Have you heard? The men of America are in the midst of an existential crisis. A battle for good, evil, and the future of humanity. Who will emerge out of the darkness to lead the masses to freedom? Enter, stage left: one Scott Galloway. Enter, stage right: two extremely hot and horny hockey players. WHICH OF THESE HEROES WILL SLAY GLORIA STEINHEM RESTORE GLOBAL DIGNITY TO THE MEN? Today, we find out. A note from Caro before we begin: If the details within this episode cause your brain to overheat, I recommend pausing and listening to one of two auditory meditations: * any live version of Praying by Kesha * the West End Girl album from start to finish Worked like a charm for me! Below, you’ll find a summary of the three major debates we wish to have with Galloway, as well as an additional list of resources to pad your intellectual toolkit for your own interior monologue debates, followed by some love for Heated Rivalry to balm your restless soul. Scott Galloway vs. Diabolical Lies, a Debate in Three Parts 1.) On educational biases against men The argument made by Scott Galloway: The crisis of modern masculinity begins in the schoolroom, with young boys falling rapidly behind in the educational system by the time they reach kindergarten. This is largely due to developmental differences and educational biases which put young girls at an advantage, one that carries on through to college and higher ed, where they now have majority representation. TL;DR: Little girls have way better brains and the school system is totally set up for them to win, which is why they’re fully creaming little boys all around the world, and that is bad. The rebuttal, from Diabolical Lies: It’s true that certain studies have shown broad neurological differences between the sexes during adolescence, but these differences do not constitute a monolith. Plenty of other studies have flat-out disputed the premise of neurological differences altogether, alternatively suggesting that the difference in behavior between young boys and girls in classrooms is culturally driven. And anyways, given how men have been known to cut out the frontal cortex of ladies who yap too much, I think we’re licensed to say: Stay the fuck away from our brains regardless, you weirdos! It also seems like an example of profound biological cherry-picking to claim that women have an indisputable biological advantage to young boys during the educational period, when the onset of menstruation during this exact same time period puts women at a proven massive deficit on a global level. An estimated one in five girls globally and one in four in the US end up missing class or dropping out of school altogether because they cannot afford menstrual products. Is that a crisis? How about the fact that unexpected pregnancy is the number one reason young women drop out of school altogether, a stat that translates to millions of educational dropouts globally each year? How about that? Is that a crisis? Additionally, while it’s true that young girls do score higher in class on average, and that they do attend higher education in greater numbers, there’s no evidence that this is due to an educational bias. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to suggest that girls score higher grades in class and go on to college and graduate school in high numbers because they have to. Evidence shows that women need to have at least one more degree than men to achieve pay parity across a number of fields; even then, the pay gap is still stark. And beyond that, it’s worth asking a few questions: are young men no longer going to college because the system discriminates against them, or are they no longer going to college because college is now coded as feminine, and therefore perceived as undesirable? And if we’re going to worry about educational biases, is gender truly the lens we should be examining the problem through, or are race and class far more useful for exploring discrimination in educational outcomes? TL;DR: idk, read a book or something mental health break I HOPE UR F****N PRAYING SCOTT 2.) On men being specifically and exclusively screwed in this current economy The argument made by Scott Galloway: The current economy increasingly punishes the many in favor of elevating the few. In recent decades, the cost of housing, education, and healthcare have skyrocketed, and wages haven’t even remotely kept up with inflation. For the first time in American history, younger generations no longer feel confident they will achieve a higher standard of living than their parents… and this dire economic situation is one that disproportionately impacts men. TL;DR: Men care more than women about manly things like living in homes because rahm emanuel said so The rebuttal from Diabolical Lies: Contrary to popular belief, women are also people, and therefore impacted by broad socioeconomic issues, not the least of which include the affordability and housing crisis in America. This is to say nothing of the childcare crisis. In fact, according to a recent University of Kansas analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, more than 400,000 women left the workforce in the first half of 2025, marking the steepest decline in over 40 years for mothers of young children. The main reason why these women left the workforce? They wanted to be good Christian wives and mothers, of course! Neat little fun fact for you: When something has to give, societally speaking, it is always the woman who gives it. TL;DR: Women also need homes and groceries and money for childcare. Radical concept, I know! mental health break 3.) On men needing women to serve as the “guardrails” of culture The argument made by Scott Galloway: In order to be functioning, contributing members of society, men need a sense of purpose in their lives. They need to feel victorious. And since world war is no longer a reliable failsafe for men feeling purpose, the goal of securing a wife and mother for your children is the best motivator for men to do the stuff they need to do, like stay in school and get a good job. Women like educated men with good jobs! That’s why people got married more in the 1950s: because women found men in uniforms attractive, and because those men in uniforms knew how to behave like gracious, respectful suitors worthy of female affection. That’s what we need to get back to: a 1950s-style of engagement. TL;DR: Women are, as we have discussed in a recent episode, the morality police for society. Their job is to alternately be the carrot and/or the stick to lure or prod men forward as good citizens of society, and that is…a really healthy perspective to have on how men and women should operate! For sure! No downsides detected here! The rebuttal from Diabolical Lies: Ha ha, okay, so just to be clear here :) women did not enter into marriage and motherhood in the 1950s because the men were hotter and nicer back then :) they entered into marriage because they had very few legal rights of their own :) they were property, Scott :) do you know what property is? :) the first no-fault divorce law was passed in 1969 in California :) women were not allowed to access credit or bank loans free of male cosigners until 1974 :) there was no such thing as paid maternity leave until 1993 :) are you picking up what I’m putting down here :) did I stutter :) we had no rights :) and then we got some rights :) and now you’re very politely trying to take our rights :) get the fuck away from our rights, Scott :) TL;DR: Scott Galloway I will drive to your house and lobotomize you myself and you can let me know how much you like a 1950s-style approach to dealing with our problems In conclusion: We win the debate and are just flatly correct but Galloway will still continue to out-earn, out-panel, and out-scream us for the rest of his days, a truly delicious irony for a man who has made a career whining about men falling behind More Galloway-related stats to peruse at your leisure It might be true that there are differences in brain development between the sexes… …but it also might not be! It’s also been a proven fact for decade that race and class discrimination are far more impactful variables in the educational bias conversation than gender. Consider this NYT summary of a 2025 study on which kids are admitted to the best colleges, and why: “For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in.” Moving past education to the workforce: boy, there also sure is a lot of evidence that (in spite of the assuredly profound systemic biases put in place against them) white men still manage to make way more money, serve in more executive positions, occupy the majority of seats in Congress, have larger net worths at the end of their careers, and found more companies! oh also the gender wage gap has been at a virtual standstill for about two decades now, with women earning 85 cents on the dollar to men Fear not tho, Richard Reeves wants you to consider how nuanced the gender gap really is in both directions, because again, if you are not listening, the boys are struggling in school and ladies live a bit longer and that is the most important thing As an aside you should listen to this IBCK podcast episode on Reeves’ book, Of Boys & Men, where Peter and Michael spend time deconstructing this whole idea of little boys and girls and their brains and their kindergarten teachers, etc. It’s worth noting that affordability crises often lead to the worsening of gender and racial wage gaps. Just one of the many takeaways from this study that we wish Galloway would read: “Both women’s and men’s typical earnings increased in 2023, but women’s increased less than men’s. Adjusted for inflation, the earnings of a typical full
