Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to ok F Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet Your Girl Daniel Moody recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: the opening that I was going to do was going
Speaker 1: to be different than the one that I am about
Speaker 1: to deliver, because right when I was coming to my
Speaker 1: microphone to turn it on and discuss an entirely different story,
Speaker 1: news broke school shooting Appalachi High School in Georgia. At
Speaker 1: the time of this recording, currently four people are dead,
Speaker 1: thirty more are wounded. There are still reports coming in. Folks.
Speaker 1: The reason don't matter, the fucking weapon of choice does,
Speaker 1: and the easy access to it, and a society that
Speaker 1: chooses to allow the number one cause of death to
Speaker 1: not be diseased, to not be poisoned, to not be accident,
Speaker 1: but instead to be intentional carnage that happens at the
Speaker 1: hand of a gun. I don't understand this country. I
Speaker 1: don't understand people who elect Republican officials into office that
Speaker 1: remove their flag pin and put on an AR fifteen
Speaker 1: the way that Republicans in the House of Representatives have done.
Speaker 1: I don't understand a nation of people that would vote
Speaker 1: for a man that told families after shooting in Iowa
Speaker 1: to quote, get over it. I don't understand a country
Speaker 1: where elected officials who have the power of the pen
Speaker 1: to write legislation that would keep Americans safe, that instead
Speaker 1: use those very same pens to make it easier and
Speaker 1: easier for people to have guns to carry them wherever
Speaker 1: they want. There are other countries in the world where
Speaker 1: after one shooting they change their gun laws, after one
Speaker 1: act of heinous violence, they change their laws. Why is
Speaker 1: America like this? Why is this okay? It is the
Speaker 1: first day of school for millions of children, and there
Speaker 1: are some of them that are not coming home, and
Speaker 1: we have just shrugged our shoulders and said, well, that's
Speaker 1: the price of freedom. I guess is this free? Is
Speaker 1: this what freedom looks like? Honestly, I am just I'm outdone.
Speaker 1: I did a whole video on this that is up
Speaker 1: on my YouTube channel. Go to YouTube Google Daniel Moody
Speaker 1: channel at Daniel Moody Underscore because right when it happened,
Speaker 1: I needed to post something because I was near tears.
Speaker 1: I don't have kids, and you shouldn't need to have
Speaker 1: kids to realize that school should be a place of safety,
Speaker 1: of innovation, of inspiration, of joy and instead too often
Speaker 1: in this country they are a fucking crime scene. And
Speaker 1: again we're okay with that. We have power come November, friends,
Speaker 1: We have power, come November to rid ourselves of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: to rid ourselves of these Republican representatives, to rid ourselves
Speaker 1: of their nonsensical, grift driven policies where they care so
Speaker 1: little about our fucking children out of uter row that
Speaker 1: instead of putting on a beanie on them in the hospital,
Speaker 1: they want to check their trigger finger. I am just
Speaker 1: fucking sick and outdone. It needs to end. The only
Speaker 1: time that we have not had a shooting at schools
Speaker 1: in this country was during COVID, and that's because the
Speaker 1: kids were home. I don't know how people send their
Speaker 1: kids to school, I really don't. I know they don't
Speaker 1: have a choice, but I just can't imagine the fear
Speaker 1: because one day, that text message and that phone call
Speaker 1: that too many families have received across this country will
Speaker 1: end up on your phone, changing lives forever. Coming up next, friends,
Speaker 1: my conversation, an important conversation with our friend or in
Speaker 1: house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel on why Generation Z men
Speaker 1: under the a age of thirty are deciding to vote
Speaker 1: with Trump, and sadly it's not just young white men.
Speaker 1: Oh God, more on that conversation is coming up next, folks.
Speaker 1: As always, you know that when we have the opportunity
Speaker 1: to speak with our in house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzl,
Speaker 1: we are always pleased. Jonathan. Happy September. It is not
Speaker 1: actually officially the end of summer because the equinox has
Speaker 1: not happened, which is man, but it is the end
Speaker 1: of summer for those that teach, for those that are students.
Speaker 1: So I will say classes back in session. Because you
Speaker 1: sent me some reading work ahead of our conversation today,
Speaker 1: and friends, this article in the New York Times, which
Speaker 1: you know is my least favorite publication right now, entitled
Speaker 1: many gen z Men feel left behind, Some see Trump
Speaker 1: as an answer. Men under thirty are more likely to
Speaker 1: support Donald Trump than women their age. It's a far
Speaker 1: bigger gender gap than in older generations. So, Jonathan, you
Speaker 1: sent this to me, and I want to get you
Speaker 1: kick us off in terms of why you feel like
Speaker 1: this is something that we need to be paying attention to,
Speaker 1: or why you think that maybe we haven't been paying
Speaker 1: attention to gen z men.
Speaker 2: Well, what I thought was interesting about that article was
Speaker 2: that there's kind of stereotype of white men as the
Speaker 2: hegemonic norm, the power structure, all that kind of stuff,
Speaker 2: and then there's also like there's a fifty year history
Speaker 2: of white masculinity being in a crisis. I used to
Speaker 2: teach a class called the Politics of Masculinity, and every
Speaker 2: year there'd be some article men are in crisis, and
Speaker 2: so there's always kind of a tradeoff. I would say
Speaker 2: that they're not a ton of sympathy for those arguments,
Speaker 2: but I do think that there was some really interesting
Speaker 2: and powerful stuff in this article, in particular because it
Speaker 2: wasn't like Trump is playing the whole macho testosterone field
Speaker 2: card and that's what Elon Musk is doing and all
Speaker 2: these people, Andrew Tait and all this crazy stuff. But
Speaker 2: what was interesting in this article is that they were
Speaker 2: interviewing and there was citing research about men who actually
Speaker 2: supported reproductive rights and were a fine working for a
Speaker 2: woman boss. They weren't like out there doing the drum
Speaker 2: circle with Trump. But they were also saying that they
Speaker 2: were feeling ignored and left behind, and that in a way,
Speaker 2: all the initiatives, all the politics of the Democrats really
Speaker 2: weren't speaking to them, and there was you know, there
Speaker 2: was another article I read about how like the Democratic
Speaker 2: platform had all of the groups who were to be
Speaker 2: lifted up and white men were not one of the
Speaker 2: groups and stuff like that. So there's an assumption that
Speaker 2: white men are like this toxic, crazy thing. But what
Speaker 2: I thought was interesting in the article was it was
Speaker 2: not that it was men who are kind of okay
Speaker 2: with some gender norms, but also feel like they're worried
Speaker 2: about the economy. They can't attract a mate because they
Speaker 2: can't make enough money to support a family, They worry
Speaker 2: about the fall of traditional gender roles, or things like that.
Speaker 2: So these are the article was much more about what
Speaker 2: you might call like centrist gen Z white men, not
Speaker 2: extreme white men. And so the question for me always
Speaker 2: is could the Democrats be doing more to speak to
Speaker 2: those audiences, because certainly what the article suggested is Trump
Speaker 2: is the only one who is acknowledging those audiences. And
Speaker 2: I do worry sometimes that we've fallen into a trap
Speaker 2: that white men don't need to be acknowledged because they
Speaker 2: already have all the benefits or things like that. So
Speaker 2: I think, you know, in a way, it complicates that
Speaker 2: thinking a little bit if people are willing to go there.
Speaker 2: And of course the other part is there are a
Speaker 2: lot of men like that in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and
Speaker 2: North Carolina, and so the fact that the Democratic messages
Speaker 2: not speaking to them beyond just like you know, I
Speaker 2: saw this with the Affordable Care Act, like, of course
Speaker 2: our policies are going to help you. Of course, our
Speaker 2: policy is going to help you. That kind of stuff,
Speaker 2: but not really acknowledging them is I think the question
Speaker 2: the article raises.
Speaker 1: Let me take a step back before we dive into
Speaker 1: the specifics of the article, because I want to talk
Speaker 1: about and get your thoughts on gender norms specifically, because
Speaker 1: what I think has been happening over the course, particularly
Speaker 1: around the last several weeks and the shift in our
Speaker 1: Democrats top of the ticket with Vice President Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: now being the Democratic nominee, is that there is a
Speaker 1: distinctive divide between the future and the past, between what
Speaker 1: traditional gender norms are and the role that I am
Speaker 1: seeing and many are seeing Governor Tim Walls present as
Speaker 1: a different version of what masculinity can and many are
Speaker 1: saying should look like. Talk to me about gender roles
Speaker 1: in modern time what is the role, what is the positioning,
Speaker 1: what is the reasoning behind gender roles? And is there
Speaker 1: in the twenty first century, in this time where so
Speaker 1: much has shifted. And I disagree to some extent with
Speaker 1: some in the article saying that you know, things have
Speaker 1: shifted so quickly, and I'm like, I guess fifty or
Speaker 1: sixty years as quick. But talk to me about the
Speaker 1: positioning and the reasoning behind gender roles in the first place.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's a mistake that people like me.
Speaker 2: I mean, I was a women's studies professor before I
Speaker 2: was anything in academia. That was my first job for
Speaker 2: many years, which I loved. But there was a mistake
Speaker 2: to think that we're on a progress narrative, that we're
Speaker 2: going toward equality, and that gender roles are a thing
Speaker 2: of the past, just like race is a thing of
Speaker 2: the past. But when you study the history of it,
Speaker 2: you see that there's always a vacillation, because gender realms
Speaker 2: do not exist in a vacuum. First, of course, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of false nostalgia about gender and like, oh,
Speaker 2: it used to be so great in the old days,
Speaker 2: and now we want to bring that back. But really,
Speaker 2: if you go back to the old days, there were
Speaker 2: a lot of problems. So partially there's a lot of
Speaker 2: nostalgia about the way things used to be. But it
Speaker 2: does feel like there's a lot of vacillation between liberation
Speaker 2: and conservatism, I guess you might say. And so in
Speaker 2: the sixties and seventies there was Gloria Steinem saying a
Speaker 2: woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
Speaker 2: We were going to overthrow the male female role system.
Speaker 2: And then people got really nervous, saying, gosh, gender rules
Speaker 2: structure society, it's how I understand the world, it's how
Speaker 2: I understand religion. And so then there's a kind of
Speaker 2: blowback against that to say, you know, there's a return
Speaker 2: to the head of the household male and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: But it also responds to events. I mean, think about
Speaker 2: nine to eleven, for example, people got nervous, and all
Speaker 2: of a sudden we saw the valorization of the white
Speaker 2: male firefighter or policeman or something like that. So there
Speaker 2: are all these ways in which it's not just a linear,
Speaker 2: a kind of ascended progress narrative, and I think we're
Speaker 2: seeing that now too, which is we can be very
Speaker 2: critical of it if we want but I think that
Speaker 2: stories like trans women in women's sports or the bathroom thing,
Speaker 2: which seemed kind of comical if you're like a liberal
Speaker 2: person in a blue city or something like that, but
Speaker 2: it does speak to an anxiety that I think people
Speaker 2: feel palpably here in a place like Tennessee that the
Speaker 2: world is changing away from my value system. And so
Speaker 2: you see a kind of backlash against that, where people say,
Speaker 2: it's just confusing for me. If we're doing away with
Speaker 2: these categories, what are you going to replace it with?
Speaker 2: And that's where I think there's resonance. Not that I
Speaker 2: agree with it, but there's resonance about critiques of pronouns
Speaker 2: and bathrooms and things like that. And so it's always
Speaker 2: going to be a kind of back and forth. And
Speaker 2: I think that Trump has put his face on that
Speaker 2: by picking these picking the He's just very good at
Speaker 2: like picking those issues and saying, the world's going to
Speaker 2: spin away from you, and I'm the only guy who
Speaker 2: can defend it. And I do think the Democrats have
Speaker 2: had a hard time navigating that, and it's got real consequences.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you look at the battleover abortion rights
Speaker 2: in New York, for example, the language of the abortion
Speaker 2: bill in New York that talked about pregnant people, not
Speaker 2: women's right to abortion, is now being used by the
Speaker 2: right to undermine I mean, the Democrats are really at
Speaker 2: risk in New York of some real surprises. So there's
Speaker 2: a kind of back and forth between anxiety and I let.
Speaker 1: Me let me ask you this though. I mean, I
Speaker 1: have so many issues with this, but I really take
Speaker 1: issue with the word anxiety. And maybe it is because
Speaker 1: it harkens back to this feeling around oh, economic anxiety.
Speaker 1: Economic anxiety in twenty sixteen was a code for racism.
Speaker 1: So are we talking now about oh, the anxiety that
Speaker 1: white men and young men, because it isn't just white men,
Speaker 1: it's young Latino men and black men that are Generation
Speaker 1: Z is it? This anxiety is about the power that
Speaker 1: women have gained over the last several decades. And so
Speaker 1: now I don't know what box I'm in, And my
Speaker 1: question is why do we need boxes? Because who do
Speaker 1: they benefit?
Speaker 2: Jonathan, right, I think what is being tapped into. Maybe
Speaker 2: anxiety is the wrong word. I think basically, if you
Speaker 2: grew up where I am now Tennessee, in two miles
Speaker 2: from where I'm sitting right now, you grew up in
Speaker 2: a conservative state with a religious I mean, there's religion
Speaker 2: everywhere here. There's more churches than there are like hot
Speaker 2: dog stands. It's like the opposite of every places I've
Speaker 2: ever lived, except Missouri, where I grew up. And so
Speaker 2: I think it's about values, like, oh, my values about
Speaker 2: family or tradition are being threatened, and so that when
Speaker 2: I say anxiety, that's what I mean. That there's a
Speaker 2: question of values or being devalued. Now, maybe I think
Speaker 2: anxiety is the wrong word, but I do think that
Speaker 2: that kind of concern that my way of life is
Speaker 2: being threatened leads to either a backlash or it's easily
Speaker 2: manipulated into a backlash. I think that there's both of
Speaker 2: those things. And so if you're going to say there's
Speaker 2: no categories, I just think it leads to those kind
Speaker 2: of concerns, like people saying, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, my question is what is the benefit of boxes?
Speaker 1: Because if you ask me, where has there been a
Speaker 1: benefit of boxes? Boxes only benefit those that are at
Speaker 1: the top of a pyramid. Because if I can easily
Speaker 1: place you into a situation, then I can easily stereotype you,
Speaker 1: I can easily dismiss you. But if I'm saying that
Speaker 1: actually humanity is a much more fluid than that, and
Speaker 1: I don't want to go off into a philosophical tangent,
Speaker 1: but if I'm saying that our and our sexual orientation
Speaker 1: is much more fluid than the rigidity that has been
Speaker 1: placed on us since the beginning of time, then how
Speaker 1: do we adapt to what is that actual real science,
Speaker 1: which is that human beings are actually much more fluid.
Speaker 1: Then we've been situated to believe that we are. Women
Speaker 1: actually have much more power and agency and have just
Speaker 1: been robbed of that since the beginning of time until
Speaker 1: they were able to have economic power and able to
Speaker 1: have a voice with a vote. And so when we
Speaker 1: look at the structures of how society was built in
Speaker 1: the boxes that they were built on, it was to
Speaker 1: preserve and enhance patriarchy. So when I hear you say, well,
Speaker 1: if we do away with categories, then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: there is this anxiety and I'm just using that term
Speaker 1: because I don't know what else to call it. There
Speaker 1: is this supple anxiety. But then you're saying that we
Speaker 1: should be talking to the people that are anxious and
Speaker 1: holding their hand along the way, as opposed to, in
Speaker 1: my humble opinion, what are the tools and skills that
Speaker 1: these people need actually to adapt to a different way
Speaker 1: of thinking and being.
Speaker 2: Well, let me say two things about that. I mean, first,
Speaker 2: as you know, I think there are ways to have
Speaker 2: it both ways. I think the Democrats are kind of
Speaker 2: boxed in sometimes by not being able to I think
Speaker 2: there are ways to speak to this in a way
Speaker 2: that also are true to values. I think Harris Interrcy
Speaker 2: in an interview just kept saying I haven't changed. I
Speaker 2: haven't changed. But as we spoke about last week, I
Speaker 2: do think there are ways to talk about entrepreneurialism, economy,
Speaker 2: better ment, health, crime, all the things we talked about
Speaker 2: last week that I do think Democrats can signal in
Speaker 2: a ways that are better kind of linked to what
Speaker 2: you're saying right now, you know, I worry. I mean,
Speaker 2: we can talk next week about what's happening with the
Speaker 2: reaper active choice legislation in New York, which I think
Speaker 2: is a pretty serious issue right now, which is about
Speaker 2: doing away with categories and the political implications of that.
Speaker 2: And I'm not saying we should all become like the
Speaker 2: man is the head of the household or something like that,
Speaker 2: but I do think that there have to be ways
Speaker 2: of saying what you're saying right, which is a rising
Speaker 2: tide lifts all boats and all those kind of things, Like,
Speaker 2: I think there has to be a better way. But
Speaker 2: I think with the way this plays out, because we're
Speaker 2: in a zero sum political system, is that these fights
Speaker 2: come out in very stereotypical, polarizing ways, and they have
Speaker 2: huge implications and so well, of course, theoretically I totally
Speaker 2: agree with what you're saying, of course, like that's the
Speaker 2: basis of a lot of my work about gender and race.
Speaker 2: But I would just say, because I'm also an ethnographer,
Speaker 2: I interview people. I try to understand their point of view,
Speaker 2: and so I would say that in the interviews that
Speaker 2: I do, I also think that people's concern is not
Speaker 2: just I don't want to give up my privilege. It's like,
Speaker 2: where do I fit into the worldview that you're presenting?
Speaker 1: And I think but that to me, that is the
Speaker 1: valid question. That's a valid question of as the world changes,
Speaker 1: what is my role and responsibility in this new system?
Speaker 1: And I think that that's a question that democrats in
Speaker 1: many ways are posing. That the world is changing, and
Speaker 1: I would just push back on what you said about
Speaker 1: the Vice president or CNN interview. What she was talking
Speaker 1: about is the fact that her values have not changed.
Speaker 1: How you approach strategy is going too different from administration
Speaker 1: to administration. But if I still have values that are
Speaker 1: aligned with democracy, that are aligned with equity and justice, right,
Speaker 1: then you have to understand that my character has not changed.
Speaker 1: How I perceive and decide to create different policies. That's
Speaker 1: a tactic in order to move society forward. And so
Speaker 1: it wasn't of a I haven't changed. I haven't changed
Speaker 1: as in like I am a statf. It's that you
Speaker 1: can rely on my character because my values have not changed,
Speaker 1: as opposed to the other guy who has no character
Speaker 1: and has no values, and they change with whoever puts
Speaker 1: a check in front of his face.
Speaker 2: Right, I mean to be fair, The question I think
Speaker 2: she was answering at the time was about fracking and
Speaker 2: changing our view on fracking. So it wasn't about gender.
Speaker 2: Just want to be clear about that. And so I
Speaker 2: also think it's possible to say, look, I've evolved, you know,
Speaker 2: like I've been in power and I changed my views
Speaker 2: about things, and I understand now that it's easier to
Speaker 2: tweet a bunch of stuff than it is to actually
Speaker 2: make decisions that impact groups of people. So that was
Speaker 2: the answer I wish would have been given. But again,
Speaker 2: also again, we're in a very you know, there's always
Speaker 2: a push and pull in history, and we're in one
Speaker 2: of those moments where winning this election has profound consequences,
Speaker 2: and so you want to be open and strategic. And
Speaker 2: I think the caveat I just apologize for keep giving
Speaker 2: caveats is that I mean, I think that the Tim
Speaker 2: Walls version of masculinity is speaking to a lot of people. Well,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of men in Red States who
Speaker 2: want their partners, spouses, wives to have the right to
Speaker 2: get an abortion if they have a non viable fetus
Speaker 2: or something like that. Like, I think that in a way,
Speaker 2: it's not like these categories are so clear cut. But
Speaker 2: the danger I think for Democrats is, I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: seeing this with guns that people think people like Timwolves
Speaker 2: represent What did they represent? He certainly doesn't represent the
Speaker 2: majority of gun owners who are down here, like NRA
Speaker 2: members who buy the NRA line or something like that.
Speaker 2: So the issue is it's a you know, a metonym,
Speaker 2: a piece of a whole. What is the hole that's
Speaker 2: being represented? Is there a movement toward a new definition
Speaker 2: of masculinity that he represents, or are we highlighting, as
Speaker 2: we talked about last week, the converts who are not
Speaker 2: a valid sample size except for people who are willing
Speaker 2: to come over to our side. And so I think,
Speaker 2: you know, you want to talk to the most numbers
Speaker 2: of people you can.
Speaker 1: I like this question, and I actually want to hold
Speaker 1: this question for next week for us to be able
Speaker 1: to tease out more because I think that the question
Speaker 1: is there a movement towards a new definition of masculinity?
Speaker 1: That is really the question that I think that we
Speaker 1: need to be asking, and we need to be asking
Speaker 1: in a very specific manner other than to your point,
Speaker 1: where we have these new representations, whether it is Doug
Speaker 1: Emhoff the second Gentleman, or if it is Tim Walls
Speaker 1: and the other men that we saw on the stage
Speaker 1: at the DNC, there is a very different type of
Speaker 1: man that is inside of the Democratic Party that they're
Speaker 1: putting forth, but they're not articulating and asserting it in
Speaker 1: a way to say men don't have to be one way.
Speaker 1: And I think that that articulation is something that is
Speaker 1: missing from the Democrats' agenda. Last word to you before
Speaker 1: we close for today.
Speaker 2: I'll go TMI on everybody next week because, as you know,
Speaker 2: am back on these goddamn dating apps. And so I've
Speaker 2: been thinking a lot about gender because there is like,
Speaker 2: it's just funny that people there are a lot of
Speaker 2: people who long for what they imagine to be traditional
Speaker 2: gender norms. I'm seeing this a lot, and so it's
Speaker 2: tapping This is a question about the election, but it's
Speaker 2: tapping into something bigger, which is that the world feels
Speaker 2: like it's spinning away to a lot of people, and
Speaker 2: what do you fall back on, because even if we
Speaker 2: go towards the future, there's also a lot of we'll say,
Speaker 2: anxiety about that, like where do we land if we
Speaker 2: don't have this thing we've been falling back on and
Speaker 2: tradition brings comfort, but change is concerning sometimes. So this
Speaker 2: is happening out in the world right now.
Speaker 1: Also, we will leave it there today, folks. In the
Speaker 1: episode notes of the show, the link to the article
Speaker 1: in the New York Times that I think is worth
Speaker 1: a read. Many gen Z Men feel left behind. Some
Speaker 1: see Trump as an answer and we'll pick up and
Speaker 1: continue this conversation next week. As always, I appreciate you.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today, dear friends on Woke
Speaker 1: a f as always, Power to the people and to
Speaker 1: all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.