I couldn't keep up with the live streams--even the recordings. There were too many for me, in the middle of the day, sometimes I just was busy or unwilling to interrupt what I was doing. As someone who grew up with linear media (if you missed the scheduled show, too bad), I prefer being able to "timeshift"--to listen to your podcast when I wish. I love the time flexibility of nonlinear media.
I get why Substack has been pushing the live streams--it's huge on other platforms, synchronicity has its appeal ("you are there!"), and live commenting could be interesting--or, at least, keep an audience member engaged while hoping her comment will be noted.
But for me, the live comments distract me from what is being said--I'd rather focus on the conversation than the (random) comments. I'd rather take my time and read a comment section after the fact. I like comment sections with thoughtful comments, not random short comments that fly by at the speed of light. Not everything has to be a video game!
Thanks for returning to what seems to me to be a more sane format for nuanced conversations.
Enjoyed this. So glad I’m Gen X and got to bypass most of the panic. Though I do remember the Clarence Thomas hearings and learning saying blatantly sexist stuff at work is a dumb idea.
Thank you. Once upon a time, some feminists criticized "gender essentialism," which was the idea that if you are male you must have particular (culturally specified) masculine traits, and if you are female you must have particular (culturally specified) feminine traits. Certainly that is how I was socialized into gender in the rural area where I grew up. The [Second Wave] Women's Movement, though, gave men and boys permission to be more feminine, without impugning their maleness, and gave women and girls permission to be more masculine, without impugning their femaleness. We seem to have lost that.
In academia, I have heard so many presentations about "toxic masculinity." My male colleagues are especially anxious to prove they know what that is and are critiquing it. Once I heard a heterosexual married male colleague (a friend) present a critique of a famous public radio program for its apparent acceptance of heterosexual male desire. I was sitting next to another heterosexual male colleague and I turned to him and said, oh come on, why is male lust a bad thing? It's normal! That colleague was so shocked that a female said that to him that we became fast friends.
I have worried about many of my male heterosexual (often married) colleagues because they are so anxious to prove they are not toxic. They go into areas like "disability" and "queer" studies to prove it. I have heard them heap praise on "intersectionality" and refuse to serve on "manels" (all male conference panels). I know I can't shake them from these positions--their viability as "good" academics depends on their self abasement.
Surviving as a male academic, at least in humanities fields, often depends on finding an oppressed identity or at least "allying"with one. At a recent conference, a young handsome male (probably heterosexual) academic got up and announced he would not present his paper topic but demonstrate his solidarity with his trans brothers and sisters--he went on to explain that sex testing in athletics was a Nazi invention at the 1936 Olympics. He was applauded. I was appalled.
As a mom of two little boys, I really appreciated this conversation. I feel like there's been a cultural overcorrection and masculinity has been the sacrificial lamb. In the past, whenever a stranger asked me about my kids, I found myself saying "I have two boys, and they are so sweet and sensitive and loving," as if trying to convince whomever I was speaking with that my boys were somehow "different" from what we stereotypically associate with males. But the truth is that most little boys (and girls) are "sweet and sensitive and loving" and these qualities aren't diminished by my sons' interest in play-fighting and being physical. On a related note, my eldest son (8) has confided in me that he senses a couple of his teachers favour girls. He's a perceptive and honest kid, so I believe him. I think we need to rethink our education policies and perhaps reorient to a model that's not just good for girls but also for boys, instead of punishing the latter for their natural instincts and tendencies.
The second wavers (late 1960s-early 1970s) emphasized sameness, meaning that men and women are fundamentally the same. Therefore should be extended all educational and occupational opportunities afforded to men.
But the second wavers failed to consider that not al women necessarily WANTto exercise those opportunities for themselves. Hence Boomers who gave the side-eye to child bearing are stunned when white collar Gen Xers say "I'm taking time off from my career to have children. I'll go back when I'm ready (or I may never go back to the same level)"
Western sex roles had a seismic shift circa 1970. But the God's of fertility and maternal instinct never got the memo.
Hopefully, Meghan will soon elaborate on her observation about young women seeking to date men 15-20 years older even if the men are far from high status. I live in the exurbs and 95% of my peers (age 54-56) are long married so I don't get to see these dynamics at work. I'm a bit skeptical at how pervasive it is but my ears are open to persuasion.
Long-time paying sub here (I think 2021). I honestly don't give a rip what format you employ. I get a notification that you're on and I automatically tune in and will continue to do so. I'm sure I'm not alone among paying subs in appreciating your intellect and insight.
I couldn't keep up with the live streams--even the recordings. There were too many for me, in the middle of the day, sometimes I just was busy or unwilling to interrupt what I was doing. As someone who grew up with linear media (if you missed the scheduled show, too bad), I prefer being able to "timeshift"--to listen to your podcast when I wish. I love the time flexibility of nonlinear media.
I get why Substack has been pushing the live streams--it's huge on other platforms, synchronicity has its appeal ("you are there!"), and live commenting could be interesting--or, at least, keep an audience member engaged while hoping her comment will be noted.
But for me, the live comments distract me from what is being said--I'd rather focus on the conversation than the (random) comments. I'd rather take my time and read a comment section after the fact. I like comment sections with thoughtful comments, not random short comments that fly by at the speed of light. Not everything has to be a video game!
Thanks for returning to what seems to me to be a more sane format for nuanced conversations.
Thank you. I really appreciate the feedback.
Enjoyed this. So glad I’m Gen X and got to bypass most of the panic. Though I do remember the Clarence Thomas hearings and learning saying blatantly sexist stuff at work is a dumb idea.
Is this the part where I get to show my free to be you and me vinyl album that my parents got me while a young lad
in the 70s? Lol.
I think she was talking about the Pyramid of Sexual Violence:
https://www.ualberta.ca/en/current-students/sexual-assault-centre/resources/create-change.html
What a treat to wake up to! Looking forward to listening to this.
Thank you. Once upon a time, some feminists criticized "gender essentialism," which was the idea that if you are male you must have particular (culturally specified) masculine traits, and if you are female you must have particular (culturally specified) feminine traits. Certainly that is how I was socialized into gender in the rural area where I grew up. The [Second Wave] Women's Movement, though, gave men and boys permission to be more feminine, without impugning their maleness, and gave women and girls permission to be more masculine, without impugning their femaleness. We seem to have lost that.
Great point, TY. As a second waver, this is the way I saw the issue, and continue to see it.
In academia, I have heard so many presentations about "toxic masculinity." My male colleagues are especially anxious to prove they know what that is and are critiquing it. Once I heard a heterosexual married male colleague (a friend) present a critique of a famous public radio program for its apparent acceptance of heterosexual male desire. I was sitting next to another heterosexual male colleague and I turned to him and said, oh come on, why is male lust a bad thing? It's normal! That colleague was so shocked that a female said that to him that we became fast friends.
I have worried about many of my male heterosexual (often married) colleagues because they are so anxious to prove they are not toxic. They go into areas like "disability" and "queer" studies to prove it. I have heard them heap praise on "intersectionality" and refuse to serve on "manels" (all male conference panels). I know I can't shake them from these positions--their viability as "good" academics depends on their self abasement.
Surviving as a male academic, at least in humanities fields, often depends on finding an oppressed identity or at least "allying"with one. At a recent conference, a young handsome male (probably heterosexual) academic got up and announced he would not present his paper topic but demonstrate his solidarity with his trans brothers and sisters--he went on to explain that sex testing in athletics was a Nazi invention at the 1936 Olympics. He was applauded. I was appalled.
As a mom of two little boys, I really appreciated this conversation. I feel like there's been a cultural overcorrection and masculinity has been the sacrificial lamb. In the past, whenever a stranger asked me about my kids, I found myself saying "I have two boys, and they are so sweet and sensitive and loving," as if trying to convince whomever I was speaking with that my boys were somehow "different" from what we stereotypically associate with males. But the truth is that most little boys (and girls) are "sweet and sensitive and loving" and these qualities aren't diminished by my sons' interest in play-fighting and being physical. On a related note, my eldest son (8) has confided in me that he senses a couple of his teachers favour girls. He's a perceptive and honest kid, so I believe him. I think we need to rethink our education policies and perhaps reorient to a model that's not just good for girls but also for boys, instead of punishing the latter for their natural instincts and tendencies.
Great conversation. Great message.
What Carole is speaking to started in 2nd wave feminism era. Or so?
The second wavers (late 1960s-early 1970s) emphasized sameness, meaning that men and women are fundamentally the same. Therefore should be extended all educational and occupational opportunities afforded to men.
But the second wavers failed to consider that not al women necessarily WANTto exercise those opportunities for themselves. Hence Boomers who gave the side-eye to child bearing are stunned when white collar Gen Xers say "I'm taking time off from my career to have children. I'll go back when I'm ready (or I may never go back to the same level)"
Western sex roles had a seismic shift circa 1970. But the God's of fertility and maternal instinct never got the memo.
Excellent conversation.
Hopefully, Meghan will soon elaborate on her observation about young women seeking to date men 15-20 years older even if the men are far from high status. I live in the exurbs and 95% of my peers (age 54-56) are long married so I don't get to see these dynamics at work. I'm a bit skeptical at how pervasive it is but my ears are open to persuasion.
Dearest Meghan,
Long-time paying sub here (I think 2021). I honestly don't give a rip what format you employ. I get a notification that you're on and I automatically tune in and will continue to do so. I'm sure I'm not alone among paying subs in appreciating your intellect and insight.
Funny to listen to this https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/was-the-insufferable-left-to-blame-for-trumps-big/id1777289409?i=1000676224551 right after this discussion.