Kind: captions
Language: en
Our culture has become way over
feminized and certain institutions will
just break if we keep heading down this
path. Part of the problem that we've
created in work culture is that men can
and are sued for making the workplace
like a frat house, but women can't be
and aren't sued for making the workplace
like a Montasauri kindergarten. And I
thought that that was a very keen
insight. And she in the article takes it
even further and says there are certain
institutions that once you understand on
average what a women led institution is
going to be like versus a male-led
institution, you very quickly understand
some institutions become nonsensical if
they become feminized. A lot of
institutions are becoming feminized and
that is creating problems. The whole
woke movement when understood through
the lens of race is going to break down
and you will not understand it. The
whole woke movement when viewed through
the lens of class won't make any sense.
You're going to be very confused. But
the whole woke movement when seen
through the lens of feminization will
suddenly make all the sense in the world
once you understand that evolution is
like I need women to do a very different
thing than I need men to do. Uh then you
begin to understand, oh cool, we're
wired in very different ways. Now,
there's more overlap than there is
difference, but when you start getting
into the outliers, all of the
differences really start to become super
clear. This is her quoting a study from
a book called The Warriors and Warriors:
The Survival of the Sexes by psychology
professor Joyce Benninsson. She
theorizes that men develop group
dynamics optimized for war. Why women
develop group dynamics optimized for
protecting their offspring. A group of
men given a task will quote jockey for
talking time, disagree loudly, and then
quote cheerfully rely relay a solution
to the experimentter. A group of women
given the same task will quote politely
inquire about one another's personal
backgrounds and relationships
accompanied by much eye contact,
smiling, and turntaking and pay quote
little attention to the task that the
experiments are presented. Given that
men are hardwired for war, they have to
basically just make commands to each
other. Say, "Go do this." Hierarchy
forms very quickly. They don't worry
about feelings at all. It's completely
goal oriented. Go do that thing. There's
a set of rules and it's like just do the
[ __ ] thing. Follow the rules. Get it
done. Whereas women, it's all
relational. Trying to create group
cohesion because if it really does take
a village to raise a child, you're going
to need a lot of people working
together. Women are weaker from a
physical perspective and so you don't
interface with the dangers of the world
directly. You're going to have to work
through somebody obviously a man who's
then going to go interface. So you get
very good at relational things. This
explains like 98% of the times that my
wife and I are looking at each other
like the other person is crazy for how
we deal with stuff because I'll get into
a huge maybe even relationship ending
collision with somebody and I just don't
think about it anymore. And if I bumped
into that person, I wouldn't rebring any
of my resentments. I'd just be like,
"Oh, we're now in a new box moving
forward with a new thing. I'm addressing
only the new thing." And my wife is
like, "I just cannot move on from it."
She's like, I've got to have some sort
of like I need them to apologize or
whatever. And I'm like, I literally
don't care.
>> This feminization, masculine thing is a
I think this is an objective viewpoint
on a problem. And I think this goes back
into the populism of it all where right
now there are different factions. It
seems like there are people in America
right now that are like, "My problems
would be good if all the immigrants were
gone." There's people in America say
that my problems would be good if all
the blacks were gone. Then now there's
people in America that are going to say,
"My problems would be good if all the
women weren't in the workplace." So one
of the postulates put forward in the
article is very clear. If women take
over the field of law, the field of law
won't survive that.
>> But I I I think that that's objective
though and that's I think the point of
the debate of all this is
>> people need to stop lying about patterns
that exist and we need to say, "Oh,
here's a really interesting thing about
um women judges when looked at at a
population study level. their sentencing
is way more lenient. Now, what do we
want to do with that information? Do we
want to say, "Oo, we don't want female
judges. Do we want to say, "Hey, voting
public, be aware that female judges are
more likely to be lenient."
>> But hiding from the truth is where I
draw a hard and fast line. I do not
think society should ever lie about what
is true. This is exactly why I fight so
hard for free speech. So, things that
are true should never be taboo. We can
argue about what to do with the
information but we should never be
blocked from saying this is really a
pattern we see and we have been blocked
by seeing that information for the last
20 years at least
>> from Darwin. There is a greater variance
within the genders than the variance
between the genders. In other words,
women can be more different than other
women than women are different from men
as a whole.
>> So you have basically two bell curves.
So they'll go like that and then you
see, oh wow, like there's a ton where
we're overlapping. And this is why it it
never maps super cleanly
>> in terms of your interactions with
people in everyday life. My wife has
masculine tendencies. I have feminine
tendencies, which is one of the things
we've always said why we get along so
well is we just meet more in the middle.
So it very very useful in that sense.
Mhm.
>> However, if you assume that I'm like the
average male, you're going to be very
confused. And when you start getting
into the extremes, this is why jails are
basically filled exclusively with men.
It's like 93% of all people incarcerated
are men. So, what does it look like when
the law profession is now swung to
feminine average? Well, you're going to
start to see things that are part of the
feminine average, which is that it's
going to be more relational. It's going
to be more forgiving, less clear rules,
less clear boundaries. And what we have
to ask is, is that what we want in law?
>> They go out of their way to make very
clear that she is not nor am I ever
saying men are better than women or
women are better than men. We need to be
honest about once you start talking
population averages, what are people
actually like? I have no problem
whatoever if a company wants to be
entirely female. No beef whatsoever. But
I also don't have a beef if a company
wants to be entirely male.
>> But right now, you will get sued into
oblivion if you make your company
exclusively male. You won't if you make
your company exclusively female, which
is [ __ ] ridiculous, but nonetheless
true. If an allmale company is better,
then let them be an allmale company and
compete. People can tell you when the
right goes too far or the masculine.
When does the left go too far or the
feminine? Like, where do we go? Yo,
that's the female equivalent of hanging
up the uh pinup girl, where guys are
just like, "Yo, this makes me so
uncomfortable. I don't want to be around
this."
>> Making people talk about their feelings.
I don't know.
>> Maybe.
>> Yeah,
>> maybe that's it. Maybe it's I should be
able to go sue somebody because they
made me discuss my feelings or they were
talking about their feelings in a
meeting and I don't think there's any
place in the workplace for that.
But people would laugh you out of