Source Information

• Title: Rachel Wilson Vs NotSoErudite | Is Feminism Doing More Good Or Harm?
• Speaker/author analyzed: Rachel Wilson
• Interlocutor: Kyla Turner / NotSoErudite
• Date: Uploaded or published July 30, 2026; the transcript does not independently establish the live debate date
• Original source: YouTube debate
• Source type: Video debate with a full transcript embedded in the Obsidian note
• Scope analyzed: The complete transcript, approximately 00:00–2:05:24. Only Wilson’s substantive arguments are mapped. Turner’s statements are used solely to identify objections, questions, and rebuttals.
• Transcript caveat: The transcript appears automatically generated and contains occasional transcription errors. Timestamps identify locations but should not be treated as verbatim quotation authentication.

Important

The prompt’s [NAME] and [TOPIC] placeholders were unfilled. This analysis therefore uses Rachel Wilson as the target speaker and “whether feminism does more good than harm” as the topic.

Executive Summary

Wilson’s central thesis is that modern feminism has harmed Western civilization by weakening marriage, separating sexuality from reproduction, normalizing abortion, directing women away from motherhood and into market employment, and establishing economic and political institutions that substitute the state for husbands and fathers. She argues that these changes jointly produce fatherlessness, welfare dependency, male disengagement, low fertility, labor shortages, and an eventual inability to maintain infrastructure and social programs.

Her strongest empirical point is that fertility has fallen far below replacement level across many developed societies and that delayed family formation, education, labor-market incentives, housing costs, and difficulty combining work with parenthood are relevant causes. Her concern about the long-run fiscal and demographic consequences of persistent sub-replacement fertility is shared by the UN, OECD, and many demographers.

Her weakest claims are the attempts to quantify women as economically “subsidized” by men, the attribution of women’s studies and mass female employment to a coordinated Ford/Rockefeller/corporate project, the claim that no-fault divorce merely relocated domestic abuse, and the reduction of Pakistan’s economic difficulties to Islam, cousin marriage, and lower intelligence. Several headline statistics are misinterpreted, insufficiently sourced, or converted from associations into causal claims.

Wilson proposes a family-first social order: discourage elective abortion, encourage earlier marriage and motherhood, make male trades and infrastructure work economically attractive, reduce dependence on two incomes and institutional childcare, and culturally prioritize mothers’ domestic work. She stops short of advocating a legal prohibition on women’s employment, but she supports severe restrictions on political suffrage and regards women voters as the largest obstacle to banning abortion.

The deepest disagreement is normative as much as empirical. Wilson treats demographic reproduction, family continuity, and civilizational survival as prior to individual autonomy. Turner gives greater weight to women’s liberty, economic independence, plural life choices, and the danger of coercive solutions. The factual disputes concern how much feminism independently caused family change and low fertility, whether paid female labor is economically productive, and whether family-supportive policy can reconcile women’s employment with higher fertility.

Claim: Modern feminism has produced an inversion of the Western social order and now causes more harm than good

Source location: 04:22–10:40; reiterated at 32:00–40:00, 54:04–55:13, and 1:37:15

Definition

Wilson uses feminism broadly to include sexual liberation, abortion rights, criticism of traditional masculinity, no-fault divorce, rejection of traditional family roles, reinterpretation of Christianity, women’s mass entry into higher education and paid employment, and a female-oriented service economy.

Competing definitions distinguish liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, religious feminism, equal-rights feminism, and specific policies. Under those narrower definitions, changes such as industrialization, contraception, divorce reform, consumer capitalism, and secularization cannot automatically be assigned to “feminism.”

Argument

Wilson argues that Western civilization was organized around a complementary division of labor: men undertook dangerous and productive work, while women bore children and maintained families. Feminism redefined dependence within marriage as oppression and paid employment as liberation. Sexual freedom, contraception, abortion, divorce, and state welfare then weakened the durable connection between sex, marriage, childbirth, and paternal obligation.

The result, she argues, is not merely individual lifestyle change. It is an institutional order with fewer stable families, fewer children, weaker male incentives, and greater state and corporate control over individuals. Her moral premise is that a social movement must be judged partly by whether it reproduces and preserves the civilization that supports its freedoms.

Logical Reconstruction

1. A sustainable civilization requires stable family formation, adequate births, childrearing, and intergenerational continuity.
2. Traditional sex roles connected men and women to those functions.
3. Feminist norms and policies weakened those roles and rewarded individual autonomy and market work instead.
4. The resulting family fragmentation and low fertility threaten social continuity.
5. Therefore, modern feminism produces more aggregate harm than good.

Hidden premise: Social stability and demographic replacement deserve priority over individual freedom when the two conflict.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Wilson identifies six mechanisms: sexual liberation, abortion, vilification of men, no-fault divorce, rejection of tradition, and reinvention of Christianity.
• She presents fatherlessness, unmarried births, welfare growth, falling male labor-force participation, abortion totals, and low fertility as converging outcomes.
• She uses the Soviet Union, China, South Korea, and Western countries as comparative examples.
• She argues that rights become practically meaningless if the technical and demographic foundations of society collapse.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

Sub-replacement fertility is widespread: the UN World Population Prospects 2024 reports that more than half of countries and areas are below replacement fertility. The OECD’s fertility review identifies delayed family formation, contraception, education, work-family conflict, economic insecurity, and housing costs as important influences.

This supports Wilson’s claim that family and reproductive institutions matter, but it does not isolate “feminism” as the primary cause.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• YouTube debate — Wilson’s full presentation and replies.
• Nineteenth Amendment — relevant to the political rights Wilson later questions.

Academic or Official Sources

• OECD fertility analysis — multifactor account of fertility decline.
• Claudia Goldin, “The Quiet Revolution” — history of women’s changing economic roles.

Major Supporting Analyses

• UN World Population Prospects 2024 — confirms the scale and persistence of low fertility.
• OECD, Society at a Glance 2024 — connects demographic change to policy and socioeconomic conditions.

Best Responses

The strongest response is that Wilson aggregates too many different movements and historical causes under “feminism.” Industrialization, urbanization, rising income, falling infant mortality, effective contraception, longer education, consumer expectations, expensive housing, and secularization transformed family life even where explicit feminist influence was weak.

An opponent can also argue that a social order’s capacity to reproduce does not by itself establish its justice. Traditional arrangements could produce demographic stability while restricting women’s legal, political, educational, or economic agency.

Counter-Evidence

Goldin’s research shows that women’s employment evolved through several long historical phases rather than through one ideological rupture. The Nobel Prize overview of Goldin’s work also emphasizes that women’s historical economic contributions were frequently omitted from conventional records.

Cross-national evidence does not show that maximizing women’s exclusion from employment reliably restores fertility. Some countries with supportive childcare, leave, and work-family institutions have both high female employment and higher fertility than less supportive developed countries.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could reply that feminism need not be the sole cause. It may be the ideology that legitimized, accelerated, and rendered irreversible changes initially enabled by industrialization and contraception. She could also argue that gains in freedom must still be weighed against aggregate consequences.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Low fertility and family instability are real concerns.
• “Feminism” is not a single doctrine.
• Some feminist reforms may have corrected genuine injustices while other associated norms produced costs.
• The disagreement partly concerns causal attribution and partly concerns the proper balance between autonomy and collective continuity.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Treating feminism as a single agent with one intention.
• Inferring causation from the fact that feminism and family change occurred during the same period.
• Presenting only the costs of traditional-role decline without counting benefits.
• Assuming that demographic success automatically proves moral legitimacy.

Assessment

Plausible but contested. Wilson identifies real, connected social problems, but her master explanation is too broad to be established by the evidence presented. It functions most convincingly as a moral and institutional interpretation, not as a demonstrated single-cause model.

Remaining Open Questions

• Which measurable outcomes should determine whether feminism has done net good or harm?
• How much of family change is independently attributable to feminist advocacy?
• Can reproductive stability be restored without restricting women’s rights?
• Which feminist reforms does Wilson accept as beneficial?

Cross References

• Feminism and Demographic Decline
• Women’s Economic Participation
• Family Autonomy versus Social Continuity

Claim: The decline of married biological-parent households has caused extensive social harm

Source location: 05:01–05:55; 10:23; 1:03:34–1:04:55

Definition

Wilson moves between fatherlessness, children not living with both married biological parents, single motherhood, divorce, and cohabitation. These categories overlap but are not interchangeable.

“Father absence” may mean a deceased, incarcerated, nonresident, separated, or minimally involved father. Outcomes can also differ between stable single-parent, stepfamily, and cohabiting-partner households.

Argument

Wilson contends that children require both a mother and father and that feminism weakened the institution most likely to provide them: lifelong marriage. She attributes behavioral problems, homelessness, substance abuse, incarceration, maltreatment, and mental illness disproportionately to fatherless or non-intact households.

Her causal model is that fathers provide discipline, resources, protection, identity, and male socialization. When they are absent, children face lower supervision and economic security, while mothers and the state cannot fully replace paternal functions.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Children generally benefit from stable, committed relationships with both biological parents.
2. Feminist sexual and family reforms increased nonmarital births, divorce, and cohabitation.
3. Non-intact households are associated with worse average outcomes.
4. Those outcomes impose costs on children and society.
5. Therefore, feminism’s weakening of the married-parent family caused substantial harm.

Hidden premise: Much of the observed association is caused by family structure itself rather than poverty, parental conflict, selection, or other antecedent conditions.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Approximately 40% of children allegedly do not live with both married biological parents, compared with about 10% in 1945.
• Approximately one-third allegedly live without their biological father.
• A claimed eightfold maltreatment risk.
• Frequently circulated claims that fatherless children constitute 90% of homeless or runaway children, 85% of children with behavioral disorders, 70% of juveniles in incarceration, and 71% of adolescent substance-treatment patients.
• The analogy that the state has become a substitute husband or “daddy.”

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

The broad trend is real. Census data show that the share of children living with two parents fell from about 85% in 1968 to about 70% in 2020, although measurement changed over time. See the Census Bureau’s historical overview and 2024 living-arrangement series.

Research generally finds that stable two-parent families are associated with better average outcomes. However, family-structure research also finds substantial selection and socioeconomic mediation.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• Census family-arrangement tables — detailed categories for biological, adoptive, married, and cohabiting parents.
• National Academies review of child maltreatment risk — identifies household-specific risk patterns.

Academic or Official Sources

• Family structure and child well-being study — examines variation and selection.
• Family structure and adolescent outcomes — evidence of associations and mediating mechanisms.

Major Supporting Analyses

• America’s Children: Family Structure — official summary of current living arrangements.

Best Responses

The strongest response concedes that stable, low-conflict, adequately resourced two-parent families tend to be advantageous, but denies that this proves feminism caused the observed outcomes. Parental conflict, low income, illness, incarceration, neighborhood conditions, and instability may cause both family dissolution and poor child outcomes.

It is also possible for a high-conflict married household to be worse than a stable single-parent household. “Biological father absent” does not establish “father wholly uninvolved.”

Counter-Evidence

The eightfold maltreatment figure appears to concern a particularly high-risk category—children living with one parent and that parent’s unmarried partner—not every child outside a married biological-parent household.

The 90%, 85%, 70%, and 71% claims circulate widely in advocacy materials, but authoritative original datasets and consistent denominators are difficult to identify. They should not be treated as established national statistics without traceable sources.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could say that confounding does not eliminate the structural pattern. Even if poverty and instability mediate the harm, marriage may be one of the institutions that reduces poverty and instability. She could withdraw the weakest numerical claims while retaining the general case for stable parental commitment.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Household stability may matter as much as formal marital status.
• Marriage can be both a cause and a marker of advantage.
• Fathers’ active involvement matters even when parents do not live together.
• The strongest research conclusion concerns average risk, not the destiny of individual children.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Collapsing all non-intact households into one category.
• Treating conditional risk as proof that every individual case is harmful.
• Repeating advocacy statistics without original datasets.
• Assuming that an association completely establishes the direction of causation.

Assessment

Partly supported. The decline in married-parent households and average outcome gaps are well documented. Several headline statistics are unverified or misapplied, and the causal role of feminism is not established.

Remaining Open Questions

• Which outcomes remain after adjusting for income, conflict, and prior parental characteristics?
• Which father-involvement interventions improve outcomes?
• How much did specific feminist-supported policies change family structure?

Cross References

• Father Absence
• Family Structure and Child Well-Being
• No-Fault Divorce

Claim: Feminism expanded unmarried childbearing and a welfare system that substitutes government support for marriage

Source location: 05:55–06:39; 59:01–1:03:34

Definition

Wilson uses welfare expansively, sometimes referring to cash assistance and sometimes to all means-tested transfers. These should be distinguished. TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, refundable tax credits, and Social Security are different programs with different populations and rules.

Argument

Wilson argues that sexual liberation and state transfers reduced the economic need for women to form or maintain marriages with men. As nonmarital births increased, public programs assumed part of the provider role formerly assigned to fathers. This weakened marriage further and created a self-reinforcing system of dependency.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Marriage historically joined reproduction to paternal provision.
2. Welfare makes it more economically possible to raise children outside marriage.
3. Feminism legitimized unmarried motherhood and supported state provision.
4. These incentives contributed to more nonmarital births and weaker paternal responsibility.
5. Therefore, feminism transferred dependency from husbands to government.

Hidden premise: Benefit incentives are a major cause of single motherhood rather than principally a response to it.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Nonmarital births allegedly rose from about 5% in 1960 to 41%.
• Welfare spending allegedly rose from $50 billion in 1950 to $700 billion.
• By 2010, Wilson claims single mothers received 90% of cash welfare and half of food assistance.
• She argues that women were not made independent; their dependence was collectivized through taxation.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

The CDC reports that 40.0% of US births in 2023 were to unmarried women, confirming Wilson’s approximate contemporary figure.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated $588 billion in federal spending on ten major means-tested programs in 2012 and found a more than tenfold real increase since 1972. This confirms large growth, but not Wilson’s precise 1950-to-$700-billion comparison.

A peer-reviewed review reports that around 2010 approximately 90% of TANF families and roughly two-thirds—not one-half—of SNAP families were headed by single mothers. See Single Mothers and the Social Safety Net.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• CDC unmarried-childbearing data — official birth data.
• CBO means-tested-program analysis — comparable federal spending estimates.

Academic or Official Sources

• ASPE Welfare Indicators — official measures of dependence and risk.
• Single Mothers and the Social Safety Net — program-specific participation evidence.

Major Supporting Analyses

• Census family trends — long-term household change.

Best Responses

The welfare state can be understood as insuring children against parental death, abandonment, low wages, disability, and unemployment rather than as intentionally replacing fathers. Reducing aid may make single-parent children poorer without restoring marriage.

The rise of unmarried births also reflects contraception, changing sexual norms, declining male earnings in some communities, incarceration, relationship instability, and the increasing separation of marriage from childbearing.

Counter-Evidence

The phrase “90% of cash welfare” overstates what the evidence shows. TANF is designed for low-income families with children, so the characteristics of its caseload cannot be generalized to all government transfers.

Wilson also compares nominal or differently defined spending totals across eras without normalizing population, inflation, program coverage, or GDP.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could argue that a program may compassionately assist existing children while still producing long-run incentive effects. She could reformulate the claim as one about marginal incentives and institutional substitution rather than alleging that welfare is the sole cause of unmarried motherhood.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Benefits can create marriage penalties depending on eligibility design.
• Poverty reduction and family incentives are separate policy objectives.
• Single mothers are not synonymous with permanently welfare-dependent mothers.
• The moral obligation to support children does not settle how programs should be designed.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Treating program caseload composition as a share of all public spending.
• Comparing non-equivalent historical dollar totals.
• Assuming that removal of assistance would produce marriage rather than deeper poverty.
• Confusing correlation between benefit receipt and single motherhood with causation.

Assessment

Partly supported. The demographic and expenditure trends are real, and some programs can create marriage disincentives. Wilson’s numerical framing and strong causal conclusion exceed the evidence.

Remaining Open Questions

• How large are marriage penalties in specific programs?
• Which benefit reforms reduce penalties without increasing child poverty?
• How much did transfers affect nonmarital fertility relative to other causes?

Cross References

• Welfare and Marriage Incentives
• Unmarried Childbearing
• State Provision and Family Formation

Claim: The “she economy” is less productive and is economically subsidized by male production and taxation

Source location: 06:39–10:40; 46:59–50:07; 59:01–1:03:34; 1:24:44–1:32:19

Definition

Wilson’s she economy refers to service, administrative, educational, therapeutic, marketing, human-resources, and consumption-oriented activity that she regards as disproportionately female and less essential than infrastructure, energy, construction, food production, or heavy industry.

Economic productivity is normally measured as value added per unit of labor or capital, not by a worker’s sex, the sex of a business owner, or whether an industry would be indispensable during an emergency.

Argument

Wilson argues that men produce a disproportionate share of measurable output, tax revenue, infrastructure, and essential goods. Women, in her account, are concentrated in less productive service and administrative roles and receive disproportionate education and welfare expenditure. Consequently, women’s market activity is partially sustained by transfers from male production.

She further contends that women-owned businesses’ small share of revenue compared with their share of firm counts demonstrates low productivity. She converts this gap into an estimate that approximately 22% of women’s economic effort is subsidized by men.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Essential physical production and infrastructure are disproportionately male.
2. Female-dominated sectors allegedly create less necessary or less durable value.
3. Women-owned businesses generate much less revenue per business.
4. Men allegedly pay a disproportionate share of taxes financing female services and benefits.
5. Therefore, women’s market economy is less productive and partly subsidized by men.

Hidden premise: Revenue, tax payments, emergency indispensability, and social value are interchangeable measures of productive contribution.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Men allegedly produce 60% of GDP and 36% more output per capita.
• Women allegedly own 39% of businesses but generate 6.2% of revenue.
• Men allegedly pay 60–75% of income taxes.
• Women allegedly receive 60% of higher-education spending.
• Wilson contrasts electricity, water, farming, and construction with marketing, HR, therapy, and discretionary consumer businesses.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

The business figures have a real statistical basis but do not support Wilson’s inference. Census data indicate that women owned roughly 14 million firms in 2022 when employer and nonemployer businesses are combined. Those firms generated about $2.5 trillion of $51.7 trillion in total receipts. See the Census Bureau’s combined business release and National Women’s Business Council summary.

However, the denominator includes millions of very small nonemployer firms while total receipts are dominated by large employer and publicly held companies, many of which cannot be classified by an owner’s sex. Among employer firms alone, women owned 22.3% and generated approximately $2.1 trillion in receipts according to the Census Bureau.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• Census nonemployer and employer business statistics — appropriate denominators and ownership categories.
• World Bank employment and time-use data — includes unpaid care work omitted from GDP.

Academic or Official Sources

• IMF, “Women in the Labor Force” — macroeconomic evidence on women’s employment.
• IMF industry-level study — finds that lower gender inequality improves real industry outcomes.

Major Supporting Analyses

• IMF, “Why a Gender Lens Matters” — argues that female participation can improve matching, innovation, growth, and fiscal sustainability.

Best Responses

The strongest objection is that Wilson’s calculation commits a denominator error. Owning many small sole proprietorships while generating a smaller share of total corporate receipts does not measure the productivity of female workers, much less prove that men subsidize a particular percentage of women’s labor.

Services such as healthcare, education, accounting, logistics, insurance, and administration are inputs into physical production. Emergency indispensability is not a complete measure of long-run value. Furthermore, GDP omits unpaid childcare and household production, much of it performed by women.

Counter-Evidence

IMF research generally finds that barriers to female labor-force participation reduce output and that greater participation can raise GDP, productivity, tax receipts, and pension sustainability. These estimates are model-dependent, but they directly oppose the claim that women’s paid work is generally a net economic burden.

US income-tax data also cannot straightforwardly establish Wilson’s sex shares because many married couples file jointly. Higher average male earnings would mechanically produce higher attributable tax payments without proving that female taxpayers or workers are subsidized.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could retreat to a narrower point: essential physical sectors remain strongly male, modern statistics undervalue household motherhood, and a society should not assume that every market service has the same strategic importance. That argument does not require claiming that women as a class are economically unproductive.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• GDP undervalues unpaid domestic work.
• Strategic resilience may require prioritizing food, energy, transport, water, and skilled trades.
• Revenue is not the same as profit, productivity, welfare, or social necessity.
• Both male physical labor and female care work can be foundational without being directly comparable.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Dividing a share of firm counts by a share of receipts as if it measured sex-based productivity.
• Ignoring firm size, industry, hours, capital, and legal ownership classification.
• Treating all service activity as dispensable.
• Counting transfers received without counting unpaid care supplied.
• Inferring individual contribution from group averages.

Assessment

Weakly supported. The occupational-sex differences and business statistics are real, but Wilson’s “22% subsidy” and generalized productivity conclusion do not follow from them.

Remaining Open Questions

• How should unpaid household production be integrated into social accounting?
• Which sectors are strategically under-supplied?
• What are sex-specific tax and transfer patterns after controlling for income, household filing, and caregiving?

Cross References

• The She Economy
• Gender and Unpaid Work
• Women-Owned Business Statistics

Claim: Male labor-force decline endangers infrastructure because men need marriage and children as motivation

Source location: 08:03–08:57; 19:46–21:50; 46:59; 1:03:34–1:06:01; 1:16:37–1:19:55

Definition

The male labor-force participation rate is the share of the relevant male population employed or actively seeking work. The rate differs depending on whether the measure covers all men aged 16 and over, men aged 20 and over, or prime-age men.

Wilson’s critical infrastructure category includes electricity, water, transport, construction, farming, energy, sanitation, and related skilled trades.

Argument

Wilson contends that modern civilization depends on physically demanding, risky, predominantly male work. Men historically accepted this burden to provide for wives and children. Feminism and unstable family formation deprive men of that purpose, contributing to withdrawal from work. Continued decline would leave too few skilled men to maintain essential systems.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Essential infrastructure work is disproportionately performed by men.
2. Many men undertake difficult work principally to support a family.
3. Feminist norms reduce marriage, paternal authority, and men’s expectation of stable family life.
4. Men consequently withdraw from work or avoid demanding occupations.
5. Therefore, feminism indirectly threatens infrastructure capacity.

Hidden premise: Loss of family purpose explains a major share of male nonparticipation and cannot be replaced by other motivations or policies.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Wilson cites a male labor-force participation rate of 69.5% as a historic low.
• She lists male-dominated infrastructure and physical-production occupations.
• She argues that men without realistic prospects of marriage or fatherhood lack incentives to accept risk and hardship.
• She predicts infrastructure failure if the trend continues.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

Male labor-force participation has declined over decades. The BLS Women’s Databook reports a 2023 male participation rate of 68.1% and a recent low of 67.6% in 2021. The precise 69.5% figure depends on the selected age group and date. FRED’s men-aged-20-and-over series illustrates why measures must be specified.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• BLS labor-force statistics — official participation trends.
• CBO labor-force participation analysis — reported reasons for male nonparticipation.

Academic or Official Sources

• CBO, Factors Affecting Participation — aging, disability, discouragement, education, and policy.
• BLS analysis of nonparticipation, 1999–2022 — decomposes recent trends.

Major Supporting Analyses

• AEA review of declining prime-age male work — examines structural and social explanations.

Best Responses

CBO finds illness and disability to be leading reported reasons for nonparticipation among prime-age men. Aging explains much of the decline in the all-adult rate. Other causes include deindustrialization, wage stagnation for less-educated workers, opioid addiction, incarceration, automation, regional mismatch, and skills requirements.

Marriage and employment may also be mutually reinforcing: employed men are more likely to marry, rather than marriage alone causing employment.

Counter-Evidence

Wilson supplies no direct evidence linking feminist attitudes to the national participation trend. Men remain capable of working for income, status, vocation, public duty, or personal projects without supporting a wife and children.

Infrastructure shortages can also reflect training pipelines, licensing, location, compensation, technology, and employer practices rather than an absolute lack of men.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could argue that economic explanations do not exclude a motivational mechanism. Declining wages may be more discouraging when work no longer promises a respected provider role or stable family. She could present family formation as one contributor rather than the sole cause.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Male disengagement is a genuine policy concern.
• Some strategically important trades face recruitment or retirement pressures.
• The causal direction between work and marriage is likely reciprocal.
• Sex segregation in dangerous work raises both economic and ethical questions.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Using an all-age participation rate without accounting for population aging.
• Moving from occupational sex ratios to a prediction of imminent collapse.
• Assuming a single psychological motive for men as a class.
• Confusing a plausible mechanism with a measured national causal effect.

Assessment

Plausible but contested. The labor trend and male concentration in physical infrastructure are real. The proposed feminism-to-family-to-work causal chain remains speculative.

Remaining Open Questions

• How much male nonparticipation is explained by health, wages, skills, incarceration, or family formation?
• Which trades face verified future shortages?
• Do marriage and fatherhood causally increase men’s employment?

Cross References

• Male Labor-Force Participation
• Marriage and Male Employment
• Critical Infrastructure Workforce

Claim: Women’s higher education, careerism, contraception, and abortion cause sub-replacement fertility and an approaching demographic cliff

Source location: 19:46–27:16; 32:00–40:00; 46:59–51:20; 1:06:01–1:16:37; 1:37:15

Definition

Replacement fertility is conventionally around 2.1 births per woman in low-mortality populations, although migration and mortality affect population replacement. A demographic cliff is Wilson’s description of delayed population and workforce contraction after sustained low fertility.

Argument

Wilson argues that motherhood requires years that are also critical for education and career establishment. Higher education, workplace participation, contraception, and abortion encourage women to delay births until fertility has declined. Because the work-motherhood conflict is biological and time-limited, a society that directs most women toward full careers cannot sustain replacement fertility.

The resulting smaller cohorts later produce fewer workers, taxpayers, parents, and infrastructure specialists. Social programs created during population growth become unsustainable.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Women’s reproductive window overlaps with the years required to establish a career.
2. Higher education and career incentives delay marriage and childbirth.
3. Delayed childbirth reduces completed family size and increases involuntary childlessness.
4. Sustained sub-replacement fertility shrinks future workforces and tax bases.
5. Therefore, career-centered feminism creates a delayed demographic and fiscal crisis.

Hidden premise: Work-family policy, paternal participation, migration, productivity growth, and technological adaptation cannot adequately offset the conflict.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Wilson says average first birth has risen to around age 31, though this varies by country and subgroup.
• She cites female education as a leading correlate of low fertility.
• She invokes South Korea’s fertility rate near 0.7.
• She emphasizes biological fertility decline and low IVF success at older ages.
• She predicts serious consequences within approximately 30–50 years.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

The central demographic concern is well supported. The UN World Population Prospects 2024 identifies widespread sub-replacement fertility and regards a return to replacement within three decades as highly unlikely in today’s ultra-low-fertility countries.

The OECD fertility review recognizes delayed family formation, education, labor-market establishment, contraception, housing, and work-family conflict as contributors. World Bank analysis also supports a causal relationship between female education and lower or delayed fertility in many contexts.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• UN World Population Prospects 2024 — demographic projections.
• OECD Korea review — fertility, desired family size, and barriers in an ultra-low-fertility society.

Academic or Official Sources

• OECD fertility drivers and policy — comparative evidence.
• Systematic review of leave policies and fertility — policy effects are heterogeneous rather than nonexistent.

Major Supporting Analyses

• UN population-peak overview — long-run global implications.
• OECD Korea’s Unborn Future — detailed account of work culture, housing, gender roles, and family policy.

Best Responses

Wilson is strongest about the demographic arithmetic but overstates its single cause. In contemporary OECD data, women’s employment and fertility are not always negatively related. Countries that make employment and parenthood more compatible can outperform countries where women face an all-or-nothing choice.

South Korea illustrates this objection: long working hours, high housing and education costs, insecure employment, unequal domestic labor, and demanding parenthood norms all contribute. Restricting women’s opportunities is not the only conceivable remedy.

Counter-Evidence

The OECD executive summary notes that female employment can be positively associated with fertility where work and family are compatible. Family policy rarely restores replacement fertility by itself, but “cannot subsidize our way out” is too absolute.

Low fertility also appears in societies with limited feminist influence. Modernization, urban costs, housing shortages, intensive parenting, economic uncertainty, and declining desired family size have independent effects.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could reply that supportive policies mitigate rather than eliminate the biological conflict, are expensive, and have not reliably restored replacement fertility. She could argue that even the best-performing developed countries remain below 2.1.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• A demographic decline is not the same as a sudden societal disappearance.
• Low fertility can reduce labor supply and strain age-based transfer systems while also easing some environmental and congestion pressures.
• Desired fertility often exceeds achieved fertility, suggesting genuine constraints rather than simple rejection of children.
• Education can improve child health and household welfare even when it lowers fertility.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Treating correlation with women’s education as proof that feminism is the dominant cause.
• Predicting national nonexistence within 20–30 years from a current total fertility rate.
• Ignoring adaptation, migration, automation, and productivity.
• Presenting policy mitigation as worthless because it does not fully restore 2.1 fertility.

Assessment

Substantially supported as to persistent low fertility and its long-term consequences; plausible but contested as to feminism and women’s employment being the dominant causes.

Remaining Open Questions

• Which policies meaningfully close the gap between desired and achieved fertility?
• Can high female employment coexist with near-replacement fertility over the long term?
• How large will productivity and migration offsets be?
• What degree of population decline is manageable?

Cross References

• Sub-Replacement Fertility
• South Korea Demographic Crisis
• Work-Family Compatibility

Claim: The 1970s transformation of women’s roles was institutionally engineered by government, corporations, and foundations

Source location: 21:50–27:16; 50:07–51:20; 1:32:19

Definition

Wilson’s claim combines several distinct developments: Title IX, federal higher-education support, women’s studies, the contraceptive pill, abortion rights, taxation, corporate demand for labor, and popular culture.

“Institutionally engineered” could mean anything from intentional advocacy to a centralized coordinated plan. The evidence is stronger for organizations supporting particular reforms than for a unified project.

Argument

Wilson argues that government wanted a broader income-tax base, corporations wanted cheaper labor and additional consumers, and foundations wanted ideological transformation. Together they directed women toward college and employment while culture portrayed domesticity as failure. The two-income household then became economically compulsory.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Government and corporations benefit from a larger paid labor and tax base.
2. Foundations financed academic and cultural feminist institutions.
3. Title IX, college subsidies, contraception, and abortion reduced barriers to women’s employment.
4. Cultural messaging devalued motherhood and normalized careers.
5. Therefore, mass female careerism was institutionally promoted for elite economic and political purposes.

Hidden premise: These actors shared a coordinated objective rather than pursuing partly independent legal, economic, and ideological goals.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Wilson places the decisive change in the 1970s.
• She attributes women’s-studies programs to the Ford and Rockefeller foundations.
• She cites Title IX and government education funding.
• She argues that expanding female labor benefited corporate employers and tax collectors.
• She uses the two-income household as evidence that an apparent choice became compulsory.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

The 1970s were important, but the institutional history is more gradual. Goldin identifies a “quiet revolution” in women’s expectations and identities from the late 1970s, following earlier phases extending back into the nineteenth century. See The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women’s Employment.

The contraceptive pill facilitated long-term career planning, while legal and educational changes reduced explicit barriers. Those facts support institutional influence without proving a coordinated elite scheme.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• Title IX overview — the law prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education.
• San Diego State history of Women’s Studies — describes the first program as emerging from student and faculty organizing in 1970.
• Ford Foundation 1970 Annual Report — relevant to claims about foundation activity.

Academic or Official Sources

• Goldin, “The Quiet Revolution” — multistage labor history.
• Goldin, “The U-Shaped Female Labor Force Function” — connects participation to economic development.

Major Supporting Analyses

• Nobel Prize explanation of Goldin’s research — summarizes institutional and technological mechanisms.

Best Responses

The first women’s-studies program was created through student and faculty activism, not simply invented by Ford or Rockefeller. Foundations may have funded expansion, but funding a movement is not equivalent to creating it.

Title IX does not require that 60% of educational resources go to women; it prohibits sex discrimination. Women’s majority share of enrollment is not proof of a statutory transfer or conspiracy.

Counter-Evidence

Women’s paid labor participation was increasing before the 1970s and had antecedents in agriculture, domestic service, industrialization, wartime labor, clerical employment, and rising education. Goldin’s evidence contradicts a sudden origin story.

Corporate interests may sometimes favor cheap labor, but employers also resisted women’s advancement, excluded women from occupations, imposed marriage bars, and paid discriminatory wages. “Corporate interests” were not uniform.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could narrow the claim: preexisting trends were consolidated in the 1970s by mutually reinforcing law, technology, funding, and culture. Coordination is unnecessary if institutions had convergent incentives.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• The pill, Title IX, and educational expansion materially changed women’s options.
• Social movements normally depend on institutions, financing, and elite alliances.
• An outcome may be institutionally reinforced without being centrally planned.
• Dual-income norms can constrain families even when women formally retain choice.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Mistaking temporal clustering for centralized coordination.
• Inferring intent solely from who economically benefited.
• Treating all female labor as “cheap labor.”
• Converting enrollment shares into unsupported expenditure shares.

Assessment

Weakly supported. Institutions helped accelerate the transformation, but the coordinated-engineering account and specific foundation claims are not demonstrated.

Remaining Open Questions

• Which grants materially shaped women’s-studies programs?
• How much did tax policy influence female labor participation?
• Did two-income dependence primarily reflect labor supply, housing costs, consumption expectations, or wage trends?

Cross References

• Title IX
• Women’s Studies History
• Two-Income Household

Claim: Socialist and communist feminism sought to dismantle the family, and Soviet, Chinese, and Korean experience demonstrates the demographic danger

Source location: 23:28–25:02; 54:04–55:13; 1:09:22–1:16:37

Definition

Socialist feminism and Marxist feminism analyze women’s subordination through class, property, domestic labor, and economic dependency. They are not identical to liberal, conservative, religious, or equal-rights feminism.

Wilson also combines policy histories from the Soviet Union and China with contemporary South Korea, a capitalist democracy.

Argument

Wilson argues that early communist feminists considered the private family an obstacle to state loyalty, collective property, and women’s labor. They supported communal childcare, abortion, and women’s workforce participation. Soviet fertility problems allegedly forced Stalin to reverse abortion policy and adopt pronatalism, but the demographic damage was never repaired.

China and South Korea are then presented as confirmation that once modernization, female employment, and reproductive control produce very low fertility, later subsidies cannot reverse the trajectory.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Some Marxist theorists regarded the private family and inheritance as supports for class hierarchy.
2. Communist governments legalized abortion, mobilized women into work, and collectivized some family functions.
3. These societies later experienced severe fertility decline.
4. Pronatalist reversals failed to restore durable replacement fertility.
5. Therefore, anti-family feminist modernization creates difficult-to-reverse demographic decline.

Hidden premise: Women’s employment and anti-family ideology, rather than war, mortality, coercive population policy, urbanization, or economic conditions, explain most of the demographic outcome.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Leninist Russia legalized abortion.
• Stalin later prohibited abortion and promoted childbirth.
• Wilson says Soviet women were simultaneously expected to work and reproduce.
• She invokes China’s fertility problems to show the issue is not unique to capitalism.
• South Korea’s fertility rate near 0.7 is used as the endpoint of developed female careerism.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

The Soviet policy sequence is substantially correct: abortion was legalized in 1920, prohibited in 1936, and legalized again in 1955. See the Higher School of Economics policy history.

Alexandra Kollontai did advocate collective social support for childcare and predicted that domestic functions would become public. Her Communism and the Family, however, also denied that communists intended forcibly to seize children or simply destroy family bonds.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• Kollontai, Communism and the Family — supports some claims about collectivized domestic functions while complicating Wilson’s characterization.
• Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State — connects family structure to property and class.

Academic or Official Sources

• Russian fertility change — demographic history is more complex than a single policy mechanism.
• China’s Population Policy — fertility declined sharply before the one-child policy and reflects multiple causes.

Major Supporting Analyses

• Assessment of Russian pronatalism — limited ability of incentives to reverse long-term patterns.
• Review of China’s fertility transition — policy, development, and child costs all matter.

Best Responses

The historical examples do not isolate feminism. Soviet fertility was shaped by revolution, famine, purges, catastrophic war losses, housing shortages, abortion access, and economic instability. China imposed one of history’s most coercive antinatalist policies. South Korea has exceptional housing, education, employment, and work-culture pressures.

It is therefore invalid to treat their fertility histories as replications of one feminist experiment.

Counter-Evidence

China’s fertility fell substantially before the one-child policy, while later ultra-low fertility reflects both policy legacy and ordinary development. Soviet fertility decline was part of a wider European demographic transition.

Kollontai’s text supports a radical transformation of domestic labor but does not support the unqualified claim that communist feminists wanted children to lose all family attachment and belong only to the state.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could argue that the cases need not be identical. Their common element is institutional displacement of the family combined with women’s full labor mobilization. She could treat coercive population policies as intensifications of a broader reproductive-management logic.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Some Marxist thinkers explicitly sought to socialize domestic functions.
• Communist governments often subordinated family life to state economic goals.
• Modernization repeatedly accompanies fertility decline under different political systems.
• Failure of past pronatalism does not prove every possible family policy must fail.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Generalizing radical socialist texts to feminism as a whole.
• Selecting countries with radically different histories as if they were controlled comparisons.
• Treating chronological succession as proof of policy causation.
• Ignoring war, coercion, mortality, housing, and economic instability.

Assessment

Partly supported. Wilson fairly identifies a genuine anti-traditional-family strand within socialist feminism and a real history of failed pronatalist reversals. Her broader causal generalization is too strong.

Remaining Open Questions

• Which elements of family policy can raise completed fertility without coercion?
• How much of post-Soviet fertility reflects communist institutional legacy?
• Which contemporary feminist positions retain the early socialist program?

Cross References

• Alexandra Kollontai
• Soviet Abortion Policy
• China’s Fertility Transition

Claim: Full-time careerism is incompatible with adequate motherhood and replacement-level family size

Source location: 26:13; 50:07–55:13; 1:13:05; 1:19:55; 1:37:15

Definition

Wilson distinguishes occasional, home-based, agricultural, or later-life work from a continuous full-time career pursued during women’s prime childbearing years.

“Adequate motherhood” is partly empirical—time, supervision, attachment, and child development—and partly moral: whether childcare ought ordinarily to be performed by the mother.

Argument

Drawing on her experience as a mother of five, Wilson argues that motherhood itself is full-time work. A woman cannot simultaneously give several children intensive direct care and maintain a standard full-time career without outsourcing large parts of motherhood. Daycare is expensive and cannot fully replicate maternal care. Women should therefore have children earlier and pursue careers after the most demanding childrearing period, potentially after age forty.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Infants and young children require extensive, continuous care.
2. Full-time employment consumes the same time and energy.
3. Institutional childcare transfers rather than eliminates the caregiving function.
4. Sustaining larger families intensifies the conflict.
5. Therefore, full-time careerism is generally incompatible with direct motherhood of several children.

Hidden premise: Maternal care is ordinarily superior to paternal, extended-family, or high-quality professional care and should take priority over women’s employment.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Wilson’s experience raising five children.
• The low wages of daycare workers as an analogy for the social undervaluation of care.
• The financial costs of daycare, a second car, work clothing, and income tax.
• Biological limits on postponing childbirth.
• The claim that a full-time mother’s functions cannot be automated.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

Childcare can impose a major burden. The US Department of Labor estimates that full-day care for one child consumed approximately 8.9–16.0% of median family income in 2022, depending on age and setting. That is substantial, but it does not establish Wilson’s claim that daycare averages 25% of household expenditure.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• Department of Labor childcare-cost database — local and age-specific cost estimates.
• BLS Employment Characteristics of Families, 2024 — maternal employment patterns.

Academic or Official Sources

• Meta-analysis of early maternal employment — overall effects are mostly small or nonsignificant and depend on timing and context.
• Systematic review of maternal employment and child mental health — mixed findings.

Major Supporting Analyses

• Meta-analysis of childcare quality — quality of care is associated with developmental outcomes.

Best Responses

The strongest response distinguishes “mother cannot personally supply every hour of care” from “employed mother cannot be a good mother.” Research does not support the universal latter claim. Outcomes depend on job quality, hours, parental leave, household resources, paternal involvement, care quality, and family preferences.

A father’s direct care is not inherently an illegitimate outsourcing of motherhood. Extended families have also shared childcare throughout history.

Counter-Evidence

The empirical literature generally finds heterogeneous and often small average effects of maternal employment. High-quality childcare can produce benefits, especially for disadvantaged children. Conversely, poor-quality care or inflexible, exhausting employment can create harms.

Wilson’s personal experience is relevant testimony but cannot establish a universal rule for all mothers, jobs, children, or family sizes.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could narrow the claim to mothers seeking three or more children and highly intensive direct caregiving. She could also argue that small measured developmental effects do not settle the moral question of who ought to provide care.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Full-time employment and intensive parenting create real time conflicts.
• The conflict is stronger with multiple young children.
• Paid work and motherhood are not binary; part-time, flexible, seasonal, remote, and later-life work exist.
• Whether nonmaternal care counts as harmful “outsourcing” is partly normative.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Generalizing from one family’s experience.
• Equating daycare use with maternal neglect.
• Treating a full-time job as identical across occupations and schedules.
• Ignoring fathers and extended families as caregivers.

Assessment

Primarily a moral or interpretive judgment. The time constraint is real, but the universal claim that paid employment prevents good motherhood is not supported by the broader evidence.

Remaining Open Questions

• Which employment arrangements best support larger desired families?
• How do outcomes vary by child age, care quality, and work hours?
• What level of direct parental care should society regard as ideal?

Cross References

• Maternal Employment
• Childcare Quality
• Intensive Parenting

Claim: Abortion has removed tens of millions of future citizens and imposes an enormous demographic and economic cost

Source location: 08:57–10:23; 1:24:44–1:32:19; 1:47:00–1:50:27

Definition

Wilson treats an abortion as the death of a human person and counts the lost life, future labor, earnings, and tax contribution as social costs.

This differs from conventional national accounting, which normally counts realized production and does not assign the full “value of a statistical life” to every prevented or unrealized birth.

Argument

Wilson argues that abortion is simultaneously a moral wrong and an act of demographic self-harm. Approximately 63 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, in her account, removed a substantial share of later generations, including approximately 45 million potential workers. She uses a Republican Joint Economic Committee calculation to claim abortion’s social cost is 425 times the earnings cost mothers would bear from continuing pregnancies.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Fetuses are human beings with the same fundamental moral worth as born persons.
2. Most abortions prevent people who otherwise would have been born, survived, and eventually worked.
3. Their lost lives and production are social costs.
4. These costs greatly exceed the economic burden of continuing pregnancy.
5. Therefore, elective abortion is morally and economically disastrous and should be prohibited.

Hidden premise: An abortion can be treated as a one-for-one reduction in eventual population and labor supply, with no fertility postponement, replacement birth, miscarriage, migration, or household-resource effects.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Approximately 63 million abortions since Roe.
• Approximately 45 million missing workers.
• The claim that nearly one-third of Generation Z was aborted.
• A claimed 425-to-1 ratio between abortion’s social cost and maternal earnings loss.
• The prediction that a ban would preserve approximately one million lives per year.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

The Guttmacher Institute estimated approximately 1.037 million clinician-provided abortions in the formal US healthcare system in 2023. The CDC’s 2022 surveillance report counted 613,383 abortions from reporting areas but excludes several jurisdictions, including California.

Wilson’s 425-times figure accurately reflects a Republican Joint Economic Committee analysis. That report assigns approximately $6.9 trillion using a value-of-statistical-life framework and compares it with approximately $16.2 billion of maternal earnings effects during the first six years. It is a moralized valuation exercise, not a conventional estimate of lost GDP.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• CDC Abortion Surveillance, 2022 — official but incomplete reporting-area data.
• Republican JEC abortion-cost analysis — source of Wilson’s 425-times comparison.

Academic or Official Sources

• Turnaway Study economic-outcomes article — economic outcomes after receiving or being denied a wanted abortion.
• AEA study of abortion access and financial distress — evidence of increased financial hardship following denial.

Major Supporting Analyses

• Guttmacher 2023 US estimate — comprehensive incidence estimate.

Best Responses

The strongest objection attacks both the moral premise and the counterfactual. If fetal moral status differs from that of a born person, the value-of-statistical-life calculation does not apply. Even if fetal life has substantial value, not every abortion corresponds to one fewer eventual worker; some pregnancies would miscarry, some births would be postponed or substituted, and future labor participation varies.

The Turnaway evidence also shows that denying a wanted abortion can increase poverty, debt, and financial distress. Those costs are largely absent from Wilson’s presentation.

Counter-Evidence

“Nearly one-third of Gen Z was aborted” is not a standard demographic statistic. Comparing abortions with live births does not yield the share of a conceived generation aborted because pregnancies include miscarriages and because abortion counts do not map cleanly to birth cohorts.

The historic CDC abortion ratio peaked at 358 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1979 according to CDC historical surveillance. That ratio is not equivalent to saying that 35.8%, or one-third, of a generation was aborted.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could concede uncertainty in the workforce estimate while insisting that the core moral argument does not depend on GDP. Even if only a fraction of abortions translate into net population loss, the demographic effect remains substantial at roughly one million procedures annually.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• The numerical economic claim depends almost entirely on fetal moral status and counterfactual assumptions.
• Abortion restrictions can increase births, but the size and durability of the effect vary.
• Maternal economic costs do not resolve the moral question.
• Demographic policy and individual pregnancy ethics should be analytically distinguished.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Treating every abortion as one mechanically missing future worker.
• Presenting value-of-statistical-life estimates as measured GDP loss.
• Comparing incompatible denominators.
• Counting benefits of additional births without their education, healthcare, and consumption costs.

Assessment

Primarily a moral or interpretive judgment regarding the value of fetal life; weakly supported as a precise workforce and macroeconomic calculation.

Remaining Open Questions

• What moral status should the fetus have at different gestational stages?
• How many prevented abortions become additional completed births?
• What are the long-term fiscal effects after counting both costs and contributions?
• Which restrictions reduce abortion without unacceptable maternal harm?

Cross References

• Abortion and Demography
• Value of a Statistical Life
• Turnaway Study

Claim: No-fault divorce did not reduce domestic abuse but displaced it into more dangerous cohabiting relationships

Source location: 1:03:34–1:04:55

Definition

No-fault divorce allows dissolution without proving adultery, abandonment, cruelty, or another legal fault. Unilateral divorce allows one spouse to obtain divorce without the other’s consent.

Wilson’s comparison between marriage and cohabitation concerns average group risk. It does not by itself identify what divorce-law reform caused.

Argument

Wilson accepts that abuse within marriage may have declined but argues that this is misleading: women moved into unstable cohabiting relationships where abuse risk is higher. The reform therefore changed the institutional location of abuse instead of solving it.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Cohabiting relationships have higher observed abuse rates than marriages.
2. Easier divorce increased relationship dissolution and nonmarital cohabitation.
3. Some women therefore moved from marriages into riskier relationship forms.
4. Any fall in marital abuse may represent displacement rather than prevention.
5. Therefore, no-fault divorce did not produce the safety benefit claimed for it.

Hidden premise: The women who left abusive marriages are the same population entering higher-risk cohabitations, and the law caused the latter risk.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Wilson claims cohabiting relationships have approximately 40% more abuse.
• She argues that statistics limited to married couples omit abuse after family dissolution.
• She presents institutional displacement as an alternative explanation for apparent improvement.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

Cohabitation can be associated with greater instability and, in some samples, higher intimate-partner-violence rates. This creates a legitimate need to compare total population outcomes rather than only marital incidents.

However, group differences are affected by age, prior victimization, socioeconomic conditions, relationship duration, selection, and reporting.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• NBER, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law” — quasi-experimental analysis of unilateral divorce reform.
• NBER, “Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates?” — examines whether effects on divorce rates persisted.

Academic or Official Sources

• Long-run effects of unilateral divorce law — examines effects on children and families.
• Associated Press history of no-fault divorce — legal and political context.

Major Supporting Analyses

• Stevenson and Wolfers on divorce reform — principal causal counter-evidence.

Best Responses

The strongest causal research finds that unilateral divorce reform was associated with lower female suicide, lower domestic violence, and reductions in women murdered by partners. These findings are difficult to reconcile with the claim that abuse was merely relocated.

Easier exit may also improve bargaining power within marriages because an abusive spouse can no longer rely on the victim being legally trapped.

Counter-Evidence

Stevenson and Wolfers report a roughly 20% decline in female suicide and substantial declines in domestic violence following unilateral-divorce reform. These are population-level outcomes, not merely changes in the formal location of abuse.

Higher abuse among cohabiters does not prove divorce law created that abuse. Selection into cohabitation and prior relationship instability are alternative explanations.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could argue that the causal literature may miss longer-run family-formation changes or effects on children. She could narrow her claim to say that legal exit is not a complete substitute for norms promoting careful partner selection and durable marriage.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Easier exit can protect abused spouses while increasing some forms of instability.
• Short-run safety and long-run family structure are different outcomes.
• Cohabitation risk deserves attention independent of divorce-law evaluation.
• Divorce reform’s effect on the divorce rate itself may be partly transitory.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Inferring a law’s causal effect from cross-sectional cohabitation risk.
• Assuming that reduced marital abuse must have reappeared elsewhere.
• Ignoring the bargaining effects of a credible exit option.
• Failing to distinguish population rates from relationship-type rates.

Assessment

Contradicted by stronger evidence. Wilson identifies a possible measurement concern, but the best causal research indicates real safety benefits rather than simple displacement.

Remaining Open Questions

• What are the very long-run effects of divorce regimes on partner selection and children?
• Which legal rules best combine safe exit with procedural fairness?
• How much cohabitation risk reflects selection versus relationship form?

Cross References

• No-Fault Divorce
• Unilateral Divorce and Domestic Violence
• Cohabitation Risk

Claim: The appropriate solution is a family-first economy centered on young motherhood, single-income households, and restored male trades

Source location: 51:20–55:13; 1:16:37–1:24:44; 1:37:15; 1:56:02

Definition

A family-first economy in Wilson’s account would culturally prioritize early marriage and childbearing, make male provider work sufficiently remunerative, reduce educational debt and childcare dependence, and encourage mothers to remain outside full-time employment during early childrearing.

She explicitly says she would not legally prohibit mothers from working. Her primary mechanisms are cultural, religious, educational, and economic.

Argument

Wilson proposes reviving trades and technical education for disengaged men, paying infrastructure workers enough to support families, discouraging expensive college credentials, and recognizing the household savings produced by stay-at-home motherhood. If families can live on one income, women can have children earlier without daycare, and men regain a provider role and reason to work.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Low fertility results partly from the cost and timing conflict between careers and children.
2. Male disengagement results partly from the loss of respected provider roles.
3. Technical training and family wages can restore men’s economic usefulness and family formation.
4. Reducing dependence on maternal earnings permits earlier and larger families.
5. Therefore, a family-wage and family-first model can address both demographic and labor problems.

Hidden premise: The economy can provide enough single-earner family wages without major reductions in consumption, independence, public revenue, or household resilience.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• The cost of daycare, a second vehicle, work clothing, education debt, and additional taxes.
• The historical example of lower-wage workers supporting large families.
• The claim that roughly one-third of disengaged men could be returned to productive trades.
• The argument that food and energy production should be prioritized over marginal service consumption.
• Wilson’s own household and motherhood experience.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

Wilson is right that work-family constraints reduce achieved fertility and that vocational pipelines can be socially valuable. The OECD Korea review finds a significant gap between desired and actual births and identifies employment, housing, and care constraints.

Childcare costs can consume a large share of family income, as shown in the Department of Labor estimates.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• Department of Labor childcare-cost data — evaluates one component of the single-earner calculation.
• OECD Korea evidence — desired fertility and institutional barriers.

Academic or Official Sources

• OECD family-policy assessment — evaluates multiple approaches.
• IMF women and growth analysis — explains the output cost of excluding women from market work.

Major Supporting Analyses

• Systematic review of parental leave and fertility — evidence for policy effects, with significant heterogeneity.

Best Responses

A single-income model increases vulnerability to death, disability, unemployment, desertion, and abuse by the sole earner. Women’s education and work experience function as insurance and strengthen bargaining power. The historical single-earner household was never universal and often depended on racial, class, and occupational privilege or lower material expectations.

An alternative family-first model could support both parents through paid leave, flexible work, shorter hours, housing reform, child allowances, and high-quality childcare rather than assigning economic provision by sex.

Counter-Evidence

Macroeconomic research generally estimates that lower female participation reduces total output and fiscal capacity. A large withdrawal of women from employment could aggravate the worker shortage Wilson fears.

Family subsidies and leave have not reliably restored replacement fertility, but neither have traditional gender norms. Some low-fertility countries combine low female employment with highly unequal domestic expectations.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could say the relevant comparison is not gross market GDP but total welfare, including unpaid care, child development, household resilience, and future generations. She could also support voluntary flexible work and financial protections for homemakers while retaining maternal care as the default.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Vocational education is not inherently linked to restricting women.
• A family wage could support either a mother or father as primary caregiver.
• Family policy can reduce constraints without guaranteeing higher fertility.
• Wilson’s rejection of a legal employment ban distinguishes her proposal from direct occupational coercion.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Romanticizing the historical single-income household.
• Counting household savings while omitting lost earnings, pensions, and career capital.
• Assuming men will reenter work principally because women withdraw.
• Treating family policy as a binary choice between daycare and full-time motherhood.

Assessment

Plausible but contested. Several components—vocational training, lower family costs, earlier fertility education, and stronger support for caregivers—are defensible. The sex-specific single-earner prescription carries major economic and autonomy costs.

Remaining Open Questions

• How would homemakers obtain retirement security and protection against abandonment?
• What consumption, housing, and wage changes would make one income sufficient?
• Could gender-neutral family policy achieve the same demographic aims?
• What evidence would show that the proposal raises completed fertility?

Cross References

• Family Wage
• Vocational Education
• Caregiver Social Insurance

Claim: Women’s political power is the principal obstacle to banning abortion, and broad universal suffrage should be replaced by a restricted franchise

Source location: 1:47:00–1:50:27; 1:56:02–1:58:10

Definition

Wilson first identifies “women voting” as the largest political obstacle to abolishing abortion. When challenged, she broadens the position: she favors restrictions on voting for men as well as women and describes a return to the founders’ limited republic.

A restricted franchise could be based on sex, property, taxation, military service, family status, education, or another qualification. Wilson does not specify a complete eligibility rule.

Argument

Wilson argues that democratic majorities may vote for policies that transfer costs to others or undermine long-term civilizational interests. Political participation should therefore not be treated as an unconditional right. Because women disproportionately support abortion rights and redistributive policies in her model, universal female suffrage entrenches the system she opposes.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Political systems should privilege citizens with a durable stake in the polity’s survival.
2. Universal suffrage allows voters to support benefits without bearing corresponding productive or demographic obligations.
3. Women voters are a major constituency for abortion rights and the welfare-oriented order.
4. Those policies weaken demographic and institutional sustainability.
5. Therefore, restricting suffrage, including women’s suffrage, may be justified.

Hidden premise: A governing authority can define “stake” and competence without producing domination, corruption, or systematic exclusion.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Wilson’s assertion that women voters are the greatest barrier to an abortion ban.
• Her claim that the founders designed a republic with limited rather than universal voting.
• Her broader criticism of mass democracy and unqualified political rights.
• Her willingness to restrict some men as well as women.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

Wilson is historically correct that the founding-era United States did not have universal adult suffrage. Voting qualifications were predominantly established by states and often included sex, race, property, or taxpaying restrictions.

However, the Constitutional Convention rejected a uniform federal property qualification for House electors and linked federal eligibility to state rules. See Madison’s Convention notes and the National Park Service convention history.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• Nineteenth Amendment — prohibits denying the vote on account of sex.
• Madison’s notes, August 7, 1787 — debate over voting qualifications.

Academic or Official Sources

• Congressional Constitution Annotated: Expansion of the Franchise — constitutional history of voting rights.
• National Park Service account — founding-era disagreement over property qualifications.

Major Supporting Analyses

• Constitution Annotated, Nineteenth Amendment — governing constitutional rule.

Best Responses

The principal objection is that removing political rights from a class affected by law makes abuse more likely and leaves the governing class judge of its own competence. Property, sex, or tax qualifications historically excluded people whose labor and interests remained subject to government power.

Policy disagreement does not establish voter incapacity. If voters may be disenfranchised for supporting allegedly harmful policies, any ruling group can immunize itself from democratic correction.

Counter-Evidence

The claim that women are the principal obstacle to abortion prohibition requires election and opinion evidence Wilson does not present. Support for abortion varies by party, religion, age, and sex, and men also vote for pro-choice candidates.

The founders did not establish one uniform national property franchise. Wilson’s appeal to “the founders” compresses substantial disagreement and state variation into a single position.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could say democratic legitimacy already includes qualifications such as citizenship, age, residence, and criminal-disfranchisement rules. The question is therefore where qualifications should be set, not whether any may exist. She might advocate a gender-neutral stakeholding rule.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• The founding-era republic was not a universal democracy.
• Existing democracies still impose limited voting qualifications.
• A general restricted-franchise position is analytically different from sex-specific disenfranchisement.
• Any sex-based restriction would directly conflict with the Nineteenth Amendment and require constitutional change.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Inferring political incompetence from disagreement.
• Treating “the founders” as a single mind.
• Assuming the ruling group will define civic merit impartially.
• Attributing a policy outcome to women without comparative electoral evidence.

Assessment

Primarily a moral or interpretive judgment. The history of limited founding-era suffrage is broadly true, but Wilson does not establish a principled, administrable, or non-dominating alternative.

Remaining Open Questions

• What exact qualification would Wilson impose?
• Would homemakers, soldiers, disabled citizens, renters, and low-income workers vote?
• Who would set and review eligibility?
• How would disenfranchised people protect themselves against unequal law?

Cross References

• Nineteenth Amendment
• Restricted Suffrage
• Democratic Stakeholding

Claim: Pakistan illustrates how cousin marriage and associated cognitive effects can impede national development

Source location: 1:41:49–1:43:10

Definition

Consanguineous marriage usually refers to marriage between second cousins or closer relatives. It increases homozygosity and the risk that rare recessive disorders will be expressed. It does not imply that every child of cousins has a disorder or reduced intelligence.

Argument

In response to Pakistan as a possible counterexample—a high-fertility country with weak economic performance—Wilson argues that Pakistan’s difficulties do not refute her productivity thesis because cousin marriage is unusually common and allegedly reduces population-level cognitive ability.

Logical Reconstruction

1. Economic development partly depends on population health and human capital.
2. Consanguineous marriage increases inherited disease and may adversely affect some developmental outcomes.
3. Consanguinity is common in Pakistan.
4. Pakistan has poor economic outcomes.
5. Therefore, consanguinity helps explain why high fertility has not produced prosperity there.

Hidden premise: Consanguinity has a sufficiently large population-level effect to outweigh Pakistan’s political, institutional, educational, and macroeconomic causes.

Strongest Evidence Presented

• Wilson identifies Pakistan as a Muslim-majority country with high cousin-marriage rates.
• She connects repeated consanguinity with lower average intelligence and poor development.
• She clarifies that high fertility need not logically entail cousin marriage.

Supplementary Supporting Evidence

Consanguinity is indeed common in Pakistan. An older national survey found approximately 60% of marriages consanguineous, over 80% of those involving first cousins. See the Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey analysis. More recent research estimates approximately 49.6% first-cousin and 8.3% second-cousin marriages; see Population and Development Review.

The associated risk of recessive disease is medically relevant. This supports a public-health concern, not Wilson’s broader economic reduction.

Key Sources

Primary Sources

• Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey analysis — national marriage-pattern evidence.
• World Bank Pakistan country overview — current development constraints.

Academic or Official Sources

• Recent Pakistan consanguinity study — updated prevalence estimates.
• World Bank Pakistan Human Capital Review — education, nutrition, health, and capability constraints.

Major Supporting Analyses

• World Bank Pakistan assessment — emphasizes policy instability, debt, trade restrictions, weak institutions, climate shocks, and human-capital deficits.

Best Responses

Pakistan’s economic performance has many better-established explanations: political instability, military-civilian conflict, low tax capacity, energy shortages, debt, protectionism, gender gaps in education and employment, weak institutions, regional conflict, and climate vulnerability.

Calling it a “Muslim country” adds little explanatory precision because Muslim-majority countries have widely different marriage systems, institutions, resource endowments, and income levels.

Counter-Evidence

Neither high consanguinity nor health risks establish that national economic weakness is principally caused by lower intelligence. Wilson provides no causal estimate comparing consanguinity with institutional and policy factors.

High fertility itself can impede per-capita capital formation when education, health, and employment do not expand accordingly. Pakistan therefore does not cease to be a relevant complication for a simple births-equal-prosperity argument.

Speaker’s Possible Reply

Wilson could narrow her claim to say that population quantity is insufficient; population health, education, and avoidance of preventable genetic disease also matter. That narrower proposition is sound.

Nuances / Partial Agreements

• Consanguinity is a legitimate public-health issue.
• Additional births do not automatically produce development.
• Cultural criticism should distinguish specific marriage practices from religion as a whole.
• National intelligence generalizations are highly sensitive and methodologically disputed.

Common Fallacies / Weak Arguments

• Reducing a national economy to one biological or cultural variable.
• Moving from individual genetic risk to national cognitive averages without evidence.
• Treating a religious label as a causal explanation.
• Using an ad hoc exception to protect a broader theory from counterexample.

Assessment

Weakly supported. The prevalence and health risk of consanguinity are established. The proposed explanation of Pakistan’s economy is reductionist and unsupported by comparative causal evidence.

Remaining Open Questions

• What share of Pakistan’s health burden is attributable to consanguinity?
• How large are its measured education and productivity effects?
• Which voluntary genetic-counseling policies are effective and ethically acceptable?

Cross References

• Consanguinity in Pakistan
• Human Capital and Development
• Demographic Dividend

Important Concessions

Wilson makes or implies several important concessions:

• Industrialization and modernization enabled feminism; she does not consistently claim feminism created every underlying technological change.
• Fertility decline began before the 1970s, although she considers that decade an acceleration point.
• Her argument does not depend on identifying one exact year when decline began.
• Preindustrial women worked, particularly in household agriculture; her distinction is between integrated family production and a separate modern career.
• She does not advocate legally forbidding mothers from employment.
• She favors some restriction of male as well as female suffrage, making her position broader than simple sex-based disenfranchisement.
• High fertility alone is not sufficient for prosperity; population health, education, institutions, and productive employment matter.
• Some women can combine employment and motherhood; her strongest incompatibility claim concerns full careerism, direct caregiving, and larger families.
• Technology and modernization precede or enable some feminist institutions, even if she believes feminist ideology legitimizes them.

Internal Tensions or Possible Contradictions

1. Economic dependence: Wilson criticizes women for depending on government but proposes that most mothers depend economically on husbands. She treats marital dependence as reciprocal and legitimate, but does not fully address bargaining power, abandonment, disability, or abuse.

2. Worker shortage: She predicts severe labor shortages while also advocating the withdrawal of many women from paid employment. Future births might offset this decades later, but the immediate labor effect could worsen the shortage.

3. Women’s productivity: Wilson celebrates unpaid motherhood as indispensable while characterizing women as economically subsidized using market statistics that omit unpaid care.

4. Choice and coercion: She says she would not ban mothers from working, yet believes women must largely cease full-time careerism for civilization to survive. Cultural and economic pressure may constrain choice even without a legal prohibition.

5. Anti-statism and pronatalism: She condemns state substitution for family but appears to require large institutional changes to wages, education, abortion law, and possibly voting eligibility.

6. Male motivation: Men are portrayed both as civilization’s uniquely productive foundation and as likely to cease productive work if they are not assured wives and children. This simultaneously elevates and depicts male agency as highly conditional.

7. Feminism as cause versus symptom: At times feminism causes modernization’s harms; elsewhere modernization and technology create the conditions for feminism. A feedback model is possible, but it is not explicitly developed.

8. Historical work: Wilson distinguishes household work from careers, but her broad rhetoric that women were “sent to work” can obscure the extensive paid and unpaid labor women performed before second-wave feminism.

9. Family autonomy versus restricted suffrage: She defends families against government control while entertaining political rules that would deprive many family members of equal influence over government.

10. Demography versus welfare: She counts future children primarily as workers and taxpayers when discussing abortion, but treats existing welfare-supported children mainly as costs. A complete accounting would apply the same lifetime framework to both.

Strongest Overall Case for the Speaker

Wilson’s strongest case does not depend on the weakest sex-based economic statistics or institutional-conspiracy claims.

Persistent sub-replacement fertility is a real and consequential phenomenon. Modern education and career paths frequently consume the same years in which women are most likely to establish relationships and bear children. Housing costs, long working hours, childcare expenses, and employment insecurity make larger families difficult. Many people report wanting more children than they ultimately have.

Because demographic change operates with long lags, a society can enjoy high living standards while already having produced future worker and taxpayer shortages. Pay-as-you-go pensions, healthcare systems, elder care, infrastructure, and military capacity may all become harder to sustain. Immigration can moderate decline but does not permanently solve a worldwide fertility transition, particularly when migrants’ fertility tends to converge toward destination-country patterns.

Wilson also correctly emphasizes that childcare and household production are real work, even when GDP does not price them. An economic system that treats direct parental care as economically invisible while requiring two taxable incomes may systematically undervalue family formation. It is reasonable to ask whether supposedly liberating institutions have produced a new compulsion to work, consume, borrow, and outsource care.

The strongest normative version of her argument is therefore:

Note

A civilization should not organize education, employment, housing, taxation, and sexual norms so that ordinary adults must sacrifice the children they want in order to remain economically secure. Caregiving and intergenerational continuity are public goods, and institutions that chronically underproduce them require reform.

That argument supports fertility education, lower housing and childcare burdens, family-friendly work, caregiver protections, vocational investment, and cultural respect for motherhood even if it does not establish Wilson’s full anti-feminist program.

Strongest Overall Case Against the Speaker

Wilson repeatedly moves from a real outcome to an insufficiently demonstrated ideological cause. Family instability and low fertility have multiple origins: industrialization, urbanization, declining mortality, contraception, expensive housing, wage and employment insecurity, secularization, consumer expectations, education, and changing preferences. “Feminism” is too broad to function as a testable explanation unless divided into specific doctrines and policies.

Several statistical arguments are materially defective. The eightfold maltreatment risk is applied to too broad a household category; the famous fatherlessness percentages lack reliable original datasets; business-count and receipt shares cannot measure women’s productivity; sex-specific tax shares are difficult to infer from joint returns; and the 425-times abortion cost uses a moral value-of-life calculation rather than measured economic output.

Wilson also inadequately counts feminism’s benefits: political representation, access to education and professions, legal independence, the ability to leave violent or exploitative relationships, control over reproduction, better matching of talent to work, and household insurance through two potential earners. Strong causal evidence indicates that unilateral divorce reform reduced female suicide and domestic violence, directly challenging one of her key examples.

Her solution places the adjustment burden overwhelmingly on women. Men’s participation in childcare, reform of working hours, housing supply, family allowances, and flexible employment receive less attention than women’s withdrawal from careers. Restricting the franchise compounds this problem by reducing the political power of those whose lives would be most affected.

The deepest opposing argument is:

Warning

A demographic problem does not itself justify assigning people fixed social roles or removing their political rights. A sustainable response must treat women as equal decision-makers and demonstrate that less coercive measures cannot work.

Central Disagreements

Final Analytical Summary

Wilson’s strongest arguments concern persistent low fertility, delayed family formation, the economic invisibility of unpaid care, the genuine time conflict between intensive parenting and full-time employment, and the vulnerability of age-based social systems to a shrinking workforce. She is also correct that some socialist feminists explicitly sought to transfer domestic functions from families to collective institutions.

Her family-structure case is partly supported: stable, low-conflict two-parent families tend to produce better average outcomes. However, the strongest conclusion is about risk and stability, not a deterministic effect of father absence or proof that feminism independently caused the outcomes. Several of her fatherlessness statistics should not be repeated as facts without original documentation.

Her weakest empirical arguments are the “she economy” subsidy calculation, sex-based GDP and tax claims, the foundation-created-women’s-studies narrative, the simple explanation of male labor-force decline, the claim that no-fault divorce merely relocated abuse, and the reduction of Pakistan’s economy to consanguinity and intelligence. These arguments either misuse denominators, omit major confounders, or lack traceable supporting evidence.

The abortion argument depends principally on the moral status of fetal life. Once Wilson’s personhood premise is accepted, demographic loss becomes morally important; without it, the 425-times calculation is not a neutral economic finding. Her “one-third of Gen Z” and 45-million-worker formulations are constructed counterfactuals rather than established demographic facts.

The motherhood and suffrage claims are primarily normative. Empirical evidence can measure childcare costs, developmental outcomes, fertility, political behavior, and economic risk, but it cannot by itself decide whether mothers morally ought to provide most direct care or whether demographic contribution should determine voting rights.

Important

The most defensible conclusion is narrower than Wilson’s overall thesis: modern developed societies often make desired family formation unnecessarily difficult and undervalue caregiving. That problem deserves serious institutional reform. The available evidence does not establish that feminism as a whole is the dominant cause, that women’s economic participation is parasitic, or that restricting women’s autonomy and political rights is necessary to solve it.

The genuinely unsettled question is whether developed societies can combine equal civic status, substantial female employment, affordable family life, and durable near-replacement fertility. Cross-national evidence suggests that work-family compatibility can improve fertility, but no existing policy package has reliably restored replacement rates in every ultra-low-fertility society. Wilson is justified in treating that failure as urgent; she is not justified in treating her preferred sex-role settlement as empirically proven.

---

Content

HUGE thank you to our DEBATECON 8 sponsors including:

Maine First Project: https://mainefirstproject.org/

Revival of the Anointed’s Rule:
https://www.revivetheroar.app/

Apolgetics Ark at each:
https://apologeticsark.com/
& https://www.facebook.com/ApologeticsArk

DEBATECON 9 will be in Orlando, FL on October 24/25th! LET’S GOOOOO! https://events.eventnoire.com/e/debatecon-9-by-modern-day-debate-2

The Seek & Share Truth conference (where MDD is collaborating in helping set up 4 debates there) in Cleveland THIS WEEEND is here: https://seekandsharetruth.org/en-usd/pages/conference

@UncensoredAmerica

Yonaguni International Cuisine (Aguadilla, Puerto Rico): https://www.instagram.com/yonaguniinternationalcuisine/reels/

And a huge thank you to SDA for sponsoring our stage cost!

Links to guests:
Rachel: https://x.com/Rach4Patriarchy
@notsoErudite

MDD is now on Kick: https://kick.com/moderndaydebates WHOA BUDDYYYY!

Thank you to our DEBATECON 8 sponsors:
Maine First Project: https://mainefirstproject.org/
Revival of the Annointed’s Rule (ROAR)
Yonaguni International Cuisine: https://share.google/6WuEgX9yQH7ywI7RF
@UncensoredAmerica
______________________________________________________________________________________

OUR SOCIALS:
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@moderndaydebate
Discord: https://discord.gg/moderndaydebate (more details below)
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61577558176275
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/ModernDayDebate
X: https://x.com/ModernDayDebate
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/moderndaydebates/
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/moderndaydebate
EMAIL LIST FOR DEBATECON DISCOUNTS: https://forms.gle/rK5aqPAzAZXiDpDz9
______________________________________________________________________________________

MDD COMMUNITY & DISCORD: THE PROVING GROUND

Keep the conversation going 24/7. Whether you are a seasoned veteran or a newcomer looking to hone your craft for the love of the argument, the Official MDD Discord is the ultimate debate battleground.

THE PIPELINE & HONING YOUR CRAFT:
We regularly scout our most talented Discord debaters for official appearances on the Modern Day Debate Live YouTube channel. Engage in ranked text and voice channels designed to sharpen your rhetoric & logic. Come practice your debate skills or show them off!

LIVE AFTERSHOWS & OPEN MIC STAGES:
Join us immediately following the stream to debrief with guests & the audience &
Participate in moderated live debates hosted by our staff.

DEBATE TOPIC VOICE & TEXT CHANNELS:
Get your debate on in one of our MANY text & voice specific topic channels, i.e., Religion, Politics, Science, World Conflicts, & many more!

JOIN 17,000+ MEMBERS & ENTER THE DEBATE ARENA:
https://discord.gg/moderndaydebate

______________________________________________________________________________________

RULES FOR CHAT
-Chats flagrantly disrespectful toward speakers will receive a warning. *Attack the ideas instead of the person.
-Chatters continuing the disrespect after a warning will be banned.
-Chatters violating YouTube TOS are banned immediately.

______________________________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER The views shared by guests on Modern-Day Debate are not necessarily representative of the views of Modern-Day Debate, James, or any university with which he has or has had any affiliation.

I’m (James) a Christian. If you ever want prayer or just someone to talk to (specifically over voice chat on Zoom) after a horrible day, please reach out and let me know. [email protected]

Transcript

0:00 · Do you understand how you can possibly have feminism in a world? You’re if you’re going to keep interrupting me, I’ll just ask for time.

0:07 · I’ll just I’ll ask my question after if I if I interrupt you, it’s a big problem. But apparently I can’t speak. I need to participate in order for this to [music] be a conversation. Kyla, Pakistan’s economy sucks so bad even though the birth rate is high is because they are a Muslim nation with a the highest rate of um inbreeding in the world.

0:25 · Oh, I forgot brown people. How did I not think of that? Your field of psychology that you got your degree in is so oversaturated. We have and it’s almost all women. It’s like 80% women.

0:36 · Not going to deal with the golf though. We’re just going to run from that one. I’ll just come back. I’ll write it down.

0:40 · You have to your um Rachel, famous biologist here, by the way, knows a lot about crisper, I’m sure.

0:51 · Did you know that that’s what the technology is called? By the way, [music] it’s crisper. Yeah.

0:55 · Thanks, Mrs. Turner. Look, baby girl, you’re gonna love when I go through your book. Okay.

1:00 · I love when she educates me.

1:02 · When did Hipatia Who’s Hipatia, by the way?

1:12 · Special thanks to our sponsor, Maine First Project. Fighting to put mayors first. Check out mainfirstpro.org. Huge thanks to Revival of the Anointed’s rule, equipping Christians to fight for biblical values through policy victories. Check out revivetheroar.org. This debate may melt faces, but before we get into it, these conferences are only possible thanks to our sponsors. I am thrilled to introduce you to Mike from Roar. Thank you very much, Mike, for being a sponsor of Debate Con.

1:43 · Thank you so much, James.

1:46 · Thank you. I only get so much time. [laughter] Uh, thank you guys so much. I appreciate that. I can’t tell you how much. Uh, last time you heard me speak, most of you probably did. I told you about how the separation of church and state was making Christians whisper.

2:01 · Now, let me just tell you because we’re whispering, we’re transing kids, we’re marrying gays, we’re aborting babies, we’re indoctrinating uh kids in schools instead of teaching them. The list goes on and on. That’s what happens when Christians advocate their vote. uh when some Christians will say that you shouldn’t use Christian values uh as part of your vote, that’s what happens.

2:22 · That’s why we need to roar. Roar is doing it one congregation at a time all across the country. Follow me on X. That’s revive the roar on X. Uh one of these two people actually do follow me, so that’s pretty cool. Uh I’ll let you guess which one. Uh and revive the roar.app. Revive the roar.app. Come talk to me in the back. Love you guys. Have fun.

2:41 · Thanks, Mike. [applause] [applause] Check out Roar and Main First Project at the back table there. And with that, we’re going to get into our debate. If you can, if you haven’t already, please do silence your phones so there are no distractions. Also, for our debate, is feminism doing more good or more harm?

3:05 · I’m going to start by introducing Rachel as she will go first. Rachel Wilson is an author and cultural commentator whose fearless research challenges conventional narratives about feminism, women, and family. Please join me in welcoming Rachel Wilson. [cheering] [applause] [applause] And on your left, we are pleased to welcome Kyla, also known as not so aerodite.

3:37 · She is a thoughtful commentator who brings psychology, social science and careful analysis to debates about gender and culture. Please join me in welcoming not so aerodite. [applause and cheering] [applause] All right, I am setting the timer for five minutes. One last thank you to our sponsor, Yonauni International Cuisine. Check them out in the description box below. Oh, and with that, I have the timer set for you, Rachel. The floor is all yours for five minutes.

4:11 · Uh, James Kyla said she’s okay with seven minutes. I probably won’t need the full seven, but just thought I would let you know that. I’m probably just going to go a pinch over five.

4:19 · You got it.

4:20 · Okay.

4:22 · All right. So, is feminism doing more harm than good? I’m going to say, of course, that I think it’s doing more harm. Uh, let’s take a brief review of what we’ve gotten so far from feminism and its six pillars of propaganda. So, feminism inverted the western social order in roughly one century through its six primary pillars and a seventh that I’m going to introduce to you today.

4:44 · We’ve got sexual liberation, abortion, vilification of men, no fault divorce, demonization of tradition, and either rejection or reinvention of Christianity. [snorts] Tonight, I’m going to focus on the measurable results of these pillars and introduce the seventh what I call the she economy.

5:01 · So if we [laughter] if we look at family structure collapse since feminism became the dominant political ethos across the entire West, we’ve got 40% of children in the United States no longer living with both married biological parents. In 1945, that number was only 10%. Children living without both married biological parents face more than eight times higher risk of endangerment, standard maltreatment, which is a fancy term for all types of abuse.

5:32 · We have a fatherless epidemic. So roughly onethird of American children live without their biological father. That’s a three-fold increase over the historical norm. They account for 90% of homeless kids, 85% of kids with behavioral disorders, 70% of kids in incarceration facilities and 71% of adolescents in substance abuse treatment centers.

5:55 · Let’s look at unmarried births in the welfare trap. In the United States, only about 5% of kids were born to unmarried mothers in 1960. At present, that number is 41%. At the same time, we’ve gone from $50 billion a year in annual welfare spending in 1950 to now $700 billion per year. Uh that’s a 14-fold increase after you adjust for inflation.

6:23 · By 2010, 90% of all cash welfare payments and half of all food assistants went to single mother households. In 1940, only 6% of kids under age six had mothers working full-time outside the home. Today, that number is 58%.

6:39 · So, you guys have probably heard all of all of those kinds of stats from me a lot in the past, but let’s talk about the she economy, which is the seventh pillar. And this is really consistent across all Western nations regardless of what type of systems they have. As soon as feminism is introduced, not only does it transform the social order, it radically transformed Western economies, shifting them from production-based systems that favor long-term stability into debt-driven consumer economies that prioritize short-term gains.

7:07 · Proponents claim that the surge in female labor force participation since the 70s has been good because it expanded the GDP and created two income households. That view is incomplete. Uh with the election cycle coming up, affordability, housing shortages, inflation and labor shortages are going to be talked about a lot. So this is a good moment to discuss this.

7:34 · So who actually builds the economy? When we look at GDP across western nations, men contribute about 60% of the GDP and women contribute about 40%. But if you look per capita, men generate 36% more GDP per capita than women do. Uh women own 39% of US businesses now, but they only generate 6.2% of total business revenue. Keep that one up here.

8:03 · It’s very important. uh it basically comes out that about 22% of all women’s efforts in the economy are either directly or indirectly subsidized by men. Critical systems remain dominated by men. First world living standards that allow feminism uh rest on complex physical systems that largely cannot or will not be staffed by women. things like electrical grid maintenance, water treatment, food production.

8:31 · And a society can survive a temporary shortage of marketing ladies and HR women and kindergarten teachers, but it cannot survive a shortage of power grid technicians or water treatment engineers. Male labor force participation has fallen to a historic low of 69.5%.

8:50 · So that’s almost one in three men are out of the workforce right now. So, what’s the labor force cost of abortion?

8:57 · One of the main things that feminists care about, they don’t care if they have every other right. They care about abortion. It’s their main measure of women’s freedom. We’ve had 63 million abortions in the US alone since Roie Wade. If those children had survived and joined the workforce today, we would have an additional 45 million workers in the US economy. We wouldn’t have to import them from other nations.

9:22 · uh the cost of abortion is 425 times larger than the earnings that the mothers would have lost by carrying the children to term. So yes, women make a little bit more when they don’t have kids, but it’s not even close to what you’d get if they had children who grew up and joined the workforce. So women’s achievements in the economy are subsidized. Men pay roughly 60 to 75% of income taxes. Progressive tax codes mean the top earners, predominantly male, fund the vast majority of public infrastructure, universities, and social programs.

9:53 · Women get 60% of all higher education dollars because they are the majority of students on campus now. But if you look at fiscal return on that investment, governments get most of their money back from this smaller pool of male laborers, mostly because they make more money and they work more hours. So, it’s like a structural transfer where public services, education, and grants that enable women to enter and remain in the workforce are funded disproportionately by male tax dollars.

10:23 · So, in conclusion, the irony is that feminism has given us broken homes, fatherless children, rising mental illness, demographic decline, and a generation in which nearly a third of Gen Z was aborted before they could ever be born.

10:40 · The welfare state and the she economy that prop up this illusion of strong independent women will collapse precisely because the same policies that empower women into lower productivity roles have starved the next generation of highly skilled critical male workers that complex first world systems demand. Feminism has done more harm than good and the data is not subtle.

11:03 · Thank you very much for that opening [cheering] welcome. [applause] [applause] I’ve got the timer set for you. Not so aerodite. That was 6 minutes and 45 seconds. The floor is all yours. I’ll start it on your first word.

11:25 · Sure.

11:27 · Feminism, I’m sure you guys won’t be surprised by what I say, has done more good than harm. At its core, feminism is the extension of a simple moral principle. Women are full human beings entitled to the same basic dignity, liberty, legal protection, and opportunity as men. That principle is not foreign to the American tradition.

11:47 · This nation was built on lofty ideas rooted in Christian theology, in Roman law and Greek philosophy. From those traditions came our understanding of human dignity, citizenship, justice, and government under law. Feminism belongs within that inheritance. Once a society accepts that people possess inherent worth and that the law should protect their liberty, the question of women’s rights becomes unavoidable. That is why feminism is necessary. In a nation committed to free freedom, some form of feminism is also inevitable.

12:18 · Women did not begin asking for rights because a university, foundation, or political organization manufactured their dissatisfaction. They encountered the principles their civilization already possessed and asked for those principles to apply to them as well. At the most fundamental, the feminism I am defending is the empowerment of women and the promotion of femininity as something worthy of respect and social value. It does not require women to live in one approved way.

12:49 · It asks that women possess enough security and authority to build lives that reflect their talents, obligations, and convictions. It also insists that motherhood, care, and traditionally feminine contributions should not be dismissed as a lesser form of human achievement. There’s an important difference between protection and dependence. A woman whose security rests entirely upon the goodwill of a father or husband may be safe when that man is good. But human beings are fallible.

13:20 · As we all know, men can be cruel, negligent, absent, or irresponsible. A legal system should not assume that every woman will always have a benevolent man standing between her and disaster. The ability to own property, retain earnings, receive an education, participate in government, and leave a dangerous marriage are not indulgences. They are safeguards against the ordinary failures of human character. Feminism did not in invent abuse. It didn’t invent abandonment. It did not create unhappy marriages.

13:49 · It gave women greater power to survive circumstances that already existed. Nor did feminism suddenly cause women to begin working. Women have always worked. I’m sure Rachel will probably agree with me on this. Their labor took place on farms, inside family businesses, in factories, and within the home.

14:08 · [snorts] Poor women rarely had the luxury of avoiding work altogether. The major transformation was not simply that women entered the workforce. It was that more women could prepare for sustained careers. Education became an investment in a future rather than an accomplishment expected to end at marriage. Women could develop the talents that earlier societies often ignored or confined in a very narrow range of uses. Society gained enormously from that change. Women became doctors, scientists, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and public officials in far greater numbers.

14:41 · Their intelligence could serve institutions beyond the household without ceasing to benefit their families or communities. None of this means that every feminist has been smart or wise. Some feminists have treated motherhood as a burden rather than a vocation. Others have shown hostility towards marriage, religion, men, or femininity itself. I have no interest in defending every slogan produced under the feminist label. A movement that has existed for generation includes millions of people who will contain foolishness alongside those people.

15:11 · But that is not the question before us. The question is whether the broad historical movement towards women empowerment, legal equality, education, and political participation has produced more good than harm. I believe the answer is clearly yes. The anti-feminist case often gathers every modern social problem and places it at feminism’s feet. Divorce, failing fertility, loneliness, and declining happiness are treated as the predictable cost of women’s freedom. That explanation is far too simple.

15:41 · The same period contained enormous economic and technological upheaval. Industrialization alone altered the household entirely.

15:52 · Urbanization weakened older community structures. Contraception changed family planning. H planning housing became more expensive and the economy shifted away from manufacturing while globalization and secularization changed the character of public face. Feminism participated in the modern transformation but it did not independently cause everything that follows it. The fact that two developments occurred at the same time does not establish that one produced the other.

16:22 · We should consider the societies people most consistently choose to live in. The world’s most proper pro prosperous desirable nations generally possess strong legal institutions, broad access to education, political liberty, and substantial equality between men and women. It would be foolish to claim that feminism alone created their prosperity.

16:41 · Would be equally foolish to regard the relationship as meaningless. The nations most committed to human development tend to extend freedom and opportunity to women because both commitments arise from the same conviction. Human potential should be cultivated rather than needlessly suppressed.

17:02 · This is part of the triumphant nature of the human spirit. People want to learn and contribute. They want to build meaningful lives that they and their loved ones can live in. A society flourishes when it gives that spirit room to breathe. Great nations do not become great by permanently limiting half of their population. They become great by allowing talent and moral agency to serve the common good wherever they are found. Feminism, therefore, belongs with the broader American tradition of civil rights and equal protection.

17:30 · It reflects the belief that inherited hierarchy alone cannot justify domination. Choice matters because virtue requires agency. the ability to act otherwise. Obedience may reflect goodness, but it may also just reflect powerlessness. We cannot know which one it is when coercion has already decided the matter. The feminism I am defending tonight is not the claim that every difference between men and women is discrimination.

17:59 · It is the claim that women should be empowered and that femininity itself should not be treated as inferior and that being female should not disqualify someone from full participation in society. That principle has corrected real injustices. It has made women less vulnerable to abuse and it did. I’ll I’ll jump ahead.

18:21 · I actually want to extend Rachel an invitation. I’m curious if you’re open to this and you can say no. I think you’re one of the strongest anti-feminist debaters that is working today. I think I’m also probably one of the strongest defenders of feminism or hope you would grant me the same thing.

18:34 · We’re both intelligent women who have considered and examined many of the same questions and we’ve reached radically different conclusions and I want to understand why. I do not want this to become only a contest of statistics and and whatnot and I don’t want to get rid of the debate. However, I’d like to approach the conversation in a feminine way. Um I want time.

18:55 · Sure. Well, if you want, I can give you a little if you like a sentence.

18:59 · It’s like, sure. Rachel says yes. Go ahead.

19:02 · By that, I would like to approach it in a feminine way. And by that, I don’t mean that I want Rachel and I to sit here and paint her nails and talk about her feelings. Don’t worry. Okay, you’ll get your show. Okay. However, I mean treating the feelings beneath, the femininity, the things that drive us beneath as meaningful evidence for what we’re trying to protect. Because Rachel, you and I both want women to flourish.

19:20 · We genuinely do. And that to me seems like the proper place to begin.

19:27 · Thank you very much for that opening statement. That’s so erodite. [applause and cheering] With that, we’ll jump into the open dialogue. We’ll let this be as organic as you guys would like.

19:42 · So we’ll let you take it from here. I’ll only jump in if it gets really crazy.

19:46 · Okay.

19:46 · So, I’m actually very curious about your your relationship to feminism. Like, what got you interested in feminism and specifically concerns about feminism and its impacts on society? Like what personally in your life or ideologically? Well, that was a beautiful opening and I appreciate all the sentiments therein, but none of this addresses the fact that we are about to fall off a demographic cliff that will make all of these beautiful lofty sentiments mean absolutely nothing.

20:18 · Because, as you addressed in your opening, it’s not a coincidence that feminism did not exist until the industrial and technological revolutions. You need technology and first world living standards to have this idea that we can just push women into the workforce. Um, everyone can follow their dreams and do what their heart tells them to do and everybody should have choices and all that sort of thing.

20:42 · But if we don’t have enough men to run this first world standard of living, we will be like the only places in the world that are still below replacement birth rates, which would be like Africa, uh, Pakistan.

20:58 · That’s where we’re going to be if we don’t solve the demographic problem. So, as much as I would love to talk about how we feel and what got us into this, I’m concerned by the fact that I like air conditioning. I live in Texas, okay?

21:10 · I like power. I like infrastructure and we won’t have that if women don’t start producing the next generation of workers who can maintain the standard that allows women to even think about whether they want to have babies or become doctors.

21:26 · Okay. Yeah. If you want to just do the boy’s way, we can just do the boys way.

21:29 · I don’t think it’s inherently male to have concerns about the rational real world implications of what’s happening with [laughter] feminine.

21:37 · It’s a [clears throat] joke. Yeah. I don’t.

21:39 · Okay.

21:39 · So, let’s maybe get into the starting point then for you. So, at what point, what’s the period you think is most prolific for feminism really changing the she economy that you described? Is there a window of time?

21:50 · Would be the 1970s.

21:51 · What happened in the 1970s?

21:53 · I’m glad you asked. [laughter] You’re so welcome. We’re tight teaming this. 70s was we had just been through uh the Vietnam War which was very unpopular and extremely expensive and uh the US Treasury needed more income tax coming in and this was at the exact same time that the Rockefellers and the Fords created gender studies. Uh they passed Title 9 and started handing out college scholarships and and funding for women to go to college like Candy.

22:21 · And we saw uh over 20% increase in females in the workforce just in that decade alone. By the ‘9s, women were on par with men. And what happened at the same time as that is Roie Wade and the birth control pill. So women started and the gold standard getting removed. That one’s kind of important, too.

22:41 · What’s that?

22:41 · Well, the gold standard got removed as well.

22:44 · Sure. I don’t Well, that’s economically super important, right?

22:48 · It’s important, but I don’t mean it’s important. We fundamentally changed our relationship from the gold standard the petro dollar under Nixon in 1971.

22:55 · That’s not why women joined the economy.

22:57 · That’s why that might explain economic changes. No.

23:00 · No, it doesn’t.

23:01 · The gold standard because what you’re not understanding is it’s about the birth rate. It’s not that women working is a problem if they were still having 2.2 or 2.5 babies per woman. But when you tell women, “Hey, spend all your fertile years going to college and starting a career and don’t even think about settling down and having kids until you’re 31,” which is the average age that a woman is having her first child. Now, that’s a serious problem, and we have historical examples of countries who’ve gone through this.

23:28 · Russia is a great one. They made abortion legal and paid for in state hospitals under Lenin. And it was so bad, like the demographic cliff was so bad for Russia that by the time Stalin came to power, he had to roll all of that back. But because they were communists, they wanted to push women into the workforce. You need workers to have communism. Women needed to be working. And they tried to do women workers and pronatalism at the same time. It did not work. They never recover.

23:56 · Economies need workers, right? The most important u piece of of basically capital investment is human which is why you could you could also look at South Korea which is a very capitalist western style economy but has also been taken over by feminism and they have 0.7 births per woman right now. There’s not going to be a South Korea in the next 20 or 30 years if they don’t turn it around.

24:18 · I’m curious what’s the number one correlate to declining birth rates in a nation.

24:21 · Women’s access to higher education.

24:23 · Correct. Yes. Women’s access. It’s actually everyone’s access to higher education. So I’m curious, would you consider Saudi Arabia particularly feminist?

24:33 · Um not particularly feminist but no.

24:36 · Okay. So the Gulf States also have declining birth rates but feminism isn’t causing that. What’s happening there?

24:42 · Because they’ve started they’ve started Saudi Arabia famous for feminizing. Qatar famous for feminizing.

24:48 · They have started letting women work.

24:50 · They’ve started allowing things like birth control.

24:51 · Their birth rate has been declining for a long time. Actually, it’s below everybody. Yes. Everybody in first world economies where there’s urbanization, industrialization, as I explained, that’s what enables feminism.

25:02 · So, isn’t it urbanization that that we’re blaming here? Cuz I feel like there’s not until you push women into the workforce and they stop having kids. Again, if women were working as nurses and still having two and a half kids per woman, I would have no problem with it.

25:16 · But nothing you’re addressing tells me what we’re going to do about this. Well, nothing you’re pointing to says it all falls at the feet of feminism, right?

25:23 · What you’re pointing to right now, women stop having babies because of modernization through increased education.

25:30 · Saudi Arabia, I I I’m so sorry. As much as you might want to insist Saudi Arabia is feminist. It’s certainly not. In fact, do you know why women in Saudi Arabia are pushed into education?

25:38 · It increases their dowy value. That’s why because they it it’s like that sounds like an Islam problem. Uh well, Victoria, England did this as well where essentially they view proof of education as good genetic stock. So it makes that wife a more valuable woman. So right crisis in Victorian England.

25:55 · Well, the the in the thing that you have to disentangle here is why is Saudi Arabia having the same problems that you’re falling at the feet of feminiz feminism and I’m saying it looks more like modernization might be the problem here. And Saudi Arabia certainly has both modernization but it certainly doesn’t have feminism. So you’re going to have to answer that question.

26:13 · The CDC and the United Nations both say that the main coralate for declining birth rates is sending women to college and sending them to work. I didn’t disagree with that.

26:22 · As a mother of feminism, as a mother of five, you cannot have more than maybe one child and work full-time because you have to outsource motherhood to daycare, which is expensive. What do you mean? Why?

26:35 · Why do we have the runaway cost issues in America?

26:38 · Runaway what?

26:39 · Cost issues in America. It’s not runaway cost issues. It’s the fact that it’s not affordable right now.

26:45 · You can’t make daycare cheap enough for it to offset the cost of a woman working full-time. That’s math.

26:52 · Uh how are you going to make daycare cheap enough that a woman can have five babies and work a full-time job? And why would you want that?

27:00 · Well, why don’t we want mothers any mothers here love having to send their kids to be raised by someone else all day? But the question again you can narrativeize but the question I’m actually trying to pose you and get an answer to is what changed in the 70s as you claim where

27:16 · women started have becoming dual income earners what changed in families what was going on and you were like the gold standard are you asking that doesn’t matter no I’m telling you exactly what happened and this is not me this is the US department of labor the US department of commerce all the sources in my slides say that in the 70s the reason was because we had a huge income tax defic deficit because of the Vietnam War. At the same time that they had passed birth control legislation, making it legal and not only that, making it free and cheap and socially acceptable, we had Roie Wade, now everybody can get an abortion.

27:50 · And at the same time, you start pushing through the culture through a massive propaganda campaign through things like uh remember the Steepford Wives movies, remember the Mary Tyler Moore show? the 70s were just saturated with girl boss empowerment stuff and I was born in 1980 with Shirro and Madonna and you know telling women that motherhood is a ball and chain that the smart girls go to college and have their own money and they don’t need a man. So you’ve got this cultural propaganda campaign.

28:17 · You’ve got government money subsidizing college which is why it’s so expensive by the way.

28:22 · And then you’ve got birth control and abortion. So the trend becomes go get your bag, go get your career. Men are icky and bad. They’re going to abuse you. Children are a ball and chain that are going to hold you back. You need to go to work.

28:35 · And that’s what women do. They still haven’t gotten an answer to the Gulf States. Seems like that one is just like Still haven’t gotten an answer to how you’re going to feminism with no more babies.

28:44 · Rachel, you have to let me talk for us to have a conversation. Right. I’m I’m letting you speak. Give me some space to speak as well. Right. So let’s talk a little bit about the 70s. All right.

28:54 · Go ahead, Kyla.

28:55 · Oh, if if you want Rachel to just monologue, I can just sit here if you want, but if you want the debate and show, I have to participate, too. So, let’s talk a little bit about the 70s.

29:03 · So, the 70s is where what did you say?

29:05 · What percentage increase?

29:07 · Uh, it was something over 20% until 20%. So, 70s to what? What was the 20% point? Was it the ‘9s, 2000?

29:14 · No, just in the 70s alone, I believe it went up. Female labor force participation went way up in the 70s. the biggest jump and then it continued in the 80s and ‘9s and now we have about equal numbers.

29:26 · So I’m going to do I’m going to show you a beautiful thing that we can do in the world. Okay, this is a graph. This is a very very wonderful graph that makes your point look true. This is your point. Okay, so we’ve got 1975 we’ve got 39%. It’s from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Okay, you’re going to love it. And by 1990s we have that almost 20% jump to 58%. And look how steep that looks. very spooky spooky graph. The issue with cherrypicked data is that if you zoom out and include all data that’s relevant, suddenly spooky lines don’t look so spooky.

29:58 · In the 70s, nothing magically happened at all. Actually, we had a consistent trend of women since the 1950s going into workplace, particularly married women, because unmarried women always participate in the workforce. If you actually want a spooky graph with a big jump, the major point when women entered the workforce at astronomical numbers, there’s a 10% leap in like four years is this graph. It was World War II. This is the this is the only notable moment.

30:30 · If you’ll notice on this graph, it’s all the same trend line. So, if you’re going to blame everything, hold on, let me finish my thought, then you can attack it. If you’re going to blame everything from 1970s forward, you’re going to have a tough time because the data shows that it’s the identical trend since the 1940s. And if you zoom out 200 years, you get this graph, which is a U.

30:53 · So once you actually look at the whole comprehensive story, your narrative falls apart really quickly because nothing remarkable happened in the 1970s except for one thing. And I’m curious if you know what actually happened in the 1970s. Well, instead of playing pop quiz, Kyla, first of all, here’s here’s my [laughter] here’s so good.

31:14 · It’s just your It’s just your typical debate move.

31:17 · I just want to be clear. If you don’t know what happened to this, what do you think about this? What happened here? Okay, first I just want to be very clear before we get to the person.

31:25 · We’re going to take turns.

31:26 · Well, if we’re going to get to the personal insults, I’m just going to quickly respond.

31:29 · I didn’t insult you. I just pointed out that strategy compliment is your opponent. It’s something you do in every debate. So, thank you. I the the front loing of saying my opponent Kylo will just happen to know way more technological information to the actual point. I know you wanted to have a girl debate, but I would like to stick to No, you said the boy debate. So, here we are, baby girl. You want the berry debate? We’re here.

31:52 · Yeah, we’re doing it. What happened?

31:55 · So, what happened in the 1970s? Again, so magical.

32:00 · What happened after World War II?

32:01 · What happened?

32:02 · All those women who went to work, what did they do? Did they go back home?

32:06 · Uh, yes, they did. They went back 5% and then look, the same line of best fit from before World War II because you know what made women go back into workplace? [snorts] Access to new technologies that made it easier to go back to the workplace.

32:21 · Of course, I already I you haven’t heard me say this the three times I’ve heard it. Industrialization and technology allowed for this. Yes, obviously. That doesn’t address my point. that doesn’t address the point of what you’re going to do about the demographic cliff we’re about to about to fall off of.

32:40 · Do you understand how you can possibly have feminism in a world you’re if you’re going to keep interrupting me, I’ll just ask for times.

32:48 · I’ll just I’ll ask my question after if I if I interrupt you, it’s a big problem. But apparently I can’t speak. I need to participate in order for this to be a conversation. Kyla, ideally. Yeah.

32:58 · So when you monologue for five minutes straight. Yeah. Typically I need none of this. None of we don’t have to spend 40 minutes on what happened in this decade or why women worked. The point of certainly don’t want to again the point of everything we’re talking about here is that Yes. Thanks, James.

33:14 · Nothing you’re saying addresses the fact that we are about to have a collapse of our first world standard of living. This economy in the west and it’s it’s ubiquitous across all western nations.

33:26 · In fact, it’s so congruent across all of them that it’s kind of crazy. Like, uh, Statistics Canada has the same GP numbers, uh, GDP numbers that the United States has, that Australia has, that Western Europe has, which is when you push women to go to college and have careers and have their own money and be financially independent, they listen and they do that and they say, “If that’s what’s expected, I’m not going to have kids.” Now again, we can go back and prove this is what happened in Russia.

33:56 · And it didn’t matter how many pro-natalist campaigns they had. Women said, “If I got to work full-time, I can’t have three or four kids. It doesn’t work.” You look at South Korea, same thing. They don’t have communism. They don’t have pronatalism. It’s a capitalist western style economy and they can’t even reproduce the Korean woman.

34:17 · It’s a serious problem that arguing over the gold standard of the 70s or what or women should have choices. First of all, they’ve always had choices. Second of all, just if you don’t address this problem, you can kiss feminism goodbye. You won’t have it anymore. It won’t exist.

34:33 · There’s this really famous um actually you introduced me to this researcher, Joseph Miller, because you cite him a few times. Um there’s a great uh conversation that the anti-suffragettes had where they insisted that oh by god if the feminist you know if all this happens the world is going to collapse.

34:48 · People have been insisting that the world is going to collapse in the next 10 years. I mean they’re like climate people as well were insisting that we were going to like die in the next 10 years as well. It’s just it’s just fear-mongering that’s not typically based in reality. Now I know you want to run away from counter like information that is disisconfirming of your narrative but you still need to deal with the Gulf States, right? Qatar having declining birth rate. It’s not feminism.

35:11 · Is that a first world country you want to live in?

35:14 · Uh, no. I want to live here which has feminism and a booming GDP and like one of the best countries on the earth. That’s why I’m here.

35:20 · Well, what are what are we going what are we going to do? Yeah, it’s great. It’s great right now, but um your field of psychology that you got your degree in is so oversaturated. We have and it’s almost all women. It’s like 80% women. Not going to deal with the golf though. We’re just going to run from that one. I’ll just I’ll write it down.

35:40 · You have to hear a roll. Add a roll. Add a roll.

35:45 · Um, good one.

35:47 · It does it doesn’t address it doesn’t address the problem that you have, which is the paradox of pushing women into work and telling them to be career women like you and then they don’t have children. How are you going to perpetuate the next generation? Do you realize that the complex systems first world economies rely on can only suffer about a 5% loss of skilled male workers?

36:11 · And right now in this country and all across the West, we have all of the Gen X and Boomer men who know how to run complex uh water sewage treatment centers, keep the power grid up and running. Like these are highly skilled thing. You can’t just get someone from Pakistan, put them in a six-week course or whatever and and make them a power lineman. You can’t do that. These men are not replaceable. We have to start having babies or or you’re going to have short-term boom. That’s what we’ve got now. At the expense of long-term stability. And it’s not fear-mongering.

36:44 · It’s math. The World Health Organization, the UN, and Elon Musk talk about it all the time. Like, hey, we’re already seeing supply chain shortages. We’re already seeing problems in keeping up the infrastructure. Trump ran on the fact that most Western nations like including the US have [ __ ] infrastructure. We have uh water lines in LA that are 100 years old blowing up all over the place. What? Six or seven of them in the last two weeks.

37:09 · Okay.

37:09 · I we have to do like a timer at this point. I don’t even if you want I want to talk and if we want to talk to each other, we have to go point by point. Like if you monologue at me for five minutes straight with multiple points, they’re all valid points and I want to talk to you about one question. How are you going to solve the birth rate crisis?

37:27 · Answer mine first.

37:28 · There’s no future without How do you How do you reconcile the fact that you’re claiming in the 1970s feminism infused a bunch of women to the workplace, but we actually see the largest boom of women Hold on. I’m not done. I’m not done. The largest the largest boom of women entering the workplace is right before the golden age of capitalism in America. Right? That’s what we see when the American currency becomes the gold world reserve currency.

37:55 · So if you want to blame it at the 1970s, my question to you again is what actually magically happened because based on all of the actual data, nothing transformative happened. Manufacturing was starting to die by the 1950s. Right?

38:09 · We have the Triffin dilemma which is a much better understanding of if you don’t know the word just ask. Just saying. Okay? The Triffin dilemma is a huge issue that causes massive trade deficits for America and it causes an issue where people are always going to want to invest in America because frankly we’re the best. We’re the best at everything. So again, if you’re going to say it’s the 1970s, that’s a straw man.

38:34 · It’s not a straw man to say that you said the 1970s is when this took off. The economy happened no that was not the in any way a pillar or lynch pin of my argument.

38:45 · So it’s the 1950s. No. Birth rates have declined since industrialization.

38:50 · You’re right. Like the 18 accelerated.

38:52 · Wait, isn’t that like the 1870s?

38:57 · I have I have already Maybe you mean those 70s.

39:00 · Okay. When she’s done, then I’ll talk.

39:02 · All right. I do want to make sure there’s not too much interrupting. So, let’s do a game. We both talk for two minutes at a time. We’ll have timers.

39:09 · How about that?

39:10 · So, condescending.

39:11 · I I appreciate that. I’m okay with keeping it organic as long as there’s not too much interrupting.

39:16 · Mrs. Turner, is it my turn to speak? Can I talk a teacher, please?

39:20 · As a because you’re the only person actually being sane right now. If she talks for seven minutes straight with multiple points.

39:26 · Let’s do two minutes. It’s fine. I have Sure. I just want to Let’s go point by point.

39:29 · All right. You guys agree on that?

39:31 · That’s progress. All right.

39:34 · You guys You’re welcome to interrupt me.

39:37 · Setting the timer. Give me one second.

39:39 · And Rachel, you want to go first?

39:41 · Sure.

39:41 · Okay. So the the whole I you’re totally fighting a straw man. You completely made up this idea that my whole argument rests on something fundamental changing in the 70s. I’m grant I’ll just grant everything you said. Agria’s trillemma whatever you want.

39:58 · Birth rates have been on the decline since industrialization. I didn’t say that no women ever worked before the 70s. I said that’s the point where it really accelerated and took off and became mainstream totally socially acceptable the norm. Now, if you’re a stay at home mom, that’s the weird creepy thing. That’s when that changed.

40:15 · Doesn’t matter. It started in the 1800s with industrialization, urbanization, and women going to work. Yes, that’s when the birth rates began to decline.

40:26 · And this sexual liberation stuff, whether it’s no fault divorce, birth control pills, abortion, the overall thing, and the only thing that matters in this argument is what are we going to do about demographics? Because it doesn’t matter what they’re doing in Saudi Arabia. It doesn’t matter when the gold standard happened. It doesn’t matter when or how women got into the workforce.

40:46 · We are now in a position where all western nations are in the exact same boat that when you shove all the women into the workforce and tell them this is what you need to be doing and focusing on and you need a two-income household now to survive, no one has babies. Do you think that that’s not going to be a problem?

41:05 · I think that the Yeah, I think that we absolutely Kyla, just to be clear, I’m going to give you a full two minutes. If you want to use all of it, you can. Otherwise, you can kick it back to her when you want.

41:12 · Here’s what I’ll say. Let’s just talk.

41:14 · If I start listing off like a bunch of points, just interrupt me. It’s pretty simple.

41:19 · I don’t know, guys. It’s I know conversations are hard for like the autism in the room, but that’s how they going back. It was your idea to do two minutes on it. Sure, I’ll take two minutes precisely. Sure, we can do that. It’s going to be a terrible conversation.

41:31 · Well, no. What I’m saying is like Rachel took a minute and 40 or so and then she let you go for your 2 minutes. If you want to use a minute, I want 10 seconds.

41:42 · Okay.

41:44 · Oh, I know. I’m so fast.

41:45 · All right, but I’m gonna kick it over to Rachel to use two minutes.

41:48 · You just said industrialization is when women started going to work. That’s false. Industrialization is women stopped going to work. That’s when women workforce participation declined in the 1800s. What? Okay. So, hard for your narrative.

42:02 · It’s no whim. When you talk about women working, nobody thinks that working on your family farm or in your family business with your husband and your dad and everyone, nobody thinks when we say women going to work, we’re talking about dad leaves the house in the morning and goes to his place of business. Mom leaves her house in the morning, goes to her place of business, and the kids get sent to daycare or public school. That’s new. That’s post-industrial. Nobody thinks that agrarian pre-industrial society where you’re working the farmstead with your husband is women going to work.

42:32 · They were having seven babies on average before industrialization per woman. That was fine. Even post-industrialization could have been possibly sustainable had we not introduced sexual liberation, sending women to college, delaying the first birth until you’re 31. That is doom. It’s demographic doom. And you don’t have a way out of it. And you don’t have an answer for it. Which is why you want to talk about anything else.

42:59 · Speaking of wanting to talk about anything else, still haven’t gotten an answer to the 1970s question, which again I granted it.

43:05 · You You can laugh. I granted it.

43:07 · It’s It is a hinge point of your narrative.

43:09 · It’s not. I granted it. I asked you when completely right about the 70s. I just grant you the whole point for you. Now, what are you going to do about demographics?

43:21 · Just so the speakers can be heard, I do need you to keep it quiet in the audience. Is not soight. You have two minutes if you want to use it.

43:30 · Otherwise, we get back we kick it back to Rachel for two minutes.

43:33 · No, I’ll use my two minutes.

43:34 · Okay.

43:35 · Um, so the Gulf States again, so the reason why you’re acting like this isn’t relative at all is because it’s bad for your narrative, right? For example, Japan. Do you think that Japan was like a highly feminist country?

43:47 · Uh, yes. It’s highly modern and industrial and women are absolutely expected to work in Japan.

43:53 · Post 1970s specifically is when that feminist infusion really came out. I don’t know.

43:57 · I’m not pick I’m not sure exact Japan doesn’t matter to my argument at all.

44:04 · If we want to stick with two minutes if your entire narrative if you’re Kyla if you’re asking her questions that she two minutes per question.

44:11 · It’s kind of pushing back the twominut to her is do you want to go with the two minutes?

44:16 · So if I ask her one question now you’re going to give her two minutes. That’s what we want to do.

44:19 · It’s your idea Kyla. It’s Rachel Rachel deferred to you and she accepted your idea of two minute back and forth.

44:26 · Thank you, James. This is silly. Um, sure. I guess every question I ask you, you get two minutes. That seems ridiculous, but if that’s how you want to moderate things, go off.

44:34 · Was it you who asked for twominut responses sardonically? Yes.

44:38 · And Rachel deferred to you and said she’s okay with it. So, that’s what we’re doing.

44:42 · Okay.

44:43 · If you want if you want, you can say, “Hey, can we do 60-second responses so it’s shorter?” But you already brought up the two-minute response.

44:51 · Let’s talk about the 1970s since you’re not going to answer the question and your narrative does hinged on it. Your argument is fundamentally this. In the 1970s, in fact, I believe your quote was in the 1970s something changed and it wasn’t these various economic factors that we have to give her a chance.

45:10 · Go ahead, Kyla.

45:11 · I didn’t say that here, but I said that on Joe Rogan.

45:13 · Correct. You also said it here.

45:15 · All right, Kyla, go ahead. Finish your point. Okay. In the 1970s, which is what you hinged it to in this conversation when I asked you what time feminism started infusing women into the workforce and the she economy began, you did say that in the 1970s, the thing that you actually think that was magical that happened is called the quiet revolution. That’s what you’re citing.

45:36 · Claudia Golden’s work, which by the way, I chatted to her before this conversation. She loves your book, by the way. Um Claudia Golden discovered and coined the term the quiet revolution which in the late 1970s there was a revolution not in an infusion of women in the workplace in the 70s that was the same since the 40s. It’s been a consistent progressive trundle up. What was different is women’s relationship to work.

46:01 · Prethe the quiet revolution work was temporary acute and lowkilled for women because they understood they would have to go home and take care of kids.

46:11 · after the 1970s, they went, I think I could get an education and get long-term career prospects. So, that’s what’s changed in the 1970s that you’re blaming all of the economic downturn, which I agree there’s a lot of economic problems on which is not feminism. The 1970s, the economic problems that started there is connected to the gold standard and the Triffin dilemma.

46:34 · All right, we can kick it back to Rachel. Both speakers have been told by the audience to shut up. So Bob, Bob, if you can do me a favor, come to the front. Is the next time someone does something like that, we’re going to take them out of here, regardless of which speaker they’re saying it to. [applause] All right, Rachel, two minutes.

46:59 · So it wouldn’t matter to me and to my argument whatsoever if Martians came down in 1910 and told the women to go join the workforce and that’s when it happened or how it happened or why. It doesn’t matter to my argument one bit. How, when, or why. It just matters that in every nation on planet Earth when you send all the women into the workforce in huge numbers, they stop having kids. And what happens is what happened to Russia.

47:30 · what happened to China, what happened to South Korea, which is you don’t have a future anymore. There is no next generation to continue on. There is no future if you don’t show up for it. So if you think you can continue this first world industrialized type of economy that you moved here for because you love the United States, you said we have problems. I agree. I’m not blaming like economic problems on women.

47:54 · I’m saying, well, it’s extremely inefficient and it’s basically all propped up by men’s tax dollars, as I proved in my opening, but it wouldn’t matter. Like, I I could just grant everything you’re saying. It wouldn’t affect my argument whatsoever because we still have this problem which is do you want a future with human beings in it or do you want more crumble cookies and more psychologists and more interior designers at the cost of a

48:22 · future generation that can maintain first world infrastructure and complex systems that feminism relies on.

48:29 · Gotcha.

48:30 · I want you to answer that question.

48:33 · [applause] So, if your theory of everything, of all these problems that you’ve outlined, and I agree, a lot of these are legitimate problems. If your theory of everything is to put it at the feet of feminism, as you did in your intro statement, I’m going to say to you, I think things are probably a little more complex than you’re giving it granted for. For example, as we’ve already agreed, although I think you forgot, it’s not when you send women into the workforce that birth rates decline. It’s education, as we’ve already talked about.

49:03 · But again, a really big kink in your armor for that narrative is that Gulf states don’t have feminism, but they do have declining birth rates and they don’t typically let women proudly participate in the workforce. So, what’s going on in Gulf States? And the major difference is women getting education.

49:23 · Now, if you want to say that women getting education is feminism, I guess my prescription, my question would be what your prescription is that we just don’t educate women at all. Because when you want to talk actually about e economy, I would totally grant to you that men are the power engines of an economy in every single country. And I think that that’s awesome. And I think that it’s sad that men, I think, oftentimes don’t get the credit that maybe deserve for their ingenuity into the GDP engine.

49:47 · But the reality of economics is that what matters most for a country is that you are economically competitive against other global nations. Would you agree that the relative competitiveness is what matters when we’re talking about GDP?

50:07 · Okay. So, I’ll just grant everything you said there. Simone devouis famously said in an interview with uh Betty Fdan that if we allow women the choice, most of them are going to want to stay home and have babies. I’m paraphrasing. Which is why she said we can’t allow that. We shouldn’t allow that. we should tell them that they have to go to work, which is what the CCP did. That’s what the Soviets did. That’s what a lot of the Asian nations have done. They’ve said what like China had a one child policy because they were like, you’ve been you ladies need to be working, right?

50:38 · What we see every time is that birth rates crash and those governments have to correct course. All of them have had to try and what happens is it doesn’t work.

50:50 · You’ve you’ve created an economy that depends on two incomes that depends on women working like you said if it’s the most important thing to be competitive in the global market and these countries are having all their females work then we got to do that too and what I said in my opening is we’re trading long-term stability for short-term gains and it’s coming back right now to bite us in the ass. So yes, it’s very complex but how do we make babies and what are we educating women for? Like when I say education, I have no college degree. I went to cosmetology school.

51:20 · Yet here I am with a best-selling book debating on a world stage doing all kinds of things. But I did it after raising five human beings that are going to go off into the future [applause] and contribute. So I’m not now nor have I ever been making the case that women can’t be learn be educated. I’m self-educated.

51:48 · Uh, we have the internet now. We have more access to information than ever before in history. What we don’t need to do is send women to a university, saddled them with an average of $60,000 in debt, expect them to start a career, and then they don’t even start a family until they’re 31 and it’s almost too late.

52:04 · Sure, that’s backwards. So, the reason why people invest in early on education is it dominantly comes from, again, capitalism and modernization. Because what you do early on in life is going to have the most net returns. Right?

52:17 · Anybody who knows anything about investment knows this, right? If you as a young person invest in education early and you are guaranteed a higher income, that will have net returns for your whole life longer. The reason why men and women are choosing to get married later is frankly because of what we’ve taught them with the Protestant work ethic and being good stewards of their family and their children. The reality is I’m super happy that you’ve been really successful, right? You and Andrew are world level. You’ve got I think you have a massive income at this point, right?

52:46 · That your story isn’t everyone’s story, and it can’t be because not everyone can be a best-selling author or a world traveling debater. The reality is that a lot of women who opt for the postponing education typically never go back to it. They never actually end up achieving. And it’s really really hard actually to be 36, no background of education, you haven’t worked in years to try to vive for now career prospects that will be sufficient enough to fund you and your child.

53:14 · I agree that the dual out income issue poses the biggest issue for families and it poses a problem for men and for women. And the reason that that’s happening isn’t feminism at all. It’s runaway inflation, right? It is dominantly low uh it’s called the K-shaped economy, right? You have people who are lower income, they have less ability to negotiate wages because it is actually more profitable for businesses to offshore manufacturing because of the Triffin dilemma.

53:44 · If you can build a $2 toy and you can build it in Vietnam for 50 cents, but in America because workers are more educated and expect higher income and their dollar is worth more, you unfortunately have to offshort. It’s more effective. That’s why manufacturing left. It’s not feminism.

54:04 · Well, a lot of early feminists wrote a lot about how once we achieved full Marxism and communism because feminism is there’s a capitalist side. That’s what my first book was about. But the second one is about the Marxist communist side which wanted to destroy the family so that we could have women workers and we could have communally raised children where all of everybody’s loyalty is to the state um and nobody can pass down private property or anything like that.

54:30 · When you when you send all the women to work early and you tell them they have to go to college and they uh invest all of their fertile years, those feminists over 100 years ago saw that this was going to be a problem and they said in the future our main obstacle is going to be biology. We’re going to have to overcome biology.

54:50 · We’re going to have to have transgenderism. We’re going to have to have artificial wombs. We’re going to need some way of dealing with the demographic cliff that’s caused by pushing mothers out of motherhood and into the workforce because you can’t do both. Motherhood is not a nights and weekends gig that you do when you have time and you’re not at work. It’s a full-time job that deserves full-time attention.

55:13 · And there’s never going to be a way around that unless you do want everybody do to do the Dave Rubin thing and, you know, just buy designer babies and we’ll just outsource wombs, we’ll outsource daycare, you know, uh, and by the way, who’s doing that? Just other women. So for you and I, if we want to have kids, our privilege of going to work means some other random woman who doesn’t care about our child is now going to be raising them for 11 or 12 bucks an hour. What about her? Is that liberating and empowering for her?

55:42 · Is it liberating and empowering for me to spend all day at work and not see my child take their first steps? Or does it make more sense to tell women, hey, look, you can do a lot in this life. There’s a lot of living after 40, but you know, focus on family first. Find your husband, build your family, grow together. Your husband’s income will grow as your family grows.

56:06 · And then after that, there is a ton of stuff that you can do there. There’s all all kinds of other options.

56:12 · Starting to sound like a Marxist socialist, Rachel.

56:17 · So, I’ll be the first to grant you that the way that America has its orientation towards mothers, particularly within like capitalism and the way that we, for example, don’t give them any maternity leave. I think in many states it’s like two weeks here, which is crazy, right?

56:31 · There’s very little tax credit incentives to make having a family more affordable for the common man, right? So there are many things that I think the government can and should do to make it so that family rearing is more affordable. The reality though that you’re prescribing for people of the young girl who’s at 19, stays home, gets married, has kids. Number one, the reality is that those marriages are the most likely to dissolve. It’s the highest divorce rate group is young people getting married.

56:56 · Second of all, the reality is that that young man, he basically will have to sacrifice if he even wants to begin to having any amount of income to be able to afford his five babies, for example. The reality is that man is going to entirely sacrifice his fatherhood, right? How many men here work more than 40 hours a week already?

57:22 · I believe you. Yeah.

57:24 · Yeah. How many of you work more than 50?

57:28 · More than 50 hours.

57:29 · More.

57:30 · More than 50. Yeah, you sir too. 60. We’re got an auction. 80. 80. Okay.

57:34 · Yeah. Men work so much. They work so much. And your prescription is that they for they miss their childhood’s first steps. They miss talking to their kids. They miss fatherhood because they’re attached to their GDP output to provide for their family because mom shouldn’t work and shouldn’t work for an economically viable option. That’s ridiculous, right?

57:57 · That’s actually telling young men, abandon your children for the next 10 years until you’ve made it. It is.

58:04 · All right.

58:07 · [applause] I agree. That’s very bad. It’s very bad for Rachel to do to men.

58:13 · All right.

58:14 · I’ve miscarried twice, but nice try.

58:16 · Relax. Relax.

58:17 · Didn’t stick as well as you hoped it would. Hey, go ahead. Go ahead, Rachel. Two minutes. All right. In the back. Keep it down.

58:24 · Are they going to be exited or just the ones that are heckling the other way?

58:28 · [clears throat] I mean, he said weird stuff about my children. It’s kind of weird.

58:32 · Is that what he said?

58:33 · Yeah. I made some comment about me not having children.

58:35 · Bob, can you find them?

58:36 · Listen, you we don’t need to make any of this personal, guys. Totally unnecessary.

58:41 · It’s I I care about the arguments and the world views.

58:44 · I miscarried, but thank you for your concern.

58:46 · Help us help us find that person. We’re going to walk them out.

58:51 · is folks.

58:54 · Sorry about that, Kyla. I honestly I I thought it was like they were agreeing with you. I didn’t hear what they said. So, I agree with you.

59:01 · Yeah.

59:01 · Folks, don’t bring up people’s families. And again, if it’s I want to be easygoing, so if it’s like something playful and you agree or something like I’m not going to flip out, but if it is malevolent toward one of the speakers and we’re just going to take you out right now. So, uh who’s two minute? Go ahead, Rachel. So, Elizabeth Warren of all people wrote a book called The Two Income Trap.

59:23 · And there’s a reason why you could still post-industrialization and post technological revolution have a janitor who could support a family of six or something like that on a single income and now you can’t. Yes, there’s lots of economic factors, but the biggest one and the one that’s different than every other economic downturn throughout all of history is that when you push and and this is proponents of feminism actually say this.

59:49 · They say, “Oh, it’s great when you send all the women and the moms to work, you get um this much higher luxury standard of living, you get a higher GDP.” But they’ll also admit that this does create a reliance on that. So, we’re building sectors of the she economy around things like education. Women dominate healthcare and education over every other type of job. And then every everything else is like cottage industry stuff like Etsy. Like I have an Etsy shop and I have a brownie shop.

1:00:16 · You guys see like the 5,000 different cake and cookie shops that are in every single mall now. It’s like how many of these do we need?

1:00:24 · We we started offshoring all of our, you know, manufacturing and all of that. This is all bad stuff. But it was made possible. It was made possible by pushing all the women. Now we have all this new labor. This was what the big industrialists of the guilded age did.

1:00:40 · Get the women into the factories, pay them cheap labor, like you said. This was the beginning. Then you pass the income tax. Now we’re taxing two people in the household instead of just one.

1:00:49 · Then we pass compulsory education systems. Now you have to send your child to public school and you have to pay the taxes for that, too. So the the net result of all of these things coming together and creating this new great society is the daddy is your government now or the government’s your daddy now.

1:01:05 · Sorry I switched it. The government’s your daddy now. And all those men who just raised their hand who work 50 60 hours a week. How many of you would prefer your wife to go to work and your children to be raised in daycare so that you can work less?

1:01:19 · None.

1:01:20 · None.

1:01:20 · Of course not.

1:01:21 · Exactly.

1:01:21 · So again, my they prefer to be home with their kids as well. I suspect they would probably prefer to be able to know your kid’s first words. You don’t want to watch your kid walk for the first time. You don’t want to be there. You just want it on filmed footage cuz you’re at work.

1:01:35 · Andrew worked 60 70 hour weeks for 12 years and still was a very uh you know integral part of the kids life.

1:01:42 · Well, the issue is it’s not a critique of dads and saying that you guys are bad dads. I think you guys are probably excellent dads who love your kids and in fact you’re working to provide for your kids. But this idea that mom stays home and dad works, it is denying you guys the ability to spend time with your children. You are trading it. Do you know what the number one regret of all men in hospice? Do you know what the number one regret is of all men in hospice? Not spending enough time with their kids. It is.

1:02:08 · And the reason why is because they are told, particularly from this side, that you’re not a good enough man if you’re not solely providing for your family. Even though the reality is that the corporate elites at the top have made it damn near impossible for you to do so on one income. What is upper upper uh middle class right now. I think it’s like n it’s like $93,000 in certain states. That’s a lot of money, right? A lot for one person.

1:02:35 · And the reality is you guys have almost no negotiating wage power. mostly because we’re flooding things with like reduction of jobs through AI and also because again of this expectation that you are paying the cost of fatherhood so moms get motherhood and I don’t love either of these trade-offs. What I want is a situation where families can flourish but it’s not feminism. It’s not some simple small thing. It’s so much more complicated than that.

1:03:03 · And if we don’t have the real conversations about the people pitting us against each other while they’re raking in millions and billions, trillions, I think now at the top, we’re never going to solve this issue. We’re just going to keep pointing at men and pointing at women and being like, “It’s all each other’s fault.”

1:03:19 · It’s like, it’s not. It’s like it’s it’s bad antitrust law and a K-shaped economy that’s [ __ ] with all of us. I agree with the problems you outline. It’s not good. It is a problem, but it’s not feminism.

1:03:34 · [applause] All right. So, you might remember in my opening how I said that onethird of all American men are not in the workforce.

1:03:46 · It’s a historic low male participation rate. Do you know why? It’s not just automation. It’s that most of these men have no prospect of marriage or family that they can see. And so they don’t see any point and they’re going to stay at home and live in mom’s basement and play video games where they can at least pretend to be winning the game of life.

1:04:07 · Men need challenge. They need to be able to go out into the world and overcome and become who they are. That’s what being a man is. And when you send all the women to work and tell them don’t get married, that’s dangerous. You’ll get abused, which by the way is a total myth and a complete lie. All we did with No Fault Divorce was shift the pool of abuse from married women to women living with their boyfriend. You are 40% more likely to be abused in a cohabitative relationship than you are if you’re a married woman. And what has happened is there’s no true solutions.

1:04:38 · This pie in the sky like, oh, we’ll just have UBI and socialism and then everyone can stay home with the kids and everybody can just work part-time. Again, if you value this first world like high standard of living, that’s not going to happen without the men that go out there and and make it happen.

1:04:55 · And everything you enjoy about this first world standard of living was built by men who were willing to risk death to get the girl and have the family and and go out there and risk something and build great things that took multiple generations to build for their future, for their children. And if you’re not going to give them children and you’re not going to marry them, they have no incentive to do that. That’s where the problem is.

1:05:21 · And you still haven’t addressed it. [applause] [applause] Sure. So, uh, lots lots to tackle there.

1:05:35 · Onethird of men are not in the workplace anymore. Isn’t the GDP still going up?

1:05:39 · So if if men are the most important for that and they’re the highest output and women are filling in all the spots, why is our GDP still increasing while men’s workplace participation is decreasing?

1:05:48 · Is that maybe because women are able to also be efficient in the workplace potentially and and and accommodate for some of these things?

1:05:55 · We’re not doing the two minutes anymore.

1:05:57 · No, it’s there’s a lag. There’s a lag with birth rate, too.

1:06:01 · I’ll defer to you, Rachel, because Sure. Well, I’ll just answer this one quickly. It’s something that a lot of people don’t understand about demographics. You can have below replacement rates for quite a long time before you all of a sudden hit that’s why they call it a cliff because it’ll look like oh and this is why people say oh we’re actually overpop populated there’s too many people and uh the the you know population is still growing.

1:06:24 · It’s an actual delayed thing where it keeps growing and then all of a sudden it goes bam and it hits like this low.

1:06:31 · And again, I have graphs on my phone I wasn’t able to put on there, but if you look at Russia, South Korea, China, places that have tried this, that’s exactly what you see with their birth rate. It’ll go up up up and then it’ll sharp downturn and then they try to get it back up and it never recovers. So, it’s like a snowball effect. So, yes, GDP is still going up for now. We have maybe 30 to 50 years before we hit serious trouble that we might not recover from for like many generations.

1:07:01 · Maybe. I’m sure you don’t have a single source for that claim.

1:07:04 · You just said look at look at South Korea. Look at China. Look at Russia.

1:07:07 · Well, that would be great if you would tackle the Gulf States. But again, a really big problem with your narrative that you’re pushing here. A big problem with the narratives that you’re pushing here is that the Gulf States are not letting women participate by and large. They are getting increasingly educated and yet their birth rate is still declining.

1:07:23 · years behind us and their GDP is booming and growing because to be honest I will tell you why it’s booming. The reason why it’s booming is because rather than allowing women to participate in the workforce at all in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, what they do is mass migration. They bring in a whole bunch of people particularly from like Trinidad and Tobago. They bring in all of these low-wage workers that they treat as secondass citizens to prop up their economy so that they can keep doing these things. So, if you want to get women out of the workforce, you are going to have to fill it with something else. And it’s not just going to be just men.

1:07:54 · The reality is, especially if it’s a 50-year problem, you’re creating an acute crisis where you will absolutely need to just bring in way more mass migration to replace all of this. But that that’s just the reality of what you’re prescribing for people, right? So, again, birth rate going down, I agree, not great. We should try probably try to fix that. But the conversation is about feminism, and you keep insisting it’s feminism’s fault. But again, the Gulf States easily demonstrate that it’s not. Nobody looks at Kuwait and Qatar and goes, “Wow, the bastion of feminism.”

1:08:25 · Nobody thinks that, obviously. So, your narrative runs into immedi immediately counter competing information. You talked about manufacturing. Again, manufacturing didn’t get crushed because of women’s push into the workforce. It got crush crushed by the Triffin dilemma. The US has massive trade deficits. Everyone knows this. So in this situation when the US dollar is the global currency, everyone wants to bring business here because it’s like the hot spot.

1:08:56 · It’s the best place to be and the American dollar goes far. Manufacturing gets crushed because American workers want higher wages because our cost of living is higher because everyone’s bringing their business here and everyone’s infusion cash all the time. You have to deal with the real economic issues that are causing the issue, not just blame feminism.

1:09:18 · Rachel, [applause] you got two minutes as well.

1:09:22 · I’ll try I’ll try this one more time. I’m not blaming every economic problem on feminism. I’m blaming one economic problem, the only one that matters, which is demographics.

1:09:35 · Golf states.

1:09:36 · There’s a lot of different Yeah, there they still have above replacement because all the women are working. I don’t they’re under I do it the same way that Rachel didn’t interrupt you on the last one. I want to give her the same the whole the whole world is going this way. So all the countries that are still above replacement which is only a handful are trending down and when those

1:09:54 · people So you said immigrants you’re right Saudi Arabia imports their entire workforce we’re trying to do that in the west and what happens number one all the places we’re trying to bring immigrants from are now getting below replacement as well. else you’re running out of other people to bring over. But two, when you bring those people over from those cultures where there’s no feminism into the West, within one generation, their birth rate drops to as low as the native population in the West. So you bring someone over from Pakistan where the birth rate is still like one of the highest in the world.

1:10:24 · You bring them to the UK where there’s feminism, you send their daughters to college and send their daughters to the workforce, they also only have 1.5 children per women.

1:10:34 · So no, my claim, you’re stunning me again. My claim is not every economic problem is caused by feminism. Of course not. But the one that is caused by feminism will be the only one that matters because if there’s no people, there’s no future. And you still haven’t told me how you’re going to combat that.

1:10:52 · How are you going to have your first world feminist utopia where the men and the women both work part-time, everyone gets to stay home, uh, however we’re going to work that, everybody gets to follow their dreams and do what they want.

1:11:03 · I think that’s called a straw man. How how do we get to do that with below replacement birth rates? You if women are working, they’re not going to have babies. And that’s the only part of my uh argument that matters.

1:11:14 · Sure. Yeah. I’ve I’ve talked so I can back over to Kyla for two minutes.

1:11:18 · Uh I’ve I’ve responded to this multiple times which again declining birth rate is not feminism. It is modernization.

1:11:26 · This is why Saudi Arabia as it modernizes has a decline which by the way is below replacement. Saudi Arabia is like 1.7 right now. So, no, they’re not replacing themselves. Birth rate decline is because as you modernize and give people more education, they choose to postpone marriage and they have less children as a result of it. It’s really that simple. But that’s not feminism.

1:11:47 · That is actually education. That’s capitalism. And it’s kind of the Protestant work ethic because if there’s any system that tells you delay gratification, hustle and work hard, make sure you’re a steward of the future, it’s probably something like a capitalist system with economic incentive to grow, grow, grow, and a Protestant work ethic that says work, work, work. That’s what you’re actually contending with here. Does feminism have impacts on certain things? Yeah, I think it’s made women particularly significantly more choosy, like their partners, for example.

1:12:16 · But if you look at these bad college women, for example, they’re the group getting married more than anyone else since 2010. They are the highest population to get married. Their marriages last longer. They have a divorce rate that’s way lower than everyone else, by the way. Their children are more successful. Their children contribute to the economy significantly more. I’d love to get those ladies having children more, too.

1:12:37 · Let’s invest in more technologies to kind of help them uh increase their window of IVF, but I’m sure you’re opposed to that, right? There’s all sort Let’s get tax credits. Yeah, let’s laugh at it. You guys want to solve the birth rate problem unless you actually have solutions that are about modernization.

1:12:51 · Because your actual enemy here today isn’t feminism, it’s modernization. And we’re never going back to monkey. So, you may as well give up on that one.

1:13:05 · Okay.

1:13:05 · So, first of all, you said it’s a capitalism problem along with a modernization problem. That doesn’t explain how communist China and communist Russia had this happen to them first before any capitalist nation because in communism it was yeah have the babies but but mainly go to work because we need to fill the factories and we everybody needs to be a proletariat worker right they experienced this before capitalist countries did and to the biggest degree so it can’t just be capitalism second of all telling women to wait to have children because IVF will be care.

1:13:41 · People who say that haven’t looked into IVF and how abysmal the failure rate is. First of all, it’s massively expensive.

1:13:46 · And even if you completely subsidized it like they do in Israel, it’s horrific to put women through. Have you ever had to inject yourself with a crap ton of hormones and go through all the things that you have to go through for IVF?

1:13:57 · It’s miserable. And if you wait until you’re 40, it has a less than 10% success rate, about the same as conceiving naturally. It doesn’t work.

1:14:06 · So telling women to wait for IVF is cruel and unusual punishment. It’s a horrible idea. I think that’s called the straw man. I [cheering] Yeah, that’s a great Yeah. [applause] Yeah. I think Oh, what did you call that? I think I think we call that a straw man because Yeah, of course my solution that I’ve outlined isn’t just wait for IVF. In fact, one of the things that I think most importantly has to happen is a college level radical reformation, right? The idea that to just like work in mid-level HR you need a bachelor’s degree is [ __ ] crazy. I’m sorry.

1:14:41 · There’s no world that you need to be like Aristotle and you know back in the day said that that doesn’t matter. What you need is more technical schools so that people can expedite get into the careers that they actually want that are economical that are pushing our GDP. All these fluffy industries by the way are what makes our country dominate the world. So careful what you insult there.

1:15:00 · Okay. These fluffy tech jobs by the way sitting there. What’s more like fluffy and soy than sitting and like working on a computer? I don’t know. I feel like men should be sweating right by your my jump. I love men sitting on computers.

1:15:12 · Okay, you guys go off, kings. What you actually need to talk about here is a radical reformation of the education system, which if you want to get on my leftist craziness, join me over here, okay? I’m down for it. If you want to talk about women getting maternity leave and dads getting PAT leave and it being required by the company to pay for it and not the the the the government, I’m all down for it. I want moms to stay home for like a year. I want dads to stay home for at least six months to a year. It’s tradable between the two. I think that’s awesome. Norway does it and it’s [ __ ] awesome.

1:15:41 · By the way, also if you want to know before you laugh about it the childhood outcomes of children whose parents get Matt and Pat leave, you might want to guess it’s really [ __ ] good. Yeah, they’re really successful children. So, I want to deal with the birth rate issue just as much as you do by radicalizing the speed of of getting people from education into it. I think the tax that we put on the young in America is insane. I want boomers to stop just gobbling up all the wealth at the top and then holding on to their assets so that it’s not there for anybody else.

1:16:12 · And I think the moment you make life affordable so it’s not $45,000 to have a baby, suddenly people want to have kids a lot more. That’s going to be my guess. [applause] Yeah. So, this is a math problem, which is why I started my opening with all those infographics for you because you cannot subsidize your way out of this problem.

1:16:37 · In order to be able to have enough private, but okay, we’re not Norway. This is a very large country and Well, I said private institutions would cover it. Well, you at least deal with what I’m saying.

1:16:46 · Or you can straw man. That’s fine. We’re doing straw man hour now. Go ahead.

1:16:49 · You can’t subsidize your way out of this. You can’t just uh Oh, we’ll just pay for people to be able to be parents.

1:16:55 · will just give them infinite time off so they can spend more time. I I already explained this is a math problem. When you have onethird of men in the country not even participating in the workforce, your social safety nets are already about to collapse. You cannot add paid family leave and have everybody working a part-time job and subsidize college for everyone. This is what started the problem.

1:17:18 · The smart countries that are going to still be here and are going to be dominating in the future, I would wager are the ones who are going to prioritize producing actual goods, including things like food, uh, their own power. They will have energy independence. That’s all male-dominated industries. The smart countries are going to say, “Hey ladies, here’s some incentive for you to stay out of the workforce early on in life. Have a family. We’re going to make women staying home and raising their own children the affordable thing.

1:17:48 · Not some kind of weird government subsidy where mommy and daddy both work, but you get a bunch of government subsidized time off for like the first year or two of your child’s life. I don’t know if you know this, but they live longer than a year or two. They still need you when they get older. So my died young unfort it would be a lot smarter rather than to just double down on all the [ __ ] that has caused all the problems to say maybe

1:18:11 · this was the wrong approach and maybe looking into the future we should prioritize long-term stability and make families independent of the government rather than continue to double down on government’s your daddy policies.

1:18:22 · Gotcha. So speaking of fluffy dream worlds. Oh my goodness. Honestly, Rachel, I want to live in your fanfiction utopia, too. It sounds [ __ ] awesome.

1:18:33 · How are you going to do that though?

1:18:34 · Because it seems like, you know, if you want your economy to be successful and booming, it seems like the countries who are best at it went well, we definitely want all people who are best at human capital to be in the spaces that they’re most efficient at. It seems like uh you know, we’ve done things like we’ve tried to have comparative advantages.

1:18:50 · So we go, why have one woman at home teach two kids when that same woman who’s really talented teacher can teach 15 kids and that other woman who is now not teaching her kids because another woman that is wonderful and that we’ve regular and we trust is teaching her children and that woman can go and do something else successful in whatever way that she would be. Maybe it’s making delicious brownies, which by the way, don’t knock brownies, okay? Never never knock brownies until you’ve tried one, right?

1:19:15 · But when we’re talking about the affordability, if you’re talking about the affordability crisis, how are you proposing to solve it?

1:19:23 · Because I’m putting forward real answers like for example tax credits. So tax credits for anything having to do with child wearing make anything associated diapers for example, make it tax credit. That’s not the taxpayer paying for it.

1:19:36 · That means you don’t have to pay extra for it, right? All these things can be helped to make it more affordable to have a children. I’m down for that. What is your fanfic utopian dream process of economy where women aren’t working and aren’t getting educated but we’re maintaining a competitive global GDP?

1:19:54 · What’s the system for that?

1:19:55 · Sure.

1:19:55 · I’ll tell you first of all, it’s not women can’t work. It’s mothers should be mothers already have a job. They don’t need a second job. Uh the constant throughout all of human history still matters. Yes, we have modern technology now. That doesn’t mean you can automate motherhood. That doesn’t mean you can replace it or outsource it.

1:20:15 · We should be investing. So, like I said, we have this one-third of American men who are not in the workforce because they don’t see any reason to be. They’ve been told they’re bad, they’re toxic, they’re never going to get a woman, and they’re never going to have a future anyway. So, just play World of Warcraft.

1:20:28 · Why not get and get and get on government uh subsidy for your ADHD and your autism, which you’re all self- diagnosed with from being on TikTok all day? How about we incentivize young men who we desperately need in the trades?

1:20:44 · We need young men in the trades so bad. It’s way cheaper to train them to do the trades than to send them to university. So, how about instead of paying them to go to university, giving them a hundred grand, you know, to some shitty degree.

1:20:57 · No radical education.

1:20:58 · Send them to tech schools to learn the trades. And then imagine how much money you can save when mom stays home. You don’t have to pay for a second vehicle.

1:21:07 · You’re not paying income tax from her wages. You don’t have to pay daycare, which makes up 25% of the average American household’s expenses. By the way, you’re saving like 30 35% just by mom staying home. If dad has a great good paying job in infrastructure and the trades, which we desperately need anyway, instead of letting Jose come across the border and do it illegally.

1:21:30 · Man, it’s so interesting. Rachel, you’re so much smarter. [applause] It’s It’s really impressive. First of all, base for taking my idea. I’m glad we’re vibing over that one. Radical education reformation. We can all just get behind that, Ryan. Like, we don’t even need to be mad about that. And I’m I’m with you on that one. Okay.

1:21:48 · So you some it’s very miraculous how Rachel in her own divine wisdom in her own lifetime has arrived at a economic and and societal structural system that I guess nobody’s ever thought of before like what why hasn’t anyone ever tried

1:22:08 · that oh wait we [ __ ] did we actually did try this thing where it’s actually more economic for women to stay at home it’s not actually the reason why women enter the workforce in almost all most competitive global GDP is because when you increase the local labor force that is highly educated, you do better in the GDP participation. Sorry, that’s just a fact. That’s just a reality of human capital. We had the barring mothers. We had it from the 1910s to the 1930s.

1:22:35 · There was marriage bars. And what happened is we got into war and we were like, “Oh, [ __ ] We kind of need them now.” We bring them into war and then all of a sudden it’s a proof of concept.

1:22:45 · Women can actually be incredibly powerful forces. They were the ones pushing the manufacturing. It is the manufacturing labor of women during the war that thrust America into the golden age of that economic boom and allowed us to negotiate to become the global reserve currency, which I know you seem to not know anything about economics because you poo pooed at the gold standard changing, which is crazy bad economic theory, by the way. But just so it’s clear, when America became the global reserve currency, that was like the game change. You want to know why you’re the dominant country now?

1:23:13 · It’s that it’s that thing specifically because all of the nations got together and they were like who do we think will be most reliable and stable and boom in the next coming future and it was [ __ ] America baby. So this idea of well why don’t we just try this Thank you. I appreciate it. This new economic system that nobody’s ever thought of. We did and we moved away from it because it was more efficient to do other things.

1:23:38 · Okay, over Rachel two minutes.

1:23:40 · So I’m not sure that it was more efficient. I as I said in the short term, yeah, GDP go up. Nope.

1:23:48 · But but at the expense of what? At the expense of what?

1:23:51 · Nope. Competitive GDP. I’ve said that.

1:23:53 · Well, if you’re going to straw man me, do you want to talk to me or do you want to straw man me?

1:23:57 · First of all, I think competitive GDP.

1:24:00 · I think you need one of those special brownies you were talking about to bring you down from the aderall high cuz you’re just like, hey, drug insult.

1:24:09 · It’s like, whoa, whoa.

1:24:11 · If you if you want to just go to like weird drug insult.

1:24:13 · How many Red Bulls did you have?

1:24:15 · I don’t know. Rachel, can you raise your eyebrows? Give it a try.

1:24:18 · All right, we are Ever tried it before.

1:24:20 · We are going to All right. So, this your Botox looks really good on you, by the way.

1:24:24 · What are we even talking about? I know you have Boto and it looks great by the way. Go off, queen. I love it.

1:24:28 · Let’s do a reset. Two minutes for Rachel.

1:24:32 · Go ahead.

1:24:34 · Good. Good stuff there. So, it was funny. It was for the crowd. Okay. We were giving some crowd-pleasers.

1:24:39 · Yes. Yes. You’re a bastion of entertainment. Love it. Keep going.

1:24:43 · That’s why you brought me here.

1:24:44 · So, again, we’re trading uh long-term sustainability. And again, none of this matters. Oh, wow. You’ve got a massive GDP right now. Oh, wow.

1:24:55 · There’s like all of this unsustainable, goofy, fluffy women jobs that I just showed you. The reason I had to have slides was to give people the visual impact of just how much of women’s empowerment is subsidized by men’s actual productivity. Women Women own 40% of businesses in the United States and produce 6% of the revenue. How is that more efficient? How is that better for the future? How does that sustain anything?

1:25:25 · And we get to have that, you guys. You get to have that at the cost of not having enough babies to replace anyone, having labor shortages, massive inflation. Like, if this is working so well and it’s doing so great, why do you yourself say we have so many economic problems? Now, you don’t think it’s because of feminism, fine. But everywhere in the world that we push mothers out of the home and into the workforce, the birth rate collapses. And that will have to be dealt with regardless of if you love lot having lots of psychologists and crumble cookies and Etsy ladies and whatever.

1:25:58 · Yeah, I I can tell you that you only prepped this point. So I’ve already addressed that. I It’s not that I didn’t only prep this point. It’s the only point that matters.

1:26:04 · Well, you’re right. You prepped more and then I brought disconfirming evidence. So you had to run away from your 197.

1:26:08 · You still haven’t told me what we’re going to do about this. I’ve given you multiple answers. In fact, you found some of them.

1:26:14 · None of them solve the problem. Such a trile all over again.

1:26:17 · All right, hold on a second. We do have to back you want to go again the two-minute response.

1:26:23 · You’re the one who uses a group of money.

1:26:25 · We’re going to give Kyla 2 minutes.

1:26:26 · Kyla, the floor is yours for two minutes.

1:26:28 · Okay, awesome. So again, when we talk about like so why are like womenowned businesses only contributing to like 6%.

1:26:35 · I think when you look at like booming economies, the Fortune 500 I think probably contributes like at least 30 maybe 40% of the GDP in tax receipts. So the idea that like it’s all these small business all small businesses don’t contribute that much to government tax receipts. Welcome to the government. I suppose when we’re talking about goofy fluffy women jobs, I agree that there’s like too many Etsy shops, but they’re going to die and go under anyways, right? Sure.

1:26:57 · But the reality is that these goofy fluffy women jobs were created by corporate infrastructure because they realized things like their Ford Ford is a great example of this, right? Ford made HR in like 1910 because big companies need it. They need managers and they need people that oversee people to make sure you keep making work. So if you’re so smart in all your wisdom, you have to go to the Fortune 500. You have to go to Elon Musk himself and be like, “Hey, that those HR jobs really silly, not good for the economy. It’s not very efficient.”

1:27:29 · And I’m going to probably look at you and say, “I probably know more about what’s good for the economy.” As I said before, it’s not GDP go up, and it’s never been.

1:27:39 · That’s always been a straw man of my argument. It’s about maintaining a competitive GDP. And the reason why is if you can’t fund your military and keep up with the other countries around you, they are going to stomp on you. And that has been shown in recent history. And we need to be aware of it because we have to fund these things. We have to.

1:27:58 · Okay. So again, I don’t know. I don’t know how else it’s like trying to teach force doctrine to you. Like it just doesn’t stick. You still think it’s about like majorities or something.

1:28:11 · It’s about category errors.

1:28:13 · It’s not. You just don’t understand it.

1:28:15 · But if you don’t have women, what what do we need more of? Do we need more women doing multi-level marketing selling Lululemons and Tupperware or do we need women having babies so that we can actually have a big military? Actually, do you do you remember my slide about if we didn’t abort onethird of our babies, we’d have 45 million more people in our labor force? You don’t think that’s a good tradeoff?

1:28:40 · Well, my thought that slide probably didn’t account for the fact that the women who would be having those children would be single mothers, which are also contributing to the welfare that we were upset about. So, it probably not 45 million.

1:28:50 · It did. So, if if you have uh it’s an average of $26,000 of lifetime earnings that women will lose when they have a baby that they would have otherwise aborted. That’s the estimate from I think Goomacher and then the US Department of Labor.

1:29:06 · I don’t trust that if you didn’t Oh, of course you don’t trust that.

1:29:08 · I’ve I’ve read your book, Baby Girl. I don’t trust any of your government. It’s the government a the Department of Labor is the US government.

1:29:16 · I’m not pulling sources out of thin air just to be sure that that was a fun one. if you have. By the way, I don’t even know what she’s saying.

1:29:23 · Just to be sure that we I do think we’re going to go back to the two-minute segments.

1:29:27 · You’re not calling.

1:29:28 · We’re going to go back to the two-minute segments. All right. No.

1:29:30 · So, go ahead, Rachel. We’ll put it at So, I’m saying once again, maybe don’t kill off a third of our labor force. That that would probably help GDP.

1:29:40 · [applause] Sure. But probably making it so probably making it so that 50% of our labor force doesn’t enter the workforce is also not the best comparative advantage that we can talk about. Like I’m happy to talk to you about abortion and the problems with it and like how mothers need to be supported more in our society. I’ve granted you that from the beginning.

1:30:04 · That’s not an sailing on my position because I’m with you that like one of the worst things that we have seen even with like the third wave feminism is that nobody looked at mothers and said that that thing is beloved. Nobody looked at a mother and said that that is something worth cherishing and protecting. And you can see it because of the lack of policy created so that women have options and opportunities.

1:30:24 · The reality is do we need more of like babies and and MLMs? The reality is why not try to find a system where it’s a little bit easier to do both.

1:30:32 · You can’t.

1:30:32 · You can. We have other countries have tried it and it’s failed massively in America is failing so much. They’ve had over a century to figure it out. China and Russia and China has massive technology to figure it out.

1:30:44 · Done with your two minutes or do you I can’t I’ll respond. It’s it’s fine. It’s fine. This back and forth is totally fine with me. Um yeah, so in the case of America, I would say booming countries that are succeeding as a result of the labor force being injected with women and basically everyone who wants to work.

1:30:59 · America is a really good example of how it is working. You know, as as what my my favorite my favorite feminist said, the Dow is over 50,000, right? The economy of America is growing and it’s growing consistently. Trump is doing everything in his power to slow it as much as possible. However, it is growing and it is I think right now it’s still 12 trillion over China. That comparative edge matters because for those of you who are in cyber security, anybody here in cyber security? Okay. A little bit.

1:31:25 · Yeah. You guys know that the main thing keeping us ahead of China in cyber security is we have a lot of [ __ ] money because their tech is so much better which is dangerous to Americans today. It’s not just bombs flying over and military troops walking into China and shooting Chinese people. It’s cyber security. It’s attacks on our systems. Just recently the hugging face chat GBT thing got out. That’s what’s dangerous.

1:31:50 · So what you need in a competitive GDP and your system is saying it’s not working. It is working. We just need to continue to find solutions to modernization so moms and dads can have kids too. I’m with you on finding a solution to that. But your answer is pressure women not to go into work. And we tried that. It doesn’t work very well for maintaining everything that your society needs, which isn’t just lots of babies because Pakistan, tons of babies, not a great economy.

1:32:18 · Go ahead, Rachel.

1:32:19 · Why do you want mothers with young children to be at work all day?

1:32:23 · I want them to be able to work at home. That’s a great option for them.

1:32:27 · How many of them do you think can work from home and contribute to the necessary and productive parts of the economy?

1:32:35 · Um, I mean I think HR jobs are increasingly moving to remote positions. I think like 20 to 30% more HR jobs everybody be in HR again. You can laugh at it but take it up with Elon Musk.

1:32:47 · Do you think Elon Mus HR department because of any other reason than Title 9 making women be able to frivolously sue their employers for sexual harassment?

1:32:58 · So there can be problems.

1:32:59 · He would get rid of his HR department tomorrow if it if you couldn’t bring frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit that I didn’t get the promotion because Tommy was sleeping with Lisa instead of me or whatever nonsense. Like Title N caused that. We did not start the need for HR.

1:33:17 · It started in 1910 with Ford because Ford realized that it had more human capital that it could manage with just this direct system. So it build HR foundation that created women’s studies.

1:33:28 · Yes.

1:33:28 · Do you mean them? Oh, that’s convenient, isn’t it?

1:33:31 · Well, wait. Are you really trying to tell me that corporations by the good of their heart are making these stupid jobs that are useless? Don’t help their company, don’t help their stakeholders. They don’t maintain their futiciary response. They just love women so much. Oh my god. Every CEO out there is just like, “Fuck the stakeholders, boys. We got to get women in the workplace. Find them stupid jobs. I don’t know. Make them foldies or something.

1:33:53 · I’ll respond.” Like seriously, like you’re going 5,000 m an hour about absolutely nothing.

1:33:59 · I know. When you don’t know anything about the economy, it can be tough when I talk about just Red Bull. First of all, I don’t do anetamine. Bad for my brain.

1:34:07 · No. Corporations wanted cheap labor and the government wanted more income tax. So the Ford Foundation in their own papers which I cite in my book that you say you’ve read said let’s make women working. Let’s support feminism. Let’s create they literally created women’s studies departments as a vehicle to push Marxist feminism into the universities.

1:34:30 · Yes. and to get women to buy started in the 1910 to get women to buy into the idea that work and being a career woman is empowering and safe and that motherhood is risky and dangerous and holds you back from whatever you need to be liberated but nobody ever asks from what what were li women liberated from because the only thing I can see that we were liberated from is intact structural families our own children and our own interests.

1:34:59 · Now we spend our lives working for corporations and paying income tax at the expense of our own relationships with our children, our own marriages, our own communities. Like how much have we lost from sending women to work for Ford and Elon Musk and and being HR versus them being at home building communities, taking care of each other. The women used to all be home together.

1:35:21 · Sure. We’ve probably lost three minutes.

1:35:22 · I want to give each of you a minute and a half. That’s the last of our three minutes of open dialogue.

1:35:27 · Okay, bet. Um, so your theory of everything falls apart really hard when you get any amount of disisconfirming evidence, right? Manufacturing, for example, as you tried to suggest originally was dying in the 1970s. It wasn’t. It started dying in the 1950s again because of the Triffin dilemma.

1:35:42 · When you want to talk about economics and why people are struggling, we have to have big girl conversations and not just be mad at the like at the other girls and what they’re doing. The reality is that we did try the model after industrialization to keep women home. We barred women from workplaces, particularly married women, the women that you would like to bar from workplaces. And the reality is that America was not competing at a large level. It wasn’t a superpower at the time. And there’s a reason why most Fortune 500, all Fortune 500s have invented these things.

1:36:10 · Again, a CEO’s fudiciary responsibility, and since we’re doing pop quiz, that means a legal responsibility is to stakeholders. Corporations aren’t going out of their way to make jobs that are useless for women because they’re nice and they love feminism. That doesn’t even make sense.

1:36:28 · The reality of a capitalist is they are constantly thinking about their bottom line. And if HR makes their large corporation work more effectively, that’s what they’re going to do. This idea of Ford and the gender studies, I’ll just grant you Ford did that in the gender studies. I don’t really care. It falls apart the moment you just think about a timeline. Ford invented HR long before they were pushing gender studies.

1:36:50 · So this idea that Ford just had this maniacal plan instead of actually it was an economic supply response of needing clerical work increasingly in large corporations to make these corporations more effective. I guess take it up with every single [ __ ] billionaire. I don’t know what to tell you, Rachel.

1:37:06 · With that, we’ll kick it over to Rachel for it’s the final segment. One and a half minutes for you, Rachel.

1:37:15 · So, first of all, I’m not going to be lectured on having big girl conversations by someone who hasn’t accomplished even a tenth of what I’ve accomplished in my life.

1:37:24 · That’s number one. [cheering] Number two, you came in here, how much older are you than me? Aren’t you like 20 years old? I do want to give Rachel.

1:37:32 · You got to shut up at some point and let me talk to you.

1:37:35 · Yeah.

1:37:35 · You came in here wanting to have this friendly female conversation that was all subdurfuge, that was all trickery because you were the quickest to insult me personally and and spur out and and go off on wild tangents. And I’m not going to be lectured about big girl conversations by somebody who is just over here having an absolute autism fit with her Red Bull or what. I don’t even know half of what you said.

1:38:00 · But here’s the problem. The future belongs to those who show up for it. And we have a choice to make. We cannot have women working full-time jobs and dedicating all their lives to careerism and have them be good full-time mothers, raising the next generation of human beings above replacement level. They will continue to abort a third of every generation. They will continue to remain single and unmarried. or if they even, you know, do have children, they’re doing it single and unmarried.

1:38:32 · This is the only question that matters.

1:38:34 · Everything else economically won’t matter if this doesn’t get solved.

1:38:39 · Thank you very much for that closing.

1:38:42 · [applause] Special thanks to our sponsor, Maine First Project, fighting to put mayers first. Check out mainefirstpro.org. Huge thanks to Revival of the Anointed’s Rule, equipping Christians to fight for biblical values through policy victories. Check out revivetheroar.org. Huge thanks to our sponsor, Apologetics Arc. Check out their app today by downloading it. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “Always be ready to give a defense.”

1:39:13 · I think this has been the best debate we’ve had on this subject. So, let’s keep the Q&A productive. If you will line up on the left side here. Oh wait is uh there is one thing we are going to do something a little bit differently is just because this debate has been especially All right folks need you to focus

1:39:38 · if you want to have a conversation we do ask that you’d step out in the hall we do have limited time so we have to get to this Q&A quickly is we are actually going to do a vetted process so that off mic Sure.

1:39:52 · Okay.

1:39:59 · Because if you insult them, we’re going to toss.

1:40:03 · I don’t expect it, but just All right, folks. If you want to have a conversation, step outside. We’re going to start the Q&A. People want to be able to hear the speakers. All right. If you’re going to have a conversation, please do step outside. All right, we’re ready for you. My question is for you.

1:40:23 · I have a name.

1:40:25 · What’s that?

1:40:25 · I’m just kidding. [laughter] Kyla.

1:40:28 · Yeah. Hi, sir. What’s your name?

1:40:30 · John.

1:40:30 · Hi, John. Nice to meet you.

1:40:31 · Um, I heard somewhere that the three most influential things, I guess, on the planet are the nuclear bomb, the transistor, and birth control, right? I don’t know if that’s true, but it sounds right to me. [snorts] If you could remove one of those, you can’t remove the first two. The third one is something you could do do about and to me that sounds like that’s under feminism. Can you at least acknowledge feminism is at least part of the problem and if we eliminated that part would that not help everything?

1:40:55 · Uh so feminism is part of the problem and it’s part of the solution to a lot of issues right society isn’t just like a simple thing right Pakistan is a really good example of a country with exploding birth rates they really solve that issue but their economy is struggling and they keep on getting dumpstered by India in war right Pakistan is a great example of why in a country lots of things matter all at

1:41:17 · once you’re calling contraception is that like feminism or technology it’s probably a bit of both right but what it really is is is pharmaceutical companies making money from a technology that’s utile So the issue is you’re pointing at one of the technologies of being like useless and we don’t need it. However, I I don’t know even know how we begin to make that argument because we do need women in the workplace and giving them more control of their family planning has allowed women to massively excel in workplaces and achieve higher levels of education and productive output than ever before.

1:41:48 · I know you can’t respond. Sorry.

1:41:49 · Just just a quick note on that. The reason that Pakistan’s economy sucks so bad even though the birth rate is high is because they are a Muslim nation with a the highest rate of um inbreeding in the world.

1:42:00 · Oh, I forgot brown people. How did I not think of that?

1:42:03 · Are you going to sit here and say that that lowered IQ from inbreeding is not a serious factor in their huge it’s a huge issue within Pakistan. The issue is that if your birth rate dream was so awesome, their birth rate is like Well, you don’t have to marry your cousin.

1:42:16 · Well, you kind of sure. I’m not saying marry your cousin. Rachel, I know disisconfirming evidence sucks for you, but you actually have to deal with it and not just go ma brown people birth rate is not always something. It’s like that’s your countries that only invest in birth rate and don’t invest in GD. Countries that control women and don’t let them in the workplace and don’t allow them anymore.

1:42:41 · There are more people wanting to ask their questions. All right, that’s Islam.

1:42:44 · All right, next up, Kyle. This is I need folks just so so they can hear the speaker. Yep. Um, you you mentioned Saudi Arabia and guitar, but from 1960 to today, Saudi Arabia’s female participation rate went from 15% to over 35%. And they’ve delayed the uh time to have a first child to almost age 27. How does that not make Rachel’s point?

1:43:09 · Uh, because again, I don’t think I would look at Saudi Arabia as a bastion of it. In fact, Saudi Arabia, a close ally of America, is letting women who are very educated in Saudi Arabia, for example, participate in their workforce because it’s useful for them. That’s why they’re letting them do it. They’re, by the way, still cutting off clits. So, not exactly a feminist bastion.

1:43:28 · I mean, it makes her point, though.

1:43:29 · doesn’t make her point because if the point is feminism is causing this problem, it’s actually modernization that’s causing problem.

1:43:35 · They more than doubled their female workforce and they’re educating women and pushing them into Look, if you want to take the claim that Saudi Arabia is a famous feminist bastion, you can take it. I just think it’s absurd on face. Why are you so angry? We’re going to go to the next question. You’ve been this whole time.

1:43:53 · All right, we’re gonna go to the next question.

1:43:55 · Hi, sir. Um, so I wanted to ask you about Henry Ford.

1:43:59 · I don’t know much about Henry Ford.

1:44:01 · So he started human resources, you said in the 1910s. So like 1910 that the Ford industry in 1916 he was sued by the Dodge brothers for improperly investing and not protecting shareholders and lost that case.

1:44:13 · So wouldn’t that kind of show that Henry Ford was not a good actor in the corporate space?

1:44:17 · I don’t know much about the case, but is it were they sued over HR?

1:44:20 · They were sued over uh wages and improper investment. HR using dividends to pay for HR.

1:44:28 · That’s a big stretch there, sir. So, was it HR that they were sued over or was he doing fraudulent behavior? Sounds like the fraud might have been a bit more of a spicy problem.

1:44:36 · Okay.

1:44:39 · Come on.

1:44:40 · Hi, Kyla. Hi, Rachel. Uh, appreciate the debate tonight. Juicy, as James would say. Um, my question is for you, Rachel.

1:44:47 · uh you know you and Andrew sometimes deal with this idea that like guns are an equalizer as in they can sort of uh minimize the distance between men and women in terms of the physical force they can exert right and uh and I know you have problems with that argument but I can pretty easily imagine a future where a a technology that’s a true equalizer like maybe gene editing is just one example could just be a reality not so far from now. So, I just wanted to ask what does that world look like to you? And in a way, does it make kind of an egalitarian philosophy or fact of life inevitable?

1:45:20 · Does the gene editing you’re talking about make it so that men can have babies?

1:45:26 · Um, probably not for a while. Probably not for a long time.

1:45:29 · Then I would say no. Um, will it make it so that we have women that are the same rough size and strength as men? Because if it basically unless you’re going to turn Rachel famous biologist here by the way knows a lot about crisper I’m sure did you would know that that’s what the techn is called by the way it’s crisper.

1:45:47 · Yeah.

1:45:48 · Thanks Mrs. Turner.

1:45:49 · Look baby girl you’re going to love when I go through your book. Okay.

1:45:52 · I love when she educates me.

1:45:55 · When did Hipatia Who’s Hipatia by the way?

1:45:59 · Look I you’re you’re like mething and I can’t right now. You can keep like insulting me, Rachel, but between me and you, I’m mugging you every single day.

1:46:09 · We’re going to move we’re going to move the next question.

1:46:12 · Yeah. You don’t want to answer, do you?

1:46:14 · Yeah. So, Kyla, uh, I was wondering like what is the proposed solution from feminism? Because in terms of Rachel’s proposed, can you say that again? Sorry.

1:46:21 · What is the proposed solution from feminism that we’re going to get at least a million lives back into the economy for workers and all that stuff?

1:46:28 · This is what Rachel’s talking about with the mathematics. We get rid of elective abortion. And that’s one more one million lives each year coming into America.

1:46:36 · Yeah.

1:46:36 · A lot of those so the getting rid of the abortion also means that you’re going to have a massive amount of those lives going on the welfare state which I think you guys don’t like. Actually the solution for birth rate that I’ve offered a number of times is we need modernization solutions. So probably tax credits making it affordable to have children making it easier for moms to stay home or work at home and be economically successful. There’s a lot of things that we need to try. It’s not really a simple solution because it’s not a simple problem anymore with modern technology. But we should try things and we haven’t really tried enough things and we should.

1:47:05 · Yeah. So a million lies a year is not worth banning elective abortion is what you’re saying.

1:47:09 · Much bigger tax base to help fund those social safety nets.

1:47:12 · Again, unless they’re on welfare, which you would assume that they’re going to be if they’re being born assume that they’re all going to grow up and be on welfare.

1:47:19 · I wouldn’t assume all of them, but I would guess that it would probably be 20 to 30% of them because probably the women most likely to seek abortions are going to be with women in situations where they become single mothers. So those children are going to be on welfare which is going to be costing tax receipts. So I guess your system not so great. It feels really great when you numbers when you actually get real about economics. It kind of falls apart.

1:47:38 · We’re jumping to the next question.

1:47:39 · I’m sure if you talk faster and say more everyone will think you won. I’m sure that if you’re just [ __ ] and rude everyone will think you’re funny.

1:47:46 · We’re going to go to James.

1:47:47 · All right. So my question is for Kyla.

1:47:49 · So if if greater it’s based off something you said in your opening. If greater reproductive autonomy predictably results in more murdered babies, what’s the benefit of that autonomy that is justifying the outcome?

1:48:02 · I don’t think anywhere in my opening I talked about reproductive autonomy. That was her.

1:48:05 · No, you said that it’s better if women have control over their You said these things were predictabilities when you were talking.

1:48:12 · You think reproductive autonomy just means abortion?

1:48:16 · It results. Are you going to answer my question or you asking me questions?

1:48:20 · Yeah, my following [clears throat] up cuz you’re talking about reproductive want to answer the question or no.

1:48:23 · Do you want to do you want to know anything that you’re talking about?

1:48:26 · What’s reproductive?

1:48:27 · This is that likability problem Andrew was talking.

1:48:30 · Yeah, there’s one thing we’re going to All right, let’s What? In a room full of Rachel fans, they like you more. That’s crazy.

1:48:37 · You know, it helps argue if you’re not insufferable.

1:48:39 · All right. Sorry to do this. You being insufferable is good for your arguments actually.

1:48:44 · Just to get through just to get through people’s questions. That’s not very popular. just to get through people’s questions is can you restate your question in a rephrase it?

1:48:53 · Do you want to just talk about abortion?

1:48:54 · Sounds like you want to talk about abortion.

1:48:56 · Okay. Do you want to answer my question or do you want to ask me questions again?

1:49:01 · If greater reproductive autonomy results in more murdered babies, what’s the benefit of that autonomy that justifies that outcome? The benefit of more reproductive autonomy for women is that they’re able to better control family planning, which allows them to do things like investing in a career and investing in better marriage status, which is why college women, by the way, have the happiest education. So, reproductive autonomy allows them to decide when they go to college because they can offset having children, which is good.

1:49:27 · It also results in things like abortion, which I agree it would be great to get those numbers down, but that’s why it’s valuable because it does more than just one thing. again that that what you just said is is okay is uh Oh, get out of here. Get out.

1:49:45 · We’re going to go to the next question.

1:49:47 · Okay.

1:49:48 · All right.

1:49:50 · Your mom’s super proud of you, though.

1:49:52 · Proud of Well, probably not actually.

1:49:54 · This is a PR disaster.

1:49:56 · All right. We’re going to go to the next question.

1:49:57 · You are not going to recover.

1:49:58 · We’re going to go to the next question.

1:49:59 · I can assure you.

1:50:00 · Who Who would invite you to an event after the way you’ve behaved?

1:50:04 · All right. We’re going to go with Jonathan’s question. We do have to go to the question Jonathan question.

1:50:08 · If you were my daughter, I’d be hauling you out of here by your ear to get my mom.

1:50:13 · We’re going to jump to the next question. Come on up, Jonathan. All right, folks. You do need you do us a favor if you can keep it down just so we can hear the speakers and the question asker. All right, Jonathan, go ahead. So, what is the biggest roadblock to abortion, Rachel?

1:50:27 · What is the biggest roadblock to to abolishing abortion? To to abolishing it?

1:50:32 · Yes. So, there’s no more abortion ever.

1:50:33 · Uh women voting for it. There you go.

1:50:36 · Thank you.

1:50:39 · Okay.

1:50:43 · Why feminists run away from 50-50 custody? Uh you guys uh talked today about a lot of me about how men work and why they don’t get to spend time with their children. But feminists constantly run away from the issue that men are treated unfairly in family courts and that here in Dallas, 95% of the time custody is awarded to women and they take those children and they abuse men and take our children away from us in family courts. So, what is feminism going to come to the table and make 50/50 shared custody, the standard bills, and stop voting to take away our children from us all the time?

1:51:12 · Yeah.

1:51:12 · So, I’m guessing that you’re not particularly familiar with my work, right? Not everything that feminists do, do I think, is good. And I actually think that what you’re highlighting here is a really big issue, which is why when I started my work in debate, I was in men’s spaces advocating for male issues. Family court planning and, for example, things like financial abortion are rights that men don’t have access to.

1:51:29 · That creates an unequal rights. And I think that that’s an issue that we have to address. And I think the fact that fathers are assumed de facto to not be a good caregiver and therefore they get limited access to their children is a [ __ ] tragedy. I totally agree with you.

1:51:42 · All right.

1:51:49 · Not at all.

1:51:50 · Kyla.

1:51:51 · Hi.

1:51:52 · You said something I really liked. My name’s Chris.

1:51:54 · Hi Chris.

1:51:55 · Um you said something uh profound. One of the best things I heard all night actually. Um, and I want to acknowledge it and uh you stated what you invest in early in life yields the best returns.

1:52:08 · Is it your position that women should not invest in their families when young?

1:52:12 · Are those returns not as valuable as serving a corporation or being a boss babe that can get fired when the boss’s nephew needs a hobby?

1:52:27 · Yeah. So, I think what I’ve pretty clearly advocated for multiple times is that I want women to be able to have the option to do both. Right? I’ve said this numerous times and increasing technology is allowing that sort of thing. Right?

1:52:39 · When I was talking in that context, I was good. That was a smart one. You you’re quick at that. What I was actually talking about when I said the word returns was an economic label.

1:52:46 · Right? So, you can like switch the definition to a different thing. But I agree that there’s a tragedy that’s happened where families, not just young women, but young families, don’t feel like they [snorts] can invest in children because it’s it’s so expensive and they can’t be good stewards of their future things. The reason that parents are delaying isn’t because they don’t think children aren’t beautiful. What they’re delaying for specifically is because they know that if they don’t have a stable economic thing to rear their children in, they’re not being good parents. And I think it’s a tragedy that that you’re going to yell. Hold on, don’t yell at me yet.

1:53:17 · I think that that’s a tragedy, but I actually engage with my words and the ideas that I’m talking about.

1:53:22 · All right, we’re going to go to the next question.

1:53:24 · Thanks both of you for coming. Taylor here. Um, to me, it seems modern feminism is antithetical to a biblical worldview. Uh, from your earlier debate with Andrew, which I listen to, it appears you keep a fairly sharp separation between your private faith and how you would integrate that with politics, etc. My question is this. Do you believe the Bible affirms the equal ontological value of men and women while also establishing a specific order of responsibility? God, man, wife, children, for example.

1:53:53 · If so, isn’t this consistent to hold that a society could still follow that biblical order with men as the primary heads and voting?

1:54:00 · Repeal the 19th uh public life primary bread winner while fully affirming we women’s equal value ontologically and encouraging distinct roles. Uh this was the arrangement before the boom of feminism and seemed to sustain sustain a strong society. And why wouldn’t that be a good solution even though it does seem farfetched?

1:54:17 · Okay. Do you want do you want to tackle the theological question or the like policy question first because there’s kind of two baked in there.

1:54:23 · Yeah.

1:54:23 · Which which whichever you address first. [clears throat] Okay. Sure. So when it comes to like a theological question, I think one of the most important things that we need to recognize from the Bible and most you are going to disagree with me on this is that it is not a prescription for statehood. In fact, it’s a strong resistance to that. Right. Jesus, for example, was quite resistant to being named as the Messiah and King and creating a kingdom of Israel, which is in part why the Jews wanted to kill him.

1:54:43 · So, you might theologically disagree with me, but when I look at these things as far as policy goes, I think God made both of us, right? All people were made in the image of God. And I think that what God wants isn’t to make dedactic biblical interpretations policy because that’s not what he did, right? To a policy level, it seems to be the case that there is just better benefits overall broadly for society. There are cons, but there are mostly benefits when you have a policy of allowing your human capital to have opportunity and choice.

1:55:14 · And I would argue to you there’s a greater Christian imperative than men should be the household, which is choice. Because the entire bracket of salvation is about choosing God. So why on earth do humans think that they know better than to try and insist that women can’t have simple choices like where they work or whether they get to vote? I think that that’s a bastardization of Christianity when we do that.

1:55:35 · All right, I this is going to be our last question.

1:55:38 · Uh Rachel, if your position is so attractive and so elusive, why do you need so many restrictive and regressive policies to maintain it? Because as it stands, your lifestyle would be able to coexist under Kyla’s worldview, but Kyla’s lifestyle would not be able to coexist under your worldview. And so I just think that if you if women were able to if women were not able to do all these things and be able to sustain this lifestyle, you wouldn’t need the restrictive policies to stop them. They just wouldn’t be possible.

1:56:02 · Can you point to one restrictive policy that I advocated for in this debate?

1:56:06 · Would you advocate for the for the regression of the 19th amendment?

1:56:09 · Yes, but only because only because universal suffrage.

1:56:14 · Okay. Well Well, that’s that.

1:56:15 · So it wouldn’t be just women can’t vote.

1:56:18 · would be most do you think mothers would mothers be able to enter the workforce under your worldview?

1:56:22 · They’ve always been legally allowed under your worldview.

1:56:25 · Yes.

1:56:25 · They’ve always been legally I’ve never argued to legally prevent women from working or mothers from working. I think it needs to be the culture. These things come from the culture and the religious values, not from policy. We don’t just outlaw things.

1:56:39 · Your question is I’ve never advocated for restrictive policy changes other than we need to limit suffrage. But right, but that doesn’t just women limit women’s votes. It limits all votes back to what the founders had framed. I think we need to return to a limited suffrage republic if we’re going to try to have a republic.

1:57:00 · Hi, Kyle. My name is JS. Uh, your counter to feminism having the biggest detriment on on birth rates was industrialization or modernization. I’m wondering, can you elaborate on how that makes sense when what I see industrialization and modernization makes it easier, safer, cheaper to have and raise kids?

1:57:19 · That’s actually a really interesting question. This is the one thing that’s kind of like called the paradox of of uh urbanization is that you’re right. In many ways, we have more technologies, more more supports, more welfare available than ever before. But it seems to be the case that as industries and and nations modernize, birth rate tends to fall. And we see this across the board of every country that begins to modernize. And that is a great question.

1:57:40 · I I actually don’t know the answer to that. Which is why what we have to do is go, well, what are ways that we can offset this declining birth rate so that young families feel like they can afford to have children and then do.

1:57:50 · All right. Yeah. So my question is actually for Rachel. So Rachel, we heard Aerodite make a lot of claims, but based on her standard, we can’t actually know if anything she said was true. So if we don’t have access to certain truth because she doesn’t understand a grippus trimma anyways, from Aerodite’s view, why ought we actually debate? And since we can’t know who is correct, why or why can we know that Rachel’s the one who won this debate anyways?

1:58:10 · Well, that’s that’s true. I could have rather than just sticking to demographic doom, I could have just prepped her and said, “You don’t believe in objective truth anyway, so why are you here?”

1:58:21 · So, here’s here’s the thing that it seems like you guys have like never understood. Uh, if we want to talk about the agrias, right? Are you a methodological skeptic?

1:58:30 · What? Say that again.

1:58:31 · Are you a methodological skeptic?

1:58:33 · methodological skeptic. Yeah. I don’t know what so the the I I don’t care about the problem of levying the accusation of a grippa trillemma because I just engage with the assumption that sometimes assumptions have to be made to we have to engage.

1:58:45 · So you just want to start with random axioms.

1:58:47 · No, not random just like yours aren’t random. What I’ve done and what you guys seem to not quite understand is I’ve labeled the thing that you do what you call presuppositionalism is levying a grippers trilemma against your opponents. All I’ve done is pointed out that just as your opponent’s failas, so do we. I just don’t care because I’m not a methodological skeptic.

1:59:08 · So, but why should we grant your starting or foundational axioms and not mine?

1:59:12 · So that we can have a conversation and you can you can critique it to see if you think it but we’re doing it arbitrarily based off of nothing but practice.

1:59:18 · How do you again you’re all you’re doing is accuse you’re levying the Agrippa’s problem to me. But I would say to you, you have the same problem. I just don’t care. I don’t think it’s interesting. I’d rather just contextually grant certain preceptions and axioms and and build from there.

1:59:32 · We’re just gonna go with this.

1:59:34 · You asked Rachel about Hipatia. So, being an educated philosophy person, could you name one work by Aristotle and one by Hegel?

1:59:43 · Sure.

1:59:44 · I don’t know works by Hegel. By the way, if I’d have known that’s what she was saying, I would have answered. I couldn’t understand her cuz she talks like with a dry adal mouth and I couldn’t You’re like slowing down with your age. It’s a little hard to keep up. No, I’m just saying one from Aristotle person who’s not on uh Aristotle would be the five dialogues.

2:00:05 · That’s Plato. [laughter] Hello. [applause] Hey Giant. Hey Jay. Are you going to unblock me yet or you just going to keep running for me forever? And I thought you quit debating or did you not? I just also want to be clear. We’re going to jump to the next.

2:00:24 · I’m not an expert. All right. All right, James. I’m so sorry. is is we’re just going to turn this into like [ __ ] on air. We do. We do. We have to keep it let’s keep it orderly, folks. And I think this is going to be our last question. Sorry, brother.

2:00:37 · Hello. I’m Victoria. Hi, Victoria.

2:00:39 · Hi. Uh first off, uh you had made the comment that most men in hospice care uh express that they have a lot of regret about not being in their children’s lives enough. Um, I feel like there was a recent study that showed that men currently, um, I want to say it was like back in the 80s, less than 10% had ever changed a diaper and now it’s over 80%.

2:01:02 · So, I feel like that that point is kind of moot for modern times because dads are around more and they are more involved with their children. Excuse me.

2:01:12 · Um, and then besides that, the main point or the main question was, is feminists doing more harm than good or more harm or more good? Um, Margaret Sanger, obviously Planned Parenthood, she was uh a eugenicist. Uh, as a black woman in America and a mother with special needs kids, um, do you feel like modern feminine uh, feminism has truly helped equality for all women or just white women?

2:01:38 · I think it’s been better for white women because I think when you have intersectional layers of oppression, the reality is that’s something that benefits just one intersection will benefit the most privileged group of that thing. Uh, is it true that Sango is a eugenicist?

2:01:50 · Yeah, I believe most feminists have disavowed that and I would disavow that, right? I think that that’s bad. Um, does that answer your question, Victoria?

2:01:56 · Yeah. Okay, thanks.

2:01:58 · All right, before we give a huge round of applause, I just have to get these important things out. First is a All right. And Annie, you want to come up? All right.

2:02:20 · So, so I just have one question I didn’t actually hear an answer to. Can you concisely tell us what you plan to do about demographic collapse? Concisely, not we need this and we need tell us concisely. What is Kyla Turner’s plan to stop demographic collapse?

2:02:41 · I hear you, Andrew.

2:02:43 · It seems age is affecting you both. Very simply, tax credits. Tax credits. Matt and Patley making education. Making Sorry, we got to give her a chance.

2:02:55 · Hold on. Hold on. We got to give her a chance to actually talk.

2:02:58 · Go ahead.

2:02:59 · Tax credits. Making educational reform so tech you can go into careers faster. Making it so it’s cheaper to have babies. making it affordable to raise children and have dual income households where a woman works at home. Simple stuff like that.

2:03:12 · All right, just give everybody I do want to just hold on one second. Okay, before we Hold on one sec. Hold on. Bear with me. Before we do a huge round of applause, just a couple quick housekeeping things.

2:03:22 · First is if you have a signed emblem page, which if you saw that when you got your ticket, which is if you bought it probably earlier than May 12th or so, at 6:40, come out there. Uh we’ll get it for you. And then also 6:40 is when the uh meet and greets are. So be at one of those places depending on what ticket tape you have. Also, Brandon, can you stand for me? There’s Brandon. All right. So, Brandon is helping us put together a Debate Con promo video.

2:03:46 · So, [applause] he’ll be out there in front of the banner and if you’d like to say share about how amazing this debate was, for example, cuz you can feel the energy in the room. It feels good. Okay. So, is talk to Brandon about that. And then also I just because it was so heated is that I just want to be very clear is that I want you to if you want to say something make sure that if you say anything to either of these speakers it’s something positive.

2:04:13 · If you say anything negative like if you any sort of smartass remark to where they don’t feel welcome you’re going to be banned.

2:04:22 · I’m serious because our speakers are the most valuable part of this. So do show them respect. [applause] So say something positive to the speaker that you like, not something negative to one that you disagree with. With that, we will break for dinner and then we will be back for the main event. Thanks very much, folks. We’ll see you then. It’s an amazing debate. Amazing.

2:04:49 · [applause] Special thanks to our sponsors. Main First Project, Revival of the Anointed’s Rule, Uncensored America, Patrick O’Neal, Arc Apologetics, Yonauni, International Cuisine, and SDA. Special thanks to our sponsor, Maine First Project, Fighting to Put Mainers First. Check out mainfirst project.org. Huge thanks to Revival of the Anointed’s Rule, Equipping Christians to fight for biblical values through policy victories. Check out revivetheroar.org.

2:05:24 · Special thanks to our sponsor, Uncensored America. Want to host a controversial speaker on your college campus? Start a chapter now on your campus at uncensoredamea. us. Huge thanks to our sponsor, Apologetics Arc. Check out their app today by downloading it. First Peter 3:15 says, “Always be ready to give a defense.” Huge thank you to our sponsor, Yonauni International Cuisine of Aguodia, Puerto Rico. Check them out in your next trip. Special thanks to our stage sponsor, SDA.

---