The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.8 Jenna Ortega Sex Video Backlash, More Disturbing Vince McMahon Details, Gentle Parenting & More News

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

Click here https://bit.ly/42iAJWG and use code DEFRANCO to get 25% off, on your next order. Offer valid February 8th - February 14th 2024.  Go to http://meundies.com/defranco to get 20% off and free shipping. Buy The New https://BeautifulBastard.com Drop While You Can! –✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Lawsuit Against Vince McMahon and WWE Gets Worse 05:36 - Intimacy Coordinator Defends Jenna Ortega’s Intimate Scenes Following Backlash 07:51 - Sponsored by Liquid IV  08:49 - Disney Plus Lost 1 Million Subscribers - But It’s Actually a Good Thing 12:21 - SCOTUS Skeptical of Removing Trump from the 2024 Ballot 16:20 - Bolsonaro Named in Brazil’s Coup Investigation, Ordered to Surrender Passport 19:20 - Sponsored by MeUndies 20:28 - Gentle Parenting in the Age of Social Media  28:19 - Your Thoughts on Yesterday’s Show  ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Star Pralle, Chris Tolve  Associate Producer on Gentle Parenting: Maddie Crichton ———————————— #DeFranco #JennaOrtega #VinceMcMahon ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup, you beautiful bastards. You're watching the Philip DeFranco Show. I got an extra large one for you today. So much news to talk about. We've got people freaking out about this Jenna Ortega sex video. All the wild news around Disney. Disgusting details around Vince McMahon

keep getting worse and worse. Supreme Court's weighing in on the 2024 election. And the truth about so-called gentle parenting. And there's even more. So buckle up, hit that like button to let YouTube know that you like these daily dives into the news. And let's just jump into it.

Starting with, it's long overdue that we talk about this mess. Many of us experienced or heard rumors of different levels of evil for years. And the allegations are disgusting. Disgusting. Disgusting, heinous. This is a massive, massive scandal. I don't think he can survive this because it's too much. Let's dive into this situation with Vince McMahon, because you may have heard that last month he resigned from his post as the chairman of WWE's parent company, TKO. That's because the day before, a former employee filed a lawsuit against McMahon, another executive, and the WWE, accusing them of physical and emotional abuse, sexual

assault, and trafficking. And all of this adding on to the already existing allegations against McMahon. Because back in 2022, he had actually retired from the WWE amid sexual misconduct claims. With the board then investigating accusations that he paid $12 million in hush money over the prior 16 years, which then later turned out to actually be almost $20 million. Within months later, McMahon paying millions of more in dollars to settle a lawsuit alleging that he raped a former wrestling referee in 1986. But then after all of that, he ended up returning to the company the next year. Though now with everything that we're seeing, it appears that he may be gone for good. You know, with all this, the devil is in the details. So to understand, like, how one of the biggest names in wrestling fell so hard, we gotta go back to 2019.

Because that is when former wrestler Ashley Massaro died. With then her lawyer releasing a sworn affidavit detailing what happened to her way back in 2006. Because while on tour with the WWE at a military base in Kuwait, she said that a man claiming to be a doctor injected her with a paralyzing drug and raped her. And her saying, despite being unable to control my movements, I remained fully conscious for every second of the attack. And then, after word spread about this incident, she claimed that McMahon and other executives pulled her into a meeting about it. And they told her not to talk about what happened, partly to preserve the company's relationship with the military. Though in a filing the next month, the WWE called the claim a stale and baseless allegation. Gnying that Ashley had ever reported a sexual assault to anyone affiliated with the military. When filing the next month, the WWE called the claim a stale and baseless allegation, denying that Ashley had ever reported a sexual assault to anyone affiliated

with the company. But since then, more details have come out casting doubt on the WWE's denial. For example, you had Paul London, a former WWE wrestler who dated Ashley when they were both with the company saying, she would be crying to me because Vince was propositioning her to,

to fly on the jet with them. You know, they'd always put the divas up at like the TV hotel or whatever. You know, he'd be knocking on her door and, you know, trying to get her to answer. And then also adding that she was herself a victim of McMahon's sexual misconduct. Plus, just this last September,

Audible released a podcast called Ashley vs. WWE, in which people who knew Massaro backed up her claims from the affidavit. And now you've got Vice News revealing that John Laurinaitis, a former WWE executive who was named in Ashley's affidavit. And now you've got Vice News revealing that John Laurinaitis, a former WWE executive who was named in Ashley's affidavit, reportedly knew about the alleged rape, with his lawyer saying in a statement to the outlet,

Johnny, like most upper-level management, at some time became aware of the allegations and ensured all proper WWE protocols were followed, including privacy for the alleged victim. But then adding, we object to the use of the term cover-up as no such plan or plot ever took place to hide or assist in the alleged rape. But that was an absolute bombshell because not only did it confirm that Laurinaitis knew, but also that most other executives did as well. And again, that is just with one rape allegation.

Where you also have the lawsuit last month that finally seems to have brought McMahon down for good. And that one coming from Janelle Grant. A woman who says that she met McMahon in 2019 when they lived in the same building. With her saying that he offered her career-making and life-changing promises. But then soon after, she says that he pressured her into a sexual relationship, with him even sending nude photos and videos of her to other men inside and outside the company. And so while all this was playing out, you had the WWE hiring her and McMahon reportedly showering her with gifts, cars, surgery, gift cards. And so she says that she felt coerced to give in to his increasingly depraved sexual appetite

under fear of losing her job, with her then going on to allege that he made her have sex with other men, that including Laurinaitis before the start of work days, which Laurinaitis had at breakfast. Also, both of these men allegedly assaulted her in a WWE office while saying no means yes and take it, bitch. Another time, McMahon allegedly caused her pain and bleeding while using sex toys that he named after different wrestlers. There were also things like during a threesome, he allegedly defecated on her and then kept having sex with her. And one of the big final things is the lawsuit alleges that other WWE executives knew about Grant's relationship

with McMahon and saying that the company actively sought to conceal the wrongdoing. Now with all this, you have a spokesperson for McMahon telling Deadline the lawsuit is replete with lies, obscene made up instances that never occurred and a vindictive distortion of the truth and adding that he will vigorously defend himself. But with so many accusations and lawsuits piling up from different women you have many

people having a hard time believing that but you're also seeing some of mcmahon's supporters excusing his past behavior arguing that grant was really more of a sugar baby not a real victim that framing being pushed out to the world by the likes of andrew tate he worked hard to become a billionaire and he bought all of these things this is this is disgusting. Ready? Go on. This is disgusting. But in her lawsuit, Grant says that she pleaded to end the quid pro quo sexual relationship multiple times, saying the alleged coercion only then got worse.

Plus, even during specific instances of assault, she claimed she begged McMahon and Laurinaitis to stop, but they held her down. But the final thing that I'll hit on is, for me, as someone that grew up watching the WWE, and I don't really watch it that much now, I'll tune into random things. It's kind of wild to think that like the character that Vince McMahon was playing on TV, just doing like the craziest, most depraved shit on national television.

That is allegedly the toned down version of who he is in real life, not the exaggerated version. And while speculation, it does feel like he knew that this was going to go down. Just a few months ago, he made headlines because he was selling $700 million worth of TKO stuff. But hey, as all of this is still developing and still playing out, I gotta pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts here? Especially if you were or have been

or currently are a fan of the WWE. And then this video of Jenna Ortega having sex has people freaking out. Because if you didn't know, Jenna, who's 21, and Martin Freeman, who's 52, starred a movie together called Miller's Girl. And there are these videos of intimate scenes where, uh, how do I describe it? Bilbo Baggins is treating Wednesday like the one ring. They have prompted strong reactions for a number of reasons. In the movie, Jenna plays an 18-year-old student

who gets tangled up in an inappropriate relationship with her teacher, with many ages grossed out by the considerable age gap between the two actors. And while you had others saying things like, I guess some people don't want to see certain scenes in Miller's Girl, I also don't. But treating Jenna Ortega like she's a child forced to take on certain projects or film certain scenes is so insulting to her and her work. But a big part of the reason that we're talking about this today is, you know, all that online discourse, it ended up making its way to the film's intimacy coordinator, Kristen Arjona, who then said in an interview that Jenna was very involved in the entire process for the intimate scenes and saying, there were many, many people throughout this process engaging with Jenna to make sure that

it was consistent with what she was comfortable with and she was very determined and very sure of what she wanted to do. And adding, part of my job too is supporting her decisions. I adapt to whatever is the comfort level of my actors, especially on a production like this where there is a large age gap between the actors. And again, making sure, especially with someone who's significantly younger, that they are giving continuous consent. She then went on to say that they discussed the levels of nudity that both actors were comfortable with, as well as talking about modesty, garment options to keep their bits separated. Also, reportedly, each actor was given information about the scene two days in advance, and she stressed that they also had the option to change their minds the day of, right, if they were no longer comfortable. She also added that the cast and crew had discussions about these scenes before they were filmed, and they even used test audiences to get a feel for whether the scenes were, quote, too much. But with all that said, I'm kind of left with two things. The first being, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts

generally on the story, but also two, you know, I haven't seen the movie yet, the context of certain scenes, what actually, like, the story is trying to tell. But honestly, rightly or wrongly, this controversy around this movie is probably the best thing it has going for it. Because right now, the reviews are atrocious. It is a 32% critic score, a 43% audience score. While some of the criticisms appear to be connected to, like, the stuff we're talking about today. One review saying the writer-director brought back all the ickiness of the 1960s to 80s when movies and TV commercials portrayed tween and teen girls as sexually provocative and available to men. There are also others that just say it's a bad movie.

Writing the film ultimately commits a truly unforgivable cinematic offense. It turns tedious. As well as it's just boring. And in a film aimed at pushing buttons, you absolutely can't be boring. And then, I don't know about y'all, but my energy level just plummets around 3 p.m. Like, give or take. And my focus, like, forget about it. You know, my day's not over then.

I still gotta be on my A-game. Not just for the last to work, but so I can be there for my friends, my wife, my two young kids. Actually be present in the moment. Recently, I started using Energy Multiplier from Liquid IV, and man, the boost has gotten me over the hump. Because the Energy Multiplier is a three-in-one. Hydration, physical energy, and mental clarity. So I want to give a special thanks to our fantastic sponsor of the show, Liquid IV, for making it easier for me to not only stay hydrated in a delicious way, but help me through my day.

These energy packets are comparable to one to two eight ounce cups of coffee, and they're great for brain power, alertness, focus, and fatigue, and work faster at hydrating you than water alone. They have great flavors like yuzu, pineapple, and mango tamarind. You know, I usually drink Liquid IV during my workouts, and now I've added the energy packs into my midday routine. It's super easy. Just tear, pour, shake, and drink. And did I mention that it tastes great? And get this, from today, February 8th to the 14th, you can get 25% off your entire Liquid IV order. Just click the link below and use code DEFRANCO. Cheers.

And then, in big business and entertainment news, let's talk about Disney+. Because we just got the news that at the end of 2023, in their final quarter, they lost 1.3 million subscribers. With that appearing to be at least somewhat connected to their price hike. They raised the price from $10.99 a month to $13.99 a month. Right in about 27% jump. And while you may think this is horrible news for Disney, it's actually fantastic news.

I'm going to oversimplify the numbers here because there's a lot going on. Especially as Disney Plus and Hulu, they're rolling out like this combined package. It's heavily discounted. And the number of Disney Plus core subscribers went from 112.6 million to 111.3 million. For the sake of this, I'm going to say it just started at 100 million. Let's say all those subscribers went from paying $10.99 a1.3 million. For the sake of this, I'm gonna say it just started at 100 million. Let's say all those subscribers went from paying 10.99 a month to 13.99 a month. That means they were bringing in

a billion 99 million a month. And by changing the price, if they lost zero subscribers, they'd all of a sudden just magically make 300 million more a month. But of course, you know, they're gonna lose some. Pricing matters. You know, if they lose just 1%,

that's a million subscribers. That ends up being a very insignificant number in the grand scheme of things. In fact, as long as they lost, let's say, less than 20% of their subscriber base, they're making more money now. And then even they're losing ad-free subscribers, not the worst thing in the world, especially because we're seeing these companies trying to migrate people to where they're able to serve them ads, right? Disney has an ad here that's $7.99 a month. Hulu has one at the same price. And if you combine them, it's only $9.99 a month. And then there's even more bundling stuff with ESPN Plus. So these companies and Disney here, they're seeing this as a healthy shit. Now, if the loss turns into

a drastic trend and we see that grow, then maybe that changes the situation. But those are largely not the trends that we've been seeing in this space. And it's also important to note with Disney that all of this isn't happening in a tiny bubble. Because the corporate side of Disney has been incredibly tense in recent weeks. With activist investors like Nelson Peltz of Try and Fund Management and Blackwell's Capital each leading their own proxy campaign with their eyes on seats on Disney's board. Which obviously CEO Bob Iger, not a fan of, saying these activist investors are the last thing the company needs. So not really new ground here, like Peltz for his part has been fighting for a while. Disney's saying that he's tried 24 times to get a seat on the board. As

Disney stock continued to decline in 2023, that prompted Peltz to start this new campaign, which is also why the subscription price change is such a big deal. It's slashing Disney's streaming losses, which is especially important because, you know, they've had some box office flops. Wish, the Marvels, a new Indiana Jones movie. All the while, Bob Iger's saying, I'm getting this shit back on track. Don't worry. And yesterday, we also learned that Disney's per share earnings for the last quarter were 23% higher than what Wall Street predicted. And specifically they're citing the revenue, the profit, and margins in their theme parks. Which is especially notable because for the first time ever, all of Disney's overseas parks turned to profit. And in fact,

the theme park and consumer product division brought in over $3 billion in profits. And then going back to streaming, Iger's saying, you know, it's not going to be losses. Saying that Disney's streaming will be profitable by the fall of this year. Saying forget about losing even more subscribers. Saying they are on track to add five and a half million subscribers this quarter alone. And then, of course, it doesn't even stop there because it's just crazy news. Disney also is making headlines because they're investing $1.5 billion into Epic Games. They're the creators of Fortnite. Saying that they'll work with the studio to make games in an entertainment universe where fans can, quote, play, watch, shop, and engage with content, characters, and stories from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, Avatar,

and more. Which usually, you know, the cynic in me would go, that just sounds like a bunch of buzzwords. But honestly, given what a fantastic job Epic Games did with Lego Fortnite, whatever this is going to look like actually has a chance to be good. And that, I guess, just for good measure, with Disney announcing they made a deal with Taylor Swift to bring the Eros Tour concert movie exclusively to Disney Plus in March, along with announcing a teaser for Moana 2. You know, while you have activists and investors out there giving quotes, kind of calling bullshit on this, my response is, I don't know. The main thing all this news kind of confirms for me is the devil may work hard, but Bob Iger works harder. Though, I've

also never seen them in the same room together at the same time. And then, the Supreme Court just heard possibly one of the most important cases of our lifetime. Again, because today the nine justices listened to arguments about whether Trump should be banned from running for office because of his actions around the insurrection. With all of that, of course, stemming from a legal challenge brought by Trump

against the historic and unprecedented decision by Colorado Supreme Court to remove him from the primary ballot under section three of the 14th amendment. With that notably banning people from holding office if they've sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and then committed insurrection against the government, which has only been used to bar candidates eight times since it was adopted in the 1860s, with that also

including two years ago against a new Mexico County Commissioner who trespassed on the Capitol during the insurrection. But it has never been used for a presidential candidate. You know, with this, we've seen a lot of overlapping rulings and legal back and forth as to whether this is even a possibility. So all of that brought us today, where in court, there were three main questions that the lawyers argued over. Is the president considered an officer of the United States, which is the term used in the Constitution? Did Trump's actions on and leading up to January 6th amount to an act of insurrection? Does Congress need to act first before Trump can be disqualified under Section 3? Or is that power vested in the states?

Well, we heard the justices present a range of opinions and questions on all this. One thing that both the liberals and the conservatives seem to express here was skepticism, right, and that regarding several aspects of the Colorado ruling and whether Trump can be disqualified for his actions. In fact, according to the Associated Press, eight of the nine justices indicated that they were open to at least some

of the arguments made by Trump's lawyers, with only Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggesting in her questioning and remarks that she might uphold the ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court. And while you had a lot of different things being debated here, there was a big focus on the question of states' rights, with the majority of the Colorado Supreme Court. And while you had a lot of different things being debated here, there was a big focus

on the question of states' rights. With the majority of the justices implying that they do not believe that the states can disqualify candidates in a national election without Congress enacting some kind of legislation first. And that opinion was further hashed out in comments from Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts arguing that the 14th Amendment

was adopted to limit states' rights while empowering the federal government. And saying that the 14th Amendment is the last place that you'd look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to enforce, implicitly authorized, to enforce the presidential election process. And that was also echoed by liberal justices like Kagan.

I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. Also notable is that there was more limited questioning from the justices regarding whether Trump actually engaged in insurrection. We did see this back and forth between the lawyer for Colorado voters and Justice Brett Kavanaugh,

with the justice pointing out that Trump has not been charged with insurrection in any four cases in 91 charges that he faces. Some of the rhetoric of your position seems to suggest unless the states can do this, no one can prevent insurrectionists from holding federal office. But obviously, Congress has enacted statutes, including one still in effect, Section 2383 of Title 18 prohibits insurrection. It's a federal criminal statute. And if you're

convicted of that, you are, it says, shall be disqualified from holding any office. And so there is a federal statute on the books, but President Trump has not been charged with that. So what are we to make of that? Generally, not looking good for those who wanted Trump removed from the ballot. Especially because while this involves Colorado, it's not limited to just Colorado. The decision here will be binding to all the other states where Section 3 challenges are ongoing or have already been decided one way or the other. And those far-reaching implications are also something that the justices expressed concerns about. With Roberts saying that if the court upheld the Colorado decision, other states could kick other candidates off their ballots.

It'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That's a pretty daunting consequence. Justice Samuel Alito also chiming in, saying that if the states were given the ability to make their own decisions of disqualifying candidates, it could create an unmanageable situation. So as far as what happens next, there's a few ways the courts could rule. For one, they could issue a broad decision

about whether Trump is eligible to run for president and hold office at all. With several justices indicating they want the court to issue a sweeping ruling like this to just resolve the whole situation once and for all. Or they could also essentially kick the can down the road and say, hey, this is a political question that needs to be decided by the lawmakers and voters,

not the courts. We should know generally soon, because unlike normal SCOTUS decisions, this one's actually being fast-tracked. While they might not be able to make a decision before Colorado mails state primary ballots this Sunday, they could realistically rule before Super Tuesday on March 5th, which notably is when Colorado

and 14 other states will hold their primaries. And then we've got to talk about the absolutely massive news regarding Brazil's former president, Jair Bolsonaro. Because just this morning, the authorities there officially named Bolsonaro as the target of a federal investigation into whether his government planned a coup to keep him in power after he lost the 2022 election. And the parallels to the January 6th insurrection for a guy that was called Brazil's Donald Trump, they're wild. For months before the election, Bolsonaro and his allies made false claims about the integrity of the electoral system, trying to build up distrust among the public. And then when he lost the election, Bolsonaro refused to concede. With the supporters launching widespread protests for

months, demanding the military prevent this new democratically elected president from taking office. And then actually January 8th of last year, those protests morphed into insurrection-like riots when demonstrators stormed Brazil's Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential offices claiming that the election had been stolen. So shortly after that, Brazil's Supreme Court launched an investigation into the possible role Bolsonaro and his administration had in that coup, which now brings us to today with federal investigators releasing an insanely damning 134-page court order authorizing a massive federal police operation. Now, this order provides details from the investigation that are absolutely bombshell,

with a capital B. Right, drawing from the federal probe, the document outlines a widespread conspiracy to keep Bolsonaro in power, involving top aides, ministers, military officials, and the former president himself. The investigators even detailing how different overlapping groups of Bolsonaro allies across the government and military took up tasks to achieve this goal. With this including, but not limited to, producing and spreading disinformation about the election, drafting legal arguments to justify and initiate a coup, recruiting more members of the military to help launch a coup, spying on judges, including the leader of the Supreme Court, so they could arrest them when the coup was launched.

And that's in addition to encouraging, guiding, and even financing protesters who eventually stormed the Capitol. And while much of this work was done by people close to Bolsonaro, his fingerprints are also all over this, with investigators alleging that he was present for key meetings and detailing his deep involvement in the effort to sow disinformation. Which I mean, that's already established.

He's banned from public office until 2030. But potentially the most damning thing is that they also found that Bolsonaro himself was directly involved in drafting a decree to execute the coup. With him specifically providing edits on sections of that decree that would have set up new elections

and directed the arrests of key government officials. With those including leaders of the Supreme Court and Senate. And keep in mind here, everything that I'm talking about, this is just like the top level highlights. Or we're just scratching the surface on this authoritarian creme brulee. This is a massive and super detailed document. And also, and this is a key thing here, this isn't just outline alleged wrongdoings. This is a court order that explicitly authorizes specific actions. With federal police announcing they have now issued 33 search and seizure warrants and made four preventative arrest warrants. With those, including some of Bolsonaro's closest allies and some of the most senior government officials,

like ministers and heads of military branches. Now, with this, Bolsonaro, for his part, was not among those raided or arrested. But the fact that he was named as a target shows that he is clearly implicated. As did the fact that he, like others, was ordered to surrender his passport to authorities, which experts say could indicate the possibility of a future arrest. And so it's going to be very interesting to see how all this plays out, because what we are talking about is a full-blown government conspiracy involving a ton of the top people and even potentially the former president himself. And with how everything's set up right now, regardless of what specifically happens, it

is very likely going to be huge. And then, are you looking for that fun gift for someone on Valentine's Day? Maybe the gift that's not only for them, but maybe for you. Well, look no further, because one of today's fantastic sponsors has you comfortably covered. Look no further than to MeUndies. You know, Linz and I have been fans and consumers of MeUndies for years now. We love them. You know, huge fans of the different designs they offer.

Also, I'm a fan of how comfortable and durable they are. They last great for years. I only had to get new ones because, you know, my body has changed. Which is also a big thing, too, because because me undies is an all-inclusive line with a look for everyone sized Extra small to 4xl there really is something for everyone from black classics to fun expressive prints and right now they have Valentine's Day prints Like electric hearts and lovebirds It's also not just comfortable underwear me undies actually has joggers hoodies onesies and more their signature fabric soft and warm while being breathable Stretchy and just dang comfy.

It's an ideal all-day wear. And get this, if you're not happy with your first pair of undies, no worries, it's on them. And I think it's important to point out that they use sustainably sourced materials and work with partners that care for their workers. So this Valentine's Day, give someone that gift that'll always have them thinking of you and get 20% off your first order plus free shipping. All at MeUndies.com slash DeFranco. It's MeUndies.com slash DeFranco. It's MeUndies.com slash DeFranco

for 20% off plus free shipping. MeUndies, comfort from the outside in. And then, next up, we need to talk about gentle parenting. But to start things off, I gotta ask you, what do you think gentle parenting is? Because if you asked a dozen parents, what does that mean? You might get a dozen different answers. Where everyone's interpreting and applying it differently,

there's tons of noise and misconception. And it's become a very popular parenting style. And one that people love to talk about. I mean, on TikTok, just the hashtag for it alone has over 5 billion views from parents explaining how they use gentle parenting in their lives and what it looks like for them. Because there's such a mess around what the hell is actually going on, I want to try to unpack this. So for this story, we spoke with Claire Lerner, a licensed clinical social worker and child development specialist. And she explained. So you've always been picky about your produce, but now you find yourself checking every label

to make sure it's Canadian. So be it. At Sobeys, we always pick guaranteed fresh Canadian produce first. Restrictions apply. See in-store or online for details. It's core. What gentle parenting means writ large, I would say, is a parent-child relationship that is characterized by clear boundaries, empathy, understanding, and respect for the child, which are all critically important aspects of a long-term healthy relationship. So it's important that we start there because some people think that it's just letting your child run wild or your kid does whatever they want all the time. You never say no,

but it's not really that. It's supposed to be actually laying out clear rules and boundaries and forcing them consistently, but also treating your kid like a human with feelings. And so you also acknowledge those feelings. So that might look like telling your kid, no, you can't have a new toy or a sugary snack before bed. Then also explaining why. Showing that you understand they're frustrated, even if you don't agree. It's also things like giving a kid some autonomy over their body.

Giving them and telling them they have the right to not hug someone if they don't feel like it. Letting them wave or high five instead. Places like the New Yorker explaining that the goal is to create a child who can recognize and control their emotions because their emotions have been validated, which should help them be self-regulating, kind, and conscientious. And all of that at least looks a little different from how previous generations were raised.

With Lerner noting that a lot of people had the do as I say because I said so rule, which my parents definitely loved. They also loved the do what I say, not what I do. Because, you know, fun bonus points for being hypocrites. But also you have situations where toddlers are just getting punished for things they weren't capable of understanding was wrong. Now we know that, you know, even babies are deeply feeling humans, the way you talk to them, the way you nurture them as they grow, the way you encourage their independence and help them learn how to manage life's frustrations and disappointments is through empathy and teaching, not punishing.

And with this, a report from The Conversation going so far as to say that, quote, perhaps gentle parenting is more than just a parenting style. It's also a rejection of the parenting styles of previous generations. So it's not some kind of free for all, but it's also not enforcing militaristic compliance either. It's not like you're loving your child or you're setting limits. Like the limits are a critical part of loving your child because it keeps them healthy and safe and it helps them learn to adapt and be flexible and manage when they can't get what they want when they want it. But, and this is a key thing here, because the point of this segment isn't me telling you how

to raise your children. Even though many have found this to be an effective parenting model, shocker, raising kids is incredibly difficult and not all kids are the same. Some kids, they're going to hear an explanation about why they can't do something and move on with their day. Others are going to have a full-blown meltdown. And those kids may not want to then hear their parents try to empathize and sort out the emotions. It's overwhelming. They can't process it. Often it feels very intrusive when parents are saying things like, I know you're really mad. They're screaming, I'm not mad. Stop telling me I'm mad.

Stop looking at me. Go away. The reactivity level is so intense and so quick that what they need is like, my motto is less is more. Also having a reactive kid, that's not a sign of being a bad parent or raising a bad kid. It's just the way they're wired

and modifying to adapt to that is part of parenting. And key thing, even when it looks different than the methods you see working for others. But then that is also a big thing. Comparison. Seeing what's working for others, being told all these messages on social media about what parenting should look like, that can really strike a nerve. And actually with that, Lerner explaining that the discussion of gentle parenting has morphed into a lot of potentially unrealistic messages online, right? Saying that parents should always be engaged in a joyful connection with their kid, that they shouldn't feel frustrated, that you can always stay calm because if you're calm, your kid will always be too,

that you should never separate from them in a tough moment. And so with that, you have learners saying those ideas can be a massive disservice to parents. In the real world, that is not always the case. The messages parents have gotten have totally backfired and parents have internalized that as there's something wrong with them, right? That they can't be a gentle parent and there's something wrong with their child. And again, everything can be different. That's not to say that these messages are false in every single scenario. Some kids are calm and will roll with every punch, but some kids are more prone to stress and they're going to have a tantrum.

When you have a toddler kicking and screaming, parents are only human. They start to feel just as exasperated. So even though gentle parenting leads with empathy, Lerner explained that parents are not bottomless pits of empathy. They have breaking points and that's okay. It is okay to take a moment for yourself

to get that out, get situated. Just be careful if you use that moment to go to Instagram Reels or TikTok because there's no shortage of parent influencers who will make it seem like gentle parenting is this one size fits allfits-all magic wand. When you have parents who are going through this rough moment seeing that, they can start to internalize

their stress and exhaustion. It's so debilitating. I mean, I talk to parents on a daily basis who are in tears. It is incredibly distressing. And they blame themselves, which erodes their ability to be there for their child. And also what adds to the exhaustion and the confusion is that so much of the online

conversation around gentle parenting can be so vague. There's so many ideas that can be applied in different ways. You look left, you're told one thing. You look right, they say another. Which is why it's not surprising to see this report where the conversation spoke to parents using gentle parenting. And a lot of them were just at the end of their rope. But the report's saying that many acknowledged without prompting they were struggling to feel confident. And 40% of these parents expressing that they were hanging on for dear life, that they felt like they had no clue what they were doing. It was making them feel exhausted, uncertain. They were going hard on themselves. Some don't have a strong support system. Others, I mean, they're suffering from information overload like we are with a lot of

things, but especially here. And this is you have Dr. Kara Goodwin writing a piece for Psychology Today noting that when parents experience this overload, they actually have more difficulty making informed choices and that parents who feel inclined to constantly research have lower confidence in their parental skills. So again, that's not to say that everything parents see online is going to have a negative impact. You've got articles and creators on social media trying to dispel many of the myths about gentle parenting, which is also why you had learners saying that parents should trust their intuition. And if they see something that makes them feel like they're being a bad parent, just give themselves a moment to reassess. What's the post that got you that made you feel like you

were a failure? And in question, it's really making a major mind shift and saying, my job is to know who my child is and what makes them tick and what they need for me. And what I find is once I help parents recalibrate that, it's life changing. And on top of all that, parents can seek out content that will help you, not hold you back. And also very importantly, kind of like meet you where you are. Because y'all, so many of us know that what we see, what people are posting, it's bullshit. People trying to be seen a certain way, even if it doesn't reflect reality, deal ascetic over real substance. So I would say, look for the people who you feel reflect your reality, because you're going to probably get a lot more relatable, real life guidance from, you know, from those sources.

One of the biggest things out there is you got to give yourself some grace. You are human. Do not berate yourself for that. But hey, that is where this is going to end. Hopefully you feel like you learned something. I did. I initially went into this story because someone that just kind of lets their kid run wild and like walk all over them was like, yeah, it's gentle parenting.

And I was like, I don't think that's what that is. Yeah, I'd really love to hear from you, whether it be about how you were raised or if you've tried certain models, whether it includes gentle parenting or not on your kids, if you have them. Or, you know, people love to recommend books on this topic. Really any and all things. I'd love to hear from you. And then finally today, let's talk about yesterday today. We dive into the comments on the last video and see what y'all had to say. There's definitely a lot of conversation around the crumbly conviction. Joltzbark saying it's hard to hear that these parents didn't care enough to secure the gun properly. Gun safety isn't taken seriously enough and neither are mental health concerns. And others adding, I think it remains important in the Crumbly case to point

out how intensely these parents did not show any care or concern, not only for the students, but their own son. Imagine your child creating a picture like that and not immediately thinking, I need to protect him because he could have just as easily been talking about himself. And they not only pretended it meant nothing, they flat out refused to accept that any concern other people showed had merit either. I'm not sure I can ever be convinced that these two loved their son at all when they refused to show him the most basic of human decency over something so serious. And finally, Nighty Anna saying, I work with kids with PTSD and I see a lot of parents not parenting. The Crumblies are a chilling example of how kids

can turn out when they don't have the support they need. Also, to my surprise, there was actually a decent chunk of conversation around celebrities and the beauty space. Mark saying, I'm really impressed with Philip's knowledge of makeup shades, to which I'm 100% actually going to take credit for that. The origin of Fenty Beauty is just a rare thing that I have known about for a while. 99% of the rest of the beauty space, I have no knowledge of. And actually, on that note, some of y'all went into the comments to provide more details. People like Rahushi saying, the thing about Fenty was that they launched all 40 shades at the same time, which made them such a thing. Yes, MAC has just as many shades available, but it took literal months before I could find anything close to me. Another thing was Fenty also launched

more undertones per shade as well, saying, if anything, brands took note and started holding off on releasing 15-ish shades until they developed their darker shades too. And Maple saying, on Fenty Beauty and their foundation, they were the only brand when they launched where I wasn't the lightest shade. And other brands always use pink undertone that never matched me. As much as they went extremely inclusive on darker shades and should be commended about it, I feel the fact that they have all tones on every shade is incredible. And at that time, rather unheard of. And then finally, people asking when I'm going to get in the space saying, when do we get a Philip DeFragrance? Well, you won't. You're way more likely to get a DeFranco Bourbon. You know, I guess never say never. I just want it to

be something I'm actually passionate about. Like I love Beautiful Bastard and the clothing company for a number of reasons, like for the new blanks that we did the release of. And that's like a big part of our future, like size, inclusivity, good fit, price point, all of that matters to me. Hell, even the graphic tea aspect of it, I'm a big believer in wearing your feelings. That's always fun for me. But like in the beauty space, I'm a basic bitch. I use a CeraVe moisturizer or unless I'm using a Styx tinted moisturizer. That's my involvement in the space. That is where your daily dive into the news is going to end.

It's the final big show of the week, but do not worry. My name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you right back here on Monday.