 Howdy fam, Anthony dream Johnson here today co-founder of the red man group founder of 21 studios founder of the 21 convention the 22 convention to make women great again the patriarch convention to rebuild the patriarchy 21 university at 21 university calm and on the app store on your phone and about 10,000 things on the internet you can go download have fun with watch and enjoy That was a quick video trailer you just saw from an upcoming event the 21 convention 16 year anniversary for men it's going to make men alpha again So it's sponsored for today's show. You can learn more at the link in the description. It's 21 studios calm link at the top for live events and you could choose your event for men for fathers women come out have a great time in Orlando Florida 14th to 17th it's about 75 days away and that's Friday through Sunday. A lot of speakers going to be there almost 30 we have in the roster between all three events. Once for fathers once for men once for women they all happen on the same time same hotel same venue same weekend at 21 summit. There's an early bird special ends tomorrow night on Sunday night and at the month and you can also bring a friend free or a girlfriend wife if you're like a man. And then she can go to the women's event. And if you're a man you can also go to both men's events as a bonus included with any ticket you buy to either of the men's events. That's a male privilege male privilege of work what male privilege right now that further ado enough from the sponsor today. Welcome to Episode 173 of the red man group a female a birthing person Professor Janice Fiammango and Mr. Steve Brouillet the double a seven of the man's fear and destroying feminism. Welcome both of you to show. Thanks for your time today. Yeah. I always try you know it's a good it's good to get the audience captivated excited get excited for the content. The content you know the title today shows exposing feminist lies and propaganda and that to me is both really serious due to its very negative effects on culture and on men and on families. But also it's really funny to make fun of these people and have a good time in my view anyway mocking them where we can. I almost put a woman for example like a screaming one of the screaming feminist ladies on the front of the cover. I couldn't make it work at the last minute but I decided to go to you to instead. But anyway there's a lot to talk about. So first things first Roe v Wade was recently overturned in America. And this had been you know heralded I'm saying that right for decades upon decades 50 years in America as his feminist victory. And now that's gone. And you know some have said many have said I think it's probably true but I want to hear what you guys think. That that was one of the biggest probably the biggest defeat for feminism and the biggest victory against feminism. Maybe in recent history in America in the West. So what were you guys's thoughts each of you on watching that as Canadians neither one of you is an American. But observing that as a fellow Westerner and watching feminism really get their ass handed to them to put a bluntly and a major political battle that they lost. Janice you want to start on that. Sure yeah I'm not sure that it yeah I guess it was a defeat for feminist ideology. I saw it primarily as a victory for constitutionalism in the United States because really it was a fairly narrow interpretation. Of the United States Constitution simply to point out correctly that there is no constitutional right to abortion and that you simply can't read that into the American Constitution. So I you know I there are still many many battles around abortion and you know women's alleged right to to kill their unborn children. Many more battles to come. And but I think it is a very important moment and it's now going to be interesting because I think at last we are going to be able to make arguments about abortion both pro and con. And feminists are no longer going to be able to hide behind this as you know simply a taken for granted right that all must agree is there. The interesting thing for me is is the the unwillingness on the part of nearly everybody involved to actually hold women morally accountable for their affirmation of the right to abortion. And I that's it's the thing that I find most startling about how the discussion around abortion has evolved you know it started off as this sober subject you know something that was going to be. You know when it was first promoted as a as a right for women abortion was going to be safe legal and rare. And the idea was that it was going to be something that would be resorted to only you know as a last resort and that everybody agreed that it was a tragedy when it occurred but we've gone from that to the embrace of abortion as a sacrament. The celebration of the idea that women should be unashamed and even proud of having had multiple abortions. And of course we've even seen discussion of abortion right up until the moment of birth as you know perfectly acceptable. You know right of women for their convenience and their sexual liberation. So I think it's an interesting opportunity to talk about the the moral evil that is involved in that kind of celebration and to hold women accountable for that. And I don't see a lot of willingness even on the part of pro life conservatives to really face squarely what this tells us about women. Damn well put Steve your thoughts. It's hard to add much after going after Janice because she's she's thorough in her comments. She's covered pretty much all the bases. I have to say I agree with everything Janice said they I would also add to it that not only have feminists in particular. That's a strong noise. Sorry. I'm not sure how to mute myself. Oh is that the street there. It's yeah it's gone now I think I'm very sorry about that was just something going on overhead. They're feminists have also I at least I would say philosophers of law have argued for a feminist philosophers of law have argued for postnatal. What are they called postnatal abortion and it amounts to killing the child alive healthy child after being born. There was two Janice you may remember this this goes back probably eight or 10 years ago or something. There were two professors who published a argument about this which will shows that there's there's a a moral slippery slope involved here. That's not even acknowledged in feminist circles that that presumes that will extend this into absurd lengths this issue of abortion. I want to add just one more point and that the constitutional as it was a well not a constitutional right but the Supreme Court and creating the right for abortion was misused right around the country to extraordinary degree. Because for example I read in a New Jersey a case this was about it was a story there was several cases of this going on. I think it was New Jersey or New York where if a woman was pregnant she gets free dental care. And what a number of women were caught doing and reported on this was that they would get pregnant go and get a bunch of dental work done and then go and get an abortion. Because they didn't really want the child they just wanted free dental care and amongst other amongst other things. This was reported in the in the news about I think is about again five eight years ago or something like this. And oh sorry now I got cat making a noise in the back sorry I'm really bad today. But and you know it's so interesting Steve what you're saying about the the slippery slope and the enormous indifference to the reality of what abortion is on the part of many women who celebrate it. And you can find this even going back to the earliest days in the feminist movement. And this is why it's so interesting that Steve and I are working on our history of feminism because I think everyone has the idea that in the old days you know in its origins feminism was a sane movement for equality. But in fact, there was always this enormous indifference about the welfare of children on the part of feminist women. And we found examples of women defending sorry feminist defending women convicted of infanticide women who clearly planned the killing of their newborn infants. In one case a woman in Philadelphia in 1876 I believe I may have the date wrong who smashed her child's brains out on a bed post then hid the baby under the bed and when she was discovered claimed that she had fainted on the child during delivery. But it was very clear from what other women testified in the boarding house where she was that she had been offered assistance. See people could see she was pregnant she denied the assistance and feminists created a narrative about her of wronged innocence and in order to have her conviction overturned. It was in the end it was commuted very few women were ever convicted or punished at least even if they were convicted for infanticide which was extremely common crime in the 19th century. In fact one historian estimates that about 60% of homicides were of children under one year old the vast majority of those killed by their mothers. And so to see the indifference of feminists even then to the well being of children and their willingness to defend women convicted of killing their children. I think there's a straight line between that that because the conviction of moral innocence on the part of women is so strong and has always been so strong in the feminist movement. It's not surprising that there you can draw a straight line between that attitude and the attitude towards abortion of most feminists today. Yeah, I want to add it just amazing to hear I heard you talk earlier too about the accountability of women this total the innocence to the point of absurdity beyond absurdity they're innocent no matter what and it's part of this like no accountability thing. And it's just it is wild to see these women want to get away with it even like a post birth abortion. There was even a governor in America who got in trouble for this a little bit anyway when he was going on the radio I think in Virginia. And it was like maybe 2019 and talked about you know advocating for this and state and it really is this insane. It's almost like there's a I ran was would talk a lot about when she was alive like a philosophy of death that these people not just feminists but any kind of collectivist that they worship. They worship it's like this worshiping of death and it's total destruction against life. And it's almost to like it I've heard other people talk about it's like women want to play God. They want to choose who lives and who dies what babies live and what babies die even after they're born. Like it's a born like Steve was talking about it's like it's a like a living baby literally came out born and they just want to kill it and get away with it and face no consequences for anything. And you mentioned to Jen it's like these pro-lifers even who won't hold women accountable for anything and that itself is also aggravating. It reminds me too of this news article I wanted to pull up. Sadly it's a Florida senator which is embarrassing to my state and most people born in it. But this is Marco Rubio put forward a bill with some other Republicans and even I think a few Democrats and the U.S. Senate. They want fathers to start paying child support from the date of conception. Now the Roe v. Wade is a return and all this kind of stuff. So I want to know get your guys thoughts on this. I mean child support in America is already this huge scam in my view and a lot of people who analyze and look at feminism. But they want to actually push this now federally so nationwide in America. They want fathers to start paying child support all the way from the date of conception. Even be responsible for it after the fact or retroactively like if they didn't find out they were the father until I looked into the bill a little bit. Until you know they'll say the father and have the child was born even until six months after the child was born. They would be responsible for all this back paid child support even when the child wasn't born yet. Even when the child didn't even you know had to take the first breath. What are your thoughts on this then of you know basically these men. These these senators and stuff are pretend to be you know pro rule of law and pro family and stuff. They want to force men to pay child support for children that are not even born yet. Is this something you kind of expected to see or is this a surprise or what do you thoughts on this. Steve do you want to you want to speak to this. I've got a lot to say about it. Okay. I'll get a few points in. I'm sure you're going to cover my points as well. You know I think a lot of this has always been about power and money of course is power. So I mean feminist I mean the law holds even men who aren't the father of the child accountable for child support. And they say this they use the rationale of best interest of the child. But I think if you look into the decisions that they call best interest of the child they always end up being truly best interest of the mother. And I think that has its roots in the gynocentric culture that we have that goes back forever you know. And if I might just say one or two points about the previous topic before I let this go that has been on my mind. You know the I did a video about this God complex that women feminists particularly have that resides in a sense that. That and I think in part I argue a lot of things in this video but in part it comes from maybe this is just conjecture a theory. That come from the fact that the baby is grown within the mother's body. And as being part of the mother's body for nine months they're being growing within there for nine months a mother or women might have a tendency to see the child as their own body as their own property. And they even talk on those terms a lot you know so that for in the mentality and I wouldn't say that this is a healthy way to see it. I'll say it's a it's a way that some that women some women may tend to be encouraged to think of it. And so for them to to think of killing the child that's not really like killing somebody else is for them it's like it's their property it's their body they have a right even after birth. They mothers often have a very difficult time of letting go of their children and I say letting go is letting go in the sense of thinking them as of of them as an independent person. To such a degree that in many cultures older cultures that the one of the roles of the men of the group of the culture at the time was to physically. Remove the child from the care of the women the mothers physically and this was accompanied with all kinds of fanfare of pain and crying and blah blah blah. And that kind of tells you how deeply the psychology of that is my child that is my body and it carry can carry on right into puberty to such a degree and further into very very distorted mother. Child relationships you know extremely distorted. We call them a son husband in the man is here when the son functions like a husband because the mother has such an aggressive over attachment to the son. Especially single moms but it can go beyond that they just they use the son as like a husband especially if there's a husband around but even if there is one. Maybe it's kind of like a pushover or something and it's really bizarre and unhealthy. Very unhealthy and it's an indication that we do really need the strengthening of the father the male presence in our culture and the father presence in particular and I applaud these fellows who are participating in your father's group for doing that. One last point where I pass it to Janice or are you is that it's such a degree our kind of center some is such a degree that infanticide was separated out from murder. To be a separate and lesser crime than murder and it is to this day a lesser crime. And I'll point out to that one of the reasons I think for that is the gynocentric because in the infanticide is almost about 99% committed by mothers. It is very rare there's a study out on this I read about five years ago. That shows that is very rare for a biological father. Okay, when stepfather is a different story stepfathers can present a danger at least according to studies to children in the home. But the biological mother is almost the exclusive perpetrator of infanticide. So I'll leave it at that. Yeah, before Janice hops in I have a quick story I want to tag on to what you're saying Steve. I heard this young mother once I was talking to her about circumcision. She was about to get one of her new one of her new children the new boy baby boy circumcised. And I asked her I was trying to talk to her about why she was doing this and why it was a bad idea. And she was very flippant and kind of didn't want to hear it was listening a little bit but you know barely. But what stood out to me is one of her main reasons for doing it was well I prefer the look you know the circumcised penis. To which I responded it's not your penis like who cares it's not yours it's that child is not your property. And it could I could tell this is completely glossing over her head and she didn't understand it exactly like you're saying. There's this arrogance and extreme narcissism that a living breathing human is their property. I'm sure there's some irony given my funny hat today make woman property again of me wearing this but mostly it's a gag hat. But in terms of mothers or any parent for that matter even a father but the mother is the one that said this. It's like she owned it's like the penis was hers like the son was not just her responsibility but her property. And if she wanted to take you know cut up this little kid's dick then that's fine. And I think that's that's sick and evil in my view I think it should be outlawed in every every nation certain male circumcision specifically. Anyway it reminded me what you're saying though with the ownership that they feel that they have over over children and it's really sick and evil. Janice did you have some thoughts on this. Yeah well I wanted to jump in on what Steve was saying about the the the deadly goddess mentality Steve's done a video on this subject and then I do want to go back also to the Florida bill about fathers or even just men in general they don't have to be the actual father having to pay for the for the child from conception. But yeah to go back to the deadly goddess mentality I find that such an interesting aspect of feminist or even just female morality that seems undeniably different from the male. You know men in culture as Steve was just saying tend to have had traditionally the role of establishing moral law, moral law that applies universally. Whereas women tend to think in terms of their feelings about things. And we see that I think particularly amplified in feminist theorizing about various issues it comes up very clearly in questions of sexual morality, where there is no longer to be any kind of general moral law about sexuality. The exact same act can either be a perfectly consensual and you know healthy to be celebrated act, or it can be an act of sexual assault that should result in the alleged perpetrator being put behind bars and losing everything, or at least being publicly disgraced and perhaps losing his job and you know never being able to work again in his chosen profession, all depending on how the woman feels about it. You mean like retroactively withdrawing consent. Yes, she can, if she doesn't feel good about the whatever it happens to be in the moment or even if afterwards, she feels bad about it. And then say hey I didn't consent to every single stage even though you know she never said no or whatever it happens to be that idea that the woman's feelings determine the nature of reality. And I think that's a really startling and very evident aspect of feminist ideology that tells us where making, you know, decisions about morality or right conduct based on feeling, especially the women's feelings, where that takes us And we see that in regard to abortion law too, where is it if the woman regards her baby, her unborn baby as a human being, then that's what it is. And if she is murdered or you know something is done to her and the child is born dead, well that you know that is seen as an act of murder. Whereas if she doesn't regard the child as a human being, then it isn't a human being and that's the case in law now. And that's that's quite a startling statement I think it tells us a lot about the kind of morality that in hears in feminism. So and, but then, yeah, to move on to the Florida law. Again, yeah, this is such an interesting aspect of the fusion I guess of gyno centrism and state power because obviously the state benefits from hooking men into, you know, paying for women's children that that conservatives don't seem to understand. I was listening to a debate by a bunch of pro life conservatives about abortion and was on the daily wire backstage show. And it was extraordinary the unwillingness on the part of those. There was like four men and one woman. They were insisting that sexual revolution had harmed women and only women. They were they were taking making the line that that abortion harms women that most women are coerced into abortion so that it's sexually predatory men who are responsible for abortion that women are. Wow. It was it was extraordinary really was and ultimately were some of the who are some of the guests if you don't mind me asking was this like a Matt Walsh Ben Shapiro. Yes, Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro were there and. Wow, I guess. Candace Candace Owens was was the one woman she she talked about how how most abortions were coerced. The ones that she knew about the man was the one who coerced the woman. She talked in specific particular about a friend of hers who had been, you know, was in a situation that was was violent and there was domestic abuse and so that there was such a strong drive to absolve the woman and then one of the speakers. And you know, I like all these people, you know, in general, I like lots of their ideas, but it certainly made me realize that I don't have a home in that kind of conservatism at all, although in some ways, I'm pretty conservative. And so Andrew Clavin said that that there was discussion about, you know, amongst feminist circles, there was discussion about forcing the man to live with the mother of his child and to pay child support and he got a big grin on his face and he said, hey, you know, I accept the challenge or something like that, or, or yeah, let's talk about that. But what he didn't understand was that is not the feminist position and unfortunately it isn't the position of any of these conservative states. They're not they're never going to force the man to live with the mother of his child. Women don't want that. They want the man to be forced to pay. They and they want to be able to live independently from the man and even if they wish to prohibit the man from ever seeing his children. They wanted to be a slave basically. Yeah, exactly. They want him on penalty of incarceration and of having his wages garnished. They want him to be obligated to pay for any child they claim is his. You know, he doesn't even have the right in many states to to have a paternity test to determine whether the child really is his or not. They just want that man to be a work slave to support them in their the lifestyle that they believe is is their right. And the fact that conservatives don't understand this and think that is actually to the benefit. I mean, I don't know if they do think it's to the benefit of the child. Every study that is done on this subject shows the children benefit from having from knowing their father and from having their father in their in their lives. And that so many of the social problems that we're concerned about today are the result of father absence. I mean, Warren Farrell has talked about this for decades. Many, many other men's issues activists have talked about this. It's not a secret. But the fact that conservatives will pass legislation to give women power of a sort, you know, to actually deny men the right to father their children to keep them out of the household to have them ejected, but still have to pay the mortgage on that house just shows how much how conservatives have been captured by the feminist lobby. I was saying the other day on Twitter, actually, that most conservatives, all Democrats in America, almost like 99.9% are slaves to feminism and most conservatives are slaves to feminism. They might not explicitly identify as a feminist, right, particularly on like abortion issues. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter because functionally, all they do is support them. They support them and they will I'm getting that noise. Oh, that's me this time. Let me let me mute this. There's a truck going by it. Oh, yeah, it's way better now. Okay. Anyway, yeah, I just think that most I don't even identify as a conservative. My views. I mean, some people put me over there. My views are with the founding fathers and what I ran politically and philosophically. But these conservatives, they they're in a lot of ways, you know, 20 conservatives in 2022 would have been considered radical feminist 20 25 years ago. And they're they're oblivious to this. They're oblivious like children. They're stupid. It drives me crazy. It's it's the thing that most irritates me. And I think it's part of the impetus behind the new series that Steve and I are promoting and behind our interest in making a documentary about the history of feminism. I mean, I don't know if it's going to do any good because it just seems that this, you know, it's not only a gynocentrism. It is an acceptance of feminist ideology. And I think that's as a result of, I think there has been generation upon generation of psychological abuse of men, feminist psychological abuse. So that even those who do identify themselves as conservatives have accepted feminist postulates so deeply that they have actually, especially men, they have come to hate themselves as men. They have accepted the feminist doctrine that there is something deeply perverse and, you know, harmful in male sexuality in all male authority. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Evil really. I think a lot of men like a majority of men, even those men who identify themselves as anti conservatives, I'm sorry, anti feminists have have been like really harmed by this psychological abuse. And yeah, it just drives me crazy even like I just recently I was I wrote an article and I was so annoyed to see Tucker Carlson once again and again. I like Tucker in lots of ways I think he does some pretty interesting and really helpful journalism but he was interviewing anti trans feminist who is facing a jail term although I doubt she'll get the jail term but she's been charged with hate speech in Norway, because she's having Twitter arguments with so called trans women, and she's been telling them that, you know, a man cannot be a woman, a man cannot be a lesbian, a man cannot be a mother. Okay, so so Tucker, you know, had her on his show and he's done this many times with these types of feminists. He called her a hero. You know, he was full of adulation for her. And, you know, and I agree that a woman should not be charged with hate speech for telling a man that he can't be a lesbian. You know, it's it's ridiculous or a mother, a mother. Yeah, that he can't be a mother, etc. I mean I fully agree. But the the idea that these rad fems, these turfs as they used to be called but now they're called gender critical feminists, the idea that they should be celebrated as heroes by non feminist conservative men and held up as role models for us all, and that men should be, you know, rallied to their cause to defend these poor women who are being persecuted by the state. And I do agree that this woman is being persecuted by the state. But she is not a hero. She is those rad fems are the most hateful of the feminists they have maintained since day one, that men are barely human. I mean, they really have trouble believing that men are human. They have pushed ideas of male depravity from the very beginning. And in fact, their opposition to trans is not rooted in any kind of deep understanding of biological reality. You know, it's not rooted in any kind of commitment to truth, or the sanity of cultural norms or anything that we would recognize as worth supporting. It's rooted in hatred of men because they see these trans women as misogynistic men who want to usurp women's bodies and usurp the special privileges protections and government perks that rad fems have been able to wrangle out of the states, you know, over the last 40 to 50 years, and they are so furious that some of those perks and special protections and privileges are now being extended to a tiny portion of the population who identify as women, even if the individual is just somebody who, you know, from an early age has really believed that he is a woman and he just wants to live as a woman. He doesn't want to harm anybody. He doesn't want to cause any trouble. He just wants to be able to walk into a women's bathroom and use, go into a cubicle and not say boo to anybody or cause any harm. They still hate that person as a man and see him as a misogynist. I mean, the craziness of it. There is a delightful irony in their now finding themselves actually subject to hate speech laws, but they've been perfectly fine with men being subject to such laws, with men's speech being criminalized simply because some woman claimed that she was made to feel unsafe by something that a guy said on Twitter about women, even if it was simply a biological fact. So yeah, there is a delicious irony in their now facing the same thing, but the ridiculousness that they continue to claim that trans is a kind of patriarchal plot against women and that all these conservative men jump on board and say, yes, these women are being erased and we men must come to their defense. Wow, these are the very women that would have men absolutely disempowered criminalized for even looking at a woman and unable to see their children, unable to be the head of their families, etc. So it's just infuriating to see how willing men are to be co-opted into that feminist movement. I've seen this in real life too at conferences. I've been to like CPAC, one of the biggest conservative conference in America three or four times now. And I've seen like Caitlyn Jenner there or Bruce Jenner, whatever he, she is it, you know, that the trans, I think he was running, he, she it was running for governor or something. Anyway, Caitlyn Jenner is like, you know, this kind of talking head now that goes on TV shows and they were at the live events, there was like hammer crews and Fox News like chasing it around, you know, trans Caitlyn Jenner or whatever. And I'm like, why is this person even at this conference? It's supposed to be some allegedly super conservative conference. You know, even Donald Trump was speaking there at all the ones I've been to. You know, conservative, pro family, family values, right? We're for biological reality. You know, what is a man? What is a woman? We know. But then, then they will kiss the butt of this trans person instantaneously. Like, there's no hesitation to team up with these trans people. And it's, it's utterly contemptible, I suppose is the word hypocritical for me to see it. When you see it in real life to the right in front of your face. So I'm walking on film and stuff too. And I see them filming this person and interviewing this person and really trying to somehow buddy up with this person. It's truly insane. And it tells me that they're all beta males and they're all slaves. They're all like, who can be the best slave for feminism? And that's what I see with Marco Rubio is like, mama's boy from South Florida, unfortunately, you know, embarrassment to my state and Floridians everywhere. And he's like going to be a good boy for the feminist mother of America and get men to pay for child support when a woman is three weeks pregnant. What does she need? Gummy bears, vitamins? What is the child support for? This is, this is so delusional to me. It's like the open, the open enslavement of men to just be even more of a slave for feminism and the gynaocracy. But he won't suggest that that perhaps women should marry the fathers of their children. Yeah, he wouldn't do that, right? Even though everybody knows that financially, emotionally, she's going to be way better off overall and families are certainly the bedrock of a conservative society, but conservatives won't say that. So yeah, I know it's, it is remarkable and like that's just to keep banging on about our documentary project. The thing that's been so fascinating to me about doing this intensive research into the history of feminism is that it was always there. And like nobody knows that. And you know, I just saw recently Ben Shapiro did a short within 12 minute video called the history of feminism that leftists don't want you to know. And it starts off as conservatives always do by saying that feminism was once a movement with noble aims. And it was, you know, it was interested in equality. And the only thing I think he said about the early the first wave was that they they wrongly assumed that women were the same as men. And that's wrong. The movement never had what we would consider noble aims. It was never interested in equality. And in fact, feminists never said that women were the same as men. They always men made two separate and contradictory arguments. One was that women were as good or better than men. And that at any time you saw an instance where women had not made the same achievements as men. The reason was always sexism. We still see that today. That was back there in the early movement. That was one of the arguments. The other argument was that women were clearly morally superior and different from men, better, morally better, and that they required special protections, special privileges, etc. So that their superiority and their difference could be protected and promoted because it was for the good of humanity that it be so. But, you know, of course, those two things don't really work together. But always feminists made both those arguments. It's Ernest Belfort backs really interesting 19th century barrister and journalist who pointed that out way back in like the 1880s. And that is still the case. And feminism never, ever was interested in women having the same responsibilities as men, carrying the same burdens as men, doing the same kind of work in society, you know, attaining the same level of self-sacrifice, or certainly not having the same moral agency and accountability as men. And so it's really interesting to go back and look at the actual things these feminists had to say. And I would just wish that more conservatives who are anti-feminist would learn that history so that they don't fall into this trap of agreeing with certain feminist postulates. So what you're saying is all the nastiness that we see with feminism today has always been present. It's just, it's probably even more pronounced today. They have more power today too. They have more power and that happened obviously in the 1960s when they started invading all the key institutions of society and especially the universities because then they were sent out as foot soldiers. They got indoctrinated in the universities and they were sent out as foot soldiers into every single domain of our society. But yeah, it was always there. You know, I think Steve, you were the one who uncovered this document. I know Karen Straughn had talked about it too and I had never read it. It's called The Declaration of Sentiments. It was written in 1848, mainly by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was the acknowledged leader of the women's movement for the whole, you know, second half of the 19th century as a young woman. She got together with other feminists. They were mostly in the abolition movement in Seneca Falls, New York, and they had their big conference about women's rights and women's position in society. And they published this document, Declaration of Sentiments. It was based on the Declaration of Independence. It was supposed to be kind of, you know, the woman's Declaration of Independence. And it has as its key thesis that the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, having as its objective the establishment of an absolute tyranny by man over woman. And then they have all these, you know, sub clauses explaining allegedly how this absolute tyranny is being established through repeated injuries and usurpations. So there's nothing good. They have nothing good in 1848 to say about men. The whole history of mankind is that history of atrocious mistreatment and oppression. And men signed that document. That to me is, wow. What were they thinking? Did they actually believe that their sex had done nothing to protect and provide for their women folk over the whole history of humanity? Like, you know, and that's what I mean when I, I started thinking as I was reading all this stuff, and you know, there's way more, even worse, somewhat later in the century, both in Britain and in the United States. They always wanted to destroy the family. They always said it was an oppressive institution. They always wanted women to have sexual freedom. Free love for women was an important rallying cry, even in the 19th century. They never cared about the children that would be produced from these free unions. They always defended the murderers of children. They always said that male sexuality was predatory and base and sinful, whereas, of course, women's sexuality was, was wonderful and was to be liberated, etc. All the things that we already see was there. And it just made me think, like, you know, so that's 170 and more years since men signed a declaration saying that men were responsible for nothing but evil. And pain and oppression. Like, what that does. In spite of building all of civilization, largely for women and their wives and their children. Steve, Steve, I want to talk to you about what Janice is saying here, though. So there's a couple of theories around, and I like to know what your thoughts are on it. There's a couple of theories around, obviously, the origin of feminism, talking 1848, Seneca Falls. Also, there's a little bit earlier movements in Britain, which Janice also referred to a little bit. But also, a lot of people today tie feminism into Marxism, into communism. But obviously, Karl Marx was, he was born, I think, in the early 1800s. So I don't really know how much he influenced Seneca Falls. This is an example. But also, there is some sort of link between feminism and communism, or Marxism does seem pretty strong. So what is the relationship there between the two? Are they independent kind of ideologies? Are they intertwined in some way? Yeah, that's a really good question. That period of time, I think, there was a lot of social movements at work in the world at the same time, throughout the world, in Europe and in Britain, apart from feminism. Yeah, social kind of welfare movements, change movements. And Marxism grew up within that, as did feminism, start to become popular and grow and strengthened through in that same time. And so the people, the same people who were involved in those movements, including emancipation of slavery and all the rest of that, they were the same people at all these different groups. And so they're always talking about the same things. And so Marx was being talked about at the same time that the feminists were gathering together their movement. And the Communist manifesto, published by Marx and Engels, was published only about three or five months. I can't remember exactly. Before the Seneca Falls Conference, in which they created the Declaration of Sentiments. And some of the terminology in there is strikingly similar. Now, you could argue, the manifesto, Janis pointed me out this, when we were talking about this earlier, that wasn't available in English at that time. But that doesn't mean that the ideas weren't being discussed amongst that tight, rather tightish community of international intellectuals, leftist intellectuals. So I would be extremely surprised if that most of the group that got together at Seneca Falls weren't aware of the Communist manifesto and the ideas within it, even if they had not seen it or read it. I'd be surprised if they weren't actively influenced by those ideas, because it's a bit striking at the similarities that they've written into that document. And I'll give you the prime example here. This is a really good example, because Janis brought it up earlier. The phrasing in the Declaration of Sentiments of the History of Mankind, the relationship between men and women, where they say that having been oppressed on all sides, oppressed on all sides by men. This is the kind of phrasing that Marx used to refer to, I think, the proletariat. Is that right, Janis? Sure, yes. So Marx claimed that the oppression was class-oriented, the bourgeoisie, oppressor, proletariat. But the exact same ideas were taken and turned into the gender oppression, where men are the bourgeoisie, and the women were the proletariat oppressed on all sides. So I think there's no doubt that all of these ideas were floating around in all of these communities, including the emancipation communities. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, I agree. And if you go back even further, like if you go back to Mary Wollstonecraft in the British context in 1792, she writes a vindication of the rights of women. But she was also as a lefty, intellectual, deeply influenced by the French Revolution. So this idea, like both leftism in general and feminism in particular, I think share that idea, this fascination with the notion of starting society over again, rebuilding it from the ground up, the rubble of the old, which must be completely torn down, and the notion that you can change human nature itself if you change the social structures. That is deeply there in Marxism. It was deeply there in the architects of the French Revolution, that notion that there really is no such thing as human nature. It's all social, you know, they don't use the phrase social constructionism, but you can see they're definitely making the exact same argument about how everything is determined by our, you know, our social relations, social context. That of course becomes really dominant in feminism, but it in later stages of feminism, but it's there from the early beginnings. And if you want, if you really want to determine if anybody is not quite sure whether Marxism and feminism, you know, share a common vocabulary and a common way of thinking. And I think probably, like, co-created a lot of these ideas. You just, you specifically should read Engels' book, The Origin of the State, no, sorry, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, published in 1884, yes, originally in German, based on notes that he found amongst Marxist papers. Marx had just died and then translated into English fairly shortly after, I think. But, you know, you can see it there. He explicitly says that women in marriage are the proletariat under the bourgeois oppressor. He specifically talks about women in marriage as sex slaves, as prostitutes. And, yeah, feminists went crazy with that language afterwards and used it extensively from the 1880s onward, the notion of marriage as a form of sex slavery for women. Wow. No distinction. No distinction between, you know, the family home where children are raised and where the father comes home with having worked all day for the benefit of his life and children. No distinction between that and prostitution or sex slavery. Well, there's also some delicious irony in the modern popularity of very strong BDSM content, like Fifty Shades of Grey, the books, the movies, Super Best Seller's Outselling the Bible, I think, are close to it in America in recent years. And these are women where women are literally tied up, spanked, butt plugged, like really wild stuff. It's even portrayed in the movies. Never mind. I think the books are even a little more explicit. But I do want to flash forward a little bit. We're talking about the late 1700s, 1800s, and the early 1900s. These days, a lot of the ideas you're talking about, the origins of them, they seem to have grandchildren. That would be like, you know, ultra radical feminism, you know, I'm proud of killing babies and stuff. Early, you know, I'm putting on a pink hat and I'm blood all over my face, fake blood. But also BLM obviously is very explicitly Marxist. And I think even woke, wokeism, for lack of a better term, the woke, all the woke stuff, that seems to be like a grandchild of Karl Marx and even a child of feminism. So you kind of have these different, you have this like super radical feminism, modern feminism, super woke stuff, which is its own thing. You have the trans ideology, trans monstrosity stuff. And then you have BLM stuff. So you have the racial, you have the gender trans. You have feminism, you have kind of general woke. And it's all these little like monsters are just being born out of the corpse of Karl Marx and early feminist. Can you talk to me about the hydra? It is, it's all there. And again, if you, if you go back to, if you look at academic feminism as early as the 1970s, you can see all of those manifestations being articulated there in, you know, they called it intersectional feminism. And it was the idea that there were various types of oppression. They've never been very interested in class oppression, though that was the one that Marx was most interested in. They're not interested in working people because working people are notoriously, I think, most resistant to all of their crazy ideas. But every other form of oppression, they started talking a lot about racial oppression in the 1970s and making distinctions between black women who were, you know, doubly oppressed and white women had to, in a way, apologize for their privilege and acknowledge the greater oppression and therefore in some ways the greater virtue of black women. And then you introduce sexuality into the mix. So black lesbians were more oppressed than black women who are more oppressed than white women. But then you had lesbian white women and where did they fit in? And, you know, you started to get that whole hierarchy of victimhood and the competition between members of victim groups for superior victim status and superior right to speak. All of that is clearly in operation already in the 1970s and 1980s. Plus, you know, the emphasis on the social construction of womanhood and then of blackness and of everything. And so that that spawns ultimately the trans movement and you get all this splitting within feminism now so that you have the radfems opposed to the social constructionist feminists who support trans ideology and, you know, you have various other kinds of oppositions and rivalries and antagonisms within these various groups. But yeah, it's all there within feminism. You can find it. You know, I've done a lot of work on that too in some original documents within feminist theory in the Academy and it has just spread out now and it has taken all of these popular culture forms in the 21st century. But it was definitely birthed there. Wow. Steve, any commentary on the hydra of Marxism, communism, feminism, wokeism, BLMism, transism? Yeah, just a simple comment, I suppose. I mean, the hydras, for audiences that aren't familiar with the hydras are a mythical monster with many heads and when you cut one off, another one or two more grow or something like this. Have I got that right? Roughly. And that seems to fit here quite well. And I think the key to killing the hydra, you can't cut off its heads because they just grow back. We have to go to the root. The root of feminism is the lies, the lies that are even in their founding document. And I think the most important of the lies is that the history of humanity is defined by men oppressing women on all sides. And we can demonstrate that that is demonstrably false. Of course, there were evils of one group to another of every description. That's why human beings are, we act very badly, very often. But the history of male-female relations is a history of men seeking to woo women, to convince them to mate with them, and then to provide and protect them. And men fight among themselves for that. But it's never, you can't characterize the sweep of history as being men oppressing women. If we must characterize the sweep of gender history of relationship between men and women, it is more accurately characterized by men trying to woo women, not rape. Rape is a very rare and it's almost a non-influence on the evolution or the population of humanity. I'll give you examples as to why of that. But the sweep of history is characterized by men trying to woo or convince or seduce women into mating with them, then protecting and providing for both the women and children and building the civilization within which that can be done. That's the sweep of history, the true sweep of history. Now, I want to just touch quickly on this idea of rape because feminists are obsessed with rape. If you ask a feminist, they will probably say that the world is populated by people who are children of rape, which is utterly false because the genetic analysis of human history, going back to the origins in Africa, will tell you that approximately 80% or more of women reproduced, but only 20% of men reproduced. That means that women are choosing the dominant men. That's the statistic. There's no argument against that. If rape was a significant contributor to the population of humanity, we would probably see a much more distorted or equal representation in the genetic of present-day human beings. We would see men who could not seduce women, we would see their genes popping up all over the place. The fact that only 20% of the men reproduced suggests that women are seducing those men, the top men, and we see that today. A study after study has shown that 80% of women consider, I'm going to get the stats wrong, but 80% of men are considered unsuitable for reproduction by 80% of women. So nothing's changed. Nothing's changed. It's the same old, same old. If rape was a significant contributor to reproduction, we would see a more 50-50 distribution of the genes. We would see more representation amongst less capable men. It makes you wonder too how many millions upon millions of men throughout history, and even today, were weeded out of the gene pool, had their genes effectively murdered by a woman through fraud, through lies and deception and basically cuckolding. How many men thought they reproduced but didn't? And really it was only the 19 or 20% of whatever that did. We certainly see that today. Paternity fraud, paternity fraud. We've had Cardinal Smith, who you probably know has been a speaker in our event, and on our channel a couple of times, and he talks extensively about this. 30% of men in America who are tested for paternity fraud turns out they are not the father. No chance, zero. We're talking like half a million men a year or something like that are tested and 150,000 or more are, they're not the father, they never were, it was never even possible. These women are a liar. It's almost, you know, also what you're saying, Steve and Janice, it makes me think that basically in 1800s, late 1700s and early 1800s, there was like a contingent of women who basically just turned on men very viciously, and that is now sprawled into this giant cancer of feminism that keeps brainwashing women to turn on men and to hate men and to hate fathers and to resent their own femininity and even the value of building a family, which obviously used to be much more normal, even when you guys were young, much younger. That's like all gone now. I think that the resentment of men have been with women forever. I agree. You know, and I touch on this on the birth of feminism video. There's a natural tendency, natural tendency isn't the right wording I'm going for, but let's put it this way. Men are obviously bigger in general, bigger, stronger, faster, and this is going to get me in a lot of hot water, but on average, smarter. This is, we're talking... No disagreement from me. Well, and I'm not saying this as a criticism of women. No, no, don't worry about it. Yeah. What I mean to say is that even I remember reading a study in New Scientist magazine back in the early 1990s, and they had determined that babies, baby boys, are born with 20 to 50 percent more brain cells than baby girls are. And by the age of about middle age, they are equal. So, and the theory at the time was put forward that men have evolved to have more brain cells because they needed to, they needed to seduce women. And those men who were smart enough to seduce women succeeded and their genes went forward and that ended up propagating males with more brain cells and they're specifically needed for that particular reason. Yeah, it's interesting. Yeah. Of course, they need to, part of what they need to seduce women is to be able to compete with other men. Exactly. And to, you know, to find a respected place in the hierarchy of men. And so that whole thing of forming hierarchies and also working together as a group with other men in order to accomplish things and get things done and protect the one's community, whatever, all those things do require a specific kind of intelligence, whereas what women are doing are mainly looking after children and, you know, being concerned about resources for themselves and their children because they're vulnerable. And so, yeah, to imagine that those evolutionary needs haven't created enormous differences in intelligence and ability and way, manner of thinking is just foolishness. Most geniuses are, I wasn't saying most geniuses are men by far. By far. Yeah. By far. And it sticks way out there. I mean, it's way out there on the bell curve. Yeah. I want to make a point about this before we go off this topic that this obviously was a very sensitive thing to be publishing and talking about in the 1990s. And as we're in the 2000s, that research has been deleted. Disappeared. Yeah. That has been deleted. Wow. I distinctly remember, and we talked about this. We used to get, I worked in research at Dow Chemical at the time. And we asked to get circulated around all the science magazines come around on circulation. We all read the same magazines and the reports that are coming out and what topic it was on didn't really matter. We were all just into the science, right? And so when that came around, it was a lot of talk in the coffee, coffee breaks and everything like that. Every second. And you had to be sensitive about it, you know, because it's not an issue. Well, I don't, you know, I don't see why it makes people so upset actually because. Because of feminism. That's why. Well, yeah. But putting that aside, just because the members of a group in general are more intelligent or, you know, more inclined to this more, more likely to be genius, etc. That doesn't mean that any individual cannot strive for greatness and may not be capable of greatness. Obviously, there are many great women throughout history, individuals. So, so there's no, there's no attack on the individual. Clearly, if as a society, if we judged people according to their group status, which is what BLM and feminists and everybody else want us to do. If we did that, then it would have negative consequences. But if you regard everyone as an individual and judge them based on, you know, what they show, they're capable of doing them. There's no problem. But yeah, I mean, but I agree with you, Steve, that I do think there is this deep resentment in women and that it has been there throughout history. It couldn't be expressed in earlier eras because it simply couldn't be women. Women and men were codependent. Obviously, men needed women for reproduction, for sexual companionship, because they have a longing for female to mate with females and to have children. And women needed men to survive, literally, and for their children to survive. As soon as that was no longer the case, when essentially nature had been tamed to the point that and government established to protect life and person and home, then women no longer had to rely on individual men. And that resentment, I think, that you're talking about that I do believe is deeply rooted, it was able to flourish. And it had nothing to do. I often hear men, well-intentioned men saying, well, most of these feminists, they've had bad experiences with men. And that's why they became feminists. So they're trying to understand where the hatred and the suspicion comes from. But that certainly hasn't been my experience of the women I have known who are feminists. And it isn't borne out by the research. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, to mention her again, was an extremely privileged woman. Most feminist leaders were privileged women who were given a good education at a time when most men didn't have access to a good education. They were raised in households where they were given every opportunity to exercise their talents. They weren't held back because of their sex. They weren't abused by the men in their life. They often married men who were extremely supportive of their activism, their writing, whatever it was that they were doing as feminists. So it isn't the experience that produces the ideology. It's the ideology that then informs everything that they see and perceive. And that's clear with Stanton. She met these abolitionist women who were starting to develop feminist ideas and feminist resentment. She became a feminist. She then met Susan B. Anthony, who wasn't a feminist. She convinced her to become a feminist. It's through the spread of the ideology that the resentment and the anger and the hatefulness and the desire for vengeance take root. If I can pause you, feminism as cancer is a very popular term these days. But the way you're describing it, it almost sounds more like a virus that spreads and spreads and spreads and replicates itself. And it's a little bit different than cancer, which can be caused by viruses. But I wonder if we should say feminism is a virus, like a new meme. Yeah, feminism is a mind virus. I mean, I really do think it is. And it, well, yeah. And that's why, as Steve was saying, we really do need to get to the root of it and just absolutely destroyed it at that point because sort of accepting any of its postulates and accepting any of the shame that men have been forced to take into themselves. Accepting any of these ideas about female moral superiority and how we need women because women have a deeper empathy for others or women care more. They're angels. They're angels, Janice. Women are angels. I mean, it's really, it's like, I mean, it's so obvious that that is actually the way to ruin a group of people. If you tell them that they have been wronged and that they weren't responsible for that wrong and because they were so deeply wronged that they had no agency and still have no agency so they're not responsible for anything bad that they or their group does. Wow. I mean, you know, it is a recipe for a deep attenuation of moral agency and that's what we witness today everywhere in our society and it's no surprise that we witness it because that's what the ideology teaches. So anybody who wants a sane society has to reject everything about feminism, including this idea as Steve said that men oppress women. They never did. That's one of the central. And I think the general sense of the root of the Hydra feminism is lies. They started with lies and look at how, like lies always do, they grow and they transform into other lies and other lies and other lies. So you see this proliferation of lies today around feminism like all sexes rape that a woman's feeling, how she reanalyzes their feelings in the past about a sex relation is a rape. It all comes from the beginning is like Orwell would talk about this kind of thing. You get the lie, you get them to believe the lie and then you can get them to believe anything. So we have to attack the lies that are at the core of feminism and one of the principal lies I said earlier is this arc of history being a man's oppression of women. History cannot be, history does not support that interpretation in any manner. I want to touch on just one other thing here. When we talked about female resentment of men, I think part of it is, comes from a female mating choice strategy in which women and the male community talks about this a lot, test men. When in the psychology of testing men it implies that you look down upon them. You must pass this test. You must pass this other test. Look at how you failed this test. You failed, you failed, you failed. This is all kind of shaming, looking down upon movement. And psychologically that is accompanied with a resentment, kind of a paradoxical resentment of that other person. Because in reality like I mentioned before men are faster, bigger, stronger, smarter. Now that sets up all of the psychological conditions for envy. And I know there is a lot of Christians in your subscriber base I think. They may be familiar with the story of Cain and Abel. I talk about this in the Birth of Feminism video. The story of Cain and Abel is where Cain is envious of Abel for being favored by God. It's an envy so deep that it can only be asswaged by eliminating the object of his envy, being able. Cain slays Abel. And this is the kind of envy that is possessed the core feminists. Is that their envy of men for all these things, men in a sense, are favored by God by their larger size, strength, speed and brains let's say. So there are all the conditions for the encouragement of envy amongst women. That doesn't mean that again, Janice touched on dealt with this topic. It doesn't mean men are in general better than women. It doesn't mean any of that. Well it means they're better at certain things. In a general sense. You're not a better human being. It means they are the culture builders and I don't have any problem admitting that or I mean I don't have to admit it. I celebrate it. I feel grateful that men, the men who came before me with the help of their women obviously that they built such a wonderful civilization where I didn't have to worry about all sorts of physical health threats. As an American, I'm very thankful for the women who gave birth to the founding fathers. Not only the founding six, but all the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They all had mothers. Thank God. Throughout history, Janice, you talked about this in your last, not last, two videos ago with the poetry. Men throughout history have praised, celebrated, elevated women for their beauty, for their home morality. And that's continued. And that's an hate in men. When men come to reproductive age, they don't go out there and say, oh what a bunch of creepy women. They are obsessively in love with women. They praise them. They pursue them. And the interesting... Go ahead. I was just going to say, in talking about resentment and envy, and recognizing that the other sex has certain capacities that one's own sex in general doesn't have, that does seem to have bred this resentment in women, which I still don't really understand it, but it could work the other way, too, in that women have the capacity to give birth. And women have qualities of physical beauty, perhaps, that men in general don't have. Women do have the capacity to nurture children. So those things, and I think men have sometimes throughout the ages talked about a certain kind of feeling in awe of women. Women are physically in some ways, not physically stronger, but they're more resistant to disease. They live longer and all those kinds of things. So those could be sources of resentment and envy on the part of men. And sometimes men do talk about... Yeah, I mean, men do sometimes talk about the awesome power of the female body. To house a child and then to birth it and then to be able to feed it from the woman's own body with her milk and all those kinds of things. But it's somehow, whatever resentment might be there amongst men, it doesn't develop into a movement to persecute women or to talk about how contemptible women are. It ends up being channeled in some of the different directions that you were just talking about, the building of civilization, the writing of love poetry or love songs that we see today and all of the various forms that men actually pay tribute to women or even pay homage to women. So it's like the asymmetry is striking and I think that's always going to be an issue. It is an issue, I think, that many men never really get the chance to have a woman of their own and to have their own family that they're judged and found wanting. That has existed in every culture that many men are sexually and emotionally deprived in that sense. That is an even greater problem today because there seem to be fewer and fewer channels for men to find meaning and identity. And now on top of that burden that men always had to face of proving themselves as men, proving themselves as worthy of a woman's love, now they have this mountain of propaganda aimed at telling them that they're nothing that, as Anthony said on that program, the future is female and that men are awful and that all men can do if they even want just not to be hated quite so much, is to do nothing as Susanna, I always forget her last name. Reed, Susanna Reed. The Walters. Susanna Walters, the professor from Northeastern University who wrote that article in the Washington Post called Why Can't We Hate Men? And she said, all you can do, man, if you want to not be hated quite so much is to step back, step away from the power. We've got it. Let women vote for feminist women. Let women take over because women are so much superior and we'll do such a better job. And it's just amazing to me that with that mountain of hatred coming at them all the time and the other pressures, the evolutionary pressures that have always been there, that more men don't hate women. They just don't. Men still, I don't know, there's still this sort of dignified kind of willingness even amongst the most hurt men, the men who have had these horrible divorce experiences and everything else just to go on and to continue to try to make some kind of contribution to their society and the willingness to see the best in women and to hope for some kind of rapprochement in the future where men and women can work together and just build a better society. I find that extraordinary and I salute men for that and I'm really sad that women don't see that and that more women don't just say come off it. Let's stop the hatred. Men love women a lot and I think this has been underestimated in recent decades or centuries and even in the midst of a longstanding multi-generational abusive relationship that's been forming under the guise of feminism, men still love women. That love runs very deep. It's like species deep and it's been even in the face of legitimate abuse. One book I'm reading recently right now is a friend of mine gave it to me. It's a very rare book about the patriarchy. I think it's like the return of patriarchy. It came out in the 80s. Anyway, he talks about how if men did their own kind of cynical false thing they could itemize a lot of the stuff out of what the feminists were even dreaming of in 1848. Men are oppressed today and men are systematically abused in family court and divorce court and these things are real. They're not invented. They're not exaggerated. This is very serious and no one cares. It's in the law. It's in the law. You can look up the laws in which discriminated against men and it just gets worse and worse. They're like, oh wait, how much worse can we make it? Child support is already screwed up and caused us a million problems. Let's make it, let's retroactivate it to conception. You're three weeks pregnant. You need vitamin gummy bears. Here's child support for $500 a month. It's insane. You go to prison if you can't pay it. It's worse than that. Let me be clear. In America anyway, you will go to prison at gunpoint if you don't pay and if you don't want to go to prison, they're going to kill you. This is how this works. When you're with an arrest warrant out for your arrest for whatever the charge is, each state is different in America how they treat failure to pay child support but ultimately you will be arrested and if you don't want to go, they're going to put a gun in your head and shoot you. If you're going to defend yourself, you don't want to get arrested or whatever you want to do, you're going to go on the run. They're not playing around. They will shoot you. This is how this works. It's incredible. If you fight back, if you say that they're going to kill you and they're going to paint you with the local news as some domestic terrorist, you hate women, he shot at the cops, blah, blah, blah because you were getting screwed. That's not even your kid even. There's a lot of stories about men paying child support under penalty of law when it's not their kid even when they can prove it's not their kid. The state is not interested. It has nothing to do with justice whatsoever. This is cause in my mind it's a revolution. The Founding Fathers would have been shooting a long time ago. That alone as you say and all the other things like the decades of affirmative action hiring that have denied men equal opportunities to work. I find that my initiator into anti-feminism was seeing how that was working in academia. It had been in place for decades and I came along and saw it in action in the late 1990s and it's been going on ever since. It's been ramped up even more now. There's all sorts of set-aside positions for members of particular groups but there's still all sorts of professorships set aside for women only and women dominate the university. Some universities are close to 70-30 now, female to male, most are 60-40 and yet they're still banging on the need to get more women into the few disciplines where women don't dominate. They don't do anything about all the disciplines that are totally dominated by women to the detriment of the disciplines and the wider society. That in itself, that to me the denial to white men in particular of the ability to pursue the career they want. I find that overwhelming and every time I try to write about it, if I tweet about one more example, somebody will always say oh well, after 200 years when men excluded women, this is a very minor thing. It's been going on for nearly 50 years now and it is atrocious. Men should be marching in the streets and women should be marching in the streets with them to demand an end of it. We're supposed to live in a society that values equality before the law and yet it couldn't be further from the truth. It's just so striking. It's appalling. Now before we wrap up today's show we'll need to end pretty soon. You're both Canadians so I do want to talk to you about a Canadian issue. Namely the country becoming a communist crapple. Recently, for example, communist Canada was trending on Twitter. It had 20, 30, 40,000 tweets just in a single day. This is not news to either of you being in my understanding born and raised in Canada. What are your thoughts on Canada turning towards communism politically and socially in these issues? Was it always like that? Does this concern you? Are you going to flee Canada? Either one of you can go first on this. Communist Canada. That's a big topic. I've been seeing similar things for years since the pandemic started, but I think there's a general push for socialism all the way around the world through the World Economic Forum. That's not really news. They're great reset. In there they detail out some of what they're going to do and even how they're going to do it. And yet people say if you talk about it at one world government, for instance, which they explicitly are pushing for, they will call you a conspiracy theorist. How do you fight with the complete denial of what's right in front of your face? And we know that Trudeau was a child of the World Economic Forum's young global leaders program as were quite a number of other global leaders. I think that the Macron in France was one of them. There's a lot. In any case, I don't remember all of them and you can probably Google it, find out. But they are... Trudeau, for instance, is implementing exactly those policies that the World Economic Forum wants. He's preparing Canada to accept the one world government as defined by the World Economic Forum. And you see the recent legislation. I think there was one proposed in the US and there was one in Great Britain which I think was adopted. And in Canada it was proposed. I'm not sure if they actually did that. And the effect was to give the World Health Organization sovereign control of your country over to the World Health Organization in the event of a global emergency. Now there's an old fraying that says if you let governments take total control on the basis of an emergency, they will always find an emergency. And the World Health Organization just do last week Tedros, the leader of the World Health Organization he had put together a committee I think of 15 people to study the monkeypox virus. And they determined by vote, a majority determined that it did not warrant the classification as a global emergency. Tedros overruled the committee a global emergency anyways. Wow, I didn't know that part. He overruled it and it's been in the news for the last few days. And I encourage anybody listening to look these things up if you have any doubt about it. I've looked into this World Health Organization it has tentacles everywhere. Everywhere. Now we have a global emergency. There's a pretty damn good chance that then Trudeau and other world leaders will then enact emergency powers on that basis again. So and that's just on top of the things that you guys know that Trudeau's already done. I mean he enacted emergency powers because of a trucker's protest in Ottawa a trucker's protest a peaceful trucker's protest where they had barbecues and and big air bouncy castles and about a significant number of Canadians supported Trudeau for that. And this comes back to my main point. Trudeau's a tyrant okay. He froze people's bank accounts he has political prisoners in jail one that just got released last week he just just I think yesterday or the day the woman just released okay. Trudeau is a tyrant. Tyrants don't have any power the people don't let them have so I put this on the people of Canada who my own fellow citizens who support Trudeau and don't peek out against him and that includes everybody in the mainstream media in Canada in case you haven't known the know this but back two years ago Trudeau gave a 600 million dollars of grants to the mainstream media the media he deems qualified and lo and behold the mainstream media protect Trudeau and this was on top of two billion dollars a year given to the Canadian broadcasting organization in Canada so all you can say that similar things happens in the US but not to this scale all of the media the majority of Canadians will watch is controlled by the liberal government of Canada all of it there's small news outlets that you have to go look for and every time they put something out there the mainstream media in one swell will then call them all conspiracy theorists rebel news and stuff like that rebel news is too north true north is another good one and there's some independent people doing stuff out there too and those are the only people reporting the truth but they don't have the audience necessary to inform the Canadian public as general so it still comes down to the fact that Trudeau doesn't have power that Canadians don't give him they should have and we spoke about this and Rex Murphy a great one of the few really truly worthwhile journalists left in the mainstream media Rex Murphy he spoke out very eloquently against the funding of mainstream media before the bill was passed in the house and all of those politicians who passed that bill had the option had the ability to stop it but they didn't and then Trudeau got elected again and get this okay Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the Socialist Party of Canada they call themselves the NDP they're just a Socialist Party very far left they have backed up Trudeau's minority government to the hilt Trudeau's government could fall any day if any of these politicians had one nerve of moral fiber especially in the NDPs because they could call a non-confidence vote and he could be forced out of office any day that the politicians determined or decided that they had one spine cell in them amongst them does the Canadian government function like the British government in terms of the prime minister and how their prime minister is very similar? that's what I figured so I got kind of carried away there I'll let you know that's excellent Steve I have nothing to add really except that Trudeau is the he is an intersectional feminist that's all he has anytime he is criticized for any of his policies his policies I mean he ran in last fall in the election campaign basically on a platform of hatred against the unvaccinated it was just extraordinary the overtness of the hatred and the vilification and demonization and that's exactly what he did of course when the truckers went to Ottawa and they were protesting vaccine mandates which were ridiculous these were men mostly who had spent the first year and a half of the pandemic doing the hard work of keeping the supply chains in place and driving their trucks at a time when most rest stops were closed they couldn't find places to use the washroom or find a bite to eat or anything they kept on doing their work and then suddenly once the vaccines were brought in they were being forced to be vaccinated whether they wanted to or not just to continue with their jobs he's now destroyed his government has set out to destroy those people's lives that went to Ottawa to peacefully protest they've had their licenses suspended many of them will never work again the debt they're facing is enormous the bank accounts frozen it's almost unbelievable the level of viciousness but all he has is the mantra of the intersectional feminist anyone who criticizes him is a racist is a sexist is a homophobe is a transphobe we were told that the truckers were white supremacists and islamophobes it had nothing to do with many of them they were white guys working class white men a lot of them are working class immigrant men from various countries it's just so ridiculous but that's what he has he spouts that anytime anyone disagrees with them he says you're a sexist you're a misogynist you're a racist and that flies with Canadians because Canadians for years and years built a sense of identity on opposition and that was essentially a kind of feminist we're all in this together all the bromides of the COVID era those resonate deeply with Canadians because we have this idea that we believe in community we believe in security our motto is not life liberty and the pursuit of happiness our motto is good government Canadians believe deeply that the government knows best how to solve problems the government will keep us safe and this is what it leads to a really horrific tyranny and the oppression of individual rights even the right to bodily autonomy it's just horrible they're coming up with sorry go ahead I'll go ahead Steve they're coming up with a fourth booster now and they've put in this application called arrive can an ability to cross the border lately you've probably heard that in the news and the arrive can app has the ability to tell you you are now quarantined wherever you are in Canada and if you break that quarantine the fines are enormous they're in the neighbourhood of $100,000 something like this and possible prison sentence if you break the quarantine and there are people who are being assigned quarantine who have vaccines and all their tests and yet they're still assigned quarantine and this app this app was supposed to be optional at first just like the vaccines where initially Trudeau said the vaccines will always be optional and then they're mandatory they're optional except that you can't participate in Canadian society voices have consequences as all our leftist overlords said to us then this arrive can app now just about two weeks ago I think it was the government has said that the arrive can app will continue after the pandemic and there was another thing on that same line that is going to transform into I think it's the is it the World Health Organization or the WEF's digital tracking app so Canada is a test case country for the World Economic Forum great reset to see how far they can push people and refine their strategy it's coming to you well I support you as an American I support the right of all Canadians to abolish or reform their government by any means necessary and I think your country your countrymen especially the young men they have responsibility to fix the government and do so by any means necessary especially at this point tyranny this is this is sophisticated slow motion slavery and it's evil and it has to stop so I think Canadians are no offense to either of you but I think Canadians are in general too nice way way way way way too nice and this needs to stop all the nice guys they're not nice at all they're smog smog is a better word vindictive they hate anyone who stands out they hate anybody who achieves over what is considered acceptable they hate anybody who thinks for himself and offers an alternative opinion on any subject when the subject has already been decided they're not nice at all they're passive they're compliant and they're mean spirited towards anybody who isn't passive and compliant it's not the country I grew up in I'll put it that way it's not the country I grew up in anyway I'm in the Dominican Republic you guys know that and I don't intend to go I have not been back since 2019 and so it's coming up on three years now and one of the reasons is the stuff we're talking about now the other reason is that they're so random with the rules that I don't want to go back there and be trapped in that prison it's become a prison my own country will trap me I trust the government and actually I don't trust the majority of Canadian people they are like the traditional squealers most of them will squeal on you if you will wow it's a terrible situation and here's the one saving grace that could happen is that you shame those NDP politicians abandoning their leader Jagmeet Singh who made a deal to back up Trudeau's government if you could those individual politicians could have a moral strength and say enough is enough we need an election this could end overnight because I don't think Trudeau will win the next election I could be wrong but I don't think so damn it's sad to hear that these problems exist in America to a significant degree but they're substantially worse in Canada we don't have an opposition you have pockets, you have a large movement of patriotic Americans who still believe in liberty and small government and individualism we don't have anything like that here we don't have any equivalent of red states we have individuals who are committed to those similar principles Janice there's a question a $5 super chat thanks Vicks is Janice married if not does she ever plan on getting married? No I'm married and what would she tell her younger self when it comes to finding a husband dating coach Janice Femengo Oh gee I'm not very good at giving advice my own life was hardly a model life so but I am married and I know that I'm happiest when I'm married I need to love a woman who doesn't hate men and loves them instead golly gee that's an important thing that Janice just said I need to love that is universal I think and this is one of the huge crimes of feminism they really attack this love they remove the options they try to remove the options on people to love one another this is a human need they never talk about love I mean I shouldn't say never but they almost never do it's a word you don't hear feminists talk about it's amazing they're filled with hate their hearts are filled with hate it really is yeah I should say I have a wonderful husband too nice David is a wonderful guy we've met him many times we've had some great conversations as a wonderful couple to spend time with thank you very much privileged to know you both thank you Steve say here I want to say thanks to both of you for your time today coming on the show we're almost about an hour 45 almost 2 hours I think we'll wrap it up I guess we should wrap it up before we have a big group hug love you love you both it's true though this has been an excellent discussion I think the fans learned a lot the chat was really on fire a lot of people are really happy to hear this kind of content so much of what goes on in the men's movement in the man's sphere it's like super simplistic women or hoes type content and I don't this is dumb it's lowbrow stuff and this is a lot more philosophical and ideological and I think that's what a lot of men really are concerned about they're concerned about the future of the country they're concerned about what feminism is really doing they're frustrated by people like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh even Dr. Jordan Peterson has said he agrees with most of feminism not the hyper not the modern stuff but a lot of it and these are people who are you know openly they'll say that they're anti-feminist or something but then they double back the politicians and these intellectuals and these leaders and it's really frustrating when most men in the man's sphere in the men's movement and even more widely that are aware of these issues they are anti-feminist it's not a game to them it's not funny it's not you know sometimes they will get you know wrapped up in some of the the whitewashing or whatever you call it the rose colored glasses on feminism it used to be great long long ago like some fairy tale and now it's like terrible both done a lot to dispel that in this episode and like very clear easy to understand terms so I appreciate it once again coming on my show any final words about upcoming projects you mentioned both of your working I think together on a documentary on your channel Steve yeah so please visit our channel at Studio B yeah there's a link in the description for everybody watching to Steve's channel Studio B and StudioBerlea.com right StudioBerlea.com yeah I have to get back to updating that because the deletion of the StudioBerlea YouTube channel really threw a wrench in things bigger than I expected but everything from the original channel is backed up on Odyssey at StudioBerlea Archive and everything on Studio B is backed up on Rumble at StudioBerlea so you can find it all there on the project this what we're doing now is called the Femengophile 2.0 this is fundamentally the research for the documentary our dream is to get the documentary into theater because a theater showing is an event it stands as an event on itself and I think that's important to have an event like that for what we are going to claim what we are our thesis here is that feminism is a destructive lie from the very beginning and so this material that we're doing now is forms part of the research for that one other research one other project I have on the go is and it's been on for a long time that I'm kind of stuck on but I'm hoping to get this completed as well is a biography of Paul Elam I started this probably 5-6 years ago so that's also on the on the plate he was invited for today's show he wasn't able to make it the last minute but he should be on this show soon so I look forward to that too he has done a lot for men and I think that's not been reported on enough his life is quite interesting yeah well thanks to both of you I appreciate both of your time everyone watching I appreciate you tuning in live one comment equals like 10 likes helps the video get traction, get more views wake up more men from their blue pill slumber of feminist slavery Janice thank you very much you could follow Janice by the way on our twitter and just on gab there's a link to our twitter in the description Steve's links are in the description thanks to everyone adios