Candace Owens Faces 20 Feminists Debating Sexual Revolution, Female Happiness, and Freedom in America
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Brandon Tatum and Candace Owens Discuss Black Culture, Faith, Family and the Battle for America's Soul
44:02
Candace Owens Debates Twenty Feminists on Sexual Revolution, Motherhood, and the Patriarchy
1:38:24
Stephen A. Smith Sits Down With Candace Owens: Black Conservatives, Harvey Weinstein, and Why Democrats Lost
1:01:59
Candace Owens Faces 20 Feminists Debating Sexual Revolution, Female Happiness, and Freedom in America
Candace Owens, podcaster and author of the upcoming book Make Him a Sandwich, sits down with 20 feminists to debate one central claim: the sexual revolution has devalued women and made them infinitely less happy. The conversation quickly spirals into heated exchanges about domestic violence statistics, queer theory, the gender binary, workplace fulfillment versus family life, and whether freedom equates to happiness. From challenging suicide rates and addiction statistics to questioning if women were more objectified in the 1950s or today's OnlyFans culture, Owens defends her position that modern women face more unhappiness despite increased freedoms. The debate tackles everything from Nordic happiness studies to college debt, rape statistics, and whether financial pressure contradicts the promise of liberation.
The Opening Claim: Sexual Revolution and Female Happiness
Candace Owens opens the debate with a bold assertion: the sexual revolution has devalued women and made them infinitely less happy. Surrounded by 20 feminists, Owens prepares to defend this claim against a barrage of counterarguments ranging from domestic violence statistics to queer theory and everything in between. The setting is tense but civil as each participant takes turns challenging Owens on her central premise about women, happiness, and the state of modern feminism.
Domestic Violence and Relationship Safety
The first challenger, Sumaya, brings up a UN statistic from 2023 showing that 60% of women who are murdered are killed by their intimate partners. She argues that if women are so valued in the home, why is that the place where they face the most danger? Owens responds by pointing out that the statistic doesn't directly correlate to the sexual revolution. She notes that people in general are more likely to be murdered by someone they know, and men are less likely to be murdered by women simply because women commit fewer murders overall.
Sumaya pushes back, arguing that the sexual revolution gave women the ability to leave the house, control their reproductive capabilities, and access the workforce. Without it, she contends, women would be more confined to the dangerous domestic sphere. Owens disagrees, stating she doesn't believe more women would be murdered without the sexual revolution, and that the claim still doesn't address whether the revolution made women happier. She pivots to point out that the most violent relationships on record are between lesbian partners, a claim that gets immediately challenged. Owens clarifies that her point is simply that domestic violence occurs across all relationship types when people are intimate, not that it's specific to the sexual revolution's impact on happiness.
Queer Theory and Gender Identity
Julian, who uses they/them pronouns and identifies as a queer feminist, enters the conversation with a different angle. Julian teaches sociology and LGBTQ studies at the college level and argues that the sexual revolution empowered people across all genders, not just women. They bring up sex education as a major contribution of the sexual revolution, claiming it has decreased STIs, abuse, rape, and sexual assault by giving people knowledge and power.
Julian frames the conversation through queer theory, arguing that the gender binary itself comes from colonization. They reference the muxe, an indigenous tribe in Mexico that believed in gender fluidity before European colonizers dismantled it. Julian believes everyone should have the freedom to explore their identity and use whatever language describes themselves best, as long as they're not causing harm.
Owens questions whether they can even debate female happiness if Julian doesn't identify exclusively as female. Julian responds that they identify with all gender expressions, from masculinity to femininity, and that all genders benefit from the sexual revolution. Owens points out that it seems like they're debating queer theory rather than the specific claim about female happiness, and Julian is voted out by the majority shortly after.
Women's Worth and Sexuality
Zena takes the next seat and addresses Owens' premise directly: that women have been devalued by the sexual revolution. Zena argues this presumes women have lost worth as human beings, and questions whether Owens is saying women prior to the sexual revolution were worth more than women today. Owens confirms this, explaining that women have devalued themselves by becoming overtly sexual.
Zena challenges this by asking if Owens is tying a woman's worth to her sexuality. Owens clarifies that if women are having multiple partners, they are devaluing themselves in terms of trying to have productive relationships. Men won't be clamoring for relationships when sex is freely available without commitment. Zena presses further, asking if a man's response to a woman's actions is what defines her worth. Owens argues that both men and women define one another's worth, but the ultimate goal for happiness is family.
Zena questions whether Owens believes all women will be more fulfilled by family, with no individual cases where a woman could feel fulfilled without being tied to other people. Owens acknowledges there could be exceptional cases, but argues that if everyone tries to be the exception rather than recognizing the rule that people are more fulfilled with family and children, society will end up with many unhappy people. She insists that jobs cannot replace the feeling of having a family.
Nordic Countries and Happiness Studies
Zena brings up the Nordic countries like Sweden and Denmark, which have ranked highest in happiness and mental satisfaction from women over the past 14 years. These countries are also more sexually open and have lower rates of STDs, partly due to comprehensive sex education that came from the sexual revolution. She asks why these sexually open countries would show such high happiness rates if Owens' claim is correct.
Owens references a mass-produced behavioral science study about unmarried career women being the happiest, but notes that in 2023 there was a massive scandal revealing many of these behavioral science studies were complete frauds. The data had been faked and the studies couldn't be reproduced. Instead, Owens argues that if women were unhappy in the home and entering the workforce made them happier, there should have been a decrease in suicide rates among women. She suggests suicide rates, along with drug and alcohol consumption, would be reasonable metrics for measuring happiness.
Zena pushes back, saying Owens would need to show direct causation between women entering the workforce and these negative outcomes. When asked how else to measure happiness, Owens maintains that suicide rates and substance abuse are valid indicators. She points out that women are committing suicide at higher rates than in the 1950s, binge drinking more, and binge eating more. These aren't signs that entering the workforce suddenly made women happy. Zena continues to challenge the causation, but is voted out before the argument concludes.
Objectification and Rape Statistics
Nikki approaches with a different statistical angle: rape rates have gone down by about half in the last 20 years. She argues that if women are less valuable now, as Owens claims, why wouldn't they be suffering at higher rape rates? Nikki clarifies that every study shows rape is not about sexual gratification but about power structures and objectification. Therefore, if women are less objectified, they should be raped less.
Owens finds this argument remarkable, stating it's wild to suggest women were more objectified in the 1950s than today in the era of OnlyFans, the Kardashian family, and women posting their bodies for free on Instagram. She points out that women can't even advertise products without being naked as models, yet Nikki is claiming they've achieved less objectification. Nikki clarifies she's not suggesting the over-commodification of women's bodies is positive, but that in the 1950s women were viewed as house appliances and maids in a subservient position, which was a different form of objectification.
Owens firmly rejects the notion that objectification has decreased since the 1950s. She also addresses Nikki's earlier point about pill-popping in the 1950s, noting that women are actually popping more pills now. Women are having more opioid overdoses, and since 1999, women have been increasing their opioid use at higher rates than men. Women aren't drinking less or using fewer substances because they entered the workforce. Owens again tries to establish reasonable metrics for defining happiness, acknowledging it's difficult but insisting the available data doesn't support the claim that modern women are happier. Nikki is voted out before fully addressing Owens' rebuttal.
Freedom, Choice, and Financial Pressure
Whitney Shanahan arrives wearing a hat that Owens compliments. Whitney focuses on the connection between happiness, freedom, and choice. As a mother and woman, she argues that having the freedom to choose her destiny makes her infinitely happier than before the sexual revolution, when women couldn't get bank accounts, home loans, work outside the home, travel without men, or control their reproduction. She believes protecting individual freedoms in the United States is what leads to happiness.
Owens asks if Whitney went to college and whether it was purely out of interest or because she felt pressure to get a degree for career purposes. Whitney says she went to study art and expand her horizons, claiming that's why most people attend university. Owens disagrees, arguing that many people go to college because there's pressure that without a degree, they'll be failures. Whitney counters that everything is a choice, and taking away choices and freedoms doesn't make people happier.
Owens challenges the idea that people feel more free under financial pressure. She argues that most people go to college because they're sold on the idea that a degree will make them happier and more free, but end up in debt. Debt, she insists, is not a form of freedom. Whitney tries to redirect back to the topic of happiness and the sexual revolution rather than college debt, but Owens presses the point that Whitney herself claimed freedom makes her happy, and financial restraints from debt don't make people feel free.
In a surprising turn, Whitney suggests eliminating college debt and having free college in the United States. Owens enthusiastically agrees, calling it a great idea and declaring herself a champion for the people. The exchange ends with laughter and applause as Whitney returns to her seat, leaving the debate on a lighter note despite the serious topics discussed throughout.
