Speaker 1: I think the most fascinating coverage discussion I heard of
Speaker 1: the election results from last week had to do with
Speaker 1: the topic of transgenderism. Anyone who watched TV watched football,
Speaker 1: or that's really the only TV I watch anymore. Pretty
Speaker 1: much over the last month or two, saw these Republican
Speaker 1: ads where the Trump camp was highlighting that Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: was for they them, but Trump is for us. Basically
Speaker 1: that Harris is so totally committed to the transgender cause,
Speaker 1: and how ridiculous that is. How she'd expressed support for
Speaker 1: giving transitions surgeries to inmates in prisons and all kinds
Speaker 1: of crazy transgender policies that she supported that are just
Speaker 1: not where the country is. So CNN had a panel
Speaker 1: discussing this and this pro LGBT activists named Jay Michaelson,
Speaker 1: an older white man, is on along with a young
Speaker 1: African American man named Shermichael Singleton. Singleton is expressing the
Speaker 1: viewpoint that a lot of they were having this debate
Speaker 1: about who those ads were aimed for. The LGBT activist
Speaker 1: was like, this is just Trump trying to rev up
Speaker 1: his bass. This is ridiculous. His race is not racist.
Speaker 1: I guess his anti trans bigoted bass and Singleton said,
Speaker 1: I don't think this was aimed at the base. I
Speaker 1: think this is kind of aimed at the broader American
Speaker 1: public who are just not there with regards to transgenderism
Speaker 1: in all these issues, I don't think they want biological
Speaker 1: males playing girls' sports. So this is Abby Phillips show,
Speaker 1: and she's sort of moderating it. And I want you
Speaker 1: to listen to this clip just of how liberals think
Speaker 1: they well, how historically they have one a lot of arguments,
Speaker 1: how they are trying to win, specifically this argument over transgenderism,
Speaker 1: gender biological sex, et cetera. Okay, here we go, roll
Speaker 1: the tape. I'm not and I think there.
Speaker 2: Are a lot of families out there who is single.
Speaker 2: Boys should play girls sports.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to listen to I am not going
Speaker 1: to girl boy.
Speaker 2: When you use.
Speaker 1: Okay, so listen to what happened there. Singleton, who's taking
Speaker 1: the more conservative position here, is just saying, no, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's true that Trump's playing this ad just
Speaker 1: for his base. I think it's for the broader public.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of the public isn't comfortable with
Speaker 1: boys playing girls sports. This LGBT activist. By the way,
Speaker 1: a white man shouting down this black man yells at
Speaker 1: him and says, I will not listen to slurs at
Speaker 1: this table. I will not tolerate transphobia at this table.
Speaker 1: Trans girls are not boys. That is a slur. He
Speaker 1: calls it a slur. And the whole rest of this segment,
Speaker 1: you've got the so called moderator of this debate then
Speaker 1: lecturing the guy who referred to what are in fact
Speaker 1: biological males as boys. The moderator here, Abby Phillip, then
Speaker 1: is like lecturing Shermichael that you need to talk about
Speaker 1: this more respectfully, like she's an HR manager.
Speaker 2: And this is just what has This is the problem.
Speaker 1: This is sort of the advantage of the left has
Speaker 1: had for so long, but the problem they're facing now
Speaker 1: specifically with this issue. Historically, because the left controlled the media,
Speaker 1: they were able to change the terms of the debate
Speaker 1: and win the debate as a result, win the debate
Speaker 1: without even having the debate. Really because they changed the terms,
Speaker 1: they delineated what was acceptable language, they delineated the vocabulary
Speaker 1: that we were forced to use, stuff like the AP
Speaker 1: style guide is important for this. They did this all
Speaker 1: the time with the abortion debate, and they're still doing
Speaker 1: it with the abortion debate. Abortion is quote reproductive health care.
Speaker 1: Abortion is abortion care. That's just what allegedly neutral news
Speaker 1: outlets are supposed to call it. Allegedly neutral news outlets
Speaker 1: are supposed to refer to abortion as this as a
Speaker 1: healthcare service, even though that's an intensely debated medical ethical
Speaker 1: point whether abortion is in fact the healthcare service. People
Speaker 1: in favor of legalized abortion are allowed to be referred
Speaker 1: to in the media with the entirely a euphemism sloganeering
Speaker 1: term pro choice. The fact that we just accept pro
Speaker 1: choice as a label for people who want abortion to
Speaker 1: be legal. When you really stop and think about it,
Speaker 1: how insane that is. You'd think maybe pro choice could
Speaker 1: refer to I don't know, someone who's in favor of
Speaker 1: laissez fair capitalism, free markets, who want people to have
Speaker 1: maximal amounts of economic choice, or school choice or this choice.
Speaker 1: But the only people we actually call pro choice are
Speaker 1: people in favor of the legalization of one choice and
Speaker 1: one choice only, namely the choice to kill a baby.
Speaker 1: So the media has successfully altered language, and left wing
Speaker 1: academia works with them in various ways to alter language.
Speaker 1: For example, changing this is a common This is the
Speaker 1: thing I've been researching about, changing the definition of what
Speaker 1: pregnancy is. Pregnancy doesn't start until implantation of a newly
Speaker 1: formed embryo. That's sort of the way that a lot
Speaker 1: of the left frames it. So interventions that result in
Speaker 1: a newly formed embryo not being able to implant, they
Speaker 1: would deem that not to be abortifacient. Okay, So there's
Speaker 1: all kinds of ways in which the left tries to
Speaker 1: win an argument by defining the terms of the debate beforehand,
Speaker 1: to put conservatives into a heads I win tails, you
Speaker 1: lose position. So you oppose gay rights. By gay rights,
Speaker 1: they mean gay marriage. That's what they mean, is gay marriage. Well, no,
Speaker 1: that's a disputed political topic right now. The question is
Speaker 1: whether that is a legitimate right that actually exists or
Speaker 1: should be recognized. Oh so you're opposing gay Oh so
Speaker 1: you oppose abortion rights. Well no. The whole debate, especially
Speaker 1: within the context of ro V Wade or the Dobbs decision,
Speaker 1: was is there actually any kind of constitutional right to abortion?
Speaker 1: The way the media frames it is this person opposes
Speaker 1: abortion rights, assuming that such rights are in existence and
Speaker 1: one party is just denying those rights. So for so
Speaker 1: many issues, in so many ways, the left has made
Speaker 1: hay out of their ability. Because they control the media,
Speaker 1: because they control the AP Style Guide, they've been able
Speaker 1: to win the debate, and they think they were.
Speaker 2: They have thought that they should.
Speaker 1: By now have been able to win a debate on
Speaker 1: the transgender issue through those same mechanisms. Here's this guy
Speaker 1: yelling down this black man. This this older white guy
Speaker 1: yelling down a young black man because he had the
Speaker 1: temerity to say that a lot of Americans don't want
Speaker 1: boys playing girls' sports. Because he says, nope, that is
Speaker 1: a slur, and the host basically agrees with him and says,
Speaker 1: you need to talk about this more respectfully.
Speaker 2: Even though the ling the language usage here is part
Speaker 2: of what's actually in debate politically. Now, the AP style
Speaker 2: guy just blew right past it. The AP style guy
Speaker 2: just basically agreed. If a transgender person identifies as a heat,
Speaker 2: you call that person a heat in the article. If
Speaker 2: a transgender person identifies as a she, you call that
Speaker 2: person a she in the article. If a transgender person.
Speaker 1: Idafies as they, you call them they in the article.
Speaker 2: The they thing leads.
Speaker 1: To I think the most absurd example of this is
Speaker 1: the actor Ezra I think it's Ezra Miller. So Ezra Miller.
Speaker 1: Actor Okay, yeah, Ezra Miller. So Ezra Miller played the
Speaker 1: flash in some DC Comics movies and declare this biological
Speaker 1: male says that he insists on going by they, they them.
Speaker 1: Those are the pronouns that I insist that you refer
Speaker 1: to me by when you're talking about me in the
Speaker 1: third person. By the way, that's the other ridiculous thing
Speaker 1: about the whole pronouns argument. You're talking about third person pronouns,
Speaker 1: not first person pronouns I and me or we and us,
Speaker 1: not second person pronouns you, but third person pronouns, and
Speaker 1: within English grammar, really any language grammar, I guess, uh,
Speaker 1: the third person first person is I, myself talking the
Speaker 1: the doer of I am, the doer of the action.
Speaker 1: Second person is the person being addressed. The third person
Speaker 1: is another person that we're talking about who's not directly
Speaker 1: within this exchange, this verbal exchange. You know, Uh, the
Speaker 1: boy walks his dog, boy is the third person subject
Speaker 1: of that verb. So the whole pronouns argument is not saying,
Speaker 1: when you address me talk about me like this, No,
Speaker 1: it's when you're talking about me to other people. I
Speaker 1: insist that you refer to me this way, which is like, well,
Speaker 1: why do you get to control how I talk about
Speaker 1: you when you're not even a party to the conversation.
Speaker 1: Why should that be anyway? The most ridiculous anyway, the
Speaker 1: most ridiculous example of how the AP style Guide governs
Speaker 1: this stuff again is with the actor Ezra Miller. So,
Speaker 1: Ezra Miller is just a biological male, but for some
Speaker 1: stupid reason, he insists on going by they, And Ezra
Speaker 1: Miller is a lunatic who went on an absolute crime spree.
Speaker 1: He seemingly, he seems to have kidnapped or run off
Speaker 1: with like a fourteen year old girl to have to
Speaker 1: basically have a sexual relationship with a fourteen year old
Speaker 1: girl something like that, He committed several different robberies. He's
Speaker 1: this incredibly unstable, anti social person who has committed all
Speaker 1: kinds of ridiculous crime games and as a result, the
Speaker 1: media has to report on this criminal engaging in criminal behavior.
Speaker 1: But they, this guy is a slimeball, an absolute flippin' slimeball.
Speaker 1: Like I'm just going through his Wikipedia Disorderly conduct in
Speaker 1: twenty eleven, choking incident in twenty twenty as video surfaced
Speaker 1: of Ezra Miller choking woman and throwing her to the ground,
Speaker 1: Hawaii incidents in twenty twenty two. From March seventh through
Speaker 1: March twenty eight of twenty twenty two, Miller was the
Speaker 1: subject of ten calls to the police because of various
Speaker 1: minor incidents, such as filming people at a gas station,
Speaker 1: loitering on a restaurant sidewalk, arguing with people. Couple got
Speaker 1: a restraining order against him because he allegedly threatened the
Speaker 1: two and stole the wife. He threatened this couple, stole
Speaker 1: the wife passport and the husband's wallet. He had a
Speaker 1: relationship with a young woman that began when she was twelve.
Speaker 1: When it began in twenty sixteen, when Miller was twenty
Speaker 1: three and she was twelve. Okay, So in short, this
Speaker 1: guy is is that a pedophile? I guess? Is that
Speaker 1: an a feeble fhile I don't know what the term is.
Speaker 1: So this this guy as a monster on like twenty
Speaker 1: different counts, and the media insists on calling this person
Speaker 1: they them and I think with transgenderism. The media has
Speaker 1: come up against the limit of their ability to define
Speaker 1: this stuff, because the problem is they can declare that
Speaker 1: this is what the AP Style Guide says all they want.
Speaker 1: People get their news from a lot of different outlets
Speaker 1: out nowadays, though that don't recognize the almighty authority of
Speaker 1: the AP Style Guide for issues other than grammar. The
Speaker 1: APS Style Guide here is making a metaphysical, philosophical declaration.
Speaker 1: The actual point in issue is, are transgender people people
Speaker 1: who are of one biological sex but want to identify
Speaker 1: and present as a member of the opposite biological sex
Speaker 1: or as some other third thing? Do we acknowledge it?
Speaker 1: Acknowledge it in some cases, acknowledge it in all cases.
Speaker 1: All cases, there's no way in which someone's biological sex
Speaker 1: is a relevant factor. When we return, this touches on
Speaker 1: the topic of discrimination, and I'll explain why discrimination is
Speaker 1: not actually always bad in America, unreasonable discrimination is, and
Speaker 1: we'll see how transgenderism fits into that. That's next on
Speaker 1: the John Jbardy Show. This amazing clip from Abbie Phillips
Speaker 1: CNN show in which a young African American man says, Hey,
Speaker 1: I think democrats, this is not a winning issue of Democrats.
Speaker 1: Most Americans don't want boys playing girls' sports, and this
Speaker 1: LGBT activist on the panel, an older white man yells
Speaker 1: at him, shouts him down, says he's saying anti trans slurs,
Speaker 1: it's bigotry, etc. I don't think this is going to
Speaker 1: be a winning message for the left, for the pro
Speaker 1: transgender left. If you just declare that what most of
Speaker 1: the country thinks is a slur, you're probably just gonna
Speaker 1: drive them farther away that they're just being bigoted, because
Speaker 1: the reality is people can intuitively understand that they're not
Speaker 1: being bigoted. Let me explain our legal and ethical culture
Speaker 1: in America towards the topic of discrimination. In America, we
Speaker 1: discriminate all the time, and you're legally allowed to discriminate.
Speaker 1: It's just that over time we've come to realize that
Speaker 1: there are certain categories on the basis of which it
Speaker 1: is unreasonable unjust to discriminate. There are certain qualities that
Speaker 1: don't if they are not logically related to the end
Speaker 1: purpose of what you're doing. It's unfair and unjust to discriminate.
Speaker 1: If you're interviewing someone to hire them for I don't know,
Speaker 1: let's say we want a board op for the radio station. Okay,
Speaker 1: here I am looking at the board. If we want
Speaker 1: to board op for the radio station, and a white
Speaker 1: guy applies and a black guy applies, the fact that
Speaker 1: the white guy has white skin and the black guy
Speaker 1: has black skin has actually no bearing whatsoever on the job. Similarly,
Speaker 1: if a black man and a black woman both apply
Speaker 1: for the job, the fact that someone is biologically a
Speaker 1: woman doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether or not
Speaker 1: she's a good boardop. Just doesn't. Now, if I'm interviewing
Speaker 1: for let's say, let's see, I think this is fine.
Speaker 1: If I'm interviewing for a position, a leadership position within
Speaker 1: the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement Colored People,
Speaker 1: and a black man applies, and a white man applies, well,
Speaker 1: the fact that they're black is relevant. Discriminating on the
Speaker 1: basis of race in that context is reasonable. This is
Speaker 1: an association for advancing African American people. It's an African
Speaker 1: American organization, like Okay. Similarly, a Catholic social justice organization
Speaker 1: would look at a Catholic applicant versus a Hindu applicant
Speaker 1: and say, well, you know nothing against you being Hindu,
Speaker 1: but this is a Catholic organization. We were going to
Speaker 1: hire a Catholic. So over time in America we developed
Speaker 1: laws to protect people in various kinds of categories in
Speaker 1: which discrimination against them is illogical, where discrimination doesn't actually
Speaker 1: make sense for the job, the task, the activity at hand.
Speaker 1: Within the military, there are still differences in how male
Speaker 1: and female soldiers are treated, their physical readiness standards, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Why because we recognize that biologically men and women are different,
Speaker 1: and the level of scrutiny that American law places for
Speaker 1: different treatment between people on the basis of race is
Speaker 1: a heightened level of scrutiny relative to disparate treatment to
Speaker 1: people on the basis of sex, because American law has
Speaker 1: recognized sex is a real difference. That is more than
Speaker 1: literally here skin deep. The transgender the pro transgender crowd
Speaker 1: is trying to convince you that even in the category
Speaker 1: of you know, transgender woman identifying biological males playing women's sports,
Speaker 1: that that is not relevant, that's not a relevant or
Speaker 1: reasonable category for discriminating. And everyone realizes that's dumb. And
Speaker 1: there are a lot of other categories where look, there's
Speaker 1: probably some kind of position out there saying yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: if someone wants to present as the opposite sex, that's fine,
Speaker 1: but there are certain things we're not going to allow
Speaker 1: that person to do. Right, you can't be having a
Speaker 1: biological male showering in private, secured spaces with biological women.
Speaker 1: You can't have a biological male playing women's sports. You
Speaker 1: can't have a biological male in a prison with biological females,
Speaker 1: because that stuff starts to actually threaten women, and we
Speaker 1: lose sense of the fact that there are certain aspects
Speaker 1: that being a woman does come with, many, many times
Speaker 1: on the average, less physical strength than men, a position
Speaker 1: of vulnerability visa v men biological men, and vulnerability that's
Speaker 1: born out of men on the whole being bigger, taller, stronger, faster,
Speaker 1: that this could endanger women's safety. People intuitively grasp that,
Speaker 1: and as legally and ethically as far as our American
Speaker 1: tradition of when we allow discrimination and don't allow discrimination,
Speaker 1: we allow discrimination when it's reasonable. We don't allow discrimination
Speaker 1: when it's not reasonable. No shoes, no shirt, no service,
Speaker 1: reasonable discrimination. Blacks need not apply unreasonable discrimination. So for
Speaker 1: the pro trans left to just shut down debate and
Speaker 1: say I will not listen to a slur, but you're
Speaker 1: gonna tick people off more because people are reasonably understanding
Speaker 1: this is not a surface level difference here.
Speaker 2: We're not even nor is it when we're talking about
Speaker 2: transgender issues.
Speaker 1: We're talking about issues where biological sex has been relevant
Speaker 1: in every other case, housing people who are who are
Speaker 1: prisoners or in jail, sports, locker room, shower, bathroom access.
Speaker 1: We've always segregated people on the basis of sex for
Speaker 1: those things, and you cannot just say that biological sex
Speaker 1: your physical body is irrelevant in those categories. People will
Speaker 1: not accept that because it isn't true. People won't accept
Speaker 1: that because as much as we want to say socially
Speaker 1: that we want to treat this person as the opposite sex,
Speaker 1: it's a denial of a certain kind of reality. And
Speaker 1: where the rubber hits the road, you have to have
Speaker 1: discrimination on that category, or else you risk harm to women.
Speaker 1: When we return the liberal culture around therapy and the
Speaker 1: idea of needing therapy for things that are actually just disappointments.
Speaker 1: Next on the John Girardi Show, my buddy Manny has
Speaker 1: a kid who is at present state, and the day
Speaker 1: after the election, his kid got an email from the
Speaker 1: professor saying, I'm canceling class for those of you who
Speaker 1: need mental health, a mental health break, or mental health
Speaker 1: assistance today.
Speaker 2: Because this is a lot to process.
Speaker 1: I then read a story about the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice, not the Department of Social Workers,
Speaker 1: not the Department of I don't know DEI professionals, the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. Who let's remember what's under the ambit
Speaker 1: of the Department of Justice, the whole FBI and a
Speaker 1: bunch of lawyers, Lawyers who are involved with federal criminal
Speaker 1: law enforcement prosecutions, Lawyers involved with you know, protecting defending
Speaker 1: the federal government in high stress, high profile litigation circumstances
Speaker 1: like it's. These are like high profile lawyers, very smart,
Speaker 1: very accomplished, high stress, hard work professional people, or at
Speaker 1: least most of them are should be. I guess until
Speaker 1: I read this thing that the DOJ has a bunch
Speaker 1: of people on for a conversation about change and the
Speaker 1: stresses of change that since the election and mental health
Speaker 1: resources available to This is sort of, I think, just
Speaker 1: more manifestations of the way in which the Left is
Speaker 1: sort of wholesale and gen Z and millennials especially have
Speaker 1: wholesale sort of adopted the language of mental health professionals
Speaker 1: and the reflexive instinct of turning to mental health professionals.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying like, don't seek out mental health
Speaker 1: if you're having a mental health help, if you're having
Speaker 1: an extremely difficult time, if you're experiencing symptoms of things
Speaker 1: that don't seem healthy, obsessive thoughts, et cetera. Whatever, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're actually facing things like that. Sure, but it
Speaker 1: seems like the more I read about this, like I've
Speaker 1: interacted with people who seem to just have like permanent
Speaker 1: standing relationships with a therapist. There's just sort of forever ongoing,
Speaker 1: and I don't know how helpful that is at a
Speaker 1: certain point, Like it seems as though it's society replacing
Speaker 1: the normal kinds of help that people would get for
Speaker 1: difficulties with some sort of secular version of you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's the Catholic sacrament of confession or religion or
Speaker 1: what have you. Maybe it's a symptom of greater atomization
Speaker 1: within our culture that there are more people who are
Speaker 1: more alone. There are fewer adults getting married than ever before,
Speaker 1: more people living in one person households, more instability within relationships,
Speaker 1: people in longer term relationships without commitment, and then a
Speaker 1: growing irreligiosity that causes people to flock more and more
Speaker 1: and more towards these kinds of methods of dealing. But
Speaker 1: I think it's what you've seen on the left especially,
Speaker 1: is you know, I hate to just be sort of
Speaker 1: old man yelling at cloud, but I guess I just
Speaker 1: sort of feel like there's a toughening up that needs
Speaker 1: to sort of happen with a lot of people sort
Speaker 1: of my age and younger. I've had disappointments in life.
Speaker 1: I've had several disappointments in my life. I've had jobs
Speaker 1: that didn't really work out. I've had, you know, times
Speaker 1: in my work where I was really stressed out. I've
Speaker 1: had times where I was really upset about things, but
Speaker 1: it was usually stuff that was personal to me, stuff
Speaker 1: that could maybe impact my career, my livelihood, or deep
Speaker 1: personal relationships that I have. I don't understand the idea.
Speaker 1: I don't understand the idea of needing to get mental
Speaker 1: health help because someone won or lost an election. All Right,
Speaker 1: was I really disappointed in twenty twenty when Joe Biden
Speaker 1: won you bet I was, and I got over it.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It didn't rock my world, it didn't
Speaker 1: necessitate me getting therapy. It's not to say I don't
Speaker 1: think there's like fundamental questions of justice that aren't involved there.
Speaker 1: I think there are. I think they're deep, deep in
Speaker 1: fact it. You know, on a certain level, maybe I
Speaker 1: should have been more upset. I really care about the
Speaker 1: issue of abortion. I think the wholesale killing of hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of unborn children every year, whole business is
Speaker 1: set up to do it, is horrifying. It makes me
Speaker 1: fear the judgment that God can visit on this country
Speaker 1: as a result. And I just think of the millions
Speaker 1: of women who are having abortions who don't even want
Speaker 1: to get most. Several turnaway studies on this show that
Speaker 1: sixty to seventy percent of women who are having abortions
Speaker 1: don't want to have an abortion. They feel coerced into
Speaker 1: it by financial or other constraints. I think about the
Speaker 1: human wreckage left behind by it, and maybe I should
Speaker 1: have been more upset. I don't know. Maybe I should
Speaker 1: have been laid out in my bed for a week,
Speaker 1: unable to get up and move because I was so distraught.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, I get up
Speaker 1: and I go to work, and that's that maybe I
Speaker 1: have advantages that a lot of these liberals don't. And
Speaker 1: on account of the lifestyle that I've chosen to live
Speaker 1: and that a lot of them have chosen to live. Again,
Speaker 1: we do see this that there is a lot more
Speaker 1: atomization within our culture. They're more and more millennials, especially
Speaker 1: not getting married. If they are in a relationship, maybe
Speaker 1: it's not a committed relationship, they're not having kids, they're
Speaker 1: sort of you know, they're turning away from religion. They
Speaker 1: don't have the comfort or solace that that can bring
Speaker 1: in life, or the self reflection or the silence or
Speaker 1: the thought that maybe religious experience can engender, and so
Speaker 1: they don't have a way of coping with serious problem
Speaker 1: with bad things that happen in life. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess there's a part of me that wants to say, like,
Speaker 1: holy cow, you you there's a big part of me
Speaker 1: that really wants to just say, a bunch of little whoosies.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris lost, go to class, Kamala Harris lost, teach
Speaker 1: your class, go to class. No, I want to yell
Speaker 1: this for my friend Manny's son, like like for his
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't think Manny's son was this.
Speaker 1: I don't think Manny's son was this way. But apparently
Speaker 1: his teacher was like, I want to yell that, like,
Speaker 1: get off your rear end and do your job. You're
Speaker 1: a public university teacher, you're a you're a state employee.
Speaker 1: Get up. The taxpayers are funding your salary. Get up,
Speaker 1: off your rear end and go do your job. This
Speaker 1: is ridiculous to be canceling classes anywhere in the country.
Speaker 1: And apparently this was a phenomenon in universities throughout the country.
Speaker 1: There were a bunch of professors who canceled classes, a
Speaker 1: bunch of oh for mental health, we need a mental
Speaker 1: health check in for or students after the difficult events
Speaker 1: of Tuesday, November fifth, or whatever. Which note that that
Speaker 1: same grace would was almost certainly not afforded in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty after Biden won, or in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: I'm fairly certain nobody canceled classes on behalf of us aggrieved,
Speaker 1: you know McCain and Romney voters. In twenty eight and
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, when I was in you know, college in
Speaker 1: law school and had to go to class the next
Speaker 1: day after, you know, after Barack Obama won, No such
Speaker 1: grace gets afforded to us. But you see this, You
Speaker 1: see this all over the even in the context of
Speaker 1: people who are otherwise like successful professionals. And I wonder
Speaker 1: what it is if basically mental health and the language
Speaker 1: of mental health has just has been a sorry attempt
Speaker 1: to fill the void that authentic religious experience and practice
Speaker 1: should be filling, to fill the void that relationships should
Speaker 1: be filling. And you know, I mean, I take enormous
Speaker 1: comfort in the stresses and difficulties of life in having
Speaker 1: my wife, whom I love dearly. And there's also a
Speaker 1: I think within a family when it's you know, you
Speaker 1: have a wife, and when you have children, when you
Speaker 1: have a spouse, when you have children, you know, it's
Speaker 1: not that you don't have time to grieve, but also
Speaker 1: like crap has to get done, Like we got to
Speaker 1: do the dishes, and we gotta we got to vacuum
Speaker 1: the living room, and we got to take out the garbage,
Speaker 1: and we gotta you know, we got to mow the
Speaker 1: lawn and and you know, stuff still has to get done.
Speaker 1: And you know, whereas when you're living by yourself, you
Speaker 1: can let all that stuff slide a lot more easily.
Speaker 1: And so I wonder if the these instinctive turns towards
Speaker 1: mental health are again reflective of this greater atomization that
Speaker 1: we see in society, the lack of the comfort and
Speaker 1: strength that comes from family and the worship of God. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it's a bizarre phenomenon. Anyway, any of you professors who
Speaker 1: took the day off from mental health ate you could
Speaker 1: probably grow a little bit, you know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm being a jerk by yelling at them,
Speaker 1: because maybe these people don't have the advantages that I have.
Speaker 1: Maybe these people are struggling much harder than I am
Speaker 1: because they've replaced mental health, language and resources, whatever with
Speaker 1: the kinds of support that I have in life. So
Speaker 1: when we turn, when we return, an interesting piece in
Speaker 1: the New York Times about the grief of never becoming
Speaker 1: a grandparents next on the John Gerardy Show, you know,
Speaker 1: tied in with all this mental health stuff I've been
Speaker 1: talking about on the show is this interesting New York
Speaker 1: Times piece the unspoken grief of never becoming a grandparent
Speaker 1: and it's this article about sort of baby boomer aged
Speaker 1: people in their sixties and seventies who maybe only had
Speaker 1: one or two kids, who are in their thirties, who
Speaker 1: just sort of decided not to have children. And so
Speaker 1: you have these baby boomer aged people who don't have grandchildren.
Speaker 1: And this is a growing and more present phenomenon something
Speaker 1: I've noticed with different people I know who they don't
Speaker 1: have grandkids. And there's been this real attitude among millennials
Speaker 1: that there's this real attitude I see of well, it's
Speaker 1: selfish of grandparents just to be of these baby boomers,
Speaker 1: just to be thinking of themselves. Don't they realize the
Speaker 1: economic condition that their generation and it's unfair of them
Speaker 1: to expect us to be able to have children. And
Speaker 1: and maybe I just don't want to have children. Maybe
Speaker 1: I find fulfillment another thing. Okay, all right, all right, fine,
Speaker 1: I think they're still allowed to be sad. Being of
Speaker 1: a certain age and wishing you had grandchildren is not
Speaker 1: some bizarre like. This is not someone crying because they
Speaker 1: weren't able to you know, they could only afford a
Speaker 1: vacation in Florida, and not a vacation in you know,
Speaker 1: the French riviera. All right, it's not that the delight
Speaker 1: and love of children of your one's own grandchildren is
Speaker 1: about as natural a part of the human experience as
Speaker 1: anything can be, and to experience sorrow and grief for
Speaker 1: that not happening is totally normal. It's another sort of
Speaker 1: sad aspect of our atomized, non family grounded society. I
Speaker 1: think that'll do it. John Gerardi shows you next time
Speaker 1: on Power Talk