Speaker 1: You're listening to Modern Rules, a production of MSNBC and
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio. I'm Stephanie Rule, MSNBC anchor and NBC
Speaker 1: News correspondent, and this is a special bonus episode of
Speaker 1: Modern Rules. Yea, I had a couple of conversations this
Speaker 1: season that you didn't get to hear all of. But
Speaker 1: those conversations stuck with me. They sat with me over
Speaker 1: the last few weeks and months, so much so that
Speaker 1: I wanted to share more. Earlier this season, I spoke
Speaker 1: with a good friend of mine, entrepreneur, author, business and
Speaker 1: marketing professor, and the very outspoken Scott Galloway. We talked
Speaker 1: a lot about the Me Too movement and moral leadership,
Speaker 1: but we covered a lot more. In our full conversation.
Speaker 1: We covered everything from taxes, income inequality, parenting, mean girls,
Speaker 1: and something Scott Franklin knows all about white male privilege.
Speaker 1: It was a long game of mental and verbal ping pong,
Speaker 1: a game that Scott was definitely not prepared for. In hindsight,
Speaker 1: he said, if I knew were going to cover all this,
Speaker 1: I probably wouldn't have shown up. But guess what he did.
Speaker 1: And I'd like to say it was one of the
Speaker 1: most fun and lightning conversations I had this season, and
Speaker 1: for this bonus episode, I just wanted to share a
Speaker 1: whole lot more. One of the reasons I decided to
Speaker 1: go in academia is academia is based on the pursuit
Speaker 1: of truth, regardless of who it offends. That you had
Speaker 1: Socrates saying our job is to provoke. So in order
Speaker 1: to provoke, we actually need to find land outside the
Speaker 1: city where people have freedom of thought and they're protected.
Speaker 1: If they say the world is around, they're not burnt
Speaker 1: at the stay. We are in this cancel culture. Social
Speaker 1: media is performance art. You can't have a nuanced conversation forever.
Speaker 1: The problem is, I think we have this culture now
Speaker 1: where you get points. If you're offended, you're immediately right.
Speaker 1: All you have to do to be right is be offended.
Speaker 1: You immediately get virtue points. So this triggers microaggressions kids
Speaker 1: who have parents who provide concierge and bulldozer parenting, creating
Speaker 1: this princess in the peace syndrome among kids. I see
Speaker 1: coming into college has led to an environment, especially at universities,
Speaker 1: where we're really not encouraged to provoke. We're encouraged to
Speaker 1: pursue ideas and train people to make a lot of money.
Speaker 1: But we're not there to explore ideas because as a white,
Speaker 1: heterosexual male, I walk into the room slightly wrong ish
Speaker 1: wherever I am at all times, and people say, well,
Speaker 1: we're having a conversation around these things. No we're not.
Speaker 1: We're not really having a conversation. We're having an overdue
Speaker 1: immune reaction to some terrible problems. But to that point,
Speaker 1: if you say something from your heart and your mind
Speaker 1: and it doesn't exactly fit into a category, people will
Speaker 1: call you a sexist, a racist, a misogynist, and then
Speaker 1: you're dead to them. That's my point that there's only
Speaker 1: one real dialogue here, and that is an appropriate dialogue
Speaker 1: for someone in my position, and that is to pile
Speaker 1: on and be outraged by everything and join the chorus.
Speaker 1: It's nothing. This is my fear retreat. Look at me too.
Speaker 1: For example, I did a wellness panel last year and
Speaker 1: I was talking about how in me too, there's different
Speaker 1: grades of me too, and I actually brought up a
Speaker 1: very unpopular topic of redemption because I think, listen, we
Speaker 1: love to fight as a culture, but we also love forgiveness.
Speaker 1: We love a comeback, and I brought that up, and
Speaker 1: a woman in the audience stood up and said, f you,
Speaker 1: and she walked out. And another woman said, corporate America
Speaker 1: was built by male white supremacists, and until we destroy
Speaker 1: that system, we can't move forward. And I try to
Speaker 1: make the argument, like, listen, the world is run by
Speaker 1: white guys. If you want to get them to the table,
Speaker 1: if you want to make things better, we have to
Speaker 1: find a middle ground. Is there a middle ground? Or
Speaker 1: do you have to burn the house down? Because is
Speaker 1: it easy for me, somebody who has white privilege to say,
Speaker 1: come on, now, can't we love more? Can't we just
Speaker 1: get along? Because I'm not really oppressed and I never
Speaker 1: have been. So that's a difficult question. I think we're
Speaker 1: going to happen over correction. I don't know if we're
Speaker 1: gonna have what is really a conversation. I didn't how
Speaker 1: we end up on the other end of this. So
Speaker 1: I was thinking about Joe Biden, and I believe what
Speaker 1: Jonathan Height, and he's sort of my Yoda around this stuff,
Speaker 1: and he's a colleague at n y O, and he
Speaker 1: believes that, at least initially, you should interpret gestures with
Speaker 1: the intent that they were made, and I look at
Speaker 1: what happened with Vice President Biden, and I wonder, Okay,
Speaker 1: did that really warrant the type of response in the controversy,
Speaker 1: and even just saying that is dangerous because there's a
Speaker 1: general viewpoint that okay, anything, any of expression of affection
Speaker 1: in the workplace is a really interesting thing. Because I
Speaker 1: do a podcast with Kara Swisher and she was saying
Speaker 1: that she's experienced, and I believe her so many just
Speaker 1: creepy moments with men who feel at liberty to invade
Speaker 1: a woman's space, and I believe that and I've seen it.
Speaker 1: I also asked her, have there been moments of expression
Speaker 1: of affection at work that you've appreciated, and she said yes,
Speaker 1: And I said, well, some of us need help figuring
Speaker 1: out the gray zone in between that and the reaction
Speaker 1: right now among all men at work is that there's
Speaker 1: absolutely no affection. There's no real open, honest style logged.
Speaker 1: There isn't even joking, and I think it's creating a
Speaker 1: lack of camaraderie and quite frankly, a lack of career
Speaker 1: advancement in connection for the people who needed the most.
Speaker 1: I was in sales and banking. One could say, oh
Speaker 1: my god, it's sexist that you had to make dinner reservations.
Speaker 1: What were you doing going to places like that? Guess what?
Speaker 1: Me going to those dinners and getting myself a seat
Speaker 1: every single night was great for my career. And to
Speaker 1: say I'm going to use my feminine wiles. It's not
Speaker 1: feminine wiles or sexuality, but women do have high emotional
Speaker 1: intelligence and people might invite me to dinner because I'm
Speaker 1: gonna make the table move faster. I'm gonna make the
Speaker 1: clients feel good, not in a sexual way, but in
Speaker 1: a personal way. And that personal connection, building trust with
Speaker 1: the senior people at the bank and with our clients
Speaker 1: is what catapulted my business. You know how this problem
Speaker 1: gets solved, and this is going to sound politically correct.
Speaker 1: You're generous with people. And the thing that is protected
Speaker 1: or been the kind of the kryptonite of my firms
Speaker 1: from ever having a complaint or a lawsuit is that
Speaker 1: early on and I recognize this underinvested asset called young
Speaker 1: female leadership, and that is if you gave him a
Speaker 1: little bit of flexibility. They were outstanding assets that weren't
Speaker 1: appreciated by traditional corporate America. So at L two, which
Speaker 1: we sold two years ago, nine of the eleven largest
Speaker 1: equity holders were either LGBT or women. And you know what,
Speaker 1: when you have women and LGBT people running the company,
Speaker 1: this just never happens. And there was this kind of
Speaker 1: underinvested asset. And now finally sevent of high school val
Speaker 1: electorians or women, they're finally catching up in the workplace.
Speaker 1: We have a different crisis of the making, though, and
Speaker 1: that is young men are failing. And I see it
Speaker 1: in my organization. The women are thriving. The young women
Speaker 1: are thriving. Where women hit a hit a wall. And
Speaker 1: this is where the nuance comes in is when women
Speaker 1: have kids. So women without kids have closed the wage gap.
Speaker 1: Women with kids immediately dropped to seventy seven cents on
Speaker 1: the dollar. But Scott, corporate America, even government was designed
Speaker 1: in a way under the assumption that corporate leader does
Speaker 1: their job and there is a separate person in their
Speaker 1: home that manages their children and their household. That's how
Speaker 1: the model was created. I remember before I had my
Speaker 1: first child, thinking I'm going to run the securities division
Speaker 1: a Deutsche Bank. I remember the day I came back
Speaker 1: from eternity leave, looking across at the head of the
Speaker 1: securities division and thinking for a moment, Holy cow, that
Speaker 1: guy is on the road forty weeks a year. And
Speaker 1: at that moment, I thought, well, maybe I'll just be
Speaker 1: the biggest producer. And unless we start to look at
Speaker 1: what people's priorities are men and women, I don't think
Speaker 1: you're going to change that for women. Look, evolution and
Speaker 1: biology is pretty powerful, and no matter how politically correct,
Speaker 1: we are the contribution that men want to make in
Speaker 1: the home. I do think that women's instant. You know,
Speaker 1: when our kids get up at night, my wife, here's
Speaker 1: the footsteps. She's just trained to that noise. And while
Speaker 1: I'd like to think I contribute, I'm not sure. My
Speaker 1: wife worked at Goldman Sacks for five years and yet
Speaker 1: we found that the majority of the time she was
Speaker 1: the one getting up And I'm not proud of that,
Speaker 1: But it's a how do we rate or compensate for
Speaker 1: that type of balance? And I think corporate America is
Speaker 1: trying to slowly but surely increased maternity leave. One thing
Speaker 1: I noticed about Goldman was they tried to be pretty
Speaker 1: empathetic to women with children, or at least they played
Speaker 1: FaceTime about it, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: she couldn't on a moment's notice go to Detroit and
Speaker 1: be with General Motors for the meeting because we had
Speaker 1: two kids under the age of five. So I think
Speaker 1: corporate America has sort of figured out what I'll call
Speaker 1: the male female wage dynamic. What they haven't figured out
Speaker 1: is people with ovaries. They haven't figured out how to
Speaker 1: create career velocity for people who decide to fulfill the
Speaker 1: most important attribute of the species, and that is propagation.
Speaker 1: We just haven't figured it out yet. Well, it's hard
Speaker 1: to do that because when you're in your family raising
Speaker 1: childbirth years, that's when listen, a thirty one year old
Speaker 1: investment banker, that's when he or she is in his lane, right.
Speaker 1: I would never ever say it out loud. But when
Speaker 1: I think back to when I was in banking and
Speaker 1: I would interview associates that were men and women, I
Speaker 1: would never say this out loud. I'm sure in the
Speaker 1: back of my head I thought, well, I think she's engaged,
Speaker 1: we're getting married. When she having kids, she's going to
Speaker 1: come back right and that, And I would obviously never
Speaker 1: say it out last time, but I know it impacted
Speaker 1: me because, especially in those industries, you need horses to
Speaker 1: run around the track. Imagine you're the suit of a
Speaker 1: small company that's venture backed and you have sort of
Speaker 1: a twenty four kind of haul pass to survive and
Speaker 1: the infanmortality rate on small businesses, and you're interviewing two
Speaker 1: HBS grads and once a guy who's totally paranoid and
Speaker 1: worried and hungry because he has two new kids at
Speaker 1: home and you know it's gonna work eighteen hours a day.
Speaker 1: And one is that young woman who has just gotten married,
Speaker 1: and you're thinking, Okay, what happens when she gets pregnant?
Speaker 1: And I want to be a good guy and give
Speaker 1: him maternity leave, and you want to do the right thing,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately sometimes you wonder can I afford to do
Speaker 1: the right thing. You check yourself and you stop that thinking.
Speaker 1: But there's just no way you can control those thoughts.
Speaker 1: But to that point when we get offended when the
Speaker 1: president says America first, isn't America first? Kind of the
Speaker 1: way we run our families, take care of our own
Speaker 1: family first, and then in our excess capacity, give to others. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but the wonderful thing about capitalism is it assumes that
Speaker 1: a basic human attribute of our species is that we're
Speaker 1: going to fix our own oxygen masks before helping others.
Speaker 1: Self interest is the most powerful motivating force in the world,
Speaker 1: and it's the basis of capitalism. At the end of
Speaker 1: the day, the baker doesn't give the butcher bread for
Speaker 1: that person's well being, but because they want meat in return.
Speaker 1: It's a powerful engine. But also a key to capitalism
Speaker 1: is this notion of democracy and the rule of fair play.
Speaker 1: And we also believe in progressive tax structure that we
Speaker 1: have a baseline level of redistribution of income. The game
Speaker 1: might be tilted, but at least it's not rigged. And
Speaker 1: I would argue over the last thirty years that the
Speaker 1: middle class has figured out slowly but surely. Corporations have
Speaker 1: become government, the tax systems become rigged. Okay, But Scott,
Speaker 1: here's the thing. What you are asking for is moral leadership.
Speaker 1: I think we are the avengers of the galaxy. We
Speaker 1: are the superheroes. American Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act,
Speaker 1: that there's been, Social Security, all these things were hugely expensive,
Speaker 1: hugely unpopular, and we did them. I think there's been thousands,
Speaker 1: if not millions, of people who have shown incredible moral
Speaker 1: leadership been class traders. Whether it's Teddy Roosevelt saying to
Speaker 1: the railroad guys, you elected me, I love you, but
Speaker 1: guess what I'm breaking you up, whether it was FDR
Speaker 1: being a class trader to his rich friends by increasing
Speaker 1: taxes so he could have more social welfare so people
Speaker 1: didn't die in poverty. Traditionally throughout history, it's very clear
Speaker 1: when we get to the current levels of income inequality
Speaker 1: that we have. The good news is they always self correct.
Speaker 1: Income inequality self correct. That's the bad news. The mechanisms
Speaker 1: of self correction are either war, famine, or revolution, and
Speaker 1: that is people get so fed up they turned to
Speaker 1: nationalism and they start demonizing immigrants, or they turn to
Speaker 1: some sort of government overthrow through socialism. We end up
Speaker 1: with jobs. At some point, when you look out your
Speaker 1: window and you see everyone with pitchforks, you realize, well,
Speaker 1: maybe it's time, you know, maybe it should be more
Speaker 1: than let them et kick. I think we're at that point.
Speaker 1: The last time we had these levels of income inequality
Speaker 1: was in the twenties, right before the crash, and people
Speaker 1: are so fed up an economy and a society can't
Speaker 1: survive without a prospering middle class, and the middle class
Speaker 1: in America has either been sideways most general to sleep
Speaker 1: for the last thirty years, probably going down. And we're
Speaker 1: in the midst of a soft revolution and a manifest
Speaker 1: itself in different ways. Hold on a second, because we
Speaker 1: have so much more to talk about. We'll be right
Speaker 1: back after a quick rate. Welcome back to modern rules.
Speaker 1: There's calls for seventy taxes and the elimination of air
Speaker 1: transport and a billionaire super tax. There's calls to put
Speaker 1: Lori Laughlin not Aunt Becky in prison. I empathize with her.
Speaker 1: I'm an academic, and I do think it's probably easy
Speaker 1: to incrementally decided to make bad decisions around getting your
Speaker 1: kids into school, because as an academic, I can tell
Speaker 1: you we become drunk on exclusivity. We have lost the
Speaker 1: script as academics. We used to think we were public servants.
Speaker 1: Now we think we're luxury goods and minding. And my
Speaker 1: director of admission stand up every year and brag about
Speaker 1: how impossible it is for kids to get into school,
Speaker 1: which creates this hunger games where if you get into
Speaker 1: a good school, you're going to do great, and if
Speaker 1: you don't, you're kind of, for lack of a better term,
Speaker 1: you're screwed. Right, bad decisions. We all end up in
Speaker 1: the arms race, and you say, well, I can't parent
Speaker 1: in a vacuum. I've got to get in the mix. Right.
Speaker 1: Maybe this was maybe was born when Princeton Review was created,
Speaker 1: however many years ago. But it's impossible. Like I, I
Speaker 1: do understand the slippery slope and how you become one
Speaker 1: of those parents who bought their way into school. But
Speaker 1: it is a slippery slope. But it's also impossible to
Speaker 1: get out of the game because you do want to
Speaker 1: do what's right for your kids. We clear out all
Speaker 1: the physical obstacles for our children, so our kids have
Speaker 1: never been physically safer. But the result is we've used
Speaker 1: so many sanitary wipes on our kids lives that they
Speaker 1: aren't developing the immunities they need. And then when they
Speaker 1: get to college, we have record levels of depression and suicide.
Speaker 1: The number of emergency room admittances of teens who are
Speaker 1: self harming or attempted suicide has doubled in the last
Speaker 1: thirty six months. You combine that with the fact that
Speaker 1: these kids are now on screens more than they're on TV,
Speaker 1: and not only do they see the party that they're
Speaker 1: missing out on, they see it play out in real time.
Speaker 1: You have record levels of team depression. You know what
Speaker 1: is the biggest risk to our happiness? Stephanie? For you
Speaker 1: and me, the biggest risk to our happiness is the
Speaker 1: combination of good intentions but concierge bulldoz are parenting that
Speaker 1: you and I are probably both a little bit guilty of,
Speaker 1: and combination with Instagram and these weapons of mass destruction
Speaker 1: entrenchment by mostly teenage girls. We talk about toxic masculinity.
Speaker 1: There's something called toxic femininity playing out in high schools
Speaker 1: right now, and one of our kids gets really depressed
Speaker 1: and upset. You want our lives to be taken off track.
Speaker 1: We are facing an emerging mental health crisis in why
Speaker 1: won't we acknowledge this? Right? Mean girls, for example, exist.
Speaker 1: I see it in my personal life every day. If
Speaker 1: you look at Instagram, it's the epicenter of it. Yet
Speaker 1: it's something we're not willing to talk about. It's too
Speaker 1: offensive to talk about. Well, it goes back to this
Speaker 1: notion that I talk about genders I think embracing your
Speaker 1: gender is hugely rewarding. I think embracing your masculinity is
Speaker 1: hugely rewarding. Embracing your femininity is hugely rewarding. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you have to be a bad person. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you have to be silly or oppressive or toxic
Speaker 1: or embracing your lack of your gender neutrality if that
Speaker 1: is what makes you happy. But right now we have
Speaker 1: a conversation where you're not allowed to acknowledge the sexes
Speaker 1: are different. So, for example, boys, and this is scientifically based,
Speaker 1: bully physically and verbally. We punch each other and then
Speaker 1: call each other names and it's upsetting, but it's usually
Speaker 1: kind of over girls. Bully relationally it is really damaging
Speaker 1: to other girls. It is actually more toxic than physically,
Speaker 1: you know, holding someone down and hitting them or giving
Speaker 1: them a weggie. When you start tactically, goes more thoughtful
Speaker 1: and they're more mature. They pick a victim and they
Speaker 1: start using these nuclear weapons of mockery and self esteem
Speaker 1: destroying called Instagram. But in a conniving way. Why do
Speaker 1: you think the movie Mean Girls was Why do we
Speaker 1: think the book was written? I was it created out
Speaker 1: of nowhere, right the movie Heathers existed, So we're going
Speaker 1: to pretend that all women completely tell the truths and
Speaker 1: we're all sisters. I have, without a doubt, had more
Speaker 1: women stabbed me in the back, and by the way,
Speaker 1: I've been rough on some girls too, And right now
Speaker 1: we are unwilling to say that. First off, we have
Speaker 1: to acknowledge that the sexes are different, and that's okay,
Speaker 1: But right now you can even have a conversation that
Speaker 1: acknowledges any differences. What we haven't in high schools, though,
Speaker 1: I think it is really dangerous because we have kids
Speaker 1: who aren't developing the immunities we have. So for example,
Speaker 1: the number of teens that see their friends every day
Speaker 1: has been cut in half in ten years. So there's
Speaker 1: some good things. There's less team pregnancy, and there's less
Speaker 1: drunk driving than ever before. But the bad news is
Speaker 1: the reason kids aren't driving drunk or having sex is
Speaker 1: because their home on Instagram feeling bad about themselves. So
Speaker 1: there's a trade off here. We're going to be right
Speaker 1: back after a quick break, welcome back to modern rules.
Speaker 1: One of the dangers about our segregation of rich kids
Speaker 1: from middle class from poor kids in the school system
Speaker 1: is decreasing the amount of empathy we have for each other.
Speaker 1: I went to a public school. I had friends who
Speaker 1: are rich. I was squarely. I was part of the
Speaker 1: upper lower middle class. And then I had friends my
Speaker 1: One of my closest friends was a kid named Ronnie Drake,
Speaker 1: and African American kid whose only way to college was
Speaker 1: to get a scholarship at Lynn University in Oregon. And
Speaker 1: I think I aspired to do more because I saw
Speaker 1: my rich friends going to great universities. I think I
Speaker 1: had more empathy for Ronnie. And the problem now is
Speaker 1: we are separating everybody from everybody else. I think kids
Speaker 1: have a lack of empathy. I think their parents are
Speaker 1: clearing out all the obstacles for him and not letting
Speaker 1: them develop immunities. And then you combine that with all
Speaker 1: this screen time, and we have what is a brewing
Speaker 1: mental health crisis. And it's the biggest risk. You're in
Speaker 1: my happiness because you have your world of work, you
Speaker 1: have your world of friends, you have your world of fun,
Speaker 1: you have your world of kids. When something comes off
Speaker 1: the rails with one of your kids, and everyone hears
Speaker 1: on their Instagram thing, and then these guys have kids.
Speaker 1: I can tell you're literally your world collapses. I mean,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the work, the friends all goes
Speaker 1: away when something comes off the rails with one of
Speaker 1: your kids. But where's the balance, because in terms of
Speaker 1: helicopter parenting, on one hand, you and I had no
Speaker 1: choice but to work it out. That's my family motto
Speaker 1: at home. But now that I know my oldest son
Speaker 1: is dyslexic. And of course, when your kid gets diagnosed,
Speaker 1: then you get tested and then we realize I am
Speaker 1: but I never got diagnosed. I worked through it, and
Speaker 1: maybe working through it, maybe working it out led to
Speaker 1: my success. But I don't want my kids to struggle.
Speaker 1: So then they get the bumpers and they and then
Speaker 1: you're down a vortex of an osteopath and an occupational
Speaker 1: therapist and on time testing, and then you are putting
Speaker 1: your kid on a tiny little cloud of love and
Speaker 1: they're just waiting to get decapitated. So how do we
Speaker 1: find the right balance here? The honest answers, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think we're all trying to figure this stuff out.
Speaker 1: You said something earlier or in the beginning, when you
Speaker 1: said listen, like I know when I walk into my
Speaker 1: classroom or a meeting. I'm already in a tough spot
Speaker 1: because I'm the white guy. But here's why we keep
Speaker 1: saying that. And we're saying like, the toughest place to
Speaker 1: be is to be a white guy right now, and
Speaker 1: there's a war on men. Except and listen, you and
Speaker 1: I were on TV earlier and the seven banks cus
Speaker 1: you know, are testifying on the hill, and somebody else
Speaker 1: on air with us said, well, the seven white guys
Speaker 1: walked in, So you're right, those seven white guys have
Speaker 1: to endure people like me rolling our eyes saying, man,
Speaker 1: seven white guys running banks. But guess what, there are
Speaker 1: still seven white guys running banks. There are still almost
Speaker 1: exclusively white guys running the planet. So to me, this
Speaker 1: war on men, yes, we had a record. I'm of
Speaker 1: women win in the last selection, but look at the data.
Speaker 1: We're not taking over anything would still make less money.
Speaker 1: That's like what Chris Rock said that if you actually
Speaker 1: gave white men the power to change their gender and
Speaker 1: their race, they would probably decide to just ride this
Speaker 1: whole white guy thing out. You credit your character and
Speaker 1: your hard work for your success, and then you credit
Speaker 1: the market for your failures, and I constantly try and
Speaker 1: virtue signal talking about the fact I was raised by
Speaker 1: a single immigrant mother. But as a white male, you
Speaker 1: don't realize, as white heterosexual amounts just how many small
Speaker 1: advantages you're given every day. What I was referring to
Speaker 1: is in the conversation around me too, or anything like this,
Speaker 1: you have a lack of credibility, and I think there's
Speaker 1: a certain assumption that you're just sort of a little
Speaker 1: bit guilty that just by virtue of being a white
Speaker 1: heterosexual male, you're probably one of the perpetrators on some level,
Speaker 1: even if it's unwitting. So I agree with you, and
Speaker 1: of instances, you know, white male privilege is still there.
Speaker 1: I do think it's getting better, and it's getting better
Speaker 1: for the right reasons. You know. It is a great
Speaker 1: leveler as competition. One of the reasons the Americans beat
Speaker 1: the access p hours was we brought women into the workforce,
Speaker 1: and we kind of never turned back. When Americans wanted
Speaker 1: to maintain their standard of living, women went into the workforce.
Speaker 1: We no longer have the luxury of as much discrimination
Speaker 1: as we used to because you go out of business.
Speaker 1: So competition in America, the desire to be more competitive,
Speaker 1: the desire to have a great firm. We no longer
Speaker 1: have the luxury of saying, but Bob played lacrosse at Princeton.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, you know what, Susie is just better
Speaker 1: than Bob, right, so we're gonna promote Susie. And the
Speaker 1: weird thing that's happening. What I see is there's a
Speaker 1: lot of men in their thirties and forties in my
Speaker 1: generation that feel that we're sort of have this birthright
Speaker 1: to being promoted because we have outdoor plumbing, and we're white,
Speaker 1: and and there's this crisis of okay, finding the realizy
Speaker 1: you know what, that doesn't cut it anymore. It just
Speaker 1: doesn't cut it anymore. And there's a lot of self
Speaker 1: loathing and anger. But the reality is it's overdue, and
Speaker 1: the great equalizer here has been competition. I think it's
Speaker 1: a good thing. I think capitalism works. I think ultimately
Speaker 1: our desire to win starts starching out the luxury of bigotry.
Speaker 1: And I think things are headed largely in the right direction.
Speaker 1: Other than the aberration of the last thirty months things,
Speaker 1: I think on the whole, you know, the arc of
Speaker 1: justice is curved, but it does bend towards justice. I
Speaker 1: do think we're headed in the right direction. We unpacked
Speaker 1: a lot in that conversation, but what I really took
Speaker 1: away from Scott is that every issue we're covering today
Speaker 1: that we think is monumental never before, well, guess what,
Speaker 1: it's not new. There are years and years of nuance
Speaker 1: and social advancement and struggle by every one of these
Speaker 1: matters we deal with today, and perhaps the things you
Speaker 1: are not supposed to say out loud, if you say them,
Speaker 1: you realize that other people are thinking are dealing with
Speaker 1: the same thing. Thank you for listening to today's bonus episode,
Speaker 1: and thank you for bringing an open mind and helping
Speaker 1: us create what are hopefully modern rules. That's it for
Speaker 1: today's episode. I'm your host, Stephanie Rule. A very very
Speaker 1: special thanks to the extraordinary people who made this happen.
Speaker 1: My producers Julie Brown, Samantha Ullen and Anne Bark, Audio,
Speaker 1: Michael Batt for booking and wrangling, the amazing guests who
Speaker 1: joined us, Julian Weller for editing and bill plaques, Michael
Speaker 1: Azar and Jacobo Penzo for their recording expertise. Special thanks
Speaker 1: to Steve lick Tag, Barbara Rab, Jonathan Wald, Marie Dugo,
Speaker 1: Holly traz Nikki Etre and Christina Everett are Executive producers
Speaker 1: are Conald Byrne and Mangesh Hatigador, And of course, the
Speaker 1: men who brought us all together, Chairman and CEO of
Speaker 1: I Heart Media Bob Pittman and Chairman of NBC News
Speaker 1: Andy Lack. For more podcasts for my Heart Radio, visit
Speaker 1: the i Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to your favorite shows