UN Women: Mawwiage is what bwings us together today! | HBR Talk 376

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 another 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.” Eventually. :)

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome to HBr Talk three seventy six. Marriage
is what brings us to geta Today. I'm your host,
Tanna Wallen here with the personification of perceptivity, Mike Stevenson,
and and we have the dose in charge, Brian Martinez
in the background. You won't get to hear him, but

(00:21):
he is making it possible for us to have the
vertical live stream as well as the horizontal live stream.
And it's always good when you can remain vertical when
you're supposed to be awake. So we'll see if I
can do that today. No sleep today, So but in

(00:42):
the meantime, before we get into this riveting feminist tripe,
we gotta do what we gotta do. As always, Honey
Badger Radio dishes out a s. Morgas board of thought
provoking discussions, and as experiences both recent and long past
have demonstrated, the provoked thought are fighting back. They made
it clear that for people like us relying on third

(01:04):
party payment platforms like Patreon to fund our work, it's
treading on thin ice or building our house in the
path of a rapidly growing wildfire. In light of this,
we strongly encourage our supporters to switch at least their
support for us. To Feed the Badger dot com the
most stable way to help us out. And if you
want to tip us directly instead of relying on any

(01:25):
social media platforms, tip jar. The link for that is
feed the Badger dot com slash just a tip. And
as always, the same risk applies to our social media platforms,
which is why you should further provoke the thought police
by tracking our thought provoking discussions on Honey Badger Brigade
dot com, where you can find your way to all
of our content, as well as a link to feed

(01:45):
the Badger dot Com in the drop down menu at
the top of the page. And with that, we are
still on you and women. That sounds like some kind
of a drug, doesn't it, But it's not. It's unfortunately
just a well a misfortune that we're we're stuck with

(02:07):
you and women, and it's mostly because no matter what
country you're in right now, they're screwing around with your laws.
If you live in any nation on the continent of
South America or the continent of Africa, they are actively

(02:28):
fucking with your laws right now. And that's what we've
been looking at. This one is about Africa. And so
if it's normal in your culture for marriage to have,
say a tradition of the husband being the head of
household and the wife being his helpmate, you might not

(02:53):
like the feminist outlook on marriage here.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
It's like a drug that ruins your life and doesn't
even feel good, like meth.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
Heroine. Yeah, uh but but unfortunately, Well, I guess I
don't know how heroin would feel for other people, but
I know I'm allergic to all opiates, so I don't.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
I guess heroin is appropriate because it's named after a
female hero turns out to be uh an effect with
diminishing returns.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
Yeah, well, there aren't really very many real heroic female heroes.
There are a lot of things people call female heroes,
but actual heroes that are female are few and far between.

(03:54):
Very sad situation. You have to go back in history
to find them.

Speaker 2 (03:58):
For the most last the last we had in Britain
was Thatcher, and everyone hated her. The one the last
one before that was bout to see it, and that
was like two fucking thousand years ago, three thousand years ago,
I should say.

Speaker 1 (04:12):
So there you go, guys.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
And that's shrouded in the fog of history, shall we say.

Speaker 1 (04:20):
Yep, But I don't want to go through the entire
thing to hear about marriage. But there's a couple of
things that I do want to highlight. And this is
kind of interesting, right, and again this is you and women.
They want this encoded specifically into law in all nations

(04:44):
in Africa. The first one sounds okay, right, No marriage
still take place without the free and full consent of
both parties, duh, right, But the second one is interesting.
The minimum age for marriage shall be eighteen years would
have been sufficient if that's the age of majority their

(05:05):
age of adulthood there, which it might be, but that's
not what it says. It says the minimum age of
marriage for women will be eighteen years. So they only
want it encoded into law that women can't get married
before the age of majority. They don't want it encoded

(05:28):
into law that women cannot marry underage boys. Kind of interesting.
And then they want to dictate what marriage means. Monogamy
is encouraged as the preferred form of marriage, and that
the rights of women in marriage and family, including in

(05:51):
poly polygamoust marital relationships, are promoted and protected. So this
is another one they want. They want to say something
is wrong, but then they also want to control it.
Some cultures do have a tradition of a man being
able to have more than one wife, and it is

(06:14):
a cultural practice. It might be legal in the nation
because it is a cultural practice, so they want to
legislate that the culture has to change.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
Sorry, I had to read this step a few times. Monogamy.
Monogamy is encouraged as the preferred marriage, and that though
it should be, but that the rights of women in
marriage and family, including in polygamous marital relationships, are promoted
and protected. So we prefer monogamy on paper. But if

(06:50):
you happen to prefer uh, polygamy, that's fine too. This preference.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
It's not a rule, it's just a suggestion. So if
you want your country taken over by certain religions and
certain legal traditions or even the legal obligations that in force,

(07:20):
that you have to go ahead with polygamous relationships.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
If a particular religion tells you that it's okay, then
that's fine too. All right, Okay, that's good.

Speaker 1 (07:32):
So you know what's funny to me about this is
in the United States, a lot of social justice warriors
promote a lifestyle called polyamory, in which a couple may
have another partner or two other partners or four or

(07:54):
five depending on what their what their choices are, and
one might have multiple male partners, or a man might
have multiple female partners and they think it's great, which
for most people, it's not. Most most couples, most groups

(08:15):
can't really handle it, and especially if there is not
a not a good gender balance to it, a lot
of jealousy ensues and it results in a catastrophic breakdown
of the relationship over time and eventually a blowout in

(08:35):
most cases. But they encourage it anyway, and in particular
multiple men with one woman, but apparently they're upset if
the genders are reversed on that because you know, tradition
is bad.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
And this and this is why we keep pointing out
that the affectations of Islam, although of Westerners like to
call Islam just just this horrifically misogynistic system where where
where women are not given any advantages and only men

(09:15):
are given the advantages. But here here we see Islam
offers women the opportunity what, yes, it offers women the opportunity.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
To be with.

Speaker 2 (09:32):
Uh, the perfect man who earns millions every year, and
and it offers multiple women to be with that same man.
Like this is difficult to obtain in a monogamous culture
where it's one woman to one man, because a lot

(09:54):
of men will rise to the top of the heap,
and that leaves shall we say, three quarters of men
below the heap and uh and and in a culture
where women demand all the power that men have, it
is gives women the opportunity two to crowd together in

(10:16):
fours and fives and sixes and and and crowd around
the most successful men. It's the tournament species, folks. It's
like what gorillas have. It's like, well, a lot of
primates have where where women don't have to worry about
having to settle for a for a lesser man or

(10:39):
even the average man, the vast majority of them can
can rally around the most successful men. And this is
what we're seeing in so much of the West nowadays,
ever since, ever since feminism h took route in our civilization,

(11:03):
Like they all want the best of men, Like eighty
percent of women want the best one percent of men,
And like, how is that supposed to work? If anything
is supposed to be monogamous. But yeah, it doesn't make
sense from the from the pair bonding point of view,

(11:25):
but it makes perfect sense from the tournament point of view,
where where the majority of the women surround the the
top percentile of men. And I feminists will say, this

(11:46):
isn't feminism. Polygamy isn't feminism. Yes it is. Yes, it
fucking is, because you all want resources from the very
best of men. And so obviously, when when feminism reaches
reaches its final conclusion, you will, you will all you'll

(12:08):
be fine with sharing the top one percent of men
because it's much better for you than than just pair
bonding with someone at your same level. And how to
quite explain what that same level is, Well, it's mostly financial,

(12:29):
it's mostly based on resources. It's a difference between pair
bonding and and tournament. Like I say, this is what
made us distinct from the other ape species, that we
could finally develop a pair bonding situation where women can

(12:56):
be like, I don't need resources, I just need a
man who's at my same level and will help me
raise my children at the same level. But and that's
what that is what we had for many thousands of years.
But that wasn't good enough for women. Certainly not since

(13:17):
the advent of romantic chivalry, and certainly not since the
advent of the politicization of romantic chivalry that we call feminism.
So yeah, the end game of feminism is in fact
something a bit like Islam. Yeah, I know, I know

(13:38):
that's hard for people to hear because they think, well,
surely Islam is the opposite of feminism. No, no, it is.
It is. It is the end game of feminism where
women can just be like, I don't give a fuck
about men as human beings. I only we only give
a fuck about men as as as as bank as wallets,

(14:01):
as resource monkeys. And if it and if it means
four of us have to share the same rich man
rather than each one of us having to pare bond
with the average man, then hell yes, we'll take four
of us crowding around the richest man, or indeed more

(14:25):
than four of us, or indeed all of us crowding
around the richest entity called the government. And that's what's
happening at this point. The majority of women in any
given country in the West is crowding around this abstract

(14:48):
secular replacement for the male godhead, that is the government.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
The most well known historical incarnation that I think is
King King Solomon and his five hundred wives. And I
just I just want to remind everybody that in in
the Book of Proverb Proverbs written by King Solomon, no

(15:16):
less than four times he talked about just how awful
it is living under the same roof as a quarrelsome woman.
He also he also wrote other verses about the character
of a quarrelsome woman, and you know, it's just stuff

(15:40):
like that, but no less than four times he specified
that it was better to live in the far far
corner of the roof of the house than under the
roof with a quarrelsome woman exposed to the to the
weather and sandstorms and whatever else might be happening, because

(16:04):
who wants to be around her? Who wants to be
around that bitch? Right? And and as essentially the conclusion
of having five hundred wives is that that bitches be unpleasant.
So there you go. Uh And in terms of in

(16:28):
terms of you know, multiple partner marriage, though it's it
is very interesting to me feminists treat polygamy uh in
in Western countries as though it demeans women and as

(16:49):
though it is ownership and such, right, but then then
they encourage polyandria. So what does that say about how
they think of men? And in the meantime, you know,
again like this, this is a cultural thing. You cannot

(17:12):
just dictate in law that a culture will change. It
doesn't work. And the way that people handle it is
simply the same way that people who want to be
in polyamorous relationships in the West handle it. They have
maybe one couple actually gets married, maybe two couples actually
get married, and then all four of them live together,

(17:36):
but they're obviously not all four able to be married
to each other. Some of the partners aren't legally married,
and some of them are. And it doesn't seem to
be the thing that destroys these relationships. Like I said,
it usually does result in things like jealousy, and they're

(17:59):
really rotten. Thing about polyamorous relationships as opposed to you know,
cultural polygamy is that a lot of times you have
it starts out open, or people confuse polyamory with open relationships,
and then you have this discovery that for every opportunity

(18:27):
the male partner gets to be with somebody other than
the female partner, the female partner will get ten to
fifty opportunities and turn most of them down but not
all of them, and she will accept more than he

(18:50):
gets in most cases, and that usually leaves him out
in the cold. And it's particularly bad thing when it
is that that gender balance, because men do have stronger
and more frequent libido than women do. Where with polygamous relationships,

(19:13):
at least, what you've got going on in that household
is the sex with the the lower libido gets to
split the the wifely duties among themselves, and the sex
with the higher libido has more opportunity, so that that

(19:35):
that actually fits the sex is better. Not that it's
an ideal relationship. I have come to the conclusion that
for the majority of people, monogamy works best. It's a
very rare thing for you run into people that actually
can handle any polyamorous relationship, whether it's polygamy, polyandry, whether

(20:01):
it's an open relationship, whatever. I think that more often
than not, what you end up with is multiplication of
the conflicts that take place in relationships, the problems that
you have to solve in order to keep your relationship strong.
And you don't necessarily get a multiplication of the dedication

(20:22):
that it takes and the the ethics that it takes
in your relationship to keep the relationship strong, and so
it falls apart. But again, you know, I wouldn't go
to some other country where the norm is polygamy and

(20:46):
say you guys have to change, because I think because
that's bullshit. Things are different in a culture where that's
the cultural norm that you know, that's their business to
figure out, and I don't a world government shouldn't be
getting involved in that. And in fact, I genuinely think

(21:09):
the government should get the fuck out of marriage altogether.
The only thing that government should have to do with
it is if you make a marriage contract and then
someone violates the contract, the other person should be able
to take the violator to court for breach of contract.
That's it. Everything else, you know, should be handled by

(21:34):
the contract and not by the government. The church maybe
if your if your marriage is through a church, and
if it's not a contract, would would still cement the marriage.

Speaker 2 (21:50):
I have to I have to contend this idea that
men have a greater libido than women. It seems that
way in a lot of contexts, but when you look
at the the kind of entertainment that women prefer compared
with the kind of entertainment that men prefer. I mean

(22:11):
men prefer action movies and women prefer romance movies and that,
and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
Yeah, but romance movies are made to appeal to women's egos,
not necessarily their libido. No, like especially rom coms like
those are those are ego not they're they're vanity boosters.

Speaker 2 (22:37):
And again we look at the pawn that men and
women consume. There's this stereotype that men that men need
pornography because they can't possibly survive without thinking of sex
every seven seconds. And that's a total lie. By the way,
this one of this is one of these factoids that's
just been expressed across the civilization with their ever being

(23:00):
fact checked, that men think about sex every seven seconds,
without ever expressing how often women think about sex. I
think I think women think about sex more than men do.
And is only one element of this difference, the idea

(23:25):
that men think about sex more than women think about sex.
It seems like utter bollocks to me. It's just the
main difference is what turns men on and what turns
women on. Men can easily find something that turns them
on sexually. With women, they find it more difficult to

(23:48):
find something that turns them on sexually, because with men,
all they need is a woman, a woman who looks
like a woman and acts like a woman, and who
is generally nice to them. But a woman is not
turned on until she has found a towering resource monkey,

(24:10):
you know what I mean. That's more difficult to find.
It's not it's it's it's not though the women have
a lower libido. It's just that they have higher standards
in partners.

Speaker 1 (24:21):
Than there's There's been numerous studies that have shown that
men have more frequent and more intense sexual desires in women.
Women might think about sex a lot, but a lot
of women's thoughts about sex are about how to use
it in a manipulative way, or that's still how to
be the center of a man's No, it's not libido.

(24:45):
That's not libido. Uh, that that's ego again, like libido
is your desire, your desire for sexual gratification and sexual
intimacy and relativeness isn't intimacy and it's not sexual gratification,
it's material gratification. So there there is a difference, and

(25:11):
it's the reason why women are so able to use
sex to manipulate men, because I.

Speaker 2 (25:16):
Guess that explains why almost all prostitutes are women.

Speaker 1 (25:20):
Yeah, well, almost all prostitutes are are Almost all prostitutes
are are in service to men, but that there are
prostitutes that are in service to women as well, And
and that's the other thing. Women's libido peaks at a

(25:42):
much older age than men's libido peaks at, which is odd.
But see, then you get these horny, divorced, middle aged
women that go to foreign countries where male prostitution is
more it's easier to find on sex tourism vacations basically,

(26:11):
and usually they go looking for teenage boys, which I
think is really gross, But that's because I raised kids.
I would think that most women who raised kids would
think that was really gross, but apparently that's not the case.
Then again, some women apparently like men who are built
like cattle. So what do I know? But yeah, women's

(26:37):
women's libido is weirder than men's libido, and women will
respond with sexual readiness to things that have absolutely nothing
to do with sex. But they in terms of actually
being in the mood and deciding to do something or

(26:57):
wanting to do something, it is a more frequent experience
among men, and as a result, women do end up
using sex to manipulate men. Women do sell sex more
than men sell sex. And you know, men are stuck
in a position of involuntary celibacy more often than women are.

(27:24):
And I would say the women that are all clamoring
for the top guy that don't merit the top guy
are not involuntarily celibate. They're just refusing to uh to
play in their own league. So whereas there are men

(27:45):
who don't have a league, and it's it sucks and
it doesn't seem fair that there should be people who
don't have a league, there are not very many women
who don't have a league, but there are men who
don't even even women who are in the category of
like profound intellectual disabilities and physical disabilities like where that

(28:10):
might keep a man from being able to find a partner,
it doesn't keep a woman from being able to find
a partner. So you know, there is a significant difference
in standards, and a lot of it is partly because
now part of it I think is because men have
always had to be nicer, but part of it is

(28:32):
because men are more The word is desperate doesn't fit,
but definitely interested. Men are more interested.

Speaker 2 (28:44):
All things being equal, it sounds the reason that the
most sex desperate people the elderly, The elderly who have
not found a partner, and that seems to be the
case with women. Elderly or middle aged women who have
not yet found a partner are the horniest, but the

(29:05):
horniest males. It goes all the way up and down
the age spectrum, including men in their twenties and men
in their thirties, because they find it so difficult to
find a woman. And I don't think that's necessarily natural.
I think it's because we live in an age where
women have unbelievably high standards, and if anything, men have

(29:28):
unbelievably low standards, but not such low standards that they
will that they will get with a sixty year old woman.
And that's why a sixty year old woman has to
go to these tropical locations to find all the way
all the way to these tropical locations in order to

(29:48):
find a teenage man slash boys who's willing to give
it up for money. Whereas whereas, whereas men of all ages,
including teenagers, can have trouble finding a woman with low

(30:11):
enough standards, I mean even average enough standards to pair
up with the average twenty year old or teenage boy
such I mean, a woman in her twenties or indeed
a teenager woman or even a woman in her thirties

(30:33):
doesn't have to look for a male prostitute, because, as
Karen's often said, they could just go to a man
at a bar and whisper some whispers and sweet nothings,
some dirty somethings in a man's ear, and that's that.

(30:55):
They can just go ahead and do that, whereas whereas
men don't have option, And that seems normal to us
in this day and age. But let's not forget this
day and age has been ravaged with feminism for the
last dred years and indeed romantic chivalry for the last

(31:16):
thousand years. So it's hard to say how much of
this is natural, how much of this comes down to
the natural libido of men and women. I think men
and women have similar libidos. I think they both think
about sex all the time, especially if they're not having sex.

(31:39):
It's the younger they are down to and including teenage years,
the more they think about sex. But it's just it's
remarkably difficult for men in the West to find sex
unless they happen to be millionaires, and it's remarkably easy

(31:59):
for women in the world to find sex even if
they happen to be milkmaids.

Speaker 1 (32:04):
Or whatever whatever. By the way, we did get a
super super child from Meredith G for five dollars and
she said, HBr talk three seventy six honey for the Badgers.
Thanks for the thought provoking conversation and speaking of thoughts.
So you and women, not only are they wanting to

(32:26):
dictate how marriage works, but also where people how people's
agreements on where to live work. So in some cultures
it is normal that when men and women get married,
the man already has property. In fact, he's not an

(32:49):
eligible bachelor without it, and so when he gets married,
his wife is expected to move in with him because
he is her provider. And that's been historically traditional for
a long time. But in this they want it set

(33:13):
in all nations legislation. They want it legislated that the
husband and wife shall, by mutual agreement, choose their matrimonial
regime and place of residence. Which is interesting because if
you are in a polygamous marriage. So the husband already
has a mansion or palace or other big place of residence,

(33:38):
and he's got three other wives, and you are wife
number four. Do you really get to say, I want
you all to move to my village or my town,
my community, my city, my province, whatever, so that we
can be close to my family. It is quite an
interesting question. If they're not going to suggests that monogamy

(34:02):
is required, then it's kind of silly to suggest that
the the the fourth wife gets to say and where
the family is going to live, you know, and obviously
you know when it is a monogamous relationship, and and

(34:24):
if the marriage is consensual by both parties, then you
know she is consenting to either move in with him
or they've made arrangements otherwise. But nope, they want it
legislated as if women somehow don't get that consent. And

(34:47):
then they also want married women to be able to
keep their maiden name retain their nationality. So say, for example,
if a Canadian woman came to the United States and
married a US man, they want the Canadian woman to
remain Canadian, which would really complicate things in a marriage

(35:12):
like that in the US but in African nations, this
is what they want. They want the woman to be
able to determine the national nationality of their children unless
the other national legislation basically contradicts it or it's a

(35:39):
national security risk. Like you marry somebody from a warring nation,
they can't decide their kids are part of that nation.
And they want they want women to have separate property
of their own in a marriage. So what they're essentially
doing there is saying that they want women to be

(36:04):
able to be married on paper and remain unmarried. Everywhere
else you think about that. Feminism has fought tooth and
nail in the West to break down and destroy the

(36:25):
institution of marriage, to separate wives from their husbands and
fathers from their children, and to ensure that women feel
enslaved by marriage rather than in a partnership being in
a partnership. And this seems to be part of that.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
But they've fought tooth and nail to reduce men's rights
in the event of a marriage, but not the government's
stranglehold over how marriage works legally. And I've often been
of the opinion that the government should not be evolved
involved in marriage inso far as the government is involved

(37:15):
in anything, Like, if two people love each other and
they want to bring their families together in matrimony, then
they should absolutely be able to, but the government shouldn't
be involved in it. And in light of my own situation,

(37:36):
I'm like, well, I really want to move to the
US because my country is fucked. It's gonna get taken
over by sharia law any day now, So I really
want to move to the US. And if marriage is
what it takes, then fuck it. I'll go against all
my megtail vows and all the fucking do it. But

(37:59):
the fact any of this is even held hostage by
the government in the first place is I like to
think it's it's it's a way into the country, but
it isn't. It's it is it should never have been
a way to keep people out in the first place.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
It's the worst part about it is it's the only
way to get to live in the same country as
the woman you're going to be with, and it's you
have to tell the government, yes, we will make this
legal and we'll get you involved in a relationship. So technically,

(38:43):
every every relationship in the United States and any western
nation that you know, any nation that has legislation that
just determines what happens in a marriage and what defines
a marriage and so on. It's they're all in a

(39:03):
way polyamorous and all incestuous. It's husband, wife and uncle Sam,
although in other countries it's not uncle Sam. So there
you go. But yeah, it is a rotten situation. My
husband and I, the only reason that we went with

(39:25):
getting married legally or was because people treat your relationship
like it's not real if you don't get the government
involved in it. I care about the church's involvement in
it simply because the church family will support the marriage,
but the government doesn't do that. In fact, the government

(39:51):
kind of facilitates the breakup of the marriage more than
it facilitates the unity of the marriage. So I saw
the government as a problem and didn't really want to
get it involved. But the government doesn't give you much choice.
You know, it doesn't really count your relationship. If something

(40:13):
happens to your partner and you you need to be
there for the partner. You don't have any rights in
regard to your your marital relationship and your responsibilities to
your partner if you have not made the government a
part of your relationship. So it's a terrible thing. And

(40:35):
if you are from a different country than your partner,
you don't have the legal right to live in the
same country as your partner unless you make the government
part of your relationship.

Speaker 2 (40:46):
And that's that's the only thing the government is supposed
to be full, isn't it. I mean controlling the relationships,
controlling the borders between people from one country and another country.
And yeah, in many ways that sucks, but in many ways,
that's what a government is for. That's the only thing
a government is for controlling and the rights of citizens

(41:12):
between one nation and another. And Okay, fine, I guess
that's what stops. That is what's supposed to stop millions
of shadow beasts from invading your country just because it's
the they can force the hand of whatever maidens they

(41:38):
can find in another country. Yeah, And I don't know
any easy way through this situation other than having at
least a small government. Like I'm not a total fucking
anarchist in any of these ways. Like it's important. The
whole idea of having a national government is to uphold

(41:59):
an as opposed to another nation, to keep these nations separate,
so that they don't get invaded by other nations.

Speaker 1 (42:14):
Yeah, so that you and women can't come along and
tell you what marriage has to be in your country
because of the way they feel about marriage in their countries. Yeah.
And of course everything that we just read, the ultimate
goal of it is actually right here in Part D

(42:35):
of their statement on separation, divorce and an allment of marriage.
In case of separation, divorce or a moment of marriage,
which they're attempting to cause with their stipulations on marriage,
women and men shall have the right to an equitable
sharing of joint property deriving from the marriage. So what
they really want is women to be able to monopolize

(42:55):
a rich man and then divorce him and take half
hish it like they do in the US. That is
the end game for you and women. Not making marriage
better for men and women, not uh, supporting functional relationships,

(43:22):
not helping to prevent abuse or abandonment or you know,
neglect or anything like that. Nope, in case of in
case of divorce, which they will encourage, she gets half
half Eddie. So that was the main thing I wanted

(43:47):
to look at tonight in terms of this, Uh, the
the their their little thing about marriage. I may come
back to more as I go through this uh more
details of this particular document, but I think you guys

(44:07):
get the gist at this point. They don't notice that
they discuss rights that the wife shall have. Mostly occasionally
they reference mutual agreement when when the woman gets to
decide if the man has to move, and then of

(44:29):
course you have an equitable division of property that was
owned by the husband before the marriage more likely than not.
And they're doing the same thing in Spain. I'm not
going to I don't know if I'm going to try

(44:49):
to get into that tonight. I think I might look
more at that on another day, because if I remember,
I had to have it go through a translation. So
we are going to finally look at the second article
that I referenced earlier, UH five or six shows ago

(45:11):
how to counter the manispheer's toxic influence. Remember, the goal
encountering the manuspher's toxic influence is to stop us from
influencing men and the men that we influence from influencing
governments against the passage of legislation like we just looked at.

(45:35):
So they don't want men to stop governments from ensuring
that women can marry wealthy men and then divorce them
and take half their shit. They want to make sure
that women. Women are considered uh special. They don't have

(45:57):
to earn anything, they can just marry into it and
then take with them when they leave.

Speaker 2 (46:01):
Yeah, why why why does such institutions never speak of
such a thing as the femisphere. Why is there not
considered to be any such thing as as this femisphere. Well,
it's because the un is part of the femisphere. It's
because the mainstream media is part of the femosy. It's
because world governments are part of the femisphere, and so

(46:23):
they're just considered normal. It's much like this illustration that
I've been trying to paint since since ten years ago,
that the femisphere is the outer mantle of the human species,

(46:43):
and the manisphere is is this inner part that's considered
to be normal, but at the same time considered to
be so abnormal as to be toxic. Like, the femisphere
is not a thing. It's not considered to be a thing,
even though it must be. If there's a manisphere, there

(47:05):
must be a femisphere. But it's not just it's just
it's not considered a threat, no matter how, no matter
what happens, no matter how deeply into our civilization, feminism
buries its clause. It's is never considered to be a

(47:26):
threat to the status quo because it is the status quo.
It's been the status quo, and not just for a
hundred years, but for a thousand years. And and I
don't know if, even though, if that's the top end
of the estimation or if it's the lower end, but
it's ever since romantic chivalry has been installed as part

(47:51):
of our civilization, and that is at least a thousand years.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
Interestingly, an example of this is actually your organization. We're
looking at you and women. Did you know that there
is no such organization as you and men?

Speaker 2 (48:08):
Of course not. Why would it be. Men have always
been in charge. They don't need rights.

Speaker 1 (48:15):
Yeah, that's that's what we're told. Men have always been
in charge and they don't need rights. That's why anytime
human rights activism takes place in another country where there's starvation, war, poverty, disease, uh,
you know, any kind of despotism, and where women are

(48:35):
being you know, treated like like meat and men are
being treated like dead people because they're getting killed then uh, yeah,
all of the women's organizations rush to make sure that
women get the lie in's share of resources and protections. So,

(48:58):
and even in nations that are not not what you
would necessarily call third world, like India is it sort
of fits that second world definition where it has a
lot of first world amenities and a lot of first
world issues, but it still has third world problems at
the same time, and one of those is widespread poverty.

(49:22):
And as soon as a system existed to provide through
through government through people's tax dollars, essentially to provide food
for people who couldn't afford to buy their own food,

(49:43):
it was given to the women to control. And to
the degree that men can't get help on their own.
If a man doesn't have a wife or a mother,
or a sister or a daughter living in his home,
he has no access to this system because only women

(50:04):
are allowed to receive this free food, and then then
they determine they're supposed to distribute it who gets It's again,
the majority of people living without any family support at
all in India are men. So they essentially took took

(50:30):
a problem that it affects both sexes, and it affects children.
But there are more men who are totally on their
own than there are women who are totally on their own.
And they went, well, we've got to help those women,
completely ignoring the men. Yeah, in the US, only only

(50:51):
twenty five percent of the homeless are are women. And
if I remember my stats right, only five percent of
unsheltered homeless or women. The rest, the seventy and the
ninety five percent are men. And the lion's share of
resources are reserved for women, women with children, women without children.

(51:15):
Their order seems to go women with children, women without children,
men with children, men without children. And so men who
are alone, men who I'll often end up. You know,
they have a mental illness or they have an addiction,
which in its own way is a mental illness. They

(51:36):
they are nothing, They don't have anybody to take them in.
They don't have they can't go to shelters because they're
considered dangerous, especially if they have an addiction, you know,
like you can't be on a substance and go to shelter,
So soup kitchens will even kick you out. So men

(52:00):
with real serious issues, they're just on the street until
they die. And it's a horribly unfortunate situation for them.
And yet when you see reporting on homelessness, it almost
always features the women who are getting the most help

(52:23):
as opposed to the men who need the most help. Right, so, yeah,
women are the femisphere is the establishment, You're right? So
how this is why you and women wants to counter
the manisphere, by the way, because we're a threat to

(52:45):
their grift. How to counter the manisphere's toxic influence? What
do they think will stop us? What will get rid
of us forever? So they say, everybody loses in a
world with gender inequality, even the digital world. But in

(53:08):
the manisphere, influencers are spreading and profiting from controversial content
that fuels misogyny. So everybody loses in a world with
gender and inequality, but apparently not when it affects men.
It's misogyny. When we talk about the fact that sometimes
it affects men.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Contra, if you have if you have such a thing
as gender, yeah, then you necessarily have such a thing
as inequality. I mean, gender is this bullshit word that's
it means essentially the same thing as genre. It's not
a coincidence that these are similar words. They're the same

(53:54):
words gender and genre me mean the same thing. It's
just another word for type, and acknowledging that there are
different types of human it counts as inequality, And yes
it does, because yes, there are different types of human,
just like there are different types of genre among anything

(54:18):
that you can get to call genre, like different genres
of movie or book or whatever. Yes, there are differences
between horror and thriller and romance and stuff like this,
And yes that does track onto men and women because
men and women like different genres because they are different genders. Like,

(54:46):
like I say, it's whatever, the opposite of a tautology
is gender inequality is well, well, the gender inequality is
a tautology because in the existence of genders, you necessarily
have the existence of inequality. And yeah, it's we could

(55:06):
have a government that doesn't treat men and women differently legally,
except in instances where they necessarily have whether they're necessarily
are differences like pregnancy and and that's why it's so

(55:28):
easy for feminists to focus on these differences when it
comes to things like pregnancy and abortion and stuff like that,
because that necessarily is a difference. But it's harder for
them to see the issues that men face because they're
less tangible than the things that women face. I mean,

(55:53):
women get pregnant, what do men get? Well, evolution has
started this out, and indeed the society and civilization they
have started this out because they sort of figured out
that women get pregnant, So what should we do with
men two to equal out the what what women have

(56:16):
to deal with in the event of pregnancy. And yet, yes,
this is already been figured out, that constraints should be
put on men in the event of being party to
a pregnancy. And yeah, that has already happened. Like, if
a man is party to a pregnancy, he should be charged,

(56:39):
he should be tracked down and forced two two to
give what he owes to the pregnancy. All these feminists

(56:59):
and all these un women people sort of acting as
though men have never been forced to contribute to the
well being of child, whereas they have for a long
ass time if you go back as far as prehistoric times. Yeah, no,
I guess they haven't.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
Family have always done that. Actually, families of historically families
have tracked down fathers and uh imposed accountability on them
if you want to. If you want a more recent
historical example, the Elizabethan Poor Laws introduced the idea that
the government will track down the father of a wayward mother,

(57:43):
and it.

Speaker 2 (57:43):
Predates, it predates, it predates governments for as long as
we've had tribes, and we've had tribes for tens of
thousands of years. But you can't just escape your tribe
and go in and go into the wilderness if you
if you're a man who's impregnated a woman and doesn't
want to have to do with that. But that's a
rare case because when a man impregnates a woman, even

(58:04):
in the pre post prehistoric tribal days, he would like
be yay, I've got a child, because yeah, I I men,
it's homo sapien. Homo sapien. Males have this cognitive ability
because because they have such big brains, they're able to

(58:26):
figure out that, oh, yeah, because this woman is pregnant
because I did this thing that we now realize makes
it a pregnant that they're like, oh, this means my
child is involved, and and and this is where I
have to argue with the ghost of Terence McKenna and
many other people like the idea that when a man

(58:48):
knows a child is his, that that's that's a terrible
thing that brings down that that can bring the human
race into into into uh disrepute and despoils and and
and and can turn us all in the right direction. No,

(59:09):
I completely disagree. When a man knows that a child
is his, he will do anything for that child.

Speaker 1 (59:17):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (59:17):
This is something that didn't happen in in the days
before that, when when a man had no way of
knowing that a child was it. And that goes back
a long fucking way long before we had anything like
the human brains we have now. I mean, I think
even gorillas and chimpanzees sort of have some perhaps pheromonal

(59:39):
sense of knowing which children are theirs. But Homo sapiens
has this intellectual way of even allowing men to know
which children are theirs, and when they do, they will
do anything for that child. In fact, that they don't.
They don't need to be forced to to do whatever

(01:00:01):
they can for that child. They they will do it
by default because they have this this this psychological bonding
with that child like it. It can work on its own.
You don't need to force them to figure it out
using the government. I mean, in some rare cases in

(01:00:24):
some cases that have been applied with these racist stereotypes
or whatever. But I don't think any of these racist
stereotypes really apply like anywhere. Like men love their children,
Homo sapien, males love their children just as much as

(01:00:46):
female hope Homo sapiens does. I'm sorry if that's controversial,
but I don't think it is. I think more actually
because what.

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Many men killing their babies as you do?

Speaker 2 (01:00:59):
Well indeed, but maybe that's because they're not afforded to.
But but yeah, this is one of the unique This
is one of the unique things about Homo sapiens, that
that men are just as chemically and neurologically bonded to
their children as as women are. And we do ourselves

(01:01:20):
a disservice if we if we deny this, and we've
we've been ravaged with this denial of this a biological
evolutionary truth, and we should probably get back to that truth.

Speaker 1 (01:01:38):
Yeah, just just a note for the chat. We already
know that Mike's microphone, the static thing is happening, and
there's not a lot to can be done about it
at this point unless it is replaced. So we're just
going to deal with it. I think the more that

(01:01:59):
it gets moved to and messed with the worst the
worst that they dound so but in any case, yeah,
I mean when you look at what men do when
they when they parent a child versus what women do,

(01:02:20):
especially in modern sense, because women have a tendency to
drop their children off with strangers to to and pay
them to watch the child for hours and hours so
that they can emulate men in the workplace where and
women today as a as a population. And I know

(01:02:43):
that this is probably similar to violent crime, and that
the percentage of women who are doing it is smaller,
and many of them are repeat offenders. But three and ten,
so nearly a third of pregnancies that occur today are
are ended. They they end in a elective abortion. That is,

(01:03:09):
it's not a miscarriage, and it's it's not done because
they the doctor is reducing the number of imminent deaths
caused by the pregnancy by one by saving the mother's life.
But yeah, men, men will work themselves to death to

(01:03:31):
provide for their children, to give them a better life,
to make sure that they're able to provide for themselves
when they become adults. They will They'll die in a
fire trying to get their children out of the house.
They will, you know, they'll protect their whole family. They
will live with a woman who treats them like shit,

(01:03:53):
who abuses them, who spends their their money before they
make it, who doesn't even have sex with them anymore,
as long as they can take care of their children.
And men are they sex that has had to fight
for their custodial rights for the last one hundred years.

(01:04:20):
And men have had to fight not only weird preconceived
notions like the idea that God made women parents but
not men, which was a feminist idea. Carolyn Norton who
wrote the Oh, I can't think of what it was called.

(01:04:42):
It had a word of infants in it with an
e something of Infants Act. But it's essentially it was
the tender years doctrine, and the legislators in the UK
bought that, and then it being English common law, it
bled over into US law, and the US kind of

(01:05:05):
did the same thing, that women would get primary custody
and divorce up to like the age of seven, and
you know, unless there was some really weird extenuating circumstance,
and ever since then, you know, men had to first
fight for joint custody and then shared parenting and eventually

(01:05:27):
equally shared parenting, and every step of the way, feminist
groups fought against it. Every step of the way, feminists
have opposed fathers taking care of their children. Men have
fought for the right to mentor and protect their children.

(01:05:48):
You know, so clearly you have a difference there. Women
fought for the right to kill their babies, and men
fought for the right to mentor and protect their children,
to love and care and nurture for their children and
not just be walking wallets. Which is again one of

(01:06:09):
the reasons why the femisphere fears us, because we notice
things like that and we point out these laws are important.
They're good for children, they're good for fathers, and despite

(01:06:29):
many mothers vehement protests, they are good for mothers. There
are benefits to the mother when the father is involved.
Women who are not raising their children by themselves live longer.
Women who have an involved father raising their children with

(01:06:51):
them are happier, They show less signs of stress. Because
I shouldn't say they. My husband and me raised our
kids together. We were a team and for me that
was a very fun time, even even with the stress

(01:07:14):
of having you know, the second family and ex wife
and child support bills to pay and all that. Just
having that partnership and the teamwork and the family being
together and everything that meant a lot, and it does
change your whole life. It does make your whole life better.

(01:07:38):
And these women will cut their nose off despite their face,
and they will con other women into doing the same thing.
I think. And it's more important to get half the
marital property all to yourself without the husband than it
is to have his partnership in raising your children. It's insane.

(01:08:01):
So they go on, they claim that we promote unhealthy
definitions of masculinity and normalize violence against women and girls.
So if you look at the men's rights movement, the
most vocal aspects of our our participation in the discussion

(01:08:28):
on innimate partner and sexual violence have all been about
ways to reduce that type of violence and the fact
that female violence is a huge contributing factor to family violence.
So we don't advocate that violence be met with violence.

(01:08:52):
We advocate that violence be met with accountability, that when
women and girls in relationships with men or boys engage
in violence against their partner, their heterosexual partner, that they
should be just as accountable as a partner of a

(01:09:13):
woman or a girl is when they engage in violence
against their female partner. And that's that's it, that's all
we want. We want to see that men should have
some recourse if they are abused. Boys should have some
recourse if they are abused, and you know, they should

(01:09:36):
be able to get out of the relationship or you know,
get the same stipulation that their partner has to go
through abuser therapy and learn to not handle conflict by
engaging in abuse just like a man, because it's just

(01:09:58):
as bad when she does it. It's just as damaging
for the children when she does it, and it can
be just as dangerous, especially if she chooses to use
a weapon or if she uses lies and gets him
jailed for things that he didn't do. So, yeah, they're

(01:10:20):
terrified that that might actually happen and women might not
be able to manipulate the public into giving them lots
of money to fight the evil men while pretending that
women are never violent.

Speaker 2 (01:10:39):
And I'd like to know where they draw these boundaries
as to where the manisphere ends and begins. I'd like
them to give me some examples and when they do.
I wonder how many of those examples I can point
to and how they address the immigration problem, because so
many of these content creators that I listen to when

(01:11:02):
they talk about immigration, will frame it principally, if not entirely,
as to how much of a threat it is against
quote unquote our women and girls. Mm hmmm, because it's
just our women and girls to whom these immigrants pose
a threat, because they're the only people being raped, they're

(01:11:23):
the only people being endangered. I don't want to name
any names, but yeah, you all can probably figure out
who I'm talking You can probably figure out many examples
of them I'm talking to talking about, because there are
so many of them. Like when it comes down to
an otherwise neutral topic, they will be like, well, the

(01:11:48):
problem with these immigrants is they're all men. They're all
fighting age men, and they're all graping and essaying our
our women and girls, completely leaving out that they're also
graping in essaying our boys and assaulting and murdering our men.

(01:12:12):
But that doesn't seem to matter to the vast majority
of what these kinds are calling the manosphere. The vast
majority of what they call the manisphere is still very
much laser focused on how to demonize the men of
other nations so as to keep in their minds the

(01:12:37):
fact that the only victims are the women and girls
of our own nation. And yeah, this is this is
just what happens when other nations are only interested in
exiling the men of their nation because they're perfectly happy
to subsidize the women and girls of their own nation.

(01:12:59):
They please, don't leave girls and women of our nation.
We need you so as so as to to keep
our nation going. But you, you other men, you three
quarters of men who don't get wives because of our
poligamous set up. You could all fuck off you, yeah,
you can all. You can all get shipped off to

(01:13:21):
those countries where they where the government will uh will
give you a free life for nothing. And then when
they arrive here our so called manisphere, like, look at
all these men. We fucking hate these men. Look at
what a threat they pose to to our women and girls.

(01:13:42):
But they're also murdering the men. Doesn't matter, doesn't fucking matter.
Think of the women and the girls, and like and
and here's and here's you and women going. The manisphere
is prioritizing men over boys over girls grow. If only

(01:14:02):
you knew how bad things really were, Like it's the same.
It's the same, not just across the West, but in
the Middle East and across the East, Like it's the
same problem everywhere. We're trying, we're trying to get rid
of the men we don't want, and and and and

(01:14:23):
pamper and prioritize all women and girls, even the women
and girls from other nations, like, come, ye, come all,
as long as you're female, like, we will protect you
from the evil men across the oceans and across the land.
Fucking sick of it.

Speaker 1 (01:14:41):
Like the worst thing about that is that that they're
definitely going to come and end up on welfare, of course,
because they can, right Whereas the single males that show up,
they may be able to get temporary sistance for a while,

(01:15:01):
but because they are single males, they don't have children.
In a lot of countries and a lot of western nations,
your welfare system, whatever it's called, your public assistance, your
social safety net, usually requires recipients to be parents with children,
And so those men will have a short amount of

(01:15:25):
time where their situation is better, and then suddenly they're
dropped like a rock. From that system, and at the
same time they're treated like a liability by employers and
by anybody that might be a colleague if they are
seeking work. And what happens then they end up in

(01:15:50):
trouble with the law. And when you have that combination,
and then you also have things like people who are
part of terrorist organizations, whether it's ISIS or drug cartels
or or mafia's gangs, whatever you want to uh to

(01:16:10):
point out in countries with you know, more more poverty
situations and less less uh the rule of law in
their nation. Uh, then then you get this mix of
criminal underworld and people with no jobs that can't support

(01:16:32):
themselves and can't get help from the government because they
have no children and and their mail and so there's
nothing specifically for them. What what are they going to do?
What pathway is available for them to take? Any good ones?
Or are you know, are we setting ourselves up for

(01:16:55):
a huge homeless population that's going to die off or
a huge criminal population? It's desperate, it's all, you know,
a very bad idea. And in the end, the men
involved are generally speaking, victims of something. Human beings do

(01:17:22):
not grow up to be insanely violent if they are
not raised in an environment where they learn to be violent,
they grow up to be maybe more contentious if they
have that natural personality, but they learn more socially acceptable

(01:17:42):
ways or more effective ways of interacting with other people
and getting what they want, even if even if they're assholes,
then to use violence that will get them jailed or
killed someday if they grow up in any kind of
healthy home environment. It's generally speaking, only people who grow

(01:18:06):
up in an environment where a family member is abusive,
or they're in a gang ridden neighborhood where violence is
all around them, or they're in a war torn area
where violence is all around them, or some combination thereof
that end up like the MS thirteen members that you

(01:18:28):
see in the news getting deported and the newscaster is
telling you their long laundry list of violent crimes that
they committed while they were here before the government finally
kicked them out of the country. Like those guys didn't.
They weren't born that way, right, And not that that
makes us responsible for them, but it is always a

(01:18:53):
situation in which a complete lack of compassion and consideration
for the boy created the man that everybody sees as
a monster. And unfortunately, until we start holding our government

(01:19:15):
accountable for the conditions that it's creating in other countries
that lead to this, and rather than demanding that they
let people in and just let them run free, when
when this is what they're importing, and this is what
they're setting them up for, it's going to continue.

Speaker 2 (01:19:40):
So and this is probably why empires fall, by the way,
this is probably why we've been in this constant cycle
of empires rising and then empire is falling because as
empires rise, they get more and more decadent, they get
more and more self assured, and and they find themselves

(01:20:04):
consumed with issues that don't matter, like like how we
can make life better for women.

Speaker 1 (01:20:17):
Yeah, And eventually you get to a situation where there's
no choice but to recognize that if you don't make
life better for men, there won't be life anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:20:29):
Yeah. And the bigger the empire, the larger the fall.
And this appears to be what we're living through right
now because I'm effectively we have the biggest empire ever
because because we have binding forces between nations such as

(01:20:50):
the UN I know that doesn't do much all in all,
but the empires don't just don't just extend to country boundaries.
We have we have all kinds of country binding forces,

(01:21:12):
like the U N and like the w a F,
and like like NATO and all this such and and
and yeah, we have we have empires that span continents
at this point, and they've become so decadent, so uh
self assured, and so lazy, largely due to this technocratic

(01:21:41):
easing of all of our hardships. We don't have any
of very few of the hardships that we've had over
the years, and and and so we can focus our
attention on needless, pointless things like that our can micro

(01:22:01):
manage how much easier we can make it for the
people that we fundamentally care about, namely women and children,
especially women, because they can actually advocate for their own
self interest in ways that children cannot. Like, we are

(01:22:25):
sort of designed to to encourage the strong to protect
the weak, and in the case of men, that means, well,
we're we're clearly the strongest people in the world, so
we have to focus all their efforts on protecting those
weaker than us, Whereas with women, they're like, Okay, I

(01:22:47):
guess we are stronger than children, but we're weaker than men,
and so they hold this middle ground where they can.
They can they can claim all the rights for themselves
because they're weaker than men. But they can just forego
they could they can just ignore all of this responsibility
that they have over children because they can focus on

(01:23:12):
how much how much they're weaker than men. And and yeah,
this is how this happens because because women are the
middle ground between men and children and and and so
they can they can get all the advantages of being
weak and all the advantages of being strong over whoever

(01:23:33):
it may be. And so that's what I'm saying that
this is probably much historical evidence for this, but this
is probably why so many empires collapse, because they focus
on the human beings who can advocate for their strength

(01:23:54):
and weakness at the same time, namely women. And this
cycle of empires rising and falling is going to keep
happening happening until we can acknowledge that women are in
fact strong even in relation to men, that women have
strengths with which they can dominate men. Now, I know

(01:24:19):
that's something that a manisphere like me would say, but
once you understand evolutionary psychology, it becomes fairly obvious. Yes,
women have strengths that can dominate men. And know they're
not physical strength, they are psychological strengths because we are
a very cerebral species. That is, it was driven by

(01:24:45):
our brains more than our muscles. I mean, that's that's
that's one of the most unusual things about Homo sapiens,
that we have some huge brains. Evolution has dealt us
huge brains that can uh, that can override whatever strength

(01:25:06):
we might have. I don't mean just I don't mean
brains just in a a mental sense, in an in
an intellectual sense, I mean in an emotional sense. Yes,
men have emotions. Sorry, feminists, It's true. Men are very
much driven by their emotions, and one of their strongest
emotions is how much we love women and how much

(01:25:30):
we will override everything else in our brain in order
to to give women everything they want. It's unfortunate, it's
what e it's the hand evolution has dealt us, and
it's it's up to us to overcome these these irrational

(01:25:52):
gynocentric tendencies. I'm not saying gynocentrism is necessarily ingrained in us,
but it's a shortfall that it's very easy for us
to fall into if we can't work our way out
of it intellectually. And that's that's what we're trying to

(01:26:13):
do here around the Budger Radio. We're trying to do
in many aspects of this here manisphere, we're trying to say, like, yes,
I I know we're sort of evolutionary built to deal
with this in some ways, but we're also blessed with
the with this sense of logic and rationality. And I

(01:26:37):
know that's often painted as the enemy, and yes, in
many ways it is, but it can be used to
our advantage if we can just realize that this instinct
we have to protect the week at the expense of
the strong is not necessarily the be all and the

(01:27:00):
end all. Sometimes the strong deserve to be thought of.
The strong deserved deserved to be uh protected and preserved
just as much as the week, arguably more. I mean,

(01:27:21):
if it's talking.

Speaker 4 (01:27:24):
Strong in evolutionary terms, yeah, I have that the strong
ought to be prioritized over the week, if only in
pragmatic terms, it can It can go either way.

Speaker 2 (01:27:39):
We shouldn't necessarily destroy the week just because they're weak,
but we certainly shouldn't destroy the strong just because they're strong.
That's even more retarded.

Speaker 1 (01:27:50):
In fact, historically, historically women were encouraged to have at
least some sort of trigger discipline when it comes to
hiring off the prioritize me because I'm weaker, gun and
h Historically, women were also expected to uh, you know,

(01:28:14):
use what strength they did have to support their protectors
and their providers. It was a reciprocal relationship and women
women relied on men's strengths, and men relied on women's strengths.

(01:28:36):
And today women have declared that that having to reciprocate
for the reliance that they have on men is uh
is oppression, and therefore they shouldn't have to do it
no reciprocation. And that's that's essentially the situation we're in now.

(01:28:57):
So the themisphere is complaining that that men have rejected the deal. No,
we don't want to protect, provide and and uh love
and nurture with no reciprocation, only to be punished for
it in the end. We don't we don't like that deal, right,

(01:29:18):
The femisphere says, how dare you, how very dare you?
How dare you reject this excellent deal that gives us
everything we want? What's wrong with you? Don't you love women?
You know, don't you respect women? That's that's essentially what
this article is, uh and and that's that's where we
are now, the idea that we promote unhealthy definitions of masculinity.

(01:29:48):
Feminism has promoted the idea that the things that that
have gotten men through hard times, the ability to reserve
being emotional for when it is safe to be emotional,
and to be outwardly stoic when it is necessary to

(01:30:10):
do so in order to get shit done and create
a safer situation for being emotional, is apparently misogyny. And
they really think that if men don't cry the way
that women cry, and as often as women cry, and

(01:30:32):
for the same reasons that women cry, in other words,
when bad things happen to women, then there's something wrong
with men. And they advocate this idea that men should
be allowed to express their emotions and they should be
allowed to cry and talk about their problems and give

(01:30:55):
their grievances and complaints. In other words, right, what does
the rest of this article say about men who air
their grievances and complaints or you know, women who listen
when men air their grievances and complaints. Well, that's that's

(01:31:16):
normalizing violence against women and girls. That's spreading misogyny. That's uh,
that's that's the minisphere. And how very dare we allow
men to air grievous grievances and complaints that are not
feminists approved? What do you do feminists when you say

(01:31:36):
that men should be allowed to talk about their problems,
but the problems they talk about are you so here?
They say, they're talking about the article that we read
the first time, and uh, you know that that we

(01:31:56):
are a real world threat. The minisphere is a real
world threat threat guys. And then it goes on to
describe who we are. So who are we? It says
mental health impacts on boys and men. The man is sphears.
Unrealistic definitions of manhood can promote anxiety, self harm, and

(01:32:20):
risky behaviors, and young men who feel pressured to be
more manly. So there you go. Feminists don't want men
to be able to express themselves. They don't want men
to be able to form their own identities. They want
men to be feminized. Whereas the men's rights movement has
supported men who are gay, men who are straight men

(01:32:45):
who are rugged, men who are nerdy, men who are
in great shape, men who are fat, men who are
able bodied, and working men who are disabled. It's not
just one type of man. But feminists only support men

(01:33:06):
if they are feminized. If they are not feminized, they're
not real men to feminists because they don't they don't
worship women enough. And their example isn't from the men's
rights movement, it's from the in cell community looks maxing.

(01:33:29):
Looks maxing communities subject men's photos to brutal commentary, which
maybe they do, but the fact is they have a reason,
and that is women will reject men based on looks,
and they will reject men harshly and cruelly. They will.

(01:33:51):
They will not only say I'm not interested, but get
away from me, you creep. And that's the that's not
Missonry's that's that's you know, completely harmless. They're allowed to
do that, right. Women who hear complaints about that kind

(01:34:11):
of behavior say that you're making excuses for the creep.
But if the so called creep goes to a community
that is trying to show him how to be more
attractive and they suggest your eyebrows, you know need to
be divided into two eyebrows and not one going across

(01:34:33):
the middle. Or you know, you have to shower every day,
not just when you feel like it. Or you you
look like shit with long hair, cut your hair, or
do you look like shit with short hair? Grow it out,
you know, or anything like that. From from things that

(01:34:54):
you can change easily to you need plastic surgery, and
suddenly it's it's bad. The same thing that girls do
and women do when approached by these men is bad
when the men say it to each other, but it's

(01:35:15):
not bad when women say it. You see how that goes.

Speaker 2 (01:35:20):
That's a lot has been loaded into this adverb manly. Yeah, like,
they haven't explained what they mean by manly. You think
what they mean is looking like a man. And pardon
me for being perhaps controversial, but what women generally find
attractive is manly. And again they haven't they have explained

(01:35:45):
what this means, and presumably they don't have to because
they've been so buried in this idea that there shouldn't
be a difference between a man and a woman other
than men and women should both advocate for women and
only women, and if that means men men becoming women

(01:36:05):
or becoming as esthetically womanly as possible, then that's absolutely fine. Again,
it's this is un women. They have no problem with
women being womanly, and they have no problem with men
being womanly. Yeah, that's that's what I think. They mean,
everyone should be womanly. That's why they have a un

(01:36:26):
women and no un men. It's it's no problem that
women are being encouraged to be womanly because their idea
of womanly is just being a woman, just having a
just having a vagina, just presenting as a woman, even
if that means being a useless, fat bloater with blue hair,

(01:36:48):
they're still womanly, so that still counts. But this idea
that men should be strong, oh heavens no, that's that's top.
Men should not be strong. It's not as though women
are attracted to strong men. You know, why would women

(01:37:09):
ever be attracted to a strong man? And and I mean,
whenever anyone pictures in their head what manly might mean,
it's invariably strong, right, it's men are.

Speaker 1 (01:37:29):
Expected to quit quite frequently.

Speaker 2 (01:37:31):
Yeah, men are expected to be strong, whether it be
physically strong or esthetically presenting strength, or you know, psychologically
or mentally strong. And yeah, pardon me. But I think
if anything, women should be expected to be more man.

(01:37:53):
I mean it's they as in, they should expect it
to be strong too. Everyone should be expected to be strong, Charlie,
I mean strong is better than weak. Yeah, no matter how,
no matter how femininely you're defining, you're defining strength, it's
still strength. I mean, you're obsessed with this strong woman stereotype,

(01:38:20):
and and any attribute you can attribute to a strong woman,
it is something that can also be attributed to a
strong man. Right. It's it's being it's having the courage
of your convictions, stuff like that. It means being confident

(01:38:41):
and secure in in whatever you happen to be, whatever
form God happens to have given you or whatever like.
That's what they mean by manly like. But they're just
they don't it's toxic. When when when this uh, when

(01:39:05):
when this type is applied to men? Yeah, they want
men to be weak. They want men to be weak
and affectible and malleable. Right, they don't want they don't want,
they don't want men to be strong. They they want

(01:39:26):
women to be strong, and they want men to melt
in the presence of women, because that's their idea. Of
what men should be.

Speaker 1 (01:39:36):
They want men to be controllable by women. That is
what they want. They want men to do, for women
to be dedicated to women, to prioritize women over themselves.
And that's the only stoicism they're allowed to have, is
to prioritize women over themselves. They can't be stoic to

(01:40:01):
achieve something that is their goal for themselves, but only
to achieve something that is to meet the needs of
a woman. And they want men to be slaves essentially,
you know, workhorses, financiers, sugar daddies, right, but not equal partners.

(01:40:29):
And in terms of manly like, if you ask a
feminist what constitutes manly in the end, she will describe
a protector and supporter of women.

Speaker 2 (01:40:45):
Ask a woman to describe a good man, and watch
her describe a slave. I don't know who quoted that first,
but it's it's yeah, it's perfect, that's exactly what it is.

Speaker 1 (01:40:59):
And I look at I look at it a totally
different way. Like I think about my dad and my grandpa,
and both of them had, you know, aspects of ruggedness.
My dad was a big man and he was very strong,
and you know, my grandpa was an average sized man,
but he was a boxer and a hunter and that

(01:41:19):
kind of stuff. He was a welder. But one of
the most manly things each of them did, they did
for themselves, and you know, they shared them with the
people around them. But it was an area of interest
each of them that was creative interest that wouldn't necessarily
be considered masculine per se, and in Grandpa's case, some

(01:41:46):
people considered it feminine. Grandpa grew roses, my hunting, welding, boxing.
Grandpa grew roses. And he was an expert, absolute expert,
because he'd been a farmer, so he grew things for
a living before he grew roses. So when he grew roses,

(01:42:08):
he threw himself into that the same way that he
threw himself into into growing you know, corn and beans
and potatoes and carrots and stuff and animals. And he
competed and it was great. And you know, I'm allergic

(01:42:28):
to roses. I didn't get to get up close to them,
but I can be outdoors in the yard where there
are roses in the yard and it's not a problem.
So it was neat for me because I got to
I got to see all kinds of beautiful different breeds
of these beautiful flowers. And then when I wanted to
grow my own vegetables, Grandpa was right there, you know,

(01:42:51):
giving me advice. He knew exactly what to tell me
to do, and I had an expert right at my fingertips.
Dad was the same way with music. He played by ear.
He didn't learn to read notes, but all he had
to do was hear at once. He played all of
the pop music from his youth, and he played a

(01:43:15):
lot of the pop music from my youth on on piano.
And you know, eventually we got synthesizer keyboards and he
played on those as well, and it was it was
always great being at home and listening to my dad play.
I'm always a little kid. Sometimes I would just spend
hours sitting in the room with my dad playing the

(01:43:38):
piano and listening to him, and I didn't have to
be doing anything else. I was just enjoying the music.
And it's it's not particularly a gendered thing music. People
both sexes do it. But you know, again, like with
with my grandpa and his roses, my dad had that

(01:43:59):
down to a science to the degree that when he
got synthesizer keyboards. He threw himself into all of the
programming you can do with a keyboard and all of
the different ways in which you can try out. You know,
let me try making this country song reggae and see

(01:44:21):
how it sounds, you know, and stuff like that. He
explored the keyboard, the synthesizer, keyboard, all the different instruments
and everything, and you know, and just was incredibly masculine
about his exploration of music. I know, both of them
had that. Grandpa was very masculine about his exploration of

(01:44:45):
growing roses. And so this idea that masculine expression can't
be rugged and still refined and still include emotional expression

(01:45:05):
and self interest and things things that are therapeutic for
the individual. You know, garden away your stress, play away
your stress on your musical instrument. Feminists are full of
shit when they say that it's abnormal for men to
be able to do different things besides be this stereotype

(01:45:30):
of the stoic, rugged, you know, mountain man or whatever,
and and nothing else. They paint men as more one
dimensional than any other group of people paints them and
then project that onto other people. You're treating men like

(01:45:50):
they're one dimensional because you don't want them feminized. No,
we don't want men's freedom to express their masculinity in
their own personal idiom to quote Monty Python, taken away
from them by some gaggle of gossiping geese who have

(01:46:16):
to make up bullshit about what makes them men.

Speaker 2 (01:46:24):
Yeah, they don't want men to be more emotional. They
want them to be less intellectual. I want them to
be less physical. They want them. They want to strip
men away from all of these elements and leave them
nothing with nothing but the emotional And then when men
express their emotions, they go, well, you're just being emotional,

(01:46:45):
and your emotions don't count because you're not oppressed like
we are. And they want to do the same thing
to women because women can also be highly intellectual and
highly physically capable of things these things. Maybe maybe less
evolutionarily primed for these things, but yeah, they want the

(01:47:09):
same thing for women as they want men. They want
to strip them of of every every objective quality that
they can possibly have and leave them with the sheer
subjectivity of emotions, so that they can either dismiss or
prioritize these emotions depending on what subject to which these

(01:47:33):
emotions pertain. And it's usually along political lines. If you're
if you're emotionally advocating for the left wing, then then
you're a perfectly good person be you female. But if

(01:47:55):
you're emotionally supporting the right wing, fuck you, you're just being
emotional and your emotions don't count factors. Do care about
your feelings as long as they pertain to the political
direction we want you to take. And why it is

(01:48:15):
that women prefer the left wing direction is up for debate.
I don't quite know why that is. I think it's
probably because they've been manipulated in that direction by certain
forces in the left wing. And then we get back
into the subject of what communism is done to us in.

Speaker 1 (01:48:39):
But yeah, well, and if women have this issue in
general of preferring to feel secure over the freedom to
make themselves actually secure, It's like a with a cardboard box.

(01:49:01):
Cats will if it fits, they sits right, they'll they'll
they'll hide in a cardboard box because it feels safe
inside the box. It feels like nothing can come at
them from any direction except one. Uh, And anyone who's
claustrophobic would think of it exactly the opposite way. I

(01:49:21):
have only one direction that I can escape if something
bad happens in here. Right, I've got family that's that's claustrophobic,
So I've I've kind of heard plenty about what that's like.
But imagine, you know, you have a cat in a
situation where there is something truly dangerous, like say, a coyote,

(01:49:47):
and the only box around is a the box from
a twelve pack of sodas of pop. I'm from Ohio,
it's pop, but for everybody else, SODA's carbonated beverages in
twelve ounce cans to two rows of six. And so

(01:50:09):
the cat gets in there, right, The cardboard box is
very thin, one bite, and the coyote is through it,
and a cat is dead. It wasn't safe, but it
would still go in there because it would feel safe.
It would still hide in a place like that. And
the problem is women will do that, even though a

(01:50:34):
woman should be logically able to recognize when they are
substituting the illusion of safety and security for the reality.
For instance, the idea that we support the dumbest choices

(01:50:54):
that women can make screwing around like a three dollars horr.
And then oh gosh, now you know, I'm an unwed
mother and how am I going to support this child? Hey,
uncle Sam, can I have some money? Instead of suggesting
that we teach girls as they are growing up to

(01:51:16):
be very careful and avoid that circumstance so that they
never have to deal with it, they never have to
ask for that help and they never have to try
to avoid asking for that help by working harder and
because instead they planned for their adult life as they

(01:51:40):
were maturing, And we can't suggest that without having feminists
get all hateful about it. Oh, that's misogynistic. You're slut shaming.
There's no shame in this discussion. This isn't about morals,
This is about practicality. Smart thing to have your daughter

(01:52:02):
do growing up is learn about the consequences of careless liaisons,
the hygienic issue involved in indiscriminate sex, the emotional hygienic issue,
because there are brain chemistry issues that happen when you

(01:52:23):
have sex with a bunch of different people, and you know,
there's brain issues for women and there's brain issues for men.
In that it's not good for either sex to just
have sex with a bunch of people and then disconnect
each time and go to the next person. It's very unhealthy.
It's mentally unhealthy and it's physically unhealthy. It doesn't have

(01:52:46):
anything to do with shame. It has to do with
your not protecting your body against the invasion of microbes
that can hurt you, and you're not protecting your mind
against manipulation that nobody may be deliberately doing to you,
but you're still going to experience it. And you know,

(01:53:09):
we're in a situation today where we can't talk about
that stuff without feminist politicizing it. Right, the most practical
thing you can raise your daughter to do is remain
a virgin until she gets married, get a job when
she's in high school, start socking money away into a

(01:53:30):
dowry account, and have enough for a down payment for
a house when she decides to get married. And if
she decides to uh have any kind of professional career
before she before she gets married, you know, to to
minimize as much as possible how much money she spends

(01:53:52):
on college. The most practical thing she can do is
go into that marriage with a nest egg in tow
so that when she decides to have children, you know
the burden is not all on her husband in terms

(01:54:12):
of financial support. And if they decide that, you know,
she wants to stay home or he wants to stay
home with the kids for a period of time after
they're born. They'll be in a financial position to do that.
But unfortunately we talk about stuff like that, it becomes

(01:54:35):
why is that the woman's responsibility? You women should earn
just as much as men do, but men have to
have more money so they can provide for women's choices. Unrealistic,
and women will hold these contradictions in their heads with
no concern that they are mutually incompatible, right, mutually exclusive

(01:55:01):
from each other. He can't have more money than you
if you're earning the same amount, and your earnings can
never be unnecessary. You can't take time off to have
your baby and stay home with the child if your
earnings are just as important to the finances of the
home as your husbands are, unless you come in with

(01:55:26):
a dowry in this egg. And as soon as you
know women are confronted with stuff like that, they have
the shut off switch. Misogyny. You hate women, You must
not have any friends. Nobody likes you. How dare you
talk about things that way? Well, you can't get laid,
that's the problem, right, But they can't consider the ideas

(01:55:50):
because they don't feel safe. Considering your own accountability, your
own responsibility, not having someone else to fall back on
and rely on for your own welfare up until a
certain point doesn't feel safe unless you think all the

(01:56:15):
way through to the recognition that if you are accountable
for yourself and you are responsible for yourself, that's freedom,
and you don't have you're not always under somebody else's control,
because you're not always dependent on somebody else. And men

(01:56:38):
live with that their whole lives. They start living with
that before they're adults, so it doesn't necessarily come naturally,
but it feels natural to a degree if you do
that your whole life. But if you never have to,

(01:56:59):
and you're never in cur to and you never learned to,
and you get to adulthood legally, you know, at least
without ever reaching that level of adulthood mentally, you have
no context by which to understand it. And it looks terrifying.

(01:57:19):
Oh my gosh, I might someday be on my own.
What am I going to do if I don't have
a safety net? And so what do women do? They
look at what politicians are offering, What are we going
to do for women? What safety nets are we going
to promise to women? And they picked up politicians that
promise the most attractive, softest looking safety nets, and they

(01:57:44):
vote for those guys. And that's how we end up
with socialists and communist leaders in charge of our countries
in high taxes and more and more function, social dysfunction,
and even you know, law breaking criminality over time in

(01:58:08):
our country because women trust safety nets more than they
trust themselves. Until we can change that. And that's a
big change to make, because that's a there's a lot
of history of women having that attitude. Until we can
change that, everything else that we're dealing with will not improve.

(01:58:36):
Men can't rescue women from that. Women's attitude actually has
to change. That's going to be the hardest thing to do.
And we are influencing more and more women's attitude to change.
There are more women speaking up now, There are more
women openly rejecting feminism. There are more women talking openly

(01:58:59):
about out the importance of dedication to your husband and
reciprocal partnerships and so on, not necessarily on a left
right basis, but on an individual basis, and that's probably
what has them the most scared. The real reason that

(01:59:22):
you and women and other feminist groups hate the manisphere
because their income, their political power, their influence very solidly
relies on women's addiction to safety nets and that kind

(01:59:43):
of women. If women overcome that addiction, these people are fucked, and.

Speaker 2 (01:59:50):
They're kind of telling on themselves by testing along the
lines of no kings, even in even in countries, whether
there's no threat of a king ever becoming apparent, but
what women really need right now king after centuries of

(02:00:12):
democracy of of women, ah uh, bending the need to
governments to big daddy government. This this abstract machine that's
there's that's going to give them all these gibbs at

(02:00:34):
the expense of men, and that let's let's be perfectly honest.
This is what has caused all of this. The replacement
of the not just south a male, but the male
in general, the head of a family, the head of
any corporation, the head of any private enterprise. The replacement

(02:00:55):
of that with this, with this entirely artificial mob boss
that we call the government that has what not necessarily
caused this, I mean it's been caused by romantic chivalry
again since a thousand years ago, since before even a
government existed that was the precursor to governments. But yeah,

(02:01:20):
the fact that what they're protesting against is kings, even
in the event that kings haven't existed. For that, they're
sort of showing their ass that they're showing the behind
of what they're protesting rather than the front of what
they're protesting deep down. I mean they I say, they

(02:01:44):
say they don't know. But when I say they and
I just mean women, I mean this, this mass of
people kneeling before government. They what people protest against is

(02:02:04):
very often an indication of of what they know they
really need. And I know that that could that could
bite me on the ass having said that, But yes,
what you need as a king, because you really want kings.
Just like just like this meme about how how we

(02:02:29):
call how how we compliment people by calling them queens,
and how we compliment people by calling them kings. It's
it's because that's what's best for humanity and and not
that we should give absolute power to kings. And no,
we shouldn't in the same way we shouldn't give absolute

(02:02:50):
power to government. But given that we've given how much
power we've given to governments over the centuries, they've ended
up with absolute power, far more absolute power than has
ever been given to king.

Speaker 1 (02:03:06):
I think that's actually the biggest part of the problem
women more than anything. They don't want it, but they
need total societal collapse in order in order to make
them grow at this point, and it's hopefully something that

(02:03:27):
doesn't actually happen, and hopefully another way for women to
grow and evolve is found, because total societal collapse would
hurt a lot, not just for one group of people,
everybody would suffer. The truth is that you know women,

(02:03:47):
what women are clamoring for versus what women need, like
the gap between those two conditions is so wide you
can't see what from if you're standing on the other
And yeah, women might be calling for a king, women

(02:04:08):
might be begging for big daddy government to be personified
by a big daddy, but it's not the best thing
that could happen. Having an amount of power political power
that such as government consolidated to one individual like that

(02:04:33):
is even worse than having a representative republic with with voters.
It's it would be better to have almost no government
at all or no government at all than to have
either one. And unfortunately I think women. Most women would

(02:04:54):
freak the fuck out if if we started going in
that direction, because there would be no safety nets.

Speaker 2 (02:05:03):
I'm not talking about total societal collapse.

Speaker 1 (02:05:08):
There was no I am.

Speaker 2 (02:05:10):
There was this old Joe Rogan joke about if you
had a sandwich made of ninety percent shit and ten
percent ham, would you be prepared to call that a
ham sandwich? And I'm like, the society we have now
is ninety nine ham with one percent of shit on

(02:05:32):
top of that. And I'm just talking about removing the
one percent of shit that is that is feasible, especially
if the shit is merely sprinkled on top of the
slice of bread that is on top of that. I'm
talking about shave off the ship. In fact, remove the
top slice of bread onto which the shit has been sprinkled,

(02:05:53):
and put a fresh slice of bread on top of that.
And that's not that's not necessarily regress. I mean, I
suppose it is. But you've still got the ham sandwich
underneath it. You've still got the fresh slice of bread
on the bottom and all that delicious ham in the middle.
Just remove the top slice of bread that's been infected

(02:06:14):
with all the human shit. I put a different slice
of bread on top of it. One would no shit
on top of it. I mean, I don't know if
you can call that regress or progress. I don't know
if you call it woke left or woke right.

Speaker 1 (02:06:34):
But I'm just wondering if the cook that was handling
this shitty ham sandwich washed his or her hands, because
otherwise it won't matter the whole sandwich is contaminated.

Speaker 2 (02:06:46):
In your You can figure that out too. We can
make that contingency too.

Speaker 1 (02:06:51):
There we go. But I I just can't with the
idea of there being a monarchy. I think that's just
it takes away a certain amount of accountability because the individual,
especially in the modern terms where fighting off the government

(02:07:15):
like the way that the revolutions of the past happened,
those avenues.

Speaker 2 (02:07:23):
Are not.

Speaker 1 (02:07:25):
As available today as they were. And the most available
avenue today is to have a system like Trump's trying
to create in the US, where we have elections that
are free from being manipulated, at least in terms of

(02:07:46):
putting votes in that aren't real and or aren't legal.
I think that's better than if you end up with
somebody that maybe the public it isn't seeing any of
their interests served by your government, that you can't replace

(02:08:10):
that individual because their heir has god given right to
rule the country next. It just does, it doesn't. I'm
not the reason that the early Americans fled that type
of system was because it always results ultimately in problems

(02:08:36):
and often in despotism.

Speaker 2 (02:08:39):
Well, it certainly hasn't worked out for the UK because
we've had a king for this whole time and the
UK is a fucking hellscape this point and the existence
of a monarch hasn't helped us. The fact that we
are technically a constitutional monarchy because we don't really have

(02:09:01):
a constitution, certainly, not like like you'll have in the US.
We have the Magna Carta and that's as close as
we can really point to in terms of a constitution.
And but that's not really a constitution, that's just an
element of what I guess we're calling our constitution. But
the fact that the prime Minister in Britain has to

(02:09:22):
kneel before the king is important because it is it
is it is supposed to hold them back, It is
supposed to give them humility before something greater than the government.

Speaker 1 (02:09:42):
Unfortunately it is it is not stopped them from.

Speaker 2 (02:09:48):
No No, largely because we've we've been a vassal state
of the U. S. Service. Yeah, and we've had to
do whatever the US tells them since the war. And
the fact that the US has been has been doing
nothing but whatever the government tells it since then. I mean,

(02:10:10):
I just, I'm.

Speaker 1 (02:10:11):
Just you have just actually been, to a degree the
vassal state of another country.

Speaker 2 (02:10:18):
Oh well, we can't talk about that.

Speaker 1 (02:10:20):
Yes, I have noticed that, John.

Speaker 2 (02:10:23):
That's only been since nineteen forty eight. Right, if you're
talking about the state, I think, imagine, imagine, imagine if
imagine if George Washington was made the king. I know,
I know this would change so much of history, because
that doesn't mean you wouldn't be without a government. You'd

(02:10:44):
be much like the UK constitutional monarchy. With John was
the strength is the country.

Speaker 1 (02:10:53):
The strength of the country came from the history we
did have. The country's power came from the history that
we did have. And well, yeah, we do because the
country came from the countries that our ancestors fled. My

(02:11:17):
ancestors fled from several countries, most of them are in
the European Union now. So in my opinion, I think
the parliamentary system that doesn't involve a king has been
shown to be at least somewhat superior, at least in

(02:11:43):
terms of strengthening a country. Now, once we got to
the point where, like, honestly, at the downfall of this
country wasn't voting, and it wasn't the parliamentary system. It
was when women began voting. Because women, instead of voting

(02:12:08):
in the interests of their homes and their communities, voted
for safety nets.

Speaker 2 (02:12:14):
Well, you know how you could develop a counterpoint to that, eventuality,
having some kind of king who can go no, fuck.

Speaker 1 (02:12:23):
It doesn't it doesn't work that way. Because you had
a king. No, women still got the right to vote
in your country. In fact, they had the right to vote,
and then they lost it for only a little while,
and they threw a massive, wild temper tantrum, thus increasing
the amount of time it took for their parliament to
give it back. But eventually they did, and again you

(02:12:48):
still have Like when it was only men voting, you
had a much more practical response to what government was
doing and what it was supposed to be doing. We
didn't have an escalating, a constantly escalating, uh massive growing

(02:13:13):
system of overspending and building debt until women started voting
for social safety nets and and UH for more and
more regulation. Hell, we didn't, we didn't need any type
of federalized police force until women pushed for the government

(02:13:36):
to control what people drank. And then we got organized crime,
and then we ended up with a federalized police force
because of that. It was a direct result the the
FBI and and UH, the the whole system of federalizing

(02:14:02):
law enforcement came into existence to control a type of
crime that only happened in the United States because women
tried to micromanage people's choices lifestyle choices, right, and a

(02:14:23):
king didn't prevent that. In the UK, a king didn't
prevent that. In France, king didn't prevent that. In Spain,
you still ended up with that same situation of women
trying to micromanage people's choices and confiscate people's resources for
feminine interests. So there will never be a situation where

(02:14:50):
as long as women are allowed the same style of
say in politics that men have and the same influence
social influence that women have at the same time, there
will never be a type of government that can rein
them in.

Speaker 2 (02:15:11):
The best we can get as a free market and
in very politics can work in the same way as
a free market as long as there is competition between entities.
Those various entities will have to compromise amongst each other
based on what the majority of people want. And this

(02:15:35):
is why it's important to have this back and forth
between the government and the monarchy. And this is something
we don't have in the UK. We haven't had it
for a while. The government one that the government has
cornered that market, like the monarchy has no power anymore.

Speaker 1 (02:15:54):
They do.

Speaker 2 (02:15:55):
They do technically have. The king can or indeed the
Queen previously the king can turn up in Parliament and
say no, I hear by veto this bill. But he's
never going to do that because if he did, the
monarchy would be abolished overnight. And that's the problem. The
point is you need a back and forth so that
you have the competition that represents the free market.

Speaker 1 (02:16:20):
Yeah, that's the powers we have. We have the the
legislative branch that is it's one power. We have the
executive branch that's a second power, and then we have
the judicial branch that is a third power, and each
has some degree of override capability for the other two. Uh,

(02:16:45):
and and what's interesting, like Congress can still override the
president too. You have to have more votes. It takes
a bigger effort, but they can do it. And you know,
if if the courts determine a law to be unconstitutional,
the legislators can look at what were the reasons they

(02:17:08):
gave and try to find workarounds to have the law
do what they want and still have it be constitutional.
And of course you have the Constitution itself laying out
the rights that are protected for citizens and placing limitations
on what the government can do and determining what the

(02:17:31):
government's roles are. And with that document all three of
the branches being beholden to it, that is supposed to
act as sort of the fourth check, the fourth balance,
and it's worked for all these years. The only issue

(02:17:54):
that we've had, and I'm still going to lay it
at the feet of women, that that women don't think
all the way through when they look at those social
safety nets to the other side of it, where they
are voting for dependence and and they are voting for

(02:18:16):
being being controlled agreed, And it's the there's no form
of government that you can come up with that undoes
that it the attitude itself, the failure to think ahead
and think through has to change. And now there is

(02:18:39):
one way that men can fix this, But it's a
it's a generational fix. It's not something that's going to
happen overnight. Every father that has the the access and
ability to raise his daughter should raise his daughter to
think better, think all the way through, and not just

(02:19:02):
want safety nets, you know. And there's little things that
a got. Like when I was a kid, I had
two different attitudes from my parents about my tendency to
pick up bugs like my brother did. My dad thought

(02:19:22):
it was cute and so he helped me find interesting
bugs that weren't going to bite me and encouraged me
to be tough about the bugs that did bite. My
mom warned me that the bugs would bite, and it
was one of the most feminine things he ever did.
Oh my gosh, they bite. One day, I was playing

(02:19:44):
with a spider and it was trapped in a corner.
I was a little kid, so I didn't realize how
mean this was at the time, but it was trapped
in the corner and it would start running out of
the corner and I would flick it with my finger
and it would roll into a ball and roll back
into the corner, and that would try to get out
another way, and you know which as a as an adult,

(02:20:04):
you know, my first response would be to go back
and tell that kid, don't do that. That's mean you
might hurt the bug, you know. But my mom, oh, handy,
they bite. You know, she was near panicked because he
was allergic to spider rights, so she didn't and she
didn't know if I would be or not. I'm not,

(02:20:24):
It's one of the few things I'm not allergic to.
But you know, scared the crap out of me. She
had to peel me off the ceiling with a spatula
where my dad, you know, taught me how funny it
is to let a daddy long leg a Huntsman spider,
not the Australian kind, you know, crawl up your arm.

(02:20:47):
They can't bite, they can't do anything. They're just these weird,
little leggy you know, creatures, and you know, to to
pick up and carry around crickets and you know, go
fishing with them and bait my own hook and that
kind of stuff. It's better to encourage your daughters to

(02:21:10):
have that that the guts to to, you know, explore
their environment and to maybe care about their impact on it, like,
you know, don't hurt the spider, that's mean. Don't be
mean to things just for the sake of having some
kind of fun. But it's perfectly acceptable to get a

(02:21:33):
good close look at it and there's there's nothing wrong
with that, and you shouldn't be too scared. Look how
little it is, you know. And again not in Australia, clearly,
but instead a lot of times we coddle little girls.
Little girls get taught that it's okay to be delicate

(02:21:55):
and fragile and scared of everything. And you know, when
when they hit the first grade six seven year old
age and they start tattling on everybody for everything, it's
encouraged instead of discouraged, you know, and you know, handle it.

(02:22:15):
And you know, anytime that it's not something that an
adult should handle, this person is is breaking this minor
rule in the classroom. Well, nobody likes a tattletale, right,
that should be the answer most of the time. But
instead we teach little girls from the time they're toddlers

(02:22:40):
that they should be seeking safety nets instead of independence
and accountability. Little boys grow up learning to seek accountability
and independence. But we can't do that. If we want
a functional society, both sexes need to grow up learning

(02:23:02):
to seek accountability and independence and to try to help
other people to be a bit of a safety net,
and to be grateful when they have a real functional
safety net, but not to rely on the idea that
there will always be one. It's destroying our society. And

(02:23:26):
that's one thing that fathers can do. Fathers are good
at teaching independence. Fathers are good at teaching risk taking
and functional risk taking. Not Hey, I want to see
if I can use a blanket as a parachute when
I jump off the roof. Risk taking. But okay, so

(02:23:48):
I might get an itchy welt if this bug bites me.
Risk taking. Don't pick up mosquitoes, they carry diseases. But yeah,
and it'll take thirty years. And that's the unfortunate part
of it. It'll take thirty years to get in enough

(02:24:11):
of a generation of girls raised that way that they'll
counter the uh, the namby pamby vote. It looks like
that's already started to a degree. But that's what we
need more of. And so probably the most important issue

(02:24:33):
that the men's rights movement can fight for. Out of
everything that we fight for is father's rights.

Speaker 2 (02:24:41):
And we've been pushing for this from the bottom up
for as long as we can remember, and nature itself,
evolution itself, has been pushing for this from the bottom
up ever since we became Homo sapiens, and even before that,
since we were austrol epithecus or whatever. But we find

(02:25:03):
ourselves in an unfortunate modernist situation where we've been canceled
out from the top down with this feminist bullshit that
has taken over the media and the government and all that.
And yeah, for for our lifetimes, we've been trying to

(02:25:25):
combat this with this bottom up system, with this grassroots
movement of trying to say, look, fathers are important, just
as important as mothers. But I don't know how to
approach this when when when we're when we are grassroots

(02:25:48):
against sky down, Like, I don't I don't know what.
I don't know how I can poetically paint this as
something that's the opposite of grassroots than sky down. And
I don't know what to call sky down other than
this fucking this, this government and media monopoly over things.

(02:26:09):
And I don't know how to fight that other than
with a a leadership, a rulership. And that's why I'm
that's why I'm talking about something needs to happen to
overhaul this this sky down system. And and that's and
that's why I keep talking about monarchy or something similar

(02:26:34):
to it, that that's what monarchy is.

Speaker 1 (02:26:37):
It's just another sky down system going on. What's been
going on during the last forty or fifty years is
that the father's rights movement has been making slow but
steady progress from changing custody standards in the United States,
in particular, changing custody standards from presumptive maternal custody to

(02:27:03):
joint custody, to shared parenting and now to equally shared
parenting as the default in divorce cases. And where equally
shared parenting becomes the default, divorce goes down and children
end up being raised in stable, two parent homes. So
that's one thing. And the lobbying and and you know,

(02:27:29):
letter writing end of the men's rights movement that contacts
legislators have been putting on a pressure campaign for that
route for for years. And there are now several states
in the US that have default equally shared parenting as
how they you know, approach if if the parents decide

(02:27:52):
to do something else or uh, there's a real serious problem,
right one of the parents is to go to rehab
or is an abuser, or you know, it's going to
move across the country and and be thousands of miles
away from their kid, you know, like you can't transfer

(02:28:12):
every week all the way across country like that. But
in most cases, they they when the kids, you know,
or when the parents get divorced, the kids live part
time with one parent, part time with the other parent,
and it's half and half. So the father does get

(02:28:33):
time to be more than just a walking wallet. He
does get time to go out in the backyard and
play catch and teach the kid to you know, have
the sportsmanship, to tough out disappointment when he misses the
ball or when she throws and it doesn't quite reach dad,

(02:28:57):
or you know, when she's out, you know, if they're
playing a game and stuff like that, which teaches a
lot about character that mothers ignore. And you know, so
you do have change taking place. It's just very very
important that we keep it up. It's exhausting, but it

(02:29:18):
is very very important. People continue to write their legislators,
they continue to support organizations like the National Coalition for
Men that actually go through and they don't just lobby,
They also use the court system to get things changed,

(02:29:40):
and you know, supporting organizations like US and a Voice
for Men so that we can get the word out
to more people. We've gotten this discussion into the mainstream
and it's only taken you know, only the last ten
years to really push it forward. This discussion has been

(02:30:05):
going on in the men's rights movement before. Many of
us were involved in it for decades without the mainstream
realizing or understanding it. And now you have influencers that
ten or fifteen years ago, they'd have been talking about

(02:30:26):
everything except men, and everything except men's situations and issues,
and they are talking about it now, and they're looking
at the various details and they're not just considering it
from a guyinocentric perspective. And even those that had been
considering it from just a ginocenter perspective are starting to

(02:30:49):
consider more egalitarian perspectives. So things are changing and positive.
It's just, you know, it seems slow, but we've had
in comparison to how things were during say the previous

(02:31:09):
hundred years, we have had a giant leap forward in
the last ten. But with that, I think we really
need to call it a night for the for HBr
talk because it has been a couple of hours and
poor Brian's got to be doing this in the background
the whole time. So I am going to say, and

(02:31:30):
we don't have any other super chows and I haven't
seen any super chats go through. I haven't. I haven't
seen any brightly colored mentions here go through, so I
don't think we have them. Hopefully I haven't missed anything,
and if I did, I apologize, But thanks Mike for

(02:31:53):
going through more you and women bullshit with me. We
will finish this article next week and then we might
look at the If there's anything in the Brazil it's
not just Brazil, it's all of South America and the
South America document that's not any Africa document, we'll look

(02:32:15):
at that. But otherwise, I'm pretty sure most of what
I saw in most documents, they mirrored each other. They
just had a slightly different wording based on the cultures.
So that's what will be. That's what we'll be doing
next week. Thanks everybody for listening, and we will see

(02:32:37):
you next Thursday. Good night all,