Honey Badger Radio

What kind of sentiments? | HBR Talk 317

Last week, we learned a bit about the the Seneca Falls Convention and began reading through the declaration of sentiments written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, looking for that “about equality” vibe feminists keep telling us we should be getting from their work. So far, it’s been a puerile, whiny, vitriolic mockery of the Declaration of Independence. We’ve trudged through similarly toxic writing by feminists and been told it’s not representative of their movement, but if the manifesto of the suffragettes isn’t representative, what is? Tonight, we’ll continue our examination. We hope we’ll find some True Feminism™ in this document, but we’re not holding our breath.

Duration:: 2h 25m
Broadcast on:: 14 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

Hello and welcome to HBR Talk 317. What kind of sentiments? I'm Hannah Wallen here with Nonsense Annihilator Lauren Brooks and the personification of Perceptivity, Mike Stevenson, and we've been going over the Declaration of Sentiments, and we're still in there. We're hanging in there. It's kind of a slog because, aside from the fact that it's written in the style of the early 20th century, which is nothing like 21st century speak, yeah, it's it's whiny and bitchy too. So it's a little rougher for us because we're we're not very good at the whole whiny bitchy thing. Although I was doing that before the show, but that's for a different reason. So we're going to sort of recap a little bit before we get into more of this and we'll still continue to compare it with the Declaration of Independence. If we get all the way through this, we'll go back to the timeline a little bit. I have the timeline right here, as you can see, and yes, please save to avoid losing my I didn't do anything. I just opened it paranoid. It's because it's a site for school teachers and you have to remind them to do everything. It's really bad. They complain about their students, but you know, in any case, before we do that, we got to do what we got to do. So let's get on with it. As always, Honey Badger dishes out a smorgasbord of thought-provoking discussions and as experiences both recent and long past have demonstrated the provoked thoughts are fighting back. They've made it clear that for people like us relying on third-party payment platforms like Patreon to fund our work is treading on thin ice or building our house in the path of a rapidly growing wildfire. In light of this, we strongly encourage our supporters to switch at least their support for us to feedthebadger.com, the most stable way to help us out. And if you want to tip us directly instead of relying on any social media platforms tip jar, the link for that is feedthebadger.com/justthetip. And as always, the same risk applies to our social media platforms, which is why you should further provoke the thought police by tracking our thought-provoking discussions on honeybadger brigade.com, where you can find your way to all of our content, as well as a link to feedthebadger.com in the drop-down menu at the top of the page. And with that, we'll get back into, so last week we sort of took a look at, and I'll open this back up, we sort of took a look at the fact that the Seneca Falls Convention was sort of started from one perspective. It wasn't something that like women from all over the country were like, yeah, let's do this! A couple of women who were offended at being excluded from a emancipation convention from an anti-slavery, a world anti-slavery convention, because they were women decided that there needed to be this tantrum by women to be included in things men were doing. So they decided to plan this convention, and the main people who planned this, two of them were sisters, four of them were Quakers, although one had been expelled for marrying a non-Quaker, but she was raised a Quaker, so there were out of the five organizers, four of them were Quakers, so they all had that there was not a diversity of thought there, and either spelling of the word thought or diversity. But in any case... It needs to be said, slavery was so much better before women ruined it. Now, I'm gonna let that quote hang in the air before you'll think of the various different avenues of how that would work, of how many slaves throughout history were male and how many were female, and sure, they were both in. They were generally used for different purposes, but do we talk about the victims, or do we talk about the perpetrators? I mean, for the most history, men were both when it came to slavery. They were most of the slaves and most of the slave drivers, but the women came along and said, "No, we want to be the slave drivers." Anything else you want to volunteer yourselves, four ladies? No, no, I don't see any other part of the equation into which we could possibly fit, because we already are and always have been. Women is synonymous with slave. Well, no, Eastern European is synonymous with slave, but we can do whatever we like, which we can bugger about with words or we like. Slaves is another word for women. Women is another word for slave. You all owe us reparations in the form of letting us enslave you for the rest of time, and we'll call you an insell if you don't like it, and so on and so forth. Yep, and they have done that. That's actually the latest, greatest, next best way that women try to shut up men who complain about real life issues that are affecting them. You know, you don't like being fired from your job just to make room for somebody that's less competent than you because of their demographic. Oh, shut up, you insell. You don't want to be raped. Shut up, you insell. You don't want your wife to take your children, leave the marriage, and then prevent you from nurturing and caring for them, but demand that you support her lifestyle after the marriage. Shut up, you insell. You know, like, that's that's pretty much the go to answer, right? But when you don't talk about your feelings and your thoughts and what you want in your life and what you're not getting in your life and stuff, well, that's toxic masculinity. Women aren't to blame for that, right? And shut up, you insell. But yeah, that's that's pretty much where we are. So thanks, Seneca Falls, but not to blame the location of the convention, obviously. And I will also point out, we mentioned last week, there was also a very strong anti suffragette movement. And it was, it wasn't just a few, you know, ignorant women that didn't know how much they wanted the vote, like feminists try to portray it today. The anti suffrage movement was bigger than the suffragette movement for most of the time that the two existed until it like the suffragettes basically pushed and pushed and pushed until people started acquiescing, like, Oh, okay, well, we'll go along with this. All right, this is what women want now. So this is what we're we're women, we have to want this, right? The anti is testified before legislatures, published articles and newsletters held public meetings, debated the suffragists, and collected signatures to urge Congress to not give women the vote. So yeah, this was this was not just like a handful of malcontents, a bunch of pygmies, right, that feminists talk about this, this was pretty much the mainstream opinion at the time. Um, so what we went over last week pointed out starters, and I can make this much bigger because it's not a PDF file like the other one. Um, the reasons cited for the Declaration of Independence were actually much more egregious violations of human rights than the reasons cited for the Declaration of Sentiments. You had in, in the time period, as we went over in past episodes, you had a circumstance where the people in the colonies were being economically squeezed to death, their their hold on the land was being not just challenged, but really shaken up by legislation passed by the King of England. And their ability to travel, their ability to engage in trade with each other, their ability to survive where they were was in jeopardy, because their, their, um, time periods version of Blackrock had been given a monopoly on several of the most important goods for them. It had been authorized to enforce that monopoly. There were law enforcement there from, from Britain also to enforce that monopoly. Part of the land on which colonists had settled had been reallocated so that it was now part of the province at the time of Canada instead of, um, the colonies, uh, you know, of, of the Americas. So it was, it was actually a completely different territory, which created issues of separation legally for families and such. So they really, they really were, you know, they had just been through a war that they didn't really want anything to do with, uh, the French and Indian War spilled over into the colonies and there was a lot of fighting that took place there, but the colonists really didn't have a dog in that fight other than they didn't want to die. And, uh, so they were sort of dragged into that against their will and it left them already dealing with, uh, hardship because of that. And then on top of that, England started taxing them to pay for it. So they, they really had a lot of reasons, uh, why they decided, and the worst part was they couldn't just send delegates to parliament, you know, to participate in the parliamentary system in Britain, because everything happening in Britain happened too quickly for delegates to get there from across the ocean. So their delegates would have arrived after the fact and, uh, had nothing to say about it at that point, because they wouldn't have, you know, we're talking about a time period where travel was, you sail on a ship across the ocean, you ride a horse and carriage across the country, you know, none of this flying there, none of this, you know, and sailing was much slower and much more dangerous than it is today as well. Um, even the pirates were more dangerous, even though, uh, you know, people think of pirates as something that happened in history, you don't sail in the wrong part of the world today or you'll discover that's not the case at all. Um, they're just not, uh, they're different. We'll just say that, um, you won't run into the black pearl. Uh, but there you go. So that's, that's the situation that the colonists were dealing with, right? So they were complaining that the king was pretty much ruling over them while excluding them from having any input, no representation, um, that he didn't even allow his governors to handle local affairs, that he had removed the right of due process, um, in, in terms of, if you are accused of a crime, you're presumed guilty, unless proven innocent, you're tried under a, uh, uh, not navy maritime law instead of, um, under, under the, the law of the land. And so you're dealing with a complete lack of due process, um, dissolved their representative houses. So he's basically made it impossible for them to have any autonomy at all in the colonies. And that's what they were upset about. Complete lack of autonomy, complete lack of, um, ability to survive economically and a, uh, an oppressive situation in terms of their ability to survive factually because of those two common, combined things. And, and I will point out there wasn't a reciprocal, well, these people are responsible for you. They're going to take care of you and they'll give you the food you need, the shelter you need, the clothing you need, the safety that you need. They weren't protected. Like women were under coverture. It was basically a rock and a hard place, you know, closing in on either side of the colonists and the colonists was like, we're, we're like, fuck you, we're not doing this. All right, we're going to fight about it. And here's, here's the fight. All right. So that's where we, that's where we ended up last week. Meanwhile, the suffragette's complaints essentially were that coverture, which made the husband responsible, wholly responsible for the welfare of the wife, limited the wife in ways that were necessary in order for the husband to uphold those duties. You can't take responsibility for someone and be obligated to ensure they don't break the law, to ensure they have everything they need, to ensure any property they own is not mismanaged and so on. If you don't have control over those things legally, so they complained that history has repeatedly injured and usurped women on a part of men by establishing an absolute tyranny over women. Mind you, women didn't have to get married. A woman could not be forced into marriage at this point in time. A tyranny that kept them fed and clothed and housed and safe and warm in the wintertime and really, and he couldn't even make her do the housework. Like if, if he tried to use force, and this is something somebody tried to dispute this in last week's, last week's show, we might go over those comments. But Wikipedia, the non source of non sources, the blog of encyclopedias. Sorry, I have more disdain for Wikipedia than I do for people's random medium blogs. It's pathetic. But Wikipedia talks about the fact that in some court cases, judges not looking at actual law and not ruling on anything to do with domestic violence in the moment, cited a non existent legal standard, the rule of thumb. The rule of thumb is not and never has been a legal standard. It was debunked by more than one person. Christina have summers is probably the one that's most well known for it. But if you look at the unknown history of misandry, misandry. Got a kid he was named Robert Estef, I think is the owner of that blog. He has put up news articles after news article after news article that show that our society has always had a response to domestic violence that made it very clear that it was illegal for men to engage in domestic violence against women. Non necessarily treat the other way around. Yeah, my microphone is not doing so well, huh? Well, part of it might just be me. But let me see if I've got it turned down again. No, it's not turned down. Yeah, I hear you fine. I wonder what's going on there. All right, we'll fix see if we can fix it a little bit. I've turned it up to maximum volume that's as high as I can get it to go. So sorry if it's not loud enough. Well, and every so often, OBS tells me that I've clipped. Like it goes all the way up into the red and just hovers there for a second. So I don't know if it's doing that. If it's if that's coming across or not, but it looks really bad from my end. So I might it might be about time for me to replace this. I've had this for a long time. I've had it for so long that it no longer even has the little cushy parts on it. Like those are gone completely. I recorded my first I want to say I recorded one of my earliest HBR talk openers with this microphone, this headset. So that should tell you something. Anyway, yeah, we were at women women didn't have that situation. But yeah, so we we read the first several of these already never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise. So it's inalienable, right? Everybody has the right to vote but women at that point in time, right? No, no, no, no, most most people when women started fighting for the right to vote in the United States, most people did not have the right to vote. Everybody that was not white was pretty much excluded. Some people, even if they immigrated, even if their parents had immigrated and they were born here could not be citizens because of their race. And I'm not even just talking about people who had been enslaved, right? I'm talking about people who had who came here voluntarily and worked could not be citizens because of their race. People who were here before a single white person set foot in most of the country couldn't vote, couldn't be citizens, couldn't vote until the next century, actually, when women started agitating for suffrage. So the idea that this was inalienable at the time, that was not a thing, was held from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men, both natives and foreigners. We talked about that too. There are several rights that were denied to both natives and foreigners that were allocated to women. Oh, I remember, I miss, stopped in the middle of talking about that rule of thumb. I would recommend if anybody has any doubts about that, we put out a production a while back during the Johnny Depp case. The title of it is something like why Johnny Depp can't ever clear his name as a man. And that's, that's, I believe on the Honey Badger radio channel, not the live streams channel, it might be on the live streams channel, but it's in the videos section, not the live streams section. It's about 45 minutes long and it thoroughly debunks the claim that our society ever tolerated domestic violence against women. It doesn't, you know, debunk the claim that that our society tolerated domestic violence against men. Our society did not forever, it did not penalize women for engaging in domestic violence against men. Guess who got penalized? That happened. The men themselves got penalized by the, um, they had a specific name, I forgot what it is, where they bash the pots and pans, the Skimmington right. Skimmington right, that's right. So if a man beat his wife, the village would actually come and get him, take him out, drag him around town, put him on a donkey, write him around backwards, beat him, make fun of him, you know, call him, call him everything but late for dinner, and, uh, and then return him to her, still able to do whatever he did for a living, right? If a woman beat her husband, they did exactly the same thing to him. Thankfully things have changed nowadays, and men don't get subjected to ritualistic state punishment for being abused by their domestic partners. Heaven for FEN that such a thing would take place. But it's the government doing it now, when it was the villagers doing it, it was barbaric. But now that, now that someone's been appointed to do it, and not by banging on pots and pans, but by dragging away the already bloodied corpse of a man, well caught corpse, the already bloody body of a man throwing him in the back of a police car and letting him just live with his kidney damage for the next 24 hours in her salon. Yeah, well, now what they do is take his dead and bloodied body and post it all over social media and gain, you know, clicks and, you know, dopamine hits for all the clicks of the lives that they'll get, you know, and the you go girls. And meanwhile, people are still pushing this rule of thumb thing, as we were talking about earlier. You don't even need to go to a haughty sauce to debunk that, even Wikipedia. And I know normally Wikipedia is not the place to go to for reliable facts, but that's because they're so biased in favor of whatever the communist revolution is doing right now. But it includes and always has included man bad woman week. But even Wikipedia will fill you in on how this idea that the rule of thumb was about a stick, no one in your thumb that you could use to be your wife. And if even the the platforms that are as determined as possible to get away with with lying for the cause of feminism, even if they can't get away with it, even if the people who are able to rewrite history at a moment's notice at a whim, even if they can't get away with this lie. That ought to tell you that it's among the least substantiated of feminist lies and that's saying something. Yep, because Wikipedia is crowd sourced in a weird way. It goes against what every other reliable source of information uses as its means of determining what is fact versus what is not fact. So for instance, if we held a conference and filmed it, which we have done, and our video showed a sequence of events at the conference that demonstrated exactly what happened there, and you could tell there wasn't anything left out that you know, we didn't film or whatever. And then news media reported that something else happened that wasn't on the video that would have been shown if it had happened. And they would accept that news report. But since the video is a primary source, they wouldn't. They wouldn't accept that, right? You can go into court as a witness, and your witness statement is taken to be the truth unless it's proved otherwise. But if you write your autobiography and someone else writes a news article that is just completely fabricated about your life, that news article is given more credibility than your autobiography. So if you get diagnosed with something and you put that in your autobiography, I was diagnosed with condition X. And the article writer says, well, no such condition ever existed, even if it does, or this individual was never diagnosed, has never been to a doctor and just completely lied about that. But they have no proof in the article. They definitely accept that article, but not your autobiography. So Wikipedia is crap in my book. I have no respect for it, and I don't accept it as a source. When I was an educator, didn't accept it as a source, and I won't accept it as a source in an argument either. You better find something else besides Wikipedia. I try to avoid referring to it in any of my work. I'll go investigate the sources cited by the people who have written Wikipedia articles to see if I can find the information that they're claiming they found. And I will say this too. There have been many times when I've taken a Wikipedia article about something gone through the sources, looked for the information that they're citing from those sources, or citing those sources as a source for, and it's not there. It doesn't say that. And in a few instances, it's said the opposite, and it's been pretty obvious that the writer of the Wikipedia article just didn't understand what they read. So if you're looking up what a particular drug does or what a particular scientific formula is about and stuff like that, chemical formulas about, okay, you know, you're probably going to get decent information on that, because the people that do those articles don't have a political agenda, and they're usually not stupid, but don't trust anything you read on Wikipedia that is governed by the social sciences. So, non-humarian, humanitarian anti-feminism, if you have questions about the Badger Cave, you've got to ask Allison, I don't have anything to do with that, I'm in Ohio. So, just so you know, we are in Saskatchewan, Ohio, Connecticut, London, I can't remember what community Brian moved to, but he's in Virginia. We have people in Arizona, we've got, I don't remember what community Karen's from, but she's from a different part of Canada than Allison is from, so we're not, we're in different places. Non-humanitarian anti-feminism, the question was not for the audience, like that's bullshit, no one believes that. Right, like you wouldn't be in our chat asking a question to a group of people that are not actually part of the organization about what the organization is doing, like have at least a little bit of decency, if you're going to troll, like have at least a little bit of intelligence behind your trolling. Just saying that. Actually a little bit left out because I can't read the chat right now, yeah. Yeah, like this guy is an idiot. No, he was asking the audience if the audience is paying rent on the Badger Cave, like that's like it kind of indicates that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. A lot of our audience doesn't give us a dime, most of our audience doesn't give us a dime. Like and that's fine, that's not, that's not the point. Oh okay, I see, that explains that, so you've lost your mind, so all right. Well in that case, I think we're pretty much done because that's like arguing with somebody who's in a mental health institution, except they've gotten out and are on YouTube making comments instead. Yeah, there's no point in arguing with people like that because they come here with presuppositions and you know, you're not going to change their mind. And you know, that's fine. Come here and troll, hey, just click the like button on the way in or out, please, thank you. Sure. You know, well and at like case in point, he just asked a question I already answered. So that's, that tells you where the conversation is going to go if I continue. So there we go. Back to the suffragettes and back to the question of, you know, did they have any real feminism? We're still looking, we're still looking in this document for the real feminism, which we haven't seen. And remember, we're told that my Sandra is not real feminism whining about is not real feminism. Real feminism has never been tried before, Hannah. That's it. Real feminism is about equality, but real feminism has never been tried. Real feminism, please stand up. Are you the woman who died hair by any chance? So we are told that we went over a couple of things here. Women have no voice in the formation of the laws that that they're compelled to submit to, except the women's Christian temperance movement proved otherwise. They not only got a law passed, they got an amendment to the constitution passed that was so bad that it created a new thing in the United States that had not previously existed, organized crime around, that it was organized around the trade of illicit substances. Like the drug trade that we are dealing with today, when the problem, the alcohol trade preceded it, and that trade started, the illicit alcohol trade started as a result of the passage of the 18th amendment, which was of course the temperance amendment. So there you go. You know, women, women have no voice, no power, no influence, got an amendment to the constitution that was so bad it had to be repealed later, passed with no voice, and no power, and no influence. Oh, the humidity wears my fainting coach, and just useless, just useless, worthless, I tell you, nothing's, just absolutely nothing. Write them off to the drugs of history. Bye with you, women. Then we debunked also the fact that women in the eye of the law were civilly dead, because wives could sue their husbands for non support. They could sue for their husbands for not having sex with them. They could, they could actually take you to court for that. All right, they could divorce their husbands for abuse or adultery, and they could collect on that. The claim that he made her morally and irresponsible being as she can commit many crimes with impunity provided they be done in the presence of her husband. Again, you have every right to not commit crimes, even if the court, the law, the police, the government, whatever does nothing to you for it. Just because you are able to do something doesn't mean you're obligated to do it. If somebody might, all of these legal labyrinths only really applied to the top, whatever percent of women up to, and including the time this was written, like 100 years ago, awesome, and for the longest time. Wait, what was I saying just now? Are the top echelons? Like, for instance, oh, yeah, yeah, what, and, and when you call out the, the posh rich women for what they're saying posh rich women weren't able to do, and you say, now actually posh rich women were able to do this. They then pivot. So, well, what about the working class women, or at least they should, according to the communist principles, they should turn around and say, well, what about, what about the women who couldn't afford all of these luxuries? What about the working class women and their husbands? Well, they got along with each other. I know that's hard to believe, but, but the men and women who had to get along with each other did. Throughout most of human history, it was, it was left up to the, to the frumpy wenches in the frocks in the late 1800s, to start arguing and splitting hairs about the few things that the top 1% of men can do, but the top 1% of women struggle to do, not can't do, but can do and struggle to do. And, and, and, yeah, they'll, they'll, they'll, they'll keep on their avenue of argument and, until you actually point out that this, this was all just posh people arguing with each other. And because posh people are kind of more drawn to victim mentality because they have time to waste on that sort of thing, you, you, you, you start to realize that, that, that this was all arguing about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. Well, for the most part, men and women were getting along with each other as and when they had to. And it's not that difficult, if we can follow the example of the men and women who did get along with each other, for the vast majority of human history, rather than following the example of, of, of frumpy pinched face wenches from a hundred years ago, for whom the top 1% was just not enough because men exist. It's all, and I cannot express this enough, so tiresome. Yep. One of the things that, that interests me about the way women divided in history, you had middle, the middle class was kind of small throughout most of history. There weren't very many people that fit into it because you had to have sort of a Goldilocks position of having maybe a little bit of property or being in a position where you are in charge of property in order to get there, or you had to have enough of an education to get paid well for what you did, but not so much that you, you got paid the way that say a legislator or a doctor might get paid today. And you know, you, your level of success, once you hit a certain point, would increase just on the basis of, you know, once you had that success, you might write about it. People were much more skilled about that historically. You might either have other things, you'd be more in demand because that level of skill wasn't exactly common at the time. So you ended up at a higher level of success than the middle class. So you had this division between women who everything they ever wanted that existed during their time was paid for by their husbands or else. And because their husbands were rich, if they didn't spoil them rotten, and the woman did sue for non support, a judge would consider that, well, he could afford it, so he should do it for her. Whereas then you had the women who were impoverished, living with, within a family where everybody worked, including children as young as four and five years old, and they didn't have time to worry about that shit, right? If their property, which might be the pittance they earned in the workplace, wasn't communally handled in the family by their husband, who did all the budgeting, probably with them overseeing it, their family would starve. So there wasn't this governance so much by men as there was a combined set of resources as a result of need. Women that did that, they're the ones that looked at the women going, well, we need voting rights and went, why? Our husbands are doing their best for us. Our husbands are taking care of us. What are you so upset about? Are you upset because you didn't get enough silk dresses this year? I'm sorry, but I'm busy helping to support my family. So you had the snoots versus the rednecks, I guess, and they really didn't. They didn't have time to worry about this shit. But yeah, the response that we got in the chat regarding the so-called rule of thumb was in response to this one at the top here. He had the right to administer chastisement. Right now historically marriage was not created by the government. Marriage was created by the church and historically the church had a hierarchy of who's in charge of the household and it actually went along with how marriage evolved. It didn't evolve out of two people loving each other and choosing to be together as a tradition. It evolved out of families arranging for their their kids when they got old enough to marry to marry each other in order to form a stronger union between two families so that they would be stronger than the surrounding families. It evolved out of feudal systems and pre-feudal systems where it was tribe against tribe and family against family and there was economic competition and then there was also violent competition between families. So marriage wasn't just a matter of gosh, I think this person is awesome. I want to be with them for the rest of my life. It was this family has a lot of cows and this family has a lot of land. We should combine and we have a lot of financial power and can can hire mercenaries to defend our land and our cows and we'll be wealthy. Like that's how marriage evolved. Now, aside from that you just had people that would shack up and have kids together if they were from more along the lines of the peasantry. Maybe a marriage would be arranged here and there in order for a man to ensure that his daughter was well taken care of by somebody who he knew was going to be financially stable. But there wasn't something that people invented to prove their love to each other. So this part is where we I think stopped last week. He has so framed the laws of divorce as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce in case of separation to whom the guardianship of children shall be given as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the woman. The law in all cases going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man and giving all power into his hands. So in other words, the suffragettes didn't say divorce is too hard or divorce screws up the family and men can leave with impunity. No, it was divorce laws don't consider women's happiness. Yeah, exactly. And right, right. And I'm sorry, but you know, your happiness doesn't come first when there's children involved. That should be the first and foremost obvious to anyone involved, right? So no, I'm sorry, you don't have to like it. Nobody likes it when a marriage breaks up, well, unless, you know, it's a particularly unhappy marriage, you know, but no, your your whims, your wishes don't exist anymore. You know what I mean? Your your happiness is no longer a part of the equation. And that's the problem. This is the problem with today's women, right? Because you know, you have these kids and you think that it's just gonna be all perfect and sunshine and rainbows. And it's just not. But your happiness is not the most important thing here. It's about your children. And women have lost the focus there, right? Like your happiness be damned. I mean, my god, I'm not happy. Well, the point the point the point of which you have a child is the point at which someone else's happiness is is more important than yours or should be, or at least, yeah. I mean, I don't want to put these things in hierarchies, but a child cannot attain its own happiness. And a child cannot look after itself. So if someone else has to, so it has to be you. So at that point, happiness is not the point. It is dare I say the well-being of the child. Now, as this was written, it was many generations before we got the legal sentence, the well-being of the child. But later on, that was used for the same ends as what was being described in this creed as the happiness of the woman. But I say that as though there's a difference. What family courts nowadays describe as the well-being of the child means functionally exactly the same thing as the happiness of the woman. Because a lot of studies have been done. Into how single father families are nowhere near as as as bad predictors have waywardness as as as single mother families. Not that either should exist. I mean, obviously, the best predictor of a productive and happy life is the on-hand presence of both parents. And this this this this is why and why annoys me that men's rights advocates are seen as the opposite of feminists. I'm going to read the last sentence we just read, but with the genders reversed. He has so framed the laws of divorce as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce in case of separation to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the men. The law in all cases going upon a foster position of the supremacy of woman and giving all power into her hands. Now this does sound like an uncannily accurate description of family courts in the modern day. But I know of I know of no men's rights advocate who would frame it around the happiness of the men. And I've been doing this for fucking 10 years. I don't know anyone who says, no, we what what we should do with the children should revolve around the happiness of the men. Like no one. Like no, no, no, MRA, no, MGTOW, no, PUE has the goal to say the the fate of a child should depend on the happiness of a man. Nobody ever is always actually been the benefit of the child and that the child deserves both parents. At no point has it resembled this, this gynecentric PISH that we are currently reading. And this is what we what we've been up against for the last century and some change. So fuck off with you. You guys are just the equivalent feminists to fuck off. Yeah, right off, fuck to the end of the earth, and then fuck back and then fuck back off again. Ah, geez, the tough thing people don't understand is about the men's rights movement is that we have a variety of things that people in the movement do. So there are people who file lawsuits where legislation is discriminatory in order to get the courts to clarify that the legislation cannot be discriminatory. And right now there is one such lawsuit in the Supreme Court in regard to the draft with the primary hope being elimination of the draft. But if it can't be eliminated, then at the very least it can have gender taken out of it. So that if Congress wants to enact a draft, they have to contend with the fact that people will be seeing them draft their daughters. And even if they can't stop them from drafting men on the basis of how men are valued, maybe they can stop them from drafting men on the basis of how the women that will be dragged along into it are valued until we can get a better situation where we are not drafting men because men are valued as highly as women. But in any case, there's that that end of it. There are people who help to get men out of abusive relationships, some help by providing shelters, some help by providing vouchers. In California, there was a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men that pretty much forced the California system to de-gender its domestic violence response so that men who are trying to get out of abusive relationships can at least get a voucher to take their kids and go stay someplace. Personally, I think that's better than putting them in a shelter if there are women at the shelter since we know that two thirds are more of domestic violence is female perpetrated, female initiated, or both. And so you end up in a situation where these men may be going into an environment with violent women who have falsely accused their partners and they may be vulnerable to those women. So it's better if they're in a hotel or some other area, if you can't set up a shelter just for men, you definitely don't want to house them with those women because that's that's putting them out of the frying pan into the fire, right? But and again, that's National Coalition for Men does quite a bit. Their their website is ncfm.org and I would encourage our listeners to go check out their page on their successes. Among other things, feminists are always complaining that men are not treated seriously enough as parents because women are seen as the primary caregivers and it limits women's role. But it wasn't feminists that got changing stations put into men's bathrooms and airports in California. It was men's rights activists who did that because there are dads who travel with their children. There are single dads and then there are dads who take their children to see family when the wife has to work or the wife has gone ahead because she didn't have to work and the dad and the kids that went to school come along later. So there are different things that happen there where sometimes a dad does need to go in and change his baby in the men's restroom, doesn't want to go into the women's restroom, women will have a fit even though women go into men's restrooms all the time. So those are those are some successes like there's a bunch of different things listed there. That's one that stood out to me because feminists claim it never happened. Well, National Coalition for Men did it. But then there's also, you know, people who advocate for change for the for moving the overton window, which is what we're doing. We have to keep for changes in social attitudes and our advocacy over the last 10 years has taken our advocacy, the advocacy of a voice for men, the advocacy of justice for men and boys. Many organizations like us has taken these issues from being in the background in little forums all over the internet to mainstream media discussing them. And yes, mainstream media, a lot of them are trying to discredit us. A lot of them are mad at us. But we've also had some people be unable to deny the things that we've said. And we've had some advocacy from people like I still remember the October that the Tucker Carlson spent on men's issues. And while he didn't get everything right, and he didn't talk to everybody that he could have talked to, he did speak to some prominent men's rights activists. And he did bring those issues to the forefront. And people began discussing them much more seriously after that. Right. And it is because of people like us that there are people now with much bigger accounts taking a lot of heat for saying the same things we've been saying, where we get shadow banned, we get throttled, we get algorithmed out of existence. But they're under fire. And you know, maybe Chloe Roma is, I don't know what I think of her. I was, I had hope until the last thing that she said about men's rights activists. And then it was like, well, so much for that idea. Right. But so I'm kind of disappointed there, but not shocked, because she's female. And that's pretty typical female narcissism. She's a side, they're all psyops. Everyone's a sire, I'm a sire, like, like, like, my memory got raised like in total recall. And I'm like some rogue agent. Like even I'm a sire, I'm meant to be here to ruin you all. But I accidentally joined you. It's like dancers that smurfed. And any of those well known retellings of that story. Jen bottle wants to know what was that? Well, she pretty much said that she's the first person that ever talked about these issues publicly. She pretty much denied the existence of the entire men's rights movement, because she didn't know us. I tried to find that post. I don't know where I'm taking it down. Like, maybe she's embarrassed. If she's embarrassed, she said that that's a good sign. It's her saying it in the first place is still female narcissism. It just depends on how she reacts to being corrected on it, right? If she is because I, well, that was her reaction. Yeah. To believe it and not say anything, but that didn't say anything. That kind of sucks. But if there's a point where she comes out and says, gosh, I didn't realize all these people were doing this previously. You know, I'm sorry that I stepped on you guys or something like that, or I have a lot to learn or anything like that. That would be good. You know, that would be a step forward. But if she doesn't do that, then, you know, fuck her. Like, I lose all respect at that point. That's how I, I don't like to really necessarily call it judging people, but that's how I decide who I'm going to trust and respect and who I'm not. And I live up to that too when I get information that proves me wrong about something like, and I'll go back to probably one of my biggest embarrassments was on Reddit back in my Reddit days. I thought that Movember was similar to those silly Facebook campaigns where women will post some cryptic statement like the color of their bra, but they don't say what it's the color of. They just post pink or green or whatever. And then you're supposed to ask what the post is about. And then they tell you, it's about raising awareness for breast cancer. And now you know, breast cancer is a thing because you didn't before, right? I think that's dip-shittery at its, at its worst. It's, it's not even slactivism. It doesn't do anything because everybody already knows about breast cancer. And everybody already knows all of the information that we're supposed to know in regard to breast cancer. What we're supposed to do and blah, blah, blah, people are already donating millions of dollars are raised every year. It's a huge industry, right? So when you post the color of your bra on Facebook and, and then people ask you about it and you say that's what it's for, it's just virtue signaling. It has no value, right? Movember started out as a, an initiative to raise money to actually help research on testicular and prostate cancers. And it was a, it was a good initiative when it started out. It was great. And it's, it's stayed good for a long time. But it now has started to fund organizations that accept the toxic masculinity narrative for treatment of men's mental health conditions. So it's, it's like, I would, you know, I, I wouldn't promote it today. But at the time that I like, I made fun of it because I thought it was the same thing as the Facebook thing. And I had a whole bunch of people tell me otherwise. And, you know, of course, my response was to investigate, find out what, what Movember actually did, how it worked. And once that information, you know, was, was in my repertoire of information, I came back and I was like, wow, this is totally different. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was such a worthwhile endeavor and went on to promote it every year until the last couple of years when it started to, you know, get, I, I now just suggest people look at organizations themselves that are doing the research and donate directly. You don't have to go through an organization that's collecting for them. You know, you can find out who they're donating to and judge for yourself. And it's probably a better way to deal with it than, you know, not saying that you can't grow a mustache in November or anything like that. But there you go. So with that out of the way, um, yeah, back to the divorce thing, feminists got what they wanted in regard to divorce and what has been the result are women happier because according to all of the surveys that that measure women's happiness today, no, women are not happier. More women are single moms. Many of them are single moms by choice. They're not ever getting married. They didn't choose to to have a baby with a guy that they were going to marry. They chose to have a baby with a guy they weren't going to marry. Many of them are single moms by choice because they got married. They had kids and then they got divorced. And many of them are getting divorced because they just don't feel it anymore. They're not happy in the marriage. They're bored. They want him to do the dishes more often. You know, the shit that that, uh, you know, if you read the articles, they say that, you know, if men do house housework, that it turns women off. So what is it, ladies? What, we know what it is. They're just fucking lazy. They don't want to do the work. They want someone else to do the work. They don't want to have to bear the burden of, Oh, my God, washing dishes and cooking food. Oh, it's just too much. I mean, despite the fact that, you know, we have machines that were invented by men that will wash your dishes for you, that will wash your clothes for you. That you can, there are machines that you can actually just put stuff in, right? You close the lid and you turn it on. You walk away and you come back and your dinner is done. It's amazing. It's amazing. It's amazing, but it's not good enough. It's never good enough. And they can't even be bothered to do that. Unbelievable. The oppression that women have to face that, you know, I just, how do they even? Yeah. Yeah. You know, the toughest part for me is getting up in the morning and spending half an hour not putting on any makeup. Oh, wait, I don't get up in the morning bed in the morning. So that whole narrative goes out the window right there. Right. Yeah. I actually spend a couple of hours not putting on any makeup and not putting any product in my hair and not using a curling iron. And so cumbersome. I just don't know how I managed to like not do any of that shit and still get eight hours of sleep. Oh my God. Yep. I don't, I don't ever lay still for eight hours. If I do something's wrong, my limit's about six. Yeah. I think we've learned on that. My body will shut down. It's just when it's done, it's done. There's no. See, you're like, my wake's up screaming. You can lay on me for this long. Get out of it, move. And then I, then I get up and all of my joints are yelling. Exactly. But that's, that's, I've been an old lady for 50 years. So. But yeah, this thing, like, I, I'm sorry, but I, I just don't, I don't see it. I don't see how this benefited them in any way, shape or form. And, and I don't see how this was about equality. Because at no point did feminists launching from this part of the declaration of sentiments advocate for equal division of property following a divorce equal division of custody following a divorce equal culpability for behavior such as emotional abuse, right, financial abuse, uh, violent abuse, equal culpability for cheating. No, no, they fought for women to get out of culpability during divorce, for abandonment, for emotional abuse, for denial of sex, which is emotional abuse also, uh, for economic abuse, running up a shitload of debt in his name, uh, for cheating, like just any kind of, you can, you can do pretty much anything to a man as a woman. And he can't use it against you in the divorce, right? But if you're not happy and he's not making you happy, you can use that against him in the divorce. How is that equality? How is that anywhere near equality? How is it even slightly fair? Hey, Bueller? Well, what do you mean fair? Can I hate speeches this? Yeah. Yep. So one of the things that men's rights activists have been fighting for that feminists are panicked as fuck over and they've been panicked for years was custody rights for men, right? Feminist went through opposing, uh, they called it joint custody back in the 70s. Joint custody was maternal custody with paternal visitation rights, except that the visitation rights were also called custody so that when the child was visiting with the father, the child was considered to be in the father's custody, the child, the father had custody during that time period. And the big change was if little Billy fell and, uh, cut his knee on the steps and needed stitches, dad could take Billy to the hospital and sign paperwork and Billy could get those stitches without mom having to show up and sign paperwork, right? Dad could go into school and see Billy's, uh, report card and any other information the teacher was keeping and so on and, and be in on the, uh, parent teacher conferences and wasn't left out of everything. But he still only got maybe two weekends a month. And if he was lucky, another extra six hours in the evenings, a couple days a week total, um, if, if he was lucky in the divorce, right? So it was still not, it was joint custody, but it wasn't really, but feminists started citing that as, well, men have custody of their children, right? Immediately we started hearing about how men don't have custody because, because they don't fight for it. Well, what men were getting as custody was, yeah, every other weekend you get your kids, uh, you know, 16% of the time, totally helps, you know, to, to, um, parent your child when you see them 16% of the time. So then men fought for shared parenting, which shared parenting was joint custody with maybe a few more additional legal rights for the father and maybe a slightly more, uh, expanded amount of time, still not half the time. And feminists fought that. They opposed that feminist organizations like the national organization for women, um, used the claim that making first joint custody and then shared parenting the default, uh, in, in divorce cases. So basically if neither party said, well, we want something different than what it says in the paperwork automatically. If we don't edit it, um, then this is what it's going to say. Like then they fought having that be the default by saying that it would force judges against their will to put children in abusive homes, even though all the judge had to do was rule one parent, unfit or dangerous to the child. And, uh, they, they could put the child in the other home and limit the custody, um, and access of the parent that they felt was unfit. Right. So there was, there was no force. So feminists basically lied, but it worked. It delayed the, um, adoption of joint custody laws around the country. And then it delayed the adoption of shared parenting laws around the country. And when men's rights activists, fathers rights activists in particular started fighting for equally shared parenting laws where 50, 50 shared parenting would become the default. And, um, the divorce, the, the default divorce papers that, you know, you basically just, if, if you don't dispute anything in it, you print out what the, the, uh, court system offers, and you read it over and you sign it. That's your divorce. Like says, the child will be with the parent parent A this many days and parent B this many days back and forth. Um, and again, the laws that were passed, uh, and, and the laws that were introduced, the bills that were introduced, all said that this would be the default in cases that were uncontested. So when neither parent was saying, no, I want something different. And when the parents didn't agree to something different, you know, so for instance, if you live in California and you're getting divorced, and he's going to go live with his family in Northern California, and she's going to go live in with her family in Southern California, uh, trading the child off every four days is a bit of an inconvenience. Uh, so if it's, it's Ohio's 50, 50 shared parenting agreement, uh, used to be every four days, I think it's every seven days now. So it allows the child to spend a week with, with each parent and the trade off can happen on the weekends. Um, but yeah, uh, that, that, that was also opposed by feminists claiming that, oh, uh, it'll force judges to put children in homes with abusive men, not abusive mothers and fathers, but abusive fathers. Even though most child abuse is female perpetrated and most most parental child abuse is done by the mother and approximately 70%, about two thirds, um, of children killed by one parent acting alone or killed by their mother. But you know, the father's the only one should be worried about, right? And that's how, uh, that's how feminists have handled divorce in the last hundred years. And that's why we are in a situation now where a lot of children are being raised in poverty without their fathers, uh, in man deserts, circumstances where they have no male influence in their lives whatsoever. And, uh, circumstances where they, uh, have, have, um, economic distress, they have bad learning environment. Um, they learn what feminists would call toxic masculinity, which is basically they don't grow up, right? Because toxic masculinity, so-called toxic masculinity is just, um, acting like a child of either sex. But, uh, but yeah, you know, it's, it's men's fault that divorce is bad, right? So after depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner property, he has taxed her to support a government, which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it. That's not a female problem. I hate to say this again. I've said this, uh, um, several times throughout. Everything they're complaining about was true for, uh, most of the men in the country. This one. In any case, in any case, I'm not going to argue that when the government taxes you for your labor, you absolutely should complain about it. Yes, I agree with that. But yeah, like people often, uh, supply all these sorts of arguments. Like, some time ago, there was, there was some, uh, Vernon guy who, who was surprised to learn that he wasn't a British citizen. He was after living in Britain for 40 years. He, he, he attempted to to procure some kind of services from the government and they were like, but you're not a British citizen. So we went, oh, you know, the papers and it was in the papers for a full cycle and a half of people saying, well, it had, it had, surely this man should, should get the advantages of being in this country, uh, if he is in this country and well, not necessarily. And once again, I forgot where I was going with this, but, well, the question is, was he being taxed for those services? Taxes. That's the thing. Yes. And it always comes down to yet this man should not be taxed if he's not getting the benefit of taxes. Yeah. And yeah, you're, you're surely right. No one should be taxed if they're not getting the benefit of, of, of what taxes are supposed to be doing to benefit us. And whenever you start an argument like that, it should always come down to, no, yet no one's getting the benefits. Yeah, no one's really getting the benefits of what the government says they're doing with taxes. Because you all know this for now, I'm preaching to the choir. The government doesn't tax us for our own benefit. They tax us for their own benefit or its own benefit. I don't know what the correct pronouns are for a government. So it's either, it's either it or they. It is certainly not we. Yeah, I have some terminology in mind, but it's not, um, appropriate for YouTube. But I'll put it this way. I'll put it this way. Right. If taxes were spent the way pro taxation people claim they should be spent, right? I wouldn't be as mad as I am. Right. I at least would have not just had to spend two weeks recovering from driving halfway across the country in a jeep, because the roads in most of the country would not have been so bad that it felt like I was driving on Legos. But, uh, there you go. All right. If if we actually got the benefit of what we were paying for, the war in Afghanistan would not have lasted as long as it had lasted. And the wind would have been decisive. It wouldn't have just not happened. It would have happened and it would have been completely unreversible. Yeah. I people think that the, the sentiment I expressed about Israel versus Palestine was unique to Israel versus Palestine. No, it's applicable to that too. Right. If you have a little kid coming up to you and punching you over and over again, and you do nothing about it, or what you do about it is insufficient to stop the, the kid from continuing to punch you. And you let it go on for years and years and years. It's your fault. If you can put a stop to it and you don't, it's your fault. And I think that's what happened here. And I won't say that about our soldiers per se, but about our government. Absolutely. That the, the whole conflict in Afghanistan can be blamed on the government in the United States. So I'm not a big fan of how my tax dollars get spent. Most of how my tax dollars get spent is based on lies. And even the bit that's not is, it gets misdirected a lot. They're lying to us about pretty much everything. It's pretty much absolute shit. So in terms of her complaint about being taxed, I'm with her on the complaint about being taxed. What I am not with her on is the idea that it's a unique situation that women experienced and men didn't, because the overwhelming majority of men in the United States during that time were paying taxes and they weren't represented. They weren't, they didn't have to vote. Right. There were still limitations that, that men faced that kept them from having to vote. And there were women who had to vote in different states as they came in. So this was all bullshit. The next one, he has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments. What a strange way to phrase men do all of the labor to obtain and, and maintain resources and comfort in society. Do you want the profitable employments? Ladies, no, you just want the cushy jobs at 21.0 where you sit around, you lounge around computers pretending to do work. And drink wine at work. Eight hours a day and eat sushi at work and stuff. Yeah. You're very good at the unprofitable parts of extremely profitable businesses, ladies. And I don't, I don't know what that says about you or anyone or anything else. But I mean, what would these women say if you showed them a hundred years in the future? Do you think you'd be able to get across how pointless all their efforts were? All they did was grow money and resources into a bottomless pit of women who want to be paid for doing essentially nothing. I imagine they would look at it and say it's not good enough. Yeah. We need to fight. There are still men making profits from removing the fat bugs from the sewers. And we need to figure out a way that women should get the money from men doing that. Women should get. Changing light bulbs on radio towers. That's another one. Got to climb up 1500 feet in the air and in the wind and the rain. You have to change the light bulb that is bigger than your head. Yeah, that's a profit that men are getting that women for some reason aren't getting. I can't imagine what the reason might be that they don't get the benefit of doing that job that they don't do. It's the mind boggles. Yeah, it really gets interesting when you start getting into the logistics of how men earn more than women. Now back then, yeah, there were far more men who were doctors. There were a few women who were doctors. There were, I think, only men working in law at that time in the United States. Most teachers might have also been men at that point. There were at least some teachers that were women. One is famous and had her own series of novels later on that she wrote that was sort of not made into a TV show, but a TV show was made based on the theme of those novels that had a few of the stories from the novels in the TV show. That would be Little House of the Prairie. But for the most part, when it came to bringing in resources that people needed in the home, bringing in resources that people needed to keep themselves alive, men did that, creating things to help keep people comfortable and safe. Men did that. Actually being the reason that people were comfortable and safe by going out and doing the things that it took to keep people comfortable and safe, men did that. Yes, Richard B.R. Laura Ingalls Wilder. She wasn't a teacher most of her life, but she was a teacher for a while. I think her sister was a teacher at the School for the Blind for a while as well, but I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I read those books. But yeah, men did all of that. And yeah, she's actually bitching about the fact that women weren't doing that. Now, here's where she has a complaint that it's just a hair shy of legitimate, right? And from those, she is permitted to follow she receives but a scanty remuneration, remuneration. All right, so women who do other people's laundry, women who clean other people's houses, women who work in the bottom rungs of medicine, nurses aides, candy strippers, even nurses back then were kind of bottom rung compared to doctors midwives and such. Women kind of set the value of those jobs, right? Because it's women who hire housekeepers, it's women who hire maids, it's women who hire nannies and tutors and so on. Women are the ones that decide what those jobs are worth. And it's women who choose whether or not to take a job at such a wage, not men. Men don't just go out and grab a woman and say, okay, you're going to come here and work in the coal mine, but we're going to pay you less money and you can't leave, you have to do this job. You can't go get a job somewhere else, but we're still going to pay you less money. All right, so I don't have a lot of sympathy. Women could have fixed that problem a long time ago. All they had to do, men had their way of handling wage disputes, right? They organized. They created guilds, they created unions, they created professional organizations. Before teachers had the teachers union, they had something called professional organizations. They were not guilds, they were not unions. They negotiated as professionals. This is what we do. This is what we are providing. This is the service that you're getting. And this is the knowledge that we bring and the expertise that we bring. This is what we want as compensation. And these are the rules we want applied to our workplace. And they didn't treat it like a blue collar job and where unions are quite needed in terms of there's a significant loss of sight between the corporation and the individual worker in bigger work settings like that, in factories and anything bigger than a factory. Because the top dog doesn't really have anything to do with what the bottom grunts are doing every day at work. He's just looking at his books, right? He's looking at his bottom line. So it's up to the union to remind the boss and the board that the workers are people and not just little pawns that you put into place to do things. And that's pretty much been their function throughout their history. There's a lot of corruption that has taken place within unions, especially in the United States during the 20th century. But their intended function and how they function when the corruption is kept out, that's actually a needed thing. And that collective bargaining, men did that forever. Women could have done that, but instead they appeal to the government to make the employer pay them the same wage whether they're doing the same work or not. So if I work in a company that sells three-pronged widgets, I work at the three-pronged widget store. And my colleague sells $50,000 worth of widgets in a year and I sell $50,000 worth of widgets in a year, then it's fair for me to get paid the same as him as long as our other tasks are pretty much equal to cleaning tasks or all the other things you do in retail. If my colleague sells $70,000 worth of widgets in a year and I only sell $50,000 worth and he gets paid more than me, I can sue because we did the same job and my employer then has to go into court and prove that there's a valid reason why he got a bonus and I didn't. So I create an inconvenience for my employer. What that does is that disincentivizes the employer to provide incentive pay to the employee to go above and beyond and so everybody only sells $50,000 three-pronged widgets because why would you try to sell $70,000 if you're not going to get that bonus? You can't get that bonus because if the person who gets it isn't a woman, all the women in the company can sue and say they're not getting paid enough. That's what equal pay does. It's not equal pay for equal work. It's equal pay for the pretense. It's equal pay to avoid getting sued. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine or law, she is not known. So I'm kind of a teacher of theology as a teacher of theology, she is not known. That's not government in the United States. We formed a government that doesn't establish a church and that isn't governed by the church. It doesn't ruled by the church. So why is that even in there as a teacher of theology? Like I can understand them complaining about medicine and law except that women could go into those fields. They just didn't. But this is a document about voting rights. What can you vote for in an election for government officials that would affect whether women became teachers of theology? And someone has to bring up the idea that he closes all the avenues of wealth and distinction. The station is another thing but he doesn't. All the avenues of wealth, there is one particular avenue of wealth that women have enjoyed for the longest of times and who still do enjoy it now. Who are the world's richest divorces? They are all women. They are all women. I mean nobody looks at that list. They're more interested in the top 100 men who are independently wealthy one reason. No one looks at the top 100 people who earned their fortune from divorcing someone because that would throw somewhat of a wrench into the narrative that there is an avenue of wealth available to women that is very, very available to women. You basically have to encounter a man. I mean your best option is to marry him for like two seconds and then divorce them and go whoops I need half of your money now because what I was married to you for two seconds just now I was able to have all of your money and now that I hate you I should still be allowed to have all of your money and how can they have been so fucking sensually lying to this back in those days as they still are now oh wait yeah I can see how they were so blind to it then because they're still so blind to it now that how many avenues there are for a woman to drain the wealth from a man and when I say wealth I mean labor it might not be his own labor it might be his father's labor or his father's father's labor before that but when you're extracting wealth from someone you're extracting someone's labor because that is is how it works it all it all appeared in into the economy sometime we go from someone else's labor and it's always a man's labor and and his this bitch saying he closes all the avenues to wealth no this is never been this has always been the point of marriage come to think of it it was never just a thing based on the infatuation of romantic chivalry it was always it's always based on this economical model and you know in some ways maybe that is more reliable than this uh this assurance that everyone who falls madly in love with someone else will live happily ever after yeah that's not how relationships work by the way never been our relationship has worked it's just this modern romanticized you've valorically romanticized uh storybook that uh disney has a lot to answer for in the last century and it is and it is a century now going yeah you know what it's resulted in right like if you look at p how how dating is discussed and how dating has been discussed like for generation x our whole lives we've seen this and publications going back to the ones that were written for us as teenagers when we were when we were still in school right the hardship of dating compatibility issues finding a partner keeping a partner making a partner happy and being happy with a partner right those things they're there's whole industries set up around uh discussing this evaluating this um you know theorizing about this uh advising people on it selling people advice and selling people um tools to enhance their ability to to engage in this search for a partner that's the perfect partner the one um and and then then after it's all over there's a whole other industry that exists around breaking you up helping you hurt each other helping you uh humiliate each other right helping you drag each other through the mud and then telling you how great you are for surviving that that neither of those two industries existed when marriage was arranged not saying that arranged marriage has to be the way things go but our species did a really shitty job of finding a way out of it and into something functional we still haven't hit that functional stage like we had a period of time where it was more functional than it is today but it was a lot of work people don't seem to be willing to do that work today they don't get married with the idea that they are dedicated to each other's welfare but they are dedicated to their household that they intentionally are going to put effort into making each other happy and uh working together to to keep their household comfortable and safe and enjoy each other's company and and so on maintaining their loyalty and their interest in each other like that that's not something that just happens on its own you do that with your friendships you keep in touch with each other in your friendships even just sending each other memes is keeping in touch right um but people don't do that in their marriages they think it it's going to be happily ever after with no effort whatsoever no that takes the most work and if you really got married with the idea of love and dedication to your partner you should be geared up to do that work you should be excited about it you're thinking about you go out uh and and shop for groceries or something and you spot something that your partner would really love it should be exciting to bring that home because you know you're going to make them happy but people lose sight of that they compete over well this person doesn't do enough dishes this person doesn't do enough laundry i'm not bringing enough home this person's not bringing enough home i i'm not happy i'm not satisfied we're not watching the shows i want to watch on tv we're watching the shows he wants to watch on tv but i'm not going to tell him i'm just going to sit here and be mad and if he doesn't figure it out then he's a bad husband right i i can't tell you how many times i've run into women mad at their husband for something and they'll tell me all about it right oh he does this he does have you talk to him about it what does he say why don't i i shouldn't have to tell him fuck yes you have to tell him how else is he supposed to know but yeah no it's it's all about you know denying the woman right it's all about making things rough on the woman and and uh dating we don't teach our kids that when you're dating and you're engaging in this this hookup culture that everybody's all into and been into for the last 40 years you're partner shopping you're looking for somebody that you can be dedicated to and make a life with make a home with and cling to each other for happiness and solidarity and camaraderie and all of the things that come from a great relationship that you work at all the time so you know a lot of jaded kids getting divorced we have an entire industry devoted to telling women to end their relationships with men it's called therapy yep i mean it's it's called a whole bunch of things but it's it's sent around this uh this industry of the school therapy and it is an industry it's not an industry that produces anything it's an industry that uh that invites women and i guess some men but mostly women into a small room to uh to convince them that the relationship they are currently in is toxic and that they need to do better namely that the women need to uh need to marry a slightly more handsome and rich rock star and that the men need to go off and think about their lives and and stuff like that and if even even if that doesn't work out there's another billion dollar industry called divorce uh which makes up and that's that's not just us that's a small little corner of uh of uh of legal institutions i um i did a work experience module in uh in matches to uh county court once and they gave me some options because they had a number of different um departments one of which was divorce and another of which was i can't even remember what it was i think it was just ordinary uh county court prosecutions um just any given dispute that anyone could have i think we had one of them anybody already was but yeah any given county court in in in the country or whatever the american equivalent of county uh court is half of that building right any given building you might go to half of that building is devoted to divorce because there's so fucking many of them it's i it's a uh it's an understatement to call it a billion dollar industry it's probably a trillion dollar industry at this point you see how much money is changing hands between between countries between empires between the shadiest of possible agents yeah this is this is a bureaucracy of abstractions that has existed for a long time and um one of its biggest cash cows is the divorce industry it's awful it's i cannot even begin to describe it i only saw it with my with with my naive teenage eyes for for a month or so for i was like this is this is awful why does this exist why would any of this need to exist why is the divorce institution like gigantic compared with the marriage institution how did that happen why would that happen why is are there orders of magnitude more money in divorce than there is in marriage not not that there should be any money in marriage in the first place that was never the point but why is there so much money in divorce that's a complete inversion of whatever should have been what's what's going on and i put it to you uh uh gentle men and ladies in the audience that um it all started with um man bad woman week with this some call it romantic kind of centric chivalric whatever and i think they're all they're all along the lines of what's going on here it's just difficult to name because it's been going on for not just half a century but half a millennium and probably some change yeah that's why that's why it's so difficult to get across to people because it's here's me trying to talk about the way divorce courts have changed in the last hundred years but it's so much deeper than that it's so it's that there won't call divorce courts half a millennium ago but there was an equivalent there was there was there was this whole deck of of shelves put in place to make sure that women get whatever they want at the expense of anything men can be uh rinsed for and and here's me saying it it started in medieval times as as though going to centric romantic chivalry was the beginning of it now it's called romantic which is named after rome this has been going on for a long time but just remember we kind of went over that and it's it's not named for um like the romantic chivalry has nothing to do with the the romantic storytelling of rome it's it's completely outside of that but i'm i'm trying to put i'm trying to push back this narrative as far as I can like because so many people think it's only happened in the last 10 years no this woke this woke thing only began in 2016 no we did an episode on this we we talked about um the rise of uh romantic chivalry and that that school of gynecentrism where it was actual gynecentrism and not a focus on the child rearing value of women but just women for their own sake um going back to I think it was the 13th century so we're we're looking at something that's been going on for almost yeah just it's 800 years it's been 800 years it's just crazy at the very least yeah give me a number and i'll tell you it's a bigger number yeah probably and I mean that interest has existed among women for sure prior to that women have had that sense of entitlement prior to that at least in the upper echelons this is a remember it it began among the french aristocracy not commoners so that tells you a lot about you know you didn't see women um with their you know their arms up to the elbows in in the river washing their clothes talking about how uh it it's important for a man to kneel when he's asking for a woman's hand in marriage that was that was courtesan's and uh princesses and so on but uh but yeah um in 1837 Oberlin college opened its doors to all students including women and people of color which they didn't call people of color back then because that that dip shouldery that it's different to say people of color than colored people or black or whatever uh didn't exist in the 19th century but that's 1837 right and uh then in 1848 so 11 years later the declaration of sentiments was written in which Elizabeth katie Stanton says he has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education all colleges being closed against her so uh Oberlin college was open for women to women for uh 11 years when she wrote that women also could enroll at Wesleyan college there are are uh there were other women's colleges back in the day that they could enroll at and enroll in um and even before that there were women who enrolled in colleges and earned degrees there were different barriers it was assumed that they were never going to do the job it was assumed that they weren't going to be able to perform at the way a man performs in the profession or in the case of Elena Lucrigia uh Coronario uh oh that's not her last name lore uh Elena Lucrigia Coronario Piscopia enrolled at the University of Padua to study theology um she impressed her instructors excelled at public debate uh you know applied for her degree and the catholic church intervened because that's their purview right not the government catholic church now back then um the catholic church had influence on her government to a much higher degree than it does today but uh at the same time you know it's still not man closing all avenues of education she had the education she didn't get the degree and so she didn't um as she didn't uh become a higher up in the church however she did get her PhD in philosophy and she became a uh professor so there you have um capability of getting a degree anyway so women could actually um attend university women could actually get degrees um and in fact uh in uh 1862 Mary Jane Patterson became the first black woman to earn a bachelor's but 1900 one and three black professionals in us held a degree from Oberlin so you had women you had minorities everybody could attend as long as they could do the work and they did so this was just bullshit denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education no she she could have gone to schools she wanted to um so let's see we have he allows her in the church as well as state but in a subordinate position claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry and with some exceptions from any part public participation in the affairs of the church so this has to be about the catholic church because women held positions in other churches in fact um one of the women that was part of organizing this uh the the um um conference at which this was read out was a Quaker minister so i'm assuming the church has to be referring to the catholic church because uh lots of churches had different ways of doing things and there were female preachers female ministers in Protestant churches going way back he has created false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man this is one that i dispute on one basis i don't think men made that decision i think women did all right women are the ones with the finer sensibilities argument you can't cuss in front of me because i have finer sensibilities you can't treat a lady that way because i have finer sensibilities you have to walk on the street side in case somebody splashes through a puddle because i have finer sensibilities you can't show me the harsh side of life because i have finer fucking sensibilities right um and and you can't acknowledge when i don't live up to them because i am a lady but uh you know when when men are just around other men they're not that picky and it's women had the luxury and tolerance in society of being that picky men didn't because they were the ones doing the dirty jobs they were the ones fighting in the wars they were the ones facing bad weather going out and bringing the animals in going out and fixing the roof they were the ones dealing with everything about life that is ugly and nasty and mean and hard and gross everything that doesn't have to do with um the ugly nasty mean hard and gross part of birth and babies right so uh maybe their sensibilities aren't finer so what and the other thing is you know if if a man conceives a child out of wedlock he is still not incapacitated you might not even know unless she tells him the the mother tells him but he's not incapacitated he's not uh prevented from uh doing what it takes to support that family right if a woman conceives a child out of wedlock she is incapacitated to a degree for for part of the nine months that she's pregnant child birth could kill her back then it was a little more common than it is now um and it it actually does put her in a situation where uh she's created a mouse to feed that uh she is not equipped to feed on her own she turns to the community and the community helps her so she costs the community resources so it is fair to judge women more harshly for that than it is to than than to judge men um women are more they have reason to be more aware of the consequences and they have reason to be more careful about the consequences and we'll stop at this next one he has usurped the prerogative of jehova himself claiming it as his right to assign for her sphere of action when that belongs to her conscience and her god you're really gonna appeal to jehova apparently because you're gonna find some weird shit you might look you might not like i don't think she read its bible in any given established religion you're gonna find some weird shit you don't like some weird shit that people have figured out after thousands of years of trying to deal with your bullshit bitch well you think about it all right the idea that a woman should obey her husband come straight out of the bible so this idea that she's objecting to comes straight from the um comes straight from the source that she's wanting to go to directly with her conscience i mean the rules about how women should act that that all all the stuff that she's objecting to in terms of um uh society's morals where women are concerned versus where men are concerned those are uh those are right out of the religion that she's claiming men keep women from being in charge of even though the um idea that women should not be teachers right out of there uh doesn't say women shouldn't be judges but um yeah she sees really failing to understand their religion that she's criticizing or at least that she's criticizing the administration of by men they're just doing what it says in the instruction manual like i said it's not just Christianity it's any given religion any given um system of ideas that's been a lot has been around for thousands of years yeah um the will has some kind of subclass saying you know men and women are different uh be it you know yan or be it um father son holy sparrow or whatever there's creation myth like Adam and Eve sort of briefly outlining uh you know um do be careful because uh because women could be presented with the garden of Eden and then them they'll be like yeah it's not enough oh is it why can i have why can't i have that fruit over there uh yep well even if you look at religions that are more that brag more about gender balance i can't say they are more gender balance necessarily but they brag more about gender balance like more more modern religions like wicca and i call wicca a modern religion because it's not the ancient version of witchcraft that existed pre-Christianity in in uh yeah paganism also had some of those rules right that you'll like but you just don't like to look at them so wiccans wiccans decided to everything had to be mirrored right lord and lady god and goddess um all you know and and the elements and you have uh various representatives of the masculine and feminine throughout all of your rituals but if you are in an environment where um you're surrounded by mostly wiccans the goddess gets greatly emphasized over the god and he sort of goes and sits in a corner over there and is quiet and doesn't interrupt the women right that's that's pretty much the way pagan gatherings are run it's pretty much the way you know like it's it's it's it's an afterthought it's goddess goddess goddess goddess oh yes and god we're balanced um no you're not your hair shy of tianic wicca which is pretty much goddess without the god um so like i and i i know there are people who are going to be pissed off at me for saying that because i've got friends who are wiccan uh and uh and i've maintained all my old friendships um but it's true it's not more balanced it's just a backlash to this in in a lot of ways um so there you go it's uh there isn't a religion you can turn to to appeal to for egalitarianism it's something that you have to do yourself because that's a personal attitude it's not something someone else can dictate to you the only thing that you can the only place where it can be dictated is in law and the only way that it can be dictated in law is however the laws are written they must be applied evenly across demographics and and not discriminate against one demographic for the benefit of another so we have let's see superchows uh mayor s g gave us five dollars and said hbr talk 417 honey for the badgers sorry i'm late i've been on vacation well you're lucky and we can forgive that vacation is a good reason to be late run on vacation too and i'm too busy enjoying my life to give a shit about all of this apocalypse but i'm trying i'm technically not on vacation but i haven't worked in retail now for 10 years so i feel like i'm on vacation everybody who works in retail or has worked in retail knows what i'm talking about i'm doing another job full time i'm working overtime and i'm doing a second job and i still feel like i'm on vacation because i'm not working in retail anymore um richard beer gave us five dollars and said uh funny how you don't hear women complaining about the household chores in the caring for her multiple cats through the two weirdest having the premium sports package on your cable subscription fall under the denial of sex front oh yes the football widows right super bowl widows oh my god i don't have his attention 24/7 because for this many hours on this weekend he's busy watching tv and i'm not watching it with him and i it has to be said if you don't like women having cats and why do you have dogs and maybe i should leave it there like maybe all of these things are substitutes for the children you ought to be having and i say that as someone who has no interest in having children but i have no interest in in replacing those children with dogs or cats and like there's a lot of people who have children and dogs or cats so it's not necessarily a replacement for anything but um when i was 12 i had pet rats no comment i broke the doctor i do not like rats i i don't understand anyone who does like rats they have horrible creepy tiny hands they have like they have their human hands but they're tiny and sharp they're awful and they do bite you don't let Karen tell you that rats won't bite you unless you intimidate them that is not true i've been there i've had a housemate who enjoyed pet rats and one of them just crawled on my shoulder and i just froze i was like okay if i do nothing then it's not going to bite me on the air lobe if i just sit here and do nothing is not going to bite all it bit me on the air lobe fucking rats will do that they'll bite they'll bite for no fucking reason he's just if you just sit there being completely stationary yeah they can tell when you're um acting when you're afraid when you're afraid it's how are you gonna do are you gonna do the dog person thing they can smell your fear it's not it's not their fault they smell they smell they smell your fear and they attacked you so you deserved it no this is so like that when you freeze like that that that's intimidating because to an animal that size someone your size freezing is preparing to attack oh come on this is exactly the same thing it doesn't make it it doesn't make it your you're doing something bad but it's not without reason it's uh animals have instincts and i wouldn't i wouldn't hold a rat if i was afraid of one we had a lady that came into my house when i was that age my mom was on city council we had a um one of her co-counselman wasn't really very nice to her it's kind of like the whole frenemy thing um and she tried to fake cozy up to me like you know oh isn't that cute you have a pet rat no i i was annoyed um you know if i if i'd realized what was gonna happen to the rat i wouldn't have done this because i'm sure she was traumatized in the end although they can fall from quite a height and not get injured but uh i i held it up you know i held her up and she's looking and and she held her hand out even though you could tell she really did not want to touch this animal and my my pet rat climbed up onto her shoulder you know sniffed at her hair a little bit and she did the same thing she froze well the the rat didn't bite her she tried to escape but this was a big woman and so she she dove uh in between the Plymouth rocks into the little hole in the cleavage that's created when they are so big that they they can't completely squish each other and uh got stuck upside down and this poor woman practically had a seizure trying to get this rat out of her dress um it was at the time it seemed kind of you know funny but in the in the moment you know i i was a little kid i was not little i was 12 but i was immature enough to to find the trauma of the moment hilarious and she jumped up and down and flapped her arms around and screamed and and everything and the rat goes shooting straight down onto the floor and ran away and it took me hours to find her hiding in a little corner underneath the chair still shaking um so like if you don't like handling animals you shouldn't handle animals it's the same thing i say to people there are people that never wanted to have kids but they have they get they can see the child and they raise the child and they treat the child badly and then they're shocked when the child turns out to have dysfunctionality as an adult if you don't want to raise children don't conceive a child if you don't want to raise pets don't get a pet if you don't like the idea of pets don't try to force an interaction that is going to be uncomfortable for you and the animal because all you end up doing is making yourself vulnerable when the animal acts like an animal with instinct doesn't mean it's your fault the animal behaved that way just like it's not your fault if you get raped because you hang out with criminals but if you don't hang out with those criminals then you're not vulnerable to them are you so don't hang around with rats as the model of the story unless you like them they're literally rats consider consider the e-subs fable of the frog and the scorpion it works for almost any animal like they don't care about you folks you can you can cage them in whatever size cage you want and you can say oh this animal is my friend it treats me like an equal like i treat it treat it as an equal while i keep it in a cage and like that's fine yeah i don't think ratchet your friend i think they're fun and entertaining but um that's about as far as i could go you can have an affection for them because they're cute but i don't know that their little brains have i don't think the concept of friendship is a possibility for them you should try and have relationships with humans folks like i i know we all love cats and dogs and rodents and snakes or whatever but that should be a last resort in the event that you have some kind of condition that prevents you from being able to interact with humans but i i my first instinct would be to question this appraisal of yours that you're unable to uh to to interact with and articulate your thoughts with humans like like before you decide to get a pet that you keep under lock and key uh and tell yourself that this is your friend i would recommend seeing if you could do that with humans whom you don't have to keep in a cage and uh i've missed off so many people right now and i'm not even sorry but you know that we're seeing all sorts of symptoms these days yeah i think people need to be more realistic about their relationship to animals and once upon a time we used to we used to have a lot more realistic about that most of our animals were recognized as work animals right and uh nowadays you look at it and people people carry their dog around in their purse and now they're not recognizing the difference between their purse puppy and their child which is why we have toddlers and tiaras and we have toddlers and underwear that tucks it in so everybody thinks you're a girl like that's that it leads to um but i don't know like if i was you know my husband and i ever move out of this city and into the country where we have you know not so many people close to us we would probably have a guard dog you know just just because there's a different situation out there um the cops are not like two minutes away so uh that would be that would be a practical thing right if we had a farm it would definitely have 17 cats but they would live in the barn i would urge you all to i would urge you all to make friends with the humans in your local environment now this is obviously not advice that i'm gonna that depends on your local environment yeah i yeah i in my life belongs to the internet now so i never talk to the locals in my local area of uh of little england and i'm not going to even uh give anyone any hints as to where it is i live but um yeah i mostly interact with humans so i don't i don't have to subject myself to those rules uh the the humans i interact with are in countries three thousand miles away so yeah i get it you're all going well you don't even interact with humans properly yeah i guess i don't i i interact with humans on the other end of a system of microphones that extends across the world and i consider that uh better than pretending that i'm interacting with dogs and cats and that's you know that's you know that's not necessarily much better that i uh i interact with humans three thousand miles away rather than interacting with humans in my local area but i only do that because um i don't want any any human in my local area to figure out that i'm dr ranny mccam and i'm a threat to women everywhere and stuff like that so i'm i'm weird i'm lucky that i found a nation which i can exist and be this weird but for anyone else who's listening um humans are better than animals like humans are the best animal if you are a human i know i know that sounds can't i don't know why that sounds controversial but but it apparently does i know you a lot of you think dogs are better than humans i know a lot of you think cats are better than humans and in some ways they are in terms of their ability to see things and jump on things but also they do not create a government and start taxing each other yes there is there yeah yeah but uh at the end of the day um humans are your best friends i know i know this is hard for so many people this this came up during the man versus bear thing that's uh there's so many women this way but uh so many so many women said they would they would prefer a bear to a man and i'm here trying to argue this with men who would rather spend time with a dog than a man and i'm like do you see how you see how that connects to things add um the one of the first really memorable things that happened to me during my childhood in fact so memorable that despite most people not forming memories from that early in life i remember parts of it was a near death experience from an asthma attack right and uh the the reason i survived it had absolutely nothing to do with animals in fact an animal probably contributed to it because we had a cat and i had an allergy we didn't know about but uh i uh i lived because my dad drove like an ambulance driver he had been an ambulance driver uh while he was in in high school and college and because a police officer saw him driving a regular car as though it were an ambulance pulled up beside him when he didn't pull over for the flashing lights looked inside the car and saw the blue-faced kid and then motioned him forward went around him and led us through lima ohio through every traffic light just uh pausing a little bit ahead of us uh before we went through the intersection to uh run his lights and sirens and make sure that nobody crashed into us as we were on our way to the hospital and then reached into the car when we got there and pulled my mom and me out together so that uh we could we could get me into the hospital for treatment about five minutes before i would have been dead if it had taken us any longer to get there so uh yeah people are pretty cool even though there are some people that are assholes i would much rather have had a person come along in particular cop in that moment than any animal in the world dolphins would never do that no dolphins would never do that dolphins will though rape you did exactly like i have been traumatized ever since i learned that like humans humans will save dolphins from a dire situation humans will save happy barris from a dire situation capybarris will not save humans from a dire situation won't they eat is it no capybarris at like large rats okay in in in the amazon oh well actually then they wouldn't eat you if you're dead they might and that and that is and that is the point um um the uh the effort that you put into saving other animals those other animals will not put into saving you in that sense yes humans are better than other animals because they can understand the future they can save on other animals from extinction yes they can cause the extinction of other animals and that's very unfortunate but don't can other animals there are many bird species that have been wiped out entirely by a single cat specimen just cats don't that's don't give a shit if they're if they're wiping out an entire species humans do wipe out entire species but they give a shit and they try not to yeah and and and somehow mosquitoes still exist in it but in any case we're so far into the weeds um and i will point out you know the the um memory that i explained about the uh the primary people who helped me in that situation even though you know it was my mom's knowledge that set set them in motion were men so that's just something to think about as well and mom mom knew what to do uh dad and the police officer both took immediate action so there you go men rule women rule men and women together yep and and that's how men and women work together um we will continue with this next week and uh we should we should finish i think the declaration of sentiments next week eh yeah we will finish the declaration of sentiments next week and we'll look a little bit more at the timeline for what's going on then interesting thing is at this point we're before the civil war in the united states uh there is stuff going on in Canada and Australia but they're both not countries yet they're they're still territories of england um and so there's a lot of changes taking place there's a lot of little buttons to push on that timeline um i know because i put them all there uh so we will uh we'll pick up then from from here then um but going on let's see we have a super chat Albert Nader retro gave us five dollars Canadian and said that radio towers are um a thousand eight hundred and twenty feet and somebody has to change those lights at the top sometime guarantee you it's never been a woman even if one wanted to and yeah i i liked to climb everything in sight when i was younger probably would have applied for that job probably wasn't strong enough to carry the gear because i look at those guys when they're doing that job they got a bunch of stuff hooked onto them and everything so uh i i probably would not have qualified but i would have loved being up that high for all of the five minutes it took for me to freeze my ass off then i might have complained about it a bit but i didn't do that job i photographed sports for my local newspaper during that time period and let's see if we got any other ones because that was way way back and there's been quite um a lot of comments since then scrolling and we're scrolling and that that's it so no more super chats um the last comment i see is dick which belongs in in the show for sure and no super or rumble rants done with the superchows so thanks everybody for listening both to the um the the topic and the rants at the end thanks to my two co-hosts for sticking out this has turned out to be kind of a long sausage uh thanks to everybody who works in the background to make hbr talk happen and remember to check us out on uh badger feed and remember to feed the badger and good night all thank you dick an official message from medicare a new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs maybe you can save too with medicare's extra help program my premium is zero and my out of pocket costs are low who should apply single people making less than 23,000 dollars a year or married couples who make less than 31,000 dollars a year even if you don't think you qualify it pays to find out go to ssa.gov/extrahelp paid for by the u.s. department of health and human services with the lucky land slots you can get lucky just about anywhere this is your captain speaking yeah we've got clear runway and the weather's fine but we're just going to circle up here a while and uh get lucky no no nothing like that it's just these cash prizes add up quick so i suggest you sit back keep your tray table upright and start getting lucky say for free at luckylandsluts.com are you feeling lucky no purchase necessary void we're prohibited by law 18 plus terms and conditions apply see website for details