🔴What did men do to deserve this? | Maintaining Frame 190

Changes in the economy and in the culture seem to have hit them hard. Scott Galloway believes they need an “aspirational vision of masculinity.”

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, Hello everybody, and welcome to Honey Badger Radio.
My name is Brian Allison, and this is maintaining frame
number one ninety. What did Men Do to Deserve This?
Where we're going to be looking at a couple of
different things. I don't want to give too much away,
but The New Yorker put out an article that has
gotten a bit of a reaction called what did Men
Do to Deserve This? Changes in the economy and in

(00:22):
the culture seem to have hit them hard. Scott Galloway
believes they need an aspirational vision of masculinity by Jessica Winter.
We also have a thing on Twitter that's going to
be interesting. I don't want to say what it is,
but suffice to say no one was surprised. And then
we have a video that is talking about what's happening

(00:45):
to South Korea as a result of feminism in Japan.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
I think it was comparing Okay, all right, I thought.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
It was comparing Depan's not doing like much better. I
guess a little bit better than South Korea, but but
not They're still in like every country is in danger
of this stuff. Really, yeah, like there is no there
is no place safe from it unless you want to
live with like the hunter gatherers in the bush, you know,
So we send like educators down there to liberate the women.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
Oh yeah, yeah, liberate the men and women from the
men who protect and provide for them. Yes, I'm sure
that will go with a society that's at the very
edge of survival. I'm sure that will go really well
for everyone involved. Okay, so I shall do the things.
If you would like to send us a message and
a tip, you could. The very best way to do

(01:36):
so is feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip.
That is because we get the full benefit of whatever
funds you send, and you will get the benefit of
not sending a comment if you so choose to send
one through YouTube's comment enhancement system. So that's feed the
Badger dot com slash just the Tip. Pretty soon I
keep threatening this, there will be our monthly fundraiser at

(01:57):
Feedbadger dot com slash support, so look for that. And
if you want to support the show, please mosey on
over there and put a few shekels in the hat.
Every bit helps, So don't don't don't don't feel like
you aren't helping. If you are Okay, back to you.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
Let's get this so just checking okay, good, yeah, so
this is working now. I'm just making sure my chat
was was working as it should. Okay, so do you
want to start with this article then?

Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah, let's start with the article. Let's all right. I
don't think it's that long, but no.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
This was This was shared by uh yeah, and I
know a better match. In case you guys don't know,
he's a Migtai content creator. That mostly, I mean he
basically let's like respond to what's happening in the world
and stuff from a MiG tile point of view. So
let's see what it says by Jessica Winter. Oh, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
These articles don't seem to be as long as they
once were. I wonder what's happening there. Did you notice that?

Speaker 1 (03:05):
I don't know. I think that they very I don't
mean like when you say once we're I don't know
what you're comparing it to. Don't you remember like a
year ago these used to be pretty long?

Speaker 2 (03:15):
Okay, all right, let's get into it.

Speaker 1 (03:17):
I see that it just goes and goes and goes.
It's probably another like literature thing. Bald White and Jacked
Scott Galloway is an action figure of the tech and
finance overclass. He's an angel investor, a best selling author,
and a personal finance guru. He podcasts constantly. His hosting

(03:37):
duties include the prop the g Pod, which offers business
news takes and career advice, Pivot, in which he riffs
on the news of the day with the tech journalist
Kara Swisher, and the self explanatory Raging Moderates with the
Fox News personality Jessica Tarlov. For someone of this uber
mens milieu, he is surprisingly aggressive and self aware. He

(04:01):
often acknowledges that his wealth and achievements were made likelier
by his race, sex, publicly funded education, and devoted mother
who raised him mostly on her own.

Speaker 2 (04:11):
So a man who didn't even have a father speaking
for men, I see a problem with that. I see
a problem. This man does not have any intimate experience
with male vulnerability or nurturing. So his entire attitude and
when they talk about progressive, what they mean is weeps
for the situation of women, not understands the vulnerabilities of men.

(04:32):
That's what they mean. And also why they and you
know how they start with these gross stereotypes like I
was just.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Gonna point out point that out. She's like for someone
of this uber men's milieu, like immediately goes into like
the usual suspects, right, and then basically says, I know
you're judging him the exact same way I would judge him.
It's like, no, you're doing that. I don't know who
this guy is.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
Yeah, none of this, none of this makes him sound
like he's an authority on men? Yeah, who assigned this
man to talk fer men? I mean, I know that's
ironic coming from me, but at least I try to.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
Uh, well, I don't is this guy like, okay, wait,
so is this article? Well I haven't read it yet,
so I guess what I'm wondering because this is a
this woman wrote this article. Sounds like she's being a
bit hostile towards Scott Galloway. So is Scott Galloway the
bad guy? Or is this woman the bad guy? Like?

(05:33):
What what are we doing?

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Like?

Speaker 1 (05:35):
What's going on?

Speaker 2 (05:36):
No, Scott Galloway is I'm pretty sure that he is.
And I will confirm this all right using grok and
I will try this time because I know you guys
complained about last time. You're getting distracted by grok and
I apologize for that. I'll try to keep it more succinct,
but I'll read the next is a feminist ally, And

(05:57):
again right off the bat, he agrees with the narrative
of male burden, male parasitism that I mean, read that
last sentence again.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
Well it's a run on sentence. But for someone of
this ubermensh milieu, he is surprisingly progressive and self aware.
He often acknowledges that his wealth and achievements were made
likelier by his race, sex, publicly funded education, and devoted
mother who raised him mostly on her own. So yeah,
he basically says, if I wasn't if it weren't for
the fact that I was a straight white male, yeah,

(06:27):
I wouldn't be this successful.

Speaker 2 (06:28):
Yeah, all right, So he already buys in to the
feminist framework right off to that. So she may be
treating him in a hostile manner, but it's because she's
trying to create street cred for this man.

Speaker 1 (06:40):
And again also there's like, if they treat this man
as one end of the Overton window and her perspective
as the other end of the Overton window, then there's
no room for our position because it doesn't fit in that,
So like those are the they basically they're establishing the borders, right. So, yeah,
like this guy is about as extreme as you get

(07:01):
to be when it comes to sympathy for men, which
is none.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
Because it only can exist within a narrative that is
inherently unsympathetic. And we can go into just how nasty
and noxious the feminist narrative is and how much of
a denial of academic ethics it is, because I've actually
sort of researched this a little bit further and it
is astoundingly awful stuff. But he has to exist within

(07:27):
the framework, and it's a framework that denies, true on
a fundamental sense, any sympathy for men, because it's a
framework that promotes the narrative that men are a burden
on society and women. There's nowhere to go, there's nowhere
for the sympathy to land in that narrative. So you
can make mouth noises all you want, but what you're
actually saying is that men are not deserving of sympathy

(07:49):
and their vulnerabilities are their own fault. That's the other
thing that's implicit in that statement. It's a boot straps
statement because it's saying. What that guy is saying is
that every every one of you who have failed have
done so despite being granted advantages that other people and
women do not get. So you are double failures. That's

(08:10):
what the narrative says. This narrative cannot help men. It
can only induce guilt. Guilt is actually the more positive emotion.
It can only induce shame and lead men on the
path towards self destruction. Small self destruction, which is just
beating yourself up over your failures, and then large self destruction,

(08:31):
which is removing yourself entirely from the narrative of the
human race. This is sick shit, and Scott Galloway is
not an advocate for men. He is a pied piper
for a toxic, demonic narrative about men continue all right.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
In recent years, Galloway has also become a leading evangelist
for a notion that rapidly solidified into conventional wisdom. So
it's a notion America's young men are in crisis. Seldom
in recent memory has there been a cohort that's fallen
farther faster, he writes in his new book Notes on
Being a Man. To make his case Galloway pulls from

(09:08):
a heavily circulated set of statistics. At colleges and universities nationwide,
female students out number males by about three to two. Okay,
Among young adults, men are more likely than women to
live with their parents. By their mid thirties, more than
fifteen percent of men still live with their folks, compared
to less than nine percent of women. All right, I
want to say anything to that.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
Yeah, I want to say something. But of course, the
assumption here is that they're operating off of privilege rather
than disadvantage. Even though we have debt, we have literally
pursued disadvantaging men in all of our institutions. Okay, this
is un this is undeniable. We have said that we
are going to do this, and we have done it.

(09:50):
It's undeniable. But what I want to point out is
this is the kind of counter argument that we've talked about.
I pointed out a while ago Wrist he was a
perfect example of this. Well, actually he wasn't a perfect
example of this, but there was another feminist who ended
up being a perfect Let me just get into what
it is. They will agree with all of the issues,

(10:14):
they'll agree with every single one of them. They will
deny the fact that this has actually counter evidence for
their framework around reality. All of the stuff that he's
describing is counter evidence for his framework that men are
advantaged by patriarchal society. So he will acknowledge it. And
now he's going to do a song and dance to
put the blame squarely on men and put the trauma

(10:39):
or the victimhood squarely on women. This is my prediction.
I will be absolutely astounded. I tell you what, if
my prediction doesn't come true, I will turn off my
camera and I will go play with my cat, which
would probably be more of a reward for me, but.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
Anyway, right, so, yeah, I know I was gonna say
about like women living with their folks less than nine percent.
I think that there's like it's not just because women
are given every possible opportunity to get a job, they're
more likely to get hired or better educated, or at

(11:18):
least they get a better education, more education, not necessarily
good education, but also because like a man probably has
to be able to sustain himself before he can move out,
a woman does not. She can just move in with
a man that has made it so like she can
just cok to that, and that's probably what happens most
of the time, is a woman goes, well, I'm gonna

(11:40):
go live with this my boyfriend.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
Yeah exactly. Remember those two those two videos that we
did with Caleb Hammer, yes, or like days ago. The
one woman had her rent and her utilities paid for
by her boyfriend, and the other woman wasn't working, so
she had her rent and her utilities paid for by
her boyfriend. Where are they in these stats?

Speaker 1 (12:01):
Yeah, they're not. They're not. They're they're they're well, they're
victims of They're victims of men in those stats.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
Okay, this is not an honest stat What we really
should look at is how many men are supporting themselves
versus how many women. And I'm guessing that that would
really switch the the percentages. And all that really shows
is that women aren't willing when they're a financial success,
they aren't willing to pay for their partners. But men

(12:30):
are privilege everybody privilege.

Speaker 1 (12:34):
Among young adults, men are more likely than women to
already read that part, sorry, men die by suicide about
three and a half times the rate that women do.
Men's real wages are lower for the tenth and fifteen
percentiles of earners than they were in nineteen seventy nine. Currently,
the unemployment rate among young men with bachelor's degrees between
the ages of twenty three and thirty is close to
double that of their female peers. Okay, so yes, all

(12:57):
that's true. And again I just want to I just
want to point out that men when they were making
I guess you know this says here about their wages,
but remember back then, when men were making money, even
if they were making more than women, that's irrelevant. Who
do they spend the money on? Yeah, it was money
itself is meaningless. Who benefits from his pay? It's usually

(13:22):
the woman or the family in his life. That's why
they work. Okay, yes, so anyway, okay, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
First of all, the narrative that he is we've already
said the currently the unemployment rate the you've already done
that does the narrative that he's promoting. First of all,
all of this is counter evidence. And nowhere do these people,
because they're not intellectually honest, say oh, we have to
contend with this in our theory. We have to incorporate it,

(13:51):
because fundamentally, feminism is the theory that's or the conjecture
that society benefits men over women. Period. Now we can
go right into the weeds about men being in positions
of authority, but that doesn't matter. What it ultimately comes
down to is does society benefit men over women. All
of this evidence is counter evidence to that. So essentially

(14:15):
feminism reverse is the causal relationship. It says, because men
are in authority, then women are oppressed. Well, you have
to actually show that. You have to actually can't just
assume women are oppressed by only looking at situations of
female disadvantage and then say that is because men are
in authority. This is terrible science, and that it gets

(14:37):
even worse, and I'll get into it as it goes.
But this whole narrative, they never acknowledge that they have
to prove the premise that he established in the first paragraph,
which is that men are privileged in our society, and
then they go through all of the evidence that that
isn't the case, and they still land on the same
thing because it is a unfalsifiable cultish belief. All right,

(15:03):
let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (15:04):
All right, these numbers have roused by partisan concern. In March,
Governor Gavin Newsom of California on the debut episode of
his new podcast, Welcome the conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, who
lamented gen Z as the most alcohol addicted, most drug addicted,
most suicidal, most depressed, most medicated generation in history. All Right,

(15:26):
pausing there for a moment. Wow, it's true, but it's
a bit like the thing is, he wasn't referring to
men specifically. He was talking about like Generation Z. I
think that it's it's a little it's not really clear.
I think that the women are really medicated. I think
like a quarter of them are on SSRIs or something.

(15:48):
I don't know about the drugs alcohol. The men are
probably suicidal, I would imagine legitimately suicidal, not like pretend
suicidal and depressed maybe or at least anxious. But yeah,
So so I'm just saying, I don't know where she's
going with this, but this, this statement made by Charlie
Kirk is not untrue. But it's also not gendered or
not sex specific. So all right, and these under thirties,

(16:14):
Kirk said, we're receiving a pernicious, a pernicious message. You're
not going to have the same American dream that your
parents would have. He and his fellow conservative organizers saw
this as an opportunity. He added, especially with young men,
Donald okay, an opportunity. Who said that because like, I
don't know that Charlie Kirk said that he and his fellow.

Speaker 2 (16:33):
An opportunity for what is what I'm curious.

Speaker 1 (16:36):
About, especially with young men, Okay to like, I don't
know then that that's a weird phrasing because I think
that it's making Charlie Kirk sound like he was praying
on this situation. And I don't think. I don't watch
all of Kirk's like clips ever, but I don't think
that's the case. He was. He was a zoomer, and
he was one of the lucky ones. And he knows

(16:56):
that and he has said that. So but anyway, one
of the lucky ones was I said, was yeah, until
I'm murdered him. But okay, So Donald Trump won men
under age thirty by fifty six percent in the twenty
twenty four election, up fifteen points from twenty twenty. For
these gains, Kirk credited the coalescing electoral power of the

(17:17):
right leaning constellation of podcasters and streamers known as the Manisphere,
which encompasses libertarian bros, evangelical Christians, and white nationalists.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
Oh god, it's everything now, it's literally everything. You like me,
You're part of the manisphere. Like they might as well
just say masculinity.

Speaker 1 (17:37):
Well that's what they mean. Yeah, yes, basically, any any
podcast that has a dude in it that's not apologizing
for being a dude, that doesn't, he's his every show
with I was born into privilege because I'm a man. Yes,
any man that does that, yeah, doesn't do.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
Them, doesn't do the hail privileges. I was born into privilege.
I was born into entitledments. I was born with unearned access.
Every dude has to do this. I have to feel
ashamed of existing as a man.

Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yep. Otherwise you get lumped into the manisphere, which is basically, yeah,
it's it's it's a bunch of shit that's even like
counter like, it's paradoxical libertarian bros, evangelical Christians, and white nationalists.

Speaker 2 (18:23):
Okay, yeah, so, but also people who are for free
speech and everything else, like all of the all of
the values that got us a prosperous modern society. If
you're for them, you're you're also a bro you're also
because because there's sort of masculine values, they're not based
on desire for security and risk aversion which you know,

(18:46):
risk being, being risk tolerant is is that's part of
the menosphere.

Speaker 1 (18:52):
True being, like a gym influencer, fitness influencer, dude manisphere.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
And definitely, if you have any any criticisms of women, ever,
including those that would develop them as moral agents in
their own lives, that is Menno's fear. Okay, all right, anyway,
trust of ever getting this done. Let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
You're right, knew, some who is angling to become the
next Democratic presidential nominee appeared to be listening closely. At
the end of July, he issued an executive order intended
to quote confront California's growing crisis of connection and opportunity
for men and boys end quote. A week later, another
likely Democratic content. By the way, that executive order was

(19:32):
nothing but virtue signaling. Can't you can't legislate people hanging out.
You can't do that. But what you could do is
not lock them up in their house for like five years.
And you could also stay the fuck out of the
way when men want to get together and don't like
shame them for doing so how about that? But they're
not gonna do that anyway. Sorry, that just annoyed me

(19:55):
because we covered that that executive order, which people are
just saying. I get that. I love that a politician
can say I'm gonna do an executive order that makes
every day Christmas, and people like status types, like leftists,
they'll be like, well, he made every day Christmas, guys,
so like we should it should just be Christmas all

(20:15):
the time. Now, Like you, what the hell is wrong
with you? How do you think this works? Why do
you like you're literally a child, like you have not
left you even if you don't live with your parents,
you haven't left your parents' house. You still think that
mommy and daddy just make things happen with words. And
so that's what this is. It annoys me to know
when and any man can see right through that to

(20:38):
be like, well so what you said this?

Speaker 2 (20:41):
So what?

Speaker 1 (20:42):
Sorry?

Speaker 2 (20:43):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (20:45):
All right anyway, cause because this is the thing, it
gets him some like sympathy, so he can get votes.
That's what he's trying to do. That's all it's about.
And if anything, he's gonna get them from women they're
the ones that are the ones the most likely to
fall prey to this shit. Well, dude, well I'm gonna
vote for new He makes it Christmas every day. I'm
going to vote for him. I'm voting for Christmas. If
you're pro Christmas, you'll vote for Gavin Newsom because he's

(21:08):
making it real. Okay, And you guys sing Santa Claus
doesn't exist. He does, and he looks like an American psycho.
But anyway, at the end of July. But I read
that one. A week later, another likely Democratic contender, the
former Chicago mayor Rama Manuel, published an op ed in
The Washington Post that linked unaffordable housing and healthcare to

(21:28):
an increasingly dependent mood amongst young men. You don't have
to be an in cell to believe that the system
is fundamentally broken and rigged against your success, Emmanuel wrote, again,
complete bullshit. He's doing it for votes. Yes, men are
worried about housing prices, but they don't think the government
is just gonna make them free. That's women thinking. That's

(21:48):
not men thinking. Men have never thought that just wanting
something to be free is actually something they can benefit from.
If you make things free, women get it. First, and
men pay for it. That's the way it works. That's
the way it works.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
So consider Okay, all right, I will do a counterpoint.
Maybe these dudes want the stuff to be free so
women get it. They could be just seeing it as
a as a means to get women's stuff even when
they can't, which is so utterly depressing.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
You see what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (22:21):
The ones that vote for these people, the vote for
Gavin Newsom and m Amuel they might be framing the
men the men you might be framing this well. First
of all, they're probably invested in thinking that the feminine
way of thinking, you know, in shewing, altruistic punishment, giving

(22:42):
handouts is morally correct. But the other thing is they
may not be as concerned about what they're going to
get in this socialist or communist system. They may be
more concerned that women get the things they need because
they are men still, even if they are wrong conceptually
about the world and philosophy and economics, they are still men,

(23:05):
and they may be looking at it while at least
women will get something, knowing that they won't get anything,
and they're probably also wanting some kind of purpose. This
is what I see about young men. Even on the left,
even the horrible communists, they're communists because they want somebody
to tell them what they should do, how to serve
They don't aren't communists. And this is the thing that

(23:27):
really annoys me about conservatives and conservative interpretations of men
on the left. They don't do these things because they
want to exploit people. They do them because the women
around them tell them it's the right thing to do,
and because they want to see that women don't end
up in poverty, and they think communism or socialism is
going to do that, and they think that it's going
to give them some meaning, something, some connection towards what

(23:51):
they need to do to improve the world around them.
That's why these men are doing this. The conservative interpretation
is that they're selfish and entitled. Stop for a second
the women promoting communism and socialism, and you will see
selfishness and entitlement. They're promoting it because they want freebies.
They're promoting it because they cannot acknowledge that their form

(24:12):
of morality isn't the only one. And that I'm just
going to put that out there because I think I
will push back against condemnation of these men like you
blanket condemnation. Yes, they are wrong about economics, they are
wrong about the beneficence of government, they're wrong about stripping

(24:33):
other people of their rights. But from what I'm seeing,
they're doing it from a very different place than the
women who are advocating for it.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
Okay, so well, no, I don't disagree with any of that,
but I do think it's immoral to do that because
you are stealing. You're just using the state to do it.
But that being said, yes, I do think they're doing it.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
You consider.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Putting women first in doing this, yes.

Speaker 2 (24:58):
Yeah, Well, the implication was that they were doing it
because I think there's fundamentally different motives between men and
women in pursuing communism. And consider that these young men
have been told all of their life that they themselves
are a net detriment to women, right, and that wanting
to protect and provide for a woman is oppressing a woman.

(25:19):
So they still want to do it. How did they
do it? They do it through government. You see, this
is where this corruption is coming from men's in young
men's thinking. And I do think it's corruption because you know,
I will disagree strongly with the person likes you on this.
This is not economically viable. Giving government more money to
spend does not help the situation. If the problem is

(25:41):
that the government is spending the economy into absolute destruction.
And I'm going to use an example of the collusion
and how this is creating. It's like a tower of Babbel.
It's getting larger and larger. Look at the current AI bubble,
and it really is a bubble because honestly, I've been

(26:04):
using AI for a few months now and I've been
looking at its its strengths and weaknesses. It is not
going to replicate the creativity in certain aspects of people's productivity.
But what it will do is it will enable everyone
to be able to destroy scientific consensus and academic authority.

(26:26):
So it's it's gonna break a lot of that and
i don't know if our society is prepared for it.
But furthermore, there's not a mount of money in that.
Like the best thing that I that that AI does
is give us a mirror to our own conceits and biases.
There's no money in that. And if and if the
only way they're gonna make these big AI firms are

(26:48):
gonna make money is if most of the people on
Earth are laid off, and then where is the economy
gonna come from? So it's this gigantic bubble and it's
sustained by one AI company giving gigantic contracts to another
AI company. So it's essentially just passing the buck. So

(27:08):
I'm gonna borrow ten dollars from you to do a
contract with ten dollars for Navidia, and all around it's
like a circle jerk of contracts. And that's the That
is where this this increasing stock price is coming from.
That and why are they doing that with absolutely no
real like that. I can't emphasize this enough. There's no

(27:30):
real path to the kind of money to justify the
market cap of these companies. There's none without the complete
destruction of our economy. So how are they justifying all this?
How is like Ninvidia, Like the head of Nvidia saying
to himself, Wow, this seems a little bit like a
Jenga tower with most of the blocks removed. This seems

(27:51):
a bit sketch. Maybe we should pull back from this.
You know what, he says, We're gonna be too big
to fail. The US government is gonna bail us out.
The whole idea of the US government bailing out corporations.
The whole idea of government spending underwriting the economy is
why we are facing economic argmageddon. Right still, No, I

(28:15):
don't agree with any of this. And the problem is
that corporations always get it first because they're defined as people,
but they're like super people who are better than you.
It's not just women get it first. Corporations get it
first in this government corporate collusion. Oh yeah, all right.
I don't know where I stand on the political access.
You can untangle all of the things I said, but literally,

(28:36):
we are facing economic armageddon because of the precedent set
of too big to fail and government's just going in
and spending money to prop up failing industries. And these
industries are failing, possibly because the heads of these industries,
the heads of these companies, no the government will do it,
so they're willing to take absurd risks because they don't,

(28:59):
you know, they're not holding the bag at the end
of the day, which is really feminine thinking if you
think about it.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
All right, let's see, all right, So anyway, like Newsome,
Emmanuel is doing what a certain kind of democrat does best, triangulating.
Both politicians have accepted at face value. Kirk's premise a
young American men are in terrible and unprecedented strait, and
those currents are yanking them rightward. But they want to
steer the conversation away from demagoguery and misogynist sloganeering and

(29:28):
toward a middle ground of respectful debate and technocratic fixes.
So it's the dialectic, like, we will accept some of this,
Can we have some of the stuff that's killing men,
just like half of the stuff that's killing men, and
then maybe we'll consider compromising on some of the other things.
That's what that is, right, I mean, yeah, like demagogaury

(29:51):
based on what and misogynist sloganeering. Who gives a shit?

Speaker 2 (29:55):
You know, I don't even know if we'll be able
to get through this. It's so freaking dense and stupid.
But something that just occurred to me, this is the
misogynistic thinking. Okay, I'm sure a lot of people, because
you guys are all really conscientious and keeners. You've had
the experience of having a school project and you get
assigned a partner that doesn't pull their weight. You've had
that experience, Brian, Yeah, sure, right, Okay, we are in

(30:18):
a society where men and we've all been assigned a
school project and women aren't pulling their weight, and misogyny
is pointing that out, guys, aren't pulling your weight. You
got you got these outside influence on the social narrative,
and you're not really doing You're not doing your part
to make it make sense or be consistent, and that

(30:40):
misogyny is saying that at all. It's like that whole slogan,
women hold a path the sky, and it's it's empowerment
to say that women hold a path the sky, but
it's misogyny to say, so do it. Why aren't you
doing it?

Speaker 1 (30:55):
You also asked the question who holds the up the
other half?

Speaker 2 (30:58):
Yeah? Yeah, So essentially that phrase women hold up half
the sky means up women hold up the entireties, the
entirety of the sky, but only men are to blame
for the actual consequences of not doing so. This is
just that's misogyny, guys. And I just okay, I gotta
check the time, because I have a rant, because I
have consistently found out every time that I talk to

(31:22):
a feminist who uses these buzz terms of misogyny, I
have asked GROC to estimate their diminishment of consequential agency
of women versus men. What does that mean? It means
that you take an action and the action has meaningful
consequences in the greater world. Every single time, feminist women

(31:43):
diminish women's consequential agency at about seventy five to ninety
or ninety five percent relative to men. And then recently
I've been asking GROC to create a shocking neurological, like
a shocking visual to demonstrate what these women are doing,
and what they're doing consistently is lobotomizing the prefrontal cortex

(32:08):
of women. This entire ideology lobottomizes the prefrontal cortex of women.
And then when men would point out that the drooling
idiot that they have been assigned to is not doing
her work in the project that they need to get
done so that everyone survives, feminists call it misogyny as

(32:29):
they sharpen their ice pick for the next lobotomy. Okay,
all right, yes.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
So Emmanuel, these elixirs for young male malaise in the
form of new zoning regulations and tax credits for first
time homeowners. Theovann's audience, the barstool crowd. They can't get
enough of this stuff. But Emmanuel does not see such promise.
In New York City's mayor elect the Democratic Socialists are
on Mandani, even though Mamdani's campaign focus relentlessly on affordability

(32:58):
and according to early exit polling, one male voters between
the ages of eighteen to twenty nine by an astonishing
forty points. Although that was that election was decided by women,
not men. Yes, there were a number of men that
voted for him, but women are the ones that brought
it home. And I talked about this on yesterday's show,

(33:18):
and I made a video about it, and wig Nats
got into my comments and were like, no, it was
brown people. And it's true that a high percentage of
Muslim immigrants that just got here voted for him, but
they paled in the actual numbers compared to the number
of women who voted for him, And they were voting
for free shit. And that's I mean, yeah, a lot

(33:40):
of men did too, and that's a shame because I
think that they're you know, I think they're just misinformed.
I think they get the idea they're going to get
something and they're not going to But yes, women are
the ones that put that guy in office, and I
want people to understand that. And that's the funny thing
about wignats is that they get lumped in with the manisphere,
but they can't seem to see men in their you know,

(34:01):
I don't know, in their framework of seeing everything in
terms of racial dynamics. And that's that's a shame for them,
because they will continue to lose until they understand that
their women are their greatest enemy, not the brown guy
across the street. Sorry, So it's the woman. It's the
woman that's voting for these policies and doesn't give a shit,
wants to kill your babies and you know, reproduced with

(34:21):
strange men. So that's your problem anyway. No, yeah, that's
it was a women. Yeah. When Emmanuel wrote into the
Wall Street Journals to criticize Mammdani's unabashedly leftist agenda, the
letter was headlined, my party's future isn't Mamdani's New York. Yeah,
so so what I mean? Yeah, some I don't want

(34:42):
to call them moderate, but like some Democrats don't want
what Mamdani wants, But it doesn't matter because he has
the women's vote and that's what you're gonna get now
because you didn't stop to think. I wonder if men
need help. So now you're just in an endless irol
of trying to please women. And that's where it's going anyway.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
I wonder where these these highly centralized dictatorial cultures with
Harem's come from.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
Yeah, no, that, like, what do you think that?

Speaker 2 (35:13):
Like? Seriously, this guy gets into power and he surrounds
himself with women. What do you think harem was in
the past? Guys? Okay, let's let's.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
Keep going, all right, what's some of the What some
Democrats would prefer, it seems, is a centrist manisphere of
their own. One imagine the podcast studio attached to a
well appointed gym where a bunch of white guys are
discussing abundance over beta alanine smoothies and doing pistol squats
to the theme song from Pod Save America. So again,
another dismissal, Oh, it's so silly. Why would you want

(35:44):
a centrist manisphere whatever that even means. In Notes on
Being a Man, Galloway, who has expressed bullishness on the
presidential prospects of both Newsom and Immanuel, declares that discontented
members of gen Z and the boys and and teens
of Jen Alpha need an aspirational vision of masculinity, a
vision opposed to the misogynist messaging that's epitomized by influencers

(36:06):
such as Andrew Tait and Nick Foyntes. So do you
want to say anything to that, because I can say something. Yes,
Alison stepped away.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
Okay, yeah, I'm I'm I'm under sustained void cat attacks.
So I'm trying to see if maybe if I sit
down on the couch for a sec and she'll just
settle down, so, you know what, take it away and
if I see, if I hear something, because I will
be listening. I'm never far away, always watch.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
Oh that's fine. So okay, so she this is the
thing that I'm getting from this. Okay, this the woman
who wrote this article thinks that Rama Manuel and Gavin
Newsom are centrist and that what they want to build
she doesn't want. Does that? Does that track? Let me
read it again? Okay, what some Democrats would prefer, it

(36:57):
seems is a centrist MANI sphere of her own. One
imagines a podcast studio attached to well appointed Jim where
a bunch of white guys are discussing abundance over beta
alanine smoothies and doing pistol squats of the theme song
from Pod Save America. In Notes Being a man, Galloway,
who has expressed bullishness on the presidential prospects of both
Newsom and Emmanuel, declares that discontented members of gen Z

(37:20):
and the boys of Jen Alpha need an aspirational vision
of masculinity. She thinks that that's where her claim is
that guys like Gavin Newsom and Rama Manuel are centrist
Democrats or center left guys, and that they would be
building a centrist manisphere, which I think she dislikes. She
wants she wants them to be like far left, that's

(37:44):
what she wants.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
But I think far left in this case is just
completely wrapped around women because I think what she means,
what she means by sex.

Speaker 1 (37:54):
She wouldn't call it far left, she call it normal.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Well, yes, exactly. It's interesting she's using this political labels
because that's not what she's actually she's saying. What she's
saying is people who deserve to exist and people who
do not deserve to exist. So the non people like
Gavin Newsome em Manuel. They actually look at the situation
and they see other things that are wrong aside from men.

(38:18):
So they're centrist. So the far right doesn't see men
as a problem. Centrist people recognize that men are a problem,
but there are other problems. And her, the real people,
the good people, the people that deserve to exist, recognize
that men are the only problem. I think that's her
political landscape that is terrifying. Continue, Brian, and I sort

(38:41):
of like the void cat because okay, so I went
over to the couch. I'm like, okay, come here, come here,
tell me, I'll snugg explained, let me explain. I went
over to the couch, I called the cat over. I'm like, okay,
we can snuggle. Like, I'll give you some undivided attention.
She sat over there and ignored me. But as soon
as I I'm here, She's like she got she has

(39:03):
to be in like a fly. And I'm wondering, perhaps
this is stressing her or is it just because she
doesn't want me to pay attention to anything but her.
But if I'm if I am paying attention only to her,
then she can't cat block someone else from getting my attention.
I don't know, anybody who understands Cat's psychology, maybe explain this.

(39:25):
All right, let's continue, all right.

Speaker 1 (39:28):
So she also makes sure to point out that anything
to avoid the misogynist messaging epitomized by Andrew Tay and
Nick Fuente. So those two they have, like you know,
they they they they're basically like lepers, absolute lepers at
all costs. Don't even move towards that. So that's a
that's a non starter self help memoir. In part Dudes

(39:49):
rock polemic. The book presents a capital letter credo men protect, provide,
and pro create. Masculinity can be expressed simply by getting
up at fucking six in the morning and going to work,
doing shitty work such that you can protect your family economically.
Galloway once said, so yeah, I mean, like, and this
guy is pro Gavin Newsom and Robin Manuel. So it's

(40:11):
like it's almost like these guys don't know what men need,
and so all they have is what they think men
have always done, and that's all they got. They have nothing.
There's nothing progressive here at all, obviously, and it's it's
like they've never been progressive, because that's a bullshit label
to hide what they really are. Which is basically just
like misinderous communists.

Speaker 2 (40:32):
So trivalize.

Speaker 1 (40:34):
Yeah, yeah, they are they they want men to be
a slave class like you know. That was speaking of
which there was an interesting rant that I put in
my my ex of Nick Puentez, and he was saying
that if aliens came here and they and they didn't
know anything about humans, and they watched humans, they would
think men were a slave class, that the like compared

(40:55):
to women that he had. He observed that, he noticed that,
and he said that, so, you know, say what you
want about him. I'm I don't know, like you know,
he's one of those people that you can't pin dow
what they actually believe because they're constantly changing things. But
that was a correct statement. So all right anyway, and
the evolved man also ensures that he does not slack

(41:15):
off domestically, emotionally, or logistically, leaving his partner to ask,
in Galloway's signature demotic demotic, okay, boss, what the fuck
are you bringing to the table.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
So Galloway basically just adds, so, not only does a
man have to be a provider protector, and I guess
procreator means saying yes to your woman to whatever she
wants to do sexually, he also has to do all
to do his half more than his half of his
traditional He has to do his traditional role, and then
he has to do half of her traditional role, including

(41:47):
the role that she will claim she does better, which
is emotional labor and also logistically managing the household.

Speaker 1 (41:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (41:55):
So yeah, this is basically traditional masculinity but more more.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
Yeah, and that's that's really what feminism like. What it
ends up being a traditional masculinity plus more. Basically traditional
masculinity without the thank you with.

Speaker 2 (42:11):
That's mainstream feminism. Radical feminism is traditional masculinity without ever
being in the presence of a woman ever.

Speaker 1 (42:21):
Yeah, it's like, right.

Speaker 2 (42:23):
The legitimacy of her political what her political access appears
to be, is the legitimacy of the male identity in
and of itself. So the reason why Andrew take Nick,
even though I don't really think that they are liberating
men from anything in this axis, they are represent masculinity

(42:45):
as having a value in and of itself. Now, that's
where I would agree with Nick Fuentes and Andrew take Galloway,
who is a centrist, and Gavin, who is a centrist,
says masculinity has a value in service to women. That's
the traditional masculinity plus no thank you, like you don't

(43:06):
even get any gratitude. And then far left is masculinity
has no value at all, which is why men should
be slaves.

Speaker 1 (43:14):
Yes, basically, okay, okay. The good man of the Reasonable Center,
in Galloway's view, adheres to a code indistinguishable from that
of the Boy Scouts, mental and physical fitness, emotional resilience,
hard work, financial prudence, caring for others. Few could object
to any of this. But the person it describes, a

(43:34):
kind of conscientious sort who aspires to make a decent
living and who looks after their loved ones, seems blessedly
gender free. So why make this about manhood? Even the
boy Scouts have gone co ed. So now it's like,
here are a bunch of qualities that I think will
be good for men, And she's like, why does it
have to be men? Though?

Speaker 2 (43:51):
Yes, And that's the problem that I've identified multiple times
in the past. They can't allow anything any unique good
for masculinity or men. And this is this is these
are the people who say that this is all about socialization, right,
They say that this that all the bad that men
do is supposedly about socialization, although they don't live up

(44:13):
to the socialization explanation, like you can't just say things.
You can't just say things in research that that's not
the way academia is supposed to work. If you say
it's about socialization, you need to have a plausa plausive,
plausible mechanism for how socialization explains the universality of male ideology.

(44:36):
Because feminists say that male ideology has one hundred percent
per penetration with men, right, so it's basically one to
one with men. Well nothing, No socialization does that, and
yet that's what they claim. So in essence, they want
to treat male ideology as a bio essentialist label. So

(44:58):
in other words, it's it's just there by virtue of
a man being a man because it's one to one
with being like a man identifying as a man. So
they want to have the bio essentialists like one hundred
percent penetration, but pretend they're talking about socialization so they
don't have to deal with the ethical questioning of creating

(45:23):
bio essentialist categories, like saying you are this because you
were born this way that is subject to a lot
of ethical scrutiny in academia, but feminists aren't because they
handwave it as socialization, even though no socialization could possibly
ever have created one hundred percent penetration of masculine ideology

(45:48):
across ethnic, across cultural, across racial, across religious, across national lines.
There's no socialization, no plausible mechanism of socializing that could
create that level of penetration, And yet they're allowed to
assert this and pretend it's not bio essentialists, pretend they're

(46:08):
not literally saying men are bad because that biological category
is bad. They are born criminal, right, That's what they're saying,
And they're not supposed to be allowed to say that
in academia, but for some reason, academia let them get
away with it. It is they say. It's so, they

(46:31):
say that they're appealing to socialization, but the functional thing
that they're describing is assigning a criminal category based on
somebody's genetics. You are a criminal because of your genetics.
That's what they're doing. To men. You are a criminal
because of X Y. That's what they're doing. And I

(46:54):
can't understate that, I can't overstate this enough. This is
a massive ethical breach that has been allowed to go
on for seventy years in academia with nobody saying boo
to these people, and everybody just titters every time. This
bioessentialist bigotry of you are born criminal because you're a

(47:15):
man pukes up a bit of genocidal ambition in any
one of its adherents, like we'll reduce the male population
down to ten percent, we'll treat men like library books
that women can check out and rape when they want anytime.
This just sort of bubbles up from this massive evil,

(47:38):
ethical monstrosity, unethical monstrosity. Everybody just titters about it. And
yet it's basically like, you know, the lava like the
e vents on a volcano showing the massive amount of
corruption and cultural rot below it. And this is corruption

(48:00):
and cultural rod. This should never have happened. There should
never have been an academic branch that basically declared half
the human race criminal because of their biology. That shouldn't
have happened. We should have had safeguards against that. Our
current academia prides itself on having safeguards against that. And

(48:22):
yet what has happened. I don't know if any like
I'm sorry, I use a lot of very abstract stuff,
But I hope you understand that it is not acceptable
to regard half the human race as born criminal because
of their genetics. Yeah, and that there is no plausible

(48:44):
socialization mechanism to explain in that there's none, and it's
only appealed to in order to avoid the recognition of
the massive ethical breach that feminism represents. It is a
massive ethical breach. Is this shouldn't have happened. Feminism shouldn't

(49:05):
have happened. It's not just that it did happen. It
shouldn't have happened. And we don't even have to appeal
to a patriarchy that doesn't care about women. If academia
applied its ethical rigor consistently, feminism would never have happened.
They weren't even held to the standards of any other science,
and they were allowed to fester and infect policy government.

(49:28):
Academia NGOs people dealing with social ills like domestic violence
and sexual assault like this is this is I hate
to tell you, guys, but this is like our society
has terminal, fourth stage cancer, and I don't know, maybe
we could be a cautionary tale for the next one.
All right, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (49:49):
Well, I got a couple of super childs.

Speaker 2 (49:52):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
Richard Bierre gives us five dollars and says a super
child and says, don't you know just how much better
life will be without electricity, indoor toilets, internet, and other
modern technology. Think about how much better off the environment
will be without so much carbon emissions that results from
the technological lifestyle. Yeah, well we're gonna find out, probably,

(50:15):
so I can't wait. It's like Christmas morning, which maybe
not because it hasn't been put into you know, law
or policy, so maybe not Christmas. Then Great Indoors gives
us five dollars and says five dollars for a close
up of the magnificent rascal called Voidcap.

Speaker 2 (50:33):
Please let me see if I can get her. Can
you see her?

Speaker 1 (50:40):
Yep?

Speaker 2 (50:41):
Okay, there you go. I'll do it briefly so that
she does not become unsettled. There you go. Okay, let's
do some more.

Speaker 1 (50:48):
All right, the good man already read that part. So yeah,
I just want to point out that she like makes
this little remark about the boy scouts going co ed.
That's that's that's actually kind of like that's like a
victor face stomp. I'm just letting you know, like the
the Boy Scouts were destroyed because they let women in,
I think, and it wasn't meant for women. And there

(51:09):
was already a Girl Scouts, but that wasn't enough. So like,
even though we already had a Girl Scouts, the women
wanted to be in the Boy Scouts too, And now
there's the Girl Scouts and then there's just the Scouts.
You know.

Speaker 2 (51:20):
The big main problem is that she doesn't want to
acknowledge that there is anything good about men or masculinity.

Speaker 1 (51:26):
And this is just like an extra taunt on top
of that, even though she's trying to like make a
claim like, well haven't we moved on from men having
an identity? Even the Boy Scouts are basically destroyed. So
all right, there is no question that the generation's long
erosion of the US manufacturing base and the diminution diminsh

(51:47):
whatever the shrinking of the unionized pension jobs that this
sector had offered, disproportionately harmed working class men. This is
perhaps especially true for black men, who's access to these
ceiti well playing jobs. Great the expanded following the victories
of the civil rights movement, which we have to point
out because you know, black men aren't only they're not men,
they're just black. So that's what it is. I don't

(52:10):
care about them because they're men. I don't even care
about them because they're black. They're just useful to like
drive home how good of a person I am. Yeah,
ongoing ongoing industrial collapse has shaped many of the statistics
that are central to the man crisis discourse. Yet if
you tilt some of the most commonly cited data points
this way or that, you can just as easily argue
on the behalf of a woman crisis as a man crisis,

(52:32):
or perhaps most accurately, for an ongoing multidirectional crisis affecting
us all.

Speaker 2 (52:37):
So, now we're moving into women have it worse. She
has basically gone away from this idea of recognizing that
masculinity has any inherent value like and honestly, you cannot
avoid recognizing that masculinity has inherent value if you recognize
biological differences, right, if you recognize their biological effects of testosterone,

(53:05):
then you have to recognize that men have of a
unique value. And for example, it seems to center around
their higher risk tolerance, which leads to the ability to
sacrifice oneself in certain certain areas that are very critical
for the maintenance of a modern society. So, for example,

(53:26):
men are far more willing to sacrifice their lives to
help others. Now, their effective empathy is actually pretty it's
pretty much found to be equal to that of women.
That means that not the empathy of being able to
read another person's emotional states, which doesn't mean that you're
going to be impacted by them to do anything, but

(53:46):
the empathy of reacting to people being hurt or people
being in trouble. And the way that men react to
that is they have They absolutely one hundred percent react
as much as women to depictions of other people in pain.
So they one hundred percent react to it. And that's
based on physiological markers that can't be misunderstood or misconstrued

(54:11):
like social reports. But the difference is that while women
have a greater i think affective empathy, so they actually
internalize or feel that emotion that they are seeing, men
pivot to threat detection, to external analysis for threat detection,
and coupled with the fact that they are much less

(54:34):
risk adverse, this is why they sacrifice themselves when they
see someone in potential danger. When they see someone hurting,
men are much more likely to physically sacrifice themselves to
prevent that person from being harmed further or put in
more danger. And they are specifically psychologically or physiologically cue

(54:55):
to do this. And it also has another effect that
we're going to cover later. It's it's the Twitter thing
that we mentioned, So just keep this in mind. It
has an effect when it comes to social groups and
cultural groups as well. We'll get into that later. I
just wanted to point that out because she is saying,

(55:15):
what she's really pushing back against is the idea that
men have any legitimacy whatsoever, that there is anything good
about men. That's what she's pushing back against. That's what
she doesn't like. She wants everything to them. Yeah, yeah,
that's what she's put you back against, the very concept
that men have validity, which ties into her belief system,

(55:38):
because the feminist belief system is a bio essentialist bigotry
that says that men are born criminal because they are men. Yep, okay,
and criminals don't have legitimacy, right, okay, right, Oh, we've.

Speaker 1 (55:57):
Been doing this for a little over an hour. I
don't know if you want to, we have two other
things that we're going to be looking at. Right, what
I can do a little huh.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
Or you can summarize what's the rest.

Speaker 1 (56:09):
Well, I don't know what the rest of it is,
but I can read this paragraph. I mean, I think
what she's gonna do is she's going to explain that,
you know, women, Yeah, women have it worse so the
college gender gap, or that men don't have it as
bad as a think. The college gender gap, for instance,
could be evidence of a reltherless demoralized generation of young men,
But have you considered that it also could be the

(56:29):
product of differing economic incentives like the pay gap. A
paper published last year by Georgetown University Center on Education
in the Workforce examines the labor landscape of rural America,
noting that women need more education to earn the same
amount of money as men, and that the less educational
worker has the more this gender gap widens. The overall
trajectory for the lowest earning men is not good, certainly,

(56:52):
but it's not clear that their female counterparts are faring better.
So they did this paper in rural America, noting that
women need our education to earn the same amount of
money as men.

Speaker 2 (57:03):
Again, like they're still getting it.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Yeah, Like, well what do you like, who cares? Who
makes the money? Who is the money spent on? Like
a man could make billions of dollars and a woman
could have no job and get all of his money.
So who cares who makes the money? Like this is
the only thing they have is men make more money? Yeah,
but what do they make it for? What do men

(57:27):
earn money for? What do they do with it? What
does the average man do with his money? He buys
nice things, a house, a car. Why to attract a woman?
What for? So he can give that money to her?
That's why? So like this whole men make more. When
women make more money, do they give it to men? No,
they spend it on themselves. So men spend money on

(57:48):
women and women spend money on women on themselves. So
then like, why are we looking at how much somebody
is making? It's a real like why why aren't we
looking at spending money is being spent?

Speaker 2 (57:59):
Well, because one actually emphasizes women's victimhood and the other
recognizes that they're not really victims if they're spending more
than men. Okay, let's go to the next Let's go,
let's go what next paragraph.

Speaker 1 (58:12):
Let's see suicide gender gap for another example, is actually narrowing.
In two thousand and seven, it was five to one,
and young women attempt suicide more often than young men do.
Women's wages overall are still seventeen percent lower than men,
partially because women are vastly overrepresented many relatively underpaid provinces
of health care and social services. Like, women attempt more,

(58:32):
but they don't. Could they don't see it through? Men
do because women usually do it as a cry for help.
Men do it because they no longer they feel like
they're a burden on society and that they make a
logical decision, and they say, I am better off not
alive for everyone else than alive.

Speaker 2 (58:52):
Can I make a point here? If women are committing
suicide more often, could the fact that now they're in
relationships with other women more often be part of it?
Because you know, it's not just men that have one
of the risk factors for committing suicide is problems or
the end of a relationship. It's also the same for

(59:14):
lesbian women. There's something about relationships with women that just
you know, very fatal. So maybe that's part of it,
and maybe also feminism itself might have some to blame,
considering they're promoting a self lobotomy in their rhetoric, like
you're they're literally promoting women to do the equivalent of

(59:35):
a soft lobotomy on themselves, which induces a negative death
spiral of learned helplessness and resentment in women. Could you
take some responsibility for that potentially increasing the late rate
at which women commit suicide? But regardlessly, I noticed that
she's again pivoting, She's trying to pivot everything towards women
are the biggest victims, because that's part of the narrative.

(59:57):
If women are the biggest victims, that means men are
definitely the c don't you know. Okay, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
Let's see at this. Yeah, so at the and this
same asymmetry helps to explain the unemployment gender gap among
younger adults. Healthcare is the source of most labor force
growth in the US, and it's women who are taking
most of those jobs, even though unemployment among black women
is up, partially because they were overrepresented in federal agencies
that were decimated by DOGE, and labor force participation among

(01:00:27):
women with children is down, possibly because of rising childcare
costs and the kinds of strict return to office policies
endorsed by the Trump administration. So the Orange man did this. Okay, again,
federal agencies usually have a lot of bloat, and like,
if you want to like reduce spending, then you reduce
the number of jobs. And it's I mean, it's not

(01:00:48):
my fault. Black women want all the government jobs. So
those go. Then they're going, it's not likely. They're like,
we're going to fire and because black women work here,
it's like, no, we're we're trimming down the government anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:00:58):
I mean, you know, you guys really that eventually money
it runs out or the entire system implodes with inflation.
Like this cannot continue. We cannot just pretend we're being productive.
And I don't I don't include like I'm not just
saying people who citizens like the average Joe and Jane

(01:01:18):
is the only one. I'm not just pointing fingers at that.
I'm actually pointing far more fingers, like all of my
fingers up at these these corporate government entities, and I
say their corporate government entities. Because once your business plan
includes getting bailed out by the governments, are you are
deeply up the government's ass. At that point, you can't

(01:01:39):
consider yourself some sort of separate capitalist organization. I'm pointing
my fingers at them too. Right, This is this is
bullshit from top to bottom. What a surprise, considering we
embrace bullshit in the relationship between men and women. Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:01:54):
Among the more practical proposals to have emerged from the
man crisis discourse is that the US should mount a
campaign to recruit more young men to so called heel jobs.
The acronym sounds for health, education, administration, and literacy. The
teaching and nursing professions are facing serious labor shortages. These
jobs don't come with big paychecks and are often grueling,
but they're also resistant to automation and relatively recession proof.

(01:02:18):
In the best selling Germaid of Boys and Men, the
social scientist Richard V. Reeves writes, we need to break
the cycle of professions taught by women for women. Some
robust affirmative action is justified here. The economists and former
Times columnist Paul Krugman has recently taking up Reeves's refrain,
writing on his substack. Many of these occupations are female

(01:02:38):
coded and have become more so over time, partly because
they're underpaid. No, No, do you know why men don't
go into teaching because they're treated like predators. That's why.

Speaker 2 (01:02:51):
Yeah, they don't go into nursing for similar reasons. Yeah,
and incidentally, nursing is still not more grueling than the
jobs that men are already doing. Right, let's let's finish
that par It's sort of annoying that we're pivoting to
and women have it worse, of course.

Speaker 1 (01:03:05):
Yeah, but it's not it's not surprising.

Speaker 2 (01:03:07):
No, I predicted it, so of course it is not surprising.

Speaker 1 (01:03:10):
But they don't have to be. We can help attract
men to these coccupations in part by increasing the wages
heal occupations pay. So she's just like, just pay them more.
Let's just fix wages. I don't you know what when
you say they don't pay that, well, I'd like to
see what that is, because I bet you can make
you can live off of, like a job in health education,
administration and literacy. I know that, Like teachers were always

(01:03:32):
complaining about their money while living in a fucking house
with a car. You know, I'm sorry, but that's you're
doing pretty good if you have a house, If you
have a mortgage, all right. Anyway, women, it should be noted,
have dominated the teaching profession since the nineteenth century, not
because it's a misundersk job protection racket, but because early
public education advocates found that they could expand the school

(01:03:53):
system more quickly by hiring women teachers, whom they could
pay less than men. Really, okay, public education advocates, so
early statists that wanted to use the state to pay
for education. So the government that started education thought they
could hire women and pay them less than men, is

(01:04:13):
what you're claiming, while you're also advocating for the government
to do things. So you know the government doesn't do
things well, and you're claiming they are discriminatory against women,
but you also think the government should do something about
this too. Yeah, so like mixed wages. They should like,
you know, take care of people, but you know that
they're not good at doing stuff like jobs, but you

(01:04:33):
also want them to do those things. You can't make
up your mind about what you think about the state,
no can.

Speaker 2 (01:04:39):
Well, she only knows that the state isn't men, so
that's good.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
Yeah, unless the state is discriminate against women, in which
case it is men.

Speaker 2 (01:04:47):
So men suddenly pop out of the state.

Speaker 1 (01:04:49):
Yeah, men become the state. Yes, okay. One might ask
if difficult, essential work might be well paid at this
moment in history regardless of a person's sex, But then
much of dissentrist Manisphere's rhetoric is predicated on refusing to
see half of what's in front of you.

Speaker 2 (01:05:05):
Why does she never say that jobs like keeping the
lights on and dangerous jobs that Why doesn't she say
that these jobs need to be paid more? So she
talks about nursing. You know why she talks about nursing
because women are mostly in it, and she knows that
women can continue to discriminate against men going into nursing
while getting better salaries. So it's not going to change

(01:05:26):
anytime soon unless she wants to address mean girl bullying
of men in nursing hight right, Nope, she's not going
to do that, or the institutional threat that women in
these these women dominated industries post men, so she'll she'll
she knows that women can keep fortressing these issues, so
she's not advocating for men in any sense. She's basically

(01:05:48):
just saying, well, men have problems, so why don't we
pay nurses more? Because that will help women.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
This is this is so.

Speaker 2 (01:05:57):
On, so entirely expected it. Okay, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (01:06:03):
Newsom's executive order under concerning men and Boys acknowledges the
strong correlation between social media usage and mental health disorders
such as depression and anxiety, but it doesn't note that
these effects manifesting girls are significantly higher rate. Yeah, because
of other fucking girls. That's why you won't. You won't obviously,
you won't confront that like that that anyway, And and

(01:06:24):
Newsom doesn't. First of all, Newsom, if he said it,
he's wrong about that. But like, okay, he's fucking Gavin Newsom.
I don't. I don't trust him, like as far as
I could throw him. But he's part of the manosphere. Now, yeah,
he's basically part of the manosphere. Do you guys know
that Gavin Newsom is in the manisphere? Now, this is crazy.
These people have gone.

Speaker 2 (01:06:43):
This begets because gravin Newsom allows that men. There are
other problems aside from men like this. I can't explain this.
I cannot articulate this or emphasize I.

Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
Know what you're saying, Alison. It's fine, we know I'm
emphasizing it.

Speaker 2 (01:06:58):
Not just for you before the audience. I can't emphasize
this enough. These people think that men are born criminal, right,
and they reject anything that doesn't ultimately end on men
being to blame and women being the biggest victims because
that is their ideology. They see the entire world through

(01:07:19):
that lens that men are born criminal. So Gavin Newsom
is a centrist to this woman because while Gavin Newsom
recognizes that men have privilege and are entitled and all that,
And Scott Galloway is a centrist because while Scott Galloway
recognizes that men have privilege in our title, he also
sees men as part of the solution, the potential solution,

(01:07:43):
which is double plus bad. But he also recognizes there
there might be other problems aside from men. See that's
the centrist position, guys, you know that men aren't actually
you know, there could be other problems that the human
race faces, like, for example, bears, bears could be a
problem that men aren't.

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:08:01):
Or how about earthquakes. Earthquakes could be a problem that
men aren't. How about tsunamis? How about starvation? Wait, no,
starvation is always caused by men. How about well, poisoning
well men are the ones poisoning the wells, right always so,
the idea that somebody can recognize that there are problems
that aren't at their core a result of the existence

(01:08:22):
of men is centrism, even if they do recognize that
men maybe are the biggest problem, you know, and that
men have to change and have to be subordinate to feminists.
And this is a direct result again of the criminalization
that the criminalization of men themselves of basically equating being
a man with being born a criminal. This is the

(01:08:44):
political result, This is the political fallout and also off
lobotomies of women. This is something I so so proud
to be a part of.

Speaker 1 (01:08:51):
He could have said, young people, unless college bursars and
landlords run a discount program for the ladies, which I
haven't heard about. So yeah, like, how dare you make
this about men when you could also make this about women?
In fact, let's just make it about women. Emmanuel and
his Washington Post op ed endorses a double standard with
even greater frankness. The cost of housing, he writes, is

(01:09:12):
of course a problem for all Americans, men and women alike,
but unpopular as it might be to say in some
quarters of my party, the crisis affects one gender with
particular potency. In other words, men and women pay the
same bill, but we are obligated to understand that the
social and spiritual price that extracts from men is higher.
If women want an emergency to call their own, it
can be that they are not having enough babies. All right,

(01:09:35):
So why do men buy houses? And why do women
buy houses? That's all you got to ask. Why do
men buy houses because they want a woman that wants
a house? Why do women want hou buy houses because
they want a house?

Speaker 2 (01:09:50):
Yeah? Yeah? And then the other thing is that, how horrible, guys,
how horrible this man has said that the gender that's
most affected by homelessness is most affected by the price
of homes. How dare he?

Speaker 1 (01:10:07):
Again? Of course, Emmanuel and Newsome want votes from men
and women, so they're they're at least smart enough to
know they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot
by ignoring men, and they're at least maybe they're even
recognizing that. One of the main reasons why a Kamala
Harris lost a twenty twenty four election is that no

(01:10:27):
one in that party was able to even speak to
men like in their language, like as human beings because
they had no way to attract them, and now they're
trying to address that. But this woman is like, no,
she's like putting the monkey wrench right back in the machinery. No,
you can't do that. And you know what you can

(01:10:47):
have that that can be your friend, Those can be
your people. As far as I'm concerned, please let us
support this woman. Take it all the way. Let's take
it to its logical endpoint. That's what I want to see.
Achieve singularity here, erase men completely and watch and see
if that helps. You know, seriously, take it all the
way to the fucking event horizon. Just go to the end.

(01:11:09):
I want to see that, because that's what this woman
is doing. These guys are like, dude, I really you
know what we we're gonna need some men. We're gonna
need some votes from men. What do we do even
if it's the most cold, like absolutely, like I don't
give a shit about these people. I just want their votes. Attitude,
I'm just gonna try and sell it. This woman's like, no,
you can't do that, because you're racing women and that's

(01:11:30):
what you get. That's what you get. This woman is
exactly what you deserve, and I hope we see more
of this. That's what I want.

Speaker 2 (01:11:38):
Well at least, yeah, because at least she's honest, you know, like,
at least she's honest.

Speaker 1 (01:11:46):
Like I don't, I don't. I don't think men have problems.
I don't care about their problems. You shouldn't care about
their problems either. In fact, we should just make this
about women all the time and then like and it's like, yeah,
that's that's the framework you've created, so now live within it,
see it to its end conclusion. And maybe when you
come out the other side, if you come out the
other side alive, you'll be like, huh, Probably shouldn't do

(01:12:08):
that again. Maybe we should start treating men like human beings.
Maybe we should see this at for what it is.
Maybe women can also be a problem. Maybe they created
this problem. Maybe this is how we got in this mess. Yeah,
maybe all of that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:22):
So yeah, good luck, because unfortunately I'm not kidding about
the softlebotomy, because this is the horror that I was
like thinking about last night in the middle of the night,
like three in the morning. These women don't have the
mental capacity to understand this situation. At all, like they
have they have they haven't physically done it, but they

(01:12:42):
have cut off their own perception of the parts of
the brain that are capable of understanding what we're talking about.
It's like, I'm actually curious. I'm actually wondering if this narrative,
this feminist narrative, has managed to cut off so many
parts of women from so many parts of their breaths
that they no longer understand language in an abstract sense,

(01:13:04):
that language has simply become a way to get people
to do things like just buttons to push like it's
it's actually pretty terrifying. And I I talk to these people,
I don't know how to jar them out of it.
How do you jar somebody out of the decision to
lobotomize themselves after they've done so? You can't. It's like, so,

(01:13:27):
I mean, good luck with this woman. I don't think
that she's at this point capable of the cognitive function
necessary to understand anything that we're saying. Please stop lobotomizing yourselves, ladies. Please,
you know we got some shit we need to fix.
What else can you say? Like? And I say that
to them, and they're like, oh, you're such a pickm misogynist. Yeah, hey,

(01:13:47):
you realize that's the lobotomy talking.

Speaker 1 (01:13:49):
Okay, so the ambassadors of the centrist manisphere praise. So
this is the term now centrist mansphere for Gavin Newsom
and Rama Manuel for like far left democrats. The men
though they're men, they are men that want votes, so
like that puts them in the manisphere. They're just men.

Speaker 2 (01:14:04):
You guys, do you notice how big the manosphere is getting?

Speaker 1 (01:14:10):
Yeah, we're huge. We're everywhere now, guys.

Speaker 2 (01:14:12):
Getting We're like literally everything that is in your closet,
everything that isn't explicitly every single moment saying men are
criminal men or criminal menic criminal menor criminal men are criminal,
like every single men are illegitimate criminals, right, every single
If you're not saying that at every single second, you
are now part of the manosphere.

Speaker 1 (01:14:33):
Mm hmmm.

Speaker 2 (01:14:33):
And it just keeps growing because even women who are
feminists could be part of the manosphere if they're if
they even allow the possibility that women men could be
part of the solution, right, and that men have problems,
Now they're part of the manosphere. You're right, Just keep
doing this. Maybe at some point everybody will be in
the manosphere and we can actually have a discussion about men.

Speaker 1 (01:14:56):
Yeah yeah, okay, so anyway. Centers of the centrist manisphere
praise women's advancement and the feminist cause, while insisting that
men's economic and vocational anxieties are more naturally potent. This
ambivalence reveals the weakness of their side. The right wing
manisphere knows that masculinity is a series of dominant signals

(01:15:17):
beamed from behind iridescent Oakley's and the wheel of the
most enormous pickup truck you've ever seen. It is a
smirking multi millionaire who destroys a young woman at college
hosted debate. It is, must, it be said, an ar
fifteen openly carried manliness in the Trump era, Susan Faludi
has written, is defined by display value, which exhibits itself

(01:15:40):
in a pantomime of a greed aggression upon this stage,
men's biggest problem is feminism, and the solutions are straightforward
restrict reproductive rights propagandas about traditional gender roles, etc.

Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
How about just point out that feminism is an a biased, biosentialist,
supremacist bigotry that defines men as criminal by their virtue
of their birth and you can handle. You can handle though.

Speaker 1 (01:16:07):
Yeah, the fact that they criticize feminism, that's the reason why.

Speaker 2 (01:16:12):
She let's let's see what she's doing, not on the
level of ideology, but on the level of political maneuvering.
The ambassadors of the centrist manisphere praise women's advantment. The
ambivalence reveals the weakness of their side. So she considers
the right wing manispheres knows that masculinity is a series

(01:16:36):
of dominance signals. So masculinity is basically anti social dominance,
is what she's saying. So the right wing manosphere knows
that masculinity is antisocial dominance, and the centrist manisphere is
more presumably progressive, but still sees men as part of
the solution, so they're a problem to like, they still

(01:16:57):
recognize that men have traditional roles or roles that are
essential to fulfill and that that could be positive. So
that's the centrist manisphere. Now we have the far right
manisphere that's.

Speaker 3 (01:17:07):
Just like, masculinity is dominance, criminal dominance in every seconds
dance like fucking good, masculinity is saar on.

Speaker 1 (01:17:18):
Basically, it's an ar fifteen openly carried. It's uh, it's
a truck. It's basically like, it's just this cartoonish thing
that she sees, and all of it is, and she's
also pathological and criminal.

Speaker 2 (01:17:33):
She's also framing feminism and anti feminism because anti feminism
now is restricting reproductive rights. She just said, restrict reproductive rights. Yeah,
men's reproductive rights are already restricted. Even if a man
is raped, he's expected to assume these responsibilities of parenthood,
and that hand waving it about biology doesn't change that fact.
Women aren't. They don't because there is a strict demarcation

(01:17:57):
between women consent to sex and consent to parenthood or
even yeah, there's a strict demarcation for women. And yet
even when men don't consent to sex, they still have
strict liability for parental responsibilities. So there's no reproductive rights
for men. Men have no reproductive rights. We've never even

(01:18:18):
had that conversation, right, and propaganda is about traditional Well
you know that men also have traditional gender roles too,
not just women.

Speaker 1 (01:18:27):
Right, So all of this they're the only ones still
expected to carry them out only when it serves women
of course.

Speaker 2 (01:18:33):
Yes, But so she's saying anti feminism is traditional gender
roles and restricting women's reproductive rights because we already restrict men's.
Let's face it, So she gets to defy anti feminism
and feminism. Yep, that's convenient, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:18:51):
All right, So musquishy or centric side has no such certainties. Galloway,
in both his podcasts and notes on being a Man,
presents masculinity not as one side of a fixed binary,
but as a state of mind and lifestyle, one equally
available to men and women and therefore impossible to define.
Oh so now we have a problem defining what a

(01:19:11):
man is. Okay. Within this amorphous framework, men's biggest problem is,
likewise a feeling, an unreachable itch or a marrow deep
belief that men should still rank above women in the
social hierarchy, just not as much as before. This belief
may be misguided or unconscious, but it is nonetheless insufferable,
and it must be accommodated for the good of us. All.

Speaker 2 (01:19:34):
She is talking from a position of being part of
an ideology that has declared men criminal by virtue of birth,
which is a huge violation of all academic ethics in
our society. That's the position that she is opining from,
and she's saying, well, men want to put themselves in

(01:19:54):
front of women. No, men want it recognized that they
understand risk better and they can manage it better, which
is patently obvious based on biological differences. Men want women
to trust men doing the things that men do. That's
all that means submission. The thing is that I think

(01:20:15):
that that word has become the most controversial, but we
don't really even understand the original linguistic context of that word.
The original linguistic context is the idea of someone with
power submitting to the authority of someone who has knowledge. Right,

(01:20:37):
So it's the idea of an army submitting to a general.
That's more of the linguistic context of that statement, and
that's been stripped from it, and the reason why it
needed to be that way, because this is an implicit
or explicit acknowledgment that women can do whatever the fuck
they want. Let's face it, they can rebel, they can destroy,

(01:21:00):
they can convince men to do things against their own interests.
As May West said, when women go bad, men go
right after them. Women can fucking destroy societies if they want.
They can start wars if they want, They can create
protect they can create chaos and tumult. They can set

(01:21:21):
men's hearts and minds against them, right, they can do
all they can break men. And here's the trick, ladies,
not doing it. And that's the point of the word submission.
Not doing it. Your rebellion is the easy thing. Not

(01:21:41):
doing it is the hard thing. And that's why that
word was chosen, and it's lost that original meaning. So
we think it's just an act of dominance without without
having an incredible intelligence in it. And the reason why
it was chosen is because it is a recognition of
the power of women to do all kinds of destruction

(01:22:03):
if they don't, if they don't submit to somebody who
has greater knowledge of risk and systems. And that isn't
like it isn't about like this gormless he just dominates
over me, No, there is. It comes within a context
that the man is supposed to also love his wife

(01:22:23):
as he loves his own body, and protect and provide
for her as Christ protected and provided for the church.
So all of that is missing when she talks about
oh men, just let damn it. No, that's you with
your narrative that men are criminal born criminal. You just
want dominance.

Speaker 1 (01:22:45):
Okay, yep, all right, What these pundits are nudging us
to do, ever so politely, is except that women in
the main are accustomed to being a little degraded, a
little underpaid, and ignored and dampen in their ambition in
ways that men are not and never will be.

Speaker 2 (01:23:04):
Okay, wait, wait, wait, this is from the woman who
said why should men have anything? Why should there be
any unique value ascribed to men that isn't also ascribed
to women, And of course a bunch of values to women,
like not being horrible criminals that men don't have. Like
she has the audacity to lecture people about degrading when

(01:23:24):
she exists again in a philosophical framework that regards men
as criminal for being born men and refuses to acknowledge
any unique value that masculinity brings the world. Okay, I have.

Speaker 1 (01:23:40):
The female coded person Navarro Krugman's terminology may feel overwhelmed
by childcare costs, a shame that she can't acquire mortgage,
or hollowed out by long hours as an ICU nurse,
but such feelings do not disturb the order of the universe.
Sounds like you need a man. This person's duties to protect, provide,
and pro create are real, but they do not take

(01:24:02):
the capital p This person's opinions matter, but not decisively.
The Times pundit Ezra Kleine has lately suggested that Democrats
consider running an anti abortion candidates in red states, even
though more than three quarters of gen Z women support
abortion rights. Rights like jobs can be gender coded, and
these rights are valued according So she's getting a little

(01:24:23):
bit into like policy stuff. But abortion is not a right,
by the way, anyway, They're going to keep saying it is,
but it's not.

Speaker 2 (01:24:32):
Yeah, go ahead, okay, so you know, let's just keep going,
because I just find it astounding that she won't even
allow that there's any unique value to men or masculinity.
And then she insists on saying that these people are though,
and it's not even the right, it's not even the
far right.

Speaker 1 (01:24:48):
Guys.

Speaker 2 (01:24:48):
Then we're talking about the centrist manosphere, which they just
magic out of nowhere. They are the ones who are
denigrating women. This woman refuses to acknowledge any value for
masculinity or maleness, none whatsoever. And she's the one saying
that that the centrist are denigrating women by even focusing
on men at all, and that that that attitude can

(01:25:11):
only be explained by her having a political access or
axes or axis axis, where one one side. One side
is recognition of men's value and that they're part of
the solution, or that men have value period. The middle
is recognizing that men are a problem, but they could

(01:25:31):
be part of the solution, and her side is men
are only a problem and can never be part of
the solution and have nothing unique to add. Men are
completely illegitimate. Men are born criminal, thus completely illegitimate. That
explains this entire article, that framework.

Speaker 1 (01:25:48):
And that you need dad. Galloway, who has two sons,
said on a recent podcast, Oh my God, the humanity
a father. The nuclear family, he imagines, seems to be
one in which the mom is a default parent, while
the necessary dad is the authority figure to whom mom
can appeal as the occasion demands. Wow, that's you. You
extracted a lot from three words. There are certain moments

(01:26:10):
when my partner needs me to weigh in, Galloway explained,
I don't know if it's the depth of my voice,
my physical size. Boys, he went on, begin turning boys,
He went on, begin turning out out their mom over
time her By the way, these quotation marks are mess like,
I she it's all wrong. But anyway, look at it. No,

(01:26:32):
look because the word boys should be in quotes, but
it's not. It's outside the quotes.

Speaker 2 (01:26:36):
So that's yeah, no, I understand, Okay, the grammar is questionable.

Speaker 1 (01:26:42):
Excuse. Yeah. One might wonder how boys lose these frequencies
in the first place. One might long for a deep
voice to explain it. But this is like, there's some
truth here, because you know, there's like a viral, notoriously
viral video of a little Asian boy I think he's
Asian or Latino or something, and he's throwing a tantrum

(01:27:02):
because his mom is on them go to bed and
he doesn't want to go to bed. And then the
father comes in the room and tell them to go
bed once and he goes to bed right away. Now,
I don't know what you could you know what the
reasoning for that might be, but there's definitely something to it,
like a father does bring something to the family that
is unique. You know that the mother can't really substitute.

Speaker 2 (01:27:25):
But one might say that One might wonder how boys
lose these frequencies in the first place. They lose them
because they want to find out who they are and
what they're worth is. But you can't acknowledge the legitimacy
of anything beneficial about men or boys like And this
is the thing. If a woman can't acknowledge that, does

(01:27:46):
she deserve the benefits of it? Yeah, you got to
really ask yourself that, Okay, Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:27:55):
In a Boys of Men, Reeves, a fellow at the
Brookings Institution, draws on the work of the late British
sociologist Jeff Dench, who positive that the fundamental weakness of
feminist analysis is its failure to see that men may
need the status of the main provider role to give
them a sufficient reason to become fully involved and stay
involved in the longer term, draggy business of family life.

Speaker 2 (01:28:19):
Okay, No, this is Jeff Dench is giving feminism too
much credit. Okay, he's framing men as a problem if
they don't have this identity when feminism itself is a
massive problem. It is a massive breach of ethics. You

(01:28:41):
don't declare half the human race to be born criminal,
that's you genesis talk. It is a massive ethical breach,
and that is the biggest problem of feminism. So this
there's nothing to do with how feminism goes up against
traditional gender roles. But again this Jeff Dench is framing

(01:29:04):
men is the problem and feminism is failing to manage
men correctly. No, feminism is a blight upon the human
psyche in and of itself. This problem isn't That isn't
managing men correctly?

Speaker 1 (01:29:18):
Okay, keep going, and Reeves co signs a supply side
economist George Gilder's hypothesis that once wives become both provider
and procreator, their husbands become exiles in their own homes.
Reeves mostly rejects Guilder and Dench's line of reventiist reventist patriarchy,
but he credits them for correctly correctly diagnosing the dangers

(01:29:42):
of enemy and detachment among men stripped of their traditional
role in an age when two out of every five
households have a female primary breadwinner. No one seems to
know what fathers are for. Reeves has said one in
six fathers does not live with any of his children.
One study found that thirty two percent of non resident
fathers had minimal contact with their children within one year

(01:30:05):
of separating from their children's mother, and that within eight
years this number rose to fifty five percent.

Speaker 2 (01:30:11):
Yeah, because because they're losing custody. Yeah, all right, so
the dangers of detachment among men's traduced. Okay, well, shared
cheered parenting fixes that, Like, we already know the practical solution,
just shared parenting, which feminist support oppose because they oppose

(01:30:32):
any initiative that actually treats men like human beings instead
of a problem. Okay, that's next paragraph.

Speaker 1 (01:30:39):
Aryans gave us a super chat for five dollars and says,
we all know men aren't worth anything. Guys, we're fundamentally
worth the few seconds it takes for us to help
create another human.

Speaker 2 (01:30:48):
No, you're worth a lot. Okay, good, that's good, sarcast Molson.

Speaker 1 (01:30:52):
Come on, all right. Reeves frets that fatherless homes will
be get more lost boys, more twenty something men living
in their childhood bedroom, and more fractured families if we
do not update our obsolete model of the breadwinner father,
he warns, we will continue to see more and more
men being left out of family life. As for what
authority has decreed that these absent fathers should be left

(01:31:14):
out of their own families, Reeves never says the culprit's
identity is shrouded in passive voice. Nor does Reeves explain
how women's attainment of economic independence would cause their husbands
to be stripped of anything much less than many non
economic aspects of being a spouse or parent.

Speaker 2 (01:31:31):
No divorce law does that. Shared parenting the end. Yeah,
like this, there's a solution. We don't need to philosophize.
We don't need to conjecture, we don't need to cast
the villain in passive voice. We just need to universally
applied shared parenting and stop listening to feminists and their
bosom buddies, the divorce lawyers. Okay, Nextperica.

Speaker 1 (01:31:56):
The notion that fathers wander away from their families owing
to some gnawing sense of existential dislocation, some humiliating certainty,
certainty of their own uselessness, or ersipation is especially pungent
when one takes into account the enormous gender gap in
housework and child rearing in heterosexual marriages. So that's why, okay,

(01:32:17):
never mind. According to the Gender Equity Policy Institute, totally
not biased source, guys, mothers who work full time do
almost twice as much household labor as fathers. Researched by
the Nobel winning economist Claudia Golden has suggested that married
men's inclination towards housework and other draggy business of family
life maybe holding back birth rates, which should peak the

(01:32:41):
interest of Republican prota pronatalists such as Jadie Vance.

Speaker 2 (01:32:45):
All Right, I'm going into I'm going into this, Brian,
because this is a bull bunch of fucking bullshit.

Speaker 1 (01:32:50):
All right.

Speaker 2 (01:32:51):
First of all, again, this guy made men out of
the bybe the problem. The real problem is that women
don't want to We don't want to marry and how
children with men who are not providers. And the other
real problem is that an equitable distribution of household chores
is actually associated with a higher divorce risk. So women

(01:33:12):
will say they want that, but apparently you only want
to just feel resentment over that because if they get it,
they divorce the man. All right, So these solutions are
no solutions whatsoever. The one solution is shared parenting, period,
that's what we should be promoting, or don't get divorced.
But that shared parenting actually reduces the rate of divorce,

(01:33:33):
might actually, over time considerably reduce the rate of divorce.
And also that would ensure that men don't lose contact
with their children over time. But so this is all bullshit,
even the start of this, because Reeves is just some
random duty she found, doesn't mean that he has anything

(01:33:54):
like what he's saying is empirically sound, which it isn't. Again,
how are men being disaffected from their families when they
aren't able to start them? Because women want a provider
and men aren't earning enough to be in that role
at this time? Right, that there's nothing to do. This
is all driven by women's choices, which Reeve himself is

(01:34:17):
refusing to acknowledge to the full extent, even though this
woman is reading it into what he's saying anyway, because
he's the soft misogynist manosphere center, which is just soft
misogyny according to her or something. Right, So, but that
all of this is wrong. Men aren't getting into relationships
because they don't have enough funds to be regarded as

(01:34:39):
providers by the women who want to marry, who would
marry them otherwise. Period. They're getting divorced because they lose
their their status as provider, they don't have equitable custody
arrangements and loss they lose access to their children, equitable
division of household tasks, unfortunately, is associated with divorce. The
only way to change that is to, I guess, get

(01:35:01):
women not to regard men as doing household tasks as
being not alpha and not not sufficiently strong for them.
So it seems like women want men more to refuse
to do household tasks than they want them to actually
do them. So none of this is correct. Starting with
Reeves blaming men from feeling exiled from their families, what

(01:35:23):
families and who is doing the exiling? Is it really
the man just wandering off? Is like, Oh, I don't
want to make enough money, so I'm just gonna wander
off into the weeds. Or is it the woman initiating divorce? Again, nobody,
everybody here is just dancing like a bunch of imps
around the actual thing that's happening. They're they're they're just
spending all of their time dancing around it because they

(01:35:46):
don't have the fucking balls to blame women and and
or even just just be like, yeah, women can be
also to blame. We can't do that. And it's because
of the jagged, antique oversized influence of this ethically bankrupt
feminist narrative that men are born criminal, and everybody has

(01:36:12):
to dance around that. Everyone has to tithe mentally to that,
and women in particular because they have to lose certain
cognitive functions so they can continue to be a puppet
of it. All right, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (01:36:25):
So I only got about fifteen minutes before I have
to go pick Lindsay up and just let you know.
We're all, yeah, like, do you want me to just
finish this article? Then?

Speaker 2 (01:36:34):
Yeah, we could finish this article. I think. Well, okay,
let's give you like a quick update on South Korea.
Everything is screwed.

Speaker 1 (01:36:41):
We could go through the South Korea thing on Friday.
I mean, I don't know if we have something else
in mind, but.

Speaker 2 (01:36:45):
We have take a moment, like we just need to
point out the finding, right, So let's let's try to
get as far as we can into this because I
had more meat than I thought it would.

Speaker 1 (01:36:55):
Yeah, the deeper one sinks into our nation's alleged man
problem and its potential solution, she said dismissively. The more
the women reader may begin to feel something stronger than
resentment or intellectual disdain, She may begin to feel a
chauvinistic gratitude in her sex. The familiar flatness of feeling
a little degraded seems preferable to the anger, entitlement, and

(01:37:18):
alienation that we are told over and over gnaws away
at so many male specimens. What a gift is really
to have no choice in the matter, to have to
move out of your parents' home, to show up for
your shift, to change the diaper, not because of any
of it is gender affirming, but because life is full
of tasks that need doing and you are the person

(01:37:39):
who does. At least then you know who you are.

Speaker 2 (01:37:42):
What the fuck does this even mean?

Speaker 1 (01:37:44):
The default resents that men have problems like that. People
even pointed.

Speaker 2 (01:37:48):
Out that the more the woman reader may begin, fuck off.
You don't speak for me. Will a bottomy sister chauvinistic
gratitude in her sex? His life is full of task
that need doing and you're the person who does them.
So what is it to have to move to have
to move out of your parents' house. I don't think
your parents are forcing you out. I think you have
the means to move out of your parents' house, and

(01:38:09):
probably because your boyfriend is paying your bills or a
good portion of you to show up for your shift,
so you have a job. Isn't that empowerment? You don't
men don't have a job. They're just homeless or stuck
in their parents' basement to change the diaper so you
have access to your children. Not because any of it
is gender for me, because life is full of tasks

(01:38:31):
that need doing so because you have the responsibilities associated
with what we consider success and privilege. You are the victim,
but you're not just the victim. You're the victim of
being encouraged not to feel like the victim. This is
this paragraph is a lobotomy talking. Yeah, let's keep going,

(01:38:55):
but we're at four left, so let's just blaze through
it right.

Speaker 1 (01:38:59):
Reading in Galloway, one gets the sense that men last
knew who they were about seventy five years ago, much
as the Trump administration does when it vows to revive
the coal industry, or when it shares fascist light iconography
yawn that would be at home in a Paul Vierhoven film,
I mean the one that never mind. Galloway appeals to
the readers nostalgia from mid century peak male. It was

(01:39:22):
young men, he reminds us, who stormed the beaches at
Normandy and who won the Battle of the bulge when
Germans or Russians are streaming over the border or firing
from the beach, Big dick energy isn't just a nice idea,
it's fucking mandatory. Of course, the German soldiers were young
men too, and it isn't clear which border Galloway thinks
the Russians were crossing, or if he realizes which side

(01:39:44):
they were fighting for. So she's just being a bit pedantic.

Speaker 2 (01:39:47):
I think, yeah, you're being pedantic. I don't think she's
really recognizing because again you have to remember this is
lobotomy talk. I don't First of all, that wasn't big
dick energy, Like you actually read the story soldiers.

Speaker 1 (01:40:01):
Yeah, and what that stuff was like, Yeah, it's it's
not glorio. It's just because you know, people who'd never
seen action made movies about it.

Speaker 2 (01:40:09):
Yeah, it's It is a horrifying thing, and it is
a result of men's willingness to put themselves in harm's
way to protect others. So men literally endure hell on
Earth because they have that instinct to do so to
protect others. Has nothing to do with big dick energy.
Fucking more on. Sorry, that just really is.

Speaker 1 (01:40:33):
Okay, No, it's okay. It's being dismissive, it's purposeful. Galloway
also singles out two monumental building projects of the Great
Depression as bygone proof of men's capacity for collective effort,
incredible bravery, risk taking, aggression, and sacrifice. One was the
construction of the Hoover Dam. Sorry, go ahead, Okay, no,
just continue, We're gonna well, I know we're gonna learn

(01:40:54):
that women had it worse. That's what this whole thing
is about. One was the construction of the Hoover Dam,
during which Galloway points out, scores of laborers died of
heat exhaustion or carbon monoxide poisoning. The other was the
Empire State Building. Construction began in nineteen thirty an the
end of the year later, under budget and ahead of schedule,
Galloway notes approvingly. He does not add that the skyscraper
went up so fast and so cheaply in part because

(01:41:16):
New York City was filled with men who would work
for next to nothing under grueling, even lethal conditions, because
the implosion of global capital had buried wages and organized
labor beneath it. Perhaps these dire conditions only burnish the
men's heroism, So are the problem too. Yeah, we got
to make this about because the thing is, like you
can say men were paid next to nothing, but they

(01:41:39):
still were willing to do it. Yes, they wanted to
do it, and they use it to support their families.
We were in a great depression. There was nothing that
you could do to change that. They had to get
through it. So those that's what some men did. And
you're just gonna poop poo that because you don't want
to acknowledge that men were doing for something. They were
trying to be productive in hell helpful. Instead you're like, well,

(01:42:01):
that's because of the the mecapitalism.

Speaker 2 (01:42:09):
No, it's because men did this to men. Men did
this to themselves, so that we can't have any kind
of gratitude for the enduring sacrifice of men because men
did it to themselves. You know, and I agree like Galloway,
saying that this is big dick energy is absolute bullshit.
Where the but anyway, this is men's willingness to endure

(01:42:30):
hardship for their families in order to support and protect
and provide them for them. Right that that is an
incredible testament to what men are and that cannot be
taken away from them at all I mean conservatives, no
offense will try to take this away from men by saying, oh,

(01:42:50):
society is producing weak men, or no, society could not
possibly at all prepare young men for World War One
or World War two. Society had nothing to do with
the fact that men stood up to the circumstances and
fought on both sides, both sides being used to solve

(01:43:14):
a political crisis, a political problem that people felt they
were incapable of doing peacefully. So men lost their lives
to solve a political problem, just like they lose their
lives to solve a problem of building a dam or
building a skyscraper. Is these political problems are not created
by men. They're created by societies in conflict, resource systems

(01:43:36):
in conflict. They're much bigger than men. They're even bigger
than the politicians, the male politicians who are trying to
deal with the problem. Our economies are bigger than all
of that. So this is a manifestation of men's willingness
to step into the breach and endure hardship and sacrifice
themselves for the sake of others. It's an emergent property,

(01:43:59):
and we can abuse use it by using them to
solve political problems which women are equally responsible for, or
we can honor it and try to create a society
where we need to rely on it as little as
possible and recognize that it isn't society that makes men
like this. It's men who make men like this. It

(01:44:20):
is an inheritance of their very biological nature. So conservatives
are wrong. This isn't big dick. I don't I don't
know if conservatives would say this.

Speaker 1 (01:44:30):
I don't know anservative. This was like, he's another liberal.
That's me.

Speaker 2 (01:44:34):
I'm just telling from my impression week Times create we
strong men, et cetera. They're wrong when they say it's
societies that makes men. It's men who make societies, and
we need to honor that. And none of this is
honoring that. And what's really interesting to me is what
she says in the last two paragraphs. So let's go
in ahead and read that she fundamentally understands everything.

Speaker 1 (01:44:57):
Yeah. By coincidence, Notes on Being a Man is being
published in the same month as Glenn Kurtz's Men at
Work The Empire State Building and The Untold Story of
the Craftsmen who built It, which adds biographical details and
dimensions to Lewis Hine's heroic photographs of the skyscraper's construction process.
Most of the names of these laborers are not known,
at least in part because they were seen not as

(01:45:19):
men but his hands. Kurtz writes as something less than
complete people, or at best as embodiments of generalities and
abstract ideals, such as those as fous in Galloway's book
For All We Know. These men too felt that the
system was fundamentally broken and rigged against them. But they
are long dead and largely anonymous, and so they can

(01:45:40):
be whoever we want them to be.

Speaker 2 (01:45:42):
Yeah, maybe they did see that, but they still went
to work to protect and provide for their families, because
that's in men's nature to take risks and make sacrifices
to benefit others, even at the cost of their own lives.
We have relied on that to get to the point

(01:46:02):
where we are at. I don't know why she thinks
this paragraph contradicts recognition of that essential nature of men.

Speaker 1 (01:46:11):
Yeah, and a Stone setter in his twenties name James
Kerr was still living with his.

Speaker 2 (01:46:17):
Mother, So she's basically just saying, I'm going to take
away your heroic narrative about these men from the past.
You men are nothing because you're vulnerable and you have
things that harm you and you still go to work
despite it. This is a like, this is gross. You
see what she's doing here, right, Yeah, she thinks this
takes away men's heroism. Of course, there's that little one

(01:46:39):
where the man supposedly abandoned his wife and child abandoned
or went to get work for them.

Speaker 1 (01:46:46):
Well, and well, it's a lot of weird assumptions to
make because you just said that nobody knows these guys names. Yeah,
So like we either don't know them or they're awful, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:46:56):
Or or or they're pathetic. Right, Yeah, they're not part
of men masculinity because they endured lives of quiet desperation
to make someone else provided and protected for What the
fuck does she think that she's I should stop swearing
so much, but this is just so infuriating. What does
she think? What point does she think she's making? I
think she honestly thinks that when she says, oh, the

(01:47:19):
extreme right, manhood is about performing dominance, and she thinks
that saying this stuff, describing these vulnerabilities is a gotcha
against the mamisphere. Yep, because she thinks that men can
only be admired when they are infinitely tough. In alpha,

(01:47:41):
she's really revealing a lot about her psychology and not
so much about her opponents, except for Scott, this Galloway
fellow with his big dick energy and all this other nonsense.
Why isn't that when progressive men always try to pretend
to appeal to anybody else in the mamisphere, they always
go with the big, swinging dick energy. Why don't you

(01:48:02):
go with recognizing that men have been vulnerable throughout all
of human history, and yet they have stepped up and
still saw themselves in terms of service to others, Like
they've still stepped up and protected and provided for others.
The great heroism of these men is not that they
were invulnerable or impervious, or that they had big dick energy.

(01:48:27):
It's because they suffered and they still took it upon
themselves to try to make someone else's life better. Right,
And I don't think this woman understands that in the
slightest Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:48:39):
Nah, she doesn't.

Speaker 2 (01:48:41):
Well. The lobotomy sisters has a lobotomy. Sister has weighed
in on the situation of men Okay, let's go through
the Twitter really quick, if possible. Is it possible?

Speaker 1 (01:48:51):
Yeah? I mean I got like five minutes because I
gotta get like I'm going to the gym, so I
gotta change clothes and then I got to go pick
her up. So all right, So, uh, this is just
the Is there a link to the original article? I believe,
I believe, Yeah, I got right here. Yep, Male students.

(01:49:16):
This was shared by Brandon Warmck and he says this
is from fire. Fire is the it's like the freedom
I forget what it's called, but it's like your college organization.
But anyway, fire dot org shared this article. Male students
show more tolerance for political enemies and females show for
their own allies. We we just saw that in the

(01:49:39):
in the article we just read.

Speaker 2 (01:49:40):
Actually, like, that's a lot of lack of tolerance. You're like, literally,
she's basically saying that any any male feminist or progressive
men and who in any way engages with the issues
of men is part of the manisphere and part of
her enemy. Yes, and an enemy.

Speaker 1 (01:50:00):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (01:50:01):
Men can only be seen as the problem, and they
can only be seen as criminal. They can't be seen
as having inherent worth in her cosmology. Okay, let's let's read.
Let's take a look at this. I mean, it's mostly
just a bunch of graphs that are interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:50:15):
So all right, all right, hold on, just okay, got it.
So suppose you're a democratic socialist has been invited to
speak at a college campus. Who do you think would
be more likely to try to silence you? A left
leaning woman or a right wing man. I think that's obvious.
It may be reasonable to assume someone with similar ideology
would be more tolerant of your views. But new data

(01:50:36):
by fire suggests that that's not the case. Amazingly, it
turns out men are often more tolerant of the opposite
side than women are of their own. Amazingly, Yeah, amazing
not amazingly, not at all surprising, because there's like another
study that's currently being worked on that is finding so
it's not finished yet, but I think this is going
to bear out that women are like far more likely

(01:51:00):
to advocate for violence against their political opponents than men,
Which makes sense because I think women are more likely
to advocate for violence because they're they don't they're not
connected to the consequences. Yeah, so like they can just
advocate for it. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:51:17):
Well, I mean even the men who enact the violence
know that it's going to end up with consequences to them.

Speaker 1 (01:51:21):
Yeah, they're usually prepared to like go to jail or something.

Speaker 2 (01:51:24):
Or die, yeah, or to deal with it in the
case of first responders.

Speaker 1 (01:51:29):
Right, yeah, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:51:31):
Let's look a little bit closer at this.

Speaker 1 (01:51:33):
All right, you want me to zoom in? I can't.

Speaker 2 (01:51:35):
I can guess you can. Well, you can take a look.
So apparently the most liberal is or sorry, the most
tolerant is libertarian. I don't think that surprises anyone, but honestly,
it pretty much clusters with men on being more or
tolerant no matter what kind of political position you have,
except for some haven't thought much about this. So if

(01:51:56):
you look at the little gray dot, like the little
gray circle down yeah, right, ah, you just went.

Speaker 1 (01:52:00):
Over it right there.

Speaker 2 (01:52:01):
Yeah, that's men who haven't thought much about this. Well, apparently,
despite not having any actual position, are really intolerant to
other positions. I just thought there was funny. How does
that work. I don't believe in anything, but I hate
everybody else who believes in something. Maybe that's it.

Speaker 1 (01:52:20):
That's yeah, it's kind of weird. Yeah, women who haven't
thought about this are also the least tolerant, so yeah,
I guess it's just yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:52:31):
They just want everybody to shut up and be censored.

Speaker 1 (01:52:34):
Yep, we can.

Speaker 2 (01:52:35):
We can all live in the NPC lone opinions.

Speaker 1 (01:52:39):
The data taken from Fire's annual college free speech rankings
reveals that overall tolerance for opposing views is low among
both male and female students, but the males consistently display
far more tolerance than females, regardless of their politics. In fact,
with the exception of male libertarians, who are slightly more tolerant,
men of all political ideologies have roughly the same level
of tolerance as each The same is true of women.

(01:53:01):
In other words, it's not that liberals are more tolerant
that conservatives or vice versa. Liberal and conservative men are
more or less equally tolerant, as are liberal and conservative women.
It's being a man, liberal or conservative that makes the difference.

Speaker 2 (01:53:15):
Is being a man. This is another positive quality in men,
And I actually got into it with somebody was saying
that maybe it's because testosterone leads to fairness or stuff
like that. I don't think that's what it is. And
Grop confirm that testosterone does lead to competitiveness. So I

(01:53:35):
think what it is is not that these men are
less competitive than the women. It's because they're more willing
to risk potential harm and discomfort of other people's ideologies.
So they're more willing to risk the potential threat that
the other poses to them in order to uphold ethics

(01:53:56):
system system ethic principles like freedom of speech, and I
think that's really critical. You got to really contend with
this when you think about how a society needs to
be able to evolve with evolving circumstances but also stay
true to itself, and you need to be able to

(01:54:18):
have a dialogue between what I would say is a
liberal principle or liberal virtue, which is the sacrifice of
self doubt, like being able to doubt yourself so that
you can evolve in the face of new circumstances. And
then you also need the conservative virtue, which is the
ability to sacrifice yourself for something other than yourself, for

(01:54:39):
duty and lineage and society. So these are the two
principles that a society needs to have in balance. There
are more, but these are essentially two that need to
have imbalance to be able to go forward, to evolve,
but stay true to itself at the same time. And
in order to have those two principles in balance, you
have to have the discussions between people who can don't

(01:55:02):
start to regard the other half as being a danger
or wanting to silence them, regard the other half in
terms of tribalism, to be able to accept somebody believing
something different than you, but not seeing them as the enemy.
Because of that, and all advanced societies manage this balance

(01:55:23):
for at least a certain amount of time. And you
can see why it might be essential for a society
to keep the conversation between men, because men will put
the dialogue ahead of their own individual interests or tribalistic interests.
They I think they understand honor better than women too,

(01:55:43):
and they understand a collective purpose even in the face
of somebody who disagrees with them politically. And I think
that's what's what we're seeing here. And this is a
benefit to masculinity. One of the things that this woman
refuses to acknowledge well, demonstrating exactly the problem that excessively
fist feminized institutions demonstrate, which is sense sensorialness like blue nosing,

(01:56:11):
witch hunts, relational bullying, and yeah, so I just thought
that this was interesting. It was a nice counterpoint to
what we read. I know that you got to get going,
but you want to put anything.

Speaker 1 (01:56:19):
In there, Brian, No, I think that's good.

Speaker 2 (01:56:22):
Yep, No, it's not surprising because as women's participation, for example,
in academia, has grown, so is their censorship. Right now,
I don't know if there's a way to balance it
out and make it so that women can participate without
changing the climate so much that it ends up destroying

(01:56:45):
that the institutions that they participate. You cannot, like, you
can't have progress without debate and disagreement. And if women
regard debate and disagreement as a reason to throw people
out of the organization and shut them down, then how
do you manage to maintain the necessary debate and agreement

(01:57:08):
in a feminized institution. You can't. And I don't know
if we got rid of all this feminist narratives that
give women the impression they don't have to listen to men,
They don't have to understand men the virtues that men represent.
They don't even have to recognize that masculinity adds anything
of note or worth to the world. I wonder if
we got rid of that, if we could improve this. Well,

(01:57:32):
we'll see. We'll see if what we talk about ever
gets a mainstream acceptance and we start questioning this massive
ethical breach that feminism represents. All right, So I got it.
I shouldn't keep feed the Badger dot com slash just
the tip if you want to send a comment about
anything that we have discussed throughout this show. It's very

(01:57:55):
best way for you to send us a tip because
we get the full benefit of what we send. And
that's the best way for you to send us a
comment because you don't put it through YouTube comment enhancement system.
And also that comment stays in our community so we
can ponder it. We can, we can drive more benefit
from your wisdom because it lasts longer, all right, So
I'll hand it back to you, Brian.

Speaker 1 (01:58:17):
Okay, Well, if you guys like this video, please hit like,
subscribe you're not already subscribe to the BALF notifications, leave
us a comment, let us know what you guys think
about what we discussed on the show today. And please
please please share this video because Sharon's caring. Thank you
guys so much for coming on today's episode of Maintaining Frame,
and we'll talk to you guys in the next one.
Men's right activists are machines, dude. Okay, they are literal machines.

(01:58:40):
They are talking point machines. They are impossible to fucking
deal with, especially if you have, like especially if you
have like a couple of dudes who have good memory.
On top of that, too, holy shit, you're fucked