Very interesting listen. The essay itself was not that eye opening for anyone who's been paying attention to modern marriage issues/intersexual dynamics. There's going to be a whole lot more stories similar to this over the next few decades from career women who either didn't opt for a family or ones who took it for granted once they had the chance to be moms/wives.
The clear disdain she has for her husband isn't surprising. She respects him as a writer but that's where the respect begins and ends. She doesn't respect him as a man, leader father etc. and I'd argue its his fault for even letting their marriage get to this point. She's clearly a maniacal narcissist. I don't buy the bipolar thing, this is who she always has been since she came onto the scene. So you can't be surprised when you marry someone with this many glaring red flags and you get this in return.
The part of pod where Sarah discusses/points out the books that glorify divorce as a triumph and their demonization of marriage as a form of oppression was great. What's scary is that the anti marriage messaging has been ramped up to another level since books like Eat,Pray,Love came out especially with the advent of social media and other platforms like OnlyFans.
“I'd argue it’s his fault for even letting their marriage get to this point”
Nah, he got the kind of marriage that you get when he married the person he did. You don’t have the power to “let” things get to a point when the point is around the default you get with the person you choose.
I saw some sympathy from him from some corners, which I found befuddling, because this is exactly what he signed up for.
Sure, but a biographical historyf written by a person reveals things about that person. Here, the person is also a confessional essayist with a long history of publicly disclosed behavior (putting aside private behavior) which also gives one insight.
See, I wouldn’t expect sympathy if I married Hunter S. Thompson and he writes an essay detailing how he behaved like Hunter S. Thompson.
Enjoyed this one, and I agree that Sarah is a great guest. Her point about how our generation (I'm 41 - seems like many/most of us here are around the same age) was told we could be anything we wanted to be, president, etc, and then mostly grew up to have unremarkable jobs, and how that can lead to unhappiness/dissatisfaction, is great insight.
Peter Turchin and elite overproduction. You tell everyone in the top 5% they can be President, and everyone in the top 30% they will be the boss someday, and you end up with a lot of pissed off babies.
We push way too many people through the college system and even grad school when basically they are just regular bog standard office workers. You could cut the number of degree attainers in history/gender studies/political science/etc. (a lot of programs) by 90% and society would be wildly better off not worse off. People having more working years and losing basically nothing, especially since college is primarily a positional good and when everyone is going it become net worthless.
Agreed on the great insight. Also the prevailing theme of fight club, which is 20+ years old. However, that got me wondering about today's reception to the movie.
Would FC released in 2024 become box office, achieve cult status later on streaming, or exist only as that weird movie Brad Pitt is shredded?!
My instinct says the latter, but I'm going to think about it some. I'd love to hear other's answers and reasons.
I couldn't make it past the first paragraph of Gould's essay. I have so little empathy for these people. These PMC people are so fucking entitled and spoiled. They annoy the hell out of me. Do we really need ANOTHER essay about a privileged middle to upper class white woman and their story of being on medication. Who....cares. Though Sarah is great.
As for Hanania, he’s not intriguing at all, he’s just a bigot with autism. I wish that loser would just kill himself. I won’t unsubscribe if you have him on the podcast, but I’ll skip the episode. There’s enough skull measuring bullshit on Twitter.
Look, if you’re going to wish someone dead, can you at least try to be witty and/or creative? Let him drown in a butt of malmsey, or fall into a crevice on Mt Everest. May he be eaten by a giant lizard. Merely to wish he’d kill himself sounds spiteful and petty
I found it interesting that Hepola finds Hanania and the Gould essay interesting, while Rommelmann finds both repulsive. Rommelmann’s reaction is the normative one on a human level, both Gould and Hanania have severe abnormalities (I’m not making a value statement, Hanania’s autism and Gould’s mental health issues) which people generally find repellent.
It’s a thin line to walk, Ethan’s point is well taken that such folks may not only have insights that are valuable to consider, but that those insights may in part flow from their “unique” characteristics. At the same time, it’s important to keep in mind that much (most) of the stuff coming from them will be comprised.
Gould’s essay being a Midlife Crisis makes sense. The whole idea of it was conceived by Boomer men who went out and splurged on sports cars, usually poorly manufactured ones, and maybe got divorced too. Both seem to be a symptom of frustration with life.
I wonder how much of this would be solved if couples started having kids in their mid-20s instead of their 30s. That way when you turn 40 you’re able to live a life that’s a little bit more…free. Once your kids are 8 or so there’s kind of a cruise control that you can turn on. You still gotta keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road but day-to-day life just feels less fussier.
Meh. Having kids later is great (health risks for the woman aside). Lots of time to explore and adventure through your teens to whatever point in the 30’s. When that gets old (and you start getting a little too old for it), a whole brand new adventure awaits you in the form of kids. Plus you should be more emotionally mature and materially stable.
Many of the people who freak out about loss of freedom with the arrival of kids didn’t do much worthwhile with the freedom when they had it, and won’t do much with it if given it again. And/or have underlying issues which cause them distress they need to address internally, which no amount of change in external circumstances is gonna cure, regardless of how much they hope that such external changes would.
(Emily Gould will likely always suffer internally from what the Elephant Man suffered externally; married, divorced, single, with child or without wouldn’t make a difference . The difference is that Mr. Merrick probably could contribute something other than showcasing himself, while Ms. Gould has nothing to offer but displaying her grotesques to the gawking of the respectable professional classes)
>Many of the people who freak out about loss of freedom with the arrival of kids didn’t do much worthwhile with the freedom when they had it, and won’t do much with it if given it again.
This reminds me of some people I knew who lived in suburban Chicago who acted like living in suburban Minneapolis or Denver would just be the pit of despair and boredom because there is nothing to do there compared to Chicago. I was always certain that on probably 364 nights a year or whatever their life would be literally identical in the other place, and that the small differences that 365th night hardly matter when adjusting for cost/commute etc.
Really liked this one. I think Sarah is a great guest. I liked the Emily Gould essay too. Thought it was an interesting and well-written portrait of someone in crisis.
An interesting listen. I think Sarah’s point about the gen x/millennial dichotomy of materialism and fiscal excess landed well.
I am dismayed at the idea of Richard Hanania on the pod. I think it’s a tell that a person like him crosses the rubicon of unacceptability in how fast you and Sarah switched to discussing his comments as abstractions. “Unlikable” and unconcerned with praise is one thing. But to call his rhetoric “things that are not necessarily going to get them plaudits” is approaching the substance of his ideas with a remove that you would only give to something that would make one uncomfortable to express. Just say the thing and don’t do the dance if it’s simply an issue of overprotective decorum?
The 90s topic is so interesting to me. I’m 37, and admittedly reminisce in 90s culture frequently. But sometimes I feel like growing up during that decade was a gift and a curse. Like yeah, enjoy it now. It’ll never be this good again.
I will say one weird thing about growing up in the 90s is that as fondly remembered as it is now, it definitely felt more chaotic at the time. The drama of the Clinton presidency plus the coming turn of the millennium made thing seem more tense. But now, having almost 2 and a half decades to compare to, the “90s are #1” crowd has a very convincing argument.
MAKE HER A REGULAR, PLEASE!
Very interesting listen. The essay itself was not that eye opening for anyone who's been paying attention to modern marriage issues/intersexual dynamics. There's going to be a whole lot more stories similar to this over the next few decades from career women who either didn't opt for a family or ones who took it for granted once they had the chance to be moms/wives.
The clear disdain she has for her husband isn't surprising. She respects him as a writer but that's where the respect begins and ends. She doesn't respect him as a man, leader father etc. and I'd argue its his fault for even letting their marriage get to this point. She's clearly a maniacal narcissist. I don't buy the bipolar thing, this is who she always has been since she came onto the scene. So you can't be surprised when you marry someone with this many glaring red flags and you get this in return.
The part of pod where Sarah discusses/points out the books that glorify divorce as a triumph and their demonization of marriage as a form of oppression was great. What's scary is that the anti marriage messaging has been ramped up to another level since books like Eat,Pray,Love came out especially with the advent of social media and other platforms like OnlyFans.
“I'd argue it’s his fault for even letting their marriage get to this point”
Nah, he got the kind of marriage that you get when he married the person he did. You don’t have the power to “let” things get to a point when the point is around the default you get with the person you choose.
I saw some sympathy from him from some corners, which I found befuddling, because this is exactly what he signed up for.
Art is also just how someone felt at a particular point in time. It doesn't mean the artist feels that way every second of the day.
Sure, but a biographical historyf written by a person reveals things about that person. Here, the person is also a confessional essayist with a long history of publicly disclosed behavior (putting aside private behavior) which also gives one insight.
See, I wouldn’t expect sympathy if I married Hunter S. Thompson and he writes an essay detailing how he behaved like Hunter S. Thompson.
Enjoyed this one, and I agree that Sarah is a great guest. Her point about how our generation (I'm 41 - seems like many/most of us here are around the same age) was told we could be anything we wanted to be, president, etc, and then mostly grew up to have unremarkable jobs, and how that can lead to unhappiness/dissatisfaction, is great insight.
Peter Turchin and elite overproduction. You tell everyone in the top 5% they can be President, and everyone in the top 30% they will be the boss someday, and you end up with a lot of pissed off babies.
We push way too many people through the college system and even grad school when basically they are just regular bog standard office workers. You could cut the number of degree attainers in history/gender studies/political science/etc. (a lot of programs) by 90% and society would be wildly better off not worse off. People having more working years and losing basically nothing, especially since college is primarily a positional good and when everyone is going it become net worthless.
Agreed on the great insight. Also the prevailing theme of fight club, which is 20+ years old. However, that got me wondering about today's reception to the movie.
Would FC released in 2024 become box office, achieve cult status later on streaming, or exist only as that weird movie Brad Pitt is shredded?!
My instinct says the latter, but I'm going to think about it some. I'd love to hear other's answers and reasons.
Be a man, interview Richard Hanania.
Don't back out of it because you're afraid of the association. Be a man.
The people you're worried about impressing are never going to help you out anyway.
Have the podcast with him. Ask him about DADD.
He wrote the academic paper in DADD.
I couldn't make it past the first paragraph of Gould's essay. I have so little empathy for these people. These PMC people are so fucking entitled and spoiled. They annoy the hell out of me. Do we really need ANOTHER essay about a privileged middle to upper class white woman and their story of being on medication. Who....cares. Though Sarah is great.
Really good podcast, have her on again!
As for Hanania, he’s not intriguing at all, he’s just a bigot with autism. I wish that loser would just kill himself. I won’t unsubscribe if you have him on the podcast, but I’ll skip the episode. There’s enough skull measuring bullshit on Twitter.
Look, if you’re going to wish someone dead, can you at least try to be witty and/or creative? Let him drown in a butt of malmsey, or fall into a crevice on Mt Everest. May he be eaten by a giant lizard. Merely to wish he’d kill himself sounds spiteful and petty
But I am spiteful in this case! That shit stain doesn’t deserve my creativity
lol touché
I found it interesting that Hepola finds Hanania and the Gould essay interesting, while Rommelmann finds both repulsive. Rommelmann’s reaction is the normative one on a human level, both Gould and Hanania have severe abnormalities (I’m not making a value statement, Hanania’s autism and Gould’s mental health issues) which people generally find repellent.
It’s a thin line to walk, Ethan’s point is well taken that such folks may not only have insights that are valuable to consider, but that those insights may in part flow from their “unique” characteristics. At the same time, it’s important to keep in mind that much (most) of the stuff coming from them will be comprised.
I was with you until you suicided him.
Hanania is an uninteresting dork who's moved from race takes on twitter to get attention/engagement to simping over gym thots.
I'm glad that I'm not on the internet enough to know the context of this comment.
Gould’s essay being a Midlife Crisis makes sense. The whole idea of it was conceived by Boomer men who went out and splurged on sports cars, usually poorly manufactured ones, and maybe got divorced too. Both seem to be a symptom of frustration with life.
I wonder how much of this would be solved if couples started having kids in their mid-20s instead of their 30s. That way when you turn 40 you’re able to live a life that’s a little bit more…free. Once your kids are 8 or so there’s kind of a cruise control that you can turn on. You still gotta keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road but day-to-day life just feels less fussier.
Meh. Having kids later is great (health risks for the woman aside). Lots of time to explore and adventure through your teens to whatever point in the 30’s. When that gets old (and you start getting a little too old for it), a whole brand new adventure awaits you in the form of kids. Plus you should be more emotionally mature and materially stable.
Many of the people who freak out about loss of freedom with the arrival of kids didn’t do much worthwhile with the freedom when they had it, and won’t do much with it if given it again. And/or have underlying issues which cause them distress they need to address internally, which no amount of change in external circumstances is gonna cure, regardless of how much they hope that such external changes would.
(Emily Gould will likely always suffer internally from what the Elephant Man suffered externally; married, divorced, single, with child or without wouldn’t make a difference . The difference is that Mr. Merrick probably could contribute something other than showcasing himself, while Ms. Gould has nothing to offer but displaying her grotesques to the gawking of the respectable professional classes)
>Many of the people who freak out about loss of freedom with the arrival of kids didn’t do much worthwhile with the freedom when they had it, and won’t do much with it if given it again.
This reminds me of some people I knew who lived in suburban Chicago who acted like living in suburban Minneapolis or Denver would just be the pit of despair and boredom because there is nothing to do there compared to Chicago. I was always certain that on probably 364 nights a year or whatever their life would be literally identical in the other place, and that the small differences that 365th night hardly matter when adjusting for cost/commute etc.
Really liked this one. I think Sarah is a great guest. I liked the Emily Gould essay too. Thought it was an interesting and well-written portrait of someone in crisis.
This was my favorite conversation of 2024, and there is no second.
An interesting listen. I think Sarah’s point about the gen x/millennial dichotomy of materialism and fiscal excess landed well.
I am dismayed at the idea of Richard Hanania on the pod. I think it’s a tell that a person like him crosses the rubicon of unacceptability in how fast you and Sarah switched to discussing his comments as abstractions. “Unlikable” and unconcerned with praise is one thing. But to call his rhetoric “things that are not necessarily going to get them plaudits” is approaching the substance of his ideas with a remove that you would only give to something that would make one uncomfortable to express. Just say the thing and don’t do the dance if it’s simply an issue of overprotective decorum?
Beautiful discussion. This is what we come here for.
Please make Sarah a regular. I read her book shortly after it came out and was so delighted to rediscover her the last time you had her on.
Great pod, no notes
Fascinating discussion and definitely resonate with the “promised the world” observation.
The 90s topic is so interesting to me. I’m 37, and admittedly reminisce in 90s culture frequently. But sometimes I feel like growing up during that decade was a gift and a curse. Like yeah, enjoy it now. It’ll never be this good again.
I will say one weird thing about growing up in the 90s is that as fondly remembered as it is now, it definitely felt more chaotic at the time. The drama of the Clinton presidency plus the coming turn of the millennium made thing seem more tense. But now, having almost 2 and a half decades to compare to, the “90s are #1” crowd has a very convincing argument.
I guess I didn't feel that at all, felt like good times to me as a teenager in those years, and I had a very chaotic homelife.
The top comments on this video reminds me of the pub discussion you guys were talking about
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3iaQYmRKkN/?igsh=MW9qa3Exem5qM3EyaQ==