But Why Are Men Falling for This? | The Psychology of the Manosphere, Misogyny & Modern Masculinity

[00:00:16] Speaker B: Welcome to the but why podcast. Real Talk on Messy Minds and Messier Systems. The podcast where two psychologists overanalyze everything so you don't have to. We're here to unpack the weird, the worrying and the wildly unjust with just enough existential dread to keep it interesting. I'm Dr. Kristin. [00:00:33] Speaker C: And I'm Dr. Laura. And let's dive into the myths. So today we're joined by Oliver to explore the psychology of the manosphere. So this is things like what's pulling boys and men's into incel culture, why toxic masculinity still has such a hold, and how fear, shame and vulnerability shape the backlash against gender progress. So it's a deep dive into the mess beneath the anger, which we often show to you on our podcast, mostly from Kristen, I suppose, and the humanity that's often lost in all of this noise. [00:01:08] Speaker B: So today we have on Oliver Niehaus. So this is one of the rare men on the Internet that is openly challenging toxic masculinity, that kind of red pill ideology and everyday misogyny and somehow doing it without being really defensive or also like acting like he discovered feminism last week, which is also very common. You've probably seen his videos breaking down those broader cultural narratives that keep men quite stuck and disconnected and ingrained in very patriarchal norms, which if you're, you know, used to our episodes, we discuss that a lot. So for me, Oliver's voice and videos really stood out to me because he's being really thin, thoughtfully critical, but also really doing the work himself, which we'll dig into in this episode. And I really enjoy how he's willing to be uncomfortable and that's the exact kind of conversation we need to have and the kind of conversation we're having today. So Oliver, we're super happy to have you with us. [00:02:06] Speaker A: Thank you so much for having me. It's super great to have the opportunity to be on this podcast. You know, when I saw your message, I looked at some of the content and this just looked like a great opportunity to hear your guys perspectives because, you know, I've enjoyed what you guys have contributed so far, specifically with your adolescence episode. I thought that was, was really, really great. A lot of great analysis there and I'm just honored to be on to share my perspective on this. [00:02:25] Speaker B: Thanks, that's awesome. I think rather than me kind of explaining you, do you want to give the audience a bit of an introduction to you and your work and kind of your general vibe? [00:02:36] Speaker A: Sure, yeah. I mean, how do I explain it? It's always so hard because like, I'm just someone who always is interested in these topics. And you know, I think in terms of like feminism and things like that, I think there's very often just such big misunderstandings between things. And I think that it largely comes from, I think the fact that, and we'll talk about a little bit, but the fact that like, especially on social media, our algorithms are so curated to show us exactly what we want to see and exactly the picture of the world and reinforce that picture of the world that we already have, that there's very often a, not a counter to that. And that's a big issue. So I kind of hopefully want to be a bit of that counter to people who just haven't seen that side of feminism, especially those who are ingrained in the manosphere who kind of have this view of feminism presented to them as this man hating ideology or this ideology that's entirely against them and thinks that they're evil. I think it's really important to kind of place kind of a juxtaposition to that and be like, that's not actually what's going on. So that's kind of where I'm at in terms of me just in general. I mean, I'm a current college student, but I'm about to graduate from Oberlin College. And you know, I've just always been interested in these topics and I thought that, you know, turning this into some sort of, you know, online platform to highlight these issues is something that I thought would be a helpful and useful thing to people. And it seems that that has been the case so far, which has been super great. [00:03:56] Speaker B: I think it's, it's really useful because there's, there's a lot, there's. That the issue is that there's always a lot to unpack in just like a single sentence. But firstly, you'll have access from the algorithm into the manosphere that we will never get because of how you're delivering content and the contents that you're delivering and you're involving mental. And a lot of the times Laura and I have conversations about what's our responsibility because obviously we have loads of privilege with our roles and within society. And I like to use that to cover these topics as well. But at the same time I struggle with where the line is, is like how much not trouble, but like pain should I cause myself engaging with people like this who aren't actively seeking me out. And so I think that's a really cool way to, to kind of use the privilege that you have to kind of get over to the other side of the metaphorical aisle. [00:04:53] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. I know. I completely agree with you. And I think that. I think that that's something that's made this easier for me a little bit. I mean, obviously it's going to be easier for me as like a white guy, frankly, I'm discussing issues that are at least somewhat removed from me personally. Now, granted, of course, I have many, many women in my life that I care about deeply, as well as men in my life that I care about, who I feel are being, you know, seriously harmed by this type of ideology. But I think that that kind of privilege, personality somewhat insulates me to some of the, you know, like, vile kind of attacks. I mean, we'll talk about a little bit. My recent appearance on the whatever podcast, it was a very different vibe from what I had seen before. And the way that they treat the women on the podcast. And specifically, the guy was debating how he was treating women who he had debated before, just completely berating them, calling them stupid, saying directly to their face that they shouldn't have the right to vote. And then suddenly when it's like another man talking about this, it's just like immediately just like discourse. Yeah, of course, disagreement, you know, that's fair. So it's such an interesting dynamic of difference where, like, as soon as it's a man, regardless of what he's saying, even if regard. And many of the things, everything I've said, I've never said anything that has not already been articulated first and probably better by another woman, but because it's coming out of my mouth, it seems to carry this weight and kind of epistemic authority that they just don't ascribe. So that is an unfortunate reality of the manosphere in general. But I think that that's something that I feel I can provide value to is because of my positionality and frankly, the fact that I guess I share their Y chromosome, they think that somehow I can contribute and I'm a voice worth listening to, hopefully. And that's kind of what I'm trying. Trying to do. [00:06:35] Speaker B: I think that's something that. Because Laura and I do a lot of research into gendered experiences, mostly in sport, and that's certainly something that other women and people have researched before us, but it's certainly something that we've come across firstly in our applied work, but also in our research is if it's said by a man, it's listened to, especially in cultures that are kind of more, you Would say misogynistic or man centered, such as, like sport, especially the manosphere. Not that I'm comparing sport to the manosphere, but I'm sure there might be a link somewhere there. So. Yeah, Laura, we see that a lot, don't we? As if once it's repeated by a man that it's just like, well, of course, I mean, that's an understandable belief. [00:07:20] Speaker C: Yeah, definitely. And I think one of the challenges is, and I think especially, I don't know, I suppose like for us, like when we were younger or kind of in training and experiencing some of these very like male dominated sporting environments, kind of initially it's that all of that is normalized and it's so hard to kind of see through all of that and to start to recognise that actually perhaps it shouldn't be this way and to then try and find your position in how you have conversations and challenge those things. And I think, Oliver, I think that's what your content I found really useful in, is actually how to articulate some of these things. How to build not necessarily an argument, but how to say things more clearly. How to kind of break down some of these key terms that sometimes like over my head or become really generalized within society. [00:08:17] Speaker A: Yeah, no, I totally get that. I mean, I think also, like, frankly, and I don't want to speak to your experiences, but I imagine you guys are probably more burned out than I am. You know what I mean? This is something you guys have to live every day. This is kind of something that, you know what I mean? Yeah, you guys are tired. I've experienced this before. I mean, you might maybe, might be able to relate to this at least as white presenting people that, you know, like some people try to relate to you on that domain, even if you don't agree. So like sometimes even like if, you know, I'm in college or something like that, or I'm at a social gathering and like a guy will come up to me and say something completely unhinged and just expect because I'm a man, I'll agree with him. So in a sense, and of course, like, I don't. I'm like, dude, what the. What, what the heck? That's completely unacceptable. But I think because of that I'm kind of able to opt out of that. You know what I mean? Like, I don't have to. I mean I am, but I don't have to be like an active feminist at every moment of my life. I don't, I don't have to defend my mere existence in spaces like you guys do. So I think in a sense that at least hopefully somewhat is helping to contribute to my ability to break things down. Because it's not like Jesus Christ, I've been doing it since I was born, you know, so at least, you know, I, I try to do that. And I wouldn't say that I don't get somewhat exhausted because of course, you know, when you're explaining the same concept to someone for five hours on a podcast and at the end you think they're no CL closer to understanding than when the moment you sat down, it's like, I want to rip my hair out. But I think that, you know, that leads to less exhaustion on my part. The fact that I'm at least somewhat insulated from these issues, if not, you know, like you guys. [00:09:54] Speaker B: That's actually a really good point. It makes me feel a bit better about like the just level of uncomfortability, to put it lightly, that we feel when we're like presented with these experiences so frequently, which I guess we'll get into a little bit, get bit later on because we could probably just do this for an hour or whatever. So should we like maybe dig into your experience a little bit on the whatever podcast? Because there was just some stuff that when I was especially scrolling through, your posts are just really interesting to cover from our perspective and almost correct from almost like a scientific point of view. [00:10:32] Speaker A: Of course. [00:10:33] Speaker C: Absolutely. [00:10:34] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, that would be great. [00:10:37] Speaker C: And perhaps, perhaps to start with, could you I guess give kind of the listeners a little bit of context to like the whatever podcast a little bit as to like your motivations of going on? [00:10:49] Speaker A: Absolutely, yeah, definitely. Yeah. So first the whatever podcast. If you haven't heard of them, that's a good thing. Protect your peace. But definitely they are, they are primarily a podcast that's focused on, quote, dating and relationships. They're not, they're focused on basically berating girls who are on OnlyFans and they bring them on and basically just like shame them for their decisions for like hours on end. Like their podcast isn't, is entirely unedited. So those podcasts often go on for like seven, eight hours of them just all sitting there just like going after them. The one I was on went like five hours. So that's kind of their shtick. They're, you know, so it's, it's, it's not a great environment. And they also host some like one on one debates. And they reached out to me after my jubilee video and were like, yo, do you want to do this I'm like, if you guys pay for travel and everything, I'd love to, you know, have a paid experience on your podcast to help detox all the stuff that's going on. But yeah, so serious detox for seriously. You know, it is a slow, gradual process for sure. And yeah, it was, it was definitely something. But I think that my motivations were going on and this was really something that I struggled with because I'm like, by going on this podcast, am I somehow legitimizing it? Am I somehow giving them some sort of platform or of something? And kind of the conclusion that I came to? And this has frankly been something that I've received backlash for already. And some people are making videos like, look like, why are we even legitimizing the opinion that women shouldn't have the right to vote? Or legitimizing these, you know, completely just wrong headed things that are based in no way, in fact. And I guess kind of where I came from it is these spaces will exist regardless of whether I'm there to push back against them. These people will be having these conversations and saying these things and like, regardless of where I am in that picture. So if I have the opportunity to sit there and push back against these ideas, even if, you know, it's not going to change a lot of their audience's mind. And of course they're going to call me the woke male feminist who, you know, doesn't have any, you know, idea what he's talking about or something. I just felt like it's important to have a presence there. I think at the same time, you know, maybe my clip farming of the worst possible moments of the debate isn't the best because I'm, I don't know if I'm inundating especially my followers with just a lot of hateful ideas that maybe they might not want to see. And I think that that's, that, that that is a fair critique and frankly, I can understand that. But I'm kind of more of the belief, especially when it comes to this manosphere stuff. It's kind of the idea of like if you're locked in a, in a, in a room or like in a building with a lion, like you want to know where that lion is, you know, like you want to know what these harmful ideas are and what people are saying largely so that you can know how to effectively combat these, these ideas. And this rhetoric doesn't go away just because we ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist. The reality is that even if you Ignore it. You know, a large portion of the, you know, teenage male population is being, like, strategically pushed this content algorithmically. And if we're not the ones pushing back on it, and if we're not the ones. And by we, I'm saying me because, like, I don't. I don't want you guys to feel you have to go onto these. Like, don't. Like, you know, that's. That's a whole different story. [00:13:52] Speaker B: But, like, the place on fire. Laura knows I probably have a too. [00:13:58] Speaker A: Much range for that. Fair enough. Absolutely. So, yeah, so if. If there aren't people, I guess, maybe who look like me, who are pushing back against these ideas, they are going to go unchecked and they're. These people just aren't going to hear these messages and you know what I mean? My idea and my concept is not to change minds on the spot. Like, that's really almost never going to happen. The idea. And I actually heard this phrase in general from I think, a teacher back in high school. It was like, the goal is to put a pebble in their shoe, if that makes sense. Which basically is this idea that, like, you're not gonna change their mind, you're not gonna do it right now. But a pebble in your shoe, if you've ever gone hiking, just nags at you. It just annoys you until you stop and deal with it. So in that sense, that's what you're kind of trying to do. Plant the seed. Put a seed of doubt in their mind to be like, wow, like, no, that doesn't make sense. If I really think about it. You know, I really want to agree with this guy because I've agreed with this guy and everything he said so far, and he makes me feel like a man and feel like I'm really being oppressed. But when I think about it, yeah, maybe. Yeah, maybe physical force isn't the only thing that matters. Maybe brute force and, you know, asserting my dominance aggressively against other people is not the most effective way. And I think that that's kind of the seed that I'm trying to plant. And hopefully over time things will start to unravel in terms of the hold that this type of ideology has, especially on young boys. [00:15:15] Speaker B: Do you mind if I follow up a little bit, Laura? [00:15:18] Speaker C: Oh, me? [00:15:19] Speaker A: Yes. [00:15:19] Speaker B: I have a habit of just, like, going straight away, so I just. Please check in. But I love the idea of the pebble. Pebble of the shoe. It's like almost like a metaphor of people kind of starting to feel a bit of ambivalence about a topic which is something we teach a lot is like, okay, well I believe this, but actually it's conflicting with something that is on the other side of the coin that's starting to niggle in the back of my mind. And a lot of time people experience a lot of cognitive dissonance with this and they can either use that to go back the other way, turn around on themselves and get worse, or I was talking to somebody on Instagram yesterday who used that to kind of lean into that discomfort and become a better person. And that's probably something we'll lean into more on the podcast this, this episode. But I just to address a few of the things. So like when you were saying, should we be platforming these people if like you said, if we ignore an issue, it's not going to go away. So I just think that this idea of very binary thinking, which I also discuss a lot of, like, either it's there or it's not there. If we ignore it, then it's not in my life. It just doesn't work in the human brain and in our society is way too nuanced for that. Yes. And I'd also like to note that I agree to a certain extent with not plant platforming problematic people. However, I think this applies to people like Joe Rogan platforming Elon Musk, that kind of situation. [00:16:49] Speaker A: Not sure. [00:16:50] Speaker B: Not in like a cultural conversations where you actually need the two sides. At least what you did was, was more of a debate form where if you've got somebody whose platform who has millions of followers platforming somebody who has really problematic, problematic ideas and just agreeing with them and fueling that constantly, that's a very different story. [00:17:10] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. I completely agree with you. And I think, you know, part of it too is like I'm not really platforming them. I have a relatively small platform compared to the four and a half million YouTube subscribers they have. So in a sense they're actually platforming me. So in a sense, awesome, great. Take advantage of that opportunity. And I think too, and I totally agree with you, this is a definitely a nuanced topic because I do think there are examples as you're talking about people like Joe Rogan, even people like Gavin Newsom, who's recently started a podcast and basically bringing on right wing hosts and kind of capitulating like almost all of their ideology. It almost seems like he's dragging himself to the center for a 2028 presidential run. And it feels like that in itself is irresponsible. You can bring people on your show, but if they're problematic people, you better call them out for their problematic stuff and not treat them like they're some sort of legitimate, like, expert on this subject when they're saying completely incorrect things. So I think if you. I don't think it's wrong to platform people if you choose to bring them on. It's just if they have harmful ideas, you have a responsibility to call out those harm ideas and not just let them spew them with impunity. So I think that's kind of where that line gets drawn a hundred percent. [00:18:16] Speaker B: And Laura knows that this is a dangerous point for me because I have a habit of going on rants about this whole situation. Gavin Newsom is 100% doing that. This is like a typical kind of like central Democrat kind of strategy, trying to center yourself to aim for people on the right where it just doesn't work that way. People want progressive policies and populist policies. But I could. Laura, I'm at risk on going on completely off topic. Do you have anything to say about that, Laura, before I go into the videos? That kind of caught my eye. [00:18:51] Speaker C: Nope, go on to that. [00:18:53] Speaker B: Okay, cool. So the first thing that caught my eye was the general anti intellectualism that went through everything in this kind of fear of smart women. And, you know, anti intellectualism is a key aspect of any kind of conservatism because fear psychologically is necessary for conservatism. So it's just this general threat to status and dominance in society. And kind of men socialized within these patriarchal systems often link intelligence with autonomy. And autonomy really challenges these gender hierarchies that they use for power. So educated women tend to disrupt these power imbalances. And this is kind of why you see historical backlash against women's education, because of just like destabilization. Like, we talk about bicycle face quite a lot. Have you heard about bicycle face back in the 20s? Laura, do you want to briefly explain, like, bicycle face, Laura, because you talk a lot, a lot in your teaching. [00:20:00] Speaker C: Challenge me to remember it without a slide deck. Let me see. You can add to what I miss. But it was basically like a really, like an illness or a disease that was made up, I don't know what year, but a long time time ago. [00:20:15] Speaker B: In the US Suffragette movement. [00:20:18] Speaker C: Yes, there you go. And they were basically saying that, you know, if women were to ride a bike, then they would kind of become hysterical. They would encounter all of this kind of long list of issues and they had like a long list of like rules in terms of kind of what they could and couldn't do. So it was like, were there things like what you could wear kind of when you were riding bikes, like no trousers, like you couldn't compete, like don't go too fast, like don't do it on your own. So it was kind of this, I guess, preventing women from independence, from being able to ride a bike and cycle around on their own. And it was basically painted as you shouldn't do this because it's going to make you ill. [00:21:09] Speaker B: Yeah, and it was very like, yeah, from like that kind of like historical timing perspective to the suffragette movement and women getting autonomy and more education. So that fear of women's autonomy and intellectualism is just kind of still rampant in the videos that you posted online. [00:21:26] Speaker A: Yeah, I completely agree with you there. I think that yeah, it's, you see this just in general, I mean I don't want to get too like meta with it because of course we're centered on this conversation surrounding like misogyny and patriarchy and that sort of thing. But I mean you see it all the time in like right wing and conservative policies. Like they are, they are allergic to education. I mean they're literally trying to abolish the Department of Education in the United States because they realize that when there is an educated workforce, when people are more educated, they don't vote for those issues. Their, their ideas are not popular. That's why they're trying to restrict people from voting. That's why they don't want education to be more accessible. That's why they don't want people to have access to these things because then they go against them. So instead of changing their ideas to be better ideas or you know, allowing people more access to information, they realize that that's a threat and then they clamp down. So you know, this is just a further manifestation of this idea on the right that you know, and they try to do this all the time. They say they smear the out of touch, you know, woke educated elite and you know, say oh, you know, like they'll clip two parts of a dissertation. I see this all the time on like Twitter or something like that. They'll go through and find like one thing at the very end that someone's mentioning that has some word about gender, some word about sex, some word about people identifying as something and then they just post it and are acting like ah, the academics around. It's like you didn't, I guarantee you didn't read past that page or the abstract. [00:22:48] Speaker B: Like, no, seriously, they got through the abstract. Yeah. [00:22:52] Speaker A: Probably even not that they saw that, that one part. So I think that's, it's, it's a, it's an example of a larger issue on the right or larger strategy with their employee, which is where if they can, you know, if they can, if they can excuse ignorance, you know what I mean? Like, we see this all the time. This comes from the same crowd that says facts over feelings. But then you present them with act facts, they're like, no, that's not it. No, no, not from my experience. And they immediately run to like this anecdotal thing and it's just like, clearly you are in no way rooted in, you know, reality. You just present when presented with reality, of course there is this cognitive dissonance and then you fall back on the biases that you've accrued over your entire life and are resistant to change. So I think just in general, yeah, that's not surprising whatsoever at all. I think like so many people when they see the clips from that podcast are like, oh my God, this is insane. I'm like, this is the logical consequence of someone's who thinks that like, education, you know, is bad for women, who thinks they're entitled to women. Like, I think just in general, I don't want to go on too much of a tangent, but kind of like something I saw recently that was kind of, kind of a really good example of this was there's a clip going around of Charlie Kirk you might be familiar with. He's this right wing demagogue who's. Yeah, yeah, the clip specifically where he's questioned by this, you know, college student who basically is like, you know. Oh, like, well, you know, because he's talking about consent is a murky area and it's a gray area. What if a 19 year old sorority girl and a frat guy are five drinks in at 2am and she suddenly removes consent. What, what should happen is it's still assault if he removes consent and she doesn't stop. And Charlie, that's a, that's a gray area. And I was like, oh my God, how is Charlie Kirk allergic to consent? I'm like, this is the logical consequence of someone's view who thinks that they are entitled to women. He doesn't think women should have access. Their consent should matter in the terms of the pregnancies that they carry. Why would he therefore think that it matters in terms of the sex that they' so this is like, I'm not saying we shouldn't like be outraged at objectively horrible and deplorable things, but just understand that this doesn't come out of nowhere. These people don't just suddenly have these ideas. These ideas are things that they've held for a long time. It's just that the mask is very often coming off because these ideas, for example, such as the individual who's currently president embraces these ideas to such a degree that they feel more comfortable admitting, yeah, we don't think women should have rights, we don't think consent should matter. We don't think that, you know, education is important. And just this has been their ideal all along. They're just becoming more comfortable and outwardly saying it because of how the culture is shifting and that's why pushing back is so important. [00:25:22] Speaker B: Absolutely. And this links to something that's probably another tangent, but I've talked about it with Laura a little bit on the podcast. Is the link obviously between patriarchy and the right, like that kind of journey towards authoritarianism, we could argue when that started in the U.S. but that's a very different topic. But this kind of rise in these binary gender roles and the enforcement of them. And I think that, yeah, we're talking about misogyny and the manosphere on this episode, but it's very linked into the. The broader systems. And I think that's where people kind of, kind of miss the. Miss it a little bit, is they think it's this individual issue rather than seeing how it's linked to how these internalized beliefs that the society's put on us throughout time. And so I think people get extra triggered, for lack of a better word right now when you point these things out because they're very individualistic, rather than thinking of it as a systemic issue. [00:26:23] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. I totally agree with you. Yeah. I think just in general with these kinds of ideas like patriarchy and misogyny. And I talk about this a little bit even like prejudices like racism, sexism, homophobia. I think people have a misunderstanding where they view it as kind of a binary system where it's like either in terms of, like in terms of. We'll talk specifically about misogyny. Either you're like an Andrew Tate incel misogynist who genuinely hates women and expresses that on every available opportunity, or you're completely egalitarian, as they say, not a misogynistic bone in your body or some ridiculous characterization like that when there is so much gray area in between. And it's not just a light switch. It's more of Like a dimmer switch, that you can have implicit biases where express the way that you view these types of things. I think that's so important because a lot of people, and I saw this specifically in my Jubilee episode when I called the individual who I was debating with or having a conversation with as being misogynistic or having misogynistic tendencies. He took it as a personal slight against him, which honestly fair, but also like it. What it more says is, look, you have these ideas. I'm not calling you a horrible person. I'm just saying that this is a description of the, you know, ideas that you are portraying right now. And it's. All of us are on some sort of spectrum or scale here. Some of us are just further along than others. It's not this pejorative thing. The society is not divided into misogynists and non misogynist racists and non racist. It's. We are all complex combinations of human beings who have various biases and issues that we all need to work through together. So I think that that's kind of this narrative that needs to be corrected. [00:27:54] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. I think it is something I literally just. I talked about it in our last episode and posted it yesterday online. This idea that it's your personal responsibility to deconstruct these ideas. It might not be your fault that these ideas have been imbued in you, but it is your job, once you get to a certain point, to recognize this. But what you just said just reminded me of something you said, something they were trying to kind of go on. Don't mind. That's Laura's dog in the background. [00:28:24] Speaker C: She always tries to get in. [00:28:25] Speaker A: All good. No worries. [00:28:28] Speaker B: So this idea of sexism existing towards men and them using it as like some kind of justification for their ideas. And also I will get back into this idea where it's like a spectrum of how to get into that kind of an Andrew Tate side as well. That's something I want to address in the episode. But this idea that you can be sex, sex sexist towards men. So like prejudice towards men, so what they call misandry, if we can argue whether that even exists, is interpersonal. So it's really usually a reaction to experiences, not always. And you know, prejudice isn't great, but the issue is it's not systemic. So there's a difference between oppression and prejudice. And I think what these people don't realize is when you call them sexist, that's because of how they're individually partaking in these systems of Misogyny. Because sexism is misogyny. And misogyny is a systemic and interpersonal issue that guides every aspect of our lives. So, like. And when you asked, I have a note here. So you asked for examples of misandry he sees in society. And what he said. I like utterances. He was like, just utterances? [00:29:44] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:29:45] Speaker B: Oh, my. Laura, did you see this? Yeah. Oliver said, can you just give me an example of misandry that you see in daily life? And the guy just goes, just utterances. I'm sorry. That's an exactly perfect example. [00:30:01] Speaker A: What does it even mean? [00:30:02] Speaker B: How. I think he's talking about when women say, like, they hate men. Like that. Yeah. Okay. But like an interpersonal experience with some random women who say they don't like men sometimes for very good reasons. It's very different than a systemic oppression of people that goes from interpersonal through to economic and political and things like that. And just the same. Yeah, like, it's like this inability to understand that and, like, personal feeling of being so attacked because of that. So. Sorry, I've gone on a little bit. [00:30:35] Speaker A: Of a rant there, but absolutely. I mean, I. Yeah, I think that's absolutely the case. I think also, and I see this often. I see. I saw this first and I recognize this first with racism, but I think it's definitely the case with sexism and misogyny as well, is what they kind of have an implicit assumption, which is that if they can establish that men can experience sexism in their mind. Oh, it fits the definition that therefore they make this jump that says the prejudice that men experience is equivalent to the prejudice that women experiences when it's not. Even if we were to acknowledge. And I think maybe we should acknowledge that both of them, in a sense, if they are real and in their real form, are wrong or a kind of, like, harm. You're comparing the harm of a paper cut to the harm of heart failure. Okay. Like, they. They are. You can say that they're both harm, but to say that they are to the same degree or the same severity or that we should treat them in the same way is so divorced from reality. So I think that that's what these people try to do. They try to, like, just say, oh, you know, well, yeah, sexism, of course, can exist towards men. And even if you agree, yeah, there's examples, like, where men are harmed. And I wouldn't even really say it's sexism. I think a lot of these ideas of misandry are just negative effects of misogyny. That men end up experiencing because of the expectations that are placed on both men and women, that these are not to the same degree. And I think that as you said, this idea of utterances when like three women a day in the United States and 130 worldwide are killed by intimate partners every single day, like what are we, what are we even doing? [00:32:02] Speaker B: We have to teach this idea a lot that is really difficult for people to wrap their heads around. Maybe you want to talk about it, Laura, because I feel like you struggle with it a lot more. You come across issues with it more than I do. [00:32:14] Speaker C: Kristin's great, because you'll just be like, look, this is how it is. And I think I maybe struggle a bit more to feel like I'm articulating it in a, like a good enough way. [00:32:26] Speaker B: You know, the idea that sexism doesn't exist towards men. [00:32:29] Speaker C: Yeah. So this idea. Right. And I maybe it's kind of interesting, Olive, to kind of hit to hear from you, like, because it seems like you don't necessarily go in being like, you know, you can't be sexist towards a man. It's more of like you're challenging them through the questions that you're asking and trying to get more clarity and detail. So maybe even like advice for us when we are kind of teaching this stuff and faced with this question, how would you suggest kind of approaching that? [00:33:01] Speaker A: Sure. I first want to acknowledge you guys. Articulate things however you feel. Don't tone down your experiences or feel you need to do that to capitulate to these men who are probably intent on misunderstanding you anyway. But I think that largely the way I view it is and you really have to meet them where they're at. And it's really like the way the way men think, frankly is obviously they like to put up with on this logical thing. Oh, I'm logical. They're just so much not like it's. It's really like it's this emotional response. So when you come into a conversation guns a blazing, like men can't experience sexism, what they experiencing in their mind is men can't experience hardship or men can't have their hurt feel feelings hurt by women. And of course those things aren't the same, but they don't make that connection in their mind. So what I like to do is largely say, yeah, of course, no, yeah, you know, sexism is wrong. No one should hate another person on the basis of an immutable characteristic. Sex is included in that. I'll even try to find common ground with them that there is a certain type of. I would say a perversion of feminism, because it's not really feminism. It's this biological essentialism that says that men are somehow inherently evil because of, like, their sex or their biology. That's not prevalent whatsoever at all. That's like, what, 99.9% of feminists or people on the Internet are not advocating, like you said. [00:34:20] Speaker B: But like you said, they're not feminists. It's just like, they're not just like trans exclusionary. They're not feminists either. So. [00:34:26] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, so. So. So I think. I think just in general, like, finding that common ground on them, like, look, here's where we can agree that things are bad. People should not genuinely hate men because of their biology or because of their sex and their immutable characteristic. Now let's get into the conversation of what actually happens. What are some examples of misandry that you see? Because. So I think asking that question, because then they'll provide some answers, and then you just kind of walk them down that line. So, for example, when Brian brought up this idea of utterances and hating men, I say, okay, do you think we should always take people's language literally? If I say, I'm so mad, I could literally kill him, should we take that as, oh, my God, he wants to kill someone? It's like, of course not. And use. Men are smart, right? Men have these big brain reasoning abilities, right? Put it to work like, you know what I mean? Like, think about these issues. If it never matches the behavior and largely, like I said, if these women are going to these women's marches and, you know, chanting phrases that you find offensive, such as hating men, which I really just haven't seen that many women's marches where they're talking about hating men. It's more like, you know, stop oppressing us or something like that. It's not. And then they go home to the men in the life that they love. They go home to their house with their husbands. They go home to their, you know, sons, who they deeply love. And they have men in their life that they love. Clearly, they don't hate men or all men. They don't hate all men. So it's not you. You're not. I. I don't know. I can. And I said this to Brian specifically because I used to be there. Because when I first heard this, I even did get defensive. I'm like, look, you're saying you hate me because I'm a member of this category, and I feel like you're impugning me for the actions of this shitty guy that I had nothing to do with. But of course, what that does is it a couple things. One, it individualizes a systemic problem because I think that if I'm not directly contributing to the problem harm harmfully, then I'm not. I don't play a role as the part of the solution, or I don't benefit from the systemic oppression. But also what it does a little bit is you can definitely just talk, talk about this. If someone comes to you with a serious issue and basically says, like, you know, we hate men because, you know, men are killing us. Men are the most likely reason if we're pregnant that we're going to die like that. Specifically that. Like, the largest cause of homicide for pregnant women is their partners. So, like, things like that, bringing up examples like that. So I just listed to you all these things and you've decided to make it about the fact that you're offended by the language that I'm using. Like, what. What do you think is the more pertinent issue? Like, even. Let's even say that you're right and that ideally, in an ideal society, people should be more clear with their language and the things that they mean. What is a more pertinent issue to attack here? Do you think it's more important to sideline all of the issues that women are facing and the fact that they are literally being killed and literally experiencing all this tangible harm to the fact that you get your feelings a little bit hurt because the words that they use are imperfect? What world do you live in where that's the reality that we should be focusing on? It's making an issue that is designed to be about them back to you. So, I mean, obviously, maybe you don't want to be as, like, press on them like that, but, you know, Socratic dialogue, walk them through it, use examples and just find it like you're coming to a common understanding. Find common ground first. See where you can agree and then walk through these issues and just see where, you know, I. I don't hate you because you're a man. I don't. You know, I've nothing against you getting a beer with your friends at the pub. Like, this is such a thing. J.D. vance said this on the stage. He was like, yeah, these feminists, you know, this idea, our culture is teaching men that they can't, you know, get a drink with their friends at the pub and be a man and tell jokes. It's like, no, we're against them Sexually assaulting women and feeling they're entitled to their bodies. Like, what. In what world do you connect those two things? So I think that just in general, walking them through that and, you know, trying to find some common ground as necessary can be really helpful in kind of lowering their guard, because they largely, especially these people, will go into this conversation with their defenses up, and they immediately are looking at the first thing they get offended at. And I said this largely because if they feel like there's not a problem, they don't play a role in solving it. So in that sense, if they can deny that there's an issue, then they're absolved of responsibility for solving it. So I think kind of just getting them on the idea that, like, look, there is a problem. You are not the sole reason why women are oppressed. We're not trying to say that you as a man, are the cause of everything that's evil that's ever happened in the world. However, how are you going to contribute to solving the problem and not standing idly by? Because that's what really matters. It doesn't matter if you benefit from oppression necessarily. It doesn't matter these things. It matters what you do in the face of that. So extending an olive branch, what are you going to do in response to this? It's not too late to, you know, realize that you're part of the problem or realize you have problematic tendencies or realize that you're not actively combating these things. And I think that that, in my experience, has been the most effective way to get people kind of on your side or at least to be sympathetic to the ideas that you're holding. You have to lower the guard. You have to lower the walls and walls and walls that they've set up to insulate themselves from feeling like they are part of the problem. So I hope that makes sense. [00:39:36] Speaker B: Oh, sorry, Laura. You go ignore it. [00:39:38] Speaker C: I was gonna say it's kind of very much, I suppose, like, for me and Kristin. So as psychologists, like how we work with clients, really, like, you don't just go full in and say, right, I've seen of your traumatic past, and this is what it is. [00:39:53] Speaker B: I worked you out on session one. Here you go. [00:39:55] Speaker C: Yeah, exactly. It is. It's that kind of gentle but kind of purposeful, I suppose, approach and kind of guiding them towards it and perhaps allowing space for them to come to some of these conclusions, like, in their own time. In a sense, maybe that will never happen. However, yeah, trying to, like, bash the door down isn't necessarily gonna get us anywhere either. [00:40:20] Speaker A: It's not. And I think too, like, I think in general what you're kind of doing, and this is actually something my dad taught me in a completely different context. But basically leadership in general is kind of what you're doing is. He compares it to like a ship and there's icebergs. And what you're doing is you're basically looking at all the icebergs and pushing everything slightly in certain directions so it doesn't hit the ship. You have to be looking out at all these different things and all these different variables and then what ends up happening. And he talks about this a little bit in the, in leadership, you're. You're kind of pushing people so that suddenly everyone's coming to their own conclusions or coming to a conclusion and they think they've reached it. So. And I think in general, that's what these kind of conversations are. People don't want to feel like you changed their mind, you know, they want to feel like you gave them information they used. Yeah, of course, of course. I don't think anyone wants to walk out of a conversation and feel like, wow, that person really changed my mind. Because it feels like a kind of a self defeating. You have personal defeat in that sense. So you want to kind of go into these conversations I've experienced and just kind of walk them down, see what's coming. Of course, like, largely, you're playing chess in your head. You know, you, you like, as soon as someone, as soon as like a guy says something to me, you know, I can be like, all right, I know exactly why you came to that conclusion. Largely, of course, people are all different. I don't want to largely seem, but like 99% of the time if someone says like, oh yeah, an example of like misandry is like, I hate men. I know exactly how they got to that thought process. And I could immediately just call out the root of it and just try to rip it out. And I think that that will result in them becoming defensive and closing us off to any more conversation. So just slowly, like, this takes time. You know what I mean? It's not. You can't go in guns a blazing and just like light them up. And frankly, I'm saying this a little bit hypocritically because that's largely what I did on the Jubilee episode, because largely that's a timed thing where you only have eight minutes. And I'm not trying to deconstruct this whole worldview in eight minutes. I'm trying to make Everyone in the audience be like, haha, I don't want to be like him. [00:42:17] Speaker B: Instead of tossing a pebble in your shoe, you're just chucking a rock at him and seeing. [00:42:20] Speaker A: Chucking a rock at him. [00:42:21] Speaker B: Yeah, that's more my approach because like, if we're, if we're looking at it, and I think it's such a personal thing, this is how I, I try to have these conversations, like, while not driving myself crazy, if we're looking at it from like a therapeutic kind of perspective that Laura, that Laura brought up and like this is kind of what we do for a living. It almost like you, you kind of explaining the iceberg analogy of that's kind of like what sessions are like with clients and stuff like that to a large extent, obviously using theory and stuff. But like, you know, that's like the general idea. But then I go, well, again, like the boundary. They're not paying me to be their therapist and it is not my job to change a stranger's mind. If I'm working at a sport organization that has a misogyny problem. Great, that's great. And now it's, now I will kind of focus on it in my way with my philosophy of practice. But meeting somebody where it is, I think some people, and that's why like we really value your platform, are great for taking that on and then some people are not because like you said, so burnt out, like, like, where does that end? And it's like a much smaller kind of aspect of kind of being anti racist and stuff like that. It's not black people's job to teach us how to not be racist. It's our job to figure that out and then, you know, be actively anti racist. [00:43:53] Speaker A: So yeah, read their work. You know what I mean? Yeah. There's so much out there. You just have to go seek it out. You just have to. These people are writing it for you, like read. I think a lot of people don't like to read like that too. [00:44:04] Speaker B: They're telling you, telling you exactly what's happening. And I had more stuff I want to go over, but I feel like I could completely just derail the episode by doing that. But I just want to kind of summarize it. There were just so many problematic clips that I could literally do in that whole episode. Just deconstructing that from a psychology, psychological, sociological, feminist point of view. [00:44:30] Speaker A: But you're welcome to have me back if you'd like. [00:44:32] Speaker B: Hey, I'm happy to. We would love that. [00:44:34] Speaker A: Happy to. Happy to do that. [00:44:37] Speaker B: I Think everything is tied back to this fear of women not being forced into the home. And they're just very scared of this, this kind of presence of women in society, which is something we talk about on quite a few episodes. Our sexism episode, our witches episode, like episodes, loads of our different episodes. And there's like a psychological and sociological context to this. So the entire episode you were on, at its core, is about the backlash that you see to the feminist movement that we. I talk a lot about in kind of book chapters that I write. It's. It's kind of cyclical in history. Laura and I have talked about it on the podcast as well. Historically, every time women take two steps forward, there's a step back because there's this huge backlash by overall like the patriarchy. So the systems and the individuals that benefit from patriarchy. And then psychologically you could just really see the men in this episode that's like just very much this threat response. So when these traditional gender roles that people rely on for guidance really break down, and I discuss the binary a lot that these gender roles kind of force us into and diminish this kind of cognitive flexibility that we have, and that increases your fear. But when these traditional gender roles are breaking down, people with this high psychological investment in them experience significant identity, can't speak today. They experience some really intense identity destabilization. And they tend to interpret this in a way that's useful for them. And so I think that's a lot of where kind of this manosphere stuff comes from, because it's a useful tool to kind of engage in this sociological backlash while remaining psychologically comfortable. [00:46:25] Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know if I'm choir here. Yeah, no, no, no, no. I mean that's. That was definitely valuable insight. And I think that, you know, it definitely important to put like, behavior or like words or like descriptions to beh. So I think that you're completely right. This is a fear based response. This is a response like, I don't. It's the, it's the age old thing of like, you know, what is the strategy that's employed. It's like people are coming to take your stuff. You know, the world is a pie, rights are up high. If these people get it, it means you're gonna lose it. You know, these immigrants are coming to take your jobs. You know that all this stuff, I mean, they're all distraction tactics to try to get you focused on. I mean, I think. I don't like the like word culture war because I think it diminishes the importance of these very like, like essential social issues. But I mean, I say that a lot. Yeah, a lot of this stuff in general and a lot of this like culture war, for lack of a better word, is designed to divide people and have wedge issues on, you know, a lot of these topics so that they don't collectively come together on issues that would benefit them all. I mean, Republicans in general and even like Democrats in a sense are complicit in this, have convinced their voters that like, you know, instead of like they should be anti union because it ties to all these other issues that they value, you know. Oh yeah. You know, I'm, I'm against abortion because of my religion. I'm against gay marriage. I'm against all these things. So I need to toe this line even if it's taking a third out of my paycheck every month. So I think in general these types of issues really do harm people because they kind of take all. We have packages of issues and everyone. You have to accept this package of beliefs that are delivered to you. And it's hard to. People don't belief shop, unfortunately they're not going through the supermarket picking out each individual one. They're hand issued a set of beliefs and it's really hard to stray from that. And I would even say that that's not like a problem that's exclusive to the right. Although I would say it's worse is that there is a lot of, you know, dogmatism and if you don't agree with every aspect of this right now, we're gonna throw you to the sharks. And I think that that's something which just needs to be broken down a little bit more. But we're straying. I'm straying very much. [00:48:26] Speaker B: I know, I know. It's so easy for me to be like, well on the right. There is a psychological fear of being part of the out group and the in group is much smaller. But that's a whole different episode. So it's so easy. This is how Laura, Laura and I constantly go on tangents. That's essentially what all of this is. So I think this is probably a good time to kind of switch into kind of the main content for 50 minutes in of the episode. But I think it was a good exploration of why what we're about to talk about is so important. And it's going to be an interesting one for Laura because Laura's not chronically online. She is like, avoids it. [00:49:07] Speaker A: Good for you, Laura. We all need to be more like Laura. [00:49:09] Speaker B: Okay, yes, I know. It's. [00:49:12] Speaker C: It's. [00:49:12] Speaker B: So the. The fun thing for us is going to be explaining the red pill movement to Laura. Yes. And. And I briefly explained it before, but I like to just kind of maybe take more of, like, an actual definition so I don't mess up. [00:49:29] Speaker C: Is there anything I. The only thing I remember from Kristin's previous definition to me was about the film the Matrix. That's all that. That stuck in my brain, so I. [00:49:38] Speaker A: Definitely needed to be reminded. [00:49:41] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's this kind of. You could call it a subculture. I would argue that it's more of an ideology, but that's just getting into semantics. But it's kind of this idea that modern society is super biased against men, especially when it comes to kind of relationships and gender roles. [00:49:59] Speaker A: And. [00:49:59] Speaker B: And it is kind of drawing from the Matrix, red pill, blue pill. And it's graving itself as, like, you take one pill to wake up to, like, find these hidden truths about female. Female. I hate how they say, like, female. It's like, women's nature and feminism and kind of this disadvantage that men have. And if you don't. If you don't take that pill, then you don't wake up. And obviously, being ironic, because the Matrix was written by two transgender women, so they've obviously not even bothered to do their homework. There's. But that is, again, unsurprising with our kind of backlash against intellectualism. But anyway, so that's like, an idea of what it is, Laura. [00:50:41] Speaker C: Okay. Yes. So it's making that decision almost as to whether you are wanting to open your eyes or continue to be. I don't know. I suppose within that bubble, in a sense. [00:50:52] Speaker A: Yeah. These people feel like they've escaped the Matrix. I mean, that's just a common phrase I hear all the time. Yeah, you're still in the Matrix, bro. You got to get out of the Matrix, okay? See how they're. How they're really doing things. And I mean, the best part about it with these people, I think, and it's largely with conspiracy theorists, the best thing you can do is just ask them questions, you know? I mean, oh, okay, so who's doing this? Who's doing this? How far does the conspiracy run? Just, like, to have them just, like. And largely, they won't realize that they're just, like, literally insane with the conclusions that they come to. But just, it's. It's. It's really interesting to see what levels of, like, explanatory depth they have to get to and how deep the conspiracy actually has, has to go in order to make their worldview coherent. And it's just interesting to explore that. [00:51:34] Speaker C: So they think the truth has been revealed to them. Yes, that's what they believe. [00:51:38] Speaker A: Yes, they do. They believe that, you know, women are all out. You know, women secretly do just want their money. You know, women don't actually, you know, women say they want to be respected and women say, but, but, you know, when, when the, you know, when they're not, you know, indoctrinated with feminism, they have actually really like to be in the home. They actually really like men to be dominant. There are these, you know, insane cognitive differences between men and women that just, you know, women are only good for these specific roles. You know, men are only good for this. And you know, that's the, that's the kind of thing is, you know, all the backlash men are facing is because they're the ones who are trying to bring back orders to society and trying to bring back, you know, how things should be and how it was right for everyone. But they're being pushed back against these evil feminists who want to see them and like their downfall. So that's. They would describe it in probably different. [00:52:25] Speaker B: Terms, but yeah, ironically funny to me because all the research out there says that feminists care about men's well being more than men as a whole do. [00:52:35] Speaker A: 100. [00:52:36] Speaker B: It's just like guys just use Google. You don't have to get everything from your tick tock algorithm. [00:52:44] Speaker A: Those are just those woke. Those are just those woke Academics. Academics. Kristen, they haven't woken up either. They haven't taken the red pill. All right? Are you kidding me? I'm not gonna listen to them. It's propaganda. [00:52:53] Speaker B: Like how, how do they justify when you were ingrained in that kind of like old school existence and then you were able to kind of decentralize all of that. Like growing up in a like very conservative area myself. Like, they can't think reverse. They can only think one direct, like that unilateral direction anyway, getting off on another. So I mean, because. And that touched on a couple of things that I was going to touch on kind of from the clips you sent. But I don't want to derail us again. I think it's really important when we're discussing kind of the general manosphere and that red pill movement is, is kind of how these patriarchal norms shape masculinity. And I touch on it a little bit in the last episode where like we talk about in our last episode how interests are gendered and how this is shaped sociologically and psychologically from a very. And because we're in a patriarchal system, this is kind of like that default where men's interests are, or boys interests are like trucks. And then you become like a firefighter or something like that. And girls interests are like dolls. And that's why you become like a mother. And apparently you're better at that supposedly. And Laura brought up, you know, research in the last episode saying that there's very much evidence that, that if people think, if parents think that the toddler is a boy, they'll give it perceived boy things and vice versa. Which we all know this, this is kind of like all common knowledge for us. But essentially these patriarchal norms shape people's masculinity. So it's teaching boys. And it also does this for girls and women too. But we're not covering that in this episode. It teaches boys that's very, very narrow minded of what it means to be their gender. And if they kind of exist binary then they're somehow bad. And that's why they tried to term you as woke feminist man on that. And that always just makes me laugh because like what they try to term as like insults are actually just like compliments. And you're like, yes, I am awake to the dehumanization of half of our society. I am like not part part of that as much as I can be. Like, it just makes me laugh. So like this early socialization from parents and stuff like that. And when this starts happening, boys are sold that dominance and violence and things like that are really just like what they should be searching instead of an actual human connection, which is what our brains are evolved to do. If we are starved human connection, not necessarily physical connection, emotional connection, then that really impacts our psychology. And it just teaches men this kind of as they get older, this ideology of if they feel powerful, that's great, but it doesn't teach them how to heal or engage with uncomfortable emotions or feelings. And this kind of like perpetuates the issue that was initially ingrained. And so it just generally sets up these norms where men just have to suffer to be a man. And I think, you know, I like again, like I want the best for men's well being. I'm not going to therapize every man, but I do think it is important to examine that the patriarchy is really negative for every single gender and it harms men. And I don't see how they can't quite wrap their head around if you're socializing your boys from an early age to act this way, which, judging by kind of some of the manosphere, Laura, I don't think they believe socialization and conditioning exists. I think it's very much a focus on that, like a binary that also doesn't exist. But. But whatever. So, yeah, just to see what you guys think, we can maybe dig into that a little bit more. [00:56:39] Speaker A: You have any thoughts, Laura, before I go? [00:56:41] Speaker C: No, you go. [00:56:42] Speaker A: Okay. Yeah, no, I totally agree, you know, with that characterization. I think largely, I think also with the ideology it deprives men of kind of like, for example, like, there's a lot of things that women do that are just kind of off limits to men. So, you know what I mean? Like, this type of gossiping, this type of emotional connection is just completely like, not there for guys. You know, talking to your guy friends about, you know, a problem that you're going through. They might label you as soft. They might label you as, like, nah, why are you having these, these. These women problems? I think another problem with it, and this is a problem I see in general and something that, frankly, I've, like, experienced before until I realized that there's nothing wrong with seeking emotional intimacy that is separate from sex is. A lot of men are taught that the only way that they can express physical intimacy is through sexual activity. Which means that, you know, this type of, you know, putting your arm around your bro is considered gay. Or like, you know, just being physically proximate with people you care about is looked down upon because it's. They view that type of, like, they view it as one thing. You know, you. The only time you're physically close or proximate with someone is if you're either beating them up or having sex with a woman. And I think that largely that type of dichotomy that they draw causes men to be deprived, as you were talking about, of this kind of connection that women are socialized from a very young age to be able to have. You can be close with your girlfriend. You can, you know, have that sort of thing. And it's not, you know, seen as like, oh, you're, you know, you're doing something wrong. You're gay. So I think that there. Those are just two examples of just all of these ways in which men are just deprived of some of the basic goods of life because they're viewed as being, as you've talked about. They're basically denied their humanity, in a sense. And I think that that's really, really important. [00:58:23] Speaker B: I Think that patriarchy provides this very narrow structure as you have to be straight white man. Like, anything outside of that is unsafe and negative. And I say, I think that's a really good comparison that you drew. Is like, they can't even engage in, like, something that we're evolved to need is friendship and camaraderie because they might be positioned as part of the out group. Sorry, Laura, were you gonna say something? [00:58:50] Speaker C: Yeah, no, I was just thinking. I was kind of linking it back to, I suppose, my almost like, philosophy in terms of how I approach kind of my. [00:58:58] Speaker B: My women don't like philosophy, Laura. [00:59:00] Speaker C: That's what we are, not philosophy. Don't know what it. Don't know what it is. Then something else. Yeah. [00:59:09] Speaker B: Is. [00:59:09] Speaker C: Is that there's this, I suppose, saying, right. That we like to experience a full range of human emotions is what allows us to live a fulfilling and meaningful life. And it is almost like suppressing that. Right. I suppose, from both ends. Like from kind of men who feel like they can't express or experience certain emotions, and perhaps kind of from women as well, when we feel like we have to fit within these very kind of binary gender roles. That very, very narrow. Right. And that in itself is just sad that that is kind of what we are being socialized to. Yeah. To live as. Yeah. [00:59:54] Speaker B: And that. That just, like, brings me back to what I think a lot is just, like, how sad it is, how we could be, firstly, just so much happier as a species and in society if we ever allowed to engage in our actual, like, what our brains are evolved to do is feel the range of emotions. Like, when women express anger, it's viewed really, like, negatively. But when men express anger, it's viewed quite favorably, like, quite strong. And then like you said, if men are expressing maybe some sadness, that's viewed as a negative end compared to, like, being womanly. And how bad is that? If you're grieving a lost parent or something like that, and you can't engage in that, that's going to come across psychologically. That's going to be so damaging. Yes. And I will say, Laura, and I say this all the time, observing all of this happen as psychologists who also work in kind of social issues as well, is very frustrating to see because you're just observing people harming them and giving up the parts of their humanity that matter most to feel safe within parts of society that are most damaging. [01:01:03] Speaker C: So I thought this might bring us nicely onto the. The idea of, like, unpacking toxic masculinity. So I suppose with This, I suppose, like within that kind of narrowed kind of gender binary. Right. So if men do feel like they have to meet these, I guess, the criteria, if you like, of toxic masculinity, it might be useful to kind of unpack that a little bit. So in terms of what people think toxic masculinity is versus what it actually means, because I know that we can often get a lot of pushback and defensiveness when we talk about these terms. And Oliver, I was wondering, kind of, from, from your kind of side, what do you think these differences are in terms of what people think this term means and then what it actually means? [01:01:54] Speaker A: Yeah, for sure. I mean, this is something that I kind of realized more recently just because I never understood the term this way. But I think the, the term toxic masculinity can be understood one of two ways. You can view the word toxic as an adjective to describe all of masculinity. Oh, that. Toxic masculinity. Masculinity is inherently toxic, toxic. Or you can view it as like kind of a modifier or that it denotes a certain type of masculinity in excess, or rather what I would call a perversion of masculinity that does become self destructive, that does become harmful, these excess of masculine traits. So I think that when a lot of men hear that, they view themselves, they want to view themselves or they're socialized to view themselves as masculine men, because that's what makes them men. So when you're calling what they view as such an integral part of who they are and their self worth is toxic, they get very defensive. They're like, yeah, this is the feminization of men, the, you know, attacking us for what makes us who we are. When, you know, and I think that I don't want to jump too far ahead, but I think this is where algorithms play such a big role because people are then just presented with that view of feminism or that view of what toxic masculinity is. So they will go their whole existence or most of their existence thinking that a majority of women and feminists think that all of toxic or all of masculinity is toxic, when that just couldn't be further from the case. And healthy masculinity is one of the most beautiful things in society and something that genuinely is going to help us heal this problem that we're having. But because of the things and the things that they're presented, they just don't get that. So I think that largely that's where a misunderstanding comes from. And you Know, we can have arguments all day of, like, you know, is it our responsibility as people coining these terms to do it in the best way possible to ensure that they won't misunderstand it? I'm more of the opinion no, because no matter what, they're gonna find a way to twist it. I mean, it's the same idea of, like, labeling someone a socialist. Like, you can literally be a centrist candidate and campaign with Liz Cheney, and they're still gonna label you as a socialist, regardless of whether or not you actually have these policies. You might as well embrace the most accurate version of the term, considering they are committed to misunderstanding you. So regardless. Bit of a tangent, but I think that just in general, that's where a lot of that misunderstanding comes from, is they brand it as something that it just totally isn't. [01:04:07] Speaker B: And I will quickly jump in and say, as an autistic woman who has spent her entire life very carefully articulating exactly what I'm saying, to be, like, perceived in the best way possible, the safest way possible. It doesn't matter how well you say things to people, they're still going to not understand them. Or maybe that's just me not getting it, but I don't know. I feel you on that. Sorry, Laura. Go for it. [01:04:37] Speaker C: No, I was just saying I feel you on that. That point for sure. And I think it's interesting as well. Like, Oliver, when you were talking about, like, the algorithms in terms of this, and I was thinking kind of how this, I suppose, kind of goes for both sides. And I was almost thinking about my experience and. And how, like, you were talking about before, how some people feel like it's surprising that, say, like, the hosts of the podcast, you went on to have these views. And I'm probably one of those people who are like, oh, my goodness, like, how can people have perspectives and opinions like this? But like you say, it's completely logical based on. Yeah, society and based on how. Yeah, based on kind of what's going on at the moment. And, yeah, I suppose it's that it goes both ways and it's. How do we expose ourselves to different channels of information and take responsibility for that. [01:05:33] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. I completely agree with you there. I think. And this is at risk of not wanting to get into a whole different conversation about media ecosystem and how all of that exists. We'll try to keep this very brief, but it absolutely is an issue on both sides. I mean, I think that a really quick example of this is how surprised people on the left were When Trump won in 2016 and when he won again in 2020, you know, if you were looking, all of the signs were there. You know what I mean? Everything, the groundwork was laid for that to happen. But everyone on the left was only been feeding on the, you know, the content that they got that had no chance of winning. Not gonna have happen. Like, it was literally just a repeat of kind of the conditions of like 2016 and how dissatisfied people were. So that when it happened, everyone was like, oh, my God, how could this. It's like, you know, you're, you're, you're just, you. They weren't showing you that picture because that's not what you want to hear. Like, you know what I mean? Like, these media companies want to make money. They're not going to make money telling liberals that Trump is likely to win this election because then they're going to get mad and turn off the tv. Same thing with Fox News viewers. I'm not trying to say this is a one side issue. Both sides are doing it and their goal is to. Right now we have a media ecosystem where you can turn on the TV and have a channel that will tell you exactly what you want to hear 24. [01:06:44] Speaker C: 7. [01:06:45] Speaker A: So I think that largely people, people, people live in different factual realities. They live in entirely different worlds. Some people think that January 6th was just a peaceful protest in which people just marched around the Capitol and nothing bad ever happened, despite there being enormous amounts of evidence and photo evidence and every single piece of evidence imaginable. So I think that, I mean, I don't want to get off on too much of a tangent, but I think that that's largely. [01:07:13] Speaker B: We could do an episode on this. Yeah, yeah. [01:07:15] Speaker A: At some point. At some point. [01:07:16] Speaker B: Let's do an episode on this because I think we probably can table it for now. Yeah, but no, that's, that's such a good point. And it's hard to recognize that, I think, in your daily interactions with these people. And that's why it's important sometimes to meet people where they're at, where they're, when it's safe to do so. And I think also that kind of feeds into the next kind of concept we were going to look at as like that slippery slope into this whole thing, because I think that people seek out where they are, seek out kind of like the content of where they are at that time, when they're on their algorithm, when they're on the algorithm, when they're online. And so the algorithm feeds them that within, feeds them More and more of whatever is going to make more money. It's like obviously we're, we're in capitalism. Everything is capitalized. Our masculinity, our femininity, gender, who's going to be president, everything is capitalized. Mental health is capitalized. And so you almost see the, the biggest criticism, not criticisms, the biggest attacks I get online is when I criticize somebody like Jordan Peterson, which I feel like I have the full right to do as an ex, ex qualified psychologist that he is, and all of these kind of problematic views. And there's such a slippery slope into this, this manosphere area because it's true, there is a lot of turmoil going on in society right now. And so people are looking for self help stuff. So you see it on kind of the more feminine side as well. So you'll see like have self help stuff that's targeted at women but keeping on content on, trying to keep on track. There's kind of like this gateway drug into this manosphere through people like Jordan Peterson, who despite saying really problematic stuff, I would say majority of his content is like almost targeted at trying to help men take on personal responsibility. But sprinkled in there is misogynistic stuff, transphobia, really problematic ideas about individuality and things like that. And then the algorithm feeds more and more and more and it pretty quickly turns to somebody like Andrew Tate. Because I think I saw a study that like 70% of Andrew Tate's content is fitness and business stuff. And so it's not hard once you already believe psychologically that somebody is like, oh, well, I listened to what they said about the gym, so actually what they say about women makes sense. And then you go more and more and more into that content. And so it's a really slippery slope of, of capitalizing on people's psychological insecurity to these. And I've, I, this is where I've probably got hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of comments of men saying this is not true. These men online are targeting young boys and teenagers. They want to them to buy into their program so they can make money off of them. That's all they're doing. They're not trying to help you, they're trying to make money off of you. And kind of increasing this extremism just makes them more and more and more money. And so these boys and young men are looking for like help with their identity control, just relief from the struggles that they're going through. And they're just funneled slowly but surely into ideology. It's like almost like what our current president is doing right now, if he would have started with El Salvador, people would have kicked off immediately. Well, I wouldn't go that far, but it would have seen a little bit more shocking. But he. It was like the slippery slope idea that's taught to us since we're, like, in middle school. You know what I mean? [01:10:53] Speaker A: With the frog in the pot. Right, the frog in the pot. Even though I think I've heard that's a myth. But let's ignore that just to say that it's a good, useful analogy. But, yeah, same. [01:11:03] Speaker B: Yeah, I was literally thinking the exact same thing. And so they're using the normal emotional vulnerability of being a young person and twisting that into grievance and blame so they can make money. And obviously, people psychologically want to seek comfort. And so they're rebranding this kind of, like, uncertainty into a crisis of masculinity, when really, it's just we're at a really, like, I say this all the time. It's weird if you're not feeling mentally down right now, because we're not evolved to live in the world that we're in currently. [01:11:40] Speaker A: Completely agree with you. I think. I think, think focusing on how. Because I've realized this too, how much their content is. What is it called? Lifestyle content. Like, there's a lot of these lifestyle creators who focus on this general lifestyle thing. And these men are just, oh, I feel like I relate to them. You know what I mean? Like, I mostly, yeah, he helps me with the gym, helps me with all this stuff. And, oh, yeah, sometimes he talks about relationships, but that's not the most important. But when they, like, view this person as a general authority on all things because of, you know, the things that they view as we talk about, I think the transfer of, you know, like, expertise is very interesting. Like, for example, like, I remember during the pandemic, this is one specific example, there was this guy who was talking about, like, Covid and stuff, and he kept touting that he had a PhD. He had a PhD in general education, not in epidemiology. So it was like, it's this large. Like, people, like, transfer this type of credibility by saying, oh, if this person is an expert or qualified in this area, that, therefore, that makes them somehow qualified as talk about in this completely unrelated area, which just isn't the case. So I think that that's. That's a large problem. I think we're talking a little bit about algorithms. I mean, as you talked about, these individuals are interested in making money. So Are these platforms. I mean, you know what I mean? That's what they're focused on. I mean, I think what's really interesting is after my podcast appearance, it was really, because a lot of my friends and family who made the brave decision to tune in, they're like, oliver, what the heck? Now my whole algorithm has been completely poisoned and I'm being recommended to the most vile things. And I'm like, I'm so sorry. I am so sorry. So I, I think just in general, that that's the, that that's an example. You, you click on, you click on one of those videos and suddenly it recommends you 10 more. And I think that that's such a way in which this rabbit hole gets, gets foothold. If you know, like, how fast can you get from normal fitness lifestyle content to Andrew Tate? The line is so short. So I think that that's, that's a big issue. [01:13:26] Speaker C: Issue that's so scary when you kind of put it like that. You start to see how those things do build in and how deceptive it can be, I suppose, for people. And I always wonder, like, are they doing this on purpose? Like, did they know it was going to get kind of to this point? And maybe it's probably not the right question to ask, but it is like the motivation, I suppose, behind these things can be scary as well. But I suppose ultimately it's just. It's the money. [01:13:56] Speaker A: Largely. Yeah, I mean, that's how it converges. Sense of belongingness, people wanting to not feel left behind or with the out group. You know, it's money driven. I don't, like, I don't know. Like, I do agree, I think these people are largely money driven. You know what I mean? I think if given a certain amount of money, they might completely shift their entire ideology to make different styles of content. It's just, this is what sells right now. There's like a need for purpose, a need for meaning in a society where people feel increasingly hopeless or down. So I think that's, that's part of it. [01:14:25] Speaker B: You would wish they would actually listen to the people that can tell you how to fix that problem and not make it so much worse. It was making me laugh because this kind of like transferability of knowledge that you're talking about, like, oh, I've got a PhD in economics, but I'm telling you how to psychologically do this is something Laura and I talk about all the time. And it's a huge thing in our discipline is, is where do you ethically draw the line? Kind of where, where your knowledge ends and you have to do a lot of reflection. We're very ingrained in because psychology is based in philosophy. So like we have to develop a very strict philosophy of practice and we. That also has to include knowledge of our own limits of knowledge. And obviously it's not a perfect system, but it's something that we have to reflect on a lot. And we're constantly talking about, okay, well how much can like, like, can we stretch this? I've gone done this course, I've done this training. Does that mean I can now cover cognitive behavioral therapy or I can now engage in this? The idea of just jumping to a completely different topic area just gives me so much like both cringe to have the audacity, but also just like stress. What do you think, Laura? [01:15:42] Speaker C: Stress me out. I've been listening to this podcast recently. It's kind of like a well being podcast and there's like a nutritionist on there and she was saying how, you know, it's more and more likely now that people aren't deciding to get regulated because it means that they can't post basically outrageous like clickbait things online because they're gonna get picked up, you know, by, by the kind of body, if you like, who is overseeing or regulating that profession. Think that's really scary. Is that people are choosing, even if they are in that profession, they're choosing not to be regulated because they would prefer to be able to get clicks and likes and so on because that's. [01:16:25] Speaker B: How you make money. How do you support yourself if you're not? Yeah, yeah. [01:16:29] Speaker C: The misinformation and it just, it makes me angry. [01:16:33] Speaker B: Yeah, you being angry is so much calmer than me being angry. [01:16:38] Speaker A: Absolutely. [01:16:41] Speaker B: It makes me angry. Like when Oliver's saying like, we just need to like ask questions and keep asking people questions. Laura knows how I ask people questions. Often comes across like, why are you such a idiot? Are you job? [01:16:58] Speaker C: I always question Kristen. [01:17:00] Speaker A: It's a question. Yes. [01:17:04] Speaker B: So Laura, usually if we're giving joint like a symposium or like something like that, she usually covers that, that aspect so we can lessen the core about that. [01:17:12] Speaker C: Tell me more about how you're feeling. [01:17:14] Speaker B: Whereas I'm like, no, no. But I'll say the exact same words. I'll be like, tell me more about that. And it just sounds so aggressive, even though that's not how I mean it. [01:17:23] Speaker A: That's fair. [01:17:24] Speaker C: Whatever. Same intent. [01:17:29] Speaker B: Same intent, but not same perception. That's for sure. Laura, do you want to walk us through? Yeah, sorry. [01:17:37] Speaker C: Yeah, I think kind of with this in mind and, yeah, kind of maybe nice to move on to, I suppose, one of our kind of last little blocks. So in terms of what does unlearning look like, in terms of unlearning this kind of patriarchal thinking? And I wonder if, like, I was kind of thinking, is this a stage that we are. Hopefully it is, but is it a stage that we're going to get to where actually we need to. To actively consider what does this look like, and how do we help people to unlearn the patriarchal kind of thinking that might be ingrained into them, whether that is just through normal society or whether it is through kind of social media and these kind of influences that we see kind of emerging. And I suppose something that could be nice to share is just around for us, our experiences and how did we start to unlearn? And I suppose from my perspective, it was probably only like Kristen, when we were doing our professional doctorate, when I started getting into a lot of these very male dominant environments, that I started thinking about patriarchy. And I started thinking maybe some of the reasons I'm treated differently isn't because I'm doing something wrong or I'm just, like, not good at what I'm doing. But perhaps it is from. Perhaps it is to do with sexism. Perhaps it is to do with how I'm viewed by people within this environment. And it was never necessarily that there was, like, hostility towards me. It was much more that, like, benevolent kind of view. And it was like, oh, we need to, like, look after Laura or we need to, like, I don't know, help her to progress in, like, her career or something. And I'm like, this is really nice. However, there was also this undertone that I felt kind of lesser and minimized, like, condescending. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Patronizing, kind of condescending. No one was ever mean to me, but it didn't necessarily fill me with confidence in that I was an expert in what I was, was doing. [01:19:36] Speaker B: You know, I can actually relate to that because, like, I would say, you know, me pre. Kind of like, so for context, Oliver, like, I was late diagnosed autistic and, like, very high masking for my entire life and looked very different as a result because I could very much articulate my kind of, like, presentation to very much like, blonde athlete, kind of like, fitting into the norms that were prescribed. I came from, like, a conservative background and stuff like that. And that's what I relied on a lot for safety. And I think it also took Me getting into my kind of like twenties in, in the situation. And this is, shows the privilege that I had as well, that I didn't necessarily pick up on the why behind some of the issues I was experiencing until later on when I was in like a probably much more intensive misogynistic environment, which for me was football slash soccer and it's right out in the open. And I was like, wait a minute, this is, this doesn't seem right. They know I'm their sports psychologist and they are asking me to make them a brew. I'm not getting invited to like the post match pub. I'm like, just, I'm being left out of conversations that actually my job requires me to be a part of because I'm not part of this boys club. And then it just clicked and I was like, oh. And then also once I realized that I was autistic, I was like, oh. And it makes even more sense. And so that's when you kind of start to kind of deconstruct this. And obviously we all have internalized misogyny and misogynistic tendencies because that's the society we grew up in. And it's. That in itself is not our fault. And I always feel bad that I didn't recognize it. And like when I was in my early 20s, do you know what I mean? But also showing, showing my age, there was like nothing on it. Like, there was no, like, I was on like MySpace. So it's, it's choosing what to engage with. And I'm sure I did probably avoid some uncomfortable conversations and topics, but with a high without really knowing. So that's probably. Yeah, I think sport really highlighted it for me too. [01:21:50] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. I think at least, at least for me, like kind of talking about what it means to unlearn. I mean, I, I didn't grow up in a conservative household. I grew up in a pretty like liberal Democrat household. Just generally, you know, I was, you know, got involved in online activism a little bit. And by online activism at that point I meant just posting infographics on my Instagram story. But you know, at that age, you know, I was, I was interested in stuff, I was posting about it. But I think what's interesting is I actually had a bit of a regression and fall down the pipeline myself during quarantine and during that time in 2020, I mean, I think I was, I was starved of social interaction. I'm a very, you know, I'm very much an extrovert and enjoy, you know, talking with other people and feeding on their energy. And suddenly in the middle of my junior year of high school, when I'm supposed to be kind of spreading my wings and opening up and going, I was, my wings were clipped. I was basically just locked up in my house. And largely, I try, I did try turned to the Internet. You know, I turned to a lot of different things. There was online activism, There were people who were having conversations. People would get into zoom calls and talking to the evermost, like, hours of the night. Like, at certain point, my sleep schedule was completely flipped. You know what I mean? Like, at that point you're just like, it doesn't even matter. Time isn't even real. And for me, that did result in me changing a lot of my positions. There was kind of a libertarian pipeline. And you know what they like to do is they like to mask all of these, these misogynistic ideas surrounding this economic theory. Like, no, we believe in free markets, we believe in this Austrian theory of economics, and here's this reading list and here's the things to go through. Mind you, there's two women in the group and they're basically the communal punching bag for every single misogynistic joke. But that's seen as an afterthought when we're talking about other things. So for me, that was kind of a fall down that pipeline and thinking about those things and being in that group. And that probably lasted until about, about August of 2020. And I think what happened, and it was really interesting, it was really interesting waking up for me is I actually, for that period, I went, I was a boy scout, we went on a Boundary Waters canoe trip up to Canada and we basically, you know, it was, it was about like six of us and we all took tests beforehand and created our own bubble. So basically the world could have ended and we wouldn't have known because we were out of reach of anything. So we were there. And of course, when you're in that experience, you want to bring books with you or something to read. So I brought like a book by Henry Hazlitt, who's like an Austrian economist. And I was reading about it, and I was reading it as I was sitting in a government protected preserve. Basically this idea of like, you know, this is protected for the well being of everyone. And I'm reading the exact opposite about how, no, this is terrible when this space fundamentally wouldn't exist. And I was talking about these ideas with the other people that were there and they're like, I don't know about that, Oliver. That sounds kind of weird. And as the words were coming out of my mouth, I didn't like the person that I was. I'm like, wow, these ideas sound way better when I'm in my bedroom talking to all these people online than when I'm out in the room world talking with people about this. And that's kind of what slowly started to, I guess, bring me back to reality and bring me back to truth was kind of, you know, seeing the real world. I think a big part of what makes the manosphere so, like, so influential is because, you know, we talk about this male loneliness epidemic because there people are so fractured and people aren't interacting with one another. It allows these ideologies to take foothold because they don't have to actually face them up to reality. And then what happens is that they end up falling down this hole. I mean, I think that what this may be realized too is there's. This is a reason why cities are more liberal. You know what I mean? When people are surrounded by other people who differ from them, who just in general, more people, they are more tolerant of them. So I think that what this really taught me is it's important to get into these spaces and show people an alternative and, you know, and show people that it doesn't have to be this way. You don't have to ascribe to this ideology in order to have friends, have social connection and things of that nature. So that was kind of my experience with it, my, you know, clawing my way out of it. And I think that the sense of belongingness is really powerful, especially for young people. You know, I. I was so desperate for social interaction and social, you know, cravings. I was willing to change at the age of 17, my entire, like, moral and political system for a period of a few months, just to fit in. And that is so powerful, especially for young boys and young people in general. So just. Just having those positive reinforcements that you don't have to hate women or you don't have to express these misogynistic ideas in order to be seen as cool. It can be cool to stand up for women's rights. It is really cool to stand up for women's rights. And that is something that is, like, so important. And it doesn't make you less of a man. It makes you more of a man. So I think things like that are really, really important to kind of get that messaging out there and kind of combat that. So I think we do need kind of a counter media ecosystem. You know, the. That does provide this to Young boys. And that's kind of what I'm trying to do in my advocacy here is basically kind of do what I can to shift this media ecosystem. [01:26:36] Speaker C: Nice. I love that and I love how you've kind of articulated that journey from actually where you were almost in that system, so to speak, but were able to like you say, kind of claw your way out, actually open up to a different view, but also like allowing yourself to open up to something different and like moving forward with that and to now be at a point where you are like extremely actively helping a lot of people to explore these different views is amazing. [01:27:06] Speaker B: Well, it's an example of how to healthy masculinity. That's literally kind of what we're trying and I totally agree with kind of trying to develop that alternative ecosystem and trying to develop a side of the Internet that's, that's kind of still helping people, but it's not capitalizing on them in that really negative way. And it also brief. I'll be very brief because I don't wear over. Makes me. [01:27:32] Speaker A: Oh, good. No worries. [01:27:33] Speaker B: Just a little bit. Sorry guys. [01:27:35] Speaker A: No worries. [01:27:36] Speaker B: It makes, it makes me think about kind of like you mentioned, like the context. Everything's about context. You coming from kind of a non conservative background, maybe you mentioned a little bit more at liberal eating. So you probably already had better psychological flexibility. That's just a psychological kind of fact that that's usually the case and kind of like have been exposed to other ideas and obviously had some core values initially. And I'm wondering if you thought that probably had a factor in you being able to kind of climb your way out of that as as you mentioned. Because I think about boys and young men who maybe have never ever had any exposure to anything else and kind of like, like what do we do even there, you know? [01:28:21] Speaker A: Yeah, no, I agree. I mean I'm very lucky in the support system that I had and kind of parents who throughout the process were pushing back against me and kind of being like, oliver, no, stop, don't. So like I had that counter, you know, ideas in the home, which you know, of course was very, very important. So I think that of course that's not the case for everyone and of course that makes me different in that sense. So I think that that's why, that's frankly the biggest reason as to why we need to meet these people where they're at. You know what I mean? If they're getting all their information from these platforms. Do everything you can or I'm saying you, I'M going to do everything I can to be on these platforms and present the opposite view, to say that you don't have to believe these things in order to be a man, in order to fit in, in order to be masculine. It's just, it's not, I'm not going to let these individuals dichotomize in that type of way. So that's, that's kind of what I think is so important is, is. Is going into these spaces and meeting these individuals where they're at. That even if it just saves, you know, like, you know, I. Even if it saves one, one guy, you know what I mean? Like one, one, one, one boy who's being taught these terrible things. I mean, I have, you know, one of my friends, their cousin is like an elementary school teacher, and she's talking about how, like, third graders are, like, using, like, language like females and like, talking about, about how, like, yeah, like, they just want to be treated in this awful way. And it's just like, like we are, like we, we are, we are failing our young boys in the fact that we are not doing more to ensure that they do not get trapped by this and basically are hamstrung for the, for like, a long period of time with their relationships with women. I mean, of course, women are the primary, you know, ones. You should be focused on the harm, the direct harm that they're facing, but collateral damage is the men themselves and the fact that they are being deprived of meaningful relationships because they're being indoctrinated into this ideology that tells them they have to mistreat women in order to be a man. So I think that, you know, cutting it off at its source, of course, parental responsibility pays a role in there in terms of overseeing your child's Internet usage, but all of us doing everything we can to push back against that is super, super important. [01:30:23] Speaker C: Maybe on this, then it's a good time to kind of start wrapping up a little bit. And I suppose when we wrap up, we kind of like to give some reflective points or just some little summaries perhaps, of what we're taking away or what might be useful for our listeners to kind of go away and mull over a little bit. And I suppose from my perspective, some things, Oliver, that you've mentioned that have been really useful is to hear about how you enter into these conversations, like you just said, kind of meeting people where they're at. But also I think for me, and I think for kind of everyone is considering what information are we consuming, what are we seeing Online. What's the other side to that? So we're perhaps not as surprised when we do see opposing views and I think trying to. Yeah, taking that responsibility, I think, for understanding and asking the question. But why? Of course, as we always like to say, but Oliver, is there anything from you that you think might be good as kind of a closing sort of statement? [01:31:27] Speaker A: I don't know. [01:31:28] Speaker B: No pressure, just general, no worries. [01:31:30] Speaker A: No worries. [01:31:33] Speaker C: You know, can be a wandering. [01:31:35] Speaker A: Yeah, I see this in general. I mean, kind of the dichotomy and I don't like dichotomies a lot, but I think that what we see a lot is we see critical thinking versus being critical of thinking. So I think in general, in that sense, this, a lot of anti intellectualism, you know, tells you that they want you to think for them, think for yourself, but they present this idea that, you know, everything that you think that might be different is wrong. So, like, allow yourself to sit in the discomfort. You know, if you, if you are someone who somehow, the algorithm has somehow failed in giving you what you want and is instead somehow giving you this podcast, you know, lean into that discomfort, you know, open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong and just see what happens. I mean, I think just in general there's this idea of, look, you know, if you completely disagree with everything I'm saying right now, you know what I mean, you should want to prove me wrong. So learn the most about my position to either know why you're wrong or maybe you'll have your mind changed. Neither of which is a bad thing. You know what I mean? Either you become more resolute in your convictions or your mind is changed. Neither of those things are a bad thing. So opening yourself up to more information and understanding the bad, best version of your opponent's position or why they believe what they believe is good for everyone, good for you. So just seek out more information, understand more thing, you know, try to understand more things. And you know, because that it'll be good for you, it'll be good for society. And I think that that will be the most fulfilling for individuals as well to know that despite the things that you know, people are saying against them, they are resolute in what they believe so that they're not blindsided by something that they've never heard of that completely shakes their entire foundation. [01:33:14] Speaker B: So, yeah, totally agree. Please, for the love of everything that is good, learn more. Engage. Engage in knowledge production for yourself and society and try and improve your psychological flexibility and your kind of understanding, your even just like understanding that there is nuance. So I think that is really important. So really well said. Oliver, where can people find you? [01:33:41] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you can find me on most social media platforms. My handle on Instagram is just Oliver M. My middle name. Or Oliver M. Niehaus. You can find me on TikTok as well. Oliver Niehaus. Oliver Niehaus on YouTube. I'll be posting there a decent amount, but yeah, you should be able to find me on those places. Of course, never hesitate to reach out on any of those. I know that people like to reach out a lot and I do my best to respond to those message requests, requests in general. So definitely, if you have questions, if there are things that you're interested about, do not hesitate to reach out. And I'll do my best to respond to those as I am able. So it's kind of all I've got. Thank you guys so much for having me on. This has been such a rewarding and fascinating experience and I love the work that you guys are doing and doing your part to dismantle these harmful ideas and show people a different perspective that gets them closer to the truth. [01:34:31] Speaker B: Awesome. Well, thank you so much for coming on. It's been a great conversation, you can tell, because we have gone over so much. So thank you so much for coming on. It was really great of you to kind of share your perspectives, be so open and yeah, so we'll definitely have to do this again. So definitely gonna have to make that happen. But you guys, thanks so much for listening. As always. We probably left you with more questions than answers, but that's kind of the point of the podcast. We love digging into the kind of messy undercurrents of masculinity and that systematic devaluation of the feminine and the manosphere more broadly. So again, a massive thank you, Oliver, for joining us and bringing kind of your insight, your humor, the depth to the conversation, that side that Laura and I can't really access. So you guys, if you have any thoughts or questions, rage. We do want to hear it. So please drop a comment, message us, get in touch, however you want. If there's a topic, topics, topic that you want us to dig into, please get in touch. We, you know, we love a rabbit hole. So if you liked this episode, please don't forget to follow like rate and tell your friends. And you can find our links on the but why Instagram page. So the bio has all of the information and we'll have all of Oliver's information as well. And remember the first step to understanding is asking, but why? Yay. [01:35:57] Speaker A: Sa.