VIRAL Video Claims Women Shouldn’t Vote, Plus Is Pearl Davis Correct About Men Being Superior?

Happy birthday to me. Today is my birthday. I am 34 years old, and I have absolutely no reason and no, no other point in telling you that, except that I like my birthday as much as a child likes my birthday. My husband got me for a birthday present, and yes, I peaked before my birthday. I know what he got me beforehand. I spoiled the secret because I love spoiling secrets. He got me a stroller that I wanted. It’s like one that converts. It’s like, it’s, well, it’s kind of a stroller. It’s kind of a wagon. It’s one that you can convert to a stroller or a wagon. I want a wagon to pull my daughter at the beach, and I wanna convert it to a stroller for the airport. It’s super cool. It’s super momish. This is like the momish, the most momish gift that you can ask for. 

And I asked for it, and he got it for me. So I am delighted. okay. On that note, there is a viral video, a super, super-duper viral video that well is going viral, obviously. That’s, that’s what the name entails. And it’s of a young woman named Pearl Davis, who is arguing that we should repeal the 19th Amendment. The 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote. So I wanna talk about this video. It’s a very interesting video, and I know she’s gotten back backlash from the Left. People on the Left are calling her a misogynist. People on the right are calling her ignorant. I don’t agree with either of these two takes. I actually find this girl to be somewhat interesting, even though I don’t agree with her. I don’t think we should repeal the 19th Amendment. She is doing something that a lot of people are afraid to do, and that is, she’s discussing an idea, she’s discussing an idea. 

And that’s something that’s, it’s almost taboo in our society right now to discuss ideas, let alone edgy ideas. We’re told by the Left that if we so much as debate a political policy, then we’re hateful and we’re bigots, and we’re xenophobes and transphobes and whatever other insult they’re using on that particular day to describe us militia, violent extremists or domestic terrorists, you know, just parents. but we’re not allowed to discuss ideas, let alone edgy ideas. And this is a very dangerous place for our nation to be in where we can’t discuss ideas. Because if you can’t discuss ideas, then you’re never going to anticipate the repercussions or the consequences of a policy because a policy is based on an idea. So whether this is a political policy or just a cultural norm, a cultural idea, if we can’t discuss things that might be wrong, we’re not going to be able to discern what is the best policy, what is the best thing that we should do. 

It’s actually similar to when there’s leaks that come from the White House, from inside the White House. This happened a lot during the Trump administration. And they would say, listen, president Trump asked this question, and, oh, can you believe that? He asked this question. He asked if there was any way that Mike Pence could stop the certification of the Electoral college on January 6th. And the media portrayed this as some kind of scandal that Trump had asked his attorneys if there was legal recourse in this area. And I thought to myself, so what is the President not allowed to ask a stupid question? Like, that’s why you actually have in the White House. And I know that this is getting kind of specific, which has nothing to do with the video, but indulge me for a moment. I, I think this illustrates my point. 

The best way that I can think of inside the White House, for example, the President needs to have this trusted group of advisors around him so that he can, he can bandy about stupid ideas in order to discern which are the stupid ideas in which are the good ideas. And sometimes that’s really intuitive. Like we know we know not to murder someone like that doesn’t need to be discussed. Yeah, don’t murder someone cool. But there are some ideas that we’re like, well, is minimum wage raising the minimum wage? Is that a good idea? Will that actually draw people out of poverty? Will it give them a so-called living wage? Or will the consequences of that policy do the opposite? Will it keep people in a cycle of poverty? Because it will make it harder for employees to hire people, which will make it harder for people to break out of the poverty they’re experiencing right now. 

There are ideas, some ideas that aren’t necessarily intuitive on their face. And so just the fact that we live in this culture where we can’t discuss ideas is a dangerous place. So I’m not here to vilify Pearl Davis. I don’t agree with a lot of what she says, but I want to engage in the court of public opinion with her ideas. This is so valuable, so valuable. I wanna give you one more example before we dive into this. About two months ago, Dennis Prager was on some daily wire special with Jordan Peterson. I think they were talking about the Old Testament. And Dennis Prager kind of out of nowhere, said that he didn’t think that pornography was bad. And I think for a lot of us, myself included, this was kind of like a what Dennis Prager doesn’t think pornography is bad. Dennis Prager’s supposed to be traditional. 

He’s supposed to be religious, he’s supposed to be someone who argues for morality in ordered society. What is he talking about? Pornography is so destructive on every single level. And when this happened in the conservative movement, the Left didn’t care at all. The left couldn’t care less. The left generally is a supporter of pornography. But what happened on the right is exactly what should happen when someone presents an idea. And what happened is Matt, Fred, who hosts Pints with Aquinas, made a response video to Dennis Prager where he said, listen, this is why your, I, this is what your idea is. Let me define what your idea is based on what you said. This is why it’s wrong. And he made a very respectful video debunking Dennis Prager’s view on pornography. You can go watch it. I highly recommend it. I watched both of them. 

And then Ben Shapiro jumped in. Ben Shapiro actually interviewed Matt Fra to discuss Matt Fred’s video debunking Dennis Prager’s argument. I think Matt Frat actually had Dennis Prager on the show, was a whole bunch of different iterations of people discussing this idea that Dennis Prager had presented this idea that a lot of people in his own party thought was a repugnant idea or a misguided ill-advised, destructive, dangerous idea. And it wasn’t fighting. No one advocated to cancel Dennis Prager, even though his idea was, in my opinion, a very bad idea and a not well thought out solution to the problem of infidelity. That’s not what we’re gonna talk about today. But it was such a cool thing that we don’t often see anymore, where this idea was making the rounds and we were examining this idea from every different angle. And it was fun and it was awesome. 

That’s what I wanna do today with this Pearl Davis video. This is not a, a, a personal beef with anyone. This is not, this is not me trying to demean someone. This is not me trying to vilify someone like the Left has done to her. And like the right has done to her, she’s presented an idea, and I want us to discuss it because young people are listening to her. When I say, this video went viral. I mean, it went super, super, super viral. You all have probably already seen it. You’ve probably seen all the headlines. You’ve probably seen all the responses. It impacts the way people think. Because when we exist in this cultural moment where even ideas are taboo, the reason that we exist in this moment is because the Left that controls our culture, the Left, that controls our government, wants us to only be exposed to one idea. 

Their idea. They have so little confidence in their idea. They are so insecure about their philosophy that they don’t think that it would hold up if it was compared and contrasted to an alternative. So they only offer us one thing. They only offer young people one thing to think about. And when Pearl Davis comes along, and she’s kind of entertaining, she has a little bit of a weird presentation, but she’s kind of entertaining. I understand why her videos, they’re provocative, they’re kind of entertaining. I understand why people might listen to her. She is diagnosing a problem in our society correctly, that modern feminism has really destroyed not just women, but the family unit, which is the fundamental bedrock of our society. And she’s presenting an alternative viewpoint. And if it’s just her viewpoint and what the radical left is telling us, then the correct take is being lost in the shovel. So I wanna talk about the correct take. Okay, so let’s get to this video. Let’s get to this video where Pearl Davis makes the case that the 19th Amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote should be repealed and women should not be allowed to vote. Let’s take a listen. All 

Right. Why should women shouldn’t vote? Yes. Yes. Okay. A lot of people think I’m insane because I don’t think women should vote. Everybody thinks I’m crazy for this opinion. If anything, this is probably my most extreme opinion. And I would like to tell you how I came to this conclusion. So what happened was, I wanted to know why men were so angry about women. Why are there all these complaints about women? And when I started researching this stuff, it was pretty easy to figure out why 90% of women have been on birth control. One out of three women has had an one out of three women has an s t d. the average body count is over five, so that your average wife has slept with over five people. 95 of whi percent, 95% of women are not virgins on their wedding days. So I understand the complaint, 

Okay? So you can see why this video is kind of provocative. First of all, she’s having a good time presenting and she’s kind of charismatic and she’s addressing a couple of things, which a lot of us really to, I actually understand the complaint that she’s talking about too. When she says the quality of women, she’s actually not talking about the women themselves. She’s talking about the quality of their behavior and the quality of behavior in America is of course, very low. The quality of behavior among, and women, especially when it comes to sex, sexual promiscuity, religion, monogamy in marriage is extremely low. And that’s not a good thing. That’s a, that’s a, it’s a a bad commentary for lack of a better word on our country and on our culture. But the solution to this, in at least according to Pearl Davis to repeal the 19th amendment and to deny women the right to vote. 

And perhaps this is because it gets click, it’s a provocative bombastic title. I don’t know. I don’t wanna make any accusations that she’s just doing this for clicks. Let’s assume for the purpose of this episode that she is making this argument in good faith that she truly, sincerely believes what she’s presenting here. That’s the, that that’s what I’m going to that’s, that’s the premise I’m going to operate along for this episode. But the problem here is, and the this is the baseline flaw in her argument, is that she mis defines the word equality, and she mis defines the word society. And I say mist define, because it’s actually a redefinition of the word equality or a redefinition of the word society. I don’t know whether she’s deliberately redefining these words or whether she just misunderstands the definition, the existing definition of these words. 

And I’m gonna tell you a little bit what the flaw in her argument is before I show you the next part of her video. But she defines equality as as physical strength, who has superior physical strength. Now, the answer to that question is obviously men have superior physical strength. She also defines equality as the size of your paycheck. Who has the larger size paycheck? Well, on average, men have a larger paycheck in the workforce, and that is the basis of her definition of equality. That, of course, is not the definition of equality. The definition of equality under the law in the United States is equality under the law. If you wanna zoom out here, and I argue that we should, I think that we should never shy away from bringing morality into a discussion. It’s not just practical and secular consequences to things that we should discuss. 

It’s also, we are spiritual human beings. We are children of God. Of course, we should talk about morality. And equality means equal dignity and value in the eyes of our creators, equal dignity, creator, singular in the equal dignity and value as human beings because we are children of God. So that in and of itself, the definition of the word equal, she’s either mis defining or she’s redefining. And it just, the flawed argument flows from there. In fact, if you’ll indulge me for one second, her argument that women vote for leftist politicians and which is a self-destructive move for the family, which it is, that’s correct. but that means she says the consequence of that should be that we should remove the right to vote from women. That argument, the logical conclusion of that argument would be pearl arguing that black people should be deprived the right to vote too. Black people also vote for Democrats. That is a self-destructive move for the black family, for the black community. And yet, what is the, what is the, what is the argument here? Is Pearl gonna argue that black people should be deprived the right to vote? I hope not. I hope not. But that is the logical conclusion of her argument. But she goes on to describe a little more deeply what she thinks women contribute or don’t contribute to society compared to men. Take a listen. 

Now, the issue is that the politicians, the only way they can get elected, the women vote for them. So the reason we can’t see a change in these laws you know, where men can’t get access to their children, where single mothers are being paid to be single mothers, all of these horrible policies is because the politicians can’t change them because they won’t be reelected. And then I started researching it further, and I started to think, does every person deserve the right to vote? Should every, should every person deserve the right to vote? And what I found out is that men are fined $300,000 if they don’t enroll in selective service where women have no skin in the game and in the US anyways, we’re voting for a commander in chief. So is it really fair that if I vote for a president because of my feelings, I know he’s so mean, I’m not gonna name presidents, and instead I vote for somebody that’s basically senile and we go to war. 

Is it fair that the men have to pay for that bad decision? Because essentially we have a society where men are just paying for women’s bad decisions. Men pay the majority of the taxes. So who’s paying for these women to be single mothers? men pay the majority of alimony and child support payments. So again, the men are paying for the women to leave. men build most of the inventions that allowed women to go to work. So the Roomba, the vacuum cleaner, the washing cleaner men invented it so women could leave their home and leave little Timmy at home. 

Okay? So I should have started the entire episode by stating what I agree with Pearl Davis on, because we actually have some fun fundamental baseline agreements on problems that are in our culture. So I do agree with some things Pearl Davis is saying, and I’m laughing because I think in general her argument is incorrect. I think it’s flawed, and I’m gonna tell you why. But she is correct about the state of our society. She is correct that the institutions of our society are constructed to subsidize broken families. And it’s a basic economic principle that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. So if you’re subsidizing broken families, you’re going to beget broken families. And it’s not just subsidizing in general, it is democratic politicians, democrats, politicians who are subsidizing broken families. So I understand what she’s saying. She’s complaining because women vote for Democrats. 

Democrats subsidize broken families, therefore you get more broken families. And she’s saying, well, women are responsible for this. That’s not entirely true. It’s not just women. There was a lot of bad things that happened in our culture and in our electoral politics before women voted. But the baseline problem, or the fundamental flaw in her argument is that women have been vulnerable to being manipulated. Women have been vulnerable to falling for the false narrative that they will find fulfillment and reach their true potential, be their authentic selves, if you will, in the workplace versus in the home. This is the classic feminist trope, right? This was something that women read in the feminine mystique. This was something that the original, not the original feminist, but the original modern feminists brought into, into the consciousness of modern women telling them that if they stayed home, that they were gonna be unfulfilled. 

That if they went to work and they could, they could have a paycheck, that they would be liberated, they would be free if they were promiscuous, they wouldn’t be tied to this oppressive monogamy. This, of course, is feminism. And feminism is incredibly destructive. Women have been vulnerable to the narratives of modern feminism for a lot of different reasons. They’ve been modern, they’ve been vulnerable to modern feminism because they lacked religious catechesis, because men did not stand up for the traditional role of both men and women. Because in the history of our country, women have been marginalized to a certain extent. I’m no feminist here, but of course, they didn’t have, they didn’t have certain rights that we now enjoy. so women were incredibly vulnerable to this. In addition to that, in addition to that, everyone is vulnerable. This is not just women. Everyone is vulnerable when they’re being attacked. 

And women have been attacked by Marxists for almost a hundred years now. And the reason Marxists are attacking women is because they’re actively trying to destroy the family. They’re trying to create the breakdown of the nuclear family. And they know that the elements of the nuclear family are a man, a woman, marriage, sex and children. And so one by one, they go through the elements of the nuclear family. They try to destroy men, they try to destroy women. They try to destroy sex. They try to destroy marriage. They try to destroy children. Women have been attacked in modern feminism, which was informed by Marxist theory. Modern feminism has done a really good job. But what is the argument here That because someone is being attacked by Marxist narratives because someone is vulnerable for it, because someone has maybe fallen prey to Marxist narratives that they should not enjoy equality under the law. 

I dissent. I object to that and I reject that. In fact, Pearl is falling for a, a feminist narrative, a really serious feminist narrative because she’s pitting men against women. This is a fundamentally radical, radically feminist narrative that men and women are sitting across from each other, that they’re boxing each other versus men and women sitting side by side. The actual view of men and women, according to the Judeo-Christian worldview that she’s espousing, whether or not she talks about religion, is that man and woman become one in marriage, which means that men and women, they’re not the same. They compliment each other. Men and women are obviously different. Men are men and women are women. We don’t need to go over the biological differences here, the psychological differences here, but they compliment each other. They compliment each other. It’s only the feminists that came along and said, Hey, women, let me whisper in your ear and tell you that man’s trying to oppress you. 

He’s, he’s doing bad things to you. He thinks less of you. You better, you better liberate yourself by getting back at him. There’s a reason that we call them man hating feminists because they’ve tried to pit women against men. So pearl is falling for this feminist narrative when she is assuming that men and women are kind of fundamentally at odds or fundamentally in a boxing match. They’re not. there’s also, there’s also another element here. she says, women don’t have skin in the game because they’re not in selective service. So this is when I say or this is an example of when I say that pearl misunderstands the word society and what it means to contribute to our society. This is where it applies most. So think about the family, for example. Think about a mother and a father. Think about the role that a mother and a father play in raising their children. 

Can you put a monetary value on a father? Can you put a monetary value on a mother? Well, no, you can’t because the nurturing duties of a mother to her child can’t be replaced by the nurturing of even a father who ostensibly loves the child equally to the mother. Likewise, you can’t put a monetary value on a father fathering his child, even if that child had a replacement, had other father figures, nothing can, no monetary value can replace the father fathering his children. And this is by the way, evident in our society. You can look at daycare, children perhaps are nurtured and taken care of at daycare, but children who are in daycare versus being with their mother have much worse outcomes, much worse outcomes, behaviorally, academically, socially, and relationships for their entire lives. The same with with with young boys. Boys who are raised without a father are much more likely to be in prison, much more likely to be part of a gang, much more likely to commit suicide. 

You cannot put a monetary value on something that does not have a monetary value. And that is the value of a woman being a mother, and the value of a father being a man. You can try to make arguments about, oh, when you have a single mother raising a kid and a single father raising a kid who has the best outcomes. But that’s not really what we’re trying to do here. What we’re trying to do is not work out a practical a practical argument within the secular context of a broken family. We’re trying to argue for a intact nuclear family. So what I’m saying here is this is not an algorithm on a whiteboard. This is, again, pearl falling for the feminist idea that men and women are somehow in competition. It’s not just an algorithm on a whiteboard. And it’s not just about money. 

It’s not just about physical strength. There’s a more fundamental spiritual reality at play. Okay? So Pearl mentions, again, she mentions society in the context only of the economy. And the, and society is not the economy. The economy actually sustains society. But she mentions inventions that have allowed women to go to work, meaning inventions that make household labor easier or that allow women to do both work and do housework. And she says, what’s the or? and my question for her is in the context of these inventions or in the context of fighting a war in the context of men paying more taxes than women, my question would be little more of an existential question. And that is, what is the point of inventions? What is the point of fighting a war? What is the point of winning a war? What is the point of paying taxes? 

Well, the ultimate goal of all three of these things is security. It is to secure what? Well, it’s to secure your family. It’s to secure your home, your home being one. And the same with your family. I’m not talking about the physical structure of the house. It’s to secure your home. The family unit is the fundamental institution on which our society is built. So our society is not just the free market economy. Our society is not defined by the tangible monetary value of your business or your paycheck. Our society, that’s actually something the free market is valuable only in the sense that it protects your freedom of religion, your freedom of speech, your freedom of assembly, so that you can raise your family according to your value system, according to the tenants of your faith, so that you are not being dictated to by the government about how you raise your children. 

That’s the value of the free market economy. It’s not like the free market economy has some inherent morality or immorality. It’s just a thing. It’s just an economic structure. It’s just the best economic structure that we’ve been able to come up with that secures what it secures the liberty for families to be families. Because society in of, in and of itself is just a conglomeration of a bunch of families. And the purpose of society, maybe that’s even a better way to define society. The purpose of society is human flourishing. The purpose of a society as human flourishing. This is incredibly important to understand that it’s not the economy and society is not one and the same. The economy simply fuels our society. So this all circles back to the original question, the 19th Amendment, women having the right to vote is the solution to the ills of our society. 

The fact that our families are broken, that maybe it’s not good when women work. It’s not good for children when women work all the time. You can never make a blanket statement. But in general, it’s better when mothers stay home with their children. Is the solution to this to tell women that they’re inferior to men? Is the solution to this to say that they shouldn’t have the right to vote because women have been under sustained assault by the Marxists and many have fallen prey to it for nearly a century. No. In fact, what that is that’s surrendering to the Left. That’s surrendering to exactly what the Left is. Now this is a tweet from Pearl that I wanna bring up. It’s element number three. She says, before the conservative and liberal feminists start whining about the results of this, let me remind you, just because men are the superior sex, it does not mean women have no value. We’ve just had 100 years of propaganda telling us that we’re equal. And again, what this is right here is, this is pearl falling for the feminist narrative by pitting the sexes against each other. This is one of the fundamental flaws of her argument and the other fundamental flaw in her argument. I’m gonna show you in this part of her video, take a listen to this 

All of the time, we’ve basically been brainwashed for the last a hundred years to think that women can really be equal to men. But the truth of the matter is that men run society. They run all of the industries that make society run. The only reason that women out earn men is because we can monetize beauty. And men have subsidized industries. So men pay their taxes and the government takes their taxes to make companies have quotas for women where they’re not as productive as men. Okay? Now we have a whole system where women have been told what we wanna hear our whole lives, and the people that suffer are the children. Now, I’m a reasonable gal. I could maybe get behind net taxpayers or something, but only if we get rid of all these subsidies for women, because I’m really tired of women being paid to leave their husbands. 

I’m really tired of women take divorcing their husband, taking off his and accusing him of a abuse on the way out. I’m tired of this shit and I’m sorry. But the more power us as women have had, the more we have used it to basically legally use men. You know what? I don’t think women should vote. That’s my opinion. I could also maybe get behind a net taxpayer. And I think if we’re gonna vote, then equally enroll in the military and do all of the dangerous jobs in society. Go be a plumber, go be an electrician, go do all of the hard jobs. And if you don’t wanna do that, maybe you should just quit whining. So that’s, you know, that’s my opinion. 

Okay. Okay. Okay. I wanna stop there cuz I wanna, I wanna address a couple of these things. First of all, she says that women have been brainwashed into thinking they’re equal. But this again, this is falling for a feminist narrative because women have been brainwashed in the last a hundred years. But it’s not brainwashed into thinking we’re equal. We are equal in dignity and in worth women have been brainwashed the last hundred years into thinking that we have to do the exact same job or the exact same thing, live the exact same lifestyle as men in order to be fulfilled or to reach our potential. We have been brainwashed into thinking that we have to ape men in order to achieve our true authenticity or whatever it is that the feminists like to call it. she’s misusing the word equal. 

She’s mis defining or redefining the word equal. Men don’t run society. She’s also mis defining society. And it was clearly evident here. What is society? It’s not the economy, it’s the most important job in the entire country. It’s the rearing of children, the most important job, which women do the majority of. So you could argue actually that women run society, but you would only argue that if you were trying to pit men against women, which is another feminist trope, I don’t care about the equal pay thing that she’s talking about. I don’t even care about the job thing. the job, the men doing dangerous jobs versus the women not doing such dangerous jobs. That’s more of debunking of the gender pay gap or debunk, debunking the idea of male privilege, which we can talk about in a different show, but that’s not really super relevant here today. 

Not super relevant. She’s essentially arguing and this is the problem I have. This is what motivated me to respond to this. She’s arguing for a society where the strong, have a voice, the physically strong, have a voice actually. It’s not just the strong, it’s the physically strong, have a voice. And anybody who is lesser physically doesn’t have a voice. And that’s not a society that I wanna be a part of. That that is a society that would either result in anarchy and maybe that’s the best case scenario, that it’s anarchy or it would be oligarchy, which is more likely given our current state of being. So It’s fun to debate ideas. It’s fun to see someone present a kind of edgy idea, especially in a provocative, fun way, the way that she does. I don’t think it’s a valuable idea. 

I think it’s an idea that would have disastrous consequences, which Pearl should see. Maybe she has, maybe she enjoys doing this. I don’t know what her motivation is. And I’m not trying to cast dispersions on her motivation here. But women’s value is not related just to economic value. And society’s value is not related just to economic value. Equality is not related just to physical strength. So that’s what I, that’s my response to this. And again, the reason that it’s so important to talk about this is because we must take part in this competition of ideas. And we also must make sure that our ideas are as prominent as the Left’s idea. And sometimes the edgy alternative, which comes in breaks that taboo and comes in to compete with it. Young people are being influenced by this. I know they are. I see it online every day and both things. The radical leftist narrative and pearl’s alternative, while it plays on some of the things that we agree with, she diagnoses some of the problems correctly. She prescribes something, a solution that’s incredibly dangerous. All right, we have time for one more cool thing. So let’s get to it. 

Sorry. 

Okay. This is a young girl giving a speech at graduation and her friends in the front are making her laugh and she’s having a laughing fit. Well, that’s actually just uncomfortable. That’s funny. She is laughing. I hope this is high school cause this is not gonna set her up for success in college. 

Good morning. My name. 

She can’t even say her name. Listen, I’m gonna, people are walking out. Listen, I actually have that same reaction to be perfectly honest. It’s kind of funny at first, and maybe this is an outgrowth of stage fright. Good 

Morning. My name is Kayla, 

But I’d be pretty, I’d be pretty embarrassed if I were her parents, but okay. Sorry. But she couldn’t speak without loud. 

Good morning. Okay. My name is Caitlin. 

Oh, now the teacher’s coming out. How long is it? Okay. That’s just uncomfortable. My control room is just cracking up like crying with laughter right now. That made me uncomfortable. Like, I’m itching with discomfort for this girl. She should know she’s a, what? Is she a senior in high school? That’s probably what I’m assuming because she is making some sort of speech. She should know how to give a speech without laughing her head off like that. My goodness. All right guys, make sure you subscribe to the show. Make sure you send up for my email newsletter liz wheeler.com. Thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show.