0:04 - Introduction to Gender Discussions
3:45 - The Evolution of Gender Roles
6:46 - Modern Advancements and Gender
16:49 - Women's Choices in Careers
25:37 - Critique of Feminism
29:35 - Views on Relationships
32:16 - Gender Equality Debate
40:51 - Emotional Dynamics in Society
47:37 - The Role of Emotions in Science
In this lecture, Stefan Molyneux explores the intersection of gender roles, biological differences, and societal expectations, igniting a debate on the implications of essentialist views regarding men and women. He begins by engaging with an earlier inquiry that references AI's portrayal of him as sexist, followed by a deep dive into the intricacies of gender dynamics. Molyneux asserts that inherent biological differences shape the roles men and women play within society, much like evolutionary biology dictates the survival strategies of species. He argues that the distinct functions of male and female bodies are not merely social constructs but necessary for the continuation of humanity itself.
Molyneux discusses his perspective on women's roles as “nurturing” versus men's roles as “dominant,” positing that these tendencies stem from evolutionary predispositions. He emphasizes that biological factors, including reproductive functions and physical attributes, lead to complementary roles in societal structures. This viewpoint is further elucidated as he contrasts the historical context of these roles with contemporary career choices. Molyneux cites the enduring tendency of women, when afforded freedom and incentivized opportunities, to gravitate toward traditionally female occupations, questioning the implications of such choices on the broader narrative of gender equality.
The lecturer delves into the consequences of contemporary feminism, which he argues has shifted focus towards artificial notions of equality and victimhood, promoting a worldview that sees potential inequalities solely through the lens of male oppression. Molyneux critiques this ideology as harmful, suggesting it fosters resentment and entitlement among women to the detriment of both genders. He posits that such ideologies ignore the complexity of biological and psychological differences that dictate preferences and capabilities across genders.
Addressing relationship dynamics, Molyneux contemplates hypergamy, the phenomenon where women prefer partners of higher social status, suggesting it stems from evolutionary instincts. He argues that men need to adopt "alpha" behaviors to effectively navigate modern relationships shaped by these biological imperatives. Molyneux discusses the traditional leadership roles within relationships, advocating for a balance where both partners assert authority in their areas of expertise, thereby achieving efficiency and harmony.
Throughout the lecture, Molyneux defends his views against accusations of sexism, emphasizing that advocating for biological and evolutionary explanations should not preclude the acknowledgment of individual choices or equal treatment under the law. He stresses the importance of distinguishing between advocating for equal rights versus prescribing particular roles based on gender. The conversation culminates in a reflection on the existential realities of human life—rooted in the biological differences between men and women—and a call for recognition of individual agency within the framework of societal structures that have developed over millennia. Molyneux concludes with an appeal for a more nuanced understanding of these complex issues, advocating for discussions that respect biological truths while supporting individual choices.
[0:00] Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well. Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain.
[0:04] FreeDomain.com slash donate. To help out the show of shows, really appreciate that. Dear Stef, I was recently having some fun with chat GPT and I was asking it if various historical figures such as Kant, Schopenhauer and Churchill are sexist, to which it replied, yes. And then I asked it, is Stefan Molyneux sexist? To which it replied, quoting, yes. Stefan Molyneux, a controversial figure known for his online videos and advocacy for various far-right and anti-feminist viewpoints has been widely criticized for promoting sexist ideas. His views on gender are often seen as regressive and aligned with traditionalist anti-feminist beliefs. Here are some ways in which Molyneux has expressed sexist views. Misogyny and gender essentialism. Molyneux often promotes a rigid view of gender roles suggesting that men and women have inherently different and complementary roles in society. Yeah. So, men and women have inherently different and complementary roles in society. So, this is not even remotely controversial in anybody with any understanding of even the basics of evolutionary biology, that males and females, particularly among mammals, are sexually dimorphic.
[1:23] I mean, none of us would be alive if men and women did not have inherently different and complementary roles in society, because in general, you know, on the average, men have penises and women have vaginas. And if they were not inherently different and complementary roles in society, none of us would exist. Men produce sperm, women produce eggs, and that's how we're all here. So somebody who owes his literal existence, and I'm not talking about AI here, but you know whoever is writing this absurdist claptrap somebody who owes his literal absolute existence to men and women having inherently different and complementary roles is saying well it would be crazy to think that men produce sperm and women produce eggs that men have 40 percent greater upper body strength or taller have stronger bones and a narrower pelvis and women.
[2:15] Gestate babies for nine months and then are virtually disabled with infant care and breastfeeding for 18 months after that so that every child takes you know give or take two and a half years out of a woman's significant productivity time you can't you can't just leave kids alone right so the idea that in order for the species to remain alive and functioning women had to have, surviving to adulthood, at least 2.1, well, you had to have a childbirth rate of 2.1 kids per couple. And of course, half of kids used to die before the age of five. So women had to have four to six children just for humanity to survive. So if you look at two and a half years per child, and you can mix it up a little, of course, right? Then you're talking about, 10 to 15 years. 10 to 15 years that a woman is economically, not completely crippled, but, you know, significantly disabled or disadvantaged in order for human beings to survive.
[3:22] So the idea that men and women, because of the length of gestation of pregnancy, sorry, gestation is a bit cold, the length of pregnancy and then the need for 18 months of breastfeeding and the fact that women, you know, go through some considerable pain and discomfort through the act of having and raising children.
[3:46] The idea that with such different roles, requirements, capacities.
[3:53] And processes between males and females, the idea that this would not result in any difference in social roles is wild. Now, there's an interesting thing too, which is where we look at that which has evolved, right? We look at that which has evolved in the, I don't know, quarter of a million years or whatever we want to say. Humanity has emerged as a fairly distinct species. We look at sort of 200, 250,000 years, and we look at all the evolution that came before that, right? And then we say, what is the current world? and people who don't understand the difference between these two things are constantly confusing them. So there's that which we evolved to survive and achieve and then there's that which is capable or we're capable of or which is possible in the world that is.
[4:54] Right? So, if you, I don't know, historically, if you got a hernia, and of course, this is still true, this is where part of the intestine pokes through a weakened state in the abdominal wall muscle. If you got a hernia in the past, well, you didn't really have much to do other than, I don't know, wear a truss and hold on to it or something like that, right? But you basically had to hope it didn't get worse. If the intestine pokes through and then gets pinched off, it can get constrained, infected, like, you know, and die from these sorts of things. But now you can get a mesh put in, there's a suture method, like you can sort of get it solved and fixed, right?
[5:35] So evolutionarily speaking, we could not deal that well with hernias. And like a quarter of men get these things over the course of their lives, right? 26% or something like that. There's 20 million hernia operations a year. So, we evolved in a situation where hernias couldn't be dealt with. That doesn't mean that hernias can't be dealt with now, but that doesn't affect what we evolved to do. Remember, the modern world, really for women, the modern world, I mean, it's hard to know exactly when this started for women, but arguably, it's much less than a century. For women to have the opportunities that they have now, which I'm fully in support of, of course, I have a wonderful wife and daughter. I want her to be able to do whatever she wants to do in life. So the modern world required excess capital and labor-saving devices and modern medicine for women, right? Women need a lot more medical resources over the course of their life than men, which is like, which is why socialized medicine is just another female subsidy, right? Like the welfare state.
[6:46] So for the modern world to exist for women, for women to have these liberated from biology.
[6:53] Possibilities, then women needed to have modern labor-saving devices, because especially when you had a bunch of kids, the amount of effort and time and energy it took to run a household with a husband and six kids and sometimes aging parents or grandparents of the kids who needed support and help. It was night and day. There was an old saying, said a woman's work is never done. And I remember many years ago, I wrote to a bunch of publishers suggesting a book on the problems within the welfare state. And I read a bunch of books on the welfare state in Canada in preparation to see if... I was very optimistic back then. And I remember reading an introduction to one of these books written by a man about the welfare state. And he was talking about how his mother, he would sometimes wake up in the middle of the night to hear his mother sobbing over the amount of laundry she had to do, because she had to do it by hand, right? A wash tub, washboard abs, right? That you'd have a tub, and you would wash, and then you would scrub on the washboard, and then you would hang to dry, and if it rained, it was a big problem, right? I remember my aunts beating rugs, right? When I was very little, right? And they'd take the rugs out. And I loved it because it was like swinging swords.
[8:18] So laundry, dishes, hot water, running water, fridges, freezers, irons, central heating, you know, all this sort of stuff allowed women to not, and you know, great, you know, this is wonderful, allowed women to not have to spend 12 to 14 hours a day running a household, right? I mean, you can still see in Africa, these women going down to the river to try and get some fresh water, balancing these giant jugs on their heads and so on, right?
[8:47] So what women have evolved for, i.e. Female nature, and what women or what capacities are available to women now are not the same things. It's like saying men evolved for aggression, which is to say that women chose men who were aggressive because it gave them the biggest chance of survival. So, men evolved for aggression. But that doesn't mean that men should be aggressive now, although aggression is morally justified. It's saying that men evolved for aggression, which is why men have warrior genes vastly outstripping women, men have higher testosterone, higher upper body strength, and so on, right? So saying that men evolved for aggression or evolved out of aggression does not mean that men should be aggressive in the modern world, right? Because we want to tame that aggression and we want to use it to socially productive and economically productive ends.
[9:49] So if we look at something, you know, basic, like hypergamy, that women want a man who they perceive as the highest that they can get and usually better than themselves, right? And I talked about this with Janice Heimlich many years ago, that as women got more educated, they wanted a man with equal or higher education. As women got higher incomes, they wanted men with at least equal or ideally higher incomes. But what this means is that you have a large amount of high-income, well-educated women chasing a relatively small number of high-income, well-educated men. And because you have all of these women chasing a small number of men, these men have no real incentive to settle down because it's just too much fun dating and sleeping around, right? Because dating is more fun than certainly the early part of raising kids, right? So, when I say that men and women have inherently different and complementary roles in society, are we talking about how men and women have evolved or what they are capable of in the modern world? I mean, men, certainly some men evolved for aggression and some men survived by submission. Right, remember, there were very, very few people who were in charge of society and there were a lot of serfs and slaves and soldiers.
[11:17] So men evolved for aggression and they also evolved for submission in that the slave survives by, if the slave is allowed to reproduce, then the slave survives by not being aggressive, at least against the masters, right? So this is a really important distinction that most people kind of gloss over. So when I say that, men evolved for aggression, people think that I'm saying that men should be aggressive in the modern world. It's like, no, no, knowing what we evolved for is really important in terms of taming and managing our instincts. So, the fact that we men know that we evolved for aggression and submission means that we should not be overly aggressive or overly submissive because then we're just surrendering to our genes and our evolution. Now, the word rigid is interesting because that That is, and of course I'm not blaming the AI for this, but rigid is just one of these pejoratives.
[12:13] It doesn't mean anything. So if you look at some of the shibboleths of the modern world, like racism is considered one of the worst sins, right? Now, have you ever heard a left-wing activist who's anti-racist being described as having rigid views on anti-racism? Rigid views on racism. Rigid views on the evils of being racist. Well, no, that's not, that's described as, you know, having standards and having integrity and so on. So, consistency and integrity, if you like it, you'll say consistency and integrity and virtue and consistency, but if you don't like it, you'll just call it rigid, because that's more of a psychological term that says, it sort of implies that the person has no basis for what they believe, but they just cling, bitter clingers, right? They just cling on to their views, right? Okay. He believes that men are naturally suited to leadership, rational thinking, and public life, while women are biologically inclined towards nurturing domesticity and emotional roles. Okay? Okay. So, for this, saying that we have these tendencies does not in any way, shape, or form mean that this is all people should ever do. I mean, what the AI or any reasonably honest evaluation of my views on men and women would say, ah, but he has been deeply influenced by a number of brilliant female thinkers.
[13:39] I mean, I read a lot of Margaret Thatcher, I was very much into Ann Coulter, and I would say that the biggest philosophical influence, certainly for the first 20 years of my study of philosophy, was a combo of Ayn Rand and Aristotle, and I would say probably 51% Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand, of course, is a female, right? And she had a very non-traditional life, right? She fled Russia, she worked in the film industry, and she worked in an architect's office, to get material for The Fountainhead. She wrote We the Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, of course, night of January 20th or something like that. Play, it's a great play. And she got married but didn't have children and devoted her life to philosophy, amphetamines, and smoking.
[14:26] So, non-traditional life. Did I say, oh, well, you see, I can't be influenced by anyone like Alicia Rosenbaum because she's non-traditional. Well, of course not. Of course not, right? So, it's kind of a fallacy, which is interesting, which is, if you talk about that, the ways in which we evolved, you're then saying that everybody must inevitably be limited to those roles, which is ridiculous as saying that men on average are physically stronger than women, therefore it is impossible for a woman ever to be physically stronger than a man. Now, the test, of course, of whether women.
[15:11] See, biologically inclined toward nurturing domesticity and emotional roles. So what we would do, of course, is we would look at, and these studies have been done over and over again, right? So what we would do is we would look at women as the income and opportunities of a society rise. We would look at what women choose when they have the most choice, right? That's how you would get some sense of essentialism, right? So certainly since I was a little kid, so this is like north of half a century now, women have been told they can do anything, scientists, mathematicians, they can be architects and engineers and physicists, and it can be all these kinds of great and cool things. And what have they chosen to do? Well, they've chosen to be generally work in people and feeling-centered and communication careers, right? So, if you look at a place like India, which is relatively poor and fewer opportunities for women, women tend to go more into STEM fields. But if you look at a place like Sweden, which has been a socialist and feminist haven for well over half a century, women are gravitating towards more feeling, nurturing, communication and person-to-person roles, right? Now, when you do person-to-person stuff, you don't really get economies of scale.
[16:38] So, a man who makes an invention and copyrights it then gets a royalty every time that invention is used because he was dealing with things and things can be copy-pasted.
[16:49] A woman who is a teacher can only teach 25 or 30 kids a year and it doesn't scale, right?
[16:57] So the fact that women are more into nurturing communication and person-to-person roles means that the human touch can't be removed and you can't copy-paste value. It would be like if I only did philosophy talks when I was over at someone's house for dinner, then I would be very much limited in the number of people I could reach or maybe the income that I could generate because it would be person to person and my facility with technical things allowed me to start the podcast and spread the podcast because but i had to work with machines and computer code and xml files and server logs and all of that to get it to get it done.
[17:38] So you look at what women choose when they have the most choice. And if what women choose when they have the most choice is more traditionally female occupations, then that would be an indication that women want to do those things. Now, you could say, ah, but women only want to do those things because that's what they're told to do. Well, the problem then, of course, is that we have had fairly radical ideologues telling girls they can be whatever they want and they should go be scientists and engineers and mathematicians and economists and whatever, right? Go be girl boss, power CEOs and so on. For well over half a century and really longer, the ideologues have had control over the educational system. And most of the women going on to higher education. So, and, you know, they'll start in daycare or pre-K and they'll go on to get at least, you know, a college degree or whatever. So that's, you know, give or take, it's close to, gosh, what would they do? They graduated around, so you can graduate at 17, a four-year college degree, it's 21, 22, so we'll shave off a couple of years, maybe they're home, they're not in daycare or whatever. So you've got 20 years of women being told they can do anything, they should do anything to reject gender roles in places like Sweden, and then women, when they have all the, not just permission, but encouragement to go into STEM.
[19:07] And they're subsidized and encouraged to go into STEM, they still choose, you know, HR and teacher and so on, right? So, what are we to make of this?
[19:20] It's not that complicated, people. What are we to make of this? If women, when they are strongly encouraged and subsidized to reject traditional gender roles, when women, as they get more freedom and more encouragement to reject traditional gender roles in the workplace in particular, tend to gravitate still towards traditional gender roles. In other words, over 100 years ago, the top 20 occupations for women are very similar to the top 20 occupations for women now.
[19:50] This is not complicated. There has to be a reason why this is happening. And it's either nature or nurture or both, right? And if nurture has been go do STEM, and there's even subsidies and encouragements to go do STEM, and women in general will continue to do more traditionally female, occupations, then it's got to be nature. There's no X factor here. There's no mystery cosmic ray. It's not my podcast that does it i'm just identifying that which is and what's wrong with that i mean it's funny too because a lot of the people who are into this sort of modern hyper egalitarian blank slate ideology claim to be atheists or agnostics or skeptical of or, actually opposed to religion because they say well rejection religion is the rejection of reason and evidence anti-scientific. Now, they could say, the AI, again, I'm not blaming the AI, of course, but the AI could say, well, here's the issue. It is true that women generally gravitate towards less high-paying occupations that's more in the person-to-person arena. That is true.
[21:07] And Molyneux suggests that the most likely explanation is biological roots.
[21:15] Because we know that there are biological differences between males and females. I mean, you can go on and on. You can just go look this stuff up. There's dozens and dozens of differences in brain structure, body structure, psychological profiles, and so on, right? So, there are things that are for sure biological differences, and there are things that are psychological differences. Men and women's brains are different. So, saying that there's a biological element to male and female preferences, I mean, there are, in general, we're only here because there are biological differences in male and female preferences, i.e. Men want to have sex with women, and women want to have sex with men, in general, right? And that's why we're here. So, we're only here because men and women have diametrically complementary, opposite and complementary preferences, such as sexual experiences or sexual activity with members of the opposite sex, which is where, in general, the procreation comes from. So, we're only here because men and women have programmed within to them biological desires, men for women and women for men. If those didn't exist, we wouldn't be here. So, again, it's just one of these, I'm not blaming the AI here. It's just very interesting that this is considered a kind of heresy, right?
[22:39] Naturally suited to, okay, sure. But that does not mean only confined to, right? Tall people are generally naturally superior. Like all other things being equal, taller people are better at basketball than shorter people. And now, this would be to say, well, Stef says there's some biological element that forces all tall people to play basketball, you know? And it's like, no, it's, I mean, first of all, height is 100% genetic, right? I mean, capacity for height, right? There can be starvation that limits it, but capacity for height, general height requirements or general height achievements are 100% genetic.
[23:20] So the fact that if I say tall people are better at basketball, I'm not saying that tall people can, all they can do is play basketball. And he'd be forced by the government to play for the Lakers. So I don't know why I had a slight British accent there, which is kind of funny, right? So the AI says, these views align with an essentialist understanding of gender, where biological differences are used to justify inequalities in power and opportunity. See, I don't want to justify anything. I'm just observing. I'm not trying to justify anything. I mean, the fact that I am a voluntarist, an advocate, for a stateless society where the initiation of the use of force is banned, how the ever-loving hell am I supposed to use peace, reason, and freedom to justify any equalities in power and opportunity? Have you ever once said, women should be barred from X, Y, or Z? No. I'm just looking at the world and trying to understand it and thinking for myself, according to science.
[24:25] So i think what they're saying is well there i don't think there's ever been a nobel prize winning female economist right so they're saying well Stef is saying that it's totally just right and fair that there's never been a nobel prize winning female economist i'm justifying it with biological essentialism right i don't know how respecting women's choices is anti-women i respect women's choices. If women want to go into the caring and sharing professions, I think that's wonderful. If the vast majority of therapists in the modern world are female, great. I'm respecting that choice. I'm just saying that there's some kind of causality behind it. So what it is to me is people say, people, I think they basically believe this. It's just a hypothesis, right? But if you could be talked in and out of anything, then you think that there's no such thing as any general trends in human biology that modify choices. So, all.
[25:26] So, two criticism of feminism. Molyneux has been an outspoken critic of feminism, frequently claiming that it has, quote, ruined society by promoting the idea of gender equality and undermining traditional family structures.
[25:38] He dismisses feminism as a harmful ideology, accusing it of promoting victimhood and entitlement among women while downplaying issues like domestic violence against men. Yeah, all right. So, feminism, I don't care if people want to believe that men and women are equal. And that all differences, right, because this is the traditional leftist view, that all differences in outcome are the result of exploitation and violence, right? All differences in outcome are the result of exploitation and violence. Well, of course, because I'm against the initiation of force, that would seem to deal with that, right? Right. So promoting the idea of gender equality. Right. So this is, of course, this is the IQ test, right, which I'm sure everyone here is passing with flying colors. Right. But this is the IQ test. The IQ test goes something like this. What the ever-living frack, what the ever-living frack do people mean by equality? What do you mean by equality? Gender equality. What do you mean by equality. Should men and women be equal under the law? Absolutely.
[26:48] Absolutely men and women should be equal under the law. And if you want to talk about differences in outcomes, how about the fact that 90% of the time child custody is awarded to the woman and the woman has to pay the man? Well, that's an inequality in outcome. That must mean, or sentencing disparities, right? The fact that men are generally sentenced to longer and harsher sentences than women, even with no priors for exactly the same crime. Domestic violence, where far more men go to prison than women, even though gender violence is roughly equal in relationships. And the most violent relationships in general tend to be lesbian relationships, right?
[27:30] So society has been ruined because feminism has promoted the idea of gender equality. Well, gender equality would be, of course, women get drafted, and women should pay, roughly the same amount of taxes into society that men do, but women pay far less in taxes than men do. That's an inequality. That must mean power and exploitation, right? So gender equality, does it mean equality of outcome? Well, it's very hypocritical to say that the only inequalities that should ever be talked about are those where women appear to be doing less well, but in terms of suicide, depression, violence, incarceration, losses in a family court.
[28:13] And dying younger, death through overwork, karoshi in the Japanese nomenclature, that you can only ever talk about inequalities between the sexes in terms of outcomes where women seem to be getting the shorter end of the stick, but never talk about those. Where men are getting shorter end of the stick, that's all completely ridiculous. So gender equality, absolutely. In a free society, in every society, men and women should be equal before the law. There should be no laws benefiting men. There should be no laws benefiting women. There are, right now, thousands and thousands and thousands of laws benefiting women directly. And I would like equality before the law. If they're talking about equality of outcome, well, that can only be, equality of outcome can only be achieved by.
[29:02] And fraud against men or against women, right? So there's, of course, all of these laws that promote the hiring of women at the expense of men. So they're bribing or threatening corporations through government funding or sanctions. They're bullying corporations to hiring women at the expense of men. Well, that's not equality. That's initiating the use of force or other kinds of incentives to prevent males from getting hired so that women can get hired. So, if you want equality of outcome, you don't have equality before the law.
[29:35] If you have equality before the law, you will get inequalities of outcome. All right. Views on relationships and marriage. Molyneux often espouses a controversial view of relationships between men and women, promoting the idea that women are hypergamous, i.e., they are primarily interested in marrying men of higher status or resources, and that men should be wary of women's desires for financial support and social status. He has also advocated for alpha male behavior, claiming that men should assert dominance in relationships to maintain control and avoid being exploited by women. Alpha male behavior, that's interesting. So yeah, I mean, what I have certainly said is that the man should be the leader in certain areas of the relationship, and the woman should be the leader in other areas of the relationship.
[30:19] I don't know what that means exactly. Maintain control. I don't know what that means. Well, sure, you need to maintain control in certain areas of the relationship, for sure. And just as women need to maintain control in certain areas of the relationship, because that's what having authority means. Having authority means that you are in control. Now, it doesn't mean you can't be questioned or opposed or whatever it is, right? But if I say I need X, Y, or Z in terms of technology for the show, my wife is like, yeah, go for it. If that's what you need, get it right and if she says we need x y z in an area that she's competent and an expert in i'm like yeah you know absolutely let's go for it right i mean it's at the point now where i'm like why are you telling me so yeah but she's got authority she should do her thing and i would not oppose her in any conceivable way i mean we'd be married almost a quarter century so we've got it pretty well worked out and so it's not maintained control it's just it's more efficient, if you're not both duplicating everything, right? I mean, if I cooked a meal for myself and maybe my daughter, and then my wife cooked a meal for herself and maybe her daughter, that would be very inefficient, right? So we should try to cook for each other, right? If I did my own laundry, and then maybe my daughter's, and then my wife did her laundry, and then maybe her daughter's, that wouldn't make any sense. If I only made my side of the bed, not my wife's side of the bed, like it's just silly, right?
[31:44] It's just silly. and so yeah there's authority right and you know when my wife says it's time to flip the mattress i know we're in for a great weekend right no but if if my wife says it's time to flip the mattress, i'm like okay let me help you flip the mattress right hey i need these 14 000 documents scanned and sent to x y and z i'm like yep okay i'm on it right i just do what she says right because she has authority in certain areas and i just do what she says i have authority in certain areas and, right? So it's really just trust, isn't it? Anyway, all right. Denial of gender equality.
[32:17] Molyneux rejects the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities in many areas of society. Really?
[32:24] Equally equal rights and opportunity so i have advocated although i am an advocate for a stateless society somehow i advocate the initiation of the use of force according to this the initiation of the use of force to prevent women from what becoming scientists and and engineers and and, economists. That's the idea. That's the argument. I mean, that's quite mad, right? And I guess this is the problem with AI, right? So AI is just going to go through, and AI you can program, right? So you put a bunch of negative statements out about someone, and AI just picks that up and says, well, this appears to be the case, right? Like a really good AI, maybe I'll play around with AI to try and figure this out, right? So then I would say to the AI, if Stéphane Molyneux rejects the initiation of the use of force or fraud, then how, in Molyneux's philosophy, would women be prevented from getting equal rights and opportunities?
[33:31] What can I tell you? An AI should say, although he has been criticized by some for saying that women shouldn't have equal rights and opportunities, he does not advocate for the initiation of the use of force and believes that the free market and property rights should dominate house social interaction. So there would be no way to prevent women from having equal opportunities and rights to men, right? There would be no government to do it, right? So he says, for example, he has suggested that women are not suited for leadership roles in politics or business because they are driven by emotionality rather than reason.
[34:09] And so women are not suited for leadership roles in politics or business. Well, I don't want anyone to have a leadership role in politics because I am an advocate for a state of society. So what does that mean to say? So when I say women are not suited for leadership roles in politics or business because they're driven by emotionality rather than reason. I mean, not that you want to take individual instances and necessarily have general rules come out of that. But if you just look at Donald Trump's campaign versus Kamala Harris's campaign, she used a bunch of hackneyed slogans and joy, which is an emotion. And Donald Trump went with pride, which is a bit more of a male thing and, you know, fairly in-depth analyses of a wide variety of political, social, economic, and trade topics, right?
[35:01] So, women are driven by emotionality rather than reason. Again, the biggest influence on my development of rationality was a woman. So, I'd never looked at Ayn Rand and said, oh my gosh, you know, I can't listen to her. She's too emotional. So, women are not suited for leadership roles in politics or business. Women can absolutely be leaders in politics and business. In general, though, women tend not to choose those things.
[35:30] If you talk about the patriarchy, you're talking about men as a collective being dominant and destructive and so on. Well, what's the answer for that? Well, because they're men. It's like, okay, well, what's the one characteristic? Well, men are aggressive because they have so much testosterone. Okay, well, is aggression associated with leadership in any way? Well, of course, right? So therefore, men would be more likely to be leaders simply because of higher testosterone, even according to the arguments of the feminists.
[35:52] So, of course, I mean, I would never in a zillion years advocate for the initiation of the use of force to prevent women from being leaders. My God, that would be monstrous, repulsive, disgusting, gross, evil. It's the initiation of the use of force. Now, as a whole, though, what I want, though, is for women to stop attacking themselves. So, one of the ways that you demoralize a population is you start from a position of, biological blank slate-ism, and then you say all the differences are someone's fault, right? So if you look at how many men are CEOs versus women, and if you believe in biological blank slate-ism, then someone is to blame for women not being equally represented in 50% of CEOs, right? Let's say women are, I don't know, 20% of CEOs. I don't know exactly. Depends where you look, but let's just say women are 20% of CEOs. So that 30% gap, why does it exist? Now, if you look at biology, then you have some answer. It's not a perfect answer. It's some answer. And that means that men don't have to feel guilty and women don't have to feel bitter. See, these are the stakes you're playing with when you start getting into blank slate.
[37:18] Radical egalitarianism, or all differences in outcomes of various groups are due to exploitation and corruption and, you know, sort of Marxist analysis, right? So the problem is that you are driving massive amounts of mental illness forward in society, right? Because if women are told, continually told, well, you're only owning 77 cents on the dollar from men than men. Men are taking all the money and blah, blah, blah, right? Then, you know, good-hearted, good-minded men who listen to this claptrap with some belief in it, they feel like crap. They feel like crap. Oh my God, we're so guilty. Oh my gosh, we're taking too much from women. Oh, it's so unfair. We feel bad. We feel wrong. Gosh, my mother was underpaid because of the patriarchy and I'm a man and I'm part of the patriarchy. Like, you feel guilty. Now, I have no problem. In fact, I'm quite a big fan of people feeling guilty for things that they've done, right?
[38:21] NBA, right? So the Lakers, right? Go back to the Lakers. Sorry, I know why I went British, because I was thinking of Freddie Laker, whose airline we took over from England in November 1977 to come from London to New York and then take a bus up to Canada because we couldn't afford to fly directly to Canada. Freddie Laker. That's right, the Lakers. Now I know. All right. So if the Lakers believe that female basketball players are just as good as male basketball players, and the only reason that there aren't female basketball players on the all-male Lakers team is because, I don't know, misogyny, hatred of women, power, then, you know, any reasonably tender-hearted or moral or empathetic man will feel terrible. So you're provoking guilt. You're provoking guilt. That's toxic. That's unhealthy. Making people feel guilty for things that they did not cause is one of the worst freaking corruptions on the planet. Making people, in this case it would be men, making men feel guilty for something that's not their fault is toxic, ugly, vicious, nasty, in my view, sociopathic behavior. It's like making guys feel lesser because they're short. Well, they didn't cause that. They're not responsible for that. That would be horrible, right?
[39:41] Blaming people for things beyond their control. You know, like original sins, one of the problems I have with original sins. I can't get blamed. I'm not going to take responsibility for what Adam chose, right? That doesn't.
[39:55] Choice. You can't hang that on me or your ancestors or whatever, right? And I didn't choose that. It's not me, right? That don't confront me as long as I get the rent money by next Friday. Well, next Friday, come on, I didn't get a rent. So out the door, I went to housemate blues. One bourbon, one scotch, one beer. Ah, it's great, George. Sorry, good cover of an old blues song. Anyway, back on track. I feel I can make it. I feel I can make it on track. I have some doubts, but I feel I can because feelings are important.
[40:25] So, men feel guilty and angry at other men, and you just cause all of this problem, right? Which is terrible for people's mental health and happiness. On the other hand, every time you tell women, every time you tell women, there was an old Bette Midler song called The Rose, I think it was her Janis Joplin quasi-biopic or something like that. Of course, I know the blues, I'm a woman, right? The women are so hard done by it, so on, right?
[40:51] And if you keep telling women that women are underpaid relative to men, then you build both guilt and resentment among women. Resentment, bitterness, and so on. The men are just taking all their money, but also guilt. Because if women should be making, because there's no difference, right? If women should be making exactly the same as men and women are accepting less, then they should just go and fight for more. But if women are not in general, along those lines, find it quite as easy, right? Then the women are gonna feel guilty like they've underperformed, they've done the wrong thing, right?
[41:31] Denial of gender equality. Molyneux rejects the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities in many areas of society. Oh, I did this one. Sorry. Molyneux's views are deeply controversial. And that's, of course, a funny thing, right? So people getting mad at you is considered a negative, right? People getting mad at you, that's considered a negative, but only from left to right, not from right to left. Okay, Molyneux is deeply controversial and are considered by many to be deeply sexist and out of step with contemporary gender equality movements. His rhetoric has been widely criticized for promoting harmful stereotypes about both men, women and men, and for encouraging a backlash against feminist progress. So, there seems to be an acknowledgement of some of your beliefs and truthful statements you have made, but there also seems to be an unusual framing of your philosophy around women.
[42:23] Any who, if you believe that chat GPT is misrepresenting your views, what would be your response to it? Well, there you go. There's my response to it. And I really do appreciate your time, care, thoughts, and attention. I want to reduce the level of unhappiness in the world. And that means that I refuse to take an anti-biological, anti-evolutionary, anti-data, anti-factual, anti-scientific wand to wave away all biological differences between men and women. I'm just not going to do it. Because I really enjoy being alive. I have a wonderful time with my life. And for that, I thank you and everybody who listens and those who criticize as well, of course. It's essential too. I am thrilled at having the opportunity to exist. And the fact that I have, the opportunity to exist only arises because of males and females' innate biological differences, right? I'm not just talking penis-vagina, I'm talking about the asymmetrical lust, right, and physical desire, sexual desire, that women have for men and men have for women, without which we would not be here. So, given that I and the people who program ChatGPT and all the people who criticize, I just, I can't stand, I can't stand from a place of bottomless.
[43:51] Hypocrisy when starting my philosophy, right? If I have to make a self-detonating statement, there are no differences between men and women, okay? If I say that, then I would not exist. We only exist because of innate physical, hormonal, and psychological differences between men and women.
[44:14] There are men who are attracted to men. There are women who are attracted to women. Absolutely. But in the main, right? If there were only men who were attracted to men and women who were attracted to women, there would be no life. Life is when the males and females have complementary but asymmetrical biology and psychology. If all the women wanted to go hunting and all the men wanted to stay home with the babies, humanity would not survive. I mean, even just at the basic level of men can't breastfeed. So, because I'm alive due to the fact that men and women are different but complementary, how on earth, I mean, it would be wishing for non-existence. It would be denying all of the factors of biology and reality that allow for me to exist or cause my existence. I just, to me, it's absolutely ridiculous. It is like me standing here saying there's no such thing as life, language has no meaning, and I don't exist. Well, I can't say there's no such thing as life because I'm alive to say it. I can't say that language has no meaning because I'm using language to communicate that language has no meaning, which means that language must have some meaning. I just, and if I can't argue that I don't exist because I would be the one making the argument.
[45:35] I don't know what it is in people as a whole that allow them to make these absolutely absurd statements, which, if they were true, if it were true that men and women were absolutely identical, we would not exist. We would not exist. Life would not exist. Men and women have to have different physiology and biology in order for human beings to exist. It has to be different but complementary and it does not mean that anybody should be not equal before the law it doesn't mean that women or men should be denied equality before the law and it certainly doesn't mean that women or men should be denied any opportunities whatsoever However, just to be absolutely clear, because basing law upon sex or gender would be to initiate the use of force for non-moral characteristics. Male or female is not a moral characteristic.
[46:40] Murder is a moral characteristic, moral action, right? Because we don't choose male or female in general, so we can't be held responsible for that which we did not choose. Thank you.
[46:51] Yeah, just to be clear, men and women, perfectly equal before the law, men and women should have every opportunity that they want, should be encouraged to pursue their full potential as they best see fit. Wonderful. I mean, I've been a stay-at-home dad for almost 16 years now. I've never once said to my daughter, you can't do this because you're a girl. It'd be absurd, right? Be absurd. I mean, if she wanted to be a power lifter, I'd say, well, you know, you might have some challenges there because, you know, but she looks at these big beefy Eastern European guys that look like they are the Michelin man made out of potato-fueled muscle. And she's like, yeah, probably couldn't lift as much as them, right? So, well, if there's any consolation, neither could I. But yeah, so everybody should be equal before the law. Everybody should have as many opportunities and qualities should win out no matter what.
[47:38] But in a state of freedom, in a state of freedom, and we know this empirically, it's not a theory, in a state of freedom, women tend to choose more traditionally female roles and men tend to choose more traditionally male roles in a state of freedom. Now, I don't care if that frustrates people or angers people or annoys people or they think it's because of some nefarious interplanetary galactic scheme of men to whatever, whatever, right? I mean, it's just a fact, right? And I try not to get offended by facts because that seems kind of hysterical, right? It seems kind of hysterical, right? And, you know, the question we can ask, which is, are women more emotional than men. I mean, I think that there's some truth in that.
[48:21] And have the sciences, and in particular, the social sciences, have they become more reactionary and emotional since women have come in?
[48:33] Policing? Is there more, I'm offended and upset, therefore you're wrong? Is there more, that's unacceptable? Is there more censorship? Is there more ideology? Or is it just trying to absorb and process and work with facts as much as possible? So even the form of this kind of response speaks to a difference between men and women on average in general, tons of exceptions, right? But on average in general, science, in particular the social sciences, have become more emotion-based and tone-policed since women have come into the fray. And honestly, I think that in a lot of ways, that's a good thing because, you know, we men can be a little bit on the autistic side and just pursue things like, hey, what would happen if we swapped this virus with this virus and threw in this virus? Like, we can be a little bit autistic and not pursue the emotional side of life as much, and this is by, you know, different but complementary. I think that, personally, I think the social sciences needed more feelings-based thoughts and approaches to things, because empathy and sensitivity is very important in the pursuit of social sciences.
[49:45] But has it gone too far? Yeah, arguably it has, in that even facts can get shouted down by people being upset, right? And it's a little bit more on the female side than the male side. But then, of course, none of this is really based on the market, because academia and this kind of stuff is, as a whole, it's just funded and run by the government. So, it's a plaything for the neurotic of both sexes. So, all right. I hope that helps. I really do appreciate. I'm sure that chat GPT will figure this one out and update itself right away. So, I thank you so much, everyone. Freedomain.com. I look forward to your feedback and your thoughts, and I really do appreciate these great questions. Lots of love. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
