The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 187. The Four Dos and Don'ts of Divorce | Warren Farrell

Episode Date: August 16, 2021

Dr. Warren Farrell and I discuss his book “The Boy Crisis” which explores the challenges boys face in education, mental health, relationships with fathers, and more. Together we steer the conversation towards the overwhelming experience of being a young male navigating through early adolescent years into adulthood. Warren Farrell is a well-established author who was chosen as one of the world's top 100 thought leaders at the Financial Times. His books have been published in more than 50 countries and 19 different languages. Farrell is the author of New York Times Bestsellers “The Boy Crisis” and “Why Men Are The Way They Are”. Warren Farrell has been involved in a manifold of powerful movements focused on men and women and has been featured on over a thousand television shows including Oprah Winfrey, and Larry King.

Hello and welcome to the Jordan B Peterson podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. Quick update on my dad. He's not feeling well. His health has been pretty up and down for the last few months. It seems to be autoimmune, but he's taken a pause on content production until he's feeling better. It's been a really miserable few months to be honest. I saw comments online and thought people might want an update if they're wondering where the new episodes are. This is episode 41 recorded on May 25th. want an update if they're wondering where the new episodes are. This is episode 41, recorded on May 25th. Jordan and Warren Farrell discuss the struggles of developing and growing as young men. Young men all over the world are facing detrimental consequences due to educational pressure and

the lack of exposure to a father-to-finger. They discuss Warren's book, The Boy Crisis, influences that surround men's development, the importance of parental guidance throughout the adolescent years, raising awareness on mental health and how to break these cycles. I hope you enjoy this podcast and your week.

This episode is sponsored by Allform. Allforms, the new company, launched by the people who made my lovely mattress, Helix. AllForm is creating furniture that's super customizable. Visit allform.com slash Jordan. You can pick your fabric, sofa color, color of the legs, sofa size, and shape to make sure it's perfect for you and your home.

They have arm chairs and love seats all the way up to an eight-seat sectional. You can start on a smaller scale too and buy more seats later if you want your all-form sofa to grow and change when you move. Their mid-century modern style furniture is very attractive and it's super in right now. My producer ordered a giant L-shaped sectional, six sections of brown leather with ottomans and pillows. It looks super fancy but it's also comfortable, and apparently transformed his living room. If getting a sofa without trying it in store feels a bit iffy, you don't need to worry about that either.

You get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it. That's more than three months. If you don't love it, they'll pick it up for free and give you a full refund. They even offer a forever warranty, forever. To build your custom sofa, check out allform.com slash Jordan. All forms offering 20% off for all our listeners at allform.com slash Jordan. Hello, everyone. I'm pleased to be talking today with Dr. Warren Farrell, who I spoke with three years ago almost to the day about his previous book, why men earn more?

We're going to talk today about the boy crisis, which was published just after our last interview. So that's in 2018. Dr. Warren Farrell was chosen by the financial times as one of the world's top 100 thought leaders. His books have been published in more than 50 countries and in 19 different languages. They include the New York Times bestseller, Why Men Are the Way They Are, which must be a very thick book, plus the International Best Seller, The Myth of Male Power, his most recent is The Boy Crisis.

We mentioned Why Men Earn More as well, which is a very good book. His most recent is the Boy Crisis. As I said, 2018, co-authored with John Gray, the Boy Crisis was chosen as a finalist for the Forward Indies award, which is the Independent Publishers Award. Dr. Farrell has been a pioneer in both the women's movement, elected three times to the board of the National Organization of Women in New York City, and the men's movement, called by GQ Magazine, the Martin Luther King of the men's movement. He conducts couples communications workshops nationwide. He's appeared on over a thousand TV shows. That's way too many TV shows and has been interviewed by Oprah, Barbara Walters, Peter Jennings, Katie Curick, Larry King, Tucker Carlson, Regis Philbin, and Charlie Rose.

He has frequently written for and been featured in the New York Times and other major publications worldwide. He has two daughters, lives with his wife in Mill Valley, California, and resides virtually at www.warrenferral.com. As I said, we spoke three years ago, was May 6, 2018, just before Dr. Ferrell's book, The Boy Crisis was published. We'll concentrate today on this book and associated topics. Hello, Warren. So good to see you. It is so good to see you more than normal, Jordan, for all the, you know,

we've had more than the boy crisis we've had the Jordan Peterson crisis obviously. Yeah very dull topic that. I don't know I it's just amazing to me that during this process of you going through what you went through not only with yourself but with Micha with Tammy, that you're not only alive, but that you're also, that you also produce an extraordinary book as well in that period of time. It's just beyond me. No, thank you. Yeah, well, it helped keep me afloat. So I've been reviewing the boy crisis in quite a bit of detail over the last few days. It's something I haven't thought about for a while. Certainly, I've thought about

it since our last conversation. The world has twisted and turned in all sorts of strange ways since then. And I suppose this issue has been pushed, this particular issue, the boy crisis, let's say, has been pushed to the back burner in a major way by all sorts of, well, cultural movements and by COVID. And it's not precisely on the radar. You mentioned to me just when we were discussing this issue, for example, at the beginning of our conversation today, before we started taping, that President Biden established a White House Gender Policy Council, which is supposed to focus on gender issues, but in your opinion, pretty much only focuses on women and girls, and is also supposed to focus on race, but pretty much ignores black boys,

which is perhaps the intersectional place to use a detestable phrase where the crisis is the most noticeable. So why in the world should we assume that the topic of your book, the title of your book, refers to something that is real. And if it's real, why aren't we attending to it? And why is it important? Yeah, well, first of all, it's real because in all 56 of the largest developed nations, boys are falling behind girls in almost every single academic subject, including reading and writing, which are the two biggest predictors of successor failure, as you could probably imagine.

And so, and, and boys who do badly in those subjects are much more likely to drop out of high school, and boys in general are much more likely to drop out of high school, especially in the United States. And boys who drop out of high school are more than 20% likely to be unemployed in their 20s. This is a statistic before COVID when the unemployment rate in the United States was 3.4% versus more than 20% for boys. And so that's just the academic part of it. On the mental health

part of it, when boys and girls are at nine, they commit suicide about equally and very minimally. Between the ages of 10 and 14, boys commit suicide twice as often as girls. Between the ages of 15 and 19, they commit suicide four times as often as girls. Between the ages of 20 and 25, they commit suicide about five times as often as girls. And most people don't even know this, pay attention to this. But this is only the tip of the iceberg of the mental health issue. There's, you know, where boys are far more likely to die from drug overdoses, opioid overdoses. They're far more likely to be depressed if you measure depression in a way that includes male symptoms

of depression much more likely to enter into places that take care of people who are mentally have mental problems and so on. And when boys, and so I started asking myself, you know, what, what causes all this, you know, and when I first submitted the boy crisis to the publisher and sort of, and form a proposal, I outlined 10 causes. And those causes included the environment and schools and so on. But I kept coming back to realizing that the hub cause of the boy crisis was dead deprivation, that the boy crisis resides were dads do not reside. And so that got me really thinking about that.

So for example, boys who are raised by moms and dads together and go from an intact family to a school that has very few male teachers, there's not a huge impact, a little bit of an impact, this negative, but not much. But if they go from a female only home environment, have only a female role model, then they go to a school with almost no male teacher role models. They are much

more subjected to much more vulnerable to being seduced by gangs as a pseudo family or trying not having the post bone gratification that dads tend to bring to the family. And so therefore without that post bone gratification, they're more vulnerable to a drug dealer saying you can make money really easily by dealing drugs You don't have to worry about getting the best grades in school And you'll you'll prove everybody you know, you'll drive around in a nice car You'll be able to get the girls you can't get because you're you're sort of a loser at school Etc. So I just started looking at all these things. I saw that the sperm count of boys

Had dropped 50% that the IQs of boys had dropped 15% and just I started, you know, looking and wondering about, you know, two things. One is how amazed, how much evidence there was for the boy crisis. And the second was exactly the question you asked, since it's so evident and we're so focused on girls and women's issues, why are we not even seeing the boys and men's issues that are coming up and how damaging it is to women to not have father involvement, for example, women that I had dated between my marriages were constantly talking about being overwhelmed. And so women are losers by father's not being involved. Fathers feel a lack of purpose.

And they deal with the whole thing that you talk about in your first rule of not having, not having some type of change of culture where this vitality to give them purpose. And so we're in a very challenging situation. I did come to understand what the cause of it is, but it really is depressing to see how ubiquitous that cause is. So why do you think if the crisis is of the magnitude that you suggest, you cite some statistics in the early part of your book. More men in the UK have died by suicide in the past year than all British soldiers in all wars since 1945.

Suicide now takes more lives than war, murder, and natural disasters around the world combined. That might not include COVID, I presume, that presume that statistic stealing more than 36 million years of healthy life and the rate of suicide is growing much faster for men than for women. You mentioned that boys IQ has dropped about 15 points since the 1980s and make a case in your book that that's related to fatherlessness. We'll get back into that. Boys scored lower than girls in the 63 largest developed nations in which the PISA, a set of international standard tests was given. Boys are 50 percent more likely than girls to fail

to meet basic proficiency in any of the three core subjects of reading math and science. By eighth grade in the US, 40 percent of girls are at least proficient in writing compared to one in five boys, one in five. Boys who perform as well as girls are graded less favorably. You know, we did some research years ago showing that agreeable children get better grades than their IQ would predict. And girls are more agreeable than boys. And so what that means is if you're less agreeable

and more likely to be troubled then because that is associated with being less agreeable, then you're graded more harshly, then your pure cognitive ability would predict. And that probably accounts for the gender difference or at least for part of it, and not that it particularly matters. But boys have gone from 61% of university degrees

to 39% girls, the reverse. Percent of boys who say they don't like schools gone up 70% since 1980. I imagine it was already pretty high in 1980. Boys are expelled from school three times as often as girls. As girls, that's the same statistic basically as boys are more likely to be rested for conduct disorder, juvenile delinquency, men are much more likely to be imprisoned. That is the same pattern there. One in three children in the UK and the US grow up without a father. And you know, our culture pushes the idea constantly that all families are of equal virtue, let's say. And I suppose that's justified in that it's self-evident that of all the things that people strive

to do well in their lives, they strive to raise their children. I would say more diligently than they might meet any other requirement or responsibility. And so it seems cruel to judge the quality of a family given the commitment that it takes, for example, to be a single parent. But I'm releasing a podcast this week with Richard Tromblay, who's perhaps the world's foremost authority on the development of aggression in children, development and regulation. And he, his doubt, it certainly indicates that having a single mother, especially a single mother with issues,

is a predictor of the maintenance of aggressive behavior throughout the lifespan, a major predictor. Now, he associates that more with trouble on the maternal side, young mothers, young uneducated mothers, young uneducated mothers with psychiatric and other health difficulties who lack social support, hasn't concentrated so much on the fatherlessness end of it, but the upshot is the takeaway is the same. These are families that are not producing children who have the same probability of thriving. Let's say. You said also, Japan has increased its vocational education programs, so that 23% of its high school graduates graduate study at vocational schools and they have a 99.6% employment rate, that's something we can talk about as well. So your book is peppered with, well, painful statistics, I would say.

Why do you think we don't attend to this, Warren? I think historically and biologically, men were programmed and milley through animals, including insects right on through to human beings. We were programmed to be willing to die in order to get women's love. And so in every generation had its war. And in each generation's war, we said some version of Uncle Sam needs you and we pointed to the uncle who in the marine uniform on the on the on the mantle and we were so proud of him. He died in World War 1 or 2 and the boy sees that the way he can get love and approval and respect even though he's

being criticized by this person of that person or in school or at home, is he can be a soldier. And so we inspire boys to be disposable and when somebody is likely to be lost, you don't develop as much emotional attachment to that person. And if your way of surviving is for males to be willing to lose their life, so we're not under Nazi rule, et cetera,

you begin to develop a connection between caring about men largely to the degree that they are willing to protect women and die for women. And so you don't care about the people who are dying so much if you have an incentive in there, if you have an incentive to have them be willing to die in order to protect you. And so, it's a disposable male hypothesis. That would be the hypothesis on the evolutionary psychology front. I mean, one of the things I've noticed is that my critics,

let's say like to parody my audience as, well, angry, white, and young, and male, let's say. But the thing that's interesting about that is that, perhaps you could give me the benefit of the doubt and say that about that is that perhaps you could give me the benefit of the doubt and say that if that is my audience, and my audience is certainly much broader than that, and that wasn't who I was targeting, let's say. But even if it was, well, is there something wrong with talking to those people who are alienated and angry and perhaps for some genuine reason?

The answer seems to be, the default answer seems to be, they're so contemptible that anyone who even tries to help them is to be regarded with extreme suspicion. And it seems to me that that's in some manner a reflection of the phenomenon that you're discussing, which is a very, what would you say? If it's very deeply rooted and fundamental, at least from one perspective. So I was thinking today, maybe our culture set up so that the most esteemed people are

highly successful men, but the least esteemed people are unsuccessful men. And so maybe that maybe that's the strange paradox is that men in some sense have it the best if they're occupying the pinnacle of achievement, but they have it the worst if they're at the bottom of the heap. And that seems right. If you look at women's dating preferences, for example, compared to men, women disproportionately are disproportionately attracted to successful men and disproportionately likely even to rank men of average attainment as below average, whether it's attractiveness or any of the other criteria by which such things might be judged. So, you know, the question is, if it is so deeply rooted, well, one question is, if it's still deeply rooted, what makes you think there's anything that we can do about it?

I mean, you haven't had any luck, for example, convincing the White House over years to pay some attention to boys, essentially, even though they're the problem, let's say, you might think that even from the perspective of prevention, there would be some attention paid in that direction, but this bias is so pervasive that it seems to even interfere with that. Absolutely. So, a few things, lots of really good things you brought up. So let me deal with the first thing on the anger issue. One of, I don't know

if we discussed this before, Jordan, but I've been teaching couples communication workshops for 30 years and just produced a 30, a Zoom course on that a few days ago. And one of the things that is fundamental to that course is that men and women, and this is gay couples as well, and trans couples, and even parents and children, all complain about their partners or their parents or their child's anger. And one of the things that I work with them on is to understand that anger is vulnerability's mask. And the moment you see your partner as angry, look for the vulnerability that created that anger, that felt the fact that they felt rejected or the possibility that they felt rejected,

the possibility that they felt misunderstood, the possibility that they said what they feel, their bothers, that bothers them over and over again but that it's been ignored and every time that they say that say what bothers them there's a response to it that disconnect that cuts cuts them off and interrupts them before they finish their full feeling they're not drawing out and the response that they get is an argument and so they tend to not bring up issues that really concern them because it's only going to be met by an argument that will escalate an argument and so they tend to not bring up issues that really concern them because it's only going to be met by an argument that will escalate the problem and so they end up walking on eggshells.

Now who does that, men, women, both sexes do that and it doesn't make any difference whether it's straight or gay couples. They both do this is a complaint that I hear from literally everybody. And so when your audience is criticized as being angry, I would just ask, you know, if you, if you look at that anger as the vulnerability, how is that audience not being heard? And the way you are serving that audience is to hear some, to the degree that that audience is part, part of your audience is, is, is serving that audience by healing them by having them have

a place where they feel heard as opposed to dismissed. When someone feels dismissed, they become depressed, they become they turn inward. An example of that is when men and fathers and mothers go through the family court system, fathers are much less likely to feel heard and the family court system. Fathers are much less likely to feel heard and the family court feel treated as equals. Now that's another reason why I wanted to talk to you before and today in my clinical practice, I had men who were fine upstanding men who were absolutely ground into nothing

by the family court system. I mean, I pulled out all the tricks I had out of my hat, one client in particular, a medical professional whose life was completely destroyed by the family law system. It was like watching a train wreck and slow motion to use a terrible cliche. We tried every trick in the book to keep him afloat. But he wanted, was 50% access to his three kids.

And he was a really good father. I went out with him a number of times with his kids and watched how he interacted with them and how he taught them and how he cared for them and went to his house and looked at how he set up their bedroom. And he did this guy did everything right. He was extremely high and conscientious and so unsurprising. But I know he had his driver's license taken away.

He had his passport taken away. He had his livelihood demolished by ill-founded rumors, by a spouse that was hell bent on his destruction. I mean, we even went so far as to have him pick up his kids when they made the switch in front of a really, really busy supermarket. She would pull up behind him right in front of the doors of the supermarket. The kids would come out. She would stay in the car.

The kids would come out and go into his truck and pull away so that everything that transpired between the two of them was in full public view all the time. And despite that, she managed to get into his car a number of times. But anyways, he was just demolished. And I've seen this. And you know, I get criticized. Maybe we can go into this a little bit. I get criticized for a couple of things by men regularly. One is, I get criticized because I stand up for traditional marriage. And there's always a proportion of men who write, and they're usually men who've been demolished by the family court system. We say, look, you should stop telling young men to adopt a permanent relationship, get married, because the family court system, you say, look, you should stop telling young men to

adopt a permanent relationship, get married, because the family court system is so prejudiced against men that to sign a marriage contract, if you sign it with the wrong person, is, you know, tantamount to a, well, let's not call it a death warrant, but it's a very bad idea, you know, and my response to that is, well, you're basically married if you live together for six months anyways, and so I don't see how the marriage actually adds to that, you know, in terms of, in terms of risk. But it's not like I don't understand that there's a point there, and it's, it's interesting because I do believe that the family court system, I've looked at it, I've been involved in it several times, wasn't to my benefit, I would say.

The men who are objecting have a point. And then I'm also suggesting to young men, another point of criticism that, you know, they adopt traditional responsibilities to the degree that that's possible and that that's where they'll find meaning. But, you know, some of your work makes me second guess that, at least to some degree, wondering if I just don't see an alternative, I suppose. That's really the issue is that, well, what do we have?

We have our jobs, we have our careers, we have our loved ones, we have our families. That's life. And if you don't have that, well, then you're a drift. That's the purpose void that you talk about in this book. But if the traditional pathways to meaning, let's say, are no longer reliable, what's a guy to do, let's say, are no longer reliable. What's a guy to do, let's say? We really, so to affirm what you're saying and put a piece of data to that,

when people are going through the family court system, mothers and fathers are going through the family court system, the father is eight times as likely as the mother to commit suicide from the frustration, obviously, of not feeling able to connect to his children, what very few mothers and fathers understand is that dads have adopted in their traditional role sort of a father's cash 22.

They learn to earn money. They learn to love their family by being away from the love of their family. They often do things like they may drive cabs, they may they may quit their passion of being an elementary school teacher becoming a superintendent or principal of schools. They hate administration, but they end up earning more money because they want their children to do better than they had a chance to do in their life. They want the children to go to a good school, which means a good school district, which means a more expensive home, which means that if they were a musician or an actor or a writer or that elementary

school teacher, they have to give up that for the most part because they'll earn more doing something that they like less. And so we have to be right. Right, which is something that was just part of the pay gap that's never really emphasized is that one of the ways you earn more and you outlined that in, in, I think, a great book and why men earn more, I think that is a great book. You know, you point out that you earn more for doing jobs that are less desirable and transically desirable in some sense. I mean, that's part of the equation at least.

Their jobs are more dangerous. They take you away from home more often, et cetera. And those are disproportionately male jobs. I mean, the guy that I saw who got demolished so badly, you know, his wife claimed to be the primary caregiver and the courts are tilted so that they favor the mother, especially in the first three years of a child's life. And I've had some sympathy for that perspective

for a variety of reasons, Although I think I've I think I've rethought my stance and believed that 50-50 custody default is the appropriate default just like 50-50 default with regards to money or during the during the life of the marriage is the default. But my client worked a lot to provide for his family and his wife stayed at home and was with the kids all the time as a consequence. And because of that, when they went to court, she had the upper hand in the custody negotiation because the judge believed perhaps that it was in the custody negotiation because the judge believed, perhaps,

that it was in the best interest of the children that they continue with their primary caregiver. And that's a very hard argument to push aside, given the strength of the mother child bond, especially in the first year. I mean, maybe the first year is exceptional. Perhaps it's not. Perhaps we have to move to 50, 50 regardless.

But what do you think about that? I, there's four, one of the things that I talk about in the boy crisis is the four must-dos of after divorce. And this is like now putting huge amounts of research together into sort of four simple things. But one, the number one and most important is that the children have an equal amount. By the way, this is, if you want the children to do almost as well as they would in an intact family, not as well, but almost as well.

Okay, so this is a child's scent. See, that's something we should establish here too, as a principal. My scent is always, marriage is here too, as a principal. Oh, I try. And my sense is always, marriage is for children, not for adults. Exactly. They're the primary target of, of, of, of rank-ordered importance. Children first. And then the adults, marriages for children, not for adults.

That's, that's a very immature way of looking at the world, if you think your marriage is for you. You, you have a free choice when you have children to have the children or not have the children. That's like having a free choice to take the job or not take the job. But once you take the job, you take the responsibilities with it. And so, so in court, when I talk about I do a lot of expert witness work on this issue. And in court, what I explain is that we now, for the first time, in the last five or six years, we now have really incontrovertible evidence that four things

are really needed if we want the children to do the best to divorce. Number one is that equal amount of time with mother and father. The closer you get to 50-50, even when the child is like one year old or just born, it is that leads to the greatest possibility of a positive outcome and so many measures that we'd have to spend almost a half hour talking about those measures. Well, I'd like to talk about that to some degree because it's somewhat counterintuitive. So I think it's important to delve into that. Absolutely. I'll be happy to do that. Okay. And then number two, is that the father and mother live within about 20 minutes drive time from each other, because when they don't

oftentimes become very resentful of the other parent, because they have to go to that of the parents home and miss their soccer practice. So therefore, they don't get the skills and the teamwork and the continuity to be good on the soccer team or miss their soccer practice. So therefore they don't get the skills and the teamwork and the continuity to be good on the soccer team or miss their best friends, birthday party or whatever. And so there's attention when the father and mother live after divorce more than about 20 minutes of drive time from each other.

Number third, number three is that the children cannot experience any bad mouthing or negative body language from mom toward dad or dad toward mom because when the child looks in the mirror and let's say the child's a boy and Here's at your father is irresponsible and your father's a liar your father Is this in that that boy is looking in the mirror and, well, maybe I'm a narcissist like my dad. Well, the boys, young boys play dad. And so whatever they think of as dad is going to be, is going to enter their space of fantasy. And I mean, what they play out in their fantasy play is their destiny.

Yes. And so the image of future masculinity, I always think of Captain Hook when I think of that because Peter Pan stays, Peter Pan because he doesn't want to be Captain Hook. It's brilliant mythologically that story because it's got it exactly right. If you conceptualize the great father is power hungry tyrant, which is increasingly the way we conceptualize our entire society and we call it patriarchal, then why would you want to grow up to be that? Why do you want to be that adult? And so if the mother is modeling her opinion that that's what constitutes dad, she's also modeling her opinion that that's

what constitutes future mature son since he's going to be dad. Yes, exactly. And then that boy hearing that both, let's say if he hears that from the mother, by the way, this is true father to mother also. I mean, I'm now the in the part of the father of the mother is really damaging to the child because not only does the child, is that child half the genes of the other parent, but also the child can't bring it up to either parent because it brings it up to the parent that made that complaint and it loses that the favoritism of that parent if it brings it up to the other parent that your dad said this or mom said this about you that destabilizes the child's future even more. So the child has a terrible secret all the time and betrayal the child's in a state of betrayal all the time. And betrayal. The child's in a state of betrayal all the time, no matter what.

Exactly. And I've seen children used as weapons continually, in exactly that manner. It's appalling. It's appalling beyond comprehension. And then the fourth thing that's very important is that the parents, rather, are in couples communication counseling or relationship counseling, not just when there is an emergency. When there is an emergency, everything has to be made as a quick decision, and there's

a tendency to see the other parents worst intent, whereas long term counseling allows the father and the mother to see, to have time to hear the mother or father's best intent about what they're doing and why they're doing it. Well, so at the bare minimum, that means that the couple gets together in an administrative sense to sort out the necessary details in the presence of a relatively, what would you say, interest-free, commitment-free, bias-free, third party.

Exactly. Really a management ploy, rather in some sense, rather than a counseling ploy per se, or at least you could parse it out in those two ways. Obviously, once you have children with someone, you're married to them permanently in some real sense. And so that has to be taken care of. And a lot of taken care of a marriage, I do make this point to some degree and be on

order when I talk about making space for romance a fair bit of marriages administrative detail and getting that down, getting that right. I mean that does allow you to see some good will on the part of your partner as well. If you guys have been listening to the podcast for a while. You know that Dad and I have received NAD infusions in the past to help with health and have seen results like improved mood and energy levels. The big drawback to the infusions is the treatment requires being hooked up to an IV for 8 hours at a time and it's pretty unpleasant. The effects were pretty cool though, like a buzzing throughout my entire body and just a feeling

of calm. Basis, by the company Elysium, is a great way to save the time of infusions and the cost and still get the benefits of NAD. Basis works by increasing your NAD levels and activates something known as Sirtuins or our longevity genes, which scientists say optimize the way we age. Basis is also the first dietary NAD supplement to synergistically activates their two ends based on 30 years of research in the science of aging. They have dozens of the world's best scientists working with them, and eight of them are Nobel

Prize winners. Many of the plus sides of increased NAD are internal things you probably won't feel right away like enhanced mitochondrial function, active longevity genes, and improved DNA repair. NAD is found in every single cell of your body and is responsible for creating energy and regulating hundreds of cell functions. But the body doesn't have an endless supply of NAD and it declines when you age. Many basis customers also report experiencing higher energy, less fatigue, and more satisfying workouts.

So this is easy. You just take two capsules a day to promote healthy aging. Listeners can get one month free on a subscription to basis. That's the equivalent of $45 off by visiting trybasis.com slash Jordan and using the code JBP basis. That's trybasis.com slash Jordan and using the code JBP basis. That's trybasis.com slash Jordan promo code JBP basis for one month free. That's a great deal on a groundbreaking supplement. Yes, absolutely.

And you brought up a moment ago to go to the different developmental advantages that happened when father and mother are both involved. And those developmental advantages include the father involvement. So after marriage or after divorce, the father involvement, lack of father involvement is the single biggest predictor of suicide. It is one of the biggest predictors of a child not graduating from high school dropping out of school. It's a very big predictor of a child being, having, being aggressive, but not assertive.

And last time when we did our last interview together, we talked about the whole rough housing dimension of things. And I'm not going to go through that again because of the, the fact that people can go to that other interview and see that, but there are about nine differences between dad style parenting and mom style parenting. And a lot of those differences moms are so good at say spotting a son's and daughters, you know, gifts like say, sweetie, you sing so nicely or you're going to be a great actress or a musician or whatever. you're going to be a great actress or a musician or whatever. You should try and do that. And dads are likely to affirm that, but not so vociferously at first, but are more likely to say some version of, well, if you want to be a gym, if you want to be in the Olympics,

you've got to practice all the time. And we'll give you some tutoring or we'll go out of our way to take you to gymnastics practice but if you're not really focused on if you're focused on responding to tweets and and going to parties and doing other things you're never going to become an Olympic gymnast so you have to make a trade-off and the dad is much more likely to the whole And the dad is much more likely to enforce the boundaries around that trade-off and require the child to focus and discipline on focus and have postpone gratification around what they say they want to do and give up support for the child if the child doesn't follow through with that and only has a dream that they're not willing to have the discipline to fill in.

Okay, so that's okay. So there's a real hypothesis there, which I think is worth delving into, because one question obviously is, well, why is it not good to be without a father? And is it not the case that someone else, maybe two females, for example, could play the paternal role? And obviously that's true to some degree, if we could specify play the paternal role. And obviously, that's true to some degree. If we could specify what the paternal role is, but you make a very specific case,

which is quite an interesting one, which is that it's fathers, primarily, who are responsible for the instantiation of delay of gratification. Now, we should point out that among psychologists who are leery of IQ as the best predictor of success in the long run, the vast majority of those psychologists, whose opinion I do not agree with, by the way, is that the thing that predicts better than IQ is the capacity to delay gratification.

And that seems to be associated with trait conscientiousness and trait conscientiousness, which is dutifulness and industriousness and orderliness, the ability to make and maintain verbal contracts, conscientiousness is the best predictor of long-term success outside of general cognitive ability. Now, we'd also say that in cultures where families are more likely to be intact, and so we could say Southeast Asian cultures, for example, and point out that children from Southeast Asian cultures do disproportionately better in North America than children of North American parents. The reason for that seems twofold.

One is more correlational, perhaps, in that those families are much more likely to be intact and so to have fathers. But the second is that the advantage that is accrued to those children seems to be in the domain of conscientious striving. It's work ethic. It's the ability to delay gratification. And so if it is the case that farther involvement is a key predictor of the capacity to delay gratification,

then that's an absolutely crucial issue. And we need to know, well, is that true? And we also need to know if it's true, why it's true. And perhaps it has something to do with the relative disagreeability of farther. So women are more prone to negative emotion than men, and with their more empathic and compassionate and polite than men. Men are more disagreeable, and use disagreeableness is the best predictor by the way of criminal behavior from the personality perspective, even though it's not a very good predictor. But if you're really, really disagreeable, that's one of the things that can end, that can

land you in jail because you don't take other people into account. You can be callous and cruel and unkind, but just because something has its pathologies in the extreme doesn't mean it's not necessary in moderation. And disagreeable people are better at saying no and at setting boundaries and at being cruel to be kind let's say well sure you're good at that you want to do that but here's what it's going to take and I'm going to draw boundaries and I'm going to draw lines and you think that's fathers and what evidence do you have for that? Oh my goodness, just for example one of the things I'll talk about is the difference between boundaries, setting and boundary enforcement.

And, you know, dads and moms will both set boundaries very similarly. They'll both say, you can't have your ice cream until you finish your peas. And children will test boundaries pretty much exactly the same way. They'll have these pieces possible if you're for it. They get there. Absolutely. And they balance on that edge and push, because they want to find out exactly where that border is.

My son, who's relatively disagreeable, man, he pushed boundaries at every opportunity when he was between two and four. It was really something to behold. He was a force of nature in going right up to the line and pushing on it just to see what was going to happen. And so you can go ahead. up to the line and pushing on it just to see what was going to happen. And then go ahead.

Yeah, and then but the difference between moms and dads is not these boundaries setting or the children's challenge, but rather the the boundary enforcement. The child will be able to say to mom some version of like, you know, I had a tough time in school today. I really don't know because I was teased why this boy and he's the best, most popular boy or the most popular girl in the school. Usually would be the boy that would tease him. And, you know, and so mom is saying to herself, you know, well, what am I going to do here? Am I going to be, get into a big argument over a few peas when he's depressed? That would be insensitive and stupid. So I'll tell you what, sweetie, you know, you can have this many more peas and then you can have your ice cream.

And then the boy will see, oh, negotiating is, or a girl will see, is negotiating is a possibility here. So from a position of weakness. Yes, exactly. I will have half that many peas that mom, you know, put a set aside. And then mom is going again, you know, all right. Now he at least tried given the benefit of the doubt. Okay, you can have the ice cream now. Whereas dad is much more likely to go. I'm sorry, we have a deal here.

Sweetie, I know you had a bad day in school, but you, but you need to finish the piece. The deal is before you get your ice cream. Oh, daddy, you're so mean. Mommy doesn't do that to me. She, but me and, yeah, and, and dad goes, well, you know, you can, can cream. Oh, daddy, you're so mean. Mommy doesn't do that to me. She doesn't mean. Yeah, yeah. And dad goes, well, you can continue to complain, but this is my rules now.

And if you continue to complain, there'll be no ice cream, there'll be no ice cream even. It's a possibility tomorrow night. Now we're forcing the child is getting forced to have to pay attention to doing what she or he needs to do, finish the piece before she or he gets the ice cream what they want to have to pay attention to doing what she or he needs to do, finish the piece before she or he gets the ice cream what they want to have. Okay, so let me take what you said apart a little bit from a personality perspective.

Okay, so I'm going to hit it from three perspectives. So the first is, I've always been entranced by the Disney movie Pinocchio and Pinocchio is about the development of an autonomous individual, right? Someone who's free from having his strings pulled by others and who isn't a wooden head, but someone who's alive and can think for himself. And as Pinocchio develops, he faces a number of temptations. And one is to become an actor, which means to become a deceiver or a player of parts, rather than the real thing.

But another is to become a neurotic wreck who wants vacations. So he's tempted by Pleasure Island. And the way the Fox and the cat tempt him is by convincing him that he's ill, convincing him to capitalize on that, and convincing him that the respite for his illness is a vacation from his permanent vacation from his responsibility. So the temptations are deceitful actor and neurotic victim. So it's a very perspicacious film. It's a remarkable film. But in any case, now let's take that apart a little bit. So I'll first make an observation from my own marriage. My wife is no pushover and she's relatively low in agreeableness by female standards. But what I observed in our relationship was that it was hard for her to discipline the children,

especially when they were very young. And I think the reason for that was partly temperament because I think the feminine temperament tilts towards compassion and nurturance, whereas the masculine temperament tilts more towards tough love. Yeah, yeah, fine, that's good. Thank you for filling in there. Yeah, yeah, it's conditional.

There's a conditional element to it. A judgmental element, which in a love, by the way, but conditional approval as part of total love. Right. Good clarification. Absolutely. Right. Because the container total love. Right. Good, good clarification. Absolutely. Right. Because the container is love. Yes. But, but that can mean delay of gratification. Right. And there's a cruelty and delay of gratification, even when you impose it on yourself. It's a, it's a cruelty in the local sense because it causes distress. I mean, right now, my son and daughter are teaching their son, who's only slightly over

one know. And I told them how to do it. So for example, he sits at our table out in the backyard and he reaches behind and he's tearing the plants out of the green wall that's behind him. And so that's a no. And I said, I encourage them. I said, look, take his hand, hold it firmly so that he can't move it. Say no, hold him until he stops struggling to undertake his goal directed activity.

He'll probably cry as soon as he stops resisting. Let go and give him a pat. So you do that 20 times. Then when you say no, he'll cry and stop. And then 20 times after that, he'll just stop. He won't cry. So 40 times. And you've taught him no, which is an amazing thing because then you can let him go free because whenever you say no, he'll just stop. And so you can facilitate his freedom instead of having to be helicopter, tyrant parent who I've seen many of, who is one step behind their ambulatory two and a half year old, interfering with absolutely everything he does because he can't grasp a basic principle of socialization.

In any case, no has some pain associated with it because otherwise it wouldn't produce tears. And no is a very, very hard thing to learn and know is what the world teaches, not just what people teach. In any case, back to my wife, she spent the first year bonding with the child and also learning how to respond essentially, especially in the first six months to his or her every whim because a crying infant demands instant recourse. And the crying infant is always right, especially if they're under six months of age. But then when the kid becomes ambulatory and starts

to require discipline, the woman is required to switch from this primarily empathic role, which is facilitated by hormonal transformation, post pregnancy, by the way, from this primarily nurturing role to a role that is in some ways in the local environment, it's antithesis. It's very hard for women to do that. And so my observation has been that they need, they require someone else to bolster that element because it runs at counter purposes to what they're required to do in early infancy. And so, okay, so delay of gratification. We're going to focus on that. And an example illustrating what you're saying, and this is hard database. An example that I talk about in the boy crisis is bedtime. So we know, when we look at bedtime, set my mothers and fathers, is that moms will set

bed times earlier than dads will. Dads will set bedtimes later, but the children end up when studied going to bed earlier, when they're with the dad, then they do with the mom. And so why is that what the dad will be more likely to do is say some version of like, okay, bedtime is 9 o'clock. And whatever, when you get all your chores done, when you get yourself your brush your teeth, you change your clothes, you done your homework, etc. And I see your homework and it's done well than any time that you have between when you're finished,

when you're sister and brother are both finished, your homework, etc. That time you have to play or do or ask me to do whatever I want. Be your favorite story, etc. With mom, she's more likely to end up rushing to get through everything that they need to do, that is post-born gratification, and orderly it, but they want to have their story read to them some rough housing before bedtime, and something along those lines, and then with the understanding that they will then,

everything will be cut off at nine o'clock. The children with mom are more likely to, mom says, you know, bedtime is this time, it's nine thirty, let's say, and the children gets to be dying 30. And one of the boys or kids will say, you know, well, I haven't done my homework, you know, knowing that mom will want the child

to have done his or her homework with rather than go to bed without having homework be done. And so the mom will say, well, all right, you should have done your homework before. But we'll allow you a little bit more time for us to finish your homework off. And so the boy is able to, or a good girl, is able to manipulate better more time

than that nine, 30 time. And they open up even later. What the dad makes clear to the child is that if he or she does not, if they use up all that time and they haven't done that done the homework and it's now nine o'clock your bedtime, sorry, but you will not, you'll just go to school and not have your homework done that's your responsibility to get that done by this point in time. And so that's one of the sort of dynamics that happens that leads to children being more likely to be focused on doing what they need to do.

And also, children brought up by mothers are more likely to be ADHD if they're brought up predominantly by mothers, 30% of children are ADHD that includes the average between boys and girls. Boys are obviously more likely to be ADHD. Whereas with fathers brought up predominantly by fathers, only 15% are likely to have ADHD because you can see from those examples that the boy or the girl, the children, are required to focus on doing what they need to do, get that homework done, get their teeth brushed before they get what they want to have. And the same, we talked last time about rough housing, how the children were prevented from having more rough housing fun.

If they pushed their sister or their brother out of the way, and they didn't consider the needs of their brother and sister. So back to the personality differences. So women are higher in negative emotion is to manifest negative emotion and to say Here's a bunch of reasons why I'm not doing so well and so I deserve a break and that so because of the sensitivity to negative emotion the fact of the negative emotion is more compelling Because it's more deeply felt and then the agreeableness means that there's a much higher probability of being felt sorry for. And you can see that in the positives, like when you're dealing with infants, because

when they're in distress, the proper response is immediate gratification of their desires. But that's not a good long-term strategy, which is, I think, likely why I don't exactly understand the relationship with lower agreeableness. It's certainly the reason for the emergence of conscientiousness, which is a cold virtue, and which involves delay of gratification. Now, men are not more conscientious than women. They're more industrious and industrious to some slight degree, and less orderly, and those two combined make conscientiousness. but the agreeableness difference is definitely, it's quite pronounced. And so, partly what you're arguing for

from the perspective of a personality psychologist is the necessity for two parent families really on temperamental grounds, and really on biological grounds. I mean, these things are mutable to some degree, but not easily. And the other thing that's quite interesting is that, and this is something everyone should really listen to,

is that they're anti-mutable, given the way that our society is proceeding. So you might say, well, there are these personality differences between men and women, higher neuroticism in women, so that's proclivity to negative emotion, and higher agreeableness. But if we made our societies equal, those personality differences would go away, and then we wouldn't require by gendered parenting. But what's happened is that if you go to the Scandinavian countries where the attempts to

equalize the social landscape have gone the furthest and in some sense had the most success, there are notable exceptions. So if you rank order countries by the egalitarian nature of their social policies, now, and that doesn't require that any of them have perfectly egalitarian policies, it just requires that you admit that some cultures are more egalitarian than others in their attempts and their practices. And I think only a fool wouldn't put the Scandinavian countries at the top of that list. Then you'd say, well, what that should mean is that in Scandinavia, the personality differences between men and women are minimized and in authoritarian

countries, they're maximized. And exactly the reverse is what happens is if you iron out the wrinkles in the social landscape so that it's more egalitarian, men and women get more different with regards to their interests, people versus things. So women get more interested in people and less interested in things and less interested in the STEM fields, at least in partial consequence, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. And they get even more different than men in terms of their neuroticism and their agreeableness, not less. And so that argues against easy social amelioration of this necessity for

bygender to parent households. Yes, the children that seem to do the best are ones that have their in-attack families or, as I mentioned before, the children have a better equal amount of time with both parents and that there is a checks and balance parenting. So a child will come to the father and mother and say, can I climb the tree and backyard? And mom will say, well, maybe in a few years,

sweetie, but not right now. You're too young and you could really hurt yourself and the child will have the same thing of a dad and the dad will be more likely to say, well, yes, I guess so, but be careful. And then if the mother finds out the father and the mother will go, well, wait a minute, you're not blah, blah, blah. You're playing one against the other here, Ken. Good work, but no.

Yes, but the, well, the kid will play one against the other, but one of the best responses to that is for the child to be able to see the mother and father negotiating. Right, absolutely. And saying, you know, well, yes, you can climb the tree, but you can't go this beyond this branch, this high, and you can't go on there under the tree. So in case the child falls, the child will be cushioned by your fall and don't get preoccupied with the cell phone. In fact, maybe give me the cell phone while you're out there with a ginger or Mary under the tree.

And so they see the negotiation between masculine and feminine taking place. Why do you think that's so important? And you say there's research supporting that specific proposition. It's a very specific proposition. So what's so important? And you say there's research supporting that specific proposition. It's a very specific proposition. So what's the research? And well, it's the most specific and metaphorical specifically. We now know that children climbing trees makes them worry about what risks are worth taking, what risks are that fires synapses

that are outside of their normal synapse firing development, and the data that we have for that is that the IQs of children doing risk-taking behaviors like climate trees increase as they do that risk-taking behavior, and they increase their psychomotor functioning. We see. So there's this concept that Russian developmental

psychologist came up with Vygotsky called the zone of proximal development. And one of the things he noted was that, I believe it was Vygotsky who discovered this, it might not have been, but it's the same phenomenon. So it doesn't really matter. So if you analyze the way that parents talk to children who are developing their language, so infants who are still learning to speak, adults don't speak to the infant in terms that the infant can understand precisely. The adults speak to the infant slightly ahead of its developmental trajectory. And Vygotsky called that the zone of proximal development, which is

the key zone to be in if you're going to learn. So imagine, and I make much of this in my books, that there's a domain that you've already mastered. And so that when you operate in that domain, the things you want to happen happen. That's the domain of order. And then there's another domain where all hell breaks loose and you don't know what to do. And that's the domain of chaos. But there's an intermediary where you're expanding your zone of competence through exploration. And that's really where consciousness operates. And that's where we learn.

And so risk-taking behavior isn't exactly risk-taking behavior. It's embeddedness in the zone of proximal development. I'll give you an example. So that's from germane to your example. So when my kids were little, I bought this old wrecked, wouldn't place that monkey bars and swings. It was dilapidated, but I took it home and sanded it down and repainted it and gave it about five or six more years of life.

And my daughter, who was about two and a half at the time would go out there on that monkey bar and so it was a ladder going up about six feet, which was a pretty decent ladder for little two and a half year old. And so we were inclined to watch her and she would stand on the first rung and then move her foot a quarter of the way up towards it and then half a way up towards it

and then three quarters of the way up towards it. And then she'd put her foot on the rung and then she'd do the same with her next foot, staying in that zone of proximal development. Can I move a quarter of step? Can I move half a step? Can I move three quarters of a step? And we'd watch her do that, and doing that, she pinned all those movements together and mastered climbing up the monkey bar, and it was much to our satisfaction to watch her because she wasn't taking a risk exactly. She was pushing herself out into the zone of proximal development and engaging in this mastery behavior. So you could say in some sense, and I believe this to be the case, that the masculine spirit encourages

and facilitates the transformation. So if the feminine is concentrating on who the child is now and what that child now needs, the masculine is concentrating on how that child can move to the next developmental stage and pushing that along. Is that a reasonable presumption? A, yes, and B, here's an example of that also,

the core dates are connected perfectly with that. The data shows that dads are more likely, for example, to use words that the child does not yet understand or does not understand at that time. And the mom is oftentimes looking at it and saying, well, why are you saying that the child doesn't understand what you mean? And the dad's conscious or unconscious sort of feeling

is I want to plant seeds. And after the child hears this in different contexts, she or he will begin to sort of understand what that word is and what that means. And moms feel it's just mom, they're more likely to feel. That's just so insensitive. So being in this zone of proximal development, like if I brought that into the conversation because you talked about risk taking.

And so what you could say is that as you push the boundaries of the zone of proximal development, you enter the domain of risk. And so then the question would be, what personality elements are capable of tolerating the transformation of the zone of proximal development into the zone of risk? And the answer to that would be lower neuroticism and lower agreeableness because lower neuroticism would mean you wouldn't worry as much. So the magnitude of the perceived risk would be less and lower agreeableness would mean, well, even if there is some risk, you don't care as much. It's like it's okay. Now, it's not like you don't care about the risk exactly, although it's, it is that in some felt sense, but the reason

for that is that while there's another judgment, which is while the risk is worth taking, because there's more than one risk at play here, there's the proximal risk that you engage in when you push yourself, but there's the distal risk that you engage in when you don't push yourself. Yes, you're right on target there. Now, and this is why so many of the differences between male and female style parenting are so important to understand. And one of those that sort of connects to what you're saying

is that the differences that moms and dads tend to get into about dads teasing children, and which feels to many moms like often results in the child crying when the teasing first starts, but it begins to teach the child a whole series of skill sets. What tones of voice are teasing or playfulness, like rough housing, and has to be with playing in an abstraction of rough housing? Exactly, precisely.

What I contact is being playful, what I contact is serious. What body language, what I'm exaggerating now. You get off the bed because if you don't get off the bed, Daddy will always be make life hard for you. You know how bad Daddy is. And the child starts laughing. Maybe a while, maybe one time, this going like that, the child goes, oh my goodness, it's scared.

And so then after a while, the child learns that, oh, that's daddy having fun. That's us having fun. And they begin to distinguish between, make sure you get off the bed as fun versus make sure you get off the bed as something that has. Right. Well, they also learn to distinguish between what's mean and what's funny. You know,

I mean, when I was watching my children, especially with regards to their sibling rivalry, which is likely to emerge in children who are less than three years apart in their birth order. And sort of in proportion to the closeness of their birth. So if you want to minimize childhood sibling rivalry, you space the children out three years. We don't know what that does to the relationship across time, but we know it minimizes sibling rivalry. In any case, I wanted them always to stay on the funny side of teasing because teasing can easily turn into torture. And so they had to learn these extremely fine gradations of humor and and and to do that, they had to play on the edge. And the question is how necessary is it to have the capacity to allow your children to play on the edge. And fathers have that by temperament

more than mothers do. Now, but you know, you pointed out something really interesting. You didn't exactly make the claim that the father was necessary. You made a more subtle claim, which was that the dialogue between the father's higher risk tolerance and the mother's lower risk tolerance is necessary. And that takes place. That can take place within an intact marriage. But you also said it can take place in a marriage that's been broken apart as long as the couples commit to a long-term communication strategy, that a long-term supervised communication strategy.

Yes. So it's the dialogue maybe that's really the issue here. It's the interplay between masculine and feminine. Is that the key thing rather than the presence of both? Is because you can imagine a man and a woman in a household who don't communicate ever about anything. And I can't imagine that that's going to be an optimal environment for a child despite the fact that both parents are normally there. Yes, yes, absolutely. The children do well when both parents are involved about equally. And that's because there are a lot of subtle

things here that one, for example, is hang out time. And particularly boys, if you ask them, like, how is soccer today? The boy will say, okay. And, but with hangout time, and not much more, well, what else happened? What happened at soccer today? Nothing much, you know, and then, but if the father has hangout time, let's say, in a divorce situation with the child, the child is likely maybe there, one is doing homework, the other is doing their different type of work, and they end up in the kitchen together, and they're looking through the thing, and then the boy will say, you know, daddy, I don't get it. If you're playing soccer, you're doing really well.

And I was goalie last week, and this week I wasn't goalie, but I thought I did really well, and the coach even thought I did really well in the coach Even said I did really well, but now he put he put in Jimmy for goalie goalie is set of me What's that about? And that's when children with hangouts with hangout time both boys and girls tend to to do much better than they do when they just Asked a quick question for a conversation for daughters hang out. They need time for the questions to bubble up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up you ask them something specific, how did you like having the ice cream taken away from you by somebody at school, then they'll have a response to that. So when something triggers something that is very specific, the child will tend to sort of open up on his or her own terms.

And interestingly, I said hang out time was very important for boys. Psychologically, some researchers at the University of California, Irvine said it's a single greatest predictor of psychological security in girls hang out time with dads. And hang out time with moms and dads has a different dimension to it. The children know that if they say a problem to mom, she's more likely to be reassuring. I'm sure that, you know, I'm sure that you really wanted you to do really well. He was probably just giving the other person a chance because in order for them to feel

good about themselves like you did when you played Goli. Whereas the child is usually likely to know that the dad is more likely to say, well, you know, what did you do that maybe was not so good as a Goli. What do you think you can do that's different with it with the with the coach next time? Did you ask the coach directly why she or he took you away from being goalie? And so the chance is more of a problem solving approach. Or a problem. And you think that's associated with a positive developmental consequence for IQ? I think it is. It's not that lower IQ fathers tend to get divorced more often

by any chance, is it? Well, we do know that mothers who are well-educated are far more likely about 90% of divorces come from mothers are initiated by the plaintiff as the mother and when the mother is well-educated, she has other sources of income, other sources of education and security. And she also knows obviously that in the family courts, she's far more likely to have the children and the father is far less likely.

She's more likely to have the right to the children. He's more likely to have to fight for the children. And so there's all sorts of dynamics going on there. But I think the most important thing here to understand is that like we were talking a bit before about teasing, there are so many developmental advantages to a lot of the things that dads do. But I want to really make it clear that dads don't say

to moms things like, I'd like to roughhouse with the children because it will increase the children's empathy. I'd like to roughhouse with the children as it will increase their social skills. I'd like to tease with the children because it will increase their social abilities to break. God, who could stand to be married to someone who did that? Yes. And the result of that is that, you know,

moms can hear what dads don't say. And one of the, so one of the reasons why communication about what is and dads need to take responsibility for reading about what there is that we do that's differently. And what the outcomes are of the things that we do differently. So I've never heard of a father say to a mother, you know, the teasing that I do with our daughter or a son, you know, when we go into, when kids go into the workplace and they haven't learned how to be, they haven't learned teasing,

they feel the teasing is sort of an insult or an insult. Right. They're touchy. They're touchy. And they can't take a joke with a sense of humor. Exactly. We have very explicit discussions about such things in my household. So, I mean, what I wanted the kids to be inoculated against casual insult. You have to take that with a sense of humor or it just mounts. I've seen people who can't respond to that initial testing. You know, and it's partly what people do to see if you're socialized. You see, because people

want to socialize with people who are about as socialized as them. And so what they'll do first is throw out some teasing and see what happens. And if it evokes a playful response, then they know that the person that they're dealing with can be relied on to play and has been reasonably socialized. You're hitting the nail right on the head. The commerce of masculinity is the trading of what covered put downs. And men learn as they grow up, I think probably the reason that that happens is because men learn that if you can handle, if you can handle criticism, you're not going to be successful.

And if you're not going to be successful. You're also unpredictable because it means that if something small and upsetting comes along, you're going to get big and upset. And that isn't what you want. You don't want someone who's going to get upset about something small. It's too dangerous in a crisis. Absolutely. And so from a male point of view view from most men's point of view

The feeling is if you can't be teased you can't be trusted Mm-hmm, right exactly. You can't be really respected and here's the type of problems that that creates in the workplace So if you're if you're dead talking to your to the mom about teasing children help her see how this evolves into the workplace. So in the workplace, a woman oftentimes make a tease and she will interpret that tease, like you see you have a new dress on. Did you get that to flirt with the boss? Or do you address, you must address it in the dark last night,

something like that. That's something you say to a guy, they come back with you with some funny counterpoint, like, well, that would be typical for a short man to say, a version of that. And the men with each other, when they can tease each other like that and play with each other,

that means that they're beginning to trust that man and move them into their league of people. They can respect and trust. Whereas if the woman hears something like that comment, she might feel it's a sense, it means that she's being discriminated against in the workplace. So she takes that perspective and says, Now that would be a particularly Jewish aspect if she didn't have a lot of masculine presence in her life.

Exactly. And she know that girls who don't have brothers are much more likely to be raped. I didn't know that. That's interesting. And I do believe that. And because a lot of it, and this does confirm a number of things that I've heard of people who are experts in that area. That's very, very deeply said. And particularly what's reinforcing that you were talking about how things in today's culture sort of reinforced it. So let's say this woman is new to work and she's being tested out by being teased. And she feels really as salted and she interprets that teasing is discrimination against her as she interprets the teasing as discrimination against her, as opposed to interpreting the teasing as a winnatep to include her.

To include her. Yeah, exactly. So she goes to HR. It's an invitation to play. It's an invitation to play. It's an invitation to be fair. If you're skilled at it, right? I mean, a tease can go too far and then it's insulting.

But the really good tease is right on the edge, right? I mean, that's, I mean, a tease can go too far and then it's insulting, but but the, but the really good tease is right on the edge, right? And then that's also, it's also a compliment to the person who's designed to receive it because you're facing them with the proposition that they can tolerate a comment. They're sophisticated enough to know when a comment is right on the edge and they're resilient enough to tolerate it and respond in kind. So it's a compliment of the highest order to push like that. It is so important that you said that and that's exactly right. That's exactly what teasing does test for and that's exactly what men vatis each other are testing for to see if the if the playfulness could be met with playfulness, it can be met with

even a greater challenge that requires them to participate in the process. But institutionally today, we've taken you. And you think part of that's crucial, do I, Q, development? I do think so. That's interesting, because I mean, teasing banter is a form of what dynamic wit. It's like a dance. I mean, some cultures have really perfected that.

You get, there's subcultures in England, particularly where that's elevated to an art form. And you see that in places like Newfoundland and Canada as well. And in Alberta as well, I would say, in the rural areas in particular. Yes, absolutely. And so now what we've done is institutionalized this teasing as a problem. So the woman upset that she's being discriminated against, goes to HR and says, I was discriminated against, what he said to me. Right, that's failing a test in a more profound way, because one of the things you do when you're in elementary school

and junior high school, in high school for that matter, and then in the workplaces, tease someone and see if they run off to find a figure of authority or whether they can deal with it themselves. Because you assume that if they have to run off and find a figure of authority that they're not mature enough to solve their own problems. That's exactly right. And so the woman reports it to HR. And HR really is no longer HR, really should be called HER, because it focuses almost always a complaint by the woman about usually a man. And the...

Do you know what the stats are in proportion of workplace complaints that are brought forth by women compared to men? I know the OCR stats, the Office of Civil Rights stats about complaining is about, I think it was... It's a fellow named Joseph Eck, who's done the research on that, and I think he said it was a fellow named Joseph Echkhoost on the research on that. And I think he said it was like 19 to 19 complaints by women about men for each one complaint, about a woman.

Right, and that's funny, because the men probably generate the grounds for complaints more often being more disagreeable. And the women are more sensitive to the negative consequences being less emotionally stable, more neurotic. So that's a place where men and women don't feed back so well to one another. And it's unfortunate, but that, well, I have wondered if men and women can inhabit the same workplace over time. We don't know that. I mean, I've been called reprehensible for even bringing that up as an issue, but it's not like we know we haven't the data aren't in.

We've only been working together in some sense for 50 years. And there's plenty of evidence for sex segregation. It seems to be the norm rather than the exception that once a gender, a sex starts to dominate a field that that dominance becomes more and more predominant until it becomes almost total. You see that with engineering, you see it with nursing. Those are extreme cases, but it certainly does happen. Well, they're not as extreme as bricklaying, which is like all men, but women have, you know, women haven't moved into

the bricklaying domain. So we don't know what would happen if they did. They won't, but so we won't know. But you know. Now, and the challenge here is really enormous because the, in the sexual area, it's very rare that a woman is interested in dating somebody at work who is earning less than she is. And it doesn't have as high status and great majority of women that I've seen that were single when they had to the workplace and then married somebody, a significant percentage of them

have married somebody in the workplace but the great majority of that significant percentage have married somebody at least at their level and usually above them at work. Yeah, it's hypergamy, right? And it characterizes women with regard to potential for generous earning, essentially. Unsurprisingly, I think it's an attempt to balance the economic scales because women take

the brunt of pregnancy and the brunt of the first year of child reary, I would say, as well. And they make themselves vulnerable as a consequence, so they need to redress that inequality. And that's how they do it. But there are consequences to that that are very severe in the socio-economic and the social spheres. Absolutely. And then when a man above her does take interest in her and it's explicit about it, it can either result in courtship or a law court. And so, a courtship of one or more the other.

Yes, and a law, yes, courtship of one form of the other. And so it's a really, and what the biggest problem with that's happened in the last 15, 20 years, especially since Hashtag Me too, is that I have not yet spoken to a single corporate CEO who has not said some version of the following to me. You know Warren, I used to love mentoring women, but have a wife and have children.

There's no way shape or form that I will mentor a woman today. Right. There's the other two. Right. Well, it was increasingly insisted upon in my workplace at the university that if I ever had a female in the room with me that the door be open. I mean, and as soon as that's the rule, you're done. You have to start rethinking everything. Can you travel with your graduate students? Can you be in the same hotel, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

As soon as you have to start thinking about those things, that means the risk has become so great that you're much less likely to engage in such activity. And mentoring is a very intimate relationship. So it's, it's, it's, it is. It is. It's oftentimes does, I mean, many men are particularly inspired to mentor to a woman as younger

that is attractive. And many younger attractive women are increased there. They're caring about and their love for a man who is who they see as a result of his mentoring. Well, yeah, well, you know, across cultures, women prefer men who are about four years older. There's some variation. And that actually is one of the things

that is moderated in the Scandinavian culture. So that age gap is less, rather than more in the Scandinavian cultures. But that goes along with the general tendency to hypergamy, which is preference for a mate who's at or above you in the social hierarchy, or the socioeconomic hierarchy. It's really the social hierarchy though. Which create enormous problems in different cultures

like in China, when we do analyses of the dating, the most popular dating site in China, you see that women want a very high percentage of women. I think it's in the 92 to 93% tile approximately of women want men who own homes and own cars. But of the people on the dating sites who are males, only a very small percentage of them own homes and cars. Right.

Well, and we should also point out that women aren't actually going for the home or the car. They're going for the ability to produce the home in the car. Of course. Yes. They're using them as secondary markers for competence, essentially. But, and then they, you know, you cite an interesting stat here too, which I thought was worth talking about. Day on, on who should pay the bill on the first date, 72% of women think that a man should pay the full bill on the first date. Now, remember,

they've already selected this man. And what that means is that he's likely to be at or above them in the socioeconomic hierarchy and perhaps slightly older. So, you know, in some sense, they can afford, he can afford to pay better than she can. But in any case, 82% of men think the same. And so men are playing the hypergamy game even more intensely than women are, at least with regards to that particular statistic. So. And this gets into the psychology of the pay gap

because many women feel okay about that because they feel like, okay, men earn more than I do for the same work when when we be and in fact that is not really accurate. Here is what is accurate fathers earn more than moms do the pay gap is not men women the pay gap is dads versus moms and when dads become dads, they're far more likely to give up the things that they love to do that pay less and do the things that they like to do a lot less.

Quit that musician gig that paid much less and do something responsible, quote unquote, like selling product Y. Yeah, that's also in line with the doubt that show that, you know, most young men, many, many young men abuse alcohol. Most of them stop when around 27, but that's also when they get married. And so they stop engaging in primary gratification. And that's another example of that delay of gratification as far as I'm concerned, that

ability or willingness to sacrifice. Yes, and it's also part of your whole rule about the, you know, it's important to have stable structures, but it's also important to have flexibility in structures in part of it. You know, it's so funny that we, it's so rare that we can have a real conversation about this because let's say that the pay gap, well, you know, it's certainly not obvious what degree the pay gap is caused by female hypergamy, right? If men demanded of their dating partners that they earned more than they do, my guess is that there'd be a pay gap in favor of women because men are incentivized to earn more because if they don't, the consequences in the sexual market, but it's not the sexual, it's the intimate interpersonal market to not be cynical about it, because it's not all short term mating that people are motivated by quite the contrary.

Well, they're motivated to take the more dangerous, less desirable farther away from home and family and interest for that matter jobs because the payoff is disproportionately large for men who do so. And you see that, you see, and it's exaggerated at the upper end of the distribution as well, which is what you pointed out with regards to the dating sites, you know, like 70% of men are rated as below the 50th percentile in attractiveness by women. And so not only are there rewards for earning more, there are disproportionate awards for men for earning more. And that goes along with the proposition that we put forward at

the beginning of this conversation. I think that was recorded as well, that, you know, the most admired people are men, but the least admired people are men as well. And there's a lot more least admired men than there are most admired men. And that's true. And in brutal force on the dating scene, on the websites. Absolutely. And this had part of the reason that this is sort of all justified is because, you know, after all, men have privilege and, you know, and men are, you know, and the pay gap is really a reflection of the fact that, you know, men do less work and earn the same or, and Yeah, so it's just complete bloody nonsense.

That's just not true. That's that. There is a gap, but the reason for the gap is very, very complex and involves many factors, including the ones we discussed here, which you take apart so nicely in your book, Why Men Earn More. I think you have 13 reasons that men earn more. That's quite a few reasons, and privilege isn't one of them. It's actually 25 differences between the choices that men tend to make and the choices

that women tend to make. 25 differences are things that do lead to men earning more money. But could you list a few of those now because it's such an interesting topic? Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs. They're more likely to take jobs like logging or trucking. They're more likely to take jobs that require them to work weekends or evenings. They're more likely to take jobs that have very little people contact like being an engineer.

But most men do like people contact, but many of the jobs with less people contact like being an engineer or mathematician, tend to pay less. They men are more likely to, let's see, work a longer, a longer hour. So the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, when you hear somebody works full time, that only means that they work 35 hours a week or more, not 40 hours a week was what you usually think of as full time. Well, the average person who works 44 hours per week

makes twice the money as somebody who works 35 hours a week. It's twice. I see why I remember one of your stats, which was I think 10% more working hours is 20% more income. Something like that. But that's a much more dramatic stat statistic. 44 hours is twice as valuable as 35 hours. Yes. And men are much more likely to work that 44 hours of more per week. Right. And thus not be there for their children as is exposed in family court. Exactly. And that of course is very fascinating. It's what I call the father's catch 22 that dad's learned to love the family by having to be away from the love of their family. But when the Pew Research Center asked

dads who were full time working dads, would you prefer to remain full time working? Or if you had the option of leaving your job full-time and being full-time with the children, which would you prefer? 49% of dads said who worked full-time, so these are not sort of loser dads or dads not inclined to work. 49% of dads who worked full time said that they would prefer to be home with their children full time and maybe work a little bit or not outside of the home. And yet that question has never, it almost never even asked of that. Usually when middle and upper middle class people are married and they have children, the mom

generates three options. Option one is to work full time. Option two is to be full time with the children. Option three is to do some combination of both. And, you know, they have three options, two option one is to work full time. Option two is to work full time. And option three is to work full time or more accurately. If they're a working class person to work two jobs, if they're more of a white color worker, they'll tend to sort of work more hours at the job that they're doing. And so that type of these types of differences are not seen. And the easiest way to see these is that women who have never been married and never had children, they earn 117% of what men who have never been married

and never had children earn. It's only when men have get married and have children that they begin to do what you were talking about before, start taking on a commitment, a new responsibility. Okay, so your claim, your claim is no wonder you're so popular. Your claim is essentially that men don't earn more because of privilege. They earn more because they take responsibility. Not that women don't. I'm not saying that, but I'm not saying that. They're taking responsibility in a different way because they're focused on the children and maybe they sacrifice their career for that. And maybe that's what they want to do, but it doesn't matter. They're still doing it. But the reason that men earn more is because they're earning more for

the people they love. Even, yes, even politically liberal people who normally believe in minimal sex roles, when it comes to the children being born, the mothers are much more likely to sort of, even if they're working full-time, remember we said full-time to 35 hours a even if they're working full time, remember we said full time to 35 hours a week. They're much more likely to go from maybe working 45 hours a week before to doing a few things that are different. One is to working not only a few hours, but finding a job that is closer to home

so they can be more flexible. And we see this, the best way I think to understand the difference in the pay gap is to look at what happens with women who own their own businesses versus men who are own their own businesses. So take two groups that are quite equal. They both have MBAs. And so they're committed obviously to work. The Rock Chester Institute of Technology studied both groups of men and women with both MBAs who own their own business. Women earned only 49% of what men earned. And so the assumption when they started this was, wow, women who own their own business, that will, you know, they don't have the discrimination of, you know, discriminating male bosses. And so therefore, they'll be valued more.

They'll probably earn as much or more than their male counterparts. And the answer was no. So the Rockchester Institute of Technology then investigated that further. And they asked women and men, which is the most important values for you in owning your own business.

72% of the men said the most important value for me was greater income. Only 29% of women said it was greater income. The women wanted for more time. They wanted time, they wanted civility. And they wanted safety also. Men were much less concerned about safety than women were, which is why all of your

has to do. So why Uber drivers make more when they're men? Exactly. Exactly. And higher risk tolerance. Yes. And if you know, let's say you don't have a college education or even you've dropped out of high school.

And so if you're, you might get a job as a garbage collector, you have to get up early in the morning. It's dirty, it's hazardous, and yet a female who has a mass disagree in art may earn less than that garbage collector. And partially it's because people tend to need the garbage picked up more than they need a new piece of art. And so these are so many of the 25 differences

that are between men and women. But the good news about that. How did we get to an estate warrant where the given 25 differences is a lot of differences. And it doesn't make for a very big difference in pay, by the way. Even the most radical proponents of the unequal pay theory are struggling to come up with a figure that exceeds 15%. So 25 difference is amounting to 15%.

Isn't that much of a difference? But you know, if the data are so clear that it's fathers who are driving this and it's relatively self-evident, I would say, if it was single guys that were driving this, you could make a case that it was for selfish pleasure-seeking purposes, right? And that would fit pretty nicely into the privilege narrative, right? Power, hungry, greedy, selfish, short-sighted men with privilege make more money. It's like, well, wait a minute, it's fathers.

Oh, so why are they doing that? Well, and never married women who have never had children earn 117% of what never married men who have never had children or never married women who have never had children. They are more likely to plan for their careers and they do earn more. And what is most astonishing is that never married women who have never had children have earned more than never married men who have never had children since the 1970s. Just now it's 117 percent more. And so exactly what you said is true. It is not never married women with who have never had children, they tend to focus on their careers, whereas never married men who have never had children. They're much more likely to be able to do something like music or art and gay men historically have often been very successful in art because they've been usually never married men who have never had children. And they've been able to afford to do things that were less likely and dependable to produce money.

Oh, I've never heard that explanation before. That's quite an explanation. So let's delve into that a little bit more deeply, the time and money issue. So when women rank order their preferences when they have options, so these are the middle class, upper middle class women you talked about, they're going to go for more time. And I presume that they want more time to spend that with their kids. That's been my observation. That's the number one thing. Okay.

And then men are making more money instead, but it's fathers that are making more money. So they're making more money for what reason? Is it like exactly, is it for their kids, is it for their wife and kids? Is it so that their wife maintains her attraction to the man because that's a big issue that no one ever talks about, right? I mean, within marriages,

I've seen this many times, within marriages, if the male mean, within marriages, I've seen this many times. Within marriages, if the male takes a status hit, he also takes a attractiveness hit, and it's a severe hit. I've seen this many, many times, and no one will ever talk about it, but it's definitely the case. Here's the best way to understand that bridge. The man takes a status hit. He starts losing respect for himself. His wife starts losing a little bit of respect for him, wondering whether or not this is going to result in a job down the line or whether some promise or belief that he has is going to manifest.

Yeah, if she's really the man he thought she was, she thought he was. He feels that less respect. And a woman, and I think every woman will agree with this. It's almost impossible for a woman to love a man she doesn't respect. And there is, so. I think it's not the opposite is true too, but maybe the grounds for respect differ.

The grounds for respect differ. And also a man, there's more flexibility with a man on the respect issue. There may not be more flexibility in terms she begins to lose love and men sense this. And therefore, they oftentimes brag or boast or, or overstate their potential in order to be able to make themselves attractive. And we see this in so many levels in the lowest lane level. Lowest lane, she had no interest in Clark Kent,

but she fell in love with Superman. And once she fell in love with Superman, she wanted Superman to be able to cry and express emotions, but the man who did cry and express emotions and feelings and sensitive, Clark Kent, she has zero interest in. You know, women are oftentimes say, I'm opposed to war,

but look at the, she's much more likely to fall in love with the officer and a gentleman than she is the private and the pacifist. And, you know, and they, we talk about this even in high school. Almost everybody's gone to high school and most high schools have football games. And, and the, and the women are the cheerleaders to go first and then do it again for the guy that scores the touchdown. Or cat either by throwing the pass or catching the pass. And if the guy feels like it's too dangerous for him to play football and he leaves the football

team, it's very rare that the cheerleader says, you know, I noticed how good your listening skills were when you were in the huddle and how warm and tender you are. I want to continue cheering for you. No, she tends to cheer for his replaceable part. Another number seven, risking his life with a concussion or a spinal cord injury. And what? Well, this is non-trivial behavior. I mean, because you look at the football team, I've been writing about that recently.

The football example is particularly interesting, especially because it's such a trope in American, especially in American, popular culture. Everybody knows the story, right? But what's so interesting, too, is the men on the team will elevate their best player to the highest position of status, despite the fact that they all take a hit in terms of sexual attractiveness by doing so. I mean, maybe, you know, being on a winning team elevates a rising tide with so votes. Well, definitely, but it's still the case that they'll take a relative hit

within the confines of the team to elect the man to the position where he's most likely to receive the favors of attraction from the most valuable, the most desired women. Yes, exactly. So I mean, trying to puzzle out the role of sexual selection, thinking that through, because men, men select the women that men select the men that women select. That's very, very interesting to watch that happen.

And yeah, absolutely. And you'll see this, you know, both sexes figure out very carefully. And we people say, well, men are more competitive than women. That's not really true. Both sexes are very competitive for getting, having the goodies that lead them to be have the greatest amount of choice. So women will compete with other women about how they dress, what their dresses look like.

But women is at a party and she's interested and what are two of the guys at that party and a really attractive woman comes through the door. She will assess what her chances are and how she should position herself to make sure she gets the contact with the man that she really wants to make contact with. And the men will do the same type of thing around,

the things that they feel will lead a woman to be attracted to them. Well, this also makes it very, it's very difficult for men to figure out, this is another reason why I question the long term viability of not, not that I truly question it, but these questions arise in my mind. The long term viability of mixed sex workplaces, the rules for competing with other men are pretty clear. The rules for competing with women are not clear at all. Because if you're a loser, you're still a loser, but if you're a winner, you're just so easily a bully. So it isn't obvious what, what, how men can negotiate that. Well, they have to negotiate it through negotiation. That's the only possible outcome, but it definitely makes things much, much more complex. And it's also, it's complex at least in part because as you just pointed out, within

the sexes, the competition is about different things. So, or sorry, between the sexes, no, no, within the sexes, the competition is about different things. So, sorry, between the sexes, no, no, within the sexes, the competition is about different things. So when a woman competes with a status, with a man for status, she's competing for male status, not female status. And so what to make of that? Well, why that would be rewarding to her isn't that obvious. And I think that's part of the reason why so many women bail out of high pressure situations jobs when they hit their 30s. I mean part of it is that they would rather be with their family and for obvious reasons. But the the the other

unspoken elephant in the room is always well Why would it be particularly rewarding for a woman to attain status in a masculine hierarchy? What benefit does that confer on her? Well more income. That's one of them, but that confers no attractiveness advantage. Whereas for men it it crews a tremendous attractiveness advantage. It's definitely disproportionate male versus female. I would say though that is proportionate male versus female. I would say though, that if a man has a choice between two women, and they're both equally attractive,

and their personalities are pretty much the same, et cetera, and one is more successful than the other, the man is likely to be more attracted to the more successful woman, but he's also likely to be afraid of rejection by that more successful woman. He definitely, definitely. That's definitely definitely. You will feel that that more successful woman will have more options.

She will have more options. She will have more options. And she'll have higher demands as well because she's going to want to mate. That's the real issue is that's where the rejection issue comes in. It's not even necessarily that she has more options. It's that because she's more successful, her criteria for what constitutes acceptable are going to be elevated. They may even be elevated to the point of impossibility for her. It's that because she's more successful, her criteria for what constitutes acceptable are going to be elevated.

They may even be elevated to the point of impossibility for her. Exactly. And the real fear that the man has is the fear of being rejected. Yes, definitely. And I think that, well, I've made light of that by teasing my class, my students. You know, I said, well, what's the joke? Well, you're perfectly suitable as a companion,

but in no way should your genetic material be allowed to propagate itself into the next generation, right? That's the core of rejection. And it's no, it cuts to the bone. It cuts to the bone. It cuts to the bone. And it isn't obvious that that's sufficiently understood how terrified men are of female rejection. Well, that's part of the turning to pornography, I would say. And the advantage of dating sites like Tinder because the rejection is taken out of the game essentially or it's hidden masked. Tinder is a revolutionary technology because it alters the reward structure, reward

and punishment structure and dating. I mean, it's a it's incendiary and named properly. pornography is basically access to a variety of attractive women without fear of rejection at a price you can afford. And right and with with the with the commensurate responsibility. No, except to yourself, right, but that's easily foregone in the moment. And the challenge of it is that the more, so boys who are usually doing less young men who are doing less well in school who are not the who are not the football players that are part of the honor society, et cetera. The non-stand-up men, the ones that are oftentimes dad deprived that have minimal post-blown gratification and so on, and they tend to do badly in school or drop out of school. Those boys feel like losers, and they know that women tend to not date losers. They tend to date winners. And they end up in the unemployed. And what women are looking for, and much more likely to be in their families, live with

their families, 66% more likely. Oh, yes, that's another statistic. Young men between 25 and 31 are 66% more likely than young women to be living with their parents. Yes. And more young men are living with a parent than with a partner Yes, and they and you don't find women looking in You're looking for men that are living in their parents basement or looking for men No, well, that's just a joke, which is why you you know

You could insert it there as a cliche everyone understands exactly what that means it means failure to launch It means Peter Pan, right? It's a joke. And those women are, therefore, more like, those guys, rather, are much more likely to turn to pornography because they sense they're being rejected by women. And then they turn to this beautiful woman that they can be turned on by the challenge with pornography is that the more you get into it, the more you tend to be stimulated by more and more risky things and more and more salacious things or things that are... Yeah, well, that's because novelty enhances pleasure.

So that's the addictive element of it. Precisely. And then the female who is interested in that guy and does come over to, you know, to be with him physically, she often feels like this guy is like, you know, more interested in something that happened to the photographic things that he's been watching. She feels like an object, like, and because she is being treated like an object. Well, and also those are the men who aren't going to be particularly sophisticated in their their treatment of women because how can they be they have no experience.

Precisely. And so the the pornography ends up haunting them on multiple levels and and and leads them to often turn back to pornography to avoid continuing rejection and only convinces them that a real life woman is that somebody that he would fail on one level or another with. And so it's a really... You ever seen Robert Crums representations of bird-headed women? No. You know what happened? Robert Crums, an underground cartoonist, and he was the feature of a documentary which you should you and everybody else who's listening to this should definitely watch. It's absolutely, it's the best

documentary I've ever seen about anything ever. And he draws these women. He was a loser in high school by his own admission, by every single category you could possibly generate. And so it's a study in loser psychology, but it's really complex because he was a loser who was extremely intelligent and unbelievably creative and who had two brothers who were probably more intelligent, more creative than him, although also more psychopathological. And then he became successful. He was one of the establishers of underground cartooning back in the 1960s and spawned arguably even graphic novel.

I mean, he's a major player in that niche. And the documentary is a brilliant analysis of the relationship between failure and success and sexual failure and sexual success because in one memorable scene, he talks about, he drew this card when he was a high school kid of a heart being ripped apart when he got rejected by this girl that, or by all girls. He said he was beneath contempt. He could,

he wasn't even in the category of comprehensible dating partner, right? He was outside the game entirely. So he's rejected by the feminine as such. He draws these pictures of bird-headed women with teeth. You know, they're powerful, big thighs, big, big, uh, big rear end, like powerful, physically powerful, intimidating women, like mothers, draws sometimes these characters of little tiny men climbing up the legs of these huge tree-like women, but they're very aggressive and, and, and, uh, domineering. And the reason for that, at least in part, is because every woman he ever approached was rejecting and aggressive.

In the extreme, treated him with nothing but contempt. And then he says in an unbelievably memorable piece of the documentary, that all changed when I got successful. And you can just hear the resentment and the bitterness in his voice, even though it did change, and he wasn't that old when he became successfully, he was in his mid-twenties. You know, plenty of time to be on the outs completely, and to experience life at the bottom of the male dominance hierarchy, and even farther down the female dominance hierarchy, let's say, in terms of desirable men. It's a, it's called crumb, the documentary. I would highly recommend it. And it's absolutely

brilliant study. And he had, well, he had an authoritarian father and an indulgent mother. And she plays a key role in the documentary. And it's, it's awful. It documentary and it's awful. It's awful. It's a study in Freudian psychopathology that's deep beyond belief. I've seen it like 40 times showing it to my classes and walking through it, clip my clip. But anyways, it's a study.

You don't see the world from the perspective of down and out male loser. You know, there are subcultures that sort of exist there, but this is the only examination of that place in the world I've ever seen that I thought really, really nailed it. The documentarist was a friend of the family, so he and Charles Brothers, one of them ended up a sexual offender who lived on the streets of San Francisco and the other Committed suicide by drinking furniture polish when he was like 55 after being bullied terribly in high school and Living in his mother's basement essentially for his entire life

Oh Awful awful, but you know you watch the documentary. It's not it's not like people really There's you generate some compassion for the people in the documentary and what they've gone through. But I wouldn't say that compassion is what's primarily elicited by the documentary. And that goes back to this discussion we had right at the beginning about, you know, what kind of empathy we have for the men who aren't making it. And the answer seems to be very, very little. Let's go to social policy with that. We might ask, okay, in light of this, what do we do? And I would say this is what I've recommended. I've recommended to young men that they take, that these

are the facts on the ground, and they're not going to change. And that if you're being rejected chronically by women or if you're terrified out of your mind about that and perhaps rightly so, you should take a good hard look at yourself and see what it is that you have to offer. And so like, are you as educated as you could be? Are you working? Are you looking for a job at least? Are you trying to get out of your parents' house?

Are you taking the steps necessary to become gainfully employed, productive, generous, and attractive? And that tangles us back up with something we also talked about in the beginning, which is the criticisms that have been directed my way by men, which is, well, you're asking men to live up to a stereotype that essentially undermines and devalues the vast majority of them.

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution and your emphasis on responsible marriage, given the state of current family law is nothing short of reprehensible. And so, you know, my approach is, do what you can at the individual level to put yourself in the game, but there's much more to the story than not. Absolutely. This is really complex because the good news is, is a lot you can do to choose a woman who is the right woman. And so, for example, looking at when you go both, both go out to dinner. Does she, is she open to paying?

Is she, if she isn't paying, does she, does she cook a dinner for you the next time around? How does she treat the waiter? Somebody that can't do her any good. Ask her about her former relationships, how they broke up, and who was at fault, was there any accountability and responsibility on her part? Of course, ask these same questions of yourself as well, especially about former relationships and how they broke up. And so that's so choosing the right woman is probably. So what are you looking for there? You're looking for generosity. You're looking for kindness down the hierarchy, right? So that's how does she treat people who are social inferior, so to speak,

at least in that context, like waiters. And then with regards to previous relationships, at least in that context, like waiters. And then with regards to previous relationships, is she capable of some self-analysis or is it always the guy's fault? That reminds me of that Atlantic monthly article. One of them, I'm a fortune, unfortunately, can't remember who wrote it, but was this woman in her late 40s detailing out all the high quality men that she had rejected many, many, many men by her own account. And during the entire article, there wasn't any recognition whatsoever of any time when it might have been her. It was like, these 40 men didn't live up to my standards. It's like, well, after the fifth one, didn't you start thinking maybe the problem was on the other side of the dating table, but the answer was obviously no, and she was obviously still single. But so what are you looking for there exactly?

And why did you bring that up at that point? Well, because one of the ways that you can be involved in the game of marriage in a way that is positive is by making the choice of the woman differently than what we tend to do. We many men look at a woman, she's beautiful and our desire to be sexual with her leads us to sort of, okay, we'll pay for dinner, we'll promise this, we'll go here, we'll go there. And then we should point out too, I just want to point out something. I talked to Randy Thornhill recently, one of the world's preeminent biologists. And before we get to thinking that this sexual

attractiveness is nothing more than mere shallow-mindedness and impulsive gratification, is all the cues of sexual attractiveness are tightly associated with physical health and fecundity, which is the ability to procreate. And so even if men are blinded by beauty, which I do believe is true enough, there are reasons for that at the deepest possible level still have to do with the desire to continue the human species. So it's shallow in one sense, but not in another, but your point is there are other markers that are characterological, that are more subtle, that need to be taken into account. Yes, both sexes have very huge reproductive drawbacks. I mean, from an insect right on up through human beings, women tend to procreate and have children with it with the alpha male. A good example of this is buckels. And among buckels, the females, 85% of them will

have reproduced with the male that has the biggest rack. But what it takes to get that biggest rack is an exhaustion of 30% of the minerals nutrients and calcium in the buck elk. So the second that he reproduces, if he doesn't get rid of his rack immediately, he's likely to die before winter sets in and he's able to replenish the nutrients and the minerals and so on. So his rack was very productive for being able to procreate. It was very productive for being able to attract the female,

but it was also his weakness that is, and that's very symbolic of men, that men's weaknesses are a facade of strength because it was strength because we could use that rack or not me, but the buckelks could use that rack to get rid of other predators or people that the female didn't want to protect the female when she was creating the child and so on, but he was also being used for being part

of the next generations benefit of producing the next generations machine. And as you said, once we have children, we really live for the next generation. And so now, the next question becomes, as humans, do we want to create more options for ourselves? And so, and are we at a point now where survival is mastered enough in the middle and upper middle class that we have with them, then we are chosen merely for our success. And I think the best explanation of that comes in Japan where the millennials in Japan have a game called Kurochi. And of course Kurochi means death at the desk or death from overwork. And the game each person has a little Kurochi figure

and they compete to get to the top of the ladder. It might be the political ladder, might be the economic ladder, might be the religious ladder. And as they compete to get to the top of the ladder, the one who gets to the top of the ladder first commits suicide, not in real life, but in the game. And the point that the Japanese millennials are communicating

with each other is that what we did to become that successful man who was the most attracted, who was the most able to be eligible for sex and for love, is we unbecame a human doing, climbing to the top of the ladder. I'm sorry, we unbecame a human being. We didn't even think of ourselves as a human being. That's why we're committing suicide.

We have just, just by competing to be at the top of the ladder, we've worried about what position we wanted, how to working more hours, pleasing the boss, of the ladder, we've worried about what position we wanted, how to have the working more hours pleasing the boss, pleasing the corporation, not selling something we wanted or doing something we wanted. And we've lost, we've never even considered ourselves as a human being. And so now we Japanese millennials are going to start looking at the the loss of ourselves as human doings, loss of ourselves, rather as human beings.

And that is, and that's the, in my opinion, the where we need to consider going, that as we have children, there's this balancing act of helping our children see the value of being that artist, that painter, that's doing what you love to do, combined with is it creating enough income to be responsible to your family to do that. And yes, it will lose you some women,

but if you're developing emotional skills and emotional intelligence, that may not attract as many women as the football player that risk his life and his spinal cord injury, but it may attract the type of woman you want. And for me, between marriages, when I would go out with women, they would, you know, I would share with them what I did. But part of that was sort of I mean, I would share with them what I did, but part of that was sort of redefining equality for them. And it was not offering to pay for the bill, the whole bill on the first date.

It was talking to them about the options like I can pay on the first date and maybe you can do something like cook dinner for me on the second day type of thing. But I'll tell you many, many times, I feared, not many times I feared, I know a few times that I said something like that, that I knew there was going to be no sex that even it was otherwise it probably would have been. So, you know, it's a risk that you take inside of yourself,

but for me what I wanted to select for was a woman who wanted me more for who I was and less for what status I had or what predictable status I had. So, well, what do you think? What do you think about the advice that I advice? I don't really think I give advice exactly. I'm trying to explore ideas and that exploration has certain consequences, but certainly, you know, I do, and as is my role as a psychologist, I do, you know, encourage the people who are reading me to do what they can with what they have to the best of their ability. And I don't see that we have a truly viable alternative to essentially classic sex roles. I know they're under pressure for all sorts of different reasons, including

the ones that you've outlined. But, you know, in some sense, it's the only game in town. Now, what can, I mean, there are things we can do, though. You talked about the Japan, for example, where they've really invested heavily in vocational training, which seems to me to be a no-brainer. It's like, maybe without having to revamp the entire relationship between men and women, we could say, well, wouldn't it be good social policy for everyone concerned to pay some

attention to the vast majority of men who could use vocational training, for example, as an avenue to success in all domains of life. And why are we so unable to do that when the Japanese can do it? Yes, and we really are, there are so many things like that that we can do. I mean, schools, for example, we could have one of the things I've suggested to the White House, both the Trump administration and also under the Biden administration is starting a male teacher core, in which men are trained to be teachers, particularly in dad to private areas, school districts and an extra and they get free scholarships, they get full scholarship for college, but yet in exchange for that full scholarship for college, they have to serve three or four years as a teacher and a school district that has few male teachers. Another thing I've suggested to both. So you think that's, I'm thinking of objections to that selection on the basis of gender,

let's say, which I'm, you know, pretty much temperamentally imposed to, but in some sense, but this is a data-driven suggestion. The data suggests that there are areas that we, so it's differentiated, it's not ideologically driven, it's a differentiated solution. There's data indicating that the provision of male role models in places that are deprived of those, the addition of mail role models in the domains that are deprived of those would be of benefit to everyone concerned. And so that's a targeted social policy. Yeah, it's not an ideological statement. Precisely, in effect, it's even more complex than that, the way that I've suggested it is that you don't just get males like me. I consider myself more of a nurture or connect your male. You also get more traditional males

so that no matter who your son is, if you've grown up in a home without a male role model in the home, without a biological father, particularly in the home, that your son, no matter what he's prone to, but his unique self is, that he's able to go to find a role model. Find a role model that is not just another nurture or connect your male, but a construction worker or a man that's retired from a more of a profession that was more traditional, like a logger or whatever firefighter,

and that your son is able to see that possibility, and then also the nurture or connect your male as a possibility. And so that those things be offered. Another suggestion that I think is by far the most important one that I made to both administrations is the importance of creating a father warrior program, W-A-R-R, and because every gender, you know, historically speaking, as you read in the boy crisis book about the purpose void that men have, by no longer being as needed as soldiers and no longer being as needed as full-time breadwinners, that the male have the option of seeing himself as possibly involved in some, and I lost where I was going with that. You were talking about the male warrior idea and the need for purpose

and the social policy associated with that. Yes, and so what I've suggested to both White Houses is the importance of creating a father warrior program where we're saying we need young men to be fully involved, learn all the traits of being a responsible, emotionally connected father. We need women to value this in men as well. And so how would that work practically speaking? Like I'm always thinking about incentives. Like if we wanted to incentivize young men to be responsible fathers, which I think is exactly the right role to be playing in every virtually every role that a man plays is the role of responsible father, that's the right role, not everyone, but virtually everyone.

How do you incentivize that at the level of social policy in a practical way? The number one thing you do is you honor it. So for example, when we had each generation at its war, and we said, Uncle Sam needs you. When men are told they are needed, that gives them purpose, that gives them drive, that gives them honor, what am I?

Okay, so how do we, okay, so how do we say, fathers you are needed without saying, single mothers you're inadequate? Because that's the killer, right? That's the killer right there, because one implies the other or that's the theory. So, you know, and this is a shawl upon which our culture is wrecking itself, is how do we reward behavior that is eminently pro-social in the broadest possible sense of the word

without punishing, simultaneously punishing those who are Excluded from that but struggling to do the best under the conditions that have presented themselves to them We say to mothers to things one is we honor mothers for being just Overwhelmed. I mean I've never in between marriages. I dated a number of almost all the women I dated were women who had children the word that they use most frequently was overwhelm. And so many of the mothers, I tended to date very bright women. And so they often felt caught between, they could do better in work. They could go further. They could go farther.

They weren't up to their full level. But, and they could do better as mothers, they felt guilty as mothers that they didn't have enough time for their work and they didn't have enough time. Yes, yes, guilt all the time. Whatever they're doing is inadequate. Exactly. Because they're not at spending enough time

with their kids and they're not spending enough time on their work and both of those are true in some sense. Absolutely, and when they would, they would say, I want to spend more time with you, but I'm caught between my work and my The other treat and and and my and my love interest and so and so what the larger social message that needs to come out Come out to men is men women need your help women do not should need need not we must not leave women to feel like they have. So is it women or mothers?

Mother's, I'm sorry. No, it's okay. I mean, it's just it's important to get it right, right? Absolutely. Women, you might not need man's help. Mothers, you do. And so do your children. Right. Exactly. So that you're're so that when you focus on mothers being overwhelmed every mother hears that when you say to a mother when a mother hears we're now going to be emphasizing the importance of dads getting in

there to balance the picture with you to help you out to be to to to not have you have the entire burden. Mothers do hear that in a positive way. If you are simultaneously saying, which I think is 100% true, that you have just been overwhelmed, and we respect and honor the fact that you've taken so much responsibility, but it is not helpful for you to be pulled in so many directions. It is not helpful for the children. It's not optimal for the children. It's not optimal for the children.

And it's not helpful for the dad because the dad is experiencing a purpose void of feeling not needed and unwanted and men with purpose voids tend to drift. Look for a purpose. Yes, tend to purpose. And or look for a be negative sometimes in a purpose. Yes, tend to. Hmm. Purpose and or look for a be a be negative sometimes in their purpose. And we need definitely need to help mothers and fathers in the whole country understand.

Okay, so this sounds great. So why the hell don't you have any traction with Trump or with Biden? Because that pretty much exhausts the options. So what's going on? Well, I know with with Trump, the Trump administration said they were very excited about it. They asked me to write up a speech that Trump would give. And he never gave it. And so, um, with an idea, why? I mean, you'd think it would have been useful to him.

You, you'd think given his constituency, I would have thought it would have been 100% useful to him. I, you him. I made the case that there are about 20 million parents that have children, that boys, rather, that are in failure to launch mode in some way, shape, or form, and that these mothers care more about their sons and they care about their party label, that this could open and talk. For themselves, maybe.

Yes, exactly. And I said this to both the Biden administration and the Trump administration. The Biden administration was at least the 14 people that I met with at the White House and with HHS. They said they were very all to a person, extremely enthusiastic. With the Democrats, I've gotten much more

of a resistance when the White House Council on gender policy was created. And I objected to that, not including boys and men and fathers, and said that you couldn't possibly say you were in a favor of diversity and inclusion when you excluded fathers and boys and men. And then they said that they only 50% of the population. Yes, yes, 49% or whatever. But you know, but it's one thing if you just say, boys and men are not important.

It's another thing to say, I'm in favor of diversity and inclusion. And then to say that the second mission of the Gender Policy Council is to have racial justice and not understand that racial justice that the single biggest group of people who are having challenges in the culture are black males. And, you know, if you, if you go to a home city, which is a prime example of the intersectionality that's being touted as crucial to the development of our entire culture.

Yes. Yes. And here, it's the prime example, perhaps. Indeed. And here, because I think black women are outperforming black men on average. Almost every metric. Yes. Exactly. So, you know, well, that does beg the question. I mean, what question does it beg? Well, maybe one question it begs is where exactly is the systemic racism? The racism. Use a horrible phrase. Yes, I don't even want to go the systemic racism? The racism. Do you use a horrible phrase? Yes, I don't even want to go to systemic racism, but if the goal of the White House Gender Policy Council

is to have racial justice, as it says it is, then you would, but then they go ahead and exclude black males from racial justice and only focus on black females. That is undermining racial justice because as we know since the 1965 with the Moynihan report when we did studies of inner city crime and the fear when Patrick Moynihan went to do that study,

was, oh my goodness, he's going to be blaming black people, he's going to be racist. In fact, he ended up finding that it was not Black's per se that were creating the crime. It was just that one 25 at that point in history. In 1965, it was only 25% of the children who were being raised in families were without father involvement. And almost all of the children who were being raised in families were without father involvement and almost all of the crimes that were being committed were from the dad deprived children. Well now that hasn't changed. That hasn't changed except one thing has changed. The percentage of children who are raised in dad deprived mode in the black community has

gone way up. 25%. What do you think of the counterarguments to that that have been raised recently, that black men are just as involved with their children? It's just that it's in ways that the privileged white community, Jesus Christ, isn't recognizing and that that's just another form,

that idea that the black father is less engaged, just another racist trope. know, the black father is less engaged, just another racist trope. No, some black father, there are a significant number of black fathers who are involved with their children. That is not where those children, those are not the children that are having problems as long as the black mother is also involved with the children. So whenever you have that, involved with the children. So whenever you have that, and of course the social policies we were talking about before, you know, of giving money to the women infants and children program, another program where the the female who did the black female or the white female who did not have a father in the home, she would be helped. If the father was not in the home, that did reinforce

very significantly the propensity of the mother to say, let's say the father wasn't earning very much money. So the father would, if you live away from me, we'll be able to get government support. And so then that incentive for living with. Right. Watch your incentives. And we have to realize today, it's not just that the African-American families now have more than 70% of the children who are raised with minimal or no father involvement or what I call a dad-to-prieve children. But also at the time of the Moynihan report in 1965,

there was only 3.2% of Caucasian families whose children were living in dad-to-prime situations. Now that's gone up to 35% in Caucasian families. And so we had this enormous dad deprivation. It's in these dad-to-prime families that watch what's going to happen in the fall. We're going to have significant numbers of school shootings. And one of the things that we see with school shooters in the 21st century, every school shooter who shot ten or more people, killed ten or more people, every one of them was dad

deprived. When you look at the prison population, it's 93 percent male, and the great majority of those males are dad-deprived males. I think I've never experienced something that was more touching for me than when I ran for governor. And I spoke of California, and I spoke around it a few prison populations. And I talked to these prison populations almost all male. The first question I would ask is, you know, how many of you had an involved father in about three or four percent

of the hands of the prison population, but would go up. And then I would talk to them about all the things that dads do that are different from what moms tend to do, like the teasing, like the postpone rate of vacation, like the rough housing, and what the psychological value of those were for the children's growth and development. And I had these guys with tattoos and, you

know, muscles that I'll never have coming up to me and saying, crying and saying, I never realized I was worth anything. I thought I was better off probably in prison because I was the worthless person in the family. I'm suddenly for the first time. I'm feeling like I want to get out of prison to help my children not have the problems that I had and not make the mistakes that I made. And so there's this enormous desire on the part of a man to know that they're valuable as far as you know.

My sense as a clinical psychologist has always been that a kid has to have one role model, sometime in their life to make it. They have to have someone to mimic or they can't make it. Now, you can get that in a variety of ways. I remember reading Angela's ashes. It's a great book by Frank McCourt. And his dad was a recalcitrant alcoholic who drank the family's livelihood in health away. It was awful. Alcitrant alcoholic who drank the family's livelihood in health away. It was awful. But he kind of separated his dad into good dad and bad dad and bad dad was drunk evening dad and good dad was sober morning dad.

And he got his mimicry from good sober morning dad, you know, so you can you can pick it up in bits and pieces from different places. But if you're even if you have an intact nervous system, you know, and you're not suffering from burdens right at the point of your birth, from deprivation that began before you were even around, you need to have at least one model in your life that shows you what the good version of you could be,

because otherwise, how the hell do you know what it is? And it needs to be embodied, right? So you can see it, play it cell phone, so then you can play with it. Yes, absolutely. Let me, to that effect, let me address the females in the audience here, listening to this, that are single moms.

And what can you do? So the number one thing that you can do is take a look at the differences between dad style parenting and mom style parenting, because oftentimes the things that dads do look like they're not caring about the children, the things like teasing, the things like rough housing, the things that letting the children take risks

like climbing the trees like we talked about. They all seem like the tough love decisions are often seen, you see the toughness without the love very frequently. And so take a very careful look at that. Make sure that if you still have the dad at all around are available, that you get into family dinner night discussions

where everybody learns how to listen to everybody else's perspective in the family, learn how to do a negotiating of that checks and balance parenting. But it's absolutely impossible to get the biological father involved. And I'm afraid that the biological father, children do better with the biological father than they do with the stepfather. Mostly, every parent elevates risk for abuse by 100 fold if I remember correctly. It's a very stepfather's almost always are never allowed to be more than advisers.

If you do have a stepfather work on that issue that I talk about in the boy crisis book on how to engage the stepfather as a real equal assuming that he's a responsible and loving man. But if all those things fail, make sure you get your child at the age appropriate time into Cub Scouts. Cub Scouts, children involved in Cub Scouts for two or more years, have a very significant increase in character development over children that are involved inat Scouts minimally, or not at all. Boy Scouts are a wonderful deconstruction of masculinity. They've really figured out how to bring out the best in boys. Faith-based communities. Children who are in faith-based communities make sure your faith-based leader gets your son involved with other and small groups with other boys his age and make sure he he encourages your son to be and all the boys in the group to talk about their feelings and their fears so that they can see that they're not alone in those feelings and fears. Make sure your children are involved in what I call the liberal arts of sports.

Look, by the liberal arts of sports, I mean team sports. Also, pick up team sports. And also sports where you have to develop your own skills. It's your part of a team like in gymnastics or in tennis, but you're not interacting with the team all the time. Each of those things will develop in your son different types of skill sets. The most important one that oftentimes moms don't realize the value of is the value of pickup team sports.

Let your son or daughter be at the school without your supervision. Let them pick up a game where they have to decide without somebody supervising them. How big the courts should be a basketball courtship be, should be half-size, full-size. One of the fouling rules, who do you check, is perfect developmental skills for being an entrepreneur and being able to make decisions without supervision. Obviously team sports are pretty obvious what their benefits are and and Developing skills without that are dependent on this team are part of the liberal arts of sports So spend time in the boy crisis book looking at what you can do as a single as a single Yeah, well one of the things I liked about your books and why men earn more as well is that

they're, they're full of information, but they're also practical. And they have practical advice. Here's things you can actually do, which is something people apparently appreciate about my books. So it's nice to have it detailed down to the level of action. I want to close because I know we're, we've exhausted you. What, why did you receive such, I would like to know why you think you didn't get more traction with the Trump people, but then I would like you to tell me what's up with the Democrats. Why didn't you get,

why did you get rejected so out of hand when you put forward these perfectly reasonable propositions, which in principle should be in accordance with what they're claiming to support. Yes, even the Trump people, this is what I'm going to say now is 10 times 10 fold this issue with the Biden people, but even the Trump people were fearful that the single mother would feel criticized. and they were afraid of losing the support from her. And so that was what I heard behind the scenes was the gap between it being very much recommended by the people that I spoke with versus actually having a presentation delivered by Trump. The other thing was that they were fearful

that it would call attention to Trump's failed marriages and his womanizing, and they didn't want to open that door. So those were the... Okay, okay. ...from the side. From the Biden side, it was like, well, the best example of this is what I went to Iowa

and I interviewed nine of the presidential candidates that were Democrats. And most of them were very excited, especially Andrew Yang and Senator Hickenlooper, John Hickenlooper. We're very excited about what I was saying. Andrew Yang already had a mastery of what the problems were with boys. He was on the tip of maybe being able potentially

to talk about the issue. Wall, when I finished talking with both Andrew Yang and Hickiluper, especially with Andrew Yang, the female campaign manager came up to me and said, I'm sorry Warren, we just cannot have him talk about these issues. This will alienate our feminist base. This will alienate women who are single moms. It will not, and we want, we want also many of the women who are divorced. We want them not to feel that they wouldn't have the choice of going off and starting a new life and bringing their children to a new location with a new man. And so we are afraid of losing that bait. Those two. Yes, well, to hell with the old man. Yes. And so it was really, losing that bait, those two. Yes, well, it'd tell with the old man.

Yes. And so it was really, and they were honest with me. That's the good news. The bad news is they were afraid of that. This was the case. And so with when the Biden administration created the White House Gender Policy Council, which was a day or two before he was actually in order. And it was focused on women and girls, and both black women and girls and white women and girls. I protested and talked with Jen Klein, who's the co-chair about this many times. And her only answer over and over again is Warren.

President Biden cares about men and boys. Warren, President Biden cares about men and boys. War and President Biden cares about a father's and my response to my constant hammering of her about, well, then it should be written into the White House Gender Policy Council to create these father warrior programs to create these programs of dozens of which I suggested that could increase

and improve the lives of boys and men. And I was met with no answer like just. So what's the problem? What's the problem? As far as you're concerned, we might as well have it right out. What the hell's going on? In Jen Klein's case and in the feminist, in the liberal political leadership, and the feminist and the liberal political leadership and the Democrats, it is just a fundamentally and totally honest belief that women have it worse than men, that boys and men and the constant image that comes up for the political liberals is warren.

Right, so it's the gender, it's the classification of the world by sex, that's the problem. It isn't who has problems and how do we help them. It's the classification first and the problem second. It's we live in a patriarchal world dominated by men who made the rules to benefit men at the expense of women. The proof of that is that look at who is at the expense of women. The proof of that one is that, look at who's at the top of the political ladder.

Look at who's the top of the corporate ladder. Look at who's the top of even the religious ladder. Right, so it's right back to where we started, which is identify that tiny minority of men who are hyper successful, generalize that to the masculine universe at large and to hell with those that are in the middle or the bottom, which is, so what is that?

Hypergamy in female politics? Is it the same thing? And it's not the realization that the men at the top are often at the top. They're earning that more money, not because they feel more fulfilled or this is their choice. They felt obligated to earn money that somebody else spent while they died sooner. Right. So it's not even true for the people who have the privilege, much less true for men anywhere else on the hierarchy. Correct. When I say to them things like, you know, it isn't male privilege.

Do you consider it male privilege for every generation during their war to train the boys and the men to be the ones that died in war so that you could be protected and saved? And it's just like closed mouth. What about the legislation that's become a real issue in Korea? Yes, South Korea. Oh, actually, I didn't know that. Oh, yes, yes, there are no shortage of men who are not thrilled about the fact that they are conscripted for two years, and the women aren't.

Now, you know, my sense is, well, the women pay their dues in childbirth and pregnancy, and, you know, but nonetheless, it's an issue, and it's producing no shortage of resentment and friction among young Koreans. And here in the United States, you States, it's still the law, which is probably the most unconstitutional law that most violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection of the laws. It is still the law in the United States

that your son is 18 must register for the draft. If he doesn't, he can be fined accordingly in dollars. He can be put in prison for a year or two. He can in 42 states, he can lose his driver's license if he doesn't register for the draft. And there's a whole series of other, he can never go to a school that gets federal money, which is virtually every school, including private schools.

This is all the punishment that men have. Your son has, if he's 18 and doesn't register for the draft, the punishment for females is zero, because they don't have't register for the draft, the punishment for females is zero, because they don't have to register for the draft. They have the option to do that. So what do you think of that, Warren? Like the old-fashioned patriarchal part of me thinks, I think two ways at the same time, unfortunately, about that. I do believe to some degree that that's the balancing of the scales, you know, that as you pointed out in your own book, you know, men, dying, war, and women, dying childbirth.

Now they don't die in childbirth so much anymore, but they did. And in great numbers and was terrible pain and all of the privation that went along with that obligatory responsibility, tremendous amount of that has been humiliated, not all of it, but a tremendous amount. Thank God for technological progress. And so, but, but having said that, well, it doesn't sit well. The idea of women drafted for frontline combat doesn't sit well with me. Yes, I think there's an answer to that, which is we don't have to draft people for frontline combat. There are there are there are men that are not suited to that. There are women that are not suited to

that, but we're either but I think it's a good solution would be either you don't have registration for the draft, which creates a different set of problems and not having a ready group ready, but say you, but you have people register at the age of 18 for some type of service of say six months or more. And then you mark off the type of service that your personality, that your contribution can make. You could be a healthcare frontline worker. You can be a volunteer in frontline worker. You can be a

volunteer in this way or that way. So if there's mandatory service, it's mandatory for all, but the service itself can differ. And everyone could have some choice in that. And who knows? Maybe there'd be enough people pick frontline combat to fill the necessary places. It's possible. I mean, there are people who are constitutionally inclined towards that. And if there isn't enough people for that, then you do a supply and demand type of phenomenon. You raise the income for the people who do. Right, right, right, which would be that would write exactly that would be the equitable way of dealing with it is is increase the hazard pay.

Yes, exactly. Right. And you'd watch the demand in you'd watch the supply increase. Exactly. Because there'd be people who are right on the line, right, right on the edge. Exactly. Right, right, right, right. Right. Any final things to say? Yeah, I guess maybe the most important thing I'd like us to all get is that there are so many things like hashtag me to that are so valuable for us to hear the pain and the experience that women go through. But hashtag me to as a monologue is a disaster because it needs to be a dialogue. Yeah, just like it needs to be a dialogue between men and women and a family. Exactly. We need to hear that men have pain, men have all these, these, you know, the,

the 50 plus developmental challenges that I talk about that men feel lonely, isolated, that men, why men suffer more, because when, and because one thing we need to do it just for compassion. Secondly, there's so many misunderstandings and anger that is happening by we say on the one hand, men have toxic masculinity. They don't express their feelings. They don't say who they are. And then we make men pay an enormous price when they do express their feelings. And so so many young men feel caught between a rock and a hard place. Yes, well, I would say that's happened in my case, you know, because I have this unfortunate proclivity, diversity, tears at the slightest provocation, which has haunted me my entire

life, but is still quite pronounced. And it isn't exactly obvious to me that, you know, my radical left wing critics are above using that as a weapon. It's quite interesting to note. And maybe they're justified in doing so. I'm not saying that. But it runs contrary to their hypothetical theory. Yes, exactly.

And I've said, man, after man, by the way, I have exact same characters. If my wife were here listening now, she'd be really chuckling because anything that is, you know, what I had to hold myself back when I was talking about the memory of the men and the prison population coming up to me afterwards and themselves crying. Right, right. I think you just both got me there too. The hashtag me to dialogue is so important, not just for empathy, but also to eradicate the toxic part of masculinity that keeps feelings all to oneself. Because when you do that, you end up having a volcano build inside of you and it comes out as the anger, it comes out as distance, it comes out as drinking, it comes out in destructive behavior, and it also comes out in things like school shootings, mass shootings,

committing crimes, and so both to protect ourselves from the mass shootings, from the ISIS recruits, almost all of whom are dead deprived, males and females, and also out of the time. Can you do data, is there data on that one with regards to recruitment for? Yes, there is. In fact, it was done by three sociologists who looked at the studied ISIS recruits in Lebanon. And after doing that, they anecdotally told each other afterwards.

You know, a lot of these guys have, don't have their dads. And they were trying to get involved with ISIS to have some sense of purpose beyond themselves. And well, it was never part of our questionnaire. They went back and then did a systematic study of the men asking, including that question, that had not been asked at the beginning and found that to be the single most common denominator

of the ISIS recruits. By the way, there's 89% male ISIS recruits and 11% female ISIS recruits. And the females had dead deprivation as an issue, as well as the males as the single biggest characteristic. Patriarchal ideology has a substitute for paternal relationship. Yes, yes, absolutely. And just a need to have some sense of purpose and feeling of being needed. And that's one of the things that dads are so good at as working with moms.

Moms are so good at identifying a child's gifts, nurturing the child's gifts. And dads are so good at the tough love oftentimes that are necessary to help the child achieve those gifts. Yeah well I thought you know it seems to me that the central characteristic of the benevolent paternal spirit, parody, the patriarchy is encouragement. Oh, encouraged? Well I would say I think I take a little bit of a different issue there. I think moms and dads both encourage a lot. But moms oftentimes repeat the encouragement. And when the child fails are still encouraging, whereas the dad say, if you want to get to that outcome, you need to not do that texting, you need not to, you know, do all the things that that outcome requires,

and they tend to sort of enforce those boundaries and hold the child accountable to a greater degree. Does that make sense? Sure, sure, that's. Thank you very much for talking with me today, Warren. It's much, much appreciated. You don't exhaust me, you energize me, I just, oh well, I'm glad to hear that.

And I hope that I hope that everybody finds this conversation useful. Thank you. Thanks again, me. Thank you, you too. you