Did Liberal feminism ruin the workplace? | Maintaining Frame 194

Join us on the show today as we go through another article engaged in logical Olympic level acrobatics to about blame.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello everybody, and welcome to Honey Badger Radio. My name
is Brian. I'm here with Alison. This is maintaining frame
number one ninety four. Did liberal feminism or women in
the workplace? Where we're going to be looking at? Well,
it's sort of like a discussion that's been going on

(00:20):
because I have a couple of different angles on it.
So there was this woman. I think it all started,
or at least this current, let's say, manifestation of our
modern society's obsession with white nightting for women.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
It started with this discussion that was brought about by
an essay written by a woman named Helen Andrews, the
Great Feminization.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
And ever since she put out that essay it's on substack,
she's been doing the rounds, going on various podcasts and
doing interviews and experiencing some probably a lot of resistance
for even making the claim essentially that feminization is destroying

(01:13):
like you know, business, politics, relationships and other things. And
the one article that was an article is a New
York Times called did Liberal Feminism ruin the Workplace? Which
is actually just a transcript of an interview that was

(01:34):
a podcast and a video on YouTube which I actually
watched like a week ago or so, and I think
I sent it to you because I looked into this
Hell and Andrews thing like a while back, and I
thought was really interesting and cool that like there was
more people having this talk like earnestly at least. But

(01:57):
apparently it hasn't gone over well with all women, as
someone wrote a response to the original interview video that
I guess we're looking at today, which is what this is, right,
it's a video transcript Okay, yeah, response article to the

(02:21):
original discussion, which begs the question or asks the question,
did liberal did women? Actually? Did women ruin the workplace?
Was originally what it was called. They softened it by
saying did liberal feminism ruin the workplace?

Speaker 3 (02:39):
Actually, they moved it to uh, are you yeah? With
there's a bit of an echo. They originally went from
our women ruining the ruining the workplace, and they changed
it to our feminine vices ruining the workplace? And now
they settled on is lesbian lesbian liberal feminism ruining the workplace?

(03:02):
So one of those three and uh, a commentator called them,
uh they didn't have a good good sense of self preservation,
which really begs the question who's who's targeting them for
things that are contradictory to continue to draw breath. But yeah,

(03:23):
so those were the Those were the options that they
had or they went through, and then they settled on
did liberal feminism ruin the workplace? You seem a little
distracted today, Brian.

Speaker 1 (03:34):
No, I'm looking at the chat and I'm listening to you. Okay, No,
that's that's no, that's right. I thought I was. I'm
paying attention.

Speaker 3 (03:45):
Okay, all right.

Speaker 1 (03:46):
So then okay, so we're gonna so what's this response
to it? Because I didn't see this.

Speaker 3 (03:54):
Well this response, so I figured we could go through
the article and we could discuss it and instant densally.
I know I'm tooting my own horn, but I talked
about this for years now, right, It's interesting to see
that people who are or women who are specifically zone
is zeroing in on specific aspects of what I talked about,

(04:18):
how our world is losing the masculine toolkit and basically
the workplace has become feminized. And one of the big
problems with that is we have no actual narrative to
hold women accountable for the pitfalls that they generally have.
We can't even have it. We outside of here, we

(04:39):
can't even have a discussion or it's very difficult to
have a discussion about any potential pitfalls that women bring
to the workplace. It's ver baiten like it's verboten. I
think that's the right word. So it's interesting to see this,
but it is great to see this discussion sort of
getting out there and doing the rounds. And uh, I

(05:00):
wanted to pair this article discussion of this article with
a medium blog rejoinder to the discussion of this article
because I figured that would be edifying for a certain
quality of edifying. So, yeah, do you want.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
To just uh oh, wait is the response that you
because you I didn't. I got like the document It
just says, dear New York Times, don't threaten women with
a good time. I didn't know that was a medium blog.
I didn't have the original link to the website.

Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yeah, well it's okay. And I also uploaded a animation
of the article.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
Yeah, I have that up.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
She's leaning quite hard to the left in the animation.
That wasn't intended to be symbolic.

Speaker 4 (05:46):
It's just.

Speaker 3 (05:49):
But yeah, so we could also we will look at
the response, the medium response and yeah, let's start with.

Speaker 1 (05:54):
Just the article with the medium response.

Speaker 3 (05:56):
Then do you want to start with the medium restarts?

Speaker 1 (05:59):
We could? I mean, the article is like long because
it's it's essentially a transcript of a conversation which is
about an hour. I could. I did try to upload
the discussion to Coral to get time codes, but for
whatever reason, Coral didn't like it. So I don't know,

(06:19):
but I could have it look at the transcript and
maybe extract timecodes from a transcript, which is what the
article is. But so yeah, I know, yes a lot.

Speaker 3 (06:30):
Yeah, Okay, well, okay, the honest to god truth is
we'll have no context for this, but maybe it doesn't
need a CONTEXTU.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
Yeah, I mean, like the I think we can provide context.
I can find hold on a second here, I can
find the appropriate things. But why don't you in the
meantime do the things? And I also have a super
chow that we got yesterday from Peto that we could
like shout out really quick too.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
Sure. Okay, So if any point throughout this show you
would like to send us a message, you can do
so at feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip.
Let's feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip,
very best way for you to send us a tip,
and very best way for you to be able to
send your comment to us and not through YouTube's comment
enhancement system. And if you would like to support the show,

(07:21):
the monthly fundraiser is live now at feed the Badger
dot com slash support, so please go there and help
out so that we can continue to tell you about
things that that people will realize are a problem five
years after you tell us, or we tell you after
we tell you. So if you want, if you want
spoilers in the future of the human race, make sure

(07:41):
that we can stay on the air at Feedbadger dot
com slash support. So yeah, let's uh, okay, all right, well.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
We'll do the media, start with the response and then
like if we need to, I can like hunt.

Speaker 3 (07:55):
I do have a request. Okay, don't do it at
a little faster speed, trust me. Otherwise you know we're
gonna have to spend too much time on this.

Speaker 1 (08:08):
It's fine one okay.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
Yeah, that's kod that's fine.

Speaker 5 (08:12):
YT.

Speaker 6 (08:13):
Don't threaten women with a good time by Kate Cassidy.
By now, I assume most of us have read last
week's infamous New York Times Think Peace about women ruining
the workplace. Once the gold standard of American journalism, the
Times is now the kind of publication that produces podcasts
known for platforming insurrection apologists as.

Speaker 3 (08:36):
Okay, yeah, I know, I know, I know.

Speaker 1 (08:41):
What is interesting is that is that when The New
York Times lost you, is that when it happened, That's
when they lost credibility.

Speaker 3 (08:49):
Okay, it's interesting that the problems have gotten to the
point where people are discussing them on the New York Times,
to be honest, like it's it is. That is That's
one hell of a statement in of itself. And maybe
maybe while we're all, you know, describing the toes of
the giant, maybe eventually people will be ready to accept

(09:13):
that the toes are attached to a foot, and a
foot is attached to a calf, and the calf is
attached to a thigh, and the thighs are attached to
a torso, and yeah, there's a gigantic giant right there
in our culture. Then nobody wants to admit exists, or
at least doesn't want to admit exists as a bad thing,

(09:33):
as a potentially negative thing. In our world. But you know,
maybe once we get enough of people noticing the toes,
eventually we can move on to like the instep and
God forbid, you know, within the next two hundred years
we get to actually recognizing the entire shape of the
thing that is the problem.

Speaker 6 (09:53):
Okay, all right, they examine pretend concepts like toxic empathy
and muse about the iPhone's role in America's declining birth rate.
If you ask me, they really screwed the pooch by
not blaming women for this one too, talk about an
air ball.

Speaker 3 (10:09):
I'm all right, we're not blaming women for what.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
Or let me go back a little bit. She's trying
to like poison the well before she gets into it
by saying, you know, they they embrace made up concepts
like toxic empathy. I mean, like, I don't think the
term toxic empathy is correct in terms of describing the problem,
but I do think the phenomenon it's trying to describe

(10:35):
is absolutely real. It's really not empathy. It's sollipsism disguised
as compassion, self serving, self righteous, narcissistic. You know, that's
what it is when people virtue signal on your behalf,
on behalf of like the marginalized, And this is like
a thing that women are really good at. They excel

(10:57):
at it. It's not toxic empathy because because there's no
empathy there. It's just like, I don't know, it's it's.

Speaker 3 (11:06):
Hoo victimhood by Munchausen syndrome.

Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, yeah, victimhood by proxy.

Speaker 3 (11:11):
Yeah, victimhood by proxy.

Speaker 6 (11:13):
Yeah is declining birth rate If you ask me, they
really screwed the pooch by not blaming women for this
one too, the.

Speaker 1 (11:20):
Birth rates as well.

Speaker 3 (11:21):
Yeah. Why do women like this have such a problem
with blaming women? Like I've always wondered that it's just
like they just have this knee jerk reaction. Oh my god,
how dare you blame women? Oh? Women are always being blamed,
which is patently false. We have a gigantic and completely

(11:43):
unsupported narrative of blaming men for everything wrong in the world.
So no, women are not subject to the same level
of blame. And the people who say that we always
blame women are have an invested interest in saying that
because they want to always blame men. I'm like, well
why not? Okay, so I guess I've just answered my
own question. But on the other one, you know, you

(12:07):
just just take the blame, like, just just take it,
just take it. No, Yes, women are to blame. Let's
fix things. Now, let's let's move on to the point
of fixing things. Don't you don't you have any interest
in that? No? No, Like for me, it's like, well,
women are to blame in these ways, and I'm like, Okay,
that means that we have these abilities in our toolkit

(12:28):
to fix things. But for women like this, it's like,
oh my god, I'm just gonna melt. I'm like the
wicked witch being doused with water.

Speaker 6 (12:38):
Okay, okay, talk about an air ball. I'm all right.
Apparently an air ball it's basically like basketball where you
miss the shot completely.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
Oh yeah yeah.

Speaker 1 (12:52):
And she's saying this is a missed opportunity to blame
women that because you know, we totally do that too much.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
It's a genuine missed opportunity to blame women.

Speaker 1 (13:03):
Yeah, it's legitimate.

Speaker 3 (13:04):
I feel like we could have shot.

Speaker 1 (13:06):
I think that the New York Times probably blamed men
for the for the birth rates, probably the birth rate.

Speaker 3 (13:12):
Yeah yeah, yeah, you're you're grouping off to the left there, Brian,
maybe center.

Speaker 1 (13:17):
A bit Oh, I could just move the camera.

Speaker 3 (13:21):
Yeah, I mean I don't, I don't have to move
all right, All right, there we go. Everything is good.

Speaker 6 (13:29):
The editorial leadership put so much careful thought into this
episode of the Interesting Times podcast that they thought it
worthy of transcribing into an op ed that had to
be renamed not once, but twice because of the backlash
it received. They simply never could have a bit.

Speaker 3 (13:46):
I mean, this could have just been ABC title testing,
you know, lady.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
It could have been or or being that it's The
New York Times. You know, the phone call came from
inside the house, you change it. Maybe it wasn't backlash
from the outside, the monster in the house. That's what
if I had to guess, I bet that that's that's
what happened. They Yeah, I listened this out, and people

(14:13):
who worked at The New York Times were like Taylor
Wrenz or whatever got on the phone and was like, no,
I will not do this.

Speaker 3 (14:20):
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And of course that really says something
about the culture of being able to speak these truths
and hold women accountable, because that's the primary problem with
women in the workplace. How do you hold them accountable?
The answer is you don't because they are empowered with
certain social tools to destroy anybody who tries to hold

(14:43):
them accountable unless they're also women. But they're pretty good
at that too. They're pretty good at destroying other women.
So how do you hold women accountable? Especially when there
doesn't seem to be a very strong intrough female will
to hold each other accountable? This is something I notice,
you know, women don't seem to have the will to
actually police each other, particularly when it comes to their

(15:06):
behavior towards men or their responsibility to anything besides the
concept of the sisterhood, whereas we have a justice system
because men seem to have sort of this instinctive kind
of yeah, yeah, you know, Ted's go over there doing something,
you know, something we don't like, I think, or something
that is contrary to the interests of the group and

(15:28):
also very harmful or morally bankrupt, and we got to
go stop him, thus police, thus prisons, thus a judicial system,
you know. And I think that that's why we have
those things. And if it were up for women, they
would probably be blaming the victims because if you had

(15:51):
like an all female society, I would bet dollars to
donuts what would happen. Is the female leaders in that
society would blame the victims, because otherwise they'd have to
recognize that men that women aren't perfect, aren't morally blameless. Yes,
and that's not gonna happen.

Speaker 6 (16:11):
Okay, all right, all right, blaming an already marginalized group
that makes up more than half of the nation's population.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
Wait, that sentence makes is okay, a marginalized group that
makes up more than half of the nation's population. So
how are they marginalized? Is it just because men are
stronger or whatever? Like? What it? What? Like? It's weird
that you're like, they're marginalized and also the majority.

Speaker 3 (16:39):
Well, of course, Well, it's because women are so superior that,
no matter what, they're always oppressed. Yes, they can't use
their superior ways of cooperation to overcome the male hegemony
because reasons. Also, uh yeah, everything that feminism asserts is

(17:01):
absolute direk Like, every single one of their talking points
is not scientifically sound and fails if you actually apply
any kind of scientific rigor to it. So, no, women
are not marginalized. This is this is just one factually true.
They do not experience marginalization relative to men in our society.

(17:22):
You might argue there could be some in like a
a theocratic state, but that doesn't like the outlier does
not prove the norm or does not change the norm.

Speaker 1 (17:37):
Yeah, and it's probably the men are probably also like, yeah,
that men are also having time.

Speaker 3 (17:43):
Yeah, nobody really, nobody really enjoys the theocratic regime. They
tend not to be fun times. They're not They're not like,
you know, all inclusive to get to I don't know
a resort in the Caribbean, no theocratic regimes or no
nobody's friend. Okay, okay, some more.

Speaker 6 (18:03):
Of a system that wasn't built by and has historically
excluded them might not land asped.

Speaker 3 (18:10):
What are you talking about, I mean.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
Yes, talking point. Yeah, men own the system. Therefore they
used it to benefit themselves and women and at the
expense of women. It's just all feeds. Is like, I'll
just invoke this again.

Speaker 3 (18:26):
Consider this. Consider this, which is much more consistent with
the empirical evidence. Men created the system in order to
siphon resources to women. It's not that women weren't also
creating their resources, but for the most part, the external
system was to siphon resources to the family and to women. Okay,
and then when women started to get into that system,

(18:49):
they didn't understand the mindset. So the mindset is that
men are cooperating to construct a system to bring resources
into their families, and the system has to be what first,
because that's where the resources come from. And women who
are used to receiving resources and then manufacturing I mean
in previous areas that would receive the resources and manufacture

(19:12):
them into something, but just receiving resources because again we
have this consumer identity developed by Hollywood progressives in like
the fifties, and so they're used to receiving these resources.
They go out into the system intended to create resources
and they think this is a resource for me to receive,

(19:33):
and that attitude is exactly diametrically opposed and destructive to
the purpose and the functioning of the system that creates
the resources, because then you go in and you're like, oh,
I like this gear that's for me. Oh I like
this shoot that's for me. Oh I like these raw

(19:54):
materials that's for me. And then you have no factory
because every body's gone in and decided that they're going
to take it all apart for resources, not realizing that
the point of the thing is to cooperate to create them.
All right, it's a thought, it's a thought experiment. I
think they could also apply to socialists, but I won't

(20:15):
get ahead of myself.

Speaker 6 (20:15):
She originally asked readers to ponder the not at all
problematic question did women ruin the workplace?

Speaker 3 (20:22):
Before it was noticing it isn't problematic? Like if okay, lady,
all right, can I just point something out. It's not
problematic to assert that men constructed society for their own benefit.
But it's that's fine, that's perfectly acceptable, even though it
has absolutely no, it's not true. Like I don't know
how to emphasize this enough. It is not true. And

(20:45):
then but it's but it's okay, it's okay. No, it's
not okay. It is problematic to say maybe women are
a problem in the workplace. Men can be a problem
for the entire universe, but cannot be a problem for
the for the workplace. I'm just I know, I know,

(21:06):
I know the illogic, I know the double think, but
it just I just wanted to point that out clearly.

Speaker 1 (21:10):
Oh, it's okay, it's all right, it's okay, all right.

Speaker 6 (21:15):
Revised have feminine vices taken over the workplace, and because
they're seemingly very low on both brain power and self preservation.

Speaker 3 (21:22):
Instinct of self preservation to change it.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
Yeah, these are the people who retitled the article that
she's talking about. So she's calling the New York Times
people dumb, which I'm not entirely against, but I but
I don't think I think that this was actually like
a good step. Like I I commend the New York

(21:48):
Times for even entertaining this as a concept, but I
think they had no choice because, like I said, Helen
Andrews's original substack essay was everywhere and everyone was, even
people involved in gamer gate stuff. Yeah we're talking about it.
So it's like it's taken on a life of its own.

(22:09):
It's gone pretty viral, and now the New York Times
had no choice but to address. They couldn't pretend like
it wasn't there. So they were like, Okay, let's talk
to this lady. She seems reasonable. She's not one of
those Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes manisphere types, and so they
had her on And I mean, you know, I think

(22:31):
that that was a good thing because I think that
Helen Andrews, she's writing a power level a bit in
my opinion, so she's probably got more going on than
people suspect. But but yeah, so they went ahead and
entertained it, and that for this woman was a bridge
too far. Whose of course it was.

Speaker 3 (22:51):
So yeah, because it's no problem having half the workplace
population have not be able to criticize them at all.
You can criticize men as a group, but you cannot
criticize women, and that's not going to create a problem.
That's not going to create a problem with the entire
group of women. Okay, right, yep, all right, just one

(23:14):
more time?

Speaker 6 (23:14):
Do we all think differently now that it's called did
liberal feminism ruin the workplace?

Speaker 5 (23:20):
For one?

Speaker 6 (23:21):
I'm not sure. I think I need it to be
changed to should women even be allowed to work anymore?

Speaker 3 (23:26):
Yeah, that's a good question. I know you're being sarcastic.
That is actually a really good question. If workplaces have
no control over female employees, and female employees are capable
of utterly destroying workplaces to cohere or to make them

(23:47):
feel better, the female's employees feel better, m hm, should
women be in the workplace?

Speaker 1 (23:56):
Now?

Speaker 3 (23:56):
I know that feminists always go absolutely a shit when
I say things like that. But I'm saying, either women
are held accountable or they should be removed from positions
where not being held AUP accountable is going to harm systems, industries, whatever.

(24:17):
Right that there's two options there, and of course feminists
always default to we want you want to take away
women's right to work. No, I really want to hold
them accountable. I'm just pointing out that those two things
are incompatible.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
Okay, Yeah, we can't like have them be essentially have
power or authority over you know, things like entire businesses,
modes of building wealth and productivity, and even like controlling
you know, the the economy of an entire country or

(24:54):
at least like a region. If they can't be criticized, like,
that's insane, that's insane, right, So I like that this
this your character looks a little bit like Kamala Harris.
I don't know if that was on purpose or if
the AI just like came up with something that sounded what.

Speaker 3 (25:17):
There's not AI. That's just that's I actually purchased a
puppet kit. Backdrop is AI because I didn't have an
avocado toast job.

Speaker 1 (25:28):
Backdrop is fridge is just full of broccoli. Yeah, it's broccoli.

Speaker 3 (25:35):
Well it's I think that's supposed to be avocados, but.

Speaker 1 (25:37):
No, those are that's the massive avocados, or they're alien brains.
But I'm gonna go with broccoli on that one. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (25:46):
Well, there's there's a lot of green there's a lot
of green stuff being vended in this room, which I
thought was, you know, that's fine. And then there's a
lot of green things in teacups, which I assume some
maybe some maca. So yeah, the the backdrop is ai
but the puppet is actually created by human hands, I

(26:08):
believe so. And yes, she does look like Kamala Harris,
or she does look like the uh, the the brown
urban professional, which a lot of corporate material seems to
prize the the not too black urban female professional trope.

(26:29):
That's a that is that is right there.

Speaker 1 (26:31):
So mm hmm, okay, anyway, my.

Speaker 6 (26:37):
Mind about the very serious lady problem facing modern corporate America.
At least the unflappable editors did firm with the subhead
of the article that's remained unchanged and has been taking
up prime release estate in my ever growing mental role
index of.

Speaker 3 (26:53):
You know, this has absolutely no actual logical analysis or
argument over the content. It's all this offended me, so
I'm going to act like a I'm going to act
like a mean girl.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
It's like, yeah, there isn't. I was gonna say, it's
not it's a it's it doesn't. There's no substantive things
being made at all. And this is almost halfway done.

Speaker 3 (27:25):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
So like it's just bitching about the fact that they
even dared to write and there even post this thing
to begin with. I did get time codes for the
actual video she's mad about, so we can look at that.
It's an article. No, I have the video. There was
a video.

Speaker 3 (27:41):
There's a video.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Oh yeah, the article is a transcript of the video.

Speaker 3 (27:46):
Oh cool.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
There was originally a podcast that was an interview between
two women, Helen Andrews and someone else and the host
who is a man.

Speaker 3 (27:56):
Yeah yeah, let's look at that.

Speaker 1 (27:58):
Yeah. Do you want to finish this for first or no?

Speaker 3 (28:00):
Yeah, let's finish it. Let's uh, let's complete this looks
complete the cycle.

Speaker 6 (28:05):
Yeah, it asks in earnest Can conservative feminism fix it?

Speaker 3 (28:11):
I don't know.

Speaker 6 (28:13):
Can tell you where literally anything is?

Speaker 3 (28:16):
Literally nothing feminism can fix feminism.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
There is there is I don't even want to get into.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
The No, like this, this entire word and concept needs
to be discredited.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
Right with liberal feminism is not the liberal.

Speaker 3 (28:32):
Parts feminism part Right, this.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
Term liberal feminism, you guys made that up. You're trying
to salvage something. I see what you're conserve the shell game.
You're trying to hide feminism in something in places you're
basically just saying feminism equals women and now we're gonna
move it over here. No, no, no, there's no such
thing as conservative feminism. You made that up to salvage it.

(28:58):
And of course this is the New York Times is
part to play in this because they're the ones trying
to salvage it, because people who are like, well we
need some kind of feminism. What they're doing is they're saying,
if this goes away, women will die, Like like that's
the like, this word is the only defense that women
all over the world have against men. It's the only

(29:20):
it's the final you know, the the last stand. It's
the last bit of defense. It's the final shield against men.
And it's like, literally, you don't need it, so let
it go, let it go, You'll be fine. Men are
not trying to hurt you. They're not no.

Speaker 3 (29:35):
So well, here's the thing, Like, most of these problems
or I don't know how many of these problems, like
I know you had a guest recently that talked about
evolutionary or biological basis for these problems, And I'm like,
why don't we start, Okay, before we start the re

(29:56):
engineering the human race, why don't we start by no
longer charging people for a near a false narrative that
men have constructed society for their own benefit at the
expense of women. The primary effect is well, aside from
negative psychological effects on men and boys, one of the

(30:20):
big effects is that women always have a go to
to deny their own culpability. Okay, like they always have
a narrative that allows them to hide their accountability and
deflect blame. Okay, that is the problem. Now, what our
first step could be Stop paying for it. Stop taking

(30:41):
it out of people's taxes, stop taking it out of
their sales tax, stop taking it out of their purchasing
power by inflating the currency or increasing the amount of
currency in circulation, because you're making treasuries to pay for
stupid programs that promote a lie. Right, just let's start.

(31:02):
Let's start scaling back on all that. Kick it out
of academia. Finally, like, get rid of it. Discredit every
female or women studies professor, every feminist bit of research,
get rid of it, get it out of AI models.
Let's start there, okay, and we'll see what happens when

(31:24):
women and men aren't subject to an omnipresent threat narrative
against men blaming them for everything in society and doing
so with absolutely no validity, like this is this is
what happened is feminists decided a bunch of shit. You know,
there's just like I don't know, in some kind of

(31:45):
flop house somewhere, and they decided the most egregious, absurd crap,
and then they hijacked academia to start manufacturing evidence for
their absurd crap. That is the exact opposite of how
things are supposed to go right. You're supposed to have

(32:06):
ideologically neutral data proving your premises. But yet they hijacked academia,
they highjacked academic authority, and they produced garbage. Which is
why sociology and in particular feminism has a replicatability crisis.
And I just like last night, oh maybe I should

(32:26):
save this for deeper in I don't know, I'm talking
about my Twitter adventures, and everybody's going to probably be like,
oh my god, Allison's Twitter adventures. But okay, let's let's
let's keep going. I'll save that if people are interested.

Speaker 6 (32:41):
Why don't you name another imaginary concept that only exists
in the minds of famously forward thinkers like Sarah Palin.
Kudos to digging the hole deeper than any of us
thought possible. And because who needs to be burdened by
critical thinking anyway?

Speaker 3 (32:55):
For why do you why do you have to retain
any of this? Like guys that saying conservative will conservative
feminism to protect her or this is just more of
the same crap. So she gets so far, so close
actually hitting the nail on the head, and then they
pivot to something like conservative feminism.

Speaker 1 (33:16):
Well, this is New York Times pivoting though not her. Yeah,
and this isn't even Helen Andrews pivoting to that either.
I think The New York Times is trying to to
They're trying to salvage the word. They're trying to salvage
the word feminism by like trying to reframe it. Let's
add another word to the word and then it'll save

(33:38):
the original word. Now this woman is like, at least
I guess rightfully saying word like this isn't a thing
because conservative feminism is an oxymoron, and so she's like, no,
that's like Sarah Palin and obviously that's one of those
non women that I really hate. So this is not acceptable.

(34:00):
But so they're both arguing or making arguments for something
that nobody wants, Like nobody wants this.

Speaker 3 (34:07):
Right in the chat, Robert Johnson says, real feminism has
never been tried.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
Yeah, we've already tried democratic feminism, scientific feminism or socialism whatever.
Why not liberal? Yeah, exactly, it's just an attempt to rebrand.
This whole thing is about branding. It's almost always been
so like if you can accept oh yeah, I guess
like next it'll be like, you know, how about moderate feminism,

(34:34):
how about nineties feminism? How about Mary Tyler Moore feminism?
Like whatever, it's all the same. They're just rebranding it
and it doesn't actually change anything. It's just a way
for these people to save their jobs so they can
keep getting paid and they can keep complaining about men
like they need it. And the thing is even if

(34:54):
we got rid of the word, Even if the word
feminism disappear from vocabulary tomorrow, these women would still complain
about men. It wouldn't change anything. They just come up
with a new word to describe it, you know, they
would just they just call themselves something else. Yeah, it's
actually the the attitude that has to die, and that
that begins with making it very very unfortunately. It's what

(35:18):
works on women, making it very unfashionable. And do that
by making it something that is like, you know, no
one wants to be attached to. And I think that's
how you could kill it. But that starts with being
able to blame women, like blaming them for their mistakes
and holding them accountable.

Speaker 3 (35:36):
Yeah, that's it, that's all that has to happen. I
like again, I'm just like, what do you think, what
do these women think? Honestly, will happen if tomorrow Wait,
I'll run this by you, Brian, this thought experiment. What
if tomorrow every woman woke up.

Speaker 1 (35:51):
And was.

Speaker 3 (35:54):
Realized that that they were capable of doing things wrong
and that men should probably be included in their analysis,
like men's actual opinions, not just I'm going to I
want you to feel this way opinions. If they actually
included men in their analysis and men's vulnerabilities in their analysis,
and they started to take responsibility for potential negative effects

(36:17):
on other people, what do you think men would do?
Probably drop dead and shocked.

Speaker 1 (36:25):
Absolutely, we would throw them in chains and uh you know,
force them to make babies and uh clean and make
a sandwiches. That's obviously what would happen. Yeah, but if
they keep the word feminism, then that's not happening. Guys
can't we can't act against it. That's like kryptonite.

Speaker 3 (36:42):
And they keep being unbelievable, unbelievable woke's golds and nags
and having absolutely no charitability to men and constantly abusing
and outright like being cruel to men. Somehow that's gonna
stop men from subjugating them. That's that's what's gonna do it.

(37:04):
This is so absurd, Okay, so being having a sense
of responsibility, right, that's not that you know if women
did that and actually cared about men in a genuine sense,
because you don't, like, let's face it, I don't think
ninety five percent of women really understand what men go

(37:25):
through or even accept it. Right, I could be wrong.
Maybe that's high because I deal with a lot of
nonsense people on Twitter, But I don't think if women
woke up tomorrow and started recognizing men's issues and started
recognizing the potential pitfalls that they bring to and human endeavor,

(37:48):
started recognizing their flaws right, and started recognizing the feminine
shadow that suddenly men would be like, oh, oh, you've
done it. No to the no to the sandwich minds
with all of you, Like why wouldn't men be doing
it now when they have to deal with all this crap? Right?
Why would why would suddenly being like oh, okay, let's

(38:09):
stop this, let's take responsibility. Why would that be the
thing that made men snap and say oh to the
sandwich minds with you and not the unbelievably high volume
skull like a vitriol and bitterness and contempt and lack
of any kind of gratitude, Like why why would it be?

(38:31):
Why would be the positive emotions that would send that
would get men to send women to the sandwich minds?
Like if that eves even on the table, why would
that be it? Why would that be the trigger point? Okay, anyways,
but that's that's that's that's the implication here, Okay, all right, some.

Speaker 6 (38:51):
To exist, you must have the cognitively deficient understanding of
feminism to simply mean letting women have thoughts and speak
them out loud in all seriousness, as a communications and
political science scholar with nearly.

Speaker 3 (39:04):
Is that really what feminism is? Is it?

Speaker 1 (39:06):
No?

Speaker 5 (39:06):
No?

Speaker 1 (39:06):
No, okay, no no, she's saying it's more than that that.
She's saying that if you believe that there is such
a thing as conservative feminism, that you then that means
you think that the extent of feminism is let me,
let me find it here. I can just read it.

(39:27):
The extent of it is simply allowing women to think.
So I don't think, I don't know, let me see here.
Why don't you name another imaginary concept that only exists
in the minds of famous forward thinkers like Sarah Palin.
Kudos to digging the hole deeper than any of us
thought possible in New York Times, because who needs to
be burdened by critical thinking anyway? For conservative feminism to exist,

(39:49):
you must have the cognitively deficient understanding of feminism is
simply means letting women have thoughts and speak them out loud.
So what she is saying, is that to say that
there is such a thing as conservative feminism would would
be to say that feminism itself is just letting women

(40:10):
have thoughts and speak. When she's saying, it's a lot
more than that.

Speaker 3 (40:15):
Yeah, the implication is that feminism is also constraining what
women think and speak.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
Well, that's also true, but I don't think that's what
she would argue.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
But no, but that's what she's been arguing it in verse,
and I'm going to tell you why. I'm going to
tell you why because when she says that it's just
saying conservative feminism is just allowing women to have thoughts
and speech, what she means is that there's some additional
aspect to feminism that would restrict women from actually having

(40:45):
the thoughts and speech that she thinks is wrong. Right,
It's like, it's like, yeah, feminism allows women to have
thoughts and speech, but it's not just that. It's also
that women would know, oh, that certain types of thought
and speech are wrong. That's what she's saying. Mm hm,

(41:06):
well maybe it's not coming cross, but.

Speaker 1 (41:09):
Well let's let's let's see what she would say.

Speaker 6 (41:11):
Okay, Navigating the complexities of workplaces of vastly differing sizes.

Speaker 3 (41:15):
So she doesn't know what critical thought is.

Speaker 1 (41:19):
No, of course not.

Speaker 6 (41:21):
I can tell you with certainty based on something we
used to call facts that corruption, nepotism, wage theft, abuse
of power, political oppression, and unsafe working conditions all existed
long before women showed up to be part of the fun.

Speaker 3 (41:35):
Who Okay, then you guys didn't well first of all,
then you're you're over selling yourselves because you said you
were going to improve all that. But we're regardless, Yeah,
all this stuff did exist, But did it exist to
this level? Or actually did did the problems of that
women bring because women bring their own problems. They bring

(41:59):
chilling out atmosphere, they bring censorship, they bring social bombs,
and they bring false accusations that are more likely to
be believed than actually investigated, right, and they bring all
kinds of tensions. So it's it no longer becomes about
a workplace doing the work that's intended, and it starts

(42:20):
to be becoming about the workplace making them feel good. Right,
And not all women do this. The problem is that
the ones with social power are really inclined to right.
So the one the women who have whatever knack it
is to create social power. They seem to be very
much inclined to create this kind of chaos to soothe themselves, right,

(42:47):
and the women who just want to get things done
end up being mired too. And unfortunately, how we structure
things now empowers the chaos agents, empowers the heiresses in
our in our myth, in our midst heiress is the
god of goddess of strife. And it doesn't it doesn't

(43:08):
actually help anybody. It doesn't help anyone man or woman
who just wants to get things done. And we and
again there's no accountability, right, there's no overarching structure of
accountability for women. And women have this ability to restructure
social social situations towards them. I mean, obviously that's a

(43:29):
that's an evolutionary advantage because that's that's what they do
because they need to be able to acquire resources from
large social groups. So they structure social groups towards their benefit.
It's like a survival strategy. Not going to say that
that's like, I'm not going to pass judgment on that,
but there does need to be some way of controlling
it when it's not beneficial to the workplace. And what

(43:55):
we've done instead is just try to put out a
fire with gasoline by giving all of these even more
cover and plausible deniability with from feminist narratives that this
woman is now spouting to avoid any kind of blame
or responsibility. Okay, I got it, I got it back.

Speaker 6 (44:18):
It's a crony capitalism who is at the helm during
the two thousand and eight financial crisis, what brave leaders
paved the way for pandemic.

Speaker 1 (44:27):
So she's basically saying that men men ran things, therefore
it's their fault. Although that's not that's not true anyway.
And women have been in the workforce since what and
that things have I mean, according to you, you would
say that things are are worse than ever, so women
entering the workforce did not improve it. But now you're saying, oh,

(44:49):
it's because women weren't in charge of everything.

Speaker 3 (44:53):
No, okay, yeah, but that is true. She is acknowledging
that things are worse than ever. The problem is is
that we don't. It could be that the increase in
female leadership without accountability. I would honestly lay my chips
on that if I were betting, is the problem. Okay,

(45:15):
And the narratives that allow women to evade accountability. Are
the problems? They that those narratives make women nightmares to
work with women like this, right, because they will not
take responsibility. But all right, let me think. But so

(45:36):
I would lay my my chips on that being the problem.
But she's she's just like she doesn't understand that the
system was working fine. Yeah, like, uh, in the sixties,
we put somebody on the moon, lady, right, and that
was with sixties technology, and now we are no longer

(46:01):
looking outward. We're getting more and more insular and setting
all that aside, there are industries that have become female dominated.
I've been investigating one over the last few days, actually
a few days before that. This was before my latest
Twitter adventure, and the industry that I'm investigating was the

(46:24):
print industry. And it's Shenanigan's and what's okay, So what's
relevant about the print industry? It is it is basically
overwhelmingly female. Now, right, I think that the editorial and
acquisition staff is now less than thirty percent male, and

(46:46):
so they've they've locked that all.

Speaker 1 (46:47):
Hell Andrews goes into some of that stuff like that,
the professions where women have become a majority and how
they have like negatively affected it. But this woman, I
don't think she addresses that. She's just gonna say to blame.

Speaker 3 (47:02):
But anyway, So I've been doing this deep dive into
the printed dive into the printing industry, and the printing
industry is utterly fucked. In fact, there is no real
printing industry right now. It's living off of the perennial stales.
I think perennial is the right word. The the long
tail of the print industry that existed like twenty years ago.

(47:25):
So it's living off of its back catalog. What that
means is it's living off of all of the books
that were published when men were the dominant editors and
acquisition staff. That's their main revenue.

Speaker 1 (47:38):
Now.

Speaker 3 (47:39):
I mean it was always very substantial, like in like
two thousand and five it was fifty percent. Now it's
over seventy because they aren't actually building that backlist. Nothing
that they're producing is really building the backlist, and or
it's it's like these aren't these books are not successful

(48:01):
in the way that they used to be, So that
whole industry is living off of the echoes of valor
and glory of when it was male dominated and eventually
it's going to implode from a series a comedic series
of errors and lack of vision because of extreme risk

(48:21):
aversion and I could get I'll go into it more
deeply if you guys are interested. But I sense that
Brian wants to finish this today, So uh yeah today.

Speaker 6 (48:31):
Sure, banking culture and massive fraud the likes of Enron.
Women didn't inherit some pristine corporate Eden, but they're certainly
getting blamed for eating that damn apple again despite inheriting.

Speaker 3 (48:42):
You're getting blamed for the problems that are resulting from
you dominating certain sections of the business world.

Speaker 1 (48:49):
No one's saying business like all business everywhere is bad
and women are to blame. They're saying is women are
uniquely causing a unique set of problems and this could
be addressed like we're ignoring it because it's women that's
the that's the problem.

Speaker 3 (49:07):
No, but but but run by that women are to
blame for everything in the business world. Agains say it again.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
I'm going to go back.

Speaker 3 (49:15):
No, no, you said it. You say it again.

Speaker 1 (49:17):
Oh, I'm saying like they're.

Speaker 3 (49:19):
Not saying, We're not saying that.

Speaker 1 (49:21):
We're not saying no one is saying that, you know,
I don't know, like corruption exists, and some of it
is in the workplace, and women have always been the
cause of it. All Okay, no one is like this
is like straw man. What what they are saying. What
Helen Andrews was saying in her video and the people

(49:44):
who are trying to talk about this is that there
is a certain kind of feminine let's say, vice that
has negatively impacted the company's ability to function the way
it did before, and that it should be addressed. And
these issues are uniquely coming from the women, and the

(50:07):
reason for it, at least one of the reasons for
it is that no one wants to talk about it
as women. That's like the main reason for that. Like
if it was just men like Enron, for example, there's
like documentaries about it. We know they're corrupt. We saw
the whole thing unfold. Nobody got offended. Nobody said, oh

(50:28):
my god, you're you know, attacking men everywhere for this.
No one said that because it's retarded to say. We
were just like, yeah, that's fucked up, that's corrupt, right,
And when when men do wrong, nobody has a problem
pointing it out. Nobody capes for them. Nobody acts like
they're in a center misunderstood or oppressed or damaged, or
you know, they think about their childhood or whatever. None

(50:49):
of that works. They can't cry in court and get
let off easy. None of that works. But when women
are doing stuff, everyone changes, Like, oh my god, remember
the chick that started her own company it was supposed
to it was a scam yeah, Faaraenose right, the Faraenose chick, right.
I mean that they're like obviously like a scammer. I

(51:10):
think she used her boyfriend or something, and like all
of this, and there was just like one simp story
after another that was how oh she's a victim of
the system. Oh, they were taking advantage of her. Oh whatever, right,
they made a show about her or a movie or
something with I forget her name. But the chick from
Clueless or Not Clueless Mean Girls was in Anni Seafreed,

(51:33):
a Manda Syfreed, a Manda sy Freed. So and it's
all sympathetic. It's all like, oh, you know, she's just
a woman whatever. So Helen Andrews trying to like talk
about something very specific and it's not like no corruption
existed before women came along. That's that's a ridiculous case.
No one is making nobody's making that claim.

Speaker 3 (51:52):
So okay, Jim says, women never did more than dip
their toe into printing. I said publishing, Did I say printing? Print?
How it's publishing, not not literal printing, it's publishing.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
Yeah, you're not talking about the actual work.

Speaker 3 (52:10):
Yeah, we're not talking about the actual like printing of paper.

Speaker 1 (52:14):
The hard work stuff. Right. But anyway, so yeah, she's
already like misrepresenting. But I mean, this is what they do.
They this is what they do. And of course the
whole thing is, by the way, the whole thing I've
don't even noticed. The tone of the writing of this
is like, you know, women are are, Like she's trying
to like attack the New York Times, which by the way,

(52:34):
is very like it's pretty far left, like regardless of everything,
they still are. They just entertained this so that they
could reframe it in some way. That's why they entertained it.
But this woman didn't think that was good enough, because
it's never good enough. But she's still framing it like
like they're wrong. Essentially, she's presenting her case as though

(52:56):
the New York Times is bullying women, and they're the
big evil New York Times that doesn't understand systems, and
so they're they're also dumb and ignorant, and they're and
they're taking it out of the poor women that are
just trying to like make ends meet with their job
in this corrupt system that's got it out for them
and like you know, the Orange Man and like capitalism

(53:19):
and all these bad, bad systems, and these poor women
are just getting abused by, you know, the by not
only all those sympstoms, but now the New York Times
on top of it. And that's basically the way she's
framing it. So they're victims of the fact that she
has to write this article. So there you go. It's
emotional labor by.

Speaker 6 (53:39):
And for men, many of which were already failing all
on their own terms. The NYT wants you to conflate
the revelation of the problem with the problem itself, and
there's so much that the podcast fails to acknowledge. Here,
the conversation completely ignores race, literally anything having to do
with it. The fact that DEI training, anti harassment, laws,

(54:02):
safety protocols, et cetera. Were responses to existing problems and
again are not the problem.

Speaker 3 (54:07):
They were mostly problems that apparently happened when you guys
entered the workplace, and they problematized the existing male workforce.
And also those protections weren't don't extend to men. Don't
give me this crap. They men do not feel served
by workplace harassment protections. That's why they don't. They like

(54:31):
reveal that they have been harassed at something like I
think maybe one third the rate of women so and
pretty much for equivalent crimes. So this is like and
they also the workplace harassment stuff took away from the
workplace safety stuff, which is unfortunate because that one really

(54:52):
affects men.

Speaker 6 (54:54):
Okay, it's the reality that women are still disproportionately absent
from positions of power. How can it be that women
who hold just ten percent of fortune five hundred CEO roles,
earn less on average, and are underrepresented at every leadership level,
but are still somehow the mean cause of a broken

(55:15):
corporate America.

Speaker 3 (55:17):
This is this is what they do right, Yeah, at
a time, companies, Well that just that positions of power.
She is saying, like Helen Andrews is saying, women are
responsible for these specific things that are in fact women
are responsible for them, right, Yeah, and she's saying.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
So, you're saying it's all women all.

Speaker 3 (55:44):
The time, since the beginning of time. This is what
the perpetual blame shifter does, right, This is what I see,
and this is particularly something I see women fall prey to. Yeah,
instead of taking responsibility for something that was within their power,
they take responsibility for something outside of their power. Right,

(56:08):
and then they get everybody to say, oh, it's not
your fault, so that they can ignore responsibility for the
thing that's within their power. I remember a particular anecdote
of about a group therapy session where this this this
therapist was leading the session. He was a man. He

(56:29):
was leading the session for a bunch of women, and
these women were you know, they had alcoholism, they had
family abuse, they had all kinds of other stuff. And
one woman talked about how her alcoholic the partner wasn't
the father of the child, would beat her child and

(56:50):
she would say things like, I'm so responsible for his abuse.
And then the women would be like, oh, no, you're not.
You're not responsible for his abuse. You're not responsible at all.
And then the male therapist would say, yeah, you're not
responsible for his abuse, but why didn't you take Why
didn't you protect your child that that is something that

(57:12):
you were responsible for. Why did you stay and allow
your child to experience that? And I know feminists will say,
but but but you know, the death that is such
a tiny percentage. You might as well say, don't walk
outside because you'll get hit by lightning. Right, Yeah, this
is this is like she decided to take responsibility for

(57:35):
his abuse because she knew everybody would be like, oh,
they're they're there. You can't possibly be responsible for that.
So she didn't have to take responsibility for what she
was responsible for, which was protecting her son. And that's
what I see women do, and in particular, it's a
female failing. Oh are you saying I'm responsible for the

(57:56):
heat death of the universe. No, gladys, I'm saying you're
responsible for leaving the wreck or the break room in
the shambles. Oh, I can't believe you say I'm responsible
for the two thousand or the nineteen twenty nine stock. No,
I'm saying you're responsible for the thing you're doing right now.

(58:20):
She is evading responsibility. Oh, you think I'm responsible for
the for the so the eruption of Mount Vesuvius that
took out Pompeii. No, I'm not saying that. And this
is the same thing. She is exaggerating what these people
are saying women are responsible for in order to not

(58:42):
take responsibility for a damn thing. And the fact that
she gets away with this and people don't laugh at
this is a problem. Okay, yep, I'm done. I'm done.

Speaker 1 (58:54):
All right? Uh did we do that super child from
that Papiga put through already?

Speaker 3 (58:58):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (59:01):
He sent one through.

Speaker 3 (59:01):
Yesterday, right, Okay, guys, do you want me to shill
the superchow? Well, go ahead, okay, send those super chows in?
So quiet? Is it just the Monday? Is it the topic? Like?
Not very well traffic feed the Badger dot com slash
just the tip, send those super chows in. Tell us
we're not screaming into the void. Be very greatly appreciated.

(59:22):
And okay, he just said honey for the Badgers.

Speaker 1 (59:26):
So yeah he sent us. Uh yeah, but I thought
I would acknowledge it's twenty five and then I think
something for the fundraising.

Speaker 3 (59:34):
A subscription, Yeah it was he Oh, thank you really
appreciate it. Yeah very much, thank you, Pepita.

Speaker 6 (59:41):
And women have feminized the workplace. You'd think that would
translate into putting themselves in charge. No, the notion that
capitalism itself may be the true source of burnout.

Speaker 3 (59:52):
But they put themselves in charge of some very critical departments.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
Like what is working then if you're not trying to
make money so you can buy stuff, like what are
you talking about? And yeah, women don't have to necessarily
have like a name plate and a corner office to
have power. They could just be in HR departments. And
that's like the thing too, is that a lot of
what Helen Andrews is talking about is the HR departments

(01:00:16):
and how they're weaponized to destroy men who are like
you know, in the lower rungs. It's not like this
is a none of one of these cases of apex
fallacy where women like this are like, but CEOs aren't like,
you know, losing their job. I mean, yeah, CEOs can
lose their jobs too, but like, you know, she's looking
at the CEOs and it's like, no, it's the working

(01:00:37):
it's the guys like you know, in the lower levels
that are dealing with this. Because these women in middle
management that get in the positions of power, or they
work in HR, or they just use HR as a
weapon against men in the workplace or of the women
in fact, because that's another thing that she talks about.
That's the problem. But like, obviously this person doesn't care

(01:01:01):
about those men. I mean, she doesn't care about any men,
but she especially doesn't care about working classmen like men
care about.

Speaker 3 (01:01:07):
Women who don't agree with her, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
Or women that disagree with her exactly, Okay, I mean
HR could destroy a company too, Like, it can it
even if it doesn't like they're not at the top,
but they can like destroy their reputation. You know, it
can be bad for that company.

Speaker 6 (01:01:25):
Family, institutional dysfunction, billionaire supremacy, and the like.

Speaker 7 (01:01:31):
The research on the material benefits billionaire supremacy.

Speaker 1 (01:01:38):
Get together with a bunch of other billionaires burning crosses
on your lawn. You know, it's something that they do.

Speaker 6 (01:01:46):
That women in leadership provide, from increased innovation to less corruption,
more transparency, better crisis management, beyond the faintest possibility.

Speaker 1 (01:01:56):
Oh brother, here's a whole bunch of positive things. No, again,
all of this science is not it's she never claimed.
She never claimed that Helen Andrews never claimed that women
don't do anything good, but that that's the Even the
woman that Helen Andrews debates on this in the video
that this was transcripted from, did not like was trying

(01:02:17):
to protect some kind of like you know, Golden Calf
that was feminism. And Helen Andrews was like, I'm trying
to be like as objective as possible in talking about this,
and she's like, are you trying to take women's I
mean not literally, but you know, like can we find
something positive to say about women?

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
Though?

Speaker 1 (01:02:36):
And she's like, why why are we doing that?

Speaker 3 (01:02:40):
So I don't know, why do we have to do that?

Speaker 1 (01:02:43):
Why do we always we shouldn't it's a land acknowledgement. Yeah,
it's bullshit. Okay before I start, guys, I don't hate women.
Like that's so dumb.

Speaker 3 (01:02:53):
You see every time people say things like that, I
just want to say, yeah, I hate women, and I
blame them. I don't know what. I think. It's my
contrarian or something. It's like, you you want to stop
me from saying this, Well I got to say it.
Of course, there's some things that you can't say on YouTube. Yeah, well,
you know the nuke being hit. But anyway, let's let's

(01:03:14):
finish this.

Speaker 6 (01:03:14):
Off, right, That general Z is right about the structural
injustices they observe in the workplace. Like most other injustices,
those who don't wish to acknowledge their existence are conveniently
the ones that benefit from them the most. And society's found.

Speaker 3 (01:03:30):
Okay, none of none of these are accurate. Like all
of the things that she's saying that she's a victim of, No,
none of them, none of them are accurate. Like, it's
just a bunch of bullshit. Yeah, she's just threat narrative.
And guy, she's just she's just spinning a narrative a threat. Okay,
you know it's it's workplaces. Workplaces are the threat, not women.

(01:03:55):
You know, workplaces exist women most affected, but also workplaces
in women most effect. It's like she's in competition with
the workplace. You know. Now people have said, wow, what
if women have a negative effect on the workplace, you know,
in some constrained instances, Right, and she's like, oh my god,
something might be getting victimhood points more than me. Not allowed.

Speaker 6 (01:04:18):
Okay, all right, Lusians is at an all time high.
We should consider that our modern problems cannot be solved
by continuing to operate in accordance with and perpetuate the
traditional masculine norms we've been conned into believing are the
only roadmap for success.

Speaker 3 (01:04:35):
What traditional masculine norms we can conned You mean white things,
because that's the other thing. They're just white people things, apparently.

Speaker 1 (01:04:46):
Well, like just the thing is is like I don't
know if you noticed, but these people never actually have
a proposed solution. They only have criticism. Yep, that's all
they are. All they talk about is tearing down, tearing down,
tearing down, because that is all they want. They don't
actually want to fix anything. Like women want to work. Like,

(01:05:09):
even if I'm like really objective about like why women work,
I think it's because, like at the base baseline, it's
because they need money and they need resources to live,
and so they work to live. They work because things
aren't free and there's no such thing as a free lunch.
She's and she's like celebrating all of the accomplishments that

(01:05:33):
women who work have, like all of the good that
women bring to the workplace, but she also hates the
idea of work itself because she calls it oppressive and
masculine and capitalists and stuff, which she also doesn't like.
So she doesn't actually like work. She doesn't actually want that,
but she won't make the argument against it because if

(01:05:54):
she does, then it actually like follows that the things
that she's trying to which is women working, she can't
because she's also against working. So like she's for women working,
but she's against working itself. Right, she can't hold those
two positions at the same time. So instead she doesn't
advocate anything. She'll say, well, this is what we could

(01:06:15):
do to fix this problem. She instead says, this problem
doesn't exist, and if it does exist, it's actually not
this problem. It's men, and it's capitalism and its property rights,
and it's stuff, and it's whiteness, and it's things like
you know, keeping track of time and using logic. Those
are all the problems. But I'm not going to propose

(01:06:37):
an alternative because there isn't one. I'm just gonna keep
criticizing it. And this is just how thing, This is
how critical theory works. You just criticize things until they
lose all meaning and they just spiral out into the
ether and disappear. And so there's no objective. This is why,
like it's often Lindsay and I like to say that

(01:06:58):
these people will say, we're where we were. We got
to have a conversation about having a conversation, because it
never goes anywhere. It's just a conversation about a conversation
about a conversation. But no solutions are ever offered, nothing
has ever proposed, because they can't. And if you do
the near part of the problem. That's why Ellen Andrews
or even you know James de Moore, the guy who

(01:07:22):
worked at Google, and he put together that. I think
it was like a presentation that explained why affirmative action
for women might not work because it wasn't getting the
results they wanted because they were looking for parody. And
he was like, well, that's not going to happen, and
it's because of women's preferences, and it's because of this
and this and this, and he was very very fair

(01:07:42):
and himself he was like, I would like to see
more women in the workplace. So he was coming at
it from the same perspective in terms of goals that
Google had. He had the same goal. He's like, well, yeah,
let's do that. And then he was like, well, it's
here are the challenges we're going to have, so actually
proposing a solution to a problem, or at least saying,
here are the reasons, here are the challenges we're gonna

(01:08:03):
have if we're gonna try to address this. And he
got fired for that because he dared to even say
women are different than men. And this guy was about
as like moderate as it came when it comes to
like trying to even talk about this stuff. But the
problem is he tried to talk about the stuff instead
of just complaining along with everybody else, and so it

(01:08:25):
this is the only way this could go. And this
is where Helen Andrews was trying. She was also proposing
things and they were all very reasonable, and of course
that made her the enemy because they're like, you're not
supposed to be solving problems. You're just supposed to complain.
You're just supposed to complain and then get everybody else
to get in on it with you, because that's how

(01:08:47):
we make money, that's how we survive. We get paid
to talk about these things, to complain about these things,
to have conversations about conversations, and nothing is actually supposed
to get done until it loses all meaning, and that's
what I think the purpose of it is. It's the
talk until it doesn't mean anything anymore, and then no
one even remembers what it was originally about.

Speaker 3 (01:09:08):
I realized another way to look at this. In the fifties,
we basically stripped women's productive identity from them and replaced
it with a consumptive identity. So the homemaker who consumes
instead of like the homesteader who is productive. And with

(01:09:32):
a caveat guys, there is one point that is like,
if you were a homemaker might actually be a really,
really good use of your time. If you're a very
educated woman, spending your time being at home and teaching
your children and being highly involved in their education will

(01:09:54):
yield geniuses at a rate five to seven times higher
than any other situation, aside from both parents staying home
and being highly evolved in the education of their children,
which will re yield geniuses at a fifteen to thirty
times higher rate than the average rate of geniuses. But

(01:10:17):
aside from that, we took women from being producers to consumers.
And that was because of progressive liberal or progressive Hollywood values. Right,
they actually destroyed the original traditional relationship or sorry, the
original traditional identity of men of women as producers for

(01:10:38):
their families. And you can still see this in traditional societies.
Women aren't supposed to be sitting there consuming in traditional societies.
It's why they have more stem degrees. They are expected
to provide for their families, which means they still have
that identity of female provision providership. Now in the fifties,

(01:10:58):
again we have Hollywood, we have Madison Avenue, we probably
have the CIA as well somewhere in they're deciding to
take women from productive people to consumptive people, people who
define themselves by their ability to consume. Now, once you
define women by their ability to consume, and then they've
consumed all of the gadgets that make their their job

(01:11:22):
in the home basically part time and mostly just entertainment,
and what next do they have to consume? Well, you
can have them consume rights, which they did. So they
look at rights as consumables, not essential to responsibility. So
they don't see responsibilities and rights as being something that

(01:11:44):
are paired. They just see rights as consumables. And then
after you've consumed all the rights, what's next, well, jobs,
And again, these women with this new identity of consumer
go into the workplace seeing their jobs as consumables, as
things that make them feel happy, as things that allow

(01:12:05):
them to socialize, as things that give them prestige, but
not things that actually keep a business alive. Now, does
that not explain a lot of the behavior of women
when they go into the workplace. And I'm not talking
about lower class, middle class women, but women like this,
privileged women, when they go into the workplace and they

(01:12:26):
get these avocado toast jobs that apparently Elon could fire
ninety percent of and not affect the working of Twitter.
So these are jobs that do nothing. They don't shift
the bottom line for the businesses that they're part of.
They're just prestiges. They're entertaining that you get to socialize,
you occasionally write an email, and you eat plenty of

(01:12:49):
avocado toasts and maca lattes, and that's basically your job.
It's a consumable, it's not a job. And that attitude
in the workplace destroys economies because it takes productive industries
and turns them into slop, consumable slop for the people

(01:13:14):
in them, So that it takes a productive industry and
it bloats it with jobs that are about the person
in the job, enjoying themselves, feeling prestigious, now socializing, doing
an occasional little bit of work, but still is you know,
it still gives them a sense of a sense that

(01:13:36):
they're what matters, not the job, not the business, but
them because they are they are consuming, they're the consumer,
They're the one that needs to be pleased. And I
think that's actually it actually squares the squares of the
circle for her attitude towards jobs. No, she doesn't. She

(01:13:57):
thinks that work is horrible. She thinks that the toxic
masculine approach to work is horrible, which is, you go
to work, you do a job. You do the job
because you get paid, but you also do the job
potentially because you don't want your business to go the
business that pays you to go under. You know, you

(01:14:18):
do the job because it's there to be done, or
if you're a man, you just I don't know, men
are like, you know, you could just put something out
there that needs to be fixed and guys will just
sort of gravitate towards it and be like, Okay, how
do we do this right? It's just it seems to
be inbuilt to the masculine psyche to find problems to

(01:14:39):
fix so that they bring that. That's the toxic masculinity
approach to jobs. She didn't like that. She wants the
modern consumer approach to jobs, which is the job exists
for her. The job exists to make her feel good
and her feel special, and to give her a avocado
toast breaks and to give her are the opportunity to

(01:15:01):
do hot yoga with the girls. That's what jobs exist for.
They don't exist to keep a business alive, all right,
And that's probably why women will do jobs where they
don't get paid. If they're prestigious and they feel like
they're going to be entertaining and they're they're basically consumable jobs,

(01:15:23):
all right. All right.

Speaker 1 (01:15:24):
I got a super chat from Albatross for five and
he says odd that the women slash activists, et cetera
wants to tear down the structures we take for granted,
but at the same time demand safety and comfort. Cognitive dissonance.
Uh yeah, women thrive in paradox. I don't. I don't know.
I don't. I don't know what to tell you. Yeah,

(01:15:46):
they they do. I don't know. And maybe again, it's
not about the nail.

Speaker 3 (01:15:51):
It's short sighted.

Speaker 1 (01:15:53):
Yeah, and I I yeah, we just have to ignore them.
I don't know, I mean, we can't really. But there's
thirty seconds left in this Okay.

Speaker 6 (01:16:02):
From AI and climate change to the collapse of American
democracy and rise of global fascism. Cannot be solved with
more conflict and less empathy. Dl docker this article asks,
all right, so.

Speaker 1 (01:16:15):
And that was the end. Yeah, now we got we
got you. Notice how she goes. She pivoted immediately to
more like feminist talking points climate change, global fascism, capitalism.
Uh uh, And we need empathy. That's it. That's that's
the solution. More empathy.

Speaker 3 (01:16:32):
It's not empathy if you're just a woman giving it
to other women, not even to women, you're just a
woman giving it to the narrative that you think gets
you the things you want. That's not empathy. Yeah, you
say that we need more empathy, show it to the
group of people you're not, which is men, then I'll
then you know. Then you're right. It's because the thing

(01:16:53):
is they talk about toxic empathy, and the real problem
is it's selective empathy. Mm hmm, all right, very okay.
Can we get into the other part.

Speaker 1 (01:17:03):
Let's get into the other one. So we got it
right here.

Speaker 2 (01:17:08):
Start.

Speaker 1 (01:17:08):
We'll start with the stinger. So Helen Andrews is the
woman on the left with the glasses and forget the
other woman's name, but not that important. So and we'll
play the stinger clip. So this is like, what the
other chick got upset about? Was this conversation taking place?

Speaker 5 (01:17:25):
Okay, I really couldn't get purchased on from your essays.
I never got a sense of whether there were female
virtues at all from your piece.

Speaker 4 (01:17:34):
If you want to know what I like about women,
you know, that's not like going to ask me. In fact,
I am from me an entire essay on the subject
what I like about women?

Speaker 7 (01:17:44):
Rates are very reason what do you like about women?

Speaker 1 (01:17:47):
So he wrote this piece specifically about the great feminization,
which is the bad things that an overly feminized space
can result in. And this woman who was critiquing her
not apparently not not like the opposite of Helen, but

(01:18:09):
like was concerned about the tone. Surprise, surprise, A tone
policing woman, I know. But she was like, did you
have anything nice to say about women? I want to know?
And she's like, if you want to know I could.
I could tell you, because I'm right here. You're upset
that I didn't put it in the piece. But the
piece wasn't about what makes women nice? Right? So that's

(01:18:33):
that's the Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:18:36):
I would just say, no, there's nothing I like about women.
I can't even describe anything that I like about women.
The first and primal thing a human being needs to
do to be likable is take accountability mm hmm and
be able to take criticism. So why don't you demonstrate likability, lady?

(01:18:59):
And then moybe, I'll say it like you?

Speaker 1 (01:19:02):
All right?

Speaker 3 (01:19:02):
So she does she play the silly buggers game?

Speaker 1 (01:19:06):
The silly buggers?

Speaker 3 (01:19:08):
Yeah, it's just like, does she does she? Do they
rail world her into saying what she likes about women? Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:19:14):
No, I don't think so. No, No, I don't think
she does. I think she sticks to her guns.

Speaker 3 (01:19:21):
Basically, good, good for her, some moral courage. Congratulations, that's likable.

Speaker 1 (01:19:27):
Yeah, So he says, do you the the host guys like,
do you like women?

Speaker 5 (01:19:33):
Are very reason?

Speaker 7 (01:19:34):
What do you like about women?

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
Helen?

Speaker 3 (01:19:35):
Do you like men?

Speaker 1 (01:19:38):
What is this?

Speaker 3 (01:19:39):
Okay? So you do you like women? All right? Well,
does this guy like men? I think that the criteria
for was that the criteria.

Speaker 1 (01:19:48):
She has positive things. Look, Helen Andrews has positive things
to say about men in her piece because she's talking
about what men bring to the table to a professional
atmosphere that's good good that women shut down or take
for granted or dislike, and that it is the interaction

(01:20:08):
between a feminized workplace and men's way of working operating.
That that clash is what's causing problems and Helen's trying
to address it. She acknowledges basically with men that they're
full human beings. They have, you know, things that they're good,
and then there are things that could be You know

(01:20:29):
that they have their own vices, but generally those vices
are addressed when they become a problem, but women's vices
are not. That's the main thing.

Speaker 3 (01:20:38):
Okay, Yeah, that's exactly what I said. And the thing
is that I'm much more hard line because I know
that once you start playing the silly Buggers game, you
never get back on topic, Like once you start playing
the do you like women game? Well, do you like men?

Speaker 1 (01:20:52):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:20:52):
Do I have to like women? Does liking women make
what I say more true?

Speaker 2 (01:20:59):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:21:00):
Why do we all have to fucking like women. What
is that necessary? Why does that be like the precondition
to actually speak? All Right, I'm gonna I'm gonna let
the cat in.

Speaker 1 (01:21:15):
Okay, should I play the video?

Speaker 3 (01:21:17):
Ye?

Speaker 8 (01:21:21):
Men and women are really different. But what do those
differences mean? Should the right be trying to roll back
the entire feminist era?

Speaker 1 (01:21:32):
Yes, yes, of course they're not gonna say that. But
I don't know that they could. I don't. I don't
know that you could do that. But but should they? Yes?
But I don't think you can.

Speaker 3 (01:21:42):
Okay, but no, no, but we could actually roll back.

Speaker 9 (01:21:46):
Now.

Speaker 3 (01:21:46):
The thing is, the feminist era is what men women
working while they always did. Right. The feminist area is
women having saying in politics, well they always did. Feminist
era is women being on boarded do the things men
construct as soon as it's bureaucratically reasonable for them to
do so, and it's stable and it provides more benefit
than it takes in terms of risk. That's always been

(01:22:08):
the case. Like this is like you go look through
human history, there's no situation, no part of human history
resembles anything to do with feminism. So what we're really
asking is should we dismantle a ideology that co opted
academia to create legitimacy for itself based on around unsubstantiated

(01:22:37):
and very hateful allegations against men. And the answer is, yes,
there is no way that not dismantling that there's no
way that dismantling that is not going to result in
a net gain for the entirety of the human race.

(01:22:59):
So the answers, yes, we should one hundred percent dismantle
feminism and don't let the thing that's being dismantled protect
itself by Do you have you ever watched I think
it was Freer in like this. Uh, it's this anime
with this very aged, this very aged kind of elf

(01:23:22):
who who is not like she doesn't look aged, but
she is really old, and she's reminiscing about her former
human traveling companions who have all died or most of
them have died while the humans have died, but there
was one dwarf who's still alive. And so at one
point they have this this race of demons that manages

(01:23:43):
to infiltrate human society by manipulating our sense of compassion
and empathy. And they managed to overcome one of these
demons in like a little village and as that like
they're just about to kill that demon. The demon says,

(01:24:06):
cries out for its mother, and freer in the main
female elf is like telling the humans, don't don't buy
into it, because it's just doing that in order to
manipulate you into sparing it. And but the humans don't listen,
so they spare the demon, and the diamon ends up
killing a bunch of kids and whatever else you know
demons do. And then when they corner it and finally

(01:24:28):
kill it as it's dying, they ask, why did you
call out for your mother? And the demon said, because
when I say those words, you don't kill us. That's feminism.
When I say, when feminism says things but without us, men,
men would subjugate women without us, that's that is the

(01:24:52):
demon crying out for its mother, so it won't kill you.
So don't listen because it's absolute, unsupported nonsense, nonsense, pernicious lying.
That's better.

Speaker 1 (01:25:08):
Okay, yeah, all right, I'll play a little bit more
at this opening.

Speaker 8 (01:25:13):
Or is there a conservative feminism that can correct liberalism's mistakes?
My guests this week are both conservative writers, both critics
of feminism, both women who have very different views of
what a right wing politics of gender should look like.

Speaker 7 (01:25:31):
So Helen Andrews lelie.

Speaker 1 (01:25:33):
All right, I'm pausing it there. That's just them setting
the stage. I despise this framing, but whatever. So they
get into an argument about three minutes and I could
get to that. Helen Andrews critiques wokeness as a feminized pathology,

(01:25:55):
So let's go to that bit right there.

Speaker 4 (01:25:59):
So I think that there are some generalizations that can
be made about tendencies that are male or female, masculine
virtues and vices and feminine virtues and vices. But those
things are always a spectrum and it's hard to get
a grip on them. And if I sat here and
said women tend to be more emotional, more men tend

(01:26:22):
to be more intellectual, you could have five perfectly valid
objections to that right off the bat. So I think
I will restrict myself to the judgment on which I
am confident, which is that the pathology in our institutions
known as wokeness is distinctively feminine and feminized.

Speaker 3 (01:26:48):
Okay, we can't do too long, And yes, I know,
I just she talks a little bit slow.

Speaker 1 (01:26:53):
I could speed it up in terms of the playback.

Speaker 3 (01:26:55):
Yeah, maybe yeah, I'll.

Speaker 1 (01:26:58):
Speed up the playback speed to like one point twenty five.

Speaker 3 (01:27:01):
Great, that's great. All right, So, yes, pathology is woke.
That's where it came from. There, there is consistently this
desire to censor based on tone or social comfort consistently
comes from women. It's very difficult to argue otherwise since
the statistical evidence is there. Yeah, okay, so she's one

(01:27:26):
hundred percent right. She's very very careful, very well.

Speaker 1 (01:27:31):
I think she knows like she's got experience with this, right,
so she's trying to be But I also think that
like people like this, I can tell because I'm I'm
like this too. They hate being misrepresented and so you know,
it's like, this is what I said, and I'm very
particular and I'm very specific with my words. So if

(01:27:53):
you if you imply I didn't that I said something
I didn't say, if you do like a you know,
Kathy Newman on me and say so saying, then I'm
going to call you on it because I'm being very careful.
And this is like the this is where we are
now where we can't just speak and then people in
good faith are like, okay, let's dig at dig a
little deeper and figure out where you're coming from. Oh,

(01:28:13):
I understand where you are. Now, okay, so here's where
I am. Let's move forward from here. No, it's like, no,
actually I think you said this. You know, it's like
the least charitable interpretation possible, and so you you you
just can't with you just can't deal with that.

Speaker 3 (01:28:30):
No, it's trying to establish tribal lines instead of recognizing
that people with different opinions can be beneficial. They can
challenge and sharpen your beliefs. They may also have a point,
you know. And Okay, she she's a little bit she's
a little bit clingy right now because she really wants

(01:28:52):
her kibble and we're not feeding her kibble out of
fear that the kibble is causing an allergic reaction, which
is causing you know, the uh, the scratching, which she
is scratching a lot, and it's leaving like like injuries.
So that's that's what's going on with her. She's not

(01:29:13):
she's not. I don't think she's suffering. We took her
to the vet. We we found out that it might
be an allergic reaction, it might be mites, it might
be some other thing. That will probably require like three
thousand dollars to fix. I'm exaggerating. I'm really hoping it's
that it's just you know, the allergies or the mites.

(01:29:35):
But yeah, it's it's that's where she's at. She's a
little bit pesty. I put her in the other room
for a bit so we could actually talk and we
could start the show. She might come back and pest
some more. Yeah, so guys are wondering about my behavior
towards her.

Speaker 1 (01:29:51):
All right, I think fort some things to read out
from the audience. Nova twenty one gave us a dollar
and on Rumble, thanks you know a fan and says
the only time women hold each other accountable is feminists
punishing female resistance to the sisterhood. Yes, and that's the
only thing, Like, that's the only thing that they're guilty of.

(01:30:12):
So and then Senior Stix says for two dollars, feminism
didn't ruin the workplaces, but it didn't help. Again, Helen
Andrews isn't claiming that it ruined the workplace. She's saying
that it is a problem, and I think it's right.
I think that she specifically points to HR departments as

(01:30:35):
one of the primary problems, and that if there was
a way to tamp that back, at least in terms
of like their influence. Like if you went to HR
and the only thing you were going to them for
were things like you know, like holiday hours over time
four to oh one k, you know, retirement like this

(01:30:58):
sort of like you or your health insurance like whatever,
then that's one thing. And they do all those things
and those are fine, but they're also involved with things
like lawsuits and discrimination and like these other things that
are a lot more you know, I don't know, hard
to pin down. They're not as objective, they're not as straightforward,

(01:31:19):
and a lot of people exploit that stuff, and HR
itself gets involved in ways that it probably shouldn't. So
that's just one thing, right, So yeah, anyway, so let's keep.

Speaker 4 (01:31:32):
Going and that in a very literal sense, our institutions
have gone woke because there are more women in them
than there used to be.

Speaker 8 (01:31:41):
What is the nature the essential nature of wokeness that
you associate with a certain kind of feminized politics or
feminized ways of relating to other.

Speaker 3 (01:31:50):
People you associate.

Speaker 1 (01:31:54):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:31:54):
What yeah? That that that look is one that would
be the look I would be giving do you mean
what is suggested by the science, sir.

Speaker 1 (01:32:06):
Yeah, you're not getting kibble.

Speaker 3 (01:32:11):
You're not gonna die if you don't get kibble. Like
I might locate a can of food for her, But
do you mind if you just keep playing and responding
and I will locate the can of anything else.

Speaker 4 (01:32:27):
Let's pick one flavor of wokeness, and that is the
Me Too movement. It was not just an increase in
the volume of sex scandals. There have been sex scandals
since the dawn of politics, and it was not just
that there were more of them than there used to be.
If it were simply a matter of more women having
the self confidence to speak up and challenge their accusers,
I don't think anyone could possibly object to that. But

(01:32:48):
that's not what the Me too movement was. The Me
Too movement was a change in the rules of how
sex scandals work. There was a change in what kinds
of behavior were held up for censure, and you had
people like comedian as He's Ansari being canceled for what was,
at the end of the day, just a bad date
and he was guilty of not much more than severe awkwardness.

Speaker 1 (01:33:08):
All right, so's this me too is like an example
that she's using. So this isn't about that, she's just
using and it's a good example to give because well
she's making it pretty clear. It's basically like it didn't
challenge sexual impropriety in the workplace or in politics or whatever.
It changed the rules of engagement between men and women.

(01:33:30):
It permanently damaged the way that men and women relate
to each other, like at least like it seems permanent, right,
And she uses the disease as these and I'm sorry
thing as an example where you know, he had a
bad date with a woman and he got canceled for
it and he was basically he's disappeared from public life

(01:33:51):
as far as I can tell.

Speaker 3 (01:33:53):
So okay, can I just get in there all right?
Me too? And this is something I said a while back.
And I think you remember, you know, feminism stabs you,
and you know that the last time feminism stabs you
is you know, that's that's okay, But feminism gets no

(01:34:14):
more stabs. And then feminism stabs again, stabs someone again,
and you're like, oh, no, okay, well just that's no
more stabs. Well we'll accept that, but no more. That's
how that's how they keep operating. No, me Too do
nothing good nothing. If it was ever going to do
anything good, it would have done something for the multitude

(01:34:36):
of men who are suffering in silence due to the
sexual harassment and sexual violence of women because they're out
there not reporting, and they continue not to report. So
all this did was empower women to do something they
were already empowered to do, but now do it ten

(01:34:58):
times harder with no oversight. At some point you gotta
say no. When feminisms stabbed someone that is wrong, they
don't just get another stab and then and then you're like, oh, well, okay,
but but stop there, you know, stop at me too,

(01:35:20):
you know, stop at uh, stop at the slut walks,
you know, stop at Susan Brown Miller saying that Emmett
Till was complicit with the with the the sexual violence
of all women. Right, maybe stop. No, all of it
is bad. None of it is a solution to anything.

Speaker 1 (01:35:40):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 3 (01:35:41):
And if it was a solution, then it would be
solving the problem for male victims. To think about that,
If me Too had been a solution, it would have
been solving the problems for male victims too. Did it No, Okay?

Speaker 4 (01:36:02):
Continue all right, It suddenly became mandatory for us to
believe all women, no matter how credible or not credible
their testimony might be. It got to the point where
to even probe a woman's story with various questions about
the facts of the of the case became an affront
and disrespectful to women. So that, to me is the
essence of wokeness that you see in all of its

(01:36:24):
other variations on campuses or in the workplace, yep, yep,
cutting down conversations, intruding politics to spheres that had previously
been neutral, sort of importantly neutral, pillars of civilization, neutrality,
things like the rule of law were suddenly subject.

Speaker 3 (01:36:44):
Okay, that wasn't me too. Feminism absolutely raped academic neutrality.

Speaker 10 (01:36:54):
M hmm.

Speaker 3 (01:36:55):
Like feminism raped it, you know, and then did a
victory lap, did it, raped it again, did another victory lap,
told everybody that the fact they had to rape academia
in the first place was actually oppression of women. Did
another victory lap, raped it again, you know. Basically, feminism

(01:37:17):
utterly destroyed academic ethics, academia's claim to consistently applied ethics
and principles, right and yes, like that that that what
you were saying, you know, new new sectors. They're all
no that it started in academia and then it built

(01:37:39):
up a fortress of bullshit around itself. HM.

Speaker 1 (01:37:44):
Okay, all right, So here's it's not really her response,
but her take on this sort of opening discussion about feminization.
So her name is Leah. I don't remember her their name,
but her name is Leah something.

Speaker 5 (01:37:58):
You can see this in a variety of way, something
pretty small skill. There's a lot of going back and
forth on the college level about where the three point
line should be for men and women's basketball. Should it
be equivalently hard for a man and women to hit
the shot, or should it be at exactly the same
spot so no one can say the women aren't playing
as hard. I don't actually care that much about basketball,
I'll level with you, but I think that anxiety that
to draw two lines on the court would in some

(01:38:20):
way imperil women's dignity is wrongheaded, and you see it
to have a real cost in other domains where that
attempt to treat women like defective men. Why nearly identical,
nearly swappable? And when we can close, what why are.

Speaker 3 (01:38:32):
We Okay, what's the payoff.

Speaker 5 (01:38:34):
Here, let's see, is that gap no one will be
able to tell us for less then ultimately does a
fundamental injustice to women, and it results in violence towards babies,
because of course, pregnancy is the most obvious way women
differ from men. It won't ever be fully closed.

Speaker 7 (01:38:48):
And a big part of your argument is that the
institution of American life or Western life since the feminist revolution,
have basically said to women, yes, you can join up,
you can you know, you can have the jobs you want,
you can have the equality you want, but we will
not accommodate ourselves to what you just defined us the
greatest female distinctive right to you.

Speaker 3 (01:39:07):
Okay, yeah, yes, jobs will not accommodate what is accommodated
by a house. Okay. When you go to your house,
you do things that you do in a house, like

(01:39:27):
raising your children. When you go to the workplace, you
do things that you do in a workplace, like working. Okay, Like,
what the hell this is? So what this discussion is
now about how to balance workplace? For well, I can

(01:39:49):
tell you right now, based on what I've researched, if
we want to actually stride confidently into the future as
a species that's self aware and as an actual chance
of getting off of its globe planet of birth, then

(01:40:09):
probably what we're going to do have to do is
encourage women to stay at home, and specifically very educated women,
and educate their children and spend that their time doing that,
because that will overall increase the intelligence quotion of the
human race. We can also do that with men. In fact,
the very best situation would be to encourage both men

(01:40:32):
and women to stay at home, highly educated or verious
intelligent men and women to stay at home and raise
their kids to raise the collective IQ. No eugenics required.
But here's the problem, and he softens it too. Feminism
didn't just say, oh, you're going to have the choice.

(01:40:53):
Feminism was pretty clear that it didn't want women to
have the choice not to go into the workplace. Yeah,
and that's what they aimed for. Well, okay, let's I.

Speaker 1 (01:41:03):
Mean this, Well, let me let me give you a
little bit. I'm not gonna play it. But this guy
the set up the context of that comment she made.
What the So remember, guys, this is the New York Times.
They are already a feminist organization. The host is feminist.
The guy the woman on the right is feminist too,
even though she calls herself like a conservative feminist whatever

(01:41:24):
that means, that doesn't matter. She's a feminist. There's no like,
it's basically like feminists from twenty years ago, or maybe
thirty years ago, if I'm really charitable. And Helen Andrews
doesn't really state a position on that, Like no one's
asked her, are you a feminist? But she doesn't sound
like it's of interest to her, so like she's not
worried about losing her rights or her job or anything

(01:41:47):
like that. She's she's definitely on the spectrum. And I
kind of like her for that. But that's just me.
But that's the woman on the left is Helen the
woman the spurg I was talking tobout.

Speaker 3 (01:42:00):
Okay, so uh, I was promised, I was promised female flaws.
Where are they?

Speaker 1 (01:42:07):
Well, we'll get into that, so the guy says to
her before she answers, he says, I want to start
Leah with a fairly direct question about because you are
identifying yourself in your book as a particular kind of feminist,
and I want to ask you what is wrong with
existing feminism, liberal feminism and how it has failed women.
So I think the essential problem is that there is

(01:42:27):
a train, a strain of feminism that sees any difference
between men and women as a threat to our equality.
So this is like the I'm mentioning this context because
it's the foundation under which these ideas are coming from
for these two people, for the man in the center
and the woman on the right, which is that there

(01:42:49):
has to be a feminism that and there has to
be equality like whatever. And of course you know what
equality means is their version of equality with which is
just like are women taken care of?

Speaker 3 (01:43:02):
Like?

Speaker 1 (01:43:02):
That's basically what it means. It doesn't matter what men
doesn't matter, it's what are women taking care of? Okay, Right,
it's assumed that men's position is fine, and that's why
she goes into the thing about the basketball courts. So
I'm going to jump ahead to where it gets a
little bit more I guess contentious. Uh thirteen oh two.

(01:43:23):
This is a disagreement about whether, like if, if this
is this feminization is is explicit wokeness is explicitly feminine
or not.

Speaker 7 (01:43:33):
A problem with wokeness?

Speaker 5 (01:43:35):
No, I don't think so. I think America is a
country of repeated religious revival, and this was one of them.
It swept up both men and women and came out
of a fundamental sense of you know, what's wrong with us? Right,
the fundamental question. People are always asking what's wrong with us?
And what can we do about it? I think wocus
was deeply interested in questions about guilt, but had kind
of thin answers for how guilt.

Speaker 3 (01:43:56):
I want to tell you where BOCS actually came from.
Right and right In the first Medium article that we
looked at, did you notice how she used advocacy for
all of the pet the monolithic raised capitalism to justify,

(01:44:18):
justify how women weren't to blame. Right, Yes, she used.

Speaker 10 (01:44:22):
Them to to render women blameless, so women can't possibly
be as bad as men, or have problems or bring
flaws to the workplace because women protected the minorities.

Speaker 3 (01:44:37):
That's where woke came from. It's just more of this.

Speaker 1 (01:44:43):
Woke is just it's just it's just feminism. It's just
like another brand of it. Though like it, I think
that this kind of intersectional, progressive UH set of beliefs
are very old. They just have a new name. They're
not new though. Like you can look at the six
these when you had like weather Underground and the womanism

(01:45:06):
which was like I think it was womanism which was
like black feminism, but that was just intersectional feminism for
and then queer feminism was a thing back then, and
like you had all the queer theorists, like the Judith
Butler's and stuff. So this isn't new. It's just like
resurged in the mainstream because of things like me Too

(01:45:26):
and BLM and such. But it's not a new idea.
And of course you know it's headed up by women.
So I mean that's I'm sorry, Ilica, I'm mean to
cut you off.

Speaker 3 (01:45:38):
No, it's okay, We're not a gaggle of Canucks. Brian
is American special chat popped in. Okay, let's let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (01:45:47):
All right, all right, let's go.

Speaker 5 (01:45:49):
But I see this is less of a significant deviation
from other parts of American history.

Speaker 7 (01:45:53):
Let me ask you though, about wokeness in particular.

Speaker 3 (01:45:55):
So that's I don't have to take responsibility for that
because I've identified it. Yeah, but even if it is
a religious resurgence, it's deeply tied to women and feminism.
So she basically saying, oh that, so this one woman
is saying that's a flaw. Well, women bring rocism into
the and she's saying, no, it's it's a flaw of
religion and also religious men, religious men and women, but

(01:46:19):
mostly religious men. So it's a flaw of Christianity. And
by Christianity, I mean white men who are conservative. So
it's a flaw of conserv You see, wokeness is actually
by transitive property, is actually a flaw of Republican white
men or any kind of conservative men. Do you see

(01:46:40):
this now? Do you see how that works? My DearS?

Speaker 1 (01:46:43):
Do you see yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:46:46):
Conservatives need to take responsibility for pushing wokeness on the world.
That's the most Does anybody just stop women like this
and say, okay, no.

Speaker 11 (01:46:59):
You're right, woman, a quiet woman to your own argument,
do you write a society that cannot imagine placing the
week at its center, that forgets that society exists for
the week will be drawn toward the mannecout modes of
cancel culture, right, m hmm, it will be.

Speaker 3 (01:47:17):
Drawn to cancel culture. Oh oh, So she's basically saying, okay,
so if you don't put the week at the center, okay,
but that's not what a business is for. You aren't
given stuff because you're weak. You're expected to do stuff

(01:47:38):
using your strengths. No, and and the thing is that
the problem with this rhetoric is when women say, oh,
we need to put weight women or weakness at the center,
they mean they need to put it everywhere. The mean
it's like we need to put nuke spent nuclear fuel
rods in the set. No. No, we're just gonna put
them in everybody's pocket and their luggage. We're gonna throw

(01:48:00):
We're gonna hand them out at like cafeterias and schools.
It's just gonna get everywhere. They don't we did. She
doesn't mean that weakness needs to be safely contained where
it can be tended to without interrupting all of the
other functions of society. She means it should be everywhere.
Just throw those nuclear fruel rods and parades to kids,
you just everywhere, just just everywhere. Just let them roll

(01:48:23):
down the streets, in the sewers, in people's lunch pails,
like everywhere. Yeah, okay, all right.

Speaker 8 (01:48:34):
So you're looking at the same phenomenon that Helen is
looking at, and you're saying, well, there's not enough respect
for dependence and weakness don't you think that wokeness, whether
it is a sort of feminized phenomena, there.

Speaker 3 (01:48:45):
Is not enough respect for dependence and weakness.

Speaker 1 (01:48:52):
Yeah, let let's let her get to.

Speaker 8 (01:48:54):
Her argument, certainly in its own self conception a mode
of trying to get people to care about the week.

Speaker 5 (01:49:01):
I think this is where we couple that first an
orientation towards the weak, a preferential option towards the poor,
with true seeking right. They do go together. The weakness
of a baby is pretty incontrovertible. The moral status of
a baby is where people start to have a philosophical fight.
I see a lot of the kind of frenzy of
wokeness around people, of a sense of could it be
true that, in a meaningful sense, I'm complicit in systems

(01:49:22):
of evil? This zeal for moral concern, that's good.

Speaker 3 (01:49:25):
Okay, this is funny coming from a avatar of possibly
the most evil act, one of the most evil freakin acts. Like, No,
you don't get to lecture or even conceptualize on this issue, lady,
until you purge yourself of sins, and you purge your
freaking ideological position of the unbelievable level of deceit that

(01:49:54):
you engaged in like I can't emphasize this enough, guys.
Feminism colonized academia submit forced it to submit to, denying
its own stated principles transparency, empiricism and all of the

(01:50:15):
empirical rigor all of its stated principles. Feminism made academia
it's bitch and then turned it into like a like
a virus and sec effecting a cell, turned it into
a factory for its own lies, for justifying and presenting

(01:50:36):
or creating evidence for its own lives, for its own premises,
which were never subject to any kind of neutral scrutiny
to truve if they were true or not. She is
sitting on the biggest ethical scandal in academia, and she's
beaking off about being everybody else has to think about.

(01:50:56):
Am I part of a system of evil? Well you
start with you, You start with addressing that. Of course,
she's never gonna hear me, nobody like nobody's ever going
to tell her. If you want to call yourself feminist,
why don't you address that absolute violation of humanity like

(01:51:17):
this is this is this is This behavior by feminists
is in the same category as Soviet control, like a
Stalinis Soviet control over academia, not seek control over academic
ideological capture of academia, absolute violation of academia. And she

(01:51:39):
has the audacity to sit there and pontificate about being
complicit in.

Speaker 9 (01:51:44):
Systems of evil, which incidentally she bases.

Speaker 3 (01:51:48):
On that ideological capture of academia manufacturing evidence, and I
mean manufacturing because it's not actually creating evidence that you
that is proven. It's just manufactured evidence for an already
chosen premise. And then she uses all of that to
cast shade on everyone else. Oh are you in No,

(01:52:12):
Absolutely nobody is complicit in a system of evil except
you and all of the corporate bullshit and government bullshit
that you are enabling. Everybody else is just trying to
do their fucking job and pay for their fake fucking
family and make sure their cat doesn't die of some
weird fucking disease.

Speaker 9 (01:52:34):
You're the one who's sitting there and opining on.

Speaker 3 (01:52:38):
The back of an absolutely ravaged academic integrity. You just
sitting there like she's freaking krawl on her freaking mound
of skulls, saying everybody else's will think about We've gotta
think about what you did. You complicit with systems of
death on her fucking mound of skulls, drinking from a skull.

(01:53:02):
You guys, you need to realize, all of you people,
you need to be realized you're part of an evil system.
Glug glug glug as she drinks from her skull. Fucking
mug like this is infuriating. Yeah, sorry, I'm slightly infuriated

(01:53:22):
by this.

Speaker 1 (01:53:23):
It's all right, Okay, So okay, let's keep going.

Speaker 5 (01:53:30):
I think put things right in a situation where I'm
constantly entangled with at least a partial cooperation with evil.
That's a good question. How do you put it right?
Is not primarily through self flagellation. It's through active doing good.

Speaker 7 (01:53:42):
What about it?

Speaker 3 (01:53:44):
It's through telling women like this to go go away
and shut up. I can't, I can't emphasize this enough. Yeah,
she is lying about society. Feminism has been lying about
society since the sixties, and in order to buttress those lies,

(01:54:07):
they have been discriminating against men in some of the
most vulnerable situations homelessness, sexual assault, domestic violence, right, false accusation,
father's losing custody. They have been discriminating against these men.
She talks about Oh, we should protect the vulnerable. How
should How about we spend a moment to think about

(01:54:30):
the situation of those people who we never regard as vulnerable. No,
she's not gonna do that, And these are her victims
as she opines about how everyone else.

Speaker 9 (01:54:41):
And she has the sacred knowledge, you see, she has
the sacred knowledge of who is moral and who is
complicit in the system of evil. And her sacred knowledge
is really really true, except it isn't.

Speaker 3 (01:54:56):
It's all lies. And she looks like she's really nice, right,
she seems like friendly, and she's the perfect avatar for
this evil fucking and I and when I say evil,
I got the receipts. This isn't just some vague Oh
you have patriarchal privilege or your ability to be on time?

(01:55:17):
Is is whitism? This is verifiable receipts of how feminism
co opted academia to push a narrative that destroys societies,
that destroys men, that destroys women, that destroys families, and
why for its own benefit. Of course, that is true evil.

(01:55:43):
That's true evil is to believe that your benefit is
something that is more important than anything else in society,
and that is what she is a mouthpiece for everything
should be sacrificed for the altar of feminism, whatever you
call it, conservative feminism, liberal feminism. Everything needs to be

(01:56:08):
sacrificed for that.

Speaker 8 (01:56:10):
Okay, yeah, look, we are going to give special attention
to people who are disadvantaged, who you know, who are
sort of represent a tradition of suffering or disadvantage, who
come from disadvantaged minorities or the disadvantage sex or gender,
as the case may be, right and essentially give them
a special leg up, special deference in debate. And that's

(01:56:33):
the place where Helen immediately says, this is you've lost
you've lost truth seeking and you know, maybe you've become
too feminized.

Speaker 7 (01:56:39):
But what I.

Speaker 5 (01:56:40):
Wouldn't say difference in debate. I would say, so, okay,
she's lost.

Speaker 1 (01:56:45):
By the way, the guy the moderator is I don't
know if this is a debate per se, but they
definitely have disagreements. The guy in the middle is definitely
like on the woman on the right side, and he's
trying to, you know, basically like give her like I
don't nudging or whatever.

Speaker 3 (01:57:04):
So I see that, I see that Helen Andrews is
lost interest a little. She's looking at the she's looking
at the wall stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:57:16):
Well, the frames, the frames are whatever, they're they're a
little they're a little awkward because they're not quite the same.

Speaker 3 (01:57:23):
Yes, I didn't Oh, yeah, you're right, I didn't even
notice that. She's probably noticing it. It's probably more interesting
than what these two POGs are doing over there justifying.
And you know why, you know why they do this?
Money money, money, it's so funny. In a feminist world,

(01:57:45):
money money.

Speaker 1 (01:57:46):
They couldn't do this. They have to get real jobs.

Speaker 3 (01:57:49):
Yeah, because somehow advocating for the vulnerable always means giving
a really really big salary to some wealthy socialite from
New York. But that, somehow, it's just you know, it's
just it's just the way it works. It's just natural law.

Speaker 5 (01:58:08):
I guess, okay, all right, kind ofness to what kind
of policies are appropram Here's where draw a big distinction,
being two attempts to do a special justice to the
most disadvantage students, one of which you know, went very
badly and one of which is going very well. The
idea of we don't have enough students of color in
our algebra classes at middle.

Speaker 3 (01:58:25):
Kate, all right, all right, I'm calling it now. Let's
get the actual actual discussion of the topic, not caping
for feminism, because I'm pretty sure that what her presentation
is is that women should be in the workplace because.

Speaker 1 (01:58:44):
They jump ahead to a juicy bit.

Speaker 3 (01:58:47):
So okay, but can I just is am I characterizing
this correctly? Is her conclusion is that women should be
in the workplace because they make sure that they marginalize
have a voice or something.

Speaker 1 (01:59:03):
I think that she's saying that Helen Andrews's essay has
some merits, but that she is too mean to women
in it. I think that's what it is, like we
should be we should be focused on helping the disadvantage.
And of course the assumption is women are disadvantage, because
that's what the New York Times guy in the middle

(01:59:25):
was saying, Well, women I have it worse right all
the time forever, And she's like, yeah, I guess they do,
so we should maybe we should be a little bit, like,
you know, more charitable to them. And Helen is like,
that doesn't fit. I know, that's not right. This is
the problem. They're not that weak. They do cause problems,

(01:59:46):
they do have toxicity so I'm gonna go to the bit.

Speaker 3 (01:59:50):
Where what I was gonna say is this. Yeah, you
notice how this rhetoric of weakness always seems to land
on either caping for white liberal women like this or
feminist women, or making sure that they are the primary
recipients of DEI and other beanies like this. This is

(02:00:11):
what they do. Okay, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (02:00:14):
Yeah, all right, I'm gonna jump ahead to let's see
tension around female virtues and vices. So forty nine oh two.
It's kind of far ahead, but we've been going for
like two hours, and I think you got the gist
of the other things.

Speaker 5 (02:00:31):
So in some sense, though, and female advices are about gossiping, backbiting, irrationality, ostracism.
I never got a sense of whether there were female
vice virtues at all from your piece, genuinely, and that's
why he's not even comprehensive with it.

Speaker 1 (02:00:48):
Should I go back a bit more? Do you want to.

Speaker 3 (02:00:50):
Usership is a female vice?

Speaker 1 (02:00:53):
Yeah, Censorship, canceling people losing the like Helen Andrews goes
into it in Her in Her Peace.

Speaker 3 (02:01:00):
Maybe we should read it.

Speaker 1 (02:01:02):
I sent it to you like a while ago.

Speaker 3 (02:01:05):
Yes, Oh, I didn't read.

Speaker 1 (02:01:08):
It probably great feminization. I send it to you like
a week or two weeks ago so by Helen Andrews
on Substack, and everyone's talking about it.

Speaker 3 (02:01:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:01:25):
Is the piece wasn't about. It wasn't supposed to be like,
here's what men do well and that are good about them,
here's what's not good about them, and here's what's good
about women, and here's not what's not so good about
That wasn't what it was about. It was saying our
entire workplace political and like every institution is becoming feminized,

(02:01:45):
and there are problems with it that no one seems
to want to address. So I'm going to try to
bring them up.

Speaker 3 (02:01:53):
And talk and risk aversion. Are the two big problems
that I see women have? Yeah, and that those are
the two problems that are that is going to kill
the print the publishing industry. Sorry I've said printing, I
meant publishing.

Speaker 1 (02:02:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:02:08):
There there, those are the two problems that are going
to massively kill the publishing and we can I can
actually discuss that because I think it's relevant to the
issue of of virtues and vices. Just going through Coral,
it doesn't look like there's an extensive argument oh so,
uh it looks like Lee Libresco pushes back somewhat on
characterizing these behaviors as exclusively feminine, noting such issues occur

(02:02:32):
in both men and women and are related to Yeah, okay,
so basically, she's this woman is saying there are there
are vices that women bring to the workplace that they
are unaccounted for, and this other woman is saying, no,
those are just those are just human ills. There's no liney.

Speaker 1 (02:02:48):
Yeah, she's like, couldn't these just be human problems? And
but uh, I mean sure, but like again, the problem
is not that they exist or even that people pointed out.
The problem is the response to them is not the
same if men have like, uh, I think that at

(02:03:09):
one point they get into a thing where Helen Andrews
says that, you know, there might be like a like
a centerfold image in like a men's workspace, like in
the back somewhere, and no one else but the men
can see it. And she's like, yeah, it's a big
ghost or whatever. But it's not like a big deal,
you know, And this woman is like, well that's not appropriate,
Like that shouldn't be there, right, So, like there's a

(02:03:31):
different and so what she's saying is whether she knows
it or not, that should be canceled. And that is like,
you know, unacceptable, but that like if men are like
you know, like Lindsay where she works, she's the only
woman in the department, and she's like a meat cutter.
She works with a bunch of meat cutters and these
are all like, you know, big like hairy southern guys.

(02:03:54):
They all curse, well, they're not that big. One guy's big.
The rest are all little guys, but like you know,
they're foul mouth and they say, like they make racists
and sexist jokes all the time, and Lindsay finds it refreshing.
She's like, wow, this is like so much fun to
be around. But they know they can't do that anywhere
else because like it's a specifically the meat department is

(02:04:15):
male dominated. The other sections like produce and the deli
and like the wellness area and that's all women, right,
So that's a completely different vibe, and Lindsay doesn't want
anything to do with it, but like there's nothing like
that's but that's like so that people who go to
work like they can like take a little bit of
their I don't know, home with them, and men in particular,

(02:04:36):
they like that. They want to be They don't want
to go to work and be worried about what they say.
You know. They just want to focus on their job,
so you know, and these guys do and they just
have little fun while they're at it, you know.

Speaker 3 (02:04:50):
Yeah, so yeah, I mean, and yeah, that's not that's
and yet they're policed and that's not seen as innocuous
because in this this is the big thing that is
the big problem with women in the workplace. It's women's
feelings and subjectivity that become the standard that everybody else

(02:05:10):
has to live by.

Speaker 5 (02:05:12):
Is that fair? No? No, A.

Speaker 3 (02:05:17):
Men are too used to just abiding by it. I'm
glad that this woman is calling that out. I don't
know if she does call that out specifically. I just
find it hilarious that these two POGs are talking to
each other and she's looking up at the wall, like, Wow,
this isn't relevant to my interests. Your entire conversation is
pointless and stupid.

Speaker 1 (02:05:38):
But anyway, so I think her name is Leah. She's
trying to get hell in to answer the question, why
didn't I see any female virtues in your piece? Why
were none of my virtues on your list. As the
quote from Gladiator goes, I got a.

Speaker 5 (02:05:53):
Sense of balance for the men, but not for the women.

Speaker 4 (02:05:55):
I saw that you made that criticism elsewhere.

Speaker 5 (02:05:58):
If it's a question, it's only a criticism depending on.

Speaker 4 (02:06:00):
Your If you want to know what I like about women,
you know that's not going to ask me in.

Speaker 3 (02:06:09):
Like, seriously, it's a bitch, what are you talking about?

Speaker 1 (02:06:14):
Alson, she's saying, with a smile on her face.

Speaker 3 (02:06:16):
No, look at look at the actual body line.

Speaker 1 (02:06:19):
I know, I know, I know.

Speaker 3 (02:06:21):
This means you know what this means. It means contempt.
It means contempt. What, Yeah, it means fucking contempt. She
is expressing overt contempt. This woman, it's like, and her
body language is extremely aggressive. Right, that is like she

(02:06:49):
is being a bully contempt and ironically the woman on
like Helen is still demonstrating the posture of equality. Right,
she's looking at her square on. She doesn't have her.

Speaker 12 (02:07:08):
Jaw tilted up like she's the moral authority, she's the
one on top and that you have to kiss the ring, right,
She's not doing that.

Speaker 3 (02:07:21):
She's looking straight ahead. I probably part of it is autism.
She doesn't have that kind of shoulders forward. She's just
sitting neutrally right. This woman is projecting a lot of
energy at her and she's probably used to getting people
to submit to her in other contexts. But Helen is
probably too autistic to pick it up. And I know

(02:07:43):
this makes people uncomfortable because it's an analysis of body
language and facial expression. But that's what she's projecting. She's
projecting attempted moral dominance and contempt. Yeah, okay, that would
be a very uncomfortable to be in.

Speaker 5 (02:08:03):
It's a question. It's only a criticism depending on your answer.

Speaker 4 (02:08:06):
I know what I like about women.

Speaker 5 (02:08:08):
You know, that's not what you can ask me.

Speaker 4 (02:08:10):
In fact, I am from me an entire essay on
the subject what I like about what my rates are?

Speaker 7 (02:08:15):
Very reason What do you like about women? Helen?

Speaker 4 (02:08:18):
Well, just to finish that particular thought before I answer
that question, Uh, it's it's a little bit feminine, honestly,
to focus on my likes and dislikes I don't like
about myself world.

Speaker 1 (02:08:32):
You see. That was good though, she says, you know
what you're doing right now is pretty feminine.

Speaker 3 (02:08:40):
God damn, that's really expressing some disgust towards Keller.

Speaker 6 (02:08:45):
Do you know what.

Speaker 1 (02:08:48):
Yeah, I thought that was a good. That was a good,
like it was a counter Yeah. Before I answer that question.

Speaker 3 (02:08:58):
Derek Workman, look at the chin. It's up. That's not
bad posture. She is moving forward. She's not slouched. That
would be a completely different kind of posture. There's this
is slouching right, leaning forward, shoulders curled, chin up, very

(02:09:23):
different kind of posture. No, that's that's discussed.

Speaker 10 (02:09:28):
Not confusion.

Speaker 3 (02:09:29):
I know I'm talking to a bunch of autists you
probably can't identify for now I'm talking about I'm not
saying that. No, that looks like Nope, it looks like disgusted.
I mean to be slightly confusion, because they're fairly similar
emotions sometimes, or they look similar sometimes. But to me,
that looks like disgusted. And you know, I mean, you
take it for what it is. But I do draw

(02:09:53):
people's expressions in a storytelling context. So can let's let's continue.

Speaker 1 (02:09:59):
All right.

Speaker 4 (02:10:02):
I am telling you that when I look at the world,
I do not see any institutions that are currently suffering
from an excess or an insufficient feminization.

Speaker 5 (02:10:12):
Helen, I don't care about your likes and dislikes, because
that's not what I found compelling about your poo.

Speaker 3 (02:10:16):
Okay, well, okay, then why were you kept asking her?
Let's go back for a second. What were you asking her?

Speaker 2 (02:10:26):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (02:10:26):
Yeah, so yes, are like, what are some virtues femine virtues?

Speaker 4 (02:10:34):
I am telling you that when I look at the world,
I know.

Speaker 3 (02:10:37):
You got to go back further. I'm pretty sure that
she said, what do you like about? Okay, just a second,
And that's why I'm asking yo dead lead on discension
towards women in some sense though. The one thing I
really couldn't get purchased on from your essay is I
got a very clear sense of masculine vice and masculine virtue.

(02:10:59):
That masculine virtue about risk taking, about you know, embracing chances,
brotherhood fighting, making up a comfort with turbulence, right, and
master advices are about vulgarity, you know, uh, condescension towards
women in some sense though, and feminal advices are about gossiping, backbiting, irrationality, ostracism.

(02:11:19):
I never got a sense of whether there were female
vice virtues at all from your piece, genuinely, and that's
why I'm asking I got a sense of balance for
the men, but not for the women.

Speaker 4 (02:11:28):
I saw that you made that criticism elsewhere. If it's
a question, it's only a criticism depending on your answer.
If you want to know what I like about women,
you know that's not like going to ask me from
an entire essay on the subject, what I like about
what fe rates are?

Speaker 7 (02:11:42):
Very reason what do you like about women? Helen?

Speaker 1 (02:11:44):
So the guys the one that says what do you
like about women?

Speaker 3 (02:11:47):
Well, but it's after she says what I like about women?
I think she means what I recognize is positive about women? Yeah,
and I like And honestly, the like and dislike argument
is is feminine. So she wanted her to identify virtues,

(02:12:10):
and I would say that why do you need to
be flattered constantly?

Speaker 1 (02:12:16):
Like? For me, I think that she's trying to be like.
It sounds to me like you can't find any virtues
in women in your peace like her piece should have
had balance in it, but Helen's piece, the objective was
not balanced. The objective was to identify a problem with
the feminization of workplaces as well as the political sphere,

(02:12:41):
and most importantly, when she talks about in her piece
the political and legal space, because she's saying that rule
of law and due process and all these things that
we need like actual objective and dare I say, masculine
approach to are being feminized and they're being made subjective

(02:13:03):
in postmodern and that's a problem. And so like, it
wasn't the appropriate context to be like, here are all
the good things that women do? Like that wasn't what
the piece was about. That would be like me saying
I'm going to write an essay about grilled cheese sandwiches,
and then you're like, you didn't say anything about tomato

(02:13:23):
soup because that goes really well with the grilled cheese.
But I didn't hear it once in your in your entire.

Speaker 3 (02:13:29):
Piece about making her emotions dictate what can be written
about basically, which is as Helen says, it's very feminine. Okay,
let's let's conclude this. You know it's.

Speaker 4 (02:13:41):
Yeah, well, just to finish that particular thought before I
answer that question, Uh, it's it's a little bit feminine, honestly,
to focus on my likes and dislikes.

Speaker 1 (02:13:51):
I'm not asking, don't And she's telling this guy that
about that. Yeah, I got a discussed expression. That's that's
probably why, because she's telling him, you're being feminine.

Speaker 3 (02:14:01):
So it's also feminine to focus on flattery when we're
talking brass tacks here. Yeah, learn to live without being
flattered lady. Here's the thing. What worth is it to
say that women have all these benefits?

Speaker 1 (02:14:21):
Like?

Speaker 3 (02:14:21):
Are women are all good in all of these ways?
Who cares?

Speaker 1 (02:14:25):
Yes? I guess like they think that if a person
does a bunch of like flattery before they start they
make their land acknowledgments, then maybe their criticisms will be
worth it, like they're worth listening to and make them more.

Speaker 3 (02:14:40):
They won't listen to them, to them anyway, They just
want the land acknowledgement. But here's the thing, Like, when
you are told drawbacks or vices that women have, you
can endeavor as an individual to overcome them. Right. That
means that it frames your more moral agency as an individual. Okay,

(02:15:04):
isn't that more important than being told that you have
these these these things just by virtue of existing? Like
I mean, I know I say that men have virtues,
but they never get told that ever. Right, And in
a lot of cases, what happens in society will insist
that men don't have those virtues that it relies on

(02:15:27):
in order to make men give up those virtues for nothing.
And I'm calling that kind of thing out. But here
it's like, why wouldn't you prefer the vices? Why wouldn't
you prefer the discussion about the vices, because that puts
the emphasis back on you and your individual choices. I
don't give a crap about all of the beanies, like

(02:15:49):
the goodie bag that apparently I get as a woman.
And it's not not like privilege. It's just all the
cool all of the things that I make the world better,
even though I do nothing to earn it like this,
this is the big problem, was one of them. I mean,
I've had a lot of big problems. Why are women
so obsessed with flattery when that flatterly is meaningless. Like

(02:16:16):
if somebody says, oh, women are beautiful, that's meaningless. Right
if she says, oh, all women are compassionate, it's also meaningless,
because often it becomes an excuse not to be Okay,
let's I'm almost done here. Yes, I'll be quiet, all right.

Speaker 4 (02:16:40):
And I am telling you that when I look at
the world, I do not see any institutions that are
currently suffering from an UH excess or an insufficient feminization.

Speaker 5 (02:16:52):
Helen, I don't care about your likes and dislikes because
that's not what I found compelling about your portrait of risk,
which we both value as a genuine virtue, not a
matter of preference, like chocolate or vanillas. So I think
there are objective virtues for women in the same way
you think they're objective primatology based vices for women.

Speaker 7 (02:17:06):
Why is of the essay?

Speaker 8 (02:17:08):
I felt like I was actually clear on what Helen
thought female virtues were. I was less sure how those
virtues manifest themselves.

Speaker 3 (02:17:17):
Yeah, actually stood up for her. They don't really like
that's the honest to god truth.

Speaker 1 (02:17:24):
Yeah, maybe, like, well, I don't know that. I don't
know that her essay specifically talks about that, but it's
irrelevant to fons.

Speaker 8 (02:17:33):
So it seemed to me that Helen, this is the
point of agreement between the two of you, that women,
for biological reasons, are oriented towards forms of care and
love and sort of communitarian spirit that men are maybe
not as good at. I was interested in, well, what
do those female virtues bring to a newspaper or a corporation,

(02:17:55):
right or are they virtues that you know? And again,
this would be the trad right, A trad view would be, yeah,
women had virtues in their best exercise in the home.

Speaker 4 (02:18:03):
To say a word to Leah, First, you've written several books,
and I'm sure you've read reviews of those books. Hopefully
as fellow authors, we can agree that it is unfair
when book reviewers criticize you for not writing the book
they would have written. So it's possible that I didn't
write the essay you would have written. I just wanted
to know that information that was curious to you.

Speaker 3 (02:18:22):
But that's really fucking fair. And the thing is that
there was some passive aggressive ray from this woman too
when she said I don't care about your likes and dislikes.

Speaker 1 (02:18:34):
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. She was just giving
it back to her. It's fine, just giving it.

Speaker 3 (02:18:38):
Back to her. We should do like we should do.
You remember when in maintaining frame, we used to judge
people's performance based on like threat narrativing. Remember that we
give people like scores. That's that. Uh yeah, well, she's

(02:18:58):
like Lee is framing Helen as being a threat to
women this way because she doesn't like women, and that
makes her a threat to women. Right, she's not willing
to flatter women. That makes her a threat to women.
And I guess Lee is trying to undermine that threat
narrative by simply saying, you are trying to force me

(02:19:21):
to write what you want. So she's emphasizing Lee's agency
and also her bad intent, or at least her her
desire for dominance. So you're right, this is a cat fight,
and it's interesting who will win in the end, who
will reign Kattie Supreme?

Speaker 1 (02:19:40):
Yeah, I think this is almost over, but let's go.

Speaker 5 (02:19:43):
I'm asking you as a thinker. As a thinker, I
respect about what virtues you see in women.

Speaker 3 (02:19:48):
Oh now she's trying to manipulate through flattery. Yes, that
was an interesting Let's see if let's see if Helen. Yeah,
see if Helen gets sucked in.

Speaker 4 (02:20:01):
To ross because I think the answer he just gave
about care was pretty close to the mark.

Speaker 8 (02:20:05):
Well, then let me let me take the moderator's prerogative
and say, again, repeat my question how because and I
will elaborate it on it further and then you can
answer it. Seems to me we can take for granted
that many many workplaces in the future will be mixed
between men and women. That this is sort of a

(02:20:25):
fundamental feature of that's all very.

Speaker 3 (02:20:28):
That's that's a bold claim many workplaces in the future.
That's optimistic. Mm hmmm, considering what's happening in AI and
everything else. Like, that's really optimistic. You know, if you
were to say something like the workplace like the pre
the publishing industry, yeah, that that might not exist in

(02:20:51):
the future, and hopefully the publishing industry implodes and dies
before it takes an entire medium with it. So when
you're saying that, oh, yeah, well you know there's going
to be mixed workplaces in the future, there might be
a very hard correction to that. Yeah, and there certainly

(02:21:13):
will be if we can't hold women too account and
we have to constantly flatter them. Okay, let's keep.

Speaker 8 (02:21:18):
Going, all right, If you don't want those workplaces and
those institutions dominated by female vices, what is the positive
su interaction between male virtues and female virtues that you
would like to see at you know, at the Supreme
Court or the New York Times or anywhere else.

Speaker 4 (02:21:37):
I think that if you had asked me ten years
ago to guess what the effects of the feminization of
the legal field would be I probably would have given
the same answer that a feminist would have given, the
same answer you can find in Daliolithwick's book about the
feminization of the law, that it's going to be more
accommodating of great areas, it's going to be less doctrinaire,

(02:21:58):
less hewing to the letter on the page, and more
looking at more attentive to context. And I think if
you had asked for a second, yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:22:06):
I fucking love this word context. M they love like
feminist science loves this word context like feminists. There will
be a Okay, so I have been having this discussion
with with Grock, which bear with me. It's good for

(02:22:27):
data analysis, and feminism will there will be a particular
type of projection based on feminist hypothesis, and when you
test that projection rate relative to what actually happens, it
will of course fail. And in fact many cases, feminist

(02:22:50):
theory or feminist hypothesis predicts the exact opposite of reality.
But when it fails, feminists will say contextual factor, make
it fit. I just wanted to say, get that out, Okay.

Speaker 4 (02:23:08):
It was like, you know what, that's maybe not necessarily
such a terrible thing. Maybe we should be more oriented
towards rehabilitation rather than punishment. Maybe the feminization of the
law is not entirely without benefits. Uh, And I think
it's possible that that is accurate, that that is a
reflection of how the feminization of law has played out
in practice. The reason why I am turning on a

(02:23:31):
big red siren when it comes to the feminization of
the law is that all of those things that sounded
so nice in theory or in the abstract in practice
look like the Title nine kangaroo courts for sexual assault
on college canvasses. If that is what the feminization of
the law looks like in practice, I think that's horrible.
And if an increasingly feminized legal profession is going to

(02:23:52):
take the problems of those Title nine courts and bring
them into grown up law, I think that is that
is an emergency level danger that we all need to
be really really were worried about.

Speaker 3 (02:24:02):
Wow, that's actually pretty devastating.

Speaker 1 (02:24:07):
What do you mean, like in terms of this this
conversation that was like an altr eyes glowed and then
oh yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:24:22):
Okay, let's see what the let's see what the POGs
say okay, call them pos is that offense.

Speaker 8 (02:24:27):
The positive side here is that you could imagine a
dynamic interaction between a doctrinaire male sensibility and a female
sensibility attuned to nuance and gray area of Yin and
yang model.

Speaker 1 (02:24:42):
He's trying to do this complimentary and thing. She literally,
Helen said, literally, if you asked me this question ten
years ago, I would have agreed. But now that I
see where we are, No, absolutely not. This is an
emergency that we have to like address. And he's like,
so you're saying there is room for so so you're
saying there's a chance. Quality, So he's like.

Speaker 3 (02:25:10):
Misinterpreting, but yeah, women are nuking the legal system, so
you're saying there's still possibility.

Speaker 1 (02:25:18):
Yeah, there's a chance.

Speaker 8 (02:25:23):
Okay, So anyway, interacted successfully to correct the weaknesses of
a purely doctrinaire vision of the law without sliding all
the way into a motive driven kangaroo. I'm looking for
the positive dynamic because just as liberals and conservatives are
stuck with each other in America, so two are men

(02:25:44):
and women, right, So that's what we're looking for.

Speaker 4 (02:25:47):
Yeah, and I think you can see imagine the same
kind of thing to jump to another institution in academia, right,
Academia is extremely feminized today, and it's not a coincidence
that college campuses are capitals of wolkness. Uh So, I
think probably it's unlikely that college faculty are going to
be defeminized anytime soon. But I think we can achieve

(02:26:08):
helpful compromise in the inian yang dynamic that you described
by reinstaduting certain guardrails to guard against female vice's strong
statements of academic freedom.

Speaker 1 (02:26:17):
That's so, this is her. So he's like, so we
could imagine a time where in the legal profession we
could integrate men and women together and get a little
bit of a Yin yang thing. So he's bringing he's
trying to, like, essentially stop Helen Andrews from saying women
should not be involved in the courts if it's going

(02:26:38):
to result in Title nine kangaroo courts on college campuses,
which I'm glad she brought up. Yeah, and then her
counter of that is, oh, yeah, I guess we could
do that, But then we also want to do this
in academia. It's like, it's full of women, so why
don't we put some men in there? Too, and why
don't we tempt down on that? So like she wins
no matter what. This is like a check checkmate move,

(02:27:00):
you know. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:27:03):
Anyway, although I honestly the female battling is more fun.
Like when she talks to the man, it's it's all
logic and reason to a degree, I mean, because he's
still a man, right yeah. But then when she's talking
to the woman, there's all this kind of like like
low key suits like psychic battling going on, you know,

(02:27:28):
not low key. It was just like there's a lot
more there's a lot more conflict. Shall we say? All right,
let's go all right.

Speaker 4 (02:27:38):
We can start there if we're if we're thinking of
concrete steps we can take tomorrow to make sure that
men and women on university faculty are able to work
together more productively.

Speaker 5 (02:27:46):
I still haven't heard a full account of female virtue.
I heard you voice it.

Speaker 3 (02:27:50):
Uh, okay, why are you bringing that up again? She
already told you she's not doing it. She needs flattery,
she's not gonna be your bitch.

Speaker 1 (02:28:00):
Well let's see.

Speaker 5 (02:28:00):
I'll be honest, I don't think in terms of primarily
feminine masculine virtues as a kind of fractional complementarity. Yes,
you called to faith, hope, and charity. They're all called
to fortitude. The particular kind of fortitude. Asked if a
man or a woman may change based on their state
in life. But I would have trouble raising my two
daughters and my son to know how to be good
versus how to reduce their harm, working solely from this

(02:28:22):
definition of what it means to be a man or
a woman.

Speaker 7 (02:28:25):
One of the larger stories of.

Speaker 3 (02:28:28):
What this is, this definition which she blames on her. Okay,
this how to be good and not to be well. Generally,
being good is avoiding being pad doing bad like or
or to embrace good like. And you need to know
bad in order to know what is good like it

(02:28:52):
it's it's it's really weird, because she's essentially well. In
order to be able to teach your children how to
be good, you have to teach them what is bad,
and from that you can infer what is good. So

(02:29:12):
I don't even know why she would say that, except
to again cast shade mm hmm.

Speaker 8 (02:29:21):
Okay, all right, our world is we've referenced in a
couple of diamonds, but we're in a society where men
and women are not interacting successfully. I think, uh oh,
you likely polarized at any point in modern history. Possibly
related to that is the declining marriage and birth rates
all across the development.

Speaker 3 (02:29:40):
Possibly related to that far, but.

Speaker 8 (02:29:42):
There is some failure for the sexist to come together.

Speaker 1 (02:29:47):
Like this is how you know we're winning because the
people who are the least infested in talking about this
are talking about this like they like, they don't there's
nothing else they can do. We'll have to We're really
dance around it, like, well, you know, I guess things
are really bad right now between men and women, and
like maybe there's some others downstream related you know, it's

(02:30:10):
speculative at this point, but like the fact that nobody's
having kids, are getting married, and everyone's lonely as fuck,
that might be related to it. I don't know. I
want to blame the GDP and the economy personally, you know,
that's what I think it is. But like some people
think that men and women come together has something to
do with it. I don't know. So that's how you know,

(02:30:30):
Like it's getting to the point where it's aggressive. Outlets
like The New York Times can't ignore it. Yeah, at
least say, well, give it lip service, you know.

Speaker 3 (02:30:43):
Yeah, although I think it's I think it's not us,
it's the chasm, it's the it's the the pain that's
doing it. Yeah, yeah, cause I think and what's really
going to be interesting is when the elites finally put
two and two together there and realize they're not gonna
be ruling over much if if there's no no healthy society. Mm, yeah,

(02:31:08):
you're you're gonna be top dog. You're gonna be top
dog of a of a radioactive mud pit, guys, you know,
like a smoking crater where once a prosperous civilization that
could actually build you gold toilets once stood. Congratulations, you're

(02:31:28):
gonna be the only man with the goat and and
two acres of mud to to They're billionaires, so yeah,
I think that that'll be when it probably really turns.
But yes, they're facing the pain and then they're they're
searching for solutions and explanations. And she's got a fairly

(02:31:49):
good one, you know, feminine vices. She needs to take
a step back and see where those vices started and
started to penetrate every thing.

Speaker 8 (02:32:01):
Okay, all right, so two two questions that are maybe
nested together in each of your visions of sort of
workplaces and cultures transformed? Do you think that the modern
workplace can help men and women interact more successfully?

Speaker 1 (02:32:26):
Right? Or well? This is it sped up? I'm sorry,
this guy's really working hard to like not piss these
women off. I guess I don't know like.

Speaker 3 (02:32:34):
What he cares about. I don't think he cares about Helen.
And Lee is trying really hard. Like she's definitely suppressing something,
probably the desire to go and punch Helen or scratch
her face or something.

Speaker 1 (02:32:50):
Yeah, but look at the look at the blinking Yeah,
I see it.

Speaker 3 (02:32:55):
She doesn't even want to look at Helen directly.

Speaker 8 (02:32:58):
Is there a way in which jen differences require maybe
a little bit more separation in some sphere like which
you can't.

Speaker 1 (02:33:05):
Even maintain anything?

Speaker 3 (02:33:06):
Can eye content bring.

Speaker 8 (02:33:07):
Out the best way for men and women to work
together at work? Or just called you distinctively male and
female workplaces and then men and women sort of rejoin
in the romantic or domestic sphere.

Speaker 3 (02:33:19):
Okay, I think she just told you, did she not
just say you need to have guardrails? You need to
specifically call out the bullshit that women bring, which is
sense censorship, which is excessive myopia. They think that their
social circle is the entirety of the audience first fiction

(02:33:39):
in the US and Canada. Okay, sorry, that the the myopia,
the riskd version, okay, the approaching workplace as someplace where
it makes you feel good rather than you do a
job people feel is critical to get done, so they
pay you for it, right, that kind of stuff. And

(02:34:03):
she said, call it out, you know, put the guardrails
back on. You don't behave like that in a workplace.
And he's like, well, what do you really do? What
do he really I'm guessing, Okay, this is a little
bit of inference, all right, that I could be completely wrong.
I'm guessing what he wants is how do you kiss

(02:34:24):
women's asses? Like? How does making the situation better for
men and women? How do we do it by kissing
women's asses?

Speaker 1 (02:34:32):
Like?

Speaker 3 (02:34:32):
What what? What sequence of kisses unlocks the better workplace
for men and women? You know, you got you got
the ass right there? Where where do you plant the kisses?
That's what he's probably. How did what buttons?

Speaker 1 (02:34:49):
Okay, all right, let's play some more.

Speaker 4 (02:34:51):
I don't really have an answer to that one. I
think it is probably likely, just as a matter of prediction,
that you will get more workplaces that are predominantly made
or predominantly female in the future iron vision, where there's
no longer thumbs on the scale. Whether that will be
good for men and women interaction interacting, I don't really know.
I don't think I have an opinion.

Speaker 5 (02:35:10):
I have opinions. I don't think the workforce is the
main way I see men and women coming apart, And
it's not, even with some movements in Helen or my directions,
the main place I see them coming together. I want
to make a pitch, especially if we've talked a lot
about women good bad, medium, I want to make a
pitch what's good about men here in particular?

Speaker 3 (02:35:26):
And we're okay, interesting, it's an interesting pivot, all right,
I'll give her that. I wonder if she's wondered, if
she's thinking that the fundamental substrate of the threat narrative
has has shifted. Oh, maybe this is another this is
another attempt to get flattery, Like, yeah, okay, if I

(02:35:47):
tell what's good about men, then maybe I'll emotionally extort
excore some points and extort flattery. Does that make sense?
Like okay, well, obviously, obviously if I say that, then
she will be compelled to match it. Maybe I don't know.

Speaker 1 (02:36:10):
Oh, I see what you mean. I said something nice
about men. Now it's your turn women. Yeah, exactly, Okay, Okay,
let's see.

Speaker 5 (02:36:17):
Some men is particularly neglected, and how that could help
men women come back together. I think part of the
appeal of the warrior band or of a marriage is
either a group or pair of people taking on something
too large for either to sustain by themselves, and developing
trust because they bear a responsibility. They know their own
strength cannot serve. As a married woman, I've loved my
husband the whole time, but being pregnant meant depending on

(02:36:38):
him in a way that was different than any other
part of our marriage. And I think the later marriages
and the rarer it is, the less often men who
are on average stronger kind of reason their strength is required.
And I think the more that both in a community,
you know, starting with young men, there's a real sense
of because you are larger and stronger, like we need
something from you to make this whole community run, and

(02:36:58):
that will continue through your marriage. Either, that's a virtue
women to come together. How on earth could we have
three kids, except that we trust each other and ebb inflow,
in strength, and can do more than we can by ourselves.

Speaker 3 (02:37:08):
How is this virtue of men? Like that? Literally is
a gender neutral virtue? Skits slanting towards women, because what
she said is that our relationship requires trust in another's abilities.
And she says, as a woman, that's asked of me
more than it is of a man. Did you know that?

Speaker 1 (02:37:32):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (02:37:32):
Where was the virtue for men?

Speaker 1 (02:37:36):
Yeah? There wasn't really anything, was there?

Speaker 3 (02:37:39):
No, it was just men serve women and women trust
them in that service.

Speaker 1 (02:37:45):
I guess the fact that women can trust them is
a compliment in her eyes.

Speaker 3 (02:37:52):
Yeah, I don't see anything really related to men being
I'd throw it to the comments. Do you see that?
I mean, I guess the implication that women should trust
men is nice, But that's a women's virtue. That is
basically saying, women, you're called upon to do this, and

(02:38:12):
if you do it, you're virtuous. I guess maybe the
implication is that men are trustworthy. Therefore that's a virtue.
But is she saying that men are uniquely trustworthy relative
to women? That's not really clear out that. Okay, she
tried but I'm I don't uh am I being uncharitable

(02:38:34):
men men go in the comments, I feel like this
is this was over sold as men's virtues and also
again this is irrelevant to the topic.

Speaker 1 (02:38:46):
Okay, yeah, anyway, that's the end of the video. So
this is the video that the previous video of the
that was like the medium blog was responding to.

Speaker 2 (02:38:57):
That.

Speaker 1 (02:38:57):
The obviously the medium blog didn't address anything that was
brought up the full video. I put a link in
the description pretty sure, and I do recommend it if
you haven't seen it, but like, just look up any
Helen Andrews thing on the Great Feminization. She's written on
a bunch of other stuff too, but look look it
up and see I think that I like what she's doing.

(02:39:20):
I think that this is good and I'm glad that
she's doing it. And she even said in part she's
only doing it because she like like other like she
knows many male colleagues that have tried to address this
and they couldn't do it because they're men. So she's like, well,
I'm a woman, so I'm going to like use that
to get my message out there. So basically she's a
honeypatcher she's such.

Speaker 3 (02:39:40):
Like prime gray autism too.

Speaker 1 (02:39:43):
Yeah, she looks like her boyfriend or husband if she
has one, looks just like her, but a male version
like a bow tie and a pocket protector.

Speaker 3 (02:39:54):
That's what I'm It's a little bit of a head
scratch or how they reproduce, but you know it works. Yeah,
does that mean it's science. It's science. They've reproduced through science.

Speaker 1 (02:40:07):
Science science.

Speaker 3 (02:40:12):
Okay, all right, I am good, So I will tell
you all please send your comments. I should probably check
to see if there's any stuck in the shoot, because
sometimes that's what happens. All right, Nope, So feed the
Badger dot com slash just the tip to send us
those comments. You can send them at any time. There's

(02:40:33):
anything that twigs your fancy and you want to make commentary,
and feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip
is the best way to do it. Best way to
send us a tip, best way to send us a comment.
And if you want to support the show, because it's
getting towards the end, as you all know, the end,
my friend, when we either live or die, So feed
the Badger dot com slash support to make sure that

(02:40:53):
we continue to live, so that we can continue to
predict what people will be saying in the next five
to ten years. Yeah, so feed the Badger dot com
slash support to make sure that this crystal ball keeps
crystal balling. Ship that did that did not come? Yeah, okay, yeah, okay.

Speaker 1 (02:41:13):
Was like you know, tea leaves.

Speaker 3 (02:41:16):
Tea leaves, okay, our.

Speaker 1 (02:41:17):
Tea leaves or Tarot cards or.

Speaker 3 (02:41:19):
Something, Tarot cards, Tarot.

Speaker 1 (02:41:21):
Bones, the bones.

Speaker 3 (02:41:24):
Yeah, yeah, rattling okay, with.

Speaker 1 (02:41:28):
All the little the little incense sticks and you shake
them or like those sticks and one of them flies out.
I don't have a Chinese way of predicting.

Speaker 3 (02:41:34):
But anyway, yeah, all of the predictions, we have all.

Speaker 1 (02:41:38):
Of the tools of uh yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:41:42):
Yeah, yeah, we got them. Anyway, Feed the Badger dot
com slash support to make sure that that keeps happening.
Prognostications keep prognosticating, all right, handing it back to you, Brian.

Speaker 1 (02:41:54):
Okay, Well, if you guys like this video, please hit
like subscribe if you're not already subscribed to the de
Belt Notifications, leave us a comment, let us know what
you guys think about what we discussed on the show today.
And please please please share this video because sharing is caring.
Thank you guys so much for coming on today's episode
of Maintaining Frame, and we will talk to you all
in the next one.