Rachel Wilson and Driena Sixto clash over whether conservative women are actually classical liberals, debating if the 19th Amendment was a progressive tool for taxation or a necessary defense against racism. They dispute claims that lobotomies targeted only women versus arguments that financial independence since the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act allows character-based relationships. The exchange escalates to gender roles, with one side asserting men must hold critical infrastructure jobs while the other cites declining birth rates and education as drivers for family shifts, ultimately questioning if objective morality exists or if democracy inevitably erodes traditional values. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever Podcast.
We're coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
A few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewer supported, so please consider donating through Streamlabs.
That's streamlabs.comslash whatever.
To display a message on stream is $10 and up.
We will read out Streamlabs donations that are $99 and up in batches during breaks.
So if you have a question or a comment, and we might play around with if you want to suggest a very many, many, Miniature debate on a prompt.
That'll be $199 and up.
You can see the description for all triggers in full details.
Without further ado, can you hide that for a moment?
Without further ado, I am joined today by Rachel Wilson.
She is the wife of Andrew Wilson.
She is a mother of five children, as well as author of the best selling book, Occult Feminism.
Also joining us today is Drianna Sixto.
She's a political analyst and commentator.
As well as Spanish Media Director for the Lincoln Media Foundation.
She received bachelor's degrees in political science and international relations from Florida International University.
You each get a five minute opening, about five minutes, five, six, seven minute opening statement each, and then we're gonna head straight into opening conversation.
And Rachel, you're going first with your opening statement.
Go ahead.
All right.
Well, thanks, Brian, for hosting this.
Thanks, Drianna, for coming.
This is a debate I've wanted to have for a long time.
It's very easy to debate like, Very woke leftist feminists and make them look kind of crazy.
But I think that it's important that we have this discussion between women on the right as well, because I think we have a very serious problem in the media, especially with women who say they're right wing, conservative, whatever kind of like term you want to use to say they're on that side of things.
I think that just because you're not woke doesn't mean that you're conservative and it doesn't mean that you're not feminist.
So In Drianna's first appearance, she said that she came to the podcast to help men and women heal the divide and find a way to have good relationships again.
She said she wants both parties to recognize what the other party brings to the table, so we'll talk about the table for sure.
But I think her view and understanding of what feminism is, like most people, is based on propaganda, fallacious views of history through presentism, and just ignorance, which I don't blame her for.
Calling her an ignorant person, she's a smart person.
But most of us just haven't gotten the real story.
We've heard a lot of things that we repeat and we don't really know why, and they're not exactly accurate.
So I want to address some of that.
I think that once I demonstrate that Drianna actually holds a lot of more classical, liberal, egalitarian, and therefore feminist views, what I predict is going to happen is she's probably going to want to obfuscate, do some stonewalling, and maybe even personal insults.
Hopefully, we don't have to go there.
But I'm just going to keep redirecting it back to the topic and back to what we're here to discuss, which is feminism, especially among women on the right.
Andrew calls them femcons, like feminist conservatives, but they're also kind of running a con, right?
So, Drianna sees marriage more as an interpersonal legal contract, whereas my view of marriage is a lifelong sacramental religious commitment.
So, we're going to have some, you know, trying to find some common ground to talk about marriage from those very different worldviews.
But the problem with this is that, you know, seeing she made this assertion that she's a capitalist and that she's coming at this from a conservative capitalist view, but right out of the gate in your last appearance, we saw that that's not the case because you said that you want things like prenuptial agreements, no fault divorce, and the origins of no fault divorce are Marxist in and of themselves.
The first mention of such a thing was Frederick Engels, lifelong collaborator with Karl Marx, a revolutionary socialist.
And then, after he started to talk about marriage as this state contract, this no fault divorce idea of what marriage could be, that was picked up by other people who then ran with it.
The other problem that we have is this idea that women's unpaid domestic labor is capitalist, which was another assertion that you had that I would take issue with.
That's another thing that is uniquely socialist and Marxist in its origins and in its nature.
There were women like Maria Marioso de la Costa and Selma James, whose work was adopted by socialist labor unions.
They were the ones that came up with this idea of women's unpaid domestic labor in the home.
And labor unions who wanted socialism ran with that because they thought it was a really good way to get women out of the home and into the workforce, where then the workers of the world could unite and we could get enough numbers on the socialist side to have a socialist revolution.
So that is definitely not a capitalist position, that's a Marxist socialist position.
And then you had this assertion to Andrew that people with prenuptial agreements get less divorce, and he argued that, okay, that's.
Could be correlated, but you can't prove that that's the cause or the reason.
And I did a deep dive on that data, and he was absolutely correct.
Instinctually, he didn't have data at the top of his head, but he knew that that was instinctually not causal.
And when I dug into it, I in fact found that there are small, small like surveys they've done where it seems that people who have prenuptial agreements maybe have less divorce, but that that's a selection bias issue.
That people who have prenuptial agreements have higher incomes, they have more education, so.
There's nothing causal there saying a prenup is going to put you at less risk.
It's more of a correlation.
So I think there's just like a whole bunch of misunderstandings about this, and I'm super glad that we get to sit down and talk about this.
The great Rush Limbaugh used to talk about the info babes at Fox News, the right wing conservative media women, and say, hey, this is a problem because they're actually not conservative.
They usually have a separate agenda for women, they usually have more of a classical liberal egalitarian view.
And to me, that is feminist.
I mean, Feminism came out of the Great Enlightenment and the idea of egalitarianism, of trying to make everybody equal, social equality, social justice.
So I'm happy to get into this and sort that out because I don't think it's a conversation we have enough.
And does that conclude your opening statement?
Okay, go ahead with your opening statement, please.
Absolutely.
Hi, guys.
Happy to be here again.
So, for clarification, no, not a feminist in any way.
For the first time in my life, I actually was called a feminist just a few weeks back when I was on the show by Rachel's husband.
I'm pro capitalism, pro life.
I'm pro marriage, pro children.
I'm pro Second Amendment, pro small government.
I am pro US Constitution, pro homeschooling.
And I believe taxation is theft.
What I lovingly call repeal the 19th Rachel, and I disagree on, is that women have a right to vote and have equal rights under the law as men do.
That's it.
I am not here to argue in favor of feminism, and I really don't care about its history.
My argument is that the root cause, like you mentioned, of most of our societal problems is the current disconnect between men and women, which has been encouraged by years.
Different entities, government entities, to divide and conquer us, put us at odds with one another.
Not that women can finally vote, that's not what's causing it.
And to help create a strong society with strong families, we need to bridge this gap, yes, between men and women and get both sides to understand the other's inherent value.
I also live in reality.
We are currently in a never before seen scenario in history, right?
Unaffordability is the highest it's ever been.
The gap between wages and home prices is the largest it's ever been.
I believe that's by design to keep us pissed off in a rat race, unable to reflect on really who's behind all of this so that we can unite as a society and fight back against it.
Meant, well, women specifically, have relatively recently achieved true legal and financial equality in history.
In fact, Gen X, like Rachel here, because I think it was 1980, which is the cutoff, is the first generation of women to live under true equality in the U.S., which was achieved with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
Before that, women couldn't have credit nor get loans without a male cosigner, and that's only 52 years ago.
So, for the first time in modern history, women are not financially dependent on men to live.
And I argue that we should extract the positive things out of this crazy situation that we're in.
And that's that since men and women don't financially need each other anymore, they can choose to come together for reasons other than financial reasons, like the character of the person and, I don't know, love.
So, good.
Loyal, smart, capable, intelligent, emotionally intelligent men see it as their time to shine, right?
Because it's not about the money anymore.
It's about being kind, equally competent as an adult, equally responsible for adult responsibilities, especially if you want to have a family.
And this is what most women want now, for those of you guys that are hearing this.
For the first time, we all know that the economy is absolute shite right now, okay?
And that raising a family on a single income is a luxury that most Americans can't afford.
So instead of listening to women hating manosphere podcasts that call you men specifically losers, unless you're making a million dollars a year, and that say women are materialistic or promiscuous and therefore they're responsible for the loneliness epidemic, I suggest listening to people that don't make a living off of dividing the sexes and making the problem worse, which I think is evil.
And if we're trying to promote strong traditional family units, well, which I am, despite the economy, men need to become the kind of leaders that women can look up to, can trust, and can depend on.
And it's in a woman's nature to look for these things in men for partnership, which means men cutting vices that keep you weak, addicted, and with a warped sense of reality when it comes to women, like pornography, which a majority of men consume, and I argue is the single largest contributor.
To the decay in relationships between the sexes.
And I think afterwards, women will naturally want to look forward to relationships with men more.
Because why would a woman marry a man that watches porn and thinks it's okay to do that while in a relationship, which in my book is emotional cheating?
Or why would she marry a man that wants her to work and split bills, which I understand is the reality of most Americans, but then isn't equally competent or responsible partner when it comes to household duties or raising children?
It just sounds like an irrational deal.
Or worse, why would a woman want to give children to men who think being a stay at home mom has no inherent value?
It's just what women are supposed to do when raising kids right is the pillar of a strong society, and the market value of what a stay at home mom does is extremely high.
Or worse, nowadays there's men that say women that do want to be stay at home wives means that they're gold diggers when nobody ever called grandma or great grandma a gold digger for being a homemaker her entire life, right?
So the solution to our modern problems isn't telling women.
That they shouldn't be allowed to vote or have financial independence, which is just a stupid, sexist, losing message for the right, but to make sure that men and women value the opposite sex and what they contribute to society.
And the onus is on men to hold themselves accountable and become men worthy of leading a family, because women can't and shouldn't trust men or follow men that let vices or urges control them.
And without strong men, women have had to step into their masculine energy and Fill that void.
And that's the problem we face, not that women have rights, right?
And if you disagree with human, basic human rights for women, then I suggest never to be a hypocrite and take a one way trip to Iran where women don't have rights and can't vote, right?
Just like I'd recommend communists here in the US to take a one way flight to Cuba if they don't like it here so much.
That's my closing statement.
Well, opening statement.
Okay.
Would either of you like to respond to anything you've heard there?
Well, I think let's start with what do you think feminism is?
And then I'll tell you what I think feminism is.
So I don't really care because so many people have different definitions.
I only care about two things, which is women voting and women having financial independence.
That's it.
I'm not here to argue for feminism in any other way, just a woman's right to vote and a woman's equal financial rights and opportunities as men.
Egalitarian rights.
Okay.
That's it.
So almost everything that you stated as your values and the things you care about here and in your opening are actually classical liberal positions.
They are not conservative positions.
Are you aware of that?
Explain which ones.
So saying egalitarianism, that was part of the French Revolution, the ethos, liberty, equality, fraternity.
That's a revolutionary classical liberal idea.
It's not a right wing conservative idea.
Not A Conservative Position00:16:06
I don't care about it.
So this might be a short.
You know, debate.
Well, you said you were a conservative.
Yes.
Again, the only argument I'm making is that all citizens have inherent values.
Doesn't matter the sex, doesn't matter the gender, doesn't matter the nationality, ethnicity, or anything.
I want you to make me an argument why you think that that shouldn't be the case, why women should be held.
So you said, if you don't like America, you can leave, right?
If you don't think America is the best, you can leave.
We care about American foundational values, Western values.
Okay, well, you said America, but let's just say Western.
Okay, are you aware that this country was not founded on the idea of universal suffrage?
That's a new progressive idea.
I know that it was not originally working that way, but the U.S. Constitution and the idea of the United States absolutely saw us all as equals.
And then throughout the years, we had to super specifically define it because, you know, it wasn't put that blatant.
From the beginning of time.
But it's there in the Constitution that we all have inherent rights from God as equal human beings.
That's funny because it took until the progressive era to pass the 19th Amendment, which was a progressive piece of legislation.
It was not conservative.
So, all I'm trying to do is say, please don't use the label conservative if you're actually a classical liberal.
So, let's just get that straight.
All of your positions are classical liberal positions, and you're doing what a lot of MAGA babes do.
They're like, I like Trump, and I want to deport illegals, and I'm not super woke, therefore I'm conservative.
That's why I don't use the label conservative because it means nothing anymore.
People like you are actually libertarians.
You're classical liberals.
You lean more progressive than not, and you call yourself conservative and then say, I'm the radical weirdo who's like this crazy person.
Yeah, well, there's limited amounts of titles on what to call people's individual political beliefs.
There's usually just conservative, libertarian, Republican, Democrat.
Don't you have a good idea on political science?
Yeah.
So, why are you not aware that you're a classical liberal?
No, because that wouldn't specifically define my ideas.
My personal ideas are way too broad.
You can't just put conservative positions that you have.
Conservative positions, I believe taxation is theft.
We should not.
That's a libertarian idea.
Yeah, which our founding fathers were very much for.
The first thing George Washington did was institute the tax, and we fought a whiskey rebellion over it.
So, no, the founders were not against taxation.
Maybe they didn't.
Representation.
But we had representation, and they said, now that we have representation, we're going to tax you.
So it is not a conservative idea to be completely against taxation.
That is a libertarian idea.
It's, yeah, and I still believe it's true that it is still theft.
So you define the conservative position.
Because anything that is done through coercion, right, is theft.
You don't pay taxes because you're a libertarian.
That's a dyed in the wool libertarian position, which is cool.
I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with that.
But then you're a libertarian.
You can't put that title on me because it doesn't also qualify any position you have.
Any position you have that's conservative.
So I believe in our Second Amendment rights, right?
That's also a classical liberal value.
Okay, so I'm a little bit of this and that, right?
Now, if you're just a classical liberal, I'm looking for one conservative position.
But you just called me libertarian.
That's two sides.
Classical liberal is libertarian.
They're the same thing.
So I'm a mix of both.
Political science major, by the way.
Don't go to college, it's a giant waste of money.
I actually agree with that.
Awesome.
I actually agree with that.
You know, I went to school and I got my degrees, and thankfully I'm working in the field that I went to school for.
But you can learn most everything about politics and international relations.
Well, I'm still staying in the loop of things.
Let each other finish, please.
Let's do it.
By staying in the loop of things.
I actually do tell people don't go to college unless you're going to go get a STEM degree.
In fact, I think I got myself most of my positions by skipping classes and actually being active in the community.
And experiencing reality rather than just reading political theories and books, which I had to do as well.
But you still want one conservative position.
Just one, and then I'll move on from this point.
Just one actually conservative position.
Conservative position?
Yes.
I'm very pro family.
I'm very pro life.
That is.
So you're against abortion?
Yes, I'm against abortion.
And if you're pro family, how do you feel about gay marriage?
I think that basically the government should have never gotten involved in marriage in the first place.
But you said you live in reality and that right now the government's involved in it.
It's a government contract, which is why women need prenups and all this stuff.
You said we live in reality.
So we live in reality right now where gay marriage is legal.
Are you for that or against that?
If the gays want to come into a partnership together, then they should have legal protections.
So gay marriage, you're pro gay marriage.
I'm not pro gay marriage.
I'm saying if two people want to live together and have to legally sign that they are in a civil union so that one can go to the hospital for the other and be admitted the same rights that.
Married couples do, then they need to go do that.
I'm in favor of that.
But I don't think that the government should have gotten into marriage in the first place.
The reality is, however, that marriage does afford certain privileges that unmarried couples do have.
Right.
So that's a legal advantage.
Are you in favor then of gay marriage?
Because it kind of dodged around.
Do you just want civil unions that are different from then how I'm married or how you would get married?
I mean, most.
I guess gay couples, I think, just wanted the same legal rights and tax benefits of married couples, not the fact that they could get an address and a tuxedo and go in a church and get married, because then they would have to take it up with the church itself.
Right.
See, and this is the problem with your libertarian position of turning marriage into a contract with the state is that you have no grounds on which to say the gays can't get married.
Because your reasons, Finn, your reasons for men and women getting married are going to be the exact same.
Same reasons that you're going to say gay couples should get married.
It has always been, even before you know churches existed and Christianity and all that, marriages, civil unions have always had some kind of legal contract and observed within the communities.
That, like in Rome, for example, right, there were certain privileges and certain responsibilities that were given to civilly married unions.
You're talking about pagan Rome or Christian Rome?
Before, yeah, yeah, pagan Rome, yep, okay.
There's been civil, there's been again the union of man and woman since the beginning of time, right?
Yes, even in the Bible, but it was not.
Wait, hold on, let her finish.
Yeah, man and woman became one before God, uh, not before the church, right?
I think that's how I personally see marriage myself.
I think that if two people want to come together and call themselves, you know, a couple officially before God, that's it, and then obviously you're going to want to get legally married because of the benefits that exist, but that's what.
That's what I care about.
And again, that's just my personal opinion.
I still want to, again, get an argument from you as to why women should not be able to vote.
Why, Rachel?
Well, first, I just let you talk.
So now I'm going to talk.
So I'm going to respond to everything you just said.
First of all, you didn't give me a straight answer.
You gave me a whole bunch of gobbledygook and wandering, meandering nonsense to say that basically, you know, at the beginning of this and in your last appearance, you were like, oh, I live in reality where the government is a part of the contract.
That's actually not true.
So, the first piece.
To make marriage not a sacrament of the church governed by the ecclesiastical authority of the church was Alexander Kolontai under Vladimir Lenin during the Bolshevik Revolution.
In 1917, Russia was the first place in the world that we had a state contract governed by the state with no fault divorce.
That is not a Christian institution.
It's not even an ancient pagan institution, as you noted, but back in those days, even under pagans, it was more of a family contractual agreement where you're marrying for the purpose of two families kind of uniting, and a lot of things went into that.
But no, this is brand new.
This idea of marriage as just this personal contract you have with somebody that's governed by the state is only about 100 years old.
And you basically just told me that you're pro gay marriage.
So I'm still, I'll answer.
I'll put words in my mouth.
Then you have to answer either yes or no.
Are you for gay marriage rights or not?
You are for human rights.
You're for rights.
Are you for.
Under the law.
Yes.
Right.
Are you for gay marriage rights?
Should gays be able to have the same legal marriage that men and women have?
Yes.
Okay, that's not a conservative position.
In your opinion.
I'll answer your why should women not vote question as soon as you give me one position, just one on anything where you're actually conservative at all.
I've just mentioned a few.
I am, again, pro life.
I am pro marriage.
I am pro small government.
So you would.
Well, small government is like a fiscal conservative.
Yes, fiscal conservative.
I'm a constitutionalist, right?
So, yeah, all of those things constitute.
A lot of conservative values.
So you're pro life.
Yes.
So you would be against abortion in pretty much all circumstances.
Yeah.
Okay, then I'll give you that one.
That's the only one that I can come up with that makes you anything remotely conservative.
So good job on that.
But why do I think women shouldn't vote?
Well, I'll tell you why I think women shouldn't vote.
So you work for, you did a lot of hard work trying to get Trump reelected.
You're very pro Trump.
And you want to help Republicans, right?
And part of the reason you don't like this gender war is because you're like, look, this is a terrible position for the right.
You're alienating all the female voters, right?
Yes, that's partially correct, yeah.
If women didn't vote anymore, we would never have another Democrat president, we would never have another Democrat Senate, and we would never have another Democrat Congress.
You're right, you're right, Rachel.
You're absolutely right.
So that's one of the reasons that because of the values I hold, which are actually a lot more conservative, even though I don't like the term, I don't really care about Republicans versus Democrats.
I think that the big tent republicanism is just liberalism at a slower speed, like what you believe in.
I don't believe in that.
I'm more of a patriarchist.
I'm an Orthodox Christian.
I would be a monarchist if I could.
But if we care about the things we say we care about, like small government, letting women vote ensures you will never have that again.
The reason the 19th Amendment was passed was because the progressive era liberals wanted to pass the income tax, they wanted to pass the Federal Reserve Act.
They wanted a nanny state with welfare, and they wanted pro immigration open borders.
And they knew that if you only let men vote, you're never going to get that agenda passed.
The whole progressive agenda would have never been passed without women voting.
And that's why I think that we should have some kind of restriction, as we had at the founding, where it's not just one person, one vote.
There's a lot of ways you could do that.
I'm not saying you have to just say no females voting.
Although I think that's a great idea for a lot of reasons that we can get into, but you could do things like net positive taxpayers.
You could do something, anything where you have to have skin in the game.
I agree with the net.
If what you care about is keeping this conservative agenda that you say you want for us and the social and fiscal conservatism, the fastest way to ensure that you never get that passed is letting women vote.
Yes, Rachel, that is factually correct because most women vote.
Left wing, right?
Even though most white women do vote Republican after the 1980s for president.
But you're making the argument that because people disagree with my personal political beliefs, I should take away their right to vote.
I'd like to, and I disagree with that.
I think that the way to get people to vote how I want them to is by arguing that my ideas are better than somebody else's, not taking away somebody else's right to vote.
Because then you'd have to make the argument, Rachel.
That we should take away black people's rights to vote, or that would be a good thing.
Why would we have to do that?
Because black people vote 80 to 90% Democrat in every presidential election, which is a racist, obviously, position to have.
You don't tell people, and your ultimate solution isn't to stop people from voting because you don't get what you want, it's making arguments to convince said people that your ideas are better.
Well, I don't give a crap about democracy.
I don't like the.
I'm glad you clarified that.
Yeah, I don't.
I'm not a democracy enjoyer.
I know that you.
Oh, Iran?
I know you think that's a cute one.
No, Americanism, like the American ethos.
So many places.
America was not founded as a democracy.
And if you went to school for this, I would expect that you would know more about this.
It was not a universal suffrage democracy.
It was a very, extremely limited suffrage representative republic.
That's not what we have now.
So I.
And if you want to call me the traditionalist, yeah, I.
It's a constitutional republic.
It's a representative republic.
It's a constitutional republic because the Constitution guarantees that individual rights aren't trampled upon, right?
And that we still have certain things that we do vote on, you know, policy differences, but the Constitution gives everybody certain inalienable rights.
Yes, and that is what the country is founded upon.
This is what I have a problem with, though.
Do you have a problem with her constitutionalism?
Yes, I do.
I do have a problem with her.
This is why, and I know you think that's some big dunk like, oh, she's, I can't believe she said that out loud, but I'm going to explain why, and everyone's going to agree with me.
The fundamental flaw in our government is this idea that, oh, we can just keep changing it.
So, what it was founded as is not what it has become.
We have become this ultra progressive society, and that was built in.
It's a fatal flaw.
I'm not a constitutionalist.
I don't believe in democracy because democracy means everybody gets a say.
I don't want everybody to have a say.
I don't want people who have more to gain from voting to take money out of my pocket to have the same say as people who are net positive taxpayers.
I agree with you.
I don't want people who are contributing to the system.
This is what it is, though.
You have Somalian daycare scammers who are getting millions of dollars for free because of scams, but the rest of us have to go to work, and if we don't pay our taxes, the IRS is down our throats.
They're about to put us in jail.
I agree.
You have welfare queens.
You have people taking more from the system than they're getting.
This is a terrible idea.
And the inherent flaw is this idea that just because you live here, you should have a say in how the government is run.
And there are some flaws, right?
Let's work on those flaws instead of the blanket statement.
It's a fatal flaw.
It's built in.
Women Should Not Vote00:15:03
It's.
To keep everybody that I don't like from voting.
Okay, but you didn't let me finish.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
You can't take it out.
Your classical liberal foundation of everybody has rights.
You don't care about duties.
You care about rights.
You're going to say everyone should have rights.
Okay, let's get into that then.
Well, first of all, I want to go back to your assertion that we'd have to say black people can't vote.
That's atrocious and ridiculous.
And I didn't say that, and I wouldn't say that.
However, if black women didn't vote, That would help if white women didn't, if all women didn't vote.
We would not be battling trans people.
It's going to be quite the clip.
We wouldn't be battling.
Yeah, it's going to be quite the clip.
Women voting is the larger issue because this is why they wanted to give women the vote because women are easily swayed, they're easily propagandized, they tend to vote on emotion.
Don't interrupt me.
I'm not quite done.
Hold on, letter finish.
Hold on, letter finish.
I'm not done.
Go ahead.
Women vote.
They've done a lot of, I have a whole book on this at home that I'm reading, where they've done all this research on women and how and why they vote.
And they will vote things like the Nixon Kennedy election.
Women voted for Kennedy not because they knew anything about policy or because he had better ideas.
You're still stuck in this paradigm that we're in a war of ideas.
Most women don't think that way.
They're not going and researching the issues.
They go, he's tan and handsome.
I like him.
He's bald and he's shiny on TV and I don't like him.
I don't like his tone.
And so they don't vote for him.
I think you're just let me know when this is like not my opinion.
This is what they say in exit polling.
This is what All of these political packs who are desperately trying to get women's votes find when they do the research.
Women vote for security, they vote for a nanny state, and they vote for progressive policies because those sound nicer.
That's why in every political cycle you see all these commercials coming from the Democrats going, Republicans want to take away school lunch and they want to kill your grandma and they don't want her to have her Medicare anymore because women see that and they're like, I have to protect the innocent babies, they're so helpless.
Women shouldn't be in politics because it weaponizes our maternal instinct.
Against our own interests.
So that's why you see women, you see women trying to fight ICE agents in the streets, even if the illegal guy has, you know, CP and, you know, liberal women doing that.
Yeah, well.
I've argued with conservative women about this as well.
Yes, they see ICE dragging people out.
They see families getting separated or they see kids behind a fence or whatever.
And they're like, we can't do it this way, guys.
We can't.
And so even people like Trump will back off on what they want to do because the women freak out and they're like, we can't do this.
It's too mean.
Are we done here?
On your rant and this, you didn't rant and prattle and meander with your stuff.
It sounds like you have a lot of.
Disdain for women in general.
Absolutely not.
I think women are wonderful in their maternal role.
They should be involved.
I'm sure that you would love to have kind of a say on what women can and can't do and what their roles in society should be.
I disagree with that.
I do think women should be encouraged to become mothers, and we need strong women to lead families and have and raise great kids.
However, I am not using a woman's natural biological differences as basically fodder against their right to vote, basically.
Even if it costs you your liberty and it costs you all the things that they value?
Well, they voted for a majority of them for a Republican in the last election.
So it does show that with the right arguments, you can convince people to vote Republican.
That is a factual statement of recent elections that happened.
So, Rachel, if you are just bad at Showing people why it's better to not vote and for women to live under the rule of men and only have them make political and financial decisions for them, then just say that, right?
In my opinion, I have spent over the last decade on college campuses talking to students from the left, to men and women, basically on why.
Conservative values are better to sway them to my side.
I don't show up on a campus and tell 18 year old girls, hey, you know, you're just too dumb and your hormones fluctuate and you totally should leave all political decisions to men.
I think you can't handle yourself and that's why you should totally believe what I say and stop voting in the future.
I get to reply to that first.
You went on for quite some time, so let me finish my answer.
I'm going to reply to what you just said because you just said you must really hate women.
You must have all this disdain.
I think anybody watching will say that you don't like women or you hold women of lesser value than men, and I disagree with that.
Okay, well, I'll prove to you that that's not true.
Okay.
Before the passage of the 19th Amendment, the groups, we had two groups.
We had the pro suffrage side and the anti.
No, wait, do you?
Hold on.
Wait, let it finish.
We had two different groups pro suffrage and anti suffrage.
The vast majority of women were absolutely against the 19th Amendment and women's voting rights.
Did all of those women also hate other women?
Susan B. Anthony herself said if we'd left it up to women to pass women's voting rights, it never would have happened, that all their support came from progressive.
Socialist men.
So I'm asking you, my great grandmother who did not think politics was the role of women, was she hateful toward women or did she instinctively know that this was going to create the gender divide that you don't like?
The gender divide you're trying to fight was caused by trying to politicize women and put them in men's roles and have them be involved in politics and government.
Did those women hate women?
I don't care if a majority of women were against women's rights.
Well, you're accusing me of that.
Let me finish.
I don't care if 99.9% of women were against women having equal values to men.
It still doesn't take away from the fact that it is correct that women have equal values to men.
Why?
Because.
You prefer it.
No, because this country was founded on protecting the minority, right?
No, it wasn't.
Let me finish.
Let me finish, Rachel.
This country was founded to protect the individual, right?
We're not a democracy.
We are a constitutional republic because we all have inherent values.
So it does not matter that 99.9% of the population wants something if it tramples on the individual's rights, Rachel.
This is basic stuff.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Now we're getting somewhere.
And so again, it doesn't matter if somebody that supported women's suffrage, so women voting, was a literal witch, a Satanist, a Marxists or whatever, I don't care.
It doesn't take anything away from the fact that it is still right that men and women have equal value when it comes to representation, right?
It does not matter that men are physically stronger than women, and that's why they should then be the ones to vote because ballots are not the same thing as barbells, Rachel.
And again, this is why I am glad to be here.
Sorry, keep going.
I'm glad.
Tiffany, what are you doing?
I'm glad to be here because I equally think that there are really toxic voices in the conservative red pill movement that are putting so many people off from what our side really is about.
Some people think that in the red pill movement, you know, all these women just want to take away women's rights.
And like Andrew Breitbart said, that politics is downstream from culture.
There's a lot of people in this, I guess, manosphere, which I'd include you in that, you know.
I debate, me and Andrew both debate against manosphere guys.
Yes.
But you have a lot of similar opinions, which is that women don't have equal value to men and that they should not vote.
And I think that's toxic and it's, It's part of the culture and it is flowing downstream and it is affecting politics.
And as a result, Rachel, young women in this country are the most left wing they've ever been in history before.
I wonder what that is.
And I wonder if telling those young girls that they are not smart enough to vote, that they are not emotionally mature enough to vote, is going to bring them to our side.
I think that that is a personal thing as well.
Like, as an individual, you seem to have a higher emotionality rate than myself.
And the same goes for men.
That can vary.
You just talk and talk and talk.
You're just skish galloping.
We're going to be here for five hours.
But it has to be a back and forth exchange.
I don't want to hear about your emotions.
All you just gave me was emotions.
You just gave me a whole.
I feel like this and I think that.
No, I didn't feel and I think.
I gave you specific examples.
But now I'll turn it back over to you again, Rachel.
Why shouldn't women vote?
Might I quickly ask a moderation question here?
You had posited that.
Women turning to becoming more left leaning is because of sentiments that Rachel holds.
Rachel, do you believe that this trend in women becoming more left wing is because of some of this rhetoric?
Well, I'll answer that in a second, but first I want to point out that she's a contradiction machine.
I had to wait and wait and wait.
She's a contradiction machine.
Yes.
First you said, first you were like, ooh, I got her.
She doesn't believe in democracy.
Ooh, that's a good clip.
I'm going to tell everybody she doesn't believe in democracy.
And then you said, We're not a democracy.
We're a representative republic.
Constitutional republic.
So, which is it?
Do you believe in democracy or no?
I believe in democracy because a constitutional republic is a mix of a constitution that holds specific inalienable rights for people and then a democracy where people vote on things that are not up for debate.
Do you understand those two concepts?
Of course, I do.
You're the one that doesn't understand those two concepts because you don't understand the difference between the founding form of government and the one we have now.
You want universal suffrage.
That's a progressive position.
You just contradicted yourself on multiple counts.
You said, if I don't agree with women voting, that means I hate women.
And I said, the vast majority of women never wanted votes.
They didn't want votes for women.
They even banned women from voting on whether they wanted to vote.
It's my turn now.
I know you're waiting to speak, but let me finish.
Women didn't want to vote.
They weren't hateful.
I don't hate women.
I'm not emotional, I'm overly emotional here or something.
I'm saying that women are of equal value.
That doesn't mean that they have the same roles as men.
What you're doing is muddying the waters and saying, unless we're the same across the board, that's inequality.
Again, a leftist position.
Time after time after time, you say you're for liberty, you say you're for rights, you say you're conservative, but every idea you articulate is a left wing progressive idea.
And you keep contradicting yourself.
Your worldview is irrelevant.
No, I haven't contradicted myself at all.
Okay.
Me not wanting women to be involved in politics does not in any way mean that I hate them.
In fact, it's out of love for them that I don't want them involved in this sort of stuff.
For the same reason I don't want to.
You don't want this right now with this debate that we're having in front of a ton of people?
No, pro suffrage and anti suffrage women debated.
But women can talk to each other, and women have always debated each other.
Why not do that at home?
Why in front of an audience of people?
Isn't that getting directly involved in politics?
No, it's not.
Isn't that wanting to influence politics?
Because we're arguing here for different political prescriptions, right?
For what we think is best for society.
And somebody that might be watching might think, you know, Rachel's a hypocrite because she's, you know, over here debating instead of being at home with the kids like a good conservative woman should do.
I'm against that, by the way.
I don't think that should be the case.
But what would you say to those people?
I've addressed this criticism so many times.
And if you had prepared it all for this debate, if you had watched any of my stuff, you'd know what my answer to this is already.
It was never the case that women couldn't speak in public.
It was never the case that women couldn't have opinions, couldn't write books, couldn't have discourse in public.
Sure about that.
It's what?
I'm sure about that, yes.
That is a commonly held myth that people think that women were not allowed.
If women were not allowed, how come we had suffragists and feminists publicly speaking, writing books, doing speaking tours, doing debates from the 1700s on?
And even before that, my book has a whole chapter.
Where I give multiple examples of women being able to have a voice just because they couldn't vote or hold political office, just because there were limitations, that's not oppression.
Again, that's a leftist position.
For you to say women have to be able to do everything men can do, there should be no gendered roles, we should all have all options open, that's a progressive position.
So you're saying women should be able to do anything men can do.
I never said that.
Yeah, if men can vote, women should be able to vote.
If men can.
And financial rights, yes.
But not do everything men can do.
Why?
Why should it be the case that women should be able to vote?
Why?
Because we have equal inherent values as human beings.
Says who?
Says me.
Says a God, right?
You know, that we are all equal.
Where does God say that?
Equal as well.
But let's go back.
We have equal value.
No, no, no.
We're not going to go back.
Equal rights.
Explain equal rights to me.
Why do all people have the exact same rights?
Equal rights are representative of values.
I'll go back to the argument of how certain people. shouldn't have equal voice because of their tax contributions in the US and whatnot.
But let me finish.
Equal Rights Explained00:05:20
You don't believe all people should vote.
So you don't believe all people should vote?
Let me finish.
To get to the point, the more recent point we were making, you said that women could freely express themselves and do all of that.
Are you denying that women were, I guess, silenced in any way, shape, or form in recent history, let's say in the 19th century, the 20th century, that women, if they tried to be vocal about their beliefs, were not repressed in any kind of way, yes or no?
If you're talking about like stigma, like people didn't like it or it was looked down upon, so what?
I'm saying it was not illegal.
No, I'm not talking about it.
It was never illegal.
Let Rachel finish.
Okay, so to that point, then, it is clear and documented reality, for example, that if women, even in the 20th century, right, up until the 1960s, we are still doing lobotomies on people here in the US and lobotomies on women.
So, on just women?
No, not just women.
This is another myth.
I'm glad you brought this up.
Let me finish talking.
Not just women, but a majority of women.
Absolutely.
Yes.
This was happening in the U.S. still in the 1960s.
So loud, opinionated women could be easily diagnosed with something like hysteria or anxiety or anything, be carted off to an institution, and then be recommended different medications like opium tinctures, right?
Happy pills for moms that were.
Acting too crazy and that were overwhelmed.
Forms of heroin, alcohol, nerve tonics, right?
A very popular one before Valium, which happened in the 1960s, was barbiturates, right?
From the 1900s to the 1950s.
So, for in recent history, you could say that women's voices have been stifled and repressed, and I'm obviously against that.
So, you can't say that no women just had a right to.
Say whatever they want, do whatever they want in recent history, and there wasn't, and there was just equality for them.
This is documented facts and documented history.
Okay, first of all, go ahead.
I don't think anybody should be able to just do whatever they want.
That's you, the libertarian, that's you, the libertarian leftist who thinks people should just be able to do whatever they want.
Just clarify two seconds.
I do believe that people should do what you want as long as you don't hurt others and you don't take their stuff.
So, yeah.
So, do what thou wilt.
Do what thou wilt.
Do what thou wilt.
Show the whole world.
Don't take their stuff.
However, myself, I personally want to live my life in a more traditional conservative role.
What everybody else does is not my thing.
That is the epitome of the left libertarian.
That is a left libertarian.
No, not in my opinion.
That is the definition of left libertarian politics that you just articulated.
Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else, bro.
And don't take their stuff.
And taxation is theft, man.
And, like, I wouldn't choose it, but you should be able to do what you want.
You know what I'm saying?
Without daddy government, like breathing down your neck and stuff, bro.
She's like, Absolutely.
That's what our founding fathers believe.
You are not a Republican.
That's what our founding fathers believe.
You're not a Republican.
You're not a conservative.
And you're most definitely a feminist.
Now it's my turn to finish.
Racial.
All your nonsense about women getting lobotomies.
Men were given lobotomies all the time, too.
I did a whole project on this.
But mostly women.
No.
On MKUltra.
Disproportionately.
Be quiet.
It's my turn.
It's my turn.
You're getting a little emotional.
People can go.
Getting a little emotional, not able to control your yapping.
No, not yapping.
But people can Google stuff for themselves.
Yes, they can.
And if they get my book, they're going to read all about that.
Clearly, you didn't read the book.
You could have saved yourself so much time with all these bad arguments if you had taken the time to have them debunked before this.
But no, men were also locked up in mental institutions, forced to give in lobotomies.
That was not a gender specific thing whatsoever.
There's always, no, let me clarify.
Let me help you here.
I'm going to educate you a little bit.
Women have always, everywhere in every culture, and this is verified.
Right now, by two huge studies that looked at all different cultures around the world in 2009, and then they did a follow up several years later.
It's called The Paradox of Women's Happiness.
Women everywhere are more prone to mental illness, anxiety, depression, and all types of mental problems.
That is not men oppressing us, that happens to be a fact of how women are.
And yes, most of it's biology and hormones, but a lot of it is just the fact that female constitutions are much more susceptible to negative effects.
This is a well established fact in clinical psychology as well.
They wouldn't even deny it.
Yes, more men commit suicides, but women attempt it more.
Men are just better at actually following through.
You know, it's that whole men being better at stuff thing again, I guess.
Why I Am Not Republican00:02:58
So that's a lie, what you just told.
And let's go back to this idea that, like, do you think that all men everywhere could vote before the 19th?
Do you think that it was all the men could vote and they were like, don't let the girls vote, you guys.
We have to keep our vote on this?
There were property rights.
There were property distinctions, so some men that didn't own property could not vote.
There were a lot of requirements.
There were literacy tests as well.
Yes.
So, yes.
There were poll taxes, there were religious restrictions, there were all kinds of restrictions on men's vote.
All of them that were deemed unconstitutional, Rachel, right?
After what?
After the progressive era.
When progressives took control of the government, they passed the 19th Amendment.
That was a progressive agenda, ma'am.
They.
You're not a conservative.
I hate to break this to you.
You are a liberal progressive.
The U.S. Constitution being clarified is not a progressive thing, right?
Making sure throughout the years that it is clarified that all people have the same equal rights, inherent value, and voting rights is not a progressive issue.
That's what you're choosing to call it.
It radically.
You're choosing to call it.
That's not true.
It radically transforms the identity of the Constitution.
I'm choosing to call it.
Steps in the right direction towards individual liberties, which conservatives believe in.
Conservatives believe in the rights of the individual.
If you are against that, then you are not conservative.
I don't use the label conservative.
And you're the one who uses the label conservative, not me.
I broadly disagree.
And I'm telling you, you're not conservative.
And I also have libertarian values too.
You know, you can't really put people in two boxes like that nowadays because not everybody's opinions on every single little topic, there's like 200 different things we could discuss.
Is going to fall cleanly into conservative or liberalism.
So, what you want to conserve is Obama era policies.
You want to.
What are you conserving?
Name one.
Name one.
Any.
I'm asking you one thing you're conserving.
Name one.
What are you conserving?
No, you just said Obama era policies.
Gay marriage.
Obama.
Oh, my God.
That again, you want to conserve Obama era politics.
You can't give me any conservative position you hold that you want to.
What are you conserving?
This is why I don't call myself Republican.
Why I don't call myself conservative.
That's what I'm conserving.
Freedom to marry your boyfriend and smoke weed and not pay taxes.
Okay.
Individual liberties for another generation.
Your freedom of speech, Rachel.
I am very much trying to conserve that because.
If it wasn't for conservatives, then all of your opinions, you know, if we're not under this administration that we currently are right now, if we were under a government like the UK's, you'd probably be put in jail as soon as this podcast was over for saying something like, I'd be happy that black women wouldn't vote.
And a bunch of other things.
I didn't say that.
Wait, We have to back that up because I did not say that.
Lessons From Prohibition00:15:18
I don't exactly remember the words, but you said it's highly beneficial for black women to not vote because they would.
Because they would vote primarily for the purposes of clarity.
No, hold on.
Just for the purposes of clarity.
That's exactly her response.
You said.
What are you asserting?
Do you want to play it back?
It's difficult for us to.
I can tell you exactly what happened.
She said, oh, if you're going to deny votes based on sex, then you're also going to have to not let black people vote.
And I said, that's absurd.
You said you would have to.
And I said, I absolutely would not say that you would ever have to say black people can't vote.
I'm not for that.
I'm against that.
I do not believe that race should be the defining factor in who gets to vote whatsoever.
But gender.
Gender should be part of it.
And I'll tell you why.
Women do not have to sign up for the draft.
Women do not have to defend this country with their bodies.
In fact, the anti suffragists articulated this and said, We don't want to be involved with politics.
Just let me finish.
Just let me finish.
Disagree with that.
The women who didn't want to be political equals with men said, Why would you task us with something we can't do?
We can't defend.
The borders.
We can't defend the nation.
We can't rule the nation.
Men have the monopoly on force.
That's for men to do.
We want men to protect us and our children.
Our role is to raise the children.
That's too important.
We can't be involved in politics for that reason.
So it's important for women to raise children, right?
It's an important role, right?
A role important and equal enough for them to vote on the future of this country and the rules that they live by, right?
Or do you think it's not important enough of a role for them to vote?
The problem with that is it comes down to force.
So you can have an opinion, and women did.
So you don't need voting rights in order to have your voice be heard.
A good example of this is prohibition.
Women, the Women's Temperance Union, got prohibition passed.
Bad idea, by the way, but somebody listened to the women, so we got prohibition passed because this was a pet project of the Women's Christian Temperance Union.
They did not need to vote to get their voices heard, they did not need to vote to have their agenda passed.
So you don't need voting rights to be heard.
So, why does it matter then that they do have it?
Because what happens, this is what the anti suffragists also predicted.
They were very smart women.
These women were not hateful and they were not stupid and they've been done dirty by history, which is why I'm here trying to help revive this.
Anti suffrage women said if we become a political bloc, we lose the moral high ground.
What will happen is politicians will pander to us, they will make us just another voting bloc, they will promise a whole bunch of things that sound really good and do what they want anyway.
And they do, and by that, yes, they do, which is why I'm against it.
It's why I don't like the system.
No, for men and for women.
Yeah, that's why I don't like democracy.
It's why I don't like the system.
But that aside, these women said if we become just another political voting block, we lose the moral high ground we have.
Before women could vote, they could stand up and say, We think you need to do something about clean water.
We think you need to do something about safety in public parks.
We want better schools.
We want more prohibitions on alcohol.
Whatever it was, Their agenda was heard and got passed without them having to vote.
Unless it was something completely too radical, right?
And in that case, then they'd be sent to an institution for crazy people and lobotomized.
They did that to men too.
They did that to radical men too.
It was not a gendered thing.
Basically, individuals, right?
People that have a way of thinking that was more individualist, those are the ones that usually get shut down and have their rights trampled upon in history, which is, again, why it is so necessary for the individual to have.
Equal voting rights and an equal voice within the political system that they have to live under.
If we were anywhere else, you know, outside of this podcast and debate right now, we'd have to stop talking right now because, you know, there's no point in trying to convince somebody that, you know, an individual has human rights, equal rights, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that and make it clear to the public on where we stand on your stance being anti women's rights, anti voting rights, anti equality.
And my whole point here is to just make it clear that that is the case and that that is not representative of the conservative movement of a whole and that it is counteractive, counterintuitive, and a negative thing for us because it's just turning more young women to the left seeing these kinds of positions.
You don't think the fact that we have to pander to the emotions of young women, what you just told me is, Rachel, don't say that out loud because we have to pander to the feelings of young women because of.
They have a lot of voting power.
They have a lot of political power.
And so we have to tell them what they want to hear and we have to give them what they want.
The truth.
We have to tell them what they want to hear.
We have to give them what they want.
Because if we don't, they won't vote for us anymore, Rachel.
Don't you think that's a problem?
And I'm saying that you're thinking about it wrong, and most people do.
The whole framing of how you're framing the argument is the problem.
The system is the problem.
We shouldn't have to appeal to the emotions of certain voting blocks, which is what Black Lives Matter is, which is what the feminist agenda is, which is what identity politics is.
When you give everybody one person one vote, you end up with all these special interest groups, you end up with all these little voting blocks, and politicians have to pander to them.
And so you get these radicalized movements fighting for this group's rights and that group's rights.
And I'm saying, I do think that that's the, we've ended up in a place where.
With your universal democracy where everybody gets a vote, we're going to end up in nonstop, like basic gang wars, political gang wars.
So, what you're hearing is that you're really bad at making an argument for what you believe in and would rather just shut down the entire political discourse and keep people from having an opinion.
My argument is that I think that what I believe in is good and that I can present my opinions to people that disagree with them and flip them over to my side because my opinions are based on realities and facts.
And again, If you're trying to argue that it's bad for women to vote because a majority of women vote.
Democrat, right, in the past, and we're trying to get women or we're trying to live under conservative policies, then again, you'd have to say that you'd be okay with people that disagree with you not having political rights, voting rights, namely black Americans that 80 to 90 percent vote Democrat in political presidential elections.
And I'm saying that I would be against that.
I feel like even though it is most definitely an uphill battle, my task.
It is to make sure that I talk to those groups and show them why our side is better, right?
Not just to completely shut down them.
It's work, Rachel.
It absolutely is work.
It is framing, it is being a convincing person, it is having to provide, that's what I brought here, proof and different studies and things from the.
Your color organized folders are very impressive.
I'm sure you got straight A's in school.
Can we get back to the debate?
Because you just talked in time today.
So, are you going to tell the young women that you want to vote?
Republican in the next election?
Are you going to go to the college campuses and tell those young women, look, I don't like pornography.
It's really destructive.
We have to make OnlyFans illegal.
We can't have it anymore.
I think that we need to discourage people from using it.
Oh, but you don't want to actually outlaw it?
It'd be good if it did not exist, but again, I think that we're attacking the problem from the wrong end.
I see.
So you want us to tell the men that watching it is bad, but the young ladies producing it, We can't tell the young ladies producing it that they can't make pornography anymore because then they'll get upset and they won't vote for Republicans in the next election.
So we have to say, ladies, look.
I'm going to appeal to your better sensibilities, and we'll see how this goes on the Dating Talk podcast.
If we have some OnlyFans girls, I can't wait to hear you convince them, and I hope that by the end they quit.
I do.
I hope that by the end you can convince them and they can quit.
I think the odds of that happening are basically zero.
Are you willing to outlaw pornography?
You're a Christian, right?
You're a Christian yourself.
Of course.
The point of Jesus talking to people that sinned to bring them to their side by engaging with them and talking to them.
Do you think that Jesus wanted OnlyFans to be legal?
Of course not.
Of course not.
I think he'd talk to the women that are engaged in that whole thing because unfortunately.
Are you going to go to the college campuses and tell these young girls to stop doing OnlyFans or no?
Prostitution, it's called the oldest career for women in the books.
And again, it does not make it a good thing.
But I think the problem comes from the demand side of things.
Women also have lots of temptations that could corrupt them, right?
But it's up to us being accountable for ourselves, holding ourselves accountable for if we decide to consume certain things.
Yeah, that's working out great.
That's working out great.
Are you aware of the numbers of how many young women?
How many women engage in that versus how many men consume that?
Yes, I actually am very aware of the numbers.
Oh, by the way, women consume plenty of pornography.
Yes, about pornography.
This idea that it's only men is baloney.
I agree.
I never said that.
About 20% average women do consume pornography.
It's about 70% of men that do consume pornography.
What happens if we count written pornography?
What happens if we count stuff like Fifty Shades of Grey?
Then how many women engage in consuming pornography?
Oh, let me help you.
It's the best selling book of all time among female readers.
Okay.
So women consume plenty of pornography.
They just tend to like to read it so they can insert themselves into the nasty sex scene, then watch the actual videos.
Which is bad, right?
So shouldn't we be addressing again, So, are you going to tell people they should stop writing books?
Is that your next move, Rachel?
I would absolutely have limits on pornography being produced in all forms.
Yes.
On written speech.
I don't agree that.
See, she's a leftist libertarian.
She thinks that porn is free speech.
This is your MAGA Republican woman.
I think so.
This is your feminist, your not feminist conservative advocate.
You know, she's going to get everybody to vote for conservatives.
She's going to talk.
It always reduces to the men.
It always reduces to the men.
Not to the men.
You're exactly.
What I thought you were.
You're worse than I thought you were.
It's always, what about the men though?
I go, are you going to tell them, are you going to tell the women to stop, wait a minute, are you going to tell the women to stop making porn for men to consume?
And she goes, no, I would just encourage them.
I would say you probably shouldn't, sweetie.
And I'm going to tell the men that they can't have the porn.
Relax, Rachel, breathe.
Who's so?
I'm entertaining.
If we had to listen to you blah, blah, yap, yap, yap all night long, and everybody would leave the chat, nobody would want to be here.
Sure.
That is not what I said.
You asked if I'd make it illegal.
Yeah.
And no, but I would.
Tell women to stop doing it.
Those are two completely different things.
Oh, well, that's okay.
She's going to tell the women to stop doing it and they're going to go show them that there's a better way.
Yes, absolutely.
Well, that is what you do.
You've got to work harder.
You've got to work harder because it ain't working.
This libertarian idea that we can just talk people into doing what's logical is the whole problem.
This libertarian idea that we could talk people into doing what we want, that's not a libertarian idea.
That has existed from the beginning of time.
Your idea is.
This is a thing from let me finish.
Yeah, exactly.
From the beginning of time in Rome where people would like, Gather in a town square and then talk about their ideas and then decide on whether they agreed with them or not.
So you're arguing again against people discussing ideas and proving why they're better than others, which is bad enough.
I'm not arguing against it, but I'm doing it right now.
But I'm saying I do think that we should make certain things illegal.
Yes, I don't think it should just be do whatever you want, bro.
How did the war on drugs work out?
How has it worked out this entire time?
Are you going to tell the young women on the college campuses that you're trying to get to vote Republican that they can't have abortions?
Are you going to tell them that's killing babies and you can't do that anymore?
Alex, are you just going to try to talk them out of their lives?
You just presented a question to me.
Actually, how I would attack that question is showing why abortion is the killing of a human being based on biology, not on religious arguments or anything like that.
The beginning of a human life starts at conception, right?
And ends at death.
Conception, you know, fetus, baby, toddler, all of that is part of the human developmental life cycle.
And so if you believe in individual rights, Then, and you know, not killing innocent people, then you have to argue against abortion.
That is my argument, it is a logical one.
Okay, and it is one that made me, you know, like when I was much younger, I had different opinions on abortion because of what I was taught in school.
I was taught that it's okay if like the baby doesn't have nerve endings and then you could just suck it out and whatever.
And I'm like, oh, well, then maybe in a few weeks, then it doesn't really matter, but that's actually not the case.
From conception, that's the beginning of the human life cycle.
But again, this is just education, right?
Educating people, which you have to do.
You can't just tell people no voting.
Yeah, I know.
We're going to educate all the problems away.
We're just going to change everyone's mind.
We're going to educate the problems away, Rachel.
Thank you.
That's the plan.
Yeah, that's worked great.
We have more educated people now in human history than ever before.
It's not an information problem and it's not an education problem.
It's a moral problem.
And that's where the rub is.
Didn't you bring up the Was it the Stanford prison study?
Oh, I did.
Yeah.
Where you said they had to stop the experiment six weeks in or something like that.
Do you want me to?
Are you handing it over to me for the next one?
Yeah, tell us about that.
Let's talk about that because it actually is a really good one where basically they took in volunteers, students to play as prison guards and another group of volunteers to be prisoners.
And what happened after a certain short period of time.
Is that these prison guards started to abuse these fake prisoners so badly that they had to stop the experiment?
Abuse Of Undue Power00:12:47
And my argument using that example was that when Individuals have undue power over others, then it is just making it prone to abuse, right?
So if men and women don't have equal voting rights and power, then women are equally subject to discrimination.
Okay, pause for just a second.
I just wanted you to tell me about the study.
I didn't need like a whole diatribe.
Discrimination.
That's the point of the study, it is in our nature, unfortunately, as humans, to take over and abuse those that have less power.
Than us, okay, which is why we need to then let me ask you a question: why didn't they just pull these people aside?
The people that were being the prison guard, why didn't they get Drianna to come in?
Drianna was not allowed to come in, okay.
Well, let's say Drianna, they could they called Drianna and they go, You need to come in here, and what we need you to do is talk to them and convince them why it's bad to abuse these people, yeah.
You need to educate them, Drianna, until they behave.
Yeah, I would have gone in there and told them, Hey, you guys, are y'all crazy?
Is it are you guys okay?
Do you know that?
Do you know that?
Can you go to the prisons for us?
Can we get Drianna to go to prisons and just talk?
To the criminals until the criminals understand, hey, listen, buddy.
Hey, Rachel, relax, by the way.
Listen, buddy.
By the way, they do that in real prisons, right?
How's that working?
You've got pastors that go to real prisons.
Dan, what is the success rate on educating criminals out of doing crime?
And they bring them books.
Yeah, what's the success rate?
And they bring them Bible books.
I know what they do.
How well does it work?
I don't have statistical numbers in front of me.
You want to pull that up, Brian?
Almost never.
The recidivism rate for most crimes.
Don't bring up statistics.
Don't bring up statistics because you'll be wrong.
Unless you don't have it with you, basically.
We can look it up.
So, yes, let's chat GTT.
Like recidivism rate for violent crimes.
That has nothing to do with somebody going in and talking to people to try to compensate them.
But why would they keep offending if we can just talk them out of it?
We just say, listen, Mr. Murderer.
Not everybody is going to be a victim.
You just need to be educated.
This is another classic left wing, this is Black Lives Matters whole thing.
Yes, this is.
If you go to Black Lives Matter's website, they want rehabilitation.
They want to educate people out of doing crime.
It's a left wing position.
We're not even pleading.
Oh, no, no.
We're just going to convince them.
We're just going to convince people to do what's right for them.
We're going to convince people to take the smarter option.
Oh, come on in.
Took a breath.
I don't know.
Yeah, you're doing the thing that everybody does where they pretend that the other person is crashing out when they're not.
It's not going to work.
You're getting your butt whooped in there.
Yeah, let's see if any programs in prison from pastors or that reintegrate people into society get them educational degrees because that's something that doesn't necessarily work.
It has to be a lot more concise than that.
It would have to be like I know.
I do have.
Let's see if we can make it as concise as possible.
What are the success rates of rehabilitation programs in prison?
My argument is racial to be extremely abysmal.
That's why we didn't do the work.
I agree.
My thing is.
You can't educate people into making moral choices, Drianna.
For what specific crime?
Is it just violent crime, drugs?
Pick one for now, I guess.
Okay, how about this?
Child sex offenders.
Can we educate them into making better choices?
Can Drianna go and just sit them down and they have a dialogue?
And she says, Look, Mr. Child Sex Offender, I don't think that you're violating someone else's personal rights.
And on that basis, I think you should stop it, Rachel.
Rachel, do you still want the recidivism rate for violent crime stat?
Yes, very good.
It says over 60% of violent offenders are rearrested for a new crime within eight years of release.
And then for yours, for.
Addiction rehabilitation programs, it's not clear if that's just voluntary or through the prison system, but the success rate ranges between 30% and 70%.
Relapse rates of 40 to 60% within the first year.
So, my argument is not that we not incarcerate people for these crimes.
It's the fact that people can change and rehabilitate.
It doesn't mean we even release them into society.
It means that you can change people's minds, absolutely, while they're serving a prison sentence.
It doesn't mean that they have a right to be reintegrated into society.
So, that's my thing is that yes, even in prison, you can go in and you can preach the Bible to prisoners or you can.
Show them a better way, and you can absolutely rehabilitate them.
I'm not arguing for lax criminal punishment laws.
I disagree with that.
But you're telling me, oh, you know, you can just go.
You don't want lax criminal laws.
Correct.
But why?
Then why would you defend keeping OnlyFans legal?
Why should we allow young women to create their own pornography, produce it, and put it out into the public?
Why?
I disagree that it's bad, but the why is because then it sets a dangerous precedent for censorship in the future.
On things that other people don't like.
Because let's say then we fall under the government of a, you know, we have a Democrat president and they believe that people saying right wing things on live shows like this is bad.
So we are going to ban that.
And they did, by the way, under the Biden administration.
So that's what I'm saying.
Banning things that we don't like and making it illegal is not the way to go.
The way to go is Showing people why you're right with arguments, with facts, with logic.
And we can't set the president that, you know, we as conservatives and Republicans don't like pornography.
It's bad.
Therefore, we're going to make it illegal.
Then, when a Democrat president comes along, they'll say, Republicans, I get your point.
And you don't have to keep repeating and repeating.
I feel like I need to for you to understand.
It's not me.
So you got it, and everybody at home got it, that it's a bad president.
Do you understand that?
If you take the libertarian progressive view that you have, sure.
But what I would say is, We believe in right and wrong, don't we?
Yep.
Okay.
Why don't we make things illegal if they are inherently morally evil?
You said in your opening, pornography is evil.
Why would we not criminalize that?
For the same reason, why do we criminalize murder?
Because then somebody that has a different definition of evil than me can criminalize something that I believe in.
Like, for example, saying that abortion is murder, then, you know, We should, and by the way, this is actually happening in the UK.
If I go out in the UK and I say abortion is murder and I read the Bible, I'm in the middle of the street, I'm going to get arrested.
That's that's because leftists like you run the UK.
People with your same political positions run the UK and they go, You can't say that.
You're going to hurt someone's feelings and they'll be upset and then they won't vote for the Labour Party anymore.
We need the Muslim vote.
Don't tell them they can't have grooming gangs.
I'm making the argument that you don't.
Ban what you don't like, Rachel.
I'm not banning something because I don't like it.
It's not that you think I want to ban pornography because I don't like it or because it's morally wrong.
Okay, that's what I believe too.
I think it's morally wrong.
Then why wouldn't you make it illegal?
Because somebody else might think that's something I believe in, like Second Amendment rights.
So you believe in moral relativism.
So everybody gets to have their own version of ranking.
Like Second Amendment rights, the right to own guns or whatever.
That's morally wrong because it Kills people, and then when they're in power, they will ban things that they believe are morally wrong.
So that's why you can't set that precedent.
It's almost like this whole everybody voting thing is just a trap, and we're gonna end up in a bad position no matter what we do because it's inherently progressive and it will give us a progressive society where we can't tell people the truth and we can't say what's right and wrong because if we offend someone, they won't vote for us, and if we offend this group, they're gonna start rioting.
Are you starting to figure it out at all?
Not offend.
Again, just because you can't make Good arguments that convince people.
I'm not the one who's having trouble making good arguments.
That would be you.
No, you're saying that we should not allow certain blocks of the population to vote because they would, down the line, vote against what you want.
And that is obviously not the way to do things.
The way to do things is by actually talking to certain groups.
You're actually not framing that correctly either, though.
I'm not saying, oh, don't let this group vote because then I won't get what I want.
I ask you, let me finish.
You just yap and yap and yap, so let me finish first.
You said at the beginning, you work in politics.
Your job is to go around the country convincing, especially Spanish speaking people, to vote for Republicans.
You want them to vote for certain things.
I educate, yes, personally, yes, but in my current role, yes, I educate people on what are the political policies going on, who's promoting them, what they are, so that they can make educated decisions.
Because with education.
Right, I'm trying to do the same thing in a different way.
And what I'm trying to tell you is that.
The fastest way to get to the utopian, dystopian nightmare that is the United Kingdom is to do what you're saying we should do.
And you are also showing everybody that you're a moral relativist.
No, I think that the quickest way to get to where the UK is is by banning free speech, which is what you just advocated for.
How did they get there?
And banning things that you don't like.
How did they get there, though?
Because the UK hadn't always had laws against free speech.
Nope.
They got that way because of mass immigration.
Equality, liberalism, all that stuff, right?
And that is what you'll end up with.
So let's address that problem.
That's what you'll end up with every time because you can't just talk people into doing what's right.
People vote based on incentive.
No, people vote based on personal incentive.
I agree with that too.
Yes.
So if there's a group that comes into the country and they're getting welfare benefits, if there's single moms out there that get welfare benefits, which is highly illegal, they're always going to be voting for that stuff.
Yeah.
But the reason we got that stuff is because women voted.
For it, those things would have never been passed.
I don't think that having an open border policy for four years, like what happened under the previous administration, is something that women voted for.
It is.
It's something that.
Have you looked at the polling data?
Women did.
On men versus women on open borders?
Did women vote for the Mexican American border to be completely open so that 20% of the people who instituted those policies can come in?
Yes.
No, they did not.
Yes, they did.
Have you looked at border states?
You just keep talking about presidential.
That's not what border states.
Would either of you like me to look up any stats on this?
on the Who are men or women more in favor of illegal immigration?
Of open borders.
Or immigration, whatever.
I think a better one would be the percentage of Americans that are for voter ID, right?
It's 83% nationally.
So men and women, Democrat and Republican, for the most part, agree on this.
So women are not just these irrational.
I agree.
Everything women want is terrible and horrible.
Just the things you don't like.
It's not about me and what I like.
I'm saying there's an objective right and wrong and there's objective morality.
I agree with that.
You're the one who thinks that we should be.
I agree.
Handling to people's emotions.
Yes.
Actually, you know what?
That's a great lesson to learn is that people don't care about what you say until they know that you care about something.
Right.
Women, for sure.
Yes.
Men are much more open to logical.
It's not 100%.
But women are far more easily swayed and propagandized by emotion.
Sure.
But that means that then you have to.
I don't want a country run off of that system.
I don't want that.
Handling People's Emotions00:03:41
You have to.
Rachel, it's called adapting, right?
And adapting to the situation.
As somebody that has worked with many different people before, managed teams of people, I know that if I have a group of 10, they're going to have different personalities.
I have this message that I need to get to them, and I need to deliver it in 10 different ways so that it comes across a certain way.
This is emotional intelligence, Rachel.
Oh, yes.
Emotional intelligence, which is made up nonsense.
Emotional intelligence is nonsense and garbage.
Garbage.
Pop psychology.
Okay.
Do you believe in horoscopes too?
Emotional intelligence.
Yeah, she believes in horoscopes too.
We're not going to get into a horse.
We're not going to get into horoscope.
Do you believe in them?
We're going to.
She does.
I'm not even going to answer that or entertain it.
Let's stick to the topic.
Really quick, why don't we do a.
Let's let a few chats come through and then we can also dive into a different prompt.
But first, we have Jim Bob Smith.
Thank you for your soup chat.
Does the blonde on the right think MAGA and Trump is conservative?
She is a conservative in the same liberal way Trump is.
Do you want to respond to that?
No.
No.
They can write anything they want.
I usually don't respond to people.
Well, I understand in the chat.
It's a valid point, though.
Trump is a 90s Democrat and he's a classical liberal, and so are you.
I think that there's things that I agree with Trump on most things, not all things.
I'm not a blind follower of any politician, period.
All right.
We have a chat here from, hold on, Brian's Conscious.
She, I should have listened to the unknown soldier when he said to never have this low IQ and it went back on the show.
Good thing another Wilson is here, so this episode is actually making money.
Okay, thank you for that.
We have a chat here from Desert Jorge.
He writes, Rachel, here are the facts.
Drianna, did I say it right?
Drianna.
Well, that's just like your opinion.
I feel that you just hate yourself, and I feel like I know what is right and what is wrong.
Shout out to the Discord homies.
Thank you, Desert Jorge.
Jorge.
You know, I haven't even said that yet, that you know, you hate yourself.
I mean, I was planning on using that bomb at some point, but you know, I guess it's a good idea.
You got me.
I hate myself.
And we have one more here.
Whatever fan, Rachel, I'm passing out the plates for this barbecue cooking.
You're going to do and feed the whole chat from whatever fan.
Thank you for that.
Well, she believes her role is in the kitchen, so I think that's appropriate.
In fact, the kitchen is the best room in the house.
Can't wait to get back there.
I even got a hotel room with the kitchenette in it.
Nice.
Because I wanted to cook my own food.
Nice.
The kitchen is awesome.
If you're enjoying the stream, please like the video.
Also, a quick reminder $10 display, $99 and up for reads.
Also, really quick, Tiffany, can you just pull up Twitch?
Guys, if you're watching over there on Twitch or you can open up another tab, go to twitch.tvslash whatever.
Drop us a follow on a Prime sub if you have one.
If you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
Quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
And so that we can put on more debates just like this.
And if you're enjoying the stream, of course, like the video.
Right back to the debate.
Let me propose a few, unless there's something that you guys want to say.
Let's get back on like no fault divorce.
I have a few ideas.
We got to do no fault divorce at some point here.
Yes.
And women's contributions to the home and their market value would be a good one to talk about.
Do Women Have Duties00:03:48
You also, in a social media post, you had referred to Rachel as a pick me.
I don't know if you guys want to dive into.
Dive into that?
Yeah.
What is a pick me?
A pick me is somebody that panders to manosphere men's audiences for just the sake of relevancy.
You know, and saying, yeah, women belong in the kitchen, you know, barefoot and naked, all the different tropes.
I would never say to be barefoot and naked in the kitchen.
And pregnant in the kitchen, you know, those kinds of tropes.
Everything that A certain demographic of people want to hear just for relevancy, not because it's something you believe you practice or that is correct.
Okay, so you don't think that I believe or practice the stuff I'm saying?
For the most part, yeah.
I mean, you're very against women having a voice in politics, yet we're debating here for what?
It's been two hours or something like that?
I'm against women voting.
I am continuing the proud tradition.
Oh, you voted now.
Of my anti-suffrage.
But, Rachel, you voted before in the past.
Yes, I'll explain.
Ah, okay, let's explain that.
Yes.
So, first of all, I'm here to be.
And you'll never vote again.
And you can shush your mouth for five seconds, you little yappy machine.
I'm getting to it.
It's my turn to talk now.
Go for it.
I'm here to carry on the proud tradition of the majority of women who are against women's suffrage and did not want to be a political voting bloc and were very happy with their duties as mothers and wives and community builders and thought that was extremely important.
I agree with them wholeheartedly and all their reasons.
Why they didn't want the vote.
Now, yes, I did vote.
And yes, I will vote again.
And I'll tell you why to cancel the vote of a feminist somewhere and to double my husband's vote.
However, you want to look at it.
Whoever Andrew votes for, that's who I vote for.
And that's how I'm going to cancel out some feminist somewhere's vote.
So, you're.
Against voting.
You voted in the past, we'll vote in the future.
If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what it is.
Okay, let me ask you a question.
Do you think people watching.
You just said I'm a hypocrite.
Let me address it.
Yes, you are.
If I had had an abortion when I was in college, let's say, like you said, when you were in college and you get told that it's really not bad, it's not even a life, whatever.
I get pregnant, I have an abortion in college, and then later I learn, wait, that is actually murdering a human being.
I'm against that and it's wrong.
And I go out and I tell people, don't get an abortion.
It's wrong.
Am I a hypocrite?
No, because you actually changed your behavior based on new information that you found out.
It's not a behavior you can change.
You can change your ideas, what you espouse, and your behavior based on new information.
So if I vote, if I vote to cancel a feminist vote, that's hypocritical.
What you'd be a hypocrite, Rachel, is if you found out this information personally, were against abortion now that you know this, that it's bad and murder, and then still went out and told women abortion is okay and it's not murder.
Then that is hypocrisy.
In your case, what we were talking about previously.
Yeah.
Was voting, right?
So you don't believe women should have the right to vote, but I live in reality, Drianna.
We don't want to deny reality.
You keep telling Andrew he was denying reality.
We live in this time and place we live in, okay?
So I have to be here talking to women like you.
I have to be here talking to women like you to talk some sense into you, to persuade everybody out there that you're wrong, and I have to go and vote because otherwise only the feminists are going to vote.
You don't have to do anything to do that.
Oh, I do.
Protecting Against Domestic Enemies00:03:21
I do.
It's my duty.
It's my duty.
Oh, it's your duty.
Yes.
Speaking of which, do you think women have duties?
Women have duties?
Do you think.
Well, women have rights.
You've spent the whole time talking about what rights women have.
Do women have duties?
I think adults have duties, yes.
Well.
What duties do you think women have?
Well, you would say men have a duty to protect the homeland, right?
What duties do you believe women have?
Oh, I'm not going to give you any answers.
I want to know what you think.
I know what I think.
I think that adults have duties and responsibilities as adults.
But are they the same?
And in a.
Are men's and women's duties the same?
And in a family context.
Then those differ, right?
Or they may be similar depending on the structure that they have set up.
So, for example, in the past, when people could afford to live on one income and the man could afford to have a stay at home wife, then obviously the roles of men and women differed to make it a working partnership, right?
Nowadays, unfortunately, and this is not any of our faults other than the government and elite politicians and all that, most men and women do have to work.
Within the family structure.
So then, obviously, their duties and their roles and responsibilities within the households have changed.
They have to adapt so that things make sense.
Such a long answer, you could have given me like a five word answer.
It would have been way better.
No, because you like to hear yourself talk.
You like to hear what you're talking to, or else you're going to be talking to me.
No, I really don't.
Do men have a duty to protect our nation?
I think that, well, hold on, let me unpack that.
Whose duty is it to protect the nation?
How?
From enemies, foreign and domestic.
Yes, foreign and domestic.
So it depends, right?
So men can be police officers, so can women.
That would be protecting against domestic enemies, right?
Police officers, FBI agents, TSA agents.
Yeah, I know what they are, but do you think both men and women should equally do those jobs?
Or is that men's duty?
So your question is very broad because both men and women do protect this country domestically.
And abroad.
When it comes to force, ultimately, when it comes to force, there's a bunch of illegals trying to cross the border.
Somebody has to use physical force to stop them.
Whose duty is that?
Men or women, or both?
It used to be that they'd send a lot of male foot soldiers in for these kinds of things.
Nowadays, we use more technology, right, for those kinds of interventions.
There's always people on the border, though.
We have border enforcement agents down there with guns.
Do you think, are you for equality in that job?
Do you think we should have equal women and men defending the border?
I think that there should be a standard of can you meet these job requirements?
Can you lift certain heavy things?
If not, then you do not get that position because it puts us at, you know, a higher level.
Yeah, that's fair.
Would you say the same thing in the military?
Like you can only be a green beret if you can pass the standard.
And if you're a woman and you pass the Standard, that's fine.
Yeah.
Okay.
Are you aware that there's never been a woman who has been able to make it through special forces training like Green Berets?
Okay, then they shouldn't be in that position.
Defending The Border Standards00:02:57
So if only men can do those things.
That Green Beret position, but I just mentioned that there are plenty of other positions that do defend our country.
Okay.
What percentage of women do you think are on the front lines in war or defending the border?
I'm not.
I'm not.
What about.
I'm not making the argument that.
What about critical infrastructure jobs like pouring cement?
Getting down in the sewer system and treating the sewer.
What about oil rig work?
The really heavy duty shit that keeps society running.
Keeps society running.
Yeah, how come only like 2% of those people are women?
And even in those fields, they're really usually just like holding a sign.
Rachel, I'm doing office work.
I'm not devaluing in any way men's contributions to society.
Okay.
I think that's super important and we should value them because of that.
That's part of my whole argument that women should respect men and thank men for their sacrifices to society as a whole.
I agree.
But then, why should we give women equal rights with men when men are the only ones that can do those critical things?
Sure, sure.
Okay, now that you asked me why, should women also have contributed to society in so many different important ways, besides a very important role of historically being the primary caretakers of children and Being a homemaker and raising a home, which is the pillar of a strong society, let's talk about that, right?
We've got women inventors that have contributed to things like dishwasher, just things that we use every single day to make.
Are you aware of the number of female patents versus male patent holders?
Yes, yes.
Josephine Cochrane, dishwasher, let's see.
We've got Florence Paypart, she improved early refrigeration systems.
So because of this woman, we can not have food that goes.
That gets you anything if we look these up, it's going to be a guy who actually did the work.
But okay, I'll just grant it.
Let me finish this because we're talking about contributions to society.
Obviously, I can't memorize all these, I don't have that kind of a memory.
But you know, there's a woman who created the refrigerator Kevlar, body armor material.
Stephanie Qualick, used in bulletproof vests that our brave, brave men use in battle, helmets, aircraft components.
A woman created the first computer algorithm, Ada Lovelace.
She wrote the first algorithm for a machine.
It's considered the first computer programmer.
And without this, there is no modern software.
This is all very impressive, but beside the point.
It's a software industry.
No, it's not.
It is totally beside the point.
I'm talking about focus.
I'm talking about contributions to society.
No, you're talking about that.
Grace Hopper.
Grace Hopper, let me finish.
Grace Hopper, which created the COBOL programming language, which banking systems run, which government infrastructures use.
Arguments Against Women's Education00:15:15
So our financial system literally depends on this.
We've got frequency hopping technology.
Uh, Hedy Lamar, which is the foundation of Wi Fi.
Did you know that that's false?
I can't believe she did the Hedy Lamar thing.
That was a man who did that.
No, she did not invent that.
No, that's you can fact check that.
She's a co founder with a man, frequency hopping technology.
Hedy Lamar, there you go.
You can look it up.
Political, yeah, if you actually look it up, it's well known.
What this is a fake, familiar, original argument is you know, if this is what men contribute to society, this is why they get that's not what I said.
I'm presenting, I didn't say what people contribute.
I asked you about force and you dodged.
And obfuscated and stonewalled to evade my question.
Only men.
Oh, so force is the reason why people should vote?
No, listen to the question, sweet cheeks, and then you can give me an answer.
Yeah, you're very pretty.
Congratulations.
But this is a debate, not a beauty pageant, so you gotta try to focus.
So men are the only ones who can do the hard, forceful jobs that provide us with security.
And all of this technological infrastructure that allows you to pretend that we are equal with men.
We are not equal with men.
That doesn't mean that we don't equal in value, I agree.
But that relates to duties.
Equal in value relates to our duties to society.
Men's duties to society are things like building and maintaining infrastructure, providing safety and security, keeping out enemies who are going to come in, and especially pre industrial revolution.
Oh, you're not going to cut me off after all that.
Come on.
Prior to industry and technology, men literally had to keep the barbarian hordes away from the gates, okay?
Like, to keep women safe.
Because people think that we've escaped this natural fundamental thing, and we haven't.
It still requires force at the end of the day.
You still need men out there.
Look at Iran, look at Ukraine, look at the borders, all the national borders.
You still need men with force to keep society going.
That's men's duty.
I agree.
What are women's duties to society?
I just named them.
They have historically been primarily homemakers, right?
And also, women have a duty that men can't do, period, which is childbirth.
I'm glad you brought that up.
Why aren't they having any babies anymore?
Because the situation for them is not apt, it is not appropriate.
It is a lot more difficult, especially when it comes to the economy, to have kids, one.
And two, like I mentioned at the beginning of the show, women need strong men to lead, right?
And to be in.
A family with, and unfortunately, the men of today, I'm not saying all of them, but the men of today are quite literally not the same as men 50 years ago.
In fact, and there's actual, you can pull this up, Brian, but I have it written here too.
Men are actually physically different than they were years back, as in men nowadays, on average, have lower testosterone than their grandfathers.
So, for you to say that because men have to be the ones leading and all of this, you're trying to say that, oh, women are not having kids because of women's right to vote or something like that, which is crazy.
I'm saying that we need to build strong men back up.
We need to encourage them to take care of themselves, to get healthy, to build up their hormones, get their testosterone right, get unaddicted to pornography, drugs, alcohol, vices, and then women will naturally want to have families again.
But right now, there isn't as high of a percentage of men that women want to, what you call, submit to, right, to get into a marriage with.
So, women are not fulfilling their duty to society because man bad.
Did I just say that?
The men just need to get better.
The men need to get better.
They need to improve.
The men are in a sad, sorry state.
And that's why the women don't want to have babies.
It's a fact.
I'm not saying man bad.
It's enough.
I'm saying man unhealthy.
Why are women fulfilling their duty?
Why are women not fulfilling their duty?
Is it because the men aren't good enough?
I'm saying man unhealthy, in fact.
And this is something.
Oh, men are unhealthy.
And that's why the birth rate is so low, because the men are unhealthy.
Are you going to let me finish?
Are you ever going to get to a point?
Yes.
You just need to stop interrupting.
So, yes.
For example, one in 10 kids nowadays has autism, is born with autism out of all births.
Can you just ever answer a question without going around?
Have fun.
Can you relax and let me make my point?
I'm just going to take a bathroom break while she relaps and then I'll just come back and ask you the same question.
Fantastic.
For those watching, one in 10 kids are born with autism in this country.
Unfortunately, unfortunately, The men's health and the women's health is very important when it comes to fertility, when it comes to the health of a woman's pregnancy, and the men's health prior to conception is extremely important in making sure that the baby is healthy.
Alcohol consumption is one of the largest causes of mutations and defects in men's swimmers.
And so, if men want to help the woman have a smoother pregnancy, a healthier pregnancy, then they have to take care of their health first.
Women do too.
I'm not saying it's like women should just do whatever.
But again, this is responsibility on both people's parts.
And women might not be having kids as much as they did before because, again, the economy is freaking terrible.
Women don't want to have kids that are going to struggle or go without.
And men need to realize this and know that, okay, maybe I can't be a man that provides everything and can afford a stay at home wife, but at the very least, I can help in the household and we can contribute financially and also with labor in the household.
That's what I'm saying, Rachel.
Okay, so I'm just going to defeat everything you said with one simple thing.
I'll just point out the fact that the only people having children are the poorest people.
So if the problem was money, we would see rich people having all the babies and poor people would not be having the babies.
So you're absolutely wrong on that.
In fact, we've done studies.
We've done studies.
We've done studies more responsibly.
Okay, now it's my turn.
Now it's my turn.
They've done studies on this because dropping birth rates around the world are an extremely serious problem.
There are think tanks around the world, including the World. Health organization that are saying this could be a civilizational ending for some countries.
So they've studied it at length.
And the number one correlate around the world, regardless of culture, finances, religion, any other factor, is women's access to higher education and the job market.
This means that when you tell young women to spend all of their fertile years going to college and preparing for a job and then get into the workforce and establish your career before you think about marriage and family, what you end up with is We have now women getting married and having babies for the first time at around the age 30, 31.
When in my grandma's generation, shout out to grandma, she's turning 100 on April 1st.
Love you, grandma.
She, in her generation, the first age of marriage was around 22.
And you had a baby usually that same year.
So now you're also arguing against women's education.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Let me finish.
You just yappity yapped that whole time.
I ran, Rachel.
I ran.
It's an option, you know.
So the truth is, it's not finances.
It's not men are weak, men need more testosterone, men need to get their bag, men need to blah, blah, blah, which that's mind blowing to me that you would ever pin this on men because you're like the men at, don't interrupt me, Do you want a bathroom break and I can just talk?
Go for it, go.
Okay.
You say we would have more babies if the men would lead, but then you say, I'm not going to follow a man.
I have my own mind and I'm a strong, independent woman and I'm just as equal as he is.
And I think it should be equal.
How can you be equal and he could lead at the same time?
Yeah, that's such a crazy concept for you to understand, but it is possible.
Okay, tell me how.
I am in a relationship with a man that I also look up to, that I also, that leads, and at the same time, we both vote.
What is the argument you're trying to make that you can't?
How does he lead if you don't submit?
Who the heck is talking about submission?
I'm talking about voting, Rachel.
And you just made an argument again against women's education now.
So now it's not just women not being able to vote and women not having the right to vote.
I didn't make a should.
I did not make a should argument.
I just told you what the reason is.
But also, women shouldn't have.
Access to the law.
Do you know the difference between an ought statement and an is statement?
I said the reason is this.
Does that mean I'm saying women ought not be allowed to be educated?
Is that okay?
I'm asking you that question.
Do you believe that?
No, I think that women have this is another big myth that Drianna probably believes that women were denied education.
Do you think that there was no equality in education until recently or something like that?
No, no, actually.
And in fact, women hold more degrees than men.
Yeah, but what about 100 years ago or 150 years ago?
I'm not exactly sure, but I do know that education was heavily influenced by people that.
Made it so it's harder to get an education, so it's more of an elite thing.
And that's a whole thing with the Rockefellers and whatnot.
That's true, but some of the first colleges in this country were women's only colleges.
And there are also a lot of black colleges.
And they always had access.
And then Rockefellers got involved and it got cut to like the first.
So if we didn't have a birth rate problem in 1860 when all the women could go to college, why do we have it now?
Because of 100 years of feminist propaganda from people like you and Taylor Swift and Beyonce and Kamala Harris.
No, I'm saying.
Now we have this problem because women like you, and I heard you say, and I take a major issue with this.
Somebody finally pulled it out of you in the Dating Talk podcast that you do look down on women like me who don't have a degree and aren't in the workforce having.
I agree with that.
You said, look, if all you do.
You said you don't feel that women who don't have their own money and career and all this stuff.
I never said that.
I dare you to, I don't have cash, but I guess we could talk about that.
You didn't say you look down on them, but you said you did not consider them successful like you or something like that.
No, Rachel, what I. Do remember saying is in Brian's hypothetical fun thing that he does on every podcast where he's like, Oh, do you think women should, on the first time that they're over at my house, cook and clean and do laundry for them?
Do you think women should do that?
And I'm like, No, that's ridiculous.
And most people that listen to that know it's freaking ridiculous.
And women that do say, Yeah, you know, I would totally like first time over a guy's house, do his laundry.
Yes, I do believe.
Those are, I think that's how it started.
Something wrong, it started that way, but eventually, through the course of the conversation, you basically said outside of that parameter, that is it.
Okay, I'll just take your word for that.
No, people can go back and look at that.
It's actually one of the so women.
So, we've established that the fact of what's actually true is that women are not having children because the men are too weak, they need to up their game, they need to be better leaders, they need more testosterone.
The men are lacking, and that's why the women aren't having babies.
The women aren't having babies because they go to college.
And they build careers first, and they delay their first child until their 30s.
And if you do that, There's a whole bunch of reasons why that doesn't work.
The first is you're already past the majority of your fertility window.
After 35, even with IVF, the odds of conceiving just go down drastically every year.
That's a biological fact.
The second thing is when you build your life around this idea that you have to have goals and be successful, and you've spent all your life, everything you're doing is towards your career for that purpose.
Women find it extremely hard to flip a switch and suddenly be a mom and a stay at home mom or like.
Dedicate their lives to something outside themselves, which is what our duty is.
So, Rachel, it is a statistical fact, and you can look this up, that women with higher education degrees have lower rates of divorce.
So, since I am pro marriage and pro successful marriage, not just get married all willy nilly, that is why I do believe it's a good thing that women have education.
And it makes sense, right?
You know, you are educated, and therefore you want to establish yourself.
Before starting a family, so that it is something that is strong.
But wait, didn't you say you're against women going to college?
When?
At the beginning, I said something about college, and you said, I agree, I think college is a scam too.
I think you shouldn't go unless you're getting a STEM degree.
Yeah.
How many women get STEM degrees?
How do those two things, how are they?
You just said you think women should go to college and get an education.
Uh huh.
Okay, but isn't college a scam?
Unless you're going for a STEM degree.
Did you get a STEM degree?
No.
Okay.
And I got lucky.
Do you know what percentage of STEM degrees are earned by women?
It's like 20%.
I'm not a hypocrite because I'm not telling people to do something that I'm an exception for.
Well, I didn't even accuse you of hypocrisy.
I'm just saying most women don't go for STEM.
The vast majority, 80% of women's degrees are liberal arts nonsense.
A lot of them, yes.
But still.
So why would we push that?
The fact still stands that the more education, formal education, women have, The lower the divorce rate, but do you think that that's higher?
But let's address that.
Let's address that because do you think that's do you not want people to not get divorced?
Do you think you need college to not get divorced?
No, I'm just saying that there's that correlation, okay?
That a correlation doesn't equal a cause.
So, telling women to go to college because you have a lower chance of getting divorced would be retarded.
That would be like the ice cream problem.
Have you ever heard of the ice cream problem?
No, you're saying women aren't having kids because they're going to college.
Incentives And Third World Imports00:11:27
Yes, and they're focused on career and building careers.
Because we tell them if you're smart and successful, this is what you're going to do.
And if you're a stay at home mom, you're a loser and you're lame and you're going to get abused, you're going to be vulnerable.
But, When I have daughters, I am absolutely going to tell them you need to have something of value that you can depend on because you can't just basically put yourself up as somebody that is dependent on neither the government nor another person, right?
So, yes, I would absolutely tell boys and girls set yourself up for life in whichever way you see fit.
It could be getting a STEM degree in college, it could be going to a vocation.
No school doing some kind of trade business, whatever, absolutely establish yourself before coming into a relationship with somebody else.
And if you do decide to be what do you mean by that though?
And if you establish yourself, do you have to have like a 401k?
Do you have to have a savings?
Just some kind of just any old job, some yeah, some kind of way for you to be able to depend on yourself.
God forbid the worst happens, you know.
Okay, but you can't do that.
Do you know what the average jobs are that people work?
The average person makes.
It's very different.
For women, it's like 40K a year.
For men, it's like 60K a year.
Okay, okay.
Most of us have like basic ass jobs that we can get straight out of high school.
I did that.
Yes.
I didn't need to go to college and get into debt, which is the other big problem.
This was a very long time ago.
Women come up.
No, it's.
It's the same thing now.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
It is the same thing now.
The jobs that are in demand are not liberal arts degrees.
Okay.
In fact, there's a ton of data showing that if you have liberal arts degrees, you have the hardest time finding a job because you don't have.
Practical skills.
I agree.
And employers don't even want that shit anymore.
And they look for people who try to start businesses.
They look for people who are self starters, smart, self educated.
I'm debating you today with nothing but a cosmetology license.
Fantastic.
I agree that having degrees does not change facts and having a title does not make for any kind of an argument.
I'm not here to say that.
So if you can get a retail management job by the time you're 21, why can't you get married and start having kids?
Sure.
You know, what I'm saying is that.
Having kids and being a stay at home mom, obviously very valuable.
It does take you out of the workforce, and if you were to get back in it, then it'd make it a lot more difficult.
So, If women decide to be stay at home moms, they need some kind of protection, agreement, guarantee before marriage with the husband to make sure that the kids primarily are taken care of.
God forbid the worst happens, which is a split or a divorce.
So that is what I'm saying.
I'm just being a logical, reasonable person.
And I'd prescribe the same thing for men, you know?
You're not being logical and you're not being reasonable.
And we're going to figure this out together.
Okay.
So, how are we going to combat?
Birth rates dropping like a rock, and tell women you need to have your own money, you need to have a fail safe, you need to have a backup plan.
You can't really leave the job market because if you do, it makes it really hard to get back in.
Let's work on solutions, right?
For this country, let's focus on this country at the very least.
It's the one we care about.
I think it'd be very helpful for women and men in this country if we weren't importing the third world or filling jobs that Americans can fill.
Yeah, why do we have to do that?
Do you know why?
Because we're not having babies.
And if the women were having babies, we wouldn't have to import our entire labor force from the third world.
Because we have sellout politicians that don't answer to us and answer to foreign interests.
And that's why they're doing it, Rachel.
We have a labor shortage.
That's real.
That's a real thing.
We have a serious, not just us, almost the whole world.
We don't have.
We're experiencing a birth rate collapse and it's created labor shortages and it's created supply chain problems.
Why would women want to have kids if, you know, we're in.
They know that the market for the kids, when they do get born, they're not going to have the same opportunities they had growing up because we've got shitty politicians that are importing people from all over the world.
So now women aren't having babies because shitty politicians are allowing too many immigrants.
That's a big problem.
Is there any point at which it's the women's choices to shirk their duty to have children?
Are we ever going to hold the women accountable and say, maybe the values are wrong?
Maybe the women should say, you know what?
I think it's a really valuable thing to produce another generation to keep this beautiful, wonderful world that I get to enjoy going.
Beautiful concept, and I agree with it.
However, well, you'll talk about what men should do.
Why won't we talk about what women should do?
Women should also, again, contribute to their society.
They should.
There's one thing we need women to do more of, and it's have babies.
We don't need more media girls.
We don't need more psychology majors.
We don't need more retail workers.
Rachel, how do you convince women to have more kids?
Well, I'll tell you.
Please.
So, in a famous interview.
In this economy.
Yeah.
Famous interview in the 19.
Well, you can't.
You've got to fix the whole system.
That's the point.
You can fix the entire world.
You don't have to fix the whole world.
I'm going to tell you.
I'm going to tell you.
I'm just driving for the U.S.
Okay.
I'll tell you if you can just listen.
Sure.
In the 70s, Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir had a famous interview where Simone said, I think the problem is that we give women the option to stay home.
I'm paraphrasing, but she said, I don't think the world should be that way at all.
I think that if we give that option, too many women will choose it, and that's not how society will run.
I agree with her, and I believe that.
I think if women have the option to stay home, That they would.
I think if they had the opportunity to be mothers and be happy with being wives, mothers, having their sisters around them, here's what happened.
We pushed women into the workforce in the 1970s in huge numbers.
Who did that?
It was the US government and people that wanted more taxes.
It was the government, the CIA, and the universities who wanted this big, massive college loan.
So we agree on that.
The big, massive college loan kind of scam where you tell the women, take out a loan, go to college so you can have financial security.
They wanted more taxpayers paying into the system.
Exactly.
So what we do is that created a two income economy.
The reason it's, and there were other factors in the economy declining, but we've had ups and downs economically throughout all of history.
Technology, right?
AI, all that stuff, industrialization.
Uh huh.
Yeah, well, the point is that some women have always worked, and some women can and should work.
I don't see any problem with it.
Mothers, if we take mothers out of the workforce, we used to have things like breadwinner laws where only the men were responsible for the debts in the family.
We used to have things like clauses in women's employment contracts where once you were married, we consider you taken care of financially by your husband because he's the one responsible for that, not you.
And so, we're going to give that job to an unmarried woman, a widow, somebody who actually needs the job because women's jobs were limited.
We didn't have this huge equal workforce with 50% men and 50% women, basically.
It's a little off, but that's basically what we have now.
That created a permanent two income trap where now women like me who want to stay home can't afford it.
And many women who I hear from all over the country saying, I would love to stay home with my kids, but it's really tough.
This is not something you can change and fix today.
The reality of this problem is that it's going to be a multi generational fix, and it starts with what we value.
We need to stop valuing career woman, careerism, Sarah Kajessa Parker, sex in the city.
How do you sell that to women?
Well, you don't.
See, this is the problem.
So you take away their options to choose.
Nope, it's not like that.
The way the world works is based off incentive.
Just like how are you going to convince the men not to watch porn?
You're not.
It's addictive, and people have base instincts, and they.
The incentive to have a Family that's functional in the future and be a functional adult.
That's what we've convinced women like you that what they should value is success, get your bag, have finances.
I didn't say that.
I said you're 32, you've been married, you could be married, but you have other values.
You don't have children for a reason, I would assume.
I want you to be married permanently.
I think the single most important decision a person could make is who they decide to have children with.
Sure, I agree.
I agree.
That's the most important.
And so, yes.
I think both men and women should be extremely selective and choosy with that decision because that's going to ultimately determine whether the child grows up in a stable household.
So I am not going to pressure women to just have kids as soon as they can without any kind of reason.
I'm talking about setting up incentives for the things we want to see.
Yes.
And what we do by giving women specifically, we give women free college loans, we give them Free loans to start businesses.
We have done all this affirmative action stuff for the last 50 years to push and push and push and incentivize women to focus on career, focus on joining the workforce, reject motherhood.
It's icky.
Kids are gross and it's hard, and you don't want to do that.
It's going to ruin your body.
There's so much anti motherhood propaganda.
Which I'm against.
And the whole pop culture.
You can't name a single pop star or movie star who's an influential woman who doesn't have the boss girl.
Strong woman through your sexuality message.
All of them do.
Be sexy and hot like me and make your money.
And ew, men are gross and they're stupid.
And Sabrina Carpenter telling the whole world men are useless.
You're brought up.
Which I disagree with, but again, you're broadly generalizing women this, women that, even most women.
I'm saying the incentives, society wide, through the pop culture, through the education system, through the government, every institution tells women motherhood is for stupid losers and strong woman, sexy girl, boss babe stuff is for winners.
And we have to change those incentives.
If we truly value family.
You can't force women to do that.
Just let me finish.
I'm not saying force, I'm saying incentivize.
You should know this if you work in politics.
Sure.
If we incentivize people to come across the border because they're going to get free shit, we're going to get more of that.
Agreed.
You get more of whatever you incentivize and you get less of whatever you stigmatize.
We need to stigmatize sexy girl boss babe stuff.
We need to.
How?
By taking back the institutions and the culture.
How?
That's what you said, right?
How are you going to do that?
By me going on these podcasts and writing books and talking to people like you.
And now there's a bunch of.
And now there's a bunch of.
And women shouldn't vote.
That's how you're going to get them to go back to.
Do you know how many women actually don't want to vote?
It's a lot.
Okay, you would be shocked.
Yeah, I'm sure, but it's not there's a lot, they just don't care that much.
The truth is, whenever we have a dating panel, Brian, um, the majority of women, most of the girls, when you say, No, I don't want to vote, if you say to all the girls, do you let me talk?
They're curated, please.
Reasons For Divorce00:10:08
They're not curated.
Wait, what do you mean?
She's saying that you specifically pick girls.
This is what everybody thinks about the podcast, and I wish this was true because I'm so black pilled and I wish I wasn't.
But all the young women I speak to, not just here, but on other podcasts and other debates that I do.
You ask them who they voted for, they usually haven't.
They usually don't vote until they're older and married.
It doesn't matter who you voted for.
Some of the college radicals do.
The facts are that a majority of women vote and do care about voting because they vote Republican, because they vote Democrat, and because they voted more than men have.
I'm not, what I'm telling you is, I'm not trying to convince women the way that you're thinking.
I'm talking about systemic incentive.
I'm saying do things like what Hungary did, where if you have three or more children, you never pay taxes again.
We make marriage.
An ecclesiastical governed thing again where it's no longer this no fault government bullshit that you want?
Absolutely not.
What's the thing that I want?
What's the thing that I want?
You like government marriage with prenuptial agreements and no fault divorce.
I believe that the government should have never gotten into marriage.
Okay, who should have governed marriage?
I believe that the government doesn't.
I believe that the government doesn't.
Can you finish because you just told me you believe this and this and that?
And it's what you said.
And it's inaccurate.
I believe in.
People being able to get out of bad marriages, absolutely.
Do you think they couldn't before?
And without previous, without certain legal protections.
Let's say that you are in a domestically, in a marriage where you have domestic violence, domestic abuse, but you don't have the money to get a lawyer because there's usually financial abuse involved as well.
So there's no way for you to even prove.
So there's usually no way.
Is there emotional abuse too?
So there's no way.
No, I actually have the data on that too.
So, there's no way for you to prove that you're being abused.
And so that goes against their rights.
And I don't want women to be stuck in bad marriages.
Do you know how many marriages?
I agree.
Do you know how many women were granted divorce in the year 1900?
So, this is before the 19th, before No Fall.
I don't care because it's irrelevant to the point that I'm making, which is 55,700 divorces in the year 1900.
You can't tell me that women couldn't get divorces.
Yes, they could.
Good.
I'm not saying they just didn't because it was highly significant.
Stigmatized, it wasn't practical, and the incentives were not there.
And what we've built now is a system that incentivizes divorce.
It incentivizes waiting till your 30s to even start a family.
And that's what needs to change.
So we need to shift it and make it cool again to get married.
We need to make it cool to get married young, to stay together.
We should not be allowing or glorifying OnlyFans chicks, Instagram bikini babes.
All that shit needs to go.
I absolutely agree with all of that.
It's something that I practice in my.
Personal life, obviously.
But again, the answer, the solution to things is never to do anything by force or by taking away options, right?
Do we want strong marriages?
Yes.
Do we want divorces?
No.
Do we think that it's a good idea to ban divorces so that people are stuck in abusive relationships?
Do you think I want a divorce ban?
Or do you think I, because that's not what I want.
What I want is where you have, like we always had for all of human history until 50 years ago, if you want a divorce, ideally it should be through your church.
You should have to go to your ecclesiastical authority.
So I'm an Orthodox Christian.
If Andrew and I, and this, I know a woman that this happened to, that there was actually legitimate horrific abuse.
She went to her priest and to her bishop and she said, This is what's going on.
She had other people who were willing to say, Yes, we think this is going on.
She was granted a divorce because of the extremeness of the situation.
What we have now.
What does that have to do with the kids?
What happens with the kids?
What happens with dividing assets that they both had?
Is the church, does it have any kind of dominion over those kinds of decisions?
Yes, it does not.
No, historically, this has happened.
This is not now.
But what we're talking about is prescriptions.
And I'm telling you, the way we fix this is if my church governed my marriage, the church would say, Okay, We're going to help take care of you financially.
This is what used to happen under most churches.
If there was a situation where the woman was abandoned, abused, say the husband was crazy, violent, any of these things, that's like.
Cheats?
It depends.
That depends.
Would you be okay?
From a religious perspective.
Do you believe it's okay, or do you believe that people should stay in marriages when the other person cheats on them or commits adultery?
So, adultery can be a reason for divorce.
It depends, and that's a personal thing that you have to go through with your spiritual father because that's the number one cause of divorce, by the way.
It's not.
Yes, it is.
No, the number one reason that women give for why they leave is growing apart, irreconcilable differences.
We just don't get along.
Infidelity is more like number three or number four.
I've researched this quite a lot as well, and I've had this debate multiple times.
It's usually like third, fourth, or fifth on the list, depending on what survey you look at.
No, no, it's It's not.
Infidelity is not number one.
Absolutely not.
It's like third or fourth on the list.
But from a religious perspective, of course it's immoral.
We don't say cheating is okay.
We don't say cheating is good.
But it doesn't automatically mean that in every case of infidelity, you must divorce.
I know couples and everybody knows couples where they've worked past that.
Now, if it's a serial problem or if there's a good reason, there's a lot of factors.
This is a personal thing.
This is why it shouldn't be done through the government, it should be done through the church.
Through your priest and your bishop who know you and know your situation and can mediate disagreements because you don't just break up a family for any reason.
Just one of the many things that I've done.
Brian, you can go ahead and look it up.
Amado, top reasons for divorce.
In 2003, found that when divorced individuals are asked open endedly to provide their reasons for divorce, the most cited reasons were infidelity, 21.6%, incompatibility, 19.2%, drinking or drug use, which I also agree with, 10.6%.
In most studies, Infidelity is the number one reason.
You would have to give me your source and I would have to look at it.
It's most likely going to be a survey.
It's going to be most likely a survey of about 100 to 300 people.
This is from the NIH.
That wants me to go through here.
We do have to differentiate between, for example, surveys and what is actually cited in the legal divorce proceedings.
You were wrong.
Where?
Right here.
So, the results of the study Reasons for Divorce.
Table one presents the major contributors for divorce list.
Overall, the results indicate that the most often cited reasons for divorce at the individual level were lack of commitment, 75%, another pretty word for lack of fidelity.
No, that's not infidelity.
Lack of commitment means you don't think the person is fully in it with you.
That's what that means.
Sure.
Because if you kept reading, the next one down the list is infidelity.
So the first reason in this particular study, which I'll have to go over it, but the number one is lack of commitment.
75% for lack of commitment.
So the majority is I feel like he's not really trying, like I'm really trying.
What's the definition you're giving it?
Infidelity is selfishness.
Commitment is selfishness.
Conflict and arguing 57.
So, people can give multiple reasons.
So, what you're getting with these is we already had a problem, we already were fighting, and then one or both of us cheated.
It does not say he cheated on her, it says infidelity.
That could mean they both cheated.
So, one thing I've noticed about you is you're actually not very good at reading data and interpreting it.
You're not actually good at reading a study and understanding what it says.
No, you first thing there says lack of commitment.
Yeah, and you interpreted that as infidelity when the next commitment, is it not?
That does not mean there was infidelity.
See what I mean?
So, might I just offer clarification from what I looked up?
So, there's two different categories.
So, now commitment to loyalty or faithfulness could be a thing.
But what, and Rachel is correct, it's a different category.
But you wouldn't separate it into two categories if they met the same thing.
There's two different categories.
Lack of commitment is one category, infidelity, cheating is another.
So, extramarital affairs.
But so, under lack of commitment, it describes it as when the partner stops trying.
They feel unappreciated or decide the relationship is no longer a priority.
So, I guess in this context, lack of commitment doesn't necessarily imply infidelity or cheating necessarily.
By the way, that's the exact same data that I cited in a portion.
We just did a whole brand new debate course on debateuniversity.com.
And all you guys who bought part one, you can get a big discount on part two, which is all about debating feminism.
And in my section, I use that same data.
To argue my position.
So that's how I knew that she was wrong on that and that she was kind of misreading or twisting.
The original question and point was Do you believe that women or just people in a marriage that suffer infidelity from the other partner should not be able to divorce their parents?
No, I would never say that you should never be able to.
It depends.
I wouldn't say that every instance of infidelity must necessitate divorce, though, either.
Religion Versus Human Value00:11:03
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying, should they be able to?
Sometimes.
It depends.
Sometimes it's up to what you randomly decide.
I think marriage should be governed by the church.
And if it's governed by ecclesiastical authority, it should, though, and it did.
So I'm saying let's go back to that because that was better.
This country is not run by your personal Christian Orthodox.
That's not what I mean.
Your church.
So if you're Mormon, you get married in the Mormon church.
And that ecclesiastical authority governs your marriage.
And if there's a divorce, they help sort out.
Who gets what and what happens.
And they are responsible for supporting women and children in the case of the husband doing something that would necessitate a divorce.
That's how it was through all of history.
All right, non religious couples or some non denominational Christian couple gets married, somebody cheats.
Or do you believe that they are allowed to legally get divorced or they should be allowed to?
I don't recognize secular marriage.
It's the same thing to me as gay marriage.
All you're doing.
But it exists.
It exists.
Yes, you don't recognize it.
But what it is, but what it is.
Right.
But what it is, is not marriage.
What you have as a secular person going through the state, which is why Brian's against it and a lot of men are opting out, it's a gay roommate agreement.
It's a very homosexual thing in nature, if you ask me.
You are like, oh, let's make a boyfriend girlfriend living arrangement, like Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory, how you'd make the roommate agreement.
It's a glorified roommate agreement that's enforced by the state.
There's no religious duty, there's no moral duty.
It's not a lifelong commitment.
You have an easier time getting out of your cell phone contract or out of a divorce in a secular situation than you do breaking your cell phone contract.
You really are.
You went to that state.
You went to that state.
Yeah, you went to a divorce that you just signed the paper and now you're divorced.
Yes, it's a divorce.
You have a harder time with.
Verizon, it's harder to break up with Verizon than that.
Thankfully, I uh, the first time around, even though you know we were young and picked people that we grew apart from, at least I picked a decent person, yeah.
And so it was, you know, we're still amicable with each other and would be there for each other in any kind of situation, but yeah, well, that's good.
But um, I'm just saying, like, all it is now is a person, it's just a basic roommate agreement, and then you go, I don't like this anymore, so it's done.
It's a really entangled legal situation, especially when uh, shared assets.
Exist and especially if kids exist, yeah.
You try to get into a divorce proceeding when kids are involved, and it's I went through that, it takes years to resolve.
In my case, it only took maybe less than six months, but yeah, it's just it's horrible.
It takes, but it should only be for serious situations.
You're in danger, but there's something drastically wrong.
I don't, but we're talking about who should, and I'm saying it should be the church because.
Marriage is a lifelong religious sacrament.
If all you want is a roommate agreement, I don't care what you do.
I don't make policy recommendations based on religious arguments.
Well, that's the problem.
Even if I hold the same values as you do, that's the problem.
So you're doing the thing that so many people, like not so erudite, tries to do this.
I have a set of morals for myself and what I think is right or wrong.
I have a set of morals, but I'm not going to force it on anyone.
I think we should just default to sex.
And that's another big reason why we're in this mess.
So, we do have separation of church and state for a reason.
Is morality objective or not?
I think that morality is dependent on what our beliefs come from God, right?
Basically, whatever, you know what?
I think there's objective right and wrong, regardless of what you believe according to your religion.
Okay.
If that's the case, if we know objectively what's right and wrong, why wouldn't we organize society along that and not just what this person might think is wrong on that day and then Bob thinks is wrong next Tuesday?
Let me name some of those things.
It is objectively wrong to kill a person unless it is in self defense.
Why?
Right?
Because.
People have inherent human value.
So that is, I don't care what your religion is.
And you think that's based on God?
If you think, I think that's an objective moral, basically, decision.
But what if someone doesn't believe that?
What if somebody says, I don't think that people have inherent human value?
I'm giving you an example of things that I believe are across the board that I don't think matter or change depending on a person's religion, like the right of a person to live, unless, of course, they've threatened somebody else.
And whatnot.
So I think that's an example of that.
And you asked to name one.
Sure.
So, yes, objective morality does exist.
There's, you know, you shouldn't steal, you shouldn't, because that, again, is taking away from somebody else's property, which is wrong.
And you don't need a religion to basically support that.
And there is a religion, but that's where you're wrong.
That's where you're wrong.
There are people who are secularists who don't believe stealing is wrong.
They think stealing through taxation is correct.
Black Lives Matter thinks that, you know, we're living on stolen land and you got to give it back and all these kinds of things.
There's a lot of people who, you're taking the more Christian moral paradigm for granted and saying it's objective when there are, when if we separate church and state, yeah, that's Christian.
Those are Christian values.
People have a right to live unless they are, unless they're basically threatened.
Do you think that's Christian?
Do you think there's any other religion that holds that?
You think that that wasn't the case before Christianity?
No, it absolutely wasn't.
In the ancient pagan world, there was no right to life, there was no human dignity.
That did not exist.
Okay.
They did human sacrifice.
Yes, some, absolutely, some religions and different sects did those things.
Okay, go to an Islamic country and ask them if they think everyone has a right to live.
But it absolutely did exist.
No, it didn't.
Especially in Nordic, especially in, you know, Nordic.
No, they did human sacrifice too and they conquered and killed people, Drianna.
No, they didn't believe that it was wrong to kill people and take their stuff.
You just said Vikings?
And you're trying to tell me Vikings thought it was wrong to take over people's land and kill them?
Isn't that like Legitimately, what they did in their own in your own society.
I'm not talking about concrete.
Well, that's subjective.
Tell me or tell me, they did not have a concept of objective human rights and objective morality.
They say Christianity is the only religion that has universal morals.
Every other religion and system says there's what's right for us and then there's what we do to other people.
Are you not aware of that?
I'm not aware of the I don't know how many religions that exist.
Well, now you know, and what each of them it doesn't mean that you're right.
I'm correct.
I don't know what Buddhism prescribes.
I don't believe Buddhism prescribes that one set of rules for us, another set of rules for them.
Buddhism does not have an objective universal moral framework.
Only Christianity does.
Okay.
So, again, I set one example, which is you said, oh, all of the other religions prescribe one thing for their people and another thing for other people.
And I just told you that one doesn't.
I'm not even an expert in that.
I'm telling you that Buddhism does not believe in objective morality that applies to everyone.
It's very like you find your Zen by just, you know, what's right for people and you let them find their way.
It's not, here's what's right, here's what's wrong, and it's the same regardless of the people or the place or the situation.
By again, by your definitions.
And since, Rachel, there are so many different religions, again, this is why we don't prescribe policy based on.
That's a problem.
Do you have to scoot your mic a little bit?
If you don't, then by that very definition, you are making subjective prescriptions.
What if people that have a completely different worldview and a different religion than you came to power and then tried to impose their religious beliefs on you?
Would that be okay?
They have and they do.
And that's just an is statement.
So, isn't the problem the solution?
That isn't the solution.
That's why Christians need to have power of the government because if we don't, someone else will.
Or the solution is to take away the power of the government to make those kinds of selective decisions.
Do you want to get into that?
Do you want to get into that argument?
Because I don't think you do.
So, you think that if we have a secular government where the church is separated from the state, we're going to end up with fairness and human rights?
Is that what you think?
No.
What I'm saying is.
It sets a dangerous precedent to set laws based on our particular religions because then that's what do we base them on?
Then we base them on objective morality, right?
There is no such thing as objective morality according to you.
We base it on protecting the right of the individual.
That, I think, is the ultimate goal.
Then you would have to have legal abortion, you'd have to have legal pornography, you'd have to have legal drugs because it's.
Protecting the right of an individual to be a person.
Because this is the libertarian argument, which is why earlier when you said, I think people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Yes.
That is the same argument libertarians and classical liberals have used since the Enlightenment to say, You can't tell me I can't smoke this weed.
I'm not hurting anybody, bro.
You can't tell me I can't abort this baby.
It's my body.
No.
That thing is not a person, it's just a clump of cells.
It falls apart very easily because of using biology.
As an argument, not using a religious argument.
You use biology as an argument because, again, the embryo is an individual by all senses of like the definition.
It's just part of the human development process.
Okay, but how has it worked out for us around the world when we let secularists make the laws?
They always make abortion legal and they make abortion legal based on bodily autonomy and libertarian principles of I should be able to do what I want.
It's my body, my choice.
And they're making just because they get what they want, it doesn't mean that their argument was.
Valid, right?
Banks Denying Services By Gender00:12:41
Because they're just, without an objective religious moral framework, this is going to be like way over her head.
So we'll just go back to like no fault divorce or something.
Also, we do have some chats that came through.
So while we do a few chats, I think we've got about five or six.
We have Cha XD.
So our choice is to marry Femcon women who we're equals with and will allow for the proliferation of love and tell us it's all our fault or go to Iran.
Iran ain't looking too bad suddenly.
Would you like to respond to that?
I'm sure you could find the kind of submissive women that don't want to vote and don't want to have financial freedom in Iran.
So, you know what?
I recommend it.
You know, one way ticket over there.
Absolutely.
And again, this falls.
This wasn't an easy debate.
She just came right out and said the quiet burnout laws.
This falls, again, under hypocrisy, you know, because.
The basic argument Rachel's trying to make with her book is that women shouldn't vote, but she does vote herself.
And she just said in this book, The minute that she will continue to vote.
The minute that all the women can't vote, I won't vote either.
Sure.
And that's not going to happen.
So you're basing your position on that.
Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
They said Roe versus Wade couldn't be overturned, and we got that one.
And I think a lot of people are waiting on it.
Do you actually think it's possible that the 19th Amendment could be overturned?
Not only do I think it's possible, it is inevitable.
And I'll tell you why.
Yeah, you can laugh, but I'll tell you why.
To all the men watching this.
And all the men out there have started to figure out that this feminism BS is only there because they facilitate and allow it.
And if at any moment men go, yeah, this was a shitty experiment that didn't work, it needs to go to the dustbin of history, no more of this shit, then tomorrow it stops.
You think that would actually happen?
We figured out that universal democracy, one person, one vote, basically provides this huge front for a shadow oligarchy.
It does not provide you with more freedom.
What would be the time frame?
Do you think in your lifetime that would happen?
Oh, I don't know.
It could take.
It could be 20 years, it could be a thousand years.
But with the birth rates dropping like they are, this situation that you think is so great is literally unsustainable.
Wait, wait, what's the situation that I think is so great?
Just the whole like, women should be financially independent, everyone should have their own money, and we should all just be rugged individualists, and every person gets a vote.
No, I think that when we each have individual rights and liberties, we can come together in a community.
A lot better because you know what happened from a point of consent, but we've had that for over a hundred years.
And what is it?
Yes, we have had 1974 is when women finally were able to be financially equivalent to men.
Women were always allowed, yes.
We need to talk about this because let's go there.
You're going to say that because some or most women weren't approved for loans or credit cards, yes, that they weren't allowed, and that's not the case.
So, this is what feminism relies on.
Again, get the new feminism debate, of course, because I break this.
Down like no other 1974.
The art, let me talk.
We finally could have credit and were finally able to get loans without a male signature.
This is 52 years ago.
You're just wrong.
You're just wrong.
What do you mean?
Is that in the next one?
I can explain it if you want to pull that up.
But the framing of how you're saying it is totally wrong.
I'm telling you, a law passed, right?
What framing is there?
It's a fact.
Well, to people who aren't very smart, I'm sure the framing doesn't matter.
As soon as you're done yapping, I'll just blow you up.
What happened in 1974?
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed.
You can Pull this up equal credit opportunity.
I'm not talking about that.
I know that happened.
That allowed women to finally get credit and that finally allowed women to get loans without a male signature.
That happened 52 years ago.
Women weren't financially.
If she stops talking, I'll explain how it is wrong.
Well, I guess, question for you one point of clarification were women legally barred prior to it?
No, they were not.
Or were some banks?
It didn't.
Yes, correct.
There were basically, there wasn't protection that.
Required that all women be treated equally.
Brian, I can totally, yeah, I can totally break this down.
So now it's my turn.
What she's doing is a classic, she doesn't realize this is what it is, but it's classic feminist framing to make it sound a certain way when it wasn't.
It's facts.
So before the equal.
Facts aren't feminist and they don't care about your feelings either.
Oh my God.
Are you done?
Here, let Rachel.
Yeah, let me explain what actually happened.
So she's conflating and saying women were not allowed.
That's not the case.
Banks, for the most part, did not often grant loans or credit cards or accounts to women who did not have employment, the same way they wouldn't now.
So if you went to a bank now as a man and you're 25 years old, you don't have a job, you live at home with your mom, you don't have any established credit, and you don't have any way to pay a loan back, are they going to grant you a loan?
No.
Okay?
There was no law saying women cannot have these things.
It simply was the case most of the time.
Now, there were plenty of women, and I have multiple examples in the feminist debate course where I show you all the women who did have bank loans, credit cards, bank accounts.
Going back to the 1700s, women had these things.
It just wasn't most women.
You often needed your dad or your husband to sign for something because you didn't have a job, because you were where you belonged in your home.
Raising the next generation, which is the most important thing a woman can do with her life.
So, yes, so what she just did was present disingenuous framing that makes it sound like women weren't allowed these things, they were denied it.
And what this Equality Act she's talking about, this Equal Financial Opportunity Law, what that did was bullshit.
That was.
That's a great.
It was.
It was bullshit because what it did was force.
It's the same thing we do with everything else, all this DEI stuff.
All of this.
To not discriminate based on gender.
Just shut up for a minute and you can learn.
You can learn.
Yes, we force institutions to grant loans.
We say you have to give them this, you have to give them that.
You have to prove that you're not discriminating based on sex by offering women these things, even if you know it's a financial risk, even if the bank wouldn't normally make that decision for business reasons.
This is false.
Objectively false.
So, what this law did was force the hand of the government to step in and try to Force equality, and you say you're against that.
You say you're against the government coming in and forcing equality, but you back all this DEI nonsense.
You just said affirmative action.
You just said a lie, which is that this law forced banks to give women loans, and it didn't.
All it did is guarantee that they didn't discriminate on the giving of loans or credit based on gender.
Don't you think that businesses should be able to deny service to anyone they want for any reason?
By gender?
Because of gender?
No.
Absolutely.
Oh, okay.
Well, that's a progressive position.
No.
Do you think that bakeries should a Christian bakery have to bake a gay wedding cake to you?
Let me finish.
I'm talking about financial rights, right?
No, I don't believe a bank should deny any kind of services to people based on their gender because then they could also deny services or loans or credit based on race.
It should be racial.
Let me finish.
It should be based on the person's credit history, ability to pay back, all of that stuff.
The things that normally.
Banks take into consideration the credit.
But that's not what that did.
That's not what that did.
Yes, it did.
Because it was telling banks to give credit.
It did not force banks to give credit.
It created a situation where the government is now watching the bank, and if they don't have a certain percentage, it's the same thing they did with DEI hiring and with affirmative action and college, you know, letting women and minorities into college.
I didn't.
So, what this did was a bank might look at a woman and say, okay, she just got divorced.
She's only had a job for a month.
The odds of her being able to pay back a loan or a credit card are like not good.
Normally, as a business decision, we would say no to this person regardless, but because she's a woman and we have to show a certain amount of women on our payroll, on our bank rolls that have accounts, so that we don't get investigated and accused of denying women's rights.
That doesn't happen recently.
Now we're going to do that.
That doesn't happen because the bank can then prove, no, the reason we denied this woman credit is because.
She just got divorced and she just didn't have a job.
They should be able to deny their credit based on anything they want.
I thought you were a libertarian.
Why do you want the government coming in and telling the bank who they have to loan money to?
If somebody inquires about, if the government decides to investigate a bank and says, oh, you know, you're giving 80% of your credit and loans to men and 20% to women, but the bank can prove, yeah, here's why we denied most of women's applications.
They wouldn't get into any problems with the law.
And this is.
If you're a major banker, are you going to take that chance?
No.
And this opportunity and this act made that the case.
It didn't force banks to give out credit or give out loans to people that didn't deserve them.
That's actually something that.
But women were allowed.
But the whole point is that the Clinton.
That's something that the Clinton.
Women were allowed to own property, have jobs, have their own money.
Were they not?
That's something that the Clinton administration did.
And that's a big reason why we had the whole 2008.
Housing, yes, exactly.
So, are you saying that it was illegal for women to have their own money or property prior to 1975?
So, there's something called coverture laws, right?
So, if you were a married woman and you have joint property with a man and that man was away for business or war, whatever, you still had no legal identity.
It means that you could not sell the property or do business without their consent or anything like that.
So, no, you didn't have.
Any kind of legal business standing.
So again, they did not have rights.
Outside of the presence of a man.
Okay.
In a legal marriage where both of their, they both owned property, supposedly.
But here's the problem with that.
If you go back to, again, the anti suffragists' arguments to the suffragists in the late 1800s, the middle 1800s, even, the state of New York, this varied a lot by state.
So this was not federal, most of it, for most of history.
In the state of New York in 1870, if you were a wealthy woman and you went into a marriage with an inheritance or a An expected inheritance.
And maybe you already owned property.
Maybe you had a wealthy dad and you owned a piece of land.
In the state of New York, your husband was not allowed to get that in the divorce.
He was not allowed to sell it or do anything with the land or the property or the money unless you said in front of a judge that you were giving him permission and the judge had to be reasonably assured that you were not being coerced or forced or in any way pushed into doing that.
The women who were against suffrage cited these laws.
They were breadwinner laws and there were other types of laws.
They cited this as look, we've got a really good deal.
And if you make us politically equal with men, all this equality feminism stuff, we're going to lose privileges and protections that we now enjoy under the law that we want to keep.
And that we still have today.
No, there were a lot of protections in place for women that we don't have anymore.
So if I had been divorced in 1870 and not 2006, I would have not been in the situation where here I am, a single mom with kids, and because my husband got into all kinds of trouble and I had to divorce him, now I've got to try to figure out how to support them.
I've got to get a job.
I've got to get on welfare.
I've got to put them on Medicaid because I can't afford.
Do you think laws are more fair back in the day than they were now?
Laws back then protected vulnerable women better than they do now, yes.
Laws Protecting Vulnerable Women00:02:45
And I have data that can prove that.
I disagree with that position.
No, it's.
I'm.
Okay, so when the church would step in and.
Forget about the church.
The law, like we're talking about legal marriages.
Why do you want the government to do all this if you're a legal?
No, you said you want individual rights, but then you'll say, but I want the government to step in and protect women.
Which is it?
You have to pick one.
I'm saying what we have in place right now, the protections in marriage and in divorce laws, you think that that is better back then than it is right now?
That it protects.
I completely disagree with that.
As a broad picture, for many reasons, I disagree with that because nowadays, Yeah, because you want the right supports to take into consideration contributions beyond financial when it comes to marriages.
So that's why.
I do have to let some more chats come in here.
We have redacted 92 totalization of reproductive control in females with secularization and feminism yields this pathology.
The beast of vanity consumes females from within, ironically fulfilling their fear of obsolescence.
Deep stuff.
That was from Shakespeare.
Shakespeare right there from Redacted 92.
Thank you very much for your message, guys.
We have six messages we need to get through.
Guys, if you want to get a message in right now, our read threshold is $99 and up.
We have a $10 display.
Also, like the video if you're enjoying the stream.
We have based Justin coming in here with, oh, I triggered it twice.
You're back to summarize.
Feminist is as feminist does.
Proof is in the pudding.
You practice an emphasis on marriage and kids.
With only a latest boyfriend at 32 ish with no kids.
When family TikTok?
Would you like to respond to that?
I'm glad that you're following my dating life so closely and are donating $100 or $200 every time I'm on the show to get a message out to me.
But that is going fantastic.
And like I said, the person that you have children with is the single most important decision you can make.
I never, I don't want to be in a situation where, you know, I'm.
Divorced, uh, and then my kids have to be raised by somebody else, so I'm gonna take my very sweet time to make sure that I set up my family for success and I'm not a part of that divorce rate.
Um, after kids, I think that's one of the worst things anybody has to endure.
Um, do you want kids?
Yeah, absolutely.
I'm gonna have kids, and so you know, thanks, guys.
Uh, well, thank you for that, Base Justin.
The Natural State Is Patriarchy00:14:49
We have Cha here.
Thank you, man.
How are you invoking objective morality absent?
Epistemic foundation that doesn't make any sense, like you actually have no idea what you're talking about.
Do you want to respond to that?
Yeah, I think there's things that, again, objective morality just as you know, shouldn't murder people for any reason.
I think that that goes beyond religion.
Do you know what he means by epistemic foundation?
I'm not an expert of absolutely every topic, and that's understandable and that's fair.
All that means is you have to have some, so, epistemology is just.
Basically, like how you know what you know, or how you know what's true.
So, you can't just say, Well, I just think murder is wrong.
It's like, Okay, but do you have a justified reason for saying murder is wrong?
Because clearly, there's some people in this world who don't think murder is wrong.
So, like, what makes you right?
He's just saying you need some kind of epistemology to stand on to make those kinds of assertions.
And you're not.
You're just saying, I just think it's the case.
Yeah, I think, yeah.
I think that even in people that subscribe to religions that try to justify murder, right, in cases that aren't justifiable.
For in common civilization, I think they know it's wrong.
I think we all inherently know.
I think, again, that's nice to say, but I think we all have a conscience.
That's not how a debate works.
You're just saying words.
If there's people that believe it's okay to kill others of a different religion, I think that they know at their core that that is wrong and they just choose to.
Well, I think you know at your core that women are not equal with men and that anytime men decide to rescind women's rights, there's not a damn thing they can do about it, but you're not going to admit to that either.
It's not going to happen.
You won't admit to that.
Why do you think it's not going to happen?
Because it's just not going to happen.
Because you take it for granted that simps are going to always come to the rescue, don't you?
Have you heard of a little place called Afghanistan?
Yeah.
I'm just saying that America is so different.
Okay, what about Iran?
What about a little place called Iran?
Yeah.
Okay, what about Russia?
Russia's not even Muslim.
How about we're talking about the United States?
Okay, but what I'm telling you is historically, there's multiple places around the world where, regardless of religion or other factors, women had rights, and then the men said, eh, not so much anymore.
Why do you think that won't and couldn't happen here?
Other than the fact that you've lived a privileged female life that leads you to believe that, like, this could never happen to me.
I don't think it's a Privilege to demand equal voting rights.
You can demand it all day, sweetie, but if the patriarchy doesn't grant it, you're out of luck.
Rights as well.
And I don't think rights are determined based on force.
That's all super cute.
So what happens then?
No, no, it's not super cute.
Do you believe rights, inherent human rights, are derived on whether somebody else can take them from you or not?
Yes.
I don't agree with that.
Now, be careful, because I know you don't know philosophy.
That's an is statement.
It's not an ought claim.
I'm not saying.
Rights ought to be taken.
I'm saying if tomorrow men don't want to enforce women's rights, you and I can't do anything about it.
I don't know.
I can't say right now that I know for sure that that would be the case just because, you know, we have guns, the great equalizer.
I see.
So physical force isn't as much of a determining factor between the sexes.
And I think, at least in Florida, where I'm from, an equal or close to equal amount of women own guns as men, and it doesn't matter.
Whether you're seven feet or five feet as a man, all you need is a small little handgun to be at equal levels.
I'm actually a firearms instructor myself and I teach women.
So you understand that guns aren't great equalizers.
And what I understand is that.
But as a whole.
But as a whole.
So on an individual level, if there's an attacker coming at you, your best shot is a gun for sure.
A pew pew.
I can say that on YouTube.
And if men wanted to take over and stop letting women vote, you don't think women with guns in this country.
Would do something about it.
Describe to me how you think that would look.
It'd be terrible.
It'd be bloody hell.
You think that the girls are going to.
So we just took away abortion rights.
Mm hmm.
What?
And.
Why are you complaining?
Why are you complaining?
What did the women do about it?
They went into the street and screamed.
Everybody saw the videos of the liberal women screaming at the sky, promising they're never going to have sex again, which is like, oh, now you're starting to figure out.
Like, you don't have to have an abortion if you just don't do the sex.
I'm very.
We saw them.
Vowing, you know, all kinds of things.
I'm gonna, we're gonna do something, and they didn't do anything.
What were you expecting them to do?
Well, you said they would get guns and take the rights back.
I'm wondering why they didn't do that.
Well, it was never a right, and it was never a constitutional right.
Whereas abortion written in the U.S. Constitution.
So you think if it was in the Constitution, then they would have revolted with guns?
Then they would have had probably a more objective, valuable reason to do that, but it's not, right?
But would they though?
Do you really think women are going to collectivize?
No, I don't think most women want to kill their kids.
Why in all of human history have women never overthrown men as a group?
Good question.
Usually men have been the ones to fight the wars, to go to war, to choose.
But why did women wait until 1920 when the law changed?
Why didn't they just rise up as a group and take their rights before that?
We've never had a civil war that I know of between men and women in any kind of civilization in the past before.
Because usually communities operate as one, it hasn't been men versus women.
You could technically say in places like Iran, you have women's rights movements that do advocate for their rights as a society.
Yeah, they always have to beg and ask who?
Who do they have to ask their rights to be granted by?
Okay, I grant you that position.
What I'm saying is that rights moralistically do not come from force.
That's just an assertion.
What are you basing that on?
From the fact that people have inherent human rights.
According to who?
Do you believe in natural rights?
It's not about what I believe.
According to who?
Natural rights.
Whether I believe it or not has nothing to do with anything.
If men with guns don't grant the rights, how do you have the right?
It doesn't mean that because men, again, you're conflating two different things.
You're saying should.
You're saying should.
You're saying I think we should have rights regardless.
Right, I'm saying.
Rights don't come from.
Physical differences and being more physically strong in any kind of way.
Do you agree with that statement?
It doesn't matter if I agree.
Okay, I'm asking you, do you agree that rights do not come from objective, like physical force?
Let me just grant that I do believe that.
Can you prove that?
How can you demonstrate that rights do come from, they just exist, right?
They're just granted by what?
I think they're natural rights.
They're natural.
Okay.
And so, what happens if tomorrow the men violate your right to vote and they stop letting you into the polling center and they say, you can't vote anymore, Brianna, you're a woman and we're not going to let you?
That'd be a bad thing.
Yeah, but what would you do about it?
Personally, I mean, I don't know.
Go somewhere where women do have egalitarian rights.
I don't know.
Okay.
First of all, that's not going to happen.
What I'm trying to say is it can't be natural.
But it can't be natural.
And here's why.
Okay.
The natural state of the world is patriarchy.
That's the natural truth of how things exist.
So, any illusion you have that we have these inherent rights granted to us by God, by nature, you can think it's by God.
I don't think that.
The Bible doesn't say anything about that.
The Bible doesn't say equal rights for everyone, make sure the women have equality.
In fact, the Bible says men are supposed to be subject to their husbands and to their priests, and they're supposed to be quiet in the church, and they're supposed to ask their husband if they have a theological question.
And that they should submit to their husband.
That's what God says.
That's in your personal interpretation of the Bible.
So, you believe in like astrological New Age God, like the universe or something?
No.
I think that there's biblical proof and evidence of God valuing man and woman the same way.
Of course, he values them the same.
So, that's what he's trying to get off of.
But no, God can value men and women the same and still he created a system.
You talked about natural.
God created legal systems?
God created the natural world.
That we live in, right?
Yes, not in the system.
And in that natural world, there is hierarchy, right?
Sure.
There's always people who are at the top and then people beneath them.
In every structure, whether it's a business, a government, society, all structures are hierarchical.
There is no such thing as equality.
There's always people with more power.
There's people who are taller, prettier, smarter, more talented.
Okay, okay.
That's God's creation, yes.
Yes, so that's hierarchy.
That means we're not equal.
Different, well, it doesn't even need to be hierarchical.
We can be equal in value.
Yes, that's what I'm arguing.
God values women, but that doesn't mean He didn't grant men authority over us.
No, I do believe that men are bigger than us normally, physically stronger.
You think that we're equal with them, though?
We have equal value, yes.
Therefore, we have equal representation.
We're like going around in a circle with this.
Equal representation?
Okay.
Yes.
Which biblical kingdom granted women equal representation under the government?
I don't know nor care, but I do remember reading.
So you're not.
But I do remember reading in the Bible that Jesus wasn't particularly a fan of politicians, period.
You could be wrong.
That's not what you think it is.
You don't know anything about any of that.
Don't bring up the Bible if you don't know, because I'll just waste you on it again.
Again, there are so many religions that come out of the Bible.
Okay, what God do you believe in then?
I do believe in the God from the Bible, yes.
So do you believe in the Bible?
Yes, I believe in the Bible, but I don't believe in it.
Then show me where in the Bible it says that women have equal political rights with men, or that women and husbands and wives have equal authority in the law.
It doesn't say that anywhere.
So then why do you believe in that?
Because I'm basing my argument on God assigning equal value to men and women.
Yeah, they can have equal value, but men can still have authority.
Mm hmm.
Do you think men should have equal authority in the home or in the government?
Where in the Bible does it say, or does Jesus particularly prescribe men vote and women don't?
There's no democracy in the Bible.
That's another reason I don't believe in it.
There is no such thing as it's monarchies.
God granted us kings and gave us rulers.
Okay, so we should go back to monarchies.
So if you don't believe in the Bible, we should go back to monarchies.
I don't.
There's monarchies all over the world.
Why don't you practice what we preach?
Where?
Actually, was it?
Thailand or one of those.
Christian monarchies?
If there's a Christian monarchy, that's where I'm headed.
Thailand, I believe, has some kind of sect or some kind of.
Isn't Thailand mostly Muslim now?
They do have a large sect.
Yeah, so I'm not going to go there because.
But there are plenty of other places where you can live under.
Show me the Christian monarchy I can go live under.
Yeah, I can go live under.
Closer version, or actually, I think it was the Philippines or Thailand.
One of the.
Again, not Christian.
And they would, you know, supposedly exterminate like drug.
Users and whatever across the country.
Yeah, Singapore and the Philippines do that.
Yeah, exactly.
So, again, there's a lot more countries on the outside that have the system that you currently like.
Okay, but back to this right in the Bible, and I think it's 1 Timothy 2 12 says that men are supposed to be in authority over women and that women must submit to their husband.
Again, I'm not going to.
So, if you believe in the Christian God and you don't believe in the Bible, can you do that and also vote?
Do you think those two are at odds with each other?
You could.
Do I think you should?
Those are different things.
So that's your personal view.
How things are versus how things ought to be.
I don't think you ought to be voting.
No.
Okay.
As a woman.
Can you right now?
Yes.
Okay.
And we're never going to change each other's minds.
No.
But what I'm asking you is how you can.
You are the worst.
Or anybody who's voting.
You're the most contradictory woman I've ever debated.
You'll talk about individual rights on one hand and then say, I want the government to come in and force equality for women.
And you'll say, I believe in the Christian God in the Bible.
And then you'll say, Well, not that part.
I don't like the 1 Timothy 2 12 part.
Forget that.
And I want democracy, not a monarchy.
That seems icky.
Jesus, I think Jesus thought this, even though that's not what the Bible says.
I'm just going to make it up.
The only person living hypocritically or not practicing what they preach here is you.
Because at the very least, I say, I believe women should vote.
I vote myself.
I think that that is.
What have I advocated here that I don't believe in?
And you do quite literally.
Your whole shtick, your whole thing is women shouldn't vote, but you do so yourself.
Voting is one of the things I talk to.
That is, that is about, yeah.
Voting is the most important thing that came out of the whole feminist movement.
I don't think so.
You might say that, but I wouldn't say that at all.
And I disagree with pretty much everything else in the feminist movement.
Okay, tell me what things I advocate for that I'm not living, but voting.
Specifically, voting, absolutely, is one of those, right?
I don't think women should be in politics.
Infidelity Does Not Require Divorce00:03:52
How about the second one?
Financial independence.
You have your own.
I am not financially independent.
You have.
Not even close.
You work, right?
You have.
You just said you were a gun instructor, so you've worked before.
Under my husband, for my husband's company.
Okay, but you do work.
For my husband.
Yes.
But you are financially independent as well.
No, I'm not.
I don't have any bank accounts that are in my name only.
Everything is joint.
I don't have any assets that are in my name only.
Everything is joint.
Mm hmm.
So, if you wanted, if Andrews were cheating on you, you wouldn't be able to get out of that relationship.
Sure, I would.
Sure, I would.
I would be, if he decided to be a serial cheater and we went to our priest.
How about just one time?
Would you?
It would depend.
I don't know.
That's not an issue.
We have different values on that, though.
Maybe, but I'm not going to break up a family unless I can tell you there's no hope.
There's no hope.
See, that's what a childless woman would say because I put what my children need above me and my hurt feelings, and it would depend.
I'm not saying it's okay.
I'm not saying it's moral.
But if it's, so let's take this really common scenario just as an example.
A lot of women will get married, have one or two kids with a guy, and stop sleeping with him.
And it'll have been, you know, the poor guy's gone five years and he hasn't been touched.
He's tried to talk to her about it.
He's tried to reason with her about it.
He's tried to go out of his way.
He's tried to be romantic.
He's tried to do everything he knows how to do to fix it.
And she goes, Look, I'm just not into it anymore.
Ever since I had the baby, it's just not my thing.
I just don't want it.
Okay.
If he cheats in that situation, do I think that she should automatically divorce the guy?
No, I don't.
Okay.
That might seem crazy to you, but you keep the family together.
I still think cheating is a choice.
Of course it's a choice, and I'm not saying it's all right.
Pretty much.
Usually it can, but there's a lot of dead bedrooms out there.
Or you can, as a man.
And if that's the situation you're in, I think.
As a man, can't you just get a divorce yourself if your woman is not fulfilling your family duties?
Yes, but this is what your.
Your whole view comes from, and I. Don't mean this as an insult.
I'm saying you don't know what you don't know because you don't have children.
And when you have children, they come first.
Yes.
Way before your feelings, your.
And I would want to give a good example, especially if I have a daughter, I would want to not show her that somebody can disrespect me and can treat the family badly.
And I still stay for the sake of not breaking up a marriage.
I wouldn't want to set that example.
It depends.
It depends.
So if your daughter found out you were terrible to your husband, you don't sleep with him.
You belittle him in front of people, you're a jerk to him, and then he cheats?
Because he doesn't want to remove the kid's mom from the home, but he doesn't know what else to do.
It's not correct.
It's not a moral choice that he made.
But I think that's very different from you're being the best wife you can be, you're being a good, faithful woman, and the guy just wants to screw other people.
Totally different situation.
So that's why I say it depends.
Yeah.
I personally do believe that cheating is a one and done thing.
And again, that's easy to say when you don't have kids.
I know, but I also know that I have consistent moral values.
I also know in the Bible, you know, Jesus particularly references adultery for one of the reasons that breaking up a marriage would be okay.
It's that big of an infraction.
It can be.
It can be.
It's that big of an infraction.
I have granted that it can be, but I don't think that, you know, marriage is a long time, especially if you get married young.
Say you get married at 22.
You live to be till you're 82.
That's 60 years.
A lot of shit's gonna happen in 60 years.
You're gonna hurt each other.
You're gonna do wrong to each other.
Marriage And Long Time Commitments00:06:10
You're going to screw up.
You can still keep it in your hands.
Same for women, by the way.
I agree, but I'm just saying I don't think it's an always every time must get divorced just because somebody had some infidelity.
I think there are situations, and there's tons of couples out there watching this right now who will say, Yup, we screwed up.
He cheated.
I cheated.
We worked it out.
We stayed together.
Better than ever, we're happy, and our family's still intact, and our kids are happy.
So, there are situations where that is the more moral and less selfish decision.
Sure, and I'm all for choice.
We do have some chats that we have to get to.
We have Bass Justin here.
You shared plenty last show.
If I remember correctly, your boyfriend clears $1 million a year as CEO of a nonprofit, correct?
How much more time are you going to take?
Point is, difficult to recognize how a priority.
Yeah, that's very, very vague because being the CEO of a nonprofit doesn't mean that he makes $1 million a year through the nonprofit.
There's other business ventures included in that, which is like assets and property and whatnot.
But, you know, I do think that.
Uh, again, it takes time in getting to know the person that you're going to spend the rest of your life with, right?
Um, so again, for me, it's not about money, it's about making sure that what we like is similar.
You want to ideally match up and marry somebody that you enjoy.
I apologize for things, I do have to move it on, but uh, we have AEI.
Uh, thank you for the super chat.
Rachel loves cooking so much, she cooked.
You didn't, she?
Who brought the barbecue?
It's pretty good.
Thanks.
Thank you for your super chat there.
Appreciate it.
A lot of barbecue references today.
Mossing with you.
We love a good barbecue.
Here is $100 to mute blonde Obama's mic and let Rachel read her favorite part from her book.
Well, unfortunately, during the debates, we don't allow microphone mutes, but thank you very much for your super chat there.
And if you do want to pick up Rachel's book, Occult Feminism, She brought a.
Do you want a signed copy of Rachel's book?
Oh, something tells me no.
No, not no go.
Her book called Everybody I Don't Like is a Feminist.
No, thank you.
That's not what I was actually considering making like a fun little prop and putting that little cover on your book.
It's like Rachel on top of a rainbow.
Everybody I Don't Like is a Feminist, which is basically your argument.
You that believes let me uh let me get through some of the super chats here.
We have we have Red Fox, thank you for your super chat, Red Fox, Brianna.
I'm not sure who that is.
If duties for women are to behave, excuse me, if duties for women are to have babies, support the family, and make a home, are you failing your duty?
Are you a good example for women?
Good, great question.
Are women not having kids at the age of 50 or 60 or 70 failing as women?
I think that everybody does that on their own timeline, whenever is best for them.
Wait, you mean like women who had kids earlier, but now they're 60 and they're not still having them?
Yeah, as in if the duty of a woman is to have children.
At what point does it stop?
Well, what if you're like me and you just have them until like menopause and then you just can't?
You know, you did your duty.
Sure.
That's what I'm saying.
Well, that's what the super chatter saying.
The super chatter is just saying.
He's not saying you got to always perpetually be having kids.
He's just saying at some point in your fertile years, you should be doing that.
And that doesn't last forever.
It's so crazy how people are so concerned with somebody else's, you know, birth rate.
Well, we're very concerned about the birth rate.
Yeah.
And the fact that women are generally.
Focused on career and not focused on family anymore.
It's a serious problem.
Yes, that I am actually trying to address myself, and I'm not doing that by telling the women that, hey, you know, you should not vote.
That's not going to make them have more kids.
Telling them that they can't vote and that they shouldn't be financially dependent is not going to, I think, tell them.
It is not great foreplay to do that.
But you're acting like I come on here to go, listen, ladies, you shouldn't be voting.
And you need to depend on a man forever.
No, like, what I'm saying is.
What my message to women is don't listen to her.
Don't listen to Taylor Swift or Beyonce or Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton or any of these women who put their career first, who think they have to be independent and prove they can do it on their own.
There is no shame, and you are not a loser.
If you marry a wonderful guy, you have kids with him, and yes, he's the one that makes all the money, and you stay home and you depend on him, that does not make you weak.
I agree.
That does not make you a loser, and you don't have to feel ashamed about that, and you shouldn't feel bad about it for one minute.
It doesn't make you ignorant.
I agree.
You're not going to get beaten and abused.
I agree.
Don't listen to these women.
What do you have against women that do decide to put their career first and then have kids?
I don't have anything against them, but I ask them Are they losers?
I didn't say they're losers.
I think Everything that you said is so important.
I ask them this question The women that have decided to put their career first.
And I'll ask you the question Sure.
What duty are you serving to anyone or anything outside yourself?
Be more specific with your question.
I can't be.
Are you serving, are you performing any duty to anyone or anything outside yourself, or is your life only about you and what you want and serving yourself?
What duty, hmm, I wanted to ask you, what duty do you feel I have to anybody outside of myself?
But that would just let you talk even more.
But I do think that nobody has a duty to anybody but themselves from a legal perspective.
Perspective or anything, I see.
Men Guarantee Your Rights00:15:49
So, um, what we do, we do.
Let me finish answering your question.
Um, yeah, I think we all have individual choices on the timeline that we pick out for our life, and that I think everybody lives their life as a rational individual that does what is most beneficial to them or what they think is most beneficial to them at the moment.
And we don't have a duty to basically make anybody happy outside of ourselves, so I'm sure.
A bunch of the people watching, if they make anyone happy, people watching, you know, would love to be like, Oh, you know, she should have kids like right now and you know, get off the mic or whatever, get to it.
Um, I don't care, and nobody should.
I'm not saying you have to have kids thrown, I'm not going to go personal about you because it's not my business and I don't care, and I don't think that it even is pertinent to what we're talking about.
What we're talking about is what's best for society, right?
What I'm saying is, men don't get to have this beautiful idea that I don't have a duty to anyone outside myself because if men didn't do what men do, we all die.
So let me give you a scenario.
If tomorrow you woke up and it was some weird rapture and all of the men disappeared and it was only women left on the planet, okay, that's scenario number one.
Scenario number two is we wake up tomorrow and all of the women are gone and it's only men left on the planet.
Who lives longer?
The women.
And will you let me explain why?
Yeah.
So let's say that the women disappeared.
Men, the species would die off because only men can, sorry, only women can have kids.
So that's it.
We are done.
So they live until like 70, and then it's over.
We are done.
So the men make it how long?
Like their natural lifespan?
I'm not talking about that.
Yeah.
Whatever.
So all the men live until they're like 80, 90, and then they die.
Yeah, whoever is the correct.
However, if, and I'm not saying I'm supporting either scenario, obviously.
Right.
But if men did disappear tomorrow, just by statistically, There's a lot of women.
In the population that would still be pregnant.
And then they would have kids and would repopulate the earth and civilization would continue.
But what if all the male fetuses that the women were pregnant with disappeared also?
Okay, sure.
So only babies that could be born as girls.
Fetuses gone.
And I love that you asked this because I thought about this question before because I know you guys have talked about the scenario.
Women are fertile, right?
For five days before ovulation.
So let's say a woman had relations with men.
Five days prior to their ovulation day, and still have the swimmers in her body, not babies, not a fetus.
Okay.
She would become pregnant, and then, yes, she would have a child.
And so, statistically speaking, the boys can't be born, though.
There's a weird noxious gas in the air that only kills men.
I'm just saying, women surviving without men is the hypothetical.
No, that's the hypothetical you gave me.
The species would actually survive if men disappeared.
You're avoiding.
You're a percentage of the population.
You're doing what I said you would do in my opening, and you're running.
I'm giving you exactly why that would work because right now, as we speak, a percentage of the population worldwide is pregnant right now.
Some of them, I guess.
Wait, wait, wait.
That doesn't work.
Some of them.
I'm sorry.
I'm just jumping out of the way.
She's avoiding the hypothetical.
Some of them.
I think a loophole is going to waste a bunch of time.
It's not a loophole.
It's a gap.
It is a loophole because what Rachel is trying to get at here is not in.
In the instance where there are women who, yes, there would be women who are actively pregnant.
And so conceivably, if those women were able to make it to term and give birth to the child, then that child starts at zero.
And then the species there survives.
The species there survives.
Even if it was only female babies, arguably the lifespan of that child would extend beyond that.
But perhaps, Rachel, what if you were to refine your question to, you know what, just either all the pregnancies end in that moment too.
Or pregnant women also die, I guess.
Yeah.
Or only the female embryos can survive and be born.
It doesn't matter.
A world of all women, everybody dies.
Versus a world of all men.
I think everybody dies.
I think it just depends on how long it is before either one does.
And both scenarios are terrible.
Women, let me help you and tell you what would really happen.
The women would survive a very short period of time because they cannot run the critical infrastructure.
It's like a psychic or something.
No, let me explain it.
Water treatment plants run by men, power plants run by men.
The grid goes down.
There's no hospitals.
There's no more ways to manufacture antibiotics.
There's no heart surgeons.
Like, even the females who can do that stuff, who can do surgery, who can do first aid, they can't do any of that without this world.
Honey, this is the reason why feminism didn't become a thing until the last hundred years because technology made and maintained by men is the only thing.
That allows you to believe you don't need men.
Do you get that?
You're trying to put words in my mouth.
Who is saying that we don't need men?
Have I ever said that?
You were just trying to evade the hypothetical and act like, well, everyone's just going to die.
I don't know.
Yeah, everybody would just die.
Society would just die.
But the men could survive way longer, obviously, than the women because the women cannot.
Okay, what is your point to this scenario?
My point is that your belief in women's rights, you have to ask the men to guarantee your rights.
Any rights you have are granted, guaranteed, and enforced by men only.
Fantastic.
And the minute they don't want to do that anymore, you don't have them.
Okay.
So if you want to live in reality.
Does it make it right?
Does it make it right?
That is my argument.
That's an is statement.
That's not an ought statement.
Just answer the question Does it make it right?
I don't agree to the same paradigm as you.
I don't believe in rights, like human rights.
Everybody has rights.
I have rights.
You have rights.
I believe in duties.
We have duties to each other.
We have duties to society.
We have duties to God.
Correct.
We have duties, but not rights.
Correct.
As individuals.
That's what you believe.
Yes.
Okay, I disagree.
But what you believe in is fairy tale stuff.
Oh, no.
It's only there, but it's only there granted to you by men.
Do you understand that?
I understand that, Rachel.
So then you'd better be nice.
Today, and you'd better stop arguing that you don't need them and we should have our own money and you should have your own money and we're all going to just live as individuals.
This rugged individuality that you believe in doesn't exist.
I've never once argued that we don't need men and that we shouldn't value men or anything like that, Rachel.
Again, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
You know exactly what you're doing.
My only argument has been that regardless of whether it is because of the generosity of men that we do have rights, it doesn't.
Negate the fact that it's still basically what should be the case.
That should be according to you.
Because you prefer it.
That women and men have equal value under the law.
Why does that mean women need political power?
Because having equal value doesn't mean you should have power.
Because we all live under the system, right?
We all have a voice on the system that we want to live under.
I'm Hispanic.
I talk with my hands.
So Iguala.
I have a collab coming out with Homath really soon, too, guys, by the way.
But again, our rights don't come from whether people or not can overpower us.
I mean, they do.
They actually literally do.
Okay, Rachel, perfect example for you.
See if you can understand it.
Okay.
I'll try.
I'll try my best.
Black people in this country are a minority 13% of the population.
Many years ago, it was an even smaller percentage of the population.
White men basically granted black people the right to vote.
Right, because they are such a minority that they could decide that that's not the case.
But do you believe that black people inherently have a right to vote because of their worth as individuals?
That's the argument I'm making, Rachel.
Wait a minute.
That's basically who granted black people rights?
White, well, white men and women.
No, women didn't grant black people rights.
Whatever, I'm saying the white population.
No, no, this is key.
Rachel, this is the whole part you're missing.
This is the part you keep skipping.
The white population.
Who granted black people rights?
Fantastic.
I'm talking about.
Who granted the black people rights?
Rachel, the majority of.
She's just going to avoid.
She's just going to avoid it.
That's a really difficult question.
Maybe that's a really difficult question.
The majority, basically, a person's rights, inherent rights, are not determined by whether or not a majority grants it to you.
I agree.
It's not about majorities.
That's not what it's about.
So let's say there was a population, the population shifted over time.
It's now 60% women, 40% men.
Men still grant the rights because they have a monopoly on force, even if there's 60% women.
So who granted the black people rights?
Does it make it morally okay, is what I'm saying.
Just because.
Okay, let me give you another example.
Okay, I can't wait.
Another example.
I'm just going to still come right back to who granted them rights?
Who?
It's not about who grants the right to vote.
It's totally about who grants the right.
That's all it's about.
It's about whether they should be, whether that is a right they inherently have or not.
Right?
So, for example, in Iran, women don't have rights because the system that exists there doesn't give it to them.
Are they equal in worth and value?
And should they have equal voting rights as the men do in their country?
Yes.
That is my argument.
That is my argument.
Yeah, and we're going to just keep going back and forth and differing from that.
And I think it's just a matter of, again, hypocrisy.
Do you practice and preach, Rachel?
Who granted the right?
You still vote.
And you still don't play.
Yeah, because my husband tells me to vote and I submit to my husband.
So who granted the right?
That is a great excuse.
That is a fantastic excuse, Rachel.
Yes, you were right.
Black people didn't have rights, and then who granted them rights?
White people, white population in this country.
No, nope.
You got it right the first time.
Men.
Fantastic, because they were the larger population.
No, because they have the monopoly on force.
It had nothing to do with them being.
That's exactly what I'm saying, Rachel.
They had the monopoly on force.
But it's always men.
So, like, could white women outnumber black people, right?
Back then.
Prior to civil rights, there were more white women than there were black people.
So, do black people have a right to vote because the white man says so or because they are equal as an individual?
Are you talking about should or are you talking about do?
Should.
Because I should be 20 pounds lighter, but I'm not.
So, should I be, but I'm not?
Yes, should.
Right?
So, okay.
Actually, that's the argument I'm making.
Yes, so if you want to talk about ought claims, then we have to get into epistemology, and you're not going to do any better with that.
Sure.
That's going to be harder for you than this has been.
Rachel, this has been the argument I've been making from the beginning of the show.
Okay, tell me why would they should, tell me why people should have rights.
Because we have inherent value and worth, regardless of gender or race or demographic.
You disagree with that?
I didn't say I disagree with it.
I'm saying I don't think, you say we should.
I'm saying we should.
I don't care about what we should.
I'm saying I'm the one now saying I live in reality where things are actually how they are.
And in reality, men grant rights and take away rights at will.
And I don't think it's the correct way to look at history or the correct way to look at society to say everyone has a say, everybody has these rights.
Especially when you've detached them from duties, because you still haven't told me a duty women have to men.
Men have duties to women, right?
Which ones name them?
Which duties do men have to women?
To women specifically, not to the country or anything like that.
What duty does Brian have to any specific woman out there?
Well, I'm not talking about individuals.
No, I am talking about individuals.
That's a different thing.
Really quick, can we define the terms here?
Can we define duty and can we define rights?
Well, rights are just an entitlement absent duty, it's something that you just deserve.
And women love to talk about what they deserve.
The deserving.
I deserve.
Right?
Women think of the world this way.
This is a gender difference.
Women think of the world as, but it should be and I deserve.
And men think of the world as, but it is and nobody's coming to rescue me.
Okay?
That's an inherent difference.
Fantastic.
Get to the second point.
Define what is a duty that people have to one another?
What is a duty that I have?
A duty is a.
What duty do I have?
A duty is a moral obligation to God.
Okay.
Me.
Oh, to God.
Okay.
So we're getting.
And via it being.
To God.
What duty would you assign me to any man that exists out there right now?
You don't have an individual duty to an individual man because you're not married.
But as a woman, you have a duty to society to do one of a couple of things either produce the next generation or support and help those who are producing the next generation in whatever capacity you can if you can't do that.
That's what women's duties to society are because if we don't do that, society dies.
Everything collapses.
Men have a duty to provide.
Protection, infrastructure, all the things I've already talked about, because if they don't do that, we all die.
Everything crumbles.
That's what a duty is.
It's something we're obligated to do outside of ourselves, because if we don't, catastrophe ensues.
Fantastic.
I know that we have duties as a society for it to function.
However, how are you going to enforce these duties on individuals, right, without basically trampling on their individual rights and their free will and What they decide they can contribute to society.
Because, for example, yes, you have men that are carpenters, and that is how they contribute to society.
They're electricians.
There are men that have nothing to do with that.
They're freaks in the sheets and they're finance nerds.
How would you say that they fulfill all of these other duties of protecting women and protecting society?
My argument is that we all have, that we're all individuals, right?
And we all choose how it is.
That we contribute to society based on our individual strengths, what we're actually good at.
And that is the most moral way of living, and that that is what leads to the best societal outcomes because we're not stifling human ingenuity or sticking them into boxes and telling them, Women, you have to do this.
Because imagine if women were all just mothers forever throughout history.
Prescribing Duties To Women00:11:17
I mean, like I said before, we wouldn't have refrigeration, we wouldn't have Kevlar, we wouldn't have.
That's not true.
We wouldn't have.
None of that's true.
All of those things, I'm guaranteeing you can look them up right now.
Somebody sent some super chats debunking her nonsense that women invented refrigeration.
It's going to be something.
Women invented refrigeration systems.
Yeah, it's always something like this.
Oh, men actually invented refrigerators, but a woman invented this one specific part that kind of made it better.
Her name was Florence.
Florence.
No, Florence.
Yeah.
Part, part.
If anybody wants to.
Okay.
Wait, might I ask a clarifying question?
Is your position that.
So, you're saying that women invented these specific inventions?
Things.
In her case, technology for refrigerators, not the refrigerator.
So, refrigerator systems.
These things could not have spontaneously been invented by men absent women.
Yeah, they absolutely could.
I'm saying this is reality.
This is what happened.
And imagine if we told women that, no, you can't do this.
You can't.
Oh, yeah.
Imagine what would have happened if we wouldn't have let Florence, whoever, invent some kind of thing that went in a refrigerator, that a man would probably invent a better.
Thing anyway.
Yeah, you're basically stifling human creativity.
Oh, how dare I stifle?
Listen.
And Actual uses to society.
You know what the fundamental difference is here?
Not everybody.
The fundamental difference is that I don't really.
Not everybody wants to be a mother.
I would make that a mother.
Here's the thing.
You care about each, and the reason is because you care about you.
Okay.
You care about individuals and what the individual wants and what the individual makes them happy because you want to pursue what you like and what you prefer and what makes you happy.
It comes from a place of selfishness that you want to defend.
I feel more selfish for me to do what.
I want than it is to prescribe other people what they should be doing.
Well, because here's what motivates me.
Here's what motivates me.
The reason I'm here.
I don't give a fuck what adult people want.
Adult women, I don't care.
I care about what feminism has done to children.
That's my primary beef with it.
And if you go into the last chapter of my book, I go over all of the hell that we have unleashed on children who pay the primary price for us telling women, you don't have to do anything, sweetie.
You just do whatever you want with your life and whatever makes you happy.
And we're going to arrange all of human society around women and what makes them happy and how they feel.
Feel the people that pay the price for that is primarily children and secondarily everyone else.
I don't care what you want to do for a career or what makes you happy.
You, I know you don't, and I don't care what you want to do with yours either.
You should care about the future of the human race.
Yep, you should be producing the next generation and you should be living your life in a way that is best for them, not for you.
That's what I believe.
I do that however I see fit that you don't do that.
You don't do that at all.
You know how I am doing that by making sure that.
I have the right conditions to have children so that I don't give them a family that's going to be broken up in the future.
I know you have experience with that.
I'm trying to avoid talking about you because I don't want to make this about you and whether you're having children.
Because listen, it is about the individual at the end of the day.
And yes, we do benefit as a society if people fill different roles that need to be filled.
But again, you are trying to put individuals into boxes.
Based on gender roles, and gender roles do exist, and there's certain things that women are naturally good at.
It's like so over your head, it's like they're just naturally cute for some of you.
For example, some women are just if you die tomorrow, they're just gonna fill your job.
Some other blonde chick who looks good in a ball gown is gonna go to the political dinner and take pictures, okay?
That's not what I do.
You're not doing anything that's gonna leave a legacy after you're gone.
You're not having an impact on society in that way.
Do you think every woman should be a mother?
Yes.
Unless there's a few instances, there's a few outliers.
There's a few outliers.
There's a listen, we can't talk about things on an individual level because there's always outliers.
No, we can't because you're the type of woman who goes, Well, I would say men on average are taller than women.
You go, Well, I'm taller than my friend Bob, he's five foot four, and I'm five foot six.
That's what you do endlessly through this whole debate.
You go, But what about this outlier?
What about this person?
It's like, Are there a small subset of women who are not cut out for motherhood?
Yes, you've gone from.
From denying.
Are you going to just yap the whole time and just talk about what we're going to.
But my individual rights, and I think we should all ride unicorns down rainbows because I think that would be best.
They would lobotomize you for hysteria just a few years back, Rachel.
I don't think so.
I don't think it would be me who would be having the trouble.
Again, now it would be you.
Rachel, now we've gone from I don't think women should vote, even though I do and I will.
I don't believe women should vote.
Yeah, that's not hypocritical.
And now we're going to.
We already established that's not hypocritical.
Cherry on top.
Women should primarily be mothers because I say so.
No, because it's their duty.
Do you want to know why?
Are you going to let me tell you why?
Let me finish because I'm just going to endlessly yap about nothing.
You've just been repeating your same five talking points.
For four hours.
And you've been doing exactly the same thing.
But here, make a quick point.
But I do need to get things moving a little bit.
Again, the whole point is that now you're trying to prescribe to women as a gender what they should be doing.
Yes, I am.
Hold on, wait, Rachel, do let her finish her point.
And I disagree with that.
I think women can be multifaceted, multitalented.
They could be wives and mothers and at the same time also contribute in other meaningful ways to society.
That is reality the same way men do it.
Because imagine if I said, you know, men's, we're going to divide men and women's roles from like what it used to be back in the Stone Ages or whatever.
Women stayed home, cooked, cleaned, took care of the kids, and the men went and, you know, hunted woolly mammoths and whatnot.
And right now, you know, the job that all men should be doing is going out and hunting woolly mammoths instead of using their creativity to, I don't know, do different things that make modern life better.
Again, you're trying to box people.
Into certain things just based on what you believe in.
And I disagree with that fundamentally.
I am an individualist.
And I think the more we allow people to be individuals, the more that they gift to society and helps us all advance, live better, have better relations between the sexes.
Let's do this.
That was really good.
There will be a little bit later on, there will be closing statements.
So you guys can each lay out your final closing statements.
But I do have some questions.
Can I say one thing before we go to chats?
Sure.
I'll make it brief.
Sure.
No, I'm not an individualist.
And the reason that I say women have a duty to have the next generation is because only we can.
Men can't step in and have the babies.
The reason we don't tell men, hey guys, we understand you don't want to do the dirty, dangerous, difficult jobs that could kill you.
So, you know, it's all about what you want, men.
You know, just stay home and play World of Warcraft.
Sorry, Brian.
Just, you know, do whatever you want and follow your dreams.
We do not say that to men.
What do you mean?
If men don't step in, let me talk.
If you're walking down the street with your boyfriend and a guy tries to mug you and he runs away, we as a society go, You coward, you piece of shit.
We shame the hell out of that guy and we go, You had a duty to protect her.
If the politicians who are mainly men, if the president who's a man does not defend our country from foreign invaders, we say, He sucks at his job, we fire him, we want someone else.
We don't let men do what makes them feel good.
Feel good.
We don't let men decide what they find fulfilling and follow their dreams.
We only say that to women.
We only say that to women.
And we go, sweetie, you don't have to have a baby if you don't want to.
You don't have to be a baby factory.
And it's like, okay, if you're not going to and all the other Taylor Swift's and all these girls are not going to, what, you think I'm going to do it by myself?
You guys think that it's fine to go off and I'm going to have a glamorous career where I close the deal over brunch and some other lady out there can have all the babies.
No, no, no.
Why can't you do both?
Rachel, that's why.
Well, that's been my point.
My point is, I did that first for 25 years before doing this, and you're calling me a hypocrite for it.
You're looking down on me for it.
You're chastising me and calling me a hypocrite because you're like, well, you're out here promoting stuff.
You're out here making money.
You're out here doing things.
Why are you doing that?
You're telling other women not to do what you did.
No, I'm telling them to do what I did.
Do what I did.
Have all your kids first, raise them into adulthood.
And then when they're big and grown, you know, I started at 20, which is what you're supposed to do.
You're supposed to start early in your 20s.
And then by the time you're my age, 45, you're done having kids.
But they're rich.
Now you can go off and do other things because you fulfilled your duty to society as a woman.
We say the same thing to men.
We go, Men, you have to protect and you have to provide and you have to do the manly things.
And if you don't, we'll shame you into oblivion.
Okay, so you say that you.
You did your duty as a woman to society by having kids early, starting at your 20s, and then had five kids, right?
What if, well, first of all, there's risks that come with that.
There's risks for everything.
I know, but let me finish my point.
You're prescribing women do this, but you're not telling them the negative things that happen from you doing that.
Oh, and everyone else does.
I don't have to do that.
Because the whole world fears among us women about what could go wrong.
Get personal or chastise you.
Personally, but of course, you had things of what?
Uh, she had you know three marriages to no, I didn't have three marriages or two failed relationships, you know, children from the first two relationships.
The negative things of what?
And the negative thing is, she's saying something could go wrong if you depend on a man and have kids, he could turn out to be a bad guy.
And Rachel, didn't that happen to you?
And then you have a family that is broken up, and now you have to deal with a broken family with people outside of your current relationship.
I think that ultimately that is worse.
Than women that wait a little bit longer in life, establish themselves, and then find somebody that they're more compatible with.
But you're acting like those are mutually exclusive.
And what happened to me was not because I was young or the guy I was with was young.
What happened to me happened because those guys believed in the shit you believe in.
Legalizing Vices As Necessary Evil00:15:53
They were libertarians.
They were like, oh, marriage is just a contract.
But you picked and they wanted one.
That's true.
Because I was ignorant and I thought that shit was correct too.
I thought like you when I was young, and that's where I made the mistake.
When I corrected the mistake was when I realized, oh, if I want a family, which is all I ever wanted, I was not interested in dating around until I'm 32, like, no thanks.
I wanted to get married and have kids.
I realized if I want that life, I've got to pick a guy like Andrew, who is a strong leader, a patriarch, a guy who's super responsible, a guy who is strong, a guy who takes care of me, not a guy who wants to split.
The bills.
I picked those split the bills.
Rachel, you developed these ideas when?
At what point in your life?
About 24, 25.
Okay, about 25.
So I was still pretty young enough to save it.
But most women aren't.
Hold on.
We do have to get some chats coming in here.
So we have Airborne Animal.
Thank you for your message, man.
Love the live exposure of this undercover leftist.
Feminist as a grifting, self centered, opportunistic liar.
Like all leftists, she immediately goes to race.
Keep exposing them for who they are, not one step back from airborne animals.
So he's calling you a leftist feminist, et cetera, et cetera.
Quick response to that, if you'd like.
You know, again, you guys can put whatever titles you want on people that don't disagree with you.
It does not make them true.
I think, again, facts literally don't care about your feelings.
But getting back to my point, you perceive that.
Hold on, there are more chats here, so let's get through the chats and then.
Time permitting, you guys can get back to it.
I find it hilarious.
You say you're a conservative when you do the very thing liberal feminists do when they get into an argument debate.
Bird hands peck.
I'm Cuban.
Convinced women are impossible to please at this point.
Base Thor, thank you very much for a message.
We have, let's get through these red super chats here on the side.
We have Alan Roach, thank you for the Australian 100.
Nah, we are here to watch Rachel Cook.
Now, Driana, did I say it right?
Yep, for the 100th time.
You are fluent in Spanish, correct?
Claro que sí.
Is it your first language?
I think it's toe to toe with English.
I was raised in Miami.
Can you translate all these super chats into Spanish for all the Spanish viewers of whatever?
Yes, I could, but I'm not going to because that'd be a waste of time.
But just to be considerate, we're very inclusive here.
She's hating on your super chats, guys.
We're very inclusive here.
After this live is over, you can turn on the auto.
Captions auto translate correct.
See, she won't even accept her duty to translate for the Spanish speaking audience.
Just I'm just trying to, she's an individual and she doesn't want to, guys.
You're out of luck.
We're trying to, you know, bring it any languages you guys speak outside of English.
I speak poor, poor French.
Oh, un peu de français aussi.
Sabine, ça.
We have Jim Bob Smith.
Thank you very much.
If guns are the great equalizer, tell me why there are zero women in special forces, para, rescue, NARSAC, excuse me, MARSAC, Delta Force, SEALs.
The gun is a tool.
Men and men alone are the great equalizer.
Yeah.
Men with guns cancel out women with guns.
Sorry.
Fantastic.
That's true.
That is true.
But on one on one contact, that's.
Yeah, it's all we've got.
It's the only thing we've got.
So I'm a big gun advocate for women.
I needed one at a certain time in my life for sure.
But as groups, men with guns are always going to overtake women with guns.
So it doesn't matter.
We have Josh here.
Thank you for your super chat, Josh.
The painful thing is the girl on the right doesn't understand the government allowed women to work to tax them.
That's exactly what she did say.
She did say that.
But she still wants us to do it for some reason.
And still doesn't know the Bible.
This has been painful.
Still doesn't know the Bible.
That's funny.
I started off my argument, my opening statement, with pointing the finger at the government for what we're seeing today and taxing and putting women into the workforce to tax them.
So that is incorrect.
You should go back and watch the whole.
But then why do you want them to do it?
Why do you want to give the government more tax money?
Why do you want a smaller native population and more taxes going to the government?
He says that's the case.
If you're advocating for women to work, that's what you get.
I'm not advocating.
For women to work.
I'm advocating for everybody to have a choice.
And I'm advocating to make it more attractive for women to want to be stay at home wise full time.
And I'm advocating for actual solutions, creating the economy to permit that to be the case.
We haven't talked about that yet.
The only way you can do that is to get mothers out of the workforce.
We haven't talked about that yet in the show, which is what are actual practical solutions to.
The current problem that we're seeing nowadays.
And my Prescription for that is men should take self control of their lives, of their bodies, of their health.
Yeah, men don't give enough.
That's the problem.
The men don't give enough.
That's not what I said.
It's always more.
That's not what I said, Rachel.
You just always want more from the men.
That's not what I said, Rachel.
I want men to be happy and healthy, and right now they're not.
They're depressed.
I think a lot of that comes from them getting their asses handed to them in family court, having access to pornography, which has never been the case.
Yeah, I agree.
As we see it.
We should outlaw that shit.
And tell women they can't produce pornography and give it to men.
That's your prescription.
That's your prescription for it, Rachel.
I think that it would work.
Would it not work?
It would work, Rachel, but it's one, not going to happen.
Two, it is going to.
Two, Rachel, the onus.
You realize pornography was illegal up until the 70s, right?
It was always illegal.
So why would it never happen?
You think that just because things have been this way for 40 or 50 years, that they'll never go back, and that's insane.
Prostitution.
It's going to go back.
It has to go back.
Okay, fantastic.
If it doesn't.
Then the onus is on the individual on whether they engage in these vices or not.
Just like alcohol, right?
Alcohol is available to everybody.
Whether you engage in alcoholism is completely up to you and it is your choice.
That's different.
Do you know how?
Do you know how that's different?
There can be good, beneficial uses for consuming alcohol.
For example, at church celebrations, in the sacraments.
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
But I'm saying pornography, there's never a good use for it.
It's only bad.
Therefore, you ban it.
There's no such thing as, like, oh, a good amount of pornography.
I agree with you.
Yeah, so you banned that shit.
Unfortunately, the reason why I wouldn't is because when somebody that disagrees with me comes to power, they will subjectively.
You've said that 100 times.
They will subjectively.
Do you think heroin should be illegal?
They would subjectively.
Do you want to legalize heroin?
Let me finish my statement.
Okay, I'm just going to drag you back to the question.
They would subjectively decide what they think is evil or not.
I know we're in power.
You've said this over and over.
Now, should heroin be illegal?
I think heroin is bad, and yes, it should be illegal.
Why?
But also.
But if we ban heroin, somebody else might come to power, and then they might ban something else that we do want.
It's exactly what has happened.
Anything that we've made illegal, there's been a black market for it.
They're actually not true.
Especially when it comes to the war on drugs.
Did you know that legalizing pornography increases human trafficking inflows into countries?
So, actually, when you legalize pornography and sex work, you end up with more human trafficking as well.
There is no good, healthy amount of.
Sex work or pornography, there's no reason not to ban it.
If you think we should ban narcotics, then you would have to be consistent and say we should also ban sex work and porn.
I agree, Rachel.
Okay, good.
Pornography, yes.
I want to see you out there telling all the OnlyFans girls, stop it, you're not allowed.
We're getting rid of it.
Yes.
We're banning it.
And I also agree, you know, with the whole war on drugs thing, I'm more of somebody that believes that should be up to individuals, natural selection, which is.
Oh, so you want to legalize drugs?
I think that ultimately people are always going to find a way to do that.
Do you want to make all drugs legal?
I think it's irrelevant because the other.
I don't think it's irrelevant at all.
We're looking for consistency with the idea.
I think it is irrelevant because they have been illegal, period, for so many years.
And still people are dying of overdoses.
Murder is illegal and some people still commit murder.
Does that mean we shouldn't have murder be illegal?
Should we just legalize murder?
Because, well, you can't stop all the murders.
So we might as well.
Do you understand that you're not thinking it through?
No.
One thing is you acting upon another individual.
You consuming pornography or drugs only involves yourself.
No, it doesn't.
Do you see the distinction?
Do you see the distinction?
Contradiction again.
Another point for me.
She contradicted herself again.
You just said men consuming pornography has a negative effect on the birth rate and women.
It has a negative effect on relationships.
Women don't want to marry these men.
It's affecting all of us.
So the men need to stop doing pornography.
And primarily on themselves.
Yes.
Which is what I'm trying to get at.
But it also affects all of society.
And it's the same thing.
Heroin, yeah, some people are still going to do illegal drugs.
However, when you legalize them, like Portugal and different places have, the problem gets exponentially worse.
This whole idea, it's a libertarian idea, once again, that, oh, we just make everything legal and then, you know, the idiots will just go die from heroin and the rest of us will live in a utopia.
No, that's not what you find.
What you find is that in places that you legalize these vices, there's certain vices that, eh, maybe it could be good for some people sometimes, maybe it could be bad, so we permit them as like a necessary evil, maybe.
Okay, do you think that's different than there is no good reason to have certain things be legal, like murder, like hardcore drugs?
Because heroin addicts don't just hurt themselves, that's a lie.
They decay and destroy the rest of society, they steal from people, they commit crimes.
Yeah, you're preaching to the choir.
Um, then be consistent.
I want to see consistency from you.
You're like, I'm consistent.
So, should we legalize heroin or not?
I am consistent in telling you that if we ban.
Pornography because I believe that it's bad.
That's not why we're banning it.
We're not banning it because Rachel doesn't like it.
We're banning it because it's detrimental to all of society.
Yes, this is what conservatives believe.
I agree.
Liberals don't.
And they will eventually come to power one day, right?
We're not going to have a lot of people.
Well, yeah, because we keep letting women vote.
Okay.
That's how they get in every time.
Whatever.
It's going to happen, Rachel.
And then again, my whole argument is it sets the precedent on making things illegal, banning things, et cetera, that you don't.
Subjectively, like that is why the well, but that's not true, also.
Rachel, that's why the onus is on the individual.
I don't understand why you are arguing so much against the individual because I don't believe in that libertarian anymore.
I grew up, I grew up and became a full adult.
I have responsibilities to other human beings besides myself.
You're arguing that's why.
Humans, men, women, whatever, not taking responsibility for their own actions.
That's what you're arguing.
You still have to do that.
That's what you're arguing against.
If I can just have a minute to debunk this ridiculous claims that you just made.
So you said that if we.
He can't shut his laptop right now or phone and decide not to consume pornography.
That's what you're arguing against.
It's very easy to.
I'm not saying that.
You're taking away.
Alcoholics can stop drinking tomorrow.
Yeah.
Why not?
Fat people can just stop eating.
Yes.
Stop trying to take away responsibility.
I'm not.
I'm not.
Because Even when things are illegal, you still have personal responsibility.
How?
Because there are people probably in this town right now doing hardcore illegal drugs.
Especially in California.
If they get caught, they are going to go to jail.
That's their personal choice.
That actually increases individual responsibility.
When we take something that we know has a major negative effect on society and we say, this is not going to be permitted anymore.
We are putting maximum responsibility on the individual because now we're saying, okay, if you do this, you get caught, there's consequences.
You're going to jail, you're getting fines, you're going to have to go to rehab, whatever it is.
In your libertarian utopia, where we just go, it's up to you if you want to destroy all of society or not.
It's up to you if you.
Because, okay, to throw your argument back at you, if we say we have to give individuals the choice to look at pornography, why?
No, I'm not saying we have to give individuals the choice.
You're saying we have to keep it legal.
I'm saying.
You tried to say it was free speech.
I'm saying that the reason why we can't ban it is because it sets a dangerous legal precedent, Rachel.
That's the only point.
That's not true.
That's the only point that I'm making.
But that's not true.
But demonstrate it.
Demonstrate it.
Because if we, again, put our subjective morality as a reason for.
My morality is not subjective, yours is.
No.
Yes.
We believe that pornography is bad.
Perfect.
Great.
Fantastic.
If I try to put this into law, when somebody else is in power, they're going to put something that I don't agree with into law that is based on their subjective.
That's everyone, though.
Okay, so if you make.
This is why we don't set legal precedents like that, Rachel.
We do, though.
You're just wrong.
Like one.
You're wrong.
Yeah, so let me give you an example.
Please go ahead.
If when Trump got into power this last round and he said, I'm going to say no more trans kid surgeries, okay?
And I don't know if they've actually passed a law or not, I don't remember.
But let's say we did, we banned.
Trans hormones and surgeries for anyone under 18.
You can't do them.
You're saying we can't do that because then when Democrats come to power, they're going to go, Well, you made something illegal, so now I'm going to take away something you like.
That is not how things work.
We have.
I will break that down.
I will break that down.
That's why you do what I'm suggesting.
It's a bad example.
The reason you do what I'm suggesting is because I have a moral epistemology and a framework that means what's immoral today is immoral tomorrow, in 100 years, in 1,000 years from now.
It doesn't change according to the culture or according to people's opinions.
That's why I don't want democracy because democracy, by its nature, has to be progressive.
You can't have conservatism in a democracy.
What are you going to conserve?
We have definitely had examples.
We don't.
What have we conserved?
Conservative.
What have we conserved?
Conservative values in a democracy.
Yes, we've.
You can hold them, but you're not going to win because the whole point of it is to be endlessly progressing, endlessly going somewhere, right?
So, what have we considered?
Endlessly evolving, yes, that is the nature of humanity.
Then you're not conservative.
And you are progressive.
That is the progressive mindset.
I am a realist, and things evolve, and so we evolve with it.
What doesn't change are our values.
Conservative Values In Democracy00:10:14
And for example, saying that trans kids are.
This is blowing my mind right now.
This is blowing my mind that you're letting these words come out of your mouth and you don't see the contradiction.
Mutilated, have their genitals mutilated, or have their hormones altered with as minors has absolutely nothing, it's not an equal example to anything that I was referring to.
We are just.
So if we make pornography illegal, what do you think the Democrats are going to do?
You think the Democrats are going to force kids to have trans surgeries?
No, you told me we can't.
Is that the equivalent?
No, you're telling me, I'm doing an internal critique of your position.
I'm saying your position is, well, we can't ban this thing just because we don't like it, which is not my argument.
I'm not saying ban it because Rachel doesn't like it.
I'm saying use a Christian moral objective framework that is universal for everyone and constant throughout the ages, regardless of the culture or anything else.
It's an unchanging foundation.
You're saying, but Rachel, we can't do that because inevitably we're going to have a Democrat.
Come to power, and then they're going to get revenge on us by getting rid of something we like.
Not we like it.
That's your position.
That is the reason.
And I'm saying you.
And I agree.
And yes, that is the position that when you.
Yes, that's the only thing you've gotten right this whole time about what I've actually said.
That yes, if we ban something we don't like because we morally disagree with it, then the left is going to do the same with us, and they are going to.
But your whole thing is we morally disagree.
I'm saying there's no disagreement.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
There are a universal set of objective morals that Christians believe in.
The reason I want Christians in power is because they will legislate based on an unchanging universal standard.
Well, if that happens, they're going to make pornography illegal.
They're going to make sex work illegal.
They're going to ban abortion.
They're going to get rid of most of the drugs.
They'll probably let you keep alcohol and maybe a little bit of weed.
Who knows?
No, just the ones that can be good and can be bad.
Alcohol can be used in certain contexts for bonding and social.
Things.
It's like been part of human celebration for a long time.
The Bible itself says that wine is a gift from God.
Wine isn't bad, misuse of wine is bad.
You can't say pornography is good, but the misuse of pornography is bad.
Pornography is just bad.
I'm not making that argument in any way.
I'm saying you don't understand the difference between me saying there's some things that are a tool that can be either used for good or bad, and the only thing that's bad is the misuse.
I'm saying there are things that are just bad, like sex work.
There's no There's no upside to sex work, no matter how much libertarians want to argue it.
There's no upside.
So you make it illegal.
Okay, Rachel, how?
How are you going to actually use it?
What do you mean?
Prostitution is illegal.
What do you mean, how?
OnlyFans is not illegal.
You ban it.
So where I live in Texas.
I'll tell you.
Are you out there knocking doors?
I live in Texas where you can't access that stuff unless you can prove you're a certain age.
And what that proves is that you can prevent people from accessing things the same way you make everything else illegal.
If you have an only, we shut down OnlyFans.
We say you cannot operate in this country.
There's other countries that have banned OnlyFans.
And if we find a woman.
Which I think is good.
If we find a woman producing pornography of herself, she's videotaping herself doing sex acts and putting it on the internet for people to buy, we put her in jail.
That's how.
Would you, which, you know what, would be, let's say I agree with you on that.
Would you be okay also if you catch a man consuming?
Pornography, putting him in jail?
Yes.
So we used to have this.
And that is valid.
We used to have a set of laws called the Comstock laws.
Okay.
So, yes.
And if you're thinking about it.
So if you caught a man with porn on his computer, He would have to face some kind of legal punishment as well.
What percentage?
We'd probably do what we did with drug dealers, though, which is the dealers get a much higher, a much stricter punishment, and the consumers of it get a lesser punishment, depending on how much.
What percentage do you think of the people that are watching, which are mostly male, do you think would go to jail or get punished for consuming pornography, despite them agreeing on the chats and everything with most of what you're saying, but being hypocrites and Actually, consuming that kind of stuff.
Well, I'll tell you, I think that most of the men out there watching this, if they agree with me, there might be some that are like, nah, I think it should be illegal.
But the ones who think it should be illegal, if this got passed through the Congress tomorrow and they said, look, within 90 days, we're banning all pornography if it goes above a topless photo, if it's more than that, or if it's a sex act, I would say that.
I think a lot of those guys would actually be really happy to have their access to that cut off because then they wouldn't have to struggle as hard.
With having it in their face all the time.
Because the problem with it now, 100 years ago, pornography was illegal, but it was so hard to get a hold of.
It was not easy to get porn.
Yeah, now it's at our fingertips.
Now it's the average child is first seeing it at the age of 11.
And I think a whole ton of people watching this would breathe a sigh of relief to know that if the government banned it and just shut down all those sites and you had to do a whole bunch of stuff, you had to work really hard to get your hands on it, it would keep a lot of people from ever getting addicted to it in the first place.
Place it would keep children from seeing it, it would make men who struggle with it and they don't want to be addicted but they're struggling with it.
It would make it easier.
We get, um, according to you, uh, we get our rights from men, right?
Like what actually happens in society is men are the guarantors, it's because they're the enforcement allow it or don't allow it.
So, if they enforce it, if men you know wanted to get rid of this pornography problem, they technically could, they have the numbers for it.
Why has that not happened, Rachel?
Well, I'm glad you asked.
It's the same reason that the 19th Amendment got passed.
It's the same reason that the liberal and progressive agendas as a whole have passed.
And I talked to Joe Rogan about this when I was on his show.
It's the beta males, it's the simps.
Do you think so?
Are you calling the audience beta males and simps?
Not the whatever audience.
They wouldn't be watching it today.
They're not watching.
Statistically speaking, you don't think a good percentage of them watch porn?
They might be, but I'll tell you this is.
You asked why the men don't watch porn.
No, I'm not.
Because you asked.
Why are the men allowing it?
The men who are in power, the men who are in charge, why are they allowing it?
Yeah.
Because it's a little thing called a.
They're called sneaky fuckers.
And they are men who, as a mating strategy, they don't do well with women naturally.
So they have to be like, hey, ladies, I'm on your side.
I love women's rights.
I think sex work is real work.
And they take all these left feminist positions.
And it's a way of making themselves seem undangerous so they can get close to women, become friends with women.
And then the hope is that eventually.
You'll break up with your boyfriend and have a bad night where you're drunk and let him hit it.
That's the sneaky fucker strategy.
And a lot of wealthy nerds, you know, during the progressive era got a lot of power and a lot of money.
And they wanted to tax women and all these things that we already talked about.
And so they passed this agenda by pandering to women and pretending to be your friend, pretending to care about you.
So, right now, what we have is.
Because of democracy, women are voting in a lot of these more progressive males, leftist males, and women.
So now we've got a bunch of women in government.
We've got a bunch of leftist men in government.
So there is probably a lot of conservative Republican men who would ban and have tried to bring bills to the floor to ban OnlyFans, to restrict pornography.
But they can't because the sneaky fuckers and the feminists go, that's not fair.
You can't tell Sarah that she can't put her butthole on the internet for $5.99.
You're denying her rights.
They argue on the basis of rights.
Okay, you think that a majority of women would be against banning pornography when pornography causes infidelity?
No, I don't think it's the reason and is the reason why a lot of relationships and marriages fail.
I think most women would be in favor of banning pornography.
It would probably be about a 50 50 split.
It would also be because it's a minority of the population that engages in producing it, less than 1% of the population.
So, most women have no stake in the game.
They could quite literally just vote against it.
My kids are texting me even more than here.
Same thing with men.
If a majority of men actually were against this, they could unite and ban it.
But the reality that we live in, unfortunately, is that people are not being accountable to themselves.
And that is why they're not even going to go towards the next step, which is making things more accessible.
You're wrong, and I can prove it.
You're wrong, and I can prove it.
Pornography was illegal until really recently, until like 50 years ago.
Yeah.
And Anthony Comstock was a conservative man in the government who passed the Comstock Act and the Comstock laws that made all that stuff illegal.
Those people got pushed out of the government when we gave women the vote.
When we gave women the vote, we got more leftists, more progressives, and females in government.
And now in our government, we have a large majority of women, leftists, and moderate.
Men and women who are going to argue against doing this, and we've shoved the actual masculine, conservative men who would try to do this sort of thing off into the corner and told them, You can't do that because you're taking away women's rights.
Do you think men's character is inherently good because of the fact that they are men or that they should be respected because of the fact that they are men or because of the way that they act?
What If Men Decide No Voting00:07:55
Those are totally different.
Question.
So is men's character inherent?
Yeah, why should women respect men just as a result of them being men when the majority of men don't respect themselves?
And I'm saying majority because a majority of men do consume pornography voluntarily.
So why would women trust these kinds of men to lead society, unfortunately, and make decisions that Are you know better for us?
My argument is that again, it comes back to the responsibility.
I know, but you asked me a question, so are you gonna let me answer the question?
It goes back to the responsibility of the individual when it comes to all of these things because tomorrow they ban pornography and the next day they're gonna create some other kind of vice that people can go for.
That's such a bullshit, that's such bullshit nonsense.
Like what?
And it is up to the individual to choose.
You're just going on a diatribe and you're just okay.
You asked me a question, can I answer it?
Are you just gonna woman prattle the whole night?
That's what you've been doing.
I'm just going to put a much higher tone on it.
Might I add?
Yeah.
I have a loud speaking voice.
I'm very animated.
You got me.
I talk like this all the time.
Anybody who's seen me on any podcast ever knows this is just how I talk.
Hysterical.
It's not hysterical.
I'm having fun.
I'm winning.
I'm having a great time.
I wouldn't do this if I wasn't having fun.
This is fun for me.
I'm having a great time.
So, no, I'm just enthusiastic.
I'm passionate.
That's not the.
You're crashing out, Rachel.
You're hysterical.
There it goes.
I'm glad you're having fun.
Everybody can watch this and they can all see it.
So you're not going to.
I'm glad you're having fun.
If it were just a few years back, somebody like yourself.
Totally untrue.
Somebody like yourself.
Somebody being excited and happy and passionate is going to get a lobotomy.
Yeah, I know.
Are you going to just keep repeating your same five things?
Okay.
Can I answer her question?
Both of us, Rachel.
Both of us.
Let me let some chats come in.
But we are coming up here on the four hour mark.
Yeah.
I wanted to just answer her question.
Let me know when we are closing.
Really quick before you do that, because we are coming up on the four hour mark, are you guys wanting to?
Get to closing, or we can continue on on some more prompts.
I'll leave it up to you guys.
I mean, I think that we've discussed most of the things that we.
Okay.
Yeah.
So let's do some chats.
Let me let some chats come through.
Rachel, if you can just keep that thought in the back of your mind.
Yeah.
And we can get to that.
We have every guy here.
We are depressed from women like you telling us we aren't worth anything.
That is.
Quick response to that.
That is very sad.
That is not true.
I'm telling you that.
The manosphere is telling you that you're not worth what is the manosphere?
Yeah, people like uh, you know, the Myron Gaines shows and they tell you, you know, you need to be making a million dollars a year to have a family, otherwise, you're a loser.
Myron doesn't say that, um, and so I hold on a minute, I know Myron, and he does not say that.
I disagree with that concept.
I think well, you're disagreeing with a straw man because that's not the argument that Myron ever makes, he doesn't tell men that.
There's plenty of men in the manosphere that say, uh, you know, you have to be making a million dollars to consider yourself a man.
All I'm saying is that you have worth.
There's polite.
She doesn't know.
She's just heard.
She's like totally heard it.
Yes, actually.
Yes, actually.
But no.
Is Andrew Wilson in the manosphere?
I don't watch his stuff, so I don't know.
Andrew Wilson, you debated with him.
Yes, I know.
I don't know what he says outside of what we talked about on the whatever podcast.
Well, if you were leaning in one way or the other.
She said I was in the manosphere.
Is Rachel in the manosphere?
I do believe so because, again, she.
Rachel, look at the men.
I can tell you right now, they don't claim me.
Okay, they don't claim me.
It's actually just really you and that Pearl girl.
You, as in Rachel?
Yeah, you, Rachel, Pearl.
I think you two are really the only women I've seen on these red pill podcasts basically agreeing.
What red pill podcast have I been on ever?
With most of the men's talking points.
Are you just going to sit here and lie right to my face?
What red pill podcast have I ever been on?
Tell me.
Again, back to.
Okay, she's just going to lie.
I'll get back to watching.
Proving she doesn't know anything about me at all.
Again, for the men watching this that think women are saying that men don't have inherent value, not true.
Again, make yourself a woman.
She's saying your inherent value is to do what she wants.
No, based on a men's value.
If you were doing what women want, then you have inherent value.
But if not, then you're a bad man.
You're not doing good enough.
You need to be better and do better.
And then the women would be better.
Be somebody that leads.
Don't watch pornography.
Take care of your health.
That's all women want.
Be a competent person.
Be a responsible adult.
That's basically it.
Might I ask one clarifying question?
You say be a man who leads.
Are you talking on the micro or the macro level?
On both, but it has to start individually first.
So, yes, lead your own life, take control of your own life, and then you can take.
So, should men lead the government?
She's going to tell you how to be a real man.
And then you could take leadership roles in the government.
Yes, absolutely.
She's not a feminist, but she's got a whole list.
Of what she's going to tell you, you need to be doing as a man, but not a feminist.
If a man told me good things for me that just would be better, it doesn't matter if a man is telling me that.
Oh, really?
I have the sneaking suspicion that if Brian started rattling off to you a bunch of things he thought you needed to be doing better, you'd be like, Who are you to be telling me?
I'm not going to do this.
I know.
I'm pretty sure that's what we'd get.
If a man told me, Hey, you know, you need to take care of this is all I'm saying.
Take care of your physical health, you know.
Don't engage in any vices.
Be chaste, you know.
Don't have, don't be sexually promiscuous.
All of these are good things to prescribe for women as well as men.
Why would I not listen to that?
It doesn't matter who the messenger is.
What's important is the message.
So if men tell you, look, I don't think you should be involved in politics because you can't defend the nation, you can't protect the borders, you can't do the things that people in the government have to necessarily do.
So I think you shouldn't vote.
You're going to be like, okay.
No, absolutely not.
You're going to do what you want because you're a strong woman and you don't have to.
Because some simp out there will come by and protect you from the bad man telling you what to do.
Because, again, it's about the message, not the messenger, is my argument here, Rachel.
Can I ask you one question, though, just on the leading thing?
If your argument is that both on the micro and the macro level, men should be leaders, what if within the purview of men's leadership, they make a determination, and this isn't my position, but Rachel was forwarding this, they make a determination that women shouldn't have the right to vote.
Would you follow in said leadership?
Nope, because again.
So, just to be clear, when men lead, you have veto power over their leadership.
Yes.
If she doesn't like it, the majority when I'm in the mood to be led.
A majority of people decide.
If I agree with you, you can lead.
If a majority.
That makes you the leader.
You realize that, right?
If a majority of people decide on one thing that is wrong, it doesn't make said thing right.
Oh, so the majority decides what's moral.
No, that's exactly what I said is not the case.
A majority does not decide what is moral.
Okay.
So if a majority.
Who decides what's moral?
Majority Decides What Is Moral00:15:41
That's what you and I disagree on.
I think morality is something, or the understanding of what is right from wrong is inherent within humans.
You disagree.
Clearly not.
You disagree.
The fact that we have more people in prison than any country in the world would prove you wrong.
If everybody just inherently understood right from wrong, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
I think people understand it just because they choose to engage in things they know are wrong.
That is a completely separate thing.
So you think that women who advocate strongly for abortion rights.
You think they know abortion is wrong?
They just won't admit it to themselves.
People know that is wrong, but they still steal.
No, there are legitimately people who.
We disagree with that because.
But socialists, Marxists, communists think if you have more than you need and I don't, I am justified in stealing from you.
And that is a large popular, a lot of people.
Okay, that's.
People who have run countries.
Yes, which I disagree with.
We would both disagree.
My argument is that.
People know that it's inherently wrong to do that.
So you think they know, but they just do what's convenient to them.
Absolutely.
I believe people when they tell me who they are.
And I think that communists do think, hey, you have a ton of money.
You have a ton of money, and that's why I don't have money, and so I need to take it.
Yes, I think they do believe that.
Okay, this is just differing values.
I think that they know that they're wrong.
I thought you talked to people all the time about this.
Yeah.
So you just think everybody secretly knows what's right and wrong, and the only reason they argue against it is because they're like, Benefits them in certain cases, yeah.
Oh, kind of like you arguing in favor of feminism, even though you know it's not.
No, When have I argued this whole podcast?
In favor of feminism.
You have argued for feminism this whole podcast.
Yes, you have.
Again, my only two points, Rachel.
What do you think is feminism then?
And you said, I don't care about the definition, but I want you to define it.
What's feminism?
I'll tell you what it's not.
How do you know you're not a feminist?
I'll tell you what it's not.
If you don't know what it is.
Let me speak, Rachel.
I'll tell you what it's not.
Feminism is not wanting women to have.
A vote and financial equality.
Just more bullshit.
Just more opposite, Rachel.
What is feminism?
Would you say what is feminism?
If you're against feminism, what is it that you're against?
Is everybody a feminist?
No, answer my question.
Don't ask me a question.
Answer my question.
Andrew knows.
Don't ask me a question.
Answer my question.
What is feminism?
If you say you're not a feminist, you can't dodge that question.
It's the heart of the debate.
It's material to the conversation.
What do I think modern feminism is right now?
It is promoting trans rights, just things that have nothing to do with equality between the sexes, but pushing things that give privileges to women above the sexes.
So modern feminism argues for privileges for women, not for equality.
Equality between the sexes is not feminism.
Does that make sense to you?
Does that answer your question?
So, would you say you would be in favor of first wave feminism then?
The only thing I agree with is voting rights, so legal equality, legal personhood.
Is that so hard of a concept?
Anything outside of that, I don't care for, don't agree with, and I think is you arguing for privileges in society, which I don't agree with, and I don't agree with feminism as a result.
Most women, Democrat, Republican, whatever, agree with the concept that women should have the right to vote and equal financial.
Okay, I understand all of that.
You've told me all of that.
So at least you gave me the.
99% of the women are feminists.
Everybody is a feminist but you, Rachel.
Yes, we have been lit.
No, not everybody but me.
Okay.
You and Pearl are.
Anyone born.
Okay, now let me answer your question.
Go for it.
Anyone born after 1960 has been.
Living and swimming in feminist water their whole life.
They don't know anything else.
It's the ethos.
It's the air that we breathe.
I was raised in a Cuban household by immigrant parents that escaped communism.
So, no, I did not.
But continue.
Well, but you live and were raised in and are part of this culture.
And none of us completely escaped that.
Everything you've said from your worldview here, you think it's equality.
But let me posit this to you.
Women, there was already equality before this political.
Feminism is just a political arm of, like, basically a spiritual movement.
That's why I wrote the book.
It has multiple meanings, but we had equality.
The equality was this women have always been the gatekeepers of sex and who gets to reproduce.
That's why every one of us alive today has twice as many female ancestors as we have male ancestors.
The only thing you ever had to do historically in order to be picked and have kids, which You know, at a base level, what we're trying to do is reproduce ourselves to get our DNA to continue on into the future.
All you had to do as a woman to accomplish that is be fertile.
Someone will fertilize you.
That's all you had to do.
It doesn't matter.
You can be kind of ugly.
You can be fat.
You can be not so interesting.
You don't have to do much.
You just have to be there and have eggs.
Men historically had to survive danger.
They had to have respect.
They had to have resources.
They had to be picked, or at least be picked by the girl's father, or something of that nature.
Force actually, they didn't have to do any of that, they didn't have to be responsible.
Well, it depends, so but then, but even by force, you're competing against all the other men, so that's why you had war brides historically.
If the Vikings could come in and conquer your nation, they could take your women, so you as a man had to defend your nation from the invaders because you don't want them to take your women because then they take her eggs and now your people are their people.
So, this is like a fundamentally historical thing that has not gone away.
And what we did with feminism was we gave women.
More power by letting them retain the gatekeeping to sex and the gatekeeping to reproduction, and women still have their sexual power, their spiritual power that they've always used.
And now they have political and legal power, and what they've done is stack the deck against men.
And in doing so, unwittingly stacked the deck against themselves and against humanity.
Because now, look at what we have we have no kids, we can't replace our own population, we have to import invaders from the outside world to bolster.
Wait, just let me finish.
Just let me finish.
We have to, we are forced.
Like, this is where Republicans get it wrong.
If you want to stop immigration, you've got to increase the birth rate.
Because we will not have a labor force if we don't do that.
And you can't increase the labor force if you're telling women to delay childbirth and marriage in order to have a career.
We are in a conundrum, it's a catch 22.
And so that's why you don't focus on rights, you focus on duties and you focus on responsibilities.
You say individual responsibility, that's part of it, but part of individual responsibility is also maintaining your tribe and your community and your culture and your society as a whole.
Because your individual rights will go away.
The foundation.
We're on the edge right now of this all falling apart.
And then strong men will take back over and your women's rights will go bye bye.
Okay.
First, they need to get their testosterone levels up because right now they are decreasing on average 1%.
Do you know why?
1% every year since 1980s.
Yeah, do you know why?
Since the 1980s.
That's really bad.
Do you know why?
Do you think men can just like what?
How do they just get their testosterone back up?
They have to focus on themselves as Individuals, Rachel, is what I'm trying to understand.
Guys, just focus on yourself as an individual.
Your testosterone will go through the roof.
Because right now it is true that outside factors are affecting this.
And we can't really do anything about that ourselves as individuals.
We can't fix the problem.
We can only take care of ourselves.
And by taking care of ourselves as individuals, we do help society as a whole.
That is my argument.
Yeah, but what you just did is something else that you've been doing all night, which is conflating the problems of post industrialization and technology with rights.
Where have I mentioned industrialization or technology?
You haven't mentioned it, but you don't understand that the problems you're putting on men and the problems you're putting on gender inequality are not the root of those problems.
The root of those problems is industrialization and technology, the same industrialization and technology that allows you to be a feminist.
Okay, and that's not going away anytime soon.
Unfortunately or fortunately, it doesn't matter.
It is reality, right?
So, what are you going to do other than.
Well, it's a reality when you don't like it.
When I say what's a reality, then you just go, no.
Let me finish talking on that point.
It is a reality.
So, what are you going to do?
Just sit there and complain that we can't go back to how things were.
We can't do a type of thing.
It's not about going back.
Because that is basically what you're prescribing.
And again, everything that you have described still doesn't give any kind of solid argument.
as to why you believe or Not you believe, as to why women should not have the right to vote, which is my argument that again, you're not gonna convince me differently.
I know because you're stuck in a paradigm where everyone votes.
I'm saying if you take away this, you don't have to start with the presupposition that everyone needs to be able to vote.
We never did things that way except for the last hundred years.
All of human history, nobody voted.
Nobody needs to vote.
And we have a higher, despite all of our problems.
We do have a higher quality of life right now.
But not because of voting.
This is what I'm saying.
Life has improved.
No, life has improved because of technology, because of advancements in things like medical care, clean water, industry, and globally being able to ship supplies to where they need to go.
That's what's given us a better quality of life.
Not voting.
That's one aspect.
Letting women vote.
How did women voting improve life for us?
Tell me.
Rachel, you have a monocausal.
No, I don't.
You do.
As to why things are not what.
No, you have that.
No, you have a monocausal argument, which is women's voting is what destroyed modern society.
No, I've never said women's voting.
Voting is a side issue to me.
Okay.
It's the main issue to me.
To you, but it's not to me, and you keep projecting that on me.
Nobody gives a fuck about women voting.
Why do you think that?
Women really don't give a fuck about women voting.
We care about the overall effects of artificially placing women in a strata of Power that they have no business being in because it's deeply unnatural.
You may not feel comfortable with that.
No, it's unnatural because they're only.
We're blowing smoke up women's asses.
They are only there because of a subset of men that go, Yes, sweetie, you can be in the government.
Go ahead.
We'll do whatever you say.
I think that there's plenty of women in the government.
It's all an illusion.
For you, this is again personal opinion.
There are plenty of intelligent, capable women in roles of government that.
Are good at what they do, and we respect.
In fact, I'm not saying women can't be smart and use their brains and think.
Yeah, in fact, most women that has no bearing on the fact talking, God, you'll never finish talking.
You've been saying the same thing for the last five hours, and you don't even understand what you're talking about.
A lot of women that work until in the intelligence community because you know why?
For a job like that, you have to have both you don't need voting rights, intelligence, you don't need voting rights, emotional intelligence.
Women can work in intelligence, and they don't need political power.
What I'm your argument is that all women are emotional, all women are irrational, and they are not fit for that's not why leadership.
It's because in government, you said that 30 seconds ago, it's part of it.
You only hear one thing because your mind can only think about one thing at a time.
Uh, no, you're not very good at taking multiple variables and combining them.
No, you're not just bad again at coping with the reality that women are not a monolith.
You're bad at coping with the reality that you only have any rights.
Or have this illusion that you can do the things you can do because men have let you do it.
Men have invented technology and granted you rights that let you do it.
The reality is me.
I'm the one that lives in reality and goes, oh, this is all an illusion.
If the Wizard of Oz wants to take it away tomorrow, it's gone.
Okay, what?
So that's not, and it's not how things have worked except for the last hundred years.
Well, when you go back home, you think all of history was wrong except for the last century?
Not even the last century.
I think at least until after they passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974, things were wrong because women didn't have financial opportunity.
So then, what are you trying to conserve?
If everything we did before 1975 was wrong, what do you want to conserve?
Putting words in my mouth, why did you say everything we did?
I just asked you, was all of history conducted?
Things were just wrong until 1975.
Not letting women have financial freedom was wrong.
That is the thing that's happening.
We let them, though.
It was, do you not understand that it wasn't that women were denied?
It's that we didn't have technology, we didn't have industry.
The natural state of things is that women cannot survive alone.
We are not rugged individualists.
We're meant to spend most of our life pregnant and breastfeeding and watching toddlers.
That is what we're meant to do.
In your opinion, Rachel?
No.
What about birth control?
In your opinion, Rachel?
Prior to birth control, there was no option.
There was no option.
You ended up pregnant.
Who invented birth control?
It was men.
Rachel, to make women more accessible and disabled.
So, you think we should take away birth control because the bad men created it?
I don't agree with the taking of hormonal birth control because it wreaks havoc on women's bodies.
But again, you just brought up the bad men.
But if you do that, you realize, well, what do you think will happen?
We need you here.
What do you think will happen if we.
We need a man on this table, Brian.
I got her.
To stop the interruptions.
What do you think happens if we take away hormonal birth control?
I'm a highly hysterical woman that.
Can't control herself or her emotions or anything.
Oh, that's beautiful.
Cope for the girl who can't think past level two and has been getting her ass beat this whole debate.
That's so cute.
Sure.
It's a good thing you're pretty.
Most rational people watching are going to disagree with that statement.
But we'll see.
Again, we'll see.
Again, Rachel, you still.
Okay, so we take away hormonal birth control.
Where's your girl bossing going to go then?
In taking back control of our cycles.
Do you know?
Facts Determine Right And Wrong00:12:44
Oh, this is something that really pissed off Brian and I. You think that these 22 year old OnlyFans chicks and these promiscuous college girls that are getting blackout drunk every weekend are going to take a break from that during their cycles?
And they're going to keep track of their cycles.
Get the fuck out of here.
That's actually very easy.
Birth control is actually the main technology that has enabled feminism.
And if you got rid of hormonal birth control tomorrow, your feminism is gone.
So, we're both against promoting birth control.
Fastest way to get rid of feminism, fastest way to get rid of all this nonsense of pretending that women can run everything when they can't.
Look at that.
We are agreeing on something towards the end of this episode, but we are agreeing for different reasons.
You are.
You don't understand the logical entailment of your position, as usual.
You're arguing against it because it would end feminism, in your opinion.
I argue against it because it is terrible.
It's like.
It's like giving people poison, basically.
It's almost like trying to avoid getting pregnant your whole life so you can have sex is really bad.
Sure.
Seems like that's bad.
We agree on that same point.
And again, it all goes back to what, Rachel?
Individual.
And so if all the women are ending up pregnant, how many of them are going to be girl bossing?
No.
So, okay.
I'm sure.
Great.
Fantastic.
You'd love that.
Well, why do you think feminism.
Are we going to do the whole thing?
Why do you think feminism didn't come about with sex?
You want me to put a timer on my.
Phone or no, I just want to ask you a question.
Uh huh.
Why did feminism not come about until after the technology allowed it?
Why wasn't there feminism 500 years ago?
If women just were dying to get out of their situation, why didn't they do something about it 200, 500, 1,000 years ago?
The title may have existed only within recent historical concepts, but I think throughout human history, yes, there have been rowdy women advocating for rights.
Right, but we.
Even if it's not.
But now feminism is not documented as feminism.
Yes.
But now it's the dominant thing.
That has been the case.
Everywhere in the West, feminism is the dominant thing.
Equal rights for women, women in politics, women in power, women in business, right?
Why do you think they didn't do that until 50 years ago?
Rachel, I'm not, again, here to argue.
I don't know and I don't care because I don't like thinking about things.
And I'll tell you why.
Because we didn't have birth control.
We didn't have technology.
Do I just like tap this?
Well, I'm tired of just listening to you endlessly prattle, so now I'm going to prattle back a little bit.
You've been the one mostly.
Yeah, let's do some chats.
Let's do some chats.
You've been the one mostly interrupting during this entire time because you don't.
I'm very dominant.
I'm a very dominant woman.
I don't have good arguments.
No.
Oh, honey, I can't wait for you to read the comments.
And you don't want to listen to valid ones.
That's cute.
That's so cute.
It's from somebody who went to college for politics and doesn't know she's a libertarian.
That's cute.
It is called the heckler's veto.
So you don't let people talk so that people can't get their point across.
That's what you can do.
Put a poll in the chat of who has interrupted and prattled the most.
It's not me.
We got to the end, and I was just like, Fuck it.
I'm just going to talk over her at this point.
We actually did do a poll.
So you did.
Wait, really quick.
We did do a poll because I think you had asked, or there was a discussion between the both of you as to who would be most likely to get lobotomized.
And the results, the results from you, I think it was skewing quite heavily towards you being the one to get lobotomized.
I'm so surprised.
I'm so surprised by those results from this audience.
Can you get an elective response?
Why are you such a hater?
Why do you got to hate on millions of people that watch?
This show, are they all incels?
Um, if a lot of them are, uh, I'm here to try to help them not be.
Oh, thank god.
And what you are what we do without your help, and what you are prescribing them, we got chats, we got chats, and what you are prescribing them is going to keep them as incels for much, much longer, Rachel.
So, you're not doing them any kind of favor, right?
I doubt this, but okay.
Uh, we have base Justin here.
So, men should lead the government based on what the women who voted them into power want.
Define leadership, please.
And of course, your husband can only lead if you completely agree.
Got it.
TikTok.
Quick response to this.
But then I need to get through the rest of the chats.
That, okay.
That whole argument just doesn't make any sense to me, period.
Well, it was, I think, on the back of the question I asked you if you believe that men should lead both on the micro and the macro level, you agreed to that.
Yeah.
And primarily on the micro level themselves.
When a singular woman or women, plural, disagree with men's leadership, do you defer to their leadership despite disagreeing with their decision?
Or do you veto their leadership?
I think that right is right and wrong is wrong.
And what.
Who's the arbiter of that?
Facts, right?
Facts don't care about your feelings.
If a man.
Facts determine what's right and wrong.
Yeah.
If a man, you know, says, you know, because of the fact that I am a man, I. Determine this, but this is just wrong, then it's wrong.
Could it be established by consensus?
It has to be a verifiable fact, right?
So if a man says, I don't even know what example to come up with.
What if all the women were in favor of open borders and men were against it?
And because you might have people on the left, for example, I mean, you're both conservative, you have people on, or at least right wing.
It's wrong to allow open borders.
Whether the man wants it, whether the woman wants it.
But leftists will forward arguments about how, well, there's actually economic benefits to having immigration to this level.
Well, then we'd have to bring out little notes and facts and show how it's not.
In fact, there's plenty of, not just studies, this is just facts from the government how migration is a net detriment to society.
Pretty much migrants.
People have other facts contrary to the government.
No, there's no such thing as different facts.
Liberals and leftists will forward contrary facts.
They can pull studies.
There's no such thing as brute facts.
It always depends on framing.
No, it always depends on context and framing.
Yes, this is why I say you're not.
Capable of thinking past like level one.
So, for example, when it comes to the argument that Brian just mentioned, they took a sample of migrants that were in the country for 30 years and they broke it up into the nationality that they come from.
And they saw that no matter the nationality, they were a net tax burden on society.
Are women a net tax burden on society?
No, I think you pulled that up last time.
And showed that that was not the case.
I think it did show that it was the case.
I would love to chime in on that if I can.
Really quick, though.
Really quick.
Here, let's do this one more time.
That is a fact.
Let me let a few more chats come through.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
What are we on likes?
I think we just hit 4,000 likes.
I would love, we still have about 9,000 people viewing just here on whatever.
We have another 1,000 on Twitch, a couple hundred on Kick, and then I think there's like 5,000, 6,000 watching on the Crucible.
Guys, can we get the likes to 5,000 likes.
We're at 4,000 likes.
Let's get it to 5,000.
Let me let a few chats come through.
We do have Doofus here.
That's his name.
Doofus.
All right, woman, come change my toilet and fix my washer and then grill, then provide for the family.
That is from Doofus.
Thank you, Doofus.
And he has a follow up which reads She doesn't even know, it's coming in just a moment.
She doesn't even know what a straw man is.
Is that his follow up there?
He gave $200 to just write that.
Yeah, he did.
It's a very good point.
A lady could have taken a lady out on a date for that amount of money.
Could you tell us how we get an ought from an is?
Because that's what he was addressing.
You're saying facts are just facts, and I have facts.
Okay, you have facts.
How do the facts tell us what we should or ought do?
So, it takes rational people coming to having a discussion and presenting the facts.
What are you trying to argue?
You should look up Hume's guillotine when you get home.
I know you don't do philosophy, but there is no way to get an ought from an is.
You can't say this is the case.
So, like if you said, somebody on the show said this recently, they were talking about this.
Specific example.
Yeah.
You know, it's cold outside, therefore you ought fix your refrigerator.
Like, you can't take.
Something that is the case and then extrapolate a moral ought from it.
So if you say.
That's a terrible example, I'm sure.
It's probably a terrible example, but how do you jump from saying this is the fact of the matter to this is what we ought to do about it?
Because everyone's going to have different ideas about what we ought to do about it, which is something you said yourself.
You're like, Democrats will get into office and they'll have a totally different view and they'll say we ought to do this instead.
Yes.
It doesn't change, again, it doesn't change the facts behind it, right?
So Democrats are going to say, oh, we ought.
To allow open borders, the facts are that that negatively impacts our country, whether they do it or not, or allow it or not.
It doesn't change the fact that it's detrimental to us as a country.
So you'll say, here's the reasons we think it's bad, and they'll say, here's the reasons we think it's good.
They have no good logical reasons.
But the facts don't tell it.
Other than, oh, cultural enrichment or diversity.
We do have a response from Doofus here.
He says he is a man and he can afford to because.
He's worked for a living.
Good.
That's $300 now that could have gone to something more productive.
To a woman?
To a woman than this.
Should he have spent it on OnlyFans instead of this?
He probably does that as well.
I would bet money on that too.
What evidence would you have for that?
I would bet money on that too.
Or some kind of pornography.
But again, that's.
Men should spend more money on a date than be a patron of a podcast.
I got this.
Totally understand the point of self interest there.
So I get it.
Right.
Well, in any case, we have, let me get through the rest of the chats.
Red Fox 11, Femcon, are you a good example for women?
Where's the FemCon?
Are they sitting back there?
I think it's you.
That's you.
It might be you.
Oh, it's definitely not me.
I'm like trying to look for her FemCon.
Look, you can say you're not a feminist, but the facts demonstrate that you are.
The fact is that all of your positions are feminist and classical liberal, and you are, the fact is, you're not a conservative.
Sure.
And you're a feminist.
Sure.
You're a libertarian left leaning feminist based on the facts.
Absolutely wild.
Again, I think that people watching this that have.
Two sense, two brain cells will determine the opposite of that.
I think that you just come from a position of self.
I don't think they will.
I think you are, I think you grossly underestimate your intelligence and you grossly underestimate the intelligence of normal people to understand what just happens here.
You grossly mischaracterize people's intelligence and your own.
No, just yours.
And it makes you.
Just yours.
Look, I can't explain the is ought gap.
To you, you don't understand it, and I don't know how to fix that for you.
Yes, I do.
You don't understand that there's no such thing as brute facts that don't have context, and you don't understand that you can't take an is or an ought prescription for what we should do in a moral quandary from a brute fact.
I don't know why you don't get that, but you don't.
I get what you're saying, Rachel.
You're the one making the ought argument.
We ought to not.
You Are Making Ought Claims00:02:50
You are.
You're saying we ought to grant rights, we ought to give women this, we ought to not allow.
Women to vote.
She doesn't even understand that this whole time she's just been asserting ought claims.
The whole time she's just been going, we ought to have rights, we ought to let women do it.
The whole time has just been you asserting ought claims.
And when I say, what do you base that on?
What's your epistemology?
Where do you get that from?
You just say, I just think, and I just, you said natural.
The closest you got to was naturalism.
But naturalism, natural law would dictate patriarchy.
Patriarchy would be natural law.
Too much.
And you reject patriarchy.
You want equality.
Equality is not natural.
The natural world does not have any concept of equality.
Yes, and legal framework is not determined on naturalism.
Legal framework is not naturalism.
Oh my gosh.
It is not determined on values.
I can't believe you have college degrees.
Facts don't care about feelings.
Rachel, why do you have a joint bank account with Andrew?
Don't you trust your husband to manage all finances by himself?
The men will never take rights from the women, so who cares if they can?
What?
They're asking why I have a joint bank account.
I said I don't have bank accounts in my own name.
Yeah, she said, why do you even have a joint one?
Why doesn't Andrew have the bank account himself?
He does have multiple accounts that are only in his name.
The only one I have access to is the one that he wants me paying bills out of because I do the paperwork part of the budget every month.
Okay, so that's their argument is why do you have a joint one so that I can do the bills because he told me to do the bill.
He says, I don't like doing paperwork and bills.
I'd rather you handle all that.
So, I'm going to put that money that I want you to distribute to bills in that account, and that's what you can use to shop and pay for things.
He's got his own accounts that are in his.
There's one joint account still.
Yeah, one joint account.
What do you think about this, though?
So, Andrew.
And he's been doing this, he's been financially abusing Rachel for years.
You know, it's crazy.
You know, wait, wait, wait.
Her book royalties, the money she makes from her book, Andrew steals that from Rachel and buys firearms.
How do you feel about that?
How do you feel about that?
You know what I will say is when I first spoke to your husband.
Well, do you want to address the stealing of the book royalties?
Yes.
You know, poor Rachel, we need to start a Go and Fund Me for Rachel to have the Financial freedom to afford financial independence and choose what to do with her life.
No, when I first.
But I've already chosen what I want to do with my life, and it's to honor and serve my husband.
When I first heard it.
Honoring My Husband Above All00:02:51
I'm very happy.
I don't need your help.
Listen, you have nothing I want starting.
You have nothing in life that I want.
I've got kids, I've got a husband, I've accomplished a lot in the intellectual.
I've done everything.
There's nothing you have that I want, so please don't help me.
Please, I don't want your help.
Likewise.
Oh, you said you wanted to have a husband and kids.
And I am.
It's a timeline matter, not a product.
I do have something you want.
I'm goals.
You asked me this story.
I'm goals for her, you guys.
I'm goals.
Are your eggs.
Have you frozen your eggs?
No, I have not frozen my eggs.
My eggs are fine.
I believe it.
I believe it.
Yeah, my eggs are fine.
It's more the men that quite literally need to be checking up.
On their, um, the same.
I love how you think they want to win over the public opinion by constantly insulting men.
I'm not insulting men.
Oh, you've been insulting men this whole podcast.
That they are.
I'm telling men.
I'm telling men.
Unhealthy.
They have.
I'm telling them how they can be better.
They have the testosterone level of their grandparents in this day and age as the average testosterone for men within their 30s and their 40s.
My grandma would be like, you know what?
You want to talk about people's grandparents?
If my grandma was here, she'd be like, if you want kids, you better.
Get on it.
So, I mean, like, let's not talk shit about all the men.
I like, let's not do that.
Let's talk shit about the men.
That's all you've done this whole show.
No, I have not.
You've been calling them incels, telling them how they're not good enough, telling them where they need to do better.
Men be better.
If the men be better, the women will be better after, but you have to be better first, and you have to lead, but only the way that we want you to lead.
Hyper's veto.
Hyper's veto.
If you lead in the way that we approve of, then we'll let you lead, and then we'll do stuff if we want to, but it just depends.
We have a Hysteric woman here.
Maybe we need a lobotomy.
I'm doing an impression of you.
I'm going to lobotomize both of you.
How about that?
Here, look, let me re get through some of the chats.
Wait, wait, hold on.
Hold on.
We got some chats.
We got Pasty George.
Hey, it's our good friend Pasty George.
Guys, I think it's been a month or two.
Can we get some dubs in the chat for Pasty George?
It's been a while since we've seen the guy.
Thank you, man.
Brian, could you please make a poll asking the chat who they think, Rachel or.
They spelled it wrong.
How's that?
Can I call you Big D?
No, we need to get to Big D.
I don't know.
On the radio.
Hold on and finish it.
Is making the more valid points in their arguments using facts rather than hearsay anecdotes.
I did do that for who would be most likely to be lobotomized.
I could do that once I get through the chats.
But, Pacey George, good to see you.
We have, guys, and if you want to get messages in, now's a good time.
We have, I am right.
Ego Threatened By Educated Women00:03:54
If I tell you the sky color is red, you can never tell me I'm wrong because, as a man, if it is up to me, I can force you into a cage and hurt you until you tell me I'm right.
Sorry, lady.
That kind of proves my point.
He's being hyperbolic.
I know, but that proves my point that it still doesn't make it a reality.
That's literally the argument I've been going up against.
It's actually reality, though.
Yes, it doesn't change the fact of the sky being a different color.
Oh, I thought you meant.
Oh, Samian 44 donated $200.
Thank you, Sam.
Explain Hume's guillotine, please.
It's pertinent to this debate.
Rachel, do you want to?
And I can then explain something else that you.
Obviously, you're not an expert on, but sure, go ahead.
The luteal phases or whatever?
Oh, God, not the luteal phases.
Getting educated.
I don't know.
I know kind of a lot about that.
I've had a lot of babies and female things.
Well, just to put it like super plainly, because I'm not a specialist in this.
Andrew is.
I'm okay at philosophy.
I'm good at basic logic.
I'm pretty good at like fallacies and spotting them and stuff like that.
But it's just the idea that you can't take an is statement and get a moral ought from that statement.
It was a It's a classical philosophical problem that Hume kind of popularized.
And it just, people assume that if they just state facts, that the logical inference of what morally should be done about them is obvious, and that's not the case.
And she couldn't prove it was the case the whole time.
So, sure.
Before you get into the ludial phases or whatever, yeah, might as well get something.
Tiffany, can you pull up Twitch really quick?
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
Get us to 5,000 likes.
Also, guys, if you have a Twitch account, drop us a follow.
And if you have a Prime sub, drop us a Prime.
If you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to our Twitch.
Quick for easy way to support the show every single month.
Guys, can you get us?
We need four followers to get to 121,000 followers.
And drop us a Prime sub if you have one available.
We barely run any ads over there on Twitch, only three per hour.
That's the minimum you can run without somebody getting hit with a pre roll.
So show us some love.
Drop us a Prime sub over there on Twitch.
We have some more chats coming in.
We have Turbo Bill.
TPUSA Femcon, instead of asking why people are sending in money to ask the questions, why not just answer the fucking questions?
Such a bad faith guest avoiding super chats.
Somebody needs to, you know, just calm down a little before typing things out.
Such passive aggressive work and stuff to constantly accuse.
Oh my God, are you mad?
I made you mad.
Wow.
Are you crashing out?
Such a Gen Z thing.
Dude, why are you crashing out right now?
Oh my gosh.
People are like, we're not actually millennial.
Are you?
I think I'm a millennial.
You're Gen X, TikTok brain.
Oh, definitely.
That's Gen Z. Are you on TikTok though?
A lot.
I am on TikTok for work reasons because I'm in media and marketing.
But yeah, accusing other people of like getting upset and losing their cool when they're clearly not is like a Gen Z meme.
Yeah, I'm not.
Everybody, yeah, okay.
Most of the time.
I doofus here is just doing a little.
Follow up.
I mean, the guy, you wish that you know, for some of these guys, this is what now they're at 350 from Duke.
It is below the threshold, but you know, some of these guys, you know, they're patrons of the show, they want to, of course, we got to put on more debates, you know, so they want to support the show.
And I mean, this guy probably wants to pop a ball of champagne or something at this point, I don't know.
But uh, oh, wait, I already showed this one, my apologies.
Accusing Others Of Losing Cool00:02:51
We have one coming in from the unknown soldier, uh, it's going to be a bit of a delay, but he writes, She's the epitome of the utterly.
Failed education system in America.
She's too dumb and has way too much ego to recognize it.
Like all college educated women, listen to your conscious, conscious Brian.
So, all college educated women.
Does he mean the super chatter conscious, Brian?
All college consciousness or whatever it is?
All college educated women have too much ego.
And yeah, that's probably another reason why they do tend to be overly confident in their intellectual capability.
It sounds like somebody's ego is threatened by educated women.
Well, we have Piano Dean, and he says it's amazing how many times in this debate, Drianna.
You got it right.
He wrote it right.
Has agreed with Rachel, yet somehow believing she won the point.
Thank you, Piano Dean.
And by the way, thank you, everyone else who has sent in messages.
You can.
Yeah, because the only thing I disagree with Rachel on is on women voting.
Well, you disagree on quite a bit more than that.
Yeah, a lot more than that.
Having equal financial rights.
So being an equivalent to men according to the law, which is just rational.
And a conservative position.
Again, missing the is ought gap.
And you had a lot more to say that you disagreed with.
You brought several color coded folders, which very.
Those were just printed facts.
Yeah, I'm just saying you clearly had a whole bunch of stuff.
And no, you don't agree with me on anything.
You don't agree with me that you're a libertarian.
You don't agree with me that you're a feminist.
No, I'm not.
You don't agree with me that women don't need political power in order to not be oppressed.
You think that unless they have financial and political power, Power, they're somehow oppressed by the same thing.
If I call you something you're not, if I call you a self hating, by definition, you are, does that make sense?
You're like the trans people who are like, but I identify as a conservative though, and I'm like, you don't hold any conservative positions, and you're like, but I call myself, I identify as conservative.
You are the one that have explicitly said you're not a conservative.
I'm not.
I'm way further right than that.
You're not a constitutionalist.
You do not believe in the US Constitution.
You do not believe in a constitutional republic.
You believe in a monarchy.
I think you could have, I think you could conceive of a constitutional republic that could work, but you'd have to limit suffrage or you get progressivism, and the end result is this garbage we have now.
That's what I prefer.
I prefer a monarchy.
Church and state working together.
I Am Way Further Right00:04:09
It's called symphonia.
The Byzantine Empire, which was the longest lasting empire in history, had this system.
None of this, I think, is compatible with Western values or.
Conservatism in the United States?
American conservatism is dead and has been since Pat Buchanan fell out of the limelight, at least since then.
And I don't believe in Western values.
That's why I'm not a Western liberal.
You are a classical liberal.
That's Western values.
You believe in it.
American classical liberalism is your ethos.
It is not mine.
I am.
Don't.
My.
Again, trying to box me into certain labels.
That's crazy.
That's not exactly right.
The 50 year old woman doesn't know how to control her emotions.
Of course, this audience is going to like Rachel, the promiscuous.
Okay, well, I'm not going to address that at all.
I've never been promiscuous.
Yeah, and I haven't gone there and attacked her.
I'm just scoot like one inch.
There's a lot of rumors that you hear about me online that are not true.
So it's probably good that you didn't go there because it.
I didn't even know that.
People just lie.
People do.
It's a troll.
The only thing I know is obviously you have children from previous marriages and there's three or previous relationships and you have children from two previous relationships.
From three different relationships.
Yes.
What is online?
Also, because you and Andrew have done a really good job at cleaning up your online presence.
I actually had somebody.
Reach out to me, who's a private investigator, because they watched the first show and they're like, oh my gosh, you know, this guy's kind of crazy, your husband.
I wonder who he is.
Hold on.
Yeah, I wonder who he is.
It just feels like it's getting into like a dox territory.
I don't want to go.
No, no, no.
A private investigator, huh?
Yeah, yeah, reached out to me.
Okay, and then tried to find.
Anybody who tries to dig into your shit online.
And then tried to find info on you online.
And my point is that it wasn't.
Do you know why to reveal anything?
I don't think that's fair to reveal things somebody.
Private investigator.
It's hard to find stuff on me because we're old and I don't like we didn't have an online life until like five years ago.
That's immaterial to the conversation.
Happens.
Alan Roach.
Hold on.
Alan Roach.
Oh, baloney.
Alan Roach.
You're full.
$100 Australian.
Just grant or give her the unborn males.
It makes no difference.
They will not survive long enough to raise them and will not have the skills to teach them.
That's correct.
This did come in.
I thought about going into that, but it's just like.
She just stonewalls and obfuscates so it doesn't matter.
All right, we have Andrew Thrasher here.
Good evening, whatever podcast.
Former senior airman Andrew Thrasher here.
Question for the fake conservative What exactly do you bring to society?
What makes you a productive member of society other than giving false information?
What are you worth?
I don't see it.
Not one step back.
Again, I don't know who the fake conservative is here, but I will say that I am a high. a contributor to Not just society, but taxes that I pay in actually helping conservatives get elected, not just saying women are bad, stupid, and should not vote.
I actually have knocked doors so that conservatives get elected, not just talk about getting conservatives elected or how bad the situation is.
I've actually talked the talk and walked the walk, something Rachel here has not done.
What?
And so I think.
Okay, demonstrate that.
Yeah, there are pictures online on my social media.
Profiles of the work that I've done to actually elect.
Do you think I need to go out and get GOP candidates elected when I don't support the GOP?
I think you need to go out and get people that believe what you believe elected if you actually want to basically prove that you're serious about what you believe in.
You know what's more effective than that?
Winning the propaganda war and taking back the institutions.
Beliefs Contributing To Feeling Less Than00:07:55
And if you want to talk about prescriptions, I don't suck at that.
Yes, you do.
Because most of your followers are men.
Most of the people that are.
This book, this book right here, no, that's not, not women.
That's actually not true.
This book right here cracked, I'll explain it right now and I'll prove it.
This book cracked the top 30 on all of Amazon books, which is practically unheard of for a self published book.
It is vastly outsold things from mainline publishers.
Okay.
I have, do you deny that most of your following is men?
It depends on what platform you look at.
So, like my sub stack readers are actually mostly women.
Most.
I'm not really on YouTube.
I'm not really on Instagram.
I'm only on X.
And on X, it's like a 70 30 split.
But I get the most emails, DMs, and letters in the mail from women who say, Thank you for giving me a voice because as a stay at home mom, I always felt less than.
I always have been made to feel by the women around me like I'm not doing enough.
Like I'm a loser.
Thank you for that.
Like I get tons of mail from women.
Well, that's more than sad that that is the case, that they're being told that.
It is.
But I think.
The reason they feel that way is not because other women are saying that they don't have inherent value.
I think if it's not mostly men, it's at an equivalent level because a lot of men think, oh, you're just a stay at home mom.
What is it that you bring to the table if I'm providing food and shelter for you?
You get to stay at home.
I never get criticized by men for being a stay at home mom.
I never get criticized by men.
I have gotten criticized by women for it my whole life, including a Candace Owens staffer.
Who told me I wasn't a good American because I wasn't contributing to the GDP?
Okay.
It's always been FemCon women who come at me.
No, well, in my.
And leftist women.
In my situation, it's definitely been men being the ones that say that women don't have value if they are just stay at home moms, and that is a luxury for men to be.
Conservative men say this?
Not conservative men.
I'm saying men in general.
Men in general.
I don't hear men say that.
Men in general are saying what?
That there's a lot of men that believe that women don't have value or aren't contributing equally to them for being stay at home moms, that they should consider themselves lucky to be able to stay at home with the kids while they pay for food and shelter.
That is a belief that a lot of men hold, and it is probably contributing to women like the ones you mentioned feeling less than for being stay at home women.
I think that.
Women more than anybody understand the value of being mothers because we know that we know what we have to say.
I've been called a baby factory.
I've been told I'm a brainwashed victim.
You yourself have inferred that, like, I'm only here because I'm a pick me.
I'm not using my own thoughts.
I'm not using my own brain to look at the world and go, wait, everything is fucked up.
This is not how things should be.
So, women shouldn't vote as your personality.
No, you don't take me seriously because I don't hold your.
Feminist views.
You think that my.
I don't take you seriously.
The only reason I. Your final argument is women shouldn't vote.
That's why I don't take you seriously.
I don't care about the whole women vote.
That's stuck in your craw.
It's not stuck in mine.
Whatever.
I don't think women should vote.
So what?
Why does that make.
Why do you think it's cool to call me names like a pick me and infer that I don't have my own mind, that I didn't come up with this?
Do you think men wrote my book for me?
Do you think men told me to say this?
Or do you think.
Or do you think that I. Emma, actually, a really smart person who looked around and went, Everything is out of order.
Everything is all fucked up now.
How did we get here?
That's how I started writing this by looking around at the world and the way it is and going, This is out of order.
Things are all messed up.
What is wrong here?
And through the process of my own analysis, how did you end up with the wrong conclusion, though?
It's not the wrong conclusion.
It's not.
Women, feminism has destroyed life for women.
And if you want to talk about how things have turned out.
I'm not arguing for it.
Tell me what feminism has done to improve life.
For women, you're not going to get me to argue for something I don't believe in.
You have lost this debate badly, and you are coping.
I think people watching will be determining that to the last.
And the fact that at the end of this, you're trying to get me to argue in favor of feminism, which I have not done this entire time.
I don't need you, have, and you just don't realize it because you don't understand words.
That's a lot.
You don't understand the meaning of words.
I think we're ready for closing statements.
At least I am.
Are you, Rachel?
Sure.
Yeah.
We'll get into that in just a moment.
And I don't know if this adds at least some degree of clarity here at the end on that last point.
Andrew Wilson, who you squared up against and is obviously, well, Rachel's husband, he describes feminism as a movement towards egalitarianism with a rejection of patriarchy.
Would you agree with that definition of feminism?
No.
I think that feminism just argues for additional rights above.
Egalitarian rights to men.
I think that's what crosses the line to feminism.
Like what?
Wait, they.
Everything outside of, yeah, everything outside of voting and equal financial rights.
Well, what's one thing that you think feminism advocates for that you don't?
Special treatments.
Like what?
Like let's say hiring requirements, quotas for women in the workplace.
So you have to have X amount of women and X amount of men.
I'm against that.
That's special treatments.
That's not hiring based on competency or skill.
It's hiring based on gender, which is wrong.
It's DEI.
So I'm against DEI.
You're against DEI, but you're for forcing banks to force financial equality.
And you're for forcing political equality.
What I'm trying to tell you is it's all false.
This is all false.
Trying to misrepresent my position, which is all that law did is that it stopped banks from discriminating based on gender.
Not forcing banks to give out loans or credit based on gender.
That is a completely different thing, and that is false.
I've got two more super chats, and then we'll get into the closing.
Jory, thank you for your super chat.
Brianna, that's some sort of mutant combination of.
Have you read Ayn Rand?
Ayn Rand.
I apologize for the mispronunciation.
It sounds like you would describe to her philosophy, subscribe to her philosophy of objectivism.
I do agree with a lot of the ideas behind objectivism.
Absolutely.
I think everybody should read some of Ayn Rand's works, like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
Have you heard of that one before?
You know, she's like one of the top libertarian philosophers, right?
I know that.
So just embrace the libertarian.
You're a libertarian.
Just embrace it.
From where I want to reach out to you, Scott.
Didn't she have some rather sexist views?
That's why I say I don't necessarily be feminist enough to.
That's why I say I don't, you know, label myself by.
Yeah, she openly rejected feminism.
She called herself.
Or objectivism, or libertarianism, or conservatism fully.
Actually Getting Conservatives Elected00:03:12
I pick and choose based on what I think is right.
And most people, if more people did that, I think we'd be better off for sure.
All right.
Well, Jory, thank you for your soup chat.
We have Red Fox, blonde Cuban chick for the third time.
Do you think you are a good role model for women?
Stop running from the question.
Absolutely.
I am financially responsible.
I am somebody that times basically what I'm going to do with my life and having kids and a family when it's right so that I don't become a burden upon society, a tax burden, or shift my responsibilities to anybody else.
And I'm also going to make sure I give my kids a father that stays within their life for the rest of their life.
So, yeah.
Definitely a benefit to society.
And like I said, I've also made sure that I advocate and work for electing the people that have these conservative values, not just talk about it, actually get out in the field and do it.
Like Trump with his conservative values?
Definitely better than the other option.
I voted for Trump.
He's better, but he's not conservative.
He is not conservative at all.
Do you think getting a seat.
Should you run for office then, Rachel?
Why would I do that?
Well, don't criticize other people.
You know what?
You're right.
I'm going to do that.
I'm going to run for office.
And then when I win, I'm just going to abdicate my seat to my husband.
I'll just be like, psh, you can just take over.
That's what I'll do.
I mean, that's what it's funny.
That's what some people have done.
Do you?
Some politicians have done.
Yeah.
Do you have a critique of either Rachel or Andrew, or I suppose even possibly me, or even other people who do online discourse and are primarily online?
Because you describe yourself as a conservative operative, that we're not going out door to door knocking on doors.
What's that called?
There's a term for canvassing.
Canvassing, yes.
It could be canvassing as well.
Is that what you did canvassing?
That was part of it, uh, but mostly actually mobilizing people as well to do that.
Do it myself because you have to lead by example, but also mobilizing other people to do that.
That is part of grassroots work, yes.
But would you say that, at least for the 2024 election, uh, the most recent election, did I knock doors?
Yes, did I get other people to do that?
Do you think that the work you did, and to be fair, I'm not familiar precisely or in total of everything you've done.
Do you think that that is superior to, say, the work Rachel has done or Andrew has done or I have done or other online creators have done in perhaps the success of Donald Trump's campaign?
That's a very specific question.
I think that you have maybe, in your specific show, you've probably mobilized men to go vote for sure and hype them up for Donald Trump.
Negative Impact On Female Population00:15:36
Has it had a similar issue within the Female population, I think it's the opposite.
So I don't know.
You think we've had a negative.
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I think the following of this show is mostly men, anyways.
Yeah, sure.
So, since you target them and.
What do you mean target them?
Well, you have a base that you can talk to and mobilize that is mostly men.
And if you tell them to go vote for Donald Trump, then that does help that campaign and that movement, absolutely.
Now, what it does societally, the other one, the one that Rachel's gonna be here for tomorrow and that I was on here last time, Is it helping men and women come together more?
Is it helping men view women in a healthy fashion?
Or is it warping men's reality of women to where they think?
Well, most women out there are sexually promiscuous.
There's a lot of women out there that work in sex work.
Most women are not very intelligent because they answer.
Total stress on that.
Never made that claim.
That are simple, is it correctly?
I think that aspect of the show definitely divides the sexes and doesn't help as a society.
Can I ask you a question?
So, you're given that you're conservative, do you think you're anti trans?
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you think that that's divisive to humanity?
Because clearly there are people who are pro trans.
So, you're just like on a going even beyond gender, beyond sex.
You're just divisive on a humanity level?
No.
That would be divisive, wouldn't it?
No, because there's, first of all, there's no such thing as trans.
There's just men and women.
People disagree with you.
With body dysmorphia.
That's basically.
Okay, well, I agree with you on that point, but other people disagree with you.
Okay.
Is it divisive?
Does it help society if I affirm a trans person's delusions?
No.
Does it affirm society if I affirm a woman's delusions that she deserves a man who makes.
$10 million a year when she's an average woman?
No, no, but it also doesn't.
But it would be divisive, wouldn't it?
But what would be wrong with that?
No, but it doesn't help show men that these are the women that are out there when they're less than 1% of the population.
What do you mean, generally?
Who's less than 1% of the population?
For example, sex workers.
The majority of our guests are not sex workers.
Are less than 1% of the population.
We already went over this, and the amount of sex workers he's had on the show.
Are representative of the amount of sex workers in the population.
They went over the statistics live.
Yeah.
You may not have seen that.
Yeah.
And I, again, don't have the statistics.
You can pull them up from YouTube or whatever.
I think in the past year, and I haven't watched this show beginning to end, especially the ones on Sundays because it's a 10 hour podcast.
But yes, I think anybody that follows the social media accounts, Instagram, and gets clips would make the rational.
Would believe that the majority of women that go on the show have some kind of background in sex work.
Is it true?
I don't know.
I don't have the stats.
Is it a fact that most people have the impression that the whatever podcast brings on a disproportionate amount of women with a background in sex work?
Yes.
These are just, we literally, those are two separate things.
Hold on.
Disproportionate and majority are two separate things.
Majority.
Like, for example, disproportionate, let's say like the amount of women between the ages of 18 to 25, 10% of them do sex work.
And like we bring on 15%, 15% of our guests do sex work.
That would be disproportionate, but majority would mean 50%.
51% and more.
I can just speak on the last panel that I was on.
The women that were on the panel were not 15 to 25.
Okay.
So I'm interested in the truth.
There was a much larger age range, was there not?
I don't see how that'd be relevant to that.
So then you'd have to put the equivalent age range that you had on the show from the youngest girl there to the oldest one and then see what the percentage of women within that age range that works.
Well, I'm willing to actually grant that of the women who come on the show, in terms of the proportion, comparing to the general population, the proportion of women who are sex workers, I'm willing to grant that, say, it's I think 10 to 15% of all the guests in total that we've ever had on the show do some form of sex work.
I'm willing to grant that that's disproportionate to the woman.
But that's not majority.
Your claim is the majority of the guests who've been on the show are sex workers.
I just looked it up and it's like women under 30, between 18 and 35, it's estimated to be like 10%.
I just looked this up on Twitter.
Well, I heard 18 to 24, 25 on that one.
Yeah, 18 to 24, it's even higher.
It is like 15%, which would be.
But she's shifting the goalposts because my claim is never that the majority, I don't even, I've never made a claim that the majority of women are sex workers.
I know you haven't.
I haven't said that either.
Did you literally claim that?
I'm saying that's a good thing.
You're basically claiming that you don't like the women who are.
This is the same criticism everyone has.
I'm saying.
Oh, he picks women to come on that look extra stupid and bad.
And it's like.
Yeah.
And I'm saying that that is the impression that is given for those who are.
So you want him to curate only women that make women look good?
You don't want.
There's people that follow the person.
He just puts out a thing and says, hey, if you want to come on, come on.
And these are the people who volunteer.
Did I screen you out?
Were you screened out from coming on?
No, I am.
Are you a sex worker?
I messaged the show.
Right.
To be on.
Just like everybody else does.
Correct.
Most people are a benefit to being on the show for those women that do do sex work, is that they do get subscribers and followers.
But the majority of the girls who come on, wait, the majority of the girls that we have on the show, they're not even like non sexual content creators.
They're just like some girl from Kentucky.
Some girl from like Alaska who works as, I'm I'm trying to remember the guests that we had on pastas and stuff.
Or college girls.
The average age of our guests is 25.
Okay.
Again, what I. Prefrontal cortex fully developed.
What I.
They can vote if they're old enough to vote.
They're old enough to decide if they want to vote on the podcast.
What I spoke about last time, again, is that the impression, the PR, what is the brand of the show, whether you like it or not, is that there is a disproportionate representation of women that work in sex work within the show.
Maybe it's only because the ones that work in sex work are the ones that say the most outrageous things, and then those are the.
Clips that get posted on social media.
I'm saying that that is the reality.
People see it, and now men that watch that think, oh my God, there's so many dumb, promiscuous women out there.
We are cooked as a generation, and that doesn't help us societally.
So, if that is the situation, what if it's true though that because of the way things have panned out with all this feminism garbage and everything, what if it's true that we now have a young generation of women, that women from 18 to like 30 are Very promiscuous, not very smart, not good at critical thinking.
And why?
Because in the age of social media, they don't have to learn how to think.
They can just be pretty.
You can just be pretty and put pictures online, and things just come to you.
So they never develop maturity.
They never learn how to think.
They never learn how to be useful.
Do you think that's the actual case?
I have two daughters who are in their early and mid 20s.
We were talking before the show about this.
And I will tell you that both of them call me regularly about having to talk down their friends.
From starting an OnlyFans, like on a regular basis.
That their friends are all being promiscuous.
That my daughter called me one morning and was like, Mom, I'm at a brunch with a bunch of girls, and I'm so glad that you didn't raise me like this because they're acting crazy and they're still drunk from last night, and they're just telling me stories that are turning my hair white.
Yeah, I do think that we've created a young generation of women that are very problematic, and we should address it and fix it.
I agree.
I agree with that.
I have had different experiences.
I have different.
Friends curated that have never been in those kinds of circles or situations.
I think, again, it goes back to the individual and what kind of company they want to keep and all that.
It is true that.
Being promiscuous is marketed and offered to women as an easy way to make money, especially.
And of course, they're going to see.
And that it's cool.
I don't think that.
It's been marketed as cool.
I don't, you know what?
I honestly.
Look at all the pop stars talking about having casual sex and running around.
I feel bad for the women that do resort to sex work rather than chastising them because I do feel that it just corrupts the soul.
And I think that deep down, it makes them unhappy, makes them depressed.
Well, they all tell us differently, don't they, Brian, when they come on here?
People say different things to reality to put a front, but I do feel really bad for those women, and I would want them to come out of that kind of world.
The way to do that, I don't believe, is talking down to them, telling them the truth, obviously, but not talking down to them.
The majority of them, or a good amount of them, probably have experienced some kind of sexual abuse in the past.
That then gave them some kind of trauma, some kind of PTSD, whatever, and that led them into that kind of.
I don't agree with that at all.
There's no evidence to back that up.
I see them as victims of the reason.
She's just going to keep going.
She's just going to keep going.
It's the Drianna show.
We all just have to listen to her tell us, dictate to us how things work.
I think they're victims of society.
Nobody is forcing women into prostitution anymore.
A hundred years ago, it was something you did if you were desperate.
It is no longer the case.
Now it's middle class girls.
Who don't need the money, who just think it's fun and sexy.
They want the money, but they also love the validation.
They love the attention.
They love the idea of being sexy and people wanting them.
And what OnlyFans has proved to us is just how little encouragement young women need to prostitute themselves.
I don't like that either.
But I'm not going to do it.
You do this thing where it's like you're trying to prove you're for the sisterhood.
And you've insinuated through this whole thing that, like, oh, look at Rachel.
She's just a pick me.
She's just trying to pander to men.
Her whole audience is men.
And it's like, You think that we should deny the truth and not say true things that are offensive to women in order to protect the sisterhood.
And the reason I'm always the enemy of you and women like you is because you're like, why aren't you protecting the sisterhood?
Why are you out here saying things that are true if it makes us look bad?
Yes, Rachel.
And I say, stop talking over me.
That's all you've done this whole time.
No, that's what you've done.
No, that's what you've done.
That's what you've done.
So, no, I will say things that are true.
I have statistics and data to back it up.
I know history better.
I know more about history than you'll ever have enough lifetimes to forget.
So, do you convince people?
I do convince people.
I convince people all the time.
Go read the comments under my Joe Rogan experience, okay?
It's one and a half million views.
It's 99% positive.
Yes, you don't.
I don't agree with you.
I get letters from women all the time.
I don't convince you because you're a hard headed girl.
You reaffirm people's beliefs.
I don't.
You reaffirm people's beliefs.
Some woman telling you that they're the one backing up the sisterhood.
You're the one saying, listen, women are inherently good.
And they would all act better if men would just be.
You gave it to me.
Women only do something bad if men make them do it.
And I'm the one who's saying no, women can be bad all on their own without men doing anything wrong.
And you won't.
You gave the example, right, of women.
Sending you letters saying, I'm so freaking happy that somebody is standing up for women because I'm a stay at home moms.
Right.
So that is a woman who you are confirming what she already believes her values.
You're not changing your mind.
Well, do you want me to bring up all the emails of women who told me that I changed their mind, including two of the girls I was on the whatever podcast with who emailed me after to say, you know what?
I never thought about that and I went home and cried about it.
And I'm going to.
One of them was an OnlyFans girl.
She took down her OnlyFans because she had a daughter, and she's like, You made me think of things I had never considered before, and I went home and had to really ask myself tough questions, and I cried a little bit, and then I decided I'm not going to do this anymore.
So, yes, I do reach people.
You would have no way of knowing that.
Oh, I got a message.
Wait, let me read a message.
Same thing.
Hold on, let me read a message.
I just want to be a brat.
Wait, wait, really quick.
I got a message.
I got a message.
Wait, really quick.
I received a message.
Thank you for the content, man.
You and Andrew's channels have probably saved my relationship by opening my girlfriend's eyes to the culture that a lot of modern women subscribe to.
She now loves watching with me.
Look at that.
We got a couple.
We got a man and a woman.
They're in a relationship watching me and Andrew's channels.
And I get these messages.
I can pull up my accounts too.
Okay, let me.
Can I do one real quick?
And the messages that I get after this is from a lady.
We all have our sound.
Listening and trying not to cry.
I had a very successful business, graphic design, and what made me quit for good was someone who wanted me to design book covers for a series of goddess books.
I had been living in the boss babe goddess culture for years, trying to hold on to my Christian ethics, and that was it.
Since leaving it, I have been deprogramming myself.
It has been a horribly toxic effect on me.
It's made me a worse wife, a worse mother, and definitely a worse Christian.
Thank you for your book.
I feel less crazy for thinking this damaged me like it did.
Also, really quick, I do want to.
From painting, hold on.
From feminism.
From the feminism boss babe goddess worship.
You smuggled in a claim earlier that either it's me or Rachel or Andrew that we're talking down to these women, to the OnlyFans women.
Yes.
What do you mean?
Can you give me, like, it doesn't have to be verbatim, give me an example of talking down to the women?
What does that mean?
I think anybody can go, and they can, I mean, your show's tomorrow, right?
What time?
At 3, 4 30.
Well, yeah, but that's tomorrow.
Yeah, tomorrow.
Something that happened in the past.
Well, they can see tomorrow's show or go back to the show.
Why would you assume that somebody's going to be talked down to tomorrow?
I know that's the case, unless you're becoming a little bit more self aware on that.
Okay, well, that's great.
The Impression Given In Relations00:11:15
But even the tone in addressing women.
Okay, so great.
My tone is terrible.
Won't you?
And even telling women to shut up or do this, the way you address.
Yeah, give me an example of talking down.
I just mentioned it.
If you're hosting people and you tell somebody, shut up or shut the fuck up or anything like that, that is talking down to women.
Do you agree that that's an example of talking down to women?
Well, I could say you shut the fuck up to a man too, I suppose, but that is also talking down to women.
And it has happened, and I watched it.
Yeah, sure.
I'm going to agree.
I'm absolutely going to agree that there have been moments where I've told people to either shut up, shut the fuck up, women.
You shut the fuck up.
I've definitely said it.
I've absolutely said that.
However, you're kind of missing the part where the person is not shutting the fuck up.
That is not what I observed in the last time I was here.
I was actually so surprised with those interactions because never in my life have I seen those interactions between men and women.
That's great.
When you've given people instructions on multiple fronts, over messages, before the show, you ask people not to be interrupting.
It does not matter.
That's a part of being a host, Brian.
Okay, well, you might say that it's impolite.
But you're doing something different here.
Again, I'm asking you, what is the specific talking down?
Talking down to women in calling them unintelligent or in.
When did I call someone unintelligent?
I'd have to, I guess, go back to shows or.
But again, I don't have the time to watch these whatever 10 hour podcasts done on Sunday.
But yeah, I think anybody that does watch them will see those negative interactions.
Against the girls.
That's what I saw when I was here last time.
I was really, really surprised by how bad it was, honestly.
And again, I think those kinds of interactions don't do anything to help get those women out of what you want them to do.
You know, you get more bees with honey than you do with poo, right?
That is what I'm trying to say here.
Like, if we're trying to bring people to our side, get them to agree with us, I'm not saying distort.
I'm not sure if that's actually true, to be honest.
Don't distort facts, but the delivery does absolutely matter.
Well, I'm actually interested in exploring somewhat related to this.
I'm actually kind of tired.
Well, we'll get to it, we'll wrap soon, though.
Yeah.
But this suggestion that either Andrew Wilson, Rachel Wilson, or myself, that we are divisive, right?
Yes, when it comes to relations with men and women.
Rachel is a different.
What specifically is the divisive content?
Again, portraying a majority of women to be somebody that has a background in sex work, even if that's not the case on the show.
If you go on social media and you see clips, nobody portrays it as the majority.
Do you want to pick different words?
It's the impression that is given.
Do you understand how public relations work?
How would that matter if some people have the perception that a majority of the women on the show are sex workers?
Most people have the impression that that's true.
I don't think that's true at all.
Hey, chat, do you think that most women are sex workers?
Because I don't think you do.
I'm saying that from the clips being presented on social media.
Oftentimes, wait, wait, hold on.
Even if you were judging based just off the clips, the women, In the like 60 second clips, are not saying, Hey, by the way, my name is Becky and I'm a sex worker.
Most of the clips omit the woman's profession.
So, how would you establish that the women in these clips are even sex workers?
That I guess again, it's the impression, it's just the impression that's there.
I think that's your so you'd have to.
I think that's your bias.
I think a good way to test this out, Brian, would be why don't you do a man on the street video?
So, go with the camera on the street, walk around this area.
And ask people first if they know of the whatever podcast.
And then, second, what do they think the, or what is their impression of the podcast?
And would they believe that sex workers are overrepresented in the show?
One, you're just wrong, but what does this have to do with my actual question that related to in which way?
So I was asking you, what is the actual divisive content of the show?
And then you just defer to a majority of people think, Or have a perception that your show primarily has on sex work.
Why is it bad?
Why would that be divisive?
And one, it's, and secondly, it's just false.
Because it puts, because for the men watching, it takes, it gets them thinking that the reason why they are single or lonely is because a majority of women are promiscuous, a majority of women are just not intelligent instead of reflecting upon themselves, taking responsibility upon themselves.
Bettering themselves as men.
What are you saying?
What are you?
You're not even saying that.
You know exactly what I'm saying.
Men watching say, or men watching, I think, men watching, can someone have a false perception?
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
And that's what's going on.
So then that's an error.
That's an error on their part.
I'm asking you, in truth, in actuality, what is the divisive content of my podcast?
Again, the divisive part of it is that the end goal, the end result of it, is that men have a more negative perception of women as a whole from watching it.
Do you disagree with that?
Hold on, repeat that one more time.
That the end perception of men watching that podcast is that they have a more negative perception of women than they did before watching the podcast.
It turns out when you let women say what they really think, they don't look so good sometimes.
And she doesn't like that.
And she would like you to conceal that.
She would like you to hide that, please, because it doesn't make women look good.
Well, when you bring on women that are, you know, young, dumb girls from New Zealand.
Oh, wait, if they're young and dumb, why are we letting them vote?
Being indoctrinated by their college professors.
But you want them to vote.
If we're bringing on, you know, sex workers, then yes, you're going to get ridiculous.
If these women are so ridiculous, why are you pressing them to vote?
Because unfortunately, even the most ridiculous of people and ideas have to be defended.
You still have to be defended.
I agree.
It's pretty unfortunate that they're voting.
I have to be defended at the ballot box, and we have to.
You still didn't actually answer my question.
We have to convince them.
You didn't answer my question.
You simply said, even if I were to grant that the.
We have to convince the dumb sex workers to vote for us, guys, rather than just saying maybe they shouldn't vote.
Well, hold on.
Because you didn't actually answer my question.
This is a two to one to end this.
So even if the.
Even if you're strong and dependent.
Oh my God.
You got this.
I believe in you.
Even if what you're saying is true and the end result is that a proportion of men had a slightly increased negative perception of women, that still doesn't answer my question of what specifically is the divisive nature or divisive content on my podcast?
What is the divisive nature or content of it?
What am I saying that is divisive?
It's not what you're saying.
The result of it?
What is the end result?
What is the end result?
That is my point.
That is not the question I'm asking.
I am.
You're saying, Brian, your content is divisive.
I'm asking you, what is the divisive content?
And you're saying some men end up having a negative impression of women.
That doesn't answer the question.
Yeah, it would vary on an episode to episode basis.
Okay, what is the divisive content?
What is the divisive ideological positions that I hold or that Andrew espouses?
Again, saying that.
Men and women are not equal.
Never will.
In the legal sense, that women do not contribute equally to society as men do.
That's an argument that Andrew has made.
If it was factually true, would it be divisive?
Yes.
Well, it's not factually true.
It is factually true.
Men and women equally contribute to society.
You can't have one man.
Hold on.
How could that actually be?
So, again, define equal.
You gave me.
Define equal.
Equal in value.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
So men and women, wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
Let me make something clear.
Men and women have inherent equal value.
They're equal in moral value, inherent value.
Men and women are equal.
But you can never make the claim that in terms of what men and women contribute to society, that their contributions are equal.
Yes, they are.
They're not equal.
That's actually not true.
My friend Aaron Clary wrote this fantastic book called A World Without Men.
Cannot recommend it enough.
And he's an economist.
Listen, it's my turn to talk.
He's an economist.
Hold on, let Rachel get through her thing.
This is why women aren't getting married.
I mean, wait, hold on.
Wait, we have to explore that.
But Rachel, please finish your piece.
If you believe men and women don't want to be married, you have to make women happy or they'll hold the whole human race hostage and refuse to reproduce and let humanity die out.
So be nice to women.
Tell them what they want to hear.
Anyway, my friend Aaron Clary wrote this fantastic book.
I cannot recommend it enough.
It's called A World Without Men An Analysis of an All Female Economy.
And he goes through the top jobs that women do and the top jobs that men do in the economy.
And he's very fair.
He's not like me, he's way less radical than me.
He's a pretty normal, chill guy.
And he breaks it down in such a way that he shows what jobs are essential, what jobs are pretty important, what jobs are not that important, and jobs that are totally useless.
And the split between women is like men do 70% of all the essential and very important jobs that just like we can't live as a species if they don't do.
Is having kids not the most essential part of the workforce?
That's not, but we're talking about in the workforce.
Women aren't having kids.
And you said the women won't have kids until the men do what they want.
But that is the value that they bring to society.
Yeah, but they're not doing it.
Prove Me Wrong About Equality00:06:54
And both of them are doing it.
You're not doing it.
Most of them aren't doing it.
It's 1.5 kids per woman now.
Both of them are doing it.
Women aren't doing it.
They want to have an office job.
And both of you just said that.
What men contribute to society is of greater value than what women contribute to society.
Now it is, yes.
Which I agree with.
It used to be equal.
The women were having children and raising them themselves.
I don't think that's the only reason.
I don't think that's the only way to raise men.
I think that is the only essential job women can do to society.
Wait, she did smuggle something in there.
She smuggled a whole bunch of shit.
I love this two to one debate.
I guess it takes two of them against one.
You're directing somebody to make their points.
I just wanted to call that out.
Call what out?
The fact that now it's a two to one debate.
Well, I think it's fair if you're a contradiction machine.
You assert things you can't prove.
It's true of you to go up against one of them.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, gosh, Brian.
If that's not the case, then prove me wrong.
I think it's fair.
I did for the last four hours.
Prove me wrong that it takes just one of you.
I think it's fair if you're Rachel.
I whooped your ass for four hours straight with no help from Brian.
Sure, Rachel.
Yeah.
I think it's fair.
Sure, Drianna.
Or Rachel.
Draena.
I think it's fair if you're directing criticisms towards me that at that moment I can engage specifically on that.
But here, let me.
That's right.
You asked questions about your show.
Of course I had to answer them.
Well, I think it was related to something you had brought up specifically.
Look in the monitor at your face.
Look how smug.
Yeah, you sit there like this and you go.
Uh, having good posture.
Oh boy, here, wait.
Let me know.
It's your face.
Your face does like a because I find it.
If you read the comments of your last appearance, all anybody said was she's insufferable, she's so smug, she's so arrogant.
It's like.
I've demonstrated to you that you're wrong on multiple accounts, and you just stonewall, obfuscate, ignore.
Because you're wrong on the fact that men should not be allowed to vote, period.
That's your opinion.
Point blank.
You don't have anything to back it up.
That's just your opinion.
Point blank.
Why should women be able to vote?
Because women and men have equal inherent value.
That's so therefore.
Again, the is-ot gap.
This is why people are like, when it's a comment, begging me to force you to answer the is-ot gap, because you're like, they should, because they should, because they should.
That's what you're saying.
That's never going to change.
Women should be able to vote because women should be able to vote because women are because, because, because.
And you just repeat.
That's not an argument, darling.
We have a right to vote.
You're very pretty, okay?
You're very pretty, but that's going to run out at a certain point.
We have a right to vote.
That goes away when you get older.
So you have to learn to use your brain.
Do you understand?
So you can't say women should vote because women should vote because women should vote because they should because they should.
That's not an argument.
You didn't even make an argument this whole time.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, which used to be.
Property.
We have a right.
We are a state.
We have a right.
We have a right because we have a right because we have a right because we have a right.
Why should we let everyone vote?
Because it is what is morally correct.
Based on what?
Natural law, natural rights, which you don't want to exclude for a reason.
No, natural law does not say everyone gets a vote.
It literally says that nature works in a hierarchy and that there's patriarchy.
That's what natural law says, so you are incorrect.
And our U.S. Constitution, which I believe in and support, actually mentions and outlines that our laws.
She's just going to prattle from God.
And from now on, it's bad because it's bad because it's bad.
We should because we should because we should.
Rachel, the problem is you're not convincing anybody.
Go back to school and learn how to make an argument.
You're not convincing anybody to take a position.
Neither are you.
You're not convincing anyone of anything.
Well, actually, no.
You've convinced everybody that you are arrogant and insufferable, that you're incorrect, you're ignorant, and you're way worse than I thought you were going to be in this debate.
I thought you would come with something better than women should be able to vote because women should be able to because they should.
I thought somebody closing 50 would be.
I'm 45 now.
Come on.
Let's not push it.
Let's not push it closing 50.
Come on.
I'm 45.
Yeah, you're pushing 40 over there.
Would be a lot less emotional in their arguments.
Yes, you got me.
I'm very emotional.
More logical arguments instead of just trying to.
Honey, I just demonstrated to you what logic is and you can't comprehend it.
You can't even understand what I'm saying.
Are we ready for this?
Yeah, let's do it.
Let's just close it.
I love her telling me about logic.
It's almost as good as when she was telling Andrew about logic and it's like, Yeah, where he, where he, I love that part.
Where Andrew is an actual logician.
He, you, you don't.
He also couldn't define hypocrisy last time.
No, he did define hypocrisy.
He defined it correctly.
No, he just, yes, he did.
Yes, he did.
Could not understand the basis.
This is why you don't let women vote.
There is no amount of reasoning, logic, talking to them, explaining, demonstrating.
It doesn't matter.
She's right because she's right because it's her, what it comes down to is her preference.
She prefers things a certain way and therefore it is because it is because it is.
And that's, you'll never get past.
That she's got like an intellectual ceiling that forbids her from understanding anything past I want because I want because I want and it is because it is.
Uh, here's what we're gonna do.
I'm trying to get we should go if you guys want to go on my social media platforms, especially Instagram, and we can and you can watch the debate between myself and her husband on those topics.
Well, you know what we're gonna do?
I don't know if Andrew's watching, but Andrew, we'll get you a 1v1 with Andrew.
Yeah, absolutely.
We'll get you a 1v1 with Andrew.
Don't do that to my poor husband.
Here, look.
Why do you hate him, Brian?
What are you doing?
What kind of sadist?
Or a masochist.
I don't know.
I don't know which one.
Maybe a little of both.
Maybe a little of both.
We're all gluttons for punishment, I guess.
But here's what we'll do we have some reads that we have to do, we have some super chats, but we keep getting a little distracted.
So we'll do closing now, and then we'll save the reads for after the closing statement so we can at least.
Get through the closing statements.
So, for those watching, if you want to ask a question, leave a statement, we do have some that are in the pipeline.
Those of you who are patiently waiting will get to those.
$10 display, $100 read, drop us a follow, Prime Sub, Twitter, TV, whatever, drop us a like, like the video, buy Rachel Wilson's book.
Oh my God, my mic almost drops.
Occult Feminism, Amazon.com.
Amazon, Amazon, Amazon.
Closing Statements And Final Thoughts00:03:16
You can buy her book there.
Also, Debate University, if you want to learn how to become a master debater.
You scream at the mic, that's how you do it.
Debateuniversity.com.
Okay, so let's do closing statements.
I believe you get to go first with your closing statement, and then Rachel will go second.
Go ahead.
Sure.
My closing statement would be that, again, rights are natural.
Men and women deserve.
Equal voting rights, that's basically it.
And saying that women deserve equal voting rights and financial rights as men does not a feminist make.
By that definition, which you like to put upon pretty much everybody, then most people would be called feminists.
And I think you do the movement, the conservative movement, a disservice pretty much by advocating for relinquishing women's rights as a whole.
And if you don't agree with Like you said, a constitutional republic.
If you don't agree with women's voting rights, if you don't agree with women not having financial independence, may I suggest visit Iran, go live there, one way ticket, anywhere else in the world where women don't have rights, and actually practice what you preach.
And also don't vote like you said you have before, and that, like how you said, you will continue to do in the future.
I actually walk the walk and talk the talk.
I practice what I preach, and I think that is what proves that my ideas stand.
So, just like I would tell a commie that lives in the US, if you don't like it here, if you don't like our values, go to Cuba, go to Venezuela, anywhere else in the world.
That's what I would recommend.
Go somewhere or set up your own country, call it whatever you want, where women don't have equal values to men.
Me, on the other hand, I'm actually going to.
Make arguments that help people come to our side rather than tell them the solution is you don't get a right to vote.
That is illogical.
It's never going to happen.
And so it's a non solution, it's just a grifting talking point.
That's my closing statement.
All right, thank you very much for that.
Rachel, if you'd like to give yours.
Yeah, so all we heard for the last several hours was contradictions, logical fallacies, conflation, just a total contradiction machine.
She would make libertarian arguments and say, I want individualism, I don't want the government involved, and then make arguments where she'd say the government needs to come in and equalize things.
Just lots of obfuscation, stonewalling.
No actual arguments at all.
She doesn't even understand what an argument is.
An argument is not just asserting your opinion.
You have to have a grounding foundation behind what your opinion is.
And you have to be able to demonstrate it and point out that the other person has incoherencies or inconsistencies in their worldview.
Baseless Assertions Vs History00:02:51
Not only did she fail to do that, but she just resorted to being obnoxious.
So basically, everything I predicted in my opening is exactly what happened.
She came to a debate completely unarmed.
Like I said, if this was a beauty pageant, she'd do great.
Unfortunately, debating is not her forte, and after this, I expect she'll fade back into relative obscurity among the sea of conservative MAGA Barbies who are out there just posting these same garbage talking points that haven't helped anyone or done anything to move us in a direction we want to go.
Certainly not as conservatives, because as we demonstrated, she is most certainly not a conservative.
So, this idea that my job as a woman is to maintain the image and the PR status of the sisterhood at the cost of truth is bullshit.
I understand why it rubs a lot of women the wrong way.
I understand that it makes them uncomfortable.
I do not care.
And the reason I do not care is because the undeniable result of almost 100 years of feminism is that children are growing up in broken homes.
They are growing up without their dads in a lot of cases.
They're growing up being raised in daycares because moms think that they need to work and they prioritize career over their own children.
They outsource the most important thing they can do with their lives to some random daycare worker, wage slave, and let the state raise their kids in public schools.
And I'm not gonna ever sacrifice the well being of children on the altar of feminism so that people like Drianna can feel good about her life choices or whatever it is that she wants.
I've been super consistent.
All my arguments were coherent.
I had grounding and foundation for all of them.
I had history and facts on my side, but I'm also able to actually articulate why things ought to be the case and poke all kinds of holes in her baseless assertions.
So, yeah, this reminds me a lot of her telling me.
Please don't come on here and say the truth about women if it makes them look bad because it gives up the game.
Reminds me a lot of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton preventing women from being able to vote on whether or not they wanted to vote.
If you don't know that, it's actually a fact.
Women always voted in referendums not to pass the 19th.
Women overwhelmingly voted against giving women voting rights.
And it wasn't because they don't like women, it was because they didn't want everyone to vote.
So there should be massive restrictions on voting, not just women.
But people who are taking more from the system than they're getting back, people who weren't born here, there's all kinds of restrictions.
You probably should have to pass a civics test.
You should probably have to pass tests on basic knowledge about government.
So it's not only women.
However, I do think that letting women vote against their husbands' vote separates families, it pits the sexes against each other.
Women Ought To Sign Up For Draft00:09:23
And if we do care about families and intact marriages and getting men and women back on the same page, we've got to stop with the delusions about the women's liberation stuff.
And that it could ever exist in a world without the technology and the simps that allow it.
So I'm gonna say what's true, regardless of whether or not the sisterhood likes it.
Fantastic.
All right, we're going to let some chats come through here.
Reminder, guys, I wanted to hold some of the display chats just while they're giving their closing statements.
$10 for display, $100 read.
If you've enjoyed the stream, like the video.
Let's get into some of the chats.
We have Craftsman Ethos, Femcon being a tone police.
Please remember you're being allowed to talk right now by a man, Brian.
Okay, thank you for your soup chat, Craftsman.
That's hilarious.
Appreciate that.
Thank you, Craftsman.
Guys, W's in the chat for all these supporters tonight.
Christopher Scott, thank you for your super chat, Chris.
That's wrong.
Most men who watch realize that Californian women and Femcon women, such as yourself, are retorted.
Retorted.
It's like the combination of tortoise and retarded.
Thank you for that, Christopher Scott.
I do appreciate that.
We have Solo Rob90.
Who invited the fake blonde Kamala Hair?
Oh, sorry, this is below the threshold.
I apologize.
That should have just been the display.
Oopsie.
She's as blonde as she is conservative.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Why don't you accidentally post some of the ones that are calling out Rachel and you?
We have.
Yeah.
Oopsie.
What?
There's plenty of low threshold comments that.
Well, if they're talking shit, it has to be about the same thing.
Well, I noticed one of your good friends posting.
Well, not just my friends, but no, like your bestie from your Instagram was.
Oh, I saw that on there too.
Yeah, so, uh, as well.
So, you've got your little trolls in the chat too, don't trolls?
No, actual followers and supporters.
Wait, hold on.
Uh, okay, we have by the way, what's that whole thing with like hold on, hold on, hold on, MAGA women?
I feel like that's just out of envy, is you know, the blonde MAGA.
No, they all jumped on this grifting train.
Like, there's one named Patriot Barbie who did this.
Um, there's a whole bunch of these girls that were like.
Oh my god, Trump, I'm MAGA.
Come to my Instagram and look at pictures of me in my star spangled bikini.
I love Trump.
It's definitely like a phenomenon.
We do call the host at Fox or, you know, for his voice.
If you didn't have breakfast today, how would you feel?
Lighter.
And what do men need to do to fix it?
To Rachel, you're awesome.
And Andrew has a great beard.
Mem Birdman, thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
We have The Unknown Soldier.
I don't see why Nitwit is complaining about Brian bringing on dumb girls.
He platformed you twice.
Show a little gratitude, honey.
Okay, there you go.
I think Brian is grateful for all of the donations.
That is true.
I'm very grateful for bringing me on the show, or else it would not have.
Been as I mean, we could have put honestly, we could have put another feminist in that chair.
I doubt it because nobody really triggers, or apparently, you've told me that nobody's triggered you as much as I have in the last show.
I didn't, I don't think I said that.
Although, to be fair, you were uh, she's very special, she's a very special and very important person.
You did ruffle my feathers a little bit, but um, yeah, uh, oh, I missed some.
Hold on, we have Flavius.
Oh, as a TTS, Flavius underscore Asinus has donated 200.
Now, this Pusa has a modicum of modesty.
All right.
Thank you for that, Flavius.
We have Doofus, which will be delayed, I'll just read it now.
Again, fix my toilet and then sit down.
Rachel is right.
That is from Doofus.
From Doofus.
He wants you to fix his toilet.
That's a great point we didn't get to touch on.
I'll believe that she wants equality when she demands equality in dirty, difficult, and dangerous jobs until then.
Until then, you're full of shit.
Rachel, you don't want equality.
Men can hire women to cook for them and clean for them, and women can hire men.
Okay, well, where's all the women volunteering to clean sewers and pick up trash and do logging?
Well, they want equality.
Why don't they want to do all the dirty, dangerous, difficult stuff?
They just want equal choice, Rachel.
They've always had equal choice.
Yeah, they can choose to go.
They could choose to do those things before.
They could choose to do whatever they wanted before.
Feminism just forced everybody to make them.
You're the one that's trying to force.
People into one thing or the other, Rachel.
I think women should be mothers, but they can also be whatever the heck else they want to.
Did I say they couldn't?
No, I never said that.
You said they shouldn't.
I said they can do that after they fulfill their duty to society.
You can do more than one thing.
Yes, I agree with you.
Okay, we have he sent it in twice, I guess.
Joe Blow?
Joe Blow donated $200.
Now, this fuselit tart has a modicum of modesty.
Typical.
I didn't even, the sentence is not coherent.
I've been doing this.
We've been here like, what, five hours now?
Yeah, we're just, there's a few chats that are finishing up.
We have Joss Tomrin.
You can boil the vote issue down to the fact that men are forced to go to war if need be.
Women have got the comfort of the vote without the responsibility on top of abandoning their procreating.
I am not in favor of any kind of draft or men being.
It doesn't matter.
We live in reality and we have a draft.
We have a draft, though.
You're not getting rid of it, and it's not going anywhere.
Yes, that can actually.
Oh, now things can change, Brian.
That's a larger map.
That's actually another contradiction.
That is more realistic than women having their right to vote taken away.
Yeah, but that wouldn't be perpetually binding.
Like, okay, you get rid of the draft.
The war is not going away.
So the draft is not going away.
Definitely not.
Even if it's not going away.
Although, I don't think it'll ever be used because of, like you mentioned, technology.
That's crazy.
Did you just see how many men were killed in Russia and Ukraine over the past few years?
I'm talking about the technology did not.
It would be the same thing if we were Iran.
We have service people who are being killed right now there.
Which I disagree with.
What I'm saying, my argument is that we are not going to invoke a draft anytime.
How can you say that?
You can't say that.
We're going to.
In fact, it's inevitable that we will again at some point.
Okay.
It's inevitable that we will.
Well, we'll see if we're ever.
She just lives in Dulululand where she has normalcy bias, where in her lifetime, this is how it's always been, therefore it's always going to be that way.
So, another fallacy, the normalcy bias.
That's just statistical probability.
No, it's not.
You have no statistics to back that up.
You just keep asserting garbage.
Wait, wait, wait, Rachel, wouldn't statistics.
Okay, are we done?
Hold on.
Statistics would bear out that we're going to probably have a draft.
We're making arguments, but we also allow people to have some chats come through.
But wouldn't the statistical.
Statistically, there have been.
The fact that we have technology that doesn't require boots on the ground like we did in previous wars.
Women think that because they have no idea.
You have no idea about war.
That's not true.
It's going to be drones.
It's going to be drones.
Yeah, it's all going to be drones.
It's going to be electrical grids going down.
It's going to be cyber warfare.
It's going to be that kind of stuff.
That'll be a component, but you're still going to have men killing each other.
If you're a civilian, why are there currently people in the military, like actual humans in the military?
There's still some jobs that can't be filled by AI or those.
Oh my, okay.
That's crazy.
That's crazy.
Dilu would be the case.
Sure.
So even if we were to grant that there will never be a draft again, it is still a prerequisite for men to have access to the vote.
And if they don't register for the Selective Service, technically a felony, $250,000 fine.
They're barred from certain federal jobs, from receiving federal student loans.
So even then, there's still.
You disagree with all of that.
You disagree with all of that, yeah.
But it is the current status quo.
Yeah, maybe we should work towards removing that.
That is more of a.
Well, maybe we should work towards removing that.
How about women sign up for the draft?
Well, what they.
Again.
Probably not going to happen.
What they did do recently.
Why shouldn't we?
But what they did do recently.
To make it fair, if you want equality, women ought to sign up for the draft just like men, right?
Consistency Not Hypocrisy00:15:03
Wouldn't that be equal?
I want equality, which is why I want men to not have to sign up for the draft like women.
Okay, then if we get invaded by a foreign power, who fights?
How about we finish these?
Okay, that's what I thought.
She's got nothing.
No, I made my argument.
You've got nothing.
I made my argument.
Hold on, I'm going to get back.
What you want is equality.
Equality when and where it suits you, and then you want men to, as long as one sex is expected to die for the other, there cannot be equality.
Yes.
Exactly.
Yes, exactly.
You're absolutely right.
Correct.
Most men are not dying for women.
The expectation is that when it comes down to it, the men are not dying for women.
The women and children get the lifeboats, and the men are supposed to sacrifice their lives for the women and the children.
And as long as that's the expectation, there's no such thing as equality, and that's never going to change.
And in reality, that doesn't happen, does there?
Again, very slowly.
A little bit.
I can kind of see it.
Tom Green?
I can see it a little bit.
When he was younger, you know?
The comedian?
Yeah, yeah.
Salad Fingers?
Yeah, yeah.
I'm trying to remember his big thing or whatever.
Christopher Scott, you said not allowing women to vote is illogical.
What law of logic does not allowing women to vote violate?
Great question.
Do you want to respond to that?
You love logic.
You should know the three laws of logic, right?
I've already answered that question multiple times.
I'm trying to get off this podcast.
Well, I mean, be a good sport.
The people sent in some super chats.
There's no such thing as a law of logic.
How's that?
Are you serious?
The law of logic.
That's a good one.
Oh my gosh.
Okay.
So you don't know that there's.
Wait, do you want to do a bet?
A thousand dollar bet?
A law of logic.
You just sat here on this podcast and the last podcast talking about how you're logical and you have the logic positions and you love logic.
And then you said there's no such thing as the laws of logic.
What are the.
There's a single definition of the law of logic.
Is that where you're arguing?
No, there's three laws of logic.
Okay.
That govern how logic works.
So there's no single law of logic.
He said, which of the laws of logic does not allow women?
Would it be the law of identity?
The law of logic.
He's asking which.
The law of non contradiction.
These are laws that govern what is logical.
Otherwise, how would you know what's logical?
What's logical is that men and women hold equal inherent value.
Therefore, they should have equal legal representative value and an equal.
She's a politician.
She doesn't give a straight answer.
She won't give you a straight answer.
You can ask her.
That is a straight answer.
That wasn't a straight answer.
It's not the answer that you want to hear.
You have two master's degrees?
Two bachelor's degrees.
Two bachelor's degrees.
Long time ago.
All right.
We have Jim Bob.
We tried Christopher Scott.
Blondie is not conservative.
She still has not been able to give the actual definition and attributes of a conservative.
She also will never get married.
If she was wifey material, her current man would have put a ring on it.
As we know, after a few days, in her defense, she has been married before.
I have.
She has.
So she did get married.
She's no longer married.
Yep.
But she did get married.
Correct.
She got you there, Jim Bob.
She's got you there, Jim Bob.
Okay, let's see.
We have some.
Let me just check.
Yeah, we do have a few more coming in.
We have airborne.
Where is it?
Hold on one moment.
Airborne animal.
Oh, did I?
Wait.
Airborne animal, leftist women, I'm not going to like this butterfly purposely misrepresent the whatever, good use, misrepresent the whatever podcast precisely because it holds a mirror up and reflects their actual toxicity, dishonesty, and ignorance, not one step back.
Thank you, airborne animal.
Is that not the one step back thing, like a Gen Z thing?
I've never heard of that.
It's a crucible thing.
Oh, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.
So, people that are your husband's fans.
You know, you could put the phone down and just show a little love to the chatters.
I am reaching out to the people that are.
You guys read your comments live.
I was going through mine telling me, Congratulations on this debate.
All right, woman, come fix my toilet and fix the sewer and say we are equal.
And yes, this is 450.
He's keeping a spreadsheet of all the.
It's the same guy.
Yeah.
Hey, that title he decides to go under Doofus actually, you know, kind of appropriate.
450 so far on a show just to leave comments.
That's hilarious.
All right.
Well, I think that's pretty much a troll.
They're below the threshold.
I didn't even read them.
Oh, shit.
Wait.
What?
Okay.
I think that's it.
All right.
Yeah.
I just, those are the last two.
Fantastic.
Do you promise me Andrew then for the next one, like he said on the show the last time I was there?
Let me turn in, tune into Andrew's screen here.
Andrew, just, I can't hear the audio.
Thumbs up, thumbs down, Andrew.
Are you next, Andrew, now that you sent you and your wife?
Do you want to debate Andrew?
Thumbs up, Andrew, if you want to do a debate with Draeno.
Draeno?
I'm sorry.
Dra. Brian.
Drianna.
Drianna.
Yep.
For the 100th.
Andrew, Andrew, where?
Do the Troy.
Do the Troy, you know?
The Joaquin Phoenix.
Be a man, Andrew.
He says thumbs up.
He double thumbs up.
He wants two debates with you.
Fantastic.
Oh, shit.
You look so handsome.
Oh, shit.
There was one, actually, one thing I wanted to ask.
You had been interfacing with somebody online and.
Trump recently tweeted that he was glad this guy who was prosecuting him died.
Now, I personally, I actually disagreed with.
I disagreed with Trump on this.
Look, I understand this guy had it out for Trump and was probably trying to ruin Trump's life, essentially.
And I think it's okay to strongly dislike or even hate somebody who's trying to ruin your life.
But I do think, and perhaps even privately, you can have a degree of, okay, well, this guy's dead.
I'm not going to shed a tear, but I do think it is in bad taste to say that you're glad somebody's died, even if it's an enemy.
And you seem to be totally fine with that.
Why?
Because of the Trump's.
You were fine with Trump's comment.
You're like, yes, I'm glad.
Where have I said that I'm okay with it?
Somebody sent me a message.
Perhaps if I'm incorrect, feel free to correct me.
But is that your position?
I don't agree with.
A lot of the tone.
Again, I'm big on tone.
Oh, surprise.
No, it's not surprise.
It's consistency, Rachel, and not hypocrisy.
I would definitely see how some people would disagree with Trump's comments.
I neither endorse nor condemn.
I think that the reason why Trump got elected into office is because he says things as he Feels them, and it's the most honest of a president that we've ever had because he has no filter.
I prefer a president without a filter over anything else, so that's my comment on it.
I didn't even answer the question.
She's a professional, obviously.
She's okay.
Just because I'm a lot more diplomatic and can control my emotions, Rachel, does not mean I'm a professional.
Hold on.
It had nothing to do with controlling emotions.
It's just like you don't answer a question in a straightforward manner.
You don't even answer the question, oftentimes.
I answered your question.
I, again, just didn't answer what you wanted to say.
You meandered around the question.
I guess that is one way to go.
I know it's triggering to not get exactly what you wanted to say.
You know, she accuses me of not controlling my emotions, but she's so passionate.
Passive aggressive, which is typical, like snarky woman behavior.
Like, if I'm just having fun and I'm talking like this and I get a little animated, it's like, oh my God, look at her.
She's so out of control.
But then she'll do the passive aggressive snark and the smug and the arrogant.
Like, that doesn't come off horrible.
Like, everybody watching isn't going to notice that.
Yeah, I think people are stupid.
You think people are dumb and they can't see right through you?
I think most people watching this will have the right opinion of me and of you afterwards.
Oh, I think they will too.
We agree on that.
Okay, we have Doofus.
The title Dorfus, it talking to you, woman.
And yes, 550.
He must be liquored up a little bit.
I was just going to say, he must be doing shots.
He's Dorfus.
Oh my God.
You need to change your name on Streamlabs to Dorfus from now on.
Doofus.
You got to change it to Dorfus.
That's like Dorothy and Orth.
Never mind.
I don't understand why feminists and femcons refuse to watch Andrew or Rachel debate.
Before these debates, how do you come in not knowing the basic positions?
Is it just laziness, says Cha XD?
It's very easy.
I have all of her talking points written down, and they're all the same.
I didn't have to sit and actually watch them, though.
What you can do is download the transcripts on YouTube and then extract all the different arguments, which is what I did because I'm efficient on time and don't want to waste it hearing incorrect.
I can see that not preparing properly did you a lot of favors.
Yeah, it definitely did.
Should we do a roast session?
A roast session?
I'll leave it up to both of you.
It is 9 37.
If you guys are down for a little roast, we lower the TTS a little bit.
No, we can come back, though.
You can invite me back for a roast session for sure.
Is she doing dating talk tomorrow?
I don't think so.
No, she's.
I'm glad I'm back in Miami.
We have other good people on the panel, though, so that'll be good.
Okay, we're going to wrap it there.
We did go, we did have a long debate.
Well, I do want to, even though it got heated in moments, and I got, I caught, caught, caught, caught some strays.
I got some strays, I guess.
I do want to thank both of you for participating in this debate.
Rachel, it's been almost two years since we've last had you on, so it's great to have you back.
It will be two years.
Did I bring you back here, Rachel?
She was.
Got to thank me for it.
She was planned.
Well, it was planned.
We've been wanting to have Rachel back regardless.
I don't think I need any help getting on large podcasts, but thanks.
Yeah, she's just on Joe Rogan.
She's on Joe Rogan.
Congratulations.
You did Steven Crowder to the show.
I'd like to see you on Fox News telling the female hosts that she is a FemCon.
I would be totally down for that if she's a FemCon, but I've already been on Fox News.
I was on Tucker Carlson too.
She was on Tucker Carlson.
Fantastic.
That she was on TV.
Put me doing all of this while also submitting to my husband and to my church and, you know, raising a bunch of kids.
Killing it out here.
20, I think there's a, what, two decade, two decade, almost two decade difference?
No, like a one decade difference.
I'm 13 years older than you.
Yeah, a decade and a half.
Yeah, you can catch up.
You still got plenty of time.
Plenty, I know.
And I'll be voting.
I mean, not that much, but I'll be voting the entire way and telling women to vote.
So, I'll be voting.
Oh, my God.
No, I don't.
Oh, wait, wait, wait.
I don't tell women not to vote right now.
I tell all you married women, double your husband's vote.
Okay?
Go vote.
Just whatever your husband's voting, you say, honey, what should I do?
And whatever he says, do that, and you go out and vote.
And then when they rescind the 19th and they restrict voting, if all the feminists can't vote anymore, then you can just stay home.
You're going to.
Oh, yeah.
Just like Roe v. Wade was never going to get overturned.
Just like the draft is, you know, we're just going to never have a draft.
Rachel, don't hold your breath while you wait.
All right.
Well, there it is, folks.
That is the debate.
Thank you.
Thank you guys for joining us.
Let me get that super chat.
But thank you guys for joining us.
Guys, if you enjoyed the stream, kindly like the video.
Also, we are going to be live tomorrow, 5 p.m. Pacific, with a dating talk.
Rachel will be our special guest for that, also.
So we have a good panel scheduled for that.
Doofus has to have the final word here, as always.
You didn't change your name.
It should be Dorfus.
But thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
The support tonight, Dorfus, uh, Kens P90 with the big $200 soup chat.
Thank you, Kens.
A feminist will not admit to be a feminist since today.
It has to be a bad cognitate.
Wait, cognitation that's a new one.
Connotation is what he means.
Yeah, isn't that a point in my favor that I am convincing because nobody wants to be called a feminist anymore?
Even like girls like you will be like, I'm not a feminist.
Well, what's wrong with being a feminist?
Women that are feminists, do you want to be called a feminist?
Women that are not.
Feminist only the ones that want to be wolves in sheep's clothing and go, Trust me, guys, I'm super conservative and totally not a feminist.
Yeah, uh, four years ago, she would be a proud feminist, says Ken's P90.
It's not cool anymore.
Connotation We're winning because it's not cool anymore.
Nobody likes it.
Well, thank you for the uh super chat there at the end, Ken.
Really, very much appreciate it.
And uh, yeah, thank you, Ken.
Uh, let's see.
Thank you guys for tuning in.
Guys, like the video.
There's going to be a redirect.
Like the video, guys.
Leave a comment.
It helps with the algorithm after the stream ends.
5 p.m. Pacific tomorrow.
Be sure to tune in, guys.
Thank you for everyone who supported the show tonight.
Thank you guys for the super chats.
Thank You For Tuning In00:00:54
We couldn't do it without you guys.
And, you know, we're not getting an Athletic Greens sponsorship anytime soon.
So we are viewer supported, fan supported.
So thank you guys so much.
And, Also, shout out to Andrew, who was sort of co streaming, who was doing a watch party.
Shout out to Andrew.
Hopefully, we'll have him back soon.
Always a pleasure to have the Wilsons on.
So, thank you.
Thanks, Brad.
The viewers, by popular demand, they want to see you versus Andrew Wilson.
So, it seems like she's game.
I'll be back.
He's game.
So, we'll do it.
We will do it.
Okay, guys, let me just double check, make sure I'm not.
Missing any chats, but no, I think we all look good.
Okay, let's see.
07's in the chat, guys.
07's in the chat.
I hope you guys have a good night, and we'll see you tomorrow.