Mankind vs Modern Feminism on X | International Men's Day X Space

Happy International Men's Day! This just might become a little heated depending on who joins in. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, hello everybody, and welcome to Honey Badger Radio.
My name is Brian and this is uh.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, it's the fireside Chat, but I'm doing something a
little bit different because the guest I'm speaking to is
on X, so we're gonna be doing X spaces, so
that means I'm also opening up the floor to anybody
else who wants to, you know, chime in with their thoughts.
It is, after all, International Men's Day. And you'll only

(00:29):
know that because well you either are already in the
loop on this stuff or I just told you and
I can prove it. Just go to Google and see
if there's a doodle up and that's how you know.
So coming with joining me here on the show is
mankind versus modern feminism. That's your X name, right, Welcome

(00:52):
to the show. Yeah, yeah, sure, it's good to have you. You're
I don't know if like guys, can you hear them? Okay,
because you might be a little bit low. Do you
have like a way to turn your mic up or something?

Speaker 3 (01:05):
Does the sound okay?

Speaker 1 (01:07):
I could just oh no, you're good, yeah, yeah, yeah,
you're good. Now.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yeah, I'm just looking at the levels and they were
a little lope, but you're You're fine, all right. So
let me just so, I just happened to notice that
you have been, like, you know, posting some pretty good
stuff on your on your page, and uh specifically like

(01:30):
you know, talking I guess, talking about men's issues and
also critiquing the sort of predominant paradigm, which is the
feminist paradigm. And I thought that was interesting because there's
a lot of people, a lot more people are like
sort of adding to that conversation. So I was curious,
how how do you come across this stuff, like what's

(01:52):
your red pill story?

Speaker 3 (01:56):
Well, I'm not sure it was with red pill. I
come with this from a position or pro natalism. Yeah,
I'm a father, I have a couple of boys, I'm divorced,
I have them half time. And I come with this
from a perspective of and I always have in intersectual
relationships between man and women, that the family really matters,
that it's the core probably of Western democracy as a whole,

(02:19):
That the stability of that family matters, that kids matter,
that marriage matters. And I guess the way that I
came to this was as a function of some failed
relationships or a time figuring out why they failed, and
then an absolutely savage divorce experience that that was debilitating, injurious, incredibly,

(02:51):
incredibly painful, and I had no idea why it was happening.
I had no clue what was going on. I had
heard of the silver ball that I knew that nasty
divorces happened, But I think, like every guy, thought to myself,
well that can't happen to me because I'm not doing
anything to deserve it. And it's not that I was
a perfect man. I wasn't. But I wasn't hurting anybody.

(03:14):
I wasn't hitting anybody. I wasn't screaming at anybody. And
so I didn't understand, particularly after my divorce, why things
had to get so nasty and why things happened the
way they did. So my red pill, my education on

(03:35):
this began as I was trying to figure out why
things were going so badly. My expouse involved children, involved
child protective services a number of times, and they were
in our lives for oh I'd say almost two years

(03:55):
at one point, constantly hunting, constantly search even when they
had no concerns. They were hanging around. Our kids were
struggling at school. That's how eventually this kind of happened,

(04:16):
and there was emotional abuse in some physical abuse in
our relationship. I didn't call her abuse at the time.
I didn't call it what it was, and I thought
that I was doing everybody a favor because realistically, if
you're being abused, you have to leave. I even knew

(04:37):
that at the time, and so I was being My
ex spouse had depression, she had anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder,
she had major depressive disorder. They checked her for a
bunch of other things. There was discussions about borderline personality
disorder that I suspect in hindsight are true, although that
was never diagnosed to assess she was medicated. She was volatile,

(05:03):
She was passionate, which was what initially drew me to her. Beautiful, small,
you know, five foot high, very feminine. But once we
married and moved in together, things started to get really
rough and she started getting handsy, which I tolerated for
some time, and I thought, yeah, you know what, she's

(05:24):
not injuring me. I could take it.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
I mean, handsy is in like trying to slap and stuff.

Speaker 3 (05:31):
Yeah, the first time she did it, I was on
the phone with a colleague, a female colleague, and I
am I employ something in all my business conversations called
the human business human model. You know, it was not
a long time ago. So you started by saying, hey,
how's your day, right, and then you get to your
business question, and then at the end of this a
few moments you simply have a conversation about whatever commonalities
people may have. I'm a guy that doesn't come naturally

(05:54):
to me. I like to get straight to business, and
so I've adopted this model. And at the end of
the conversation, I was having a just a brief moment
of where I said, oh yeah, you know this was
back in I think twenty fifteen. Oh yeah, I'm just
burning a lot of my CDs to digital because the
age of the CD is done. And the female colleague
that I was speaking to said, oh, yeah, I'm doing

(06:16):
the same. And what I didn't realize is that my
wife at the time was standing by a door in
our home. I was in our homeworking. I was self employed,
and when she heard me having this conversation with this
female colleague, she became raged, came down demanded my phone,
which I hung up on right away. I'm like what
the hell's going on? And as soon as I hang

(06:38):
up the phone, she just slapped me. So there was
an element of physical violence in the relationship at that point,
and I thought, okay, it's a one off, but no,
it happened a few more times. This was about two
years after we married in twenty thirteen, and so things
had been emotionally volatile. I wouldn't have called them abusive,

(06:59):
but now looking back, I would say it was because
I'm out of the relationship at this point, and that's
pretty common for men where they won't call it abuse,
perhaps not even when they're out of the relationship. But
it certainly was emotionally abusive and became physically abusive. She
slapped me three times. Then she tossed a suitcase over
a set of stairs on top of my head. She

(07:19):
would regularly say that if I didn't leave the house,
because she would say that I had to leave, that
she was going to call the police and make something up.
She threatened false allegations a number of times. She was
medicaid for a brief period of time and things got
a little bit better, and then she stopped taking her
meds and things went off the rails in twenty eighteen,

(07:40):
and they went off the rails really quickly. False allegations began,
alienation from the kids, kind of you know, aggression that
was targeted towards the kids, and I didn't understand when
of this was happening. I researched borderline personality disorder. I mean,
I did all my reading right, and I thought, okay, well,

(08:02):
we'll fight through this. But it wasn't going to work,
and so eventually, in September of twenty eighteen, I fled.
I left the home on an afternoon on adviceive a
lawyer that I talked to, saying, hey, what the hell
is going on? And after the physical abuse and the
emotional abuse, at the end of it all, the fifth
time she had assaulted me, which would have been in

(08:23):
the spring of twenty eighteen, I pushed her back and
at that point I said to her, we have to
figure this out, because it's one thing if you're hitting me,
but I'm not you. I'm big, I'm strong, and I

(08:45):
was not okay with her hitting me. I wasn't okay
with her hitting me, but I thought I could deal.
I thought I could take it. I never thought that
I would respond, ever, but the fifth time that she
did it to me. I didn't even think. I just
pushed her back and she ended up on the floor.
Didn't pursue her, you know, didn't chase her, nothing, just

(09:07):
pushed after she slapped me. And she weaponized that pretty
much right away, and I chalked up a piece of
it to borderline personalities or when I've had Okay, fine,
if I leave, it'll end. If I just leave, it'll stop.
And so I left in the fall of twenty eighteen,
and it actually got way worse. That's when chot predicted

(09:32):
services was engaged. She went to CPS and she made
claims about me hurting the kids, hurting her. I found
in the CPS records later at trial that they actually
had no parenting concerns with me at all. None. They
actually wrote down that they had no parenting concerns with me,
and yet they kept the investigation of them for a
year hunting just devastating to have a CPS investigation over

(09:56):
for a year based on false allegations, allegations of physicalviolence,
allegations of emotional violence, allegations of alienation, allegations of sexual misconduct,
allegations of course to control, allegations of financial abuse. And
I wasn't surprised at that, knowing what BPD looks like,

(10:16):
like I had done enough to know kind of what
I might be facing. But what I was shocked at,
and this is what started me kind of looking in
more so into what was going on, was that everyone
believed her.

Speaker 1 (10:33):
Everybody Now that shock you, Oh it.

Speaker 3 (10:38):
Can I curse?

Speaker 1 (10:39):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (10:41):
It fucking astonished me. I would show people evidence that
what was being said was a lie. They would refuse
to look at it. I would say, to Chop Protective Services,
that's a lie, and I can show you the truth,
and they would say, well, it doesn't matter because we're
not an evidence based organization. We're a probability organization and
we're making decisions based on probability, right. And I said

(11:04):
to them in writing it in person, I said to
CPS a number of times, but it didn't happen, and
I can prove it, and they would actually say to me,
we're not an evidence based organization. And I said, then
what are you like, what are you doing here if
you're not an evidence based organization? And I did not
understand at the time what the hell was going on.

(11:26):
Every single worker at CPS a total of five over
the course of about eighteen months lied. I found out
later at Toronto lied about me in the file, documented
that I was a problematic firearms owner that had been
reported to the police. This was never true. Documented that
I had been charged with domestic violence. That was never true,

(11:48):
documented that what were some of the other claims that
they had documented in essence, that I was a criminal
that I had, you know, had been investigated for domestic violence.
You know, they were concerned that I had firearms, had none.
I was a firearms under prior, but my spouse had
made me get rid of all my firearms. They made
her uncomfortable time. So I said, finally go to them.

Speaker 1 (12:07):
It's fine.

Speaker 3 (12:08):
I didn't want to, but I did. I couldn't hunt
it anymore, but that's fine. I wanted to save my marriage. Yeah,
And so the CPS folks documented. I was paralyzed by
what they were doing because not only they couldn't find anything,
but every single one of them lied. Every single one

(12:31):
of them supported my ex spouse. Every single one of
them negatively impacted my ability to parent. Every single one
of them was gung ho for her. It was clearly,
almost almost entirely opposed to my existence m H. And

(12:51):
I could understand that because when when CPS first got involved,
I thought, Okay, finally we're going to get some neutral
arborris here, Finally we're going to get some people who
can bring some I'm sandy to this. I mean, these
people have been trained to their university educated. They're intelligent people.
They will shut this down. They didn't shut it down,
they were just fuel on the fire.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
Yeah, And.

Speaker 3 (13:14):
I began to think, how can these people, these university
educated people, How is it possible for these intelligent people
to lie like this, know that they're lying, and still
do it. How is it possible for them to look
me in the eye lie to me like how is
this happening? And why is it so universal in this situation?

(13:37):
And so I went beyond researching into what was happening
with my expose and what illness might be contributing to
her to her treatment of me, into why these people
would would act this way. And it was around that
time that a doctor I think she's a professor at
the University of New Mexico. Her name is doctor Tanya Reynolds,

(14:00):
published a paper called Man Up and Take It Gender
Bia Some world type casting. Do I have your permission
to pay some things into the chat?

Speaker 2 (14:08):
So you I wouldn't know how to access it because
I'm currently displaying our conversation. But if you let me
think here, if you send it to me as a
d M, I can probably like share it there.

Speaker 3 (14:23):
I can actually paste it into the chat for the
for the Honey Badger arcade. Yeah, the X space, I
could just paste it there if that's okay.

Speaker 2 (14:31):
Uh, yeah, that's fine. Let me just try yeah, try that.
I'm gonna make some adjustments here on the on the layout,
and let's just move this back here.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
Likes that. I don't know. That might be a little
bit messy, but.

Speaker 3 (14:50):
All right, So.

Speaker 1 (14:53):
Just uh, where did you put it?

Speaker 3 (14:55):
I put it in the X space, So I'm on
X right now. In yeah, I'm in next to How
do I look at it? If you click on your
own So if you see what's a set of reminder
from my upcoming space, if you click around that image,
it should take you. It should open up the chat
beneath there.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
Oh I see, okay, let me see if.

Speaker 3 (15:17):
There should be a linkern at of science direct dot
com to doctor Tonya Reynold's article.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
I'm trying.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
I can also, yeah, dm it to me, that might
be better. Yeah, yeah, thank you, and welcome to the
chat the people who had just joined. If you guys,
are you know, if you're just hanging out, that's cool.
If you want to say something, I don't know, like
there should be a way to like raise your hand
or something in the Twitter space, right, So, okay, go

(15:44):
ahead and DM it to me and take a look
at Okay, I'll take a look at it right now.

Speaker 1 (15:49):
Hold on, we'll see. Yeah, there goes Okay, science this to.

Speaker 3 (15:55):
Me while you're putting it up. This to me was
an extraordinary article because this then led me to take
a look at evolutionary biology, which is the construct from
which I approach most of my work. Now, now, I've
always been a fan of evolutionary biology. I'm a polymath.
Is it relates evolutionary biology? I have no formal training.

(16:15):
My formal training in the university within psychology, and so
evolutionary biology was not popular in the humanities, never has been,
now less so than ever. But when I took a
look at this, and thank good, as Google in that
day was not as transparent about their wocism and progressivesm
a couple of other pieces began to come up. Segur

(16:38):
and berrious gamble bias came up, doctor Alis Egan's women
are wonderful bias also came up. And there was other
research that came up that showed that this is actually universal,
that that this kind of strange imbalance is cross cultural,
cross socioeconomic status. It's everywhere. And I've heard the term

(17:03):
dan of centrism before, but I dismissed the term dan
of centrism. I didn't fully dismiss it. I'm aware that
chivalry exists, and I just thought it was chivalry, right.
I thought, Okay, well, you know, men are stronger, and
so we put women first. But what I didn't realize
before I began looking into this kind of work was
that there's actually extraordinarily deep evolutionary roots in all of this. Yeah,

(17:27):
that all that's required to set it off. All that's
required is competition or conflict between men and women. That's it.
If men spend their time mainly with men and women
spend their time mainly with women. And that's not to
say what can't be legal egals. That's just to say
that there was a time when this was the case,

(17:47):
when men spent much of their time with men. We
had kind of gender assigned roles. I'm not saying that
that was good. I'm not saying it was bad. I'm
just saying it was At that point, this kind of
stuff couldn't really get traction because it's fired by competition
or conflict between men and women. And so it's something
that existed in a one one relationship between a man

(18:11):
and a woman, but it didn't necessarily explode like it
did with me and my expose because there was no audience.
But once you have an audience, there is this proclivity
to elevate the woman and to denegrate the men. And
it's not just a claim. It's not just saying goddess centrism.

(18:35):
This is rooted in our evolutionary biology. There's no meaningful
question that it's part of our sexually dimorphic evolutionary psychology.
It's there. But because everybody in the system, whether it
be child protective services or whether it be a judge
of trial, they've all come up to the humanities, yeah,

(18:58):
none of them have ever heard of this.

Speaker 1 (19:02):
Ryan.

Speaker 3 (19:03):
So the people who are making the decisions about what's
going to happen to you and your kids have no
education at all, and refuse to look at any education
at all about how corrupt and prejudiced and biased the
system actually is, particularly in the context of false allegations
from women related to parenting. The silver bullet. It's why

(19:27):
the silver bullet works so well is because it's triggering
an evolutionary compulsion. And that evolutionary compulsion, doctor Tonia Reynolds
has it mainly correct. And again, I'm a polymath, she's
an evolutionary, right, so she's got the certifications behind you.
What doctor Tony Renolds looked at, and what segram Barry

(19:47):
looked at, and what doctor Alice Eveley looked at was
intersexual relationships between men and women. They didn't necessarily include children.
But what it comes down to, and this is why
the work is partially right, is that there is a hierarchy,
an evolutionary hierarchy there. And this is what really red
tiled me, if you want to call it, is discovering

(20:10):
that and this just makes perfect sense. And anybody who
lives can can take a look at lived experience and
realize this. Children come first, women come next, men come last,
if at all. Yeah, but that's not a social construct.
Is the problem that's always been called out, even in
my own education, as a social construct, right, not a

(20:31):
social construct, It's an evolved compulsion. Yes, we can't escape it. Now,
we can escape it if we know about it. But
what this means is that in any environment where men
and women compete, women are going to win.

Speaker 4 (20:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
Well, yeah, I see where you're coming from it. Yeah, no,
for sure, for sure, we've talked about We've talked about
that on our show many times.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
So that that was like, he gave me a lot.
But that's cool.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
I appreciate the story, but I want to, okay, not
that not that it matters that much, because ultimately it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (21:10):
I think that.

Speaker 2 (21:12):
You are you know obviously, well you've done good research
from what I can tell, well read you know, and
everything else. But I'm wondering, just out of curiosity, you
seem a little I don't know, like, do the terms
red pill and ginocentrism like bother you maybe because of
the way they're perceived online or something accurate you think

(21:34):
they're inaccurate.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
Okay, I think those terms are actually smaller than what
the real problem is. I don't think that centrism actually
covers it.

Speaker 1 (21:45):
Do you think, okay, so okay, So the.

Speaker 3 (21:47):
Problem is actually bigger than what centrism.

Speaker 1 (21:52):
You don't think it covers enough of it, it's not
un't think it's sufficient.

Speaker 3 (21:57):
I think that what's going on is that we have
an elephant in the room and what we're doing is
we're moving from couch to couch describing the elephant. And
one person is sitting near the head is describing the trunk,
and then the other person is sitting at the back
is describing the tail and a pile of crap on
the floor right. And so I think that there's a
very large elephant in the room, and I think that

(22:18):
we're describing pieces of it, and I think that that
it's very big and it's very difficult to see, and
we break it up into pieces so we can eat
it so we can understand it. But there's something much
bigger going on here than just like the challenge, for example,
kind of centrist. The challenge I had with that is

(22:40):
that it's an assumption that we put women first. Right now,
that's kind of telling.

Speaker 2 (22:47):
That's a little bit of a I think it might
because it is a bit, because I think there's a
lot and look again, to me, I don't really care
what word we use. I don't care about that stuff,
but ultimately I don't. But I just want to make
sure that we're all like like coming at this from
the same place. So yeah, yeah, I'm not offended by

(23:09):
using them or not using them.

Speaker 1 (23:10):
It doesn't matter. I know that there's been a lot
of like debate about you know, what it means. But
to me, I think that.

Speaker 2 (23:19):
The evolutionary desire or instinct to put like of this
hierarchy of protecting children and then women and then you know,
like and then men being last or at least expecting
them to be to some to you know, expendable. I
think that there there is it is an evolved thing,

(23:39):
and I think that that is like something we're not
going to shake, like, you know, easily. But I do
think though, what I don't think that that's ginocentrism is
making that claim or at least when when people talk
about it. I think that what ginocentrism is is claiming
is that above and beyond the natural state of things,

(24:00):
like what is like evolution that can't really be changed,
there is an exploitation of that instinct and putting it
like let's say, putting it into unreasonable or like irrational places,
which is like sort So it's like there's a combination
of nurture and nature going on. And I think there's

(24:21):
a nurturing of the of the instinct in men by
telling them, you know, like you you have to do.
This is why we have like a dating market now
where you know, women can have extremely unreasonable expectations of
the men they want to date and men don't question it.
They just try to live up to it and they

(24:43):
compete with each other to do it because they think
that it does. Or if you have like I think,
you know, like say there's a woman in the in
the workforce, she's a journalist and she gets criticized or
insulted in some way, and the person doing it as
a man, then like you can write a whole story
around how that woman was abused and everyone will come

(25:03):
to that, you know, to the aid of that, or
it manifests in other ways.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
And I think that that is based on what we
would call.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
Romantic chivalry, even if it isn't necessarily romantic in the
sense of you're trying to pursue someone to be a partner,
but just like seeing women as a romantic object that
we are a romantic subject rather that we you know,
take extra steps to take care of or look out for,
and even to the point where women supersede children too,

(25:35):
as you can see with your story of Yeah, so
that this it's where it's it's not like the initial instinct,
like that's not going away, but like where it gets
lost in you know, where you're you're basically like, you know,
the the last election in the United States.

Speaker 1 (25:50):
I don't know if you're American, but.

Speaker 2 (25:51):
The last election of the United States was decided, and
on one side of it was you know, people thinking
about immigration and the economy and jobs and industry and
all this and foreign wars they didn't want to be
involved in. On the other side, it was just abortion.
So it's literally a campaign on what women want over
the interests of children, namely the unborn. And that was

(26:14):
like that was how much of a deciding factor it was.
I think that's the that's the I don't want to
call it imbalanced, but it's so incredibly lopsided that that's
the thing that I think the term gynocentrism is used
to point out. It's it isn't the whole picture, but
it's not supposed to be. I think it's just looking
at that, I think that the the evolved things aren't

(26:35):
going away, and no.

Speaker 3 (26:37):
They're actually not. And the problem is that, and that's
part of why I mean that when it comes to
this stuff, we had language to describe mail misconduct. And
the reason we have language to describe mail this conductivity
because physical power. There's no question that physical power and
social power are kind of, you know, opposing each other.

(26:58):
You know, women, they've always had more social power in
small groups, particularly the collective of women. I mean, there's
no question that physical strength random world for a long time.
That doesn't mean that the chronical page rechers real, it's not.
It just meant that physical strength resulted in in output
of calories. That's how calories we were gleaned, and everything
else is a proxy for calories, economic wealth, you know whatever.

(27:22):
So physical strength dominated for a long time, and so
we have language to describe physical strength and the abuse
of physical strength. I don't think we even have language
to describe toxic femininity because I think that this power
that women have had has mainly accelerated into hyperdrives since

(27:45):
maybe the sixties, And so I think we're confused because
we don't even have I mean, words are buckets. Words
are buckets that contain concepts that we're taught to make
retrieval easy. I don't think we even have the language
to describe social manipulation as an abuse of power as
opposed to physical force. And as it comes to some

(28:08):
of these things like kind of centrism or a red pill,
like when women talk, for example, about oppression, really what
they're talking about is bearing children, the obligation to bear children.
And I understand that having kids is tough. I understand
that having kids, you know, if you're expected to have children.
I get why people might be upset about that. You

(28:29):
talked about kind of centrism and women being elevated. Like
the challenge with some of this language and are understanding
of the language and the constructs involved, is that women
aren't entirely wrong. They were obliged for a long time
to have kids because the option was they wouldn't receive
any resources or support and they'd either join a nunnery
or they'd starve. The deal was men die in battle,

(28:54):
and men die on the docks, and men die on boats,
and men die in the minds and have kids. This
was the ancient deal, right. The problem is that it's
not actually women that are being elevated. It is to
a small degree. And this isn't fact. This is this
is kind of my perception of things or why I
think we lack the language. It's actually women's for company

(29:16):
that's being elevated. The only reason that women are being
elevated is because they have a uterus. It's not women
per se that are being elevated. And that's why when
a woman is forty five, for example, she falls off
the map socially. If she's forty five and doesn't have kids,
where is she?

Speaker 2 (29:33):
Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna push back on that a
little bit, of course. Okay, so I see what you're
coming from. But the thing is, how was it in historically? Like,
how did it work in the past, because that's the
only place we can look, right, So a woman in
her forties was was uh, Well, women were definitely. I

(29:54):
don't think historically they were less than their uterus or
their ability to to produce children. I think that they
were different things at different points in life, just like men.
And so when a woman is young, she is you know,
no children, and she is fertile, and she's a you know,
like basically a prospect for the starting of a family

(30:18):
in the same way that young man is.

Speaker 3 (30:19):
Right.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
He's youthful, he's got energy, and he's ready to like
you know, risk it all, as it were, to try
to build something and usually at the cost of his
own body so that he can you know, attract a woman.
And and in fact, and for most of our history,
people didn't date per se. They just like knew the
family next door and you know, they grew up together,

(30:41):
and yeah, they were basically set up and it was
you know, a marriage was more like a business. Uh
you know, uh, let's say a merger right in a
lot of ways, because everybody worked and it was like
your family was your business. So when we got into
like industrialization and modernity and stuff, then the concept of
dating cam and this is actually you know, there's a

(31:02):
guy I had on my show. His name is this
is Shah and he's been doing a lot of research
into dowry. And like, dowry is not just like people
think of it, and they think of like, you know,
countries like India, but dowry has always existed in most
of you know, most societies where marriage was based on
bringing families together and you usually knew the people you

(31:23):
were marrying from childhood, so they were like, you know,
you guys were on good terms. It wasn't like the
way that it's presented in movies where you know, oh,
you're you are betrothed to this person that you don't know,
you don't like. It wasn't like that. That's that's Hollywood garbage.
That's a lie, right, And look, I'm not saying we
should go back to that. I'm saying that's where.

Speaker 1 (31:43):
We came from.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
But like a woman in once she becomes a mother,
then her she's valued for a completely different set of skills.
Right now she is a mother, she is raising children,
she is like feeding them and everything else, and of
course the father is doing his part in that. And
when she gets older, like in her forties, she becomes

(32:05):
a sort of like matron. Right, She's got grandkids, she's
involved with the community, she is so like this is yeah,
but these.

Speaker 3 (32:13):
Are men, then those roles done transition. Men have the
same role from probably the age of fifteen.

Speaker 2 (32:19):
It's basically yeah, yeah, although I think they can be
like mentors later on, like sort of like yes.

Speaker 1 (32:26):
We become senatorial, you know what I mean, yes, exactly,
but I do think that, uh no, it's okay.

Speaker 2 (32:32):
Just to make this point, I do think that if
there is a kind of like reduction in women's value,
like the way that we see them today, it's not
it's not because of something men did. I think it
was in fact, you know, the feminist movement. It basically
pushed them into the workplace. It it double the tax base.
It made women into you know, essentially vehicles for pursuing

(32:58):
career above all things, dating family second, And it was
all about like seeing everything in terms of monetization as
opposed to like other kinds of value, you know.

Speaker 3 (33:09):
And I think you're actually painting the path to us
entirely agreeing. And here's maybe where we can make the bridge. Okay,
if if women today still had three or four kids
in their forties, I think they would be highly prized. Absolutely,
women only fall off the map generally if they don't
have children at their forty five, right, they want to

(33:32):
continue to not make the transition. Men don't have to
do that, And that way maybe we have it a
hair easier as far as development over time, because by
the time we're fifteen, everyone realizes that we're no longer
a puppy, that we're now an almost full grown dog.
And generally speaking, society tosses us into a sack and
tosses us into the river and says, fight your way
up and swim. No, it doesn't happen at fifteen. Maybe

(33:52):
it happens to twenty five. But society with large on
an evolved basis, doesn't really have much time for men,
not young. They have to fight their way up. That's
their job is to fight their way up. I get it.
It's fine. Society has plenty of time for young. They're feeding,
they think they're kids. The more potential kids they can bear,

(34:12):
the more attention they get. That's what Instagram is. That's
what only fans is. It's a celebration of fecundity, an
evolved compulsion to celebrate for coundity. But that celebration of
fecundity means tons of affirmation and validation and dopamine for
women and resources. This has always been the case. It's
a male competition for for condity, for fert it's not fertility,

(34:33):
it's not quite the same concept. And so they get
a ton of affirmation, a ton of validation and a
ton of resources, and they can use it for condity
to get that, whether it be professionally, whether it be personally,
we're evolved to elevate for condity. I think what women
are really objecting to is the transition from a celebration
of fecundity to a celebration of maternity and saying that

(34:55):
that's an oppressive change. And it's like, well, I guess
at what you're saying, but we sent eighteen year old
boys up to die in Germany like, and so the
male role doesn't really change as much as the female role.
It's just that we start to look at men as

(35:16):
disposable when they're eighteen, not disposable when they're in their
mid thirties, and not even kids like. Male disposability is
always on the table, always on an evolved level, and
so I don't think that men struggle with that as
much as long as it comes along with a certain
modicum of gratitude. Because as soon as everyone realizes that

(35:38):
we're no longer puppies like eight year old boys, they
get lots of attention. Fine, but as soon as boys
are post pbstent, the expectation is fight compete. Yeah, for sure,
win a partner, win a wife, and show us the resources,
have the car, you know, be able to support a family,
and there's no turning there. Like there's there's no change

(36:00):
men past that point. Women are celebrated for their company,
but if they don't turn the corner to maternity, that
celebration ends. And that's what I think many women find oppressive,
is that unless they have kids, there's just not much
Therefore them, they're not celebrated anymore. Society looks the other way.

(36:20):
And so I think that women really do find not
all women, but I think that many women do find
the obligation of maternity to maintain their social status. That's
what they really think. The chronical patriarchy is the handmaid
still is that are not valuable as you have kids.
What they don't understand is that that's not men doing it.
That's evolution doing it to women the same way as
evolution says men are disposable. Why would we on an

(36:43):
evolved level celebrate weak men who refuse to fight and
represent children. Why would we celebrate any form of masculinity
that doesn't create and maintain children and grandchildren? On some level,
there's no reason for evolution to code that in why
would we celebrate any form of femininity that doesn't result

(37:03):
in children, my grandchildren? Why would evolution?

Speaker 2 (37:06):
Where does it go other than satisfying your own sort
of like, I mean, frankly narcissistic.

Speaker 3 (37:12):
And that's one hundred percent right there. Yeah, evolution doesn't
care if men are oppressed. It doesn't care if women
are oppressed. I've read Richard Dowkin selfish gene. It makes
perfect sense. Evolution does not care if men are oppressed,
as long as we get the maximum number of adaptable grandchildren.
Doesn't care. Evolution doesn't care if women are oppressed, as

(37:34):
long as we get the maximum number of adaptable grandchildren.
Doesn't care. The assumption here that many modern feminists have
is that life is supposed to be fun. It's supposed
to be affirmation and validation, and no, evolution doesn't give
a good goddamn if you're happy. It doesn't care. It
didn't hardcode your happiness into its construct. It hard coded

(37:57):
the maximum number of adaptable grandchild. And here we are
a bucking evolution, and buck and evolution and manipulating it
now by artificially creating conflict between men and women, and
all of a sudden, their birth rates are tanking, and
all of a sudden marriage is tanking. We've got a
men and boy crisis where men are withdrawing. It's the

(38:19):
manipulation of the evolutionary construct under the auspices of rising
female power in an anti natalist construct. Modern feminism's primary
target is children, not men. They're going through men to
get to babies. Why is abortion the number one topic

(38:39):
for modern feminists? Their real target is not men. They
have to go through us to get to babies. They
don't want babies because babies, to them are that turning
of the corner that represents the oppression. We're not the
actual target. We're the proxy, if you know what I mean,

(39:00):
Because because what does a relationship with the band result in? Well, kids, right, marriage, family,
it's kids. The heart of the modern feminist movement is
is the belief that babies are oppression and that's divorcin
that's d be war.

Speaker 2 (39:16):
I mean, that's that's so it's not you you're saying
modern feminism, but that's like, that's all feminism. That's what
it always was because like literat like even Mary Wilson
Craft was like the proto feminist was essentially writing about
like liberation of women means liberation from their biology, because

(39:38):
that's the only way that can go. Literally, nowhere else
it can go, Like this is why, like the trans
thing is big now because there's nowhere else to go,
Like we're just going to try and change our bodies
like the nature.

Speaker 3 (39:50):
That's right, generity constructionism, or you know, an elimination of sex,
of memorphism. But my mother, for example, I would I
would call my mother a feminist. My mother agrees with gender.
I mean, I guess in today's lingo, like if you
take a look at Mary Harrington's work, Louise Perry's work
as feminists, right, yeah, Mary Harrington has created this or

(40:10):
carved out this niche, calling it reactionary feminism. And Mary
Harrington is an essence saying, listen, we live in a
time where women can be whatever they want to be.
But it's probably best if you don't compete with men.
It's probably best if you do focus your early years
of becoming a wife and a mother, because you're probably
going to be happiest and your children will be in

(40:32):
the best possible shape. And so my mom, she's like
eighty now, but she's along that same line as well.
My mom never went to university. Her parents didn't let
her go to university. Her parents only let her go
through grade ten. This was back in the in the fifties.
But my mother says, listen, I'm working my ass up,
I'm working hard. I'm your father's equal, but I refuse

(40:54):
to compete with them. He and I are not going
to compete. We're equals. But my mother has no interest
in competing with my father, and my father has no
interest in competing with my mother, not zero. And that's
the only reason that they're approaching their sixtieth wedding anniversary
is because they refuse to compete. And my mother does
not believe that women should compete with men, even if

(41:16):
they're in the same career paths. Like it doesn't mean
that women can't be lawyers. It just means that we
need to produce male female competition whenever we can, because
the male female competition engages gender buy some real typecasting,
and that means that we're off to the racist with
false allegations and all kinds of talksic conduct to manipulate
the evolved compulsion right, and so family law that's a

(41:41):
competition between men and women now is wife. It is
completely rife with gender bias. Real typecasting now you know
I've I've struggled with gender Buy some real type casting
because it has a It uses the term around like,
it uses the term morals as if, as if this

(42:03):
isn't purely evolved conduct like I'm not sure people understand.
Cats do this, Dogs do this, Elephants do this. Every
single primate does this, every single one, and the really

(42:24):
strange things. And again this is my own work now,
but it was based on doctor Reynold's work. It's not
just that cats do it with cats and dogs do
it with dogs as a marked preference for infants than females,
with no preference for males. If you have a man
and a woman fighting, even if the woman is the

(42:45):
aggressor and there's a male dog present, he's more prone
to bite the male, even if the male is the victim.
It's interspecies. Cats will comfort children and women, but they
will leave men alone. Cats respond to female vocalization favorably
by approaching and rubbing, but not male vocalization. This is

(43:09):
not some some moral thing. Cats don't have morals. Dogs
don't have morals. Guerrillas don't have morals. This is an ancient,
evolved system that at this point, many but not all,
but many women are manipulating for personal gain. And that's
what modern feminism is. Because if the course of all

(43:29):
of this is children first, then women, then men. You
follow me so far, that's a super construct. If if
modern feminism is fundamentally anti natalist, and you reduce the
number of children or eliminate the number of children, who
is the primary beneficiary of the evolved bias? If you

(43:56):
take up the kids, who's the maximum beneficiary of the system.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
Well, yeah, it's the women.

Speaker 3 (44:05):
It's the women.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:07):
They receive the affirmation of validation, the attention, the resources,
and they have no responsibility at all to pass it on.
And men aren't even part of the construct. And it's interspecies.
Can I send you to the DM of something, Yeah,
go ahead, Okay, here it's a Grock analysis. Just did

(44:31):
it the other day, and so I've kind of renamed
this and again, this isn't this is my work, and
I believe it's a very very good work, but it's
all based on the initial my initial understanding of doctor
Tonya Menold's work. So I'm sending it to you now, Okay,

(44:51):
I got it right here. You should have a Grock analysis.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
Now, yep. Oh yeah, this is a lot. Okay, it's long.

Speaker 3 (45:00):
Now, we don't need to go through it in detail. Yeah,
it's going to be useful to have up in the chat.
In fact, I'll post it in the x chat here
so that people can see it if they want to
see it. Where is it here?

Speaker 1 (45:14):
There?

Speaker 3 (45:14):
It is. So doctor Reynolds looked at this from a
from a human level, just a human level. Okay, mm hmm,
and that's fine. What she didn't look at what no
one has really integrated is that it's an interspecies pattern
of conduct. Okay, So what I took a look at

(45:37):
in this analysis was how deep does this go? And
this is where Grot confirmed based on assembling a bunch
of different research. Cats will comfort children before women, Cats
will comfort women before men. Cats almost never comfort men.
They'll come to men for food, they'll come to men
for attention when they want attention, but they almost never

(45:58):
come to comfort men whenmen vocal. Same for dogs, same
for climts, same for elephants. Okay, so this is not
gender bias in moral type casting with all respect to
doctor Reynolds, this is something much much different. And what
I've called this I asked Rock for some names and

(46:20):
we kind of went through things. It's this. I've actually
called it the synergistic interspecies. And this might be a
little precocious.

Speaker 1 (46:29):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (46:29):
The synergistic interspecies infant female triage medality.

Speaker 1 (46:38):
Mm hmmm.

Speaker 3 (46:40):
Because this isn't just about men and women and kids.
This is so much deeper. If a man and a
woman are having a fight and a stray dog was
to intervene, he would bite the men.

Speaker 1 (46:52):
Yeah, this isn't just.

Speaker 3 (46:55):
About people, right, this goes into every So what this
means the synergistic interspecies sift is the acronym every single
interaction we have. We are sifting people into buckets of
infant through femininity, through masculinity. Who's at the bottom end

(47:16):
of that as far as who has the most responsibility
and the least benefits. It's not just men, it's the
most masculine men. Yeah, it's a distribution curve of proclivity
favoring infantilization.

Speaker 1 (47:31):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 3 (47:32):
Now think about modern feminism and infantilization. The claims the
conflict What they're doing is they're pushing themselves down towards infantilization,
the Handmaid's Tale, the tyrannical patriarchy. Man are ol oppressors.
They're vocalizing, whether it be in writing or on YouTube,
they're vocalizing and infantilizing themselves to get the attention.

Speaker 1 (47:54):
That's it.

Speaker 3 (47:55):
Dogs do it, cats do it. Everything does it. That
femine is simply it's an evolved construct. Modern feminism is
an evolved constructs. It's that's why they can believe in
what they're doing and lie at the same time. Mm hmm,
because it feels correct even if they're lying. That's what

(48:18):
happened to me with Child Protective Services. That's what happened
to me. A trial, even though I ended up with
fifteen to fifty Guspie is what happened to be a trial.
Everybody wants to support the female vocalization. Dogs want to
support cats want to support it. Gibbons, gorillas, elephants want
to support it. So do lawyers, so do judges, so

(48:38):
does everyone. Everyone does all that women have to do,
and not all women. Many women hate this construct. Mary
Harrington hates it. Louise Perry hates it. That aren't hates it.
Many excellent women of excellent character hate this evolved proclivity.
But there's no question that modern feminists are paying out

(48:59):
an evolve proclivity towards grievance narratives, female vocalization to gain
power and cutting off the tail end of the infant.
They're cutting off the obligation to have children, so that
they are at the they are the bottomneck, they are
the receiving end of all affirmation, all validation, all of that.

(49:23):
That's my red pill mode.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
Yeah, that was my reds.

Speaker 3 (49:27):
Understanding that this isn't even just about people. This goes
way way deeper than people, and it's not about morals.
Modern feminism is not a social construct. They are playing
out an evolved compulsion to deceive and self infantilize and
characterize men as oppressors. And they believe it. And yet

(49:50):
it's a lie. Yeah, but they believe it.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
They actually course, no, of course they do.

Speaker 2 (49:56):
Well, I mean, I yeah, I think there are people
who also so see seek benefit from this setup. But
but there is something If it's evolved, then why is
it killing us? Because it's going to at like with
the birth rates plummeting.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
Oh no, no, here's an answer to that question. ABC
News just uncovered that answer. Let me see if I
can get this for you. I might have to paste
in here. ABC News just ran a pole about what
man woe will want.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
Okay, oh, I know we covered it on the show.
Are you talking about?

Speaker 5 (50:30):
Like?

Speaker 3 (50:30):
Right? Okay, right now? The way that you figure out
what someone wants is not when they're in a position
of dress, because stated preferences versus revealed preferences mean that
you have to be in a position of power and
strength to have your revealed preferences show someone's got a
gun to your head. Are you going to tell the
truth or you're going to lie and tell them whatever
lie they want you to tell. You're going to say

(50:51):
whatever they want to say. Yeah, So you can only
tell the truth and have your stated preferences match your
revealed preferences when you have power. That's it. That's the
only point in which you can afford to be honest. Business,
No gun to your head. Women have more power now
than they've ever now. They're less happy than they've ever been,

(51:12):
but they have more power now, and so they can
start to allow their stated preferences to align with their
revealed preferences, and that's what the ABC poll uncovered. I
don't believe, although there's a distribution curve of proclivity, I
don't believe that women ever wanted marriage children.

Speaker 1 (51:32):
You don't that women ever want to help.

Speaker 3 (51:34):
It marriage or children. No, not, not for its own purposes.
I believe that women were created by evolution as men
were created by evolution, and that women were created by
evolution to require men and the caloric input that men
could provide. That's why concealed avulation involved in women. You're

(51:57):
familiar with that. Oh, no, concealed ovulation. We're one of
the only species on the planet that has sexual relations
outside ovulation.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
Oh oh yeah, yeah, we can have.

Speaker 3 (52:09):
Sex and even enjoy sex outside ovulation. The reason that
evolved is so that women could secure resources from men
without having a child for their own survival, not just
for the survival of a child. Okay, this is the
basis for prostitution, concealed ovulation, the exchange of resources for
sexual access mind as a child without without a child. Now,

(52:33):
that was okay in a circumstance where women had to
approach men for resources, because if they approached men for
resources often enough ovulation kicked in. And that's not to
say that women were oppressed women. Many women enjoyed those experiences.
Sex isn't always some tyrannical patriarchal of active oppression. Women
have enjoyed sex for ages. Okay, this is not new,

(52:57):
but in that context of women being compelled to approach
men for resources, eventually they got pregnant. But no one
was choosing pregnancy one hundred and fifty thousand years ago.
We've only had the little to think for one hundred
and fifty thousand years. No one knew they were going
to have a kid when they had sex. We were
incapable of thought. No one was choosing children. What women

(53:22):
were choosing was to exchange sex for resources, and occasionally
they were more compelled to do it because they were
ovulating and enjoyed it more because they were ogulating. No
one was choosing children. No one was choosing the relationship.
The relationship was an evolutionary construct. It's not a social construct.
Marriage is not a social construct. Vasa presdent prolocked them

(53:44):
on the part of men, an oxyotocial on the part
of women. This is what family. This is what family is.
These chemicals define it family is an evolutionary construct. It's
harder in people than it is in other species. But
family is an evolved construct. Men a vaca pressed and
as a function of sex that makes the make guard women.
That's male love right there. Women of oxytocin as a

(54:08):
result of orgasm and breastfeeding, that's family. Like these chemicals
define it. The family is an evolved construct, perhaps best
personified in Western democracy, which is probably why Western democracy
has done as well as it's done, because the nuclear
family has never been stronger than in the context of
Western democracy. It's part of the nuclear family that built it.

(54:31):
No one country, if you know what I'm saying, it's
that construct that did. But in that construct, women weren't
consciously choosing children. They were choosing the marriage. They were
choosing the relationship, just as through concealed ovulation, because it
was their access to social status, which is resources. Social

(54:52):
status is a proxy for resources. If you're strong within
your community, your community will support you right with resources
and camalory. They were choosing social status, and they were
choosing their own lifestyle. And there's her own survival. But
now that women have power and are no longer compelled
to seek men for protection or for resources which men

(55:15):
didn't do to them. Evolution designed them that way. Evolution
designed us our way. Now that women are coming from
a position of power, they no longer have to say
that they value marriage children. They can actually speak a
stated preference that mirrors the revealed preference. They never wanted
marriage and children for marriage and children's sake. They wanted

(55:36):
it for survival. If a woman didn't have children, she
was going to be in a nunnery. Like, do women
really want to eat porridge every day? No?

Speaker 2 (55:47):
Well, I mean lots of women do join nunneries, But
I think it just sounds like what like, do women
not get any joy out of motherhood?

Speaker 1 (55:59):
Do they not?

Speaker 3 (55:59):
They have, absolutely, but only once, but only once they
have the kids.

Speaker 5 (56:03):
Right.

Speaker 3 (56:04):
See, because breastfeeding, so men sex, good sex result in oxytocin.
For women, it's a bonding chemical, right, It bonds people together.
But once a woman has children, the number one source
of oxytocin is no longer sex. It's breastfeeding that otocin in.
A new mother maintains her mental health and holds her

(56:27):
in the family unit. As long as she's breastfeeding, she's
unlikely to end the family because the oxytocin from the
best feeding gives her a sense of contentment and peace.
She's content.

Speaker 1 (56:41):
What about the what about? What about this?

Speaker 3 (56:43):
Though?

Speaker 2 (56:44):
So like as an aside, Okay, So I believe that
another thing that impacts women's behavior when it comes to
whether or not they're gonna get married, stay married and
have children, or if they're going to get divorced or
whatever it is they choose, depends on the social circle
they're in. And I think that it's a social contagion,

(57:06):
one of the I have a data point where a
woman who is in proximity to other women who have
gotten divorced are they are more likely to get divorced.
So if they see their friends are getting divorces, it
increases their chance of getting divorced by like a significant number.

Speaker 1 (57:25):
I find it. And it's a social.

Speaker 3 (57:30):
You're getting the nailed right on the head.

Speaker 1 (57:31):
But the opposite of this is true as well. What
I was gonna say.

Speaker 2 (57:36):
The opposite is true because if a woman is around
a woman like, let's say they're in a group of
friends and one of them is like, one of them
gets married, and the other women like are more likely
to get married. And if one of them has kids,
then the others are more likely to have kids. And
if they're if a bunch of women are all you know,
within a sort of proximity of each other, and they're

(57:57):
all having children, then they're they're all going to get
a lot of It's not just the chemicals of breastfeeding,
but it's the social aspect of it becomes essentially, what
where they get all of their joy and their affirmation from,
Whereas if they're not doing that, they're getting it from
you know, I don't know, social media engagement, attention from

(58:22):
the attention economy, from men, from other women. They're they're
engaging in social media like you know, dog piling or
whatever it is, but they're not. It's like the energy
is they're still asking for this stuff, but they're just
getting it from somewhere else, you know what I mean.

Speaker 3 (58:39):
And you're one d percent right. And the name and
evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology for that is strategic post
social behavior. And there's a good reason for it. It's
that men survived as individuals often but women could never
survive as individuals one man versus one woman, you know,

(59:00):
Like again we're talking one hundred thousand years ago, when
when our compulsions were drafted by evolution or longer. A
woman alone was dead or raped, that's yeah, whether it
be a predator or a human predator, right or starvation,
she was dead. That's not the case for a man alone.

(59:22):
His chances of dying.

Speaker 1 (59:24):
Were hot and he could end up dead, so he.

Speaker 3 (59:27):
Could end up surviving and moving through. Well, everything that
creates a fifty percent plus one chance of improving survival
eventually gets hard coded by evolution, and so evolution hard
coded women to become more of a collective. That's what
strategic pro social behavior is. And the interesting thing is
hi to stop sort of eliminates strategic pro social conduct.

(59:48):
It's not something to that experience, which is why women
form collectives really quickly and men just don't. That's part
of the gender biasomol type casting is part of why
women will often act as a collective and men will
often act as individuals. Because women's survival depended on them
not straying too far from other women when the men

(01:00:09):
were gone hunting, when the men were away for a
period of time, and so women needed to form a
social collective. Here's the question, how do you know that
you're protected in any herd anamo, any collective. Do you
want to be at the edge of the hurt where
pretor paget you, or do you want to right? But
who's in the center of the hurt? And the answer

(01:00:29):
is high status females. The high status females are the
center of the hurt. Right, you want to be into
the high status females. How do you accomplish that goal?
You do what they do, and you believe what they believe.
You act like they act. You mirror the higher influence
women in your social group. And so if you're married

(01:00:53):
to the highest status woman in her social group, she's
not going to be swayed much by one of her
friends getting divorced because she's the highest status female in
the group. But if you're married to one of the
lower status figom in her social group, and her highest
influenced friend gets divorced, you're fucked and there's nothing you

(01:01:13):
can do about it. Because her physical survival two hundred
thousand years ago didn't depend on her doing what you
told her to you were gone most of the time.
Her physical survival depended on her proximity physical social proximity
to the highest status female in her peer group. Any

(01:01:36):
woman who got cast to the edge of the tribe
by the highest any woman who got excommunicated from her
peer group died. That's strategic pal social behavior, and that's
why women are more susceptible to anarexia. That's why they're
more susceptible to bolima. That's why they're more susceptible to
social contagion of gender contagion. That's why young women are

(01:01:58):
more susceptible to getting ticks after they watch a higher
status female on TikTok with a large following at facial tics. Yeah,
because women see their peer group as physical survival absent
external threat. If there is an identifiable external threat, they
see you as a man, as their physics a life,

(01:02:19):
but absent a visible external threat that a man is
supposed to defend them from, in essence a predator of
some kind. They see other women their peer group as
their physical safety. They're safer with their peer group, and
so if they're peer group has a couple of high
status women who have gotten divorced, there's nothing you can

(01:02:41):
do as a man. Mm hmm. You are not absent
to bear at the door. Absent a saber tooth tiger
at the mouth of the cave than you standing between
you between her and it with a spear. She is
going to chase your peer group.

Speaker 2 (01:02:58):
All right, I got a super chant now I got
to read out really quick from ZARAENX. He sent it
earlier and I again a chance to read it. He
sends ten dollars and says, men protect the family. The
best way to have all members of a family left
vulnerable is to minimize the efficacy of the protector. Otherwise
all members would work in concert of guarding said family.
Guaranteed the most evil individual couldn't come.

Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
Up with this.

Speaker 2 (01:03:20):
It works too well. All right, thank you for that, ZARANX.
Sorry that was like from a while back, so the
context might be lost. You mentioned that women like they
have power now, and I think it's the illusion of power.
Like every they're very comfortable, like men have made modern

(01:03:40):
women very safe and comfortable with all of our modern conveniences,
and I think it's given them like this this threat
or danger of being like you know, unsafe where they
need men.

Speaker 1 (01:03:54):
I think that's kind of like it's gone like that.
The threat is there. No, the threat is real, and
it's there.

Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
And what we have in terms of like what keeps
these women safe is extremely fragile, and it's constantly being
chipped away at, and in fact, in a lot of ways,
women are chipping away at it themselves because of how
safe we have made them, right, so you know, we
so like, yeah, so I think that this is it's

(01:04:24):
it's strange then that women are actually undermining their their
own safety net, probably because they're they're not aware of
how dangerous the world actually can be and it can
happen very fast. And also, why then is there a
multi billion dollar industry that's trying to convince women to

(01:04:46):
you know, not have kids and divorce their husbands and
tank the birth rate and kill their own babies, like
if it's modern, well, like the whole cathedral, like the
whole like education, media, you know, politics, the whole apparatus

(01:05:08):
is essentially weaponizing women's fear insecurity and narcissism to destroy
themselves and our society by choosing, you know, to divorce
themselves from men, to not like, to not trust men,
to constantly fear men, to see them as the enemy,
to see them as competition, which is like, you know,

(01:05:31):
according to what you said, is like the reason is
like the root of all of this, and yet they're
that much money and energy has to be thrown in
that direction.

Speaker 3 (01:05:42):
So I haven't answered for it's an imperfect answer, but
I have an answer for that, which is the concept
of the doom loop. Are you familiar with the work
of John B. Calhoun and the behavioral sinks back in
the sixties and seventies, Okay, So John Calhoun, he was
an athologist and animal psychologist. They call it athology and animals,

(01:06:03):
which is a huge mistake. To separate animal psychology and
human psychology is a massive there. It's where the concept
of social constructs comes from. It's the separation of human
and animal psychology. We wouldn't look at a rat and
say it was choosing. We would look at a rat
and say it's playing out its biology. We don't look
at people that way. We should. There's no separation between
human and animal behavior in that way. So he had

(01:06:24):
rats and mice and he would build these colonies, and
he would put rats and mice in these huge colonies,
just two three four breeding pairs, right, yeah, just a couple,
and he would watch what happened as population climate and
the one colony. Actually he did this repeatedly, the colony
would grow to a certain point that was nowhere near

(01:06:46):
the capacity of the space he'd given them. He would
give them a space that accommodated like two thousand rats easy,
and he would give them unlimited food, and he would
give them unlimited water. But at some point the birth
rates began a tank and at that point the rat
civilization was already dead. They just didn't know it. What

(01:07:06):
happened at that point is the population density climbed, the
number of social roles wasn't there, and the rats destroyed themselves.
The experiment, Yeah, that's exactly it.

Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
I just don't I know it by that name, not the.

Speaker 3 (01:07:24):
Right experiment. So he called it a behavioral sink. And
he actually said that the that the rat civilization of
the most civilization suffered two deaths, the spiritual death which
preceded the physical death. Mm hmm. And that's the spirit
of a doom loop. It's it's like a rocket ship
that creates its own fuel once a certain set of
conditions are triggered. A doom loop means that the rocket

(01:07:48):
no longer requires an import of fuel. It creates its
own okay, which has become it becomes a it becomes
a perpetual motion machine, is what it does. Now, that's
only possible in things like human behavior, right, Like, it's
only possible where irrationality can exist. Can't happen in physics,

(01:08:12):
can't happen in chemistry. There you've got catalysts and stuff
that run out and the reaction ends. It can only
happen in the presence of a certain amount of evolutionary
compulsion or psychotic insight or psychotic massformation. Psychotic massformation is
a DESMT. It mirrors Young's analysis of society wide pathology

(01:08:34):
mental pathology. There were villages in Europort. Everybody was compelled
to dance and they couldn't stop dancing. Psychotic massformation right
the Salem wuich on psychotic massformation where a group of
people simply believe a certain thing and nothing you do
could dislodge them. Well, in this concept of what doctor
Tony Ryolet's called gender biasaball type casting that I call

(01:08:55):
synergistic intersexual you know, infantyal triage. If women create a
context of threat, if women can create the context that
men are the external threat, and if society elevates women
above conflict, society suppresses men it's what society will do.

(01:09:20):
If women say men written large are the threat to
our existence, then men will actually subjugated the men and
women will as well. Now the ap A tested this.
This is a fascinating link I can send to this
quickly where they looked at implicit bias. They looked at
some of this stuff because they had made this statement
that traditional masculinity was problematic. I'm not sure if you

(01:09:41):
recall all that. Oh yeah, they got some heat. Well,
all masculinity is problematic. Really, yeah, I mean there is
no non toxic version of masculinity at this according to
the a p A. But the AP is led by
not just modern feminist but modern intersectional feminists. The question
the concept of gender, right, let's say, yeah, these are
these are jitterity construction is running the APA at this point,

(01:10:02):
which explains a lot of kind of where they're coming from.
So they ran the study that they did nothing with.
But it is absolutely stunning. It is it's a study
that confirms that women's evolved, likely evolved under the circumstances
implicit bias against men is actually greater than racism.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
Oh yeah, for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:10:26):
Ran in twenty twenty two. I'm gonna send it to
you now.

Speaker 2 (01:10:30):
Yeah, I mean the conversation around racism is actually just
a distraction, it's miss injury.

Speaker 3 (01:10:35):
Yeah, since to the study. It's from PubMed. It was
in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, And this
study actually confirms much of what you and I are
talking about here. Men want women to win by a
little because that's how we get laid. Honestly, that's how
we have sex. If women lose and their serotonin is

(01:10:57):
low and their dopamine is low, and their their their
social success is low, they don't want to surround. But
if we make women feel good, we get to have sex,
and we're compelled to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:11:08):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 3 (01:11:08):
So men actually have a slight compulsion across all races,
all socio economic statuses to slightly elevate women's interests above
the wrong by having what's called a negative implicit bias.
We don't actually think badly of women at all. Individual
men can act badly, but as a collective, men actually
want women to win by a little, just a little

(01:11:28):
above our own interests, which fits chivalry theory, it fits
everything else we're talking about gender by some more typecasting.

Speaker 1 (01:11:34):
Did you send me the study the last one you
just caught up. Yeah, okay, where did you say?

Speaker 3 (01:11:39):
If you look in your chat?

Speaker 1 (01:11:40):
But now I got to refresh this maybe because I
don't see it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:48):
Let's see, is it to soltial eliminate strategic pro social
behavior through Is it that one?

Speaker 3 (01:11:53):
Or No? Nope, that's that's going from before.

Speaker 1 (01:11:56):
That's weird. I don't see it. So as a d
M two, I'm to pass it to Allison.

Speaker 3 (01:12:03):
So they ran this study. Yep, it's the largest social
bias they could measure. And again, it ran through It
ran through all socio economic classes, it ran through all races, okay,
which means when something like that happens, there is a
very high probability that is evolved. Oh sorry, I sent

(01:12:27):
you the wrong one. Sorry, I much have copied and
paste that. I can see that. Now, let me get
the right one. Okay, I got it here. No, I
said to them, it's my own fault. I'm sending the
correct one to you right now from a journal.

Speaker 1 (01:12:40):
No, it's fine. Well, look, I can't go for much
longer because it's like really late here. But I wanted to.

Speaker 2 (01:12:50):
Uh ask okay, so this sounds very like predestined. So
and so then why are you pro natalists If it's all.

Speaker 3 (01:13:01):
Pointless, someone's gonna survive. Okay, So I don't want my children.
I do not want my sons infected by this. We
cannot and again this is gonna sound doom saying at
this point, But like look at the work of doctor
David Betts, for example, like the the the the professor
of War for Insurrection at King's College is saying, we're done.

(01:13:24):
Mm hmm. The people who are experts in insurgency and
civil war, many of them at this point, are saying this,
this goose is functionality cooked, We're finished. People aren't listening,
much like people will build on the Andreas fault line
in California and then be surprised when earthquake knocks down
their house. Human beings are narcissistic, eccentric. We're not going

(01:13:46):
to listen, right that That's the whole myth of Cassandra.
People could tell the truth and no one listens. No
one listens, you know, it's the way things are. No
one's listening. Ye, my children are not going to have
the life that I had if I can help them,

(01:14:06):
and by talking about the evolved biases, when civilization falls
It's not that everyone dies. It's not some zombie apocalypse.
It's thirty to forty to fifty to sixty years of
managed to decline, where life gets tougher and tougher. But
if I can tell my sons love women, but never
compete with them. Love them, never compete with them. Ever,

(01:14:30):
find a career where you do not have to compete
with them, even if it means that you have to
be an entrepreneur. Never compete with women. You're going to lose,
because that's what evolution has set up. It's not that
civilization fall and kills us all. No, I have children, right,

(01:14:53):
and so I have to act in a way that's
consistent with my children's best interests. I can't just say
we're done, give up. I work sixteen hour days, I
work hard, right, I have to build what feature I can.
Even if I know the civilization, the Western democracy is done,
it's finished. It can't survive this doom loop. We're in

(01:15:14):
a doom loop. We're in a behavioral sink. We're finished.
But my sons can still have a great life because
it's not that Rome is burning to the ground. It's
not like everything's being set on fire. It's that we
have to make do with what we have if we
have kids. I'm a prominatalist. I have to do with
some of my children's best interests, right, So what's the

(01:15:35):
point I'm lying down on the ground and saying the
sky is falling, I give up. I feel like doing that,
Trust me, I feel like doing that with the experiences
I've had. But you can't. I have sons. They have
to have a better life. And so I could say
to my sons, love women, recognize this system. Don't hate
on women. Men misbehave women misbehave Men as a collective

(01:15:58):
have not done great. Sometimes a collective aren't doing great
right now? Hadl Andrews recent thing on the feminization of
a society writ large in essence, she's saying it's over.
She's been clear that the law will not survive feminism,
that the intersectional application of justice means that women will
give justice to whoever they want instead of giving justice

(01:16:20):
to all. Yeah, that's my experience. But I've encouraged my sons,
for example, to not My sons are our teenagers, and
I've said they love to hunt, they love to fish,
you know, they love to be in the country. I've said,
live in the country, live in a place where you're
closer to existential harm, Live in a place where community

(01:16:42):
is community because you're not surrounded by pavement. Live in
a place where you can walk in the forest, live
in a place where there's water. Don't let the cities
are first. If you watch David Betts's work, if you
listen to David Bets or any of the folks in
the Nova Insurgency and what they believe is coming, the
cities are going to go first because the cities are

(01:17:02):
the hot bed of modern feminists. And so why am
I not lying on the ground giving up.

Speaker 1 (01:17:11):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:17:12):
Maybe if I didn't have kids, i'd be a nihilist.
Maybe i'd be a black pill. I have children. Yeah,
I'm compelled to fight for my children, and not just
my kids. I feel strongly about fighting for kids. Rit
large modern feminism is kill them. They are the target.

(01:17:33):
Babies are the target. Men are just the path to
eliminate the babies. If they eliminate men, they eliminate babies.

Speaker 1 (01:17:43):
They don't.

Speaker 3 (01:17:45):
They aren't thinking it. They think that they're targeting a
male depression. They're not. They're really targeting this conception and
pregnancy and the twist in the role towards being a
mother instead of being affirmed and validated for fecundany. Their

(01:18:07):
target is babies, not us. They just have to go
through us to get to the babies because they never
wanted them in the first place. They only wanted them
to secure their own survival and social status. All right,
So I'm not saying that no women wants kids. Evolutionary

(01:18:27):
compulsion to want them, yes, but outside the existential the
reason that birth rates are tanking is women don't existentially
need men anymore and aren't compelled to train sex for resources.
That's the main reason. Absence and existential need for men,
an evolved existential need for men.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
Get if things get bad enough that existential need for
men could come back.

Speaker 3 (01:18:51):
Like, what do you think when that happens? I mean, like,
if we see the mattters now, if we see the mouths,
and I see it, and once you see it, once
you read these papers, you cannot unsee it if you
understand what they say. If I had someone from my past,
my ex wife come to me now and say hey,

(01:19:13):
I've changed my mind, I'd say I don't care. I'm
not doing anything for you, because I'm not I'm not
a boy, I'm a man. You cannot come back to
me as a woman for convenience now that it's convenient
for you. Yeah, because you're just going to flip the
other way again.

Speaker 2 (01:19:33):
All right, just a moment, mister Xavier in the chat
wants to speak, So I gave you permission. You should
be able to speak. Try to unmute and go ahead,
mister x Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:19:44):
I'm used to spaces.

Speaker 5 (01:19:45):
I was going to say, if you want to make
things easier, if you ever go to your chat, rather
than just leave it in the chat bubble, you can
share it to the space. So if you go to
any tweet and you hit the up arrow, you'll see
a new category, share to Space. It'll say share to
International Men's Day. And you could have something in the

(01:20:05):
quote unquote nest because it used to be Twitter the
bird the nest. It's now called the jumbo Tron. So
just a little addative if you wanted.

Speaker 3 (01:20:12):
To do that.

Speaker 1 (01:20:12):
Let me see if I okay, I'm just checking, so
sent me this, so I go share too. Oh yeah,
share the space. So did I just did it? I think? Yeah,
And now you'll see something Okay, cool, I didn't know that.

Speaker 5 (01:20:26):
Thank you, no problem, just for listeners and then to
follow along what you're talking about. Its great conversation.

Speaker 1 (01:20:32):
All right, well, thank you, thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:20:35):
Ultimately, if there is no cure, it's going to take
a few generations for men to kind of men who
see it anyway, for men to forgive and move on.
It's going to take two three generations.

Speaker 1 (01:20:44):
For men to forget what's going on, right, Yeah, for sure.
Uh yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:20:48):
The pain is one sentence. I know you're wrapping up,
so I'm making it really quick. I know you say
you were wrapping it up. But I did like the conversation.
I don't know if this was a one on one interview,
so I didn't want to no.

Speaker 3 (01:20:59):
No, I was.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
It was a space.

Speaker 2 (01:21:01):
I let anybody who wants to say something can go
ahead and say a few words if they want, go ahead.

Speaker 5 (01:21:07):
Okay, no problem.

Speaker 1 (01:21:08):
I do like the analysis. It is a little bit.

Speaker 3 (01:21:11):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (01:21:12):
I do disagree on the solution though. It is a
bit black pilling. And I understand your your your perception
of why that. But if you take a look at
the climate, it's not so doom and gloom as everybody's
talking about it. I mean it's very chaotic as these
things are, as we you know, when she reads the
precipice of of of you know, sexual dynamics and the

(01:21:33):
chaos of it, you kind of have to go the
other way. So you get the m r. As, you
get the chads, you get the the andrew tates, and
it's all over the place. But there there it's an
effort because it is so chaotic. So I see that
as a win. Actually there's a silver lining of people
trying to figure it out because the the men and
women dynamic is something that it's it's it's complementary, right,

(01:21:53):
we need each other. It's receptacle. But as you know,
not in the way it is right now, for all
the reasons you stated sown to Mankind's point, Like what
I've been saying all this time, mister X, it's not
just complimentary. The man and woman thing is everything, like
we get we're literally distracted by all these other things happening,

(01:22:15):
and if we don't deal with the man woman thing,
then none of the other stuff matters. And the fact
that you said, you know, when you pointed out Mankind
that like you know, the it's where it's greater than racism.
I mean that didn't even I didn't even blink an
eye because I knew that that was actually like the
root of it, like everything else comes from that.

Speaker 3 (01:22:35):
It's like it makes perfect logical sense because when you
think about the oldest division in the human race, there's
only one human race. Yes, the oldest division in the
human race is sexual dimorphois in male and femo.

Speaker 1 (01:22:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:22:47):
Race and after culture came out way way later, way later,
and a lot of the problems we're heading right now,
these divisions, critical race theory, critical ethnic theory, you know,
critical sexual theory. These all flow back in part to
the grievance narrative. And the oldest grievance narrative that exists

(01:23:08):
is the synergistic interspecies infant female triosh children and women
than men. If we can solve that, we can solve
everything else. If we can't solve that, it's the fountain.
It's the source of gender ideology, the the the the
infantilization of gender ideology. The students with with with Kefias

(01:23:32):
on this, you know, protesting in the streets saying you're
saying when somebody says you're genociding us, when you're not
yeah right, we're not genociding trans people. We disagree when
they say you're genoiciding us. They're engaging that bias by
infantilizing themselves. Every cat, every dog, every elephant, every primate
would respond to their distress. They're infantilized distress. That is woke.

(01:23:58):
That is progressivism, self infantilization. To engage this infantilized bias
where we see them as children and we rush to
their defense. It's evolved, but it's evolved into a doom
loop that includes race, religion, culture, ethnicity, nationalism. The original

(01:24:20):
source of it is sexual division. The original, the old
division is sexual division. And the only way to resolve
it is to see these biases, to see the evolved
nature of the division and say stop.

Speaker 1 (01:24:38):
Yeah, all right, we have to see the wall.

Speaker 3 (01:24:40):
If we're not going to hit it, if we're not
going to hit the wall that we're running into, we
have to at least see the wall.

Speaker 2 (01:24:47):
No, yeat, Yeah, I don't disagree. So Brian, there's another
Brian in here these botch TV. He actually requests to speak.
So I'm gonna let you talk. I already approved you,
so go ahead.

Speaker 4 (01:25:00):
Just got a quick question in regards to your guys conversation.
So you guys mentioned everything boils down to men and women.
Everything and and pretty much in society boils down to
men and women. And you're seeing this trend. Obviously, I've
I've watched maintaining frame. That's like the one thing I

(01:25:23):
never miss when when you Brian and Alison, when you
guys do it. So that's that's something I never miss
And one one of the one of the things that
I wanted to ask, I guess is because you're noticing
this trend of just young men like myself, twenty six
year old young men gen z ers, just giving up

(01:25:49):
on like dating. I'm not necessarily black pilled, but just
checking out and you know, just that engaging with women
in a sexual for a sexual purpose or for any
for any of that. Obviously, the declining birth rates, declining
marriage rates, and you guys propose some solutions obviously with

(01:26:11):
seeing the biases within our court system, within our world,
within our society. I guess my question is is like
where where do you Where do you start? Because that's
kind of you know, that's a big hurdle and obviously
this is going to take a long time. But obviously,
you know, you don't want people like myself that are

(01:26:33):
young that are not having kids, you know, when they're
in the prime of their lives, not having families. You
have to have the desire of men to come back.
And like you said, Brian, it's going to get it's
going to get to a point where it's so bad
that you know, for men at least, or for men
checking out, it's going to get so bad to where
like women are going to be like, please come back.

(01:26:53):
And we've already seen that with articles that you've obviously
covered on the show.

Speaker 1 (01:26:57):
Going Well, I mean book, All I would say is, uh,
men aren't coming back. By the way, what was that?

Speaker 3 (01:27:05):
And men aren't coming back?

Speaker 1 (01:27:07):
The men aren't coming back.

Speaker 3 (01:27:09):
Well, there's no indication when they say men, can't you
come back?

Speaker 2 (01:27:12):
Like you no, no, no, yeah, for sure are coming back. Well,
what I think is happening is men are just working
on themselves. So they're just like you know, going and
working on themselves and hopefully, and I think this is
absolutely crucial because I've been I've been advocating this from
boldly since I started doing this, is that they're forming

(01:27:33):
some kind of fellowship with other men in some way
online in person, because that's where you like, that's where
you can cultivate yourself without like women's they can be
a distraction for men, even if they don't mean to be.

Speaker 1 (01:27:50):
It doesn't matter that. Like, I think that men need their.

Speaker 2 (01:27:53):
Own spaces, and unfortunately, a lot of times when men
try to make their own spaces, women tend to intervene
because they don't you know, It's been going on forever. Yeah,
but I think that, yeah, yeah, but but look, I'm
just to you know, put it straight. I think most
men are working on themselves and they should They shouldn't
be distracted by women for now. And and what will

(01:28:17):
happen is the ones that essentially outside of women, the
ones that have cultivated themselves the best, will come out
the other side and they will probably meet a woman
that has also done that same work. And so I
think that that's the way it has to go. I
think it's gonna you know, like I've been saying for
a while, there has to be more suffering before people

(01:28:40):
start to like shake out of the you know, out
of this like and and a lot of people won't,
and that's unfortunate. But it's already happening. We've seen it,
you know, people who have fallen for various pitfalls, like
they fell into the gender the gender theory stuff and
they started taking hormones, or they mutilated themselves because they

(01:29:00):
wanted to live as the opposite. Those people they're they're
gene pools over, like they're done and it's sad, but
like there's nothing that can be done right.

Speaker 1 (01:29:09):
And I will say this too, I think the.

Speaker 2 (01:29:11):
People who will be able to endure this storm are
gonna be the ones that have either never really known
this stuff, so they didn't they weren't a part of
the urban monoculture. They were basically living in rural parts
or sort of away from all this madness, or they
were the ones that really made a focus on building

(01:29:32):
community and like you know, operating within that community in
a small scale so that they can like build something
with someone Like where I used to live in Chicago.
I moved to Virginia in twenty twenty and I've been
here ever since. And I was married before I moved,
so but my wife and I lived here and we

(01:29:53):
started going to a church and everyone there they're you know,
there's they're all very young, they're in their twenties. They're
all working on multiple children and I don't think they're
ever gonna get divorced. And it's like it's like a
different it's a different world. It's like a time machine. Yeah, yeah,
small town, closer to nature. I mean, there's some modern

(01:30:15):
influence out here as well, because usually where you get
people who have it worked out really well, you get
also like a significant amount of resistance to that. So
you'll have like, you know, like for example, there's a
lot of witches here for some reason. You know a
lot of people that are that are sort of like
very very against this, but they're but that that's fine

(01:30:37):
because they're still in the minority. My point is is
that also these people they're they're not just like doing
well in terms of like staying married and having kids
and build building community, but they're also self sufficient enough
that if like we lose you know, some of all
of the sort of abundance that we've built, they're going

(01:30:57):
to be able to withstand that. They're not going to
worry about like, you know, if the Internet goes down
or if they I don't know, they lose like some
some some let's say access to you know, what we
take for granted, all of the sort of comforts of
modernity that people in the big cities couldn't handle if

(01:31:18):
they lost. These people will have it. They grow their
own food, they raise their own animals, right, they do
everything on their own. So it's like the Amish, like
they're gonna withstand all of this. They probably don't even
know this is going on, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:31:29):
Rural or small town self sufficiency is the antidote to
the narratives aggrievance. Yeah, the antidote because once you're self
sufficient to a degree, your serotonin kicks in. You feel
like success. Once you've had that kind of success, you
do not want to go back to the narrative reefs. Yeah,
you feel ashamed if you do. And so when you're

(01:31:50):
looking at small town agricultural environments or manufacturing environments where
people have to work hard, where there are some physical
risks in the woods outside of town, coy the that
the local news carries or something. Right, when there's a church,
and and not just for believers, but there's a utility
to religion, which is the strategic pro social behavior piece.

(01:32:10):
Generally speaking, in a church, divorce is going to be
frowned on, considered a failure. Well, if you're seeing, if
you are a believer, try to, you know, try to
pick someone from a church congregation. If you are already
a believer, I mean, don't lie about it. But if
you're already a believer, try to choose someone from a
church congregation whose parents are still married and whose friends

(01:32:31):
attend the church. Because the strategic pro social behavior, they're
the impetus the compulsion on her for success. For what
success and safety means is going to be marriage and children,
right yeah, And her friends are her safety zone, not you,
your safety from eminent physical risk, their safety in a

(01:32:52):
long term level, So choose. Choose from women who have
a friend group, who who have parents who stayed together.
And that's not to say ignore a woman who's got
divorced parents, but you're not going to be as effective
by strategical or social behavior as she is. Right right,
it's not the same meta. Women are not different. We

(01:33:13):
don't respond to divorce the same way. We don't respond
to the world the same way. Men are is influenced
by their friends the.

Speaker 1 (01:33:19):
Same way, right yeah, And.

Speaker 3 (01:33:21):
So just choose carefully, but understanding the evolt compulsions can
help you choose carefully mm hmm, and can even help
in marriage counseling for haveit's sakes, right, But people, all
of these people come from the humanities. There's not a
therapist out there. There might be one in a thousand
who would take a look at it through an evolutionary lens,

(01:33:41):
but the answer lies in the evolutionary lens.

Speaker 1 (01:33:44):
Yeah, so botch TV. I hope that that helps. I
don't know if you Yeah, it does.

Speaker 2 (01:33:53):
Yeah, yeah, that's that's what I would say. Like, definitely, Look,
don't even worry about women right now. Just focus on
like bros and yourself a little bit, right, That's right,
But understand too that you.

Speaker 3 (01:34:09):
Being the best version of yourself is likely going to
result eventually in a woman stepping right in front of
you in her own subtle way and saying, wife me up.

Speaker 1 (01:34:20):
No exactly if she's not interested in you.

Speaker 3 (01:34:22):
If you're not the best version of yourself, you're not
the long time, right. And it's a red pill thing
where they say ignoral women be the best, and women say,
well that's MiG tau. No, it's not. Being the best
version of yourself means that you're going to be quietly
admired inside the community quietly.

Speaker 4 (01:34:39):
Yeah, until somebody approaches you in front.

Speaker 3 (01:34:41):
Of you, make eye contacts, strike up a conversation, and
what she's really saying when she does that, be careful
about sexual or perception biased. It's not that you maked,
but she may very well be saying I find you
quite interesting, and I'm thinking about whether you're family mature.
And then you're in. But you're if you've made the

(01:35:02):
best version of yourself, if you've worked on that, yes, right, yeah,
don't get stuck in relationships so quick, be your best
self and eventually a woman may very well just walk
up to you and say, wife me out.

Speaker 2 (01:35:14):
Yeah, and if they don't, you'll probably be okay with
that too by that time. Yeah, like so yeah, that's
the thing. But look, thank you, botch. I really got
to wrap it up. I think Xavier has hand up again,
no problem, thank.

Speaker 5 (01:35:26):
You quick, just as if I could get through no interruptions,
it'll be less than forty five seconds. So I put
something in the nest and and it's the conversation.

Speaker 3 (01:35:36):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:35:37):
You could hear advice from everybody, but it's really your
choice at the end to work on you and take
the best advice you can because The conversation is happening
where the the you know, the Mike Tower's saying, don't
even bother the ANDW tates name for superficial bogies. And
we have the christ people who have a great morality stance.
But at the same time, it is kind of servitude

(01:35:59):
when you have no authority, but you are executing your
gender roles. So there's pluses and minances in every every
different avenue and people that you talk to.

Speaker 1 (01:36:08):
And kudos to you.

Speaker 5 (01:36:09):
You're a zoomer.

Speaker 1 (01:36:10):
You guys got it.

Speaker 5 (01:36:11):
I mean everything was set it up for you for failure.
But I don't know if it's the Internet that you
guys know how to navigate information well and skip through
Toro proper banda. But you guys are really really base
even though it was set up for you to fail.
So even though you have the worst of it, you
have the best of it too, So take your advice.
The conversations are happening. And the reason I put that
on the ness is everybody has their their formula right

(01:36:35):
and yeah, you know something's antiquated. You take you learn
the history, not only to not repeat the mistakes that
you know we don't want to repeat, but you want
to keep it work well too. There were some great
things that the church did.

Speaker 1 (01:36:47):
There's some good yeah for sure. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:36:50):
Take everything on its own. Don't worry about where it
comes from. Uh, just look at it objectively. The purpose
of wisdom is to look back at what worked and
then implement that in like a new context, not to
just disregard it because it's old, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:37:07):
So yeah, I agree. I mean I got a pretty
base grandma though.

Speaker 2 (01:37:12):
Dope, all right, So look, I really I went way
over on time. This has been great though. I appreciate
mankind versus modern feminism for coming on, and thank you
mister X and Brian for saying saying a few things.
And those of you guys who are watching so mankind
real quick?

Speaker 1 (01:37:32):
Are you just on X? Where can people follow you?

Speaker 3 (01:37:35):
I'm just an X right now.

Speaker 6 (01:37:36):
I am developing some material, but I don't want to
have facet and I don't want and I want to
be careful, right yeah, because really, if we can't reach
some women with what we're saying, and the system, the
evolved bias is set up in a way to make
that very very difficult, challenging thed innistry.

Speaker 3 (01:37:51):
It's backfire effects like challenging modern feminist isn't cool, right,
It's not going to help even though I do it
all the time. It's not helpful. Can't help myself. I
do it all the time. So I don't have any
socials yet. It's just on X, but I will do
some things please. I think the education piece here for
men particularly is actually essential and i'd like to be
part of that over time.

Speaker 4 (01:38:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:38:12):
Yeah, man, Well definitely we'll have you on sometime again
if you if you like. And uh, this is good
stuff and I mean not sure.

Speaker 2 (01:38:19):
Alison would have some like a good conversation with you
about these concepts, as well as Karen.

Speaker 1 (01:38:25):
She's pretty steeped into.

Speaker 2 (01:38:26):
The evolutionary stuff, so all right she is. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
she's very like they're both very knowledgeable on these things.
But okay, I'm gonna end the space here, so thank
you guys for joining us on the space. Please follow
everybody here if you since you're in the room with them. Christina,

(01:38:47):
I don't know. I guess you didn't want to say anything.

Speaker 1 (01:38:48):
That's cool. You're you're you're fine. Just to chill there
if you like.

Speaker 2 (01:38:52):
And for those of you guys who are watching, please
consider liking the video. If you liked it, subscribe to
the channel. If you're not always subscribed to the Belfortifications,
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 Shery is caring.
Thank you guys so much for coming on today's episode
of Happy International Men's Day Men's Facey Yes, and we'll

(01:39:18):
talk to you guys in the next one.