Post: #1

His interpretations on feminism and the consequences and repercussions on the current and future generations are pretty damn insightful.

He is overtly red pill in his own way and his insights come from a well read, worldly type of mind when discussing how women are paradoxically unhappy after achieving so much progress:

Post: #2

I'm a huge fan of Stef. I use his quote "Feminism is Socialism in panties". It drives broads NUTS.

Post: #3

Surprised that there has been relatively little discussion of Molyneux on the forum.

His non-gynocentric view of male-female relations is very real, but not the main focus of his worldview. This is refreshing and enables him to avoid the Scylla of ego-driven pussy-chasing and the Charybdis of MRA/MGTOW whining.

You owe it to yourself to check out his YouTube channel.

Post: #4

The most rational way of explaining how women aren't happy I've ever seen. This guy is Red pill as hell.

Post: #5

Post: #6

Tl;dw?

Summary:

- various facts and statistics about how women's participation in the workforce has increased, but their happiness has decreased
- mention of the Paradox of Declining Female Happiness
- when women get the vote they vote for the welfare state because they like security
- in the 1960s feminist groups (funded mainly by the government) lobbied for more government funding, and more social programs to help women
- all this government spending eventually needs to be repaid, by these women's children and grandchildren
- when women joined the workforce the tax base significantly increased, so the size of government significantly increased
- for the first generation or two, women had a choice to enter the workforce or not: but now pretty much all women have to work
- women are unhappy because they are forced into the workforce
- to have any kind of reasonable lifestyle you have to have two people working; taxes are so enormously high
- in 1950s could afford a nice family home on a single middle class income; now you cannot.
- having a career while also raising children is a miserable lifestyle
- if women could afford it, most would stay home with their children (at least while the children are young)
- women today are paying the price of the benefits women received a few decades ago
- things will continue to get worse, because children are being badly raised by stressed out working mothers
- whenever you use a gun (e.g. government) to get what you want, the result is always a multi-generational disaster

Post: #7

I had never heard of this guy before today, but he's even referencing the "red pill" in the title of his videos. I'm surprised he hasn't been mentioned before.

I happened to click on this video and the psychological breakdown he gives of how women exploit men by limiting their options is truly some next level shit. The way he walks this kid through a failed nine year relationship is pretty fucking impressive and it deconstructs a lot of the behavior I've seen my male peers fall for over the years:

Post: #8

I know Stef for a long time, he's fantastic.

Post: #9

His podcasts are great when it's just him lecturing, but the call-in shows are painful to listen to. He invariably interrupts the caller before they can get their point across and goes into attack mode, especially if the caller is saying anything in the least bit contrary to his position. Classic narcissistic personality disorder really, he has to control the frame at all costs and he takes disagreement personally, although he'd deny that vehemently since it would conflict with his shell persona of the supremely rational logician.

Post: #10

(06-26-2014 11:17 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  His podcasts are great when it's just him lecturing, but the call-in shows are painful to listen to. He invariably interrupts the caller before they can get their point across and goes into attack mode, especially if the caller is saying anything in the least bit contrary to his position. Classic narcissistic personality disorder really, he has to control the frame at all costs and he takes disagreement personally, although he'd deny that vehemently since it would conflict with his shell persona of the supremely rational logician.

I agree that he can be overbearing at times, and like the classic talk show host he WILL not allow the caller to call him out on anything. If he's wrong he will browbeat them.

However, he's very perceptive as well. Recently someone called in saying he felt a vague sense of guilt and shame, and thinks it's because his parents beat him. Stefan correcty pinpointed that the guy had been a bully at school with a couple of deft questions and went on to explore his guilt over that. Stellar stuff.

Post: #11

(06-26-2014 11:36 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 11:17 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  His podcasts are great when it's just him lecturing, but the call-in shows are painful to listen to. He invariably interrupts the caller before they can get their point across and goes into attack mode, especially if the caller is saying anything in the least bit contrary to his position. Classic narcissistic personality disorder really, he has to control the frame at all costs and he takes disagreement personally, although he'd deny that vehemently since it would conflict with his shell persona of the supremely rational logician.

I agree that he can be overbearing at times, and like the classic talk show host he WILL not allow the caller to call him out on anything. If he's wrong he will browbeat them.

However, he's very perceptive as well. Recently someone called in saying he felt a vague sense of guilt and shame, and thinks it's because his parents beat him. Stefan correcty pinpointed that the guy had been a bully at school with a couple of deft questions and went on to explore his guilt over that. Stellar stuff.

I can sympathize with interrupting the call-ins somewhat, since they tend to ramble quite a bit or don't make their point clearly. I remember one show he got a clearly high-functioning asperger's case wanting to talk about aliens, which was pretty funny. The cases that bug me are where he jumps down the caller's throat before the caller's even had an opportunity to make a point.

An example would be:
Caller: "Well it seems to me that-"
Steph: "I'm sorry I'm going to have to interrupt you there, if you're saying that something SEEMS a certain way to you then you're simply arguing from emotion and we can't have a productive conversation."

People have a tendency to preface statements with "It seems" or "I feel like" simply to soften the impact and avoid sounding adversarial, and jumping on that as if it were a rhetorical fallacy is a dirty trick in my book.