Daily Wire host goes on strange sexist rant: "Women cannot take care of themselves"

"Women have to find different ways of being safe, and one of those ways is finding a man to protect them."

A Glock will do just fine thanks.

Wow. What in the fuck is wrong with these people? Seriously. Is there something in the DSM that describes the things this guy suffers from?

Men are stronger. Men are mean. They're more aggressive. They will take them over. They'll do it anytime they can, anywhere they can. They will abuse them. They will hurt them.

I’m surprised a man would admit that he’s like this.

This is like a child's understanding of the world. Someone who has little exposure to actual people and who is unable to conceive of a more sophisticated model of the universe.

What the everloving fuck is going on? Why is society regressing so far with all of these bullshit views?

I propose a new social convention where anyone who starts talking about people of any kind in terms of being breeding stock is declared free game to be immediately socked in the gonads by any and all listeners present.

Under this subheading are topics Up to and including :

• Racist narratives about racial replacement or "breeding groups out of existence"

• Facist and Misogynistic theory about the redistribution of resources ie : women

• Transphobic conspiracies about how they are really trying to sterilize swacks of the population through hysterectomies

• Homophobic narratives about how same sex relationships are not "fruitful" and thus worthless

• Idiot relatives who are so desperate to get you to mash your genitals with someone else's so they can babysit as a hobby that they will drive you to murder if not stopped.

"women cannot take care of themselves" ~ guy who probably couldn't boil water, or do his own laundry, needs mom to survive.

Doesn't the weirdo mean "guerilla code."

These traitorous incel #maga clowns are weird.

Another weirdo

Wow, I figured the notion that Harris having a good shot at the presidency would drive the MAGAs totally insane was silly. And yet, here we are! The conservatives do seem to well and truly be losing their shit about it.

Womens rights does not mean the right to own women as a "customer", Andrew Klavan

These guys can never fathom that it's possible for a woman to fuck multiple men. It's like they think monogamy is a law of the universe like the speed of light.

Okay, so reading the whole thing and trying to figure out what he's really trying to say through all that rambling.

First he's talking about how monogamy and polyamory are 2 different systems for reproduction, which, yeah technically true. I think he means the "one woman per man" in a sense of, that's how monogamy is structured, not literally "we are going to make the government gather the women and distribute the women evenly", though I still don't know what fucking point the weirdo's trying to make.

Then he talks about "strong" men trying to get the women back. At this point I (naively) considered the possibility that he was actually going to make a critique about the "alpha male" bs, since that's how they commonly think.

But then he starts talking about how they do that is by telling the women they can be self-sufficient??? And that what women really need is a man to protect them?? Even if we did go with the simplistic reasoning he was basing this off of, that might makes right, the strong men could clearly just beat the shit out of the weak men and take their women. What fucking nonsense are you smoking to think that the strongest guy in the room would need to play those mind games??

My guy has clearly never genuinely looked at the relationship between an abuser and his victim, or looked at the fucking Taliban that operates on this same shitty logic and see how very much worse off those women are.

So in conclusion, while he seemed to start off saying that monogamy > polyamory purly as a genetic device, monogamy is actually bad because then the "strong men" with try to steal the women by checks notes empowering them??

Fuckin weirdo.

Tell me you don't know what the Magna Carta is without saying you don't know what the Magna Carta is.

Not only is this far from accurate from a scientific viewpoint, it's also a hopelessly reductive and cynical take on humanity. It's depressing that this sad old fuck has seemingly learnt next to nothing in his 70 years.

The premise is suspect.

First, there are lots of (mostly) monogamous animals ('cheating' in monogamous pair bonds gets a fair amount of study).

Second, which gorillas? Are you talking about the ones that form alliances with several males and maintain friendly relationships, groom one another, and fight together against common enemies?

Third, monogamy (even with cheating) seems to have an advantage for species where females forage on their own rather than in groups/herds. There's more to it, though.

This is from a pre-print study, so should be viewed with some suspicion, but it at least describes the current state of investigations:

Since phylogenetic inertia is not a realistic explanation given that four very distantly related lineages are monogamous, the implication is that monogamy has alternative fitness advantages for males. These benefits must also be advantageous for the female, otherwise she would be not willing to tolerate the male’s continued presence – and, perhaps more importantly, would not be willing to undergo the evolution of the expensive cognitive and behavioural traits associated with pairbonding (Dunbar & Shultz 2021).

the fact that primates, in particular, have a long period of offspring dependency suggests that the problem is more likely to be associated with offspring survival.

For human-specific stuff, here's a piece on promiscuity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210680/

And one on the ideology of female 'honor' and predictors of who will feel what and how strongly : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10563489/

Nosferatu went on to complain that women have too much blood and that he wants it

Social Darwinism is the study and implementation of various pseudoscientific theories and societal practices that purport to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology, economics and politics. Social Darwinists believe that the strong should see their wealth and power increase, while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Social Darwinist definitions of the strong and the weak vary, and differ on the precise mechanisms that reward strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others, emphasizing struggle between national or racial groups, support eugenics, racism, imperialism and/or fascism.

The hell is wrong with these people. That's one of the more disgusting objectifications of women I've read from current times, and it's littered with ridiculous inaccuracies from beginning to end. Just to point out one, we're much more related to chimpanzees and bonobos than gorillas, so if you're going to assume that genetic similarity determines behavior (which is already an unfounded assumption), you should at least refer to them.

I'm glad this guy has figured out the best way to distribute women.

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.