S21.E09: David Sedaris; Scott Galloway; Annie Lowrey

[tessaray]

Air Date: March 24, 2023

Bill’s guests are David Sedaris, Scott Galloway, and Annie Lowrey. 

[aghst]

No way Bill is going to be sympathetic to TikTok but there's no evidence that it's any worse than FB, Twitter or IG.

And no evidence that they're sending data to the Chinese govt. or that the Chinese Communist Party is sending propaganda there.  Sure there may be POVs about income/wealth disparity in the US or other problems we have but you can get such information and POVs on EVERY social media and non social media.  It's all over the place online and if you go buy a real newspaper, there may be articles critical of the US in some ways.

That is free speech, a right we supposedly have.

Republicans are definitely more hardcore about banning TikTok because guess what, the young people on TikTok and other social media are generally more supportive of Democratic or progressive policies and politicians, not because they're necessarily great but because Republicans have been so awful, diving all in to Qanon and MAGA nonsense for years now.

FB has funded GOP figures to write op-eds vs. TikTok because they're having difficulties competing.

Democrats are saying they can sell to American investors and if not, then we may ban TikTok while Republicans have gone immediately to Defcon 10.

Bill said "come on, you know the CCP is doing something on TikTok" but no such evidence exists.

And BTW, if pelicans don't want the Chinese to get personal data from Americans, they better crack down on data brokers, who collect data online and sell it freely to all bidders.

Or for that matter, there have been various draft legislation to regulate data protection, something that the EU and some states like CA has done.  But in the divided Congress, nothing gets done.

Annie Lowrey seemed to be wanting to make some of these points but Galloway and Bill spoke over her.

 

Then Galloway talked again about young men who don't get dates because they're not the most attractive and why more people are single or aren't having children, which is a danger.  It's amazing that they were talking about lack of population growth in the context of climate change and the newest IPCC report out of the UN.

Population growth is at the crux of the problem with climate change.  More people, especially as they gain wealth, are trying to mimic American lifestyles -- heavy meat consumption, personal car ownership, climatized environments, etc.  These are all which have huge carbon footprint impacts.

We talk about sustainability in the context of climate change.  But Galloway thinks economy will stagnate unless we're having more babies, bigger families.  But maybe economic growth isn't the be-all end-all.

Lowrey did manage to point out that we've done a lot through mitigation to lower overall emissions while Bill said in response to Annie's suggestion that he go vegan that he won't even fly commercial.  Maybe then he should STFU and stop feigning concern about climate change.

As for the big divide between males and females getting college education, Galloway blames the school system for not getting boys more into school.  No that's the fault of the parents who spoil boys and emphasize the wrong things to them like sports or just partying instead of books.  Girls are thriving within the same education system, working to get the best grades and getting into college.

Young teen males are more into instant gratification and seem content to get low-skill jobs right out of high school rather than go through the grind to get into college and work even more once in college.

They can be financially successful in fields like construction, if they become more skilled in trades like becoming electricians or plumbers, because there's greater demand than supply for those skills.  They may open their own businesses and make a lot of money.

But will their female peers, who graduate college, maybe even graduate grad school and get established in white-collar jobs, be interested in dating men who didn't go to college, no matter how successful they may be?

That may become a growing reason why more people remain single, not because certain men aren't home enough on dating apps as Galloway alleges.

 

 

 

[RealHousewife]

Bill also said much less men under 30 were married compared to women. How many young men even want to get married? (Bill himself has always said marriage didn't appeal to him at all.) I wasn't one of them, but aren't there way more young women who can't wait to meet their partner than there are young men? 

I don't think it's only because women want someone more established to marry, but older men are often more ready themselves to settle down, and men tend to prefer younger women. So those stats aren't shocking. 

[Pike Ludwell]

So Bill thought it extremely important to argue Stormy Daniels was not a prostitute?? Good God, Trump paid for a sexual encounter with her. This can't have been her first such thing. It is quite justifiable to argue she was a prostitute for wealthy men.

I think he got those particular panelists because he knew they'd support his goofball argument that Trump should not be indicted by the NY DA.

Seems like Bill used to differentiate himself from Dems on particular issues on reasonable grounds. Now it seems like he's moving away from (at least trying to be) being a rational independent to being irrational repub leaning, for irrational reasons.

On other things he's irrational too, like the status of young men in America, he takes isolated incidents and greatly overgeneralizes them (men wear shorts on dates these days!!!) . Or kids in America- they're terrible these days because he's seen it on TV shows or movies!!! He's definitely losing it though he's still able to portray an image of a rational man, on the surface.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Pike Ludwell

[Hedgehog2022]

12 hours ago, aghst said:

No way Bill is going to be sympathetic to TikTok but there's no evidence that it's any worse than FB, Twitter or IG.

And no evidence that they're sending data to the Chinese govt. or that the Chinese Communist Party is sending propaganda there.  Sure there may be POVs about income/wealth disparity in the US or other problems we have but you can get such information and POVs on EVERY social media and non social media.  It's all over the place online and if you go buy a real newspaper, there may be articles critical of the US in some ways.

That is free speech, a right we supposedly have.

Republicans are definitely more hardcore about banning TikTok because guess what, the young people on TikTok and other social media are generally more supportive of Democratic or progressive policies and politicians, not because they're necessarily great but because Republicans have been so awful, diving all in to Qanon and MAGA nonsense for years now.

FB has funded GOP figures to write op-eds vs. TikTok because they're having difficulties competing.

Democrats are saying they can sell to American investors and if not, then we may ban TikTok while Republicans have gone immediately to Defcon 10.

Bill said "come on, you know the CCP is doing something on TikTok" but no such evidence exists.

And BTW, if pelicans don't want the Chinese to get personal data from Americans, they better crack down on data brokers, who collect data online and sell it freely to all bidders.

Or for that matter, there have been various draft legislation to regulate data protection, something that the EU and some states like CA has done.  But in the divided Congress, nothing gets done.

Annie Lowrey seemed to be wanting to make some of these points but Galloway and Bill spoke over her.

 

Then Galloway talked again about young men who don't get dates because they're not the most attractive and why more people are single or aren't having children, which is a danger.  It's amazing that they were talking about lack of population growth in the context of climate change and the newest IPCC report out of the UN.

Population growth is at the crux of the problem with climate change.  More people, especially as they gain wealth, are trying to mimic American lifestyles -- heavy meat consumption, personal car ownership, climatized environments, etc.  These are all which have huge carbon footprint impacts.

We talk about sustainability in the context of climate change.  But Galloway thinks economy will stagnate unless we're having more babies, bigger families.  But maybe economic growth isn't the be-all end-all.

Lowrey did manage to point out that we've done a lot through mitigation to lower overall emissions while Bill said in response to Annie's suggestion that he go vegan that he won't even fly commercial.  Maybe then he should STFU and stop feigning concern about climate change.

As for the big divide between males and females getting college education, Galloway blames the school system for not getting boys more into school.  No that's the fault of the parents who spoil boys and emphasize the wrong things to them like sports or just partying instead of books.  Girls are thriving within the same education system, working to get the best grades and getting into college.

Young teen males are more into instant gratification and seem content to get low-skill jobs right out of high school rather than go through the grind to get into college and work even more once in college.

They can be financially successful in fields like construction, if they become more skilled in trades like becoming electricians or plumbers, because there's greater demand than supply for those skills.  They may open their own businesses and make a lot of money.

But will their female peers, who graduate college, maybe even graduate grad school and get established in white-collar jobs, be interested in dating men who didn't go to college, no matter how successful they may be?

That may become a growing reason why more people remain single, not because certain men aren't home enough on dating apps as Galloway alleges.

 

 

 

Galloway is an asshat. I'm not a researcher but I can tell you that the trend towards young women moving on after college to post graduate degrees is continually growing. Our veternarian practice now has all female veternarians where as 25 years ago when we started going there with our pets it was mostly male with only two female vets. Likewise for our General Practice physicians group. More than half the doctors there are female...same for the pediatric group our grandson goes to. The medical schools, dental schools, veternarian schools, graduate business schools and law schools are becoming female dominant. I'm not quite sure why young men aren't interested in a post graduate degree or pursuing a career in the sciences or other fields that require a Master's degree or Doctoral degree...what I can say is that the trend for young men who are graduating from college seems to be in sales, marketing, real estate or managerial type positions. I think that the lure of making money right out of college without having to go to graduate school is probably the reason. And for some it seems to be the case. I have friends whose sons are realtors after getting their realtors liscence after college and really cleaned up last winter/early spring when the market was crazy and sales were through the roof.

I think it's ridiculous to blame parents for "spoiling" their sons and encouraging them to be jocks. I did not see that in my kids high school social circles...what I saw were boys that wanted to be on a sports team as well as the honor roll. Almost every boy that graduated with my kids applied to and went to college...and graduated from college. What they did after college varied from post grad school or getting jobs in sales/marketing/real estate or joining the military. I look at this as a leveling of the playing field...for so long women were denied entry into medical school, law school or business school and now they not only have a seat at the table, they run the table. Young women today do not feel the need to be married by the time they are 22 or 23...they are still pursuing their careers and enjoying being young and single. If they can afford it, they will freeze their eggs and have them handy when they find Mr. Right or decide to be single moms. The times they are changing...as for dating apps...plenty of men have found love on a dating app..even found Ms. Right on a dating app... but there are also plenty of young men that prefer to meet someone through a friend or at a social gathering...same for women. Galloway seems to know very little about the social and dating rituals of 20 and 30 year olds...only what he has read about online. 

[Hedgehog2022]

39 minutes ago, Pike Ludwell said:

So Bill thought it extremely important to argue Stormy Daniels was not a prostitute?? Good God, Trump paid for a sexual encounter with her. This can't have been her first such thing. It is quite justifiable to argue she was a prostitute for wealthy men.

I think he got those particular panelists because he knew they'd support his goofball argument that Trump should not be indicted by the NY DA. Why should Trump not be indicted??? Because it would make his base mad!! LOL

Seems like Bill used to differentiate himself from Dems on particular issues on reasonable grounds. Now it seems like he's moving away from (at least trying to be) being a rational independent to being irrational repub leaning, for irrational reasons.

On other things he's irrational too, like the status of young men in America, he takes isolated incidents and greatly overgeneralizes them (men wear shorts on dates these days!!!) . Or kids in America- they're terrible these days because he's seen it on TV shows or movies!!! He's definitely losing it though he's still able to portray an image of a rational man, on the surface.

Amen to everything you said...poor Bill...he's having a hard time dealing with all new fangled ideas and rejection from young people who just aren't into him.

[aghst]

30 minutes ago, Hedgehog2022 said:

Galloway is an asshat. I'm not a researcher but I can tell you that the trend towards young women moving on after college to post graduate degrees is continually growing. Our veternarian practice now has all female veternarians where as 25 years ago when we started going there with our pets it was mostly male with only two female vets. Likewise for our General Practice physicians group. More than half the doctors there are female...same for the pediatric group our grandson goes to. The medical schools, dental schools, veternarian schools, graduate business schools and law schools are becoming female dominant. I'm not quite sure why young men aren't interested in a post graduate degree or pursuing a career in the sciences or other fields that require a Master's degree or Doctoral degree...what I can say is that the trend for young men who are graduating from college seems to be in sales, marketing, real estate or managerial type positions. I think that the lure of making money right out of college without having to go to graduate school is probably the reason. And for some it seems to be the case. I have friends whose sons are realtors after getting their realtors liscence after college and really cleaned up last winter/early spring when the market was crazy and sales were through the roof.

I think it's ridiculous to blame parents for "spoiling" their sons and encouraging them to be jocks. I did not see that in my kids high school social circles...what I saw were boys that wanted to be on a sports team as well as the honor roll. Almost every boy that graduated with my kids applied to and went to college...and graduated from college. What they did after college varied from post grad school or getting jobs in sales/marketing/real estate or joining the military. I look at this as a leveling of the playing field...for so long women were denied entry into medical school, law school or business school and now they not only have a seat at the table, they run the table. Young women today do not feel the need to be married by the time they are 22 or 23...they are still pursuing their careers and enjoying being young and single. If they can afford it, they will freeze their eggs and have them handy when they find Mr. Right or decide to be single moms. The times they are changing...as for dating apps...plenty of men have found love on a dating app..even found Ms. Right on a dating app... but there are also plenty of young men that prefer to meet someone through a friend or at a social gathering...same for women. Galloway seems to know very little about the social and dating rituals of 20 and 30 year olds...only what he has read about online. 

Well I was talking more about the increasing trend of females going to college for 4-year degrees while fewer males are even going to college.

I think those are the figure they were citing, not females going for graduate degrees vs. males not going to grad school.

Obviously a much larger number of people who go to 4 year vs. 4 year plus grad or med schools.

 

[ApocalypseThen]

3 hours ago, Pike Ludwell said:

So Bill thought it extremely important to argue Stormy Daniels was not a prostitute?? Good God, Trump paid for a sexual encounter with her. This can't have been her first such thing. It is quite justifiable to argue she was a prostitute for wealthy men.

Wasn't the payment for her to keep quiet about the affair? I'm not sure if they're alleging other payments were made beyond that. From my understanding, the core legal issue is that the payment was not officially disclosed as a campaign expense. Trump's lawyer paid Daniels directly from his own money, which Trump later reimbursed him for. 

That said, I think Bill realized he messed up by going off on that "debate". It completely derailed the conversation. 

 

[ApocalypseThen]

3 hours ago, Pike Ludwell said:

On other things he's irrational too, like the status of young men in America, he takes isolated incidents and greatly overgeneralizes them (men wear shorts on dates these days!!!) . Or kids in America- they're terrible these days because he's seen it on TV shows or movies!!! He's definitely losing it though he's still able to portray an image of a rational man, on the surface.

Agreed. There isn't enough data to show that the current cohort of "young people" is any dumber or less educated than previous generations. There are definitely worrying trends regarding the excessive use of social media, lack of sex people are having, protesting speakers at universities, etc. But Bill extrapolates that to "All young people are morons and a bunch of losers". I can imagine he's being hyperbolic to make his point but it's getting tiresome. He should realize that previous generations were probably saying the same thing about his generation after the invention of color TV, blockbuster movies, etc. 

Edited March 26, 2023 by ApocalypseThen

[ApocalypseThen]

Regarding Bill's point about overpopulation, I agree that society needs to think of a way to change a lot of its structures so that it doesn't rely on neverending population growth and GDP growth. While Galloway may be right that people should be incentivized to have kids and an extremely old population can be catastrophic, we should really be thinking about what the ceiling of our global and national populations should be and try to adjust accordingly. That doesn't mean having China's one-child policy but I hope people can come up with other solutions that aren't so draconian. 

[shok]

1 hour ago, ApocalypseThen said:

Trump's lawyer paid Daniels directly from his own money, which Trump later reimbursed him for. 

...and then Trump claimed the $130,000 paid to Cohen as a business expense on his income tax. Fraud in a whole bunch of different directions. All illegal.

[Pike Ludwell]

5 hours ago, ApocalypseThen said:

Wasn't the payment for her to keep quiet about the affair? I'm not sure if they're alleging other payments were made beyond that. From my understanding, the core legal issue is that the payment was not officially disclosed as a campaign expense. Trump's lawyer paid Daniels directly from his own money, which Trump later reimbursed him for. 

That said, I think Bill realized he messed up by going off on that "debate". It completely derailed the conversation. 

 

I don't think his "affair" was free for him. I seriously doubt she did it for free. I say this based on what I seem to recall, but also from common sense.

[Raja]

1 minute ago, Pike Ludwell said:

I don't think his "affair" was free for him. I seriously doubt she did it for free. I say this based on what I seem to recall, but also from common sense.

👍

Which had me wondering where Bill thought he was going with the not a prostitute line. She might not have been on a street corner or brothel taking anyone who walked in but being more selective as a marketing ploy does not change what you are

[Hedgehog2022]

15 hours ago, aghst said:

Well I was talking more about the increasing trend of females going to college for 4-year degrees while fewer males are even going to college.

I think those are the figure they were citing, not females going for graduate degrees vs. males not going to grad school.

Obviously a much larger number of people who go to 4 year vs. 4 year plus grad or med schools.

 

I think in the 60's and early/mid '70's there more males attending college due to the war in Vietnam. The incentive to avoid getting drafted was a great motivater. Probably saw the numbers drop gradually in the 80's and 90's...as the cost of a college increased and needing to get loans in order to go to college became the only way for some to go to college, especially in the 2000's. It might have made some young men think twice about going to college and decide to get jobs that would pay their rent/food/car payments instead. Does this study take into consideration the number of males that attend college for a year or two and then drop out and join the workforce or the military?

[aghst]

There are a variety of surveys, tracking total enrollments each year.

Bill said that in a few years, there could be 10% more female students in college than males.

Now it's only a couple of percent but it's also talking about thousands or maybe even millions.

 

 

[realityplease]

5 hours ago, Hedgehog2022 said:

I think in the 60's and early/mid '70's there more males attending college due to the war in Vietnam. The incentive to avoid getting drafted was a great motivater. Probably saw the numbers drop gradually in the 80's and 90's...as the cost of a college increased and needing to get loans in order to go to college became the only way for some to go to college, especially in the 2000's. It might have made some young men think twice about going to college and decide to get jobs that would pay their rent/food/car payments instead. Does this study take into consideration the number of males that attend college for a year or two and then drop out and join the workforce or the military?

The draft ended in '73. In late '60s-early '70's, males needed student deferments to avoid the draft.  But well before, many high schools pushed students into 1 of two tracks: college track OR vocational track.  ABILITY &/or school performance or timing circumscribed the choice - more than draft avoidance. The Vietnam draft was merely a consequence.  You could WANT to go to college to avoid the draft - but if you didn't have the grades to be accepted, it wasn't a viable choice.  Enter college in '67 or '68 & graduate in '71 or '72, and you'd STILL be subject to the draft when done. 

Not sure if the number of male attendees dropped in the 80's or 90's.  If it did, maybe it was a function of more women applicants accepted - changing percentages but not total numbers of applicants.  Rising costs affect both.  For public schools back in the day - tuition wasn't the issue it is today. Certainly more burdensome by the '80's, but in the '60's-'70's, tuition at private state schools was a few hundred dollars a semester & scholarships, work/study available. (Of course, aspire to Harvard, an out-of-state or private school, the costs soared & out of reach for many - then as now.) If without the means to pay or work your way through, no matter where, it's always been a tough haul.  And then, many were less willing to take on debt of any kind as opposed to present day easier credit, maxed credit cards, & the taking on of huge debt without guarantee of a job at the end of the road.  (Or unable to get credit. Back in the '60's & 70's, women often couldn't get credit or credit cards at all or needed the signature of a husband or father.) 

Back in the '60-70's, many middle class parents pushed sons into college to get a degree in order to be upwardly mobile - & pushed daughters into college for an "MRS. degree" to land a husband along with a teaching credential or some such, though, yes, there were exceptions.  But a trope at that time was that women shouldn't be encouraged to excel in college because with grading on a curve, some guy might get poor grades & lose his draft deferment.  Ridiculous, yes, but a notion circulated at the time.  And happening even as, conversely, some college depts made efforts to recruit more women away from education & into other disciplines. (And  that had an effect. In those days, there were 5 to 10% women in law schools - whereas by the mid-80's, it was 50/50.)  Top disciplines have always been competitive & more women competing these days than ever before.  Men may drop out for the military or workforce -- but so might women drop out because of childcare or workforce or military.  They BOTH have rent/food payments to make & may need to pay for public transportation or car payments. 

If as Galloway says, men are failing downwards fastest, maybe it's because "weaker" male applicants are being pushed out to permit more equality or opportunity for "better" female applicants.  The days of being accepted or succeeding just because you're male (or white or whatever defining characteristic is under scrutiny) is no longer a given.  If the playing field needs to be leveled - so be it - so long as everyone who wants a fair shot gets a fair shot.  But the landscape of who wants "in" has changed.  Galloway wants to light a fire under young men to get in the game. He wants to advocate for men. Sees a need for more male role models. More power to him.  But if that's his only cure, it's likely not enough to be a solution & doesn't get to the root of the problem.        

Edited March 27, 2023 by realityplease

[realityplease]

On 3/26/2023 at 6:18 AM, Pike Ludwell said:

I don't think his "affair" was free for him. I seriously doubt she did it for free. I say this based on what I seem to recall, but also from common sense.

Supposedly, Trump & Daniels "met" at a Lake Tahoe celebrity golfing tournament.  Daniels was at a booth set up by the porn movie company that she worked with, handing out merchandise with the company's logo or some such.  She says Trump sought her out at the booth.  They later met up to party.  (Sex, yes, but no indication of sex for money.) And met a few times after that.

The money Daniels received was hush money (in the run-up to the 2016 election) to zip her lip about the affair. (Trump was married to Melania at the time.) Lawyer Cohen paid her the money, Trump reimbursed Cohen.  Trump wrote it off on his taxes as a business expense - that's where it gets legally dicey.

After the panelists conflated being a porn star with being a prostitute, Bill tried to explain that Daniels is a porn movie star - not a prostitute.  Where Bill stepped into the muck - & did a quick retreat & subject-change - was when he tried to explain that the difference between the two is that porn stars love sex, but prostitutes do it for the money. 

Bill was trying to dispel the notion that porn film stars are prostitutes - possibly standing up for porn stars he met at Hef's place or elsewhere.  Surely, there's hay to be made over Bill's over-generalization of the motivations of either (Porn stars "love" sex? C'mon Bill, it's called acting) or whether there's overlap in some cases - and certainly  NO ONE wants to hear about Bill's personal experience.  I think Bill realized this as soon as his comment emerged from his lips - prompting the quick retreat and subject change.    

Edited March 27, 2023 by realityplease

[Hedgehog2022]

7 hours ago, realityplease said:

The draft ended in '73. In late '60s-early '70's, males needed student deferments to avoid the draft.  But well before, many high schools pushed students into 1 of two tracks: college track OR vocational track.  ABILITY &/or school performance or timing circumscribed the choice - more than draft avoidance. The Vietnam draft was merely a consequence.  You could WANT to go to college to avoid the draft - but if you didn't have the grades to be accepted, it wasn't a viable choice.  Enter college in '67 or '68 & graduate in '71 or '72, and you'd STILL be subject to the draft when done. 

Not sure if the number of male attendees dropped in the 80's or 90's.  If it did, maybe it was a function of more women applicants accepted - changing percentages but not total numbers of applicants.  Rising costs affect both.  For public schools back in the day - tuition wasn't the issue it is today. Certainly more burdensome by the '80's, but in the '60's-'70's, tuition at private state schools was a few hundred dollars a semester & scholarships, work/study available. (Of course, aspire to Harvard, an out-of-state or private school, the costs soared & out of reach for many - then as now.) If without the means to pay or work your way through, no matter where, it's always been a tough haul.  And then, many were less willing to take on debt of any kind as opposed to present day easier credit, maxed credit cards, & the taking on of huge debt without guarantee of a job at the end of the road.  (Or unable to get credit. Back in the '60's & 70's, women often couldn't get credit or credit cards at all or needed the signature of a husband or father.) 

Back in the '60-70's, many middle class parents pushed sons into college to get a degree in order to be upwardly mobile - & pushed daughters into college for an "MRS. degree" to land a husband along with a teaching credential or some such, though, yes, there were exceptions.  But a trope at that time was that women shouldn't be encouraged to excel in college because with grading on a curve, some guy might get poor grades & lose his draft deferment.  Ridiculous, yes, but a notion circulated at the time.  And happening even as, conversely, some college depts made efforts to recruit more women away from education & into other disciplines. (And  that had an effect. In those days, there were 5 to 10% women in law schools - whereas by the mid-80's, it was 50/50.)  Top disciplines have always been competitive & more women competing these days than ever before.  Men may drop out for the military or workforce -- but so might women drop out because of childcare or workforce or military.  They BOTH have rent/food payments to make & may need to pay for public transportation or car payments. 

If as Galloway says, men are failing downwards fastest, maybe it's because "weaker" male applicants are being pushed out to permit more equality or opportunity for "better" female applicants.  The days of being accepted or succeeding just because you're male (or white or whatever defining characteristic is under scrutiny) is no longer a given.  If the playing field needs to be leveled - so be it - so long as everyone who wants a fair shot gets a fair shot.  But the landscape of who wants "in" has changed.  Galloway wants to light a fire under young men to get in the game. He wants to advocate for men. Sees a need for more male role models. More power to him.  But if that's his only cure, it's likely not enough to be a solution & doesn't get to the root of the problem.        

I was around during the 60’s and 70’s. I know all about the draft and college/graduate school as my older brother moved to Canada after college to attend law school…he was told he had a high possibility of being drafted after college graduation and didn’t want to take a chance of being drafted right out of college. He came back a couple of years later and finished up his law courses at a law school in Boston.

I’m not a fan of Galloway and his views…I don’t think college is the answer for everyone. Community college with certifications for specific trades or entry level jobs with specific skills seems like a reasonable career path for a lot people of both sexes. 

[Hanahope]

I thought Galloway made good points, that men (of all colors) need better/good male role models and need to be encouraged to succeed on their own merits and not just due to their maleness. but I don't think a college education is the end all be all for 'merit' or for women looking for a husband.  they want someone who has a work ethic, who will be a good father, who will help around the house, and won't be threatened by their wife who might be better educated and/or make more money.  the man doesn't need a college degree as long as he has a good job.  in fact, i think many women would love to have a plumber or electrician or hvac technician, etc. as a husband.  they make good money, can be their own boss, and can also fix things around the house (and don't have crushing student loans).  they don't want someone living in their parents' basement playing video games all day. and unfortunately there are too many parents (especially overbearing mothers) who believe their son should have whatever he wants just because he's a male.  

but yes, there are women who realize they don't need a man or a husband to have a fulfilling life too. 

Bill was certainly on the no kids bullhorn with both Sedaris and Galloway.  yeah, i'm glad Bill is not a father.

 

[heatherchandler]

I actually cannot believe that there are people who would say we need MORE people on this earth.  I usually like Galloway but I cannot wrap my mind around his view.

Sedaris is one of my favorite writers and speakers, but he seemed off.