Transcription
Men should always pay for women. And no, it's not because men are natural providers or because women shouldn't have their own money or work. This has nothing to do with gender roles. Men should have to incentivize women to want to be around them for the following reasons.
As we watch this woman, we're going to keep a tally for how many times she is misleading, sexist, or just telling outright lies. Spoiler alert, it's a lot. Men are women's apex predator. 91% of rape and assault cases are done to women. 99% of perpetrators are men. 2% of convicted rapists go to prison, and the majority of the time the offender is someone that the woman knows or is dating. That does not seem very equal to me. 91% of victims are women. It sounds scary, doesn't it? But it's extremely misleading. For almost a century, by definition, only women could be victims. If it happened to a man, it just didn't count. You see, for the longest time, statistics and definitions were specifically tailored to strengthen the narrative of men harming women. Also, assault on men looks different. If, in addition to forceful penetration, you include statistics about men being forced to penetrate, then the numbers look basically equal. If you compound that with the societal stigma against being a male victim, which means that crimes against men are hugely underreported, you'll see that saying that 91% of victims are women is extremely misleading. And it clearly makes her claim that 99% of perpetrators are men an outright lie. And so is the claim that only 2% of convicted offenders go to prison when, according to the United States Sentencing Commission, the actual number is 99.5%.
And the crazy part is you will hear men complain more about the male loneliness epidemic or feminism than you will hear them talk about any of these things. This is misleading because it's not one or the other. You can care about both. But if there is a bias in focus, it's because society has already reached a consensus about sexual assault and what to do about it. The average sentence is 213 months. If you force yourself on a woman, you will pay for it with 17 years of your life. No one is campaigning to reduce this. Men agree with you. It's a crime. If you're proven guilty, then the punishment should be severe. For that topic, a consensus has been reached, but not so for male loneliness. Men rely on these bad men to make themselves look like good men. In contrast, this is projection. She imagines that men do this because this is how she thinks. As the research has consistently shown, it is women, not men, who primarily derive their self-esteem from comparison. And since they rely on this contrast to evade accountability, they will never actually protect us from these bad men. As long as these bad men exist, we women need these good men to protect us. The problem is that's a lie because they don't actually protect us. No, what you said is actually the lie. And it's also more projection because men do intervene when they see a woman being victimized. It's when a man is a victim that you see a different story.
I want to show you a YouTube video of a social experiment that was done where a man was physically abusing a woman in public to see if other men would intervene to help her. And then they switched it and they showed a man being physically abused by a woman in public. They wanted to see if anybody would intervene to stop a female perpetrator. You're going to want to see the results of this. But first, she's only been speaking for less than a minute, and look at all of the times she's already lied or been misleading. How does this happen? Dishonesty is such a nasty habit. But the truth is is that we can all get sucked into some bad habits. And sometimes you need a little help to break them. That's where Fume comes in, the sponsor of today's video. It's not a vape. It's not an EIG, no vapor, no nicotine, just flavored air. It's delicious. I've been hitting up the raspberry lemon flavor. All the flavors are good, and there's heaps of choices, but yeah, this one's my favorite. And the device is fun to hold and play with. It gives me something to do with my hands. It's magnetic. It's clicky. It's very tactile. You can twist it like this. And it doesn't need charging. There's no battery, which means that you can take it anywhere. It's very simple. Over 500,000 people are already using Fume as part of their daily routine. And right now, if you grab the Journey Pack using my code, Alexander Grace, they're going to throw in a free fume topper just for my audience. So, go to trifume.com/alexanderrace or just scan the QR code on screen. Give it a try. Seriously, you'll see why I always keep mine close at hand.
Okay, let's return to her claim that men will never stand up to bad men who mistreat women because we rely on the comparison of ourselves to those bad men in order to feel good. 10 years ago, these YouTubers wanted to raise awareness about domestic violence against women. So, they filmed a man assaulting a woman in public. And guess who comes to her rescue? Men. The men came quickly and in numbers, ready to physically put their safety on the line to protect a stranger. Do you want to guess what happened when they switched the roles? When they had a woman who is physically assaulting a man in public? It's exactly what you're expecting. When a woman is assaulting a man in public, she gets a free pass. There's no sympathy for the male victim. No one intervenes to protect him. But please continue with your narrative that all men are awful and all women are victims. Why would women choose to go out with our apex predator and also pay for our own meal? Why would we put ourselves out just to put ourselves at risk? Her continued characterization of all men as predators is dehumanizing and sexist. But on top of that, her notion that the solution to this is that men should pay for her meals on dates doesn't make any sense. That's not how justice works. If a man commits assault against a woman, justice is putting that man in jail. Not demanding some other guy unrelated to the situation pay for her dinner. To apply collective guilt is to indulge the false cause fallacy. It is actually a complete perversion of justice. But sadly, if you have been brainwashed with enough anti-male sexism, you're not going to see that. But let's hear what other reasons she has for why men have to pay.
The second point is women's time is more valuable than men's time is. Men constantly tell us that we're going to be undesirable after 30 while they get to be desirable well into their senior years. Now, I don't think that's true, but that's what we're consistently told. I mean, I don't know how you can doubt this. This has been proved over and over again. Men are attracted to young women because they have years of fertility in front of them. Men are attracted to older men because of increased confidence and resources. They're more established in life. The reason why you're consistently told this is because it's true. In any case, if a woman does want to have children, she does have a limited amount of time compared to a man. And by this logic, since women have limited time, it is inherently more valuable than a man's time. Why then would a woman waste her time to go out with a man who isn't going to make it worth her time and who more than likely is going to waste her time? I promise you, you're going to feel better about a man wasting your time if he's also fed you and has improved your life and financed your passions and your development. This whole section was misleading because it's using the logic of traditional gender roles in order to justify progressive feminism. But it doesn't work that way. You can't just pick and choose. If women say that men must pay because our time is more valuable because we need to make children, okay, fine. That seems somewhat rational. We can do that. But by that logic, would you then agree that if a man is on a date with a woman who is past childbearing age, then he doesn't need to pay? And we certainly don't need to pay on dates with young women who are not intending to have children. Like, if she's a party girl and she's just dating because she wants a hookup, but she wants to be child-free, then she pays for herself, right? You have to be consistent here because the notion that you as a modern woman who doesn't want children should have your meals paid for because there are other women that do want children and you want to borrow their credibility. That's not going to fly. Sorry, that just makes no sense.
Thirdly, women's reproductive rights. There are very real health risks and financial consequences when engaging with men. Men have largely been silent as our right to choose has been rolled back and contraceptives are not foolproof. The only way that you can guarantee that you will not get pregnant is by not sleeping with men at all. More lies. First off, she's not carving out exceptions for pro-choice men. But in any case, men have not been silent. 61% of American men are pro-choice, basically on par with the 64% of women. This is not an issue that splits by gender. There are much better predictors for whether or not you are likely to be pro-choice or pro-life. If you filter by political party, religion, age, and even race, they are all more reliable predictors than gender. And yet, feminists continue to try and paint this as though it is a gendered issue when that is the least reliable predictor. Sadly, this is actually just more projection because the truth is is that it is women who don't care about reproductive rights. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to do this. Ask a woman if she is in favor of paper abortion. Since actual abortion is not an option for men, a paper abortion for guys who never wanted to have a child and are willing to forego paternity rights and the financial obligations that come along with it. Seriously, ask around. Find out how many women support that and then you're going to quickly discover who actually cares about the other gender's reproductive rights. The reality is you could be stuck carrying a man's child, sacrificing your career and your body and financial stability if you choose to sleep with a man who cannot at least pay for your dinner, and nonetheless support a child. You just said before that the only way to guarantee not getting pregnant is to not sleep with men. So why not take your own advice? It's so misleading because she's pretending like women have no agency here. Like they have no choice. But if a guy does not pay for dinner, no one is forcing you to sleep with him. But if you do, then you know the risks and you need to take accountability for the choice you made. Women are forced to disregulate her hormones with birth control and to risk infections through condoms. And men don't have to worry about these things. Okay. But everything that you just listed assumes sex. But is that the assumption that you really want to operate under? Truly think that through. Because if that's the justification, she needs to be on birth control. Then every time a man pays for dinner, he's going to feel entitled to sex. And I'm pretty sure that's not the precedent that you want to set. Men's bodies are never up for political debate. Ours are. Men cannot and do not split these burdens with us, and they can't split the labor of carrying and giving birth to a child.
I almost tallied this one up as a lie, but technically what she's saying is actually true. Men's bodies are not up for political debate because debate implies that it might go one way or the other. The outcome is not clear. But for men, the decision about their bodies has already been made. The sexism against men in this culture is so total that it never even gets debated. There is a fundamental assumption that men's bodies belong to the state. And in a time of war, there is no freedom of choice. You must be sent to die. It seems astonishing that women have still not woken up to the privilege that they have here. We treat women's bodily autonomy as so sacred that she is allowed to kill the baby that's growing inside of her. That's how much we revere her freedom of choice and her bodily autonomy. But men's bodily autonomy is considered so worthless that if the government decides that his life is worth less than whatever political regime is in charge in South Vietnam, then that completely justifies stripping him of his freedom of choice, sending him to war, while of course the women get to stay safe at home. I encourage you do not fall for the feminist propaganda in this culture. Never forget it is men's bodily autonomy that is not respected. And while men don't give birth, that is true. When she says that men don't split the burden, that's false. In fact, give me a tally. Let's have another lie ding up. Because while she stays home raising the baby, he goes to work to financially provide. That is splitting the burden. In one moment, women will say that pregnancy, birth, and motherhood are like the most blessed, cherished, incredible experiences of their life. But in the next moment, when they want to shame men and paint themselves as victims, they'll paint motherhood like it's this drudgery, this suffering. I don't know. Like, if your part of the deal is that you get to raise babies, that sounds pretty good to me. Babies are cute. There are lots of guys out there who would rather stay home and play with a baby all day than to go out into the workforce and break your back for terrible wages. But, of course, you have to remember only women's suffering counts.
Finally, women's presence and attention is more valuable than men's are. Erotic dance clubs with female dancers generate 7.4 billion annually, making up 95% of total revenue. Erotic dance clubs of male dancers generate $328 million annually, making up 5% of total revenue. And spicy fan sites reflect the same numbers. Female creators that make heterosexual content constitute 95% of top earners. Male creators who make heterosexual content constitute 5% of top earners. I don't know many women who pay to see men dance on poles. There are very few examples of professional women who have tanked their entire reputation and legacy to chat with minors or to pursue men in a coercive or disrespectful way. Women don't bond with each other over men serving as hot wings in mini shorts. That's what men do. All right, so this section caught me off guard. There might be lies in it. I didn't bother to fact-check her figures. I'm just too astonished at her reasoning. Every point that she made about women's presence being more valuable than men's came back to sex work. Am I crazy or is that not hugely degrading to women? To make the case that women are special and valuable because they have the ability to make men horny, that seems so outrageously offensive to me. What is going on? Am I the feminist here? You'd think after all the things that I've covered in my work that nothing could surprise me, but somehow there's always some new angle that I didn't expect. As a woman, when you're seen with a man, it lowers your social capital. And we saw this surrounding the online discourse that occurred when Nina got engaged to Logan Paul. When men are seen with multiple women, they are held in higher regard by society and amongst their peers. Women who are seen with multiple men, whether she's sleeping with them or not, are condemned. When you are seen with a man, you are increasing his social capital and lowering your own. You should not also be paying for your meal. She is right that being seen in public with women does increase your social capital as a man. But the way she presented it is so misleading because it is women, not men, who are taking notice of that. Pre-selection is a well-researched phenomenon. Women are attracted to men that other women find attractive. If you're on a date with a man, then you are increasing his social capital in the eyes of other women. Just like everything else in this video, there is zero accountability from women and all the blame gets put on men. And do not get fooled by her monotone. That is a conscious strategy that she's chosen to employ. It's called apathetic appeal and it's designed to manipulate viewers into giving the impression that whatever she is saying is so obvious that it's basically boring to her that she has to say it out loud. But if you look closely at her arguments, you'll see it's always just another repackaged form of Schrodinger's feminism. Is she a modern woman, an independent boss babe, or is she a traditional woman who loves babies and whatever? You'll never know. You'll never be able to predict. The only consistency that you're going to find is that she'll use whatever argument is available that benefits her as a woman. There is no deeper principle at play here. So long as the woman is coming out on top and men can be blamed, she's not bothered by the inconsistencies.
As a woman, you are valuable in spite of what society might try to lead you to believe. Things are not equal. If men would like access to women, they need to pick up the slack and make the process of dating them as convenient as possible. And to me, that's not promoting gender roles. It's just common sense. What does she think gender roles are? Like, what is her definition? God, it's always the same thing. Men are disgusting, so give me money. I made this video in case you ever encounter these arguments in your real life, so that you know how to debunk them and point out what's misleading, what's sexist, and what are just lies. I always like to look at the comments section of videos like this to sort of see how the wider culture is responding to these ideas. So, I'm going to spend the rest of the video just scrolling through the comments and then giving you my commentary. If you want to keep watching, the rest of the video is available on Patreon. My Patreon's awesome. We've got an amazing community there. I love the videos I get to post. If you like my work and you want to support me, I'd be thrilled to get your support on Patreon. And remember, if you're ready to kick that nasty habit and get yourself something fun to fiddle and play with, check out Fume.