Speaker 1: Flex and Frooms, Flex and Frooms.
Speaker 2: This is the Flex and Frooms catch up podcast today.
Speaker 1: I'm very excited to have our guest on the show.
Speaker 2: As we say before every interview with a guest, we
Speaker 2: don't often invite third voices onto the show, mainly because
Speaker 2: we do like the sound of our own voices and
Speaker 2: we're not afraid to admit it. But today, correct, we
Speaker 2: have an Australian icon, a thought leader, a pioneer in
Speaker 2: the field of feminist theory in this country. She's written
Speaker 2: three books plus another one that we're going to be
Speaker 2: talking about today.
Speaker 1: They are best sellers.
Speaker 2: She's a broadcaster and hosts of her own podcast, Dear Clementine.
Speaker 2: We have given away who it is right now and
Speaker 2: she's here today to tell us about her latest book,
Speaker 2: I Don't The Case Against Marriage.
Speaker 1: It is Clementine Ford.
Speaker 3: Hi, Hello, Well, thank you both for having me. I
Speaker 3: am massive fans of yours. I feel like you are
Speaker 3: both so cool. I often have your things pop up
Speaker 3: on my Instagram feed and I'm like, fuck, I wish
Speaker 3: I had been like even half as cool as you both.
Speaker 2: It's giving new cover letter for my resume, endorsed to
Speaker 2: my Clementine I got my mittens on your new book, Clementine,
Speaker 2: and I took it straight down to Melbourne where my
Speaker 2: parents live, and I gave it to my mum and
Speaker 2: she spent three hours next to me looking through your
Speaker 2: whole Instagram. So you have a brand new fan in
Speaker 2: hell Rooms, the namesake of.
Speaker 1: Free kay Hi frames as mum, she will love that.
Speaker 2: Look, we're going to get straight to your book. Can
Speaker 2: you please give us the elevated pitch for what your
Speaker 2: book is.
Speaker 3: I feel like the best elevator pitch for this book
Speaker 3: is the tagline on the cover, which I was so
Speaker 3: proud of when I came up with it, which is
Speaker 3: a news story about an old lie. And the thing
Speaker 3: about marriage is that it feels to people like it's
Speaker 3: this very long standing traditional thing that has gone through
Speaker 3: like some changes here and there, just as history has
Speaker 3: kind of evolved, but that essentially has always been this
Speaker 3: institution where people find someone who they love and they
Speaker 3: marry their best friend. And yes, we sort of know
Speaker 3: that women in history didn't really have any options or rights,
Speaker 3: but we kind of don't really know maybe exactly how
Speaker 3: deep that round or what that really looked like enough
Speaker 3: to the point where we are able to now in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty three, gloss over the incredible depth of oppressive history,
Speaker 3: specifically in regards to women where marriage is concerned, and
Speaker 3: just see it as being this culmination of some kind
Speaker 3: of life goal where you luckily find the person you're
Speaker 3: meant to spend the rest of your life with and
Speaker 3: have a great, big party together. I think what I
Speaker 3: really want people to understand about that is that that's
Speaker 3: not by accident. That is very much deliberate design. And
Speaker 3: it's not like there's big marriage that's out there sitting
Speaker 3: in a boardroom saying, well, how can we get people
Speaker 3: to keep buying into marriage? Marriage, like anything in the
Speaker 3: system that we live in, is a function of propping
Speaker 3: up oppressive systems like capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy. And
Speaker 3: when I say the latter part about white supremacy, obviously
Speaker 3: I'm not saying it's only white people who get married
Speaker 3: that there aren't cultural differences. This book is very much
Speaker 3: looking at a Western cultural history of marriage. There are
Speaker 3: lots of historical aspects that still continue today that appeal to,
Speaker 3: in particular middle class white women's conformity to the system. Basically,
Speaker 3: so you get status, you get class status, you get
Speaker 3: social status, and you get economic status from marrying. What
Speaker 3: do all of those things inherently in the world that
Speaker 3: we live in, as we understand, what do they all
Speaker 3: prop up. It's capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy. So if
Speaker 3: you're a white middle class woman who is closer to
Speaker 3: being at the top of the pile of those things
Speaker 3: than the more marginalized people in the world, and you
Speaker 3: are being appealed to to do the one thing that
Speaker 3: kind of co signs all of that, it's a function
Speaker 3: of white supremacy to provide like a little enclave for
Speaker 3: you to kind of be superior to everybody else. And
Speaker 3: now I want to be really clear to your listeners,
Speaker 3: particularly the married ones who maybe are white middle class women,
Speaker 3: that I'm not saying you're a cross burning white supremacist
Speaker 3: because went and got married. We all have to become
Speaker 3: a lot better, I think at being aware that our
Speaker 3: complicity and systems is very often unconscious and insidiously demanded
Speaker 3: of us. Marriage is a historical premise. For many thousands
Speaker 3: of years, was a system in which women had no
Speaker 3: choice and no rights. We just married who we were
Speaker 3: told because it wasn't about love. We can think of
Speaker 3: marriage now as being about this thing where you know, again,
Speaker 3: like we find our soulmate and get married and it's
Speaker 3: all very romantic. But for most of human history marriage
Speaker 3: was about and really marriage was just like a community
Speaker 3: kind of bringing together of two groups of people. It
Speaker 3: was about kinship building, it was about empire building, and
Speaker 3: it was about economics and safety of the group. How
Speaker 3: we still get women to buy into it now, to
Speaker 3: continue to support, essentially like systems that aren't good for us,
Speaker 3: is to make us believe that without it we are
Speaker 3: not maybe not nothing that might be like too big
Speaker 3: a step for some people, but that we were just
Speaker 3: kind of It's like living our lives in muted color.
Speaker 3: You know that until we find the one, we'll never
Speaker 3: really know what it's like to be picked, you know,
Speaker 3: to be truly happy. In the same way that women
Speaker 3: are often told unless you have a baby, you'll never
Speaker 3: know what it's like to feel real love. It's like
Speaker 3: all of those things and all that perpetuation of women's
Speaker 3: role as being just peripheral to other people's role. Like
Speaker 3: we play the wives, we play the mothers. Everything that
Speaker 3: is required of us is some kind of sacrifice of
Speaker 3: our own adventure, our own autonomy, our own subjectivity, all
Speaker 3: of that is codified by this idea that unless we
Speaker 3: find the person to get married to and are able
Speaker 3: to stand up in front of our friends and family
Speaker 3: and say I do, that we've missed out on something integral.
Speaker 3: And I'll just close that off by saying that, you know,
Speaker 3: I quote Adrienne Rich in the book, who was a
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies feminist, lesbian poet and liberationist, who said that
Speaker 3: heterosexual romance has been presented as women's great adventure, and
Speaker 3: if nothing else, I would ask your listeners to think
Speaker 3: about that and how true that maybe in their own,
Speaker 3: in their own experience of growing up that boys and men,
Speaker 3: as I said in Fight Like a Girl, they're taught
Speaker 3: to like unfurl into the world and to go out
Speaker 3: and take over the world and conquer the world because
Speaker 3: it's all colonial as well, and to discover things, to explore,
Speaker 3: things to go to space, to like be pirates and
Speaker 3: mountain climbers, et cetera, et cetera. And women are the
Speaker 3: ones who are expected to be happy with standing on
Speaker 3: the cliff top or in the tower or on the turret,
Speaker 3: waiting to see their ship on the horizon for them
Speaker 3: to come home. That's our great adventure. And I just
Speaker 3: want women to have a better and bigger dream for themselves.
Speaker 1: I feel I liked how you wrote.
Speaker 2: I can't remember exactly how you said it, but maybe
Speaker 2: it was like on the back of the book about
Speaker 2: how it was kind of like a message from the
Speaker 2: women that came before us and for the women after us. Oh,
Speaker 2: that was really beautiful and kind of like a nice,
Speaker 2: nice way to frame it. In the book, there was
Speaker 2: a point where you talked about how in your twenties
Speaker 2: you wanted to take the name of your ex boyfriend.
Speaker 2: You then concluded, and this is a quote from the book,
Speaker 2: romance propaganda can impact us all, it seems, even those
Speaker 2: of us who've sworn off marriage. And I want to know,
Speaker 2: in your research into romance propaganda, what did you find
Speaker 2: the most bizarre.
Speaker 3: Well, firstly, I'll just say how embarrassing for me is okay,
Speaker 3: but I'm really glad that he told me before I
Speaker 3: released the book, so it wasn't like, you know, a
Speaker 3: huge humiliation. After the fact, I had genuinely blanked it
Speaker 3: out of my mind. I had completely forgotten that this
Speaker 3: had taken place. I mean, that's the thing is, I
Speaker 3: was in my twenties. I didn't really have a particular
Speaker 3: desire to get married, but I was in love and
Speaker 3: we did, separately to this sort of marriage question. We
Speaker 3: had a really beautiful love affair for people in their twenties.
Speaker 3: It was tumultuous, it was passionate. It was the deepest
Speaker 3: love that anyone had ever felt in their entire lives,
Speaker 3: you know. And we hurt each other and we got
Speaker 3: back together and it was I mean, it was wonderful.
Speaker 3: It was like a great movie that would star Joseph
Speaker 3: Gordon Levitt and Zoey Deschanel or something like that, you know,
Speaker 3: but not quite as bad as Five Hundred Days of Summer.
Speaker 3: And it was meant to stay in our twenties. And
Speaker 3: I'm so glad that I didn't foolishly go off and
Speaker 3: marry him thinking that it would be romantic because of
Speaker 3: the subjection that I, along with everyone else, has to
Speaker 3: this romance propaganda by way of Disney movies like Growing
Speaker 3: Up with fairy Tale Princess narratives, which in the book
Speaker 3: I sort of point out. My theory is that Disney
Speaker 3: released their first three Princess movies in the late thirties
Speaker 3: and then the two in the fifties, and I feel
Speaker 3: like they were very deliberate societal responses to women's suffrage
Speaker 3: and the advancement at least for a certain class of
Speaker 3: women of political freedom. And the fact of course that
Speaker 3: after World War Two, a lot of returning soldiers came
Speaker 3: home to find out that women were doing jobs without them,
Speaker 3: like pretty well, you know, so they needed to kind
Speaker 3: of convince women of a particular class again to get
Speaker 3: back into the home.
Speaker 1: When people kind.
Speaker 3: Of glamorize the nineteen fifties as being this era in
Speaker 3: which women were so much happier because they were at
Speaker 3: home with the children and men went out to work,
Speaker 3: and there's a very particular kind of man who I'm
Speaker 3: sure your listeners has had the misfortune of speaking to
Speaker 3: at the pub, who believes that deeply. It's really important
Speaker 3: to know that not only was that not true for
Speaker 3: the women who were in that circumstance, like, for example,
Speaker 3: valium very quickly became the most prescribed drug in America
Speaker 3: in the nineteen sixties, but that also older married women
Speaker 3: were the fastest growing group of employed people in the
Speaker 3: nineteen fifties because they were doing all of the jobs
Speaker 3: that men thought were beneath them, like the sort of
Speaker 3: middle class like clerical work, secretarial work, etc. But for
Speaker 3: a whole swathe of women on the bottom levels of
Speaker 3: society and on the margins, the ones who people didn't
Speaker 3: advocate for to stay at home and be quote unquote
Speaker 3: kept women. There was no such thing as the traditional
Speaker 3: marriage where they stayed at home, and they propped up
Speaker 3: this very conservative, again white supremacist idea of the middle
Speaker 3: class white family in suburbia because they were out doing
Speaker 3: all of the grunt work as they always had done.
Speaker 3: Women have always worked, and marginalized women, women of color,
Speaker 3: single mothers, they have always worked, and no one has
Speaker 3: advocated for their freedom to stay at home and raise
Speaker 3: children in economically secure environments, because without them doing all
Speaker 3: of that unappreciated class based labor, how would the world
Speaker 3: actually run and function. It was a conservative failed project
Speaker 3: that lasted for about fifteen years because the economic reality
Speaker 3: is that the system that we live in does not
Speaker 3: want people not working. And the same people now who
Speaker 3: are calling for us to return to that, you know,
Speaker 3: like the Fox News pundits, they're the same people who
Speaker 3: don't want to tax billionaires, So where's the money coming from.
Speaker 3: It's actually just all an illusion to try and keep
Speaker 3: women suppressed. The romantic fictions and mythologies that we're presented with.
Speaker 3: I liken them to like going to the casino. You
Speaker 3: know that the house always wins, right, the house is
Speaker 3: designed to win, it's designed the casino to benefit and
Speaker 3: profit itself. But there are just enough successful stories around
Speaker 3: the place to make you think that maybe you could
Speaker 3: be one of them. You saw that person putting in
Speaker 3: two dollar coins into the pokey machine and whoa lo
Speaker 3: and behold they got twenty thousand dollars spout right out
Speaker 3: to them. So what if that were you? And so
Speaker 3: you start putting it in, and you're like, I'll just
Speaker 3: keep going on another date. I'll just keep looking. Finally
Speaker 3: you're like fifty dollars into the pokey machine, and you're like, well,
Speaker 3: I can't give up now, because put fifty bucks in. Like,
Speaker 3: I've got to keep putting my money in the hopes
Speaker 3: that somehow I am the lucky winner.
Speaker 1: And for a lot of.
Speaker 3: Women in particular, especially those who have to do the
Speaker 3: majority of the world's unpaid labor, that kind of is
Speaker 3: what marriage ends up being.
Speaker 2: Like.
Speaker 3: They think when they walk down the aisle on their
Speaker 3: wedding day to marry their best friend, that they are
Speaker 3: putting the one coin into the pokey machine that's going
Speaker 3: to spit out a red letter day. But what they
Speaker 3: find is that maybe for the rest of their life,
Speaker 3: they're just still putting those coins in, and they're stuck
Speaker 3: because they've sunk so much into it now that they
Speaker 3: feel like there's no way out.
Speaker 4: It's ironic. We were just talking about this concept called
Speaker 4: the prestige trap, and this idea that there's all this
Speaker 4: marketing and proper and pr for all of these particularly
Speaker 4: or hypothetically or proposed prestigious roles like a wife or
Speaker 4: a partner, or a business owner or a lawyer or whatever.
Speaker 4: And the idea is that if it was so good,
Speaker 4: would it need all of this pr Would it need
Speaker 4: all this propaganda? Would it need everyone to be like
Speaker 4: giving you all this additional messaging from every angle to
Speaker 4: make you bypass the party of your says, Oh, I
Speaker 4: don't know if this is quite right to do it anyway.
Speaker 2: Now, this brings me to the spinster or the cat
Speaker 2: lady segment.
Speaker 1: I guess of your book, which I loved.
Speaker 2: I want to talk about that idea when you're approaching thirty,
Speaker 2: Like I'm I'm twenty eight, approaching thirty, and they're the
Speaker 2: conversation with.
Speaker 3: My friend hands.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Oh my god, damn.
Speaker 2: The way Saturn has returned to so heavily this year
Speaker 2: is very exciting.
Speaker 4: In your sertain return.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yes, I am. Oh my god, weird.
Speaker 3: Getting ready for it?
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, having up.
Speaker 1: What's gonna happen next?
Speaker 2: I've been watching recently, like as part of my research
Speaker 2: for my book, I've been going back and watching early
Speaker 2: two thousands movie these particularly things like Bridget Jones, And
Speaker 2: I've noticed that these very specific kind of like pop
Speaker 2: culture references like Bridget Jones have had an effect on
Speaker 2: me that maybe I hadn't really like fully reconciled. I guess,
Speaker 2: as much as I intellectually know that that is like
Speaker 2: a hyped up, unfair version of events for a woman
Speaker 2: who's in their thirties, how do you kind of reconcile
Speaker 2: the feeling that you're going to be forever alone?
Speaker 3: So the first thing I'll say is that you're not
Speaker 3: going to be alone forever. I just feel the need
Speaker 3: to reassure you of that, and no one listening to
Speaker 3: this is going to be alone forever because probably you've
Speaker 3: got beautiful platonic friendships, right, You've got family members, you
Speaker 3: have pets, you have things that you love and care
Speaker 3: about the idea that women especially it's usually targeted at women.
Speaker 3: Even the men are the ones who really suffer the
Speaker 3: dread loneliness of being old and alone because they don't
Speaker 3: have the same encouragement under patriarchal sism to go out
Speaker 3: and develop those friendships with each other. I do think
Speaker 3: it's changing with younger generations of men, and I think
Speaker 3: that's really As the mother of a boy, I find
Speaker 3: that really encouraging to see. But you know, if you
Speaker 3: look at men of our father's generation, your father's generation,
Speaker 3: my father's generation, women fulfill the roles of taking care
Speaker 3: of men's emotional spectrums, and within that that can feel
Speaker 3: incredibly lonely. It's a useful exercise, I think, to flip
Speaker 3: not only that, the idea of having a romantic relationship,
Speaker 3: which is not always a partnership. You know, people use
Speaker 3: the word partners and they're describing people who treat them
Speaker 3: like unpaid servants. You know, when people say things like, oh, oh,
Speaker 3: I need a wife. I think I make this joke
Speaker 3: in the book, I need a wife, that's what I need.
Speaker 3: Even when women say this I need a wife, what
Speaker 3: they mean is I need an unpaid servant. And that
Speaker 3: kind of tells you everything that we need to know
Speaker 3: about how people perceive of a wife. When they say
Speaker 3: I need a husband, they don't mean I need someone
Speaker 3: who's going to do all of my laundry for me.
Speaker 3: They mean a woman to do all of that for them.
Speaker 3: So the loneliness that women can feel within that relationship
Speaker 3: archetype and within that structure is deeply profound, and actually
Speaker 3: for most women as they age, I think they find
Speaker 3: their deepest connections outside of that. So you're not going
Speaker 3: to be alone. But it's interesting that you mentioned Bridget
Speaker 3: Jones as well, because Bridget Jones, you may or may
Speaker 3: not know, this is a modern day retelling of pride
Speaker 3: and prejudice. And Pride and Prejudice was written in the
Speaker 3: Elizabethan era Regency England, and it coincided with a period
Speaker 3: of time which I write about in the book, where
Speaker 3: the term spinster began to be used as a pejorative
Speaker 3: term for the first time in the history of Spencer's
Speaker 3: like Spinster's as a job had existed for three or
Speaker 3: four hundred years, you know, the culture that they lived
Speaker 3: and decided that spinster was an insult. And the reason
Speaker 3: that Spinster became an insult was the exact same backlash
Speaker 3: that women today experience when men and the dominant structures
Speaker 3: that they live in decide that women are not doing
Speaker 3: their duty, decide that women are not performing their role
Speaker 3: as we are supposed to, which was that at this
Speaker 3: point of time and history in the UK, in particular,
Speaker 3: the Industrial Revolution established a middle class, an economic middle
Speaker 3: class of people, and what that meant was that some
Speaker 3: women had money, and they had they didn't have a
Speaker 3: lot of money necessarily, but if they inherited money from there,
Speaker 3: say they had intergeneral, intergenerational wealth, and they inherited it.
Speaker 3: The law of curviture, which was the legal doctrine at
Speaker 3: the time, that said that they were under the banner
Speaker 3: of authority of their father until they got married, in
Speaker 3: which point they became under the banner of authority of
Speaker 3: their husband and he would get access to everything that
Speaker 3: she had. So if you were a wealthy woman in
Speaker 3: seventeen fifty and you inherited, you know, the equivalent of
Speaker 3: like a fifty thousand dollars a year kind of stipend,
Speaker 3: and you married John, who you thought was cute or whatever.
Speaker 3: John suddenly owned or fifty thousand dollars, You don't own
Speaker 3: it and he can do anything he likes with it
Speaker 3: because everything you have belongs to him. So naturally, being
Speaker 3: like women of the world, we can understand that there
Speaker 3: are a lot of women in that time period who
Speaker 3: were like that noise. I'm not doing that. I'm not
Speaker 3: going to give up my identity and I'm not going
Speaker 3: to give up my money, and I'm not going to
Speaker 3: do it so that I also have to give up
Speaker 3: my bodily rights, because conjugal rights as well dictated that
Speaker 3: husbands had access to their wives bodies, and that that's
Speaker 3: the law that didn't. The last place in Australia that
Speaker 3: overturned conjugal rights, which meant that you couldn't prosecute your
Speaker 3: husband for raping you in marriage was the Northern Territory
Speaker 3: in nineteen ninety one, which is as old as ed Cheran.
Speaker 3: That's crazy to think about that, you know, and to
Speaker 3: use another Hollywood person as an example. Women in this
Speaker 3: country weren't able to get a bank account by themselves
Speaker 3: without a male signatory until nineteen seventy five, which is
Speaker 3: twice that's two of Leonardo DiCaprio's girlfriends, you know, that
Speaker 3: is he was born in nineteen seventy four, Like that
Speaker 3: is still it's not that old. So all of these
Speaker 3: women who were you know back in the seventeen hundreds
Speaker 3: who were like, I'm not doing this. I'm going to
Speaker 3: stay single and I'm going to manage my own money. Basically,
Speaker 3: there were two risks to that, and the first was
Speaker 3: that they you know, women weren't counted on the civilister registers,
Speaker 3: but if they were taxpayers, they could be counted on
Speaker 3: the civil registers. So the people who kind of controlled
Speaker 3: society were like, well, we don't want that to happen
Speaker 3: because that will pave the way for women to get
Speaker 3: more rights and that is not in our best interest.
Speaker 3: The other thing was that Britain was expanding its colonialist
Speaker 3: like imperialist campaigns across the globe. You know, it was
Speaker 3: sending armies out to oppress and dominate, you know, the
Speaker 3: global South. And what they needed for that was women
Speaker 3: to have babies. For Britain to be able to expand
Speaker 3: its colonialist empire. They needed bodies. They needed bodies to
Speaker 3: be working in the factories, and they needed bodies to
Speaker 3: be manning the military. And women who were abstaining marriage
Speaker 3: weren't doing their duty to king and country. And so
Speaker 3: how do you make women who have their own money,
Speaker 3: who don't rely on men for financial support, how do
Speaker 3: you make them feel bad about their choices? How do
Speaker 3: you compel them to sign up to this institution that
Speaker 3: is against their best interests in exactly the same way
Speaker 3: that the descendants of those men are doing it now
Speaker 3: through memes. I mean they were cartoon memes. They weren't
Speaker 3: shed on the Internet, but they were ridiculing, mocking, disrespectful,
Speaker 3: you know, really like disparaging representations of women that signified
Speaker 3: some kind of moral depravity and also esthetic depravity and
Speaker 3: valuelessness in the women who abstained from marriage. It wasn't
Speaker 3: that they were independent women taking care of themselves. It
Speaker 3: was that they were ugly. It was that they were depraved.
Speaker 3: It was that they, you know, they had too many cats,
Speaker 3: like the cat lady trope is pretty old. So to
Speaker 3: look at all of that history and to say to
Speaker 3: women now when you sit there and you say I'm
Speaker 3: worried about being alone forever. Again, you're not going to
Speaker 3: be alone forever, but also understand that you have been
Speaker 3: made to fear being alone forever by a system that
Speaker 3: wants you to not see the value in your own
Speaker 3: independence and in your own agency and autonomy, and that
Speaker 3: doesn't want you to have your own money, doesn't want
Speaker 3: you to look after yourself. If women are all out there,
Speaker 3: if more and more women start looking after themselves, who's
Speaker 3: going to look after the men? And that's not just
Speaker 3: kind of like a critique of men's inability to care
Speaker 3: for themselves or like a laziness, although that is true,
Speaker 3: but to kind of again look at systems. How does
Speaker 3: capitalism support itself without the labor of the working class,
Speaker 3: And how are men oppressed within that system because they've
Speaker 3: also been conditioned and brought into this lie that's somehow
Speaker 3: like there's a nobility in being what they like to
Speaker 3: think of as as the builders of the world. We
Speaker 3: built the world, so you have to do everything. Even
Speaker 3: if we assume that you're correct and you did build
Speaker 3: the world literally with your own bare hands, you didn't
Speaker 3: build it for me. You didn't build it. They didn't
Speaker 3: build it for you, They didn't build it for anyone
Speaker 3: listening to this. They built it for men who were
Speaker 3: more powerful than them, and you had more money than them,
Speaker 3: and they built it for aristocracies and kings and states.
Speaker 3: So how do you make them keep signing up to
Speaker 3: them up to it? You tell them that you are
Speaker 3: the masters of the universe, and you have all of
Speaker 3: these women and children to own for your own pleasure.
Speaker 3: And that's what proves it, because if you weren't the
Speaker 3: masters of the universe, then you wouldn't have them. And
Speaker 3: so when women withdraw themselves from that system and say no,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to be a part of that, they're like, well,
Speaker 3: I was promised that, and if you won't do it,
Speaker 3: then I have to confront some really uncomfortable truths about
Speaker 3: the system that I live in. And that's too hard
Speaker 3: for me because the thing I'm maybe afraid of most
Speaker 3: is a man is making other men mad at me.
Speaker 2: Listen, Clementon, it's been so amazing to speak to you.
Speaker 2: I feel like everybody needs to go and read your book.
Speaker 2: It's called I Don't the case, not just a case,
Speaker 2: the definitive case.
Speaker 3: Is that case.
Speaker 2: It's been such a pleasure to hut to you today.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Oh, it's just been great to talk to you both.
Speaker 3: You know, as I said, I'm huge fans and I
Speaker 3: have met Flex before and I can't wait to see
Speaker 3: you again. Flex, and I'm looking forward to the day
Speaker 3: that I meet you Firms and yeah, and let me
Speaker 3: take you both out to dinner sometime and like mother you, I.
Speaker 1: Would love that.
Speaker 3: With love, give me that you've been listening to the
Speaker 3: Flex and Firms Daily podcast. For more, tune Indicator on
Speaker 3: DAB or stream it on iHeartRadio.