Is Having a Boyfriend Embarrassing Now? | Maintaining Frame 188

Ugh. Men. If someone so much as says “my boyf–” on social media, they’re muted. There’s nothing I hate more than following someone for fun, only for their content to become “my boyfriend”-ified suddenly. This is the opening line of the article.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Women wanting to straddle two worlds where they can receive
the social benefits of having a partner but also not
a peer. So boyfriend upsets that they come across as
quite culturally loser ish.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
What so okay? So what is where is the okay?
That this is exactly what I'm talking about. The only
appeasement that this woman will accept is if these women
kick the man out of their lives.

Speaker 3 (00:22):
If she is looking like.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
This, a man here?

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Do I hear?

Speaker 2 (00:27):
There's nothing that's going to appease this woman except that
there never was a man in the picture at all.
This is her problem, and somebody thought it was intelligent
to publish this mental.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
Illness behind a paywall. No last, this is basically the
pain to read this tripe.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
This is the rantings of somebody in a padded room.
And yet somebody's like, oh, this is brilliant, This is brilliant.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
Right, I'm gonna go live. Hello everybody, and welcome to
Honey Badger Radio.

Speaker 4 (00:55):
My name is Brian. I'm here with Allison.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
And this is maintaining frame number one eighty eight, is
it is having a boyfriend embarrassing? Now where we will
be looking at an article from Vogue. I had to
archive it because I'm not paying them to look at
this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
Should pay where nobody should pay for miss injury.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
No, no, no, no, nobody should pay for that. Well,
we're going to be looking at this article from Chante
Joseph which asks the question is having a boyfriend embarrassing? Now?
And for some reason, my my, my talking seems to
be delayed. I'm going to fix this really quick with
a quick Refrara, all right, I'm back. Yeah, it's just
I don't I don't know why, uh this happened, but

(01:37):
we should be good difficulties essentially, I mean, I don't
want to, like, you know, give it away, but essentially.

Speaker 4 (01:49):
We're getting to the.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
Point now where women are are so concerned with their
status that they're questioning continuing our species because.

Speaker 4 (01:59):
They want to hold on to it. They don't want
to be embarrassed. So that's where we're at. Yeah, that's
where we're at.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
The attacks on heterosexuality continue, specifically the female half of heterosexuality.
The attacks on the male half are sort of more nuanced.
You still have to desire, but you need to feel
supremely guilty about it and tithe to our Lord and savior.
Well sorry our lord s and savior s feminism. So

(02:29):
well okay, So, if you guys want to send us
a message at any point throughout the show, you could
do so at feedbadger dot com slash just the Tip.
That's feed the Badger dot com slash just the Tip.
Best way for you to send us a tip because
we get the full almost the full benefit of the
funds you send, and you get the benefit of not
sending your your comment through comments YouTube's comment shredder. This
probably this you know, me saying that every time probably

(02:50):
limits our growth as well. You know that we get
penalized to sending people off of the platform, but you
know that that's the way we roll.

Speaker 3 (02:57):
Yes, that's the way we roll.

Speaker 4 (02:59):
You know.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
YouTube says this is how you grow on our platform,
and we say no, thank you, which is probably not
the great assed idea. On the other hand, we're still
here after fifteen years. Nope, nope, twelve years, yep, twelve years,
and that's all thanks to you guys.

Speaker 4 (03:18):
Yeah, and when we have.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Our monthly fundraiser open, it will be at feedabadger dot
com slash support so bookmarket and I'll give you a
heads up when that's ready.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
All right, let's let's get into it. Let's just do
it all right, all.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
Right, If someone so much as says my boyf on
social media, they're muted. There's nothing I hate more than
following someone for fun, only for their content to become
my boyfriend to find suddenly this is probably because.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
Okay, let's like, these are fairly long paragraphs. So I
think we're gonna have to go for like two sentences
and then stop because we can't.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
I'll stop after every two sentence. Just tell me what
to do and I'll do it.

Speaker 3 (03:58):
So yeah, all right, so they're.

Speaker 2 (04:02):
This is this is propaganda, guys. And again, this is
the relentless march of presenting men as unsuitable partners, unsuitable companions.
Because I don't know, I don't know why we are
doing this. I mean, what we could you could say?
Tell us in the chat? Why has our society decided

(04:24):
that women should not pair up with men? Why is that?
Why are we doing this? Why is Bulk writing this article?

Speaker 3 (04:31):
Like? Why why are you pushing this?

Speaker 2 (04:34):
And again, this is not just this is not oh,
men are abusive, men are sexually aggressive, whatever else, which
is also both of which are also false, and I
have the stats to prove it.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
This is simply, Oh, you're just gonna.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
Be so so unfashionable if you have a boyfriend, you're
so unfashionable.

Speaker 3 (04:55):
We're just going to shame you.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
We're just gonna make it socially no, is that how
you say that word. We're gonna make it a social ghost. Yeah,
we're gonna make it a social full pod be associated
it anyway with those LEDs, you know, like they're just
they've gone past.

Speaker 3 (05:15):
Oh they're dangerous. They're dangerous to you ladies.

Speaker 2 (05:18):
And and also they're a net negative. They do all this,
they do all this expectation of emotional labor, and they're
gonna force you to be a bang housemaid. And now
we're just, oh, we're just going to socially shame you
if you even think about it, Like this is the
party of single women, the party of old maids. Shut up,

(05:42):
just just just shut it. Yeah, exit stage right, Okay, next, next, next.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
Time, next time.

Speaker 4 (05:49):
Continuing.

Speaker 1 (05:50):
This is probably because for so long it felt like
we were living in one in what one of my
favorite substackers calls boyfriend Land, a world where women's online
identities centered around the lives of their partners, a situation
rarely seen reversed.

Speaker 4 (06:05):
Bullshit, bullshit.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Yeah, it's just that that men don't tend to In
my experience, men don't tend to want to use their
partners for social media cloud at least not as much.

Speaker 3 (06:18):
I mean, maybe some feminists.

Speaker 2 (06:19):
Do, but for the most part, they center their lives
in terms of, I don't know, building the patio that
she asks for, making sure she has the house she wants,
making sure, you know, she has time to do her hobbies,
supporting her in her life choices, all of that crap.
That's how men center their lives around women. Women apparently

(06:43):
center their lives around men by making them jump through
hoops and then showing the results on TikTok. Do you
notice that It's like it's it's not okay. You know,
he really wants something, so I'm gonna put some money
aside to save up for it so he so I
can get it for him for Christmas or his birthday
and not stuff like that. It's like, okay, little doggy,

(07:06):
can you jump through this flaming hoop that I discovered
on TikTok? Oh?

Speaker 3 (07:11):
You did?

Speaker 2 (07:12):
Hah? Look at my boyfriend is so awesome, Like, that's
not centering your life around your boyfriend. It's centering your
social media cloud on for what you can make him do.
I've seen this stuff. I've seen it, all right. You know,
if I'm completely out of the line, I'm sure there's
there's If there we have any female watchers, I'm sure

(07:36):
a few of you are losing your shit over what
I've just said. But really search your feelings, search them
and think about the TikTok content you've seen. How much
of it is I'm saving up to get my boyfriend
something he really likes, and how much is look at
the ship I can make my boyfriend do. Come on,
search your feelings, search your search your logic.

Speaker 3 (07:57):
No, wait, don't do that. We might never we might
never see you again.

Speaker 1 (08:01):
Okay, next, next, All right, Women were rewarded for their
ability to find and keep a man with elevated social
status and praise. It became even more suffocating when this
could be leveraged on social media for engagement and if
you were serious enough, financial gain.

Speaker 2 (08:16):
So they're admitting this, Yeah, they're admitting that they could
leverage what I can make my boyfriend do for social
cloud and financial gain.

Speaker 3 (08:27):
Yep, yeah, I guess.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
I guess there are a few homemaker TikTokers who I don't.

Speaker 3 (08:34):
Know do they do?

Speaker 2 (08:35):
They do, Oh, I'm doing this all for my husband,
that kind of thing.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
I mean.

Speaker 2 (08:39):
The last, the last big controversial one was the egg apron,
and that was the husband doing something for his wife.
But it wasn't Yeah, that wasn't good enough because he
knew what she wanted and apparently got her this really
expensive European egg apron, you know, not just d just
deny right, just he didn't just go to the farmer's

(08:59):
market getting pick one up from the I don't know,
the Amish.

Speaker 3 (09:02):
No, he went or didn't go.

Speaker 2 (09:05):
He got it from Italy, right, fashionable egg apron for
her to wear while depositing eggs in it. And everybody
lost their shit, remember the feminists. And that wasn't even
about her saying oh this is all the stuff I know.
That was just her receiving a gift. So maybe they're
talking about that kind of stuff. But that wouldn't be boyfriend,

(09:26):
it would be husband, right, And in that case, it's
not really husband because if you're a homesteader and you're
a woman, you're also benefiting from your own labor. Right,
you're building a homestead, but you're both benefiting from it.
You are also benefiting from it. You are also benefiting
from a greater amount of material autonomy from the nightmare

(09:48):
we know and know as the modern economy. Okay, you
know you're also benefiting from that through your own labor, which, okay,
you're building something, not just doing it for a man.
That's what it's so frustrating. When a woman builds a
life with a man, she isn't just building a life
for a man. She's building her own life with a man.

(10:12):
And the way that they frame this stuff is so
deceitful and dishonest.

Speaker 3 (10:17):
Like, if you.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
Want someone, if you want to maximize the likelihood of
having a partner who just does stuff because he sees
you have a need or a desire and he just
does it to fulfill it, get a man. If you
want a partner who is more likely to punch you

(10:39):
in the face, get a woman.

Speaker 3 (10:41):
And they don't say any of this. They don't say
any of this.

Speaker 2 (10:44):
And the reason why, and it's not necessarily because lesbians
are so awful. The reason why is because you have
two people who have never learned to control their violence
and their anger because they aren't expected to. It's girl bossing, now,
all right, it's girl bossing.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
You know.

Speaker 2 (11:02):
You go girl, you express your rage, all right.

Speaker 1 (11:09):
However, more recently, there's been a pronounced shift in the
way people showcase their relationships online. Far from fully hard
launching romantic partners, straight women are opting for subtler signs
a hand on a steering wheel, clinking glasses at dinner,
or the back of someone's head. On the more confusing end,
you have faces.

Speaker 3 (11:30):
It's a really long sentence. Just stop after. I know
this is a.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
Little they they fucked they they threw you with that colon.
You see that colon after relationships online they're putting colon's in.

Speaker 3 (11:43):
That was two freaking sentences. I mean, you don't really
need a colon there.

Speaker 2 (11:46):
You can have a freaking period and then that you know. Anyway, Okay,
so now women are being more subtle. Why are they
being more subtle? And why do you have such a
problem with this? I can see that you have a
man in your life. You aso.

Speaker 3 (12:00):
Him?

Speaker 2 (12:01):
Are you I'm gonna I'm gonna ostracize you?

Speaker 1 (12:04):
You know, one could see this like the handle of
the steering wheel, the clinking glasses, the back of somebody's head.
As just like the woman making these posts making herself
more the center of attention than the man, and the
man is like an accessory because it's like he's there,
but we don't need to know anything about him. He's
not important, He's secondary. I mean, I'm not offended by that,

(12:26):
but that's what I think is happening. They're basically just
making themselves more the main character in their on their posts.

Speaker 2 (12:36):
Yeah, but the fact that they what what would be
the solution here? Just completely edit out his existence from
her life entirely.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
Yeah, I mean, if you're if you're talking about men,
if them.

Speaker 2 (12:49):
Yeah, no, get rid of all references to the fact
you have a partner. You should he should you should
live in the closet. If you're a heterosexual woman, your
partner should live in the closet and only come out
when you say, like, what the hell is this? Like
who who looked at this and said this should be published?
This should be this should be thrown out.

Speaker 3 (13:09):
In the thought of sphere.

Speaker 2 (13:10):
Okay, because this is femisphere content, right, This is contempt
and hatred for men and having relationships with men. And
of course I.

Speaker 1 (13:21):
Don't even think manosphere has contempt for women's relationships women,
so wouldn't. It's not even really a you know, like, but.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
It is femosp saying it's analog to Manosphere.

Speaker 3 (13:32):
But it's femosphere.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
It's the empire, empire content. Yeah, it's the fem death Star.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
Well, I'm just saying, like, like, I can see how
some people would try to make the equivalents, but there
is this is a lot, this is a lot more
anti human, yes, than.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
Was over contempt for the existence of men and relationships
with men. Now, you know, as much as you could
say about the manosphere. You know, in some fringe communities,
which I again did at Grock Analysis, which is, you
know about the only way you can do this stuff
without going through feminist research, you know, there is fringe

(14:13):
communities that express misogyny similar to the average feminist. But
for the most part, for the most part, the manisphere
would not express this level of contempt for having a
relationship with a woman. In fact, that is their goal,
except for Migtao, which is notable because it's not their
goal and I'm not even sure they're even part of

(14:33):
I guess they are part of the manosphere. I guess
it's us that is the question. But like this, this
is contempt and it is published in Vogue, Like what
are the financials of Vogue?

Speaker 3 (14:46):
Curious?

Speaker 2 (14:47):
I mean, while you're reading more, I will look that up.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
On the more confusing end, you have faces blurred out
of wedding pictures or entire professionally edited videos with the
fiance conveniently cropped out of all the shots. Again, yeah,
they're basically just removing him, and maybe they're doing it
to avoid this kind of shit from women online from
or there. I mean, what's also likely is either their

(15:11):
husband was like, look, I don't want to be in
your pictures, which I don't think is likely, or.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
Because Jonathan will often say I don't want any part
of this, right, yeah, my husband, so she maybe, honestly,
that may be a situation where she's just like, well,
he said, I don't you can do this content, but
I don't want to be in it, right, I don't
want I don't want this impact in my life. I
don't want people, you know, looking me up on the job.
You know, if there's any fallout because I did or

(15:39):
said something to your audience and they and they twist it,
the old spinsters clubs twists it into some horrible thing.
I don't want to lose my job over it, So
just keep me out of it. You can do this,
but keep me out of it completely. I can totally
see that, especially in today's climate. But the fact is
that she is complaining about women not even showing their partners,

(16:04):
even having the trace that their partners exist, and she
has a problem with it. You know, is it really
because she's worried about these women that she's going to
socially ostracize them for showing that they even have a partner?

Speaker 4 (16:18):
Right?

Speaker 2 (16:19):
Do you see like the just the clause of the
party of single women here, just the jealous, envious talents,
just like I can't even believe, I can't even believe
you're showing any trace, any trace that you have a partner.
That I'm gonna shame you. Really? Yeah, so much for
women being able to choose whatever life they want.

Speaker 1 (16:42):
Okay, yeah, right, women are obscuring their partner's face when
they post, as if they want to erase the fact
they exist without actually not posting. So what gives Are
people embarrassed by their boyfriends now? Or is something more
complicated going on.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
Well, okay, so the global fashion magazine market is a
three point four to five billion dollar industry, and Vogue
has ten to fifteen percent of that three hundred and
fifty million. We're looking at the themosphere like a three
hundred and fifty million dollar project saying this stuff.

Speaker 3 (17:22):
Do you think even Andrew Tate has that much money?

Speaker 4 (17:25):
Oh no, No, I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
And I'm not even I'm not like again, I'm not
saying that I agree with Andrew Tate's comment content. I'm
looking at his clout and reach and how much money
he controls, and he doesn't even say shit like this.

Speaker 1 (17:39):
He doesn't have that much influence, not compared to not
not compared to the stuff like this. So well, okay.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
The special chat says the manosphere is kind of garbage.
I would not want to associate. It doesn't matter like
what you think that we are like, oh, yes, we're
we're we're buying a membership in the fricking manosphere. No,
we're just associated with it by default because we don't
agree with the other side, so we're associated with it

(18:09):
by default. You are part of the manosphere. You comment
on this channel you're part of the manosphere. You have
any criticism of feminism, you're part of the manosphere. If
you promote traditional values, you're part of the manosphere. If
you think merit is good, you're part of the manosphere. Right,
this is that's what puts you in the manosphere. And

(18:31):
it doesn't matter. I don't want to be associated in
the manosphere because they're garbage. Really well, okay, but you
are because you have been put in that category by
the people who control media.

Speaker 1 (18:45):
Yeah, there's no point in the hoopooing it because like
you know, you can be MiG Tao trad Islam fucking
you know, player, player, hater in cell MRA. It's all manosphere.
These people, Like, there's no like you can't go up
to them to the to the cathedral and say, hey,

(19:06):
I just want you guys to know, I'm not really
associated with those guys. So is it cool if I
have criticisms of feminism, or if I you know, care
about fathers in the home, or I care about divorce court,
or I care about circumcision. Guess what, No, bitch, you're
in the manosphere. That's the that's the the point is
to exclude guys these people are not like, they wouldn't
be open to these ideas if only they came from

(19:28):
the right folks. They're flat these ideas.

Speaker 4 (19:32):
So if you present anything that goes against yes, you're
just the wrong people. That's just what it is.

Speaker 3 (19:39):
It's the way it works.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
Yeah, all right, this is this is by design. And
that's why I'm saying, like, one of the things that.

Speaker 2 (19:47):
I think, why is it always why do you want
to be associated with the manto sphere because it's garbage?

Speaker 3 (19:54):
Why isn't ever ever?

Speaker 2 (19:55):
Why do you want to be associated with the femosphere
because it's absolute toxic and wretched.

Speaker 3 (20:02):
Okay, sorry, go ahead, Brian, No.

Speaker 1 (20:04):
It's okay. I'm just saying that this kind of like
kind of like nitpicking of like, you know, what what
we are with or what we are not with without
just simply saying these are my values, this is what
I believe, and wherever that lands is, wherever that lands,
I think it keeps us from actually like being more effective,

(20:25):
because you end up having to condemn this person, condemn
that person, you know, condemn these statements, and then these people,
these people that run the cathedral, they're all like in
lockstep or at least, they hold each other. They keep
each other from causing too much trouble on their own
side so that they can continue to push this bullshit forward.

(20:46):
They confront people like you and they say, well, oh,
you're one of the Well, what do you have to
say about what so and so said?

Speaker 4 (20:51):
What do you have to say about this over here?
Or what do you think about this?

Speaker 1 (20:55):
And it puts you in this position where you're like, well,
I'm not like that, so like, that's bullshit, dude. You
gotta say, fuck you, this is what I believe. I
don't care who you associate with me with period. It's
the only way. And you and the people that actually
have those you say, hey, I heard that. You know
you said some controversial things, but look, guess what do
you believe these things that I believe?

Speaker 4 (21:14):
Here, here's my here are the values I think really matter.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
Do you agree with these? Cool? Let's let's hold hands
and let's take these motherfuckers out. That's that's how you
get things done, guys. That's the only way, because if
you end up with this periody, you go to this
purity spiraling and it's like you didn't condemn these people enough,
you didn't do this for these people, nothing gets done,
and I'm kind of tired of it.

Speaker 4 (21:34):
I'm I'm, I really am.

Speaker 1 (21:35):
I'm kind of tired of it because our opponents are
getting shit done. They push forward no matter what, and
if somebody steps out of line, guess what, they either
get kicked to the curb immediately and then they push
forward anyway, or they tell them you stand here, you
stay lockstep because we're all moving towards the same goal.

Speaker 4 (21:52):
You know, this is why they work well with. You
would think groups that are completely the opposite, right.

Speaker 1 (21:57):
Like Islamo fascists working with the lgbt q G mafia,
Well not, because they agree on anything except what they
are trying to destroy. So they just they hold they
lock hands and they go do it. And I'm just saying,
like we can, like we can get we can spend
hours and hours like falling into all the little nuances

(22:17):
of all the ways if we're like we're a little
bit discussing with this little subgroup over here, this little
subgroup here. Guess what, though, that ain't gonna help. We
just need to say, you know, what do you do?
You want to destroy feminism? I want to destroy family.
Let's destroy it together and then we'll work out our
problems after that's hard.

Speaker 2 (22:34):
Or even let's just keep to these issues that we
advocate for.

Speaker 3 (22:37):
This is what we're about.

Speaker 1 (22:39):
I mean, our enemies are going to connect us with
people anyways. What I'm saying is we have to stop
caring yes out those connections.

Speaker 4 (22:48):
We have to drop that and.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
Say I don't give a shit, Like that's that's it, Like, oh, well,
you think you're like so and so. I don't give
a shit.

Speaker 4 (22:55):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (22:56):
I'm not even gonna condemn that person. I don't give
a ship. They're over there. That's fine, that's not my problem.
You're my problem. That's how you got to do it.

Speaker 2 (23:06):
Unfortunately, the thing is that and also I don't these
people aren't really like allying with us. So we can
spend all of our time using what platform we have
to actually discredit people that we are not responsible for
platforming in the first place and disavow them, or we
can continue to pursue the values and the principles that

(23:31):
we pursue. Right, does the media have to answer for
the fact that they platform who they platform in the
manosphere or what they turn the manisphere? And we're included
in that even though the manisphere itself wouldn't include us.
So do the media to have to respond to that
for giving them more clout and attention? Does feminism have

(23:52):
to respond for the fact that it defined masculinity in
such a way as certain individuals became the only ones
who are perceived as masculine, Like, the only pro social
masculine quality left to men is pleasing women physically with
their bodies. It's just passingly pro social. It's the only
thing left left to them. And what do we see

(24:16):
those men are being put on a pedestal by the
media and then they turn around.

Speaker 3 (24:21):
And say, well, disavow them.

Speaker 2 (24:22):
Well, I'm not responsible for them. I'm not responsible for
saying that that's the only passingly pro social form of masculinity.
Nor am I responsible for giving them a larger platform.
Absolutely nothing to do with them and what they say.
And yes, I will be lumped in with them because
it's convenient. But if I play that game, then I

(24:45):
lose everything that I'm building to trying to appease to people,
people who will never be appeased by my existence. That's
the end thing. They won't these they won't be appeased.
The only thing that will be appeased is when I'm
dead and they can piss on my grave if they
even bother to notice, right, this is yeah, would Why

(25:08):
would I spend a lick of time appeasing these people
in any capacity when the only appeasement I can give
them is shutting up and going away?

Speaker 3 (25:18):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (25:20):
All right? So anyway, let me read back, go back
to the article. So what gives are people embarrassed by
their boyfriends now? Or is something more complicated going on?
To me, it feels like the result of women wanting
to straddle two worlds, one where they can receive the
social benefits of having a partner but also not a peer.
So boyfriend upsets that they come across as quite culturally

(25:41):
loser ish.

Speaker 4 (25:42):
What so?

Speaker 3 (25:43):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (25:44):
So what is where is the okay that this is
exactly what I'm talking about? The only appeasement that this
woman will accept is if these women kick the man
out of their lives.

Speaker 3 (25:54):
If she is looking like, do you.

Speaker 2 (25:56):
Guys see any signs? Wos do I hear? There's nothing
that's going to appease this woman except that there never
was a man in the picture at all. This is
her problem, and somebody thought it was intelligent to publish

(26:16):
this mental illness.

Speaker 1 (26:19):
Behind a paywall, no less or a subscription. This is
basically with the pain to read this tripe.

Speaker 2 (26:24):
This is the rantings of somebody in a padded room
using their own poop, and yet somebody is like, oh,
this is brilliant, this is brilliant. Let's let's throw it
out there.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
Yeah yeah, so yeah, so so that this is a
gas lighting because they're trying to make somebody who has
a partner out to be a loser. Yeah, as though,
like that's not like a win condition, that's not a
w for that person if that's what they are looking
for and that's what they managed to get, especially if
they're like going on dates and like doing things together

(27:00):
and posting it online and getting married and starting a family. No,
that's all loser behavior. Guys. Did you guys know that
if you're single and childless, you're a winner if you're
a woman, if you're a man, you're an incel and
a loser.

Speaker 4 (27:14):
So anyway, this is.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
Like gas lighting and sort of like but not just
gaslighting the women who are happy in relationships, but also
themselves into thinking that they're actually happy despite not feeling happy,
So okay anyway, they want the prize and celebration of partnership,
but understand the norminess of it, says Zoe's some Smoodzi,

(27:38):
writer and activist. The norminess of it is it okay
to be normal? I mean I think we should strive
to be normal on some level.

Speaker 3 (27:49):
Yeah. I don't think I'm normal, but I don't.

Speaker 2 (27:54):
This is in aane again, we're talking about a woman
who simply has any And if you live with the dude,
there's gonna be stuff that indicates that.

Speaker 3 (28:06):
You live with the dude. Right, there's there's gonna be tough.

Speaker 2 (28:11):
You know, he'll occasionally walk in the background. You might
see a shadow, you might see your footsteps, you might
see pictures on the wall, right like this is this
is an attack on the very idea of a woman
being with a man, period. And they've gone through every
other way of attacking this relationship between men and women,

(28:32):
and it is an attack on the relationship between men
and women. They won't be happy until men and women
have no relationship at all whatsoever. And I said this
seven years ago, longer than that, but this is what
they're after. And I've had confirmation recently that this is
indeed what they're after. They decided in the seventies to

(28:53):
redefine the relationship between men and women to benefit feminism,
to benefit this massive societnciety ending grift. All right, and
this is more of that. They've gone through, domestic violence,
sexual assault, motional labor, the Bang Made phenomenon, everything else,
and now they're just saying, hey, no, well, you're just

(29:14):
uncool if you have of a man. And again, there's
nothing that these women could do because there is going
to be evidence that they have a man in their
life if they're doing any kind of content in a
shared space with a man. So the only way to
deal with it is to get rid of them entirely,
or just create a new space where you purge. You're like, no, no,

(29:36):
you can't walk anywhere near it.

Speaker 3 (29:37):
No you can't speak no, no, no, okay, all right?

Speaker 4 (29:40):
Why?

Speaker 1 (29:40):
In other words, in an era of widespread hetero fatalism,
women don't want to be seen as being all about
their man, but they also want the clout that comes
with being partnered the hetero fedalism hetero fatalism. There links
to an article that we responded to before the trouble
with wanting men. It's all about hetero fatalism. So there

(30:03):
there was a self referential article, as all feminist articles are.
Here's the proof of the thing I believe, based on
someone else who believes the thing I believe. And and
also I think this is more gaslighting because they're trying
to say this, this hetero fatalism. It's everywhere, guys, All
women everywhere are like, I don't want to I don't
want to be in a relationship with a man anymore.
I'm done. Like, dude, it's everywhere. Why aren't you doing this?

(30:25):
It's trendy right now. We should all be like hetero fatalistic.
We should all become super nihilists. Let's do it together.
Let's be nihilists. What are you doing over there, trying
to make your life better?

Speaker 4 (30:36):
Yo, shun her, Shun.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
That woman, shun shun her. She's trying to be happy.
We can't have that. We should all be miserable, I mean,
not miserable, fatalistic, which is actually good. We'll drink wine
and get lots of cats.

Speaker 4 (30:52):
We should do that. This is what they're doing.

Speaker 1 (30:55):
They're trying to get women to think this is a thing,
and it's not they're trying to make a thing. Remember
all those like articles that were coming out like around
twenty sixteen, twenty eighteen, and it was all like these
different things they were trying to say that men were
doing as a trend, and it was all gay shit.

Speaker 4 (31:13):
Do you remember that?

Speaker 1 (31:14):
Like men are are are jazzifying their beards and it's
like a picture of a guy with flowers in his beard.

Speaker 4 (31:19):
It's the new trend. It's like, no, guys aren't doing that.

Speaker 1 (31:22):
Men are. Men are giving you each other bro jobs. Hey,
you ever suck your friends dick. It's a thing that
we're doing now. It's a trend. It's totally straight too. Guys, No,
we're not doing that. Like you're just trying to tell
us something is happening, and that doesn't work. Men are
not the kind of people that chase trends. So it
didn't work. So now they're doing it to women. I
mean they've been doing it to women, but this is

(31:43):
that they're like, oh, like the hot new thing is
dying alone.

Speaker 4 (31:47):
It's like everybody does it. Everybody's doing it.

Speaker 1 (31:50):
Hey, and if you're in Canada, you can get on
that maid program and then like you'll have it and
save up for it. It'll be great. You'll be childless,
alone and killed by the government. So I don't know,
it's just like they're just trying to get women to
believe something that's not reality.

Speaker 2 (32:06):
Yeah no, no, I mean totally yeah.

Speaker 1 (32:13):
All right, next paragraph. But it's not all about image.
When I did a call out on Instagram, plenty of
women told me that they were, in fact superstitious. Some
feared the evil eye, a belief that their happy relationships
would spark a jealousy so strong in other people that
it could end the relationship.

Speaker 4 (32:28):
Oh no, that's real. That's what's happening in this article.
What this is about.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
Oh yeah, no, I mean if you are, if you
are a woman on the internet, which is why I'm
a little bit concerned about Ballerina farms. Do not make
it obvious that you have a part well, don't make it,
don't make it clear in any Well, the problem is
that you know, somebody will be able to find your partner,
and if they get jealous, your partner may lose their

(32:56):
job out of false accusation or or all kinds of
other stuff. So if you got a man, you got
to think about protecting him. That's why I've sort of
pushed back with you on the whole. A man wouldn't
be wanting to stay out of it. It's probably a
really good idea to keep your family out of your
online persona, especially if you've got a man, because you

(33:20):
think that women like this are going to stop with
just writing an article. If they see any opportunity to
destroy your partner and they're jealous of you, they'll do it.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
These are this is the hoof prince.

Speaker 2 (33:33):
Of someone who's completely unhinged and facilitated by the system.
That's the other thing that I know that I know
intimately about a woman who is unhinged or very conniving, jealous, envious,
has institutional clout. Fear these women. Fear them, and keep

(33:53):
your partners out of your online life as much as possible. Hell,
keep your own maiden name so they can't even find
your partner online, so that he doesn't get any kind
of blowback from this. These women are dangerous, right They
write these unhinged articles, and they engage in unhinged actions

(34:14):
like manufacturing online mobs to go after people. And I
know that from experience, so be careful, Like there is
nothing more hideous than jealous women in a group with
social clout or institutional progress.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
Actress Kirsten Dunst, who years ago. I think Jezebel wrote
the article, but it might have been Gawker where she
basically just said, like that she likes being a wife
and mother for her husband. That was like something so
basic in like an interview in passing, and they were like,
we can't help it if she's kind of dumb.

Speaker 4 (34:53):
You know, it was just hostile.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
Yeah, these people are interested in making you as miserable
as they are. And yep, I think I think that
women saying that they're afraid of sparking a jealousy so
strong in other people that could end the relationship. I
think that's legitimate, because that's what it hets down to.
Men don't give a shit that women are posting their
husbands online.

Speaker 2 (35:16):
Women do, yes, and obviously because they got a Vogue
to publish this nonsense like this should be a wake
up call to all female content.

Speaker 3 (35:27):
Creators with a partner, be careful.

Speaker 2 (35:29):
Be careful because there are unhinged lunatics like this enabled
by the system. Because nobody said, you know what, my dear,
this sounds like a psyche A diary of a psychiatric inpatient.
It shouldn't be published.

Speaker 3 (35:42):
Nobody said that.

Speaker 2 (35:44):
So this insanity is being enabled by our system, and
it is insanity. Like we talk about this, but remember
we are reading the diary, the diary of.

Speaker 3 (35:53):
A psychiatric inpatient.

Speaker 2 (35:55):
In a normal world, this would somebody at Vogue would
be like, no, there would be a slash reader, the
slash pile this receipt and mayd be like, okay, trash,
But no, this went through several stages of being vetted.
That means the insanity in it is being enabled by

(36:15):
this system.

Speaker 3 (36:17):
All right, let's let's continue.

Speaker 4 (36:19):
Yeah, okay.

Speaker 1 (36:20):
Others were concerned about their relationship ending and then being
stuck with the posts. I was in a relationship for
twelve years and never once posted him or talked about
him online. We broke up recently, and I don't think
I will ever post a man, says NICKI thirty eight,
even though I am a romantic.

Speaker 4 (36:37):
Oh sorry, go ahead, post a man.

Speaker 2 (36:40):
I will ever post a mane.

Speaker 4 (36:43):
A picture of a man online.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
I guess even though I am a romantic, I still
feel like men will embarrass you, even twelve years in
so claiming them feels so lame.

Speaker 2 (36:52):
Okay, so we know why NICKI doesn't no longer has
a relationship graduation.

Speaker 3 (36:56):
Nikki, you're an awful human being.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
Well, yeah, you see, your man is like again and
it's like a decoration. It's like a part of your
online persona. Yeah, part of your your.

Speaker 2 (37:06):
You didn't post him or talk about him online. But
she didn't do it because she thought he was an
embarrassment or could be a potential embarrassment.

Speaker 1 (37:14):
Oh man, you are. But also but there was also
The thing is is that if we break up, it's
it's a bigger embarrassment because it means I, for whatever reason,
I failed in this relationship, and now the world knows,
Like people give a shit that much. I don't know.
Maybe they do.

Speaker 2 (37:31):
I yeah, they might, they might do. But on the
other hand, I don't know, Like it just it that
is an embarrassing sentiment. I know four billion people, four
billion men on Earth, and I know what they all
would do, all of them. No, you don't, Nikki, You

(37:52):
don't even probably know what one hundred and twenty five
men would do. Hell, you probably don't even didn't even
know you what your boyfriend would do. The ones should
still be with them. Okay, that Caddy comment for the
day done, but.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
There was an overwhelming sense from single and partner women
alike that, regardless of the relationship, being with the man
was almost an almost guilty thing to do. On the
Delusional Diaries podcast, fronted by New York based influencers Hallie
and Jazz, they discussed whether having a boyfriend is lame. Now, Okay,
I guess if the Delusional Diaries podcast says it, it

(38:28):
must be true.

Speaker 2 (38:29):
But also if that is the case, then your article
is contributing to it. So you are saying, Wow, these
women feel guilty.

Speaker 3 (38:41):
How can I make it worse.

Speaker 2 (38:43):
That's a good thing. That's a good thing. Women should
feel like having a partner's lane. They should feel guilty
about it. They should be humiliated for having a boyfriend
or a husband.

Speaker 3 (38:55):
Insanity.

Speaker 1 (38:55):
Okay, all right, Why does having a boyfriend feel republican?

Speaker 4 (39:02):
Reads a top comment?

Speaker 2 (39:04):
Okay, who we got to answer that it feels like
it is traditional?

Speaker 3 (39:08):
Like it?

Speaker 2 (39:08):
And again I've said this now, traditionalism is just a
man and a woman having a relationship.

Speaker 3 (39:16):
That's it. That's traditionalism.

Speaker 2 (39:18):
Any kind of relationship between men and women is far right,
It's part of the manosphere. Okay, if you're a woman
with a boyfriend, you're part of the manosphere and you
can continue to try to appease people who will find
anything to shame and ostracize you and throw you into

(39:39):
the manisphere bucket. But it's a loser's game, all right.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
Yeah, boyfriends are out of style. They won't come back
in until they start acting right. Read another with thousands
of likes. In essence, having a boyfriend typically makes takes
hits on a woman's aura, as one comments or claim.

Speaker 2 (40:00):
Honestly, Brian, I know you're saying that this is being
top down pushed, but I would not be surprised that
the women who are infested with this nonsense. This this
feminist framing of the relationship between the sexes, which is
a substantial I think it's actually a majority of women.
Now they would they would embrace stuff like this.

Speaker 1 (40:19):
And the funny thing is this is the work is
basically nearly complete.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
And the funny thing is that this is happening as
men turn away from women. So now they're projectively saying,
basically rejecting men, we've got why are why are the
men who I would reject no longer interested in me?
And now we're at boyfriends are so passive, like we

(40:44):
we pre reject the whole sex.

Speaker 3 (40:46):
We don't.

Speaker 2 (40:46):
You don't even have to approach us to reject you.
We pre reject you. This is this is so much
childish insanity. Is all right, find somebody you like it's
a woman's or grab and batten down the hatches because
life is not life is not always great, but at

(41:08):
least you'll have somebody to weather the storm with.

Speaker 3 (41:12):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (41:14):
Funnily enough, both of these hosts have partners, which is
something I often see online. Even partnered women will lament
men in heterosexuality, partly in solidarity with other women, but
also because it is now fundamentally uncool to be a
boyfriend girl.

Speaker 4 (41:29):
Is that like a new thing?

Speaker 1 (41:29):
You guys made up new comic gobbledygook just dropped boyfriend girl.
So I'm I think that they're either these women are
just hypocrites that are okay with like making other women
single and miserable while they're like in happy relationships, or
their boyfriends that are be like listening to their content
and taking notes and trying to get the fuck out

(41:50):
of there, because if you if you're in a relationship
with somebody who fundamentally does not appreciate you. You should
not be in that relationship anyway, if not just in
these women's imaginations, Audiences are icked out by seeing too
much boyfriend content, myself included. It seems, as indicated by
my liberal use of the mute button.

Speaker 4 (42:11):
What okay?

Speaker 1 (42:12):
When author and British Vogue contributor Stephanie Yeboca yeboah Hard
launched her boyfriend on social media, she lost hundreds of
followers kind of we were still together, I wouldn't post
them here. Well, they're haters. Can you remember that when
when women would just say they're just haters and they
would just move on. They want you single and unhappy.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
Yes, then the unvoting Democrat for the rest of eternity,
because they want to appropriate all of those instincts that
are not going into a family into incredibly bizarre political
choices that only support top down corporations and government, choices
that support basically corporations and government.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
That's it, that's what they're doing.

Speaker 2 (42:55):
And the women who fall for it.

Speaker 3 (42:57):
You jokes. You are fucking jokes.

Speaker 1 (43:00):
Okay, all right, So there's something cringey and embarrassing about
constantly posting a partner these days, she tells me, adding
that there is part of me that would also feel
guilty for sharing my partner constantly, especially when we know
the dating landscape is really bad at the moment. I
wouldn't want to be boastful. So they're doing it for
other women who don't appreciate it. Again, this is another

(43:24):
one of these things that men are really not a
part of. But they're just like, you know, in the
area of effect damage. So her name is jon Tay Joseph.
I think I looked at who this is.

Speaker 2 (43:40):
Okay, Shaunte, give me the spelling, cha and Te slow down.

Speaker 3 (43:45):
You know I'm an idiot about this.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
Copy it and send it to you. I'll send it
to you in the server.

Speaker 3 (43:52):
All right, Okay, thank you.

Speaker 1 (43:54):
The only article that she wrote provoke. It looks like
maybe she wrote some other shit.

Speaker 3 (43:58):
Okay, all right, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (44:00):
Yeah, okay, so yeah, I wouldn't want to be boastful.
Sophie Milner, a content creator, also experienced people unfollowing her
when she shared a romantic relationship this summer. A boy
took me to sicily. I posted about it at my
subscriber section, and people replied saying things like please don't
get a boyfriend. He took me to Sicily, and you're like,

(44:21):
I don't want to upset my Wait, is she like
taking a little bit of pleasure in making her audience
of women angry and then like kind of humble bragging
on this post because she starts with this summer a
boy took me to Sicily, which I think is like
a flex and then says, I posted about it at

(44:42):
my subscriber section, so like all of my followers saw it,
and people replied saying things like please don't get a boyfriend.
So I basically I got to I got a man
that took me on a trip to a foreign country.

Speaker 4 (44:56):
I shared it online.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
I have subscribers that watch I have the Cloud, and
I made some of them angry at me jealous. Actually,
so she admits that her content perhaps becomes less exciting
when she's in a relationship. Being single gives you this
ultimate freedom to say and do what you want. It
is absolutely not every woman, but I do notice that

(45:18):
we can become more beige and water down online when
when we're in a relationship, myself included. So so what
is she is she saying that? Is this what social
media is doing to women. It's making them want to
stand out in such a way that they question the
way their life is arranged so that they don't appear

(45:41):
too dull to random people on the internet that might
look at their posts. You see, do you see what
I'm saying? Are you doing something with rock right now? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (45:50):
I am.

Speaker 2 (45:50):
I'm looking up this woman and what she's written. I
probably agree with you, but I apologize I did not
hear it.

Speaker 4 (45:56):
All right, then I'll just I'll just keep going.

Speaker 3 (45:59):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
Uh. From my conversations, one thing is certain. The script
is shifting. Being partner doesn't affirm your womanhood anymore. It
is no longer considered an achievement, and if anything, it's
become more of a flex to pronounce yourself single. I've
stopped because of the semicolon.

Speaker 3 (46:15):
Okay, so.

Speaker 2 (46:19):
Well, we're all embracing being a loser, because being able
to manage a long term relationship is a skill that
you just don't have.

Speaker 1 (46:28):
Let's be honest.

Speaker 3 (46:29):
It's not always easy.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
It's usually fulfilling, but it's not always easy, and you
guys don't have that skill, right, And I'm actually done
with this because the fact is that the pressure of
the Party of Single Women on everything politically, on the
ship that they put into office, on their ability to
constantly support the worst kind of actors and corporations and governments.

(46:51):
It's getting unsettling. And I think that the disenfranchisement of
women maybe because that other cultures throughout time have seen
the rise of the equivalent to the Party of Single Women,
which is likely harems, and they saw what it did

(47:11):
to politics and society and the functioning of the economy
and the underpinning meritocracy that's essential foreign economy, and they
realize it's not a good idea, and so they fundamentally
made sure to shame and get women partnered to avoid
the creation of the Party of Single Women. But also,

(47:32):
I mean, if we just look at the thesis here,
the best thing you can do if you want to
invest in your happiness is have a long term relationship
with a man, full stop. Keep that man for your
entire life, full stop. That's the very best thing you
can do. Plus have children, right because child free women
they when they get older and their partner dies, they

(47:54):
do experience a significant drop in their happiness at that moment,
which really says something, isn't it about being partnered as
a woman. It's the best thing you can do for
your happiness, your health, your stability, your financial well being.
It is literally the best choice a woman can make
in her life.

Speaker 1 (48:14):
Right.

Speaker 2 (48:14):
One of the worst is to go and get a
really stupid degree in any one of these these fake
things like I don't know any humanities, Right, that's the
worst thing you can do. One of the worst things
you can do. And one of the best things you
can do is get married and stay married for your life.

Speaker 3 (48:34):
And this article is basically.

Speaker 2 (48:37):
Telling women to avoid one of the best things they
can do for themselves because the author of this article
and the people who published it do not give a
rats ass about women.

Speaker 3 (48:51):
They don't.

Speaker 2 (48:52):
All they want is to use them to continue to
push a particular political agenda. I'm not even gonna say
it's a liberal or anything agenda because I don't think
it is. It is the agenda of spending more money that.

Speaker 3 (49:07):
You have not earned, right. It is the the.

Speaker 2 (49:10):
Corp the corporate and government agenda of spending people's money
and using their labor as collateral and having absolutely no
oversight over it. Because the people that you're stealing from
are are morally less than you. They're just a bunch
of misogynist, racists, transphobes, homophobes, whatever I've else labeled that

(49:31):
you can say as being high up in the corporation,
high up in the government to justify your exploitation of
the peasant class. That's all this is is justification of exploitation.
It is a lie to steal from people, and they
want to keep perpetuating it because it justifies it and

(49:53):
it covers. Like I remember, and this is this is
I've said this to you guys before. I believe if
you knew, you may not have heard this. I remember
reading this ridiculous nonsense from Disney. They made their employees
go to a seminar where they described white privilege and
how it results the white privilege causes the differential in

(50:17):
people's salaries. And I'm like, Disney, if there's a differential
in your employees, is that favor white people, that's your fault.
Like that, literally, you see a corporation blame shifting onto
its employees. All of these narratives are corporations and governments
in collusion blame shifting onto the population that they are

(50:41):
stealing from. They are stealing from. Then They're not just
stealing in terms of taxes, they're stealing in terms of inflation.
You know how inflation works. They write more debt so
they can fund their Ugandan trans basket weaving initiatives, which
know you Gondon wants and know you Gondon benefits from.

(51:04):
You know, fifty thousand feminist majors, like feminist graduates from
feminist majors get to be employed by it. They write
a grant for that, are they right? Debt for that.
They pay for that program, and all of us pay
for it in terms of of our income taxed. That
ends up being the collateral for that loan, and then

(51:26):
we pay on the back end because our life expenses
go up because more money is injected into the system
to pay for a bunch of feminist graduates doing nothing
for nobody, and it's excused by shit like this the
grand theft.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
Everyone. All right, are we done with this article?

Speaker 4 (51:46):
Yeah? Well you said you were done.

Speaker 2 (51:50):
No, I sorry, okay, it's a little bit so we
should probably finish.

Speaker 4 (51:58):
It, all right, Well, sorry.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
Shut up, No, it's my fault, like don't don't don't
take responsibility.

Speaker 1 (52:06):
Yeah, from my conversations, one thing is certain. The script
is shifting. Being partner doesn't affirm your womanhood anymore. It's
no longer considered an achievement. I read that part right.
As as straight women, we're confronting something that every other
sexuality has had to contend with, a politicization of our identity.
Heterosexuality has long been purposefully indefinable, so it's harder for

(52:27):
those within it and outside of it to critique. What
do you mean undefinable? It's a man and a woman
making a baby, but like, but potentially making a baby
or more babies undefinable my ass. So yeah, anyway, however,
as our official roles begin to crumble, maybe we're being

(52:48):
forced to it is the most biologically definable, like.

Speaker 4 (52:52):
You's saying, Yeah, it is the most clear cut.

Speaker 1 (52:54):
That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (52:55):
It's the most straightforward thing. It's I thought it was boring.

Speaker 1 (53:00):
I thought it was The problem was it was too
clear cut, which is why we had to invent a
bazillion genders and queer theory so that we can so
that people can feel like so much more individualistic and
not get to put into a box of heterosexuality. Now
we get to call the heterosexuality vague and beige and
undivinable and mysterious and you know, kind of scary. Oh

(53:23):
my god, what happens when you put these two things together?
They make something else? No, wait, that's weird. However, as
our traditional real roles begin to crumble, maybe we're being
forced to reevaluate our blind allegiance to heterosexuality.

Speaker 2 (53:37):
Okay again, very best decision of a woman can make
for her happiness or financial wellbeing, in her health is
to get a long term relationship.

Speaker 3 (53:46):
With a man.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
And why is that? Because that is what we have
been evolved to do.

Speaker 3 (53:52):
Okay. Now, I'm not.

Speaker 2 (53:54):
Saying that I'm I mean personally, I know I'm no
longer liberal.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
I know I'm part of the far right.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
No problem personally with lesbian relationships, gay relationships, as long
as they're healthy, you know. But I know that evolution
has geared human beings to be pair bonders, which means
the most successful relationships generally are between a.

Speaker 3 (54:22):
Man and a woman.

Speaker 2 (54:24):
Okay, And the most successful societies encourage there to be
strict monogamy between a man and a woman. That's how
it goes, and it's because of our evolutionary past Okay,
so right, I'm not going to say that people can't
try any kind of other arrangement or be any kind

(54:45):
of other genders. Let's create a whole bunch of boxes
to try to create a world with us boxes.

Speaker 3 (54:49):
But whatever, I don't care.

Speaker 2 (54:51):
The reality is that this is how we have evolved
to structure our lives, and this is the wind condition
for a pair bonding spiece is to be in a
pair producing cubs. That is our wind condition. Everything else
is noise. Okay, it can be noise that maybe is

(55:13):
somewhat beneficial. Maybe it was helpful in the past for
offspring to have a few aunts and uncles to contribute
to their to their upbringing that themselves wouldn't take out
resources for children. Maybe that works. I mean, that's sort
of how the way a wolf pact does. And wolves
are the other big pair bonders on the planet. And corvids,

(55:34):
so you know, corvas are weird. Anyway, Oh, maybe that works.
Maybe maybe homosexuality is within the social group evolution. Fine,
but the basis, the spine, the essence of this is
men and women coming together and having children. It's why

(55:56):
all successful societies encourage this. The most successful societies encourage
the most strict monogamy they produce. They do whatever it
takes to make as many men and women in relationships
as possible, and strictly in those relationships with each other.

(56:17):
One man, one woman, successful society, one man one woman
successful relationship.

Speaker 3 (56:23):
Yeah, there's no there. You can't get away from it, right.

Speaker 2 (56:26):
And if we decide, as a society decide to start
warring against that relation to start, why am I even
saying start? If a society we are well into the
war against that relationship. If a society decides to start
to directly againe in war against that relationship, then that

(56:51):
society is done for.

Speaker 1 (56:52):
You know. One thing that I haven't seen answered yet
is whether or not queerness, being gay, being trans or
being by or whatever is something that you are born
with that is inherent or if it.

Speaker 4 (57:07):
Is socialized into you.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
And the reason why is because these activists they change
the rules on that. I remember Lady Gaga's song Born
This Way, and I said, oh, okay, well you know
I can accept that. But now that's not the thing anymore.
Now it's it seems like there is a socialization, or
at least people who used to say you're born this

(57:30):
way are also open to socializing and conditioning children and
people into it, which is why there were articles put
out by you know, like Gawker and The Cut that
would be like, hey, have you given your friend a.

Speaker 4 (57:44):
Blowjob as a man?

Speaker 1 (57:46):
And I thought, well, okay, so are they kind of
are they saying it's socially engineered now or is it biological?
And the reason why I'm bringing this up is really
really simple. Okay, if it's socially engineered, then that's what
this this person is engaging in with women. And we
have the I think that it wouldn't be a problem

(58:06):
for us to have an opinion on that one way
or the other, whether we're for it or against it.

Speaker 4 (58:13):
But that is something that.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
You can do. If it's biologically determined, then there's no
point in having an opinion on it because it is
what it is.

Speaker 2 (58:21):
But you can make women miserable by getting them to
make false choices.

Speaker 4 (58:26):
Right, But that's the thing, though, They can only make
a false choice if.

Speaker 1 (58:30):
You believe in the grooming thing or the conditioning thing.
And if you believe in it, then you might try it.
But like this is what I'm saying, Like that there's
nothing defined, and it's on purpose. This is meant to
be vague, to cause problems, to cause confusion. But I
think that the caveats no, like the whole Well, if

(58:51):
you're gay, that's okay, that's.

Speaker 4 (58:52):
Your Like, I'm not doing that anymore.

Speaker 1 (58:54):
Like if you're gay, then there's nothing I can say
that would change that, So why do you care what
I think? But if it's socially conditioned, which I don't
think that you would agree it is, like if that's
how you feel, then like why would you want other
people telling you how you should be? So this is
like a kind of a non starter discussion anyway, And

(59:15):
this person is engaging in a kind of attempt as
social engineering of women, and it's like okay, but so
then it's not biological then, and you know you're opening
you're opening a Pandora's box too, because if you say
this stuff is this stuff is socially conditioned, and then
guess what there's like didn't we used to do you know,
kind of anti gay like shock therapy, Like we're just

(59:36):
gonna bring that back then, right, Because you're saying it
can be moved around, it's malleable, So it's either determined
or it's not and that and that. What I'm saying
is is that you're engaging in one of these things
right now. If you're a lesbian whoever wrote this article,
then b one, I don't.

Speaker 3 (59:53):
Care, but try.

Speaker 1 (59:54):
You're trying to convince everyone else to do it too,
And that makes me wondering if you're actually happy. I
don't think you are.

Speaker 2 (01:00:01):
Yeah, misery loves company, Well, I just love. I think
what is conditioned is where we take a positive identity.

Speaker 3 (01:00:10):
And I'm going to explain that.

Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
Heterosexuality as a as a defined concept originates from German psychology,
like a German psychologist in like the eighteenth century, nineteenth century.
It is that it is the idea, and originally it
was something that was intended to describe something that was
not considered psychologically normal. So what was considered normal was

(01:00:37):
a man's sexual desire for his lawfully wedded wife in
a Christian system.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
That was normal.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
Heterosexuality was seen as an excessive desire for women.

Speaker 3 (01:00:48):
Outside of that situation.

Speaker 2 (01:00:50):
So what was normal was that your sexuality is put
in service of your family and Christ or sorry, the church.
I wonder if Christ as a word that gets your
video flagged on YouTube probably who knows. So it would
be in service of your family, in service of your church,
in service of your community, and any sexual desire outside

(01:01:13):
of that would be considered sinful and wrong. So the
psychologists often would create these kind of psychological categories around
things that were perceived as sinful.

Speaker 3 (01:01:25):
And of course there was.

Speaker 2 (01:01:25):
Also homosexuality, which completely wrong, and that evolved over time
into taking a positive identity from your sexual desire for
women and then for men, and then I don't know
what it is now everything monsters, right, So that whole
thing sort of set the ball in motion. But originally

(01:01:48):
it was you take a positive identity not from your
sexual desires, but putting them into service of family, community.

Speaker 3 (01:01:56):
Church, right, And.

Speaker 2 (01:02:00):
That is I think socially malleable, right. Not necessarily the
desires themselves, but whether or not you think it is
a positive thing to have sexual desire for women, to
have sexual desire for men, to take an identity from
what you desire sexually, so you feel like you're you're
you have like a good sense of yourself because of that.

(01:02:23):
That is actually not what would be originally I think,
considered Christian, which would have been service to God. So
I mean that is malleable. The desires themselves probably not,
but how you judge them in relation to your social
like your social identity is and that's why. And I

(01:02:45):
remember this way back when people who were conservative, you know,
and I've seen like waves and iterations about this and
how it's changed over time, would say that being gay
is a choice, and they were right. Choosing to indulge
your sexual proclivities instead of putting your sexuality in service

(01:03:09):
of family and church is a choice. And they would say,
just make the correct choice, and and there was not
so Lady Gaga would say something unborn this way to
defend against that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:24):
And now that conservatives.

Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
Have generally don't talk about that because the argument has changed.
Now they're going with, oh, we're all the conditions socially
conditioned because that's more beneficial to whatever they're pushing exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:03:39):
Okay, it changes because it needs to h and the
rules don't matter. Yeah, yeah, it's all it's all feminine oriented.
It's like based on context and empathy and not like logic.

Speaker 2 (01:03:53):
So yeah, yeah, And the thing is that probably the
sexuality does have a genetic component, although so and this
is interesting, there's more Apparently there's more of a genetic
component with rape. So genetically, rapists are more genetically distinct
from normal men than gay men are from straight men.

Speaker 3 (01:04:16):
So if we.

Speaker 2 (01:04:17):
Want to go with genetic components, then realistically men who
rape should be in their own weird category of sexuality
more than waymen. So the attraction to non consensual sex
is an orientation, please don't create a movement is more
of an orientation than being attracted to consensual sex with

(01:04:37):
an adult.

Speaker 3 (01:04:39):
I just want to put that out there.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
Yeah, okay, all right, so now I'm moving on. Obviously,
there's no shame in falling in love, but there's also
no shame in trying and failing to find it or
not trying at all.

Speaker 2 (01:04:55):
Well, it's no shame in falling in love, but we're
gonna shame you for the consequences of falling in love.

Speaker 4 (01:05:02):
This is just like covering their own ass. Yeah, no doubt,
I'm I'm not.

Speaker 1 (01:05:07):
I'm one of those people that's for all the good
things none of the bad things. So if I said
something that made you feel bad, I didn't actually say
it because I support only the good things and you
feel bad, And only the bad people who say bad
things can do that to you, So it couldn't have
been me. It must have been somebody else who was bad,
probably a man. Yeah, all right, And as long as

(01:05:27):
they're openly rethinking and criticizing heteronormativity, having a boyfriend will
remain a somewhat fragile or even contentious concept within public life.
This is also happening alongside a wave of women reclaiming
and romanticizing their single life. So interesting romantic, No it's not,
but they're well, well, hold on a second.

Speaker 4 (01:05:50):
So gynocentrism is.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
A problem because it is the romantic model that's been
overlaid on top of the way that men and women
relate to each other, and it's based on an illusion.
It's not real, right, this idea of romantic chivalry and
romantic love that's based in these stories of fantasy that

(01:06:16):
are very like, let's say, aspirational, but not realistic. And
this is like.

Speaker 4 (01:06:21):
Where like it used to be the case.

Speaker 1 (01:06:24):
So I'm trying to like parse this out because I
think that where she's going is almost like the next
step of ginocentrism, which is hetero fatalism, right, I think
that's what she's saying. So like before ginocentrism, we had
men and women got together out of a necessity for survival,
out of a necessity for the species to continue. As

(01:06:45):
a business decision that would join two families together like
they were companies, so that you could like increase your
productivity in the family. Right, you have a bunch of
kids and they worked on the farm or wherever. If
you were a craftsman in the village, they were in
your business, and you would marry your son to a
neighbor's daughter and they would get they it would be

(01:07:08):
set up for them early, and the love they felt
was built over time. But they usually knew each other.
It's like, you know, it wasn't like the way we
meet the opposite sex today where it's on we're on
apps or we go to like you know, we may
meet them at work or in school. We're talking about
people who lived within proximity to each other and they
were around each other a lot, and they got to

(01:07:29):
know each other and it was usually and there are
still societies that do that, right, Like even in America,
there's like you know, if you're in a rural enough
area and there's there's like not really a lot of
access to like the cities, you're gonna like be around
the people that you're around, and you're probably gonna marry
those people, and you're gonna start families with those people.
And at the time, the romantic model of the man

(01:07:53):
bringing everything to the table and the woman being the
table didn't exist.

Speaker 4 (01:07:57):
Right, Am, I am, I If I'm wrong, cut me
off and let me know.

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
And that was all because you know, there were dowries
and stuff, right, We used to do that. Then we
got into the romantic model. And I don't want to
blame anything like people say, oh, industrialization or whatever. I
don't know if that's true, because I think we could
like continue to adapt the same thing and just bring
it over. But what happened was we started to adopt

(01:08:24):
a concept of romantic chivalry, and that was ginocentrism, where
the man had to the woman didn't need to bring anything.
And I think that it was kind of like an
elitist thing that regular women got into and it was
done through our culture and our art and our literature
and plays, et cetera. And then we all start to
absorb that, like chivalry as a concept existed, but it

(01:08:46):
wasn't something that was just for women. It was like
a code that men had, you know, it was like
a code of honor. It is why like guys who
would get knighted as though it was a big honor,
not because of something to do with women, but there
there was inherent in that, like the duty to protect
the people weaker than you, which makes sense again for
a society to survive, the men, you know, need to

(01:09:08):
be strong and be able to protect the weak so
that you can keep having people.

Speaker 4 (01:09:12):
Right, you don't want all the women to.

Speaker 1 (01:09:13):
Get stolen, of the kids to get murdered, so you
needed somebody to protect them. So we get the romantic model,
and that skews everything, and you get to a situation
where you know, now the men are taking a knee
and they're giving up all their resources and women are
there's less and less put on them, and their lives

(01:09:33):
are made more and more comfortable. And now we've reached
essentially peak comfort where women can just vote for communist
mayors because they want to free they want free stuff,
and they're not thinking about the future. And when I
look at this, when this woman said, and as long
as we're openly rethinking and criticizing heteronormativity, having a boyfriend

(01:09:54):
will remain a somewhat fragile or even contentious concept with
it within public life. This is also happening alongside a
wave of women reclaiming and romanticizing their single life. So
we went from a thing where women had to bring
something to the table to the romantic model where women
were the table. To another level of that, the next

(01:10:16):
evolution is women don't need men at all, and they're
romanticizing being alone or like hanging out with girlfriends and
doing the sex and the city thing. And I wonder
if that isn't, like, if she isn't essentially admitting or
pushing towards that as like the logical endpoint of guynocentrism.

Speaker 4 (01:10:36):
Does that make sense?

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
Yep, yep, Well.

Speaker 2 (01:10:40):
It is the logical endpoint. And now they outsource everything
to the state, and that's.

Speaker 1 (01:10:46):
Exactly why you even need a man to supply you. We're
just gonna get the state to give us everything we need.
So men are literally redundant, I mean until the whole
system collapses.

Speaker 2 (01:10:59):
Well, they're not RedANT because the state still needs to
extract resources from them in order to give to women.
But of course men realize more and more that the
stick the system is rigged against them. But you were
talking before about like this this experiment with the pig
and how the pig will continue to push the lever
even though another pig gets all the main amount of food. Yeah,

(01:11:22):
you want to describe that as I think what I
read there.

Speaker 1 (01:11:25):
Was an experiment where you had a large slow pig
and a smaller, faster pig and they would put that
the the lever to release the food. Pellets was on
one side of the pen and.

Speaker 4 (01:11:40):
On the other side is where the food comes out.

Speaker 1 (01:11:42):
And the uh I think the large pig was male
and the small pig was female, but I'm not sure
about that, so don't quote me on that. But the
results were the large pig would pull the lever for
the food to come out, but he wasn't able to
get to and he was only he was the only
one strong enough to push it. Okay, I think, but
that might not be true either. But he would push

(01:12:03):
the lever and the food would come out, and the
small pig would eat most of it, if not all
of it, and the large pig wouldn't get to the
food in time, and they would do but the butt
the large pig would continue to push the lever in
the hopes that the small pig would leave him some
I guess, and it never happened.

Speaker 2 (01:12:21):
So it was actually wasn't it that the small pig
would would eat its fill, but it couldn't eat the
whole thing. So the pig the would keep pushing the
lever because at least he would get like a couple
of mouthfuls.

Speaker 1 (01:12:32):
Yeah, yeah, something like that. Yeah, it's just been a
while since I saw it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:36):
So essentially, that's what men are going to be doing.
They're going to continue to keep this thing going because
they don't want the lights out in their their apartments.
They want to be able to eat, they want to
be able to have heat and everything. But it's not
going to be a thriving society. It's going to be
a progressively more and more miserable society. And the other

(01:12:57):
thing is that the fake economy will eventually collapse in
on itself and all of the women's jobs in the
fake economy, which are basically just the government taking debt
out on men's collateral. So the collateral is men's labor.
The government takes debt out gives a whole bunch of

(01:13:18):
women jobs in the state run harem that men have
to pay for. But eventually all of that collapses because
the rest of the world no longer wants to underwrite
the debt for the world economy, the world reserve currencies
state run harem right, So that is that is the

(01:13:39):
eventual like it may not happen today, It may not
happen tomorrow, may not happen next year, It may not
happen in ten years, but the all of it will
collapse because nobody wants to fund it anymore. Nobody wants
to extend any more debt to the system. And then
women will have enjoyed all of this extremely expensive independence.

Speaker 3 (01:14:04):
Suppose it independence for.

Speaker 2 (01:14:07):
However, mail it lasts and then everything implodes and they
get to.

Speaker 3 (01:14:11):
Enjoin the downfall. I suppose.

Speaker 2 (01:14:14):
But this is not a system that's sustainable because it
requires government debt to sustain it, and that there is
a finite limit to that.

Speaker 3 (01:14:24):
Eventually.

Speaker 2 (01:14:25):
I mean, the modern monetary theorists think that you can
never run out of government debt as long as you're
sovereign and you can print your own money. The only
problem is eventually you'll have inflation. The rate the rate
of inflation will be so bad that nobody can afford
anything in your system and they will be forced to

(01:14:46):
stop using it at that point.

Speaker 3 (01:14:49):
So that's sort of the future.

Speaker 2 (01:14:52):
And good luck explaining this to women like the woman
who wrote this article. I doubt she has the ability
to understand things systematic, systemically, under to comprehend what I'm saying,
But she has a vote, so we're all we're all
going to be going down this road, all right. So honestly,
I think all we'd have to do to correct the
voting thing is simply have a single question. You know

(01:15:17):
what that question is, and just just ask it of
every person once. Of course, you need to make sure
that they don't know the answer, but just ask it
of every person when they come of voting age. And
that question is right, if you have a glass that
is full of water and you tip the glass, what

(01:15:37):
angle is the surface of the water relative to the desk.
Most women fail this because they cannot They cannot model
a system in their minds. That's the only question you
need for the vote. And if a woman can model that,
it's the ability to model a system in her mind,
she probably has the intelligence or the understanding of systems

(01:16:02):
to be trusted with a vote. Yeah, And it's a
radical thought. But maybe it's a way of improving this
situation fairly.

Speaker 1 (01:16:10):
Okayeah, okay. Where being single was once a cautionary tale
you'll end up a spinster with loads of cats, it
is now becoming a desirable and coveted status, another nail
in the coffin of centuries old heterosexual fairy tale that
never really benefited women to begin with.

Speaker 3 (01:16:27):
That's the end of the old statement.

Speaker 1 (01:16:30):
Yeah right, it's cool to be a loser. Guys. Really,
this is just cope by the way that men are
not approaching her, and she's basically trying to justify it,
and men should not approach her.

Speaker 2 (01:16:42):
Okay, So this woman, here are the things that she's
written back in the two like prior to the two thousand,
like twenty nineteen, very various features on race and identity.

Speaker 3 (01:16:55):
So she's a black woman.

Speaker 2 (01:16:56):
She wrote like black Travelogs, Black Perspective, a very strange
article saying, I can't stop watching videos of other people
quirying exploration of emotional vulnerability and media.

Speaker 3 (01:17:08):
Tied to break up some grief.

Speaker 2 (01:17:10):
Pop culture a lots of pop culture, and I stopped
waiting for a relationship to live a romantic life, and
I haven't looked back personal essay on embracing solo romantic
experiences and rejecting relationship timelines.

Speaker 3 (01:17:24):
Yeah, so now.

Speaker 2 (01:17:25):
She's basically permanently single. She probably doesn't have the skills
to maintain a long term relationship, or perhaps she isn't. Astoundingly,
she might not be even in the ability to get
one in the first place, which is really wow that
you really, you really have to be very low functioning
as a woman to not even be able to get

(01:17:46):
a relationship. But yeah, she just she's single, and she
wants every other woman to be so too, and she
wants women to be embarrassed about being partner.

Speaker 3 (01:17:55):
But there's no.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
There's no there's no inter intra sexual relational aggression. She's
she's got your own she got your best interests in mine, ladies,
she got your best interest in mine. When she says
that something that she couldn't achieve, you shouldn't.

Speaker 3 (01:18:12):
Feel proud of either.

Speaker 2 (01:18:13):
Good Grief as a public facing journalist and writer. Chante
Joseph as a professional photos available.

Speaker 1 (01:18:20):
Okay, she wrote she wrote an article about gamer Gate too,
you know that. I think it's for The Guardian really, yeah,
it's an old one, but she wrote, an article about Gamergate.

Speaker 3 (01:18:29):
What was the article?

Speaker 1 (01:18:31):
I'll have to look it up.

Speaker 4 (01:18:32):
Hold on, let me see to history.

Speaker 3 (01:18:34):
Also do this too. What was her gamer Yeah?

Speaker 4 (01:18:36):
I searched her up on.

Speaker 1 (01:18:40):
Google.

Speaker 4 (01:18:40):
I just gotta like find it.

Speaker 3 (01:18:42):
Okay, let me see what I got. Hopefully.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
Joseph's not traditionally written articles specifically on Gamergate. However, she
hosted and presented a prominent podcast episode exploring the topic,
marking the ten here it is.

Speaker 1 (01:18:56):
It's called Are we Experiencing Gamergate?

Speaker 4 (01:18:58):
Two point zero?

Speaker 1 (01:18:59):
I guess it's yeah, pop culture with Shante Joseph. It's
like a podcast, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:19:04):
Joseph examines the lasting impact of Gamergate, an online harassment
campaign and right wing backlash against female journalists and developers
in the gaming industry. The episode discusses industry changes over
the decade or ongoing misogyny and signs of the gamer
Gate two In the most recent controversies, I eg tied
to gamer reviews and diversity efforts.

Speaker 3 (01:19:26):
It highlights how.

Speaker 2 (01:19:27):
Little is improved for women in gaming, with themes of
online hate, wal right influences, and the need for better protections.
It's so funny. Back in two and thirteen, I predicted
all of this when I said Anita will save you
from your sin. They were going after the gamer the
gaming industry, and it was like yep, and gamer Gate
online harassment campaign. So basically they gamer Gate pushed back

(01:19:51):
against the appropriation of games for this agenda and has
continued to do so. And gamer Gate two is when
gamers just decided to stop buying these games. That was it,
and that was harassment, was it. I'm going to get
Grock to fact check her, okay.

Speaker 3 (01:20:08):
And I do have.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
I did find some pictures not of her.

Speaker 3 (01:20:12):
I sent one.

Speaker 2 (01:20:13):
She's not really that bad looking, presumably, but so that
means the failure.

Speaker 1 (01:20:20):
No, I know what she looks like, Yeah, it's really
it's really look this is the most flattering image she
could find.

Speaker 4 (01:20:27):
Hence it's online.

Speaker 1 (01:20:28):
But you know, if it's like, it really doesn't matter
that much. Just don't be a bitch, that's all exactly.
That's it. Just don't be a bitch.

Speaker 4 (01:20:37):
And she's a bitch, so that that makes her unappealing.

Speaker 3 (01:20:42):
There you go, there's another one.

Speaker 1 (01:20:43):
She's British, by the way, She's British, not American.

Speaker 2 (01:20:47):
Blessed a bitch with an accent that waste with an accent. Yeah,
waste of an accent, no doubt. Okay, because you know
the British accent, at least for me, you know, as
a couple of points. I doubt it would with purse.
It's a waste of an accident. Okay, let me see
what Groc has said. The overall the statement is a faithful,

(01:21:09):
concise summary of the episode's content.

Speaker 3 (01:21:12):
Is it is it? Is it accurate? Curious on the.

Speaker 4 (01:21:15):
Gamer Gate episode? Of course not, Allison.

Speaker 1 (01:21:17):
The only the only thing that's been accurate in describing
Gamergate has been gamer Gate itself, and Groc Grockipedia has
been pretty.

Speaker 3 (01:21:27):
Okay, So Groc says no.

Speaker 2 (01:21:28):
The podcast framing of Gamergate is an online harassment campaign
and right wing backlash against female journalist and developers as
a widely accepted mainstream media narrative, but it is partial, oversimplified,
and contested. It emits key context, competing complaints and documented
evidence that complicate the harassment only story. Online harassment campaign

(01:21:48):
true in part, thousands of women received rape death threats, docsing.

Speaker 3 (01:21:52):
And coordinatd brigod eate brigading.

Speaker 2 (01:21:54):
FBI investigated, some perpetrators were prosecuted. Double checked investigation, double
ship I'm going to get it to double check the
investigation of prosecution.

Speaker 3 (01:22:02):
But anyway, we should probably move.

Speaker 2 (01:22:03):
On to the next one if we want to get
it done right, if we even have time.

Speaker 4 (01:22:08):
I only have like less than half an hour before
I got to go.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
So how many how many coke time codes did you
get from her?

Speaker 1 (01:22:15):
A few? I mean, do you like this could be
its own show, honestly? But really you see, well, yeah,
I got like we're thinking.

Speaker 2 (01:22:22):
Of covering a queer Kiwi on a man who de transitioned,
So yeah, we have enough time for that.

Speaker 1 (01:22:31):
So there's a d transitioner, and I mean that could
be its own thing, honestly, but I don't know if
you're so.

Speaker 2 (01:22:37):
Yeah, yeah, okay, Well, the thing is that on Friday
I was hoping to cover some more crazy antics in
the financial sphere with Karen, No, not with Karen, with
the with the guy who does the audit.

Speaker 3 (01:22:54):
Yeah, he's really really interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:22:56):
We could do next week too, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:22:59):
Okay, sure, all right, yeah, I guess you're right. We
don't have a lot of time. Okay, Okay, guys, nobody's
sent any superchows. I think maybe I should get I'm
I don't see any I'll poke the roles.

Speaker 3 (01:23:12):
We'll see if there's anybody.

Speaker 2 (01:23:13):
Okay, Nope, doesn't look like it, all right, So again,
if after the show, you can still send us superchows
and extend the conversation and be heard at feedbadger dot
com slash just the Tip. That's feed Thebadger dot com
slash just the Tip. Blink should be in the low
bar as well. And we will have the monthly fundraiser
out at some point, probably soon ish, and that will

(01:23:35):
be at feedbadger dot com slash support all right, so yeah,
I'll just hand it back to you, Brian.

Speaker 1 (01:23:40):
Okay, Well, if you guys like this video, please hit like, subscribe.
If you're not already subscribed, hit the bell 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.

Speaker 4 (01:23:53):
Sharing is caring.

Speaker 1 (01:23:54):
Thank you guys so much for coming on today's episode
of Maintaining Frame, and we'll talk to you guys in
the next one.

Speaker 5 (01:23:59):
Men's right Active are machines, dude, Okay, they are literal machines.
They are talking point machines. They are impossible to deal with,
especially if you have like, especially if you have like
a couple of dudes who have good memory.

Speaker 4 (01:24:13):
On top of that too, holy shit, you're fucked.

Speaker 2 (01:24:16):
You could probably minimize how much they how many highlights
that that gives you keep it to a fear like
just the most important bits are the most viral worthy bits.