Show Notes
Have you heard? The men of America are in the midst of an existential crisis. A battle for good, evil, and the future of humanity. Who will emerge out of the darkness to lead the masses to freedom? Enter, stage left: one Scott Galloway. Enter, stage right: two extremely hot and horny hockey players. WHICH OF THESE HEROES WILL SLAY GLORIA STEINHEM RESTORE GLOBAL DIGNITY TO THE MEN? Today, we find out. A note from Caro before we begin: If the details within this episode cause your brain to overheat, I recommend pausing and listening to one of two auditory meditations: * any live version of Praying by Kesha * the West End Girl album from start to finish Worked like a charm for me! Below, you’ll find a summary of the three major debates we wish to have with Galloway, as well as an additional list of resources to pad your intellectual toolkit for your own interior monologue debates, followed by some love for Heated Rivalry to balm your restless soul. Scott Galloway vs. Diabolical Lies, a Debate in Three Parts 1.) On educational biases against men The argument made by Scott Galloway: The crisis of modern masculinity begins in the schoolroom, with young boys falling rapidly behind in the educational system by the time they reach kindergarten. This is largely due to developmental differences and educational biases which put young girls at an advantage, one that carries on through to college and higher ed, where they now have majority representation. TL;DR: Little girls have way better brains and the school system is totally set up for them to win, which is why they’re fully creaming little boys all around the world, and that is bad. The rebuttal, from Diabolical Lies: It’s true that certain studies have shown broad neurological differences between the sexes during adolescence, but these differences do not constitute a monolith. Plenty of other studies have flat-out disputed the premise of neurological differences altogether, alternatively suggesting that the difference in behavior between young boys and girls in classrooms is culturally driven. And anyways, given how men have been known to cut out the frontal cortex of ladies who yap too much, I think we’re licensed to say: Stay the fuck away from our brains regardless, you weirdos! It also seems like an example of profound biological cherry-picking to claim that women have an indisputable biological advantage to young boys during the educational period, when the onset of menstruation during this exact same time period puts women at a proven massive deficit on a global level. An estimated one in five girls globally and one in four in the US end up missing class or dropping out of school altogether because they cannot afford menstrual products. Is that a crisis? How about the fact that unexpected pregnancy is the number one reason young women drop out of school altogether, a stat that translates to millions of educational dropouts globally each year? How about that? Is that a crisis? Additionally, while it’s true that young girls do score higher in class on average, and that they do attend higher education in greater numbers, there’s no evidence that this is due to an educational bias. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to suggest that girls score higher grades in class and go on to college and graduate school in high numbers because they have to. Evidence shows that women need to have at least one more degree than men to achieve pay parity across a number of fields; even then, the pay gap is still stark. And beyond that, it’s worth asking a few questions: are young men no longer going to college because the system discriminates against them, or are they no longer going to college because college is now coded as feminine, and therefore perceived as undesirable? And if we’re going to worry about educational biases, is gender truly the lens we should be examining the problem through, or are race and class far more useful for exploring discrimination in educational
More from Diabolical Lies
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.diabolicalliespod.com
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.diabolicalliespod.com
A quick heads-up: Around 1:34:00, we discuss postpartum psychosis, depression, filicide, and the Lindsay Clancy trial (no graphic descriptions). If that’s not something you’re up for today, take care and skip ahead to 1:40:00. It only felt fitting to wrap up our pre-maternity leave regularly scheduled programming with a conversation that brings our very first episode full circle. Skeptics of the tradwife shtick have long observed that tradwife influencers aren’t actually exposed to the risks of the conservative, traditional lifestyle they’re aestheticizing, because they—presumably—have access to their own money and, with it, some degree of autonomy and optionality. This summer, the years-long discourse has finally landed where it started, with the accusation—you actually have a job—being wielded effectively as a defense—yeah, this is a job, why is everyone calling me a tradwife? The result is a discursive ouroboros. Many fellow Discourse Vultures have perceived Nara Smith and Hannah Neeleman’s disavowal of the tradwife label in recent interviews whilst wearing top-to-bottom denim as proof that this brand of motherhood is no longer in vogue, and that the reality of Smith and Neeleman’s family dynamics (50/50 partnerships, being a CEO) serve as evidence of that shift. The personal is political, as they say, but how effectively does personal experience really serve as a political defense? Can it nullify the ideological associations of powerful aesthetics, when those aesthetics are already central to American culture? This episode is a close read of three eerily similar themes that appeared across both recent interviews with some ~lite feminist theory~ layered atop them. THEORY Of Woman Born by Adrienne Rich (1977), the original source from which the “mothering as experience” and “motherhood as institution” framework was pulled “A review of Adrienne Rich’s Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution” by Alice Braun (2019) “Institution of Motherhood” from Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Andrea (2010) “Mothering and Motherhood: Experience, Ideology, and Agency” by Min Jao from Comparative Literature Studies (2019) “Racism and Patriarchy in the Meaning of Motherhood” by Dorothy E. Roberts from Journal of Gender & Law (1992) “Filicide in the United States” by Phillip J. Resnick from the National Library of Medicine (2016) Blue: A History of Postpartum Depression in America by Rachel Louise Moran (2024) “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference” by Audre Lorde (1984) CLOSE-READ INTERVIEWS “Nara Smith: Stop Calling Me a Tradwife” from Call Her Daddy (2026) “Ballerina Farm is Happy with Her Choices” by Stephanie McNeal from Vulture (2026) OTHER REFERENCED PRESS HITS “Tycoon or Tradwife? The Woman Behind Ballerina Farm Makes Her Own Path.” by Julia Moskin for the New York Times (2024) Alyssa Grenfell, the ex-Mormon YouTuber referenced “The Un-Trad Rise of Nara Aziza Smith” by Bianca Betancourt for Harper’s Bazaar (2024) “How Lucky Blue and Nara Aziza Smith Made Viral Internet Fame From Scratch” by Carrie Battan for GQ (2024) “Meet the queen of the ‘trad wives’ (and her eight children)” by Megan Agnew for The Times (2024) “Ballerina Farm opens its door to visitors” from ABC News (2026) “The ‘trad wives’ leaving high-control Christian nationalist communities” from CNN (2026)
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.diabolicalliespod.com
The Democratic Party was facing an identity crisis when Donald Trump began his second term in January 2025. Just two months later, Democratic media Thinkboiz Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson published Abundance. Their theory of the case: We could “solve our problems with supply,” and that to do so, we needed to pursue “a liberalism that builds,” an idea that meant aspiring to “more than redistribution […], more than parceling out the present.” The text of Abundance focuses almost exclusively on examples of government proceduralism and self-defeating obstruction, while at times quoting books like Fully Automated Luxury Communism and even Karl Marx. There’s just one difference between the productive capacity imagined in Fully Automated Luxury Communism and Abundance: only one of these books sees this vision as compatible with capitalism. Over the months that followed its publication, an “intra-left” fight emerged between the “populist left” (represented by figures like Bernie Sanders and the DSA) and the “abundance left.” For a while, it looked like Abundance would set the vision for the future of the party. What happened? Diabolical Lies investigates. All citations and references can be found at diabolicalliespod.com.