If you’ve spent any amount of time discussing
politics with just about anyone, you’ve likely come across the argument known as a
Whataboutism. Even if you’ve never heard of the term, you know what it is. Usually
it has very little to do with the original topic and just aims to derail the conversation.
Oh, you want to fill that pothole? Well what about fixing the sidewalks on my street? Oh,
so you care about [terrible tragedy]? Well I didn’t see you complaining during [other
unrelated terrible tragedy]. You’ve heard these arguments before and they’re somewhat
easy to spot. But what do you do when the counterargument seems to directly contradict
whatever it is you’re advocating for… Oh, so you made a video about Feminism? Well,
what about Men’s Rights? This video was brought to you by CuriosityStream.
Men and women are biologically and psychologically different. I don’t know any serious person
who disputes that. And while you can’t say that men or women are better overall, you
can say that when it comes to specific categories, on average. Like upper body strength, pain
tolerance, or color perception. Because of those inherent differences, men and women
have taken on different roles in our society. These societal gender roles have made men
and women culturally different as well. Much like the biological and psychological differences,
you can’t say that men or women are culturally better overall. But again, you can say it
when it comes to specific categories. Over the last century, women have been trying
to break out of those traditional gender roles with a good deal of success. They aren’t
quite there yet, but I already made a video about that. Instead, this video is about men,
who’ve been watching women successfully getting out of their roles and saying – hey,
we want out of our traditional gender roles too.
These men are typically known as Men’s Rights Activists, or MRAs, they’re part of the
broader Manosphere and they’ve become pretty popular in recent decades for reasons we’ll
get to later. A few years ago, they released a documentary called The Red Pill. Named after
the red pill in the Matrix, which makes you wake up and see the horrible reality of the
world, as opposed to the blue pill, which is feminism in this case. If you go to the
doctor and ask for the blue pill, you’re going to get something very different. In
the movie, they say that one of the defining characteristics of men’s role in society
is the concept of Male Disposability. Every society that survived, survived based
on its ability to trade its sons to be disposable. Disposable in war as warriors, disposable
in work as firefighters, as workers on oil rigs and so on, coal miners.
Male Disposability is the idea that men are seen as less valuable and therefore disposable
for the betterment or preservation of society. Which is why men account for most deaths in
the workplace. The film makes it a point to mention how many
people died on the job and what percentage of those deaths were men. In 2017, it actually
increased to 5147 workplace fatalities, 92.5% of which were men. Just to put that into perspective,
that’s more casualties than the entire Iraq War, all seven years, put together… every
year. So, this is a genuine problem worth talking about.
The most dangerous profession when it comes to how many deaths there are per worker is
fishermen. If you ever watched Deadliest Catch, you’d know that. But the most dangerous
job, when it comes to absolute numbers, is truck driver with almost a thousand deaths
in 2017… more than the next ten professions combined. Why aren’t these the jobs we talk
about when discussing Male Disposability? The Red Pill mentioned coal miners, oil drillers,
and firefighters – even the watch commercial responding to Gillette uses firefighters when
quoting the same statistic. Only 35 firefighters died on the job in 2017, don’t get me wrong,
I wish it was zero, but these aren’t the guys dying by the hundreds – these are.
Why aren’t truck drivers the face of Male Disposability? Because they aren’t heroic,
even when discussing the plight of men dying in the workforce, we want to be seen as hypermasculine
and heroic. There’s nothing heroic about this. Truck drivers are seen as some of the
lowest people in society because… you know those Gatorade bottles you see thrown out
on the side of the highway? Yeah, those aren’t filled with Gatorade. Disgusting!
So instead, they go with firefighter, which I find interesting, because that profession
in particular is one that women have been trying to get into for decades. But have been
kept out of for… reasons. Probably because we all imagine women as these little 90-pound
frail objects but… If Zarya wants to be a firefighter, I say let her.
But we’re the ones dying… and we die for you guys.
You don’t get to say that we’re the ones dying and we’re doing it for you… in jobs
you want but you can’t have because… they’re ours. Women want those dangerous jobs. And
as long as they are kept out of them, we as men don’t get to complain that we’re stuck
with them. Take the military, for example. Women have
always been in the US military in a support role – nurses, administration, that sort
of stuff. But they’ve been begging to be in combat for decades. The Secretary of Defense
finally opened up combat roles to women in 2013, and they started filling them in 2016.
Much to the chagrin of male politicians. So whenever you’re shown these statistics,
keep in mind that women weren’t allowed in combat during any of these conflicts – despite
wanting to be. Whenever we talk about the military in the scope of men’s rights, we
inevitably end up talking about the draft. Officially known as the Selective Service
System. Every male in the United States is required to register for Selective Service
between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, not doing so is a federal crime that will
haunt you forever. Luckily, you may have done so without remembering. I filled out a card
at the post office, I remember it being a big deal, but you might have done it by just
checking a box on your FAFSA – the form you fill out when requesting financial aid
for college. Or, if you have a driver’s license in any of the yellow states you were
automatically registered. The draft is somewhat of a non-argument for
several reasons, the most obvious is that it really hasn’t affected you. You had to
fill out a form or check a box once. We haven’t used the draft since 1973, we’ve been an
all-volunteer force since then, meaning that it hasn’t affected anyone born after 1956.
If you’re not collecting Social Security, the draft isn’t something you’ve ever
had to worry about. And the draft is so historically unpopular that it would take Red Dawn happening
for us to ever use it again, and I have a feeling that if that were to happen, we’d
suddenly be okay with the draft. But you know, it still might, some day.
Men feel that this is unfair, since they have to sign up for the draft and women don’t.
But actually, that’s about to change. One of the main arguments against women being
part of the draft was that they weren’t allowed in combat, since that changed in 2016,
Congress set up a commission to re-evaluate the Selective Service System. Whether that
means including women or abolishing it entirely. There was also a recent court case that ruled
that an all-male draft is unconstitutional on the basis of that 2016 combat role change.
But since Congress was already set up a commission, that decision didn’t carry much weight.
But there are a number of other ways that men are disadvantaged that Men’s Rights
Activists often cite. Some more legitimate than others.
Men are dropping out of higher education at very alarming rates. We’re down to 38% now,
of college students are men, and it’s dropping rapidly.
It was actually 43.3% in 2017 and isn’t dropping rapidly, in fact, it’s been increasing
since 2005 and is projected to stay the same for the next ten years. Women first became
the majority of college students in 1979. But he is right that there’s a difference
in college graduation rates, among women who start a bachelor’s degree program, 62.1%
of them actually finish, while only 56.1% of men do. It’s not that big of a difference,
but still a difference. You’ll also hear that boys drop out of high
school 30 or 40% more than girls. Which is true, but that’s relative to girls. In 2016,
the nation-wide high school dropout rate was 7.1% for boys and 5.1% for girls, which are
actually near-historic lows. In 1979, it was 15% and 14.2%, so, trending down. But a 2%
difference doesn’t really sound like much of a crisis, so, seven is 140% of five, which
gives us a 40% relative difference. You see this relative risk trick all over the place.
There is a small difference, but I’m not sure I would say something as dramatic as
“boys are languishing academically while girls are prospering.”
Boys are languishing academically while girls are prospering.
While men are slightly behind in the education system, they’re well ahead when it comes
to prison system. Men are sentenced to 63% more prison time
for the same crime as women. That’s actually true and pretty much indisputable.
Of all men in America, one in nine have, are, or will eventually spend time in prison. Among
women, it’s only one in fifty-six. This might lead you to believe that men commit
crimes more often than women… which is statistically true. But even when a woman is convicted,
her punishment is far more lenient. They are twice as likely to receive no jail time than
a man, and if they do, say they’re sentenced to ten years, a man convicted of the same
crime will get sixteen years. And if he’s a black man, he’ll get twenty. Criminal
justice reform, and especially prison reform, is something I’ve been pushing for for a
long time and I’ve never really considered it a male issue, it’s usually a race issue.
But I can see why they include it in the list. Other indisputable statistics that MRAs often
cite when discussing the difference between men and women have to do with healthcare outcomes.
On average, women live seven years longer than men. We spend more on female healthcare,
mostly because they just happen to go to the doctor more often. Women have more regular
healthcare needs. Breast cancer and prostate cancer kill people at similar rates, but breast
cancer gets a lot more funding, which mostly comes down to marketing. If prostate cancer
had something similar to a pink ribbon or a yellow wristband, I’m sure that could
change. Prostate cancer actually has a ribbon – but you probably didn’t know that. Men
aren’t encouraged to go to the doctor regularly like women, even when they’re sick or injured,
they’re told to suck it up or rub some dirt on it. Which leads to worsening physical and
mental health problems… Four of five suicides are men.
That was true when he said it, but it’s actually closer to 3 out of 4 now, because
female suicide has been increasing. Strangely enough, women attempt suicide more often than
men. For every three men that commit suicide, five women attempt. And only one succeeds.
Men successfully commit suicide more than women because men choose more violent methods
like jumping off of things or guns. Firearms account for just over half of all suicides.
Women tend to choose less violent methods like drug overdoses or cutting, which have
a very low probability of success. This is a valid issue, because as I said, men are
far less likely to seek help. We live in a society that looks down on men who ask for
help, so maintaining that pride drives men to things like suicide, drug and alcohol addiction,
and homelessness. Is a man… disposable? Is a man… broken?
I like this one because they’re putting their thumb on the scale a bit… single homeless.
So if you’re married and homeless or have a child and homeless, you don’t count. In
truth, men are 60.2% of all homeless people In homeless shelters, 55.4% are men, which
is actually pretty even – but when it comes to actually living out on the street, 70.3%
are men. Again, men don’t like asking for help. And now that I’ve mentioned shelters,
I’m going to have to talk about domestic violence…
As of 2016, there’s only a single domestic violence shelter for men. My initial reaction
was that there needed to be thousands more women’s shelters because that many more
women are being battered. But as it turns out, 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men will be victims
of physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
If you’re alarm bells and red flags aren’t going off, they should be. That statistic
is true; however, the definition of physical violence in that survey includes literally
any form of physical violence. From pushing, to slapping, to throwing something at you.
From the infographic attached to that same source, women are far more likely to be afraid,
far more likely to be concerned for their safety, and far more likely to develop PTSD.
Why is that, if just as many men are victims? Because when we look at physical violence
that actually results in injury, it’s one in seven women and one in twenty-five men.
This is from her 2010 source, link below. For every man that needed to go to a hospital
as a result of domestic violence, five women did, for every man that needed housing services
in order to get away from domestic violence, six women did. The Red Pill tries to portray
this as some both sides in equal numbers issue, but it just isn’t.
Domestic violence shelters were first set up in the 60s and 70s, when many women didn’t
have access to a job or money. They had no resources and nowhere to go if they were in
danger. Men, on the other hand, could go to a hotel, or a friend’s house, or even a
bar if they needed to get away. Not the healthiest options, but still options. But now, there
are domestic violence shelters all over the country which provide a place for women and
men to go. That’s right, I said and men. The domestic violence shelter she says is
the only one for men is not the only one for men. It’s just the only one that serves
only men. According to her source, nearly half a million male victims used housing services
as a result of intimate partner violence – where did they all go? Some domestic violence shelters
are for women only, but almost every domestic violence shelter will help male victims either
by housing them directly or by putting them in a hotel, free of charge. There absolutely
should be more domestic violence shelters for men – but framing it as if there’s
only one is a lie. The Red Pill is about understanding that men
and women, like everything else in life is a mixed bag, you’ve got victims and perpetrators
on both sides of the fence. That’s true, but it’s not even close to
being 50-50. While we’re on the subject of men being the victims of violence, men
can also be the victims of rape. In fact, men can be raped by women. And we should call
it rape, not an affair, when it happens. MRAs and The Red Pill again try to portray this
as a both sides are victims in equal numbers issue, when it isn’t. Not even close. From
the same source she got her one in four men physical violence statistic, one in five women
will be raped in their lifetime, while one in seventy-one men will. For every male victim,
there are fourteen female victims. That’s an order of magnitude difference and accounts
for female on male and male on male sexual violence.
But really, when men are concerned about rape, their biggest concern is being falsely accused.
Many in the Manosphere believe that 40 or 50% of all rape allegations are false and
that women are lying. And they get that number from one discredited study.
When a woman reports a rape, sometimes there isn’t enough information or evidence to
prosecute, sometimes the woman changes her mind about pressing charges, and sometimes
the guy is found not guilty. All of those added up is where they got that number. If
you go to the police to report that your bike was stolen, and they don’t find enough evidence
to pursue it – that doesn’t change the fact that your bike was stolen. That is not
a false allegation. Numerous studies have been done on this and all of them have found
that false rape allegations occur between 2 and 10% of the time, with the largest study
finding 6.8%. Meaning the woman is only making it up 6.8% of the time. Believe it or not,
but that’s actually pretty consistent with the false allegation rate for just about every
crime. Including bicycle theft. In fact, parsing out the numbers, as a man, you are more likely
to be the victim of a rape than you are to be falsely accused of a rape. It does happen
and it’s awful, but it’s also very, very rare.
Men often feel like they have no choice when it comes to conceiving a child. Once the woman
is pregnant, all decisions are left to her. Which makes sense on multiple levels, biologically
and evolutionarily she has to invest much more and has much more to lose. But it also
makes legal sense. It’s scary to think that a woman’s reproductive choices would be
at the mercy of a man, whether he wants the child or not. Which is why the Supreme Court
said that shouldn’t be the case. You know what would solve a lot of these issues and
level the reproductive playing field? If men had access to a birth control pill. That’s
what started second wave Feminism, after all. But paternity traps and even false allegations
and domestic violence really only seem to come up during particularly messy divorces.
There is no question that the family court system is biased against men. The divorce
rate in the United States rose sharply during the 70s and 80s, but has been holding at 40-50%
for the last few decades. Half of all marriages end in divorce, whether it’s your first
or third. Dividing assets during a divorce is a messy
process, anything you earned or bought while you were together is technically both of yours,
so things get divided 50-50. Which is usually a raw deal for the man, who was the primary
breadwinner. But that’s historically, in the decades since the women’s liberation
movement, women have become the primary breadwinner in 40% of households. So dividing assets is
becoming more equitable – but alimony and custody, still favor women.
Alimony, or spousal support, was an idea from back in the day when women’s only job was
to be a housewife. After a divorce, they’d go onto the job market for the first time
ever with no marketable skills. So if you wanted to divorce a woman, you had to financially
help her until she could get a job. But now that women are more independent, you’d think
that alimony would be phased out or at least, very rare. And compared to forty years ago,
it is. Women are only awarded alimony in 10% of divorces today strangely enough, men are
awarded alimony 3% of the time. Spousal support is based on who gets paid more, and typically,
men still get paid more. But men often get the short end of the stick
during a divorce when it comes to child custody. Unlike dividing monetary assets, dividing
children is… somewhat more difficult. These numbers were accurate for the time,
the more recent numbers are 80.4% for women and 19.6% for men. However, they are missing
vital context. In 1986, women were given sole custody 80% of the time, by 1994 it had dropped
to 74%. In 2008, women only got sole custody 42% of the time. So why does that census number
still say 80-something percent? Because you have legal custody of a child until they’re
twenty in some states – depending on if they’re still in school If you got custody
in 1994, you could still have custody for the purposes of those 2015 numbers. So yes,
currently, 80% of custodial parents are mothers, but the family court system and social norms
have changed and it’s going to take a decade or two for the census numbers to reflect that.
Joint custody is actually the norm now. 27% of the time custody is split 50-50 between
mother and father and 18% of the time it’s some uneven balance. Sole custody going to
the father has remained pretty much unchanged since the 80s. But here’s the kicker, the
thing the Red Pill never mentions: 91% of custody decisions are made without involving
the family court system at all. And 51% of the time, the father just lets the mother
have custody. The family court system truly is biased against
men, I mean there’s just no question about it.
There’s no doubt that there have been some men who get screwed by court decisions and
custody cases. The unfairness in the family courts, the unfairness
in the way child support is so often structured. Remember, only 9% of cases go to family court.
But child support is a rather contentious issue and is often cited as one of the main
ways men are disadvantaged. And it shouldn’t surprise you to hear that’s been changing
too. Child support depends on a number of factors including how custody is split and
who makes more money. It is still possible in joint custody situations. But of women
who have sole custody, 52.3% also get child support, of men it’s only 31.4%. Since men
tend to earn more, that makes sense. Interesting side note, we’re all familiar with the term
“deadbeat dad’ for a father who is delinquent on child support. 25.4% of men who are supposed
to pay child support… don’t. But among women who are supposed to pay child support,
32% of them don’t. So “deadbeat moms” are actually more common as a percentage.
It shouldn’t surprise you to hear that divorce is the primary recruitment tool for Men’s
Rights Activist groups. Many men’s rights activists come into being
men’s rights activists as a result of getting a divorce wanting to be equally involved with
children and realizing that women have the right to children and men have to fight for
children. Again, I think it’s important to point out
that the vast majority of divorces and custody disputes don’t end up in family court, but
it is safe to assume that when they do, men tend to lose. So what is the feminist response
to the current state of divorce? You should all know who this is, she’s the go-to thumbnail
for anti-feminist youtube, she goes by the name Big Red and she is very loud and obnoxious.
But look past the tone in her voice and listen to what she’s actually saying.
Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children, the assumption that women
are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy!
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat
the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over
professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their traditional marriages
end. Why didn’t the MRAs stop her right then
and say “hey, we actually agree with you, let’s do something about it?” I realize
the tone is an issue, but outside of that. None of the things I’ve talked about in
this video are actually against feminism, in fact a lot of the time, they’re parallel
issues. Why aren’t MRAs and Feminists working together? You know what would solve a lot
of the issues that men’s rights groups and feminists are working to solve? An Equal Rights
Amendment that makes men and women equal under the law. It was squashed in the 70s because
anti-feminists wanted to keep divorce and custody unequal and women out of the military
and the draft. Why aren’t MRAs pushing for that legislation?
The common trope is that MRAs aren’t actually trying to change anything, they just hate
women… What you’ll hear is that we hate women.
You’ll hear that it’s a backlash against women’s rights.
That’s somewhat difficult to argue against, since MRAs didn’t exist until the 80s, it’s
clearly a direct response to Feminism. But MRAs are just part of a larger picture – known
as the Manosphere. Just as Feminism is not a single monolith that agrees on everything,
there are several groups within the Manosphere that don’t always get along.
First, you have the men’s rights activists that care about equality in divorce and male
disposability – legitimate issues discussed in this video. But then you have the incels
– short for involuntarily celibate – men who are unsuccessful in their dating lives
and blame women and feminism for it. Sometimes violently. Then there are the voluntarily
celibate – or “Volcels” more often called MGTOW for “Men Going Their Own Way.” These
are men who don’t like women and don’t want women. And on the flip side, there are
the pick-up artists, who don’t like or respect women, but still very much want them, even
to the point of tricking them. There are other factions, some of which are
even creepier, not all MRAs like them being around, but when one of the leaders of the
men’s right movement says stuff like this… If men made the rules to benefit men at the
expense of women, here are some of the ways the world- here are some of the ways the world
would look like. We would make rules that every woman would be sexual with us whenever
we would like. And that the women who are very young, maybe 13 or 14 would be very interested
in us. It’s kind of hard to deny that they are
on this list. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that there is a significant overlap
between the Manosphere and white nationalist groups. Not every MRA is in the alt-right,
but some are. The point is, whenever there’s a men’s rally, these guys show up too…
While these guys try to say that they don’t hate women – they just hate feminism.
Feminists aren’t the only problem, the problems didn’t start with feminism. So when I start
criticizing feminism, I want you to know that you’re just part of the problem.
It’s so hard to convince people to look at men’s right activism and support it without
first allowing them to at least escape the stranglehold that feminism has on their minds.
When men’s rights groups bring up the issues that are important to them and present their
information, they don’t bring up any serious solutions. Instead, they just conclude that
therefore, Feminism is wrong. The Red Pill seems to be more about downplaying and dismissing
women’s issues than anything else – a way to delegitimize feminism as a whole. It’s
an evil ideology that brainwashes people. Are you conflating feminism, which is an ideology,
with women, which is a demographic of society? Ideologies and -isms aren’t inherently bad.
Capitalism is an ideology. Men’s rights groups appear to be more of a coping mechanism
for men who feel defensive against or even victimized by feminism. If men were looking
for end-goal solutions, they would see feminists as allies. A big hang up for many in the men’s
rights movement seems to be the language – why is the bad thing patriarchy and the force
for good feminism? If it’s about equality, why don’t you call it Egalitarianism? You
have to look past the surface-level language that was developed back when it was objectively
true fifty years ago. You might even find that it’s applicable to men’s issues.
The fact that men are always suspected of being the aggressors in a rape, that female
teachers never rape their male students, and prison rape is always a punchline. That’s
all part of Rape Culture. When people automatically think that men are capable, they’re more
likely to listen to and believe you, but when you actually need help, they’re less likely
to offer it because you’re supposed to be capable. That’s the downside to Male Privilege.
The fact that you’re supposed to man up and not be a p**sy, never show emotion and
not cry like a b**ch. That’s Toxic Masculinity. That hypermasculine pride is what leads men
to never go to the doctor when they need to, or end up homelessness, or with drug and alcohol
addiction, and eventually suicide. Patriarchy doesn’t only oppress women. Not only does
it expect women to be in subservient roles, it expects men to be in dominant ones. Whether
you want to be or not. It expects you to be the breadwinner of the family and to be willing
to sacrifice your life for your country or work in some heroic masculine profession.
Like being a firefighter, or coal miner, or a knight in medieval times. Which you can
learn more about by going to curiositystream.com/knowingbetter. CuriosityStream is a subscription streaming
service that offers over 2400 documentaries and nonfiction titles from some of the world’s
best filmmakers that you can access across multiple platforms. Take a look at this series
about Knights, so you can play out that male power fantasy of chivalry and honor. A time
when fair maidens swooned over men and nobody complained about the possibility of being
drafted into their feudal lord’s army. You can get access to their entire library for
as little as 2.99 a month, but if you head over to curiositystream.com/knowingbetter
and use the promo code knowingbetter, you can have the privilege of getting your first
month completely free. You’ll also be supporting the channel when you do.
None of the issues that men’s rights groups advocate for contradict feminism. None of
the points that the watch commercial makes are actually a response to Gillette, instead
it’s just a list of ways men have it bad. We see the good in men. This all seems to
be one giant Whataboutism. Oh, you want to close the gender pay gap? Well, what about
male suicide rates? What about workplace fatalities? What about them? We can work on all of that.
Men being the victims of domestic violence is an issue and there should be more funding
for male shelters. But that doesn’t mean we need to take away from women’s shelters.
This isn’t a zero-sum game, we can do both. The conclusion shouldn’t be therefore your
original point was wrong, it should be therefore, we should work together, because now, you
know better. I’d like to give a shout out to my newest
Golden Fork patron, Qemmuel (Kem-you-el). If you’d like your name added to this list
of activists, or shouted out during my Q&A video next month, head on over to patreon.com/knowingbetter.
I’ll be at Vidcon next month, so be sure to stop by and say hello. Don’t forget to
dispose that subscribe button, check out my merch at knowingbetter.tv, follow me on Twitter
and Facebook, and join us on the subreddit.
Let’s take a moment to get into
business and talk about Amazon. They’re the reason
you were able to do all of your holiday
shopping without wearing pants. That shit doesn’t fly
at Best Buy. Trust me, I’ve tried. And now, Amazon is finding new
ways to keep you coming back. MAN: Amazon is sending shoppers
free samples curated to their tastes as part
of the company’s push into advertising. Axios reporting,
products free of charge that you may like are gonna
show up on your doorstep, and it’s all based
on your purchase history on the website. Okay. I like the idea, but how’s Amazon gonna send you
a sample of something? I mean,
I get how that would work with, like, food or shampoo,
but Amazon sells everything. Are they gonna send you,
like, half a TV? (laughter) The handle of a coffee mug? Just the tip of a dildo? (laughter) Be like, “If you enjoyed this
sample, you’ll love the shaft.” (laughter) But… but free samples
aren’t the biggest story about Amazon today,
because just this morning, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO,
and the winner of capitalism, announced that he and his wife
MacKenzie are getting divorced. Now we joke a lot about Amazon, but it is sad to see
any relationship not work out. Uh, thankfully,
it does sound amicable, and we wish both of them
the best, because at the end of the day,
we’re all people here. We know how it feels to go
through a tough breakout. I don’t think
there’s a joke about that, unless you are
a financial analyst at CNBC. Then there is something funny,
you know, because you watch these people
who are trying to talk about human emotions on air
for the very first time. Jeff Bezos tweets
a few moments ago that, uh, he’s getting divorced. MAN 2: Yeah. Uh, that was
somewhat surprising. Yeah. Uh, MacKenzie Bezos will become one of the richest people
in the world. Unclear what
and where her interests may lie in-in terms of, uh, that. Listen, uh,
you know, I don’t care if you’re the richest guy
in the world or not. -Getting divorced is, uh…
is never fun, I’m sure. -Yeah. You know, it’s a courageous
thing to tweet this. Uh, and it-it… it is… I don’t know what else to say
other than the fact that he didn’t need to do it. The man tweeted it.
You didn’t need to. A lot of times you kind of don’t
really kind of talk about it, kind of, you know?
I mean, kind of. I mean, you know what I mean?
Kind of. Yeah, uh, right? Yeah, uh, well, yeah, well. It’s like wow. Business Louis C.K.
over there didn’t do well with that information, uh… Yeah, emotional news
is not his strong suit. Uh… I’m glad he’s on CNBC, and not
working as a veterinarian. You know, he’d just be like,
“So, you’re cat– “he, uh, kind of, uh, you know. “Um, his-his thyroid
and then his kidney kind of… “which for felines,
I don’t know. “But anyway, here’s his ashes. You know what I mean.” (laughter, applause) For more on the Bezos divorce,
I’m joined by our financial analyst,
Desi Lydic, everybody. -(cheers and applause)
-Thank you. Desi, as, um… as awkward as CNBC’s
divorce therapists are, you can’t deny that there is
a huge financial aspect to this story. Oh yeah.
No, that’s true, Trevor. This is a huge deal. Jeff Bezos is the richest man
in the world, and under Washington State law, he has to split everything
he’s earned during their marriage, 50/50. MacKenzie Bezos will get
$66 billion. -(whooping, gasping)
-Yeah. This is the biggest transfer
of wealth since Warren Buffett
left his debit card -at a McDonald’s drive-through.
-(laughter) $66 billion. I can’t imagine
having that much money, let alone
losing that much money. Yeah, and you’re really rich,
Trevor. I mean, there was a whole week where you just paid us
to speak for you. But look,
Jeff Bezos will be fine. (laughter) Don’t worry about Jeff Bezos,
okay? He’ll be fine. He’s still gonna have
$66 billion. I mean, he’s not gonna be
one of those divorced dads eating SpaghettiOs over the sink
of his studio apartment. He’ll be eating SpaghettiOs
over the Mediterranean from the third story
of his yacht. Oh, which reminds me. This story is brought to you
by SpaghettiOs. SpaghettiOs. Divorce is hard,
but so is boiling pasta. Actually, Desi,
some of us like SpaghettiOs for the flavor and the shapes,
you know, but whatever. Uh, so you think
this divorce settlement is fair? Oh, yeah. No, definitely. A marriage is a partnership. MacKenzie Bezos spent 25 years helping her husband
grow his business. And grow his swagger.
I mean, look at that. He went
from pleated pants salesman to jacked-up arms dealer,
am I right? Yeah, it’s totally fair. Look, but that chapter
is now closed, okay? It’s over now. And this next phase is crucial. You have a wealthy person
navigating a-a painful time in their lives,
unsure about what to do next. And here’s where
I can not stress this enough. It is so important
to get married again right away. (laughter) Find some… someone blond
who will take care care of you, you know, like a…
like a city gal who also feels at home
on your private island. You know, someone
who will divorce my husband -at the drop of a hat.
-Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa, whoa.
Whoa, wait. Wait. Desi, Desi, come on.
This is weird. -What?
-You can’t just come on the show to pitch yourself as a spouse
for Jeff Bezos. Whoa, whoa, whoa. What?! No. How dare you, Trevor! No, I am pitching myself
as a spouse for MacKenzie Bezos. -(laughter, applause, cheering)
-Look. Yeah. This woman…
this woman is beautiful. She’s an accomplished author. She studied under Toni Morrison
at Princeton. And now she’s worth $66 billion. Oh, is she? Right, yes. No. Yes.
Now she is worth $66 billion. I mean, you said
she’s the whole package. MacKenzie, call me. I can be on a plane tomorrow,
or today if you use Prime. (laughter) The future Mrs. MacKenzie
Bezos– Desi Lydic, everyone.
Episode 41: Rise of Conservatism Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse
U.S. history and today we’re going to–Nixon?–we’re going to talk about the rise of conservatism.
So Alabama, where I went to high school, is a pretty conservative state and reliably sends
Republicans to Washington. Like, both of its Senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby,
are Republicans. But did you know that Richard Shelby used to be a Democrat, just like basically
all of Alabama’s Senators since reconstruction? And this shift from Democrat to Republican
throughout the South is the result of the rise in conservative politics in the 1960s
and 1970s that we are going to talk about today. And along the way, we get to put Richard
Nixon’s head in a jar. Stan just informed me that we don’t actually
get to put Richard Nixon’s head in a jar. It’s just a Futurama joke. And now I’m
sad. So, you’ll remember from our last episode
that we learned that not everyone in the 1960s was a psychedelic rock-listening, war-protesting
hippie. In fact, there was a strong undercurrent of conservative thinking that ran throughout
the 1960s, even among young people. And one aspect of this was the rise of free
market ideology and libertarianism. Like, since the 1950s, a majority of Americans had
broadly agreed that “free enterprise” was a good thing and should be encouraged
both in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, and also in deep space
where no man has gone before? No, MFTP. You’re thinking of the Starship
Enterprise, not free enterprise. And anyway, Me From The Past, have you ever
seen a more aggressively communist television program than “The Neutral Zone” from Star
Trek: The Next Generation’s first season? I don’t think so.
intro Alright so, in the 1950s a growing number
of libertarians argued that unregulated capitalism and individual autonomy were the essence of
American freedom. And although they were staunchly anti-communist, their real target was the
regulatory state that had been created by the New Deal. You know, social security, and
not being allowed to, you know, choose how many pigs you kill, etc.
Other conservatives weren’t libertarians at all but moral conservatives who were okay
with the rules that enforced traditional notions of family and morality. Even if that seemed
like, you know, an oppressive government. For them virtue was the essence of America.
But both of these strands of conservatism were very hostile toward communism and also
to the idea of “big government.” And it’s worth noting that since World War
I, the size and scope of the federal government had increased dramatically.
And hostility toward the idea of “big government” remains the signal feature of contemporary
conservatism. Although very few people actually argue for shrinking the government. Because,
you know, that would be very unpopular. People like Medicare.
But it was faith in the free market that infused the ideology of the most vocal young conservatives
in the 1960s. They didn’t receive nearly as much press
as their liberal counterparts but these young conservatives played a pivotal role in reshaping
the Republican Party, especially in the election of 1964.
The 1964 presidential election was important in American history precisely because it was
so incredibly uncompetitive. I mean, Lyndon Johnson was carrying the torch
of a wildly popular American president who had been assassinated a few months before.
He was never going to lose. And indeed he didn’t. The republican candidate,
Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, was demolished by LBJ.
But the mere fact of Goldwater’s nomination was a huge conservative victory. I mean, he
beat out liberal Republican New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And yes, there were liberal
Republicans. Goldwater demanded a harder line in the Cold
War, even suggesting that nuclear war might be an option in the fight against communism.
And he lambasted the New Deal liberal welfare state for destroying American initiative and
individual liberty. I mean, why bother working when you could just enjoy life on the dole?
I mean, unemployment insurance allowed anyone in America to become a hundredaire.
But it was his stance on the Cold War that doomed his candidacy. In his acceptance speech,
Goldwater famously declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Which made it really easy for Johnson to paint Goldwater as an extremist.
In the famous “Daisy” advertisement, Johnson’s supporters countered Goldwater’s campaign
slogan of “in your heart, you know he’s right” with “but in your guts you know
he’s nuts.” So in the end, Goldwater received a paltry
27 million votes to Johnson’s 43 million, and Democrats racked up huge majorities in
both houses of Congress. This hides, however, the significance of the election. Five of
the six states that Goldwater carried were in the Deep South, which had been reliably
democratic, known as the “Solid South,” in fact.
Now, it’s too simple to say that race alone led to the shift from Democratic to the Republican
party in the South because Goldwater didn’t really talk much about race.
But the Democrats, especially under LBJ, became the party associated with defending civil
rights and ending segregation, and that definitely played a role in white southerners’ abandoning
the Democrats, as was demonstrated even more clearly in the 1968 election.
The election of 1968 was a real cluster-Calhoun, I mean, there were riots and there was also
the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, who was very unpopular with the anti-war movement,
and also was named Hubert Humphrey, and that’s just what happened with the Democrats.
But, lost in that picture was the Republican nominee, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was one
of the few candidates in American history to come back and win the presidency after
losing in a previous election. How’d he do it?
Well, it probably wasn’t his charm, but it might have been his patience. Nixon was
famous for his ability to sit and wait in poker games. It made him very successful during
his tour of duty in the South Pacific. In fact, he earned the nickname “Old Iron Butt.”
Plus, he was anti-communist, but didn’t talk a lot about nuking people. And the clincher
was probably that he was from California, which by the late 1960s was becoming the most
populous state in the nation. Nixon won the election, campaigning as the
candidate of the “silent majority” of Americans who weren’t anti-war protesters,
and who didn’t admire free love or the communal ideals of hippies.
And who were alarmed at the rights that the Supreme Court seemed to be expanding, especially
for criminals. This silent majority felt that the rights
revolution had gone too far. I mean, they were concerned about the breakdown in traditional
values and in law and order. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.
Nixon also promised to be tough on crime, which was coded language to whites in the
south that he wouldn’t support civil rights protests. The equation of crime with African
Americans has a long and sordid history in the United States, and Nixon played it up
following a “Southern strategy” to further draw white Democrats who favored segregation
into the Republican ranks. Now, Nixon only won 43% of the vote, but if
you’ve paid attention to American history, you know that you ain’t gotta win a majority
to be the president. He was denied that majority primarily by Alabama
Governor George Wallace, who was running on a pro-segregation ticket and won 13% of the
vote. So 56% of American voters chose candidates
who were either explicitly or quietly against civil rights.
Conservatives who voted for Nixon hoping he would roll back the New Deal were disappointed.
I mean, in some ways the Nixon domestic agenda was just a continuation of LBJ’s Great Society.
This was partly because Congress was still in the hands of Democrats, but also Nixon
didn’t push for conservative programs and he didn’t veto new initiatives. Because
they were popular. And he liked to be popular. So in fact, a number of big government “liberal”
programs began under Nixon. I mean, the environmental movement achieved success with the enactment
of the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board
were created to make new regulations that would protect worker safety and make cars
safer. That’s not government getting out of our
lives, that’s government getting into our cars.
Now, Nixon did abolish the Office of Economic Opportunity, but he also indexed social security
benefits to inflation and he proposed the Family Assistance Plan that would guarantee
a minimum income for all Americans. And, the Nixon years saw some of the most
aggressive affirmative action in American history. LBJ had begun the process by requiring
recipients of federal contracts to have specific numbers of minority employees and timetables
for increasing those numbers. But Nixon expanded this with the Philadelphia
plan, which required federal construction projects to have minority employees. He ended
up attacking this plan after realising that it was wildly unpopular with trade unions,
which had very few black members, but he had proposed it.
And when Nixon had the opportunity to nominate a new Chief Justice to the Supreme Court after
Earl Warren retired in 1969, his choice, Warren Burger was supposed to be a supporter of small
government and conservative ideals, but, just like Nixon, he proved a disappointment in
that regard. Like, in Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenbug Board
of Education, the court upheld a lower court ruling that required busing of students to
achieve integration in Charlotte’s schools. And then the Burger court made it easier for
minorities to sue for employment discrimination, especially with its ruling in Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke. This upheld affirmative action as a valid governmental
interest, although it did strike down the use of strict quotas in university admissions.
Now, many conservatives didn’t like these affirmative action decisions, but one case
above all others had a profound effect on American politics: Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade established a woman’s right to have an abortion in the first trimester
of a pregnancy as well as a more limited right as the pregnancy progressed. And that decision
galvanized first Catholics and then Evangelical Protestants.
And that ties in nicely with another strand in American conservatism that developed in
the 1960s and 1970s. Let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. Many Americans felt that traditional family
values were deteriorating and looked to conservative republican candidates to stop that slide.
They were particularly alarmed by the continuing success of the sexual revolution, as symbolized
by Roe v. Wade and the increasing availability of birth control.
Statistics tend to back up the claims that traditional family values were in decline
in the 1970s. Like, the number of divorces soared to over one million in 1975 exceeding
the number of first time marriages. The birthrate declined with women bearing 1.7 children during
their lifetimes by 1976, less than half the figure in 1957. Now, of course, many people
would argue that the decline of these traditional values allowed more freedom for women and
for a lot of terrible marriages to end, but that’s neither here nor there.
Some conservatives also complained about the passage in 1972 of Title IX, which banned
gender discrimination in higher education, but many more expressed concern about the
increasing number of women in the workforce. Like, by 1980 40% of women with young children
had been in the workforce, up from 20% in 1960.
The backlash against increased opportunity for women is most obviously seen in the defeat
of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1974, although it passed Congress easily in 1972. Opponents
of the ERA, which rather innocuously declared that equality of rights under the law could
not be abridged on account of sex, argued that the ERA would let men off the hook for
providing for their wives and children, and that working women would lead to the further
breakdown of the family. Again, all the ERA stated was that women and men would have equal
rights under the laws of the United States. But, anyway, some anti-ERA supporters, like
Phyllis Schlafly claimed that free enterprise was the greatest liberator of women because
the purchase of new labor saving devices would offer them genuine freedom in their traditional
roles of wife and mother. Essentially, the vacuum cleaner shall make you free. And those
arguments were persuasive to enough people that the ERA was not ratified in the required
¾ of the United States. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Sorry if I let my personal
feelings get in the way on that one. Anyway, Nixon didn’t have much to do with the continuing
sexual revolution; it would have continued without him because, you know, skoodilypooping
is popular. But, he was successfully reelected in 1972,
partly because his opponent was the democratic Barry Goldwater, George McGovern.
McGovern only carried one state and it wasn’t even his home state. It was Massachusetts.
Of course. But even though they couldn’t possibly lose,
Nixon’s campaign decided to cheat. In June of 1972, people from Nixon’s campaign broke
into McGovern’s campaign office, possibly to plant bugs. No, Stan, not those kinds of
bugs. Yes. Those. Now, we don’t know if Nixon actually knew
about the activities of the former employees of the amazingly acronym-ed CREEP, that is
the Committee for the Reelection of the President. But this break in at the Watergate hotel eventually
led to Nixon being the first and so far only American president to resign.
What we do know is this: Nixon was really paranoid about his opponents, even the ones
who appealed to 12% of American voters, especially after Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the New York Times in 1971. So, he drew up an enemies list and created
a special investigative unit called the plumbers whose job was to fix toilets. No, it was to
stop leaks. That makes more sense. I’m sorry, Stan, it’s just by then the
toilets in the White House were over 100 years old, I figured they might need some fixing,
but apparently no. Leaking. Nixon also taped all of the conversations
in the Oval Office and these tapes caused a minor constitutional crisis.
So, during the congressional investigation of Watergate, it became known that these tapes
existed, so the special prosecutor demanded copies.
Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege, and the case went all the way to the Supreme
Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that he had to turn them over. And this is important
because it means that the president is not above the law.
So, what ultimately doomed Nixon was not the break in itself, but the revelations that
he covered it up by authorizing hush money payments to keep the burglars silent and also
instructing the FBI not to investigate the crime.
In August of 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that articles of impeachment be
drawn up against Nixon for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. But the real crime,
ultimately, was abuse of power, and there’s really no question about whether he was guilty
of that. So, Nixon resigned. Aw man, I was thinking I was going to get
away without a Mystery Document today. The rules here are simple.
I guess the author of the Mystery Document, and lately I’m never wrong.
Alright. Today I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole
would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith
in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and
be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”
Aw. I’m going to get shocked today. Is it Sam Ervin? Aw dang it! Gah!
Apparently it was African American congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan. Stan, that is
much too hard. I think you were getting tired of me not being
shocked, Stan, because it’s pretty strange to end an episode on conservatism with a quote
from Barbara Jordan, whose election to Congress has to be seen as a huge victory for liberalism.
But I guess it is symbolic of the very things that many conservatives found unsettling in
the 1970s, including political and economic success for African Americans and women, and
the legislation that helped the marginalized. I know that sounds very judgmental, but on
the other hand, the federal government had become a huge part of every American’s life,
maybe too huge. And certainly conservatives weren’t wrong
when they said that the founding fathers of the U.S. would hardly recognize the nation
that we had become by the 1970s. In fact, Watergate was followed by a Senate
investigation by the Church Committee, which revealed that Nixon was hardly the first president
to abuse his power. The government had spied on Americans throughout
the Cold War and tried to disrupt the Civil Rights movement. And the Church Commission,
Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Vietnam all of these things revealed a government that
truly was out of control and this undermined a fundamental liberal belief that government
is a good institution that is supposed to solve problems and promote freedom.
And for many Conservatives these scandals sent a clear signal that government couldn’t
promote freedom and couldn’t solve problems and that the liberal government of the New
Deal and the Great Society had to be stopped. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next week.
Woah! Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people and it exists because
of…your support on Subbable.com. Subbable is a voluntary subscription service
that allows you to support stuff you like monthly for the price of your choosing, so
if you value Crash Course U.S. History and you want this kind of stuff to continue to
exist so we can make educational content free, forever, for everyone, please check out Subbable.
And I am slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning. Thank you again for
your support. I’m coming back around. I can do this. And as we say in my hometown,
don’t forget to be awesome.
We need men talking to men. But there are no male figures talking to 18-,
19-, 20-year-olds saying: ‘Look, life is going to be brutal,
malevolence is waiting for you, evil is waiting for you,
hard times are waiting for you.’ And prepare them then, and tell them
the antidote to that is to find meaning now so when those times come,
you have an iron rod to hold on to. That will get you through that storm. I’m Iman Amrani,
and I’m a journalist at the Guardian and this is the second episode in our series
on modern masculinity. In the first episode,
I went to a Jordan Peterson event in Birmingham to ask people why was it that they were coming
to see him speak. When I was there,
I met this really interesting guy called Neil who owns a bunch of barber shops
in the north of England. I went to Leeds to continue
my conversation with him and we have listened to what
you said about the last video: the music is going to be a lot less intrusive. Neil, Neil? Hey there, are you alright? Yeah, you’re good? I am good. How are you? Yeah. good, thank you. I’ve got a team of two. Hi man, how are you doing? Neil’s barber shop is called
King Koby, named after his son. All the staff that worked there are
super interesting, very friendly and I wanted to get their perspectives
on modern masculinity. The size of your arse? It’s big, isn’t it? I swear I haven’t got arse that big. I don’t even squat. I am not going to be able to stop looking
at it now. I have chats with people
whose hair I’ve cut that I wouldn’t have with my mates. I can open up a lot more to people
who I don’t know that well. More than I can with my mates
that’s the beauty of a barber shop. Why do you thing that is? The person whose hair you cut,
you don’t know as well as your mates and you don’t really feel that judged whereas your mates,
they know a little bit more about you, and know who you are. One of the recurring themes in our call-out
to readers, was men telling us that often
they find it difficult to find spaces where they can communicate
and express themselves openly and honestly. Seems like barber shops might be
one of those spaces. The most rewarding part of my job
is when you find that you can tap into something that someone has never spoken about before. Like guys who are going through breakups
or they’re abusing drugs or something like that and they know they’re doing something wrong,
but they don’t know how to fix it. Loads of guys who come in
don’t know how to deal with heartbreak
or even how to sort of level up and be a better partner
for their misses or fellas. You were going to say, be a better man,
weren’t you? Stop yourself. It’s meaning that sustains people,
it’s meaning and responsibility. That means when you do lose your job,
don’t get me wrong, it’s catastrophic, it’s awful but it’s meaning and purpose
that gets you through that and keeps pushing you in it. The less you attach your life
to external things, the more you’ve got to go internal and the internal things are what give you
meaning, definitely. The connection to your children, to your partner, to the greater good is what gives you meaning. What do you feel like your meaning is?
Do you know what you think your meaning is? I think … I am definitely on a learning
curve, had a sort of bad relationships with women because of the way I thought I should act
in a relationship. And how was that? Being disloyal was a big one, You felt like you should be disloyal? No … I feel like, no one would
ever call me out for being disloyal. I feel like if you could go out
with a group of friends that were all pulling
a fast one on their birds they’d be like,
‘I managed to do this last week’ and no one was going,
‘oh, you’re really wrong.’ Wanting to brag about it
because it feeds the ego, and that’s what we are all doing
as young men, we’re just feeding the ego. And so, I actually stopped and cut away
all the bullshit, like trying to pull girls
and spending money on clothes and whatnot and just came in
and found like a good group of people that really genuinely cared about me that would be honest with you
and say, ‘what you’re doing is wrong’ like, ‘this is the path you should be walking.’ It wasn’t in a religious aspect,
it was, let’s treat everyone how you want to be treated. And I don’t think that behaviour
is encouraged enough, really. When was the last time, genuinely you met someone that you impressed by, went that’s someone who knows who they are,
that’s someone who got their shit together. That’s someone who’s the same person
whether they’re in front of their parents, or their friends and they know how to say no to certain things. You don’t meet those guys because individualism
isn’t encouraged, supported or taught, and what we really, really need,
is we need to teach men to take responsibility for themselves first and then they can play an active
and important role in the collective. So this idea of identity
and individualism for men is really interesting especially when you think about the economics
of growing up. It’s harder than ever to fit in
that traditional mould of leaving home at 18, getting a mortgage, getting married
and starting a family. And lots of people aren’t even sure if that’s
what they want anymore. I have people in my chair
who would probably associate, probably be defined as lads. I am talking to them for half an hour
in the chair and they’re not lads, they’re just a little bit lost,
they don’t really know themselves, they want to fit in,
they want to be normal. What would you describe as being a lad? A lad is overcompensating,
that’s all a lad is. So, bravado … Yeah. Overcompensating. And the moment I hear that or
see that from some point, it’s just like …
it’s just seeing past that. Now I know that equals that.
Do you know what I mean? Yeah. I meet a lot of men who as soon
as they are around any other men, they start speaking completely differently
and like, watching you today, you’ve just being the same person,
in the barber shop, you’ve exactly been the same,
no matter who’s been on your seat, and everything. And it kind of gives the impression
of a sense of like, I guess, peace with yourself. Yeah, 100%,
and I think the exact opposite would be, be like this with this group,
and this with this group, and see, lost sense of self. While not everyone in the barber shop
was as much of a fan of Peterson as Neil was, there were recurring themes that kept making me
think about Peterson’s book. It feels like Petterson has claimed ownership
of this idea of responsibility which seems like an universal one
but he packages it in a way that makes it very accessible for men
who are looking for solutions. Men need men to teach them
how to be men. So the crisis of masculinity,
if we are accepting that there is one, and that’s debatable
but I believe there is one, regardless of whether you link that back
to the rise of feminism, or to the lack of competition in schools,
whatever you want to link that back to, it’s not deep enough. We don’t teach our young children,
our young people rather, at all to look for meaning in their life
or even what meaning is, that is a conversation to being had
and to adopt responsibility. I think that are somethings that are just
uniquely masculine. Women, generally speaking,
want a man who’s got his shit together, they want a man who takes
responsibility for himself, they want a man who can say no
when it’s appropriate to say no. They want a man that can be gentle,
when it’s appropriate to be gentle. They want a man that can be strong
and aggressive even, when it’s appropriate to strong and aggressive. And there are so many traits that are uniquely,
not uniquely, women have these traits too, but men need that we just not teaching,
our young men at all, in any way. What I find really interesting is that all
these things that you’ve listed, I feel like women have been saying
that for a while, and Peterson came along and said, ‘Make your bed in the morning.’ And I’ve had so many guys, they see me reading the book on the tube or whatever, they come over and they said,
Jordan Peterson, make your bed in the morning, it really changed my life, and I’m like,
didn’t your mum tell you to do that? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I am like,
what is it about Jordan Peterson saying that, that is so different
and actually gets more of an effect than that being said for time by teachers,
your mum … Your mum telling you to tidy your room
is in case the neighbours come up for tea and she wants to show the house off, Jordan Peterson telling you to tidy your
room, he goes and adds context to that. If you can’t govern your immediate surroundings, don’t expect to be able
to govern anything else in your life. It’s naivety. We have so many men that do not have the most basic elements of their life in order, including me for a long time. And now we live in a culture,
that we want to go from step one to step six and miss out steps one to five. You know? So, your mum telling you to tidy your room
or teaching doing it, doesn’t have the same emphasis
as a man saying, no, you do this, because it leads
to everything else you’re looking for in your life. What kind of decisions have you made
differently in the past 10 years? Which you think have helped you to have this
sense of security that you seem you have. Yeah. I don’t know if it’s any like, specific decisions that made my life at a crossroads go
in one direction or the other, but it was just a decision
that never, ever, ever, ever, ever again, will I use any part of my past
or any part of anything that’s occurred to me, as an excuse for not being the man
that I know full well I should be. And I think having a commitment
to the truth as well is one of the biggest things that’s changed in my life since then. You have mentioned the truth a lot,
I can even see the tattoo over your eyebrow. When I am talking about the truth,
and I don’t mean, don’t tell lies, that’s a level one basic thing that you teach
your children. When I am talking about truth,
I’m talking about really getting to the bottom of who you are as a person
and who we are. Find what’s true about you. And often times you’ll find,
as I found, the more that I look into myself,
what was true about me was overwhelmingly hideous. I met a girl, called Helen,
who ended up being a real catalyst in my life. We were together for two years,
and then that ended. How was she a catalyst in your life? She was the first person
that told me I was full of shit, which I needed. I had this belief system here
that I genuinely believed in, the way which you should live
and integrity, and courage and all of those things, and then on the other side of that,
I had the way that I actually behaved, which didn’t represent
that belief system in any way. And I’d managed to circumvent
that by being relatively popular, having lots of friends, being articulate, and those things hid a multitude of sins. So I’ve done all these things
to completely hide the fact that deep down, I was completely lost and I had no fucking clue
who I was or what I was doing, had this belief system and this way of living
that I desperately wanted to achieve, but my own weakness
wasn’t allowing me to achieve it. And at the end of my relationship with Helen,
she said, ‘You’re not the man you think you are.
You could be, but you’re not.’ ‘You’re full of shit.’ ‘You need to go away and change it.’ It proper, it really hurt and I was really resistant
to it for like a day or two and then I started transcending myself and went inside
and said, she’s right, she’s absolutely right. She’s absolutely right. She was the catalyst for me
beginning this sort of last 10-year journey that I’ve been on. I’ve just been trying to sort myself out
and get my act together and find meaning and find responsibility, find a way to actually
start living the things I claim. Interesting though,
it was a woman. Yeah, yeah,
very interesting. Did you cheat on her? Yeah. Yeah, I did. I mean, I haven’t seen Helen for 15 years
but even now, I’ve nothing but respect for her. Because if it wasn’t for her and that conversation
in her apartment in 2006, whenever it was, I would probably be
in a very different place to where I’m now. I really appreciated the conversations
I had with Neil and the other guys in the barber shop, I felt like they were honest, candid
and very respectful and I think that’s a big part of what I’m
trying to get out with this series. Dialogue is so important,
be that between man in barber shops, or between a man and a woman
across the table, it’s only through speaking to each other
and really listening that we are going to come up with
solutions to the big questions about things like modern masculinity in 2019. One of the recurring themes
that you’ve asked us to look at, is that of role models for men
and we will be addressing that later on in the series. But our next episode will focus on
a few familiar faces. There’s always a stigma around men
can’t be vulnerable and men can’t have emotions or men can’t cry. When I see my friends,
especially when they are approaching women and they turn on this certain amount of bravado, it’s like,
that isn’t you. When we are talking about
role models with kids, we have to be careful that in 40 years time you are not telling them,
‘nah, that’s wrong now.’ Like, comment and subscribe to stay up to date with everything we are doing in the series of modern masculinity. When I think of masculine,
I think of power but if you mean man,
because I am powerful as a man in my way …
here are some things you might not know about Billy he's got small hands last year he was given a time out on tour separate occasions he can't re hearing his tenure as milk monitor the price for chocolate milk reached all-time highs his parents are divorced here's the last assignment Billy turned in does this look like the work of a leader on this November seventh when you receive your ballot in or billion put your gold star next to Jimmy Jones your next resolute President Jimmy Jones he colors inside the lines