The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 552. The Feminism Debate: Can Women Have It All? | Megyn Kelly

Episode Date: June 2, 2025

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and journalist Megyn Kelly dissect the cultural and psychological forces reshaping modern gender dynamics—particularly the rising unhappiness among young women, the suppression of traditional masculinity, and the consequences of empathy-driven institutions. They explore maternal overreach, the devaluation of motherhood, the politicization of victimhood, and the unintended fallout of feminism’s gains in the corporate and academic world. This episode unpacks how men and women are drifting further apart—politically, emotionally, and biologically—and asks whether modern society is equipped to repair the divide wrought by extreme feminism. This episode was filmed on May 28th, 2025. There’s nothing more difficult—or more important—than raising a child. In this new 5-part series, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson brings decades of clinical insight to the questions every parent faces: discipline, identity, responsibility, and what it truly means to guide a child toward a meaningful life. Available now, exclusively on DailyWire+ https://www.dailywire.com/show/parenting  | Links | For Megyn Kelly: On X https://x.com/megynkellyshow?lang=en On Youtube https://www.youtube.com/@MegynKelly Website https://www.megynkelly.com/ 

Half of Western women, 30 and under, have no child. Half of them will never have a child, and 90% of them will regret it. This is a catastrophe. Your life will be happier if you have a partner and children. That's just true. And people should be told that, and then they should be told the realities of fertility. But in my case, Jordan, from that day to this, I've always loved working. I love it. It's totally exciting and

interesting and intellectually stimulating to me and I cannot imagine not doing this. We do potentially have a major societal issue in that men have their pathologies that are expressed socially, aggression, antisocial behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, but there's no reason to assume whatsoever that women wouldn't bring their own pathologies to the workplace. I've seen women behaving terribly over the past five years in particular,

and they're at the apex of the bad messaging. They're obsessed with abortion, which I just think speaks to a lot of things like the absence of religion in the public square. So I just think the whole system is set up to breed that kind of woman. It's become mandatory in our culture to assume that the feminist movement has elevated women to the status that they now enjoy. I'm not so sure about that. I think that technological transformation and plumbing has had a lot more to do with

that than ideological movement, let's say, especially one based on resentment. But in any case, it is the case that women occupy a position in society that was unheard of a hundred years ago. There's a downside to all of that, and the downside appears to be the mounting unhappiness among young women, the precipitous decline in birth rates, the collapse of marriage as a social institution, and a spate of childlessness among young women, as well as the feminization of our institutions in a manner that often borders on the pathological.

I discussed these issues today with Megyn Kelly, a woman who's married, who has children, and who's had a stellar career. And we attempted to sort through these 30 issues and come to a conclusion about how men and women might conduct themselves in relationship to one another and what the consequences of that are for the way we think about ourselves and society. You've had a very successful career, and I'm kind of curious about how you've balanced your life and your work, and how that's worked for you, and what advice you would give young women

who are apparently struggling quite radically. Now, young men have their problems, and there's no doubt about that, but I think it's something in the neighbourhood of 50 to 60 percent of liberal young women in particular between the ages of 18 and 34 who are, who suffer from at least one diagnosable mental disorder, for example. And, you know, and polls show pretty consistently that since the 1960s,

the average self-reported happiness of young women in particular has declined and quite precipitously. So let's start with that. Well, I'm not surprised to hear those stats about liberal women in particular, because look, I see it with my own daughter who's 14. The schools today try to exploit young girls and young women's empathy to bend them to their democratic norms. They try to impose all of their left-wing viewpoints on these young girls by tapping into the empathy vein. If you don't support Black Lives Matter, you're racist. If you don't support trans girls, meaning boys, playing in girl sports, you're a bigot.

They're bullied. Don't be a bully, be a nice girl. That's how we've been raised for time in memoriam to be nice girls who get patted on the heads. And you're not a nice girl if you're a bully or a bigot or a racist. So I'm not surprised at all that girls who don't get inoculated against that kind of thinking at home, who go into any normal school system, will be indoctrinated in that kind of thinking and they will wind up very unhappy, very unhappy

because her natural instincts will be to fight against things like watching a boy take all of her blue ribbons, but she's been told by all the people she respects in the school setting at least that she's a bad person if she objects to that. And I think that incongruous feeling leads to unhappiness. I think the reward system of K through 12 and college education right now is for people who play the victim. And so much the better if you could actually be a victim. That would be terrific. You will be celebrated.

You will be the cool one. You'll get the snaps from your fellow classmates and your professors, writing your college essay about what a happy childhood you had and your intact family that supported you and loved you along the way will not get you in anywhere, maybe three universities in the United States. But writing about the destitution derby that you have suffered from zero to 18 can open doors that would otherwise be close to you,

especially if you happen to be close to you, especially if you happen to be a white person, a girl or boy. So all the incentives are set up in a very backward manner and I think the other problem facing young liberal women is young liberal men who by and large are being turned into these, it's derogatorily referred to as soy boys, but I get it. Like they're taking the masculinity out of our young men and then telling them that's the only way that they're going to be accepted.

And especially young liberal men are buying that and walking around in Birkenstocks with their Starbucks, being quick to cry at any emotional wound and crying's not, that's fine, you can cry as a man, but most women would like somebody who doesn't do it all the time in response to all emotional upset. They prefer the hunter-gatherer types. And so these young women I talk to on college campuses are looking around for a man who will protect her, who will help lead, who is not afraid to enter hand-to-hand combat if necessary, or just rhetorical combat if necessary, and who, while he treats her

as an equal, will put his coat over her shoulders if it's a cool night out, will absolutely protect her if somebody messes with her on the street. Will, like my husband does with me, gently move me to the side. That's not facing the traffic along the road. Just those small little things that a man does for a woman and women have a different list that they do for their men if they're in a kind of loving relationship. And instead what they're getting is somebody who wants to braid each other's hair, which would depress you and make you question the whole experience. Yeah, well, it's not surprising, I suppose, that the boys are turning in that direction. You know, I met a young man in a restaurant a while back.

He wasn't looking too bad when he approached me. He was a waiter, and he said that he had started listening to first Ben Shapiro and then me six years ago, something like that, and that prior to that, it was his proclivity and his friends to compete with one another with regard to their victim status, let's say, and to present themselves as radically feminized to the young women that, in principle, they were with. He said that was necessary with the girl he had dated at one point because she was very radically liberal and that was a job requirement, you might say. And he shook all that off and told me, and my wife, who was sitting with me,

that he was much happier for it. But it doesn't really surprise me, Megan, because boys are not well served in the education system at all, right? Their play preferences, I was just reviewing some stats on ADHD over medication among young boys with one of my producers and what the original hypothesis such as it was with regards to hypothetically hyperactive boys was that stimulants, which is what Ritalin is, have a paradoxical effect on hyperactive young

boys, calming them down. And that's complete bloody biochemical nonsense, and it's a lie psychologically. What stimulants do is focus people intently on whatever they happen to be focused on. And they have exactly the same effect on ordinary boys as they do on hyperactive boys not least because 90% or 95% of hyperactive boys are actually normal. Stimulants suppress play behavior in animals. So he gives stimulants to young juvenile rats for example who are very playful then they stop playing and that's exactly why they're administered to young boys in schools. And so their their play proclivity is punished quite severely any attempt they make to be competitive in a world of

Cooperative games and there's really no such thing as a cooperative game, although all games that are rule-governed are cooperative, any sign of ambition they have is pilloried. They're associated constantly with the destructive patriarchy and presented to the world as enemies of the planet. And so it's not surprising that they tilt in a, let's say, feminized direction, especially to appease the angrier women. And there's a deeper problem here that I'd like your thoughts on. You know, the most woke disciplines in the universities, and that's really saying something, are the female dominated. The more female dominated they are. There's another contributing factor, right? So the less cognitive power the discipline requires, the more woke it tends to be. So physics is about the least

woke discipline, whereas social work, well, you know, enough, the less said about social work, the better. But so we have an issue here too, because I have a suspicion, you tell me what you think about this, because I'm very curious, that the default female ethos, let's say, is nurture, this isn't really a radical idea, I don't think, is nurturer to infant. And in the absence of managerial training, let's say, or rigorous mentoring in the operation of large-scale organizations, every situation turns into an infantilized family. I mean, it's become absolutely preposterous in universities. I mean, the

faculty, to their own discredit, have been infantilized by the administrators. You know, we have never seen a large-scale incursion of women into large organizations prior to the last 40 years. That's never happened in human history, and we have no idea what the social psychopathology that would be associated with that as well as the positive benefits. We have no idea what the social psychopathology might be but the infantilization of everyone and everything might well be it. And so I'm curious about about what you think about that. You know, there is data, for example, that women prefer male supervisors.

So that's one, you know, it's not overwhelming. It's not overwhelming data, but it's suggestive. And obviously that doesn't mean there are no good female managers. We're talking about broad trends here, but we do potentially have a major societal issue in that men have their pathologies that are expressed socially, aggression, anti-social behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, a tilt towards a kind of self-serving narcissism in some cases, but there's no reason to assume whatsoever

that women wouldn't bring their own pathologies to the workplace. And it is the female-dominated institutions that seem to be the most woke. I mean, and that's how the 18 to 34 year olds vote as well, right? They're radically out of phase with the entire rest of the culture.

So what do you think about that? How would you reflect on that, like in your personal experience with the organizations that you've worked with and the managerial situations that you've been in? It makes perfect sense to me. I accept that as a likely cause of the problem that we're seeing and probably the more than likely

culprit of it. I see exactly what you're saying. And you know, I guess with today's generation, I ask is it like a chicken egg? Like these woke institutions are trying to exploit girls' natural empathy, as I said. But those women at some point were the first ones in to a system that hadn't been exploiting their empathy. And they ran wild with it, clearly, because we're now at the place we are. And I see it being done.

We just played videotape on the show today from peak BLM right after George Floyd. The riots everywhere. And one of those infamous videos where BLM members got up in the face of, it happened to be a woman of color, she looked Latina to me, sitting there trying to eat her lunch at an outdoor cafe, and the BLM crowd was moving in on her, standing over her, screaming in her face, trying to get her fist up to say, Black Lives Matter. And it was all white women. And I remember this from

when I lived on the Upper West Side, which included 2020 during the George Floyd-A-Palooza. And it was all white women who tended to have some money in their lululemon out there at these BLM protests. It's like, okay, these women would never want that crowd coming back to their apartment building with them at the end of the day. But they want to be out there on the streets and pretend that they're one of them, that they understand the experience that your average inner city person of color has had. It's a lie. So I accept because I've seen women behaving terribly over the past five years in particular,

and they're at the apex of the bad messaging. And they're the last to come along on the Trump train, which is also disturbing. You know, the same stats I've seen from that you're citing with the young women in particular. They're obsessed with abortion, which I just think speaks to a lot of things like the absence of religion in the public square. No one's even telling them the other side or the other options. You know, we had laws at one point where you'd have to show women the picture of the fetus before they could abort it. And those got struck down. It was like, no, you can't even show

her what she's doing. So I just think the whole system is set up to breed that kind of woman. Like, you'd almost think that it's the kind of woman that society wants because they're so prevalent. Well, you know, the question is, you know, did we tilt in that direction with, there's certainly a strain of feminism that developed particularly in the 1960s, although it was there long before that, that really did in some ways aim at that kind of women. Let me ask you something as well that's deeper. You know, I've studied malevolence as deeply as I can for a very long time, and the philosophical representations of malevolence and the theological representations of malevolence. And the deepest representation

representation is luciferian and that trope underlies like the evil scientist in in you know popular entertainment the idea of the intellect gone mad the intellect that worships itself that then usurps and attempts to put itself in the highest place and so there's an idea that this is Milton's idea that, you know, Lucifer, who's the spirit of the unbridled intellect, the light bringer, is the spirit that was most finally made that went most dreadfully wrong. And so the psychological idea there is that there isn't anything more remarkable about human beings than their cognitive ability, but if it becomes master instead of serving something higher, then look the hell out. Now there's an echo of that

that's very very deep with regards to the maternal instinct, and I think this is what's played out in the Genesis story of the consort between Eve and the serpent. What seems to me to happen is that Eve clutches the poisonous serpent to her breast. And so that's an overextension of that empathy that you described, which is the core element, let's say, of the maternal instinct, and really the instinct that the species itself depends on, right? Human beings have the longest dependency period of any creature by a lot, and human infants are markedly helpless. And so that self-sacrificing compassion that's at the core of the maternal instinct is absolutely vital. But as Freud pointed out, if that goes wrong within families and overextends its domain so that, for example, that infant-mother bond

isn't attenuated as the child develops, then there's nothing that's more devouring than the mother. That's the story of Hansel and Gretel, right? They go out into the forest chased there not chased there in part by The fracturing of their family and They find a gingerbread house, which is a little bit too good to be true, right? It's not only a house, but it's made out of candy. And so maybe you might suspect that the jig is up when something's painted that beautifully on the outside. I'm oh so compassionate and embracing. And of course, inside there's a witch whose goal is to fatten up the children and to make them helpless so that she can eat them. And so fairy tales are pretty vicious in that sort of representation, but that's also a portrayal of how all-devouring the maternal embrace can be if it doesn't, if it overextends its domain.

Now, you know, it's not like men get off easy in that Genesis story, by the way, when Eve decides she's going to put herself at the center of the moral universe because that's what she does. She's tempted to become like a god because that's the temptation, and she clutches the serpent to her breast. Adam doesn't object, and he goes along for the ride. And then later in the story, when God wants to walk with Adam so that they're working together, let's say, Adam is hiding behind a bush because he's realized that he's naked. And so the woman and the serpent have made himself conscious and now he doesn't have

the courage to walk with God. And when God asks him why, he blames the woman and he blames God for making her. And so there's a, like, I don't want to lay this all at the feet of women because what I saw in the universities, for example, is that, let's put it this way, that when the maternal instinct went astray, partly because it didn't have any valid target, the men just backed off and didn't oppose it. And so, you know, they're complicit in this disintegration, but we do have a problem on our hands that's not trivial. And we also see this reflected in a growing political divide between young men in particular and young women all across the world, right? Young men are becoming more conservative. Yeah, I know.

And young women are becoming more liberal. And they're also not finding each other very effectively. What? The political, you know, who would have guessed that, you know, so we got two problems. Men and women both have the vote. Now does that mean they're political enemies? Because that's certainly one of the things that appears to be happening. And then we have the mass migration of women into workforces of a size where empathy cannot be the regulating principle. You know, I'll give you one more example and then I'll turn it over for your comments. If empathy was the appropriate ethos for operation in a corporation, let's say,

ethos for operation in a corporation, let's say, beyond the size of the family, then the personality trait agreeableness, which is the index of compassion and empathy, would positively predict workplace performance, particularly among managers. But it isn't agreeableness that predicts. It's conscientiousness, which is a cold virtue that typifies conservatives more than liberals. Big organizations run on raw cognitive power and conscientiousness. They don't run on empathy. Little bitty families run on empathy, especially when there are infants, but that doesn't scale. And I actually think that's why the personality trait conscientiousness, which is diligence, orderliness, industriousness, it's associated often with patriotism and

more conservative values. I think that's why it evolved, because empathy does not scale, because everyone isn't a big happy family. And once you exceed kin group size in your organization, you have to turn to a different ethos. And that, I think that's particularly problematic for unconscious women who self aggrandize on the basis of their compassion. Hmm. Yeah, there's a lot in there and I agree with a lot of it. I keep thinking about the fact that, look, I was raised,

I'm a Gen Xer and I was raised by lot of it, I keep thinking about the fact that, look, I was raised, I'm a Gen Xer, and I was raised by a boomer, right, who was part of that first wave of feminism, who, you know, they were told you can have it all, you can have it all at the same time, and you're kind of a failure if you don't have it all at the same time. And that generation of mothers did as told and left their kids alone for a large portion of

their childhoods. And that wasn't a bad thing. And I have a great relationship with my mom. I'm not saying I'm glad she wasn't around that much, but it led to self-sufficiency and independence and absolutely no overbearing motherhood. That wasn't a thing in the 1970s or the 1980s. We were so neglected. We were called latchkey kids where you had a key around your neck to let yourself back in after you walked home from school and you didn't really know when your parents were going to come home. There were rules like, you know, be home when it gets dark. Your parents had no idea where you were and really didn't care. Those were good things. Those were building the ties for appropriate separation at the earliest possible age.

Love always remains, caring and all that stays, but not overbearing motherhood or fatherhood for that matter. And that generation, so that's me now and maybe my brother and sister who are older. And I think we'll raise the solution to the problem that came just a little bit after we came. Because I think what started to happen was those women got into the workforce

and they were doing it all and they would commit to work because there was an understanding that they would not blow it for the next generation of women. They'd been given the keys to the kingdom. Now you come in and you do well at these jobs and you don't talk about your kids and you don't leave to go home early and you don't insist on flexible work schedules. So the women did it and they raised tough gen X kids who were fine. But as they started to get more rights at the office and it sounds great on paper, okay, flex time and I only have to work part time and I have to leave early for this thing and the other

thing and so on. And the workplace started to bend more to supporting what mothers needed in their motherly roles. The mothers were home more and I think started to over correct, started to see like go from the latchkey kid to the, you know, the helicopter parent, right? Where I'm never leaving you alone. I'm going to somehow overcompensate and be the parent that I didn't have or that the generation before me didn't have.

And slowly we started to migrate to parents who never leave their children alone. Mothers and fathers for that matter, but especially mothers. And that leads to helplessness. And it leads to leaning into victimization and finding the newest disorder and overplaying any injury because you can get attention that way, especially when you have a mother whose competition you can potentially beat by overacting your injury or your upset, etc. Like if you're in competition with a job and she's got to go to the job and you know that you don't do anything as the child. You understand that's the deal. But if there's a split between her attentions

and you've got to play for it, I think you lean into more upset, more victimhood, more things that would get a mother's attention naturally. Like I have a disorder. I'm not well. I need extra help. Yeah, well that'll get her attention if she doesn't have anything better to do and it has no sense, right? But that is another example of that exaggeration of compassion to the point that it becomes toxic. And the fact that it's necessary to human beings, especially in the early years, like

vital, also means that it's a very difficult force to regulate. I mean, the general rule for caretaking, and this goes for the elderly as well, pretty much anybody you're actually taking care of is, don't do anything for anyone that they can do for themselves, right? Because you're actually stealing from them, not helping them. You know, I mean, certainly one of the rules for psychotherapy, insofar as there are actual rules for that enterprise, which has probably become now more destructive than useful, is that people have to make their own way, right?

You listen and you help people strategize and you ask them questions, but you don't provide them with the direction for their life because that's their enterprise. And that requires a very, well, it requires a hard bound on compassion, that's for sure, because you don't want to get in there and interfere. Can I ask you a little bit about the way that you constructed your own family and career pathway? that you constructed your own family and career pathway, because I've been working with my wife, trying to sketch out, she does a podcast on issues related to femininity. And we've been trying to sketch out, at least hypothetically,

something like a appropriate timeline for young women, because they have no real guidance in that. So here's a stat for you. We hit this milestone last year. Half of Western women, 30 and under, have no child. So it's a little more than half now, so we hit more than half. Half of them will never have a child. and 90% of them will regret it. That means we're setting up, this is a catastrophe, this is a catastrophe if it's true, and the data are pretty clear, I believe. This means we're setting up one woman in four for

for isolation. Right? And that gets increasingly brutal as you get older. And I also think we're setting up that 25% of women to be preyed upon in a manner like nothing we've ever seen when they enter their later years. Because they'll have no one to keep an eye out for them, especially during times of vulnerability. This is not going to be good. So, let me sketch out an idea for you in terms of a timeline and tell me what you think about that. I mean, one couple in three have fertility problems by the age of 30. And that's defined as not being able to conceive within a year of trying. Right. And so it seems pretty obvious, all assistive reproductive technology notwithstanding,

which is very expensive and very unreliable and certainly not something to be depended on except in cases of absolute necessity. Having your children before you're 30 is a wise move if you want to ensure that it's going to happen. And so then the question is order. You know, we're best served probably as human beings to have our children in our probably as human beings to have our children in our 20s and probably our early 20s and of course that's going to be more Demanding for women more demanding and more of an opportunity I would say because each child really requires something approximating three years of pretty dedicated care You know the data seemed to show that if your child is three and reasonably social, then social education, daycare, can work.

Before that, especially with transformation of caregivers, it doesn't look like it's a very good idea. So you need three years per child and maybe you want two children or three children and so that's something like I don't know five or six years that you have to devote to it. Now women live about six or seven years longer than men so that's kind of an interesting little twist on the whole situation and if you started your career at, you could have 40 years of career, which is a lot. And that way, I would say, in some ways, you get to have your cake and eat it too, although perhaps not at the same time, you know, which we had talked about early.

But there are no real guidelines developmentally for young women, and they don't know what to do, and they're increasingly not married married and they increasingly don't have children and they're increasingly unhappy and it doesn't look to me like slave to a corporation is necessarily a substitute for family life and children Now some people have a career you have a career some people have a career most people have jobs have a career, you have a career, some people have a career, most people have jobs. So anyways, I'm not saying that that's a hard and fast rule, but I don't really see any way around it. And here's another little twist that is worth

adding. I think most people who are popular and attractive get five chances to establish a permanent relationship and that's about it. That's fascinating. Well, you know, well, you figure, well, figure it's a year to kind of get to know someone. And then assume that, you know, you're fortunate enough so that people are lining up, which is not that likely and probably not the position that most people are in. And so maybe it's two years, including the failure, and five is a 10-year span. You know, I mean, I'm not trying to be overwhelmingly pessimistic, but I wouldn't say it gets easier

as you get older, you get more different from other people. It isn't easier to establish a relationship when you're older, I wouldn't say. And more people are snatched up. Well, there's that. That's a big problem, you know, who's left. And the other issue I would say too that's germane is why wouldn't you want to spend your young years with the person that you want to be with you know you're gonna what forestall that for for what reason you know I got married to Tammy when I was

27 I think and one of our regrets is that we didn't do that earlier now there were reasons for that and maybe they were valid, probably they weren't, but I'm not happy that that time was missed. It would have been better to have spent it together. So I'd like your thoughts on that. I mean the timeline, the just that general layout. I mean I think there's no problem in setting out those honest truths, which are your life will be happier if you have a partner and children. I just think that's just true. And people should be told that, and then they should be told the realities of fertility, because those are realities that, you know, can be potentially meddled with, but there's no guarantee.

And if you cannot, if you're one of the people who cannot meddle with it, and you missed your window, it will be a lifelong regret that will be unsolvable and will be like a deep source of pain, an ongoing deep source of pain. So it's not something that you could easily brush off. And so all those truths need to be shared while at the same time prizing and sharing the fullness of the rewards of motherhood with young women, which isn't done. That's the other piece of it.

Like if you listen to Jordan, if you listen to Ben, if you listen to, you know, the Daily Wire, you'll hear that. You won't hear motherhood, early motherhood or any kind of motherhood generally bashed. You'll hear it praised, but in society still, in the movies, on the television shows that women watch, it's not.

You're still like, you still hear, she's just a stay at home mom, you know, or she doesn't work. They still don't look at, you know, motherhood as something that's, you know, something valuable, like work as though it's a bad word. Motherhood is work too, it's a great work. It's life fulfilling work, but it still has this like,

and women who I know all over New New York and now I'm in Connecticut, they say things like, it's very important to me that my daughter see me going to a business meeting. Like mommy's got a business meeting or going to the office if they have just like some small meeting. And I'm like, why? Why? Because they don't think the daughter will think that they're important if they don't have some sort of business pressing on them, which is absurd and hashtag part of the problem, right? Like, no, we all need to be teaching young girls and boys that motherhood is enough. Like being a mother is a completely valid, beautiful, awesome, really important choice.

I actually went to my daughter's school and I said, I think it's fine you have career night. It's an all-girls school, and you bring in doctors and lawyers and journalists and whomever, you need to bring in a stay-at-home mom. You need to have somebody stand up there and tell the girls, I made a totally different choice. And so much the better if she's got a great education and she can say, yeah, I have all the same skills you have.

And I was on the exact same path as you were. And I loved learning and being introduced to the classics and being able to sit around a dinner table with so-called intellectuals and know the references. And I chose a totally different path when I graduated from those schools because there was one thing that was most important to me. And let me tell you how that's rewarded me.

The school did not do it. Okay, so, you know, we've got a counter program at home. So having said all that, I'll tell you my own personal experience, which doesn't really reflect that way of thinking or this recommended course at all. And yet still, I'm very, very happy. I'm a very contented person.

Happy is a charged word, but I really am very happy with my life. I'm contented. I have a very contented person. Happy is a charged word, but I really am very happy with my life. I'm contented. I have a very, very strong marriage and extremely intact, loving, present, and meaningful relationships with my three kids. But I also have a very large career that's been hugely successful,

not to be self-aggrandizing, I'm just saying like on the scales of careers, mine has worked out very well. So in no way did I really sacrifice much on in that lane. And I realized this puts me in the 0.00001% of people and probably even, you know, fewer percent of women. So the way that I did it was not that unconventional for, you know, when I grew up. I was definitely part of a generation that felt you work, you know, you get to work. You graduate from college, go to college, but when you finish college you

work. That's the thing you do. But in my case, Jordan, from that day to this, I've always loved working. I love it. It's totally exciting and interesting and intellectually stimulating to me. And I cannot imagine not doing this. It's been really important to me. And if I looked at the 21 or 22 year old version of me versus me now, or let's say when I had my kids, which was later, 38, 40 and 42. I guarantee you, I personally, this isn't true of everybody, but I personally would not have been anywhere near as good a mother.

I was much more selfish and less capable of giving. And, you know, I was more of a taker. Like most young people are, not all, but most. And so I really think that the calm I've brought to motherhood, the life lessons, the wisdom, has been a boon to my children who are calm and cool and not panicers and have a wisdom about them that I think you kind of get through osmosis

and maybe some genetics, but they're in a very good place, I think, in part, thanks to the fact that I was, that's not age-related for everybody, but for me, I didn't reach that place in my life until I was older. And unfortunately, it wasn't planned this way because I didn't meet my husband till we were 35.

But unfortunately, and believe me, I think about it all the time, it means that my children and I have a shorter runway together. And I hate that fact. I, it haunts me. I'm so grateful that I have them at all, unlike so many women who weren't this fortunate, but I hate the fact that every time we talk about their lives,

I'm calculating, it's his age plus 42. That's what I'll be, when my youngest has his children. And boy, my kids better have kids young if they want me to be part of that child's life at all. If they want, if I, if I get to be a grandparent and it's, it's its own special form of pain, you know, like would I have traded my career building and doing the things that I love because I was a lawyer for the first 10 years and then I switched to journalism.

I don't know if I can say that I, I didn't meet the right man until I was a lawyer for the first 10 years, and then I switched to journalism. I don't know if I can say that. I didn't meet the right man until I was 35. If Doug had come into my life at 22 and I rejected him, and then we went and married different people and refound each other at 35, that would be really painful. But I don't have that regret. We didn't meet until the time I think God brought us together. And for me, that was the time.

When I was ready when I was ready. I was ready to not downshift in my career exactly, but to make compromises in my career that I hadn't been prior to that. And I was fully committed to devoting myself to motherhood in a way I never had been before. And some of it was born of the intense love that I had for my husband and still have,

in which my kids were born into this swath of like truly mad romantic love that they're products of and are immersed in every day, which is probably the best medicine for them. So I have no regrets about how I did it, but I also acknowledge it's not all roses and unicorns. There are downsides to doing it the way I did. Yeah, well, you know, our culture is so youth obsessed, and I suppose that came out of consumer culture in the 1960s, when for the first time in human history, young people had excess money to spend and could be, you know, marketed at.

We tend to construe, especially in popular culture, life as if you're old by the time you're 30. Right. Oh, Jordan, when I broke into journalism, I was 32 and I thought, I'll never be accepted in this business, I'm too old. I will have no future in this industry. It was like so silly.

That turned out to be wrong. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that's why it's so useful to start a discussion, let's say, about the actual span of life. I mean, you said that one of your regrets, your potential regrets, is that you've truncated the time that you'll have as a grandmother, let's say. And you took advantage of that when you were young and there was some utility in that for you, but that is a price that is lurking and, you know, it's very difficult to tell how

it will play out. But as a pattern, it's something for people to give some consideration to. You know, optimally, you want to be a grandparent when you're still youthful enough to be active and engaged, and then you get to have the pleasures of having children again. And that's a pretty good deal, and it is something, like, we're not good at conceptualizing the entire span of life consciously, you know, that's what roles were for, so you didn't actually have to think about that. But we have to think about it now. There's another perversity in this that I really have a hard time figuring out, because I would say

that by and large the feminist movement that's at the bottom of some of the things we're talking about has been a left-wing movement. And I do not understand for the life of me how in the world it can be logically coherent that the left can be anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, and pro-career. Like, I don't, I just can't. Yeah, so there's that, so we can talk about that for a bit. It's like, okay, corporations are evil and there isn't any higher purpose you can serve

as a woman than to serve one. It's like, okay, I'm not exactly sure what to make of that. Then I want to tell you what to make of that. Now what? Then I want to tell you a weird little story too. I was looking at the Brothers Grimm Snow White version recently because I went and saw the Disney Snow White version, which was exactly the sort of mistake that you'd think it would be both to attend and to produce. And so I want to just tell you a snippet of that story. So Snow White is

young and beautiful and the Evil Queen wants that, right? So she's an older woman who is competing with the younger woman for the younger woman's advantages. That's the Evil Queen. Okay, now Snow White has to run away from the evil queen. Right, and where does she go? Well, she goes out into the forest, which is the unknown, but she goes to where the dwarfs are. Now, in the Grimm's brother fairy tale, the dwarfs don't have names, so they're kind of generic. But they keep an orderly house and They work very hard So the Grimm Brothers dwarfs now, we don't know how old these fairy tales are by the way there there are have been some folk

Loralogists folklorists folklorists who've traced some fairy tales back like 10,000 years they're very old Okay, so it's wisdom speaking you could say. So Snow White goes to, to what? To serve the dwarves. Okay, so what does that mean? It means that to escape the Evil Queen, she has to make a pact with ordinary masculinity. Right? She has to serve the dwarves. Now, why? Because they protect her

from the evil queen. Now, among primates there is a phenomenon called fertility suppression, which is where women compete, the females compete, to suppress the fertility of other females. And it's a very widespread phenomenon that's well known among primatologists and biologists, and it definitely characterizes human beings. And so the Evil Queen in the Snow White story is suppressing the fertility of Snow White. Now she runs away from that and takes shelter among the ordinary men, the dwarves let's say, who are the positive side of the patriarchy, you might say it that way. When the Evil Queen comes back, she shows up again, right, and

she offers Snow White three gifts. The first is a bodice that's too tight and just about strangles her. So that's a narcissistic exaggeration of sexuality as a temptation. The second is a poisoned comb. Same thing in slightly different guys. She's tempting Snow White to be poisoned by the worship of her own beauty. That's a good way of thinking about it. That's what the evil queen does. The third gift is the poisoned apple. Now, of course, that harkens back to the Genesis story. Anything you incorporate is something that changes you. It's like you incorporate knowledge,

and so it's poisoned knowledge, and the dwarfs can't save her from that. And that's the situation young women are in in the modern world, because the evil queen feeds them poisoned knowledge. women are in the modern world because the evil queen feeds them poison knowledge. And the deep question is why? And the real skeptic would say, well, the older, jealous, childless women are doing absolutely everything they can to destroy the fertility of young women. Now there's a corollary to that, which is this happened I on Hercia Lee, for example. It's often the women in these brutally patriarchal societies who enforce the worst impositions on young women, like female genital mutilation, for example, is often a practice conducted

by grandmothers. I understand about that. Yeah, that's for sure. And so there's a brutality in this, you know, a brutality in that. And I think you see it taken to its logical conclusion, by the way, with this trans phenomena, because the price I told the bloody Senate in Canada in 2016 when they crammed through that idiot pronoun bill that was a compelled speech bill, I told them that they would produce a psychogenic epidemic among young women. Because what happens

when you confuse people about something basic like their sex, you confuse the most confused the most. And so, for example, a 1% increase in unemployment produces a 5% increase in psychiatric hospitalizations because you put a little pressure on the people who are barely hanging in there and they're done. Well, if you take the swath of girls or boys, but girls are more prone to psychogenic epidemics, you take the swath of them that

are confused for 15 reasons and you add six more reasons and they're like, they're done. And so, we can see the full horror show that's the surgical mutilation and sterilization as the ultimate exemplar of this evil queen phenomenon. It's really dark. Let me ask you a question about it. Yeah. Yeah. Do you think in this scenario that the evil queens are conscious of what they're doing?

That's a great question. It's their own self-loathing working itself out. Well, here's a way of thinking about it. Every time you make a decision, you're conscious of it. But you make a lot of micro-decisions and you don't remember them. Right? Like, you don't remember all the decisions you made yesterday, or certainly not a week ago. But that doesn't mean you weren't conscious when you made the decision.

certainly not a week ago, but that doesn't mean you weren't conscious when you made the decision. Okay, now if you make thousand little decisions in the wrong direction, you were conscious at each of those decision points, you might not be cognizant of where you've ended up. And you know, that's the tale of many a society's disintegration into what blind totalitarianism. Look, when people fail to speak up in a totalitarian, in a state that's tilting towards totalitarianism, every time they know they should say something and they don't, they're conscious. Now they might not be conscious of where they're going to get to if they keep that up, because

that's the road to hell for sure. But they're conscious every step of the way, and so they're culpable. Now if you're talking to someone who's made a lot of bad decisions in therapy, for example, in trying to help them identify where they took, you know, where they met the devil at the crossroads and made the wrong choice, you're going to have to do a lot of reviewing. And to some degree, that's the, what, re-presentation of all that to conscious, consciousness, because it's become implicit, it's become part of the way that you look at the world. But it's conscious when you do it or don't do it.

Well, I mean, I would like to think that this is what I've been thinking while you've been talking with all due respect, because I have a lot of friends who are Democrat women. But I feel like you're talking about liberal women and not just women, because the conservative women I know are just not like that. They just have a totally different set of values, and they live by them, and they raise children by them, and I think we see the results of it. I don't know why, and not even necessarily your average Democrat women,

but a lot of them, but certainly leftist women. Yeah, I mean, I just feel like everything you said applies and it's obvious. Well here's another weird data point. So psychologists have known for a long while that, sociologists as well, that people become more conservative as they get older. So that's how the data is explained. As people age, they become more conservative. But you can take exactly that same data and you can put another twist on it. It's exactly as explanatory, and I think it's more accurate. The reason this hasn't happened is because academics, including the researchers,

are radically biased in the direction of the liberals. It isn't that you become more conservative as you get older, it's that conservatism is the political expression of maturity and liberalism, progressivism, and the hedonism that goes along with it, that self-centered hedonism, that is part and parcel, let's say, of the pride movement. That is the political expression of immaturity. And so here's something else this explains, you know, because this is a perverse fact. There has been no economic and conceptual doctrine that's been more radically discredited than, let's say, the radical leftism, the Marxist brands of leftism. But it doesn't go away. So it's not leftism, it's not Marxism, it's Marxism is the most radical expression of hedonistic immaturity.

And the reason it doesn't go away is because hedonistic immaturity doesn't go away. It battles with maturity. And as you become more mature, you become more conservative, because conservatives are community-oriented and not self-oriented. Now, interestingly as well on the psychological side, there is no distinction No distinction between thinking about yourself and being unhappy. Those things are so tightly aligned that you can't dissociate them statistically. Right? So, as you become more conservative, but truly more mature, the way you orient your life is toward the future and towards other people. And that turns out not exactly to make you happy, you know, and you pointed this out.

You said happiness was a fraught word, and I agree, because happiness is a hedonistic goal. But secure in your identity, free from chaotic anxiety, goal-directed, purpose-driven, and in service to others, right? Well that's not bad. That's a good substitute for happiness. In fact, if you were wise and mature, that's what you would substitute for happiness, right? That's why Pinocchio discovers nothing but slavery on Pleasure Island, by the way. So, right, because you know, if you're a slave to your hedonic whims, that doesn't make you happy. It just makes you a slave.

Right, right, right. So, okay, so... But let me ask you, because... Yeah, yeah. I look at the political divide you mentioned when we kicked this off between young people, young men and young women. And it doesn't surprise me one iota that young women are liberal. But it does surprise me that young women are liberal, but it does surprise me

that young men are now becoming conservative in greater numbers than I've ever seen in my lifetime. I mean, it doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't because I follow politics for a living and I've seen what the left has done to young men. So I see it's a natural gravitation. But what do you think that that's what's caused it? And if so, why aren't young women open to that? We've seen some, we've seen some young women start to vote Trump with the Trump hats.

I tend to believe, maybe I'm totally wrong, this is completely anecdotal, but I tend to believe it's they see these young men who are very pro-Trump with the hat and it's kind of cool and they like the guys wearing those hats and they like what those guys are saying and the way they're acting and it's a natural cool, and they like the guys wearing those hats, and they like what those guys are saying and the way they're acting, and it's a natural aphrodisiac, and so the next thing you know, those women have the hat on, and they're open-minded, and they're hearing it discussed. Okay, okay. Let's delve into that a little bit.

First of all, I think it's happening to young men. I think that the podcast crowd has had a fair bit to do with that. And I think the reason for that is that that's the only place that young men find encouragement. And that encouragement, I've been struck to the core in my travels and my encounters with thousands of people or tens of thousands of people, many of them young men, how little encouragement is enough. None is not enough. Some is enough. And they've got some encouragement from the podcast Sphere World, and that's enough.

Now why not young women? Well, Megan, one of the mistakes that pollsters make is assuming that 16-year-old boys or 18-year-old boys, let's say, and 18-year-old girls inhabit the same world. They don't, because worldwide, women prefer men who are about four years older and I would say that proclivity is even more pronounced in early you know in the teen years and in the early 20s so I think we should be matching young men against girls who are four years younger not the same age so we'll see we'll see how that plays out in the upcoming years.

So that would be the first thing. It is also not obvious to me that the conservative types have done a particularly good job of communicating with young women. Now there's a bunch of reasons for that, you know, like the 18 to 34 year old female crowd gravitates not towards YouTube and the longer form content that at least at once was the hallmark of YouTube, but to these more pathological sub-social worlds, you know, Tumblr was one of them. Wherever you get a large aggregation of young women who are unsupervised, let's say, or unmentored, that's a better way of thinking about it. Look the hell out because that's a breeding ground for social pathology. And young women get a lot of their information, I think it's 60 to 70 percent from TikTok. I know, it's terrifying.

And TikTok is a complete bloody snake pit and the Chinese and the Iranians and the Russians have a major hand in that. And so that's not good. This is one of the main reasons I'm on TikTok, as a show, as a creative. I want my voice out there and I want people to hear me and my message, just especially young women to hear it.

There's another way and there are different ways of thinking about this. But I think about the Trump election Jordan. I sat in this very studio that night with a bunch of young men from my son's high school and there were 16, 17 of them and we were up late, you know, Trump, the election wasn't called until I think the 2 a.m. hour. And these guys, they didn't have to be a conservative or a Trump supporter to come here, probably naturally, a lot of them just were.

But when we called it for Trump, and I'm sure you saw this in your own world, but they weren't just like, yes, they were like this. Thank God. They were head in hands, like running their hands through their hair, near tears. It was more than joy. It was like relief.

Relief, yeah, yeah. Well, could you imagine a four-year term of Kamala Harris and the LGBTQ crowd? No, but when I was 17 or 17? Oh my God. These guys were that into it because they knew they had seen what happened, I think, to the class ahead of them and the one ahead of that and their older brothers and maybe their fathers, you know? And that's why to me, it's so crazy.

You've got in our society now, Democrats throwing $20 million, was in the New York Times this week at trying to figure out the syntax to use to connect with young men. I'm like, you're so, talk about being myopic. You don't have the first idea where you've gone wrong or how profound the loss is. You actually think you're going to be able to reach those boys with their heads in their hands in that sort of profound relief that Trump won by changing your syntax. Or we've seen some of these Democrat senators throw out a swear word here or there. They have no idea the depths of the betrayal,

I think, that these young men are feeling from those political leaders. And to me, that's the biggest divide right now, what the left has done to these young men, divide right now, what the left has done to these young men, not as much were just women, yes, women, but also men of the left who have abandoned them or at least gone along with these dominant women at the BLM protests and in corporate America preaching these things, because they can't find their balls to stand up for what they know is right and exercise, yes, maybe some toxic masculinity here and there, it's actually quite useful. Well, as I said, my experience has been that the best pathway out for those young men is encouragement.

Say, you know, you're not who you could be. You could get your act together. There could be a lot more to you if you were willing to develop it and you know don't accept the line that you're intrinsically pathological. You know I had a friend who committed suicide because of that fundamentally when he was about 40. You know he had bought the sort of nihilistic Buddhist line that you know the patriarch was evil and male ambition was part of the force that was destroying the world.

And he was a guilty colonialist. He lived up in northern Alberta where there was a lot of native Canadians and there was a fair bit of tension there. And he wouldn't even defend himself in a physical fight if it came to that because he was so guilty. And some of that was irresponsibility on his part, let's say, and unwillingness to grow up and take on the challenges of productive life. You know, I'm not trying to lay it all at the feet of the social world, but I saw that in him, and it did him in by the time he was 40. You know, and he was a very smart, attractive, talented person. He had his problems for sure. But that betrayal that you describe, it strikes right to the core. There's nothing moral about demoralizing young people, young men, in the name of defending

Mother Nature against the patriarchy. That is the, it's an ancient form of nature worship violation. It always ends in child sacrifice, which is exactly the situation today. It's pathological to the core. And as you said, the Democrats, they, all they can do is ape And as you said, the Democrats, all they can do is ape respect for masculinity. I mean, they tried to trot out Tim Walz as a man. You know, I mean, really, I mean, you know, there are worse examples of men than Tim Walz, admittedly, but we might also point out that they're- No one's coming to mind, but I'm sure theoretically, they've spent enough time on it. If you're looking for archetype of admirable masculinity, I wouldn't start with him.

I don't. I mean, right, right. Well, the fact that that was even an idea, I'm not trying to denigrate Walls specifically, but the idea that that was- Can I just say on the same front, yes, as horrible as they come. I mean, tampon in the boys' rooms, that's enough. Tampon Tim is enough to convince me he's not the archetype. They put those in the military bathrooms in Canada, you know. They've been in some bathrooms at Facebook. That was one of the things that Mark Zuckerberg undid as he became more right-wing or more of a Trump supporter. But I think more about somebody like Doug Emhoff.

To me, he's even more of like the poster boy for this problem because he's married to Kamala Harris. He is utterly feckless. If you see him speak publicly or in interviews, all he's trying to do is project sweater man. You know, I would never wear a suit because I'm a sweater man. I'm approachable.

I'm a feminist. I'm a likable. I'm non-threatening. And he buys into all the tropes. You know, I'm married to a professional successful woman. I'm happy to be the second gentleman, not threatened by it at all. Only in his case, as it is in so many of these people

who bend over backward to live up to that image, it's all fake. He's actually not a supportive partner at all. He's not comfortable in his own skin. And I mean, I don't like the word feminist and I don't call myself feminist, but I think there is, you could create a definition of that word

that would be flattering, you know, could be used in modern day America in a way that could really embody what could be great about femininity. Anyway, my point is he's not it. And he is behind the scenes, according to the Daily Mail and the woman to whom it happened, an abuser, a physical abuser of women. So it's always those guys, right? The ones who are totally against the patriarchy and the first to speak out against toxic masculinity

and throw their fellow men under the bus as a sex, as problematic, who are in the sweater and saying they'll be second gentlemen. And then you find out they're actually beating the women in their life. That's the allegation. I've spoken to his accuser directly. That's the allegation. I've

spoken to his accuser directly. There's plenty of corroborating evidence and not one journalist would even ask him about it, Jordan, when they got this guy in front of them. Now, all these self-serving leftists who say that kind of a man would be terrible. We wouldn't want that man anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Nevermind a role model for our little boys and girls, not only did they not inquire into the story, when they had him across from them, wouldn't even ask about it. And to me, that is the embodiment of the problem

on the left. They elevate guys like that who actually are complete shits and they want us to celebrate them as non-toxically masculine, whereas they're looking at an actual man who will throw a punch in defense of a woman or just a weakling who might be getting bullied in a public setting and say he's the problem. His natural male instincts to protect or compete or get ahead are somehow problematic. Mm-hmm. Yeah, well, that's the same ethos that underlies the insistence in so many

schools, for example, that there can only be cooperative games, right? There's no winners and losers because we're all winners and there can only be. And it's, it's so pathological, Megan, because first of all, competitive games are cooperative because everybody plays by the rules. So they're founded on cooperation, right? They have a... the rules of the game are the constitution of the playing field, and everyone accepts that. And then if you're a fair player, you abide by the rules in practice and spirit,

and that's cooperation. And so what it actually is is civilized combat within a container of cooperation. So it's unbelievably sophisticated. And then the victory and the loss issue is, well how about you learn to be a good winner and how about you learn to have some resilience in the face of loss and take some responsibility for it. And all that does is strengthen you in every possible way. And our education systems, K-12, are so pathological and so miseducated that they don't even understand those basics about games, right? And games are the, they're a microcosm of society and we get all that wrong.

And so that ambitious striving forward towards victory, you might say that's the hallmark of stereotypical masculinity has become demonized even though it's a hallmark of the civilized conduct that's also protective and resilient. Well, let me ask you this question. What if we did an experiment starting, you know, the 2025-26 school year where we radically changed the so-called academy and we made it much more heavily male the way it used

to be? And I don't know what we would do with those women who were formerly in those leadership. They're now running these universities, but let's just say we, they don't all have to go, but let's say we reduce the numbers dramatically. Forget where the women go and what we do with them. It's a different problem for a different day. But do you think that the men who would be running those universities

would actually change them? Would today's collection of men want to be the men to? That's a good question, Megan. Well, you know, men, what's the old joke? You know what happened never? 20 women got together and built a boat and traveled to a distant land. Right?

I mean, well, we don't actually, right, right, right. Well, we don't actually know, I would say, a tremendous amount about those closed sex dynamics. Men are pretty good at sorting themselves out on the basis of competence when they're thrown together in a group. And I think the reason for that, think about it this way, evolutionarily, you know, well, why would you ally yourself with the best hunter? Because maybe the best hunter is the highest status guy. It's like, well, you don't die, that's a start, and you get to eat and so does your family.

And maybe proximity to the top dog confers status, not the highest status, but you know, do you want to be the quarterback on the winning football team? Yes, but being even the water boy is better than not playing at all. And men are pretty good at that, you know, if they're thrown together in a group and there's a task, they sort themselves out pretty quickly in relationship to competence at the task. Now that can get perverted by power and tyranny and, you know, aggression, but all things considered that's the way men conduct themselves. Let me ask you something.

Let me ask you something. I'm sure there's a follow up. I know. Forgive me. My worry about that scenario, this is completely off beat, but I genuinely have this worry, is like all the toxins in the environment, all the microplastics, all the messing with hormones that's happening through our drinking water.

These guys through no fault of their own may be getting more and more feminine. And it's also the case, Megan, that women on the birth control pill are less attracted to masculine men. Well that's definitely hormonal manipulation there's no question. Oh yeah yeah yeah and and we like we have we have absolutely no idea whatsoever the political consequences of the birth control pill we have no idea they it could be it could be catastrophic for all we know, because we don't know what it means that women find masculine men less attractive on the pill than off. Like we don't know what the political ramifications of that are.

They don't have to be that great to be determining, given the small margins of victory that constitute the typical political campaign? So these sorts of questions that you're raising, they're open-ended. We don't know. And the same thing applies with regards to hormonal alteration in the environment. I feel like we're finally going to look into it, though. This is one of the reasons why I was such a big supporter of RFKJ is I really think you have someone in there who is very open-minded to looking into those kinds of things.

I mean, the microplastics, geez, I don't even know how we're going to solve that. But there is evidence that it's hormonally manipulating us in a very unfortunate way. And if that's true, I mean, the latest data says that we have the equivalent of five bottle caps worth of plastic in our brains. We'll never be able to solve that. We need medical doctors to actually help. And further depressing us is the fact that even if you eliminate all plastics from your life, you never put plastic in the microwave so it doesn't seep into your food, you're inhaling

plastics that they're using in Germany. That's what the data are. So to me I just feel like there's so many things we have to solve for. Even if we were to take out our pen and write the guidelines down and then everybody were to live by them, we've lost something as a society when it comes to basic, like health, wellness, caretaking, a structure in the world order that would allow for all those things to blossom. And up until about two minutes ago, we were paying zero attention to that as a factor. Yeah, well, I guess that's what we hope will transpire as a consequence of this tilt spearheaded by the US towards a productive conservatism. Hopefully we'll see that spread, well, not to Canada by all appearances, but perhaps...

Our evil top hat is Michael Nils calls it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Alright, well look, we should bring this to a close. I know that your time is constrained today. We're going to go over to the Daily Wire side. I think what we'll do there is, I think we'll continue a discussion on motherhood per se, because I'm curious about how you managed that and also about the manner in which having children shifted the way you looked at the world and also in what you would tell young women about that shift in perspective that's attendant on having your own child, which is a very different thing than looking at someone else's child. So I think we'll delve into that.

Yeah, and I did a lot of management consulting with women as part of my clinical practice and watched a number of them have children in their 30s and later, and watched what the transformation was like and also the pain that women had when that didn't work. That's not fun. That is not fun. So we'll delve into that on the Daily Wire side.

Thank you very much for talking to me today. I much appreciate it. Pleasure's mine. Appreciate your insights on this thorniest of all problems and, you know, maybe we'll make some headway with it. You know, it's certainly the case that your work on TikTok is extremely useful because young women are dying for guidance in the same way that young men were 10 years ago. I know. They need some women who aren't evil queens to guide them. That's right. Well, I mean, bit by bit, right? Brick by brick, as they say.

Yeah, right. Exactly. A typical conservative attitude. Good, good to talk to you, Megan. You too, Jordan. Thanks for having me. And thank you for everybody who's watching on the YouTube side and to the Daily Wire for making this possible to the film crew here in Scottsdale today.

And thanks again again Megan.