The Adam Mockler Show - MAGA Leader TRASHED by Feminist… WATCH HIS FACE!

Episode Date: May 25, 2025

Adam Mockler with MeidasTouch Network breaks down Charlie Kirk’s disastrous performance at Cambridge, where he tries (and fails) to blame feminism for women’s unhappiness, gets humiliated by students, and faceplants into a full meltdown about religion, hijabs, and birth rates. Join my Substack as a free or paid subscriber: https://www.adammockler.com/subscribe Become a member to support me! https://www.youtube.com/Adammockler/join https://patreon.com/adammockler Adam Mockler Socials: Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.bsky.social Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/Adammockler Contact me at: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - amock LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I would ask you, would you say that a Sub-Saharan African woman who's experienced female genital mutilation and checks extremely happy in a survey, and I also would check extremely happy in a survey? Who do you think would be objectively more happy, even if they both check the same answer? Again, so if we want to talk about how Islam mistreats women, we could talk all day long. Like, I'm all for that. We do. Okay, good. So we agree on many, many things.

And we should shut off Muslim immigration to the UK, right? We totally agree. I think that all religious fundamentalism is bad. And if you take that logic, we should also not allow evangelical Christians in the UK either. Hold on a second. That's funny. That's funny. Come on. Is this like a humiliation fetish?

Charlie Kirk just keeps getting owned. All right, check this out. We got more footage from Charlie Kirk's debate at Cambridge University, where he got rolled by a professor on Ukraine, and then proceeded to debate multiple students. Now, I haven't watched this clip yet, so I am excited to react to it with you guys for the first time. I don't want to waste any of your time. Let's jump right in.

Again, we already watched him debate the Cambridge professor. Now, he debates this student on feminism, on women's role in society. and issues relating to that. Let's watch it for the first time. I'll jump in and talk about it as we watch. Do you think women are happier than they were 40 years ago? I think I would have a few responses to that. I think that women report more stress and dissatisfaction today

not because they have more rights or because of feminism, but because they're under dual pressure to both excel professionally and also because of the domestic labor in homes that is structured around outdated expectations. Yep, I totally agree. And I think that women have more. more upward mobility than they had 40 years ago in society. So women can now experience the same highs and lows that men can

without being told to shut up or sit down or suppress your feelings or take pills or drink it away. I mean, the 50s, women were not even allowed to like talk about how they felt as much. So now women get to experience the highs and lows. It's not because of feminism. It's just because of equality. So for example, studies like the OECD's Better Life Index show that women's life expectancy, education levels, professional achievements have risen in countries with higher gender

inequality. So I would argue that what you're calling on happiness is actually visibility, because now we hear women expressing dissatisfaction, whereas in the 50s, we prescribed them valium and we lobotomized. That literally did happen. I know you guys know this, but that literally is what happened. That's really rich. I didn't know women not to complain 50 years ago. That's funny. Is that supposed to be a good answer from Charlie Kirk? What the hell? So, hold on a second. Why are suicide rates going up more for women? I think that encouraging.

I'm complaining. Materially, women are killing themselves more. Why is that? I think that even if both men, both men and women have become unhappy. Men's suicide rates have risen as well, and that's also been exponential. Can you at least concede that feminism offers only one potential explanation? There could be also other explanations. Of course, obviously, but feminism is the glaring thing in front of us where... I don't know the stats on why or how much, like, the same. stats on women killing themselves more, but you could easily link you back to social media in a less connected society rather than feminism. We have fertility rates down, we have marriage rates down, we have unhappiness up, and we did

something in the 1960s out of the universities of Brady Friedan and Gloria Steinem and all these feminists that basically said you're trapped in a home, go get a job, freeze your eggs, take birth control, and all of a sudden women are way unhappier than they were 40 years ago. I just have to ask the question, why is that? Is it working? And maybe there are biological differences between men and women that we should respect and that deep down a lot of women want to get married and have children. In fact, we should applaud it and we should support it and we should say it means nothing if you're going to go be a CEO of some shoe company or be some banker in London. What matters if you raise children and you have something to pass

down long after you're gone? I just, okay, there's another clip to play after this. There's a part two and a part three, but I don't buy the idea that feminism is making women less happy. I think feminism makes women more free, gives them the freedom to have more upward mobility and do what you want in society, which in turn leads to happiness, I think societies across the board, and I bet we could back this up with that. Societies across the board are just becoming less and less happy due to being less connected, due to social media and comparing yourself to others, due to loneliness and just things created by this modern environment, not feminism. It's such a weird, you know, like suppressive. It's like just

Charlie Cook's end goal is to suppress women and lock them out of the workplace and he's working his way back any way he can. Like hey, women are less happy. Maybe we should just not allow them to work. I think I would bring two points to that. The first one is just really simple, which is that you can ascribe liberalism all you want as the cause of the unhappiness.

I would argue something else. I would say that it's certain economic policy that has very little to do with the social acceptance of alternative lifestyles. I would say that we can recognize that income inequality across a vast swat of Western countries has increased which causes all kinds of social ills. That's another one that I forgot. Income inequality across many countries has increased, causing dissatisfaction,

and that was only exacerbated by COVID, which therefore exacerbated the loneliness and disconnection and the comparisons that I then talked about earlier. Lack of social cohesion, housing price growth doesn't correspond with wage growth, monopolies increasingly become kind of emboldened to interfere with politics, and monopolies don't prioritize social health either. I think that those offer more compelling reasons for a decline in happiness than an increase in freedoms,

Because just one more thing, on an intuitive basis, generally speaking, people want more freedom, not less. Okay, so if that's true, do you agree that the happiest women of the West are married with kids? I would have to look into it, but I think there are certain... And objectively, we know that, right? The women with kids are not the ones carrying down statues, right? They're the ones that actually have obligations. Tearing down statues correspond to some kind of smiles per capita data set that I would... I also just, I mean, I'm not surprised that having full family and being married with kids.

means that you're happier than someone who's not. I'm sure that is true among every single race, at every single point in history, every single gender, every single sex, every single hair color. I'm sure it's just universally true. Well, maybe not with everybody. I'm sure some people are happier alone. I don't have a wife and kids right now and I'm happy with it,

but I'm sure in general you can find stats that show that yes, when people are married and in love and have kids, they're generally a bit happier. That doesn't mean feminism. I wasn't aware of it. I mean, again, it's like, it's a little bit of a one-liner. The happy and the grateful, the happy and the grateful usually don't go burn down Wendy's

in their spare time, of which we saw in our country all throughout a single summer. I don't know what... As a side note, you would agree, objectively, study after study, survey after survey, that the women of the West that are married and have children, especially a lot of children, are for happier, than even the ones that earn more money correlated at the same age.

So I also don't think that happiness is a very good metric, and neither do you, because you think gay people shouldn't just pursue happiness by being gay. They have other moralistic considerations to be making. So I don't think smiles per capita is a particularly convincing way to measure whether or not we should encourage women to be autonomous. I think we should maximise agency within a fair system that has reasonable parameters because it's expedient, it's good for the economy, it's logical, it's the moral thing because if we can't prove the material harms, we shouldn't discourage it. And also self-reported studies is a really flawed way to do psychology. It's the week before my university exams right now, and I'm standing here. explaining the basic methodology behind survey collection in sociology, but you don't even think it's a real subject to Charlie Kirk.

If I took one of those surveys right now, I check extremely miserable, but so would a Palestinian child who's been taunted to miserines. How are we going to measure... You would say extremely miserable? Let's continue this with one more clip. By the way, if you made it this far in the video, make sure you say hi Adam, make sure you drop a like and make sure you subscribe. So if you scroll down and you hit that subscribe button,

you could help us beat Charlie Kirk for another quarter in terms of subscriber growth. Now, there's one more clip, and can I just point out again, when Charlie Kirk is saying that women were happier in the 50s, it's because, number one, there was rampant tranquilizer abuse. Number two, there was rampant domestic abuse that was so normalized that it just wasn't really even reported. So, like, when a woman was unhappy and getting beaten by an alcoholic husband in the 50s, that was just sort of the norm. It wasn't something that got reported as, like, a specific outlier case that makes the news. That was just like another household. So here, let's check out this next clip. The women in the West have it the best in the world. And yet they're way unhappier than women of Sub-Saharan Africa.

There's something phenomenally wrong here. No, that's just not even... Because the women of sub-Saharan Africa have something that a lot of women in the West do not have. The women in the West have caps and they have good jobs. And the women of South Sahara Africa, they have a belief in the divine and they have kids. And maybe there's a biological undercurrent that is keeping a lot of women from realizing their full potential. And so without reading your phone

and just like, you know, connecting... I'm not really reading my phone. Well, it's fine, sure. Then you can answer without it. Fair enough. Would you agree that it's a good thing that more women get married and have children in the West?

I would ask you, would you say that a sub-Saharan African woman who's experienced female genital mutilation and checks extremely happy in a survey and I also would check extremely happy in a survey? Who do you think would be objectively more happy even if they both check the same answer? Again, so I fully, if you want to talk about

how Islam mistreats women. We could talk all day long. I'm all for that. We do. Okay, good. So we agree. We actually agree on many, many things. We should shut off Muslim integration to the UK, right? We totally agree. I think that all religious fundamentalism is bad. And if you take that logic, we should also not allow evangelical Christians. Okay. Hold on. Hold on a second. That's funny. Come on.

Can you show me a single? Show me, what would your example? Because I have 50 of a single Christian country that you would say mistreats women, right? America. Oh, really? We had a female woman vice president. We had a female vice president, a female speaker of the House, women earn more than men in America. In Rwanda, female representation in government out seats like supersedes the UK by quite a lot.

Do women get treated better in Rwanda? Okay, I might be super off this. Like, there was Rwanda Islamic? Like, I'm not totally sure I don't think it is. Like, is it? Like, I don't know, actually. All right, there's more to the clip, but you know what I've been thinking. regarding Charlie Kirk's point about married women with kids being happier, that is true

and it's intuitive why it's true, but it's also sort of a reverse correlation causation because if you're married with children, you're not always going to be happier, no, but a lot of times you will have slightly more stability, not always, a lot of marriages can go wrong, many do, but if you are married with kids, it's more likely you are in a more stable, relationship and you are in a more stable household than somebody who's divorced or unmarried or, you know, lonely. So it just, it makes sense. It's reverse reversing causation and correlation, of my opinion. It's not. So, this is very important, which is, I'm not here to require you to do anything or not. I'm making a simple observation, which is, which is

objectively true, regardless, the women of the West are miserable, and they're miserable for a reason. Because we've told them to suppress how they are made by God and pursue something else and get a bunch of trinkets and get a bunch of promotions and they end up at 38 years old. The entire context, the entire groundwork that the argument is built on is faulty. The House of Cards is going to topple over because the bottom is faulty. He's presupposing that women in the West have gotten unhappier and unhappier and unhappier. And we've disproven that by talking about tranquilizers and abuse and the normalization. of unhappiness for women, and women being told to just shut up and just eat it.

Who cares? Now, women are able to, you know, be more vocal about it, have more upward mobility in society. And also, women in the Middle East have different standards for happiness. So, for example, there are polls showing that women in some of these Middle Eastern countries where you're forced to wear a hijab are very, very happy. They're very, very happy with the fact that they're forced to wear a hijab. But that's because women in the Middle East, and some of these countries,

countries don't really know any other reality. They don't know what the freedom is like to not wear a job. So the standard is different. I'm going to leave it at that. But let me know what you think about Charlie Kirk's debate. I really want to hear your opinions below, especially if you're a woman who has experienced some of the stuff that was talked about here. I want to know. I'm curious. So I'll read all your comments. Love you all. And peace out.