Everything Is Content - Everything In Conversation: 'The Diary Of A Misogynist'

Episode Date: January 14, 2026

Happy Hump Day EICamels. This week we're delving into the world of male-led podcasts, specifically, Steven Bartlett's.Last week, Instagram account @notyourpolitefeminist posted a carousel titled ‘The Diary Of A Misogynist’. Meredith writes, ‘The Diary of A CEO is often framed as thoughtful, emotionally intelligent, and progressive. it presents itself as a space for growth, vulnerability, and "having the hard conversations." And on the surface, that's exactly what it looks like: reflective language, slow pacing, men talking about feelings. but here's my problem with Bartlett, it stays focused on men's inner worlds - their fear, their insecurity, their unmet needs without really interrogating the systems that still benefit men even when they're struggling. The podcast leans heavily on therapy language: trauma, attachment, healing, vulnerability. but stripped of any feminist analysis, those words lose their power.’Steven Bartlett released the first episode of DOAC in September 2017, but what started out as a hobby, and ‘way to learn from other business leaders’, has grown to become one of the biggest podcasts in the world, last year it reached one billion streams. However alongside its astronomical success, has it slowly descended into something very different, and perhaps even dangerous?Thank you so much for all of your opinions and takes on this topic, we love being in conversation with you all.O, R, B xx@notyourpolitefeminist's post BBC Investigation Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I'm Beth. I'm Ruchera. And I'm Anoni. And this is Everything in Conversation. Your midweek boost a dose of pop culture. And we always involve you in the conversation. So do follow us on Instagram at Everything Is ContentPod to have your say. That is where we decide on topics and open the floor for all of your opinions.

Last week, Instagram account at Not Your Polite Feminist posted a carousel titled The Diary of a Misogynist. and at the time of recording, it has almost 50,000 likes, over 400 comments and almost 8,000 shares. Stephen Bartlett released the first episode of Dari of a CEO in September 2017, but what started out as a hobby and a way to learn from other business leaders has grown to become one of the biggest podcasts in the world. Last year, it reached 1 billion streams. However, alongside its astronomical success, has it slowly descended into something very different and perhaps even dangerous. Creator of Not Your Polite Feminist, Meredith, writes,

The Diary of the CEO is often framed as thoughtful, emotionally intelligent and progressive. It presents itself as a space for growth, vulnerability, and having the hard conversations in a verticomers. And on the surface, that's exactly what it looks like. Reflective language, slow pacing, men talking about feelings. But here's my problem with Bartlett, she writes. It stays focused on men's inner worlds, their fear, their insecurity, their unmet needs,

without really interrogating the systems that still benefit men, even when they're struggling. The podcast leans heavily on therapy language, trauma, attachment, healing, vulnerability, but stripped of any feminist analysis, those words lose their power. She then goes on to highlight an episode with Dr. Kay, who is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist known for his Twitch channel, Healthy Gamer, underscore Gigi, where he discusses mental health, gaming, technology and addiction, And in the episode, Bartlett and Dr. Kay discuss how men who are unable to find partners will not be able to pass on their genes.

Stephen asks, should society intervene? Meredith writes, the entire premise of the handmaid's tale is built on this exact framing. Falling birth rates are treated as an emergency. Male anxiety about reproduction becomes a justification for intervention. Women's autonomy is refamed as selfishness. When men's anger or loneliness is treated as something society must urgently respond to, women stop being people with choices and start being resources to redistribute. This isn't the first time that the entrepreneur has come under fire.

In 2024, the BBC reported that an investigation they carried out found that in an analysis of 15 health-related podcasts, BBC World Service found each contained an average of 14 harmful health claims that went against extensive scientific evidence. Despite this, guests of the podcast include Michelle Obama, Richard Branson and Brené Brown, just to name a few. And a lot of the comments under the post reveal that many people have felt for a long time that Bartlett's output is harmful.

Many expressed gratitude and relief that it was finally being spoken about. And I have to say, I did feel that way a bit as well, to be honest. So let's get into it. Have either of you ever been a diary of a CEO fan? Never. I have never gotten into this. podcast. I remember watching, I think, two episodes, maybe around 2018, 2019, when he had Chrissy Chella and Grace Beverly on. And I obviously watched the clips from the Molly May one

that went super crazy where she was like, we all have 24 hours in a day and that obviously brought her a lot of backlash. And that's the extent of my familiarity with the podcast. Because there was definitely, it seemed to be a turning point where, I mean, number one, His podcast, even though I've never engaged with it, always seems to be on my YouTube homepage, trying to be directed to me, which I find really fascinating because there's not many things that I have like that. So I don't know what's going on with how much the algorithm favors him and why that is. But that I find particularly crazy because that is very unusual. That definitely rings alarm bells for me. And then number two, you can just see from the way it's positioned, the people he has on, it seems to have really kind of veered into.

this brand of YouTube interview where it's very, it's not just people who are very clearly professionals and things. It just seems to be talking heads. And a lot of the claims and the kind of clickbait head titles, uh, titles that they have in the thumbnail, sorry, that they have are really like, they seem to be quite extreme. So I don't know what they even say in the interviews, but they look as if they veered into quite extreme talking points, very like clickbaiting. very internety talking points. That was all my understanding of him. And I also think that he in particular is not qualified

to be able to challenge these kind of people on these views. That's always been my opinion of his podcast. What about you, Beth? Yeah, I think it will come as no surprise to anyone that knows me that a podcast called Dari over CEO, fronted by a man, and an author of a book called, I think, Happy, Sexy Millionaire is not my podcast bag. But I have caught up, it feels like there's been a rumbling of,

well, dislike, him and the sentiment he's quite out of touch, even separate to the misleading claims and he's fallen foul of the ASA a few times for his adverts for Huell and Zoe companies that he's had or has a stake in. I did see, there was a clip when he was on Dragon's Den, I think, and there was a couple who were selling a massage gun. He was, he retorted being like, what makes this different from other massage guns? I get sent loads all the time and people are like, sir, you are so out of touch, you don't even see why that is a wild thing to say and how you're living this completely separate life. It is interesting to see how often he's at the scene of the crime

for like some quite big snafus, e.g. The Molly May, the same 24 hours and a day thing. And how he just persists and persists in reaching new heights of podcasting. Like this, the misinformation accusation from the BBC investigation, that was 2024, I think. And still his podcast is reaching millions and millions of listeners getting these incredible guests. And so he has just been in my orbit as something like do not engage but be aware of it was only this post and and i think this episode with dr k came out last me like middle of last year and i think i heard a few things then but i just filed it away with like this is his brand i'm not going to touch it having now listened to this episode very much against my well very much for research of this podcast i wanted to see i was like

was this an isolated moment that was taken out of context was there any other way to read this and actually the episode itself, a few interesting parts like this guy, Dr. Kay, talking about things like pornography and addiction and how, you know, people's brains are lighting up with burst of dopamine and pleasure and masturbation and how it all links together. Personally, I think our episode on porn is better. But anyway, I thought, this is interesting enough. And then they get on to this bit of this conversation about the fears of these type of men dying out. So it's men who don't have success in dating and men that don't know how to talk to people, men with certain attachment styles and how women, so I think he calls it like a fundamental power imbalance because women

can go to a sperm bank and have a baby, whereas men have no other option in their reproductive journey than to have a baby with a woman. And the fact he calls it this kind of like empower imbalance as though we have to have as much sympathy for these men as kind of victims of real injustices. That's when it lost me. That's when I went. oh this isn't been taken out of context because this is absolutely as as bad as it sounds he also calls it survival of the fittest and he draws on darwinism which i found so bizarre and so like that was a huge red flag for me and he he expressly explains it's not talking about people in this example not about you know survival of the fittest talking about people dying out he's

talking about when an environment adapts basically the species the people the species that can adapt with the environment are the ones that thrive and all the others do die out. So I guess it is about dying out. And he said he made the point that during COVID, because men weren't being forced to engage with women, a lot of those skills were kind of depreciating in real time. And what we have now post-COVID is men who can't talk to women struggling and having no ability to access those skills. And then because of that whole generation of men are going to die out. I think it's so interesting to track how this podcast has ended up here because there is no denying. I think that he, and we had a message from someone that said, Sarah said he flirts with the

Manusphere and I really agree. But there's this kind of, the way that it has these emotional beats, the way that often his guests will cry, that often sweetly spoken, softly spoken. And they seem to be extremely emotional, emotionally intelligent. It's not kind of as angry and as forthright as perhaps like a Joe Rogan episode. But it definitely actually contains when you look at the content and the people that you speak to do really similar things. And there's another guy called Chris Williamson, who I think is really similar. And they've both spoken together.

But it is this framing of men as the ultimate victim. And like Meredith put in her post, not your polite feminist, the whole, the fact that everything they say does not have that crucial element of like a feminist lens. running through it just makes it all fall flat because everything they say could almost be a point but it's just not and it's the fact that I hadn't realized how big this podcast has gotten because much like both of you it is not my cup of tea over the years I have almost felt tempted to try and assess why I felt quite cynical about him because people that I really admire would go on his podcast or I'd see people praising him and I felt really confused about how and why he's become such a central figure to people that I view as extremely intelligent and it does make me feel quite

cynical about the way in which large platforms are just gold dust to everyone even if what they support is fundamentally problematic and the fact that that BBC investigation is mind-boggling and one other thing that really made me laugh grace shared something the other day which is Stephen Bartlett's talking to Jimmy Carr and he goes are you happy and Jimmy goes yeah and Stephen goes yeah and Jimmy goes that is such a good question and Stephen goes it is a good question isn't it and Jimmy goes

actually it's a beautiful question we need two dumb bitches telling each other good question yeah is that that is so oh I feel so just like my skin is crawling what you and Sarah said about him flirting with the manosphere is such an excellent point and it's something that I've thought about for a while

And I've also definitely, definitely come across Chris Williamson and thought the exact same thing. And with the Manusphere, when I used to research kind of extremism and insult ideology, red pill, black pill, all of it, there is an amazing kind of funneling triangle. It's almost like the MLM triangle where the larger portion of the triangle is these very kind of softly spoken, very on the surface of it. just men talking about their feelings podcast, but when you really dig into the content, that is the bottom layer. And then the very much the next layer, it funnels down into these much more dangerous ideologies. So I do think that is a really legitimate point.

And I do think if you confer back to what we know is the kind of pyramid of radicalisation, these fit very easily into that. And I don't think that that's an over-exaggeration at all. I think that is a really good point. There was a quote from that episode where, and it's that kind of viral, quote, he says, should society intervene to course crack that? The thing that's said before that is, we're going to have a lot of men who are dissolution that become in cells, find themselves in pockets of the internet, are resentful, all those kind of things. And then he said, should society

intervene to course crack that? Should we put systems in place to make sure those men meet partners? And it's very interesting that, one, they let that hang. The silence says a lot there to kind of dispel the notion that, oh, maybe they mean making all men better. Maybe they mean a more robust support network. Like the silence says all because they do not provide solutions. They allow that to permeate us to kind of plant the seed of maybe this is an issue that needs intervention, maybe these men are being failed and kind of what's being implied is that women are not doing enough to help them. And I think it's interesting they talk about in cells in that way as though their conversation in the podcast is so divorced from it, whereas in cell ideology

literally relies on, as you kind of say, it relies on the belief that they are giving airtime to, that men are being failed, that the world is set up against men, that a man's lack of romantic or sexual options constitutes a crisis and a social issue and renders the men in question as victims. And there's a really fantastic book called Control Hate Delete by Cecily Simmons, which I was sent a copy of probably about a year ago, which, you know, it discusses this. It's about how we fight against Insultem and the anti-feminist backlash.

And there was a quote in the book which made me think of this conversation, which is, men increasingly subscribe to the Red Pill View, the world male supremacist communities have tried to convey for many years that men are now systematically disadvantaged and that it is a perilous time to be a man. And I'll just leave that there. Like I just think it says to hear that and then hear the conversation, they are not worlds apart. They are not two separate conversations. It is the same belief system. And I think we had Rebecca who said he's feeding into insolmotivated violence and conversations about female. bodily autonomy. Is it unintentional? Possibly. But someone with his influence should be much more

considerate. If you don't understand it, Stephen, don't use your platform to discuss it. I think it's so generous to read that he doesn't understand any of this. But if that's the case, Stephen Bartlett, please read this book. Did you also hear the one bit where, and I'm not sure if it was part of this podcast or another episode with the same guest, because he's interviewed him a few times. But he said he uses this almost as a reason to talk about how charged men and women are in current society against one another. He said there was a question on Twitter asking women if they'd rather be in the forest with a bear or a man. And apparently in this poll, most women said bears. And he says, that's proof of, you know, how distinct these groups are. And I was like, I was waiting for him to

say that's proof of how the fear of violence permeates every female experience that they have with a man. That is a perfect, you know, intel, portal into that argument. And he didn't do it. He just used that almost as a point back to talking about how difficult men have their experiences with women when that's the lens they're using against them. And it's so much to your point and only of this complete lack of feminist, not even feminist, just like a factual, unbiased examination of that one detail that I think is a perfect analogy for the way he's wading into this topic. It just, it's not sensible. It doesn't have any real logic to it, but he's really talking in fact. as if it's logical and it's just not. We had a message from Ramsey, which read,

of course the CEO is going to blame women instead of capitalism, which has made a percentage of men lonelier by atomising society via the death of third places, turning dating via dating apps into competitive marketplaces that can feel isolating and rejecting, but women feel this too. So the true culprit must be

that when faced with those problems, men are sabotaged by patriarchal thinking that tells them to bottle things up and avoid emotional closeness with other men. So instead, a percentage of them prioritise, banter over having genuine intimacy resulting in many of them having shallower platonic bonds and fewer deep

supportive relationships than women often have with other women. But as a capitalist cis-hap patriarchal white supremacist society, we can never truly acknowledge this so use scapegoats. Which I thought is such an interesting message because it's quite meta because the whole point of the CEO

at this point is that Stephen thinks that he's hosting these emotionally coherent debt deep vulnerable tapping into your feminine energy, whatever you want to call it, with other men, by them crying,

by them admitting to not having had sex, whatever it might be. But the content of the conversations is actually just the same. It's still blaming women. So I think Ramsey's really right, but what's really interesting is because of the guys of this idea

that actually they're breaking down masculinity, the type of masculinity that causes men to go inside themselves, that causes them to retreat and perhaps become red-pilled, it's such a clever like smoke and mirrors because they're not having progressive, interesting conversations, even though he does have women on, sometimes very high-profile women,

the majority of the people on his podcast are men talking about men and men's feelings from the perspective of victimhood. And as Catherine said in our messages, she's never listened, she says, have had issues where my brother, usually aligned in our thinking, has started to just ask questions

based on things he's heard on this podcast because Stephen B is framed as some sort of legitimate think tank for men and that is the runoff. We can listen and know where the holes in his argument are. We can listen and know that the quiet part is being said loud and that so much is being left out from a female perspective when the topic is women. But many men, especially young men, won't know that.

And this is shaping thinking. It's lending a lot of credence to ideas which are so easily debunkable. And also you take these apart and you go, this is, you know, gender essentialism, this is just furthering ideas of, you know, women's property. But unless there is that person there to say that, it goes unsaid and it goes unknown. And I think that is what, it's, it's so dangerous. I think there's the misinformation claims about health.

That's, that's dangerous to a person's physical health. And then there's stuff like this, which I think is dangerous to a person's emotional health and place in society that they might align their thinking with a lot of these bad actors, or at least people who haven't fully considered what they're saying and why. I agree. And I do think it's such an interesting reframing of the issue. And Sarah sent in a message and said, letting the gene pool die is a weird way to say no one wants to fuck them because they lack skills.

The guest also makes it seem like it's women's fault. Men won't step up and improve. And that it's, quote, totally unknown factors why women don't want them. Not true. And I do think it was such an interesting reframing saying there's a whole generation of men who are going to be lost to this issue. And my question was, well, why, why after COVID when lots of us experience this real bubbling of social anxiety, listen, I was afraid to leave the house.

You know, there are so many people going through that, how that isn't perceived as a lost generation in the same way that men who are struggling to talk to women is framed by this expert as this generation who will die out, they will become extinct. They're the dodo of our, you know, humanity crisis right now. You know, the answer is, I mean, the owners, I'm not talking about the owners here, but I'm just saying the answer so clearly is drawing back to community, finding solace with one another, speaking to people, you know, stepping away from screens. But it's almost like that that isn't the conclusion he's drawn.

He's gone the complete opposite way. It's a women's issue to then procreate with these people. Totally. We had a message from Sid, which goes back to what you said, Beth, about leaving that question. and kind of hanging there. And they said, I think what comes out in the discussion is the sense that there's a blindness around what it means to ask society to intervene to ensure male genes are passed down in the gene pool and that male loneliness is addressed.

It's treated like something thought-provoking or rational. But rationality requires balance and there's no discussion about whether there's loneliness for women in that or if there are female genes which aren't being passed down or what that system would look like. Are we talking about handmade's tail here or are we talking about some government kind of intervention? And then we had, on the flip side, we had a message from Amelia, which read, she was like, one of the things in that post about Stephen is it says, why do men feel entitled to partners? And I think it's less about entitlement, but more that's how it's always been. Like society literally continues because of that. I do think there's a discussion we had about why women's standards for relationships and that partnership we see throughout history. I do definitely think there's discussion we had about why women's standards for relationships. have changed. But I think it's not entitlement. I think it's okay to suggest should we change the way society is to ensure we can continue on a society and human race. And for me, that includes men being better and learning emotional intelligence, which we see less of, etc. But to suggest an

intervention, I think, isn't far off what we need, to be honest, which I think is a generous take because I think that is what women are calling for with the standards. It's in the kind of nub of what she sent there is that the change can actually come from. from men. This seems to be the blind spot that everyone's referring to. It's like, how could this possibly change? And it's like, well, actually you guys could change, but they very much don't want to. And I do think there is something to be said, and I keep reading things about this, but, you know, the aggressive in some ways ideological change on the part of women under a patriarchal society where men do feel like that, I'm not, this is not me like feeling sorry for them, but especially sort of like boomer men feeling like it's whiplash.

because for decades of their life they could say one thing and suddenly they're being told that they can't. I do think there has been a really sped up change in some ways but that isn't on women

and men should be able to change but it does feel interesting that that is never really addressed like Stephen's so worried about these men becoming incels but he doesn't posit the idea that perhaps what might help these men is through them seeking out

better information, them changing their work. ways them trying to become parts of their community, forge friendships, especially forged friendships with women. I don't think that's something that seems to come up. It's so interesting in a conversation about women and child rearing and childbearing that women are so absent from it. It's almost impressive to have that conversation and mention women so little. And nobody has, basically nobody has a right to having their genes passed on, which seems to be a misunderstanding somehow in this conversation. Like nobody on earth, not a man nor a woman, people have a right to be,

you know, safe and housed and fed and a chance to live freely. That is it. And I think there is an argument, perhaps as Amelia is saying, like something does need to change and it is a conversation worth looking at. Like if you're someone who believes the human race should go on, I think I'm currently a little bit on the fence. Loll, then go to the, go to the source of this and actually have that conversation. You know, if you look at the nub of this to borrow a fantastic phrase, you would find good and bad things. You would find, you know, economic pressure, climate crises, contraception, lack of community and also enhanced rights for women and a recalibration of gender roles worldwide, e.g. women are more free than ever to shape our lives outside of forced childbearing

and child rearing. And I think the last, it's that last one that's on the table here, instead of them saying, okay, we have to fix this world, we have to ease the pressure. on the average person, we have to kind of mend these fences. It's saying, hmm, these women, these women have chosen not to have children. Maybe we should have, maybe they should be on the table. And I think it's like the fact of women not choosing to procreate with particular men does not constitute an extinction event. It is the magic of free will and free choice, which we didn't have for so very long. And there was a, there's a comment on TikTok. TikTok, by the way, It's absolutely on Stephen Bartlett's neck at the moment from a user called Empower with Dimeini.

And she posted, no Stephen Bartlett, society does not need to intervene to ensure that in cells can still mate. Men are not entitled to reproduction and a woman is not a resource to be redistributed, which I think said it all so succinctly. Another point that I thought was so interested from right at the beginning of when you introed this and only was how easy it is to market something as factual and interesting and the emotional beats of a video podcast now. And Natasha message in and she said, I have always taken issue with the sensationalism of people's difficult stories or emotional moments through their social media marketing. And I thought it was such a perfect point that you both are making that because he's a Harvard trained psychiatrist, because he, the clip at the beginning is of him crying. And talking about very interesting points about porn, you know, society, culture, all of these things, it almost packages this point as being, and factual and coming from an expert. And I don't think because he's a trained psychiatrist, that also equates to him being able to comment on gender relationships between men and women.

That is not the same thing. But I think because of the nature of these interviews, they hit all of the beats of a video podcast. I think Jay Shetty's works exactly the same. You feel like you know what's coming at every point. It's almost like we, I think it almost encourages you to not. think critically. I think it just almost you follow the template of it, you come at the end, you don't really recognize that there's this very extreme rhetoric

being couched in the middle of this two hour bloody interview. Yeah, it's wild. I think the whole passing the jeans things as well is so nuts because like it's not something I would ever consider when it comes to thinking about whether or not I want to be a parent. Like I

have no stick in the gap. I don't care if my jeans have passed on like that really why would I care? I just, I find that such an interesting tell of ego and sort of like what men think it is to be a man, this idea of legacy and how important you are. In fact, like one of my fears, I think we spoke about this before about having children is what about if I give them some of my bad genes, what if my mental health is genetic? What if, you know, things I don't like about myself might become a burden to my child? That's how I think about my genetics in relation to like

a potential future baby, not the fact that, you know, some of my DNA is going to be stomping around on the earth as it burns in a hundred years. And I just, it's so interesting for that to be the thing that they kind of couch it around. I think the message about the skill issue thing is also so funny because ultimately is that not just natural selection, which I swear they love talking about as well. Like if you're not getting picked for someone to mate with you, then maybe your genes shouldn't be carrying on. I don't know what to say. Yeah. And the way they're saying like, but a woman could go to a sperm bank and just have a baby, as if that's a thing that is often happening with a woman who says, I don't like men, I'm going to do that.

I'm certain it does happen, but it's not every other woman who's going, thank God, off to the sperm bank, I go. It's a huge thing to elect to be a solo parent, to go through that whole thing, to get pregnant. Like it's a really considered decision. It's not, oh, a bit bored today, going to go to the sperm bank. Fuck men. It's such an interesting way they go, look at this fundamental imbalance.

It's like, that's a very small percentage of women that are doing that. The rest of women are exactly as bound by men by the construct of, okay, if I want to have a child, I'll need to meet someone. And if that doesn't happen, I know lots of women who've gone, well, okay, I'm not going to do that. Or who in their 40s go, okay, I've met someone now and we'll adopt or we'll do this. It's so unusual. It's such a non-slam dunk that he's gone. And you can imagine certain people listening being like, wow, never thought that before. And it's like, never think of it again. And on the issue of parenting, Katriona said, why must be passed on our jeans? Is that the only reason to have children? And Sirisha said, childless men speaking about

the declining birth rate is quite frankly hilarious. They're not talking about parenting at all. They are literally just talking about genes and lineage. And like it's very 15th century. It's very like I've got to have my son to, you know, carry on my bloodline. It's like, think about the realities of this. Women do think about like, I'll be a parent. They are not thinking about decades and decades down the line.

Like, if my bloodline dies with me, like frankly, who cares? I agree. I have never once thought about my genes or my bloodline. It does not cross my mind. What do I think should it? The point you said about how they said there's a power imbalance between men and women because women can go to the sperm bank, it's so true because when I was watching the podcast, I thought the exact same thing. I was like, wait, I feel like I'm being gaslit here because haven't we spoken about time and time again how the common belief, however misjudged and factually

incorrect, is that men can choose to have children later. This concept of a biological clock for women has meant that women are disenfranchised in terms of the pocket of time that they are able to conceive. So they can feel quite restricted in their choices and their ability to procreate if that's what they want in their life. Whereas men often can date much younger. That is a very acceptable notion within society. So that opens up their window to be able to have children for longer and longer and longer if they want. That is also a part of this picture. That's part of the puzzle.

But that's not discussed at all. So it's so interesting how not only has it been flattened, I think it's just been a completely re-adapted fact about what is going on when it comes to having children and the distinction between what is possible for men and women. It's so strange that he's completely disempowered men from this conversation. That's not the whole picture. No, and also on the flip side, we talk about this all the time.

It's women reporting that men are flaky, men won't settle down, men won't commit. So, like, that's another gaping hole. And Emma made the same point. She said, I listen to a lot of his podcast episodes when I run, as they're good for a long run because they're so long. I find he has a lot of male guests who fall into this pattern. She was like, every woman I know my age, early to mid-30s, is thinking about this, thinking about their fertility,

something my male friends, my age, aren't thinking about as much, despite the fact that women do have more of a ceiling when they can biologically have kids that men do not have. It's always men on his podcast talking about men. And I was also just thinking to go back to the jeans thing and this whole thing of like them centering around them kind of part passing on when women talk about children, and we talked about this with the bad dad guy recently,

but they're never once talking about, and a really interesting conversation around this could have been, say we do have children and we have a son. How could I raise a son to make sure that he becomes a good partner for a woman, that he is someone that is viable for partnership in the future? They never actually talk about the parenting aspect because I think a lot of these men don't see children as something that they're going to raise and rear and love, but they very much are just a product of them, something that they have been able to bring into this world. And I think that it's so interesting even from that perspective

because the reason also that they ignored that women are choosing to be childless, choosing not to partner with them and have their children, is because women know that they're going to be doing so much more of the emotional labour, that they cannot rely on a husband, that they do not know that actually having a maybe with this man will not completely derail every other area of my life, my body, my mental health, whatever it might be. Just absolutely none of that is addressed or thought about. And I do wonder if they're so in their own source that they haven't even stopped to consider. I think too many people are praising and just championing this man that actually there's no chance to grow and actually

become the good interviewer that he pleased himself to be or the forward thinker or the nuanced thinker that I think he at least used to believe that he was and this reminds me of a piece. So there's been quite a few call-up pieces about Stephen Barlett across the years and it's quite frustrating like he does just go on and on and there was a new statesman piece

I think from last year or year before by Clive Martin called Stephen Bartlett's Empire of Bluff and there's so many fantastic lines that I wish I'd come up with. One, like a lot of business people, he appears to be a firm believer in the Keep Your Mouth Shut and they'll forget about it at School of Public Relations.

He appears to be very very serious. bad news in a mudslide of content and hoping that the internet's collective attention disorder quickly forgets about it, which we've seen. Like I remember Chante Joseph when this BBC misinformation allegation came out was like, finally, this is over. And on he went. And in the piece, Clive also writes, Bartlett is a man of the zeitgeist, one whose vision and lexicon seemed perfectly tailored for the age of LinkedIn nonsense and Instagram hustling. His persona chimes with a mass cultural movement. One that believes life is a code that can be easily cracked through a steady, joyless routine of protein podcasts, ice baths and mantras.

He's a door-to-door salesman flogging, not a product, but a way of being, a used car dealer for the soul, which is, I think, justified, but obviously very scathing. I think perhaps he, this is a moment of hubris. Now that he is branching from health misinformation and sort of quite toothless, just keep working and you'll succeed. Bullshit, I think this kind of heat, I would hope, would expose what lies when he's the surface and would turn a lot of listeners off. I don't know if that's going to happen, but I do think

this is quite different than the earseeds and the other things and the sort of eat clean stuff that he's done before. I think this is straying into insult territory and hopefully people will wake up. Yeah, we've been really focused on this specific episode, but we did have a message from Charlie which read, I've struggled ever since he did nap about his sex drive versus his partners, the worst.

And I distinctly remember, because I think I was slightly attuned him. I think I'm probably listen to the Grace Beverly episodes. I think I did dip in and out of the earlier ones. And then I remember him talking about how he'd gotten with his partner, they'd broken up. And the way he spoke about her, I remember it rubbed me up the wrong way so much that that's when I really got a bit of like a bad taste in my mouth about him. But actually really doubted myself because so many people, like I said, were still enjoying his output. So we've really focused on this episode. But I do think that there is a long running thread history of this.

and now it's just like the perfect breeding ground. It's like got too big. And it kind of probably caters to an audience of men who feel like they're somewhat in touch, somewhat therapies, but without knowing they're kind of being shuffled towards an ideology that actually they probably thought they were moving away from. And there's one more thing that I did want to read because I think this is so true that this is why this episode also feels like whiplash,

where Natasha writes, I'm old enough to remember when we were told that women trap or have to convince men into marriage. marriage, etc. That was such a big thing when we were growing up that women were going to baby trap you and it's like we were getting in trouble for that and now we're getting in trouble because we don't want to have your babies. We really can't win. Thank you so much for listening and for all of your opinions and takes on this topic. Whether we get five responses or 100 for this one we did get lots and lots and lots.

We really appreciate every single one and we read them all. Please also give us a follow on Instagram and TikTok at Everything is Content Pod and give us a review, please, please, please, please, wherever you listen, if you haven't already. We'll see you, as always, on Friday. Bye. Bye.