Transcription
I'm not outraged. I just think that you all are fairly stupid. And everything that's being said is ridiculous. And it's just like a comedy show.
>> You think you can change your sex? How can you ever call anybody stupid? How can you ever call anybody stupid? You think you can change your sex?
>> Hey, I'm not I'm not I. I'm just sitting back watching the show happen. I'm here for it.
I wasn't planning to make a video today, but then I saw this clip and I genuinely could not scroll past it. Because something happens in this panel that I almost never see on live television. You can watch in real time the exact moment someone runs out of argument. And here's the thing most people miss. When that happens, people don't go quiet. They stop attacking the idea and start attacking the person. And it happens so fast in this clip that if you blink, you'll miss it. So pay close attention to the very first question Andrew asks. Because by the end of this video, you're going to realize that not a single person on that panel ever actually answered it. Not one. Let's get into it.
>> All right.
>> Not only is it not, not only is it not a silly term, it is true that most of the political pundit women on the right are covert feminists. And I'll just ask you the same exact question I asked all of you.
>> Feminism is...
>> Hang on. Let me finish. Let me finish the question. Let me finish the question. No. I'm talking about all the way back to first wave feminism, okay? You are feminists and I'll explain by asking you the same question. If it is men's duty in society to procure, refine, protect resources, which then men and women are, I'm sorry, women and children are the primary beneficiaries of, which they are. What societal duty, which is equal to that, do women have? What is it?
>> Women, we're going to have children. Men will never understand the burden of carrying a child.
>> Have a duty to reproduce?
>> To be able to cook and clean.
>> Wait, so you have a... Women have a duty to reproduce?
>> Absolutely.
>> So that's the one duty that's on par. Great. So that's one duty that's on on with that. I totally agree. Are they, or is it the case that every single nation in the West, we are under reproductive rates in every single one of them? In every single nation in the West, we are lower than, than where we need to be for reproduction. So it seems that men are fulfilling their social duty and women are not. And the problem with the right is that the right doesn't ever address this and right-wing females never address this. Instead, they say it's equal. Work and and motherhood are equal. They're not equal. Not only are they not equal, but let me give you another example here. As you dive into this, try to understand that what you do is you actually hamstring women. By telling women they should go and be girl boss babes and go to college starting in their 20s, they actually destroy their prime reproductive years. They destroy them by having families later. It's the primary cause. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Listen. It's the primary cause for the reproduction crisis. It's the primary cause of the reproduction crisis in the West is that with women defer families till they're in their 30s. Why do you think the average age of marriage is 32 in the United States? I think it just got raised to 33. Yes, you're going to have way less kids. Okay? Part of girl bossing is when you say career women are right on par with mothers. They're not. And society should be glorifying one, not socially shaming the other, but you shouldn't give them the same elevation you give to mothers and matrons of families. That is pure covert feminism.
>> Okay, I'm going to answer you with the following. I, I don't believe in the glorification and especially I see it amongst Gen Z'ers of not having children. I actually think it's disgraceful and I don't think it's a flex at all to brag about not wanting to repopulate. It just shows me that you're so insecure that you're going to be a bad parent that you're not doing it. On the other hand, I'll ask you a question in return. Would you prefer a child growing up in a damaged family with a mother who clearly wasn't ready to raise a child and raise potentially what could be, you know, a deranged child who grows up to be a serial killer or a murderer, or how about this, just a really bad person, rather than wait a few more years until she's ready to have her kid and then raise a mensch? What, what do you prefer?
>> Well, so here's what we can see when we break this down. What we see when we break this down is the abuse happens in the public school. We are 100 times more likely to be SA'd than you are if you're in a Catholic church. We see that if it is the case that you're a single mother, you are a single mother especially by choice, that is usually the selection of stepfather that leads to the abuse of the children. We also can see via the stats that you're completely just insane here. You are actually, if you stay inside of a family where you mom and dad don't even like each other, your outcomes are still better, still better than if the girl boss goes, I just don't feel fulfilled. I don't feel fulfilled and so I need to go and date the neighbor down the road or whatever, right? The truth is is that regardless of your fulfillment, children are the duty. The next generation is the duty and women have a duty to keep the family intact as well. They're responsible for most of the divorces. They file for the most amount of divorces not because of abuse but because of irreconcilable differences and when asked, I don't feel fulfilled. And it's like that's not how we run a society. It's, it's literally a death sentence for our whole society. Look at what's going on in the UK. It's a death sentence for them.
>> Okay, let me bring in uh Stacia who's been uh grimacing uh throughout that. Stacia, why are you so outraged by what he's saying?
>> I'm not outraged. I just think that you all are fairly stupid.
>> [laughter]
>> And everything that's being said is ridiculous. And it's just like a comedy show these days.
>> You can change your sex? How can you ever call anybody stupid? How can you ever call anybody stupid? You think you can change your sex?
>> Hey, I'm not I'm not I. I'm just sitting back watching the show happen. I'm here for it.
>> All right. Julie, um do you, do you want to do... Well, hang on. Hang on. Hang on. I'm going to get Julie to respond to Andrew.
>> Oh, I zoned out and I thought I'd woken up in the 1950s in some tardis. You can't take him seriously. It's ridiculous.
>> Oh, you mean in the 1950s? You mean in the 1950s when we had intact families where 95% of women were getting married as virgins, where families weren't being broken up, where crime was extremely low, where you only needed one income to support an entire household, where mental illness was at an all-time low? I'd like that 1950s? I'm sorry that I make a reference to a time. Yeah, how do you make a reference to a time like that?
>> Are you married?
>> How do you make a... Married with many children? How about you? You married with children?
>> Okay, pause right here because I need you to notice what just happened. Andrew Wilson is in the middle of making a point about the 1950s, listing out actual societal metrics, crime rates, marriage rates, single-income households, mental health statistics, and instead of challenging any of those numbers, Emily asked him if he's married. Think about that for a second. The man just rattled off multiple data points about society, and the response was essentially, "But are you happy at home though?" The moment someone can't find a hole in the argument itself, the conversation shifts from the idea to the person making it. It's actually a really old debate trick, and most people watching don't even catch it because it happens so naturally. And then Julie Bindel jumps in, and instead of bringing a counter argument to the table, she basically tells Andrew he's irrelevant and pathetic multiple times. That's it. That's the whole rebuttal. And Andrew does something here that I actually think was smart, whether you agree with him or not. He keeps asking the same simple question, "Do you have an argument?" When someone resorts to calling you insecure instead of challenging your point, they've already told you everything you need to know about how strong their position actually is. Keep watching because it's about to get even more interesting.
>> Oh, she's a she's ecstatic.
>> I'm 23. I'm a boss lady girl. It seems to be driving you crazy.
>> Working, making money, waiting for the right guy to come along.
>> thing you have you have no arguments. You just try to assault me personally. You can try, but the truth is is that I've reproduced. I am married. I do have a wife.
>> were married.
>> No, you didn't. You were making a passive-aggressive comment.
>> saying to be...
>> HOW DID I ASSAULT YOU about how my wife must be...
>> must be miserable.
>> Andrew, your wife...
>> must be miserable.
>> To be fair, Andrew Andrew is prac- Andrew is practicing what he preaches. Um I want to I want to bring in an- another uh clip from a debate between Megyn Kelly and Matt Walsh on the similar theme. Let's watch a little clip from this.
>> Okay, having said that, I like the guy. I'm getting a little tired of his non-stop judgment of women who make different choices than the ones he want us wants us to make. Sorry, Matt, you're not our Jesus. We don't answer to you. Like, live your life the way you want to live it and stop judging everybody who makes a different choice. I'm sick of it.
>> over feminist.
>> And she and she went on to say uh this about young men not wanting to marry career women. Let's take a listen to this.
>> Yeah, we're now telling young conservative amazing women that they're not attractive if they also work. If they choose to let's say do what I'm doing and what you're doing and like get their voice out there. But I'll stick with me just because I think conservatives listening to this will like the thought of another Megan Kelly voice up and coming.
>> Now, Matt Walsh responded by saying men are generally not attracted to ambitious career. Well, hang on a minute. I don't want to read the a clip from Matt Walsh or a quote. He said men are generally not attracted to ambitious career-driven women and women's first priority should be children and looking after the home. So, Emily, what do you think of that?
>> I think the beauty about free will is you make a choice who you want to spend your life with. Like, I know many men are okay with you know a woman who works and I know many men are not. And that's the great part is you choose who you want to partner with. So, if you want a woman to be home and have five, six, seven, eight children, which is a beautiful choice to make in life, then go for it. If you want a woman who can do both, work and have children when she's ready, two or three children, then go for that type of woman. If you want a woman who's never home and going to be, you know, you know, on the road all the time, and trust me, there are many beta men who would love that, then go for that. Like, nobody is forcing you to be with a woman that doesn't cater to your needs, the same way no one's forcing any women to be with a guy like Andrew Tate that's going to beat you and make you miserable. We have choices, and we need to make calculated wise choices as to what personally is best for you.
>> The Andrew Tate fallacy is moving over to to Andrew Tate is evil and a representation of men who believe in a patriarchal system. Here's the truth. The truth of the matter is is that we should be doing for society what is socially good for society. If we can't reproduce our society, that's a really bad social ill for society. When you have propaganda that is telling women to go get useless degrees in psychology and sociology. Yeah, that's that's great.
>> This is Andrew quickly is making Kelly a covert feminist then.
>> Not covert, overt. She's an overt feminist. Covert's out for Megan Kelly. Megan Kelly came out and said women should be prioritizing career over family. That's what Matt Walsh's issue was with her. And he's absolutely right. The guy struck it out of the ballpark. Socially, in society, we should be moving women into a familial role. It's not to say that women can't work. Nobody's saying women can't work. We're just saying that if you're going to glorify things in society, it should be the mother in the intact home and the wife and the the caretaker at home, not the girl boss. That's insane. And it's a societal death sentence. Walsh knows it. Everybody knows this at this point. If you can't reproduce your own nation, you don't have a nation.
>> Do you know how...
>> Okay, Julie, you wanted to jump in there.
>> I mean, do you know how insecure and pathetic you sound? You can't take you seriously. You can't get that you... I'll just finish. I get that you reckon that you're some big shock jock, and I know that you're desperately trying to be relevant, but you sound so insecure and so pathetic. You are...
>> Do you have an argument? Can you put the Duncan down for a second and give me an argument? Do you have an argument? Or is it just Andrew Tate?
>> one from you.
>> Yes, I've given you multiple arguments for the social fabric of all of society and how we can improve it, what we need to be doing, what we need to be moving towards. I gave you all the stats. I gave you argument after argument. Can you give me a single argument?
>> the stats. You are the oracle. You know all about the universe and what's going to progress humankind. You're just a shock jock, mate.
>> just pathetic. Nobody's going to listen to you. You're an equal representative of an insecure man.
>> to tell you what's going to happen. This is going to go viral.
>> Well, this is going to go viral, and a lot of people are going to take me seriously, and all they're going to remember is that I told you that you couldn't put down the Duncan Donuts long enough to make an argument.
So, that's the whole thing right there. And I want to take a step back from all the noise for just a second. Because this debate wasn't really about girl boss culture, or reproductive rates, or even the 1950s. What this debate was actually about was something much simpler. What happens when someone asks a question that nobody in the room is prepared to answer honestly? Because Andrew came in with one core argument. Society functions best when certain roles are valued and prioritized. You can agree with that, or completely disagree with it. That's fine. But, here's what I found genuinely fascinating. Not one single person engaged with the actual substance of that argument from start to finish. Emily pivoted to personal choices. Stacia called everyone stupid. Julie called him pathetic and irrelevant. The real debate about what society should value, what family structure data actually shows, never actually happened. Because the moment it got uncomfortable, people stopped debating and started performing. And when that becomes the priority, real conversation dies.
Now, I'm not here to tell you what to think about any of this. But the questions Andrew Wilson raised about family, society, and where we're headed as a culture, those are worth sitting with, even if you disagree with every single answer he gave. Drop your thoughts in the comments below. I genuinely want to know who you think actually won this debate. If this breakdown was worth your time, hit that like button, subscribe, and I'll see you in the next one.