About these ads

VIDEO: Misogyny Theater: Stefan Molyneux explains why women are the root of all evil

Welcome to the second installment of Misogyny Theater! In other news, I’m enjoying making these videos, and may do a couple more this week.

Today’s thoroughly horrifying monologue stars the megalomaniacal libertarian-MRA philosopher guru Stefan Molyneux, who is, as many of you already know, one of the scheduled speakers at A Voice for Men’s conference in Detroit later this week.

The audio is an excerpt from his long-as-hell video “The Matriarchal Lineage of Corruption” in which he explains why, in his view, women are essentially responsible for all the evil in the world. It’s basically the director’s cut version of the quote from him in this video, which I posted about a couple of days ago.

I have taken the liberty of editing out a brief and inconsequential comment from a caller Molyneux had on the phone with him; and adding a few seconds of silence at each end of the clip. The rest is pure, unedited Molyneux.

Oh, ok, I added the Justin Bieber poster and the lamp.

Thanks to YouTuber Tru Shibes for posting a slightly longer excerpt from Molyneux’ 2-hour video; that’s where I got the audio. Tru Shibes has a bunch of videos up featuring some of the worst of Mr. M. And thanks to Mancheeze  and Sam Sederfor pointing me to this quote in the first place.

Note: The sound clip of the murmuring crowd in my video came from FreeSFX.co.uk.

About these ads

Posted on June 24, 2014, in a woman is always to blame, crackpottery, creepy, evil women, evo psych fairy tales, grandiosity, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, Stefan Molyneux, YouTube and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 98 Comments.

  1. RE: saintnick86

    You are such a non-fan that you went out of your way to find a blog entry talking about Molyneux and then post two giant blocks of text defending his arguments.

    Don’t forget, he also chased down that old Warren Farrel post too, just to show how much he cares.

    Troll be in the dungeons today, yo. Glen, Woody, undfreeland… damn!

  2. ASSBALLS! I fucked that one up. Sorry, katz.

    Nah, it’s fine, I don’t talk about it much.

    If you ever catch me talking about animal behavior (other than cats), let the record state that I’m talking out of my ass. But it you want to know about, say, keto-enol isomerism, there I can help you.

  3. [R]ejecting Rand is a good thing, but chucking libertarianism in a dumpster is even better, IMHO.

    I find the veneration of Rand, especially with the notion her philosophy is “self-consistent”, as bewildering. If she was consistent about anything – it was contradicting herself.

    While she claimed racism was “the worst form of collectivism” – which may be true – she took no issue claiming Native Americans totally deserved to be slaughtered en masse for being “savages.” Then there’s the fact that, when it comes to homosexuality, she thinks it is an “abomination” (which is a religious term – which is weird, coming from a self-identified atheist).

    The fact her supporters have to twist themselves into all sorts of shapes to excuse it is, unsurprisingly, cultish to me.

    And for those playing at home, why yes, the well-funded Objectivist-flavored Libertarian club at my college was almost entirely made up of white guys, there were a meager few white women to break up the monotony, now that you mention it. And yes they loved bring in non-white and female speakers, provided those speakers were conservative, to prove how open minded they were.

    Of course, it’s a political philosophy developed by and for rich white guys – especially when it comes to the assumption that “The Market” will work to everyone’s benefit, if left alone.

    Too bad, y’know, history regularly proves otherwise. I’m pretty sure “The Market” is what kept slavery in the U.S. going and why so many wanted to protect such a practice – since it benefit rich, white plantation owners more than anyone else. Hell, segregated business and discriminatory hiring practices were still around almost a hundred years later and nothing changed until the Civil Rights Movement gained traction.

    I mean, these are the same people who think allowing business owners to discriminate who they hire is a positive (“Freedom of Association” being their euphemism) – yet are perplexed when someone brings up how racist that is.

    Oh yeah, almost forgot – that’s how they handle issues of race: by acting like that doesn’t exist. How typical of privileged white people…

    Don’t forget, he also chased down that old Warren Farrel post too, just to show how much he cares.

    How much he “doesn’t” care, anyway. By totally caring too much.

    What the fuck are these people trying to prove? How obsessive they are?

  4. For libertarianism to be self-consistent, it’s first and most important principle would be the complete demolition of our society and government as they truly exist so that an equitable society run under their philosophy could be built without grandfathering in existing inequalities and injustices. It would, in fact, have to be as revolutionary as communism in its thinking.

    But libertarianism isn’t about its much-vaunted principles; it’s about enshrining the current inequalities and injustices as fixed and involiable constants.

  5. This theory also leaves out the fact that kids can be abused by people that aren’t there parents. For example, I was assaulted by two classmates when I was a kid, but my parents are both wonderful. So I didn’t inherit an asshole gene but I got abused. Does that make me an asshole or not? Is it still somehow a woman’s fault even though it was boys that assaulted me? How can any of this possibly be my mother’s fault?

    On libertarianism: Yes it’s true that it’s predominantly white and male. People that aren’t extremely privileged need things like the civil rights act, the Americans with disabilities act, etc.

    I like to drop this link from time to time

    http://www.salon.com/2013/10/30/libertarians_are_even_whiter_and_wealthier_than_the_gop_partner/

  6. ^ ugh, I mean their. Drunk WWTH no spell good.

  7. <blockquote.You are spreading myths about men, that once we are abused we become monsters. Those are horrible myths that perpetuate self-loathing, depression, and suicidality in abuse survivors. You sir, are a fuckwit, and you can go take a long walk off a short pier in Piranha Lake.

    LBT SO MUCH HIGH FIVE.

    *cough* Sorry. I just got so happy to hear someone say this. If abuse made an abuser, we would have even more abusers than we do now, I mean, damn.

    Also, did Glen just come in, leave a huge pile of crap in the thread and just leave? I like when they stay and we can poke them with sticks.

    TIL Libertarianism is a club for rich white guys who don’t want to be Republican for some reason. So far they don’t seem that different on the ‘we are rich and want to stay that way and screw anyone else’ front.

  8. Man, if that were true, women everywhere would be throwing themselves at MRAs.

    EWWW! The horror! I shall have nightmares for weeks, just imagining that.

  9. This is (almost) completely off topic, but the more times I read “women who fuck assholes”, the more I think of pegging.

  10. I hate the idea that if you were abused you HAVE to become an abuser too.

    Lids, me too. The whole “abused children go on to become abusers/pedophiles were abused children” trope is a load of crap.

    Shit, if we’re going for anecdata while we’re at it, my husband absolutely did NOT repeat the abuse he suffered from his parents, governess, nurses et al.

  11. TIL Libertarianism is a club for rich white guys who don’t want to be Republican for some reason.

    I like how radio host/writer Thom Hartmann puts it: Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke dope and have sex. That about covers it.

  12. Wtf mra women killers

    What the fuck????
    This guy is a fucking crack head!
    The ‘matriarchal lineage?!?!’

    Holy shit it’s another Hale-Bop culter

  13. Molyneux has falling down the rabbit hole of anger. He needs professional help on his anger toward his parents, the dynamics of whose relationship he projects upon the whole human race.

  14. RE: J.J

    I just got so happy to hear someone say this. If abuse made an abuser, we would have even more abusers than we do now, I mean, damn.

    Yeah, the myth just… makes me so angry. It’s why I loved Something Terrible so much, because it really illustrates the fear that I think is such a part of male survivors’ lives. (Since the ‘victims become perps’ does seem to be more of a male trope, while female victims get more of the ‘victims are victims FOREVAR’ trope, but it’s basically a gendered version of ‘once you’re abused, you’re forever damaged and a defective human.’)

  15. Okay, haven’t read everything, because sleepy, so probably been ninja’d multiple times:

    This guy really doesn’t get biology, does he? Let’s play the biology game, then, shall we?

    Suppose being a (cough) a-hole (cough) is genetically determined by a single gene (one pair of alleles). We’ll do this because it’s ‘easier’ to eliminate a trait if it only depends on one allele, instead of a complex; this is because complex traits of multiple alleles can allow all the alleles to remain ‘hidden’ in individuals lacking some of the alleles.

    Also, one gene is just easier; and I wouldn’t want Stephen to have to strain his brain too hard, he might sprain something!

    So, assume a single gene, with an idividual possessing two alleles for that gene.

    Now, there could be anywhere between a single allele (everyone has two of the exact same thing) to quite a few alleles floating around. Let’s assume just two. Two is fairly typical, although things like blood type have three.

    Now, we have to figure out the inheritance pattern of the alleles for the ‘a-hole’ trait.

    Since I’ve met jerks with very pleasant parents, and we’re presuming a-hole is totally genetic (because Stephen is a bio-class-fail), the allele for jerk must be recessive. If it’s recessive, it can’t be gotten rid of in a single generation, because silent jerkishness will be hiding in the genotype of perfectly sweet folk… Even with heavy selection against jerks, via female mate choice, in a sufficiently large population (say seven billion humans), the jerk allele will remain indefinitely, hiding, jumping out as a homozygous (2 jerk alleles) a-hole, when two peasant heterozygous folks reproduce… And their a-hole allele copies just happen to hit the lottery of being in the fertilized zygote.

    Funnily enough, deadly and obnoxious diseases both can be found on recessive alleles. Which, as I said, is why they persist in populations. Carriers aren’t affected by true recessive alleles.

    If being a jerk was a deadly recessive disease, we still wouldn’t be able to eliminate it in a single generation, much less a hundred. We still haven’t gotten of hemophilia or PKU or… There’s a lot of recessive diseases. Let’s just leave it there.

    Plus, being a jerk is not just genetically determined; actually, I haven’t read any papers about isolating an ‘a-hole’ gene in humans. Genes for anger management issues in animals selectively bred to be ‘evil’, yes. People? No evidence yet. There might be genes that influence jerk behavior, but the environment still plays a huge role (and likely the largest role) in human behavior.

    By environment, I do not mean just the parents! Sometimes nice parents have jerk offspring, because if jerk influences like culture, school, the scarier parts of the Interwebs, jerk peers, jerk role models, so on, so forth.

    So, yeah, Stevie-boy: Blaming solely mothers for the evil in the world is bad logic, bad science, and even remarkably lazy pseudo-science.

    Now, me need nap. Badly. I’ll try to catch up on happenings after.

    Bye-byzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

  16. @racnad

    Are you a personal friend of Molyneux? Your first sentence is on the money but the rest of it sounds like wishful thinking.

  17. Aunt Alias,

    No I don’t know him personally, but that never stops any of the other regulars here from talking like they can see inside the heads of those they disagree with.

  18. The combined wrongness of Stefan (in the OP) and Glenn (in the comments) has sent me off into the fractal vortex of wrongitude, from which I may never return. Please send a rescue party, immediately. Make sure they include supplies of kittens, Vitamin Water Zero, and scented fucking candles.

    Cloudiah? Do you need a hard chair down there in the vortex? I have a few around the house, I could spare one…

  19. I have caught up, after a lovely nap. I feel much more human-like.

    But… I feel like teel-deering, now that I’m actually alert and oriented x4 and a 15 on the Glasgow Coma Scale.

    Dearest Glenn, let me assist you:

    Oh this is rich ground for moron bashing – and yes, I mean the author of this blog and the commenters here.

    My, what a lovely way to introduce yourself! It’s very kind of you to give us a giant, flashing neon sign, that screams “I don’t actually know what I’m talking about!”

    Yes, neon signs screaming is a mixed metaphor. Also, literary synesthesia. Moving on!

    A few questions for you self-anointed arbiters of morality and reason

    Why yes! I’d love to answer your questions. Only, I don’t really define myself as an arbiter of morality and reason. More of a seeker, than a saint, really. Although, I do have a pretty good nose for rampant bad-logic. Might I try?

    The first question:

    Do you even understand Stefan’s argument? It’s actually fundamentally based on a truth that any anthropologist or sociologist or biologist or geneticist will tell you.

    Okay, got to pause you here. Biologist speaking. I get his argument, and it is one that every single one of my professors would have died laughing about, if it weren’t so hatefully expressed. Also, genetics is one of my favorite branches, since I’m also a math and stats person and genetics is one of the more mathematically rigorous branches. Although, I also love biostatistics. (R >> SPSS, because R is free.)

    So, nope. His argument is the biological equivalent of manure. Actually, it’s not. Feces are actually scientifically interesting, and have fun bacteria and other microscopic critters to play with. Plus it acts as a biological record of the manure depositor’s recent life history.

    Stefan’s argument contains no such redeeming features. I already gave the most basic example in an earlier post. Please reference it.

    For anyone who wants to play with simple genetic and evolutionary conditions, may I interest you in this fun link?

    http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/popgen/

    PopG is the most straightforward and fun program to play with selection, mutation, migration, and dominance, and is pretty easy to play with even as a complete layman to biology. Just plug in appropriately sized numbers, and hit run.

    It does require Java, though.

    For the little more savvy, Popgene is also a pretty small program, and nifty. It’s just not nearly as user friendly. You can find it here:

    http://www.ualberta.ca/~fyeh/popgene_download.html

    If you make a really deleterious allele recessive (homozygotes die and contribute nothing) and the population large, it’s really, really hard to completely eliminate that allele from the population.

    Women choose and set the conditions of reproduction in large part in western society. They largely decide who they will have sex with and who they will reproduce with while men largely propose and wait for women to dispose.. Ergo, they are responsible for those choices, yes?

    See arranged marriages. See earlier abstract from real sociologists saying mate choice is fairly equal. Although, I liked your little bit of internal rhyme!

    Well, except for the fact that people dispose of trash. Saying that we’re disposing relationships is a little bit… off.

    My guess is that your heads here are so full of victim memes yada, yada, yada, so on, so forth

    Yeah, nope. I have a choice. I have freedom to act. You do too! How about using it to pull your head out from under the Manosphere sand?

    However, individual freedom does not protect people from other manipulative people, sadly. Also, please don’t confuse freedom and responsibility for ones own actions with responsibility for the actions of others.

    Saying women are responsible for abusive spouses removes the blame for the man for being abusive. She may have picked him, and made that choice. However, abusive guys generally know what they are doing and are fairly good at manipulation and isolation.

    Abusive women are good at that too.

    Between the two ‘faults’, I’m going out on a limb and saying the person who is abusing the other is the way worse person. Stefan, and you, are barking up the wrong tree.

    ABUSERS DO NOT GET PASSES. EVER. NOR DO RAPISTS. OKAY? NOR DO ARMED ROBBERS, OR PEOPLE WHO COMMIT OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES.

    Also, calling that all one question was cruel of you. Question One (which was really twenty questions. That’s hyperbole. I can actually count. Still…)

    Question The Second

    You don’t even deal with the larger parts of Stefan’s argument. First, he did an entire video on DV stats and what’s very clear from the data is that women are the primary abusers of children, not men.

    Oi, vey. The DV stats of which you speak do exist, and in sheer numbers, yes, women are the primary abusers of children.

    However, this is mostly because women tend to be the primary caregivers of children.

    If you control for the amount of time spent with the child of concern, the numbers show that (with respect to amount of time) men tend to be significantly more likely to abuse children. Also, while women are far more likely to neglect children, men (even without controlling for time) are far more likely to commit sexual abuse.

    Not all men are abusers, and not all women are abusers. But, my so called friend who believes that I am a moron, you don’t want to play this number game.

    Does this make the abuse right? HELL NO. Women who abuse their children are awful. So are men who abuse their children. However, you’re misinterpreting of data is frankly astonishing.

    He believes that violent adult males are created in childhood by abuse, hence him creating the chain of accountability. And that in the case of male abuse, that women who marry violent men invite abuse into children’s lives, ensuring they will grow up to be violent. None of this is terribly controversial or hateful. Why does it shock you all here so much?

    Great. The really tired old “But these poor abusers were abused”

    Nope. Here’s the thing about being an adult. You’re responsible for your own choices. A father abusing his children is not solely blamable on the woman who married him. HE is the abuser. Yes, if she is brave enough, or has adequate resources, a women with abused kids should try to escape, and get her kids away. However, that isn’t always possible. Furthermore, even if she does try to get away and get sole custody, often times courts will order women into mediation and still give the abuser partial custody of the kids they were abusing.

    Also, you completely neglect the possibility of charming, manipulative jerks who do not show their abusive colors until after the domestic relationship is established, through marriage, wedlock, or cohabitation.

    All of the above still apply if you flip genders. However, men seeking full custody when allegations of matronly abuse are flying about are actually more likely to get custody than mothers when accusations of patronly abuse are flying. Go figure.

    Furthermore, parents are not the only influence on children. Jerk parents do not always beget jerk offspring. Nice parents do not always beget nice children.

    It’s way more complicated.

    Last. I’m not a big fan of Stefan’s.

    Really?

    I disagree with many of his ideas,

    Yep. Pull the other one. It has bells!

    and he’s a bit arrogant.

    Yah don’t say? Really? I could never have guessed.

    But this argument is not as flawed as you all here seem to think. It’s kind of funny that you get so worked up about it even, I mean, what is he saying that isn’t plainly true?

    I’m not worked up. You just had so much wrong and were impugning the good name of my field. I’m actually kind of amused, because your flailing is kind of hilarious.

    Please, tell me more about these mystery biologists and geneticists who think that Stefan deserves an honorary PhD in population genetics and ethology.

    Everyone else, sorry for the tl;dr.

    Does it make it better if I had fun writing it? If anyone wants links to the data I referred to, or some good values to play with for popgene or popG, let me know!

  20. Hey blockquote mammoth, have your requisite sacrifice!

    Have a properly formatted last bit, all! Also, addendum to that last comment. If Glenn’s the only one who requests links, he’s not getting them. Use the power of Google scholar, ebscohost, government public data, and do your own data hunting.

    Everyone else, I like you, so I’d me more than happy to oblige.

    Maybe a little mean of me? Yes. Indeed. Verily. Seeker, not Saint. Saint would be boring.

    I disagree with many of his ideas,

    Yep. Pull the other one. It has bells!

    and he’s a bit arrogant.

    Yah don’t say? Really? I could never have guessed.

    But this argument is not as flawed as you all here seem to think. It’s kind of funny that you get so worked up about it even, I mean, what is he saying that isn’t plainly true?

    I’m not worked up. You just had so much wrong and were impugning the good name of my field. I’m actually kind of amused, because your flailing is kind of hilarious.

    Please, tell me more about these mystery biologists and geneticists who think that Stefan deserves an honorary PhD in population genetics and ethology.

    Everyone else, sorry for the tl;dr.

    Does it make it better if I had fun writing it? If anyone wants links to the data I referred to, or some good values to play with for popgene or popG, let me know!

  21. No I don’t know him personally

    Then why defend him as if you do?

    but that never stops any of the other regulars here from talking like they can see inside the heads of those they disagree with.

    No, we’re basing what kind of person he is based on the ideas he espouses – which isn’t far-fetched. It certainly makes more sense, especially with psychology, than claiming there’s an “asshole gene” and that it is a widely accepted theory among biologists (it is not) like Glenn has.

  22. GAH! Lemme try this again…

    but that never stops any of the other regulars here from talking like they can see inside the heads of those they disagree with.

    No, we’re basing what kind of person he is based on the ideas he espouses – which isn’t far-fetched. It certainly makes more sense, especially with psychology, than claiming there’s an “asshole gene” and that it is a widely accepted theory among biologists (it is not) like Glenn has.

  23. Aargh! I love your humour, David, although MRA stuff is like a dark joke itself. I followed a link leading from this video to watch another Molyneux production, this one on how women are so much unhappier now they have well-paid jobs (incidentally women always went out to work – it’s just that previously their choices were much more limited). Question for Molyneux – if women hate working so much, why does the woman in your first example not only choose to hold down an invigorating job, but fill the rest of her time with charity work? No one is forcing her! And at the same time MRAs like to exploit the fact that the female suicide rate is much lower than the male. In fact (in the UK anyway) the female suicide rate has plummeted over the last thirty years. How does that square with the idea that women are all so miserable and depressed now? For God’s sake guys, sort your ideas out!

  24. Its actually pretty well documented that paid employment correlates positively with feeling happier, for both men and women. Not all, but most.

  25. A particularly bizarre aspect of that Molyneux rant is that in ‘proving’ the modern economy forces both men and women to work, he begins with an example of a woman supporting her husband who chooses not to work. All they’ve done is show it’s economically possible for one half of a partnership to support the other, which completely undermines their own argument. I have to wonder about the mental faculties of these guys.

  26. Funny post in which PZ Myers examines Molyneux’s biological argument:

    I’ve translated his rant into genetics-speak to help myself understand what he’s trying to say, since I’m not fluent in either Libertarian or Misogynist.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/27/molyneux-makes-no-sense/

  27. This guy is crazy. Why is it the woman being blamed for choosing assholes rather than the fact men are assholes (not that I agree with that statement but this dunderhead certainly does) I was so unaware of how serious misogyny was until I stumbled across your site. (Which I love) Thanks for sharing and doing all that you do.

  28. Who’s fucking this asshole?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,776 other followers

%d bloggers like this: