0:01

Sidney doesn't know what's coming. Just me and Sid today again excited to hear what you think about this. So, um, I want to start with a little clip from, um, Professor Nancy Piercy. She was, she wrote a book called The Toxic War on Masculinity. And she said something in this, uh, clip that was surprising to me that I wanted to get your reaction to, Sid, and I thought we could, we could discuss, so let me pull it up here. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I didn't realize how controversial that section of the book would be, but I've had a lot of people contradict, you know, like, what? But, so I was very careful to quote people of the time. I have several quotes from the anti suffragists of the day. And what they argued was, They were not arguing male vote versus female vote.

0:03

Possibly servants and hired hands and others, you know, and the father was the head of that small commonwealth and was supposed to vote for the interest of the whole. In fact, the whole notion of authority back then, you know, today we think authority kind of. So maybe just pause there for a second. That really shocked me. We, we live in a completely individualistic, um, society. So, If anyone were to say women should not have the right to vote, it, you would, no one would, I wouldn't, I couldn't imagine somebody thinking, well, yeah, because you don't want to take that responsibility away from fathers because it left them out to hook for the household like that.

0:05

And this is precisely what happens all the time. Um, unless you give power to the individual women and children, in which case they can overcome. The neglect, um, and abuse of the father, but then the result of that would predictably be the dissolving of the household, which is precisely what happened. I just found this a really interesting kind of chain of thinking. And then the guys are cool. Just, you know, doing whatever. And so there's no responsibility put on their shoulders of you have the one vote of the family. You have to make sure that you're representing the family. Well, like if you take away things like that, then just like little by little, The responsibility will fall from their shoulders and well, I, I've wondered personally, as a father, how to vote, am I voting on behalf?

0:07

I, I asked him to send me a voting guide, um, every, every time just to understand his thinking and to say, it seems like we should be voting as a block for our family, um, as a voting block, but to, to imagine in a household, a husband and a wife walking into a voting booth and essentially canceling out each other's votes, the, the, the man voting for his interests, which are masculine interests, the woman voting for her interests, which are masculine interests. Um, and that. Man, you don't want men to think that way. Like you don't want men who are responsible for a vulnerable wife. Who's having multiple children and pregnancies, um, and is trying to care for those children to be thinking of himself primarily as an individual and going into whatever power scenarios he's going into, like, like voting, um, exclusively thinking about himself.

0:09

And so now all of a sudden they feel that it's in their best interest to vote for what's best for men as opposed to their household. And now you've got a basic gender battle going on for power and Always the loser in that scenario is children, the household itself, and this is kind of what we keep creating. So it's not like I want to change that now, but it's just like it would have been a better design just overall. So if there was a household vote and the husband and wife were a team and they were working together, Yeah, there's something there that's actually makes more sense of, of governance and is consistent with the reality of building up strong households that has been neglected.

0:11

He had responsibility for the common good of the whole. And so that's what people were afraid that would be lost, that it was a much bigger question than we tend to realize, that it was a question of whether we would lose. A political philosophy that focused on the common good and making the person in authority responsible for the common good of the whole. So the shift in political philosophy that said the person in authority no longer is responsible for the common good, meant women felt like they were no longer being protected by a man who represented the household. So that was really quite sad. That was an important step in women losing their trust that men would in fact take responsibility for their whole family and household.

0:13

Another alternative to that is to give households about and that this, I think, goes back to early, um, sort of republics that required. You know, somebody to own land in order for them to have the right to vote. So the sense was their, um, their land ownership was, uh, sort of indicative of the fact that they're leading a household, right? And so the typical Patras Familia was a man who had, you know, 15, 20, 30 people under his, um, his, uh, his leadership, right? So this would, this included. Obviously his wife and children, but also their servants or slaves or employees, um, whoever was, he was providing for. And so, and so he was actually, you know, personally liable for things that would happen.

0:15

She's making a more sophisticated argument than that. I think it is like natural. For the suffragists to come to that conclusion, though, like the, yeah, if just individual men, just from the fact of them being men get a vote, then I feel like the next logical jump would be to let women have that too. But so, like, if, if we had stayed with the old, um, way of doing things, I wonder what our society would look like now, because I feel like that was a big step in making it more individualistic and like, in less of a family unit. I think that was the beginning of the framing that made this virtually, um, uh, this was, this was going to become inevitable. All right, we'll, uh, let her finish her argument here. That's an interesting light in a sense to shine on the fact that, believe it or not, uh, Australia and New Zealand were the first places where, uh, the vote was extended to women.

0:17

Which may very well have been true, they might have been right. Well it took a, it took a century, it took roughly a century. Yes, eventually women came around to supporting the vote. And why? Um, the women's, you're right, here in the States as well, the Women's Temperance Movement, uh, changed their mind on the vote. Sometimes a single fact can help. In 1830, Americans drank More three times as much as they do today. So there's a reason there was a temperance movement, you know, public drunkenness had become quite a problem, you know, people falling down drunk in the alleys and so on. And so you're right. Eventually, women started saying.

0:19

And so they just had to represent themselves. Yeah. I think it's really important to, to really understand what she, you know, she said, she just gave that one quote that, that, that people drank, um, three times more alcohol. In 1830 than they do today. Um, I, I didn't realize that until I watched, I think Ken Burns is, um, documentary on prohibition, which I'd recommend everybody watch. It's like, People got drunk because you could, you know, get drunk just drinking, you know, three or four shots of whiskey and now you're, you're inebriated. Uh, and so men were doing this in, in ways that had never been, um, done in, in history just because of the potency of the alcohol that was being created and the volume of the alcohol being created in the, and they were making it less expensive.

0:21

Um, and yeah, it didn't work and it created the mafia and all kinds of problems, but it, uh, you know, they were dealing with the problem and, and in reality, even when we say it didn't work, we never got back to the level of alcoholism that was, that was, that existed before prohibition. So maybe at least in part, it did work and is now no longer necessary, you know, but. I'm going to, uh, pull up the next one here. All right. So Matt Walsh did this thing. Um, the villains who were right. This is a great little video, but, um, I really was curious what you thought about this particular part of it. Number five, finally, is beating the beast. Now we've talked about this before. I consider it to be one of the most important issues that I discuss.

0:23

We're supposed to hate Gaston from the beginning because why? He's manly and in good shape? He eats a lot of eggs? Is that his crime? What has he done wrong? It's not right for a woman to read. Soon she starts getting ideas and thinking. They never explain it, and the antiga on propaganda is laid on thick from the very beginning, but even in spite of that, it's clear who the real protagonist is. This woman who humiliated him. From the clutches of a beast. And how did Beauty end up in that situation? Yeah, she initially went to the Beast's castle to save her dad or whatever, I think. But she had many opportunities to escape after that point. Like, she could have just walked out of there. She was in the prison cell, and then she's invited to dinner.

0:25

Her own dad told Gaston that Who's got Bell locked in a dungeon? A beast! A horrible, monstrous beast! And so he rallies the troops, he marches off to fight for her and save her. This is the villain of the story? The man who ultimately gave his very life for the woman he loved? And the monster who kidnapped a young woman is supposed to be the one we're rooting for? So I think like part of what he was saying, I agree with, like he wanted. Like his goal was to be like the man of the, of the relationship, like super manly, like all that stuff. And, um, I think there are a few problems with that. He was extremely narcissistic to the point where I'm not sure that he would.

0:27

I mean, I did wonder about that too, but I think it was also, the Beast did exhibit some of those manly qualities of protection and all that stuff, except that he actually saw Bella as a person with ideas. And that kind of thing. So, um, there are parts that I'm like, he has a point. And then there's some parts that I'm like, I feel like he didn't. Um, yeah, like at the end, he wasn't trying to rescue Belle because Belle had already like come to them in the village. Um, so she was fine because the beast let her go, but he went to kill the beast anyway. So there was that, but yeah. Well, I think, I think one of the things, so within a symbolic, the symbolic world of the story, it's, it's not fair to talk about the beast, like, um, all of a sudden as a literal other species, um, the question that I'm wrestling with and I, he's making a really interesting point that I really think it's worth, worth wrestling through.

0:29

So this is the real danger that a woman has. You, you, you kind of, you want to, you want to get somebody who's raw, but good material. And you know, the story is that, you know, she had of course, zero romantic interest in the beast until all of a sudden she discovers that he is reformable. And I think that the, the, the point that the, The movie is making about Gaston is that he's unreformable. And so I think one of the things that's interesting, if I'm going to try to take Matt Walsh's argument seriously, and I love the way he frames everything. It's fascinating. And it's a really good question. Um, and, and I, I think the way I guess I would ask, and I'm curious what you think is, is that if, if you were to write a story, you Where, what the, what the, uh, female lead wants is a reformable, um, reformable man versus a hyper capable narcissistic man.

0:31

Like, there are the other, like, the three, Uh, airhead girls, like in the other song, it's like, Oh, Gaston, Gaston. It's like, they're, they're painted kind of ridiculously for a reason, because it's like, you do not want to be like that. You need to use your brain, make sure that you are finding a guy that is reformable, that has shown evidence that he can reform, like, yeah, with the beast, it's an extreme example because he had to be transformed into a beast and like, be hideous in order to, like, work on himself. And that's an issue that is very difficult to have as a partner. So it's, it's good to like, be like, if you're considering someone as a mate, it's good that it's good to get them when they're already on their journey. Um, yeah. Or, like, towards the end of their journey, like, I don't expect anyone to be perfect, especially if you're getting very young, you might not have, like, the, a guy that's very secure yet, but if he is, like, well on his way, that's definitely better than a guy that is still way over there in the narcissistic category.

0:33

He is a. He seems almost like a widower or somebody who's been divorced. Like he's, he's, he's fully, his identity is so formed and so made it. Yeah. That I think, I think that that's part of what is really, um, unattractive to somebody as, um, as open as bell who's, who, who wants to, who's reading and growing and thinking like, am I really going to be yoked to this guy who can't ever think. Um, a new thought. Um, so yeah, that's, that's a, I love, I love this is a really, um, fantastic, uh, What I do like about the, um, like the contrast between Gaston and the beast is that it's not like alpha beta situation going on where like, I mean, maybe it's like an alpha, but, um, It's not it's not that you have to not be manly because the beast like when it like the first scene that made bell like realize that he was actually cool was that he was fighting off a bunch of wolves like that's so manly, you know, like protecting her and like sacrificing himself.

0:35

Yeah, that, that, that does something to, uh, yeah, to your heart that's in a story that's really powerful. I can think of so many books where like people fall so hard for the guy that is exactly like that. Yeah, that's been the love interest trope. Yep. So, all right, last one. Um, we'd love to hear what your thoughts are about this. That includes works like All Quiet on the Western Front, Peter Pan, and the Marx Brothers musical Animal Crackers. But one work that's entering the public domain on 2024 is getting a lot of attention. CBS News Senior Business and Technology Correspondent Jolene Kent has the story. Mhm. It's a simple early rendition of perhaps the most recognizable cartoon character ever created.

0:37

So this is a bit of a full circle moment then. Absolutely. And I think Disney should celebrate that because what we know about the creativity of Walt Disney and the Disney Corporation is that they've made stories relevant. to our current time. So starting on Monday, anyone has the legal right to use Mickey and Minnie Mouse in new creative works like books and films. Jennifer Jenkins teaches at Duke Law School, specializing in intellectual property and the public domain. The way I think about that is, the public domain is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get. A case in point, Winnie the Pooh. Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh. He walked out of the hundred acre wood and into the public domain two years ago, when the original literary work lost its protection.

0:39

Disney is the poster child for just how valuable the public domain is. If you think about their beloved movies that we've all watched, so many of them are based on public domain works. We've got the Lion King and Frozen and the Little Mermaid and Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. I could go on. And so that makes this moment deeply symbolic and highly anticipated because Mickey It is the emblem of both of those tendencies. For CBS Saturday Morning, Jolynn Kent, Los Angeles. Alright, what do you think? Um, that's interesting. I, I, like, I remember the drama with Spider Man. A few years back with how Sony, I think, owned him and then like he wanted to buy like there was a lot of Marvel, I think Sony had the, maybe like a cinematic and then Disney bought the comic book version.

0:41

Anyone can make stuff about them. Um, yeah, I guess I don't, I'm not like well informed on it. I'm like, it seems like there could be issues with that. Right? Like my instinct is like, there could be problems though. Like, um, With the whole Winnie the Pooh thing, I think it's kind of funny, but it's like something could happen to, like, destroy these characters in some way, so. That's a great example where it's now almost a part of the symbolic architecture of the way we think. But let's say when you're writing a story, you are not allowed to have access to that. So I think for me, the best example, of course, is Tolkien. So, I mean, his, his, um, writings are incredibly deeply embedded in my, like, the architecture of the way I think about my, any kind of imaginary world.

0:43

And, and so I think that the, you know, we're trying to find a sweet spot between making sure that That the author during his lifetime can get the full benefit of, um, what he's created and can protect the things that he's made from being, you know, um, dragged to the mud the way that, Those, uh, filmmakers were doing with Winnie the Pooh. And I think that, um, what happened with Disney was that, like that, that, uh, Mickey Mouse 1928 version was supposed to be released in the public domain in the eighties. And they've made a 40 year extension, two 20 year extensions. And so now you have multiple generations that have lived and died with that being a part of their symbolic architecture without having any access to using that when they're writing stories.

0:45

The copyright, whatever. So it was just like Wanda and Pietro. And I remember being like, why, why, I love their comic book names. Like, why aren't they using them? And it's like, well, they can't because of legal stuff. And I'm like, that's dumb. So like, there is some parts, I'm like, this is a creative thing. And so we need to be aware when these things do fall into the public domain. And so things like the Wizard of Oz or Peter Pan are incredibly powerful. Stories that need that, that I would love as our family kind of gets into, I think, has more of a, um, literary critical explanation voice within, within the story realm because of, I think, one of the things that makes our family, um, I think one of the distinctions of our family is just how much we all love stories.

0:47

I think, I think that, I think that it's, I think we have to be aware that people, the fact that people can do inappropriate things with these, um, These characters and these symbols does not mean that, um, they're, they're now devoid of value or that we should be cavalier about the way that, that we're using these, um, these characters we need to, like, like on one hand, you know, I would love to get to play around within Tolkien's world without having any restrictions. And so I have a lot of, like, I do, I do think that there needs to be a season where it's protected and that people with a profit incentive, um, are, are able to, to get the maximum value. Um, out of it before it starts to lapse into the public. And then I think the, uh, the peasants get to play. I'm just afraid of like the rings of power, like the, they, they miss interpret or like miss, um, conveyed.

0:49

Um, and so this is one of the, one of the things that. Yeah, the copyright doesn't protect you from, from potentially misusing the works. Um, and, and so that's going to be done. And I think Disney, um, and frozen, you know, really violated that. And I think they violated it in multiple movies that they've made.