JustPearlyThings - March 01, 2024


Modern Women Have Always Existed... Even In The 1950s


Episode Stats

Length

38 minutes

Words per Minute

124.736435

Word Count

4,851

Sentence Count

454

Misogynist Sentences

24

Hate Speech Sentences

15


Summary

In this episode of Pearl's World, host, Pearl Jamison interviews Andrew Klavan. They talk about women in the kitchen, modern women have always been modern, and why women should be paid the same as men.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 where I cover this week's not only, you know, guys, I don't like to limit it to the treachery,
00:00:06.900 debauchery, and craziness, because I just have so much stuff I'm interested in, so much stuff I
00:00:12.920 want to say, that I think it's almost a disservice to call it the treachery, debauchery, and craziness.
00:00:20.380 It's Pearl's world. You guys are just living in it. Okay, so today,
00:00:25.740 before we start, guys, we are demonetized. Yes, yes, and if YouTube is watching this,
00:00:35.280 please let me back into the partner program. Oh, please, please, oh, please, oh, please. I'll be
00:00:42.420 good. I'll be good. Right, Blessing? Right, Blessing? Oh, yeah. Are you going to show them the kitchen
00:00:48.780 cam? Not today. Well, why not? Guys, we got a kitchen cam. So, so, whenever I have women,
00:00:58.540 you know, people always say to me, Pearl, why don't you go back to the kitchen? Well, now I can mid-show.
00:01:06.300 Hello, hello. Look, we got a kitchen cam, a kitchen cam up in here. Okay, so guys,
00:01:12.120 we are demonetized. So, if you're feeling so kind, feel free to send a cash app or a Venmo.
00:01:19.100 And if I see it during the show, I'm going to check every, like, half hour or show. Oh, my gosh,
00:01:23.900 or so. I will read it. All right, I'll read it. So, today, I believe, what did we title the show?
00:01:30.860 I titled it Modern Women Have Always Existed. Was that it? Yeah, that's it. Okay, yeah. So,
00:01:36.680 I titled it Modern Women Have Always Existed. And the reason that I titled it that is because
00:01:45.860 before I really started doing a deep dive into red pill conservative topics, I thought that
00:01:53.000 all of this craziness we're seeing was new. Now, to be fair, the level of craziness that we have now
00:02:03.120 is definitely new. Social media exacerbates it. But the more I read through history,
00:02:11.120 women have always been women. And women have just, we see, not all women. I got to be careful here.
00:02:21.440 Sorry, guys. Guidelines.
00:02:25.380 Many, many, many women have acted many. There are not, not the whole group, not the entire group,
00:02:38.280 okay. But a portion of women have always acted the same. Modern women have always acted modern.
00:02:46.980 And there have been modern women for hundreds of years. And what made me think of this topic was
00:02:54.420 reviewing my interview with Andrew Klavan. And there are times in interviews, guys,
00:03:01.540 where you're going back and forth with someone. And I'm pretty sure they're wrong about something.
00:03:08.560 But, but, but you never know where the conversation's going to go. You know, you go on a show. And I'm
00:03:14.500 labeled it's a conversation. To be fair, it was a conversation. It went where it went. But I wasn't
00:03:20.720 positive this topic was going to come up. So I didn't have it off the top of my head. Look,
00:03:27.840 I'm human. Not everything I can just recite off the top of my head. I got to go double check.
00:03:33.040 And luckily, I double checked and brought it back to you. So I'm going to show you guys the clip
00:03:36.680 that I'm talking about. And by the way, by the way, I just would like to add some corrections.
00:03:42.860 Because I think there's a lot of things that we just repeat that are misconceptions. And they're not
00:03:47.760 wait for it. True. They're not true. Because this is just what we've been told. Okay, so let's pull
00:03:57.660 this up. Well, I think I think I just I just think objectively, like, you can't say that's a good
00:04:04.040 deal when women are paid to leave. It depends. It depends. Because before the laws went bad,
00:04:11.440 they favored men in ways that were tremendously unfair. And I could I could match. Okay,
00:04:17.060 do you see my face right there? That is the face of me thinking. I'm pretty sure that's not true.
00:04:27.520 I'm almost certain. But I don't think I can recite these laws off the top of my head.
00:04:33.880 But it's like, okay, you're trying to be respectful. Okay, I just want you to understand
00:04:37.720 the reals of Pearl. This guy's twice my age. He's a really smart writer. He's been doing this
00:04:43.760 forever. He wouldn't say it that confidently. He wouldn't. If it wasn't true. I mean, because
00:04:56.560 you know, like, he's smart guy. Smarter than me. All right. So
00:05:01.480 you know, but anyways, every story, I can match every story that you tell about bad men with stories
00:05:08.420 of women that happened back in the day where they lost everything. And that
00:05:12.600 So yeah, this is me thinking, is that true? Doesn't sound true. Okay, but let me
00:05:26.400 We're correct. There's writings from the 1800s of men complaining about divorce court then.
00:05:33.960 Yeah, but this isn't like a new, this isn't a new phenomenon. Like there's writings from the 1800s
00:05:39.940 talking about how the man is paying money to his opera. That's me thinking Pearl, what's the law
00:05:45.380 name? What's the law name? Remember the law name? I didn't come to me. It didn't come to me. I'm
00:05:51.460 sorry, guys. I'm sorry. I'm human. I'm human. Everybody's like, Oh, Pearl, Pearl, source, source,
00:06:01.900 source. I'll give you my freaking sources. Gosh, dang it. You people. Okay.
00:06:07.800 Yeah. Like his, um, his wife who's on who's an opera singer and makes more than him.
00:06:12.860 Because naturally, I just think we have a society that naturally wants to protect women.
00:06:17.200 Yeah, but the literature on what happened to women in divorces is extensive and absolutely
00:06:22.620 destructive. I mean, what literature? Oh, my gosh, this is me thinking, okay, but again, again, again,
00:06:28.600 this is me thinking, this is a guy smarter than me. Right? I mean, this is a guy. I know he's a writer.
00:06:36.700 I know he works for the Daily Wire. He's been doing this longer than I have.
00:06:41.880 He's got to be sure about this literature, right?
00:06:46.800 Right? Am I right? Right? I just want you guys to understand what's going through my head during
00:06:53.360 these debates now. To be fair, he probably is smarter than me. But I was pretty sure he didn't
00:07:00.740 know what he was talking about with this top. I was fairly sure. I was fairly sure.
00:07:04.200 You should read some of the stuff from the 19th century.
00:07:08.840 What is it with the Daily Wire and always telling me to read? Because what I'm about to show,
00:07:14.360 it's like, you guys read. Okay, okay. Sorry, sorry, sorry. And I liked Andrew. I'm just,
00:07:19.520 I'm just, you know, it's for the show. Okay, no offense. No offense. Don't take this
00:07:24.080 offensively. Okay, I'm sorry if this is offensive. I don't mean it to be. I just,
00:07:28.880 I want to add corrections. Early 20th century. But do you see me? I'm like, I'm like, which stuff?
00:07:38.160 Because I'm fairly certain. And look, I could be wrong. I could be wrong. You could give me more
00:07:45.840 information than I have now. I could be wrong. I'm not a perfect person.
00:07:52.100 You know? I lost everything. No, I mean, look, it's what you're, what you're actually.
00:07:59.660 You see, that's what it's kind of. Well, I see. Why was my audio there? Like,
00:08:03.720 what was going on? Was that you? What was the, the audio was kind of off. Could have been them.
00:08:07.900 I don't know. I think it's on their side. You think it was on their side? We'll give them tips next
00:08:13.520 time. Okay. But, but that's me asking which, which writings now, normally, normally, I don't do that
00:08:21.720 normally. Okay. Normally in a debate, I go in and good faith, meaning I'm not going to just assume
00:08:27.960 you're making stuff up. I'm not going to assume that I'm going to assume I'm going in in good faith.
00:08:34.080 You're going in in good faith. This has gotten me in trouble. I'll tell you what. And I do find it
00:08:38.860 annoying in conversation when people say source, source, source, source, source, source, source,
00:08:42.620 source. Because sometimes you just need a day to find, I can get it to you. I know where I found it.
00:08:48.840 But off the top of my head, it's like, just give me, give me a fricking second, guys. Let me,
00:08:53.700 let me get on a roll. But this one, I was pretty sure he was wrong. I wasn't positive,
00:09:06.740 but I was pretty sure. And was I right? Was I wrong? Okay.
00:09:12.500 Zane is an overcorrection of something that was bad before. It hasn't always been like this.
00:09:19.940 I swear, this is my thought. Are you sure?
00:09:25.280 You know, because, okay, guys, from my point of view, this is a guy, what? He's 70. So you're
00:09:32.200 trying to respect like he's an older guy. You know, you're, you got more life experience, you
00:09:37.460 know, you got more experience in media writing, you know, you're smart. I'm going to give you the
00:09:43.440 CEO of smartness. I'm going to give it to you. You're smarter than me. Congratulate, you know.
00:09:50.460 But I don't think you're correct. I don't think you're right on this.
00:09:54.000 But, but, but I didn't know. I didn't know the laws off the top of my head. We're going to get to
00:10:00.560 them. And people have always struggled with, people have always struggled with the idea of
00:10:07.080 marriage. But see, you see how he keeps going. I'm like, which, which ones, which, which.
00:10:14.640 And I'm trying to be polite. And then, yeah, I'm trying to be anyways.
00:10:17.860 People have been attacking the idea of marriage since the 18th century. I mean, women especially
00:10:24.200 really started out saying that marriage is bad for women. And we're, you know, we're losing all
00:10:29.100 our rights. We're losing all our property. You know, they, it used to be that when you married
00:10:33.380 somebody, your property became your husband's property. You know, those are the laws that were
00:10:37.840 actually in place. And with the first. Men were also, men were also responsible for debt. So any debt
00:10:43.560 the woman incurred, it went on her husband. Yeah. But she was so much less likely to,
00:10:47.580 in those days to incur the kind of debt that women do now. I mean, you know, this is strange.
00:10:53.020 What's strange to me. No, what's strange to me is like, I was trying to, I hate it when I do that.
00:10:58.220 I lick my lips. It's like a tick of mine. I hate it when I do that. Oh my God. I get chapped lips
00:11:03.420 though, you know. I think, I think you have a solid central point, but you kind of have blown it up to
00:11:09.140 something beyond, uh, you've, you've, you've, you're carrying more weight than the argument will
00:11:16.380 hold. I think. I just wanted to know which laws. I'm sorry, guys. I'm not a, I'm what they call
00:11:25.460 out of pocket today. I'm out of pocket. I just, I asked so many times, which laws, which laws,
00:11:30.860 which laws, because I have found, I look for patterns. Okay. And I found this pattern,
00:11:40.940 you know, Pearl's a thinker. I'm a real good thinker. And I just look, I look for patterns.
00:11:49.700 And one pattern I've noticed is that whenever people say that things were so bad for women
00:11:55.740 before there's always, what do you call a catch? So when you say, Oh, the laws were so bad before
00:12:04.260 I'm like, Hmm, where are they? Okay. Well, what, what laws? And I still, I'm still, I'm still a little
00:12:12.780 lost. I'm still a little lost in why and how I wish my mic was a little louder. I'm like, how,
00:12:20.400 how, how were we, give me. You can say that you're not effectively coaching women, coaching men
00:12:29.180 to turn away from a high risk, high reward situation, which is what men do. High risk,
00:12:36.540 high reward is what men do. Okay. Well, my answer to that, I mean, I think it depends how risk,
00:12:44.640 how high risk and how high reward. I mean, what do they get now? They get a wife that gains
00:12:50.020 80% of women gain 20 pounds in the first five years of marriage.
00:12:56.780 I mean, it's not like we're known for purity anymore. So now they get a, they get a fat
00:13:01.060 hoe. I mean, there's exceptions, but they don't make the rule. Okay. Anyways, anyways,
00:13:06.400 anyways, and at what cost at what risk anyways, that's not the point though. That's, I actually
00:13:14.100 didn't even want to go into that, but, but, but what I wanted to talk about is the history of the
00:13:22.160 laws. Yes, guys. Also blessing. Let me know if there's anyone I need to attend to in the chat,
00:13:28.260 please. You know, I can't, I have it on my phone right here, but it's kind of tough to watch.
00:13:33.740 Do you got it blessing? Yeah. And, uh, Rachel is on as well. Well, Rachel, we're going to bring her
00:13:40.260 on in a little bit. I'm going to go. So Rachel, if you're watching, I'm going to come to you.
00:13:45.140 One of my favorite collaborators. Okay. By the way, thank you to Dave, Dane Schneider for the $10
00:13:50.740 super chat. Um, Jason Richer, um, can't stay on, but thanks for making the world a better place.
00:13:57.660 Thank you. Thank you. Cash app as well. Cash app. Glenn Lawrence. We love Glenn. Thank you for the $20
00:14:05.740 super chat guys. I'm going to try to keep going back. So this is from what I've researched. Okay.
00:14:12.220 Now I'm going to give disclaimers here because everyone's just coming at me left and right.
00:14:18.060 I'm not a historian. I'm just a gal that's trying to figure out what's true. I've been raised by a
00:14:27.500 school system that, that teaches me the opposite of what's true. Okay. I was raised to say I'm, I'm an evil
00:14:34.380 colonizer, awful, you know, white lady, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. And Pearl's just out here trying to,
00:14:44.440 you know, I was told I'm just so oppressed, so oppressed, but I'm just trying to figure out
00:14:50.820 what's true. So from what I found, okay. Basically the reason that everybody thinks,
00:15:01.100 the reason that everybody thinks that women didn't have rights to their children is because there was
00:15:11.660 some lady, let me, let me get her name. I understand. It was a girl named Caroline Norton.
00:15:19.180 Caroline Norton was going through a divorce and for whatever reason, the husband had custody of the
00:15:27.600 children. It was Caroline Norton who brought the lack of maternal custody rights to the attention
00:15:33.440 of the English public. In doing so, she created the misperception, the misperception that under English
00:15:44.460 law prior to 1839, fathers had absolute rights to the custody of the children. Norton entered the world
00:15:51.720 of child custody law when she separated from her husband and he refused to allow her access.
00:16:01.400 Basically this chick wanted, she, she started looking at going through the legal process and she thought,
00:16:09.080 Oh, nah, that's way too much work. I'm just going to do what women do best. Rewrite history.
00:16:19.160 Sorry. Some women, not all women, some women, YouTube, some, some, some, not all. Okay. Rewrite.
00:16:25.160 Have you guys ever had a conversation with your girlfriend, maybe an ex, or we tell a story and you think
00:16:39.080 that is not how it happened at all.
00:16:45.560 Please guys put a one in the chat. If that has ever happened to you,
00:16:49.560 are there any ones in the chat or am I just crazy making this stuff up? Any ones in the chat blessing?
00:16:58.200 Yeah. No, yeah. No ones.
00:16:59.880 Dang it. All right. Well, I got, maybe, maybe I'm just making it up. Maybe I should just go,
00:17:08.440 I should go home, you know, just kidding. Okay. Norton argued. All right. So,
00:17:16.280 all right. So there are two historians and previous historians misconstrued this information
00:17:22.360 because of Norton's work because Caroline Norton wrote all of this propaganda that mischaracterized
00:17:32.840 family law. Okay. So Grossenberg and Mason, which are two historians argue that under the system of
00:17:40.040 English law inherited by the colonies and followed by the American courts well into the 1800s,
00:17:45.320 the father had absolute right to the custody of his children. Grossenberg and Mason use this
00:17:51.320 characterization of English legal history to show how 19th century American law diverged from its
00:17:58.200 British counterpart. Under this analysis, the American court acted through the 19th century to
00:18:04.280 replace the Britain system of parental rights with a jurisdiction that focused on maternal rights
00:18:10.600 and the best interest of the child. Norton argued for the passage of her proposed bill and two pamphlets
00:18:17.000 that she distributed to members of parliament. Gosh, I can't talk. These pamphlets revolutionized the
00:18:24.360 public perception of child custody laws by reframing it as an issue of mother and father's competing
00:18:31.240 rights. Noting that whenever the mother claimed custody against the father, the legal decisions
00:18:36.680 that resulted made no reference to the mother's claim, but instead focused exclusively on the rights of
00:18:42.920 the father. Norton sets out to tell the formerly untold aspect of child custody law that is the
00:18:49.240 plight of mothers whose rights have been refused. She details the pain that every mother feels at losing
00:18:56.840 the custody of her child and expounds on the dangerous nature of the law that in many instances forced a
00:19:03.640 mother to choose between the suffering of mother to choose between the suffering at the hands, wait for it,
00:19:07.480 wait for it, again, of a what, of a what, fellas? Abusive husband, of course, and losing access to her
00:19:17.720 children. So this story that we hear of the evil abuse of men has been around forever! Forever!
00:19:28.600 Why do some women, not all women, YouTube, some, some, some, do this? In cases that followed, mothers who
00:19:42.040 sought the custody of their children began to argue for this custody on the novel basis that maternal
00:19:48.440 rights supersede paternal rights. Now, again, I'm thinking, okay, in this interview, guys, I'm thinking,
00:19:55.800 man, this guy is so much smarter than me, he has to, and I'm not saying this to call him, like, not smart,
00:20:03.000 he's clearly a very, very intelligent guy, smarter than me, but I'm just like, when I googled, when I googled
00:20:08.600 parental rights, you know, I, when I googled child custody laws last hundred years, because mind you,
00:20:15.320 that's it, that's a pretty long time ago, that's 1893, okay? The Infant Custody Act, the Infant Custody
00:20:23.080 Act of 1873 changed the direction of the 1839, by the way, that lady passed her law, changed the direction
00:20:30.760 of the 1839 Act by indicating that the correct principle for deciding custody was the needs of the
00:20:37.000 child rather than each parent. Remember that. Remember that. Now, how did that get manipulated to
00:20:51.880 to favor women? Women, wait for it, who were victims of, wait for it, male violence in marriage
00:20:59.880 were given protection under the Matrimonial Clause of 1878. This allowed them to obtain a protection
00:21:07.160 order from the magistrate's court. So it's the same, it's just the same thing over and over again.
00:21:15.240 Okay, a couple cases. One is from 1789, Powell versus Clever. Powell was widely considered to have
00:21:23.960 the established principle that where a father refused to allow his child a wealthier lifestyle
00:21:30.040 than one he himself could provide, then he failed to pay due attention to the interests of the child
00:21:36.280 and therefore lost his parental, right? This principle was used in a series of cases removing children
00:21:42.520 from the ground, from fathers, from the grounds of bankruptcy. So if men went bankrupt,
00:21:47.320 I mean, man loses his job. He's out of luck. He's thinking, oh no. Oh no, my job. I love my job.
00:21:59.160 Did they just take my kids too? So, okay. Well, a C versus B.U. There was a man who had an affair. Now, look it.
00:22:10.360 I don't promote having affairs. Okay. Many of you guys, many of you guys say, Pearl, Pearl, Pearl.
00:22:17.160 You're for cheating. I'm not for cheating.
00:22:21.880 But I don't think it makes you a bad dad, okay? I have people I know personally that had dads that
00:22:28.760 look it. I had a friend when I was younger. I mean, her dad cheated on her mom with the stripper.
00:22:40.120 You know what I mean? They stayed together. She was happy. They stayed together.
00:22:44.520 And he was a really great father. He went to her games. He supported her.
00:22:51.240 Man just liked strippers. You know what I mean? I mean, I personally, you might disagree,
00:22:57.640 don't think that makes you a bad dad. The same way I don't think it makes you a bad mom.
00:23:04.040 You could be a very involved mother and not be a good wife. You could be a very involved father and
00:23:11.000 not be a good husband. Okay. There was a man who had an affair and was involved and involved father to
00:23:18.680 the point he homeschooled his children with servants and went to extensive lengths to look
00:23:23.640 after his children. He ended up going to prison because they took his kids after the wife died.
00:23:32.200 The family took the kids from the dead. The wife passed away all because he cheated.
00:23:41.560 Okay. So these are two cases that set precedents moving forward. Okay. Again, I'm not a legal expert.
00:23:49.080 All right. Now, how far back does this go? From what I've found online, and you guys are welcome.
00:23:57.800 If there's corrections in the comments, you know, I'll come back. I don't know. Prior to...
00:24:04.280 This goes back to the 1600s with the parents... God, I can't talk. The parents patrie doctrine,
00:24:14.440 which is Latin for the parent of the nation. In law, it refers to the public policy of the state to
00:24:22.680 intervene against a, wait for it, wait for it, abusive or neglectful parent.
00:24:34.600 Now, who just, just knowing what we know, maybe using common sense,
00:24:38.040 who's going to use this? Really and truly, who's going to, who's going to lose access to the kids?
00:24:50.120 Okay. The 1660 Tenured Abolition Act is a statute that ironically seems designed to strengthen
00:25:00.040 fathers' rights. The Tenured Abolition Act granted fathers the right to appoint guardians to their
00:25:07.160 children by will. According to Blackstone, the effect of the act was to extend the father's empire
00:25:13.320 even after his death. But by involving the courts in child custody, even as enforcers of the father's
00:25:20.600 rights, the Tenured Abolition Act created a tradition of judicial intervention that would eventually
00:25:26.440 undermine those rights. The note traces the development from 1660 to 1839 whereby court
00:25:33.240 supervision of testimony guardians led to the court supervisions of fathers themselves,
00:25:39.000 transforming the empire of the father into the empire of the judge.
00:25:48.520 So I don't know what literature he was talking about.
00:25:51.080 What? But please enlighten me. This is just what I found. Then on top of that.
00:25:59.880 Okay. So we got all the laws. All right. So then we're going to talk about the legal sub subjugation of
00:26:05.640 men. Now, if you guys want to insult me because I'm not the best reader,
00:26:13.240 I'm not going to use any offensive or bullying language. All right. I promise.
00:26:25.080 Now, all right. This is from the legal subjugation of men. And this is the father of the men's rights
00:26:33.080 movement who wrote this. All right. This was in the 1896. So this was, again, everyone says before the
00:26:40.040 60s, you know, 50s were just this magical time. Women have always been women. Men have always been
00:26:48.840 men. Some women, some men. Okay. All right. It has always been in England. It has always been in
00:26:56.600 England been laid down as a fundamental law based on public policy that the custody of the children
00:27:02.520 and their education is a duty incumbent on the father. And mind you, mind you, that's incorrect
00:27:07.880 because he's basing that off of the propaganda that was pushed in the 1830s. That wasn't true.
00:27:12.600 Okay. It is said to be so fundamental that he is not permitted to waive his exercise of right
00:27:18.360 by prenuptial contract. The rule of common law of England is in, of course, in harmony with the
00:27:23.800 policy of all European and Christendom, as well as with the historic conditions of the European
00:27:29.800 social organization, if not with the primal instincts of the race. Nevertheless, fundamental
00:27:35.640 and necessary as the rule may be, the pro-feminist magistrates and judges of England are bent
00:27:43.160 apparently on ignoring it with a light heart. They have not merely retained the old rule that the
00:27:48.420 custody of infants tender years remains with the mother until the age of seven. Oh yeah. I didn't
00:27:54.400 even put that one in there. The tender years doctrine assumes that women are better parents for the kids
00:28:01.840 before the age of seven. That's a sexist law. That's literally, and that was passed in the 1800s.
00:28:12.520 What literature? Please enlighten me. Okay. But they go much further as a matter of course,
00:28:19.280 and without considering at the least the interests of the child or society at large,
00:28:23.580 they hand over the custody and education of all women to the litigant wife whenever she establishes
00:28:29.840 an easy thing to do, a flimsy and often spherical case of the technical cruelty. The victim husband
00:28:37.780 has the privilege of maintaining the children as well as herself out of his property or earnings,
00:28:43.560 and has the added consolation of knowing they will be brought up to detest him. So there we go.
00:28:49.900 Child alienation again. None of this is new. None of this is new. Even in extreme cases where a
00:28:59.840 husband takes with her the children of the marriage, there is particularly no redress for
00:29:07.520 the husband in narrow circumstances. The police courts will not interfere. The divorce courts,
00:29:13.520 as already stated, is extensive to the point of prohibition. In any case, the husband has to face
00:29:21.440 a tribunal already prejudiced in the favor of the female, and the attendant scandal of processes will
00:29:28.280 have no other result than to injure the children and their future prospects on life.
00:29:33.480 Okay. So where did it favor women? And maybe I'm wrong. You know, I could be wrong. I don't know.
00:29:46.160 But is Rachel still there?
00:29:49.660 She's still there? Oh, yeah. I was going to bring her up. Okay. Maybe I'm crazy. I don't know.
00:29:54.400 I mean, Pearl's, that's what they always say. Pearl doesn't know anything. Pearl did it.
00:29:58.320 Look it. I'm just a normal chick. I just, I just Google. I just Google. I was told I need to read
00:30:04.300 more. But, you know, I want to bring in someone that reads a lot. She reads more than anyone I know.
00:30:12.860 You know, so many of you guys say, Pearl, Pearl just hates women and doesn't think they're smart.
00:30:20.900 I think this, I love this woman and think she's incredibly smart. Welcome, Rachel.
00:30:28.320 Am I crazy for, like, pointing this out? Am I wrong? You're basically a historian up here. So you tell me, am I wrong?
00:30:39.360 No.
00:30:58.320 Can I guess? Can I guess? You were sleeping with somebody.
00:31:21.980 She was looking back.
00:31:28.320 Oh, okay.
00:31:58.320 Oh, I didn't know that. When did they do that?
00:32:18.320 Oh, I didn't know that. When did they do that?
00:32:28.320 Oh, okay.
00:32:51.620 i was gonna i was gonna ask you if you what your thoughts were on this because guys guys
00:33:16.720 i know a good amount of stats but my stats compared to rachel rachel is like an encyclopedia it's so
00:33:23.700 crazy and um okay i don't think women are more nurturing than men because and i'm gonna tell you
00:33:30.940 i'm gonna let you go off i'm gonna give you my three reasons okay
00:33:43.960 what women are more like some women youtube not all women but some women are more likely to commit
00:33:51.000 abuse i i found numbers around 70 percent of the time women commit abuse when it comes to children
00:33:57.260 infanticide is pretty much only done by women it's like rare they i when i was googling it said it's
00:34:05.480 barely ever done by men and women one in three women's had an abortion so if you think did you
00:34:11.400 see that in the clavin debate that was my favorite part when i i said he said that men commit more
00:34:17.740 violent crimes and then i said oh you think abortion's murder don't you
00:34:21.400 yeah
00:34:26.840 yeah
00:34:41.400 okay so what did
00:34:55.840 well so what do you think you do you agree with me or disagree that women are less nurturing than men
00:35:11.400 um
00:35:12.880 one
00:35:13.460 one
00:35:13.620 one
00:35:13.640 one
00:35:13.860 one
00:35:14.460 one
00:35:15.040 two
00:35:28.920 one
00:35:29.020 one
00:35:41.400 I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I couldn't prove it, but I knew. Sorry, go ahead.
00:36:11.400 I knew it.
00:36:41.400 I knew it.
00:37:11.400 I knew it.
00:37:41.400 I knew it.
00:37:46.400 I knew it.
00:37:51.400 I knew it.
00:37:56.400 I knew it.
00:38:01.400 I knew it.
00:38:06.400 I knew it.
00:38:08.400 I knew it.
00:38:17.400 I knew it.
00:38:18.400 I knew it.
00:38:25.400 I knew it.
00:38:27.400 I knew it.
00:38:29.400 I knew it.
00:38:38.400 I knew it.
00:38:40.400 I knew it.
00:38:49.400 I knew it.
00:38:51.400 I knew it.
00:38:52.400 I knew it.