UN Women: Feminism is about silencing men | HBR Talk 373

UN Women’s complaints about the manosphere include typical mischaracterizations, and a familiar plan of attack. Tonight we’re going to do a bit more looking into one of the sources from their recent report, “What is the manosphere and why should we care?” We may also get to UN women’s follow-up article on “how to counter the manosphere.”

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome to HBr Talk three seventy three. You
and Women feminism is about silencing men. I'm your host,
Hannah Wallen here with Nonsense Annihilator, learned books and the
Personification of Perceptivity Mike Stevenson, and we have and with
the Doge in charge, Brian Martinez, working in the background
to make things go more smoothly, and tonight we're looking

(00:25):
more into some of what You and Women is doing.
We've been looking into you and women's complaints about activists
who support things like paternal custody, do process rights for men.
And make no mistake, they don't hate our activism because

(00:45):
we're doing anything wrong. It is about fighting for due
process and fighting for paternal custody. Those are the things
that they're mad about. They're mad that men want an
equal seat at the human rights table, that men want
violence against them addressed in in in in terms of

(01:07):
you know, family violence and such. They're they're upset that
men want to be treated the same in the courtroom
as women are, and not as a lesser litigant or
a automatically guilty litigant, especially not in civil cases where

(01:28):
guilt or innocence isn't the question. But let me get
rid of that. What we've gone through so far is, uh,
you know, them stating all kinds of falsehoods about men's
rights activists, and then we've looked a little bit at

(01:48):
some of their ideas. We read through this bullshit last
last week or last episode, and this this episode we
will be looking at the actual pamphlet. I wasn't sure

(02:08):
I was going to do this, but then I started
reading it and I realized there's a couple of things
we do actually have to look at here before. And
and there's a little bit of like like the the funding,
the US AIDS funding that we were looking at before. Uh,
this isn't a rabbit hole, it's a whole rabbit warren.

(02:31):
So we're gonna look at this. Uh budgets, Oh sure.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
So we know a way around a warren. Yeah, badger
equivalent of a warren is a set that is true,
a bunch of budgets, whatever it is that is true.

Speaker 1 (02:49):
And and also we eat rabbits, just saying rabbits. Badgers
will eat fucking anything if they're and it's alive, it's meat,
it's food. Yeah, honey, badgers.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
Do lion balls if they fail.

Speaker 1 (03:09):
Yeah, I will tell you what if if they are cooked,
I will try them. But uh, but rabbit is pretty good.
If you haven't had it, it's it's it's it is
pretty good.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
Just my my grandpa used to hunt, used to be
a very prolific hunter. So I've had all kinds of
interesting things. And uh yeah, badgers eat rabbits. So sorry, guys,
I ate the Easter bunny. No eggs this year. Next
year it's webbit season, webbit season. Well, duck is pretty

(03:46):
good too. You can't you can't, really, I can't pick
one and say it's better than the other either.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
I don't remember ever eating rabbit, but it can't be
better than duck. And it's always duck seasonal.

Speaker 1 (04:00):
Oh it is. It isn't better, but it is good.
But yeah, I wouldn't be able to pick one. But
they are both better than bear meat. Bear meat, if
you don't cook it right, it's really not good because
it has a gamey taste. It's it's hard to explain.
It's really strong flavor. And if you if you don't

(04:21):
season it right and you don't treat it right before
you cook it, it just you got to be hungry
to eat it, but it's done well. It tastes pretty.

Speaker 2 (04:30):
Good, especially polar bear liver that's lethal to humans because
they're super carnivores, and it's it's too much fitamin a
or something. But I know it sounds like fat and words.
I want to try eating polar bed liver. It just
wants to see what it's like. They eat just enough
to not kill me. What is wrong with me?

Speaker 1 (04:50):
Oh, the same thing. But in any case, yes, badgers,
badgers will, we will eat, we will, many of us
will eat. Just buddy. I mean, I ate an earthworm
once to prove my point in an argument. So as
a kid, you know, not as an adult. They're not poisonous.

(05:11):
I didn't die. My classmates watched all day to see
if I would or not. Nobody told it an adult,
by the way, they all just are like, oh my god,
she ate it is she canna die? Let's watch because
we would.

Speaker 2 (05:24):
It can't happened, though. I heard this one story of
a guy who ate a slug because his friends dead
him to beat a slug and then he got this
paralyzing parasite. So yeah, yeah, don't get very.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
Different from earthworms. Earthworms and slugs are two very different animals.
But in any case, yeah, so this this tells you though,
don't don't get into arguments with me, because like I
am that determined. If you better have your information, you
got to prove me wrong.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
In any case, last last week we kind of went over,
you know, the the excuses that they have made for
this Worldwide Act to End Violence against Women. Notice, by
the way, it is not named the Act to End
Family Violence. They don't want to end violence when the

(06:21):
woman is the perpetrator. They only want to end violence
when the woman is a victim.

Speaker 2 (06:28):
Right.

Speaker 1 (06:28):
They don't have an act to stop women from abusing
their children, and they don't have an act to stop
women from abusing their husbands. Statistics out of in the
US and the UK demonstrate that a significant portion different

(06:49):
statistics give different levels, but a significant portion of domestic violence,
partner violence, intimate partner violence this female and nickiated and
female perpetrated, and about seventy percent of one way violence
where the perpetrator is engaging in violence against the victim

(07:12):
and the victim is not using violence and self defense.
That's female perpetrated, not male perpetrated. Only about thirty percent
of that is male perpetrated. And then there is one
study that shows that among violence that is two way,
where both parties are engaging in violence against each other,

(07:33):
those relationships are associated with more perpetration from women, but
not more perpetration from men, meaning that women are initiating
more often, and this is a consistent issue. Women are
more likely to walk away with injuries because they are
essentially poking the bear. Quite frequently in intimate partnerships, the

(07:57):
man is the larger partner. Not always, but quite frequently,
the man is a larger partner. He's faster, he's more
experienced at defending himself against a violent assault. But also
in the heat of the moment, during a violent conflict
between two people, you have less opportunity to pull your punches.

(08:19):
It is much easier to control your response if you're
initiating violence, and to do things like restraining your partner
if the partner looks like they're going to start something,
as opposed to after your partner has backed you into
a corner, haranguing you and yelling at you and is

(08:41):
now hitting you. In that instance, you end up more
in a situation where your violence is completely un planned.
Right you don't. You haven't got forethought involved. And so
when you attempt to grab and restrain or push away

(09:01):
or anything even hit to defend yourself, it's going to
be harder, it's going to be stronger, it's gonna be
less careful about where you're grabbing and so on, and
so you end up, of course, women walk away from
that with more injuries. Now it's not always the truth, Like,

(09:24):
that's not always the case. Sometimes when women engage in violence,
they use weapons, guns, knives. There was that one story
out of I think Minnesota. It might be wrong, the
woman that used a machete to force her partner into
a sex act, and they won't label her a rapist. Right,

(09:45):
she forced him into a sex act against his will
using a weapon, but they won't label her a rapist
because she's mentally ill, unlike other rapists who are engaging
in per per rational behavior, like I think all rapists
are mentally ill. I think all rape is irrational behavior

(10:08):
because it involves forcing yourself on someone who doesn't want
to be with you. It's the exact polar opposite of
what people want, which is for other people to be
attracted to them. For the people that they're attracted to
to want them, so it's it's facing rejection over and
over again throughout the entire assault. It seems pretty irrational

(10:31):
and crazy to me.

Speaker 2 (10:32):
I like, I like to leave some open for the
possibility that some people are just assholes.

Speaker 1 (10:40):
I think most people that are that much of an
asshole are still.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Crazy, poorly raised perhaps, and badly miseducated. But I don't
want to give I don't want to give all of
them the out of being mentally ill. Some people are
just nasty fuckers.

Speaker 1 (10:59):
There's nothing wrong I might take when that isn't that
it's an out. I think if somebody is so fucked
in the head that they are a danger to other people,
they should not be on the street. For instance, if
you are found not guilty by reason of insanity in
a case where you have committed a crime against another person,

(11:21):
a violent crime, you should be incarcerated in a mental
institution for life, or at least until they find a
cure for whatever it is and made you behave that way.
I genuinely don't think people should be let back out
on the street, either due to incompetence by insanity or

(11:43):
incompetence by intellectual disability. If they can't refrain from being
a physical threat to other people, then they should be
under the management and control of other people who can
keep them from being that threat. We should be oldlessly cruel.

(12:04):
But you know, counter proposal, I don't. I don't believe
in that because if somebody can't help doing something, it's
that punishing them is not fair either. If somebody is

(12:24):
fucked up like that, punishment punishment is like it's it's
the same thing as punishing somebody who had a car
accident because they had a heart attack. Is they really
couldn't control the vehicle If they're having a heart attack,
that's not their fault, right, or a meteor falls out

(12:46):
of the sky and put it hits their car. If
your brain doesn't work right and it makes you. We
don't do that to people who are threat to themselves
either institutionalize them.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
I don't think we should punish people more if they
can help it, surely if they if they if they
can't help abusing people in the worst possible way, then
if anyone should be executed, it's those kinds of people.
I mean, if they can help it, they should be
helped to help it. It's it's this hard idea.

Speaker 1 (13:22):
Is they tended to be a deterrent, not a not
a vengeance, Like when we send people to prison for
something that they've done wrong, We're not doing it to
get revenge. We're doing it to send the communication that
that they're they're going to face a consequence if they

(13:45):
do this right. People who can't help it are people
who if you show them that they're going to face
a consequence, that won't change their behavior. So no, because
we have we have a standard against and unusual punishment,
and that standard doesn't end at people who are so

(14:07):
badly handicapped that they can't live among people other people.
And you know, it's no different to punish somebody for
being that kind of handicapped than it is to punish
somebody for needing a wheelchair, or to punish somebody for
needing a sign language interpreter, needing the support of being institutionalized,

(14:33):
And not all people who need the support of being
institutionalized or dangerous to other people. Some people just can't
take care of themselves either. I work with people with
intellectual disabilities, and it runs the gamut from people who
just need a little help somebody to be there in case,
you know, they panic when the fire alarm goes off,

(14:53):
or they need help budgeting for their own lifestyle, or
you know, they need somebody to help them if they
get weird junk mail, to make heads or tails of
whether this is a scammer, a legitimate offer, and stuff
like that. And then it goes all the way to
the other end, where you have people who are so

(15:16):
disabled that they cannot feed themselves and they cannot bathe themselves,
and can't do their own oral hygiene and things like that,
but they still can do you know, they still can
have a social life, They still can have experiences with
other people and people, no, not unless they get out

(15:40):
of unless they get out of the wheelchair.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
That's what I'm talking about.

Speaker 1 (15:44):
Yeah, but it's still if you're dealing with somebody that
is so handicapped that they cannot control their own behavior,
that also runs a gamut. You have some people who's
inability to control their their behavior is at the end
of you know, they can't they have ticks where in
the middle of their perfectly saying discussion of something outcomes

(16:09):
the word bitch or their their head twitches and their
hand raises up in the air. Or you know, things
like that, to people who have to turn their lock
five or six times in order to be sure that
the magic of the lock will work and the door
will stay locked, or they have to keep checking to

(16:32):
make sure that they've turned the oven off. I have
to wash everything in their house over and over again,
hand washed so much that their skin is raw.

Speaker 2 (16:41):
Obviously I'm talking about I'm talking about who actually get
off on causing pain and misery to other people, And
if they can't be fixed, then why should why should
the state spend the money required to incarcerate in a
mental facility or a prison.

Speaker 1 (17:03):
For the same reason that we take care of other
people who have that level of handicap. It isn't just
because we find someone's handicap distasteful and awful and horrifying
does not mean that we treat a human being like garbage.
We manage them. We don't engage in cruelty, and killing

(17:26):
someone is an act of cruelty. It doesn't matter what
the person would do if they were free. It matters
what we do. And it is fair to put someone
under care and to put someone under a lock up

(17:47):
if we know that they are a danger to other people.
Or danger to themselves. But it is not humane and
it is not civilized to use that as an excuse
to engage in cruel and unusual punishment. It never has been.
We have a history of that level of violence. But

(18:08):
until reasonable people can eliminate the violence from their own
responses to other people, we can't remove violence from the
general public. But this act is mostly about people who
can be reformed. And one of the things that's really

(18:33):
a standout thing in my experience with debating people who
talk about domestic violence, particularly people who work for agencies
that support female accusers, female domestic violence accusers and such,
their take on it is that women deserve better treatment

(18:58):
than men when they are victims of domestic violence. Like, so,
you have male and female victims of domestic violence, you
have children who are victims of family violence, and you
have people raised in that environment who go on to
become perpetrators of family violence in adulthood. And rather than

(19:24):
wanting to remedy the situation by helping both sexes learn
to maybe engage in arguments and debates and handle conflict
with each other without violence, they want to punish men,
and they want to they want men to be treated

(19:47):
as if they are guilty regardless of evidence, and they
want women to be to be able to make allegations
with impunity regard bless of evidence, and so even if
a woman lies and they want they want lots of
money for their organizations. And ultimately, if you really want

(20:12):
to address the violent psychopath issue, one of the most
important things that we can address is intimate partner violence.
A lot of times when somebody reaches the level of
handicap where they aren't salvageable anymore as a human being

(20:32):
because of their violent impulses, you trace back to their childhood.
This is the environment they grew up in. Mom attacks dad.
Dad puts up with it for a period of time,
and then eventually hits back. Mom and dad hit each
other for several hours, yelling and screaming, and then the

(20:55):
next thing you hear is mom and dad having makeup sex.

Speaker 2 (20:59):
Right.

Speaker 1 (20:59):
That is that is the environment, and kids raised in
that environment are often neglected and abused, and they are
taught that the only way for them to get what
they want is violence. The only way for them to
get their needs met is violence, And the only thing
that they're going to face if they show any weakness

(21:19):
is violence, and if they've already got a predisposition toward
any kind of mental health condition, that pushes them over
the edge.

Speaker 3 (21:30):
So looking at.

Speaker 2 (21:34):
I'm just wondering how extreme the case has to be
before we will finally go all right, let's just kill her.
I'm thinking of Axel rue de Cabani. You know that guy, right,
the guy who stabbed like eleven young girls aged five
to eight, I think it was, And when he appeared

(21:55):
in court, he showed no remosse whatsoever. He was like,
I'm glad they're dead, and I would gladly kill more
of them. Some psychopaths are actually like that. They don't
even feign remorse, And I'm like, I think should be
I think as should be murdered by the state. That's

(22:16):
I I think that's the kind of extreme case where
we shouldn't lift a finger to help this guy other
than to.

Speaker 1 (22:27):
I don't think the state should have the power to know.

Speaker 2 (22:31):
If there's any I don't think if there's any doubt
at all as to their there's their remorse.

Speaker 1 (22:38):
Even if there's no doubt, I still don't think the
state should have that power. Because the state decides there's
no doubt even when there is and it's it's it's
the thing that changed my mind on This was a
case of an intellectually disabled man. The evidence against him
was circumstantial. He showed up at the crime scene, according

(23:02):
to his story, he showed up at the crime scene
after the crime had happened and panicked because of the
violent scene and ran, And according to the prosecutor story,
the fact that there was his footprint there placed him
at the scene. It doesn't matter if they can prove
it was during the crime. He's guilty. And he didn't

(23:25):
have a real defense, He didn't have a chance in
the court system, and they decided that he was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, a crime was particularly brutal
and was against an elderly woman, and they executed him,

(23:50):
and he died screaming that he was innocent, fighting the guards,
begging for his life. And because he never really got
through all of his appeals, we have no way of
knowing whether the state railroaded this man or whether he
was actually guilty. And this is how the state handles

(24:12):
the death penalty, and that there have been numerous cases
like that where there are reasonable doubts, but because of
the way the court system works, that evidence isn't heard
in court, or the individual doesn't have a valid defense,
doesn't have a good defense, like they don't get a

(24:34):
good lawyer, they don't get a good a decent public defense,
and they're found guilty of something that they didn't do.
And then sometimes the state profoundly fucks up its executions
and the individual is paralyzed but not sedated, and they

(25:00):
the poison that is given to them makes them have
heart attack. So they're laying there on the table going
through the pain and fear of a heart attack, and
they're experiencing the whole thing with full consciousness from the
moment that that chemical starts to take effect to the

(25:20):
moment that they die. And if that can happen to
somebody who was found guilty when they were actually innocent,
that should never be allowed to happen. And there's only
one way to make sure that that never happens, and
that is if the state never executes anybody under any circumstances.

(25:45):
So if you had to pick a random man off
of the street and do that to him in order
to execute the individual that you're talking about, or better yet,
somebody that you know, just think of all the men
that you know and roll the dice if you have
to whatever, just pick one and choose that man, and say,

(26:10):
all right, in order for us to have the right
to execute this criminal that we know is guilty that
I think should be executed, we're going to put you
through an execution in which your paralytic will work, but
your sedation won't work, and you're going to be put
through a heart attack and you're going to die. And

(26:31):
have chosen you for this so that we can kill
this other man, would you do that? I don't know.

Speaker 2 (26:40):
Again, I don't trust the state with much. If we
had a way of I mean, what about the way
we we kill animals and slaughter houses. We have this
instantaneous electrical excuse right, do you have.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
An electory chair? We have an electric chair and it's
been deemed not humane by many many people. And again
we're okay with that. But would you choose, say one
of your friends or family members to sacrifice along with

(27:20):
that individual in order to you know, we know that
we're risking that when we have our government has a
death penalty, and our justice system makes those decisions. Would
you select from among your loved ones, an individual to
sacrifice so that we can kill this man.

Speaker 2 (27:44):
If they killed eleven children or you know, killed three
children stobbed.

Speaker 1 (27:48):
Now an innocent individual from among your friends and family
has to die too, which one.

Speaker 2 (27:54):
Well, no, innocent people shouldn't be killed at all.

Speaker 1 (27:57):
Yeah, And the only way to guarantee that. My conclusion
from from reading everything I've read about the way that
death penalty is handled, the way the justice system works,
is that the literal only way to prevent the sacrifice
of innocent people in order for us to be able
to kill these other people is that the death penalty

(28:17):
doesn't exist. There is no death penalty because there is
no fail safe to prevent the government from taking innocent
people that they have found guilty because of abuses within
the justice system. Uh and and killing them too.

Speaker 2 (28:37):
Well, show remorse, isn't that? Isn't that a large part
of them?

Speaker 1 (28:43):
Now?

Speaker 2 (28:44):
How we decided someone shows or not.

Speaker 1 (28:47):
No, even if somebody shows remorse, they still can get
the death penalty. If someone maintains their innocence and the
evidence against them isn't rock solid, they still can get
the death penalty. If someone is underage and the court

(29:09):
determines that even though the reason that they're violent is
because their whole life they've been subjected to violence, and
violence is all they know, they still can get the
death penalty. The death penalty has been visited upon sixteen
year olds who could have been redeemable. It's the least

(29:30):
responsible entity to be handling this. The government is the
least responsible entity to be handling this. There is no accountability.
If an individual gets the death penalty and is executed
and then is found to be later on innocent, they
don't go back and try the judge and the prosecutor.

(29:53):
They don't go back and do it unless somebody fights
really hard to make sure that accountability happens, somebody in family,
and a lot of times people who end up in
this situation are are people that don't have folks close
to them to defend them. So it's not it's not unattached.

(30:19):
It's not cut and dried that we're just executing people
who have committed heinous crimes and it's been solidly proven
and they're irredeemable. The death penalty gets handed down quite
regularly to people who are wrongly accused and wrongly convicted,

(30:41):
and not all of them get justice on appeal, some
of them get executed.

Speaker 3 (30:52):
And you know, I can see both sides of the
argument here, but you know, you have to also take
into a care that there are innocent people who get
locked up for life sentences that are innocent and end
up dying in jail over other circumstances. Right, So, even
being put in jail for for even if it's not

(31:15):
a life sentence, there's a high likelihood that you are
not going to survive being put in prison for that
long against other actual murderers and rapists and things like that,
you know. So, I mean, it's it's it's I don't know,

(31:37):
It's kind of like a double edged sword, you know.

Speaker 2 (31:41):
What.

Speaker 3 (31:42):
So what do we do with the people who who
will just say I'm innocent, I'm innocent, I'm innocent, even
though all of the evidence points to their guilt. You know.
It's it's just a fucked up situation. I mean, it
really is.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
So I advocate for humane containment because when you use
punishment as a revenge instead of as a deterrent, and
when when you use incarceration as a punishment in a
system that is just as violent as the homes that

(32:25):
many of them came from. Rather than putting the cabbage
to the cycle, you are perpetuating it.

Speaker 4 (32:33):
I'm not even talking about revenge you now, I'm asking myself,
is there any line that can be drawn where someone
deserves to be killed?

Speaker 2 (32:46):
And I'm not talking about people who protest their innocence.
I'm talking about people like Accelary to Cabana. It's like, yeah, yeah,
I'm glad I killed them. I'm glad they're dead and
do it again. And I don't care if you kill me.
I want you to kill me. Like at that point,
surely it's surely it's at least arguable to do what

(33:10):
must be done with such a person. And I, you know,
I don't trust the state, But what's the alternative, like
getting a lynch mob not associated with the state to
do it by themselves. In either case, neither of these
entities is fully to be trusted. But like you, where

(33:32):
do you draw the line? At? At what point is
it okay for either the state or some kind of
mob to do the right thing? And should we house
them in a facility for the rest of their lives?
In actual Rude Kavana's case, because he's only eighteen nineteen,

(33:53):
I think at this point it is going to be
there for the next fifty years or so, and surely
it's it's it's it's incumbent on us to not burden
ourselves with having to house them in a facility for
that long. And if they if they show no remorse whatsoever,

(34:13):
if you know for a fact they're going to kill people,
even if they remain in prison, they present a danger
to other prisoners, other prisoners who who could be rehabilitated.
They even pose a danger to the prison offices. And
in actual Rude Command's case, he did throw some boiling

(34:35):
water over a prison officer. Like to keep someone like
that in prison or in the mental facility for fifty years,
you're endangering people who don't deserve to be endangered. And
if he and if he's perfectly okay with being killed
and fucking kill him, I don't you know.

Speaker 1 (34:52):
Yeah, I agree, that's still a situation where if you
give the state that power, your bill giving the state
to the power to execute people who are not guilty
as well, and who the state abuses into looking guilty
enough to get the death penalty. And again, the reasonable

(35:15):
alternative is lifetime containment.

Speaker 2 (35:17):
And if.

Speaker 1 (35:19):
If we improved the justice system to the point where
people who could be rehabilitated were and people who haven't
committed acts that heinous aren't housed with somebody who is.
Then we wouldn't have as much danger with the few
individuals that would remain in incarceration.

Speaker 3 (35:42):
Well, then that also begs not the question, but the
discussion of the state of the penitentiary system in and
of itself, because it is not designed to rehabilitate anyone, anyone.

Speaker 1 (35:58):
No, it's not. It's really bad.

Speaker 3 (36:00):
It really does not. And so what is the point
of sending these people away. You're sending them to desensitize
them to everything. Right, they are forced to be alone
right there, sometimes in solitary confinement. It's to just dehumanize

(36:22):
them in every single sort of way. There is no
such thing as rehabilitation going on in our current penitentiary system.
And you know, there is no distinction being made between
people who can be rehabilitated and those who actually need
mental assistance. We've done away with mental facilities in this country.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
We've really we've done a lot of damage. Actually, Yeah,
And when I keep wanting to do a full episode
on a prison system in the United States, and it's
the thing that's been difficult for me is trying to
get together the research on it because I get sick

(37:10):
reading bringing this stuff. It's so bad that it literally
makes me ill every time I start delving into it.
That's that's what our men, because it's about ninety percent
of people in our prison system are men, and a
majority of them are in there for petty things that

(37:32):
some of them shouldn't even be illegal. Like there's a huge,
huge population in our jails that are in there for
buying or selling substances.

Speaker 3 (37:45):
Like marijuana, non violent offenders.

Speaker 1 (37:48):
Non violent offenses, that's right. And a lot of them
end up in there in juvenile attentions starting out, and
they face violence in juvenile attention. A portion of them
face sexual violence from the female staff in juvenile attention.
There's a huge amount of perpetration of sexual misconduct against

(38:11):
the prisoners by female staff in the jail system as well,
along with like everybody thinks prison rape is something that
other prisoners are, you know, perpetrating, but there's a significant
amount of it that's done by the female staff and
against the male incarcerated, whereas in the female system it's

(38:37):
it's mostly inmates doing it to each other. But in
the male prison system, besides the violence and the the
interpersonal violence and the sexual violence, you also have a
like a mafia system where people are being bought and sold,

(39:01):
goods are being bought and sold. There's a whole underground market,
there's a whole there's a whole system of abuse in
the prison system. And it's not just among the prisoners.
They have help from prison staff, and that the women

(39:23):
on the prison staff are a rather significant part of that.
So the entire situation is a lot more complicated than
people think. Well, it really is. When you run into
somebody who has committed, say a violent crime in adulthood,

(39:44):
and you look into that person's history, that person may
have come from an abusive home, they may have had
a mental health condition or an intellectual disability. In fact,
a rather large portion of the prison population are people
with disabilities, intellectual disabilities especially, or mental health conditions that

(40:05):
are untreated. And then if they've been in the juvenile
justice system, that's where they had their first contact with
gang members and became part of a gang. And after that,
when they get out, they're used by that gang over
and over again until they end up in the adult
incarceration system, and then they end up meeting another gang,

(40:29):
and then they or their gang is already in control
in that prison when they come out, if they come
out again, they're used over and over again by that gang.
And so by the time they get to the point
where you know, they've shot somebody or they've they've committed
a murder in some other manner during some other crime,

(40:51):
that they become eligible for the death penalty. There they've
been through a system that makes them that way, and
then we use that same system to punish them for it.

Speaker 3 (41:10):
And I think it goes deeper than that, I really do.
I think it begins at home, you know, and that
that is the most taboo place to even begin the discussion,
because then you have to blame the parents, more often
than not the mother, because the fathers are I think,

(41:34):
what is the statistics, something like seventy five percent of
the people who are inmates to have no father at.

Speaker 1 (41:41):
Home, you know, and a large yeah.

Speaker 3 (41:46):
And then it goes back to the mother having to
take accountability for the reason that that child has no
father at home. And like it or not, I don't
care who argues with me about that. That is, it
is at least fifty percent the mother's fault. Why there
is no father in the home, right, And so we

(42:07):
can't we can't even begin to have that conversation because
again it goes back to women having to take accountability
for their fucking actions, and Lord knows we can't do that. Right. So,
you know, the path, the pipeline to prison does not

(42:27):
begin in school. It begins at home. Yeah, that is
the conversation that we are just not allowed to have
right now or anywhere in the society except for here.
This is a safe space we can talk about this.

Speaker 1 (42:42):
Yeah. Yeah, we use the real interpretation of safe space,
not the feminist interpretation of space. Yes, a real safe
space is a place where you can talk about uncomfortable
topics and you're the topic will be addressed. You're not
going to be accused of, uh, you know, bringing up

(43:05):
uncomfortable topics to make things uncomfortable for other people. You're
not gonna be accused of microaggressions.

Speaker 3 (43:10):
The high the high crime of misogyny.

Speaker 1 (43:14):
Yeah. Uh. In terms of the single mother thing, I
got to point something out, and I've pointed it out
in more eloquent ways, and I've pointed it out in
more crude ways. I think the crudest way I pointed
it out is, you know, women need to learn that
you can't turn a dipshit into a diamond by polishing
his knob. We decide who we consent to, you know,

(43:40):
we don't somebody else isn't consenting to sex on our behalf, right,
we decide that if somebody else consents on our behalf
and we don't agree, that's rape, and we get we
have legal recourse for that. There laws against rape, and
every nation. You know, some of them are better than

(44:02):
others about how they handle it. Some of them are
very bad about handling or due process end of it,
and some of them are not so good about handling
the evidence end of it. So you do have the
gamut there. But men don't have that recourse in most
countries at all. Even in countries that say they do,

(44:27):
they don't want to call it rape if a woman
does it to a man, and there have been instances
where women have forced men against their will and gotten
away with it because laws that they're charged under don't
apply if the victim is not penetrated by the perpetrator,

(44:50):
If the victim is forced to perpetrate. Right, So we
have first step. When we decide we're going to have
a baby with someone, we have all of the say
in the matter in terms of who you know, what
the yes is, and what the no is. We are
the key holders to the uterus. Nobody gets in there

(45:12):
without our say, at least not without facing a potential
criminal charge for overriding our say. So in terms of
consensual sex, in terms of consenting to the act that
conceives the child, the woman has every opportunity to be

(45:34):
a judge of character. So women who fuck deadbeats and
become unwed mothers, I don't have any sympathy sympathy for
you because you chose that man. You decided to bypass
mister Wright for mister right now or mister big dick,
or mister a pretty car or mister badass or whatever.

(46:00):
And now you're mad that after you decided to carry
to term and you decided to retain custody of that child,
he did didn't change his mind about being along for
the ride. Like that's bullshit. That is your fault as
a woman, That is your fault. You had control over

(46:22):
that and you blew it. And women who create that
situation and then raise a child without a father in
the home, are deliberately handicapping their children, that's child abuse.
If you do that to your child, that's child abuse.

Speaker 3 (46:41):
Yep, it's only a no no, it's only a no
no square until it becomes a yes yes square. That
is absolutely true, and then you can touch me there.

Speaker 1 (46:53):
And of course the men who sleep with these women
are stupid fucks, Like, what do you think is going
to happen? Going to drag you through the court system,
and she is going to win. She is going to
get child support from you. She's not going to let
you see the kid. You're not going to get an
opportunity to make sure that that child is raised properly.

(47:15):
And you know, if you didn't, if you're not invested
in that to begin with, you're not going to do
it right either. So your offspring, the fruit of your loins,
is probably going to end up in jail. Right, That's
that's your fault. You know, what, what are you doing
with a hoe when there are women who are more

(47:39):
accountable than that. The women who won't necessarily do you
know anything at the drop of the hat are the
women that are more likely to raise your children with you,
and if you don't want to have kids, don't don't

(47:59):
risk heavy kids as simple as that. You know, you
use your birth control or avoid women. Uh, don't let
her touch the condom, you know, don't, don't give her
access to it, and don't stealth because that's the dumbest

(48:19):
fuck move you could possibly do. Right. Men are accountable
for their end of it. We say stuff like this
to men all the time. Men get told these things
every day. They get told these things as boys growing up. Girls,
on the other hand, a lot of you, that's probably
the first time you've ever heard it's your fault if

(48:40):
you fuck a deadbeat and then you become a single mom.

Speaker 5 (48:43):
Yep, there's a.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
Bunch of songs swimming through my head right now. Yeah. Yeah, But.

Speaker 1 (49:01):
To that, I do want to get into this article,
and this article is relevant. The discussion we've been having
is relevant to the article and the articles relevant to
this discussion, and that when people put themselves in that
situation and then try to make it work when it
was never going to work. That's one of the circumstances

(49:24):
under which domestic violence happens. And when children are raised
in households with this type of violence, they are more
likely to as adults, end up as perpetrators of all
kinds of violence. So these women don't talk at all

(49:45):
about male victims of venom partner violence. What they're talking
about is an organized effort at ending just ending violence
against women. And they give their statistics, which if seventy
percent of one way violence is perpetrated by women against men,

(50:07):
and one in three women globally have been subjected to
physical or sexual violence, that means probably about one hundred
percent of men globally have been have been subjected to
violence by a woman. And whether whether it's an intimate
partner or sexual violence, at least some point in your life,

(50:31):
A statistically one hundred percent of guys have been hit
at least once by a partner. And I wouldn't be
surprised to find out that that's true now, just to
just to clarify with this when they say physical or

(50:53):
sexual violence at least once in their lifetime. If a
woman doesn't have a job and her partner supports the
family and won't give her mad money in the United
States or in the UK and other European countries, that

(51:14):
constitutes under the law and under feminist standards, which are
what have influenced the law that that constitutes economic abuse
and it is considered a physical form of violence. Now,
before you say, well, that means men haven't been subjected

(51:35):
to physical violence. How many men, how many married men
listening right now have credit card that that you didn't
run up because because you're got the credit card and
went to you know, Black Friday sales at Walmart or
some shit like that. And what were you gonna say, Mike.

Speaker 2 (52:02):
I'll say anything. I always meant too. Sorry, that's weird.

Speaker 1 (52:08):
I swear I heard your voice.

Speaker 3 (52:10):
No, I think I think I think that was me
and I'm yes, No, those men are are various islent.
And you know, one of the one of the biggest
causes of divorce is financial problems within a marriage. Yeah,
you know, and that sets another thing that gets overlooked,

(52:32):
and it's typically it's typically it's the women who are
just spending money like it's you know, my money is
my money and his money is our money.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
Yeah. Yeah. By the way, I do see the super chats.
I will read them before we end, but I'm not
gonna interrupt this for him. But so that's one thing. Uh,
and there's a few other things like that, the things
that are considered domestic violence when a man does it

(53:07):
to a woman, but not when a woman does it
to a man. He gets a new job, and he
moves you across the country, like in the United States.
That's that's you know, a thousand miles or more, depending
on whether you're moving north and south or east and west,
and and you you no longer have close contact with

(53:27):
any of your friends and family. Domestic violence advocates will
accuse him of isolating you. But if you don't like
any of his friends and you systematically choose to you know, well,
I don't, I don't. I don't like Bob. I wish
you would stop hanging out with Bob. I think he's
a womanizer. I don't like George. I wish you would

(53:48):
stop hanging out with George. He drinks too much. I
don't like you know, Bill, I wish you would stop
hanging out with Bill. Bill dresses like a freak. You
know whatever. Bill's girlfriend as a hope, don't bring her
into this house. Well, what if that means Bill can't come?
I don't care. You know things like that. Women do
that all the time, right and nobody says, oh, you're

(54:13):
isolating him, Oh you're isolating him. No, it's why is
he hanging out with these dorks when he's got look
what he's got at home, as if he should have
to choose. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:28):
Meanwhile, if a guy says to his wife, this Christina
of yours keeps trying to convince you to break up
with me because I'm not giving you the moon on
a stick, he's isolating her. And yeah, even though you
don't hear a lot of you know, I've had friends

(54:51):
who've been in dare I say, toxic relationships with absolutely
worthless women, and we never bring it up. We just
quietly seethed behind the scenes, and we talk amongst ourselves, going,
isn't she a fucking kin? Yeah? She is. Are we
going to tell him no? No, that would just drive

(55:12):
us apart. He's not gonna he's not going to get it.
He's he's quite committed to this useless, fucking violent ho
And and if we if we say anything, it's not
going to drive them apart. It's going to drive us apart.
So let's just let's just let's just grin and bear
it and keep going until they arenevatively split up, and

(55:33):
they usually they do because eventually it reaches this well
literal breaking point where where where he's like, yeah, no,
this bitch was just pointless. Why didn't you guys tell me, Like, yeah,

(55:54):
we we considered it, we really did. But you know,
what would have happened. It wouldn't have gone well. So
we decided just to shut the fuck up and let
it play out as as expected. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (56:11):
I mean, some people have to learn the hard way,
you know, and it's unfortunate, but you know, you kind
of have to let things play out because you know,
some people just will not learn. They don't want to
hear the bad thing about this person that they love. Well,
I love her, she's the bad she's the greatest. Well, no,

(56:33):
she has flaws too. You know, it's it's not a
figment of your imagination. Those red flags she was giving you.
You decided to look the other way because she was
giving you pussy, and you know it's cute.

Speaker 1 (56:51):
If she's jealous of everyone else, you know, it's not
it's not a sign of love. If she doesn't want
you to spend time with your mom so times or
your sister or uh you know, uh, if she's upset
that you have There are women at your workplace that
that you have cordial work relationships with. That's not cute,

(57:13):
it's not dedicated. It's it's it's manipulative, manipulative. It's a
little bit, you know, a little bit over the top there.
And as soon as she's jealous of your male friends,
that's that's even more over the top.

Speaker 2 (57:30):
Right.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
That's an individual that may have some some serious mental
health issues that need treated. Women with borderline personality disorder
have that struggle, and it's it's one of those things
that that struggle doesn't go away just because they know
that they have borderline personality disorder and their in treatment,

(57:54):
they still have to try to rein that in and
some do some work very hard at it, and they
are the best people they can be. And there are
men who can have relationships with them and keep their
relationship functional because they will hold that woman accountable for

(58:15):
her end of that. But most men are not equipped
to do that because they're raised to not criticize women.
And if you are one of those guys, you should
not have a relationship with that woman. And then there
are women who pretend to try to rein that in,
but they don't actually do it. Yeah, and they always
have it.

Speaker 3 (58:37):
Yeah, because accountability requires self awareness.

Speaker 1 (58:41):
Right, And it's I'm not being jealous for no reason.
I was worried about X y Z. Yeah, you know,
I just you have to be very very careful with that.
Same with narcissists. She has to be the most important
person in the room, right if she has to be

(59:02):
the center of attention, and she gets upset if she's not.
You know, like it's one thing to be with somebody
who's a showman, an exhibitionist, not nudity necessarily, but you know,
the person that tells all the jokes and and and
likes to be a fashion plate and stuff like that,
that earns enough money to pay for those things. That's

(59:27):
that's somewhat borderline, right. But when you have somebody that
has to one up other people's stories every single time
and can't just can't tolerate someone else being the center
of attention, that's a huge red flag. Like that's a

(59:48):
red flag that'll cover a football field. That's a run flag.

Speaker 2 (59:52):
Mhm.

Speaker 5 (59:55):
Right.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
But these people aren't concerned with that. They're concerned with
one in three women globally, not the fact that most
DV relationships are two way, and of the ones that
are one way, most of them are female perpetrated. So

(01:00:17):
what are we looking at here? They want legislation, they
want they're they're they're going to say again, let's see,
we looked at this last week. Right feminists have been

(01:00:37):
addressing this for thirty years, nearly thirty years as worldwide,
within governments, within uh world government organizations, and what does
it say? Level of violence remain largely unchanged. They've accomplished nothing. Nothing,
we want to have you pay us to do more. Nothing.

(01:01:01):
But what are they mad about the rise of anti
rights movements, shrinking civic spaces and backlash against women's rights
continue to undermine efforts to prevent violence against women and
girls that have achieved absolutely nothing, fueling a rise and
attacks against women's rights activists. So we just read in

(01:01:22):
the last couple of weeks what they think is an
anti rights movement us talking about the fact that men
also experience domestic violence, that women can be perpetrators, and
that there needs to be if there's going to be
a system to address it, it needs to go both ways,
and it needs to focus on teaching people nonviolent conflict management.
That's anti rights, that's what they're talking about. You feel

(01:01:46):
like an anti rights activist, Lauren.

Speaker 3 (01:01:50):
Anti what now?

Speaker 1 (01:01:52):
What about you, Mike, do you think your anti rights?

Speaker 2 (01:01:56):
Well, they call me men's right sack or men's rights advocate.
So in some degree I'm in favor of human rights,
but to other degrees I'm not. So it's a sticky process.

Speaker 1 (01:02:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:02:18):
Yeah, I wouldn't say that I'm anti right in any
sense of the form, because what are we talking about?
What is a right? Let's let's start the discussion there.
What are they deeming is a right? You know, that's
a good question. Are we talking about this supposed right

(01:02:40):
to women's healthcare, which really means pro abortion? Well, no,
I'm against that. I am fully against that. Sorry, nope.

Speaker 1 (01:02:52):
What about the for for a right to make taxpayers
pay for women's sanitary products.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
A right should be the ability to do what you
want within the confines of the law, without the law
coming down on you for doing that. A right should
be the ability to do what you want without infringing
on the rights of anyone else. And that's it seems

(01:03:29):
to be what it comes down to. As long as
you're not hurting anyone else. You should have the right
to do whatever you want without hurting anyone else, and
if at any point those rights are infringed, we come
down hard on that ship. You shouldn't have the right

(01:03:49):
to food. You should have the right to buy food,
but you shouldn't have the right to be given food.
You should have the right to purchase healthcare without having
that right denied for frivolous reasons, like your political opinions.

(01:04:14):
You shouldn't have the right to be given things. You
should have the right to take things as long as
it's not hurting anyone else or.

Speaker 3 (01:04:26):
Earn them.

Speaker 2 (01:04:28):
Them.

Speaker 1 (01:04:29):
Yeah. Well, in the United States, we call that the
right to pursue happiness, and it's in our Constitution, and
a lot of people will point to that and talk
about rights to be given things as if that they
have a right to receive happiness. But it's the right

(01:04:50):
to pursue happiness. So when the Constitution was initially written,
that right looked like maybe getting a job and earning
money and buying things, or maybe going out into the
wilderness and creating a life for yourself, building your own

(01:05:12):
home out of out of logs and mud. You know
that you turn into something like cement and you know,
hunting and maybe farming a little. Right today, there's a
lot less farming and going out into the wilderness because
that's corporate or government controlled, and a lot more getting

(01:05:35):
a job and earning money and buying things. But it's
still the same right even if people object that, you know,
they can't take away from corporations. But yeah, I believe
in the right to be left alone, right, the right

(01:05:56):
to not be interfered with unless you interfere with other
people wrongly, and that that right hasn't been respected in
this country or in the world for a long time.
But yeah, it's it's supposedly anti rights. If you want

(01:06:17):
men who are accused under say hashtag me too behavior
to have a right to do process in the court
system and to have a right to not be punished
for some allegation that's made against them unless the evidence
besides the accuser's testimony, proves that they did what they

(01:06:39):
are accused of and that it is a violation of
the accusers' rights. But you know, we are considered anti
rights activists because we don't support a right to get
somebody incarcerated or otherwise punished, fired, canceled, whatever, just on

(01:07:04):
the basis of an allegation. So what's their big goal.
They've given us one the overall aim. I hate the
way this thing is set up. There we go. The
overall aim of act ACT is to create an enabling

(01:07:28):
environment for women's rights organizations, smooth grease the wheels, smooth
the pathway, and support the leadership and resilience of women's
rights movements. Again, this is gendered. They don't want They're
not talking about human rights movements. They're talking about movements
that only serve women their advocacy and campaigning efforts to

(01:07:50):
influence EVAW policy. ACT will achieve its results through direct
investments in feminist women's rights organizations, investments strengthened institutional capacities, resilience,
coalition building, network in leadership.

Speaker 3 (01:08:08):
So it's about money, Yeah, they they want your money, yep,
because the money we have spent so far has gotten
us so much gains. They've made so many wins in
this arena that they still need more money.

Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
Yeah, because in thirty years of having support from governments
all over the world, all around the world, every single
country except a tiny few that maybe don't have that
much level of organization to them, they have achieved absolutely nothing, nothing,

(01:08:50):
fuck and all. Yep, that's been helpful. And they then
they have this whole chart of you know, this is
what we're going to do. We're gonna they want more
institutional work, more women's rights organizations. So the structure of

(01:09:10):
women's rights organizations usually are like they'll have the set
of people that they consider their grassroots, and then they'll
have the people who are like they're volunteers that do
physical labor, that do paperwork and shit like that on
the groundwork, the people that go take petitions around or

(01:09:33):
sit with somebody in court or whatever, and they don't
get paid that much unless there's a grant from the
government to pay them. And then above that they'll have
their board that meets like six times a year and
makes hundreds of thousands of dollars and doesn't actually do anything.

(01:09:53):
And that's where most of the money that goes to
these organizations ends up. But they are wanting to conspire
with each other. So all these these women's rights organizations
shared advocacy agenda. They network, Uh, they look at what
has worked in one country. How do we get this

(01:10:15):
law passed, how do we get you know this this
money coming into our organization. We did these things. You
should try them too, right, knowledge sharing across the movement.
So what they learn in India they can apply in Africa.
What they learn in the United States, they can apply

(01:10:36):
in the UK. And they want to make sure that
there aren't any women's rights groups that aren't part of
this network. So no, no, no, rogue women's rights groups
out there that are actually doing anything about domestic violence,
because then the cash cow will die. They they want

(01:11:00):
intersectional feminism involved. They want coalition building across not just
feminist groups, but other groups. So they want to infiltrate
other human rights groups, government organizations, non government organizations. They
want a network of data, research and evidence that they

(01:11:25):
can use. And when I say data research and evidence,
I mean manipulated because feminists basically do manipulate their research
to obtain statistics that they want instead of actual evidence.
And then engagement of key partners and networks. So when

(01:11:50):
they say non traditional actors here, they're talking about again
government organizations, church organizations, and people who will give them
money and what do they want to do? So they
gave us a couple examples here. They have these two protocols,

(01:12:17):
so they're talking about shared agendas in Africa and South America.
Uh that that will they'll do sexual violence research in
in South America. They will provide funding to feminist groups
in South America and Latin America. And they both they

(01:12:41):
have programs the Maputo Protocol in Africa and the Esperanza
Protocol in uh IN in Latin America, and we will
be looking a little bit at both of those. Next
week will be we'll be reading. We might start looking

(01:13:05):
into the Maputo Protocol this week because we still have
a little bit of time. But last but not least
on this. And I don't know if this is hidden.
See if I can I don't think there's any further
down I can go the UN Trust Fund, which the

(01:13:34):
UN Trust Fund comes from money that the UN takes
from the nation states that support the UN, So any
nation that pays United Nations dues, essentially there we go
will provide grants to emerging women's rights coalitions at the

(01:13:55):
regional or subregional level in Africa or Latin America. So
they're funneling money from whatever countries are paying into the UN.
They're funneling money from that to feminist organizations in Africa
and Latin America. So your tax dollars because the United

(01:14:15):
States does still pay dues, the UK does still pay dues.
Any European country you're in does still pay dues to
the United Nations, anybody that's part of the United Nations Coalition,
they're all spending your tax dollars into this fund. Your
tax dollars are being sent to support organizations that are

(01:14:41):
spreading feminist ideology, patriarchy theory, the Duluthe model, the whole
shebang in South America and Africa if they can make
a lot of money doing that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:00):
This is why so many people think the UN is devil,
because we've often had this hypothesis that the devil will
present itself as something esthetically pleasing. It won't appears as
a demon as this red horned, hooved entity. It will

(01:15:22):
appear in the form of something that is pleasing to
the eye. And this is why so many people still
think the UN is the devil, because there's no UN men,
and the devil, as as presented in so many of
these fictional presentations, that's not what it is. This is

(01:15:49):
why there's a UN women, but there's no UN men.
Despite everything they say about how women should be given
everything and men should be given nothing. And this is
why they bring aboard the ember Watsons of the world,

(01:16:10):
these uh, these terrabic women sort of going, well, you
should give us all the things because look how angelic
we look. And yeah, no, we've we've been warned about
this for thousands of years, that the devil will present

(01:16:32):
itself as there's something pleasing to the eye, and yeah,
this is this is what this is. We generally find
women pleasing to the eye, and this hasn't always been
the case. Ancient societies are like Greeks and Romans sort
of understood this. They were like, no, women are no

(01:16:54):
more pleasing to the eye than men. Why would they be.
But we've been plunged in to this deception for so
long that that we think women are angels and men
are demons. But it's very much not the case. If anything,

(01:17:16):
Like I said, the devil presents itself in entities pleasing
to the eye, and that's very much women. I think
that's always been the case. Just to some degree. Men
do control society. There is such a thing as patriarchy,
but that patriarchy is led by women, especially esthetically pleasing

(01:17:48):
women neotonous women, I believe is the word. And yeah,
women have only become more neotonous as as the bond
the Arctanist women have been overrepresented in in the genome,

(01:18:12):
in those who pass on their genes, and we're now
at the point where most women look like children and
most women look like adults because evolution favors in the
arctanous women and accelerated men, acceleration being the opposite of theotity.

Speaker 3 (01:18:37):
Yeah, and it doesn't help that women have the availability of.

Speaker 5 (01:18:41):
Makeup and filters on their pictures to make them look
like something other than what they really are, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:18:51):
But really, what this is, this is, if we have
to boil it down, this is the top one percent
of women in whatever category you want to frame them as,
you know, neotonous or you know, if they're financially successful,
it's the top one percent of women using the top

(01:19:18):
one percent of men to basically say, these men are
are oppressing the rest of the ninety nine percent of us,
you know. And it's it's the it's the weak willed
of us that will look at that and say, oh

(01:19:38):
my god, yes, you're right, Emma Watson must be right
about everything. She says, because she's rich and successful, and
oh my god, how could she be wrong when she
says that that, you know, men are oppressing us, But
it's it's not the fucking case, and we completely overlook

(01:20:00):
the ninety nine percent of men who are not in
those positions. They're using them as a cudgel to divide
the rest of us. And it's I don't know how
you break the rest of the women out of that hypnosis,

(01:20:21):
because that's really what it is. They are being hypnotized
into believing that they are just you know, oh my
everything in the world is designed against me, and I'm
just a victim of everything and everyone. And look at
this man. He's so rich and I'm just so poor.

(01:20:42):
Instead of looking inward and you know, trying to better
themselves to be in a better position to where they
don't have to care about what other people think about them,
you know, and.

Speaker 1 (01:21:01):
You have this sense of entitlement that's sort of trained
into girls growing up. Every one they have is responded to,
and so they expect that that's going to happen throughout
their entire lives and when they hit adulthood and it
stops when it's not as prevalent for them, and it's

(01:21:21):
it's still more prevalent for them than it is for
for dudes. Right, Guys, Guys are on their own during
their teenage years quite a bit, and then in adulthood
they're punished for failing. Whereas girls get picked up and assisted,
guys guys get treated like it's it's illegal to be

(01:21:44):
a vagrant, right, And even if you're a vagrant because
your your your company that you worked for disappeared during
during the COVID crisis, or your ex wife is getting
every penny that you earn it your job, it's illegal
for you to sleep on the street in a lot

(01:22:04):
of places. It's illegal for you to not have a
place to live. And if you want assistance from the government,
you need an address. If you don't have an address,
they can't help you. So if your address is a
dumpster in an alley, you're just fucked, right. And if
you have a weakness like an addiction or sometimes a

(01:22:28):
mental health problem that needs treated, homeless shelters won't house you.
If there are women that want to use that homeless shelter,
you go to the back of the line as a man,
especially if those women have children. And sometimes even if
those women don't have children and you do.

Speaker 3 (01:22:47):
And yes, I was just about to say that, even
if you are a man and you have children, there
will be women. Even if the woman doesn't have children,
they will be placed above a man who does. Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:23:02):
And in fact, if you're homeless and you're a man
and you have children, instead of helping you, the government
might just try to take them and place them with
someone else.

Speaker 5 (01:23:09):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:23:11):
So you know it's again, these protocols that they're talking about,
they don't focus on human problems that encompassing all humans.
They focus only on the problems that affect the female
half of the human race. And if you have a

(01:23:32):
coalition to focus on problems affecting the male half, they
call you anti rights. They call you anti human rights
because to feminists, human rights are only women's rights.

Speaker 2 (01:23:46):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:23:48):
That's why they say women's rights are human rights. They
don't say it because people think that human rights don't
include women. They say it because they want people to
think human rights only include women.

Speaker 3 (01:24:00):
M hm.

Speaker 1 (01:24:03):
So these two protocols are written a little bit differently
from each other. This one, yeah, stupid cookies. This one
is more of a like this website is set up
to look at look at it in terms of a pamphlet.
There's a there's another link here that has the whole

(01:24:24):
protocol and it's again it's it's a more organized like.
This looks more like a governmental document, whereas if you
go back to the the UH Protocol to the African
Charter on Human and People's Rights on the Rights of
Women in Africa, which what did they call this the

(01:24:50):
a Maputo Protocol, which somebody in chat said that that
means Maputo means begging basket. Oh, that's Makuto with a C.
I don't know. This says Maputo with a pe. So
I don't know what that means. But it's it's it
looks more like something out of the the early feminist

(01:25:13):
you know, like the the Seneca fALS document MHM, where
they had a bunch of whereases and uh, there's were
accusing men of things. Men have done this, men have
done that to women. Women deserve this and women deserve that.
This has more this is what's going on in Africa.

(01:25:36):
So there's an African union, uh and and uh there's
this has been composed based on based on the writings
that that were involved in composing the African Union, and

(01:25:58):
so it it's cites law from that, and it starts
out talking about the African Charter on Human and People's Rights. Interestingly,
that interesting that they say human and people's rights. Interesting
way of saying that, I don't know what the difference

(01:26:19):
between humans and people would be, but I suppose somebody
does to supplement the provisions of the African Charter the
Assembly of Heads of State and government. So this is
they want this to be continent wide, not just some
nation in Africa that they're they're focusing on, but the

(01:26:41):
entire continent, all of the nations in the Union. They're referencing, uh,
the Non Discrimination Article of the African Charter on Human
and People's Rights. They are referencing the the article on

(01:27:02):
anti discrimination. Article eighteen calls on all states parties to
eliminate every discrimination against women, just women right and ensure
the protection of the rights of women as stipulated and
international declarations and conventions. And then it also cites Article

(01:27:28):
sixty and sixty one. So it sounds like the African
Union already has enshrined women's rights in its version of
a constitution. In its charter. Basically that these are recognized
within the Charter. But and it says here too, recalling

(01:27:48):
that women's rights have been recognized and guaranteed in all
international human rights instruments, notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Coveent on Civil and Political Rights, International Covent
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention of the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its optional Protocol,

(01:28:13):
the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child,
and all other international and regional conventions. So right there
in that statement they give the reason why this thing
that they've produced should be completely unnecessary, Like women's rights
are guaranteed in every form of government communication to the

(01:28:38):
world about human rights Internationally, they've been recognized, they've been
recognized in the African Union, and that they've been guaranteed
by parts of the Charter. So given all of that,

(01:28:58):
what the hell do they need to ask for? So
we're gonna skip a lot of the rest of this.
It just mentions more government organizations. Their claim concerned that
despite the ratification of the African Charter on Human and
People's Rights and other international human rights instruments by the

(01:29:21):
majority of states parties and their solemn commitment to eliminate
all forms of discrimination and harmful practices against women. Women
in Africa still continue to be victims of discrimination and
harmful practices.

Speaker 3 (01:29:34):
Oh my god, it's just fucking women anywhere everywhere, they're
all just fucking victims. I'm so sick of this ship.

Speaker 2 (01:29:42):
Whereas men are just well, it doesn't matter, doesn't It's
just like the seed on It looks like so many
other maps that we need to concentrate on Africa in
the Middle East, because they don't give women human rights
all right, to what degree, to the get do they
give men human rights? Well, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

(01:30:02):
It's automatically. Assume that men automatically have rights. Do you
think men in Africa automatically have human rights? Another thing
they do. Do you think that men in the Middle
East automatically have human rights? I'm sure you think they do,
because you know, this is this is the paradigm we're

(01:30:23):
presented with in the West, in particularly in the in
the European West. We don't need to worry about men's
rights because men just always have rights, right, even in
these blackwater African countries where the very concept of rights
has never particularly existed until us evil Europeans came along

(01:30:48):
and tried to present people with the concept of human
rights in general. But then another bunch of Europeopan of
European and European people came along and said, well, what
rights are are women's rights. We don't need to bother

(01:31:09):
about men's rights because men's rights just automatically exist everywhere,
even in the fucking Sahara desert. Men automatically have human rights,
So we don't need to bother about any of that shit.
What we mean by human rights is women's rights and
men and in fact, go fuck themselves like if and

(01:31:32):
the Europeans have tried to improve the lives of Africans
for the last two hundred years or so, but it
never occurred to them that that would include men's rights.
And I'm like, and they keep calling us racist for
all this shit, but I'm like saying, maybe African men

(01:31:52):
also deserve human rights. Maybe Middle Eastern men also deserve
human rights. No, no, how very day you no men automatically,
have you been right? So we don't need to bother
with them?

Speaker 3 (01:32:05):
Well, see the takeaway here is that two rights make
a wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:32:09):
There you go, that's the thing feminists argue men have
all the rights. Women deserve some of them, and in
order to have some of them, you have to take
them away from men. But let's say the right to
do process. The right to do process is the right
of an accused person in a court case. Due process

(01:32:31):
is a standard of presentation, basically a standard of examination
wherein the court looks not just at what the accuser says,
and wherein the court doesn't necessarily presume the accused guilty,
but instead you present evidence. You have the right to

(01:32:53):
make arguments into your defense. You have the right to
confront your accuser, and you have the right to tear
your accuser story apart to see if the accuser is lying,
because some accusers do. And that due process involves things
like the state shouldn't incarcerate you for years and years
without a trial, making you wait with endless delays. The

(01:33:19):
state gives you a right to a speedy trial that
you can waive if you need to make delays, But
if you don't, then the state has to act fast
in order to make a determination, rather than just keeping
you in jail and definitely without a hearing, which is
what they did to some of the J six victims.

(01:33:40):
Many of the Jay six victims that they referred to
as perpetrators, many of them were kept for quite some
time without a trial and would have continued to be
kept without a trial if the election had gone in
the other direction. And they're not the only ones this
is done to, but it does happen a lot to

(01:34:02):
political prisoners, even in the United States, where we think
we're better than everyone else about that we're not.

Speaker 3 (01:34:11):
We're clearly we're supposed to be.

Speaker 1 (01:34:16):
And similarly, just the right to be not interfered with
the right to be left alone. So it's criminal. It's
a criminal act for somebody to act on your body
without your consent, But it's more of a criminal act
if it's done to a woman than if it's done
to a man, and it's especially more of a criminal

(01:34:39):
act if a man does it than if a woman
does it. So clearly it's not equal, it's not being
treated equally, and in some instances a woman can completely
get away with it because when the state tries to
prosecute her the way that it would prosecute a man,
the criminal act that they accuse her of doesn't. It's

(01:35:02):
defined in such a way that it doesn't include women
as perpetrators, and therefore she gets off scott free. That's
even happened in one case we covered a while back
where the perpetrator was the mother and the victim was
her two year old child. So so yeah, here they

(01:35:26):
are again. My my take on this is right. We
just went through and read all of the ways that
world government organizations and various other government organizations, world non
government organizations the charter that they are talking about, for

(01:35:48):
for for the African Union UH and UH African other
African organizations have all made a commitment to a eliminate
all forms of discrimination and harmful practices against women. That
this has been established since the nineteen nineties. This is

(01:36:09):
a thing that exists. They're already doing it, they've been
working on it, and women are still victims of discrimination
and harmful practices. According to these people, they have achieved.
How much have they achieved? Tuck and all nothing clip,

(01:36:33):
all the money that's being put into this, all the
organizational activity, all of the individual grassroots movements, everything that
they've done. Their first lament when asking for more is
all of this work we've put in, we have achieved nothing.
Give us more money. Give us more power with the money,

(01:36:55):
and power we've had so far has been completely ineffective. Therefore,
you should trust us with more.

Speaker 3 (01:37:01):
Yes, the more and more tax dollars. I think that
needs to be explicitly explained is that we are all
being milked for these endeavors, and that that is the
thing that I cannot abide by. And you know, if
this was like some you know, private investor type of situation,

(01:37:23):
you know, okay, all right, have at it. I mean,
I still wouldn't agree with it. But the fact that
you're taking money out of my fucking paycheck for this, well,
and then all right, it is also incumbent upon the
United States to uh give over this tax money.

Speaker 2 (01:37:48):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:37:48):
It's it's not like they just like these feminists or
the UN or the whatever organization just says, oh hey,
please can we have I'm just gonna take a little
bit of out. No, the government has to be complicit
with this, so, you know, we we also need to
be looking at our leaders, you know, are the people

(01:38:08):
that we elect into office, and let them know we
are not okay with our money going towards these ridiculous
fucking regimes. Like I'm not okay with this. I don't
want my tax money going to that. But I mean,

(01:38:29):
you will be hard pressed to find a politician who
is not going to be on the take of any
kind of feminist organization, because that's just they want the
votes and they know that they know that they have
to get the women on board, right.

Speaker 1 (01:38:49):
And so's votes, guys.

Speaker 3 (01:38:52):
Right, And and so this this this argument or that
feminists like to say, oh, well, women, we don't have
any power room, No bitch, yes you do. And you
don't even understand how much power your voice has.

Speaker 1 (01:39:08):
But apparently they don't do anything with it.

Speaker 3 (01:39:11):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's it's just it stickens me to
the fucking back teeth. I'm just done.

Speaker 2 (01:39:20):
And women just need a little bit more power, just
a little bit more, and next month we'll need a
little little bit more. What you're gonna do with it?
What you're gonna do with all this power? We're going
to make sure that women have more power. Right, But
once you have that power, what are you going to do?
We're going to give women more power, right, But after that,

(01:39:44):
what are you going to do with it? We're going
to give women more power, oh sake.

Speaker 3 (01:39:50):
To do absolutely nothing?

Speaker 1 (01:39:54):
Yep.

Speaker 3 (01:39:55):
At least at least not what their intended goals are. Right,
You're not moving an inch forward towards your goal. What
they're looking for is world domination. And I mean, by
and large, I would kind of argue that they have
gotten it. But you know it's not enough. It's not

(01:40:19):
enough for them.

Speaker 1 (01:40:20):
And you know what women's organizations have achieved over the
last thirty years.

Speaker 2 (01:40:26):
The complete destruction of men's rights.

Speaker 1 (01:40:29):
Yes, three worldwide, by the way, worldwide. Okay, three out
of ten pregnancies are aborted worldwide. That's almost a third
of conceived human beings in the world being aborted. Dying
death by abortion, abortion being aborted, being aborted is the

(01:40:53):
true leading cause of human death in the world.

Speaker 2 (01:40:58):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:41:00):
Yes, it beats starvation, It beats war, heart, it beats murder,
it beats accidents, it beats heart conditions.

Speaker 2 (01:41:09):
I mean it is murder, to be fair, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:41:12):
But it beats it beats interpersonal violence, murder that that
people recognize as murder. Abortion is violent. It is murder.
It is uh the taking of a human life that
is not guilty of anything, right, and it is. It

(01:41:33):
is the largest number of deaths worldwide, the largest number
of human lives that end every year, are ended before
they are born by medical abortion. This is not counting miscarriages, right,

(01:41:58):
and it is not count abortions that are done to
prevent the death of the mother through UH because of
complications of the pregnancy.

Speaker 3 (01:42:10):
Which is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

Speaker 1 (01:42:14):
Right, That is elective abortions. So just that's what they've accomplished.
That's what they got done. They killed a third of
incoming humans. But aside from that, they have accomplished nothing
else except that they get a lot of money. And

(01:42:36):
I'm I'm I'm pretty convinced. And I remember reading different
connections here when we were going through it. The US
funding site that we were looking at, this is one
of the initiatives that has received money via that US
AIDS infection under the Humanitarian Initiative veil that that has

(01:43:00):
infected the entire world human the Humanitarian Initiative veil. If
you get a Humanitarian Initiative veil infection, you get to
get organized organizations like these in your country.

Speaker 2 (01:43:15):
UH.

Speaker 1 (01:43:15):
And then then when they start enacting policy and influencing
government policy and taking money from your country too, they
start siphoning off your nation's budget, you end up with
a full blown US AIDS infection. Uh, and eventually it
will cause all kinds of attacks on on your system

(01:43:37):
of immunity to bullshit.

Speaker 3 (01:43:41):
I mean, I don't know about anybody else, but it
sounds a whole lot like communism to me.

Speaker 1 (01:43:49):
So for the most part, Oh, I wanted to point
this out too. Right, they're firmly convinced that any practice
that hinders or endangers the normal growth and effect the
physical and psychological development of women and girls should be
condemned and eliminated. Not children, not humans, just women and girls.

(01:44:12):
Only the female half of the population gets this kind
of care. So yep. Oh, and they defined women women
means person persons of female gender, including girls. So girls
are women and we will.

Speaker 3 (01:44:35):
Now they can define what a woman is now they
define women.

Speaker 2 (01:44:39):
A woman is someone who deserves gimmes.

Speaker 1 (01:44:42):
Yes, yes, we will start next week. Uh at how
they think they're going to eliminate the discrimination of women, which, uh,
just bear in mind that these are these are the
new things they're gonna do after thirty years of doing

(01:45:02):
things that didn't work. So we shall see if they're
going to do anything different than they've already been doing,
but I will go ahead and get into our superchats now.
Richard Bierre sent us five dollars and said, so an
unrelated tangent like the one we kind of It wasn't
really unrelated, but I sent Hannah a link to a

(01:45:24):
video from an organization that produces sex education videos for
those starting puberty. This one was about how often and
how many morning after pills could be taken at a time.
Give me a flashback to hearing about one of the
girls who were groomed into prostitution and how one of

(01:45:46):
the girls was going to a clinic to get a
morning after pill on a daily basis. Another unrelated what, yeah,
that's that. That pill is a hormone pill. The morning
after pill is a hormone pill. It has side effects.
It does damage to your liver and your kidneys. It

(01:46:08):
changes your hormonal balance, It can do damage to your
reproductive system, it can do damage to your brain, it
can do damage to your circulatory system. And if you're
taking them every day, it's incredibly harmful. Then that's just
that pill. The birst control pill has its own issues.

(01:46:29):
Right not to say that boys who are groomed into
prostitution don't have their own issues, they get the hell
beat out of them, they get abused in ways that
cause permanent damage to the areas of their bodies that

(01:46:49):
are used for sex, and they're more likely because of
the type of abuse that they experience that they're they're
likely to get killed or get infected with STIs, so
they're they're not likely to survive their abuse and h.
But this is this is definitely a horrible circumstance for

(01:47:14):
girls that are in that circumstance, that are in that situation.
Given certain current events, there is going to be a
massive walking back of a lot of acceptance and tolerance
that so many people were advocating for. This is the
hard part, right, We have a population, a subset of

(01:47:36):
the the world population, that has been programmed to nice
themselves to death. They think they're being altruistic because they
are virtue signaling for groups that have more victim points

(01:47:57):
on the on the progressive stack that other groups, but
in reality, they're supporting criminals, violent people, abusers, and you know,
they they dysfunctions in society that result in people's deaths

(01:48:18):
and UH and also in a cycle of further abuse,
of further violence, further drug use further uh dysfunction. But
because the people that they are supporting have more victim
points in the progressive stack, and they are programmed to

(01:48:40):
put that detail before everything else, it's damn near impossible
to convince them that it is not okay for them
to support the dysfunction that they're supporting in those people,
and that the damage that they're tolerating to the people
around them because of that dysfunction, because viction points, well,

(01:49:05):
these people are victims and it's okay for them to
do these things and just be left at large in
public to continue to do these things. And if you object,
it's not because you don't feel obligated to tolerate these
things being done to you, right, It's not because you
got your head bashed in with a rock and you're
bleeding that you're upset. It's because this person is the

(01:49:27):
wrong color. If a person that was a white male
bashed your head in with a rock and you were
bleeding to death, you wouldn't say a word, right. That is,
they believe that logic, and so this is going to
continue to happen until we can deprogram that cult. That's
a very difficult prospect. We have merit at g gave

(01:49:55):
us five dollars and said, HBr talked three to seventy
three honey for the Badgers for the thought provoking conversation.
And I'm sure we've provoked a few thoughts tonight, especially
ones that are making these stupid choices and getting paid
for it.

Speaker 3 (01:50:11):
I hope they're all in the vertical chat.

Speaker 2 (01:50:13):
Hi, vertical chet, Hello special people.

Speaker 1 (01:50:17):
Yeah, I have vertical chat. Hasn't been too bad we had.
We've got Belle Rick in there, recognizing that once you
understand where it war, you will understand that men are
the enemy and the system of the system, and women's
rights are a weapon. Is this something that I've been
saying for a while. Uh. And of course somebody mentioned

(01:50:41):
the fact that you can tax more people if women work,
and that's one of the reasons why they wanted women's rights.
Absolutely yea. And yeah, somebody mentioned the organ organ harvesting
of people who've had the death penalty, which they can
do that depending on certain types of execution, but they

(01:51:03):
can't do that if the execution used poison or the
electric chair, because the electric chair literally cooks you, so
you really can't harvest anything after that. But but yeah,
we've we have. We've actually had some decent chats from

(01:51:25):
the uh from the vertical chat. This time they were
they were actually uh, they grasped what we were talking about,
didn't call us freeze.

Speaker 3 (01:51:34):
So I saw that comment.

Speaker 2 (01:51:37):
Well, there's been a.

Speaker 1 (01:51:38):
Few people that have made that comment. I don't understand
the the crazy nasty ass honey badger meme is not
a dead meme. People are still using that meme. Uh,
and it's actively being used now by the right. They
picked up on it, which it's kind of like your
boomer parents picking up on your your me. But you know,

(01:52:02):
it's still it's still a known meme. So the idea
that you know, we're us using it makes us fur
ez is kind of silly. But are still it still
gets promoted.

Speaker 3 (01:52:15):
I think our avatars kind of maybe lend a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:52:19):
Yeah, we took a little far, but.

Speaker 3 (01:52:22):
It's what we do.

Speaker 1 (01:52:25):
Hell, I'll be honest, I will be honest. I like
using avatars because I don't like being on camera. It
makes me feel like I'm too much the center of attention.
I'm not comfortable with it, and I prefer not to.
And that's the way it is. I mean, I wouldn't
mind switching to in our avatar that looks like they

(01:52:47):
you know, me, instead of like a badger. But it's
still I would rather use an avatar, like, I don't
want people focusing on me and how I look like
I want to. I want people focusing on the issue
that talking about and looking up more information about it
on their own and uh, you know, considering what's going

(01:53:07):
on in the world and what they can do about it. Yeah,
so there we go. I don't know. Mangaka ninety two
says we should use anime wife who avatars, but I
think this would be a distraction. Yes, so we might
stick with we might stick with the honeymatger ones and

(01:53:29):
the panda. But in any case, that is all of
the super chats super child. I mean, we didn't get
any super chats, no rumble rants, no anything from any
place but our our specific communication line, which is I

(01:53:50):
actually kind of like that. Like I said, you know,
it's good to tip us directly instead of relying on
any social media. Uh so this tip jar right, And
I don't know if I did that spiel at the
beginning of the show, so I'm going to do it
now for those who I haven't who haven't heard from

(01:54:15):
us before I thought I still had that open. I
guess I don't. Maybe I won't. Oh there it is,
as I say, maybe I won't do it now because
I can't find it. But this, this show has a
habit of dealing out these types of thought provoking discussions
for everybody. We do. We do talk about some more

(01:54:35):
frivolous things. Sometimes we do more lighthearted shows. Sometimes we
haven't in a while because every time I open up
something about world feminist organizations, I find like ten new
things to talk about because there's just so much. It's
like I said, it's not a rabbit hole, it's a
whole rabbit warren. But we do this all the time,

(01:54:59):
and as experiences both long past and recent have demonstrated,
the provoked thoughts are fighting back. They've made it clear
that for people like us, relying on third party payment
platforms like Patreon to fund our work is treading on
thin ice or building our house in the path of
a rapidly growing wildfire. They have tried multiple times to

(01:55:21):
shut us down, silence us. We've been throttled, shadow band, suspended, stricken.
I guess YouTube you get strikes like We've had all
manner of don't do that, don't say that, don't talk
about that, you don't think about that, wrong think punishments

(01:55:41):
from various social media and we know that various third
party payment platforms have been pressured by the government in
the past and by the banks currently to silence people
like us as well, so we don't want to just
rely on that. In light of that, we strongly encourage
our supper orders to switch at least their support for

(01:56:01):
us to Feed the Badger dot com, which is the
most stable way to help us out. Can't get canceled
by something like Patreon if you're not going through them.
If you want to tip us directly instead of relying
on any social media platforms, tip jar. The link for
that is feed the Badger dot com slash tip just
the tip. That's where the superchows come from. And as always,

(01:56:25):
the same risk applies to our social media platforms, which
you should is why you should further provoke the thought
police by tracking our thought provoking discussions on Honey Badger
Brigade dot com, which is our blog where you can
find your way to all of our content, as well
as a link to Feed the Badger dot com in
the drop down menu at the top of the page.

(01:56:46):
So if you only want to remember one of those things,
remember honey Badger Brigade dot com. And when you get
to honey Badger Brigade dot com, just explore our menu
to find out how to support us. And with that,
I will thank everybody for listening. Thanks to my two
co hosts for going through this very annoying and dry
shit and for the very thought provoking discussion at the beginning,

(01:57:12):
and thanks to Brian again for working in the background
to make sure the vertical chat can happen because I
still haven't familiarized myself enough to make that a possibility. Fair,
you know, fair excuse here. Between HBr and my regular job,
I'm averaging eighty hours a week right now, so that's

(01:57:36):
why I don't have time to learn anything new. But
thanks everybody, and good night all.

Speaker 3 (01:57:43):
Good night, y'all.