Ep 133 – Infants on Feminists Pt. 1

Panel Discussion

Posted November 29th, 2014

Chelsea joins Matt, Tom, Bob, and Glenn to discuss Feminism. Β Or, more accurately, to discuss how to discuss Feminism with Feminists. Β Or, even more accurately, to discuss how NOT to discuss Feminism with Feminists. Β Buckle up.

  • Brad

    Insightful but painful. I have a hard time swallowing my lived experience in discussions like this. I guess I am not close to bring a feminist but I think I am a feminist emphasizer. I am working on it though.

    • Glenn

      Part 2 is less painful. πŸ™‚

    • Steven

      I guess I am more of a feminist empathizer than a feminist also. I always end up feeling more like a jerk than I did before hearing a conversation like this. Ultimately, I am not going change much either, so like politics I just end up tuning into conversations like this every once in while just to see if anything has changed. Emma Watson’s approach in her speech is something I would listen more of.

      • Brad

        I agree with Emma Watson’s approach as well, she seems to engage in a more inclusive style. If Feminists want to engage more men in the discussion, they should quit being so exclusive with the conversation by dismissing the validity of other perspectives. The bottom line is most people want the same thing here and yet we can’t even have open discussions about it. Crazy.

        • Allison

          Dismissing the validity of other perspectives…how? Which perspectives are feminists being dismissive of in this episode? Are you talking about the listener email that Glenn referenced, and the woman’s response to his experience? Or maybe you’re generalizing using your own experiences. Either way, I’m interested to know what you mean because if it’s something I could be overlooking when I discuss these issues, I’d like to know so I can try to be more inclusive.

          I think this discussion was pretty open. A lot of questions were asked. A lot of kind of uncomfortable things were confronted. Sure, it wasn’t resolved—even after part 2 is released, it still won’t be resolved. This is a huge, very complex issue. But even most things that were discussed in this episode, people at least understood one another much better at the end than at the start. I think that’s good, don’t you?

          • Brad

            I will start by agreeing that the dialogue was good and was working to a good place. I also believe that we need to continue to have that type of dialogue. That being said, I did have an issue regarding the concept of validating each view point. I don’t know if that was ever resolved and yet, I believe, it is a big part of the problem.

            What I took away was that a male viewpoint is less valid than a female view regarding perceptions of social inequality regarding gender. I whole heartedly agree that men need to enter the “female space” to more fully understand the issue and the female viewpoint. What needs discussed is the process to get men there without turning them off.

            What wasn’t discussed was that men are not as intuitove at entering the female space as we have fewer opportunities in life since it is a man’s world (true story). Women need to help shepherd that process if they want to bring men into the resolution. What happens is men get shut down by hearing they don’t understand, aren’t aware, etc… That just turns men away. Right or wrong, that is when men get off the feminist bus, even though they also see the problem and are affected by it (though in different ways).

            My take away was that men have to first validate the female viewpoint as the price of admission in the conversation. Over time they may gradually get the opportunity to engage the issue but they must never lead with their opinion or life experience early on. That is hard to do for me.

            I may have missed something (I probably did) and could be reading more into the dynamic than was stated. I think gender inequality is an important cause and we have a long way to go as a society to solving it. Converations like this are an important step. I will concede that I have strong biases regarding this from my own lived experience. I may have missed some of the nuance of the conversation. If so, I apologize.

          • Thanks for sharing, Brad. I assume you’re not female, but here’s me validating that I get your perspective and understand what you are saying… before I say anything else. πŸ™‚

          • Brad

            Now I feel validated! Good discussions… Thanks for helping me articulate my view. I have appreciated the discussion and this has made me more introspective regarding myself on the issue. I am getting closer to embracing my feminist self. Looking forward to part 2.

          • Allison

            Oh yeah. I forgot to validate you after your first comment. My bad. πŸ˜‰

          • No worries, I’ve got your back! πŸ™‚

          • Brad

            And I never formally validated you either. Thanks for helping me along. πŸ™‚

          • Allison

            I’m glad you explained. I definitely see what you are saying now. I’m inclined to agree with you on the point about validation. Kind of what Glenn was talking about when he mentioned having a script to go by. I think that’s the opposite direction of where I would hope “a safe place” to talk about feminism would be.

  • Sherah

    If you guys are going to do this, to go there: you really need to have more than just Chelsea to represent feminists. She’s great–I’m a Chelsea fan, for sure. But the whole crowd of you infants, and one feminist. Nope. Oh, also–the whole crowd of Infants, who have the power to constantly go back and edit to further explain themselves, and Chelsea, who obviously doesn’t. There are several points she tried to make, that I think she didn’t make very well–like, I just lost her train of thought completely. But she didn’t get to go back and edit herself. Guys.

    • Glenn

      Sherah, first of all, let me start off by saying you were by far my favorite He-Man animated character/action figure. You made Saturday morning cartoons something special for me.

      Second, I total agree with what you are saying. I want to make it very clear, though, that every person involved in this episode had the opportunity to listen back and make any post-edit comments they wanted to make. Chelsea included. They were all invited, encouraged, given plenty of time, what have you. Bob was the only one who took me up on the offer. So please don’t think it was an uneven playing field for that particular reason. And there is more to come and will be more than Chelsea’svoice on the issue. And you (and anyone else reading this) are absolutely welcome to contribute as much or as little as you’d like to this topic in the future. I’ve seen the way you can kick Skelator ass. I’m not gonna stand in your way!

    • I am a feminist too. And I agree that Chelsea’s point of view shouldn’t be the catch all feminist position. That said, she did partially represent a strain of feminism, which… you know, has a track record of not being the most accessible. And that was part of the point.

      • Sherah

        Ok. I’m mollified. But for the record I find Chelsea’s strain of feminism both mainstream and entirely accessible. And respect to you all for having this discussion.

  • Orrin Dayne

    I’m an hour and a half into this and no one has quoted “Seek first to understand, then to be understood” from Stephen R. Covey’s “7-Habits of Highly Effective People” which was practically canonized in the 1990’s. What the hell?!!?

    • Glenn

      Matt brings Covey up at some point — twice, I think — maybe that’s in Part 2. But maybe we should do a “7-Habits” Covey episode, cuz I sorta know of it, but never really got into it at all.

      • Orrin Dayne

        I could have missed the reference to Covey by name. I should first seek to listen to the podcast, then seek to comment on it. πŸ™‚

        I like the potential of a 7-Habits episode. As part of it, there may be something to discuss with respect to goals and day planners in general (whether 7-Habits, Franklin, Day Timer, or Missionary blue planner) and how well they drive the works-not-grace bias of the Church.

        • Orrin Dayne

          Also, I have a petty beef. I haven’t noticed any of the former-temple-attending quorum members or listeners commenting on my Disqus avatar. When I saw Elder Robbins do this gesture in the October General Conference, I did a double-take and figured someone might notice. Sigh, oh well …

          • Allison

            Kidna hard to see in your avatar what he is doing.

          • Orrin Dayne

            The thumbnail is too small. The picture in my disqus profile is larger, but I see people can’t click on it to get the full size. Well, I guess that explains it.

        • Matt

          I reference Dale Carnegie’s “how to win friends and influence people” but, you know tomatoe/someone ripping off the concept of a tomatoe 30 years later.

          • Orrin Dayne

            Yeah, repackage it and sell it again. I’ve read both books and honestly tried to be a better listener immediately afterwards, but that habit didn’t stick. I would much rather talk than listen.

      • Orrin Dayne

        Also, I have a petty beef. None of the former-temple-attending quorum members or listeners have commented on my Disqus avatar. When I saw Elder Robbins do this gesture in the October General Conference, I did a double-take and figured someone might notice. Sigh, oh well …

  • Bored to Tears

    I guess it is time to move on. I have been here since the beginning and have enjoyed the ride but things have changed too much for my taste. Why do some podcasts feel the need to change formats so drastically? Is it an attempt to grow listenership? Mormon Stories went through a patch where every other story was gay themed. Mormon Expression changed over time and added a gum chewing one trick co-host. I agree that these subjects are relevant and worthy of discussion but you guys have lost your focus. If I wanted to listen to The Feminist Housewives podcast I would subscribe. Honestly, I stopped listening to part one when one person described herself as an intellectual and an academic. Would that have occurred your first year podcasting? Hunter Thompson was wrong: things can get too weird.

    • Glenn

      Poor guy. Thank you for the dramatic exit. See ya.

    • Tom Perry

      You think we have changed format all in reaction of this two part podcast? Would it make you feel better if I didn’t particularly enjoy these discussions as well? Probably not. Oh well. But I’ll echo what Glenn said. See ya.

  • Mark Christiansen

    Hey, I did not hear anybody validate the studies and surveys spoken of. You know, what specific studies were used, what are the constants and variables, and how was the information collected. Oh, and nobody validated Matt’s feelings and his experiences in his career that did not fit the results of the studies. πŸ˜‰

  • Carson

    Glenn, I think it’s good that you saw how you derailed the conversation when you challenged Chelsea on who the β€œWe” is, but then you asked her and other women to clarify what they mean by that when they say that to throw men a bone. While that is helpful for those who don’t understand it, it is difficult to ask women (as the underprivileged here) to help out men (the more privileged). Instead of perpetuating that privilege by asking them to do that work for you, it is better to go out and learn on your own or as a man that recognizes that and potentially feels bad about it, go out and educate other men so women don’t have to. As they would say in Star Wars, help balance the force. I think you understand this from what you say later on, but wanted to point this out anyway.

    • Allison

      I’m glad you brought this up, because I was waiting for it to come up on the podcast in a more upfront way. I think it was under the surface of some of the discussion, though.

      This is one aspect of feminism-and an aspect of other kinds of activism- that I don’t fully understand. I have seen this complaint many times. That women shouldn’t have to explain the history/reasons/issues, and it’s not their job. That men should go out and educate themselves about it.

      Can you explain how this is perpetuating male privilege? Or maybe why you in particular feel this way? To me, it seems like if you want people on your side, you should be willing to explain where your side comes from and where it stands now. Especially because every person is an individual. I can go and study all about feminism, but still not be aware of how one person in particular feels about certain issues. But I know a lot of people feel the way that you’ve stated, so I fully admit that I am just completely misunderstanding this.

      • Carson

        I’m not very articulate with this topic so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I’d say there are two parts to this.

        1-its ok for a man to ask a woman to explain on one hand, but to expect or be irritated if she doesn’t is not ok. It would be better to go and ask other men that know or read about it.

        2-More to your point, it perpetuates male privilege because you (the man) are expecting the woman who on average has less privilege in the world to “serve” you by teaching you. So, she with her likely lower privilege has to go out of her way to help you again. I stated point 1 first because I think it is ok to ask, maybe say, “I’m not sure I understand or agree, would you be willing to explain that more?” and then if the answer is no, be ok and understanding.

        Sometimes this is easier to understand if you switch female for a poor, black, lesbian woman and male for a rich, heterosexual, white, man. The contrast in privilege is greater and easier to understand.

        If that man were expecting that woman to tell him why things can be harder for her in life it perpetuates the way the privileged group has taken advantage of the other. Instead, he could use his privilege to help her get into a position of power and go learn about privilege theory on his own.

        • Allison

          Thanks for explaining. I appreciate that perspective, and I feel like I have a lot to learn and explore with these topics.

  • Anne

    Sorry, had to turn off this episode when Tom mentioned man-hating feminists. What a tired, trite stereotype. As a feminist, I’ve never once encountered any woman who just straight-up hates men. The whole argument is a straw man that allows men to feel better about dismissing the goals and ideals of feminism without any real thought. I was disappointed to hear it as part of what I hoped would be a thoughtful discussion.

    • Wow, so your personal experience doesn’t line up with something someone said so you turn off and go home? My turn: as a feminist, I find it ironic how you are dismissing Tom’s experience by creating your own strawman about “men” and their need to find excuses to dismiss feminism.

      Sorry, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it to. It can’t be a horrible thing, whatever you think “men” in general are doing here, when your point relies on the same behavior you are accusing them of…

      Double irony points for you talking pejoratively about half the world’s population while defending how crazy it would be for even one woman to straight-up hate men.

      • Craig S.

        Come on, Bob, don’t be like that. She did not dismiss half the world’s population. Go back and read her comment again. She dismissed people who say “feminists are man-haters.” That obviously doesn’t apply to all men. Now, does that statement accurately describe Tom’s position? Listening to the whole conversation, I would say no. But I don’t blame Anne for tuning out when that is brought up. Because it is a stereotype. Just because some feminist somewhere may hate men doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority don’t, and that very often when men say feminists are man haters, they are trying to delegitimize feminism. Whether that’s out of malice or just ignorance, it’s perfectly fine for someone to say “I’m not going to engage with that.”

        • Glenn

          Sure, Craig, no one is twisting anyone’s arm to engage here. But why stop listening to something that — who knows how she is going to internalize the discussion — but something that could resolve itself as part of the “thoughtful discussion” she was hoping for (but not enough to keep listening) and THEN go on to the website and engage here in a sort of rebuke (and veiled accusation) with incomplete information?

          The incredible irony here is that this entire conversation (if you listen to all of it) is ultimately about how to create safe space and let multiple voices and perspectives be heard — even the “wrong” ones — even the ones that think they are doing it right but may be tripping over their own feet and not saying it the right way. Anne’s comment just illustrates the reason a lot of men stay out of feminist discussions. One (perceived) wrong move and she (selectively) disengages. Nice.

          • Anne

            I agree, it was a bit of an intellectually lazy way to make my point. But I thought bringing that stereotype up so early in the conversation was also lazy. I want offended by anything said, but I don’t like assumptions like that going unexamined, especially in this context. If that is Tom’s personal experience, I will graciously retract my former comment.

            It’s hard for anyone to dismiss anecdotal evidence. My personal experience has been that “man-hating feminists” are mostly a fantasy of social reactionary types. Has anyone on the panel ever met one? I never have, but that’s just me.

            It’s an idea that has gained traction because it serves a purpose, right? It’s the opposite of motherhood, America, Christianity, whatever positive values you (not the panel, obviously) want to pretend are under attack. I know you guys aren’t like that, so I was disappointed and frustrated that we had to rehash that fictive talking point again.

            I listened to the rest of the podcast and I really appreciate that you’re branching out and trying to understand a complicated topic. I’m a big fan of the podcast, keep up the good work. We’re all trying to muddle through the best we can and I’m glad when everyone can try to understand each other with thoughtfulness and kindness.

          • Glenn

            Thanks Anne. I am glad you finished the episodes and hope that you can help us keep slogging through this — cuz clearly it gets frustrating for everyone.

          • I’m not sure that I have met man-hating feminists. But I haven’t met any jihadists either, and that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Also, I think it’d be helpful to spectrum-ify (I just made up that verb) the concept of man-hating feminists and replace the term “man-hating” with something else, like “predisposed gender judgment” feminists. Meaning, “man-hating” is an inarticulate (and admittedly horrible, let’s get rid of it!) shorthand for something else:

            There’s this vibe that can emanate from some female feminists before a man has even opened his mouth. Maybe most feminists don’t have this, and it’s simply a residual perception issue, but in my experience (and based on the different tonal approaches of feminists’ work I’ve read), this isn’t a fabricated observation. So what is it? Let me explain:

            A baseline negative bias toward men, such that men are guilty until they prove themselves innocent on the topic of gender equality. Anne, your initial comment qualifies. Man-hating is certainly not accurate, but a smoothie of overly accusatory, defensive, aggressive, abrasive, and offended… in a way that can make some wonder what reaction is reserved for the bigger gender injustices in the world if this is simply the aperitif outrage.

            But Chelsea made a point that partially explains this and really does make sense. The lived experience of lots of women is a constant series of death by a thousand paper cuts, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise if any association with any paper cut (e.g., just being a man is an association) puts men in a position to experience what some might consider to be an over-reaction.

            But by the same token, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to female feminists that that type of interaction (even if infrequent) really can easily scare male allies back into their proverbial man caves.

            Personally, I don’t think it should scare men or be an excuse for men to shy away from gender equality. But I also don’t think female feminists should pretend like it’s completely made up either. πŸ™‚

        • Craig, you read it again. πŸ™‚ Anne takes Tom’s experience (which she dismisses) as then uses it as the basis for explaining how it’s only an excuse for men in general… thus simultaneously nullifying all past, present, and future occurrences of any man’s experience with male-hater feminists (which unilaterally don’t exist outside of a man’s head). I wonder if she heard the part in the episode where Chelsea says it’s rare but that she has known one feminist like that… Oh wait, Chelsea isn’t a man, so I guess in that case, a feminist of that type is allowed to exist in reality?

          Look, all I’m saying is that Anne’s point was sloppy and hypocritical with a pinch of faux outrage. I can certainly do what you did, which is a mental gymnastics retrofit of a very generous and coddled approach to it. But feminists shouldn’t be babied like that. I believe we should all grow up and want to be called out when sloppy, hypocritical, and full of faux outrage.

    • Tom Perry

      Let me ask you this Anne, have you met, or interacted with any hardcore chauvinistic men? Because in my entire life as a man, I haven’t. Based on your example above I should be able to say that hardcore chauvinistic men don’t exist, right? Just because I haven’t met a hardcore chauvinistic male doesn’t mean I believe they don’t exist.

      Have I met, or interacted with any man-hating feminists? Yes. Do I think they reflect all feminists? No. See the difference?

      • Craig S.

        Tom, I don’t know where you and Bob are getting this idea that pointing out something is a stereotype means that no one who fits the stereotype exists. It is perfectly possible for man-hating feminists to exist in small numbers, and for Anne to have never personally met one, and for the idea of a man-hating feminist to be a stereotype, all at the same time. She never said nobody like that exists. Just that it’s a harmful stereotype that’s not generally helpful.

        • Tom Perry

          I have no idea what you are getting at. So if she says that because she has never once met a man-hating feminist and I take from that statement that she must either believe the stereotype doesn’t exist, or is so rare that it’s not worth bringing up, that I’m somehow off base because I went with the not existing option? How different do you think the two are? Aren’t they essentially the same thing? I think you are missing the bigger point here.

      • Anne

        Nothing against you personally, Tom, I just didn’t think it was a useful conversion point. I’d be a lot more interested in listening to a discussion about why stereotypes like the man-hating feminist or the male “chauvinist” (hate that word) have burrowed so deeply into our consciousness and inform our opinions about gender and society. I think they both represent something ugly and reductive in our cultural conversation. I don’t personally think we should allow stereotypes like that too just slip into our conversation unquestioned.

        Part of feminism, to me, is deconstructing our assumptions about gender and moving past our biases as best we can.

        • Tom Perry

          Excellent point and I wholeheartedly agree Anne. But I also don’t think it’s helpful by giving power to the lazy stereotype (which I agree it was), by refusing to continue the conversation and pointing it out to the participants to make a point. Sometimes the less power we give the stereotypes, the quicker they go away.

        • I’m curious Anne (genuinely), did you listen to the Emma Watson UN speech on feminism (that we referenced in the podcast)? Did you have an urge to turn off her speech when she brought up “man-hating” (her words before Tom’s)?

  • pH

    Yes painful, but thank you all for trying. Perhaps another format would be better for this information. I would love to just hear Chelsea present information alone. Listening to long disagreements on podcasts is getting old.

  • Ophelia

    I found this episode interesting and informative, but I come to IOT for the laughs and the fun. You guys deliver in that regard almost every time. Part 2 was a little more light-hearted than Part 1, but I kind of missed the fun entertainment and big-fat-belly-laugh experience that I usually get here. Love you guys!

  • Thayne

    I had interacted earlier (on Facebook) asking for some clarification and additional discussion, and had looked forward to this 2-part episode hoping to get more information on how to approach feminism — as a father of four daughters, hoping that they grow up in a fairer, more just, more equal world, it seems very relevant and important to me. Specifically, I noted some of my prior (unsuccessful) attempts to comminicate with (purported) feminists, in order to get answers to some questions and perhaps get involved. Being a man, and prone to mansplaining (apparently), I thought I’d give a couple of my thoughts after listening to the two parts of the episode. And ask a couple of questions.

    First, the good.

    I think, having listened to this episode, I see why my previous attempts to interact with feminists have ended so disastrously. Chelsea did a great job of explaining why and how certain approaches cause nuclear explosions on online forums and groups. Now, I get it. Thanks Chelsea! And thanks to Glenn and the rest of the panel for helping to explore the issue. Great job!

    Now, the bad.

    I have lost all hope of fully engaging in the feminist movement, having listened to both of the parts of this episode. The fact that by bringing up a disagreement, asking for a clarification, or making a factual correction, I may appear to be trying to invalidate the basis of the entire movement — this strikes me as an impossible situation. I am not the kind of person who can just shut up and listen (my words and takeaway, not those of the podcast participants). Conversation, to me, means the possibility of expressing myself (through questions and requests for clarification), challenging potentially factually false statements (including some made during this episode, which I shall refrain from discussing at this point as they are largely irrelevant to my response), etc., *as well as* listening to others and reformulating my thoughts and opinions based on their input. I.e., a dialogue is not the same as sitting and listening to a sermon, with the opportunity, MAYBE, to ask some very, very, very, very carefully-worded, formalized questions at the end. Is regular ol’ conversation really “mansplaining?!!” I hope not, but I came away with the (hopefully incorrect) sense that it was.

    I understand that some feminist advocates (male and female) may have had some bad experiences with dudes trying to dominate a conversation, trolling them, or just being jerks, but it seems to me that if the movement is going to grow, at least some women (perhaps in the same vein as Emma Watson) need to reach across the aisle to willing, but experientially-discouraged guys like me, tough through some of the difficulties and man-like conversation, and draw us in.

    I want to be on your side. But after listening, I feel like the best I can do is to be a feminist empathizer/sympathizer, cheering from the sidelines, rather than being a feminist.

    And that’s a discouraging thought.

    I’m willing to admit I’m totally wrong and totally misunderstood — in fact, I’m sure that’s true on at least *several* points — but my inner skeptic requires a logical argument to take the next step.

    Help me out here? Feel free to femsplain. I don’t judge!

    • Thayne, thanks for sharing… As you can see, I’m typically a fan of well thought out long comments. πŸ™‚

      Perhaps this is a feminist faux pas I’m oblivious too, but I’m not sure you should feel the need to first be approved by some sort of committee before considering yourself a feminist… as if you haven’t checked enough boxes on a long list to meet the minimum bar.

      So now (some might say conveniently) you must resort to simply being on “the sidelines.” Almost like you just go to games and cheer but don’t actually play the sport.

      I’m only speaking for myself, but I’m growing tired of that approach and instead have decided that I need to just embrace my feminist stance (i.e., gender equality) rather than wait for approval to do so. My $.02.

      • Thayne

        That’s great Bob! Thanks for that response. I guess, though, when I try to interact, I feel shut out. And it seemed like a lot of the discussion (mostly in the first podcast) led me to believe — and I think Glenn (maybe?) made a comment to the effect — that there seemed to be a need to engage in a ritualized, self-effacing entrance into the discussion, which seems to lack a genuine feel.

        I do tell people I’m a feminist, but I don’t even know what that means anymore (beyond, like I said, wanting my daughters to grow up in a fairer world).

        On my drive home, I was thinking of a similar situation I found myself in while growing up in Humble, Texas, in my all-white Mormon ward (and in my nearly all-white neighborhood). A black kid, Kenny, joined our scout troop because his grandma/guardian wanted him to have some good influences in his life. We were largely ignorant of black culture and even some basic “being black” things — for example, once I asked him “do black people get sunburns?” We interacted with him in what I now realized was a very racist — well, at least racially insensitive — way. But he patiently fielded all of our ignorant questions, took all of our ignorant comments in stride, and slowly turned the discussion around until we really understood at least his experience of growing up black in the 1970s/1980s South. It was a life-changing experience for me, as I have an extremely racist mother (who bought into all of the Brigham Young/Bruce McConkie racist church doctrines) — yet I ended up a fervent believer in and defender of racial equality and racial sensitivity.

        If Kenny had reacted to my dumb and insensitive, but clearly well-meaning comments or questions in the same way I’ve experienced in my (albeit) online discussions, certainly my attitudes about race and equality would have been different, and probably worse. So I guess I’m pleading with others of the feminist persuasion to follow Chelsea’s model of long-suffering and firm patience in discussing these issues with us.

        Thanks again Bob!

  • Zelphs_Siberian_DNA

    This podcast, while superior to a fifth Sunday combined R.S./Priesthood meeting, did seem a bit lackluster. When Chelsea invokes the “tautological” clause, it should be time to fast forward the discussion. While there were a few valuable take home points in this podcast, I felt like I was back on my mission watching the Ford Escort stuck in the mud spin its wheels.

  • Brian Kissell

    Great job with these episodes. I loved the vulnerability. It is so easy to just come out and critique what the church or others are doing wrong in these regards, and it is another to honestly look at ourselves. I know you are getting some negative feedback about this episode, but I wanted to let you know that I loved it. Keep up the good work.

  • Matthew Vernon

    I love it when a Bob is on the show πŸ™‚

    • Thanks! How could I not vote this comment up? πŸ™‚

      • Matthew Vernon

        Now that I have your attention I will throw in my own (unsolicited) editorial two cents on format. If this episode was hard to listen to, it wasn’t so much for the subject matter as the excessive interjections to editorialize or clarify. Bookending different thoughts works for RadioLab because they are typically summarizing or giving context to different interviewees or stories, but if you are going to have a panel discussion I think you should have a panel discussion. It isn’t really fair to the other voices in the discussion, Chelsea in this case, when one side get to come in and rephrase or rehash points after thinking it through a bit longer. And when it’s too frequent it interrupts the overall conversation. //unsolicitededitorial

        • Fair enough, although all panelists were offered the opportunity to do this, so fairness is less the issue (but I suppose perceived fairness will persist ’cause how would any listener know that?). But the frequent interruptions point… I hear you.

          I’m not usually a fan of abundant use of this style but hypocritically did have one place where I really wanted to clarify. Shh… Don’t tell Glenn, but I kinda think he might have overdone it with his five interjections, but then again, it makes my one look less problematic. πŸ˜‰

          • Matthew Vernon

            right – not to say there is never a place for it if something needs clarifying, but in this particular episode it became distracting

          • Glenn

            Totally agree, by the way. Too many interjections.

  • Jaime

    I am a newer listener and this is my first comment. Thank you for taking on the topic of feminism. Conversations like this are so important. As a woman, I learned from this and I appreciated the honesty.

    (I think it was Matt.) When you mentioned that you buy tampons for your wife you reminded me of my dad. When I was a young girl and embarrassed about buying tampons at the store for the first time, my dad who is this 6-foot-tall cowboy of cowboys, took the box from my hands and said, “I don’t give a shit,” shrugged his shoulders and proceeded to buy his daughter’s tampons for her. Best dad ever. Is it weird that I think of that experience nearly every time I buy tampons?

    • Matt

      Thanks for commenting Jaime. And no I don’t think it’s weird to think of that when you buy tampons. It’s sweet. I hope my daughters remember that I didn’t treat it as a big deal and expect/demand the same thing from the men in their lives.

  • little dick

    This is how you should treat a women