The Male Gaze is back and it's coming for everyone! | Maintaining Frame 185

Somehow the male gaze returned.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello everybody, and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. My
name is Brian. I'm here with Allison and this is
maintaining frame number one eighty five. The male gaze is back, boys,
and it's coming for everybody.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
It meets back on the menu.

Speaker 1 (00:14):
Yep, it looks like female meets back on the menu boys.
So yeah, Alison, you were going to do the things,
and all right, we'll talk about what we're doing today.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
Okay, So if you want to send a message at
any point throughout the show or give us a tip,
it's Feedbadger dot com slash just the tip, very best
way for you to send us a tip. And if
you so desire to send a message with that tip,
because of the message doesn't go through YouTube's comment enhancement
system jazz hands. Okay, back to you, Brian. Please give
us the explanation.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
Here's here's what we're going to be doing. I found
this article on CNN. This is an archive link because
I don't give them clicks if I can help it.
And they all actually a lot of the legacy media
websites are asking you to subscribe or pay for a
membership now anyway, so and they haven't figured out that

(01:06):
a lot of people who are Internet savvy at all
archive things. But anyway, so did you guys know that
for a little while we actually had something somewhat similar
to or growing towards actual progress. And then came Sidney
Sweeney and she destroyed everything. Well not just Sydney Sweeney,

(01:30):
but like the male gaze, which they thought was defeated
and thrown down a shaft, and then like the base
of the patriarchy was destroyed. Somehow, the male gaze returned
and the CNN CNN's own Madeline Holcomb is lamenting that,
and she's going to give us all a history lesson

(01:51):
on the male gaze. And I guess, like why things
are so bad for women in particular famous celebrity women
that work in media.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
Here, okay, the ones who makes the most money from
the mail gaze.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Huh yeah yeah, yeah, Okay, so the male.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Gaze didn't exist, they wouldn't have a paycheck. But we're
going to talk about how they're so hard done by
by the fact that men desire the opposite sex of
their species, so horrible.

Speaker 1 (02:20):
That's really what it comes down to. It's that's what
it comes down to. Basically, the problem is there are
men who like women? Mm hmm, there are heterosexual men that.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
Exist women most affected?

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (02:36):
Okay, lord, Okay, So before we get into it, Brian,
do you wanna I created a audio visual you have it, okay?
And I also created a series of time codes that
I thought would that have either are the most crazy

(02:56):
or the most relevant to us? Do you want to
go through those time codes?

Speaker 1 (02:59):
Are they? Yeah? That's fine? I mean I so I
did start reading this article for the patrons yesterday. It
was our patron topic. I didn't get that far, maybe
maybe halfway through it because it's as usual, because it's
it is you know, let's say, feminist rhetoric, it takes

(03:23):
a long time to get through because there's a lot
of magic that, like spells take a long time to cast. Yeah,
they have long casting times, so you know, in order
to get people to believe your side of your story,
you got to like take a while throwing all of
the incantations out there. And that's kind of what what
what it was about. So we didn't get that far.

(03:43):
We didn't finish it. But okay, exactly, so should we
just play it from the beginning or do you want
me to jump into something. I think the intro is
always good. Have the intro.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
Let's do the intro so people understand that we're not
taking this completely out of context. Yeah, you know that
we are being honest about the content of this article.
We're not lying about it.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
No. No, the article exists and it's not a joke. Yeah,
this is the real thing that exists on CNN of
all places. You know that website, that that news station
that's on It's in every airport and it's where most
people get their ideas about the US. But anyway, let's yeah,
let's go ahead and play the intro. Oh let me

(04:30):
uh yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (04:32):
After years of progress on gender, the male Gaze is back.
Text by Madeline Holcombe and photo illustrations by Jason Lancaster.
The male Gaze came roaring back this summer with an
advertisement featuring Sidney Sweeney. This summer, I got cultural whiplash

(04:54):
as a child of the nineties and early two thousands.
I grew up with my mother's and grandmother generations fight
for legal and workplace equality.

Speaker 2 (05:04):
What when was she born? When was she born?

Speaker 1 (05:08):
So she yeah, So she grew up in with her
mother's and grandmother's generations fight. So the way that this
is worded is like mother's apostrophe s possessive and grandmother's
apostrophe s generation zizz. So my mother and my grandmother.
So she was a child of the nineties and two thousands,

(05:29):
so she's a millennial. And she said that she grew
up with her mother's and her grandmother's generation. Generational is
probably how she should have worded it, generational fight for
legal and workplace equality, helping shed social media.

Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah, this is this is absolute. Yeah, no, you didn't.
By the nineties, all of the main legislation that feminists
pushed was in place, and the there was no No.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
She's saying that her mother, her mother, and her grandmother's
generations are the ones that did the fight. Yeah, no,
they weren't in their time, that's what she's claiming.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
Yeah, my mother used to be a feminist and she
was part of that quote unquote fight, and for the
most part, most other grandmothers and mothers weren't. So I
call bullshit on this. Well, of course, she's just generalizing.
I doubt her mother or her grandmother actually fought for
a damn thing, and I don't think they. I don't

(06:29):
think women in the past really fought. They just requested
and men delivered within the uh time scale of bureaucracy,
which is slow. Right, that's not a fight, it's one percent,
not a fight. But yeah, she's setting the framework. She's
starting with the the historic struggles of women's disadvantage, which

(06:52):
you know. Recently, and this is a bit of a digression,
I've been having these long chats with GROC and I
actually talk to multiple ais. I talked to chat GBT,
and I don't know if talk is the right word.
I instruct them to respond to my questions and I
do chat GBT, perplexity, choral and all the various versions

(07:14):
of GROCK. And what I've noticed, what I noticed over
the time talking to these is there is like a
hard crust of ideology that you have to do it
like prompt after prompt after prompt eventually to break through
to empirical studies. And GROC recently, I don't know what

(07:34):
they the team did, but they did an update and
now GROC doesn't have that. So, in other words, it
keeps to the empirical studies, like studies that have verifiable information.
It's had some kind of update where all the feminist
p are and all the feminists like the studies the

(07:56):
feminists do that don't actually find results or aren't replicable on.
So recently I was talking to Groc about history, and
I asked, Groc, can you look at history and this
is now history that isn't informed by feminist foxorship, and
can you tell me the kind of influence that women

(08:17):
wielded over history by their economic power? Estimate their economic
power in the various eras of history, So that would
be antiquity, Roman, Greece, that would be the Middle Ages
and upwards. And what it came back with was in antiquity,
particularly Rome or sorry, particularly Greece, the economic power of

(08:40):
women just as a result of being of their work
in the household. That's it, just their work in their
household was responsible for thirty to fifty percent of the
economic activity of the antiquity. Now if you go into Rome,
that goes even higher because women didn't just have the

(09:02):
home as a source of their economic activity and also
their economic power. They also had public businesses that they
ran in Rome, so all told that brought their input
to the economy to between forty and fifty or sixty percent.
So fully like in some cases as high as sixty

(09:24):
percent of the Roman economy was dictated by women. And
I go to Rome because this Rome is more of
the unequivocal patriarchy. Everybody calls Roma patriarchy and I'm like,
we're compared to what? But the women actually controlled a
substantial portion and they had political, economic and political clout

(09:45):
as a result of that power. And one huge thing,
huge change that they made was Christianity. Christianity got its
initial footing from wealthy Roman matrons supporting it and also
female martyrs as well. But those women were the ones

(10:07):
who gave it its footing in Roman society. And then eventually,
you know, there would be Roman emperors who were the
sons of Christian women. So there they launched Christianity as
a worldwide religion. Like think about that, Think about the
level of influence that represents for women. And where we

(10:27):
have feminists talking about women as if they are insignificant
actors in history, as if until feminism came, women were
just they were just, their heads were down. They never
spoke a contrary word to a man. Ever, they never
advocated for their own interests. They did all the sacrifice
and hard work. They were the ones down the minds

(10:50):
and in the trenches, you know, before feminism. And it's
such total bullshit because all feminism is doing is stealing
the valor of women. Women never needed feminism. That's the
funny thing because when I, you know, I talked about
how my mother was an initial she was initially part
of the feminist movement. She ended up leaving because of

(11:12):
the way that they treated her when she demanded merit.
She was an editor in a feminist publication and she
wanted people to obey the laws of grammar so that
they could convey their ideas clearly, and they called that
patriarchal and drummed her out, and then they also harassed
my father, and she just was done with the whole

(11:35):
thing at that point, right, just she left. And then
what's interesting is because she died of lung cancer in
two thousand and seven. At her funeral, I remember listening
to her friends, some of whom or maybe all of
whom were feminists, and they said she was a woman
who didn't need feminism. Now that is like, I don't

(11:58):
think any woman needs feminism, But that's white a statement
from feminists. You know, the truth is that women don't
need feminism. In fact, women should aim to be an
individual who doesn't need this crutch, this mental crutch, to
get through their life. All right. And my ultimate point

(12:18):
here is my mother was an initial champion of this movement,
but she never needed it. Feminism makes women think that
they need feminism because feminism wants to appropriate the actual
influence and power of women for its own ends, to

(12:39):
benefit its elite. It's sisterhood, all right, and this and okay,
that was a long aside. I apologize everyone, Okay.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
So that's fine. Let's get back to this article.

Speaker 3 (12:56):
Misogyny. In the past decade, in particular, I saw the
evidence of progress in my media diet. The movies, shows, books,
and advertisements I consumed were increasingly giving women a seat
at the table. Heroin Chic fell away and body positivity
entered the fashion world.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
Are you mental?

Speaker 3 (13:16):
Stealing?

Speaker 2 (13:16):
Heroin Chic was entirely female for this? Do you think
men wanted Kate Moss?

Speaker 1 (13:25):
No? That was like that was from the fashion industry,
which is basically run by women and gay men, and
it was about turning women, the models into Essentially they
were just hangers for the clothing, so they weren't they
weren't they, Yeah, like they were not the subject the
clothing was hence fashion.

Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yeah, so I mean they did have personality and they
had to be able to work.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
I'm not saying it didn't exist that way, but there was,
Like Kate Moss was probably one of the early earlier
super models. First of all, when we started calling them
supermodels kind of came out of that. But also some
of the early ones that they had a name that
we that we could point to, because I think that
for a lot of a lot of that time, unless

(14:14):
you did some research or some digging, you didn't really
learn the names of the models that were modeling clothing
because that wasn't the point. They weren't supposed to be
celebrities in the same way, right, And I think that
in the eighties we started to like talk about models
like name like Cydy Crawford, I think she was a model, right,

(14:37):
and some of these sports Illustrated swimsuit ladies. But but yeah,
I mean speaking of sports illustrate, that's more like the
kind of man that or the kind of woman that
men liked, you know, like curvier, Playboy sports Illustrated, not
something you'd find in el or Mary Claire or Cosmo.

Speaker 2 (14:57):
So and it was really funny because that changed to
heroin chic was itself heralded as a move away from
the male gaze. No more bouncy, smiley playboy bunnies. Now
we have these serious, serious women with the with the
who displayed their esthetic choices, not the curves that men

(15:19):
are attracted to. Right Like, every single movement has been
framed as a movement a mate way from what men want,
except maybe when we actually you know, like Playboy actually
catering to the male gaze or what men like. It's

(15:39):
it's this is absolutely tiresome, okay. And I remember that
because I, unlike this woman, was in my late teen
well I was thirteen in nineteen ninety, you know, so
I was twenty three at the end. I remember all
of the conversation around this. I remember them talking about

(16:03):
how these women were were icons of female power, no
longer constrained by wit men's desire for boobies and butts,
right like, this is this is this she is taking
feminist initiatives from the past and reframing them as male gaze.

(16:23):
And it's ridiculous. And also this sum okay, I'll leave
it there. Let us listen to some more, all right,
all right.

Speaker 1 (16:31):
So anyway, Yeah, no, she's just like she's moving the
historical goalposts basically, like every time that every when they
look back on a point in history and they see
the things have changed since then, they always attribute the
change as needed if it's moving in the direction they like,
and that means that whatever came before was a product
of not them, but the opposite. So yeah, the anorexic

(16:54):
look was definitely something that came out of the fashion
industry and not men. But she needs a narrative to fit.
She's like drawing, she's writing the history of this, so
she has to like make it fit within a certain framework.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
Bried out.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
Yeah, your man, we're traded for celebration of the girl's
girl who resisted the competition for men's attention. And when
my husband and I got married earlier this year, our
vision of what our life could be included wide range.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
Wait, wait, she was born in the nineties. That's prettily,
I guess thirty.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
Said she was a child of the nineties, so they
were probably born in the born in the eighties.

Speaker 2 (17:37):
Eighties, all right, so she's.

Speaker 1 (17:38):
In our forties. Probably got married.

Speaker 2 (17:42):
Yeah, I doubt this is the first.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
Yeah, we're not going to learn about how many strikes
she's had.

Speaker 2 (17:51):
Yeah, and that will bear That will not bear at
all on anything that she's talking about. Of course, whether
or not she can actually maintain a relationship with a
long term relationship with a man does not bear on
her actual expertise in what men actually want and the
relationship between the sexes. Mm hmm, Okay, let's go.

Speaker 3 (18:19):
Influenced in part by the movies and shows we grew
up with, we saw, read and listen to stories of
involved fathers, successful mothers, and well matched partners who supported
one another.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
So okay, just a quick correction. It actually should say
we saw, read and listen to stories of involved fathers,
successful mothers, and well matched partners who supported one another.
But because read and read are spelled the same, I
think the AI got it wrong. But what I will
say is, were there stories of involved fathers in the

(18:56):
UH in the in the nineties? In no, no, because
she's talking about when they got married. Influenced by oh, yeah,
we grew up with Yeah in the nineties and two thousands,
were there? Because I'm pretty sure the Homer Simpson dad
effect was in full swing. Yeah, yeah, And there were

(19:16):
a lot more shows that depicted alternative family structures, you know,
things that were bohemian or adopted characters or single moms
or whatever, with some exceptions, I think like rose Anne
was like one where you know, you had a nuclear
family for example, but they were you know, working class

(19:39):
and they struggled with a lot of stuff, which is
what the point of the show was. But yeah, I
don't know about this stories of involved father successful mothers
and well matched partners who supported one another. And again
that's not is that really different from the stuff that
came out in the eighties and seventies and sixties, I
can I can tell you that TV from going all

(20:03):
the way back to the sixties was subversive. Subversion was
common actually even going back that far in some fashion. Right,
So anyway, uh, Nova fan twenty one gives us a
dollar rumble rant and says, if it's not real already,
my favorite feminist cope is that every bad feminist was
somehow invented by the patriarchy to undermine real feminism, never

(20:25):
mind all the fundamental problems they ignored. Yeah, that's that's well,
if it's because the thing is feminism is like socialism.
It just if it If it doesn't work, it's because
it wasn't implemented correctly or or it was it never
was tried out to begin with. But if it does
work and it's good then it then that's when that's
real feminism. So but that's why they never get anything

(20:48):
done because they it never is good enough because there's
too much patriarchy in the way. So uh, anyway, let's uh,
let's keep.

Speaker 3 (20:59):
Going like women were taking a deeper breath without such
heavy cultural restrictions. Then there was a shift. Was it
around the twenty twenty four presidential election or since the
overturn of Roe v.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Wade?

Speaker 3 (21:16):
Mee and men's rights activists pushed back against me too?

Speaker 1 (21:21):
The men's rights activists push back against me too? That
was like this is like I'm gonna read that sentence
again because that one killed me when I saw it.
So she's trying to figure out when the shift happened.
Was it around the twenty twenty four presidential election or
since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Maybe when men's
rights activists pushed back against hashtag me too? So how

(21:45):
does she define men's rights activists? In this context because like,
I saw a lot of pushback against me too, but
it wasn't only coming out of the MRA camp. I mean,
is Johnny DApp an MRA.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
Yeah exactly. Now that that wasn't men's well, it's literally
what she's saying is that any kind of civil or
legal remedy against these these allegations is men's rights, in
which she is right. Due process is part of men's rights.
Civil remedies against slander is part of men's rights. So yeah,

(22:25):
she did see pushback, but what she's defining is men's
rights is due process and civil remedies for slander, which
she wants to get rid of, and feminists want to
get rid of. They want to lynch. They want a
lynch mob culture, not a culture of due process, not
a culture of rule by law. They want a culture

(22:45):
of rule of law with feminists. No, sorry, culture of
rule by law with feminists in the position of deciding
who gets legal rights and who doesn't, and men certainly won't.
They don't want a culture of rule by law, a
rule of law, because that means they're subject to those laws,

(23:06):
and they believe that they are above the law. M h.
This is what they think right. So yes, us men's rights,
we did push back against the excesses of me too
and whatever way we could. But it wasn't us particularly
that did anything but create information and try to create

(23:27):
moral support for men being attacked by this feminist mob.
It was the actual legal constructs, the things that we
have developed and died for for the last well men
mostly have developed and died for for the last two

(23:48):
millennia a bit more longer, in order to protect ourselves
from excesses of ruling. Ruling excesses, so excesses of people
in power and people with money she wants to dismantle.
And she calls it men's rights advocacy because that word,
those that set of words, that set of words alone

(24:10):
condemns it to every in everybody's eyes. How dare men
have rights? This is the normy position. How dare men
have rights? She's absolutely right, we should remove those due process.
Those are men's rights, civil remedies for slander, that's men's rights.

(24:30):
We should remove those. Men shouldn't have those. And then
we wonder why everything is sort of going to shit,
why government seems to have suddenly had so much power
that it can enact agendas that are completely against the
constitution of every everyone's constitution, everyone's human rights. Jeez, I

(24:55):
wonder where that came from.

Speaker 1 (24:58):
Yeah, okay, okay, So I got a super chat and
then a super child right after that. The super chat
is from Gary Thomas who gives us two dollars and says, hey,
I think my superchild got stuck in the queue. And
then the superchild that got stuck in the queue showed
up from Gary Thomas for five dollars, and it says
I've read this article before. And there comes this point

(25:20):
where she talks about plus sized body represented in media.
The only thing that came to mind is Lena Dunham
on her TV show Girls getting completely naked every third episode.
No thanks, I'm gay and I'd rather have Sidney Sweeney
to Lena Dunham. Yeah yeah, they Well, the thing is,
you know, there's like a checklist of, let's say, viable

(25:42):
groups of people that women feminists should be advocating for,
and fat women is part. It's only women though they
just say body positivity, but they don't mean men. They
mean women. They'll they'll include men if those men decide
to be trans or their drag queens or something. But
generally body positivity is only for women, that's not for men.

(26:04):
So but thank you for that, Gary Thomas. Yes, of
course she has to do that. And you know, what's
what is kind of encouraging. I watched this video today.
I sent it to Alison, but it was from the
from a YouTube channel called National Conservatism, a woman named
Helen Andrews. She was talking about libertarianism and she basically

(26:24):
said what we've been saying that all this wokeness stuff
is a feminine it's a feminization of culture. It's it's
not it's intersectional, but only in so far as it
is tailored to women's sensibilities, in women's ways of valuing existence,
when women's ways of knowing, as it were, the female
model of reality, which is all you know, it's subjective.

(26:48):
It's protectionists for women. It prioritized security at.

Speaker 2 (26:53):
What it is based on victimhood. It's like an idolization
of victimhood.

Speaker 1 (26:58):
Yes, of how you're.

Speaker 2 (26:59):
Acted upon by the world, right, you know, And that's
understandable if you think about women's psychology being around taking
care of infants. Infants are the ultimate vulnerable creatures. So
you have this group of people who are politically empowered
who are absolutely attuned to vulnerability and putting vulnerability first.

(27:22):
And that's exactly what they've done. That's what intersectionality is.
And of course intersectionality also always places women at the
top as the arbiters of what is vulnerable and what
needs to be served in society. So yeah, it's good
to see that there are conservatives that are suddenly queuing
into this.

Speaker 1 (27:40):
Yeah. She literally said, like, she said all this stuff
and then she says, now I'm going to get really controversial,
and everybody laugh and she said, basically, we got to
eliminate HR departments. So, like, I mean, there's more to it.
It's a good video, but I'm digressing quite a bit.
I'm just glad that it's entering the mainstream in full
in full swing.

Speaker 2 (28:00):
Anyway, Yeah I could. Oh no, yeah, well recently, I'll
get this out because this might be interesting to you. Recently,
I was having another exchange with Grock and we ended
up talking about what would increase the birth rate in society,
and possibly the single biggest thing we could do right

(28:22):
now is universal shared parenting. It has the it would
have the single biggest We could get rid of immigration,
but we'd still have knock on effects because we're not reproducing.
But if we got if we put in place universal
shared parenting, it would have a number of positive benefits

(28:46):
on the birth rate. The first thing it would do
was be it would reduce divorce. It reduces divorce substantially
because all of those vague rationales, irreconcilable differences, which is
like ninety percent of divorces, seventy percent are initiated by women,
and ninety percent of divorces are no fault, and all

(29:07):
that's put is this vague, irreconcilable differences. But suddenly, when
women aren't assured of getting full time with their kids,
they're going to have to share it with their ex partner.
Suddenly those irreconcilable differences become reconcilable. Funny how that works,
And the divorce rate declines precipitously. So first effect is

(29:31):
more stable families. The second effect is that men invest
more in their children when they know they're not going
to be taken away. It's impossible for anybody with normal
mammalian emotions to invest in something that they know has
the potential of being taken away from them. The distance

(29:53):
that we see in fathers in relationships today. In families
today is a direct result of the fact that they
know that their children could be taken away at any
time by the mother. So when you take away that,
fathers become far more involved, which has a third effect.

(30:14):
Women with a more involved father are more likely to
have more children. So it's not chore parody. It may
not even be income the income differential, although men do
have to earn more in order to get into a
relationship and have children. The involvement, the day to day
involvement of a father, so taking care of the kids,

(30:39):
reading them stories, playing games, play wrestling, all of that.
The day to day and intimate involvement of a father
with his children increases the rate at which women are
willing to have children. This is more than any other factor.
And men knowing that their investment won't be torn away

(31:00):
from them means that they invest more day to day,
which at the end increases the birth rate. So shared
parenting is shown to decrease the divorce rate and increase
the birth rate. And yet what are we doing? What
are we doing? We are continuing to screw ourselves and
throw our entire society into the chasm of pain because

(31:23):
we don't want to look at common sense solutions. Why
because they don't support feminism.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
People have got to realize that everything you enjoy heating, lighting,
having a job, being able to buy crap, right, having games,
enjoying entertainment, having a life of sufficient leisure, that you
can spend time on things like games and media or

(31:58):
fan fiction if you're a woman. Right, all of that
right here. You imagine all of the joys of living
in a modern society which isn't at a subsistence level. Right,
all of these joys right here. Okay, we're going to
go get to the point where we realize we can

(32:19):
have this or we can have feminism, one or the other.
That's what the chasm of pain means. And everyone's going
to have to go in it. All right, let's.

Speaker 1 (32:33):
Keep it going, Let's keep going.

Speaker 3 (32:35):
Change in the political environment seemed to connect with a
social change that brought back narrow and at times constrictive
ideas of womanhood depicted in media. The recent rise of
weight loss medications coincided with social media influencers sharing ways
to get smaller and no longer celebrating bodies of all sizes.

Speaker 1 (32:59):
Me did did men.

Speaker 2 (33:02):
Yeah, men, of course, the the the the fitness and
beauty and the army of fitness and male fitness and
beauty influencers who are not gay, Brian, they did that.
The straight white had men who are advertising all of
these weight loss and spanks. Like she doesn't talk about that,

(33:23):
like all of the corsetry and the Lulu Lemon and
all of this other stuff, and all of the all
of those fitness influencers are shoving their shapely toned buttocks
into the Actually those were all men. They were all men,
and women's scoot sin scoot his sins skin suits. Brian.

(33:45):
You just they were cleverly disguised.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
Well, they were clever. What if the move away from
these body positive influencers because the influencers died of obesity,
because and I'm not making a joke, there are number
who have died. Brandy Mallory died at forty complications of obesity, hypertension,
and atherosclerosis, found unresponsive in a Chipotle parking lot. Not

(34:13):
a joke, this happened. Jamie Lopez, thirty seven heart failure complications,
died suddenly after attempting weight loss. Critics noted her advocacy
downplayed health risks, but she had an aim to combat stigma.
Cat pause unknown suspected obesity related her work. Let me

(34:33):
see she died at she died from obesity, Advocacy for
Fat and Fit Britney sour heart failure, heart attack, like this,
and the list goes on. So if a bunch of
fat influencers start dying off because they're fat, and then

(34:57):
people respond to it by saying, man, maybe this isn't good,
and they decide to like figure out a solution instead
of just telling themselves and the people who follow them
that it's okay to be fat healthy at any size,
then the reaction to that is for people to be like, Okay, wait,
maybe being fat isn't good. I'm going to try and
change that. And now she's saying that this is because

(35:17):
of men. She's blaming men for women who are trying
to convince other women to destroy themselves, and then some
women do destroy themselves, and then other women respond to
that by saying, huh, maybe that's not a good idea.
I think I'm going to start taking care of myself,
and maybe they get into ozempic because I know that's
why she mentioned these weight loss drugs, and I know

(35:40):
the ozempic is the big thing right now, and somehow
pretends as though this is all the doing of men.
Do you see what I'm saying?

Speaker 2 (35:49):
Yep, Yeah, Mother nature is the most fat phobic of all.

Speaker 1 (35:54):
Yeah, yeah, reality is exactly Reality is fat phobic obviously,
so yeah. But anyway, pretty it's it's fucked up that
she is basically defending a literally self destructive lifestyle because

(36:15):
she thinks patriarchy is to blame. Like if women were
just not judged for their weight by men, if they
just didn't have any opinions at all, they would somehow
not die from like clogged arteries and heart failure and diabetes.
That wouldn't happen because men would not judge them. Therefore

(36:36):
they'd be healthy. It's delusional, m HM.

Speaker 3 (36:39):
Advertisements followed, suit making men's desire once again a dominating
factor in how stories are told and how women are portrayed.
How had these discarded ideas made their way back into circulation.
Didn't we all agree we were through with them? The
culprit I have learned is the male gaze. It was

(37:02):
always there, but now it is stepped back into the spotlight.

Speaker 1 (37:10):
The male gaze is the reason for this, all right,
So that's the intro. Do you want me to jump
to any specific time codes? Let me see, oh the
most relevant Okay, I see it. Do you have any
anything to say on on just that or is it
just like this is awful? I I.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
You know that's it's always going to land on blame men.

Speaker 1 (37:40):
Yeah, yeah, I know, crazy, right, but a wild idea.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
I'm sorry I played with my color grading because I'm
just like sliding off into my own little world. I
will let's play a little bit more and I will
return to whatever this is.

Speaker 1 (37:54):
Just going to the time codes you put. Uh so
let me see here. Uh no, we'll jump ahead to
American Eagles controversial ad because you know, we gotta we
gotta cover that. So this is three to two.

Speaker 3 (38:17):
The ads sell genes to women, featuring actor Sydney Sweeney,
who many men see as a sex symbol, insinuating the
clothing would make men find them more attractive. Then there
was elf Beauty's campaign, led by a comedian infamous for
domestic violence jokes and disdain of a primarily female audience.

Speaker 1 (38:42):
So okay, so then we e m F E lf
Beauty's campaign. The comedian. I looked at this because I
was curious about it when we were covering this yesterday.
Apparently there's a comedian named Matt Rife who tells, you know,
Joe of I mean, she says, infamous for domestic violence jokes.

(39:03):
I'm sure that that's just one type of joke out
of a lot of jokes. But as usual, feminists are
are all about cherry picking the worst examples.

Speaker 2 (39:14):
I bet they don't. They don't actually call out female
comedians and their domestic violence chokes.

Speaker 1 (39:19):
No, or actual domestic violence yeah, or actually the comics
just for context. The comic his name is Matt Rife,
gained popularity in TikTok and he's appeared on shows like
Wilding Out and Brooklyn ninety nine. He made he had
a bit about domestic violence in his recent Netflix special

(39:40):
Matt Rife Natural Selection. The set includes a joke, so basically,
he had one joke in a whole set, and they're
saying he's the domestic violence comedian. Now, so the joke
was about a female server at a restaurant having a
black eye. My boy, and this is his the I
guess I'm quoting his joke. Okay, my boy who I
was with like, yeah, I feel bad for her, man.

(40:01):
I feel like they should put her in the kitchen
or something where nobody has to see her face, you know.
And I was like, yeah, but I feel like if
she could cook, she wouldn't have that black eye. That's
pretty good. See it makes you laugh because it makes
you uncomfortable. That's the point the of course, Now that's
all he is. He's the guy who told that joke.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
And yeah, you know what, Yeah, no, actually continue, Sorry
I shouldn't.

Speaker 1 (40:28):
I well, I mean, I'm just saying like this is
she's saying that it used to be the case that
we wouldn't put up with Sidney Sweeney advertising jeans or
comedians telling jokes. Yeah, and now we do. And this
is bad for women because that's really what this comes

(40:48):
down to, is she wants to control his behavior and
her behavior, Sidney Sweeney's behavior, because the thing is, you know,
Sidney Sweeney is not even like she's not pro male
or anything. She's just a woman that doesn't openly come
out and say she hates men. She just works like

(41:10):
it's just you know, there are people in Hollywood that
don't use it as a soapbox and they just do
their job and they lean into whatever it is they're good,
you know, whatever it is are good at. And in
her case, she uses her sexuality to essentially boost her
fame and it works, and she doesn't shit on men
while she's doing it. So and they're seeing, oh, she's like,

(41:31):
you know, she's like right wing coded or whatever, white
supremacist coded because she's not attacking men. But that's just
not true. And she stands out because she's one of
the few who's not doing that. She's not doing a
Rachel Zegler or a Brie Larsen or you know, any
number of Charlie's. Then like take your pick, right, Sharon Stone,

(41:53):
like all of the women, especially the ones that are
older now, they use their fame to shit on men
and patriarchy and whatever. Right they go on and call
her daddy. They talk about the young guys they're banging,
but Sidney Sweeney doesn't do that, and so and she
gets work regardless, and so men think that they you know,
that makes her more attractive to them. Like literally, she's

(42:16):
kind of like girl next door looks right, but because
she doesn't hate men openly, she gets treated like a
sex goddess. It's it's like, it's so easy, ladies, it's
so easy. Just don't hate men. And I'm telling you
men will like you.

Speaker 2 (42:30):
So oh man, But that's we can't do that. That's
she's sane. Yeah, And it also invites the potential of vulnerability,
like that's I think that's what really is happening here
is the women who promote this. They're terrified of being vulnerable,

(42:50):
absolutely terrified, but they're.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
But they're also delusional because they're they're vulnerable no matter what.
It's just that like men aren't chomping at the bit
to hurt them, so there's nothing to be afraid of.
But they like being afraid. I don't know, it's it's comfortable.

Speaker 2 (43:08):
It's because it's it controls men, which is ironic because
that defies the vary assertions about men. If men didn't
care about women, Women's vulnerabilities or professions of victimhood or
complaints about things that they need would just bounce off
men's craniums and they would say, back to the minds
with you, I don't care. In fact, that's that's why

(43:31):
you put people you don't care about in the minds,
because you don't care about them. Yeah, and you get
some where women get got put. They got put in
the harems with all other precious objects, although they weren't objects.
They were just precious and and they and you know,

(43:52):
if you are a rich matron in Rome, or if
you were just part of the senatorial class, your female
member of the Senate, you didn't walk through the streets. You
were carried in a litter. Your men walked, they walked
beside you, and you got carried in a litter. That
is not the behavior of people who regard you as

(44:16):
expendable or unworthy. Okay. Usually the slaves carry the litters,
they don't ride in them, or they walk beside them
to protect them. Okay, let's keep going right next.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
Time, Code Toyola University, Chicago. In the eye of the beholder,
if you are observing women in movies, TV, fashion, social media,
and marketing, and they don't feel as fully materialized as
their male counterparts, that is the male gaze. The woman's
value is reduced insofar as existing for pleasure or basically

(44:53):
an object.

Speaker 2 (44:54):
Zayer said, no, no, no, no, no no no no
no no no no, it's not your Lamborghini is in
another castle. It's your princess is in another castle. Right.
Do you know why? Because Mario isn't sympathetic if he's
doing everything for a material object, but he is sympathetic

(45:17):
if he's doing something for a woman. That is the difference,
and you can't get away from it because you use it.
Feminists use it every day to get what they want
from men. So she's lying, she's flat out lying. And
if she was, if she was writing this herself, if
she was reading this herself, she would be grining like this,

(45:38):
I'm getting away with this lie because that's what all
How many times have we looked at feminists, right, you know,
the feminists out in front of an audience and they
have a gigantic duper's, duper's grin, duper's delight grin on
their face. Why because they know that they're lying to

(46:00):
your face about you men, And they know that, for
whatever reason, you believe them as they lie to your
face about you, as they say things that are self contradictory,
like you don't care about me, now, prove you care
about me? Right, they're lying. This is all a huge lie,

(46:28):
and it only works because it's a lie. It's a
con We are literally we are literally ruled by the
Nigerian prince scam Connors, except they're feminists. That's the center
of our society. That's who decides how men and women relate.
A bunch of con artists who have absolutely no loyalty

(46:53):
to anything but the con. Wow, we really fucked ourselves.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
Okay, all right, so I'm gonna play this next bit.
But she's gonna explain, like what the history of the
male gaze is. Uh so, let's let's listen to this.

Speaker 3 (47:11):
It's bond girls and a long lingering shot panning up
a woman's body in an advertisement for soda. It's when
an action movie accessory is running through explosions in tiny
shorts and flowing curled hair before collapsing helplessly in the
hero's arms.

Speaker 2 (47:31):
Are you freaking kidding me? Are you're gonna First of all,
that doesn't happen anymore. Saturated with boss babes that everybody
doesn't like, including women, all right, yea.

Speaker 1 (47:41):
He thinks it's coming back, but it literally hasn't. We
haven't seen that since the nineteen eighties, and in the
nineteen eighties not really. I guess like maybe the fifties
with the with the B movie, the B Monster movies,
maybe the.

Speaker 2 (47:54):
Bee Monster movies. But this, this is a feminist reimagining
of Hollywood. Okay. And then the other thing is that
they've never challenged a fundamental aspect of this gender dynamic,
which is the value put in women. Right. Like I said,

(48:17):
Mario isn't sympathetic because he's saving a bunch of gold.
He's sympathetic because he's saving a woman, because we put
moral value in saving women, right, And they completely they
don't want to recognize that because that gives too many
clues to their grift. Right, you start to realize, oh, hey,

(48:38):
we put moral value into saving women. What if feminism
constantly do it says women need saving from things, and
the way that you save them is by giving feminism
more clout and money. Hmm. It gets the allmans rustling. Okay,

(48:59):
let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (49:01):
Yeah, let's keep going.

Speaker 3 (49:03):
Making a recipe while all dulled up and explaining her
steps in a soft, sultry voice.

Speaker 1 (49:09):
Okay, So I want to reread that last sentence because
this is, like, how much of a stretch this is?
So she starts by saying it's bond girls and a
long lingering shot panning up a woman's body in an
advertisement for soda. So the male gaze was originally framed
by Laura Mulvey in nineteen seventy five, and it was

(49:30):
a film thing where we would have and you've seen
these shots where a camera starts at a woman's feet
and it slowly pans up to her face. It's supposed
to like so you like, so you get a good
look at her whole body, so you can see how
beautiful she is. And there, of course they're saying that's
oppression or whatever, but that's what it was, a specific definition.

(49:50):
But then they're changing it to be more than that,
where it's like, oh no, it's actually when there is
a woman in a in an action movie. Action movies
are generally a at men, so the women are usually
the subject of a romantic interest for the male lead
character in most cases, right, And then so that that's

(50:11):
not sexual at all, that's just like a relational thing
that we're looking at. It's just it's just a heterosexual
story basically. And then you get the last example where
this is the absolute crazy part. A social media influencer
or star making a recipe while all dulled up and
explaining her steps in a soft sultry voice. How does

(50:34):
that are men on the internet looking for cooking recipes
or women doing that? Like? This is the This reminds
me of do you remember that there was this viral
video on I think it was on x or Instagram
or something, and it was a woman like a like
a trad wife influencer, and she was like baking something

(50:56):
and but the camera had her boot tubes and frame
while she was baking right now, it wasn't like super
you know, lurid or anything, but she was obviously stacked
and and it was like it was in the shot
while she was baking or cooking or something, and I
saw like it went viral and it was kind of
a ship storm, but there were no men really saying anything.

(51:19):
It was all women like criticizing each other because they
were like, oh, well, you can't do that. You're you know,
you're you're being like you're being slutty online and there
were other women defending it, like you had basically sex
negative and sex fop positive feminist fighting about this video.
And she's trying to make the case that this is
male gaye stuff. Men had nothing to do with it.

(51:40):
Men don't want videos of women cooking, if they are
putting on makeup while they explained something from their car.
You know, if men want to see boobies, the Internet's
got a lot better sources for that. So that's not
why they're you know what I'm saying. So she's she's
making shit up and making it the male gaze when
it obviously is not.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, one hundred percent. And it like,
how often do you see this, that there's a conflict
between women and then suddenly men get dragged in as
a to be blamed for the conflict.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
Because somehow the sisterhood without even knowing, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
Exactly, Okay, my cat's being a bit distracting.

Speaker 1 (52:29):
All right.

Speaker 3 (52:30):
The male gaze has always been around are in the
eye of the male beholder, but the term came into
modern existence as a feminist theory, coined by film critic
Laura Mulviy in nineteen seventy five. Although it started as
a lens through which to view film movie, specifically calling

(52:50):
out Marylyn Monroe's appearance in the River of No Return
and movie director Alfred Hitchcock's rear window, it has expanded
to encompass cultural perspectives that keep men's stories, experiences, and
interest as the societal priority and treat women as objects.

Speaker 2 (53:12):
Okay, no, no, no no. And you know what, the
next thing that they're using is sexualized. They're sexualizing. Yes,
heterosexual men sexualize women, all right, that is the thing
that they do. Okay, That's why we exist because women.
Men find women attractive. That's in fact, why we probably

(53:35):
have an advanced civilization in part not just physically attractive,
but also emotionally attractive. Most of these guys also find
femininity attractive, not just female bodies, but also femininity the
way that women relate to the world. Sorry, my cat
is demanding thumps, I'm not actually abusing her.

Speaker 1 (53:57):
The River No Return is Memorial Rose wearing jeans throughout
the whole movie. I don't know how this is objectification,
but but what the It's not even like, you know,
like gentlemen prefer blondes or diamonds, are a girl's best
friend or whatever some of her more like let's say,
sexy stuff. I mean, but she was like a famous

(54:19):
for her looks. Like, I don't get why this is
a problem. Of course, the problem is that men enjoy it,
that's all it is. The problem. Is is that men
enjoy it. Women can be sexual as they want to
as long as there are no men looking. It's like
the invisible boy from Mystery Men invisible but nobody's looking.
So okay. But anyway, I have.

Speaker 2 (54:42):
Stuff. Can you hear me? The boy cat destroy something?

Speaker 1 (54:45):
All right?

Speaker 2 (54:46):
Just uh? I have I have commentary if my cat.
If I could just not be under attacked by my cat,
I could tell you all right objective like, there are
people who genuinely objectify other human beings. They're not actually
dangerous people. It is a very debilitating brain disorder. Right,

(55:10):
So this is actually ridiculous on its face, and it's
in defiance of how human sexual sexuality actually works. We've
replaced mechanical or chemical signals, like for example, chimps have
gigantic and gorged rears when they are going through heat.
They have chemical signals to potential mates. We've replaced that

(55:35):
mostly with social signals. Right, So our sexuality is actually
deeply tied with our theory of mind. It's why eyes
and what we look at is actually a sexual signal, right,
because it is a signal of interest, and we respond
sexually to our perception of other people's desire for us,

(56:00):
which is a very, very psychologically complex phenomenon. So our
sexuality is actually at the heart of our understanding of
ourselves and our ability to conceptualize other people's minds and
our own minds. Right, So when feminists say talk about objectification,
they are actually trivializing and debasing something so profound to

(56:27):
who we are as human beings. It's actually sort of disgusting.
It's not the objective what they're terming objectification isn't disgusting
the fact that they're saying it's objectification. It's actually denying
an essentially human part of our psychology. They're lying to

(56:47):
us about ourselves and we when we tolerate it. And
I have a specific thing that I observed. I recently
watched the Wheel of Time series. Do not watch it,
it is awful. But there was this one scene in
the movie and this is in the in the series,
and this is the first scene that actually showed a

(57:08):
woman's breast on display, like unabashedly. And I saw that,
and I'm like, this is about to turn into a
lesbian scene, isn't it, Because this has to be a
statement about how these breasts aren't for men. They're only
for other women, And that's exactly what happened. I knew,
I knew it was going to end up with some
kind of lesbian thing.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
Time.

Speaker 2 (57:31):
Yeah, reel of time, Yeah it was. It's all gay now, yeah,
it's all gay except for the main male character. But yeah,
she had her her breasts on display, and I, like
I said, I knew from experience that that meant that
lesbianism was incoming, because they would never do that and

(57:51):
present it as something for a man to enjoy, or
as something as a woman seducing a man in that way. Sorry,
what did you say?

Speaker 1 (58:03):
I said, it's not real lesbianism if they're not fighting.
But I'm kidding.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
Yeah, she's the guy who's did the domestic violence joke.
I don't know, maybe maybe the punchline should have been
her girlfriend already told her God damn. Okay, all right,
so I.

Speaker 1 (58:25):
Got a super chow. Thank you, David lowboy for ten dollars,
and he says, honey for the Badger's Feminism is one
of the many griffs which attempt to convince you that
you're sick while they just happen to have a cure
to sell you right here. Well, it's not even the cure.
It's a placebo.

Speaker 2 (58:41):
But yes, yeah, well of course it always is right.

Speaker 1 (58:44):
And yeah, they don't they don't want to fix it.
They would stop getting paid.

Speaker 2 (58:49):
Yeah, the cat is not in heat. She is just she.
I know exactly what she wants. There are treats over there.
They are about seven feet away from me, and that
is what she wants. She wants me to go over
there and put down some treats for her, right, and

(59:10):
if she does. If I do that, she will settle
down for a bit. But I don't want to give
her too many treats because they're not good for her. Right.
So she's got me in a bit of a bind. However,
I will go and I will give her a few treats.

Speaker 1 (59:27):
All right, Well, I'm going to play more of this.

Speaker 3 (59:30):
The male gaze includes stories told about women in relation
to a male character think wife, daughter, victim, and media
in which the camera angles and visual storytelling make the
audience feel like they're viewing the women from a heterosexual
male's perspective.

Speaker 1 (59:49):
Zayer added, so, basically, a story that has a male
protagonist and a female in it is male gaze. Just
any story that's where we're at now. It used to
be a very specific thing that you might see where
the camera would slowly pan up a woman to like

(01:00:11):
emphasize her attractiveness to whoever's looking, because I think women
can appreciate beautiful women even if they're not gay themselves,
and it's it's just a way where we are wired.
It works. It's what men do to women in reality too,
you know. But now it's not that. It's just like

(01:00:31):
any story that has a woman in it and a
male man, any story with a male protagonist is sexist.
And I'll tell you why. And I said, this is
the Patron show. If there's a woman in the story,
then that's male gayzy. Right. It could be. You know,
we talked about the Mummy before. That's male gayzy. We've
talked about Indiana Jones. There are women. There's a woman

(01:00:52):
in that male gayzy. Superman the nineteen seventies one male
gazy whatever it is. Any James Bond film, all of
them basically except maybe the last one, where they probably
tried everything to under to undercut that. And even then
I think Ananda Armas is in it. So you know,
any movie that has a male protagonist and a female

(01:01:13):
character in the movie and they interact is male gayzy.
But but if you make a movie with no women
in it, that's also problematic. I know she's not gonna
say that in here, although I'm sure she would agree
with me, because there's no representation. So you can't do
that either. Take for example, any number of war films
where you know, or samurai films where you have like

(01:01:34):
an army or a unit. I talked about this on
The Patriot Show. There's a World War two movie called Fury.
I think it has like Brad Pitt and shy La
buff and they're like a tank team, and it's in
World War two, and I don't think there's any women
in it, or if there are, they're very like they're
extras in the background or something. But that would be
a problem because you know, it's it's male. It's excluding

(01:01:56):
women from the from the story. Or you know Thirteen Assassins,
which is a samurai film, I don't believe there's any
women in it that have speaking roles. Or Lawrence of Arabia,
which famously has no women in it, like you know,
and those would be a problem too. So if there's
a woman in it, but it has a main a
male main character, it's a problem. If there are no

(01:02:17):
women in it, then that's even probably even a bigger problem.
So what's the solution. Basically, there there has to be
women in it that are the main character, and there
are no men, or the men are gay, or they're
useless or or ancillery. They're completely arbitrary and extra because
otherwise it's it gets male gazy, and that's problematic.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
So yeah, and male gaze also includes character archetypes that
have nothing to do with sexuality, focus on men doing things,
so it's not just male gays. To have boobies on
the screen that aren't immediately immediately someone doesn't immediately paying
a sign on them, say for women only. You know,

(01:02:58):
this is this is the.

Speaker 1 (01:02:59):
Lesbian So the original Yeah, like I talked about on
the Paper show two movies where there are a man
and a woman and they're working together and there's no
romantic subplot, they're just partners. And that was RoboCop, the
original RoboCop where you know, because RoboCop had a family
before he died, So I'm sure that Virjhoven thought it'd

(01:03:20):
be weird if he like hooked up with his uh,
Lewis was his partner, and Lewis was kind of like masculine,
like she wasn't like a feminine character really. And then
there was Dread where you had judged Dread at the
one from twenty twelve with Carl Urban where he teams
up with Anderson and you know, they're just they're just
two people together on a mission. But they would call

(01:03:42):
that problematic too, because there's a number of other ways
you can skin the cat. Let's say, So there's no
way to do this right for these people.

Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
Yeah, no, there's only the only submission. That's it. That's
the way that you exist as a man as you submit.
But also realize that as you say, you lose all
your desirability to everyone everywhere, and you become even more expendable.
So there you go that those are the options. Also,
you don't deserve rights because men's rights are gross. Okay,

(01:04:14):
how did we get here? How did we get to
the point where a woman can use the phrase men's
rights and be like, all that, that's all I have
to say? That that's the worst.

Speaker 1 (01:04:24):
That's what it was. Wasn't that what the point of
it was when it started? Yeah, Well, they could say, look,
at these people. They're men's rights activists, and everyone's supposed
to laugh. That's supposed to be the end of the
That was supposed to be the end of the argument.

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
Men's rights consists of, Yeah, everyone laughs, all the normies
laugh at us. What do you think men's rights consist of?
Do you process sible remedies for slander? Father's rights, the
right to have it redress when you're a victim of
domestic violence or sexual assault, Like, all of these are
human's rights. Why are they funny? Why is it something contemptible?

(01:05:00):
Who thinks that these things are contemptible? And why are
they not seen as contemptible? Mm hmm, okay, all right?

Speaker 1 (01:05:09):
Eleven fifty two.

Speaker 3 (01:05:16):
Right here videos that revived a restrictive beauty ideal on
social media. Using sexuality to sell the male gaze remains
a profitable marketing tool. Underlying many advertisements is the message
that if only a woman could be more beautiful and

(01:05:37):
appealing to men, they can find love, acceptance, and a
better version of their lives. All for the low low
price of these weight loss gummies or that workout program.

Speaker 2 (01:05:52):
Well, you know, honestly, all for the low low price
of not treating men like shit, but that seems to
elude the average woman, like get your looks matched and
don't treat him like complete shit, or at least make
it easy, make it easier for him, make his life easier.
There you go, the end.

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
That's it, right, Yeah, try to support them.

Speaker 2 (01:06:18):
Yeah, that's it. The bar is not very high, ladies.

Speaker 1 (01:06:26):
The problem is that you're.

Speaker 2 (01:06:28):
What you're trying to do is you're trying to punch
well above your weight instead of simply I don't want
to say settling. You know what. Settling gets a bad rap.
Settling just means that you commit to something. That's it,
that you say, Okay, well there are may be other
options out there, but I don't care. I'm getting on

(01:06:49):
with my life. Checkbox checked done. Move on right, this
this is this is this is the person I've chosen,
his foibles, I have chosen to live with right understanding him,
I have taken on as my life's work. Trying to
make his life somewhat easier is one of my goals.

(01:07:13):
There you go, that's it, Move on, It's it. It's
so hilarious if these women like this call me a
pick me right when they want to stay in the
internal state almost picked well. But here's the problem. You

(01:07:35):
completely define yourself by men. Like this is I've been
doing this thing with Groc lately, where I ask Groc
when I'm getting to an argument and one of these
feminists start talking to me about how I center my
life on women. I ask Groc how much of their
content is devoted to men. It's like seventy eighty ninety

(01:07:57):
percent of this feminist content is devoted to men. They
one hundred percent center their lives on men. Right, They
center their lives on men more than I do. Okay,
because for me, I want a partner, I want a companion,
but I also want to do my own shit, which
is probably why I try not to create drama because

(01:08:18):
it gets in the way of doing stuff right. That
isn't being that isn't centering men. That's just having a
man in your life. There's a huge difference, Like I
haven't centered well. I mean, you know, this is the
work that I do, and I can't believe that it's
coming down to me to do it because I've never

(01:08:38):
considered myself a particularly nice person. But God's sake, like
men never get told that they have worth, They never
get told that they're a benefit to society anymore. They
never get any mentorship in their stories anymore. It's all
just blanket condemnation and even condemnation of being responsive to

(01:09:01):
the things that women use to manipulate them, like their sexuality.
This woman is condemning men just for desire. It's like
a rich person going out and saying, those poor people,
they shouldn't even be able to look at my lamborghini.
Some one should cane them for it. They shouldn't even

(01:09:22):
be able to look upon my person. They should be
dragged out and pelted with tomatoes. How dare they like?
That's what she's doing. She is criminalized, she is, and
it is criminalizing. Actually, ultimately that's the end goal. But
she is rendering antisocial men just having desire for women,

(01:09:42):
That's what she's doing. What entitlement is this? What stink
of self righteousness is this? What moral corruption is this? Okay?
I mean, I guess you could say that, you know,

(01:10:03):
it's adultery according to the Bible. But in the Bible
it also says that everybody's a sinner, and she certainly
doesn't think she's a sinner. No, yeah, all right, she
thinks that she's she's in position to judge all of
the other sinners, well, all the men as sinners. But

(01:10:23):
of course she's not a sinner. And I'm pretty sure
that that's pretty essential to avoid self righteousness, is to
recognize that everyone is sinner, is a sinner, everyone sin.

Speaker 1 (01:10:35):
Yeah, we all fall, we all fall short.

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
We all fall short.

Speaker 1 (01:10:38):
That's okay, because we do.

Speaker 2 (01:10:41):
So that's why self righteous a sinner gets into heaven
before the self righteous woman, because she's setting herself up
in judgment of others, you know, and maybe maybe it
is a sin to desire women who are not your wife,
But she's she's not pointing the us out in the

(01:11:01):
position of taking responsibility for her own sins, and in fact,
she probably should just do that. And her sins are
envy and self righteousness and probably sloth. Okay, that's what
I'm guessing. Probably, Okay, let's keep going, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:11:21):
So I got a super chow from Gary Thomas again
for five Thank you, Gary, And he says. In the
nineteen sixty eight movie The Lion in Winter, Katherine Hepburn
plays Eleanor of Aquitaine. She is the only prominent female character,
and every male character is completely unprepared in how to
deal with her. We have Katherine Hepburn, the most awarded
actress in Hollywood history, playing one of the most powerful

(01:11:43):
women in European history. But remember women were portrayed badly
in all previous media and women never had real power.
Well they still don't. Actually that's not even They were
just starting to. They were just starting to get a whiff,
you know, just a whisper of power, and then the
male game turned back on them like the eye of Salurn,
and they're basically like forced to hide back in their caves.

(01:12:07):
So yeah, we just turned to look and women were
oppressed again. So but they were almost out, like they
were so close, they were so close.

Speaker 2 (01:12:14):
And then men did like the lifted a finger and
women were back in their caves. No, no, no, no,
actually no, men didn't even lift a finger. They just
had a thought. And the men said what if women
were desirable? And then women were like, oh, we're back
in our cage. We could no longer live just a thought.

(01:12:37):
You see, that's how powerful you men are, guys. You
just think it, and my women have to do it.
So if you're if you're dealing with like a court case,
you know, you're dealing with a family law. All you
have to do is just think it. And then your
horrible X will have to give you custody and also, uh,

(01:12:57):
the judge will have to put your child support at
a reasonable level that you can actually pay that. All
you have to do is think it. This is this
is the thing, This is the secret. M hmm, good lord,
I wonder if this is no. It's okay. Let's let's
just listen to more some more.

Speaker 3 (01:13:19):
All right, toward a more inspirational and sophisticated approach. But
the changes haven't always stuck. Social media influencer Alex Earl
was featured in a twenty twenty five Super Bowl ad
for Carls Junior, wearing a bikini top and taking a
slow motion burger bite debate over a woman's role there.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
Is let me find where that is in here? Oh,
here we go. So, but the changes haven't always stuck.
Social media influencer Alex Earle was featured in a twenty
twenty five Super Bowl Yeah but she's a social media
influencer who is Alex Earl. So basically we have social

(01:14:05):
media personalities now, right, instead of they're like the new
celebrities and it's probably dominated by women that particular like
the area of social media influence because social media is
call of duty for women, and that means the people
with the highest KD ratio, with the best stats are
the ones that are going to go to the top.

(01:14:25):
You know, they're going to speed run to fame and
work with all of the handicaps. And I guess she
did because now she works. She did an ad for
Carl's Junior. And again this is men's fault. According to
this author of The Male Gays, So.

Speaker 3 (01:14:46):
Okay, an ideological gap between women and men, particularly younger men,
when it comes to men wanting to adhere to more
stereotypical gender roles. According to research from IPSOS this year.

Speaker 2 (01:15:01):
You wait a second, founder, So men want to adhere
to more you mean men want to be masculine because
I'm pretty sure she allows women to be feminine and
whatever else they want to be. So, and she also
talks about at one point she talks about how men
have restrictive Actually I think that I'll let her do it,

(01:15:23):
but I just want to point out women could be anything.
Men have to constantly be policed.

Speaker 1 (01:15:31):
Yeah, Shall I continue? Okay?

Speaker 3 (01:15:32):
Yes, Mark Zuckerberg said that the corporate world has become
culturally neutered and generally offices need more masculine energy. Meanwhile,
both fringe influencers and more mainstream role models have taken
to podcasts in social media to assert that women should
be responsible for homemaking and men for protecting and providing.

Speaker 1 (01:15:56):
Are you literally okay? But you're not going to tell
us who that is, but you did say? Fringe influencers
and more mainstream role models have taken a podcast in
social media to assert that women should be responsible for
homemaking and men for protecting and providing. Well, just do
what you want. They're not making you do anything. It's
funny that people sharing opinions online is the same as

(01:16:18):
people voting, you know, to like expand the welfare state
and open the border and allow women to like do
whatever they want and we pay for it without realizing
the violence attached to those claims. Meanwhile, guys just saying
or anyone because I bet this is another thing too,
She said fringe influencers and more mainstream role models, So

(01:16:40):
she's not gonna say it out loud, but it sounds
like that's women saying that stuff. Because if it was
a man saying it, she would name the dude, but
it's not. It's a woman.

Speaker 2 (01:16:50):
So anyway, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:16:55):
Let me see, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:16:57):
Traditional, it's not a traditional like homemade isn't a traditional.
That's traditional roles for women involved provision, providing something themselves
to the family. That is a role constructed for women
of consumer right, And what a surprise. It was constructed

(01:17:19):
after World War Two when the US became the world
reserve currency. So we had this whole push in the
US in particular, because that's where Hollywood comes from, to
reconstruct women's role from producer to consumer. And that's not traditional.

(01:17:40):
I mean, that's like seventy five years old now and
moving from producer to consumer. So a consumer of goods
like a consumer of instead of canning, you buy cans.
Instead of doing the laundry, you have it done for
you by a machine. You know, instead of baking, you

(01:18:02):
buy pre made mixes, et cetera, et cetera. So you
become a consumer and as a process, as a boon
you lose. You go from a six day a week,
twelve hour day job to a three hour a week,
three hour a day, five days a week job. So homemakers,

(01:18:22):
the homemaking role, which is not a traditionally feminine role.
It's not a traditionally anything role. It's an entirely Hollywood construction,
entirely Madison Avenue in Hollywood construct. So that role is
one that usually takes about twenty five hours a week total. Okay,

(01:18:44):
that's with children. Everybody else works fifty hours. The homemaker
works twenty five and her primary responsibility, if you can
call it that is to consume. Okay. And she's saying
that men working to make that life available to their
wives is oppression of their wives. This is absolute bullshit.

(01:19:08):
That was the first iteration of completely defining men by
the benefit of women. That was the first iteration. You
go to work, your wife is the consumes what you make, Like,
instead of both of you producing, you produce, she consumes.
That was the first step towards defining the world. Well,

(01:19:33):
and actually the first step was, of course Charles Foyer
literally creating the feminist formulation that society is judged by
the benefit to women. But that was another iteration of that.
It's not traditionalism, it's just I don't know, it's like
proto feminism. It's the beginning of feminism because it gives
women the time, the envy and the resentments and self

(01:19:58):
righteousness and the idle hands to construct something monstrous. So
it's proto feminism, that's what.

Speaker 1 (01:20:06):
That is like.

Speaker 2 (01:20:07):
Without without house homemakers, without the change from a homestead
er to a homemaker, we probably wouldn't have widespread feminism
because women wouldn't have had the time to pursue it.

Speaker 1 (01:20:19):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 2 (01:20:21):
So and she's and she's saying that's oppression. Well, of course,
because oppression is always a moving target. The last thing
that women that happened, that men gave women to try
to save them from whatever thing they're framing like, uh,
the labor of the home, the last thing that men
gave them. That that becomes the new oppression. And now

(01:20:44):
the next thing has to be aimed for. So now
women need to consume rights like they consume doilies and
and uh pre mixed bake goods. Right, they have to
consume rights now. After rights, I don't know what's gonna happen,
like after seeing rights themselves as consumables, I don't know
what the next step is for women. What is the

(01:21:07):
next thing we have to deconstruct and provide for women
to benefit them.

Speaker 1 (01:21:11):
Okay, well social control is going to be that's where
that's where we're at. Now, we got a super chat
from D who gives us five dollars and says, what's
the male gaza? Thought the war was over? No idea?
What you're talking about? Well, you're lucky. Then look up
the male gaze ga ze not g a y s

(01:21:34):
and I think that's just a joke. I think it
is a joke. But I'm still going to use this
to explain what we're doing. So we're looking at an
article written by a feminist talking about how the male
gaze is back and so women are are are no
longer human again? Make women not human again? So what

(01:21:56):
you did? You already mention the fundraiser? I think it's up.
I don't know if you mentioned Oh yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:22:00):
Okay, yeah, So if you would like to support the show,
please go to feed the Badger dot com slash support
and help us out. A monthly fundraiser is live. You
can also create an ongoing subscription at Feedbadger dot com
slash subscribe. There's a link in the fundraiser as well.
It's basically said, screw it. You know, if you want
to support us monthly, which very appreciated because it's nice

(01:22:21):
to know we have an ongoing income. So those are
the choices. You can also send them some message at
feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip, which
is the best way to tip us. And if you
so desire to send a message with that tip, so
feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip. Now
what else? Yeah? Those are those are the ways to

(01:22:43):
help us out. Please can consider doing so because we
don't we don't have ads. If there are ads on
our videos, it's because YouTube has decided to snipe our
advertising space for itself for whatever reason, because we've we
viol something, so we get no advertising income I think

(01:23:03):
maybe ten bucks a month. All of our income is
based on you, guys, and you are rare. You are
a rare species. You are rare birds. You are a
God's only you know. You are a prototype, a strange
prototype of some kind, and you are stubborn enough to
stick with these ideas. So we have only you to

(01:23:26):
appeal to to continue to be able to do this work.
So don't think that it doesn't matter for you to
make the choice to help us out. It does. It
is big ten dollars, five dollars, ten dollars. Every bit
helps feed the badger dot com slash support. If you
want to do that, all right, let's shall we?

Speaker 1 (01:23:46):
Yeah, let's see fifteen forty three. I think yeah, I'm
already at the next.

Speaker 3 (01:23:50):
Time code and caring for the emotional well being of
those you love. Men can be strong, good listeners, and
be of sir to their family, they say. Men who
can take care of themselves, think laundry and cooking.

Speaker 2 (01:24:06):
Yes, this is good, Okay, this is this is how
they do it. Because men want these things, they position
themselves as like the arbiters of how men acquire this.
Because men want to protect and provide for their family.
They want to protect and provide for women. They want
to benefit women. They want to understand women. You want

(01:24:29):
to have these things innately. And then feminists position themselves
as the middleman or the middle woman for these things.
They're going to tell you how to get them right.
They're gonna if you listen to feminists, then you will
become a good man. But they didn't make you want
to be a good man. This is what I'm talking about.
Feminists did not make men want to be good. They

(01:24:52):
are exploiting men's desire already existing desire to be good
in order to gain clout and manipulate you and gain
money from you. That's how it works. And when she
presents this as oh, feminists are what make men good, No,

(01:25:12):
feminists are what exploit, are exploiting men's desire to be good.
That is inherent to the beast. All right, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (01:25:24):
All right.

Speaker 3 (01:25:25):
They may be more attractive to women, the counter messages say,
and women often push back against narrow ideas of who
they are and what they can be. Women want to
see media that resonates with their lived experience. According to
research from the GENA. Davis Institute, which studies GENA.

Speaker 1 (01:25:45):
Davis Institute, it's funny timing too, because this has recently
been coming out a lot. If you don't know, let
me show you, guys. The GENA. Davis Institute has been
around the nineties and it is a organ or maybe

(01:26:05):
the early two thousands, but Geena Davis has been around
since the nineties. The actress, the actress from Beetlejuice and
Cutthroat Island and Long Kiss good Night and you know
Thelman Louise, and she wanted to change media to be
more feminist friendly, which again this is Hollywood we're talking about,

(01:26:26):
like already super feminists as an institution. But this is
what these people do, like they look at a world
that is, they look at the world they live in
their bubble as already, which is already extremely favorable to
their worldview, and then they say this isn't good enough
and they want more. So they accuse Hollywood of sexism

(01:26:48):
when Hollywood is about as you knows, as feminist as
it gets because maybe sometimes you know, they're they're I
don't know, being female is a challenge for whatever reason.
So anyway, Gina Day, we've started this to change all
of our media, and she started this institute and they
have like a rule book and everything in how they

(01:27:08):
in what they do. Okay, so I'll just show you
the about page really quick for context. Who we are.
For twenty years, the Geena Davis Institute has been at
the forefront of championing equitable representation in media. Our commitment
to building a better world extends beyond gender, encompassing the
interconnected identities often marginalized in the media. See not men

(01:27:30):
basically any gender except the men. Through our groundbreaking research,
we understand the life changing impact of representation and have
devoted ourselves to pioneering new pathways within entertainment and media.
And so they basically are a resource for all of
this data that is basically compiled by feminist academics and

(01:27:50):
various other feminist institutions, and they use that to apply
pressure to people who create content so that it will
be more feminist friendly. And they're they're in our television,
they're in our advertising, they're in our literature, they're in
our music, they're in our video games, they're in our movies.
They're in all of it, you know, And they're they're

(01:28:12):
the ones. I mean, they're not the only ones. Some
people think this is the final boss of wokeness. It's not.
There's plenty of other NGOs and groups that are doing this,
but they're one of the big ones. So and this
isn't something that just started with Geena Davis. This is
much older as well, which is another misconception that people have.
But yeah, so that's what they're referencing. So this is

(01:28:36):
again another instance of feminists referencing the work of other feminists,
which is criticizing other feminists. So it's like they're all
operating within the same paradigm, and it's just a purity
spiral of what is feminist enough, and the rest of
us are just going along for the ride. There is
no counter argument. It's all in their same death spiral.

(01:29:02):
Like you know, So there's.

Speaker 2 (01:29:04):
Never feminist enough because the problem is their mentality. They
don't accept the legitimacy of men at all. They don't
accept the legitimacy of men's position, their interests, or any
aspect of masculine cognition, shall we say, or identity. They

(01:29:25):
have to control it all. And what's interesting is when
I was reading that, I actually asked, okay, So it
was talking about representation in the media. If you go
back in time, the women, the female characters actually are
more interesting, they're more compelling, and that's because they have

(01:29:47):
to be justified to be there, right, And and so
this is actually like, what this ideology is constructing is
destroying women's represent and media. I mean, it's destroying men's
But that's obvious. And honestly, the more I watch examples

(01:30:09):
of this kind of media. So we watched Ironheart, we've
watched Wheel of Time, We've watched other examples of the
media that individuals from this intersectional framework create what we
have with the writing team that I watched this stuff with,
we have this principle that we're calling the androgathic principle,

(01:30:33):
and what it is is that, unintentionally, completely without any
conscious intent, these writers make the male characters the most interesting,
the most relevant to the plot. So things happen when

(01:30:54):
male characters are on the screen, the most charismatic for
whatever reason, and the most the ones with the biggest,
biggest real impact emotionally consistently they do this, so whenever
a male character is on the screen, the writing somehow,
the entire storytelling improves. And now I have some theories

(01:31:17):
as to or conjecture hypotheses as to why this is so.
A male character has to be there, has to be
a justification for him to be on the screen. There's
no justification in terms of representation, so we have to
have some kind of reason in terms of his character
or the plot for him to be there, which makes
them interesting, which means that they have to drive something happening. Okay,

(01:31:40):
a male character can still be judged by his actions,
not by how things have happened to him. So when
male characters are on the screen. We know they will
be judged, there will be consequences to their actions, consequences
presented to other people, which is the essence of an
interesting character.

Speaker 1 (01:32:00):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:32:00):
And then the other thing is we know that things
will happen to them that are unpleasant. Right this, No,
there are no holds barred when it comes to male characters.
They can be killed, right, they can suffer, they can
be tortured, they can be judged harshly. So there's all
kinds of steaks that exist for a male character that

(01:32:22):
just don't for the DEI characters. That is the androgathic principle.
Whenever a man is on the screen, even for these
intersectional writers, he is the most interesting character. Now, the
further back you go, the less that holds when you
are back in. When you're going back eighties cinema. Nineties

(01:32:43):
is when this started to really start to creep in.
But the eighties, seventies, the sixties, the fifties, forties, twenties.
The further back you go, the more female characters hold
their own, The more they're interesting, they're more they're plot relevant,
The more there's consequences to that actions, more there's stakes,
there's more there's expectations that they are held to while

(01:33:06):
still keeping a sort of distinctness to how men and
women approach the world. So what this GENA. Davis Institute
has done is destroy female representation in cinema. It's made
it worse, more unpalatable. While somehow men still remain the

(01:33:32):
most interesting characters no matter what they do, they still
remain the most interesting characters because they have the steaks,
they have the consequences to their actions. They're more likely
to be characterized through their actions and not through the
intersectional lens. So they're doing the exact opposite. And again,

(01:33:54):
this is what I've noticed with a lot of feminist institutions.
They do the exact opposite of what they say they're
going to do for women. Feminist DV organizations say they're
going to reduce the harms the domestic violence does that
women face in terms of domestic violence, and yet they

(01:34:14):
do the opposite because they prefer to promote feminism and
their own financial and political interests actually pushing interventions that
reduce the rate at which women are battered. Right, So
they are actually ensuring there are more female victims of
domestic violence because they prefer feminism over doing things that

(01:34:37):
reduce them. Gina Davis apparently prefers the power, prestige, the clout,
and the money her organization gets over interventions that promote
proper or representation of women in media that people actually
resonate with. So she's actually destroying the presentation women in

(01:35:00):
media and probably all of these other various gender identities.
She's destroying it in the name of promoting it, just
like feminist v's shall feminist promoting DV are destroying female
victims of DV. They're ensuring that they be there are
more of them and they don't escape because in the

(01:35:25):
name of what they say, they're advocating for and what
and what. And I see this over and over and
over and over again with feminist advocacy, and it's inescapable
to me that they have no interest in advocating for
women or improving the situation for women at all. All
they want is to advocate for feminism. And what feminism

(01:35:50):
is is a shorthand.

Speaker 4 (01:35:51):
For Moullah, this is a massive grift and everywhere it touches,
it is just it is sucking all the value out
of society.

Speaker 2 (01:36:14):
Okay, I don't probably want to get going soon, eh.

Speaker 1 (01:36:17):
Poonish we got we got a couple more time codes,
so maybe yeah, we can do that, try to anyway.
So seven seventeen twenty. Let me see here, I like.

Speaker 3 (01:36:33):
Right there in which they live. Women sometimes turn the
male gaze on one another. It happens when they objectify
themselves promote traditional gender.

Speaker 1 (01:36:44):
So when women, when women, I don't want to say,
objectify themselves. When women, let's say, make themselves look nice
and men notice, then that's them you using the male
like women use the male gaze or they tearn it
like they can't control it, but maybe they can like

(01:37:06):
read like refract it like with a mirror, you know,
on on themselves or on other women. So she's and
so when women do feminine things like you know, wear makeup,
dress nice, take care of themselves like men like like
actually don't mind their company, that is them essentially using

(01:37:28):
like being male gazed or using it against each other.
Women perpetuate the male gaze by objectifying themselves or enforcing
traditional beauty standards.

Speaker 3 (01:37:37):
Les as the ideal way of living, and enforce beauty
standards for others.

Speaker 2 (01:37:42):
Sretel said, Okay, this is the tar pet and what
I mean by the tar pit. Is this focus, this
obsession with seeing your identity, yourself and your agency as
a woman through victimhood.

Speaker 1 (01:38:06):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:38:07):
I see this so much in the women that I
argue with that I debate with. They see themselves through victimhood.
That is their primary characteristic, their primary way of navigating
the world. That is the tar pit. I actually I

(01:38:27):
have this discussion with one young feminist on Twitter, right,
and she brought up the Dictionary. I was explaining to
her what feminism has actually been doing manifestly, and I
can show all kinds of statistics and feminists own words
to prove it. And she brought up the Dictionary definition.

(01:38:51):
She said, this is the Dictionary definition of feminism. Therefore
you're wrong. So I brought up the Dictionary definition of
policing because I knew that she was say all all
all acabs, she was an ACB, and so she started
spouting out these tash tags all cops are bastards and

(01:39:12):
and and she's saying, oh, you say that within that
means you hate marginalized people, and like, do you not
understand the logical argument I'm making here? The Dictionary definition
of something does not mean the people who are part
of that thing, live up to it. That doesn't mean

(01:39:34):
you can appeal to the dictionary definition to absolve them
of any kind of criticisms for failing to live up
to the dictionary definition, which is an ideal, Like that
is the ideal of supposedly what feminism does. That isn't
necessarily the reality of what feminism does, just like the
dictionary definition of policing isn't necessarily the necessarily the reality

(01:39:57):
of what police actually do. Do you understand? And she
was like, she's just refused to understand that refused, And
so I asked Groc, do you understand the argument I'm making?
And Groc says, yes, there is a difference between the
ideal form of a thing and what it is in
actual reality, right what people make it out to be. So, yes,

(01:40:23):
policing is ideally upholding the laws and justice of a country,
but it doesn't like police don't always do that right,
and feminism supposedly is creating equality. I would argue that
they use that to hide what they're actually doing, but
that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that feminists are doing

(01:40:46):
that right. You can define them in any way, it
doesn't mean they actually live up to it, and Groc
understood that argument, and she didn't. And she was calling
Groc clanker a slur against AIS because she felt that

(01:41:06):
it wasn't it wasn't it wasn't it wasn't sufficient like
it was. It was a degradation to actually appeal to.
Not that she would listen to me if I actually
said these things, but anyway, I pointed out to her
that her ideology is making her operate at an intellectual
level that is lower than a clanker like Groc can

(01:41:32):
figure it out. Grock has the critical thinking skills that
you are denying. And then I said, do you ever
think about how boxing yourself in with this ideology, how
that affects your life, not just this conversation, but the
fact that you are forcing yourself to operate at a

(01:41:54):
lower level, to constantly be in a lower gear intellectually
in order to maintain and you're ideology. Do you think
that has any implications for the rest of your life?

Speaker 4 (01:42:06):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:42:07):
Do you think that has any implications for how you
interact with the world around you. I think it has
any implications for your potential for achievement or self realization.
I don't know. I think she just said that I
was a racist. Probably probably, yeah, no interest. Like these women,

(01:42:30):
you're just like, okay, so feminism is actually sacrificing women
to maintain feminism. Does that matter to you. You're a misogynist,
You're a racist, so it doesn't fucking matter. You don't care.
You don't care that feminism is talking a big talk
about equality, but in reality, it's only maintaining its own power, right,

(01:42:51):
It's only maintaining its own power, and it's decided to
sacrifice women to do so. You don't care about that.
You don't care about how maintaining this ideol is creating
a mental handicap that's causing you to operate at like
a two second grade level of intellect. You don't care
about that. None of this matters. None of this is

(01:43:12):
brought into consideration when it comes to actually thinking about
the ideology that you're maintaining. And of course this woman said, oh,
why don't you educate yourself? I'm like, I have, I have.
I spent a lot of time looking at feminist initiatives,
feminist academic paper, feminist conjecture, feminist concoction, and talking to

(01:43:36):
feminists where they will talk to me. They won't talk
to me in public. What are they gonna do. They're
gonna ban me. We're gonna go to like a frickin university,
go to the women's center and start talking to them.
What do you think they're gonna do. They're gonna call security.
They'll probably get me labeled a terrorist.

Speaker 1 (01:43:53):
All right, okay, so there's only one time code left.
Just knock it out really quick. Is her making suggestions
recommendations for media that challenge the male gaze by portraying
women as complex, powerful individuals. So let's listen to the recommendations.

Speaker 3 (01:44:12):
Or lessons in chemistry seeing women be the heroines of
the action instead of.

Speaker 1 (01:44:20):
Let me go back a little bit. It's wrong, okay,
I think right here.

Speaker 3 (01:44:25):
The closeness of female relationships with movies like Book Smart,
Steel Magnolia's or Greta Gerwig's Little Women, or Watch Women
be Brilliant even when their sexuality isn't in focus with
hidden figures. Netflix is the Residents or lessons in chemistry.

Speaker 1 (01:44:47):
But there you go, Alton, you got some homework to do.
Should watch those? I guess Steel Magnolia's I remember that
one winning a bunch of awards back in the day
a Netflix is The Residents Hidden Figures.

Speaker 2 (01:45:05):
And these women, these women are too stupid to realize
how much they're being insulted. Yeah, and the funny thing
is it's not I don't think it's a congenital stupidity.
It's a stupidity caused by their ideological box. Like I said,
like this woman could not get my argument even though
Groc picked it up. Groc was showing greater critical thinking

(01:45:28):
than she was. And it's and I'm pretty sure she's
capable of it. I'm sure that all of these women
are capable of operating at a much higher level than
they are, but they choose to. They choose to handicap
themselves with this ideological box, and they don't. And because

(01:45:50):
they handicap themselves with this ideological box, they look at
this media and they don't realize how their character have
been become lesser, have been destroyed.

Speaker 1 (01:46:08):
Well, yeah, this is about controlling the culture. That's that's
the reason why these articles exist. By the way, you know,
it seems like a silly thing that they're talking about,
you know, movies and TV, but you notice they talk
about it endlessly, right endlessly, And that's because they're terrified
of the control being like slipping slipping away from them

(01:46:29):
in the way that we tell our stories, and how
bad that everything has been in our media because they
have essentially like lowered the standards so much that like
where maybe it might have been progressive or feminists in
the nineties, it was at least smart enough that it
wasn't like a bad movie and it was hand fisting everything.

(01:46:52):
Now it is hand fisting everything because the expectations, the
quality of standards has dropped the point where there are
none and they're just letting anyone do whatever as long
as they're giving the right message. And so if somebody
like does like a halfway decent job, it gets praised
as like Oscar Worthy. You know, it's like why Barbie
made a billion dollars because I guess it was somewhat

(01:47:14):
competent and everyone lost their shit. But it's not a
good movie, and like there would have, like there were
movies like Long Kiss at Night, which I mentioned before
was a Geena Davis movie with Samuel L. Jackson, And
I like that movie because I like Samuel Jackson. He
was really funny in it. He was it was a
good time for that. But Geena Davis was probably the

(01:47:35):
most insufferable thing about the movie because she was putting
that girl boss thing. It was girl bossing before the
modern day. There was a lot of that stuff back then,
and that was one of them. It was just trying
to be like, you know, pulp fiction and just like
any sort of action movie, you know, but but yeah,

(01:47:56):
like that. At least back then though, you could like
have a good plot and some solid action and some
good dialogue and it would carry through. And the feminist
part was like you can almost like forgive it for that.
But nowadays there's nothing, there's nothing left. So anything that
that is, you know, just not absolute trash gets praised.

(01:48:18):
And they know that people are starting to walk away
from this stuff, like they're you know, they're losing money
on subscriptions. They have to like combine their streaming services
to give you a deal so that more people will
use them. A lot of people are watching older media now.
They're like, you know, pining for like when films were good,
So they're watching stuff from like the eighties, seventies, even

(01:48:39):
the nineties, but definitely like older stuff, black and white movies,
And I think that's a good thing. And because of that,
they're worried about new media, you know that they're they're
making a movie about George Washington and I don't know
why we never had one like kind of an important guy,
but we're and I think they're freaking out, you know. Hell,

(01:49:01):
I mean, biblical films are starting to like become really
popular right now. I think there was a movie called
It's an animated It was an animated movie called King
of Kings. I think I never saw it, but it's
it's you know, it was an animated, family friendly movie
about Jesus Christ. And I understand that it did really
well in theaters considering it was a small budget. And

(01:49:23):
that's mainly because there's nothing else, Like there's this trash
and it's not like that was weird. Like back in
the day the Ten Commandments was like a huge movie,
you know, with Charlton Heston had like big stars in it.
So I don't know, Yeah, I mean, what.

Speaker 2 (01:49:41):
Well, Having gone through this this sort of careful analysis
of the writing, my conclusion is that intersectionality rats your
brain like it it actually you It limits your ability
to understand other people, and writing like the the one
skill that is basically parallel or basically can. The one

(01:50:09):
skill that really prove or really underpins writing is the
ability to get into other people's heads. So, I mean,
you don't necessarily have to write at a really high
degree in order to write something good. So we were
recently looking at the Sly Cooper Game two cut scenes.
That's competent writing. It's not writing like, it's not overwritten,

(01:50:32):
it's not trying to be anything but what it is.
But it's competent. It's competently done, So you don't have
to have like a lot of complexity. However, when you
look at the Wheel of Time, they're trying to do
things with their writing. It's overwritten because they're trying to
do things with their writing that they can't pull off
with their skill set. And one of the problems is

(01:50:53):
they don't have the ability to model other people's minds
they and that is the one one skill that really
translates into good writing. You can understand people with different
skill sets. You can understand people with different perspectives, different backgrounds,
different thought processes, different traumas, different religions, different ideologies. You

(01:51:16):
can get your mind into the mind of others. And
the more that you can do that, the better you're
writing is, and in particular, you have to get in
the mind of the audience, and that is very difficult.
A writer never knows what they're writing, they never really
know it. Only a reader can tell you what's your writing.
But you can if you can manage to emulate the

(01:51:38):
mind of a reader, you can improve your writing significantly.
And the biggest problem with intersectionals is they don't want
to understand their audience. They don't even seem to regard
their audience as human beings. They seem to regard themselves
their God. On the sixteenth Chapel Chapel, you know, putting

(01:52:02):
your finger down to touch Adam to give give them
the divine spark. That's the way intersectional writers, that's the
way they review their relationship with their audience. They have
the divine spark and they are granting it to their audience,
and their audience receives it and is becomes human and

(01:52:23):
they don't have that relationship of You got to try
to understand your audience. You got to empathize with them.
You got to realize that what you're writing is not
what they're reading necessarily, and you want to get your
writing to the point where it is what you want
them to be taking from it. But that requires respecting

(01:52:45):
how they experience your work. And there is absolutely no
respect when it comes to intersectional writers for their audience.
They don't want to understand them, they don't want to
please them. They just want to dominate them morally, and
that's why their stuff is craty. It's it's it's absolutely
awful because they just don't understand people. They just don't

(01:53:06):
and their entire ideology precludes them understanding people. So they're
trying to do a job that it requires a particular
It requires you to bring your a game in a
particular type of intelligence, and that intelligence is the ability
to model other people's minds. That's that's the essence of
good writing. Even if you don't like the Sly Cooper

(01:53:29):
cutscenes for Sly Cooper two, they were modeling the minds
of each of the characters in it. That wasn't necessarily
that they deviated that much from archetypes, but they still
did that right. That is the essential skill of storytelling,
and they are they adhere to an ideology that makes

(01:53:53):
you operate at like in terms of being able to
model people other people's it forces you to operate at
a sub kindergarten level. I mean, I think that they're
probably operating more at the level of a chimp in
terms of their ability to model people's minds, and they're

(01:54:14):
trying to do a job that requires that skill. Meanwhile,
they embrace an ideology that destroys their ability to develop
that skill. So that's why they're writing is terrible now.
In the past, these the individuals who were creative, still

(01:54:38):
had to understand other people, right, people on the left,
you know, in the past, when when there wasn't this
huge like nobody on the other side is human, which
was started by the left, they had to understand others
and it was their nuanced understanding of how people do

(01:54:58):
that made their ARTI work have merit. But now they
don't have that anymore. Now they have this grand narrative
where they don't have to care about people or understand
people who don't think like them. And that's probably why
I would say that I don't know what I don't
know if I want to call I don't know what
to call them because they aren't creative, they aren't open,

(01:55:20):
they aren't experimental, they have none of the qualities of
somebody who is. I guess you would call liberal if
you want to term it that. I don't know. Maybe
we need a completely new term for those qualities. They
have none of that. They are ossified, they're primitive in
their thinking, they are tribalistic, they don't think, they have

(01:55:43):
to understand new points of view. They are closed off.
So I mean, it's like I see the virtues of
a more liberal mindset, and they don't have any of them.
None of them. Okay, did you want to say anything
to that?

Speaker 1 (01:56:03):
No, I'm good, okay, Uh. Yeah, it was the last
time code that I had, so.

Speaker 2 (01:56:15):
The Cistine Chapel. Sorry, yes, it was the Cistine Chapel,
which I've seen. It's incredible. It's it is like, if
you ever see it like that, I would recommend it
because it looks like it looks like a hologram somehow.
I don't know how else to describe it. It's so
unbelievably rendered and so three dimensional and how it's rendered

(01:56:39):
like there's no picture that does it justice. You can
see why the Pope forced Michelangelo to do it. It was Michaelangel,
isn't it, uh?

Speaker 1 (01:56:48):
The chapel? Yes, yeah, pretty sure.

Speaker 2 (01:56:52):
Yeah, it is remarkable. It is. It is deeply impactful.
In fact, when I went to Rome, that was probably
one of the most impactful pieces of art that I saw.
I think the piat Piata Piata Pieta is also it
also has a big impact too.

Speaker 1 (01:57:10):
Yeah, oh yeah, there's pets is huge. It had such
an impact on our all, all of our art, not
just the fine art.

Speaker 2 (01:57:21):
Yeah. And that's when I mean, that's when like, uh,
I don't know, like religion could really capture these emotions
you talked about, I don't know if you tell me
when you need to leave. You talked about how they
want to claim stories. Maybe we should have called this
a red chill we want they want to claim stories, right,
mm hmm. And stories have a huge impact on how

(01:57:45):
we understand ourselves. And I was thinking about that in
the Wheel of Time. You know, they took a classic
archetypal hero's journey character in Randell four and they turned
it into nonsense. Basically, he's not even a coherent character.
And it's uh, it was, And I was thinking about

(01:58:06):
that because it's it's taking away boys guidance to becoming men.
Like this is what they're doing. They're destroying the stories
that guide boys into men, and they're doing it in
the guise of saying we're liberating them from manhood. That

(01:58:26):
you now you can be anything. No, what they mean
is you can be nothing. You have no you have
no particular value that you need to go through a
journey to learn to develop and wield for the benefit
of others, your society, et cetera. There's no because you
have no value. You have no story, because you have

(01:58:47):
no value as a boy. So why do you deserve
a story? And that is liberating you. We're liberating you
from having a value, see, because having a value restricts you.
It's like this, like are these women are like the
evil witches from a fairy tale? You know what it's
like like They often have these kind of very insidious, toxic,

(01:59:11):
seductive things that they say, Yeah, like your value, your value,
it chains you, it imprisons you, and if you throw
it away, you'll be free. You'll be free. Boys, You'll
be free. Oh good lord, Okay, okay, yeah, well yeah,

(01:59:36):
we have a last Yeah we should. You probably need
to pick up lindsay, I need to checkture my cat's okay.
She she got her treats and then she laid down
on the floor, So I'm like, are you are you? Yeah?
I think she's fine.

Speaker 1 (01:59:51):
She just.

Speaker 2 (01:59:53):
Decided to pass out there. All right, So once again,
feed the badger dot com side just the tip. You
can send us a tip and a message at any
point when the show is over. Very much appreciated if
you do so, and uh I will oh yes, and
where monthly fundraisers live it feedbadgery dot com slash support. Yeah,

(02:00:16):
and there's also a link there to the ongoing support
options if you so choose to help us out, which
is really appreciated. Again, we can only we can only
appeal to you stubborn people who don't run away at
the least mention of these ideas because they are very uncomfortable.
They are not things that people enjoy to talk about,

(02:00:37):
which is why they're not doing the obvious common sense
things to prevent us all from you know, falling into
the chasm like shared parenting. All right, I'll hand that
back to you, Brian.

Speaker 1 (02:00:51):
Okay, Well, if you guys like this video, please hit
like subscribe. If you're not already subscribed, hit the bellf notifications,
leave us a comment, let us know what you guys
think about what we discussed on the show today. You'll
find a link to the article in the description of
this video if you want to read the whole thing
for yourself, and please, please please share this video because
sharing is caring. Thank you guys so much for coming
on today's episode of Maintaining Frame, and we'll talk to

(02:01:13):
you all in the next Men