Marriage Is Being Socially Engineered Out of Existence | Guest: Lauren Chen | 9/11/26

0:00Hey, everybody. How's it going? Thanks for joining me this afternoon. I've got a great stream with a great guest that I think you're really going to enjoy. Recently, we had a jobs report that came out and said that 98% of new jobs went to women last month. This is obviously a huge shift in the way that our society ultimately employs people. It changes the dynamic between men and women and with a Lindsey Clancy trial and everything else that is going on. It's pretty clear that we are actively socially engineering away the concept of marriage. Join me today to talk about that is the conservative show host, Lauren Chen. Lauren, thank you so much for coming on. Thank you for having me. Of course. So just beginning with this jobs report, the idea that 98% of the jobs that we had in one month would all go to women is such an outrageous number that it has to say something beyond women are just getting better at going through the hiring process. What do you think is

1:04reflected in these numbers overall? Well, I've heard people like Radfem Hitler say that this is simply because the areas in the economy that are growing tend to be disproportionately female, things like health care, daycares are still growing, needing more workers all the time. But let's be clear, there is basically no industry, maybe not even circusy, that is 98% female. This is just, this is not explained by, oh, it's just more healthcare workers. This is systemic discrimination. And I don't think there's any other way to describe it. 98% of payroll jobs. It's a crazy number to think of. And actually, I have this from Polymarket. It's in the same vein. It says women have accounted for nearly all net US payroll job gains since Trump returned to office with female employment up 765,000 and male employment down roughly 6,000. So, you know, the number you mentioned earlier that was just August. Perhaps some people are also thinking, well, this is just one month. Is it really part of a larger trend? But at least if that is accurate, what Polymarket was saying, it does

2:05seem like this isn't something new. This is actually a trend toward our economy employing more females and fewer males. And I don't think there's anything natural about it. You know, you might say, well, oh, women are more educated now. They're the majority of degree holders. But if you look at what women are actually studying communications, psychology, these are not big sectors for economic growth. I think there's several things behind this. I think, you know, DEI, HR hiring practices, HR, of course, overwhelmingly female. I think there's also a lot of AI screening. Again, AI tends to, you know, when you talk about AI, it actually, it learns from things like existing literature about who to hire. Again, these are all things that have been made, mainly females that have contributed to. So, it's many things all working together. Unfortunately, against men, it seems. And like you said, against marriage as a whole. Yeah, I think there are some real trends to observe. You know, I, we're all familiar. I think it'll come down on the same conclusion that, you know,

3:05this is largely engineered. But there is some truth to the fact that the sectors growing are predominantly female. I think that that's, you know, obviously the care economy, these type of things are going to be dominated by female employees. I think it's also true that, in addition to perhaps the political incentives for hiring women, there's also a social incentive for most companies because women are naturally more compliant. They tend to be better behaved. They tend to follow instructions more thoroughly. And so you have this, when you have this large managerial bureaucracy, you don't really want a lot of people who are going to get out there and shake things up. You know, they're going to break, you know, the rules, that kind of stuff. You want people who stay in the box, produce reliable results are going to feel a high degree of duty to continue to return to that role and go through the process. They're very loyal to the managerial process. And I think that just is a role that naturally fits women better. I think that they tend to have an easier time in those environments, much like we've noticed that,

4:08you know, women are outperforming boys in many of the school environments, the educational environments, because of their predisposition for sitting in class for longer amounts of time without need for activity with good behavior. You know, these are, these are real gender differences that do play themselves out in certain market environments. But as you say, there's no way that that makes up a 98% share of what's going on here. And so it's very clear that in addition, perhaps some level of, you know, anthropological adjustment to a managerial structure, you're also seeing a very heavy weighting of femininity when it comes to value in the hiring process. As you say, a lot of people are pointing to the fact that women are now more educated, they have the majority of degrees. And it's true that it's often in fields that are not the most rigorous. You're not getting as many female engineers, that kind of thing. But they're perfect for middle management, right? Those are exactly the kind of degrees that slot into these corporate middle management structures. So in a way, they are the exactly the type of employee

5:09that the corporations are looking for. In addition, there's also just a clear fact that men, especially white men, are an unprotected class under the Civil Rights Act. They're easier to fire, they're easier to hire, they're easier, you know, their concerns about workplace conditions or these things are dismissed automatically, you know, unjust firing practices are often dismissed when it comes to a male. And so it's much easier to, you know, kind of abuse the process with men, because there are no Civil Rights Actions triggered when a case like that occurs. No, you're 100% right. And I think when we talk about the bureaucracy, the middle management, a sector of the economy that's growing and growing, it's just, it's basically, you know, that viral TikTok video, trench code and many, trench code and I, I forget, I think it was some skincare company, but it triggered basically an entire generation of men into realizing that this largely is what corporate life looks like, not just in America, but in the Western world more generally.

6:10You have a bunch of boss babes with their laptops sending emails all day. Much of the economy is fake and gay in that respect. And, you know, the people who are doing the hiring, people are going to be managing you. It's all female dominated. And we see from statistically speaking, just as we see that female teachers tend to penalize boys just for being boys. They've done studies on this. They will grade a paper more harshly if there's a mail name versus when there's like no gender name attached. I believe a similar thing is happening with the hiring process. And, you know, if you are a, especially young male who's maybe just graduated college against the odds because admissions to college are stacked against you. But now you're looking at an economy that unfortunately is similarly hostile. It seems just to you as a person. And I think, unfortunately, for a lot of young men, the prospects they're facing are very bleak, whether that's for the job market, whether the housing market and heck even marriage. It's a really tough place to be as a young man. And I unfortunately, I don't see a lot of even people on the right who are sympathetic to that. And I think, you know, historically speaking, large numbers of unemployed single men has not been

7:15great for society stability. And unless something is addressed, then, you know, if people are concerned about the quote, radicalization of young men now, it's not going to get better. Just put it that way. Yeah, you, one of the reasons that you see people become radical is because something radical has happened to them. Right. And I think that's what a lot of young men are standing around, you know, looking at the world that has been shaped by their predecessors. And very interestingly, a lot of conservative commentators seem to get an odd glee out of kind of spitting on young men and saying, well, you know, your grandparents had it worse than you. It was a lot harder. You're not food-stricken. Yeah, yeah, uphill both ways, you know, find your own way in the world. Don't be a complainer, don't be a whiner. Now, look, there's two aspects here. The first is that, well, Jordan Peterson's advice to the individual is correct, right? Clean up your room. Get yourself together, put everything in perfect order. Like that is actually individually how you should act because that's the only thing

8:16you have agency over. You only have agency over yourself, your behavior. So it's true that when you're talking one on one with someone, they shouldn't be a victim, no matter how bad the situation is, they should be fighting for a better future, finding a way forward at whatever level they can. That advice is true. The problem is that is not a political project. That is not a political prescription. When we move from the realm of the individual person and advice to them and we move to what are we doing as a political movement? What are we doing as a society? Well, then you have to actually address systemic issues because they are systemic. They aren't the fault of the individual people. That doesn't mean the individual people don't have a duty to do their best inside that system. But you don't just sit there and say, well, I know that you lose 99% of the time when you pull that slot machine lever, but it's the only game in town. So stop whining and get pulling and get lucky. That's not an actual solution to this imbalance. So why do you think there is this obsession with so many conservative commentators to dismiss this project, even though many of them spent the

9:18less decade getting rich telling everybody about DEI and how unfair it was and all the hatred for men and whiteness and everything else. But now, when people say I'd like to fix it, they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Easy there. Socialists. Yeah. Well, I think there's a few reasons for that. Number one, I think if you look at the establishment conservative class and even the establishment conservative punditry, the fact of the matter is they are still invested as some degree in the status quo. When it comes to what a lot of the young men, I'm hearing, I'm talking to what they're worried about. It is demographic security and this factors into a number of ways that they're basically being shortchanged in society, right? If we look at male dominated fields, jobs and industries, increasingly, these are the ones where we are getting flooded with illegal migrant workers, whether that be construction, frankly, a lot of the trades. So these are traditionally more male dominated jobs. Now, it's not just that these men haven't been working hard enough or anything like that, but it's like literally there's been an importation of, I mean, millions and millions of workers who are undercutting their wages. They're working for

10:23cheaper and not just because they're happy with less, but because they actually have a systemic advantage, right? They're not paying all the same taxes. They don't have all the same response. They're not worrying about their car insurance, their health insurance premiums or anything like that. So the system actually is rigged in favor of these illegal workers. Young men are being kind of priced out of the the job market. Again, not because they're just too entitled or anything like that, but because hey, they actually do have to play things like payroll taxes. They have to worry about insurance. They're not getting access to all the cheap housing and things like that. And so this is a problem in concern with young men, but you still have the billionaire donor class, a lot of these big business owners who might identify as conservative, but that doesn't mean that they're against illegal immigration because it actually benefits them. And we've seen this when initially the Trump administration was going, you know, peddled to the metal with the deportations, it was some of these large companies and construction and you name it who are calling them up and saying, hang on, I don't like this. Okay, actually, you know, I'm down for less regulations and less taxes on my business, but I still want the cheap workers. So I think it's very fair for these young men to

11:27call that out. And that's not about them being entitled. That's not about them wanting some sort of white American DEI, but it's just saying, hey, the system is actively rigged against me. And I don't think that's fair. I'm still going to try to work hard, but let's talk about this. And a similar thing applies to the housing market, right? I mean, it's just I know boomers like to say, oh, we had it too, but we can tell because of the numbers that we have that it simply costs more years of a salary in order to buy that same starter home. It's an objective fact housing is less affordable now than basically has ever been part of the reason why is also mass migration. Okay, but guess who doesn't like removing all of the illegals because it's going to drive housing prices down again, it's it's boomers, right? It's a lot of this this same older class that's very well established in in the media in mainstream politics. They don't want housing prices to fall because for, you know, the most part, it's a big it's a big part of their portfolio. It's a big part of their their net worth. And so there that's why you have this kind of friction between the young

12:31and I would say overwhelmingly the older conservative establishment. And I think this is something we're going to see come to a head more and more so in the coming months before the midterms. And we see people like JD Vance actually, I think aware of this. He is one of the few people in politics today that seems to be cognizant of the fact that we have, you know, a very large voter base that is potentially willing and ready to support the GOP, but they want to feel like their concerns are heard as well, which I think is fair. Every every other group gets all of these freebies, these gibbies from politicians come voting season. It seems to accept, you know, the white male working class younger people. And so I mean, I you know, we have that that I guess family credit that's being floated by Vance. And that's one of the few things that I think Republicans might be getting messaging right on if we want to appeal to this specific voter demographic who right now is feeling alienated but historically has turned out very strong for the GOP. Yeah, it was truly amazing, you know, after 2024, the Democrats launched a thousand

13:33think pieces about why Trump won. And the consensus was young men that he had one young man over, even not just white young men, Hispanic young men, like just young men in general as a demographic, and they start talking about the man problem that they have, the podcast or problem that they have, they can't reach, you know, anymore. Now funny enough, they paid some obese women 20 million dollars and her discovery was men are evil and we shouldn't bother appealing to them. So, you know, no credit to the Democrats for recognizing and then. Well, hey, they were trying, I think they were specifically also trying to appeal to like young black male voters. So the irony that they chose us overweight female white woman, I mean, that's an attempt was made, but I don't think of what. Yeah, no, it's it's truly amazing that after that like horrific, you know, fumble from the Democrats, the so many of conservative commentators said, you know what, we don't want young men either, especially young white men. That's not victory out of the jaws of defeat or defeat out of the way. Yes, there we go. But yeah, no, 100%. It's like, okay,

14:36well, here's the easiest victory ever. You have a whole party that's literally defined by their hatred for young white men. All you have to do is just say, yeah, we won't hate you and you win and we just couldn't do it. And so you're right, like, yeah, I'm very glad that JD Vance has recognized that in a way that others haven't, but it is truly an amazing way to throw away a victory. Now, one of the reasons I really wanted to talk to you about this is the impact that this is having on marriages. There's been a lot of ink spilled when it comes to the dating market, the marriage market, how abysmal it is. Well, I will touch on some of that. I'm sure. But the main thing that I think is really reflected in this statistic, you know, with the jobs and everything going to women is the impact that has on family formation. Because women just don't marry unemployed men. And they definitely don't want to ultimately be married to men who make less than they do. There are some exceptions, of course, but the statistics bear this out that even if a woman is making a good living, she wants to see her husband make more. It's not enough for her to just be a provider for the family.

15:41Like, actually, she needs to see him outperform her even when she is very successful. And so if you're having the majority of women being the ones who go to college, when you have the majority of jobs going to women, when you have the majority of races going to women, you're building a perfect structure where women are never going to find men who fulfill the basic role that they feel compelled biologically to have that man, you know, fulfill even if they themselves have told them a lot of feminist lies about how the family should be structured. And so it seems like we have basically engineered the scenario where nobody in the next 20 years is going to be able to get married because the entire employment situation throws the male-female relationship into chaos. You're right. And to be clear, I don't think this is, and I'm assuming you're good with me too, I don't think the level of female outperformance in the economy and academia, it's not simply because women are just better than men. This is something that has been inherently engineered. It's not that the women are simply outperforming their male peers, and that's just how it is. This is something

16:46that has been specifically designed through DEI initiatives, these different HR programs, hiring practices, and academia, literal, just affirmative action, to specifically favor female workers, female characteristics, female traits over masculine counterparts. And this is a bad thing because when we're talking about the demographic collapse that is happening, it's not in debate anymore, it's just an objective fact. There are so many countries that are asking themselves what can we do to raise the birth rates? And we always see the answers like, oh, well, we just need more like paid leave. We need more all of these things, universal daycare. Now, I'm not saying those things are inherently wrong, but I mean, I also think that, but I think it's also true to say that these do not increase the fertility rate. We have seen this. I mean, like, places like South Korea, they're basically paying you to have free whatever, if you want to go back to work, we'll watch the kids, but still people are not having children. I think because at the root of it, and this is true, women do not

17:48want to pump out babies in order to hand them off to someone else to raise. That is just not what women want. You give women the free daycare that does not, we've seen this measurably. It does not increase the fertility rate. What women actually want is to be able to feel comfortable and secure, to be able to stay at home and raise their kids themselves. Okay, we saw there was like a slight baby bump when it came to, you know, COVID and some work from home initiatives. That type of thing actually works with the fertility rate. What women want, the way you get women to want to have babies is you give them successful men who are able to provide for them and an environment where they can stay and raise their own kids because no woman is glamorizing the idea of popping out of baby and then two weeks later, maybe four weeks, heading back to work. Oh, but we, you're the daycareer's free. Doesn't matter that, that doesn't trigger a woman to want to have kids. And so when we actually think like what is pronatalist policy, I think pronatalist policy, a lot of people wouldn't think about this, but pronatalist policy is policy that gets men back to work that increases the environment

18:54where they are able to be successful, but also specifically that allows a single parent, a single income household to thrive. That's what really women want to see. That's going to make them feel secure, want to have kids. And, you know, I think when we see the failure of these quote, like pronatalist policies in places like Scandinavia, like very generous, nanny states essentially, but still really low birth rates. It's because they're not, they're not really speaking to the right drivers of what motivates women to have babies. So there's a lot there that I think is really important. And maybe we can unpack it by looking at the subsidy that you kind of hinted towards that the trepidestration is suggesting. So one of the things that JD Vance has announced recently is that the trepidestration is looking at using the childcare funds that are set aside for, you know, helping low income people pay for childcare. As you say, dump their child off with some other women so that they can go to work, which is the saddest thing modernity ever did is convince a woman that working to pay someone

19:55else to raise your child is better than you raising your child. But that said, they said, okay, well, since we're already going to have this $12 billion, there's always already this hot, this fun sitting out there for us to distribute. It all goes to our political enemies. And more importantly, it all goes to incentivize bad behavior, right? It's largely going to single mothers. It's largely going to broken households. That's who are qualifying for the funds that's who's using the daycare for the most part. What if instead we said, okay, but if you're a stay-at-home mom, but you know, maybe your husband isn't quite making enough, you guys need a little more to help make sure you can stay at home comfortably and make sure that everyone's going to get fed and everybody's going to be safe. We'll make you eligible. I think it's like a $9,000 credit towards the same amount that would be spent for you going to work and paying for the childcare. You just get that for staying home and being the person who cares for your child. So you are subsidizing, but your subsidizing in a manner that allows the woman to stay with her child, not to

20:57just dump her child off with somebody as soon as she's got through maternity leave. And a lot of conservative commentators are losing their minds over this. They're like, this is socialism. This is the end of American capitalism. This is just, you know, we are doomed because we're going to subsidize people having kids and that could be nothing worse for conservatives than women staying home with their children. It's already money that's been carved out, Lauren. It's not any, they're not, there's not a single new dollar being added to this fund. What is the trend here? What's going on? This is what is really, really frustrating. And that's that if you're a conservative who has been fighting really hard the entire time against this daycare fund, okay, I understand. But you have a lot of conservatives who are upset about this JD Vance carve out for the stay at home parent that have previously been absolutely silent about this daycare fund. So really, like you said, this is this is money that already has been allotted. It already exists. We are simply trying to decide where it goes. There is nothing wrong with trying to, since this money has all I've been

22:00taken has already been set aside, directed to positive places instead of places that you say incentivize negative behaviors for society. So I think the people who are freaking out right now about this are ones who are essentially shooting themselves in the foot. They seem to hate victory, hate, hate, hate appealing to voters. But there is nothing negative about that. I don't want to have a broader conversation like, oh, we should not be doing this daycare fund period. I would agree with you, but that's not like you're never going to get the votes to actually repeal this at this point. What we can do with the, you know, the power that our Republicans currently have is at the very least try to allocate the funds in a way that is actually pronatalist that actually does reward the family structure that we would like to see more of. This is a win by all on all accounts really. I think the people who are complaining about it are, I think they're, they're letting perfect get in the way of the good, which is very, very like the, you know, Republican establishment class unfortunately, but I think this is, this is something we need to see more of actually taking,

23:04taking programs that already exist. It's not new money being allocated. I just putting it toward things that do better society. I honestly do not understand the people who are complaining right now. Well, I think part of it is they recognize the ongoing kind of battle for a post-Trump Republican party and anything JD Vance does is wrong because right now JD Vance represents, you know, a possibility that Maga could continue beyond Trump that we won't go right back to Neocon, you know, fusionist ideologies. And so I think there's just part of that. They don't, they probably even haven't even looked at the program. They just saw JD Vance said something and therefore it's wrong. But there is also the fact that the conservative movement has just been completely ideologically possessed. Like they can't, you know, Russell Kirk said that you don't want conservatism to ever care about ideology. You're not conserving an ideology. You're conserving a people. So whatever's best for the people is your belief system. That's what you actually, that's the whole goal of the conservative movement. And it seems that instead the idea is we need to conserve this idea of small

24:07government for the sake of small government. Now I prefer there to be less government. I think that especially for like Protestant Anglo-Decidated countries, you tend to have an understanding that less government is the ideal form for you that just kind of fits your society the best. However, it's not a principle by itself. It's not the goal. The goal of having a small government is that society is more successful. So if we're currently in a scenario where we're not going to reduce the size of the government, as you say, the funds are already there. The fire hose already has water flowing through it. The only question is which direction do you point it? The money is going to go somewhere so it can go to bad behavior in your political enemies or can go to subsidize good behavior in your political allies. And that idea of using power that already exists, you're not advocating new money, not creating a new program. But simply saying, well, if this program's on the books and the reality is we are never going to get this thing removed in any near term. Sorry, we're not abolishing welfare this term, no matter how many times it works. Maybe next time.

25:08Maybe next time. I'm sure we'll get it next time. But because that's not happening, we're not allowed to take these wins because we're more addicted to just saying the word small government and socialism bad, then we are actually thinking about what it looks like to win in the current political environment as we see it. No, and that's what's really frustrating to me is that like, is that I'm also I genuinely ideologically support small government. I think that's the most moral. I think it's the most effective. However, in the current state of things, what I cannot help that notice is that you have a you have an establishment Republican class that seems to care most about having quote unquote small government when it is the populist right who is actually suggesting a way to use government that benefits benefits us in any way, shape or form. It just seems like there is a frankly a double standard, right? You know, you have people like AOC, Mamdani, they're they're having grocery stores run by the government. They're suggesting all manner of ways to introduce new government control over our lives and these establishment Republicans.

26:10They might kick up a little bit of a fuss, but largely it's so it's the status quote doesn't only bother them. However, someone like JD Vance comes along and suggests what about we allocate some of these funds to say to our parents, laserize, wake up, no, that socialist. It's like, all right, this does this does seem like you're more invested in protecting the status quo or government only ever benefits the left than actually guarding against small government if that makes sense because it seems like there's a lot more political currency being spent to oppose the populist right than the left. We see this as well with health care. I'm just going to say it pulls show that overwhelmingly Americans do support the idea of like a single payer system. Now I don't support that, but when you have people who try to from a right wing perspective say, okay, how do we lower costs for the average person with the you know with the caveat that hey, we already have socialized medicine when it comes to the VA, when it comes to low income people, when it comes to older people, no one like no one on the right seems to care about dismantling those programs. It's only when we

27:13actually say, hey, how can we kind of extend this to the average working class person? Then there is the big fur and it's a frustration, I think, for a lot of Republican and conservative voters, but who are also maybe more populous in thinking, hey, why is it only about small government when it's a time government could potentially be in my favor? Does that make sense? And I think that's what's putting a lot of people off, especially in the younger generations who have grown up with X, Y, and D government spending program, you name it, you know, $40 trillion a debt, but now when it's time to discuss, hey, maybe something that actually helps me, oh, well, now it's too much government spending. Now it's too much government control like really because that previously never seemed to stop you people. Yeah, it's hard not to recognize that we don't have money to subsidize married mothers staying at home with their children, but we do have money to subsidize Iran and or rather Israel and Ukraine, right? Like we're spending a lot more than $12 billion

28:16currently, you know, finding wars in the Middle East, we seem to have, I think it was like $152 billion for Ukraine, but we do not have $12 billion for, you know, mothers here at home. And so the question is not do we have socialism? Of course we have socialism. We have socialism for, you know, minorities, we have socialism for single mothers, we have socialism for foreign countries, we have plenty of socialism, we have socialism everywhere. We just don't have any incentives for the very people who would actually be doing the right thing in our society. And that's the next thing I wanted to talk to you about the kind of goes along with the social engineering away marriage. Obviously, one of the huge problems is our entire society has been completely reoriented from the top down. I mean, we spent hundreds of billions of dollars and made major institutions and changed our laws so that single women could raise children, right? Like the natural order is that a single woman with a child was in one of the worst places you could imagine as a person throughout most of history, right? That's why we guarded female sexuality. So

29:19carefully, that's why we put such an emphasis on marriage because we knew that like women, especially women with children were dependent on men and needed someone to keep them safe and needed someone to provide for them most of the time. And so you have this natural order where even if like say your husband died, it was very common for women to marry their brother-in-law who would then take over the family because they needed to protect the children, made sure she was not, you know, widowed and alone without any ability to protect those kids. So it was a very, you know, all the way from the Bible up until, you know, the old West and the United States. This was a very common practice. And that was just the basic understanding, but we didn't want women to be dependent on men anymore, especially men in their family. Or the church, right? Yeah, absolutely. Any of these classic organizations that would have stepped in that moment. So we decided we had to alter everything about society from putting women to the workplace, advancing them in jobs, making sure that there's plenty of welfare and everything else that could subsidize this, and a, you know, thorough left police force to basically provide physical

30:23security when no man was available. And all of these changes, we, conservatives don't seem to notice that when it's all built in an assistant. They're watching billions and billions of dollars go to completely rearrange our society to make marriage unnecessary. And then the minute we try to spend a little percentage of that money to say, actually, maybe it would be good if women were married and stayed home with their kids. And all of a sudden, now it's a travesty. Like, I don't see any of those conservative commentators saying we need to strip away benefits from all single mothers. Like, they know they're never going to say that, but they will strip the benefits from married mother. No, you're, you're exactly right. And I think it's because increasingly, I'm realizing that conservatives in the Western sense, what they are interested is conserving the status quo and conserving the system, where it actually should be, as you mentioned, conserving a people. And we also see this, you know, we, yeah, we see this with, you know, funding daycare for single moms versus stay at home moms. Apparently, like no one's really kicking up a fuss trying to defund the daycare. They should be as, especially since by the numbers,

31:25it seems like most of it is just going to Somali fraudsters, not even the daycares. But we also have this kind of, this same similar discussion when it comes to homeschooling versus public education. Right. You, you, you have most mainstream conservatives on board with the idea, like, yeah, we just keep funding public education, just keep pumping it in. I mean, no child left behind was a George Bush project, right. But we, we have, you know, from the grassroots level, some people, some parents, some homeschoolers are starting to say, well, what if the money that was going to a public school for my kid? But I'm educating them at home. What if that went to me instead? You actually have people on the right who are arguing against that because, oh, then that would be too much government control for homeschoolers, even though there's not necessarily actually any, any stipulation that there's will be more government control than already exists because most states already do have some sort of you need to follow some umbrella program that's going to keep track of, like, you know, standardized tests and things like that. It's not like I, from my, to my knowledge, there's any

32:25states that's just, all right, do whatever you want. So if there's going to be these funds allocated for these students, should it not remain with the parents who are educating them at home? But obviously, you have leftist fighting against it. But yeah, it's just frustrating to see that you would also have right-wing people fight against that under the premise of, oh, well, that that would lead to more government involvement. Well, you haven't said much about the government involvement that already exists. And it's just weird. If you, you know, we all have a certain number of hours in the day where we can spend fighting against things. It just makes no sense to me whatsoever that with all of the left as policies on the books that are just objectively bad and benefit, nobody that any conservative would spend one waking moment fighting against a policy that could potentially benefit homeschooling, stay at home parents, you name it. So another big event that I think has dealt a serious blow to gender relations here recently has been the Lindsey Clancy trial. Obviously, not only do you

33:26have a situation where a mother, you know, murdered her children in cold blood in a premeditated fashion and expected with apparently some, you know, real credit to ultimately get off for the murder of her children by saying that she was temporarily insane. The fact, obviously, that we had this massive outpouring from a lot of women online when it came to supporting Lindsey Clancy finding all these kind of Candace Owen style conspiracy theories for how she didn't really do it or, you know, excuseing, saying, well, you just don't understand postpartum depression. Of course, you know, you might be compelled to murder your children in a cold blooded fashion, you know, saying that that ultimately was a justification. But I think the final part, the one that was really brutal to the system, was watching the jury situation where you had nine women and three men. All of the women were voting in her direction to the men were. It's only one man. It's only one guy, one true patriot hold out there that was holding up Western civilization. But the fact that we're now in the place where it seems,

34:31you know, the default setting is that women are going to expect you to think that a mother should be able to murder her kids not just in the womb, but outside the womb. Like that, I guess the logical, you know, slippery slope that everyone said was ridiculous where, you know, even jellicles in the 80s were like, you're they're going to end up murdering five year olds. Oh, don't be, don't be insane. Yeah, that'll never have well here we are. And we have the scenario where that seems to be an expectation going forward that men will have to believe that for a large percentage of women in society to ultimately find them worthy of being in a relationship. After every other bit of feminist propaganda that's kind of destroyed a lot of marriages and relationships between men and women, I can't think of anything worse than making, you know, this some kind of like litmus test for relationships going forward. But yeah, what how do you think that this is ultimately going to impact men male female relationships, the ability for people to get married, that kind of thing? Well, I think if you are a man, honestly, one of the most important questions you can ask your female partner right now is do you support

35:34Lindsey Clancy? Choosing the mother of your children is probably one of the most, if not the most important choices you can make as a man. This is the person who not only are going to be connected to throughout your life because you share children, but who will be investing the most hours into raising your kids? There is no there is no greater, I guess, test you could have for a mother than whether she thinks harming a child is excusable in any way, shape or form. And I will like I do want to clarify, I obviously think Lindsey Clancy did it, but the women who don't think she did it because Patrick maybe that's still there's still no evidence for that even or like she herself admits she did it or defense team admits she did it, but the people who think Patrick actually did it, they're dumb, but it's more morally, I guess it's less morally egregious in my opinion, because a lot of the women who don't think Lindsey did it, they're operated by the assumption that a mother could never kill her kids, it's just too terrible. So it's like it's wrong, but at least

36:38there is kind of at the minimum a tacit admission that children murder bad, right? Children murder so bad, unthinkable, she couldn't have done it. Now I think what they're overlooking is the fact that some women are just ontologically evil, but when it comes to the women who think that it's in any way, shape or form, excusable, justifiable or understandable, these are, these are the same women who I think the pilgrims were burning at Salem. This is the the toxic feminine energy that I think you know, hundreds of you recognized as a threat to not just families, but civilization as a whole. There is no way, shape or form that hormones post-partum, psychosis, depression, whatever would justify anything remotely close to what Lindsey Clancy did, and I will also remind your audience Lindsey Clancy's youngest was eight months old post-partum psychosis immediately following birth, you know, within the like first few weeks is an infinitismy small percentage. It gets smaller and smaller as time goes on. Lindsey Clancy was

37:44eight months post-partum, okay? A lot of women, they're already down the baby weight when it comes to eight months. So the fact that all of a sudden after eight months now she starts hearing voices, it just it doesn't make sense, it's not believable, but I think what is happening is that women aren't necessarily believing that she went through the psychosis, what they are co-signing, what they are approving of is the idea that women should be not held accountable due to the whims of their emotions, right? They're feminine hysteria agency, whatever, and it's ironically the same type of logic that in previous generations dictated women have fewer rights and responsibilities because we were exactly this in this unaccountable class. Now women are similarly trying to push that, but they still want the same rights and responsibilities, but simply we can't have it both ways. Right? Either women are rational agents who deserve all of the power, political power that comes with being a part of the franchise in the 21st century or we're just girls, we're just at the whims of

38:46our hormones, we can't be held responsible, then we also can't be trusted, it stands to reason. And when it comes to the jury, that one that one juror I hope he I hope his pillow is eternally cold, I hope he meets nothing but green lights for the rest of his life on a highway. 40 hours I think they spend in deliberation and this man refused to budge on the fact that yes, it was beyond reasonable doubt that Lindsey Clancy was of sound mind when she was orchestrating the calculated murder of her children. This whole case watching it unfold has been I don't know about you, but it's been very it's been a very dark time, dark season for me. I think back to COVID and that was when you know I kind of lost trust in the medical establishment when I realized what they were about. I've always been critical of feminism, but I think it has been this Lindsey Clancy case that has really shown me the darker nature of modern women as a whole because it's not just leftist lib women who are seemingly excusing Lindsey Clancy justifying what she's done. I've also seen a

39:48shocking number of conservative women, but you know you mentioned the slippery slope increasingly, we see it's not a logical foul. See it's actually just like an observable pattern of human behavior. This is exactly what we should come to expect when we are increasingly placing the concept of female bodily autonomy over the lives of children, you know in the womb, but it kind of stands to reason well, you know, does does the value of life really change that much before and after the birth canal? Right. I mean, this is we've already seen people kind of justify post-birth abortions like we saw in Virginia most more most horrifically, but I think we're also seeing it more broadly extended children as a whole in Canada. This was shocking to me. I found out through the Lindsey Clancy discourse that the maximum penalty a parent can have for killing, murdering their infant is five years. Right. There is no there is no justification for a law like that aside from we are just embracing Satan.

40:50And you know, this is where this frankly is just where this whole this whole discourse around abortion and a female bodily autonomy leads to and we are we are seeing that yeah, we will in the year 2026 actually justify the killing of of toddlers of young children, you know, five, three and eight months. If it's to say like oh well, you know, what what was the mom feeling? That's the most important thing. Absolutely insane. So this comes to the hardest question probably of this entire thing because I think what we're facing is a true structural problem in our society that's unavoidable. As you say, it seems that the current pathology that feminists are kind of cooking up over there is the idea that men are responsible for all the bad actions of women and women are responsible for all the good actions of women. So no matter what, you know, women can not they are women are responsible when they do good things,

41:56but they are unaccountable when they do bad things and this mirrors a lot of other, you know, kind of it's not just for women. We have this standard I think often for black Americans, unfortunately, you know, yes, they have full agency unless someone says the n-word and then the, you know, Cormaloanth and he can't be held responsible for what he does at that point, you know, it's totally understandable. You know, you just had what's coming, you know, you wouldn't, you wouldn't spit on a tiger if it was, you know, in your face, would you like this, just what you have to expect. And for women, it seems to be this idea that well, women should have full male roles in society. They should be able to support themselves. They should be able to, you know, have big jobs, have important political positions, it's kind of thing, but also they can't ever be held accountable when they do something wrong. That's an untenable position, but it also then opens up another question. If women are going to insist that they are incapable in certain scenarios of, you know, having male behavior, of having, you know, that they have to in some way be treated differently because, well, it turns out women and men are different not just below the neck, but also above the neck,

43:01that when you have this scenario, it seems like not only is it hard for women to be held accountable, but also the large amounts of our family formation problem as we previously talked about exists because of the scaffolding we built to go ahead and permit women to be single and have children. So if we don't remove all of this architecture that has been created to keep men and women apart, then they're not going to get married, right? We built this into education, we built it into business, we built it into the law system, built it into family court, and every step we've basically hedged the welfare of women so that they don't have to be attached to men in order to receive the classic benefits of marriage and family. So is it possible for the family to return without in some significant way making women dependent on men again? That's probably not something that most women want to hear, but ultimately is that the conclusion

44:01that we have to draw. Well, I will say that whether women like to hear it or not, the truth is we are dependent on men. And the only reason that this current system where women are kind of incentivized to be boss ways, the only reason why it can exist is because it does so off the backs of men. If we look at who pays net taxes in this country, overwhelmingly it is simply males. Men are paying the net taxes. Single mothers disproportionately are the receivers of this of this generosity. So the single moms who are quote, doing it by themselves, they're actually not doing it by themselves. They are still being carried by the men who are through their taxes, funding these choices. And I think what we need to do is we frankly need to remove the structural support that men are giving. It needs to be one to one, right? It's not fair for a single mom to say all men of society, you must fund my bad choices. No, if women want to have kids, it should once again be a cup of on the fact that a single man, a father is going to be responsible for that.

45:05So I think we need to remove the financial incentives for women to pursue single motherhood. And I also, I will openly say this, I'm increasing the of the mind that we frankly just need to bully women more to behave correctly. Because women, we are social creatures, we operate overwhelmingly by consensus. I've kind of mentioned this on my streams. But you know, if women are asked, so do you think he's cute? More times than not, they're going to look at what their friends kind of think before they give their opinion. This is just how a lot of women operate. And for the longest time, you know, if we look back the 1700s, 1800s, the way that women police each other's behavior was overwhelmingly through things like select shaming, trying to enforce proper social standards, historically women have been more religious than men as well. Women are kind of like the moral gatekeepers of society. But what's happened over the, you know, the 20th and 20th century is that female mentality has kind of been subverted through the feminist movement. So women are still policing each other. They're still gatekeeping. They're still bullying

46:07each other. But now they're bullying each other. Like, oh, what you're a tradwife? Oh, you're right wing. Let me henpeck and ostracize you. So now the social incentives are totally flip from what they should be. So I think as conservative women and as men as well, we need to start trying to reinforce the proper social order, right? So it cannot be more glamorous, more, more, I guess, end me able to be a boss babe, then to be a state homomong with, you know, a beautiful family of children. And the only reason why we would think that it would be the cases because we've had, I mean, at this point, decades generations of propaganda that has been feeding us like, oh, wow, that woman is behaving just like a man that's amazing. Promiscuity, that's no problem, right? This is, this is not something that has naturally occurred. This is, this has been years and years of concerted effort, like through media, through education, trying to frankly brainwash our entire society, not just women, but also the men, the men who are complicit in this. And I think conservatives need to be a little bit less ashamed of hurting people's feelings by enforcing

47:11what is morally right. We could start with the Lindsey Clancy case, right? So if we have, you know, girlfriends, fiancee who are supporting the idea that child murder is in any way defensible, excusable, well, we need, they need to be ostracized, they need to be broken up with, they need to be publicly shamed. I, I'm basically, my platform is we need to get back to publicly shaming women when they behave badly because it's only, it's only when we stop doing this, that female behavior started getting out of control. And like I said, females are still shaming each other, but now they're just shaming each other for being Trump supporters, for dating a right wing guy. I mean, you see the vitriol that people like Narasmith and Valorina farms, like the tradwife influencers that they get, and it's because they're making the rest of women look bad. So they have to, you know, there's like the sisterhood chooses to attack these targets. So, you know, women, we respond very strongly to social incentives. And I think, you know, the more that men can also wrap their minds around that, the more we can get back on the right track. I don't know if you saw that tweet. There's very few times where I'm like, man, I wish I wrote that, but there's that one tweet where if the

48:14male jurors actually want the female jurors to turn on Lindsey Clancy, all they need to do is start talking about how hot she is. Yeah, that was amazing. Poetry arts. But yeah, like we, I think female, female intuition, it's our female nature. It's not necessarily a huge mystery. We just need to start trying to utilize it to, you know, reward or punish behavior appropriately, which we haven't been doing for again, generations since I would say at least the third wave feminists. Yeah. And as you say, conservatives are absolutely culpable for this. I, you pointed out there and it hadn't occurred to me, but I think it's a great point. It seems that the left has more control of women because they're willing to shame them. Yes. The left is fine-shaming women. They shame them in a very particular way that's socially acceptable. Conservatives are terrified of shaming them. The minute we hear, you know, things we heard from conservative political opponents, repealings, you can't talk about the Lindsey Clancy case. What do you want to lose female voters? Yeah. And it's ridiculous. It's exactly the opposite. It's because you won't

49:17police female behaviors because you won't shame women. They don't respect you. They walk at, which is something every man should know about female behavior at this point. But it's just, it's just a conservative girl dad disaster over there. It's conservative, nice guy. Them completely destroying them because they are not willing to hold a woman to a standard. They are not willing to shame a woman. Women do not respect them. And then therefore in their own, like, discussed with conservatives, they move to supporting liberals in many cases. Right. And the thing is what some men don't understand is that women are just as hierarchical as men are. We are. It's just that the hierarchies are displayed differently and they are enforced differently. But if you go to any female friend group, any all-girl school, any basically female organization, there's plenty of hierarchy. It's not always over it. It's not always explicit, but it definitely exists. And you can observe it through the social order. The left understands this. And you know, we even see, like you said, like people like Tommy Lairon who should be conservative, oh, we can't, we can't criticize women in any way, shaper for otherwise. They might vote for the left.

50:18The left has never worried at all about losing female support, no matter what they do to women. Like the left can actively invite criminals across the border to rape, to murder women. They can give away female only spaces. They can, I can readifying what it even means to be a woman period. And still, they don't worry about losing female voters and they don't lose female voters. And it's because they understand that it's not just about who criticizes women. It's about kind of like rewarding or disincentivizing, punishing these different social behaviors. So last question I want to ask you is in some ways the most controversial one, but I think, you know, people throw it out there flippantly. You know, a lot of people will joke about, well, the 19th Amendment. You have to end the 19th Amendment after all of this. And, you know, I don't think that's a political reality. I just don't think, you know, until you get some kind of, you know, Franco in the United States, that's simply not going to happen. However, there is a real question here

51:21because it's very obvious that men and women being political blocks, being groups to which political parties can lobby to, can appeal to, is destructive to gender relations. It's very obvious that, you know, the Democrats basically becoming the party of immigrants, women, and weak men, and the Republicans becoming the party of, you know, men and married women is not great for society. It's tearing it apart in a very real sense. This is a concern that many anti-severgeats had when the 19th Amendment was first introduced saying, look, you know, you're supposed to vote as a household the minute that both people have a vote. Politics is going to tear people apart. They're going to disagree about politics and it's going to rip the family apart. And we're seeing that to be the case. It's, oh, there's a lot of reasons why men and women have trouble interacting, but a very real one is that political parties are fighting for competing interests and they're centered largely on, you know, what benefits one gender or the other. And so is there a way forward to reducing some of those privileges you're talking about, defunding all the things that benefit single moms and

52:25ultimately avoid, you know, keep us from shaming women when they have bad behavior from the right can things. Can any of that be addressed while women are still a political block? It does the very existence of female suffrage imply that we will always move down this path of kind of bipolar gender parties. Well, what's interesting is that if you look historically, previously, there have been generations where women were actually more likely to vote right wing than men. And then we've seen this in the UK as well during the prohibition era. So that's the females tend to be like the moral gatekeepers of society, but that might change what that actually looks like in practice changes depending on what societies morals are. So we live at a progressive society. So women are overwhelmingly progressive, but this was not the case when we were a conservative religious society. Women were overwhelmingly more conservative and more religious. So trying to take back the female vote, Republicans is basically the same question as trying to take back society

53:26as whole as starts with the media. It starts with entertainment. It starts with all of these different institutions. And there are things now, even though, you know, conservatives don't have much institutional power to speak of, that conservatives on an individual level can do to try and incentivize these behaviors. You know, women might control access to sex, but then control access to relationships. And even with all the feminist brainwashing, the majority of women still want relationship. But we see all of these, you know, TikTok videos of girls, don't they, Republican blah, blah, blah, if you're a man, you need to make it clear that you will not tolerate a outward, like a super progressive woman, right? Men need to be more outspoken about the fact that they prefer a traditional woman. Someone's conservative or heck, even better, apolitical, because women do respond to that type of thing. And for the longest time, it's kind of been like women have been on the offense, controlling everything. And men have been kind of henpicked to be too afraid to have any type of political preference or anything like that. That's starting to

54:29change. And, you know, I think it, we need to do more, more like that as conservatives, right? We need to start glorifying what women should be doing, as well as shaming what women shouldn't be doing. We need to, you know, heck any woman who's got kids married, a homemaker, we need to be raising these women, propping them up. I think it's Mongolia. They actually have medals where they award to women who have like, you know, multiple kids. The homemaker needs to be the most desirable, the most glamorous job that exists, period. Like it was previous, I think it's CS Lewis who said that, you know, homemakers, the most important role, all other roles exist to support it, which is really how it is, you know, everything we do as a society should be so that the home can be a place where the parents and the children can live harmoniously. It's a big societal change that will have to take place and it won't be overnight, but we need to remember that the change that's brought us to this day, that wasn't overnight either. This was, this is over a hundred years in the making, so it's not

55:29going to be reversed easily, but we can start by at least acknowledging that something needs to change that none of this is organic. And yeah, like I said, even with our day-to-day preferences, letting it be known that no, we're not going to glorify the harpies, the harlots, the Lindsay Clansies, we're going to shame them as we should. Yeah, I think that we're probably reaching a bottleneck when it comes to human selection where it's going to be people who are religious, who are willing to impose those type of values, who are we going to be the ones that have children? Obviously, because you're getting to a point where kind of, you know, people who are secular people who do not have some motivation to stand up against, you know, the current paradigm, they're just going to end up not having kids or they're going to kill their kids, you know, as tragic as that is. And then you're going to have the people who are much more traditional, much more willing to stand up for classic gender roles, much more willing to assert expectations on men and women, both in their roles. Those are going to be the people who actually have marriages, who maintain

56:29relationships, who have large families. And so it's not going to be pretty. I don't think, I think we're looking at a generation or two of a real hardship trying to kind of turn this ship around, but I think just the basic realities of courtship and marriage and maintaining families and having kids are going to play themselves out eventually. We simply cannot continue to kind of fund every terrible decision. You know, the United States is going to run out of money real quick. And from there, things will, nature will reassert itself, no matter how ugly it is in the process. But Lauren, it's been fantastic speaking with you. Guys, this is a prerecorded episode. So sorry, we can't take any super chats today. However, Lauren, can you tell people where to find your great work? Sure. So you can find me on X. I'm at the Lauren Chen. You can also find me at that same username on Instagram and Facebook. And if you'd like to hear more, I stream Monday Wednesday, Friday on X kick, Twitch, Rumble and Facebook and my podcast. Andathema is also available, basically wherever you get your podcasts. Fantastic. Guys, we'll make sure that you're checking out

57:30Lauren's work. And of course, if it's your first time on this channel, you need to click subscribe, the bell notifications, all that stuff. If you want to get these broadcasts as podcasts, you need to subscribe to or mac and tie with showing your favorite podcast platform. But when you do, please leave a rating or review. It really helps with the algorithm magic. Thank you. Everybody for watching. And as always, I'll talk to you next time.