who writes the laws, sets the norms, controls the institutions, and decides whose voices are taken seriously.
Reducing patriarchy to brute strength is like explaining corporate power by saying CEOs have authority over their companies because they can beat up the interns.
In reality, power is much more upheld by, it's upheld by much more than muscle.
It's reinforced through tradition, ideology, religion, economic control, and legal structures.
The force doctrine idea here strips patriarchy of its complexity and reimagines it as this caveman logic of might makes right, which is not only inaccurate, but pretty intellectually lazy.
The major point I want to make in my opening is this.
You're going to hear a lot of claims made from Jim Bob about how feminism has supposedly led to a wide array of disastrous outcomes.
Declining birth rates, labor market saturation and wage stagnation, rising divorce rates initiated by women, and much more.
For every claim he makes, I urge you to ask, has he actually demonstrated that feminism caused these outcomes, or have they merely occurred alongside the rise of feminism?
Because one of the most common fallacies I see from anti-feminists is treating correlation as causation.
Yes, feminism has grown.
So is the gap between the rich and poor.
Yes, feminism has grown and the birth rate has declined.
But that's not evidence of causation.
To those who accept that line of reasoning, I'll remind you that there's a strong correlation between per capita margarine consumption and the divorce rate in Maine, or between the number of Nicholas Cage films released in a given year and the number of accidental drownings in swimming pools.
My point is this, the burden is on Jim Bob to prove that feminism caused these trends, not merely that they happened alongside one another.
And I will argue against this, that these societal shifts are a result of broader economic, cultural, and technological forces that are caused by a combination of many other factors.
But feminism is not one of them.
I won't just refute Jim Bob's claims that feminism has been an overall net negative for society.
I will also affirmatively make the case that feminism has been a force for tremendous good.
Higher GDP in countries that have greater labor force population, driven in large part by expanded opportunities for women, which can be directly linked to more people using their talents to contribute to the economy and society.
Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which have fostered more egalitarian systems and removed many barriers women face in both work and public life, consistently show higher levels of prosperity and innovation.
And we see similar gains in productivity output.
Numerous studies have shown that gender-diverse teams perform better.
A Princeton University study examining over 6 million research papers found teams that composed of both men and women produced more novel and influential work.
Specifically, mixed-gender teams are nearly 10% more likely to publish novel research and over 30% more likely to be highly cited compared to single-gender teams.
And that's not just this, you know, feel-good rhetoric about diversity.
It's measurable, concrete benefits of greater gender inclusion in the sciences and society at large.
I'll wrap it up here, as I'm sure we'll explore many of these specifics further as the debate progresses.
But as I will continue to demonstrate, the case is abundantly clear.
Feminism has had a profoundly positive impact on society, and we must push back firmly and unapologetically against those who seek to drag us backwards.
Thank you.
All right, Jim Bob.
All right.
All right.
Thank you so much.
All right.
The debate is, is feminism good for society?
Oliver defined feminism as individuals having the same rights, equal opportunities in the world, so on and so forth.
I would argue that society, we have to define society real quick.
Society is an aggregate of people living in an ordered system, an ordered community.
I want to focus on that word ordered for a second because without any order, without any force, without any threat of force, you really don't have a society.
So when Oliver says equal rights, equal this, equal that, well, it's descriptively the case that it's not equal because women, regardless of how much they want inequality, it's always enforced by men, which is an inequality.
So there's an irony there that feminism fights for equality but relies on inequality.
So looking at some key components of what makes a society, if you argue a society is good because of this reason, it needs these components.
Law and order is one of the components, which I can't stress enough.
Without it, you have nothing.
If he assumes rights, that assumes law.
If you assume law, that assumes force.
So when Oliver says he reduces it to force, everything Oliver listed in his opening, whether or not you thought it sounded good, the only thing that's operating ultimately is force.
If men decide not to give those things to women, they can do that.
If men decide to give those things to women, they can do that.
Essentially, feminism is a set of grievances and requests, a lot like a child in the room asking for more toys and then arguing for equality and calling the moment where the dad gives them the toys, they call that equality.
It's pretty much like a LARP.
Obligations and duties is a key one.
Oliver even, in his counter to my reduction of the force doctrine, he included something called traditions, right?
Well, obligations and duties is not something that feminism can provide at all.
Feminism just has this major assumption of equality that is in fact an outcome.
So there is no equality of opportunity even among men.
So why would there be equality of opportunity among men and women?
Obligations and duties is a key feature because the vision that Oliver has and many feminists have for society, they have a vision that the world is a certain way where women and men are doing all of these things together.
But the reality is the operation of the world, the society itself, including the hardest manual labor jobs, which he listed, building bridges, tunnels, managing the sewer system.
Suddenly, the feminist assumes that the men have an obligation to keep these things going.
Let's say the men decided to stop all of that work for a second.
They actually do it during strikes.
That's leverage, right?
So the men actually descriptively do have the power.
I am not one of those oppositional people to feminism arguing that the patriarchy doesn't exist.
The patriarchy does exist because it's descriptive of reality.
It can't not exist.
In other words, for feminism to do what it wants to do, it actually appeals to the patriarchy.
It doesn't negate it.
So for instance, if feminism is a movement away from men in power, let's say power is this, this is men, and women are here, the idea is that we lower the men's power or we elevate the women's power.
The problem is it's a request.
It's a request.
So if feminism is a movement away from the men in power and women's rights, let's say, is a feminist movement, why is it the case that women don't give themselves the rights?
It's men who give them the rights.
So if everything they're asking for under this feminist movement is a request from the power, they're actually affirming the patriarchy.
So that's a good question for Oliver to answer during the back and forth.
Why don't women just give themselves the rights?
Why don't they just give it to themselves?
Well, because they can't.
Because collectively, women can't take rights and they can't protect their own rights.
But yet, in the same breath, they're demanding these rights, but they have no obligation.
That's not equality.
So if feminism is about equality, I'm pointing out one very important aspect of society where equality can't possibly exist, nor would I want it to exist.
I want the men in power.
And if you press, especially women, you'll see on this podcast a lot of times, when you press them on this issue, they actually concede that they'd rather have men in these power positions keeping society going.
I want to go back to leverage for a second.
What does the woman have for leverage?
For instance, let's look at voting for a second.
So when men collectively vote, they're basically saying something.
They're saying, I'm not going to group up with other men and overthrow the government.
They're basically communicating.
I'm forfeiting my will to gather other like-minded men, get our guns, and throw a rebellion.
In exchange, I'm going to vote.
Well, when a woman votes, what are they leveraging?
What are they exchanging?
There's nothing on the table for them to exchange.
I would argue the only leverage women actually have in a society is their chastity, is their ability to have children, which is an extreme value.
I would argue it's one of the most valuable things women could appeal to in their political exchanges.
Which leads me to the third part, people.
You need people for a society.
Yes, reducing birth rates is a very important topic, whether you blame it on feminism or anything else.
It's right in front of us.
So the question I would have, if feminism was good for society, how is it that feminism doesn't advocate for children, for women to be mothers, for women to be in the home raising the next generation of children?
After all, a society is made of people, and what good is a good society if it doesn't have good people?
So the question tonight is for Oliver to confront these fundamental issues, the core issues.
And I would argue that there's feminism is essentially in a kind of a performative contradiction.
It says in one hand that they want equality, right?
But they have no obligations.
They say in the same sentence that they want rights, but they have no obligation or ability to even defend their rights.
So to claim you want these things and this is fair, you're already smuggling in that there is a group of men who have to or should be obligated to protect you, defend you.
So I'd ask Oliver, and it'll come up tonight, do men have an obligation to protect women?
Do men have an obligation to enforce law?
Do men have an obligation to fight even in wars to defend so-called rights?
Well, the same obligation can't be made for women because they're collectively incapable, which is why you'll never see in the history of humanity a time where women gave themselves the rights.
If they could have given themselves the rights, they wouldn't be asking the patriarchy to do it.
So yes, I affirm the patriarchy, of course, but the question isn't whether a patriarchy is good for society because societies can't exist without the patriarchy.
It's a necessary argument.
Whereas Oliver is tasked tonight to tell us, me and you and Brian and everyone watching, why is feminism good for society?
I would say it's overall not good for society for a variety of reasons, one of which is the messaging for feminism has largely been sexual liberation for women, women acting more like shitty men, honestly, like that that's liberating, promiscuity, that that's some sort of liberation policy for feminism.
They're right about one thing, though.
Their leverage is sex.
Their leverage is birth, the ability to give birth and be a mother.
The problem with feminism is that it's inverted the power that women have.
Their sexuality, their womb.
It's inverted it and used, convinced them to use that advantage against themselves.
And we're looking at it.
You know, women are more in debt.
Was it a good thing to shove all the women into the workforce?
You think you're empowered until you're 40 and you have three cats and wine-stained teeth and you have no husband or children or legacy.
And then you're dying to be invited to a wedding so you can talk to some groomsmen.
This is not empowering.
We have to reverse this.
We have to reverse it soon.
It's not just an issue of societal collapse, but it's an issue of morality as well, which I hope we get into.
Of course.
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay, well.
Open conversation now?
Yeah, just open conversation.
So I'll just go ahead.
Absolutely.
I'd love to kind of get into this idea of the force doctrine.
I want to just kind of make sure we have a mutual understanding there.
So is your view that the force doctrine is the idea that the patriarchy itself is inevitable because men possess greater physical strength generally than women, that they can at any time impose their will upon women?
Yes, they can impose their will on women and men.
Sure.
Okay, so I guess I'm wondering, even if we grant this idea that men are stronger than women generally, does like potential equate to actual?
Like, do you think that that is kind of a general idea that we can operate off of?
Like, what could be the case is what should define how things are right now.
I would use more of like induction.
It's always been the case, and it seems to be always the case, similar to the sunrising, that men overall are going to be the ones enforcing and defending, offending, defending.
And there's never been a case where women actually grant themselves the so-called rights that they're asking for or take those rights.
So it goes both ways.
Men can activate their force, take things from people.
Men could activate their force and defend that people have things too.
Now, feminism is the latter.
So the question is, can women collectively overtake the patriarchy?
I mean, I think they technically could.
I mean, so I think when we're talking about what could happen, we're talking about hypothetical things.
So the entirety of men, I don't think will ever agree on like enslaving women.
Just like every single person, there's always going to be some men that oppose them.
Of course, there's going to be, you know, maybe those men might win out in certain scenarios, but there's always going to be some men that are against them.
So we're never going to have a situation where all men are trying to enslave women.
So when I'm thinking about this, and I thought about this hypothetical, and I think it was brought up on a previous podcast episode, women could hypothetically, as you talked about, leverage the fact that they give birth and either kill themselves or kill their male offspring.
And if they did that, and if they collectively did that, then they would have that power, right?
Well, if they can do that, men could hypothetically counter that by using force to stop that from happening, right?
I'm not sure.
You know, I think that if people want to end a pregnancy, if people want to end their own lives, they're very determined to do that.
And I would be, I don't, I don't think that's the problem.
But if it came down to force, if it came down to force, if it came down to force, the woman would have a tougher, the collection of women who you convince to work against their own existence and their children's existence, which is pretty close to feminism already.
Men could actually step in and reverse that.
For instance, abortion is a perfect example of it.
Women are fighting for the right to terminate their own children, right?
Legally, safely.
Right.
Is that a good thing?
No, in my view, yeah, I'm pro-choice.
So it's already a good thing.
So your hypothetical was, well, there could be a moment where women start terminating their own children.
I'm saying they're already doing that in the millions.
Wait, no, no, no.
They do.
They do that legally.
But what happens when abortion is illegal?
What's legal, though?
No, no.
No, but that goes to my point, Lonnie.
Oliver, what does legal assume, though?
Well, that it is permitted by society.
And permitted, and if it wasn't permitted.
Women would do it anyway.
So hold on a second.
No, no, that's not the point.
The point is, when you say legal, you're appealing to force doctrine.
I'm not denying that there is some role of enforcement in society.
Anything legal assumes the patriarchy.
So this is what in my opening statement, Oliver, I want you to get is anything you think is good for women as a permission of behavior is going to be permitted and allowed by a collection of men with guns.
Sure.
So, my question would be, because you're defining patriarchy as the fact that men will always need to enforce things.
That men will always need to.
I think that is a poor definition of patriarchy because it...
What else would it be, though?
Okay.
Okay.
Well, I kind of gave a definition at the beginning here, this idea that it is a general idea that men hold more societal institutional power, things of that nature.
They write the laws, they create the norms and the systems.
That goes beyond just mere brute force.
It really is.
Because think about this.
Why don't the workers of a company just on a whim all the time overthrow the CEO?
Because it's illegal because of men.
Well, sure, but they could.
If every single, or do you think there are more people technically of the working class that if they got together, they could overthrow the CEO?
If there was no legality to it?
Like when you say CEO and company, hold on, hold on.
When you say CEO and company, you're already assuming law again.
So you're using these terms to your head.
I know, but Oliver, you're using terms and distinctions that necessitate that law already exists, right?
That the force application already exists.
I'm arguing from your perspective, it's better for you to say the patriarchy is good for feminism.
Why?
Because whatever you call feminism requires the patriarchy.
So this would be an argument that's equivalent to saying having a militaristic authoritarian government is good for democracy.
That's a good thing.
Well, no, democracy itself actually could produce authoritative government.
No, no, it can.
I'm correct.
But would you say that because it is technically possible for the military to overtake the democratic government, that democracy itself doesn't exist?
No, I'm saying democracy itself requires the force.
Sure, but the will, people voting doesn't actually matter.
It's a good idea.
Here, I'll ask it a different way.
Can you give me a hypothetical of where a kind of feminism could exist in the vision you have, but doesn't require the collective of men using force to protect it?
I think there could be examples where women have superior technology.
We're the ones that they're able to, you know, if they have a majority of the weapons, we can imagine this.
Who builds weapons?
I mean, mostly.
Why does it matter who necessarily wins?
Hold on.
It matters, Oliver, because I asked you, can you give me a hypothetical where women could express their feminism and exist in a feminist society or whatever you are envisioning without the men?
The men are building these weapons.
Because the men have always built the weapons.
No, because you're appealing to the penalty.
No, to justify this happening to you.
Do you own a weapon?
What?
Do you own a weapon?
Like a firearm?
Okay, yeah.
No, I'm not a firearm.
Okay.
So larger weaponry, even a firearm, the majority of a large portion of women can't even cock a gun.
They can't clean a gun.
They can't.
Hold on.
They can't break.
Hold on.
They can't break down a gun.
Okay.
And they can't carry larger equipment.
So if you're arguing that the great equalizer is military equipment from small to large, that takes brute strength not only to make, but to maintain and to transport.
And you're basically granting yourself that.
You're just saying, like, look, Santa came.
It wasn't the men who actually engineered and moved these large things around for us to use, right?
Remote control bombing and whatnot, all these missile silos and whatnot.
This requires massive amount of brute strength, right?
You're just granting yourself the fruits of the brute strength in the hypothetical and saying, well, it could be the case that women could just find a pile of missiles in the woods and then it's the great equalizer.
That's not the argument that I'm going to say.
I'm saying without men, what does a collection of women do to sustain their what does a collection of weaker men do without stronger men?
No, that's I'm arguing for the stronger men.
Okay, so then your argument is basically that whoever is the strongest man out there, whoever has the most brute power right there, they are the ones who dictate society.
Dictate society.
So you are grateful then to men who are stronger than you.
To the patriarchy.
You are grateful to men that are stronger than you for enforcing it.
So why should you necessarily have rights?
I don't believe in rights.
Okay.
I mean, so why then why should your vote be protected?
Why should you?
I don't believe in vote.
I don't think I should vote necessarily, but certainly not women, because if you remember in my opener, would you agree that when a collective of very strong men, stronger than me and you, right?
The big burly ones with the cross-eyed, right?
If they don't vote, would you agree that the alternative to voting would be just rebellion or brute force if they didn't agree with the government, the government?
I mean, I think it still is.
They can vote and they can still use brute force.
I'm saying that when, I'm not saying they could vote.
I'm not saying they can't vote and then suddenly be like, you know what?
I know I voted, but I'm going to still do this.
I'm saying, generally speaking, the act of voting for men collectively, aren't they saying I'm not going to rebel?
I don't think they're necessarily saying they're not going to rebel.
They're saying that I would prefer not to.
Perfect.
I think I can get what I want by not using brute forces.
Fair enough.
I'll grant you that.
It's just that if they prefer not to, I'm saying that the alternative is that they could, right?
Sure.
Okay.
Women, if you switch it over to women, if women, they all start voting, right?
What are they forfeiting?
What do you mean?
What are they forfeiting?
If the man is forfeiting, he is.
He's basically saying, I'm going to vote, and I'm going to hope that the outsourced force application, which is the military and the justice system and everything else included, right?
They're outsourcing their brute force.
Now, if they disagree and they decide voting isn't for you anymore and you're going to start a rebellion, they could do that.
What I'm asking you, Oliver, is can women do that?
I don't necessarily think that, I don't like most women can, but I don't think most men can either.
I don't think most men can.
What you're doing is you're ascribing the quality of brute force to all men.
No, no, no.
Because there are a number of categories.
No, I am actually appealing to categories.
I'm saying when it comes to categories, it's like saying this.
Are you in a category of beings that can think and do logic?
Yeah.
Can all human beings do logic?
Not necessarily.
No.
No.
But I'm appealing to the ones that can are in a certain category.
What I'm saying is that category, Oliver, is men.
No, no, no, not necessarily.
It's never a collection of women.
No, no, no.
It could be young men.
Why should old men get rights because young men are the ones that are defending them?
No, no, no.
It's not that who gets rights.
You're making an argument.
You're the one affirming rights.
I'm not, right?
Your whole view on feminism, my counter to feminism isn't about rights.
I don't even believe in rights.
Your view is that women have rights that's good.
I'm asking you, well, why isn't it the case, you think, Oliver, that women gave themselves the right to vote?
Why did they appeal to another body of people to get the right to vote?
Because they're the ones who controlled society.
Like, I don't really know what you're basically making like a massive just is-aught distinction.
No, I didn't say ought.
I didn't say ought.
I didn't say ought.
Then I can agree with your entire descriptive claim and say, yeah, then that's what it's like.
Yeah, but if it's descriptively true that the ones you're going to be appealing to from the woman's perspective is always a collection of strong men, then your argument that you're making the ought normative statement that we ought to pursue feminism, that it's good for society.
What I'm saying is that anything you call feminism actually affirms the patriarchy.
No, because you're defining patriarchy in terms of the enforcement armed enforcement.
What else could it be?
It's not because it's not, because patriarchy, as I talked about before, is a bunch of different things together.
Okay, I'm happy to go up.
One at a time.
Okay, I'm happy to do that.
It's typically understood as a system that advantages men over women, granting them primary access across all domains of the people.
Stop there.
Stop there.
One at a time.
Okay.
Is brute strength an advantage over women?
Not necessarily.
It can be, but it not always is the case.
Okay.
Is it a advantage over women?
It can be, but not all men are stronger than all women.
I understand.
But generally speaking, if there's a collection of men and a collection of women and there's the same amount of each, it's going to be the case that the collection of men, even if they're weak men, are going to be stronger than the women, right?
True.
Okay.
However, no, no, no.
Next on the list.
No, no, but you're, this is important.
You're assuming that all the men will necessarily agree to impose their will.
I'm not talking about what they're agreeing.
I'm saying they could.
Not whether they agree.
Women could kill their children.
It doesn't matter.
That's not, that's, then you don't have a society.
Okay, cool.
So everyone could pursue their own self-interest.
Society would implode, and where are we?
That's, we're at liberalism.
That's what feminism is.
Pursuing your own self-interest and your wants.
That's what you trained women to do under feminism.
Pursue your individualism.
There's no greater obligation for women.
Like, for instance, under feminism, is there any obligation to have children?
No.
There's no obligation for men to have children either.
Hold on.
Having children is not an obligation.
It depends on the worldview, but generally, just being a man, yes, you're not obligated.
This is why the ought, which is your affirmative tonight, does require a meta-ethical position, right?
Okay, that's what I'm getting to.
So under your view, if it's the case that feminism doesn't have an ought to have children, is it a society better?
Let's say there was a society without feminism, but it had the, it didn't affirm your idea of feminism, but it produced an ought statement of obligation to have children.
Is that society better than the feminist one?
No.
Well, if it survives, is it better?
Not necessarily.
I don't think a society is surviving in which women have zero rights and zero, you know, are not well off.
What's a right?
What?
Can you define a right?
An entitlement.
Entitlement.
So are there any, if an entitlement, is that given to someone?
In a large sense, yeah.
Men and women, it's given to them.
Who gives women entitlements?
Society.
Well, that's pretty vague.
Well, but it is society.
We as a society decide on what's going on.
Hold on.
Let's give it.
Let's look at the 19th Amendment for a second.
When women started screaming, some of them, the minority, by the way, were started screaming for the right to vote, right?
Who are they screaming to to give them the right to vote?
People who were in power were men.
But you're just making a statement that that was the case.
I'm asking you, why do they appeal to the men in power and not just give themselves rights?
Because those are the people that are in power.
I'm asking, they were excluded from being in power.
So when is it where women will be in the power position where men are asking women for rights?
When there are women who are in power.
Wait a second.
If there is a female CEO and a man walks into her office and is like, I would like a raise, is he not asking her to grant him some sort of privilege or some sort of benefit?
Absolutely.
Yeah, but this is not the same category as a raise because the raise doesn't depend ult.
Well, actually, it does.
It depends ultimately on force, which appeals to men.
So the question for you, Oliver, was this.
It appears to people who have the ability to enforce it.
Yeah, people have the ability to force, to enforce unjust or just laws.
So when you want a just law, when a bunch of women, right, when they wanted the right to vote, they were asking other people to give them the right to vote.
That's how all rights work.
I understand.
Rights work because they're enforced by brute force every time.
Yeah, there requires enforcement.
So I don't.
So they don't enforce.
I know.
It's not about all men.
It's that the fact that the people enforcing are going to be predominantly men.
And if they were predominantly women, they couldn't enforce it.
Let's switch it for a second.
Hold on, let's switch it again.
Men want the power, the right to vote, right?
Let's switch the history, right?
Men want the right to vote.
The enforcement are women as you see them today.
Not as we'd say today.
If we want to flip the entirety of history.
No, Wait a second.
If we're not going to be able to do that.
We're not changing all us equals.
No, no, no.
No, you can't do that.
No, that's not how society develops.
No, that's how hypothetical works.
But you can't change the hypothetical and not change the relevant variables.
Look.
We would have to have society exist so that women over the entire course of history had built everything, had excluded men.
No, I didn't say men are women.
I'm saying in this instance, in this instance, right?
Well, that's the thing is you're actually agreeing with me that throughout history, why is it that men with the brute force built all of the things?
Like everything you see, right?
All the big skyscrapers, the tunnels, the bridges, underwater welders, all these things.
Are you going to say that it just happens to be a social construct that it happened to be men?
Or is that a feature of biology?
So first off, I think that there's this general idea that men built society and women did not play an integral or fundamental role to do that.
I would say that.
No, no, but look.
Hold on, just let him finish.
Yeah, no, you're good.
It's fine.
I'm fine with the back and forth.
So it's okay.
Yeah.
So what I'm saying here is that there were women who made very important advancements in almost every part of every part of advancement of infrastructure, advancement of industry that you just don't know about.
Have some examples you'd like me to bring up.
No, no, an advancement.
Is that an idea?
I mean, sure, we can talk about individuals.
Okay, so this is a straw man.
No, I didn't say they're not important.
I didn't say women can't think of cool things.
All right.
We're talking about society.
Let's say this city we're in right now.
It's maintained.
It's erected, maintained by mostly men.
Sure, operating on what?
Brute force.
Not just brute force, organization and SIPs and ideas.
It's based on ideas.
That's fine, but without the brute force, you can't have the management of the roads.
For instance, this is why I talk about leverage, okay?
Men who run the city, who actually use their force and their will to get under in tunnels and get dirty and die doing these things, right?
Okay.
To maintain.
If they suddenly said, no, I'm not doing this, do you really think women could just step in and do all the same work?
No, and I think that if women collectively decided they're not going to have children and kill themselves, men could free and have the children.
So then this is an equivalent thing.
No, no, no.
You agree with me?
Women and men can both withhold something that is essential that they provide to society.
Oliver, you agree with me.
The opening statement that I made was this.
The leverage women have, the important aspect of women in society is being mothers and raising good human beings first and foremost.
No.
Yes.
No, but that is one of the things that they can do.
That's the most simple.
What's the most important thing then under feminism though?
That's the most important thing?
People having the choice to do what benefits.
They don't have the choice.
What do you mean they don't have the choice?
What person has full choice in doing what they want?
None of us have choices then.
We don't.
We are all a slave to the person who's stronger than us.
That's right.
So then where does this get off the ground?
All you're claiming is might not be right.
No, I didn't say right.
I'm saying descriptively it's the case.
I'm asking you from your perspective, if it's not, if we agree that the leverage men have is brute strength such that they could basically hit a button called, I'm not going to work tomorrow and the city collapses.
And I asked you point blank, could women do the same job immediately and get the city moving again?
You said no.
But then you said, but women could leverage their bodies, right?
Women could kill their children.
I don't know.
That's right.
But what do you, you're talking about people have been put into spheres.
Women have been designated to the domestic sphere and men have been designated historically.
Is that a construct?
What?
Is that a construct?
I think largely it can be.
No, is it?
I think in a certain sense it is, but there is, I'm not denying that men are stronger than women generally and thus they have developed on different paths.
You're just claiming that because women are, I mean, in a certain sense, women, having to be pregnant is a burden upon someone's body that affects their ability to contribute to society in the same way.
If women weren't sidelined by pregnancy, then so there's a biological aspect I agree with, okay, we both agree there.
The biological aspect of men collectively, not every individual man, but collectively, generally speaking, men are geared towards certain behavior, certain work, certain kinds of things, high-risk things.
Women are geared more towards something else.
And so if that's true, this is what I'm asking you, Oliver.
Under your feminist view that you're advocating for, saying feminism is good for society, if it's not the best thing for women under your vision of feminism, if it's not the best thing for women to be at home raising good human beings, Using their top leverage, we both agree.
One of their top leverage points is— I don't think every man should become a boxer and beat the shit out of people.
I didn't say that.
You don't need boxers for society.
You need people.
Hold on.
You don't need boxers for society.
You need humans.
Okay, you do need humans.
But you do need, you're saying that every man therefore would be better off utilizing their brute strength at all.
Look, this isn't my positive position.
I'm asking you under your feminist view, which you're affirming tonight.
So you're under cross-examination.
So what, I'm just asking you a simple question.
If it's not motherhood and raising the next generation of good humans, what is the higher obligation for women from a feminist view, from your view?
No one has an obligation to necessarily raise a generation.
The reason is because no wait, I want to explain this because I think this is important and it's brought up a lot.
Feminism has no obligations is something I've heard you say before.
I don't think that's true.
One of the obligations or one of the things that's not an obligation under feminism is to raise children because no one has an obligation to do that.
However, you will always have people who have children in a society because people want to have kids.
That's just something that happens.
So, what we should do is we should incentivize people to have children by giving them the most economic resources available, the most personal freedom available, so that the people can make those decisions.
We should not go straight to let's force women to be in the home.
Nobody said force, okay?
Well, you were using the force doctrine.
No, no, just because I appeal descriptively to force doctrine is something that you cannot avoid in any paradigm, it doesn't follow that I'm advocating to force women to have children.
I'm asking from your perspective: if feminism is good for society and society requires both force and people, I'm asking what's the obligatory position from your view that men and women have, and are they different?
They don't have distinct differences.
Okay, so if there's no obligations under feminism, what's gender-specific obligations?
Oh, so when a so when a um so there's no okay, so there's no obligation for men under your feminist society to no to enforce rights.
There's not an obligation.
No, wait, there there is not an obligation.
Is that gendered?
No, no, no, there is not an obligation for individuals to enforce anything.
You don't have to become a police officer.
So, what how could you argue what's good for society?
X is good for society.
Society has preconditions.
Do you agree?
When we refer to society, we're talking about an aggregate of people living in an ordered community, right?
I don't think society necessarily has to be ordered, but I would say that the women are.
I'll give us the definition you're providing, but I don't think the society has to be ordered.
There can be a society in chaos.
Well, to say it's in chaos means it's bordered.
You could actually look at it and say that society's in chaos and this one's not.
Sure, I guess.
So that's ordered.
No, you're defining ordered then as just distinct.
That's fine, sure.
Societies are distinct and separate from each other.
That's fine.
So, but if you're saying, would you, aren't you arguing tonight that feminism would assume if you thought it was good that it would be ordered?
Sure.
Okay.
So feminists, okay, if feminism is good for society and society, the way you're referring to it is ordered, it requires force, which is gendered, and it requires duties that are tied to that force, which are gendered.
No, I, yeah, because you're arguing for women's rights.
No, I disagree with the first part, that this idea of enforcement is inherently gendered.
Give me a counterexample.
Men don't have to enforce the law.
That's right.
Is that the society you want to live in?
Men will enforce law and women will enforce the law.
People step up.
No, because you're arguing that if we don't tell people you have to enforce the law, you have to become a police officer, then no one will step up and do that.
I think we can incentivize people and give them the most freedom possible, and individuals will gravitate towards the industries of society.
Is society?
Okay, let me ask it a different way.
Is society, is a society better?
Let's say society A has built into its meta-ethical position that it has that men have the obligation to keep order with force, and then another society that doesn't have that obligation.
Which society is you think is better?
Well, you're assuming in the first one that that meta-ethical obligation would therefore entail that those people would follow that right?
Well, yeah, well, the obligation would include potential legality, but more so maybe social pressure of obligation.
If that exists, let's say it was a society that appealed to women's rights, and there was an obligation for men to defend women and protect their rights versus your feminist hypothetical society that doesn't have any obligations ultimately.
Well, what's one obligation?
I think people should defend those who are more vulnerable than they are.
In general, no, no, no, but women aren't just those who are more vulnerable because, of course, we can see that there are women who are stronger than men.
We can see that there are young men who are stronger than older men.
Particularly.
Yeah, of course we should talk about particularly.
Well, you are talking about, you're making, you're kind of making men and women out to be this homogenous group, that they're all existing.
They're in separate domains, and that's just not.
No, it does have, it is how it works, and I'm demonstrating that generality is a perfectly fine thing to do.
I mean, you can take a bunch of particulars, add them up, and come up with a generalization.
That's just basic induction.
So inductively, isn't it the case that it's best, it seems to be the best way to do it, that men, it just happens to be the case, that men are in the positions to enforce and defend and go to war?
You know, why is it that men and women have different prison systems?
Why do men and women have different prison systems?
I'm fully in favor of that.
I know, but couldn't you say, Your Honor, you're just, there are women who are, some women who are stronger than men, and there are some men, you know, and vice versa and stuff, and appeal to these particulars.
But isn't it the case that a prison system is a perfect example of the generality that I'm actually arguing from?
Sure, but now you're making ought claims.
On what basis are you making ought claims?
I didn't make an ought claim.
Well, you're saying men and women ought to be indifferent.
I said descriptively the case, there's a reason why they are.
But that reason is based in an ought claim.
Of course it is.
Do we have a duty to keep women away from outside of men's prisons?
Do we have a duty?
I mean, I think a society from your point of view, I don't I don't think I don't think I think what you're doing is you're specifying duties really specifically.
The duty is not to keep women out of men's prisons.
The duty is to keep vulnerable, people who are more vulnerable.
Women.
Not always necessarily.
I don't think we should.
Who commits more aggressive acts against?
Of course it's men.
I'm not arguing that it's not men, but I think that in principle, we should keep a very, you know, a man that is weaker away from a woman who is a serial killer.
Well, that's a particular.
I'm talking about prisons, though.
So why is it in your ideal feminist society, why is it that if you're fighting for equality, why is it you still have separate prisons?
What do you mean?
I'm not, well, here's the thing that I put in my feminism thing.
We're not denying that there are disparities or differences.
We don't deny that there's disparities or differences between groups of men.
That doesn't mean that we think that men— I still ask you why, though.
What?
I— The question was, why in your society are you obligated, from your perspective, you're arguing tonight, to keep prisons separate?
Wait, who is obligated?
Society as a whole?
Is your ideal society?
Look, it's Oliver's world right now.
Oliver is saying feminism is good for society.
That means there's a type of society that appeals to feminism and practices it.
I'm asking you from an outsider.
Pretend I'm visiting.
And I'm like, why do you guys separate your prisons?
What's your answer?
I think we should largely separate prisons because, yeah, there are differences between men and women.
And I don't think.
And I think that men, you know, if men are, especially men who are violent, especially men who are in prison, who have shown a lack of care for the safety of those around them, I think we should also ensure that men aren't hurting other men in prison either.
I don't know.
So now I'm going to ask you, if you argue that women are generally collectively more vulnerable than men, and that's why there's a good reason, I'm not arguing that there aren't some weak men that could be protected from stronger men, but we're talking about male-female here.
Why, though?
Why are we talking about that?
Why don't we go?
Because you are creating two categories, and I'm saying that of course the categories exist, but you are making the claim that because Y is weaker than X, right?
As a general rule.
As a general rule, Y is weakened.
Therefore, we have an obligation.
I mean, an obligation.
We should have separate prisons or something like that.
Why can't we do that intra-gender, if that makes sense?
Well, if you agree, and if you agree that there's a good reason to have women and men's prisons separated, then I'm going to ask you, Where's the threshold where you no longer follow that rule outside of the prison?
What do you think?
I'm asking, where else in society are you willing to separate the women for the same reason?
Willing to separate women for the same reason?
Yeah.
I don't know.
For instance, let me give you a particular example.
Is it better in your ideal feminist society that a weak woman is at home with her children and her husband at 11.30 p.m. or signing out of her penthouse office with her lanyard, coming down the elevator at 11.30 p.m., potentially the victim of a male crime?
I think you are reducing what is best for women at like a homogenous level or a group that's going to be bad.
Just one example.
No, I don't.
What's better?
You're saying what's better because you're assuming that this woman is going to be assaulted or something.
Well, no.
And yeah, I would rather not have a woman get assaulted, of course.
Well, then more likely, though.
No, no, but the solution to that problem is not to say, okay, we need to keep all women in the home because men can't stop graping them.
Like, that's not really how we should operate the society.
Well, actually, the fact that it's mostly men graping women goes to my point that the specific, the specific argument tonight, it comes back to the force doctrine every single time.
It's never the case where you're going to be collectively writing rules and basically making society around this view that women, that we should protect men from women ever, right?
We should protect men from everyone.
But no, no, I'm saying, generally speaking, we don't structure society in a way that gears toward the concern of women aggressing men.
It's usually the other way around, right?
I mean, I think we should do both.
Like, I don't know.
I feel like a consequence of the patriarchy and these norms that we have is that men can't be victims of abuse.
Men can't be physically abused by women.
And I think that's a problem.
We should not have that.
If a man is subject to persistent physical abuse, that should be taken seriously by a woman.
Do you think that with enough manpower, we can take down the patriarchy?
With enough manpower?
I think with enough societal organization, with enough, like, I don't know, yeah, work, we can do it, of course.
We can restructure society.
Of course, we can restructure society.
So with enough manpower, we can restructure away from the patriarchy.
With enough change, we can get away from the patriarchy.
I don't know, like, you're arguing that, like, because men have to do it, therefore it's invalid or something.
Well, that's kind of what I'm asking is, like, if I ask someone with enough manpower and resources, could you take down the thing that's literally going to be mirroring what you're aggregating in resources?
In other words, to take down the patriarchy, you need to find a bunch of strong people to fight against this bunch of strong people.
And the bunch of strong people you're going to find are going to look exactly like the collection of people you're going to be fighting against.
So it's never the case where you go, let's revolt against this tyrannical body of men who are impeding on our rights.
You never go out and knock on the doors and grab the women first.
I mean, in order to fight?
Yeah.
Sure.
You also wouldn't grab weak men.
Well, no, you would.
You wouldn't.
Why not?
No.
Why?
Because they're still stronger than the women.
No.
You're saying, I think there are, I think the echelon of weakest men out there would absolutely be less strong than the average woman.
I'm not sure if you take the same body frame, if you knock on a door and it's like the same height, right?
And even weight, if you're going to go to war, you're going to grab the dude.
It's not just because of force, though.
Would you agree that men are more likely to exert aggression, even for bad reasons, than women?
Sure, yeah.
Okay.
So if you're going to war, you would want someone who is able, capable, and willing to exert their aggression on another aggressor.
Whereas if it's generally the case, women are a little more timid.
Why are they, though?
Why are they more likely to exercise their aggression?
I think biology.
I don't necessarily think that's the case.
Do you have a son?
Do I have a son?
No, I don't.
I do.
So are you saying that...
Well, you're raising yourself now.
Well, no, I'm saying that.
Of course your woman's going to reflect your worldview.
Well, no, no, no, a three-year-old, and even beforehand, you're going to notice when you become a father god willing, which is anti-feminist, you're going to see that there's a clear distinction between boys and girls in their very instinct and the way they even behave and express themselves.
And the aggressive ones, the males, are aggressive.
You just see it right in front of you.
That is not necessarily the case for all boys.
I didn't say all.
I said, generally speaking.
Wait, but you're also raising your son specifically.
Everything you do is in a gendered sense.
You're raising your son to be what your version is.
You don't think we should affirm gendered society?
I don't necessarily think we should tell people that there's a correct way to be a man or a correct way to be a woman.
So no, I don't think that we should raise our sons to be aggressive, to show their, you know, like, like, I don't know, like that, that aggression is a good way to get what you want or something like that.
Well, I'm not saying that, but ultimately aggression and violence is an excellent way to get what you want.
It works better.
It's more critically.
Would you rather your son, primarily when he has a disagreement with someone, like at school or something like that, get into a fistfight with the kid?
Or would you rather have him have the communication skills to be able to talk that disagreement out?
Well, in that instance, the ideal is to keep them in a system, right, than to fight.
We're not talking about whether or not violence is useful every time.
No, just change it.
It's more often useful or not.
It's not more often useful or not.
We're talking about maintain.
The reason this came up is we're talking about maintaining society.
For instance, like, let's take another thing.
Would I rather the security guard at my school use force to stop an aggressor or talk to them nicely like the teacher does?
So, wait, it would depend on the situation.
No, no, no, but I do absolutely think that in a lot of these situations, de-escalation can be effective and be more effective than just.
Violence is great de-escalation.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
Are you serious?
Wait a second.
You're one assuming that the violence will be successful in its aim, and two, that it won't have other ramifications.
I think a society that always deals with its problems violently will actually have worse consequences.
I don't think we should encourage kids to beat the shit out of the world.
Nobody's saying that.
But that's what you're saying.
No, I don't think violence is a very effective way to get what you want.
I didn't say they ought.
I described that it is.
You keep confusing ought and descriptions.
First off, I actually don't think it is because it can become self-defeating.
If your way of always resolving conflict is resorting to violence, people will be less likely to associate with you.
People will be less likely to be around you?
Yeah.
Really?
Okay, so, but if you extrapolate that out, because we're talking about societies right now, is society better with feminism?
Is feminism good for society, right?
The reason this is such an important topic, this violence and force aspect, is because society itself, no matter how you try to poetically describe your vision of feminism, it's always going to be reliant on the threat of force.
And so at this mass scale level, Oliver, you're going to be an advocate for a pointing gun, right, at the society and saying if you aggress over here, force is going to come in.
That's what the violation of a right is, right?
I don't think that's how I would want society to enforce.
You don't want, if you want society with rights, which is in your opening, feminism, individuals having the same equal rights, equal opportunities.
If you want that, you have to enforce it.
Of course you do.
If you want that and you have to enforce it, you need to appeal to inequality.
It's a contradiction.
What do you mean you have to appeal to inequality?
Everyone has to appeal to inequality all the time in order to be in.
Specifically with sexes.
No, no.
Wait a second.
No, because then every man has to appeal to someone who is stronger than him.
Who's a man?
Yeah, but unless, okay, then all men are at the mercy of the man who is stronger.
That's right.
Patriarchy.
That's descriptively the case.
Now that you admit that that's actually true, and I conceded that that's true.
Why does that matter?
I'm saying it matters because if you advocate for a feminist society, you're advocating, you're actually, I would argue that rights themselves, feminism is actually sexist, ironically, because feminism, assuming rights, assumes there's a body of men who are going to defend those rights.
They don't have the obligation to do that.
Of course people have an obligation to defend those rights.
Under feminism, why?
Why?
Yeah.
I just think in general, everyone should have an obligation to defend those.
Who cares what you think?
If you don't have any sort of empathy or connection with anyone else other than yourself, empathy is in it, dude.
I've seen a video you did.
Empathy.
Empathy is an involuntary signal that is perhaps what someone else is experiencing.
That doesn't tell you what you ought to do.
You're in a debate now arguing feminism is good for society.
I bring in what's necessary to keep the good in society and highlight force.
I ask you point blank under your feminist view, do men have the obligation morally, ethically, to uphold law that provides the playground you call feminism, feminist freedom.
Society in general has an obligation, I guess, to maintain itself.
But it doesn't follow from that that every man has an obligation to uphold society.
I didn't say every man.
Well, then this doesn't have any bearing.
It does have bearing because we're talking about a collective, right?
We're choosing the people who already exist right now.
Let's choose the stronger men.
Let's choose the menu.
There's a bunch of strong men right now.
Let's choose the men that can actually enforce it.
There's a bunch of men right now who are really strong.
Yes.
They're in uniforms.
Yes.
Yep.
Yep.
They have to be trained.
They're in uniforms.
Cops, probably too unhealthy for my taste.
But let's just say they're all fit.
Okay.
They're in a position where they come in and there's a man or a woman being aggravated, assaulted by someone.
Under your system of feminism, because it has to be from a feminist view.
Why does the collective of mostly men who are the enforcement arm, why do they have an obligation to defend anybody?
Because you shouldn't want to see people hurt.
Like, I don't know how to.
I don't know how to appeal to it.
That's like saying, like, you should like licorice ice cream.
No, I don't, because I think seeing someone suffering and wanting that not to exist is different than ice cream flavor.
No.
What do you like?
No, no.
I think you're appealing to an ultimate, ultimately morally relativistic person.
No, no, you are.
You're appealing to moral, this idea of moral relativism.
No, it's your view.
No, it's not my view.
Of course it is.
I am not a moral relativist.
You have to be.
No, I don't have to be.
Absolutely not.
Okay.
Would you like me to tell you how I do?
So we can appeal to, for example, I think that moral objectivism can be defended on the basis the same way that like, what is it called?
Epistemic objectivism can be defended.
Basically this idea that I know that the world around me exists.
How do I know that the world around me exists?
Do I really know that the world around me exists?
No, I wouldn't grant that, but go ahead.
Okay, well, so we don't really.
We're trusting our senses to tell us that the world around us exists.
I'm intuitively trusting that you are sitting in front of me with a microphone.
I have a microphone.
I have my iPad, book glass of water here, all of that.
I could be wrong.
I could indeed be wrong.
I could be a brain in a vat, but I'm trusting my intuitive sense that my senses are telling me correct information.
I'm going to grant you an escape from solipsism.
I'm going to grant you your sense data.
How do you get a moral statement from sense data?
Because moral statements largely are sense-based.
I can't give you a, you can't really give me moral objectivism either.
Wait, wait, wait.
Wait, my view is not on the chopping block.
You're the affirmative.
You're the affirmative.
We can get into it, but the affirmative is feminism is good for society.
That's what you came to today.
It leads to people.
Let's say my view, Christianity, let's just, what if it was just terrible for society?
It still wouldn't change the position you're in.
You would have to argue why feminism is good for society.
So if you're going to sense data and you're saying, well, I use sense data to navigate the world and I evaluate the sense data.
It also tells me unjustified killing is wrong.
No, it doesn't.
Why not?
Look.
Why doesn't it?
Does your eye tell you that this is black?
Yeah, it does.
Okay.
So black has a frequency, a reflective aspect of light.
Sure, I could be wrong.
Yeah, right, right.
But the frequency exists, right?
The same frequency of having an intuition on a moral level.
No, no, no, hold on.
Hold on a second.
The reason I asked about the microphone is that black, red, the spectrum of colors, the frequency of light that all comes from white, it reflects differently.
And so that maintains, even if you and I see things slightly different, the thing that...
What if I say it's not black?
That maintains, well, I would say it's a dark gray.
Okay, then what if I say that it's white?
You could understand, well, if you said it was white, if you said it was white, then we would appeal to some other people's views.
So we can appeal to other people's views.
So if we're not going to be able to do that sense data.
No, no, no.
If one person says that murder is okay and everyone else disagrees and says that it's wrong, we can appeal to them and say you're wrong.
Wait a second.
In the same way that I was in what?
Are you arguing?
So, wait, how is that not subjectivism from your position?
What do you...
I think that it is as objective as we can get.
Oh, so you're saying it's not objective.
Well, I...
Because I don't think we can have 100% certainty on that.
This is what I'm asking you.
Where you have 100% certainty on anything.
Where in the instance of a person deleting another person did you where in the sense data itself?
Sure.
The person is a size, they have hair, they have shirt on or not.
These are all features of reality that you're pointing to, the external world.
Where in that are you perceiving morality?
Where am I perceiving morality?
The sense that I get, the intuitive sense that I get out of it.
But it's not the sense data, though.
It can be, absolutely.
I would see it.
Wait a second.
No, hold on.
I would say that.
Is this moral?
What?
Is this moral?
Having water?
This cup.
Can you determine this cup?
Is it moral or not?
If you were to throw it at me, I could.
No, it wouldn't be the cup that was immoral.
Sure, it wouldn't.
But what would matter about that?
So what I'm pointing to is you said, because now we're in meta-ethics, because if you're saying feminism is good for society, if you're saying it's good for society, you're making a meta-ethical statement about the good.
I'm asking from your view, what grounds the good, and you said sense data.
But the thing is, you can't point to anything in the world that occurs as an event and look at the event itself and get and retrieve empirically the good.
Why not?
Well, you're claiming it.
How?
Where is it?
I see something happen and I have an intuitive sense about it.
Okay.
Someone sees something else and they have an intuitive sense that it was justified and you disagree.
Okay, absolutely.
Who's wins?
No, wait a second, but that's the same problem empirically.
No, I say that's white.
If I say that's white and you say that's not.
How?
How are they doing?
That's not the same.
But how are they different?
Because this is actual sense data.
No, no, no.
This is actual sense data.
Sure.
The opinion about what this is is not whether or not it's good or not.
This is an is ought.
This is a, is, is, this is a guilt.
Wait a second.
This is Hume's guillotine.
This is like describing things into the good, right?
This is a philosophical problem that you can't bridge.
Isot.
And get the is-ought for it.
Right, but why would, if you know that, why would you?
I'm aware of that because at some point you have to assert a moral claim that you can't further back up.
They have to bottom out somewhere.
So they have to bottom out.
And Oliver, why would you even use sense data?
Why don't you just say, regardless of seeing anything, I have a feeling.
What if someone described something, you didn't see anything and shut a view?
Wait a second, but that's still sense data.
You hear it from them, you hear their story, you hear that, it evokes a response in you.
So yeah, and then that's the response.
Okay.
So the same way I see that.
Okay.
Then how do you argue with, let's say, a nation predominantly held like a Christian view that women, that feminism was immoral and they outnumbered you?
Would you just submit?
No, you can't.
well, you can't, you just make fine.
Then yeah.
Whoever has the most power automatically.
You mean force?
But that's a descriptive claim.
Of course, whoever has the most power is in holding all else equal, mind you.
We have to hold everything else equal in that scenario because just having brute force doesn't necessarily mean you are going to win.
Well, if someone's better organized, if they have better access to resources.
They would still need some aspect of force to be able to.
But not, but it's not ultimate.
It's not like, you know, we don't add up the who has the most strength and least strength and then determine that's what we're doing.
If you agree that if you have a feminist view and I have an anti-feminist view, the ultimate descriptor, I'm not saying might is right.
I'm saying might is.
It just is.
And I don't disagree with that.
So if might just is, and we both agree that might is, is in fact a gendered statement, I'm arguing that feminism itself relies on a view, it relies on a part of reality that's antithetical to the ideal of feminism.
That feminism itself, in practice, rights, privileges, all of these things you're adding to women, right, in their, in their, in their life, that they are granted, are granted by stronger people that are merely allowing them to have them.
Fine, then that's the same thing you think.
That's a patriarchy.
No, wait a second.
No, wait, that's, you can make the same argument within a gender.
You are separating it into men and women.
Why can't I divide men up and say that?
Stronger men.
Okay, well then I don't see that.
That's in favor of a patriarchy, though.
Look, if men win against other men, it's still a patriarchy.
But we shouldn't base it on the enforcement.
Oliver, let me just, I just want you to concede, if men take over other men, it's still a patriarchy.
That's not what defines patriarchy because it's not the enforcement.
It's not what men could do that defines whether it's a patriarchy.
The same way, we are not a militaristic state, authoritarian state, just because the military could, if they want, overthrow democracy.
Well, no, they're allowing it not to be.
Sure.
So then are we going to have a second?
No, fine.
Then are we, would it be correct to describe our country right now as a militaristic authoritarian regime?
Potentially, I would say that rights themselves are fairly authoritarian, just to assuming them.
Like, For instance, people say often, maybe you've argued with Thea Soliver, where you're like, I'm totally fine with what you believe.
Just don't force your beliefs on me, right?
Have you said that to someone?
No, I haven't.
Okay, but you heard someone say that, right?
I have.
I think it's stupid.
Right.
Do you agree that you would, it's actually probably a good thing to force your beliefs on people.
I think, oh, it would depend on what you mean by force, but I think if someone believes something, I don't know why they wouldn't want to, if they believe it to be correct.
I don't know why they wouldn't want to share that belief and have others adopt what they view as the true belief.
Well, not even share.
Let's say, I agree with you.
If you understand, if someone held a belief and they truly believed it, not only would they want to share that belief and have other potentially believe it, but meet others who already believe it.
The next step would simply be, why wouldn't they, I don't know, take positions of government and legislative office seats and say, well, I love my view so much and I've gained so many people around me who love my view.
Why wouldn't I just use the enforcement arm?
Isn't the ultimate goal here, like even in this debate, even in this debate?
I love pizza, or if I love pizza, I know to bring the government.
No, it's not because it's the same similar type of view.
You could extrapolate it that far if you want.
And that would be ridiculous.
Would you say it's ridiculous for someone who's like, I like pizza this much.
I like cheese pizza.
I would like everyone to like cheese pizza.
If people don't like cheese pizza, because I think it's correct and I think it's the best thing.
I'm saying I'm going to enforce everyone to cheese pizza.
No, regardless if I want that, I'm saying that that's actually possible.
Yeah, but we would look upon that person as what?
That's fine if we would be weird.
Yeah, but I understand.
We both agree that would be weird.
I'm not debating whether or not we agree on things that are weird.
What we're debating tonight is like the foundation of feminism rests on something that's counter descriptive to feminism.
No.
Yes.
If feminism, look, I'll do it again.
Feminism is the movement away from men in power.
Is that better than patriarchy?
It's the movement away from men in power.
Men inherently having power.
Dominant, yeah, the dominant collective.
Because they're men, being excluded from that.
Women's rights is a feminist movement.
It's, yeah, okay.
So if women's rights is a feminist movement away from the movement of men in power, why does women's rights require the thing that they're opposing?
Wait, because you can, just because someone has power doesn't mean they're exercising it against you.
Like, I don't see like, you're saying like, there's always going to be a man in charge, therefore.
There's going to be a collection of, in a society that's ordered, that has any kind of law or say rights, which are privileges or entitlements without any duties.
In this case, feminism is a movement away from men in power.
Women's rights is a feminist movement, supposedly against this power structure.
And yet they're a power.
It's not against men, though.
I know, but it's a no, it's not against.
No, no, you got to follow this line, though.
I'm not saying they hate men or whatever.
I'm saying that the actual movement to affirm and defend and protect rights, they're asking daddy.
They're asking daddy for an allowance.
No, they're asking society in general.
No, society's opinion doesn't matter when the force comes in.
Sure, the force does come in, but what he's saying.
That's the only thing we're talking about.
I agree, but here's the thing that I'm running into the problem: you were assuming that men will act this way, that men will do this, that men will act as a collective to enforce their will necessarily.
I think it's, I think, if I think, I think socialization.
Look, I don't think we automatically tell our, I don't think we should.
And I hope you're not raising your son to say, if someone has a toy and you really want that toy, go over there and take it from them.
To men's what the toy is.
That could be good for them, actually.
You know what I mean?
Like, it could be good for you and me.
Like, look, look, let's just hypothetically.
Hold on, because Oliver Oliver, is it possible that there's an instance of necessary growth of boys battling it out?
Sure, of course, but we're talking in generalities.
Because you're saying that I can't appeal to the fact that there are men that are weaker than women to invalidate the claim that this force doctrine is.
Wasn't the question, wasn't your question, well, just because a collective of men could take over, doesn't mean that men will take over.
Yeah, they won't.
Have you ever debated anarchists?
I have not.
I mean, I've heard of their.
Okay, I just want to put this on you.
Pretend you and I are debating against a third person who's an anarchist for a second.
We're on the same team for a second.
And I say, I ask them, why do you think anarchy is possible?
And they say, well, because most people are passive and don't want to use their force and their will to control people.
And then they ask me, why do you think anarchy doesn't work?
I answer the same exact thing.
Because most people don't use force.
But the small group that does, that does want to use their force, they will.
Why can't there be another group that uses their force contrary to that in supporting?
Are they made up of men?
Sure.
Okay.
Some of them can be.
Patriarchy for the win.
No, but that's not how we should define what a society is just by who makes the majority of the reason.
Whatever ordered thing you talk about.
Is that fine with you?
You can come up with one that you like better.
I don't find.
It can be ordered.
I agree that there has to be some sort of order to society.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Now, would you agree that order supposes force?
I guess the threat of force?
Sure.
But the threat has to be able to be actualized, right?
Ultimately.
Like if you call their bluff over and over.
Sure, yeah, fine.
It has to be actualized.
This is what I'm saying.
And I don't know how many more times I can drive this home, is that your vision of feminism being rights, equal opportunities, you're basically saying society is in a place where females should be more liberated to be in all sorts of different areas.
Okay, that's what you're really arguing.
You're arguing that society is essentially, which I kind of agree, is an amusement park that's already been built and maintained largely by men, right?
You're just adding a police element.
And what you're saying is feminism is Disney World.
They should be able to ride on every ride.
And then I go everyone should have access to the rides.
I know, but who enforces that everyone has access to the rides?
Men.
It's society in general, and you are right that it is primarily going to be a matter of money.
So would you concede that your vision of feminism actualized requires something antithetical to feminism?
No, it is not antithetical because just saying that men should do the right thing and men should be in favor of these things is not against feminism.
I don't see how that's against the menu.
No, I didn't say should.
I said, well, that's your other problem is do they have an obligation?
But the bigger problem is, is it actually a necessity that men collectively defend women's rights?
I think it is a necessity that society defends the rights of those who are less vulnerable.
You keep saying society.
It can't be random people in society.
You're right.
Sure.
Okay, will you concede for the audience then that your vision of feminism requires by necessity the actualization and the threat of stronger people who are predominantly men?
Sure.
Okay, so feminism requires men in power.
Feminism requires men to support feminist goals.
In power.
It's an allowance system.
Everything is an allowance system.
We're bargaining with people who are stronger and have more power than we do in order to get what we want.
So that means feminism, the way you're describing it, relies wholly, every aspect that any kind of cherries you want to put on top, like any amenities, extra, extra whipped cream on the feminist boat.
Ultimately, you're asking, and women today are still asking, please, stronger collection of men, allow us to do XYZ, right?
I think it's asked, yeah, it's asking society not to hurt them.
Yeah, but that's an inequality.
I'm not arguing that women are as strong as men.
I'm not trying to argue that as a collection that they're equal in every aspect.
Yeah, but you said equal opportunities.
Of course.
Do women have the equal opportunity to defend or take other people's rights?
If you're talking like everything all else equal?
Or are we talking like they can have certain abilities to do that in terms of the weaponry that they have, in terms of the organization of society that they have?
Like, I don't, I think that you're assuming that we live in a state of nature, which we don't currently live in a state of nature.
No, I still think that nature bleeds in.
I know what you're saying, that we live in a state of luxury.
Are you saying like decadence?
A little bit.
It's not like brutality of the wilderness, right?
Sure.
Because of men, men built structures, built concrete jungles, you know.
They built underground systems.
Okay, but a fair amount of that was the only reason we're not in the jungle is because of men.
You do realize that a collection of men together without knowing how a building is made, you can't just pull a bunch of men together and say, build this building.
They're not going to know how to do that.
I understand you need engineers, but that's irrelevant because if you say without the engineer, you can't build a building.
Well, there are people who've built buildings without insane levels of engineering.
I'm not saying that, but I'm saying to build the society that we have right now, you need to.
To maintain it, you need brute force.
You can't fix anything.
What does it have?
Well, we're back to the leverage.
If men can leverage their brute force, so I gave the example of voting that when collective of men vote, they're basically saying, you know what, I'm going to vote, even though the alternative, I don't want to do the alternative, but the alternative could be that I get all my friends with our guns and overthrow if we can.
We'll start a war around.
Why can't women get together with all their friends who are men and do that?
You're saying men can appeal to other men to enforce their own rights.
Why can't women do the same thing?
Men can collectively do that without women.
Women can't do it without men.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
It is absolutely true.
There's no collective of women who could, if that was true, some of what you would think are the worst places in the world in regards to a woman's experience, the standard.
They can't take over the men, dude.
I think that they could, as you're talking about, leverage the power that they do have against that system.
I'm not denying that there's biological differences between men and women.
I don't see kind of what argument you're getting at.
I think that women are largely, in a sense, many women are complicit in the patriarchal structure that we have and help to uplift it.
Could there is a war?
Yeah, but I'm saying that it is not all just brute force.
There's an ideological component here.
There's women who believe in this system and will back men up on it.
I understand that.
I'm not saying that doesn't exist.
I'm saying if you had all of that stuff exist.
They just wouldn't do it.
No, none of it matters if you don't have force enforcing it.
If every woman in society, collectively, all of them, which is an impossible hypothetical because all women are not going to agree on something and all men are not going to agree on something, if all women decided immediately to disagree with all men, do you think all men would stand strong in that disagreement and be like, no, you're my slave now?
Or would some of them be like, wow, my wife is coming to me and saying she doesn't like square, though.
The way society is structured.
Yeah, I would say, you know what the men would say?
What?
I would get all the men to collectively get together.
No, no, look, look, if all the women collectively got together and screeched into the ether and went, we don't like it anymore.
That's basically every women's march, by the way.
What men like to do from the sidelines in the houses that they built is say, what are you going to do about it?
Hold on, but then that's just being like, fuck you, I don't give a shit about you.
Well, in a funny way, no, no, it's not saying we don't give a shit because the people we're talking about are misguiding and they're misguided with what their leverage is.
So women's leverage is not marching in the street holding signs until things change, even though, let's say, the 18th Amendment, before the 19th Amendment, before they could vote, they did have a moral leverage.
So I actually agree with you that women do have some sort of, I don't want to call it manipulation in a pejorative sense, but they have the ability back then, by the way, they had the ability to point out, let's say, moral issues, right?
Point out degeneracy, point out things that were indecent.
Women have a sense about.
You call them Karens now, right?
Back in the day, before they were given the right to vote, the 18th Amendment, they actually used their moral leverage within society because men still revered women and their opinions about certain things because they had a specific place in their home and in society.
Men still do that.
You're never going to get all men to ignore the interests of all women.
I understand.
I'm not saying even majority.
No, I'm saying that without men actualizing whatever the request is, it's just a grievance.
I'm not denying that if a society does not follow through on what the grievances are, then shouldn't.
You keep, Oliver, you keep swapping.
I understand why you're doing this.
It's fine, but I'm going to correct you every time.
You can't swap out when you, what we really mean is a collection of men specifically, and you keep saying society to ambiguate it.
I'm going to keep disambiguating it because it drives the point home.
If there's a collection of people who think society should be XYZ and they want to actualize it, that is force.
They're going to develop laws.
They're going to develop all sorts of systems.
You're going to require brute force.
What I'm saying is that's descriptively inequality.
Why?
Because in your opening, as you move away from feminism, God willing, at least take out equal opportunities because that's not even true for men.
No, I'm not, but I'm not saying that everyone, like, because everyone should be given the opportunity to.
Given by who?
Dude, don't say society again.
But it's not, I don't see how that's relevant.
Okay, it is relevant.
Look, I look at the world through a descriptive lens that it's patriarchal and it's hierarchical.
I'm not saying it's an ought that might is good always.
Might sometimes is good.
But let's look at it as a house, right?
Let's say you're the father.
Again, God willing.
I'm throwing this out there.
Oliver the father.
You have five kids, beautiful wife, big old house from being a lawyer.
Okay.
The kids are the women in this instance.
I don't.
It's just an analogy, okay?
Yeah, okay.
The kids are screaming, I want the house this way.
They're screaming loud.
They made signs.
They march every morning in front of the breakfast nook, okay?
Okay.
Right?
You're like, sit down, have breakfast.
If they equal the protesters, right, in this instance, isn't it ultimately, who is it ultimately going to be up to in the house, whether they change the house or not?
Would they change the house?
If they change, they're screaming to change the house, right?
Who's ultimately going to decide whether it's going to happen or not?
Sure, the person who has the power.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
So you agree in the analogy, it's a good analogy because the women in society don't have the equal opportunity or power to change society.
They need to get the ears of men.
They need to somehow use other forms of leverage, but it's never going to be identical to power.
What I'm saying to you, I think we agree.
Men's leverage is brute force.
Do they use it correctly or not?
That's a whole other debate, right?
Is it just or not?
Women have the leverage of being the potential mothers and wives and the childbearers and the people raising the children.
My view is that women's high, the best place a woman, a collection of women, I'm not saying all of them and I'm not saying force.
I'm saying the best thing to advocate for women, the truest form of real feminism would be to appeal to the feminine nature and what they're really good at, which is not fighting and making people bleed.
It's raising children.
Why are you not?
Why is that not feminist?
Why are you dichotomizing those, though?
Because you're saying that society is fundamentally dichotomized into fighting and killing each other and raising children.
I don't think that those are the only two things.
I didn't say that.
But then why can't women and men?
I think women and men should pursue other things that aren't just fighting and killing people and raising children because there is so much in between there that both men and women can't.
I'm not saying they can't do these things.
I'm saying I'm trying to prioritize.
That's why I'm going to try to, you have to be a little charitable with the dichotomy because I'm looking at urgency and priority.
Okay.
I'm not saying that there isn't a list of things underneath that they can't want, might want to do and not do or whatever.
I'm saying ultimately for a society to exist, you need two things, three things.
Law and order, which we already established requires men primarily for the most part.
Obligations and duties, still a little bit blurry on your side of what provides obligations and duties.
But then people, human beings, do you know that we like, I know that you mentioned it.
We do.
We do have a fertility criteria.
We have a birth rate.
Okay, would you can I'm not going to blame everything on feminists, but would you concede that you've at least witnessed pretty high octane propaganda from a feminist view against mothering and being a mother in the home?
As a requirement, yes.
Not as a requirement.
Yes.
As a requirement.
No, like an obligation that women have, and if they don't do it, they are failing as women, yes.
I have seen very little of feminists saying you can't have kids.
Majority of feminists and people do have children.
I'm not saying can't.
I'm saying what's being presented as strong femme.
Do you see mostly mothers or do you see girl bosses?
Just answer that.
And I think the reason we see it as girl bosses is because for so long, being a woman has been defined as being a mother.
So what this is, is it's a reaction to the prescriptions that have been put on women for so long.
What does it mean to be a good woman?
You raise a child, you raise children, you're in the home.
It's still correct, though.
I don't know, not necessarily.
Women don't have to do that.
Men don't have to do that.
If you want a society, you'd have to do that.
You do.
There have to be.
So do you want a feminist society or not?
I do want a feminist society.
Then you need those things.
No, no, you do, but you don't need to obligate people to do that.
People will do it on their own.
You don't have to tell them.
They're not doing it.
Why aren't they doing it?
It's because they can't fucking afford to do it.
No, no, that's not true.
It is absolutely not.
So why do the poorest people have the most?
Why do the poorest people have the most kids?
Why do the poorest people have the most kids?
Generally.
Largely because they don't have access to contraceptives.
Hold on, hold on a second.
Because they don't have access to education.
Folks, hold on a second.
We don't have a moderator.
You just said because people can't afford it.
I just pointed a counterpoint.
I just gave you a counterpoint that the poorest people are having the most kids.
Yes.
So that's not a good reason.
Hold on.
Just because poor people are having children.
More poor people have more children than the wealthy released from the fully liberated fembot, right?
The feminoids are in Western luxurious countries.
I would argue that it's not because they don't have money.
It's because they have a materialist worldview.
Well, no, I think they have a worldview that says you have the option to have children or not.
No, and I think people who are poor, I think largely, I think, I think.
You're in college, dude.
Yeah, I am in child.
Wait a second.
Are you saying that you don't hear from every angle, not just in media, not just in movies, not just in education?
You're not hearing the messaging that says, women, we gotta fight against this whole like you being at home, being a mother thing.
You need to be a strong, independent woman, right?
Go out there and be a girl boss, right?
And I don't know what women you're talking to.
I don't think, and I look, we can ask women this question.
When you hear that, do you hear, I should not have children or I should not center every aspect of my existence around being a mother and instead prioritize some of my own well-being over that.
And I don't think that is antithetical to having a society that has children.
People will have children if they have the reason.
Forget the odd for a second, okay?
I'm going to grant you that the odd claim isn't being made, but are you saying the power, the power of media in today's age, you and me are not going to agree that that doesn't influence the way women see childhood?
Like, I see birth.
Look, every single, look, dude, every single image of childbirth in media for the last 20 years has been like an emergency screaming fest where everyone looks like they're about to die, dude.
And what happens after that?
What do you mean, what happens?
No, in the scene, what happens after the screaming and that, all that?
Well, they give them the baby and it's not poorly written.
Well, they get a shot of endorphins.
There you go.
So it's not anti-having children.
They love their children and it's a beautiful baby.
Fair enough, but when you're looking at the overall propaganda from feminism, right?
I don't think you're the representation, by the way.
I don't really think there is a representation.
You don't think there's a central through line of narrative from the general feminist.
Like even every phase of feminism, there's a through line.
I think there is a type of feminism.
I think there is a picture of feminism that gets amplified by the media.
Okay, what is that?
And people who, no, and people who are sympathetic to your view because of the way that algorithms are structured and the way that media structures you get presented.
Tell me that.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, women hate having children.
They view being mothers as inherently oppressive.
And they yell that.
I'm not saying that's not a narrative.
I'm just saying I don't think it's actually something that most people and even women subscribe to.
I think most women ideally want to be mothers.
They just don't want to be defined as childbearers.
They don't want to be because they want to be able to have other, because just like men aren't defined as fathering children.
I know, but like, okay.
Like, I don't.
What else would you define a woman as in her lifetime, right?
I'm not saying all women have kids.
It's like they could live into different futures, especially women who can't have kids.
But ultimately, we're looking at what should be advocated, right?
I'm out here.
I'll put it simply.
From your view of feminism, why isn't feminism prioritize motherhood?
Because your side of it prioritizes motherhood in such a way.
No, no, wait.
Because it prioritizes motherhood in such a way that is oppressive.
No, dude, it's the total opposite.
No.
Let me tell you why it's out there.
You don't want women to be in the home.
You don't want women in the house.
Let me tell you why it's opposite.
What do you, what?
Let me tell you why it's opposite.
Are you really telling me right now?
You don't even have to be a voice.
Let me tell you why it's opposite.
Is it more oppressive on a woman to be in the home or to be in debt?
I think that it depends first, one, on who the woman is and what she wants.
I think it's more oppressive to force a woman to be in the home.
Yes, you do.
How do you force a woman to be at home?
Don't allow her to go to work.
Use the exact force document.
What are you talking about?
Of course it's force.
No, that's coercive, that's some type of uh, that's some sort of uh, emotional coercion, threat of violence.
Aren't we?
Aren't we all, aren't we totally?
You say everything bottoms out in violence.
You say everything bottoms out in force.
No no no, no.
You use not everything.
No, what?
When it comes to, when it comes to right?
No, when it comes to rights, which you're advocating for, when it comes to, when it comes to um engagement, let's say man and woman okay uh, both the man and the woman have different forms of uh, let's say, manipulation type of coercion, some type of like, if you ultimatums this kind of thing okay okay, women and men can both do that.
But the reason when you said women are more oppressed when they were in the home?
Okay look, when they started the suffrage movement right, do you think that it was most women who wanted the vote?
No, I know a lot of them were against it.
Okay, because they were against it, because they thought it would require them to also be conscripted into the, that they did not want that and and that they would also be uh uh, subject to debt as well.
But mostly the first thing you said um, did you know that the the, the minority that was the suffragette movement, actually shut, shut down and made it hard right, thwarted these women showing up in a type of primary votes to vote against their own vote?
Hold on, I mean, I feel like that's not that surprising, though I know.
But how?
Look dude, hold on wait no no no no, wait.
If, if a bunch of hold a little i'm this is gonna be a poor analogy, but it's coming to mind right now.
Imagine that I guess black people wanted to be free from slavery and they knew that there was a faction of black people who would outnumber them and, I guess, had been convinced that slavery was good and they tried to stop those people from coming in and keeping them in chains.
Would it, would it be ridiculous for them to do that?
I don't think so.
I think it would make sense.
Well, we don't want these women voting against us having.
The analogy actually comes back to the force doctrine, because these people used force and other techniques to stop the women from actually showing up.
You know what they said.
Who, who did they just the like the whole?
Well, they would actually physically, isn't.
Is it obstruction force?
Well sure, but who was using the force then?
Oh, it's probably a collection of men men okay, so then men were the ones who you have hatred physically, were against women having the right to vote, because it doesn't matter what women want, because they can't influence.
No no, you're.
You're confusing me.
You're confusing me.
I'm saying the people pro women voting shut down the majority of women who were going to come to vote right against their own vote.
Why do you understand?
I, I get it.
Then why were men advocating?
Why were men using force to stop women from advocating against them voting?
There were men on either side who didn't, who were like what the hell's going on?
But what i'm saying is that, when it comes to the reasoning, though Oliver the, the whole group of the suffragettes, they basically were like they gaslit the women right.
This is what's so ironic is that they said they.
They said oh, these women who are the majority, they're just so docile from being in the home that they're not thinking right in their opposition to voting, so we have to figure out a way to stop them from opposing it.
They were literally looking at the women like the women didn't have the right mind To say, no, being in the home is best for society, best for motherhood, best for children.
It's best to not get conscripted.
It's best to not hold debt.
And it's best for men to manage all these other things.
There's this gendered system that they were living in.
These radicals basically were saying, no, we got to change the world, right?
It's always this revolutionary movement, right?
But the thing is, the revolutionary movement, ironically, still requires the thing that they're opposing.
They're asking daddy for the force.
Fine, I can be against violence and realize that in order to actually be against violence, there must be some threat of violence to back that up.
But that doesn't make it contradictory to be against unjustified violence.
Well, no, I'm talking about violence.
I'm talking about feminism.
No, no, no, but you're saying that feminism is a contradiction.
It is.
Because they are against men and their power.
And in order to be against that, you have to appeal to men.
So in order to be against violence, you have to have some sort of violence opposing that.
Well, no, no.
It is.
It is a.
No, no, I'm saying it's actually worse.
It's like specifically the feminist.
I understand the violence paradox.
This is more than that.
It's that women them, because you could have a violence paradox with two groups of men, right?
Sure.
But I'm saying that if you switch it to a group of men and a group of women, the women don't have the leverage of violence at all.
So it's not even violence against violence.
It's literally violence against a bunch of people who can't fight, right?
They're going to annihilate them.
So what the feminists need and they still need today, they're saying, down with the patriarchy, down with the patriarchy.
The reason that they're chanting is because they know they don't have any power.
Hold on.
Wait.
Do you deny that protests can be effective and protest can help change hearts and minds and things of that nature?
Yes, it changes the minds of men and therefore men.
But I don't, but I don't see how that's like, I don't know, trying to change the minds of people who have more power.
And I agree, men have more privilege in society because of that.
I'm saying that with a certain amount of privilege comes a responsibility to defend those who are not.
Hold on.
Okay, I grant that and I agree with you.
From my worldview, men, because of their ontology and their nature, they have different duties than women, right?
Now, even if you find some alternative and some exceptions, I know your brain goes to exceptions, right?
I'm granting all the exceptions.
I'm just saying, generally speaking, there is a pretty clear threshold between what would seem to be the duty of men from both of our perspectives.
You're saying, well, men, given that they have the ability, maybe they should have the duty to protect these things.
What I'm asking what I'm asking for is the counter, the counter deontology.
What is the duty and the obligation of the women if you and I both agree that the duty and obligation of the man is to protect people who are stronger than others?
And I think it's generally men, fine, but it's not why do you do this?
Because it's not in virtue of the fact that they're men.
I would think that a stronger woman would have that same duty that the men has to defend someone who is weaker than they are, regardless of whether they're male or female.
So you're right that there are differences between men and women that generally result in men being stronger.
Okay, look, but it's not necessarily the case.
Look, you're like 6'12, 6'1.
I'm like 5'11.
5'11?
Okay, okay.
So let's say you are walking.
Let's say you're dating a woman who can beat you in an arm wrestling, and it's kind of funny.
Like, it's just people know about it and saying it.
They make funny or whatever.
You're walking down the street.
Yeah.
There's someone being aggressed by a strong man.
Let's say it's a smaller woman who's addressed by a man, and you're across the street.
Yeah.
Does she now have the obligation above you?
If she's stronger than me, yeah.
So you send your stronger who just she can beat you in a fight, like arm wrestling.
She's beefier than you.
She can break something that you can't.
Yeah.
And you're going to say because of her strength only, she's going to, you send her to fight off the aggressor.
Send her.
If she wants to go do that, then yeah.
No, I'm saying, no, no, we're not.
No, I don't mean sender.
No, no, no.
I don't have dominion over.
I understand.
We're talking about obligations.
I'm saying when I say send.
Fine.
Then she would have the obligation stronger if I'm not stronger than the other person who's beating the person up.
No, no, you don't know if you're stronger than the other person, but you know that your girlfriend in this case is stronger than you.
Do they have the obligation?
Yeah.
How is that ridiculous?
I didn't say it was ridiculous.
I mean, I feel like you're trying to.
I'm just saying.
I'm just saying that I'm pointing to that whoever's generally stronger, you're saying in your ideal society of feminism, has the obligation.
Yes.
Okay, I'm just going to grant that generally men have the obligation to defend and protect the less.
Because they are strong.
Yes.
Generally.
Because they're generally strong.
Now, what does do women, not the exceptional woman, your girlfriend in this case, not her.
Most of the women are frailer.
They're petite.
They're not prone to fighting.
They don't want to fight.
They run from a fight.
What is their obligation to society?
Pay taxes, follow the laws, provided they're just.
What do you mean?
Everyone has obligations.
They just exist?
Yeah.
What do you, what do you think?
Dude, you, look, I have written right here.
Individuals have the same rights, equal opportunities, and so on, right?
You're trying to even the playing field.
We agree that men have the obligation.
They are the force, okay?
They're going to determine what ends up being law, not.
They might have a war about it, whatever.
Men fight men.
If we accept that there's a duty aspect there, this is the biggest crucial element of feminism as a general worldview.
I don't know if it's a fully fleshed out worldview, but this is where it really thwarts people that I've debated.
It's like, if we agree on that part with the men, I asked you, what's the obligation for women if you think there should be some equal play here?
And you said, guess what you said?
They just exist.
How is that contrary?
Women just exist and get all the benefits of society that men provide.
Sure.
But yet you're going to fight against men being in power.
Yeah.
How is this ridiculous?
I don't expect women to reward me for doing the bare minimum and not oppressing them.
Like, I just don't see your like, women, please reward me.
Please.
I'm protecting you.
You should really be grateful because I could hit you at any moment.
Like, what the fuck?
Yeah.
Women should be grateful to men, not trying to tear them down, tear down the patriarchy.
Why?
Because I've already explained to the audience and you.
Feminism and everything you think it includes as entitlements relies on the patriarchy.
You should act.
Feminists should be pro-patriarchy.
They're pro-men not hurting women.
That is pro-patriarchy.
You're still appealing to...
If you're defining patriarchy...
Men in power.
Sure.
No.
Men in power.
I mean, what's the matter?
Men having primary positions and not just physical power in institutions of force.
Women can't.
Women could change it too by killing every one of their offspring.
Well, no, that wouldn't, that would just change.
That would just change the number of people that existed.
It wouldn't change the fact that men.
And then men would die.
And then men would die out and civilization would.
Yeah, so women could kill off.
So, okay.
So here's, we finally got to an obligation, okay?
Men, under his feminist view, men have the obligation to uphold law, society, hold on, defend rights, defend the country, because they're stronger generally.
Women have the obligation to not kill their offspring.
Well, women have an obligation not to kill people generally.
Same way men don't have an obligation to kill people.
Hold on a second.
Is feminism mostly pro-killing your offspring or against them?
No, do you want to get into abortion?
No, I'm asking you a question.
Is feminist the narrative the feminist view, is it sold as an empowering thing, a right to kill your offspring or not?
I think it's considered a right to have bodily autonomy, yes.
Okay, so we'll talk about it.
So if the men in this society, we agree, have the obligation because of their strength collectively to defend rights, and I ask you, what does a woman have the obligation to do?
It sounded like before they have the obligation to not off their offspring and themselves, and yet feminism, under your own view, is men defending women to have the right to kill their offspring, even though you just admitted that their obligation is to not kill themselves.
They shouldn't kill their born offspring.
Born?
They shouldn't kill people who are outside of the womb.
Okay, so not reliant on the same thing.
So when a woman's pregnant, a man has the obligation to defend her rights to walk around and do anything and not get aggressed and defend her when she's aggressed by stronger people, right?
And the obligation in return is that she can still annihilate the baby.
Hold on.
So if we want to get into a conversation about abortion, because I think it's very interesting, no one has a right to use another person's bodily organs without their consent.
That's untrue.
When does that happen?
What do you mean?
That's how our society is structured.
cool so a woman who basically um so a woman who's sleeping and the baby rolls over and and suckles on the teeth what is that informed consent or what do you What are you talking about?
The woman sleeping, she didn't give consent to the baby rolling over and feeding on her.
Okay, fine.
What does that have to do with anything?
You just said.
Then if the woman doesn't want, if a woman doesn't want to breastfeed her child, then obviously parents, both men and women, have an obligation to feed their children.
And if a woman doesn't want to use her body in order to feed her children, then she can find other ways to do so.
And if she doesn't want to feed her child, she can put it up for her.
Does the woman who's pregnant get the consent of the fetus when it gives it her necessary stem cells?
What do you mean?
Well, it's not an autonomous being.
What do you mean?
Oh, so it just can't decide at all.
But the woman is still gaining types of nutrients for itself from the baby.
can't be otherwise you said no living being would you say living being has the right to take it without the consent Because the baby's not capable of giving consent.
Well, baby's not capable of giving consent when it's one week old either.
sure.
And I don't think you should, I guess, like, so feeding a baby without its consent is wrong.
No, why would I say that it's wrong?
You just said you have no right to violate one's consent.
You don't have a right to use someone's body, bodily organs, without their consent.
Their bodily organs?
Yeah, so kidney donation, someone cannot forcibly, let's say that, you know, someone else needs your kidney to survive.
Let's even say that you put them in a position where they require your kidney for survival.
Yeah.
As a society, at least currently as we have structured it now, it's not legal for them to take that from you without your consent.
If you hit someone with your car, let's imagine, and because of that, you were driving recklessly, and now they require, you know, your kidney in order to survive, the state can obligate you to donate your kidney to them.
You mean men?
Sure.
Yeah.
So again, we're in a position where even your argument for consent being the ethical norm is still wholly reliant on the disparity of force and power between men and women.
When have I ever denied that that's like factually how things are?
But there's a difference between how things are and how things should be.
I want to get to the should.
How do you determine how things should be?
Under feminism.
Under feminism?
Yeah.
Because that's what's being defended tonight.
Sure.
I'm defending feminism on the view that I think it leads to better outcomes for everyone.
Who determines what a good outcome is under feminism?
Under feminism, I don't, society in general?
Like, I don't, and what do you, what are you saying?
Like, we're trying to appeal to a universal moral standard.
Well, I mean, well, I'm not saying all feminists agree on outcomes.
We probably debate other feminists, but it's like if you're coming to the table and saying, here's my idea of feminism, and here's how I think society should be structured from a feminist position, right?
Yeah.
We already agreed that society can only be structured in a way that actually creates disparity.
It's descriptively so between men and women.
Like, that's the only way a society functions.
But what else are you arguing ought to be the case?
Men should not use their power to oppress women.
I don't know how this is so hard for you to understand.
What do you mean, oppress women?
To exert their will on women with force.
Just because you're stronger than someone doesn't mean that you should use that power to make them submit to your will.
I don't see why.
Wait, how does that?
I mean, that seems to be happening more with men.
What do you mean?
Yeah, men should not also kill or coerce or cause violence against other men.
I mean, women get a vote that not directly, but indirectly, a woman's position through a vote could actually result in men getting drafted.
Sure, I'm against the draft.
Okay.
I'm against the draft entirely.
I think it violates the 13th Amendment's clause of involuntary servitude.
Okay, but you would, yeah, okay.
So you would agree that that was, that would be a violation of the man in that case.
It shouldn't exist.
The draft shouldn't exist.
Okay.
Okay, but here's the thing is like, if you're, can you think of an instance where the draft should exist?
No.
Really?
I don't.
So I think you can always incentivize people to fulfill that basic need.
So for example, if people don't want to go to war, pay them more.
Have it so that when they come back from war, they are provided better.
Maybe it would be less of an incentive to go to war if you don't know whether you're going to have a fighting force.
Honestly, I think that the scenarios in which the draft, the dire situation that a draft would be necessary.
It was Vietnam.
I don't think money would be the Vietnam, though.
Like, that was a war that was a terrible decision to go to war over.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, if you don't, if it's, I mean, I'm fine with you just opposing the draft because some people go, they basically ask, well, you know, when is, you know, where's the disparity in equality between men and women?
You know, descriptively, I've already established that, but that's one thing that we can always go to where they're like, well, we'll then make it legal to draft women.
And we're arguing, you shouldn't draft anyone.
Like, we shouldn't want.
I don't want that either.
Now let's talk about standards.
Like, if equal, do you agree that when you argue opportunity, we are, you agree that opportunities require capability, right?
Sure.
And if some people can't meet a standard, then yeah, they should not be in that position.
Should people lower the standards for equality?
Lower the standards.
Let's say firefighter, police officer, Navy SEALs?
No, I don't think so.
You should not lower standards.
However, it doesn't, there is not a standard of brute strength in order to occupy most positions in society that aren't enforcement-based.
Yeah, I wouldn't, I'm not arguing.
The counter to feminism isn't necessarily arguing keep women out of things by force.
It's that it's countering, one, a descriptive claim that's false that assumes women have the same duties or even power as men.
And two, what should the question is a should versus a should.
Should we prioritize women doing what they're really good at?
If it's the case that most— Women are not a homogenous group.
I understand.
Hold on a second.
Hold on.
But I'm going to reject that every time.
If it's the case that women are mostly good at certain things, should we – I don't think that's necessarily true.
I don't think women are inherently better at taking care of children than men.
No, they're not.
Inherently better?
No.
Men can do that too.
Well, I'm not saying it's not capability like one or the other.
It's that, is that, is there a better scenario?
Is it a better scenario that men are put in certain duty positions than others?
Is it better that we have a fighting force that is comprised of the strongest individuals?
Yes.
And if it turns out that the strongest individuals, because of facts of biology, are overwhelmingly male, then here's the thing: if the men, we agree that if collectively men are best used to be like the general enforcement arm.
In one aspect, sure, yeah.
Okay, but what's that for women?
Because I'm not even talking about duties anymore.
What is that for women?
Isn't necessarily symmetry here?
You're really not going to say that perhaps the equal, the equal parallel to men.
Raising kids.
No.
Okay.
I'm not.
I don't think it's the case.
Women are not.
I just don't understand how, from your feminist view that you're defending, I just don't understand how you could look at what's needed right now as far as human beings and looking at it and obviously coming to the conclusion that what's demonstrated in the past is that women in the home raising kids is a functional, let's even go pragmatism.
It's extremely pragmatic for women in their nurturing, in their nurturing trait to more nurturing than men?
Inherently, biologically, no.
Collectively?
Because society socializes them in such a way?
Yes.
Oh, they're socialized to do that.
Yes, they are.
So women weren't nurturing before societies had like, I don't know, modern propaganda and all this stuff.
Hold on.
What do you mean?
Societal norms have existed without mass media.
Wait a second.
It just happens to be the case that almost every society that we look at happens to construct women to be nurturing mothers.
So I think the reason that women are often given that role is because of the proximity to children that they have, considering they grow them.
I'm not, but that, it's not that that ought to be the case just because of that.
I didn't say ought.
I said, is it better?
No, not necessarily.
Why can't men could raise the kids too?
Okay, so you think that a woman has a child?
It's better for her to stay in the home or do an equal swap with the men.
Let's say, let's say a husband and a wife.
Hold on, hold on.
Let's say a man and a wife have the same exact skill and ability to work a job.
Yes.
A woman just has a child, right?
Yes.
All right.
And you're saying it's an either-or situation that she goes back to the job and he stays home.
Correct.
Whatever is best for their preferences.
If the man wants to work, it would also depend on who is better at raising a child.
And I don't think it's always the case that the woman would be better.
There are some men that are more nurturing than women.
So if the man is better capable of nurturing that child, then the man should be the one to stay home.
Well, how would you know?
I mean, what if the preference is to do it, but he's not as good?
Then I think that there's always going to be a trade-off between what's best for the child and what's best for the parents.
I don't think that always we must do everything that is completely in the best interest of our children to the utmost degree.
Okay, I'm going to ask you, hypothetical, how would you know that your view of feminism was realized?
What do you mean, realized?
You know, like actualized.
Like right now, for instance, if there weren't people calling to abolish women having the right to vote, that would be a good start.
Abolish the rights.
Yeah, but we already went over this.
Like to get the right to vote, they had to suppress and silence women.
Okay.
So what if women, what if women collectively said we don't want, hold on, hold on.
What if women, because you're talking about what your standard right now is that the actualization, one, one instance of actualizing your view of feminism is that women outright have the right to vote.
What if women went against you and they said, I don't want the right to vote?
Is it total?
Then sure, then I don't.
If collectively women all come together and say they don't want the right to vote, I'm not going to stand in their way.
There's a reason we don't see that right now.
Okay, so why would then you be against a bunch of men getting together and saying that women don't have the right to vote?
Because they're taking away rights that aren't their own?
Wait, no, hold on.
If there's a group of women who got together and they dominated a collective, there was like 75, 80% of them.
Hold on, hold on.
Hold on, then maybe I misspoke.
I don't think that, yeah, then I don't think that people should be able to vote away rights of others.
Yeah, but why should you think you should vote away the rights of others, why do you think you should be able to vote in the rights of others?
What do you mean?
Those things could change.
You had a right to own a slave at one point.
You're saying you don't think you should vote away the right for something.
Hold on, B. You don't believe that?
The right to own a slave and the right to vote are two very different.
A right is simply an allowance that's given to people as an entitlement with no obligation that groups of men with guns allow or don't allow.
So was there a time where technically you had the right to own another person?
Are we talking morally?
Are we talking like descriptively?
Sure.
If you want to talk about rights in the sense of what was the case and was just the case then, then yeah, sure.
There was a societally recognized right.
But you own another thing.
But you said you don't have the right to take someone's right away.
Fine.
Then if you want to argue that I'm being sloppy with language, that's fine.
Then, sure.
Then if you don't know what you're saying.
But what's happening, though?
If people do something and they take it away and they call it a right, then they call it a right.
I can't tell them not to call it something.
I can still say what they're doing is wrong.
I understand.
do that yeah oliver i understand you're you're basically bound to the language we have but But if the thing you're appealing to is rights and we can point to rights that are unjust, I'm not sure what exactly you're defending.
I'm not sure if you're right.
I'm appealing to people's individual autonomy and well-being to make decisions about their own lives.
I don't think other people should be the dictators of what other people's lives are.
Yeah, but if you don't think that other people should dictate how other people's lives are, if there's a whole group of people who don't agree that rights exist, you're going to contradict that too.
What do you mean?
If there's a bunch of people right now in the U.S. who say, I don't believe rights exist, you are going to be on the side that says, no, we're actually going to still use force.
And you could try to behave as though rights don't exist and you could believe that, but that's actually, we're going to force the belief of rights onto you.
Right?
Yeah, we're going to force goods.
Good things over bad things.
Cool.
If I think it's a good thing, like this is a thing.
Yeah, you're right.
It's just whoever has the most power.
Dude, if your entire ethical paradigm just reduced here right now in the moment to whoever has the power and their preferences rule out, as long as you have the power to rule it out, you agree that under even your own standard, that if a bunch of men got together and went back on giving the women the right and they thought it was good, if they could argue that it was good, it was even better for women than they thought, then you wouldn't really have,
it's totally consistent with your ethical position, right?
Sure.
I guess I'm not fully understanding.
I'm asking whether it's consistent under your ethical system where the majority of people decide that what's best is, well, we're going to actually go back on the 19th Amendment and women don't realize it at the moment, right?
But it's actually going to be better for them.
It's going to make them safer.
It's going to make them happier.
If they really thought that.
I think they're wrong.
I don't – But – i don't think we should be infantilizing people on the basis that men know what's best for women i think that's just not no i didn't say they that it is Like, it could be or couldn't be.
I'm just saying the activity of doing it is consistent with your ethical paradigm.
Wait, that it would happen or that it should happen?
No, that it could.
It wouldn't be counter to your view.
What do you mean, counter to my descriptive view or normative view?
Your standard, your normative view is this.
If a bunch of women decide they don't want the vote and they overpower, overpopulate the women who think they want the vote, then it's fine.
No, then they shouldn't vote.
If they don't want to vote, don't vote.
No, no, they don't even want other women to vote.
Well, no, then why are you trying to take away other people's ability to vote?
Well, no, they just want, they believe that it's not a good thing.
Okay, then don't vote.
I don't care if you don't think it's a good thing.
I don't know why.
If someone is subject to the laws, if someone is subject to how they are being governed, then they should be represented in that process.
Yeah, but why don't people under this system have the right to establish a majority view that informs law that removes entitlements?
How does it remove entitlements?
Men's entitlement to have dominion over women?
No, dude, any entitlement you look at is provided and it can be overturned, right?
Sure.
Okay.
I don't really see, you're just saying, I get it.
Whoever has more power is able to do what they want.
Where do we go from here?
Oh, well, what's interesting, where we go is if we both agree that descriptively it's the case that whoever has the power does what they want, the only question between everybody in the political spectrum, whoever you debate, libertarians, Christians, Trumpers, progressives, commies, the only question from my view is whose ethical paradigm is informing the force.
Is that fair?
I guess.
Okay.
Okay, cool.
Yeah, whoever has, we've established a conclusion over and over.
Whoever can do what they want can do what they want.
We're at a tautology here.
And I don't disagree with you that whoever has the most power can do what they want.
The question isn't what can they do?
It's what they should do.
I know.
That's why I'm saying ultimately, all of these debates come down to, including the feminist debate, who should have the power and whose worldview should inform the use of force.
Sure.
So under a feminist view, being that here's another aspect of feminism that I've debated against that it doesn't have.
It doesn't have a normative authority or standard to say you're being a good feminist or a true feminist, right?
Or a false one, for instance?
I mean, feminists disagree on so much that I don't really, I don't know.
I also wouldn't claim to be the like authority on feminism.
That's fine.
Just go out on a ledge.
If a feminist, if a woman is like, I think that a woman's proper role is in the home and I don't think that she should have the right to vote and women who do that are going against being a woman.
I would say that that's pretty counter to every single conception of feminism.
What I'm pointing to is that feminism itself is basically pluralism.
Like even among feminists.
Like, so if a woman came to the table, a tradition, a trad mom, right?
She thinks she can live in the home.
She can say that's feminist, right?
Sure.
It kind of is because she's asserting her own choice and autonomy to do with her life what she wants.
Right.
So that is, I guess, yeah, you can be a feminist and want to be a stay-at-home wife.
Those two things are not coming.
So it could happen in the next 20 years where feminism, the last stage of feminism as we know it, could be back to the home, right?
If women collectively decided that that is what they wanted to do and they didn't think that other women who didn't do that were somehow failing in their womanhood, then sure.
Could it be feminist to be submissive to your husband?
If a woman wants to make that decision, sure, but it would depend on what you mean by submissive.
It would be a little bit more than that.
First, would it mean that he, you are kind of giving away some permanent kind of stake that you have?
So once you decide to be submissive to your husband, would that entail that you can never not be submissive?
Or could you go back on that arrangement and be like, no, you know what?
Well, I've been submissive to you for a while.
I've decided that this is not a paradigm that I like.
I'm not going to do that.
that that's why probably there's so many divorces is that um i want to blame it fully on that but i would say individualism both from the men and the woman perspective i think i think feminism is rooted in individualism and i think individualism is actually uh uh basically a net loss for society because what you get is people pursuing their own individual preferences wants desires above the any view of a collective you And I would call the family one of the more local collectives.
And so I think that individualism in the home, for instance.
I don't think people should be individualistic in the home.
I fully agree with you.
People should, if they have children, especially if they have families, you should absolutely prioritize the well-being of your family to an extent.
Okay, what if the man decides what's the best well-being for the family is X and they vote this way, and the woman having the right to vote cancels out his vote.
Well, then, yeah, that's how it should be.
People.
They should just cancel each other out?
Yeah.
How is that counter?
Two people voting oppositely do cancel each other out.
I know, but they represent the same house.
And people who represent the same house can disagree.
I know.
Is it better that the heads of two houses are in disagreement?
I actually would agree that I don't think it is, which is why I think certain political differences that if you have them, you should not marry someone who contradicts your core values.
Well, I'm just wondering, why would it be an advantage to give the woman the vote inside the house and not just give it to the man anyway?
Like, what would be the advantage?
What's the advantage?
What's the advantage of giving women the right to vote?
Inside a house where it splits the vote.
It splits the...
Because the man could be wrong?
The man could be wrong about what he wants.
We should not assume that men know what's best because they don't a lot of the time.
Well, I know, but you could just reverse that and say the woman was wrong.
But I'm saying what's the advantage, though?
Because to me, there's an advantage.
There's even an advantage for the man being wrong and there being a consequence to him being wrong.
What's the consequence to him being wrong?
Well, if he votes based on the house, he's the representative of the house, right?
No, he's a representative of himself.
I'm sorry.
You're claiming that.
No, that's not true.
No, hold on.
You're claiming whatever he does is therefore representative of the house.
That doesn't mean that he's voting in the best interest of the house.
I didn't say the best interest, but he's certainly not representing just himself.
When you're a father, you're going to realize this, right?
Even voting at the local level, you're going to realize that your influence and your voice to vote at the local levels.
It's going to reflect on you.
Like, you're basically speaking on behalf of your children.
Sure.
And I don't think that adults should inherently or like spouses should inherently speak on behalf of their spouses and take away the ability for their spouse to speak for themselves.
Yeah, but why, why should, let's give women then.
Then the woman should be the representative of the house.
The woman, only women voting.
I mean, why can't we do that instead?
Well, what I would argue that women only voting, like I would say if women only vote, then women only fight wars.
know why does that necessarily have to well i would say that the the vote and you can go back to even lord cromer uh who stated voting to conscription is stupid Well, no, I'm saying that I use that as a hyperbole.
I was just saying that even very early on, when women's votes started to be the talk of the town, very early on, men realized and vocalized that women, because they can't enforce the policy that they're voting for, they can't do it, right?
They can't enforce the policy they're voting for.
Certain weaker men can't.
No, but men collectively can, and women collectively can't.
Then weaker men collectively can't.
So why that's fine?
That's why they shouldn't be able to vote.
Fine, I shouldn't be able to vote.
I concede.
But then you're conceding that why should women vote, right?
If you understand this logic, I'm not advocating for everyone who's a man biologically should have a vote.
I would be the first to say maybe I don't think I should have a vote.
So who do we determine has the right to vote?
Well, in the past, there was actually a set of variables.
You were white and you were slave.
Well, no, it's no landowner.
It doesn't have to be just that.
It could be, it could be, yeah, it could be landowning.
It could be, like, it makes sense, though.
Like, look, at it this way.
Does everyone in the company who works for the company get a vote on the board?
Well, some people actually do believe that in terms of like, you know, democratizing.
Does it happen, though?
I mean, ultimately, no, right?
No, it doesn't.
Because that's not the economic system.
And the reason that is, is because the people sitting at the table actually put skin in the game, right?
So there's risk.
Well, but what risk are they putting forward?
Well, sometimes they put money, they put resources.
And what happens if they don't?
Well, if they lose, they lose that money that they put.
And then what do they do?
Well, they could vote or get kicked out or whatever.
I don't know.
I mean, if someone puts forward risk in terms of starting a business and something like that and it fails and their business fails, what do they do?
Start over?
Start over or get a job?
Yeah.
As a labor.
So they're not risking anything that these people who are already willing to do it.
No, forget it.
Dude, there's already a loss.
The fact that they can do something else doesn't remove the fact that there was a loss.
I'm not saying what they're not losing.
I'm saying what's the loss for the person who has no skin in the game.
Skin in the game is a phrase.
You know the phrase, right?
Why don't you think women have a skin in the game in the society that we live in?
They don't have a skin in the game because they don't have to enforce anything.
And this is the, I think maybe this, maybe this comes down to the disagreement we're getting at.
I don't think that shaping society, even fundamentally or primarily, comes down to who is stronger.
I think ideas are so much more likely to be a lot of people.
Why should Hawktua get a vote?
Because she lives in a society and is subject to the laws.
No, if the society determines that she shouldn't have a vote, that doesn't.
That's just circular.
I'm saying why is it the case that Hawktua have a right to vote if he's not going to be a family?
I don't know.
Maybe he shouldn't.
Okay, so then what?
Yeah, you agree with me with the inquiry.
Why is it that you have an immediate defense to voting?
Isn't it, Oliver, possible that our voting structure currently— So you're just collapsing this into monarchy then?
Monarchy?
I think monarchy is pretty cool.
Okay, well.
But voting itself, like certainly, if voting meant that you were going to influence policy both domestically and foreign, you would perhaps understand the system, perhaps understand some level of policy.
Most men don't.
I understand that.
That's why, dude, you already got me to concede that I don't think most men should vote.
But certainly the men who have skin in the game collectively, men, I would say collectively, men who offer their body in service that they could die.
Hold on.
Hold on.
When women offer their body in service of birthing these men?
Yeah, that's the only leverage they have.
No, hold on, but that seems like pretty powerful and important leverage, right?
Well, no, they can't enforce the rights, though.
Because voting, no, because voting.
No, that's not enforcing rights.
How?
What do you mean?
How is not having a kid enforcing a right?
I absolutely think it can be a very powerful leveraging tool if we talk about it.
And what is it?
If, like, if women all collectively say, if you don't give, I mean, some people are saying, if you don't give us the right to do this, then we're going to have children.
Yeah, 4B.
Yeah, they're all ugly.
No one wants to have children with them.
Wait a second.
That's not.
I mean, it's true.
Well, but what does that prove?
That doesn't work.
It proves that just like the suffragette move, who are a bunch of goblins who couldn't find men.
Okay, all right.
Okay.
Just seriously.
What does that do?
Just what it just properly identifies the actual problem, which is women who actually put themselves out there with the hopes and the desire to be found by a man to be taken care of will in return give them children, raise their kids for them, and then return be respected and be taken care of.
Largely, society was this.
In fact, what's so crazy about the feminist movement is that before all these goblins came on the screen, the scene is that women were actually revered.
They were protected.
They were let out to be in the home.
And guess what?
Guess what?
Benevolent, benevolent, fine.
It's fine.
Benevolent slavery.
Yeah, benevolent slavery.
Beautiful.
Okay, well.
Could be.
I don't know how we, I don't know how we come to an impasse where you think that certain people having their autonomy restricted is how we should.
It's not even by society.
Look, it's not even, there's only certain things that are restricted.
By the way, a society of rights and entitlements, your autonomy is restricted all the time all over.
Of course, I'm not saying it's restricted.
So what's the difference between in the street and in the home, dude?
What do you mean?
What's the difference between your autonomy being restricted right here out on the street and a woman's being restricted in the home?
What is the difference between if mine is restricted in the home?
Why shouldn't mine be restricted in the home?
If a society is based on restrictions, of course it is.
Then I don't understand why you're picking and choosing between one and the other.
What's the threshold?
Hold on.
What's the, what do they call it?
Yeah, I think you should have to pay taxes, but I don't think people should be able to steal your bodily organs.
Okay, like I don't, I don't, you know what I mean?
Like, this gets down to the whole libertarian argument.
Taxation is slavery because you're not taxing your labor.
Okay, but then there are certain, therefore, then there are certain entitlements that are fair entitle over the other things that you owe, such as a portion of your income to ensure that society continues, but you don't have to donate bodily tissue or you don't have to donate your blood or something like that.
I mean, I myself, I know this is a feminist debate, but I myself might actually violate, consider violation of autonomy for certain things, but I don't know exactly where that is, but I'm willing.
And it is ambiguous, but what we can at least hopefully agree on is there seems to be some line there.
We don't know exactly where the line is, but there is a certain balance between freedom and autonomy that exists that society has to be at.
Okay, but here's the thing.
What is being ultimately violated if you repeal the 19th Amendment?
What do you mean?
What ultimately is like, what's ultimately being violated?
Like, what's the big to have representation in the society in which they live and that they are affected?
What do you mean, representation?
They should be represented in the government.
Why should Hawktua be represented in the government?
They should pay taxes and follow the laws.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
Hawk Tua can spit, spit on that thing and because, hold on.
And because she can spit on that thing and we live in a shitty, degenerative society that prioritizes garbage.
Your view is because Hawk Tua.
I don't have to agree with you.
Hold on.
Hawk Tua can spit on it and because she made some money on spitting on it, that she should be able to inform with her vote things she doesn't understand.
Most people, it's not about understanding.
So you're saying it doesn't matter to understand.
No, because, and I agree with you, democracy is a fundamentally flawed system.
It's plainly trash.
Okay, but and this is what Churchill said: democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
There is not a better system.
There's no better system out there.
I mean, you're saying sympathetic to monarchy, then you were saying that you were sympathetic to one person making those determinations.
Well, no, you could have a monarchy and the one person making the determination requires some external viewer paradigm that's higher than them as a person who has preferences.
Wait, what do you mean?
Like a Christian monarchy?
Okay.
The person at the top, the king, if he went outside the normative authority of his ethics and he started to run around with his preferences, which would be an individualist view, then they wouldn't, like, that's how you get rid of those people.
It's like you can have that, right?
And it's not locked into this view that you're just sitting on your own throne of preferences the way it's always depicted, right?
Isn't it possible that a monarchy could exist that's informed by something larger than the individual sitting in the seat?
Ideally, yes.
Okay.
But I'm saying that there's no way to know that that's not going to collapse into that individual.
I think, and that's what largely happens in dictatorship.
It also depends on how long it takes to collapse.
For me, because the topic is feminism, what I've seen since the feminist movement started in all of its phases, and there are people on the right wing, the conservatives, they're actually classical liberals who think, well, no, the feminism we have now is trash, but the early phase.
No, I'm saying it's all bad.
It's not good for society because it results in more individualism and it collapses the integrity of what makes a society.
And the integrity that makes a society is families.
Okay, if you are against individualism, which frankly I could say to an extent I am against as well, you should be against it for men and women.
Well, yeah, it doesn't.
Okay, so then if men don't have the right, if women don't have the right to vote and exercise their preferences in that way, then men should not have that right.
I'm fine.
It's just when you get to voting, I'm totally fine with listing some sort of components or attributes like on a baseball card.
Yeah, so then some of it would have to be informed, informing things.
If some women were sufficiently informed and could pass a citizenship test, which I'm sure many can, do you think that, yeah, then they should have the right to vote?
No.
Okay, well, then it's not based on that.
Well, it would be first the prerequisite is to be a man.
Okay, well, then that's just why.
Because they're a part of the category where it could be the case where they're going to actually, you know, risk their bodies.
So the well, women also risk their bodies.
Yeah, but it's not.
Yeah, but I would make it a duty.
They don't have a duty to, though.
This is where.
No, no, no, sorry.
From my point of view, Christian ethical paradigm, the duties for men and women are different.
And because the duties are different, their place in society and what they're expected to do and where they find themselves vary.
From your perspective, which is largely sort of like a liberal sort of like an individual, it's still individualism, though.
It's like you want people to pursue their own personal wants and desires, regardless of what other people find appalling or like, as long as it's legal, you go and do it, right?
No, not necessarily.
I think there, well, I mean, I think there are certain things that can be legal that I don't think people should do.
But I'm saying the result of that liberalism, that free liberalism, the result of that, like I think that feminism is largely intertwined with that view.
Like, for instance, feminists aren't all like Ayn Rand fans or whatever, but the thing is, ultimately, ultimately, the thing is do as thou wilt, right?
Regardless of your duties.
That's why the biggest criticism when you match up feminism with any other view, especially religious views, that they don't have any duties and obligations.
There's zero for men and women.
There's nothing that grounds your duties.
Well, I think it's because in our society, we don't have to specifically ground duties in what people ought to do, especially with regards to reproduction.
People want to have kids.
That is an innate biological desire of both men and women.
And men and women will have children if they are given the opportunity to do so, if they are given the financial resources to do so.
You don't have to force them to do it.
That's just not how.
Nobody said force.
We're talking about duties.
Women do not have to be relegated to the home in order for there to be children.
Wait a second.
In order for there to be children.
You keep using this force as if people are going to force people.
We're talking about the right to vote away.
No, you're trying to take the right to view.
Well, that's the end of the world.
You already agreed that that could happen and still be consistent with your view.
No, it wouldn't.
Yeah, it would.
You already conceded that under your view, if it were the case that women collectivized and they said, you know what, we don't want the right to vote, you said, well, just don't vote.
No, if the women voted to have it completely repealed, that would be fair under the democratic system.
You can vote.
Yeah, of course, democracy can lead to authority.
How's that inconsistent with your view, though?
It's not inconsistent.
Of course, they put their own rights away.
Yeah.
Well, absolutely.
cool so so if women agree here so well that's what i'm saying If women could vote their rights away to vote, if it happened.
Men could vote their rights away.
Yeah.
You should be fine with that, right?
So that's the ideal.
I'm saying in defending democracy, you don't have to defend every part of what could happen in a democratic system.
Democracy is the best version of government.
It can sometimes go astray, and it can sometimes lead to bad outcomes.
And we're not, it's just saying that's part of the reality that we live in, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, that could happen.
Yeah, but even democracy itself is in a type of a contradiction.
Is what?
Democracy itself is in a type of contradiction if it can't produce something that's not itself.
What do you mean?
I'm saying that if democracy can produce all outcomes except for ridding itself of democracy.
I mean, it can.
Okay, it can, but can it here?
It could.
The question of whether it could.
Is it still democracy?
Yeah, people can democratically vote away their power.
That's how Hitler got into office.
Okay, so if it's still democratic, right?
Sorry, maybe I shouldn't say that.
I think you can say that.
If that's the see, I don't understand.
That seems to be like something that's crucial to the view itself because feminism is all downstream from you have the entitlement and entitlements are down, you know, are rights, and then rights give you this voice, and then the voice gives you a vote, and then the vote gives you a policy, and so on and so on.
Okay.
I don't understand why we're under the assumption that this is something like worth defending.
Like, would you die to defend this system?
Defend what?
Democracy, voting, just the whole system.
Against.
Anything alternative that you didn't know the outcome of.
Sure, yeah.
I mean, in terms of like authoritarianism, yeah.
Okay.
And authoritarianism, you would define, how do you know you're in an authoritarian system?
How do I know I'm in an authoritarian system?
I guess when people's constitutional rights are being violated, when individuals are not respecting the checks and balances of the government that are currently being set up or are in place.
But aren't those things authoritarian?
What do you mean they're authoritarian?
Those structures.
How are they authoritarian?
You can have democracy with safeguards.
I'm not saying democracy is not direct.
When we talk about democracy, it's always a trade-off between absolute, complete mob rule will of the people and some safeguards to ensure it doesn't go awry.
That's kind of what it constitutes.
Let's get to it.
And that's kind of what the Bill of Rights is.
That's what the Supreme Court is.
That's what I'm saying is like everything is authoritative in the end and every view.
You balance it.
I know, but that's where it comes into play is that if the topic of the debate is feminism is good for society or not.
Yeah.
I'm still not sure how feminism produces an ethical framework that anyone should appeal to at all.
Feminism doesn't produce an ethical framework.
Feminism is just a description of, it doesn't produce an ethical framework.
It's based on an ethical framework.
Okay.
But it just doesn't produce it.
Okay.
It's not a meta-ethical theory.
Okay, so there is a framework that's judging feminism.
Sure.
And you're saying feminism, according to this view, is good.
What's that view?
Feminism, like what is determining that feminism is good?
At a certain point, some type of moral objectivism, but I don't know exactly what kind of moral objectivism that is.
So wait a second.
I can't.
Hold on, Oliver.
Hold on.
You can't justify the axioms of logic.
Oliver, if you're coming to a debate and saying feminism is good for society, feminism is a type of an apparatus.
Sure.
And the thing that's judging it, in this case, you are holding the meta-ethical view, is saying this is good for society.
So you are the meta-ethical view, right?
Is it just your preferences?
No, it's not.
I could be wrong.
And other, I could, I'm not, this doesn't collapse into relativism because what you're, what any other kind of objective view, I mean, one that appeals to God, one that appeals to this, just says, yeah, that's right because God says it's right.
And therefore, I'm going to ground it in it being right because of that.
So it's masking this.
Isn't that still better than a pluralistic feminism where two feminists could coexist having completely counteractive preferences and still be called feminists?
you can have counteractive preferences, but what they would agree on is both of them are living valid expressions of womanhood.
Well, I mean...
That would be the agreement.
If...
If one of them believes that the other should be legally prevented from doing that or something like that, then yeah, then they would not be a feminist.
Okay, so it sounds like you're now, I don't want to say shifting is like you're dancing.
I'm just saying it sounds like what you're saying now is feminism is about the expression of womanhood.
I mean, it's the expression of, I don't know, it's the expression of saying that people should not be defined by their sex or gender.
It should not be, that they should not have their rights, they should not have their privileges taken away because.
Oliver, if all of the men in power, we agree it's a collective of strong men.
They can do that.
They shouldn't.
I don't, why are we making these certain things?
No, no, no, hold on.
Hold on.
If all of those men declared that they were women, would it still be men in power?
Would it still be men in power?
Do you want to get into the woman question?
Is that what you want to do?
Well, I don't know your view.
I'm just wondering.
If there's a group of biological males who hold a position of enforcement and power in a society, if those, you point to them, right?
Because the feminists are saying we're being oppressed.
That's the whole point.
It starts with the assumption that they're being oppressed.
Well, what are they being oppressed by?
By a patriarchy.
Okay, those are men, right?
Yeah.
Well, if men can be not men.
We can get into that.
So, I mean, I'd be happy.
I wrote a lot about this idea of what a woman is.
And the reality is, I actually don't think that it is possible to provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for womanhood or manhood or what is a man or what is a woman that includes all the people we would normally think of as women and all the people that we'd normally think of as men.
So how would you, and this is a really interesting question, how would you define a woman?
A woman, someone who has the developmental pathways toward having ovaries and giving birth, even if they didn't fully develop.
Okay, so there are certain individuals who don't have that.
No, the pathway is always there.
The pathway isn't necessary.
Yes, it is.
Have you heard of something like there's something like Swire syndrome?
Sawyer syndrome.
No, the pathway is always tilted one direction or the other.
And that one is tilted towards male.
In that case, I can provide the case of Sawyer syndrome for you because I had it down as an example.
So Sawyer syndrome, these individuals have XY chromosomes, but during development, the SRY gene responsible for sex differentiation doesn't activate, meaning these individuals have external female genitalia and have present but underdeveloped uterus and fallopian tubes.
Puberty will not occur in these individuals unless they're given hormone replacement.
Are you pointing to the XY?
No, I don't appeal to that.
I understand that.
So people have to, I don't feel to X. XY people would be some people who are XYZ.
No, no.
Some people who are XY would be classified as women under your view.
Well, no, we're looking at the pathway of development, not XY.
Sure.
So then, because even though they have XY, there is a pathway because of the lack of the categorized.
Yeah, to properly categorize.
It is a binary in the end.
They'd be categorized as women.
Okay.
I mean, I'm still working out my exact view on the.
But the thing is, I know you're probably debating this stuff a lot.
It is relevant to feminism because we're in a phase now where if everything you thought was oppressive, that was based on a binary of male and female, but you call that binary men, men are oppressing me, those people would have to remove the term men and say males are oppressing me only, right?
Well, I think that men can still track something about males.
Yeah, sure.
Like, I think it can still track something without it exactly.
Do you think that there's actually a difference between a female and a woman?
I think societally there can be.
Because, for example, I think there's different definitions we can use for words.
So I think that we can consider woman, like almost every definition or every word that we use has multiple definitions to it.
Like that just is the case.
But the question is, when someone says, oh, they're a female, but they're not a woman, you accept that.
I think that it would depend on what they mean by it, because woman and man can also be like gendered terms and someone is more manly or less manly.
I think women and men are largely.
Well, yeah, like gendered terms.
I think you're referring to like feminine and masculine because you're referring to a referent.
But if someone says it's a construct, like completely, my criticism of all of that stuff, you know, the Matt Walsh guy started the trend by just saying, what is a woman?
Whatever.
But ultimately, I'm pointing out that there's not really a referent for it.
What do you mean?
Like a referent out in space that you can point to.
That's this thing called woman.
The thing that you're pointing to ends up being biologically informed, like traits, femininity, daintiness, daintiness.
I think there can be some ambiguity there, but it doesn't mean like nothing exists, for example.
Like I don't, I don't think that just because we can't pin down like exactly kind of what it like essentially means to be.
But someone should be able to, because if they said, and you're not taking this position hard, by the way, is that if someone said, no, female is not the same as woman, you're talking about sex.
We're talking about gender.
That's the common on all the TikToks, right?
I asked this question.
I'll ask you just because I'm being charitable with you because it doesn't sound like you take a really hard stance on this.
But just to answer the question, because it's funny.
Can a female be a trans woman?
Can a female be a trans woman?
I'm not, I think largely my understanding of trans women are individuals who are biologically male who identify as women.
So I guess no, in a sense.
Well, yeah, because if they were different, it should be yes, right?
Like if female wasn't identical to woman, the answer to the question, can a female be a trans woman, the answer should be yes.
Well, no, can a female be a biological male who identifies as a woman?
No, because she's female.
then we're reducing this is my point is that it reduces back to sex that's the thing that you're looking at as a referent not the if it were true that uh neither male or female is equal to man or woman they they can be swapped each of those because they're not identical to each other at all They're totally different categories, then it would follow that a female, biological female, could be a trans woman.
They just simply declare it so.
They declare, they identify as a male who became, and look, and this might be a matter of the same.
I mean, what are the rules?
Look, I don't claim to be an authority on this, and I don't really, my understanding of it is I don't, and I think people say like sex is changeable, like I don't agree with that.
No, it's not.
It's not.
Well, they're starting to say that.
They didn't always say that.
And I think there are people who are saying like sex is mutable or something like that.
I don't agree with that.
I think that, so I don't think that someone can say that like I identify as a biological male because that's not a category that relates to identity.
Like those are kind of fixed biological facts.
And I don't think it is, I think someone can identify more or less with being a man or being a woman.
The reason I asked, the reason I asked is that if you're coming to the table and arguing for feminism and the argument for feminism necessitates that there's an oppression happening and we've established that.
Then once you get into the territory where there's ambiguity of what a man and a woman is, then you don't have much to argue in regards to correcting feminism.
I don't think that's true because you're basically arguing is because we can't point to an exact definite line between man and woman or an exact definitive point.
Therefore, the difference is meaningless, kind of, right?
Is that kind of what you're saying?
Well, if there's no distinction, if there's no distinction.
Are you familiar with the societies paradox?
This idea that it's kind of the same thing of like the fallacy of the pile in a heap or something like that.
Like how many grains of sand make it make it?
I understand.
And you don't have to say that, oh, it's exactly this many grains.
I know, but I understand.
So I think there's a difference between women and men.
And I don't know if, and I don't think we have to necessarily go down to like an anatomical level in order to kind of.
I understand.
I know you're saying that you don't have to, but I think that if you're going to claim that there's a thing called feminism and feminism doesn't apply to men or males, it's specific to what you're calling feminism.
And feminism is this counter to this other power structure.
What's ironic and kind of wild is that the whole like, you know, I guess Peterson would be like, the postmodern people changing all the things, you know, that is leading people to not being able to argue for the injustice because the distinction doesn't exist.
I don't, sure.
And I don't, look, I'm not, you know, you have to ask other people this because that's not a position that I necessarily hold.
But here's what I would, here's what I would say in response just a little bit is when we're talking about like, I think it's still possible, even if maybe you don't agree that trans women ought to be classified as women in the sense that like, I don't, how we ought to consider a woman.
I think that if people consider them women, they could experience a type of oppression that women face because they're, well, because they're viewed that way.
For example, here's a really good example.
No, someone, someone can experience discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, even if they aren't gay.
So let's assume that at work, someone assumes you're gay because you got a margarita shirt on or something like that.
And they're making, you know, bad, like, let's even say someone fires you on the basis of that.
They're like, you're wearing a margarita shirt.
It must mean you're gay.
I hate gay people.
I'm going to fire you.
It's true that you could face, that would basically kind of be you as, I'm assuming you're straight or you're straight.
You would be experiencing actually homophobia as a straight person.
So it could actually be possible that a trans woman would experience misogyny.
I understand what you're saying, but there's a truth to the matter, though.
Sure.
Of that scenario.
That's where it gets into trouble.
Like, for instance, there are people who have this experience that they don't have a limb, right?
I forget what they call it.
Yeah, alien limb syndrome or something.
So they have this, right?
And so if they have this experience, let's say I discriminate against a person who actually doesn't have a limb, right?
Okay.
Over there.
I just like don't ask them for help.
That's like a form.
Like maybe they want me to ask them for help because they don't want to be like a burden or whatever.
But I don't.
I discriminate.
I just said, oh, the legless person, I'm not going to ask them to help me.
Okay.
There's a person next to them that believes they declared it so that they identify as not having a leg and they're offended that I didn't affirm.
See, that's the I use that.
And look, and I'm going to probably say something that people on the left are saying.
I think there is a level of kind of like, I don't know if craziness is the right word, but I don't know.
Accepting people, expecting people to accept things that they intuitively see as just not the case immediately, without question, and just like, just if you and if you don't accept that you are a bigot and you are bad enough okay, i'm again, I don't and I don't think so.
And look I the.
The trans issue is something that frankly, I try to stay away from, mostly because I don't.
It's not that i'm like scared to speak on it because I think that i'm gonna get canceled by the left.
It's rather I don't, I don't really think that there's much value I can provide to the conversation in terms of like what I don't, I don't know like, is it possible that biological males can feel like they are women?
I don't know, because I don't know because sorry, sorry about that, I I don't know, because i'm not a biological male who feels like a woman, so I don't have that experience.
So I think, I think gender dysphoria is a real thing.
This is what, this is what, this is what I have a problem with.
Okay, okay.
So there are people who say, my son feels like a girl yeah okay yeah, I don't yeah, I don't agree with that, okay.
But then I would ask, even the, the person who's young or the person who's old.
They could be wrong.
I would ask, how do you know what it feels like to be a girl?
Um, I think people look, I don't, I.
I think if people like know what it feels like to be a girl, I think, especially at those younger ages, kids say stuff that like, oh yeah, I thought I was a monkey.
I thought I was a monkey.
Of course, I told my parent I was a monkey, and I think I think it's possible also that if boys are expressing they want to be a girl, they might just actually be expressing, I like girls and I like girls.
They could be yeah, so I so i'm.
I'm, I guess, not of the view that like, if a, if a young boy expresses anything, a desire to be in accordance with anything that is typically associated with the female sex, that we should start treating him like a woman or start identifying him right as a woman.
Right, but that's the thing is like um, to bring it back to feminism, at least you acknowledge, in order to have feminism, you at least need uh, a little bit more of a rigid position on categories between men and women, because otherwise you couldn't argue that women are being oppressed if you can't tell me what any of those are.
Well, I don't I I, I I can understand the kind of appeal of that kind of like framework like how, how can you be a feminist if you don't even know what a woman is?
But I think that it's also true that you can acknowledge that there's, there is ambiguity between categories that they're the kind of is, and there maybe might not necessarily always be a fact of the matter that we can like know, like I don't know, like how many, how many grains of sand does it take to make?
I don't, I think, because I think, because you can point to a some threshold where you might find ambiguity.
I don't think that's what's going to inform all of our decisions.
It's more so that we're going to be informed by typical things, right?
We don't, we like, like it might be the case we all see the red, green, and yellow lights at the stop sign differently, but all some threshold, some frequency of those reflections.
But that wouldn't, it wouldn't follow that we suddenly have to come up with names for each of the different ways in we see the yellow for everybody, right?
Sure.
So that's why I'm thinking like, well, my view, which is counter to feminism, is based on what's typical and what's typical.
That's why force doctrine is argued so well, is because you're arguing for what's typically the case descriptively.
You're not making a claim that it ought to be that way.
But feminism, if it counters how it actually is, I think the strong statement I make is that feminism is actually a lie.
It's actually lying to women.
No, I don't, look, I don't, I really, I really don't see, and you know, you can try to explain it to me again, how you're getting from the descriptive claim that, you know, because men are stronger, they will like always be appealed to with force, or that because they have force, they will always need to be appealed to, that that is like that, that, that in and of itself means that women should not have like the same opportunities to certain things.
I'm not, look, I'm not saying that women should have equal access to the military and we should completely absolve all standards to include them.
That's not what I'm getting at.
But I think there are certain fields.
For example, like I don't buy the idea that there are significant scientific differences between the intellects of men and women that justify excluding them from fields like the sciences.
So some of the data I was bringing up that I thought was important was that when there are mixed gendered teams, it leads to more innovative research, novel research, and it leads to the research being more influential.
And I think that's a good thing.
And that's why I think we should encourage more women to be involved in science, men to be involved in science, collaboratively.
Do you want the smartest women to multiply themselves?
Smartest women?
I think people in general, yeah.
I think it's good for individuals to.
Well, that's the thing is like, even if you, no one's arguing women, we should stop it and they stop them from doing all these things.
It's just that what's happening is that the culture has reached a point where there's been so much shoved down the men and women growing up in public school that there's this like equality thing and then, and then women should go pursue their dreams, and they're they're steered away from childhood, absent the parents at home countering what they're they're they're learning in school.
But let me just finish.
This is that if you just said well, there's a bunch of smart women that were exceptions and I think they should be in the stem fields, and I think I don't think they're exceptions though, whatever it is well no, there's.
No, there's.
Smart people are exceptions for men and women in those fields.
The question i'm having is it, even if you found the smartest people, wouldn't it, wouldn't it be beneficial for them to have children in stem?
Yeah, to advocate not instead no not, not instead.
Up to a point, you're going to have to figure out what's more important.
For women, men and women are different.
They're in different positions.
The reason is it's not just the force doctrine.
It's that women, for them to fulfill on what, let's say, want to have kids.
For them to fulfill on, there is a time period.
For men, there's not as much.
Well, I think it would be beneficial to societally impose that type of time period.
So, for example, I think paternity leave should be something that is more widespread.
I think that what about permanentity.
I'm saying maternity.
No, paternity.
I think men should take time off work to be with their kids as well.
I think that's important.
I think men and women should spend time with their kids in their formative years.
I think that's beneficial.
So, no, you're going to say permanent maternity leave.
No, I mean, yeah, I don't want women to work.
Yeah, I think there should be a massive because you think it's all force.
And I'm not arguing that.
Most of the people I argue with who are on my side of this argument aren't talking about force.
They're talking about reinstating massive levels of propaganda, essentially, right?
That shows the beauty and the joy and the fulfillment of mothering for women to see in opposition to what they mostly see.
Why are they seeing that right now?
Seeing the opposite?
Yes.
What do you mean?
Because the arm of propaganda is left-leaning and progressive.
That's true.
Sure, but why is that the pushback?
Why are they seeing messages of you can be whatever you want, you can go out, you can do because of Disney?
Because of Disney.
Why are people doing that?
Why would people, I guess, on my who are sympathetic to my view, feel it is necessary to tell women, hey, you can have a career.
You cannot center your life around your children, and that's okay.
It's because before that, and I guess you want to return to that, is a view where it is very you should center your family.
I'm saying that's inevitable.
I'm saying that the return to that is inevitable because you run out of people.
Yes.
We're running out of people.
Okay.
Is it possible, Oliver?
Hold on.
Is it possible that people like you and the whole bullhorn of academia and Hollywood coming down on the women and saying, go be a boss, babe?
Don't be a wife.
That's so weak.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Let me finish.
You're strawmanning.
No, portraying these women as dumb, weak, right?
Nope.
Submissive.
This is bad, right?
Well, maybe it's a good thing for women to be submissive.
You never hear that feminist argument.
Wait.
Why is that the case?
Hold on.
Because if women want to be submissive, they why is it missing from the feminist machine, propaganda machine, that being submissive could be feminine empowering?
I don't actually think it is.
It's oh, really?
Yes, absolutely.
I think that from largely from feminism, what it says is that women should have agency in the choices they make.
Here's a really good example of it.
And I don't know how much we can talk about this because it kind of gets raunchy, but I think a big part of this is kind of like fetishes and things like that and things like people like.
So, for example, some women, you know, like to be degraded in that type of sense in a sexual setting.
We don't view that as anti-feminist because they're making a choice to do something that they enjoy, which is engage in a type of fantasy.
However, it's entirely still based on their consent and based on what they want.
So in that sense, this is exactly the point: that feminism, you're calling it an apparatus that's judged by an ethical paradigm.
Right now, you're talking about your ethical paradigm about feminism.
Your own ethical paradigm that's judging feminism would allow for basically posthumous sex with a cadaver so long as it was consented.
What do you mean posthumous?
After death, like if someone consented to their body being used afterwards and there was no harm, that would be fair game.
That actually, I mean, that kind of is my philosophical worldview.
I do take a very harm-based approach and it does have some counterintuitive implications.
You know, I think that there are instrumental reasons.
I've actually had a lot of conversations within philosophy just about this in particular.
It might be instrumental reasons why we don't want to do that.
But I don't think there's something inherently wrong with it.
Great.
So if your worldview that's telling the audience why feminism is good includes maybe large amounts of companies renting out cadavers and that being totally fine in the same paradigm.
Why would you mean like you have people renting out dead bodies?
Basically, some of the worst atrocious behaviors, whether it's after a cadaver stuff or the rise in pornography with young girls, basically one out of 10 women from like 25 to 30 have an OnlyFans account because they're told it's empowering, dude.
I think the reason, no, hold on.
I think the reason that they're told that it's empowering is because it is, it is what it is.
It's a pushback against.
What?
Is it empowering?
I'm not them.
I don't know.
It depends on the world.
Should we?
It depends on the woman's family.
Look, Oliver, Oliver.
If you're going to.
Look, I'm a father, right?
You're treating women homogenously.
Hold on.
I'm a father here.
No, no, I'm talking to you.
To a single monolith.
Hold on.
I'm a man.
I'm coming to you.
I'm going to go.
Hey, Oliver, I heard your feminist views.
I want some advice.
When should I tell my daughters to, if it's empowering to them, when should I tell them about their option of being OnlyFans?
Hold on.
When did we say that it was necessarily empowering?
I asked you.
You didn't answer it.
Because it isn't, because you can't say that.
Should we teach it?
It should be an option for women.
When should we teach that as an option?
You know why I asked this?
Hold on, Oliver.
Because you just said three minutes ago, you said, people like me are coming in and saying, you can do this, you can do this.
You're a bunch of snakes on the tree, right?
In Eden.
So you're going, you can do this.
You can do this.
Think about this.
Why don't you include pornography?
If women want to do pornography, that's fine.
Yeah, but why don't you advocate for it?
I think we should teach it as a legitimate form of work.
Absolutely.
Because my kids, hold on.
My kids ask me what I do for work.
They ask, what does other people do for work, right?
At what age do you?
You should be honest with them.
If you're on these shows, and for example, like the whatever podcast, and you're on the show and your kids ask you, hey, what do a lot of these girls do?
What do you tell them?
No, I'm not answering that question.
Okay, so I mean, in a sense, I guess then you're lying or withholding information.
I'll withhold information because I have to protect my kids, right?
I think I.
So the question is, when mommy comes home from work, right, and they have school day, right?
Because this is what you're actually advocating for.
I don't think so.
Mommy goes to school with kid day and they get to talk about what they do for work.
Okay.
You're totally fine with the mother going to school at whatever age.
Let's say it's like fifth grade.
Oh, we're not taking off all her clothes.
No, no, no.
Telling the kids what they do.
In explicit detail, no.
Well, what do you mean?
Why not?
What do you because we know it?
Why not, Oliver?
What do you think?
The girls need to know how they can be liberated.
No, but I'm not saying that's inherently liberatory for women.
It doesn't inherently liberate them, but it also doesn't inherently make them not liberators.
Oh, really?
I agree.
No, here we go.
Let me say this.
I do think that it is a problem of people being pushed into these fields because it's an easy way for them to make a dollar, and probably a lot of them don't find it fulfilling.
I would agree with you on that.
However, I would disagree in making this generalized statement that none of them find it fulfilling or it being a thing that they're not going to be able to do.
I don't care what they think is fulfilling or not.
The question is deciding what's best for them over them.
Yeah, yeah.
Is it possible?
Is it possible that it's possible for that?
They're wrong.
It is also possible that you are wrong.
So when it comes to decisions about someone's life, I'm going to defer to them.
Oh, really?
What about when they're children?
What?
I'm not saying that you should let people say these things.
All our children.
Oliver, I didn't ask about saying it to children.
You said when you are talking about what other people should do with their bodies or not, you're going to defer to them.
I asked about children.
What does a father?
What do you mean about children?
What does a father do?
Because you can protect your kids.
I'm not saying don't protect your children.
Okay, but the thing is, if being a father of your home means guiding and intervening on the path of your child, then the best thing about being a father is actually the intervention part on what they, quote, want.
I'm not going to tell my kid to be a porn star.
I'm not trying to fight that bullet.
I didn't ask you that because the question is, right?
You are making the claim that when it comes to other people and what they want to do, I'm not going to come in and say they shouldn't do it.
I'm not.
Here's how I would view it.
I am not a woman, and I don't, I would not view sex work as something that I would want to do.
Because of that, and because I don't understand it, I would not tell my kids to do something that I don't understand and isn't.
If, for example, I don't know, if, for example, I don't know, I have a family member and they are in that industry and we have conversations about that and they tell me and my kids want to learn about that from this family member, I would want to be present in that conversation so that I can, you know, okay, I think what you're saying is not true in this way and we should have a full holistic picture about this.
But I don't think that like we should withhold information from like children in the sense that they should, we can teach kids about sex.
How do you teach?
We should teach kids about sex and about the importance of consent, the importance of that.
We don't have to teach them to be porn stars.
Tell me, tell me.
I didn't even say, like, I'm asking why, in your view, why wouldn't you say, why wouldn't you teach that?
If you were to say, if you were to advocate for a young girl to go into STEM, would you do that?
Yeah.
Okay.
Why?
I'm not trying to, and this is, you're not going to pin me into this corner.
I know you.
I'm not trying to argue that all forms of work, like societally, are seen as like liberatory.
Dude, it's so, so simple.
Your view of feminism is women having the choice to do anything that's, quote, legal, right?
No, no, no.
That's not true.
Why not?
What do you mean, legal?
How's that not empowering from your view?
Wait, hold on.
I think there are some things that are legal that women shouldn't do.
Like what?
I think that, for example, people can have moral obligations.
So, for example, I would say that if my, if a woman in my life had a family member who had a very serious condition and they needed a blood transfusion in order to survive, and the woman in my life was uniquely qualified because of blood type or something like that, I would probably tell her, you should help them out.
You should do that.
You should help them out in that way.
It wouldn't be legally.
It wouldn't be legally.
They should not be legally obligated to do that.
But I think morally, they would have a shouldn't.
They shouldn't do that?
No, no, no.
What about, give me an example of a shouldn't.
It's something women shouldn't do.
But I would apply it to men and women.
So I'm not making like the women shouldn't do this because they're women.
It's women shouldn't do this because their people and people in general should not do this.
So for example, I don't think doing hard drugs is a good thing.
I don't think doing heroin is probably a good thing for most people.
So I would advise women and men to not do that.
That doesn't therefore follow from it.
That I think it should be illegal for a lot of other instrumental consequences that I think would follow from laws of that nature.
I think it would make the problem worse.
So yeah, there's an example.
Wait, is that the same reasoning you were against making post-death cadaver sex illegal because there's some other things that might make it worse?
I mean, so this is this, and it's really hard to have like meta-philosophical conversations on these types of podcasts because what's going to happen is if I try to defend my philosophical view on its merits, you're going to blow it out of proportion and be like, he supports people fucking dead.
Well, people.
And it's just like, no, I don't say support.
I'm saying allow.
I don't.
I didn't say it.
I just asked you under your view if it's based on harm principle.
I don't think people should do it.
And the reason I don't.
Did you make it illegal, though?
What?
I think it probably would be illegal.
And the reason for that, and the reason for that, is because I think there is a very, very, very high likelihood of instrumental harm.
For example, I don't think people want their dead loved ones to be that's true, but unless they made a lot of money and then the harm was countered in their view, because if they're alive.
Well, yeah, if the family got together and said, hey, grandma's coming over, you know, she's on her way out and she wants to talk to us and she says, I'm going to do this for the family.
Do what?
Basically, give her body out after death for a week for anyone to rent it out or whatever.
And the family goes, cool, we'll be rich like Haktua.
And it's kind of weird.
Weird isn't really a counter to whether it's consistent with your ethical paradigm.
Yeah, and here's the thing: I don't use weirdness as a criterion for what I think should be prohibited.
Like, I don't, I don't, I don't know.
There's a lot of cases of what is called moral dumbfounding where we think something is wrong, but we can't point to a specific reason as to why it's wrong.
So, yeah, this is weird.
I don't, I don't know.
I'd be like.
Okay, let's put it another way.
Do you think under your ethical framework, people can act against themselves and it be morally wrong?
Doesn't harm anyone else, just all self-contained.
I would say yes, but it's because what they do, I don't believe it is like possible to live in a universe where what you do, like self-regarding actions.
I think everything you do has an effect.
It's like doing drugs.
Okay.
Should you be able to do these hard drugs?
It's like, well, probably, maybe you shouldn't because it will still have these effects.
Well, that's why I asked about what I call an epidemic of young girls.
And by the way, men are still part of this, the consumption element of it.
But girls think these young girls are being basically trained through feminism first, right?
This is the result.
These are the fruits of feminism.
Teaches feminism early on.
You're going to have a radical change.
You're going to have the sexual revolution.
You're going to have the drug revolution.
And then you're going to part ways with the traditional lifestyle of Christian values and ethics in the home.
Then what happens is you get this mass amount of technology, you know, to express yourself.
You run, you run headfirst, hold on.
Fair enough.
Headfirst into it.
And now they think because of all of the propaganda, the pop stars, they're all disgusting, right?
And so now the little kids, the poor little girls go, well, that's how I have to be now, right?
I think, no.
And that's all feminism, dude.
That's not traditionalism.
That's feminism.
And I think you're doing a very good job at portraying feminism in its worst possible light.
Where's the good one?
Hold on.
The good one is encouraging women to be doctors.
The good one is encouraging women to go into those careers.
Why would that be?
Why is that better than pornography from your view?
Why is that better than pornography?
I don't know.
So why are we listening to you then?
No, no, because look, if a woman wants, I don't, here's the thing, and here's the reason maybe why I'm able to say why I think it would be good for a woman to become a doctor, but maybe not to do OnlyFans.
It's because I can conceptualize the good of me being a doctor.
I really can't conceptualize the good of me being on OnlyFans.
Okay, but I don't know.
I would have to talk with certain individuals, like certain individuals who were involved in this industry.
Like, I just, I don't know.
I don't want to make these blanket statements that have to choose between being in the home or being sex workers.
I think there's a dichotomy.
I think there's so much greater.
I'm not presenting a dichotomy.
I'm doing a reduction.
No, I'm saying it.
No, it's not a reductio.
If we accept feminism, we have to accept that every single woman.
It's actually not a reductio.
It doesn't actually, it's not actually reduce you to absurdity, though.
You're actually consistent that you would say, yeah, teaching young girls that that's an option to get into pornography would be empowering and in line with feminism.
I think you could teach them that it is something that people do, but be honest about it.
And I'm not a fan of the porn industry.
I agree it's incredibly exploitative, and I agree that it has a lot of problems.
But so, like, I don't, I think there is a reason to be instrumentally against the porn industry and how it targets and exploits young girls.
But I don't think that we should like pretend for like people that it doesn't exist.
Yeah, but don't you ever think about internally, I know you said you can't really put pinpoint what it is about it, but why is it that even you yourself, who's advocating for just like sort of like liberated women, you still advocate for more wholesome, useful because that's what I'm familiar with, dude.
I'm arguing only from my worldview and perspective.
And the reality is, is there's a lot of things that I see.
Sorry, yeah, sorry.
There's a lot of things that I see and that I don't understand that, yeah, my first response is, I don't get that.
That's weird.
And my initial response to it is, it's weird.
I don't understand it.
I don't like it.
Therefore, it shouldn't be something that we allow.
And I think that's a bad basis for basing a moral framework.
I think disgust is a very poor metric of determining what is good and what is bad.
It might be not sufficient, but I don't think it's entirely invalid.
I don't think it's entirely invalid.
I agree with you, but I don't know.
Like one could, like, for example, I don't know.
Like, let's say some one person thinks seeing like people who are overweight having sex is disgusting.
They'd never want to see that.
I don't want, that's not evidence whatsoever at all that there's anything wrong with people who are overweight having sex, like whatsoever.
Like, it's not, it's not like what, like, I don't know about that.
I might argue that being overweight or like super obese might be an ethical issue if you hold the view that your own body is, let's say, like an icon of God or an expression.
And people should take care of themselves.
Would you agree that also there are certain, at least conditions and body types that it just, some people are just bigger.
You know what I mean?
No matter how much.
No, I agree.
No matter how much people are.
They shouldn't be allowed to have sex.
Are you scared?
I'm just kidding.
Well, I mean, if you're going to say that women shouldn't have the right to vote, and then you say, like, fat people shouldn't have sex, it's not too far off from what you're doing.
No, no, no.
Women voting is way more harmful to society.
The things they vote for is how I know.
This is how I know that there's a specific difference is that, again, you're going to be able to find exceptions.
Okay.
You're going to have to just use some charity here.
What women vote for since like, I don't know, the 50s, since onward, right?
They vote according to their sort of nurturing traits, and what they do is they turn—this is the irony.
Hold on.
This is the irony of specific examples.
I will.
They expand.
This is the irony.
You're arguing against this authoritative power, right?
The man coming down, right?
On freedom and liberty for women.
Women vote with patterns that expand authoritarian government and basically— Specific examples.
You see a very big generality.
Gun, gun, gun laws.
They vote in protection.
They vote for, let's say, generally safety over liberty.
They vote safety over liberty.
Gun laws is a perfect example.
A lot of them vote pro-abortion.
Okay.
Well, what do you mean?
That's against them.
How is that against them?
They're annihilating their own kids.
What do you mean?
How is that against you?
I don't think that people should be pregnant against their will.
What do you mean?
They had sex.
What do you think about that?
Well, I mean, first off, there's a big jump to say that just because someone consented to sex, they consented to pregnancy.
It doesn't follow.
No, how does it follow?
That follows the same way getting into a car, you consented to possibly get into an accident.
Okay, and if you possibly get into an accident, does it therefore mean that you should have to use your body to sustain the life of the person that you got into an accident with by law?
What do you mean?
You're saying it's not a person?
I'm not, no, I'm not saying that actually.
No, you can't absolutely.
No, no, no, no.
You can.
You can make a bodily rights argument for abortion that doesn't deny fetal personhood.
It's something that Judith Jarvis Thompson.
No, no, no, she doesn't in her patients.
She can't tell me what a person is.
No, who cares about Judith?
She doesn't even know what a person is.
What do you mean by that?
She grants to you, whatever your view of a person is, she says we don't even need to discuss that in the abortion debate.
We can have a conversation directly surrounding bodily rights.
Really?
So why does the doctor save the non-person then?
What do you mean the doctor saved the non-profit?
surgeon the woman gets in an accident right and a feminist says well i'm not denying it's a person No, but why is the doctor obligated to save the person?
What do you mean?
If it's not a person.
I'm not saying it's not a person.
You're ascribing to me this view.
Oh, I see.
Do you know you?
So, see, the person who's about to abort their baby doesn't see it as a person, but you do.
Some people don't.
And some people, they're very different.
You have to decide on a spot?
There are a lot of aspects of the abortion debate.
Cool.
One of them.
So it's like this, dude.
There's two women who are pregnant, right?
Same level of pregnancy.
They both get into an accident.
And the doctor.
It doesn't determine.
It doesn't determine.
It's not dependent.
It's not dependent on what they think.
It's not dependent on what they think.
It's not?
It's not dependent on what they think.
Personhood is not a relevant.
The surgeon saves both of them, right?
I mean, ideally, sure, they should.
Yeah.
What if they decide not to?
What do you mean?
What if they determine that, like, that's not a baby?
So this is basically the argument of why is abortion a double homicide if it's not a person type thing?
Or why?
I mean, that can be used.
So think about it this way.
If we're talking about this idea of like rendering life-saving care, if, for example, you agree to allow someone the use of your kidneys for a period of time and you're willing to save their life, let's say you're generously, you're like, oh, you know what?
This is either a family member or something like that.
I'm going to generously allow this person to do that.
And a gunman comes in and kills both of you.
They've still done something wrong.
But if you were to say, I don't consent to my body being used in this way, it's very painful.
I don't want to do that anymore.
And you, quote-unquote, unplug from them or something, or no longer, you cease the consent, you haven't murdered them.
Yeah, but you're including there's another body.
Sure, but just I'm not denying what there's not another.
That's a contradiction.
I'm not denying that there's another body.
I'm denying that other bodies have a right to use your body without your consent.
That's what I'm saying.
Look, if abortion is getting rid of the other body and your argument is you can't violate this woman using her body, right?
Like the way she wants to use her body?
Sure.
You can't use the body autonomy and leave out the other body.
Wait, you aren't.
You're agreeing that there's two bodies.
It's the same reason you can't be forced to donate your kidney against your will, even if you get into an accident that requires someone the use of your kidney.
You're not denying that two bodies exist.
You're saying that one body doesn't have a right to the other body.
There's no rights.
Okay.
I don't know why you keep appealing to this.
I'm appealing to societal intuitions that we largely hold.
If you want to reject everything that we base society on and go off on your own tangent, then I'm not sure.
I don't know how to engage in this conversation.
Well, I'm saying, like, you're assuming there's these, because you're using metaphysical terms.
Societal norms.
But do you agree generally?
Do you agree that generally people should not be forced against their will to donate an organ?
It depends on the situation.
Oh, my God.
Fine.
You were talking about generalities, right?
You're talking constantly about generalities.
Generally speaking, should it be wrong for someone to have an organ taken from them or used without their consent?
Yes or no?
Generally, yeah.
Okay, cool.
So that's a principle under which I'm operating on.
So once we get that principle out of the way and we can say But a baby's not an organ, dude.
The baby's not the organ in question.
The uterus is the organ in question and the baby.
They're not getting rid of the uterus.
No, they're using the uterus.
They're renting.
You're evicting them.
I mean, I guess.
So you invited a person into your home and then you're like, I just want to yeet the person.
Well, not exactly.
I'm just going to kill the person who I invited into my home by opening my legs.
It's not actually.
I think there are, and this might get, there are really interesting literature on this specifically.
I think an analogous scenario to pregnancy, and of course, you're probably going to reject this, is imagine that you are having lunch with someone and you're eating and they start choking and you give them the Heimlich maneuver and save their life.
And in the process, you rupture their kidney, you puncture their lungs, something like that.
And then they require your body to continue living.
In that scenario, do you think that you have some sort of like you should be legally required to use your body in that scenario?
I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Really?
Okay, I mean, I just, I would not share that thing whatsoever because you generously tried to save their life.
Well, the thing is, it would be, to me, it would be awesome to live in a society where someone would be so willing to do that.
I mean, one could argue it would be super errogatory.
But that's for saving a life.
That's what's so different about this view is that we're talking about saving lives and what you would do or what's required, which is a totally different system of thinking than whether or not women – like, for instance, let's forget it.
Let's shift to just this question.
Because to bring it back to feminism, how is women being able to destroy the baby that's growing inside of them?
How is that?
How is that good?
Oh, there's water down here.
Oh, over there.
Over here.
Sorry about that.
Sorry, would you mind repeating?
How is it good for women to yeet their offspring?
Because I think women should have a choice when and where they and what situations they get pregnant.
I don't think people should be pregnant against their wife.
I don't think people should be pregnant against their wife.
You guys find taking a brief pause here.
Yeah, that's fine.
I want to do a, we can come right back to it, though, if you want to just make a note on that.
I want to read a couple chats here.
We have just, by the way, TTS has been lowered to $69 TTS if you guys want to get it in.
We're going to read a couple chats here.
So we have Just Gerald.
Just Gerald donated $100.
Brian got that deep, sultry voice tonight.
W Jimbob, because Jimbob is sick.
But shout out to Oliver for having the stones to fight tonight and remain in good faith.
Brian, you're the man.
Gerald, thank you so much for the TTS.
I really appreciate it.
And it's been a good conversation.
So thank you, man.
Kaibaka, thank you.
It won't let me pull it up, but thank for the gifted 20 subs on Twitch.
Then we have Dax here.
Dax donated $69.
Brother, we're arguing about what is a woman while China is building 100s of nuclear plants and out, competing us in every metric.
This is so dumb.
Yo, Dax, thank you for the $69 TTS.
Really appreciate it.
We have emotional damage coming here.
He says, on a scale of one to 10, 10 being the manliest man, how would you rate yourself as a man?
Okay.
Also, rate your dad, what the fuck, who produced such a weak offspring on that scale?
Also, can you explain why a woman would choose to get impregnated by him to produce useless garbage?
Wow, okay.
Do you want to?
Brutal.
Yeah, you know, there's a lot of people who are.
I mean, I think it's kind of pathetic you wasted $100 to kind of send that in.
So, I mean, good for you.
Emotional damage.
He's calling you out.
He said you wasted it.
I don't know if this is going to spur him on more, but I mean, if it gets you to spend more money, then all right.
Oh, all of you.
Are you, if we hit, we have a super chat goal.
Yeah.
If we hit 50 super chats, right now we're at nine of 50.
Yeah.
Will you put on a MAGA hat?
No.
No?
No.
Okay, I should probably remove that.
Sorry, I thought he was going to do it.
Is there any circumstance in which you would?
If someone was going to die if I didn't wear a MAGA hat.
Sure.
Sorry, if someone were to die if I wouldn't wear a MAGA hat, I don't know.
I'm not going to wear a MAGA hat.
It doesn't is antithetical to almost everything that I stand for.
Like, I'm not, no.
I don't know.
What about for a million dollars?
I don't, I mean, sure, we can make these like comparative claims that, like, would the good of me getting a million dollars and then donating that money to a cause that I'm in favor of offset the harm of wearing a MAGA hat?
Maybe, but, like, I'm not going to wear a MAGA hat because you get money donated to your show.
Like, sorry, that's not how that's going to work.
I got to remove the goal.
I thought he would go for it.
Nope.
I thought he would be a sport, but okay, we also have, let's see here, we have Mike Davis.
Thank you for the super chat, Mike Davis.
He's an OG, so I'll give him a read.
My next business venture will be an airline passport bros air.
Direct flights to countries with traditional women.
Pretty infeminine flight attendants.
Okay.
Male pilots only.
W Passport Bros.
Okay, that's from the OG, Mike Davis.
Thank you for that.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, Jim Bob's going to join us here in just a sec.
He just got up to get a beer.
Is it?
You got a beer.
Do you want a beer?
I'm chill.
I'm good now.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
You can also support via Venmo and Cash App.
That's whatever pod on those.
Also, if you're watching on Twitch, drop a safe follow on the Prime sub over there on Twitch.
Join our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
We got merch, shop.whatever.com.
TTS has been lowered.
$69 TTS.
do you guys want to switch the prompt or um i mean i don't really know what there really would be to well one of the ones i had proposed was uh and i sort of switched it a little bit uh are What was it?
Are men more privileged in society?
I don't really think that, like...
Or are women...
I feel like Jimbob would just like agree that they are and they should be, right?
So there really wouldn't be much distinction.
Well, I mean, wouldn't that be?
Jimbob would say it was good, I imagine.
And you would say it was bad, but that just goes back to the whole conversation we were literally having.
Sorry, yeah.
And that would just go back to the whole conversation we were already having.
So I don't think this is a separate question.
Yeah, it would probably come back.
I mean, I would say men are privileged for good reason because Forrest is privileged.
And then if you said women are not privileged, it'd probably be because descriptively men are privileged.
And to correct it, what do you do?
How do you correct the privilege problem?
How do you correct the privilege problem?
I mean, it largely would end up, you're not denying that certain people are stronger than others.
I just think that if you are stronger, if you have certain privileges, if you are endowed with certain traits that are of no fault to your own, I think you do bear some sort of responsibility to help others out and not use that power to hurt others and use that power to advance their interests and not well, well, well, well, hold on.
I was up, I was with you to a point.
Yeah, the interest, but then you're like, well, not really.
Like, if it's an interest for women to yeet their potential children, I don't think they've earned the right of men collectively to protect their rights at all.
I think we should, I think, I think we should come down harder on women for yeeting their children because they're in a state of luxury.
Like, they're in a state of absolute decadence right now.
What do you mean?
I mean that the privileges they're provided wholly dependent on men allowing them to be like this.
You're arguing, well, men, being that you have force, you should really be nicer to these women who are horrific.
Well, hold on.
I mean, if you want to go back to the abortion discussion, you are begging the question, which is you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove, which is that women getting abortions is a bad thing.
It's something that we should legally prevent.
I think if it's the case, well, if it's the case that we need human beings, and we both agree it's a good thing to fix the problem of having human beings in society, then that doesn't mean we need anything.
That means it doesn't mean we need to fix that problem.
How does it follow that eating 1 million kids per year is a good thing?
I think it, I will go back to this argument.
I don't think that anyone should be obligated by law to use their body to sustain another person or what did I ask you?
I don't know.
Ask me again.
You asked me many things.
I don't think that's a very good question.
I didn't ask what you think it justifies that they eat their kids.
I asked you what is good about it.
What is good about it?
It's good that people are not pregnant against their will.
That's what's good about it.
People should not be forced to gestate a fetus.
Why should they be forced to breastfeed their child one week?
They shouldn't be forced to breastfeed.
If they don't want to take care of their kid, then they can give that child up for a while.
No, Hold on a second.
Hold on a second.
If someone is not obligated to do anything and hold on.
Take care of a child, yes.
Hold on a second.
They had a child.
It's the first week.
It's like Cabin in the Woods.
The mother.
The child can survive by it.
No, the mother has no obligation.
You heard it here.
The mother has no obligation to breastfeed her child that she brought into the world, according to Oliver.
But he skipped to an alternative that he likes, which is to give it up for adoption.
She has no obligation to do that either.
That takes more resources for her as well.
What do you mean?
I'm not saying that you don't have an obligation to ensure that a child in your care does not die.
It does not mean that you.
Yeah, but why is that an obligation if your whole entire ethical view is no one is owed your labor?
No, no, no, that's not what I said.
No one is owed your body.
No, no, no.
Those are two different things, right?
Would you say that there's a difference between people paying taxes and being required to pay taxes and being required to donate their bodily tissue to the government?
Would you say there's a meaningful distinction there that at least most people would, you know, it's at least defensible.
It makes sense.
You can tax your money, but you can't really request that I donate a pint of blood.
That's kind of a little bit too far.
I could grant that they're different scales, but they could be closer together than you'd think.
And yeah, and one could make the argument that, you know, your money, your money is an extension of your labor.
But I want to point out something before you move on with this hypothetical: is that from my view, taxation as it originally existed was an obligation and a duty.
It wasn't based on some sort of rights or anything like this.
There was a social contract.
There was a social component that rich people, they actually wanted.
It was like an elite status to be able to help others.
What happened to that?
Well, what happened?
People started entering the workforce and people made more money and then it got weak in the middle class.
People got rich and then decided they actually didn't want to keep being altruistic.
Well, no, no, it wasn't just that.
It was that as more people got rich, because there were less rich people, right?
There's more rich people now than there was before.
It was that rich people were less available.
And so there was like this essence of like, well, we're rich.
This is what we do.
We take care of the little people, right?
This is great.
I'm sorry.
I was not paying attention.
I'm just paying.
This is great.
Oh, you can read them.
I just think it's really funny that he's spending $100 to insult.
I'm impressed that he thinks that I'm worth $100 to tell me that.
I think it's a compliment.
He thinks apparently his opinion is so valuable that he wants to spend $100 to do that.
Okay, hey, you know.
Keep keeping coming.
You know what?
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to actually lower the TTS.
We're going to do a $30.
We're going to just do a roast session to wrap up the show.
I wanted to maybe do a little rapid fire segment here at the end.
Just some of your prompts on TikTok, if you're fine with that.
We won't linger for too long, but you guys see this vibration?
That's crazy.
Okay.
We do have emotional damage.
I'll pull it up.
Does this guy realize that he's going to be the kind of man who gets affected the most by what he's advocating for?
He will realize it when his blue-haired husband makes him a stay-at-home mom breastfeeding his kid who questions.
I do think men are breastfeed because they have nipples.
Right?
So if you have nipples, you produce milk, right?
That's how it goes now, yeah.
You just produce milk.
No, I don't know.
I don't know enough about the like the science of it, but at least to my understanding, like if you induce certain types of hormones or if you give men certain hormones, they will lactate.
It's probably not a natural.
Like no hormones.
I don't think so because I mean the reason that women lactate when they give birth is that there is a certain hormone that's released that you know indicates that I'm forgetting exactly what it's called.
It's prolactin, I think.
Is it prolactin?
Yeah.
I think those men who try to force breastfeed their child, pretending they're a woman, are just giving their child some sort of pus.
Isn't it?
I mean, I think that's kind of weird.
I don't, I don't know.
I don't, what I don't like to do in that situation is kind of like paint a whole demographic or group based on the actions of some select few.
So I don't, I don't know.
I think there are, I think there are perfectly fine individuals who don't identify within the gender binary.
I'm not going to claim to have some ultimate epistemic knowledge on what it is to be either of those things, but I don't want to demonize those groups of people.
Just because some people are doing something.
Yeah, I don't think that men should be putting their nipples in their kids' mouths.
That's weird.
Don't do that.
But I don't think it follows from that that all automatically men who are choosing to express their gender differently or is deciding to not identify as men are somehow like equivalent in that group.
I don't want to, you know, I don't think it's fair to paint people like that.
We should not judge the individuals like a monolith.
Well, I mean.
Go ahead, Brian.
Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Excuse me, guys.
I'm a bit sick.
So.
Oh, okay.
There was maybe like three or four that I thought were interesting that could perhaps prompt some conversation.
Why women choose the bear?
So this isn't the man versus bear thing.
Do you guys want to have a quick little five, ten minutes?
Actually, I switched my position on this.
The impulse from the pro-male side is to say, you're crazy.
Men can protect you.
And bears are ferocious and they'll kill you.
I kind of thought about swapping it and just being like, yeah, men are dangerous.
That's my point.
I mean, I'm horrified by your conclusion, but I guess I admire your consistency.
But it's true.
Like, maybe it's the right thing to say, yeah, women, you should be afraid of men because you don't know what they're going to do.
That's why you should rely on and hope to rely on good men who can actually defend you from the bad men because you know you can't from the man or the bear.
Sure.
And I guess my whole thing with that is I still do not see how any of that is contrary to a feminist worldview.
Well, a feminist worldview is simply this, right?
You want to get rid of the power of men.
Feminism is a movement away from men in power.
I think it's a way, a movement away from men in power somewhat at the expense of women and their autonomy.
I think there has to be some element.
If men are in power and only doing, like, and are being egalitarian in the way that they govern alongside women, that's not like, I don't think it's something that feminists would be against.
It's not that men have power.
It's the way that they wield that power that is the problem.
Men can't, look, it's a performative contradiction for men to be solely in power and wield their power to produce some sort of Sims simulation of egalitarianism.
What are you talking about?
It's literally not egalitarianism.
What do you, there can be, I don't know what you're talking about.
There can be egalitarian outcomes that still give people as much autonomy and ability as possible.
Like, I don't, you think because men hold this power that therefore they will always inherently, like, I don't know, don't do it.
No, it's not what they will do.
It's the fact that the necessary component to your egalitarian vision is something that's not egalitarian.
It's literally a necessary component of it.
It's like, it's like the thing that you are arguing against is literally utilized to produce a fiction of the thing you think you have.
Against men holding power.
So then it's not egalitarianism.
If egalitarianism or feminism requires an arm that's that is the manifestation of the disparity between men and women, then it's not egalitarian.
It's not arguing that we should have an egalitarian structure of society where men and women are represented equally in every field, participate equally in every single realm.
It's that especially in the fields where there really aren't relevant differences.
I will 100% concede that women can't probably, and probably most men actually, can't meet the standards that it takes to be a Navy SEAL.
So it makes sense that Navy SEALs should be men.
That doesn't apply to being a scientist.
That doesn't apply.
So because of that, we should not exclude women from STEM things.
We don't.
Because you would rather have a woman, you would tell a woman that you would be more happy being in a home.
Yeah, I would tell her children.
That's not excluding her.
That's a problem.
That's not excluding her.
That's just telling her and guiding her what she should do.
And we already agreed that even the smartest who end up in the STEM, we would want them multiply because they're smart.
We want smart women.
And I don't think that those two things are mutually exclusive.
Well, you have to choose at some point.
Having a career and having children.
Of course, I don't think – no, I don't.
I don't think that's the case.
No.
Really?
So you think it's better for children to be raised by strangers in the public school system?
I think that, actually, in a certain sense, I do think public education is a good thing.
Oh my gosh.
Are you kidding me?
I think, it's not, wait, wait, wait.
What?
No, no, wait, wait, wait.
I'd dump a beer on my head after that one.
No, I don't think that's a good idea.
Did you just say the public education system is exciting?
It's a good pull.
Oh, my God.
I agree that there are problems with it, and I agree that there are many issues with it.
However, the alternative, which is parents educating their children in their own worldview, necessarily with there being no counterbalance to it, will lead to people with entiring differing ideologies that never converge.
I think people should encounter ideas that differ from what they've been thought.
Wait a second.
I think school should provide.
Do you think pluralism is better than homogeny and cohesive in-group thinking?
Yes, but I don't think that they're mutually exclusive.
You know what I mean?
I don't think that like, I think you could have a, I think it requires some of both.
You can't have, whereas the whole idea of you can't be so open-minded, your mind falls out.
But I do think that you should be open-minded enough that you're not dogmatic in your conclusions.
That's very dogmatic.
Okay, fine.
Right?
If you're going to argue that, yeah, then like if I claim that.
It's like an anti-dogmatic dogma.
I'm arguing, Oliver, that dogma is not always bad.
Like, what if there's good dogma?
So, well, I think there's a really interesting argument that Jon Stuart Mill makes in his thing called On Liberty.
And the reason that truth ought to be challenged, even if we know it's true, is because it risks becoming dead dogma.
That we don't know why it's true.
Things that are true, you know, retain their value by remaining true in the face of objections because they're challenged and they remain true and they test the culture.
Like traditional families are good for society and women going into porn instead of having children is just not good.
I don't think that.
I think that's gonna be, Oliver.
I think you're gonna come back in due time and you're gonna go.
You know that, that gym, that wacky Jim Bob guy with the gay shirt no, he was right and he, he actually uh, his statements align with Jon Stuart Mill's view that the truth actually prevails.
But that's not.
I'm not saying.
But you, you were saying dogma is good, dogma.
No, I said dogma could be good, dogma could be good.
I don't think so, because I don't think that uncritically accepting things is is really so yeah, so critic, not critically accepting women's rights sure okay, i'm not saying I don't think you should be.
Yeah, I don't think you should be dogmatic about anything.
If someone says you know I yeah, like I don't, I don't, i'm not selling people that like.
If a woman says like I have a right to an abortion, you should just like, if you don't know what it is, then yeah, research it.
What about?
What about?
Are you dogmatic?
Do you think it's a good thing to be dogmatic that rights exist, just generally?
I don't think you can, because I agree with you that rights fundamentally don't exist.
Don't exist what exists?
If that, what is?
What is it we're calling a right that actually does exist?
That's not a right like like when we say you and I agree, rights don't actually exist.
There's some sort of construct.
What's the only thing we're really pointing to that does exist?
I don't know.
I think I mean sorry, I think like pain and pleasure, suffering.
Humans have the capacity to suffer.
That is something entities have the capacity to suffer.
It is bad when an entity you know i'm gonna just suffer well it's, it's linked to that i'm gonna say, force okay, why?
Why do people?
I mean, I think we can bottom out why do people exercise force?
Um well uh, they have a worldview that informs whether they should exercise force or not.
They have a sense that it was justified.
It's a type of justified true belief in a lot of senses.
Um, but um ultimately, on the wide, on the grand scale of things, when we're talking about a society, people execute force because it's either counter to force or it's the maintaining of an order with the threat of force, and I consider those things separate two, two sides of the same hand.
The threat of force is the use of force?
I mean, I think you won't.
Why do we care about order?
Well, if you want a feminist society, what I'm basically trying to build it down to is, like it kind of just comes down to a combination of like pain, like just suffering like, if a society is not ordered, you know people would be suffering, people would die.
Things would not be optimal, it would be suboptimal because of you know people, there would be a lot of suffering if there's disorder.
No, I mean, that's not.
That might be true in some sense, but you can have a fair amount of order and they're still suffering.
You can have ordered suffering true, and I think there's ordered suffering, the it.
The fact whether it's ordered or disordered doesn't make it good or bad.
It's whether there's suffering that makes it good or bad.
Go ahead, I do have to move it on.
Did you want to give your position though, on the?
What's your position on the man versus bear?
I mean I, I think my position and I've stated this a bit in the Jubilee video that I was in and I think it is the case is, I think that the point of the comparison that was made and my understanding Of it was it was originally a man who actually like brought it up as an example.
And it seems to be pretty ubiquitous that men and women alike, especially with men, if you frame it like with their daughters, you know, would you rather have your daughter encounter a random man or a random bear in the woods?
Men almost universally choose bear.
So I think that men who kind of get offended by it, it's like, I mean, if you're not part of the problem, then why are you offended?
You know, you shouldn't be offended that women don't want like bad men.
So I don't know.
I think we should defer to women.
I also think it's true, and this is something that I really hadn't considered, that for, I mean, certain women, they would consider things to be, there are things that are worse than death, you know, like being like, you know, assaulted and tortured and, you know, whatever, you know, a man could do is just worse than being mulled by a bear and dying.
So I think in that sense, it could be just, I just want to be killed, painful.
Oliver, this is what I ask.
Instead of that, I just move it forward.
I say, you encounter a man in the woods and you have a sense that they're not, they don't have good intentions, right?
Yeah.
Do you ask for another man and risk that it might be another bad man or a good man, right?
Or a bear.
What do you mean?
So like, like, it's man and bear, except you're already in the instance of a man.
So you, I don't know.
I mean, I think women would probably just do their very best to get out of that situation.
I also reduced it to an elevator and how that changes things a little bit.
Which is in an elevator.
Because there's a ton.
I'm staying at a hotel and twice now I was in the elevator with a woman like alone.
And so this.
I think it's a little different though.
Well, but that's what I'm pointing to.
It's like, what makes the yeah, but what makes it different?
I'll tell you in a way it's different.
And it might not be different.
Let's assume that it's an elevator that you can't get out of.
I think it's very different than like most elevators, you know, you get in the elevator, you click a floor and the door's going to open.
Like, you know what I mean?
Like a woods is like an isolated place.
You know, anything can happen.
There's no supervisors or people around.
And an elevator.
Are you saying an elevator is worse to be isolated with a man than a woods?
No, because I'm saying, well, fine.
If we stipulate that maybe it's a broken elevator or it's an elevator that can like be prevented from being opened.
I still think the man, it's like you'd be able, you might be able to get a couple shots in with a man in an elevator.
And if you're in a room with a bear, it's pretty much over.
I'm not.
So I look, and I think I think getting into these, a lot of these specifics kind of like misses the whole point of it.
But I do think that it is also important to note that like a lot of wildlife too, it's like usually if you leave it alone, it's going to leave you alone.
Depending on the bear, you know, there's like grizzly bears or something like that that are more provocative.
Bears of color commit more attacks.
Okay.
It's just true.
Yeah, good job.
No, it's literally true.
Yeah, yeah, but you're making a thinly veiled rhetorical point.
What are you talking about?
No, yeah.
Okay.
You're really smart.
Yep.
There you go.
Okay.
All right.
We have a super chat here from Emotional Damage.
He says, Brian, can you give him this $100 to this guy to get a shot of testosterone?
Yeah, you can.
I bet his views will change if we balance the estrogen content produced by his ovaries.
On second thought, don't give it to him.
Screw this.
It's kind of kind of indecisive.
I mean, not being decisive.
Don't you think decisiveness is something that kind of is like important to manliness?
It seems to be kind of indecisive.
I don't know how masculine you really are.
Ooh, okay.
Emotional damage.
Are you going to let him, are you going to let Oliver talk to you like that, emotional damage?
Thank you for that emotional damage.
Appreciate your super chat.
Guys, we're doing a roast session.
Can I comment on one of these?
Yeah, sure.
Because I think the 499 was really interesting.
It's like, I'm wondering, like, when people kind of call like men who they like view who disagree with them as like not real men, I think it kind of enforces this idea that like there is a very gendered aspect to manhood.
You know what I mean?
Man isn't only used in the biological sense.
Like it very often is used to substitute the stereotypes that people often associate with male and female.
Stereotypes are very useful, though.
Okay, yeah, that's true.
But there definitely is such a thing as gender, and it exists socially.
And like, you know what I mean?
Like, you can't, like, if that wasn't the case, then no one would use man or woman as an insult because it wouldn't have any social connotation, which it does.
So thank you for acknowledging that there is a social component of gender that isn't just purely biological.
I'm going to let we got some roasts coming in.
Here we go.
Thank you, sons of Liberty.
Sons of Liberty donated $29.99.
Will there ever be a time when we realize what these leftists advocate for is evil, like evil?
This isn't to debate and agree to disagree and live happily ever after with them.
They are evil.
Jim Bob?
Yeah, well, evil, I don't call people aren't evil.
People can be wicked if they know what evil is and they continue, but I don't think Oliver here holds a theological view or a Christian view.
So he's operating from what he's got.
But yes, I believe feminism ultimately comes from a denial of truth.
And I believe that a denial of truth ultimately is evil.
Yeah.
And I think denial of feminism comes down to denial of the humanity of women.
$10.10.
I'll have you come to the point.
Did you get new mics?
Sounds different.
Also, does this guy not realize that mainstream equality has literally morphed into equity?
Even his definition of feminism is wrong from the majority opinion.
I mean, that actually is an interesting point that I do want to get into.
I'm not really defending the prevailing view of like, I don't know.
There's this idea that all outcomes have to be equal.
There's this kind of idea within critical thought that all disparities are a result of some underlying systemic issue.
And I actually don't subscribe to that.
I think there can be benign disparities.
I think differences between groups don't always call out for the evil of the system.
There can just be differences.
And so I don't always agree that equity and as it's advocated for is the best thing.
We shouldn't always strive for equal outcomes.
We should subscribe for people to have access to opportunities and not be denied things arbitrarily.
How is access to opportunity not an outcome?
Because you might not necessarily do the same thing with that opportunity.
I agree they're very much linked because the opportunities that you have depends on the outcome of your family or something like that.
Yeah, like if you look at a scenario and you summarize it and you say, look, there's equal opportunity.
If you wanted to produce equal opportunity, the equal opportunity on the table is now the new outcome you produced.
So I feel like that, you know, a lot of that came from like, I don't even know, 10 years, years ago rhetoric from the right.
You'd get Ben Shapiro like, I'm not for equal outcome and meet for African candy.
He'd be ranting that around.
But I realize that in a different debate, that you actually can't separate those two.
You're always arguing for some type of outcome.
You could equalizer, basically.
Some type of artificial.
I mean, and I don't necessarily think that I would entirely disagree with that.
Like, for example, I don't think that poverty should be a reason why someone should be and are two different things, but I don't think it should be a reason why someone receives either a worse education or less opportunities.
We should do what we do against reparations.
Against reparations, like specifically regarding slavery and things like that.
I haven't given a ton of thought to the issue.
You're a lawyer, right?
You're going to be a lawyer.
I mean, I've thought about it.
And I think what we should do regarding that is try to alleviate the injustice that's been done in terms of like, I don't think we should give like cash payments or something like that.
Like, I just don't, especially because of the way the system is set up and how fast a dollar circulates throughout like low-income communities.
If you just give them an influx of cash, it'll just immediately go to the top.
So it's not actually going to solve the systemic issue.
Yeah.
So I think instead we should do invest that money more effectively to solve a lot of those further systemic issues than just give people a bunch of money.
I don't think that's really going to do much good.
People in the chat saying the audio has been low.
Chat, is the audio okay?
Am I also just not like sometimes close enough to be a little bit more?
So low for me too?
It might be that.
I'm not sure.
Yeah, sorry if I'm too far away from the mic.
We have Lulu here with a message.
Thank you, Lulu.
Lulu donated $29.99.
Killed out each podcast.
This was easy for you.
Women hate you, Oliver.
You want women to go fight wars while you hide in the closet getting fisted.
Brian, would you pay for Oliver on the first date?
Uh, what?
Here, I gotta play it.
What?
What?
All right, Lulu.
Thank you for that.
When I pay for Oliver on the first date, he's not my type.
No offense.
Wow.
No offense.
Wow, Brian.
No offense.
It's okay.
You aren't either.
Damn.
But I just don't like podcast toasts.
Dagger to the heart.
Okay.
So if you guys want $30 roast, moving on to the next thing.
Oliver, in one of your TikToks, why men should not be the leaders in relationships?
I don't know if that's like your position or that's just like.
Like I don't think like I mean one of the prompts in the Jubilee video was like men should be the leader in like romantic relationships.
And I think that relationships are fundamentally a partnership between two people.
Some people have strengths.
Some people have weaknesses.
I think to say that there ought to be a one-size-fits-all when people are so different, I think just, I mean, there's going to be some relationships where the man is more dominant and the woman is more submissive.
There's going to be some relationships where the woman takes a more dominant role and the man is submissive.
And people will, you know, adhere to those preferences as they like.
But I don't know.
I think it reduces the complexity of people so much by saying that like men should be this and this relationship.
How do you determine who's a leader?
Because you're getting into law, right?
So isn't it the case that when you like have a partnership in like a like a firm or a company, someone has to take 51 and someone takes 49?
I'm not, I don't know.
I'm pretty sure that's the case.
And there's a pragmatic reason for obviously legality is that there has to be a guarantor and someone who actually has to say this way, even if they're wrong.
You have to have someone pushing the button in the end.
And I feel like from a secular view, which I assume you're secular, a relationship, let's call it a marriage even, a legal marriage, it seems that you would probably determine one of them was the 51% leader.
Why would we have that?
Well, because it's a legal contract.
The marriage is the company.
But marriages aren't companies because they're not trying to turn a profit or make a, I don't know.
Well, they kind of are trying to survive.
They can be red line and black line.
So like they don't.
No, I don't think there should be a 51% and 49%.
If that's the case, if you want it to be that way, then sure, when people get married, they should designate one of those people as it.
I don't think, you know, of course, now you're going to make the argument, oh, it should be the man.
I don't think there's necessarily a reason for why that should be the case.
That should be up to the individual in question who, or individuals in question who are getting married if for some reason we decide that that should be the way that marriage is.
Are you going to be the leader in your relationship?
No.
I'm not going to be the leader.
I don't think there should be a leader.
I will lead sometimes.
I assume that my partner will lead sometimes.
What if she says, I want you to lead?
Yeah, then I will.
It depends what you mean by like lead.
I would never want my girlfriend to take the back seat on anyone.
What if she wanted to?
Then I wouldn't date that person because I want someone who's also assertive, who matches my intellect, who I feel is kind of my intellectual equal.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
You're this close to being gay.
No, I don't.
Yeah.
No, dude.
No, I'm not.
Listen, everyone listen in the audience.
No.
Look, look, look, look.
I don't want to date a man.
Look, I'm 44, okay?
Okay.
I'm assuming authority by age.
Okay, well.
So Bernie Sanders has authority over you then.
He's very old, yeah.
He loves choice, yeah.
I think that everyone should have an abortion.
That's your guy?
You voted for him?
I can't vote for Bernie Sanders.
I'm not a, I'm not in Vermont.
Oh.
What was I asking you?
Oh, oh, you said that you want an equal intellectual, right?
I'm telling you, men collectively, generally, are not they're more philosophical.
They're more, they can do this.
Nope.
Yes.
Nope, not inherently.
No, I'm telling you.
Not inherently.
No.
You're basically looking for a dude.
I'm not looking for a dude.
You are?
No, you are reducing.
You're going to find a woman who can do everything that provides you, let's say, being a wife, being a mother, your children.
And because she's not going to get some stupid ass, obscure, philosophical fucking school of thought, you're going to be like, she's not really philosophically.
You are reducing.
So just find the little Sally.
You are a salary.
You are reducing my preferences and a partner to a checklist.
Like, oh, it has to be this.
It has to be this.
It has to be this.
It's not that way.
And that's not what you're saying.
So she doesn't get your Jon Stuart Mill references.
Is that a check?
Is that a...
Actually, a little bit.
I mean, I do think it's the case.
So here's an example of it.
And I think that's this is what's wrong with men today.
No, it's not.
They're looking for women to be men.
No, they aren't because you're assuming that being smart and being intellectual are manly.
And I don't think they are.
Philosophical and neurological.
Of course it is.
It's been historically manual.
It's been historically wise.
Because they've been excluded from the menu.
No, that's not it.
Yes.
That's not it.
Okay.
No, even when you even the playing field, right?
I think some Nordic country, even the playing field, it turns out, like you just said minutes ago, that the disparity ends up being a function of choice.
Do you think that people exist in vacuums and are still not socialized into certain fields, and thus the entire historical backdrop disappears once you're in the world?
You can do what you want.
No, generally women are not interested in philosophy and all this shit, okay?
No.
Generally.
Yeah, that's true.
I don't, I don't.
What do you mean, no?
I don't find.
Okay, cool.
I don't care, though.
Then I'm going to find a woman who sat.
I know plenty of women.
I have a philosophy.
I have a very good friend who's at NYU and she's getting a PhD in philosophy and she's one of the smartest intelligence.
She's never going to have kids.
I know.
Okay, and.
So you're just going to find a woman who doesn't have kids who you can have masturbatory philosophical conversations.
Here's the thing is, then you are reducing types of intellectual conversation as to that.
Look, men, I'm talking to you in the audience.
If you go on a date with a girl and she doesn't get your weird philosophical thing, don't fret.
I think you're intimidated by women who might be smarter than that.
No, that's not it.
I think it is.
No, it's not.
Are you intimidated, Jim?
I don't think so.
Are you intimidated?
The woman, generally, when you say, Stuart Mill, all this shit.
They should look at you with a blank stare.
No, you want women to be dumb.
No.
Yes, you do.
I want them to be interested in what they're valued at, where their value wants.
Yeah, okay.
Then you.
It's not dumb.
It's a disinterest, okay?
You called it dumb.
I'm calling it generally a disinterested manly and intellectual.
Well, yes.
Okay.
Men and women are geared toward different things.
You just admitted this just minutes ago.
No, not inherently.
And now you're finding.
Not inherently.
What?
And not inherently.
You are basing.
Generalizations are not steady.
I don't think that women are less interested in philosophy and high brain things because inherently they are women.
I think that society pushes them in a different direction.
And how would you know that?
Because I've had conversations with women.
Oh, anecdotally?
Look, if you're at the end of the day, I see Oliver.
Did a poll for all the women and the answers came back, I'm not interested in philosophy, you would just say, Well, you just conditioned to be not interested.
No, no, I mean, just begin all of us are.
I don't think men are inherently more interested in intellectual stuff than women.
If men are like, Yeah, we're more interested in that, I'd be like, Yeah, society is structured in that way.
That makes sense.
No, I don't think so.
I think it has to do with the way men think is they think in terms of like systems and operations and doing stuff and activity.
And women are geared to study exactly.
And women, women are geared towards systematizing versus empathizing.
No, no, people.
And no, systematizing versus empathizing brains.
I've heard of this.
What study does it come from?
I don't know.
It comes from Simon Baron Cohen.
He did a not, yeah, yeah, Simon Baron Cohen.
That's a comedian.
Nope, that's Satya Baron Cohen.
They are related, though.
It comes from his students.
It comes from a study in which he did the primary study on toddlers.
And he determined that because the boy toddlers picked more masculine things and wanted to play with trucks and things like that, and the girls, yeah, it is.
And the girls wanted to play with dolls and things of that nature, that therefore boys are more geared towards systematizing things.
And because it assumes that toddlers at that point are blank slates and are not already imbued with all of these gender ideas.
No, that's not it.
No, no, that's not the study.
The study was a was it was a Nordic or Switzerland or one of those countries where they basically systematizing and empathy.
No, they basically said, okay, everyone, we're going to reset.
Women get to do anything.
We're going to do a whole big, big, great social reset on expectations of men and women.
You think you can do that?
Hold on.
One year, in one year, the women, women, it evened out that the women went toward for their own free free will, by the way.
That's even this example.
No, they went.
If you allow women to choose, they choose fields geared like nursing, administration, teaching, motherhood.
Because their entire life is not a problem.
No, you're going to say they're conditions.
You don't know.
Because they're entirely.
Because that's how our society is.
Oh, you mean the history of all of humanity has it geared that women are geared toward those kind of behaviors and men are geared toward the other ones.
It's just societal construction, right?
Society has chosen.
Just some way.
Society has chosen to codify physical realities into social realities.
You can't even justify.
Absolutely.
What do you mean?
You couldn't.
Wait, you agree that it is.
You just think they also are biological.
You think they're biological and they're social, and the social stems from the biological.
Yeah, it's informed.
Okay, and I'm saying that just because something is ordered towards something, if you wouldn't want to use that word, I don't like that word because it invokes this type of Aristotelian titology.
You couldn't, look, look, it's simple.
Look at Oliver.
You couldn't use the social programming to supersede the biological presets.
Of course you can.
No, you can't.
How can you not?
How?
Wait a second.
Men, would you agree, are biologically more predisposed to aggression?
Yeah.
Okay, then how can you socialize men so that they don't go on, you know, they don't go on mass murder sprees?
What do you mean?
That's a way.
No, someone, men could have a predisposition to aggression and express aggression without going on murder spree.
And you can, but can you socialize men to be less aggressive?
You can try, but it doesn't work.
What are you talking about?
The public school system is a perfect example.
You know what happens when you do that?
You then psychologize them and say, these boys are being very aggressive.
They're misbehaving.
As opposed to, no, they're just boys.
Let's give them Ritalin and give them drugs, right?
Because they're acting so boyish.
That's crazy.
I agree.
I'm not advocating for over-medicalization.
If you're saying you can socialize them out of being boys.
of being boys, but you're assuming that being a boy means expressing your aggression in a certain type of way.
Generally, I think a lot of men know a language of violence.
And this comes back to the force doctrine.
It's necessary.
Sure, at the fundamental level, violence is the way that power happens.
Wait, you don't have older brothers, do you?
You have a younger sister.
I have no biological siblings.
Oh, okay, that makes sense.
You should have been beaten up as a wow.
Okay.
For every brother.
I have three older brothers.
This makes a lot of sense why you hold the views.
No.
It's necessary.
It's why big families are better is because they fucking beat each other up.
Well, yeah, it actually is their pecking order that's necessary for you to understand a place in the world.
Now, it's not an accident that you're an only child and you hold a female view of the world.
Okay.
All right.
Sounds good.
I mean, I'm just saying.
If you want to resist.
Dude, you have the capacity to use aggression, right?
Of course I do.
Okay, when's the last time you used it?
Use aggression?
Yeah.
Violence.
I didn't need to.
When's the last time you did?
I mean, someone, I can remember this.
I mean, this is an example I brought up in one of my videos was I was on the subway in Washington, D.C., and this guy sat down next to his girl and was being very creepy and inching towards her closer.
And I stared this dude dead in the eye, and I would not take his eyes off him and literally like moved closer to him.
And he got up and left.
So that's an example of me using a male presence to get this.
And the presence is the conveying of the potential.
The potentiality of violence, right?
Yeah, in a sense.
Right?
Yeah.
So that's what's interesting is that the justice that you wanted to deploy rests wholly on the potentiality of force, which is a woman couldn't do.
A woman couldn't do that.
There are different.
Yeah, absolutely.
Men and women are viewed differently in society.
But go patriarchy.
Hold on, hold on.
No, there are different ways to resolve certain conflicts.
I'm saying that you shouldn't resort to aggression when there are methods of communication that can lead to a more mutually understandable outcome.
Yeah, but like, I don't, if two people are having a disagreement, is a fist fight usually the best way to solve that?
Wait a second.
But Oliver, in the example you gave me, your communication was violence is next.
So it was still pointing to violence.
Wait, I'm saying in some, yes.
I'm not saying that violence.
No, no, no, no.
I'm not saying that aggression is always wrong or that it should never be used.
You're saying negotiation first, but even what I'm saying is that even if you go to negotiation first, right?
This is like argumentation ethics.
It's like, yeah, you can use that and maybe lower the risk of being hurt yourself, but ultimately you're making an or else statement.
What do you do this or else?
No, if two people have a disagreement on something, I don't think it has to escalate into violence.
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying even if communication fails.
Yeah, you're going to know when violence is necessary.
You're going to know.
And I think very often men believe violence is necessary and employ it when it is in fact not necessary.
Someone said something mean about your mom and you decide the right response is to go beat the shit out of them.
No, it's not.
It's not.
That's not, you know what I think?
I think that's, if you want to talk about it, I think it's men not knowing how to manage their emotions.
No, I think the management of the emotion is conveyed through the fist.
I think that that is an incorrect management of emotions that causes much more harm and doesn't lead to any mutual understanding of, hey, let's not degrade women in order to kind of prop ourselves up as men.
You know what I mean?
That's what that type of thing is, you know, making insults towards people's mother.
So yeah, I don't think you should do that.
And I don't think you should use violence to solve that.
Well, I think you should fight more.
Okay, well, I'm not going to.
Okay, we're going to let a few more chats come through.
One more thing.
We'll do closing statements, then we'll get this wrapped up.
Brett here.
Thank you for the message, Brett.
Brett Shrives donated $30.
Jim Bob W paradoxical man fighting on behalf of feminism.
Brett, thank you for the message.
Appreciate it.
We have Kit here.
Thank you, Kit, coming in in just a moment.
I lowered TTS to 20, by the way.
Kits donated $30.
W. Oliver for debating this guy.
Did you guys ever agree on a definition of feminism?
Uh, pretty much.
I mean, I pretty much accepted your term.
I still kind of reduce it to power itself ends up being the thing that's really there.
Like, you can say, like, oh, there's a structure, and then there's people in positions of power and administrative positions and all this.
But in the end, it's like a bunch of dudes with guns are going to take over.
So.
I mean, and I think the issue that I largely have with that is I agree on a base level.
That's, you know, yeah, you know, I actually agree with you that might makes.
You know, it does.
However, I think that might often has to be combined with some sort of strategical element.
You know what I mean?
It's not.
Might makes feminism.
You need to have some sort of enforcement mechanism.
I'm not denying.
So can you say it?
Might look in the camera and say might makes feminism.
That's all you're trying to totally agree.
Enforcement makes feminism.
Yeah.
Enforcement fighting for stuff you believe in makes men fighting makes feminism.
People fighting alongside each other.
And men fighting alongside women to defend their rights does make feminism.
Okay, so you heard it here.
All right.
We have KA.
Thank you, Kate.
Can you honestly say feminism hasn't majorly caused gender wars, lack of meaningful relationship, and increased divorce rates?
I find that disingenuous if you think it's anything else.
But go on saying.
Sure, I can respond really quickly.
Yes, you can.
There's a couple different things there.
I'm forgetting now.
It's like gender wars.
I don't think it's led to more gender wars.
I think it's led to women not tolerating shitty behavior and not tolerating being put in a position where they are told what it means to be a woman and that they must adhere to this rigid set of social norms.
And if that pisses men off and men get mad at women for not wanting to submit to their demands, that's not women's fault for demanding something different.
And in the sense of like higher divorce rates, this one always is really interesting because it's like, oh, you know, when women make more money, they get divorced more often.
As like, oh, that's a terrible thing.
It's like when women are financially independent, when individuals are financially independent and not, you know, dependent on the other spouse, yeah, they might leave if they feel a relationship is unfair.
But if the relationship is unfair and they're not happy with the terms and they're not financially independent, they don't have that financial luxury to leave that relationship.
So I don't think that's a counter whatsoever at all.
Okay.
We have Selena.
Thank you, Selena.
Selena Gornes donated $32.10.
He just made the female I've dated guys that met all my standards argument by pointing out how he's friends owned by the smartest girl he knows.
Poor guy.
I'm not going to go into the details of that because I don't want to.
That is not actually what happened.
Okay.
No.
All right.
Thank you, Selena.
And then we have, oh, wow.
Sons of Liberty.
Okay.
Sons of Liberty donated $19.99.
Listen, fuckhead.
If my girl and I are in 1653 America, I'm going out hunting and checking on threats at night.
She cleans/slash organizes the house, garden, and fixing.
I'm a little confused why you don't do that now.
Natural states of men and women.
I'm confused.
I want to add to this.
This is key.
I wish I brought it up more.
That I did mention that what that chat is pointing to correctly saying is that feminism itself in its ideals is a function of modernity and luxury and decadence.
In the instance where shit hits the fan, no, no, listen, just like gender pronouns and shit, I call it concerns that go away with food shortages.
The moment the scarcity hits and shit hits the fan, these things are gone.
Of course, right?
This makes total sense.
I don't see this as a bad thing at all.
It's luxury.
No, no, no, no.
Wait a second.
It's called the fallacy of relative probation.
I don't know if you're familiar with it.
It's this idea that larger problems or larger injustices or larger pertinent needs diminish the severity or importance of smaller ones.
There's no injustice.
Okay.
But then you're just making it.
You're making a circular argument.
There's no justice.
Hold on.
Hold on.
You're saying these concerns aren't valid because you already don't agree with the concerns.
No, even if I granted the concerns, if I granted the concerns that there's this problem where men are oppressing the women and there's all these accepted, expected gender norms that are contrived and constructed,
what the person who just super chatted just basically demonstrated is that the argument that gendered roles are constructs of modern times or whatever the society is goes away as soon as the society breaks down and you're back in the woods.
What happens when you're back in the woods, dude?
Yeah, I agree.
But we're kind of advanced beyond that, right?
No, no, the point is the advancement that feminism and this sort of delusional take is a symptom of decadence and luxury.
No, it's the moment that's removed, like there's if there's a bomb dropping on some chick's head, so you know, and she gets buried in the rubble and someone goes, let's help her.
The last thing on their mind is correcting the pronoun.
Same thing with feminine.
Of course.
I don't disagree with that.
That's just the factual claim that you should focus on larger problems over smaller ones.
Actually, wait, I want to probably agree with you here a little bit.
I think the left, and this is a mistake that the left often makes, is they hyper-fixate on infighting and over who's right?
Over winning power.
I completely agree a lot that it doesn't matter how right you are if you don't have power, if you don't have the ability to enforce what you want to do.
So it did, you know, all of these, all of these people on the left who are like, you know, we need to correct this person on this, or we need to completely shun them from our movement because they express this one view that differs slightly from us.
They're hurting our cause.
So I will call that out any day as saying we need to have a bigger tent and not a smaller tent.
And I think that this idea of shunning people or like, you know, saying these things are, I don't know, irredeemable, like just like insane, I don't.
I don't agree with that.
So.
Okay, we have two more coming in.
Selena Gournes.
Thank you.
Selena Gornes donated $23.45.
Of course, that isn't what happened.
Poor guy.
I honestly feel for you, but I can see you're smart.
So I think he will come around eventually.
I think this is in response to the something about being friend zoned or something.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'm not going to divulge the details of a personal situation.
Oliver Smother donated $20.
Brian, could you move that dumpy?
I can't see Jim Bob's shoulders.
Thank you.
Slowly but surely.
That's crazy.
Thank you.
Thank you for that message.
All right.
Final thing here from you, Oliver, then we'll do closing statements.
There was this prompt on your TikTok.
Is misandry more loud than misogyny?
Or miss Andrew, yeah.
Ms. Andrew, yeah.
What's your position on that?
I mean, I kind of already did, did we already agree?
We didn't talk about that specifically, but I'm into the motion.
Sorry, we didn't talk about that specifically, but I mean, that's what I talked about in the Jubilee video that I was a part of.
I mean, I do think misogyny is much more prevalent than misandry.
The hatred of women is much more prevalent than the hatred of men.
You know, a lot of these things that we conceive of as hatred, I just fundamentally don't think are actually hating men.
Can you give us some examples of that?
Sure.
Like examples of like, so for example, if women express I hate men, I think very often we understand, we very often understand people's non-literal use of language.
So for example, if I say, oh my God, I'm so mad, I'm going to kill him.
But you never actually kill someone, it's plausible to say you don't actually want to kill this person.
Same thing with kill all men, same thing with like, I hate men.
These women obviously don't hate men, considering most of them have men in their lives that they love.
They have, you know, many of them can be in relationships.
When they're saying that, they're expressing a dissatisfaction with the way that society is structured and how a certain portion of men are treating them.
So I don't think that is indicative of the hatred of men.
It's the hatred of how men are treating them.
So I don't see an example of misandry that is brought up that can parallel the fact that like three women die a day in this country due to intimate partner violence at the hands primarily of men.
Except for lesbian relationships, they're pretty aggressive.
I don't, I don't know.
Pretty high rate of pulling each other's hair.
Okay.
I have not looked into the, I don't, I don't have anything to comment on that because I have not looked into it.
I mean, I kind of agree with you generally that like the hate, I don't, this term hatred of from either side is very hard to judge.
I just think there's a, I think there's misinterpretations of how women think of men and how men think of women.
I think the MGTOW thing is a little bit, you can kind of isolate that.
I think exploring some of that, MGTOW, are you aware of what that is?
It's like men going their own way kind of thing.
I think that's a misstep for men.
Like the abandoned women.
Yeah, it's a whole like, like that's, I think that's a mistake.
And that's the closest thing I could get to like, you know, misogyny as far as their rhetoric.
But men who want women to be in the home, I think that's a value of women.
And I think people who are, in your view, perhaps need to consider that maybe the person who's arguing for that is actually thinks wholeheartedly that the best place for them, for women, is actually.
I think relegating a whole subset of human beings who are so diverse in their wants, desires, and needs.
I don't care about their desires.
Yeah, thank you for expressing that you don't care about this.
Why would they?
Look, but my own obligations as a father isn't based on my desires either.
So it's not like, it's not like men are saying we get to fulfill our desires and we don't want women to.
You are fulfilling what you believe are the ideal desires of women against their wishes.
Well, no, men have to do that too because not all men, men don't generally wish to put themselves in the line of fire to defend this weird abstract idea of women's liberation either.
What are you talking about?
Women expect men to hold the obligation to defend their rights.
Women expect men to use the power and privilege that they have.
That's right.
And we expect men expect women to fulfill their obligation of having children and being a mother.
That's not how the obligation goes.
Why not?
Who says who?
No, because I don't think that there's this somehow reciprocal rudeness.
Because what you're saying is basically, because you are in need and I can help you, I'm going to leverage the fact that I have more power over you to get something out of you.
And I think that's not leveraging.
Yeah, it is.
No.
It's not even used as leverage.
It's basically just stating the fact.
If men have the obligation and the fulfillment of using their bodies and protecting women and upholding the actual nation in its logistics and how it operates from bridges to fuck everything else, dude.
Hold on.
So women get to float around in this perfect society, a sims made just for them.
It's not a perfectionist.
And feminists like you and other women say, well, men, you know, you guys have to defend our rights, right?
And then we go, but we're not obligated to be good.
Yeah, but what are we getting in return?
You shouldn't need something in return to be a good person.
So to maintain society, we shouldn't expect from women to participate in the procreation of society.
They absolutely should participate in the procreation of society.
Should we expect them to?
I think that if a man wants to marry a woman and wants to have a sex, absolutely.
No, no, wait a second.
I'm not at all.
I'm claiming.
No, no, no, wait.
I am claiming that.
Sexist.
Okay, are we going to do this?
Okay.
Are you going to let me make my point?
Yeah, one more time.
Okay.
Sexist.
Yeah, you're going to say it again.
Okay, if we're expecting men to have, men are allowed to have preferences.
Men are allowed to say, look, I don't want to marry a woman who doesn't want children because children are important to me.
There's nothing sexist about that.
There's nothing sexist about.
What's sexism?
What's sexist?
I'll let you have your definition of it.
Sure, my definition of it, I would say that it would be contempt for or double standards on.
Yeah.
Double standards on the basis of sex.
Sex.
Cool.
So isn't it a double standard that women and society at large depend and expect?
I didn't add something to my definition.
Like unfair or like ungrounded.
So unfair, I don't know who's determining fair, but isn't it the case that it would be sexist, which I have no problem people being sexist?
Yeah, no surprise there.
Well, no, it's not a wrong thing if sexist means simply to assume obligation or expectation from one sex based on sex alone.
Yeah, no.
Is that sexist?
Yeah, I think we should do that.
Do you expect inherently on sexist?
Hold on.
Do you expect men being the collective body of force to defend and uphold the justice system and law and order and stuff?
Not because they're men, but because they're stronger and those things are different.
They are different.
It's not because if there are women who are stronger, they also have the obligation to protect those who are less vulnerable than them.
It's not because they are male.
It's because they are stronger.
Okay, so, and women are capable of having children.
So how is it that you're deriving, how is it you're deriving an obligation from men and women based on their strength, which is like some characteristics of their body.
And being able to have children is another characteristic of a body, but you're not applying obligations to that.
Wait, I think that people in general, because I don't think there needs to be reproductive obligations because I think we can get to the society that we're at now, which is like 1.2 year under replacement.
We are under replacement.
And this is some stats and stuff that I brought up.
We see, and I close my iPad, so I'm not going to bring up the exact stats right now.
We see a large return to replacement in societies that emphasize having stronger social programs and economic programs.
You mean immigration?
No, not immigration.
I was not even talking about immigration.
I'm talking about social programs.
I'm talking about making it financially more feasible to have children, having things like universal health care, making it more easy for people to receive educations and things like that.
see people willingly and voluntarily start families because it is easy to do so so we don't have to tell women they have to be in the home well i've already debunked that because there are poor people who don't have any social programs and they're having a lot of more kids What happens?
Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
It's fine for them because they have a...
What do you mean?
Why isn't it fine?
Is it good or a bad thing to have?
Because I assume.
Wait, hold on.
Do you think it's a problem of there being a child?
I started having chips.
People who are dependent on the government.
All these people are poor and they're having children and they're just like on welfare.
You just argued, dude, you just contradicted yourself.
You said, let's start a welfare system that aids people to have kids.
And then you're saying, and I go, I point to poor people, and right, I point to poor people having more kids, and you go, yeah, but welfareism, that's not a good thing.
No, I'm something that a lot of you guys on your side of the aisle, wherever that is, don't want, you know, it's like, you know, if you can't afford to have a kid, don't have a kid.
Maybe you're not arguing about that.
No, I gave it all as poor as shit.
Okay.
No, I think that, I think, I don't think that, like, that's just a preference.
It's like you think you're ready when you have money to have a kid, but having a kid isn't reduced to materialism and providing only there's this whole other set of having a child, right?
Financially take care of a child.
Do you think it's responsible for them to have a child?
Yeah, they can still raise a child who's poor.
You grew up poor?
Sure.
Dude, I come from a family of five and we're dirt poor, so I don't understand.
Okay.
And do you think it on balance is better if people sometimes worse if they're rich?
Okay.
I think that holding all else equal.
Was he rich?
Trust fund?
What?
No, no trust fund.
Almost.
I mean, my dad was a trumpet player in the orchestra, so he was a musician for a long period of time.
So he was poor.
They make bank the trumpet.
Or do they?
The trumpet?
First?
No, not really.
Sir, first, second chair in trumpet?
He was first, but you still don't get that much in the arts.
Yeah, that makes sense.
It's at the arts.
He's a virtuoso, right?
He was a very good trumpet player.
I mean, he was the only guy I've gotten to Juilliard the year he graduated.
So good guy.
Did he force you away from music?
He was like, be a lawyer.
He didn't force me away.
I actually was funny.
I tried to take trumpet lessons from him, and he was like, Oliver, why would I do this to you?
Why would I teach you?
No, why would I teach you trumpet lessons?
You don't listen to me with other things as a parent.
You don't listen to other things I say.
I'm like, yeah, dad.
But when it comes to trumpet, you actually know what you're talking about.
So he didn't like that.
Did you learn it?
Are you more of a saxophone guy?
I'm not really.
I mean, I did musical theater for a while, but I could see that.
Performing arts.
This is a type of.
$5,7,600.
You were in rent, weren't you?
$525,600.
You were in it?
I was not in rent.
Yes, you were.
I was not in rent.
Cats.
Nope.
I do not like cats.
That is a bad show.
It's interesting that you have a lot of people.
Book of Mormon.
And interesting that you have, no.
Interesting that you have so much knowledge of musical theater.
Not much.
No, just the three main ones.
You're wearing a shirt.
Just shirt.
Just you.
Just the one about musical theater.
Just the one about AIDS and cats.
That's the only one.
There it is.
There it is.
Okay, guys.
We're about to have them do their closing statements.
$20 TTS.
I'm going to let these come through.
Then we'll do the rest if there's any after the closing statements.
Bass Thor.
Thank you, man.
Bass, Thor donated $20.
Brian, I'm going to report you to the California DMV for operating a dump truck without a commercial driver's license.
All right.
Thank you for that, Bass Thor.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
We have Selena again.
Uh-oh.
Selena Gornes donated $23.45.
Of course, you won't divulge details.
Poor guy.
Also, successful women aren't leaving because they're being treated poorly.
They're leaving because they think they can do better or are doing too much.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
With the gospel donated $20.
As the eldest of eight, I can confirm, beating the shit out of your younger siblings makes them better.
Jim Bob is right.
Interesting how he said not the youngest of eight.
As the one who is doing the beating the shit out of the people, it's well the thing is, I was the young, I have three older brothers, but I learned to be extremely aggressive back to fight them off.
And that was, it's really helpful.
Nice.
For what?
Well, what is it helpful for?
Well, in case I need to do that in the future with why do you need to be beating the shit out of in order?
What in case I have to beat the shit out of someone?
Well, is there a better way to take self-defense classes to learn that no one's going to be able to do that?
That just adds to my already existing practice, though.
It's not one or the other, dude.
I don't think we need kids beating the shit out of each other in order to.
He's being hyperbolic.
Like, let's say it's valuable, especially for boys.
I don't know who I am.
I don't know rough housing.
I have no problem with rough housing.
I think when you say like beating the shit out of them, I think of an older brother who's just like treats a black guy like shit.
Like, get a black guy.
All right, we got Justin.
What the?
Justin Martin's donated $20.
I'll bet Vagina's dry up within a 50-foot radius of Oliver at all times.
He's like an X-Man.
Would that be a superpower to have that effect on women?
I don't know.
I don't know.
That's the most, I think, I think most.
I don't know.
I think most incels have that.
Negative.
They have that superpower.
Walking male birth control.
Aren't there some X-Men that it's like they have a negative ability?
The negative, the negative effect on?
I don't know.
I don't know.
All right.
Intel, thank you, man.
Intel Will donated $20.
W, Jim Don.
Don't dump Ducker Bells in the chat.
Nice, dude.
Intel, thank you for that.
We have one more coming in here.
Wow, they are, yeah, they're saying things.
Jason Castle donated $20.
Dude, Oliver, you are so G at Y. Good to know.
Go home, drink a beer, watch a violent movie, go to a bar and fight the biggest guy, and take his girl.
Just do something.
Here's what I'll say.
I guess because I can't tell if that's a compliment or an insult because he calls me gay, but then claims that he thinks I'd be able to go to a bar and beat up the biggest guy there and take his girl.
It's like older brother energy.
He wants you to go live out as a man.
I feel very comfortable being a man in my masculinity.
Absolutely.
So I've never once felt insecure in that.
Oh, okay.
So.
All right.
Well, I don't feel I have to prove myself manly enough by exuding.
It sounds like someone who was raised by a trumpeter.
Okay.
My father's one of the strongest people I know.
Would you rather be raised by a trumper or a trumpeter?
Yeah.
What about somebody who played, what did Weird Al play?
What was that?
Accordion.
Accordion?
Yeah.
That's got to be rough.
Yeah, that's got to be really rough.
Unless it's Weird Al, but any other.
Then it's over.
I know some.
I know one.
I think they secretly, the accordion players, they kind of get women.
Well, yeah.
The accordion players.
It's like a pity thing.
Oh, it's like sad.
It's like the poor persons.
It's a pity thing.
Okay.
Oh, wait, here.
You have this one, then we'll do closing.
Lulu.
Hold on, Lulu.
Oh, boy.
Okay.
Hold on.
Lulu donated $19.99.
Getch Bob another beer and a Shirley Temple for the fruit lube.
Oliver was getting turned on watching Bob obliterate him.
He's hoping to go him with him or Brian tonight.
Dude, don't spoil it.
I was trying to make a move.
Oh, he had the idea.
He felt his response was worth $20.
I think it's really funny.
We have a big super chat here.
Chef Dylan.
Wow.
By the way, guys, so anytime you see a super chat and it's like 99 cents, usually that means that you sent it through Apple iOS.
So you sent it through like an iPhone, iPad, whatever.
So apparently I just learned this.
They say 30%.
Yeah, Apple takes 30%.
And then YouTube after that takes 30%.
Oh, you know what?
So if it's $100, they end up taking a total of 51.
So you're left with 49.
So it's already bad just doing it through YouTube.
They take 30, but if you do it through YouTube on iOS, so Apple Apple.
At iOS.
Yeah.
I'm challenged.
English is my second language.
What was your first?
French.
Oh.
Yeah, so that's why I butchered Misandry, Misandry earlier.
If you caused an accident, you would have to give up your autonomy to pay the person with your money earned through your body's actions.
I mean, sure, but then this kind of just breaks down to the distinction of is there a meaningful distinction between your money and your body.
And, you know, there's, you know, the libertarians till they're blue in the face will say that taxation is slavery because you're taxing my money, which I get through my labor, which is taxing my labor.
I don't know.
Intuitively to me, there's a difference between someone taxing money and like demanding that I donate a pint of blood to cancer research or something.
So I don't think they're necessarily equivalent.
And I think there's an argument to be made that there is a difference between the two, that the reason we're justified in having someone pay damages if they're in an accident is acceptable, but like giving up their kidney would be like a massive bridge too far.
And so speaking of that, guys, if you're watching and you're using iPhone, iPad to send in the super chats, YouTube and Apple have taken $100 of this.
So, you know, you want Streamlabs, Venmo, Cash App.
Here, you can, because, you know, these woke mega corps, you want to support the whatever podcast.
Don't give it to them.
You know?
So anyways, okay.
Thank you, Chef Dylan, for the super chat, though.
Much appreciated.
And all right, so we're going to do closing since you went first.
Jim Bob, you're going to go first with your closing statement.
Then Oliver, you'll go last.
All right.
Well, first of all, thanks, Oliver, for coming out and Brian for powering through this.
So yeah, feminism, you know, the main thing with feminism is it's often argued that it's the just thing to do.
It's what we should move forward toward something.
But when we ask the person, the proponent of feminism what it looks like, every time it ultimately relies on men fulfilling this duty of upholding this society so that women could pretend that they have liberty.
Really, it's just an allowance.
So if feminism is merely an allowance from men, the question is, okay, if men are allowing you liberty, what is the exchange that we get from women?
Which comes down to obligations ultimately.
So from the affirmative position tonight, there is no real obligations.
He prefers that men hold an obligation to defend society, defend rights, even though it's a sexist view because it's an expectation of men to do things that you don't expect of women collectively, because you know that there is no society that upholds its rights.
It's just a system, it's law without the collective of primarily men.
Even if there's some butch chicks who can join the squad, it doesn't matter.
Ultimately, the reality is females want liberation, but they ask for it.
And the reason they ask for it is because they can't give themselves liberation.
They aren't collectively capable of giving themselves liberation.
Men are capable collectively of giving themselves liberation and taking liberation.
So the question for feminists is always the same thing.
Do you expect men who hold the enforcement arm to provide for you, to have your liberation?
And they say yes.
We ask them, what are you going to do with it?
They said, we're going to work for Nike and abort our own kids.
That's what we get in return for giving women liberation.
We're going to vote for basically expanded welfarism.
We're going to turn the government into a daycare system.
This is what you get from feminism.
Feminism takes what's powerful and beautiful and right and good about women.
Their sex, their ability to procreate, and their ability to be mothers.
It inverts it and sells it to them to waste it away in their most fertile years by starting OnlyFans account and adding their body count to upwards to 50 to 100.
It's garbage, it's trash.
No man should support female liberation or feminism.
It has failed.
It's at its peak.
It's at the end.
Glory to God.
And the next phase is back to the home.
And no, it's not oppressive.
When women were back in the home, when women were raising children, they were revered, they were protected, they were seen as the class of people that nobody messed with.
And they said, well, against the rest of the women, can we just get ourselves into these high-rise offices and give me a lanyard?
I can't wait to accrue debt.
It's amazing.
I'm liberated.
You're not liberated.
You're living a lie.
Feminism is a lie.
And like I said before, feminism requires the patriarchy anyway.
And with that, thanks again for coming out.
Okay, Oliver, go ahead.
Well, I had a prepared closing statement, but since this really didn't go according to any sort of a guideline that I thought, I'll just kind of say my final thoughts here.
I think there still is a massive is-ought claim that is being made.
You can say till you're blue in the face that this is how society is.
This is how it fundamentally will be if we're left to our own devices.
But I think one of the beautiful things about humans is that we have the capacity for reason and we have the capacity to better our society against our biological impulses.
And I think that that is something that feminism advocates.
Feminism does not say that, you know, denies the difference between men and women, denies that, you know, men are on average stronger than women.
It says to men, look, you do have this power.
You are stronger.
You know, you ought to use it in such a way that does not hurt individuals.
And there's an element of paternalism here.
I mean, you heard Jim Bob a lot compare, you know, like treating women to treating children.
And, you know, I think it's a problem is these people fundamentally, and he's nodding right now, view women as infants, view women as infantilized.
And I think that that is why feminism is so necessary and continue to fight against these ideas where these people do not view women as rational human beings.
I mean, we had this whole conversation surrounding intellect.
And I think that it's really unfortunate that this is the type of ideas that are becoming more and more prevalent.
And I think that as long as these ideas are continuing to be spread, it only proves the further need for feminism.
I really wasn't able to get into a lot of the empirics of the good things of feminism, but there have been many advancements and benefits since the arrival of feminism and can be directly attributed to it.
Society works better when men and women work alongside each other, not one person designated to the home, one in the workplace, but alongside each other as definitely intellectual equals and realizing that physical reality is not determinant.
It does not determine things necessarily.
The strong ought not rule the weak.
And the strong, even if they have the power to make others submit to their will, I think one of the most defining things about masculinity is using your power effectively and using your power to benefit the less well-off and those who are at a disadvantage and not using it to further oppress them.
So in that sense, I think that's why feminism is necessary.
And I hope that we will see more views of this nature proliferate and less of a slide back towards this view that women have this role that they ought to be in.
I think a society is better when we trust women, and it is in the virtue of trusting women that I affirm that feminism has caused great benefits to society and is overall a good for society.
So that's all I got.
All right.
Thank you both.
Thank you to both of you for doing the debate.
I thought it was really good.
Oliver, we actually have you back in I think about two weeks.
You're going to be facing up against Andrew Wilson for a sort of similar debate.
A couple final things here.
I'm going to read super chat.
Christopher, if you're saying men have an obligation to protect because they have the biology to do so, but women don't have an obligation to bear children, even though they have the biology to do so.
Where is the equality?
Quick answer on this, if you'd like?
I can give an answer.
I've given this before.
One, there might be some sort of parallel here.
If the empirical claim was correct that if women are not in the home, they fundamentally will not have children, and there's no way to rectify that through societal programs and economic enhancement.
I don't think that's the case.
So it is true that those who are stronger have an obligation to protect those who are weaker.
Use that to their benefit.
I do think that society is better off if people reproduce.
And I think there are ways in which it doesn't have to be a trade-off.
Women do not have to give up their autonomy and their liberty and their freedom in order to be breeding stock.
We can have our cake and eat it too, actually.
And it doesn't have to be one or the other.
So I think this unfairly, falsely dichotomizes an issue in which we can have both at the same time.
Got it.
And we have two Streamlabs messages coming in here.
I apologize.
My mic was turned the other way.
I was just saying that Oliver will be joining us in about two weeks for he has a one-on-one debate with Andrew Wilson.
So that'll be good.
Be sure to tune in for that.
We have Selena here.
Thank you.
Selena Legornes donated $23.45.
Are you live tomorrow?
Will Jim Bob be there too?
He's pretty funny.
I really appreciate how unapologetic him and Andrew are.
All three of you are dope.
Don't stop doing what you do.
You're needed.
Yes, Selena, thank you.
We will be live tomorrow.
Should be a good panel with our dating talk.
Total bluff donated $20.
What the fuck?
The feminist sounds like such a kitten Trump would probably grab him by the mouth.
This is the environment that's cultivated.
Just want to say that.
You mean people like shitposting in the chat?
You mean the internet?
The internet.
Yeah.
The internet at large.
I mean, have you seen chicks?
What they say?
I mean, are they making comments about grabbing people's genitalia?
I mean, yeah.
I think largely that's not a societal epidemic of women assaulting women.
One question for you on that.
You mentioned Trump's statements as it relates to like the grab him by the, you know.
When you were talking about the differences between misogyny and misandry, you were saying when women say, for example, kill all men or men are trash, men suck, or whatever.
What was the other one?
I don't know.
I hate men.
I hate men.
I mean, if you're sort of, I guess if you're dismissing when women say this, then couldn't you also apply this to basically any negative statement towards women or minorities?
No.
Because the power differential is not there.
Here we go.
If we take a look at this in general, do you think it's kind of like, you probably will bite this bullet, but do you think it's morally equivalent when like a white person calls a black person the N-word versus when like a black person uses the word cracker to refer to a white person?
Do you think those don't use that?
I can't use that word.
Yeah, just say the C word.
It's okay.
The C word is not that, but all right.
Well, just fine.
For the sake of the stream.
Okay.
It's YouTube and Twitch.
Okay, fine.
Do you think those two things are like a quite equipped?
We could argue that maybe like neither of them is great, but like, I think they're like historical context.
The N-word was the last word that a lot of black people heard before they were like, I don't know, can I say lynched?
Like, I don't know, you know, lynched.
Yeah.
So like, that has a much bigger societal connotation than that word, the C word that just gets like just.
Do you think sexism can exist towards men?
Well, that's the idea of misandry.
I think it can exist.
And I think a lot of examples of misandry are almost kind of like manifestations of misogyny.
So the idea is that like men can't feel emotions or that men just have to man up or that male victims of abuse aren't actually valid because or like if a man is abused by a woman, it's like, oh, dude, you should feel lucky.
Like the whole like school teacher thing, like if a guy sleeps with his teacher, it's like, oh, you know, he's really lucky for that.
It's like, no, he's groomed.
He was groomed by that.
And I think that like that type of dismissiveness of male trauma could be categorized as a form of misandry, like unfair.
But I think that is an example of the societal standards we have and how they negatively affect men.
So yeah.
So, but just to be clear, like hateful statements said towards men, it's okay because the power dynamics.
I think when we're talking about statements like, I hate men, I, and this is, I don't know if it's something I've revised my position on, but I don't know if I fully have.
Is it probably ideal for people to say what they mean when they're saying stuff?
I think so.
I think it is probably best.
Clear up confusion.
Don't want anyone to get the wrong message.
However, I think people use non-literal forms of language all the time.
If someone says, like, oh my God, I'm going to kill him.
I'm so mad.
No one literally interprets that as like they're going to kill this person, especially if they've never killed anyone.
Women are not in mass numbers, or even really any significant number, offing men.
That's just, it's not something that's happening.
Men are not a serious systemic risk of violence from women.
Yeah, it might hurt some feelings, and maybe it's not like a great thing to do, especially maybe if you're trying to get people on your side.
But the way that I view that type of discourse is women have been asking politely to be treated better by men for so long.
Hey, we'd like it if you stop doing this.
And this is actually getting men's attention.
It's like, oh my God, you say you hate me.
Now I'm listening.
And I think in that sense, it is, you know, somewhat like, you know, pejorative and it might turn them off, but it at least gets them like having their ears open instead of just complaining, oh, that's stupid feminism stuff.
Wait, you hate me?
I'm going to listen.
I'm going to listen, even if it is with a critical eye.
At least they're engaged in some sort of conversation.
I mean, don't you think that in terms of the, there's like, I don't know if you've seen like that adolescence show.
I've seen it.
You know, there's all these criticisms of, you know, manosphere stuff or this young boys finding an interest in Andrew Tate, for example.
Yeah.
It seems like this narrative of just sort of open man hatred that's kind of pushing people in that direction.
I mean, maybe.
So I guess I would ask you then, I mean, this is really interesting conversation.
What are some examples of like misandry that you see or like hatred of men that you see are like prevalent in society?
I mean, just utterances.
Okay.
Individual utterances.
I mean, yeah.
And do you think that like always people's words should be understood literally?
If I say, oh my God, slay, do you think I'm going to kill you?
Slay.
Kill.
I don't think that's fair, though.
I think that's totally different than.
Why?
Well, I think there's a difference between hyperbole.
That is hyperbole.
I hate men.
Women, do you really think that a majority of women genuinely hate all men?
Of course not.
Well, perhaps they don't hate all men.
They don't have like perhaps a generalized well, okay, for example.
If a white person said the same thing about black people, would you like take them at face value or to be like, eh, they're just joking.
Well, first off, the hatred of white people towards black people has historically, throughout history, been designed to like, it was not in any way like rooted in like a reality.
You know what I mean?
Like that's just, that's just racism.
That's not like, it's not, they're not, they're not, it's also a little bit like if a black, the correct response was like if a black person says like, I hate white people because of racist experiences that they'd experienced.
I don't, I think that just in general.
Is that okay?
I just, I think there are people to hate white people.
Black people do hate white people or use.
No, I don't think you should women hating all men.
There is this type of like biological essentialism, which says that men, because of who they are, are inherently evil.
I've seen this in like very few corners of the internet that's just like, you don't want to go there.
That's not a good place.
That's wrong.
Those women are doing something that is bad.
You should not genuinely think that men, because of their biology or their genetics or their Y chromosome, are somehow evil.
That's not the sentiment that is largely being expressed in my view when women say I hate men.
And the reason is because it's never, the behavior does not match the words, which makes me an insincere form of hatred.
You don't actually hate these people.
Would you give this same grace to men who said the same thing towards women?
No, because women act.
Wait a second.
Because men because men actually take out their hatred on women by killing them.
Women poison men all the time.
Well, okay.
I need more examples of like, well, who do you think kills?
Do you think men kill more women or women kill more men?
What do you think is a more systemic pervasive issue?
Men kill more men, though.
Do they hate women?
No.
Using the same logic?
Because they're men.
Yeah.
Because they're men.
Do men kill men because they're kids?
No, they kill women because they don't view women.
What you're talking about is violence by proximity.
You're saying it's violence that occurs because there is violence.
No, you're using the reasoning that if men kill women, it's because they hate women.
But when they kill men, it's just...
Wait, because they don't...
In a lot of these cases, it's because they don't view women as full people or worthy of respect.
Yeah, I think about it all the time.
The stalker case.
A woman turns down a man's advances.
He follows her home and he kills her.
That's not an uncommon thing that unfortunately happens.
So that is...
That's pretty uncommon.
I mean, in the grand scheme of things?
Yeah, it does have.
I mean, in terms of intimate partner violence, three women per day are killed by men.
Yeah, but partner, the domestic violence for lesbian couples is higher.
So do they hate women?
Are they killing?
Are lesbians killing each other?
If they were stronger, they would.
I don't think that's true.
I think if someone wants to kill someone, they would be able to do it.
I mean, women, women can't even successfully kick off themselves.
Okay, yeah, they do.
Fine.
They're not even.
Yeah, they attempt at similar rates.
Men do more because they use more medical methods.
They're just better at it.
I think saying men are better at killing themselves, and that's a good thing about men is crazy.
No, I didn't say it's good.
I said they're better at it.
Okay.
It's not a good thing.
It's good to say it's good.
And if we're talking about why that's the case, I think the male suicide rate is a problem.
And I think that we should encourage men to, instead of bottling up and never talking about their feelings, you just have to man up.
You have to get through it.
Emotions are just a woman's thing, and you should not.
I don't know about that.
I actually wonder how many men ended up taking themselves out of the equation at the tail end of looking too introspectively about all that.
I don't think that's the case.
I mean, there are specific studies that I found, and this was one that I found when I was preparing for the other debate that I did.
And it was men that hold particular views, such as, you know, a lot of more traditional views like you hold.
You know, this idea that like depression isn't really a real thing, or like it's like a weakness of the mind, and you know, that you know, you just need to man up and grit and power through, and that men have this role to be like super aggressive.
They're more than two, like two times as likely to kill themselves.
There's a study.
I can actually provide you a study if you'd like.
Unalive or unalive.
Oh, my bad.
Sorry.
Alive.
Yeah.
Unalive themselves.
Who hold those views?
I mean, there's a study out there.
So I better understand.
Can you further explain the whole, like, okay, when women say, I hate men, all men suck, whatever it is, you give them a bit of grace on that statement.
But if a man says, I hate all women, or whatever it is, why do women, why do women, what teaches women to be afraid of men?
Well, not like that.
Well, but I think this is instructive.
I think I'm going to answer your question.
So what's your question?
Well, my question is, why do you think women are afraid of men or might express that as I hate men?
Why?
Maybe, sure.
Either they've had a specific poor or bad incident with a particular man.
They've heard from a friend that this person has had a bad experience.
They have a society and culture that pushes forth certain messaging when it comes to this.
There's the perhaps you might even agree with this.
The news cycle basically has people on high alert all the time because they're just hyper-focusing on these otherwise pretty rare occurrences.
And it's just a constant flow of like, here's a terrorist attack.
Here's whatever it is.
So it's a problem.
And from talking with the women in my lives, and like at least from what I've heard from women I've listened to, these types of experiences, especially like, you know, unwanted sexual encounters or sexual assault or sexual harassment, are scarily common, like really common.
Like it's like every, I mean, I'd encourage you guys, you know, to talk to the women in your life.
Just like ask them, hey, have you had this type of experience?
And it's like, it's scarily common.
So I think women's fear of men and sometimes what they express as hatred is a hatred with how they're being treated.
Sure.
And I realize they're not being perfect with language.
And one could argue that instead of saying I hate men, they should say, I hate the way some men treat me.
And I totally understand that, you know, look, I struggle with this a lot too.
I'm a man.
When you say you hate all men, I'm offended because I'm a member of that category.
And I feel that you're somehow impugning me for the actions of this shitty guy that I had nothing to do with.
But I think what happens is when we do that, we're focusing on tone-policing women more and we're making it about ourselves, in a sense.
We're saying, like, I hear what I, instead of looking and listening to the message you're giving me, I'm going to immediately get on the defensive and make it about me.
You know what I mean?
So maybe, actually, Brian, in an ideal world, you're right.
Women in a perfect world are like in a way where we're like, you know, if I were to advise a woman, what should she say?
She should say, you know, I hate the way that some men treat me.
But I think that as men, we should use our big brain reasoning ability to say that, look, okay, women say they hate men, but, and all those women who go to the women's marches that, you know, Jim Pop thinks are facades and say that, you know, we hate men, you know, blah, blah, blah.
And they go home to men in their lives and then they go, you know, have men in their life that they love.
They don't actually hate men.
What they're doing is they're expressing a type of discontent in albeit probably imperfect language, in language that is less than optimal whatsoever at all.
But I just, I think fixating on this idea that like this is systemic hatred of men, just like, it's right.
I had to make a claim of systemic.
No, my bad.
Can you repeat that?
Yeah, what specifically?
I was just kidding.
I was just kidding.
No.
You're going to make a great lawyer.
Yeah, I mean, but the thing is, though, is that I don't think, I actually don't dispute that many women have had bad encounters with men.
I don't dispute this.
I've had bad encounters with men.
I've had bad encounters with women.
I think, though, when you're going to make statements like this, one, I just, it's blatantly sexist.
But the other thing I would say is that, like, again, if we sort of shift things a little bit and we replace men with a racial group, you'd be like, whoa, okay, that, for example, if a white person anecdotally, they had multiple bad experiences with a racial minority.
Who in that racial minority?
What do you mean?
Because I hear his talking point a lot.
It's like, oh, black men are violent.
This type of thing.
I'm not saying you're saying that.
I'm saying that.
It doesn't matter who it is.
I think it can be.
I think it can be.
But the common denominator there would be a man.
So if someone were hating, like, I guess, like, oh yeah, I have a prejudice against African Americans because an African-American man once caused this.
it's the male component that's doing the work there.
Cause I don't think they would be afraid of like black women necessarily if they had a, let's just say they just had a blanket.
Uh, They've had bad experiences with black men and black women.
I think they make certain negative statements about I hate ex-racial people.
And I think it's because throughout society, that statement has never been understood to mean we don't like the way I had this bad treatment or that there is a systemic problem of the way black people treat white people.
That's not like there is already connotation.
It's like, I don't, what's the right word?
What's the way we put it?
The statement, I hate black people, I don't really want to say that on the podcast.
Clip in.
Clip in.
Clip, clip.
There we go.
There we go.
I'm sure it'll be.
That statement has already had a meaning ascribed to it.
People already have a connotation.
It's like a similar thing of people who take the swastika canal and fly it and want to be like, no, it just means a symbol of peace in my religion.
It's like, well, no, that statement has already been so tainted by this previous meaning that it can't mean something else because of how common it is.
The phrase, I hate men, has never been accompanied by the systemic extermination of men.
It's never been accompanied by the systemic subjugation of men.
It's never been accompanied by any actual, like tangible harm against men.
You don't think there's any harm?
I think there is harm in.
I think there is harm in the case that maybe it's not the most effective thing because it does turn men off.
And I'm not turn men away from the movement.
And I'm not trying to make a claim that that's the way that women ought to do it.
Do you think it would cause transgender people harm if they, if somebody said, like, I hate trans people or kill all T people?
Do you think that would cause harm?
Yeah, but are T people like offing like what I don't are T people offing cis people?
It's the other way around.
I don't see it.
What's the mean?
Like what's the that's already a thing.
It's like transphobia and like the hatred of like trans people is already a prominent yeah we also have a word called sexism and that would also apply to men.
Sorry, I'm the moderate.
You're good.
No, it's fine.
It's no, this is pro-starvation.
No, I think what Brian was pointing to is like if you're if it's fine to extrapolate or generalize based on certain experiences and it's understandable, he's just taking another group and from those experience or say statistics or something, that why would it be wrong to statistics wouldn't back up white people being afraid of statistics wouldn't back up white people being afraid of black people because majority of violence is intra-racial.
So intra-racial.
90% of black people are killed.
This is often killed by other black people.
85% of white people are killed by other white people.
Why would that preclude a white person being fearful or scared of a racial minority?
What do you mean?
Because they've had like a singular instance or a bad instance?
Isn't it the case that like the comparative rate, so if you look at like Asian on black versus black on Asian crime, there's disparity, but it's still drastically low.
If you're talking about who is an Asian overwhelmingly more likely to be hurt by, it is someone of their own race because people live almost entirely around people who live like that.
It's not like violence, but like stranger danger, like on the street violence.
Well, who do you usually live around?
You're not usually just randomly going into communities that you don't inhabit or like white people live around and work primarily around white people.
So you're saying if I go into a neighborhood where there's a high rate of black on black crime, that I should be more, I shouldn't be worried about.
I think you should be worried, but just because it has a high rate of crime, like on a, I mean, I don't know.
I think that I think a lot of this stuff, like, I just, I don't, I'm not denying that, like, I understand where the sentiment that you're expressing comes from, Brian.
Like, I get that, like, it's like, like, look, we should oppose generalizations of any group on any basis because it's just, you know, it's wrong.
And I think there's a claim to be.
Wait, why is that wrong?
Well, I mean, you would say it's wrong.
I wouldn't say making determinations, but generalization.
Generalization saying all blank are blank, but like all blank is all.
Oh, like.
Yeah.
Except for you, all women should be at the moment.
Well, they could be.
Okay.
I guess just one question on the bear thing then.
Yeah.
You would say if somebody picks the bear over a man, that would not be like sexist.
And you understand why a woman would pick up.
I mean, sure.
My question is, let's say if we kind of, and would you say that comes down to safety?
I mean, factually, yeah.
Right.
Women pick bear because they are afraid that the man might essay them and kill them or whatever it is, whereas the bear might just kill them or not do anything.
Like essay them, right?
So it's like a safety assessment.
It comes down to safety.
But so if somebody, for example, if the question changes and the question becomes, would you rather come across a random black person or a random bear in the woods and they pick bear over black person, would you say they're racist?
Well, it would depend.
Who are they afraid of in the woods?
Who is committing the racial?
It wouldn't matter if it was a black woman or a black man.
They'd still pick the bear.
But no, wait a second.
I think it's weird, though, because like because black women aren't committing like massive rates of violence or crime.
I'm not going to deny.
I'm not a majority of men aren't.
It's a very majority, yeah.
Right, but you're saying black women are immune to committing violent crime.
Not immune, they're much less likely.
I granted, but this person we would have to math it out.
We have to mass it out.
Well, who cares if it happened?
Well, I mean, wouldn't the math in the original example when it's a woman preferring the bear over the man?
I think the math, even in that case.
Because you're only including killing.
You're only including being killed.
I would include SA.
You think a bear is more likely to sexual.
No, no, no, that's not what I'm saying.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
But here, but that's what women are.
Would it be racist to pick the bear over the black person?
Yes.
This is not a contradiction whatsoever at all.
If it is, wait a second, wait a second, wait a second.
If it was, would you rather pick a bear or like a black man?
Yeah, pick of the bear.
That's fine because it's the man that's doing the operative work there.
It's the man that's doing.
I think black women largely should be more like afraid of, like in terms of the male thing, black men and white women should be afraid of white men because that's the people who are most likely to harm them.
But in this black scenario, it's not just, it's not the reality.
There's just no lived reality of like white people, a majority of white people, like being victims of terrible, awful crimes at the hands of black people.
People or black women?
It would be largely black men.
I mean, there's that guy at the track meet who just got stabbed.
Okay, I mean, of course, and we talked about that.
Are we talking about that?
But you said this group of people doesn't have the lived experience of being victims of crime perpetuated by black people.
Are you saying black people don't commit crime?
I'm not saying they don't commit crimes.
I'm saying that black people committing crimes against white people is not a pervasive issue.
It's not pervasive.
It just doesn't, it's not a majority, an overwhelming majority.
You can look at the statistics, and I already said it's over.
It's intra-racial.
Even then, if you're going to say that if they pick the bear over the black person, that must be racist, then surely.
Black man?
No, just not more.
Well, the question that I posed was not black man, it was just black person.
So it could be a woman, it could be a man.
Now, is it racist?
But then for you to say, well, it wouldn't be sexist to pick the bear over the man, I just not really following.
Yeah, it's like he's just all he's doing is swapping out the choices.
And if it's if it's sexist in one instance, but it's not, but it's, or let's say it's racist, but it's not sexist, he's saying.
Like, why is it racist?
We should be consistent.
But I don't think there's an inconsistency here because it's not like, and I see this a lot, like, why can't white people fear black people if women can fear men?
And I don't think that there's a, I don't think that, I don't think the parallel holds because the demographic committing violence, regardless of race, is men.
So if you're afraid of black men over white men, you're not more likely as a, I don't, if you want to, if let's say you oppose this as like a, as like a, would you, as to like a black woman, like, would you rather encounter a bear or like a black person in the woods?
I mean, then maybe she'd be like, yeah, I want the bear because it might be a black man and because men within a society are more likely, regardless of race, to be black.
But why can't you make a subcategory?
Okay, we've established men, but then why can't we just make a subcategory to say like black men?
Okay, there's groups between a white man and a black man.
Who would you rather be in the woods with?
If you're a white man, you would, or if you're a white woman, it's more likely that you are to be, it doesn't really matter, it's just a man.
It's just men in general are more likely to assault.
It's not on a racial demographic thing.
It's just that there's no basis for that.
Like I don't, there is a basis for women fearing men.
That makes sense.
But it's not like there's nothing about a black man that makes like him more scary than a white man, other than if you think black people are scary.
And I don't know if this was what you were asking, Jim Bob, but what if the question shifts to this?
A white woman in the woods and she's given an option of spawning in.
She either comes across a random white person or excuse me, a random white man versus a random black man and she picks the white man.
Is that racist?
No, I don't.
You don't think it's racist?
I don't know.
I don't.
But I thought, hold on, but didn't you just say that the rates of like interracial violence are it's like within your same race, it's higher, right?
It's going to happen if there's a man there.
No, but you said like because when I gave you the Asian example, you're like, well, okay, the rates of Asian on Asian crime are higher.
I feel like we've extracted this hypothetical so far that it just doesn't track reality anymore.
Like, I just don't.
I think it's tracked.
I don't think it is right now.
And I don't think it is at all.
Well, then we didn't even get into like per capita, like the percent of crime and convictions versus white and black.
And there's not an argument.
I'm not saying that like black people don't commit a disproportionate rate of crime.
That's not the claim.
I would make an argument that that largely stems from socioeconomic factors and historical factors that have impoverished a community for generations upon generations and leads to a gang culture emerging that we've seen over and over and over again throughout history, even among white individuals when they came to this country.
So I don't know.
I just, I don't.
Well, I'll just, I guess I can only reframe it one way.
So the woman who picks the bear over the man, The reason she does this is she had, let's say, two to three poor experiences with and all the women around her have similar experiences too.
Sure.
And she's also consuming content on TikTok in the algorithm, and she's seeing news stories about the incidents of violence against women.
And she goes to university, and there's like a freshman orientation tutorial where they're like, okay, the grape rate is like half or something or whatever, whatever they perpetuate.
And then you have a white person who they're asked the bare or black person question, and they've had two or three negative encounters with black people.
Maybe one of them was with a woman.
Sure, if it's a PTSD response, fine.
Like, I don't, you know, fine.
That's fair.
I don't, like, I don't.
If that person in this, in this hypothetical, if they want to choose, if they want to choose to not be around a black person.
Also, in your little story, you said there's this narrative that needs to be corrected over and over again, where it's like, there's this big story about poverty, and then the poverty justifies crime.
It's actually the case that crime causes more poverty than poverty causes crime.
Well, sure, it's a cycle.
Right, no, but disagreeing with you.
Right, but the narrative is always, it's always said in this way where it's like, oh, they're in a terrible, whoever it is, they're in a terrible position.
They did what they did, it caused crime, and then it's a cycle of poverty.
But there are people who don't commit crime who are in poverty.
There's also rich people who commit crime.
So I'm not sure what the cycle is actually blamed on.
I think there's a cultural aspect when we look at crime or even any degenerate behavior itself that there's even legal things that aren't crime that I consider degenerate, but it all plays into it.
I don't think that there's this narrative where it's like certain groups of people, it's not their fault that they're behaving the way they're doing.
I'm not trying to remove individual responsibility here.
Absolutely.
I think that it is also true that the majority of people who are subjected to bad conditions don't perpetuate those bad conditions.
So that's just true.
However, it is true that statistically they are more likely to in general.
So that's kind of the whole claim that I'm trying to make.
Sure.
I'm going to let these chats come through, then we're going to wrap this up.
Jason, thank you for the time.
Jason Castle donated $20.
Oliver, it's called busting balls.
It's what men do, so I know you don't understand.
I'm not trying to help you, bug.
Don't worry, I'm on the developmental pathway to produce small gametes.
So I don't know.
Intel Wilde donated $20.
Jim Bob, cool it with anti-gay lawyer remarks.
What the heck?
Thank you, Intel.
All right, we have about six more coming through.
Thank you, guys.
Appreciate it.
Christine donated $20.
I will say the quiet part out loud.
Bear versus man debate is a passive-aggressive way of us reminding men that we hate you.
That's reminding.
Wait.
Oh, wow.
Okay.
All right.
Prithilla donated $20.
Oh, Prithilla.
Fruity boyf Kalili ra tauded.
You disgust me.
All of your followers disgusts me.
You are a Miss Andreith Luth Coochie woman.
I hope you understand that.
Thank you.
Billy Bob Roast, this fucker.
Jason Castle donated $20.
Thank you, Jason.
Well, Oliver, listening to you during this debate will increase the UN alive rate of men tonight.
We to go bunnies.
I'm surprised you think I'm that powerful that I can convince men to be able to do that.
Enable the animal donated $20.
Thank you.
The white knight is the one infantilizing women.
Do women hate children and the elderly as they unalive them at incredible rates?
Even as parenting time has decreased, rates have increased.
Jason Castle donated $20.
Oliver, you're a scumbag.
Brian meant any minority group, but you tried to but words in his mouth by asking if he means black people.
He didn't say black people, he meant any minority group.
Scumbag.
Wow, okay.
Selena Gornes donated $23.45.
So, should men not fear women when they say hate all men, even though the legal system has clearly been weaponized against men for at least 50 years?
I mean, believe all women, right?
Yeah, I feel really oppressed.
Eric Vigilant donated $19.99.
Thank you, Eric.
Oliver never had the markings of a varsity trumpeter.
This is a genes didn't pass down from Soprano's reference.
Thank you, Eric.
Steven donated $19.99 this bear in the woods hypothetical is annoying and just shows how stupid Americans have become We love to make problems a bear is never the one to pick.
Thank you, Steven Just a quick answer.
Do you pick man or bear?
For you.
You're in the woods.
Random man, random bear.
It's probably a man.
Men are less, you know.
Yeah.
I mean, is it less or more?
Wait, never mind.
Never mind.
No, no, no, no.
If it's a black bear versus a white bear.
No, no, no.
They do attack more.
Matt.
Statistics show black men commit way more crimes comparatively?
Okay.
Wait a second.
I do want to respond to that quickly.
I'm not denying that if we look at the disparities that the black on white crime versus white on black, there is a higher one in the former.
I'm just saying still overwhelmingly statistically, it's still intra-racial.
That was my claim.
I was not denying that fact.
Got it.
All right, cool, guys.
Well, we're going to wrap it up there.
Let me just double check, make sure.
Guys, if you enjoyed the stream, please like the video.
If you're watching on Twitch, drop us a follow in a Prime sub.
Guys, me and Jim Bob are going to be live tomorrow with a dating talk panel.
It's going to be a good show, so be sure to tune into that.
Like the video kindly on your way out, guys.
I'm going to get a quick raid going here on Twitch.
Why not?
And I do want to thank Jim Bob.
Thank you for coming.
Oliver, thank you for coming.
It was great to have you guys.
I thought it was a really good debate, so thank you so much.
Really appreciate it, guys.
You're welcome.
And let me just double-check everything.
Okay, we're good there.
All right.
Thank you guys for watching.
07's in the chat.
We will see you guys tomorrow with a dating talk.
▲
Export Selection