Podcasts about Mansplaining

Frances Wilson has written biographies of Dorothy Wordsworth, Thomas De Quincey, D.H. Lawrence, and, most recently, Muriel Spark. I thought Electric Spark was excellent. In my review, I wrote: “Wilson has done far more than string the facts together. She has created a strange and vivid portrait of one of the most curious of twentieth century novelists.” In this interview, we covered questions like why Thomas De Quincey is more widely read, why D.H. Lawrence's best books aren't his novels, Frances's conversion to spookiness, what she thinks about a whole range of modern biographers, literature and parasocial relationships, Elizabeth Bowen, George Meredith, and plenty about Muriel Spark.Here are two brief extracts. There is a full transcript below.Henry: De Quincey and Lawrence were the people you wrote about before Muriel Spark, and even though they seem like three very different people, but in their own way, they're all a little bit mad, aren't they?Frances: Yes, that is, I think, something that they have in common. It's something that I'm drawn to. I like writing about difficult people. I don't think I could write about anyone who wasn't difficult. I like difficult people in general. I like the fact that they pose a puzzle and they're hard to crack, and that their difficulty is laid out in their work and as a code. I like tackling really, really stubborn personalities as well. Yes, they were all a bit mad. The madness was what fuelled their journeys without doubt.Henry: This must make it very hard as a biographer. Is there always a code to be cracked, or are you sometimes dealing with someone who is slippery and protean and uncrackable?And.Henry: People listening will be able to tell that Spark is a very spooky person in several different ways. She had what I suppose we would call spiritual beliefs to do with ghosts and other sorts of things. You had a sort of conversion of your own while writing this book, didn't you?Frances: Yes, I did. [laughs] Every time I write a biography, I become very, very, very immersed in who I'm writing about. I learned this from Richard Holmes, who I see as a method biographer. He Footsteps his subjects. He becomes his subjects. I think I recognized when I first read Holmes's Coleridge, when I was a student, that this was how I also wanted to live. I wanted to live inside the minds of the people that I wrote about, because it was very preferable to live inside my own mind. Why not live inside the mind of someone really, really exciting, one with genius?What I felt with Spark wasn't so much that I was immersed by-- I wasn't immersed by her. I felt actually possessed by her. I think this is the Spark effect. I think a lot of her friends felt like this. I think that her lovers possibly felt like this. There is an extraordinary force to her character, which absolutely lives on, even though she's dead, but only recently dead. The conversion I felt, I think, was that I have always been a very enlightenment thinker, very rational, very scientific, very Freudian in my approach to-- I will acknowledge the unconscious but no more.By the time I finished with Spark, I'm pure woo-woo now.TranscriptHenry: Today, I am talking to Frances Wilson. Frances is a biographer. Her latest book, Electric Spark, is a biography of the novelist Muriel Spark, but she has also written about Dorothy Wordsworth, Thomas De Quincey, DH Lawrence and others. Frances, welcome.Frances Wilson: Thank you so much for having me on.Henry: Why don't more people read Thomas De Quincey's work?Frances: [laughs] Oh, God. We're going right into the deep end.[laughter]Frances: I think because there's too much of it. When I chose to write about Thomas De Quincey, I just followed one thread in his writing because Thomas De Quincey was an addict. One of the things he was addicted to was writing. He wrote far, far, far too much. He was a professional hack. He was a transcendental hack, if you like, because all of his writing he did while on opium, which made the sentences too long and too high and very, very hard to read.When I wrote about him, I just followed his interest in murder. He was fascinated by murder as a fine art. The title of one of his best essays is On Murder as One of the Fine Arts. I was also interested in his relationship with Wordsworth. I twinned those together, which meant cutting out about 97% of the rest of his work. I think people do read his Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. I think that's a cult text. It was the memoir, if you want to call it a memoir, that kick-started the whole pharmaceutical memoir business on drugs.It was also the first addict's memoir and the first recovery memoir, and I'd say also the first misery memoir. He's very much at the root of English literary culture. We're all De Quincey-an without knowing it, is my argument.Henry: Oh, no, I fully agree. That's what surprises me, that they don't read him more often.Frances: I know it's a shame, isn't it? Of all the Romantic Circle, he's the one who's the most exciting to read. Also, Lamb is wonderfully exciting to read as well, but Lamb's a tiny little bit more grounded than De Quincey, who was literally not grounded. He's floating in an opium haze above you.[laughter]Henry: What I liked about your book was the way you emphasized the book addiction, not just the opium addiction. It is shocking the way he piled up chests full of books and notebooks, and couldn't get into the room because there were too many books in there. He was [crosstalk].Frances: Yes. He had this in common with Muriel Spark. He was a hoarder, but in a much more chaotic way than Spark, because, as you say, he piled up rooms with papers and books until he couldn't get into the room, and so just rented another room. He was someone who had no money at all. The no money he had went on paying rent for rooms, storing what we would be giving to Oxfam, or putting in the recycling bin. Then he'd forget that he was paying rent on all these rooms filled with his mountains of paper. The man was chaos.Henry: What is D.H. Lawrence's best book?Frances: Oh, my argument about Lawrence is that we've gone very badly wrong in our reading of him, in seeing him primarily as a novelist and only secondarily as an essayist and critic and short story writer, and poet. This is because of F.R. Leavis writing that celebration of him called D.H. Lawrence: Novelist, because novels are not the best of Lawrence. I think the best of his novels is absolutely, without doubt, Sons and Lovers. I think we should put the novels in the margins and put in the centre, the poems, travel writing.Absolutely at the centre of the centre should be his studies in classic American literature. His criticism was- We still haven't come to terms with it. It was so good. We haven't heard all of Lawrence's various voices yet. When Lawrence was writing, contemporaries didn't think of Lawrence as a novelist at all. It was anyone's guess what he was going to come out with next. Sometimes it was a novel [laughs] and it was usually a rant about-- sometimes it was a prophecy. Posterity has not treated Lawrence well in any way, but I think where we've been most savage to him is in marginalizing his best writing.Henry: The short fiction is truly extraordinary.Frances: Isn't it?Henry: I always thought Lawrence was someone I didn't want to read, and then I read the short fiction, and I was just obsessed.Frances: It's because in the short fiction, he doesn't have time to go wrong. I think brevity was his perfect length. Give him too much space, and you know he's going to get on his soapbox and start ranting, start mansplaining. He was a terrible mansplainer. Mansplaining his versions of what had gone wrong in the world. It is like a drunk at the end of a too-long dinner party, and you really want to just bundle him out. Give him only a tiny bit of space, and he comes out with the perfection that is his writing.Henry: De Quincey and Lawrence were the people you wrote about before Muriel Spark, and even though they seem like three very different people, but in their own way, they're all a little bit mad, aren't they?Frances: Yes, that is, I think, something that they have in common. It's something that I'm drawn to. I like writing about difficult people. I don't think I could write about anyone who wasn't difficult. I like difficult people in general. I like the fact that they pose a puzzle and they're hard to crack, and that their difficulty is laid out in their work and as a code. I like tackling really, really stubborn personalities as well. Yes, they were all a bit mad. The madness was what fuelled their journeys without doubt.Henry: This must make it very hard as a biographer. Is there always a code to be cracked, or are you sometimes dealing with someone who is slippery and protean and uncrackable?Frances: I think that the way I approach biography is that there is a code to crack, but I'm not necessarily concerned with whether I crack it or not. I think it's just recognizing that there's a hell of a lot going on in the writing and that, in certain cases and not in every case at all, the best way of exploring the psyche of the writer and the complexity of the life is through the writing, which is a argument for psycho biography, which isn't something I necessarily would argue for, because it can be very, very crude.I think with the writers I choose, there is no option. Muriel Spark argued for this as well. She said in her own work as a biographer, which was really very, very strong. She was a biographer before she became a novelist. She thought hard about biography and absolutely in advance of anyone else who thought about biography, she said, "Of course, the only way we can approach the minds of writers is through their work, and the writer's life is encoded in the concerns of their work."When I was writing about Muriel Spark, I followed, as much as I could, to the letter, her own theories of biography, believing that that was part of the code that she left. She said very, very strong and very definitive things about what biography was about and how to write a biography. I tried to follow those rules.Henry: Can we play a little game where I say the names of some biographers and you tell me what you think of them?Frances: Oh my goodness. Okay.Henry: We're not trying to get you into trouble. We just want some quick opinions. A.N. Wilson.Frances: I think he's wonderful as a biographer. I think he's unzipped and he's enthusiastic and he's unpredictable and he's often off the rails. I think his Goethe biography-- Have you read the Goethe biography?Henry: Yes, I thought that was great.Frances: It's just great, isn't it? It's so exciting. I like the way that when he writes about someone, it's almost as if he's memorized the whole of their work.Henry: Yes.Frances: You don't imagine him sitting at a desk piled with books and having to score through his marginalia. It sits in his head, and he just pours it down on a page. I'm always excited by an A.N. Wilson biography. He is one of the few biographers who I would read regardless of who the subject was.Henry: Yes.Frances: I just want to read him.Henry: He does have good range.Frances: He absolutely does have good range.Henry: Selina Hastings.Frances: I was thinking about Selina Hastings this morning, funnily enough, because I had been talking to people over the weekend about her Sybil Bedford biography and why that hadn't lifted. She wrote a very excitingly good life of Nancy Mitford and then a very unexcitingly not good life of Sybil Bedford. I was interested in why the Sybil Bedford simply hadn't worked. I met people this weekend who were saying the same thing, that she was a very good biographer who had just failed [laughs] to give us anything about Sybil Bedford.I think what went wrong in that biography was that she just could not give us her opinions. It's as if she just withdrew from her subject as if she was writing a Wikipedia entry. There were no opinions at all. What the friends I was talking to said was that she just fell out with her subject during the book. That's what happened. She stopped being interested in her. She fell out with her and therefore couldn't be bothered. That's what went wrong.Henry: Interesting. I think her Evelyn Waugh biography is superb.Frances: Yes, I absolutely agree. She was on fire until this last one.Henry: That's one of the best books on Waugh, I think.Frances: Yes.Henry: Absolutely magical.Frances: I also remember, it's a very rare thing, of reading a review of it by Hilary Mantel saying that she had not read a biography that had been as good, ever, as Selina Hastings' on Evelyn Waugh. My goodness, that's high praise, isn't it?Henry: Yes, it is. It is. I'm always trying to push that book on people. Richard Holmes.Frances: He's my favourite. He's the reason that I'm a biographer at all. I think his Coleridge, especially the first volume of the two-volume Coleridge, is one of the great books. It left me breathless when I read it. It was devastating. I also think that his Johnson and Savage book is one of the great books. I love Footsteps as well, his account of the books he didn't write in Footsteps. I think he has a strange magic. When Muriel Spark talked about certain writers and critics having a sixth literary sense, which meant that they tuned into language and thought in a way that the rest of us don't, I think that Richard Holmes does have that. I think he absolutely has it in relation to Coleridge. I'm longing for his Tennyson to come out.Henry: Oh, I know. I know.Frances: Oh, I just can't wait. I'm holding off on reading Tennyson until I've got Holmes to help me read him. Yes, he is quite extraordinary.Henry: I would have given my finger to write the Johnson and Savage book.Frances: Yes, I know. I agree. How often do you return to it?Henry: Oh, all the time. All the time.Frances: Me too.Henry: Michael Holroyd.Frances: Oh, that's interesting, Michael Holroyd, because I think he's one of the great unreads. I think he's in this strange position of being known as a greatest living biographer, but nobody's read him on Augustus John. [laughs] I haven't read his biographies cover to cover because they're too long and it's not in my subject area, but I do look in them, and they're novelistic in their wit and complexity. His sentences are very, very, very entertaining, and there's a lot of freight in each paragraph. I hope that he keeps selling.I love his essays as well, and also, I think that he has been a wonderful ambassador for biography. He's very, very supportive of younger biographers, which not every biographer is, but I know he's been very supportive of younger biographers and is incredibly approachable.Henry: Let's do a few Muriel Spark questions. Why was the Book of Job so important to Muriel Spark?Frances: I think she liked it because it was rogue, because it was the only book of the Bible that wasn't based on any evidence, it wasn't based on any truth. It was a fictional book, and she liked fiction sitting in the middle of fact. That was one of her main things, as all Spark lovers know. She liked the fact that there was this work of pure imagination and extraordinarily powerful imagination sitting in the middle of the Old Testament, and also, she thought it was an absolutely magnificent poem.She saw herself primarily as a poet, and she responded to it as a poem, which, of course, it is. Also, she liked God in it. She described Him as the Incredible Hulk [laughs] and she liked His boastfulness. She enjoyed, as I do, difficult personalities, and she liked the fact that God had such an incredibly difficult personality. She liked the fact that God boasted and boasted and boasted, "I made this and I made that," to Job, but also I think she liked the fact that you hear God's voice.She was much more interested in voices than she was in faces. The fact that God's voice comes out of the burning bush, I think it was an image for her of early radio, this voice speaking, and she liked the fact that what the voice said was tricksy and touchy and impossibly arrogant. He gives Moses all these instructions to lead the Israelites, and Moses says, "But who shall I say sent me? Who are you?" He says, "I am who I am." [laughs] She thought that was completely wonderful. She quotes that all the time about herself. She says, "I know it's a bit large quoting God, but I am who I am." [laughs]Henry: That disembodied voice is very important to her fiction.Frances: Yes.Henry: It's the telephone in Memento Mori.Frances: Yes.Henry: Also, to some extent, tell me what you think of this, the narrator often acts like that.Frances: Like this disembodied voice?Henry: Yes, like you're supposed to feel like you're not quite sure who's telling you this or where you're being told it from. That's why it gets, like in The Ballad of Peckham Rye or something, very weird.Frances: Yes. I'm waiting for the PhD on Muriel Sparks' narrators. Maybe it's being done as we speak, but she's very, very interested in narrators and the difference between first-person and third-person. She was very keen on not having warm narrators, to put it mildly. She makes a strong argument throughout her work for the absence of the seductive narrative. Her narratives are, as we know, unbelievably seductive, but not because we are being flattered as readers and not because the narrator makes herself or himself pretty. The narrator says what they feel like saying, withholds most of what you would like them to say, plays with us, like in a Spark expression, describing her ideal narrator like a cat with a bird [laughs].Henry: I like that. Could she have been a novelist if she had not become a Catholic?Frances: No, she couldn't. The two things happened at the same time. I wonder, actually, whether she became a Catholic in order to become a novelist. It wasn't that becoming a novelist was an accidental effect of being a Catholic. The conversion was, I think, from being a biographer to a novelist rather than from being an Anglican to a Catholic. What happened is a tremendous interest. I think it's the most interesting moment in any life that I've ever written about is the moment of Sparks' conversion because it did break her life in two.She converted when she was in her mid-30s, and several things happened at once. She converted to Catholicism, she became a Catholic, she became a novelist, but she also had this breakdown. The breakdown was very much part of that conversion package. The breakdown was brought on, she says, by taking Dexys. There was slimming pills, amphetamines. She wanted to lose weight. She put on weight very easily, and her weight went up and down throughout her life.She wanted to take these diet pills, but I think she was also taking the pills because she needed to do all-nighters, because she never, ever, ever stopped working. She was addicted to writing, but also she was impoverished and she had to sell her work, and she worked all night. She was in a rush to get her writing done because she'd wasted so much of her life in her early 20s, in a bad marriage trapped in Africa. She needed to buy herself time. She was on these pills, which have terrible side effects, one of which is hallucinations.I think there were other reasons for her breakdown as well. She was very, very sensitive and I think psychologically fragile. Her mother lived in a state of mental fragility, too. She had a crash when she finished her book. She became depressed. Of course, a breakdown isn't the same as depression, but what happened to her in her breakdown was a paranoid attack rather than a breakdown. She didn't crack into nothing and then have to rebuild herself. She just became very paranoid. That paranoia was always there.Again, it's what's exciting about her writing. She was drawn to paranoia in other writers. She liked Cardinal Newman's paranoia. She liked Charlotte Brontë's paranoia, and she had paranoia. During her paranoid attack, she felt very, very interestingly, because nothing that happened in her life was not interesting, that T.S. Eliot was sending her coded messages. He was encoding these messages in his play, The Confidential Clerk, in the program notes to the play, but also in the blurbs he wrote for Faber and Faber, where he was an editor. These messages were very malign and they were encoded in anagrams.The word lived, for example, became devil. I wonder whether one of the things that happened during her breakdown wasn't that she discovered God, but that she met the devil. I don't think that that's unusual as a conversion experience. In fact, the only conversion experience she ever describes, you'll remember, is in The Girls of Slender Means, when she's describing Nicholas Farrington's conversion. That's the only conversion experience she ever describes. She says that his conversion is when he sees one of the girls leaving the burning building, holding a Schiaparelli dress. Suddenly, he's converted because he's seen a vision of evil.She says, "Conversion can be as a result of a recognition of evil, rather than a recognition of good." I think that what might have happened in this big cocktail of things that happened to her during her breakdown/conversion, is that a writer whom she had idolized, T.S. Eliot, who taught her everything that she needed to know about the impersonality of art. Her narrative coldness comes from Eliot, who thought that emotions had no place in art because they were messy, and art should be clean.I think a writer whom she had idolized, she suddenly felt was her enemy because she was converting from his church, because he was an Anglo-Catholic. He was a high Anglican, and she was leaving Anglo-Catholicism to go through the Rubicon, to cross the Rubicon into Catholicism. She felt very strongly that that is something he would not have approved of.Henry: She's also leaving poetry to become a prose writer.Frances: She was leaving his world of poetry. That's absolutely right.Henry: This is a very curious parallel because the same thing exactly happens to De Quincey with his worship of Wordsworth.Frances: You're right.Henry: They have the same obsessive mania. Then this, as you say, not quite a breakdown, but a kind of explosive mania in the break. De Quincey goes out and destroys that mossy hut or whatever it is in the orchard, doesn't he?Frances: Yes, that disgusting hut in the orchard. Yes, you're completely right. What fascinated me about De Quincey, and this was at the heart of the De Quincey book, was how he had been guided his whole life by Wordsworth. He discovered Wordsworth as a boy when he read We Are Seven, that very creepy poem about a little girl sitting on her sibling's grave, describing the sibling as still alive. For De Quincey, who had lost his very adored sister, he felt that Wordsworth had seen into his soul and that Wordsworth was his mentor and his lodestar.He worshipped Wordsworth as someone who understood him and stalked Wordsworth, pursued and stalked him. When he met him, what he discovered was a man without any redeeming qualities at all. He thought he was a dry monster, but it didn't stop him loving the work. In fact, he loved the work more and more. What threw De Quincey completely was that there was such a difference between Wordsworth, the man who had no genius, and Wordsworth, the poet who had nothing but.Eliot described it, the difference between the man who suffers and the mind which creates. What De Quincey was trying to deal with was the fact that he adulated the work, but was absolutely appalled by the man. Yes, you're right, this same experience happened to spark when she began to feel that T.S. Eliot, whom she had never met, was a malign person, but the work was still not only of immense importance to her, but the work had formed her.Henry: You see the Wasteland all over her own work and the shared Dante obsession.Frances: Yes.Henry: It's remarkably strong. She got to the point of thinking that T.S. Eliot was breaking into her house.Frances: Yes. As I said, she had this paranoid imagination, but also what fired her imagination and what repeated itself again and again in the imaginative scenarios that recur in her fiction and nonfiction is the idea of the intruder. It was the image of someone rifling around in cupboards, drawers, looking at manuscripts. This image, you first find it in a piece she wrote about finding herself completely coincidentally, staying the night during the war in the poet Louis MacNeice's house. She didn't know it was Louis MacNeice's house, but he was a poet who was very, very important to her.Spark's coming back from visiting her parents in Edinburgh in 1944. She gets talking to an au pair on the train. By the time they pull into Houston, there's an air raid, and the au pair says, "Come and spend the night at mine. My employers are away and they live nearby in St. John's Wood." Spark goes to this house and sees it's packed with books and papers, and she's fascinated by the quality of the material she finds there.She looks in all the books. She goes into the attic, and she looks at all the papers, and she asks the au pair whose house it is, and the au pair said, "Oh, he's a professor called Professor Louis MacNeice." Spark had just been reading Whitney. He's one of her favourite poets. She retells this story four times in four different forms, as non-fiction, as fiction, as a broadcast, as reflections, but the image that keeps coming back, what she can't get rid of, is the idea of herself as snooping around in this poet's study.She describes herself, in one of the versions, as trying to draw from his papers his power as a writer. She says she sniffs his pens, she puts her hands over his papers, telling herself, "I must become a writer. I must become a writer." Then she makes this weird anonymous phone call. She loved the phone because it was the most strange form of electrical device. She makes a weird anonymous phone call to an agent, saying, "I'm ringing from Louis MacNeice's house, would you like to see my manuscript?" She doesn't give her name, and the agent says yes.Now I don't believe this phone call took place. I think it's part of Sparks' imagination. This idea of someone snooping around in someone else's room was very, very powerful to her. Then she transposed it in her paranoid attack about T.S. Eliot. She transposed the image that Eliot was now in her house, but not going through her papers, but going through her food cupboards. [laughs] In her food cupboards, all she actually had was baked beans because she was a terrible cook. Part of her unwellness at that point was malnutrition. No, she thought that T.S. Eliot was spying on her. She was obsessed with spies. Spies, snoopers, blackmailers.Henry: T.S. Eliot is Stealing My Baked Beans would have been a very good title for a memoir.Frances: It actually would, wouldn't it?Henry: Yes, it'd be great.[laughter]Henry: People listening will be able to tell that Spark is a very spooky person in several different ways. She had what I suppose we would call spiritual beliefs to do with ghosts and other sorts of things. You had a sort of conversion of your own while writing this book, didn't you?Frances: Yes, I did. [laughs] Every time I write a biography, I become very, very, very immersed in who I'm writing about. I learned this from Richard Holmes, who I see as a method biographer. He Footsteps his subjects. He becomes his subjects. I think I recognized when I first read Holmes's Coleridge, when I was a student, that this was how I also wanted to live. I wanted to live inside the minds of the people that I wrote about, because it was very preferable to live inside my own mind. Why not live inside the mind of someone really, really exciting, one with genius?What I felt with Spark wasn't so much that I was immersed by-- I wasn't immersed by her. I felt actually possessed by her. I think this is the Spark effect. I think a lot of her friends felt like this. I think that her lovers possibly felt like this. There is an extraordinary force to her character, which absolutely lives on, even though she's dead, but only recently dead. The conversion I felt, I think, was that I have always been a very enlightenment thinker, very rational, very scientific, very Freudian in my approach to-- I will acknowledge the unconscious but no more.By the time I finished with Spark, I'm pure woo-woo now. Anything can happen. This is one of the reasons Spark was attracted to Catholicism because anything can happen, because it legitimizes the supernatural. I felt so strongly that the supernatural experiences that Spark had were real, that what Spark was describing as the spookiness of our own life were things that actually happened.One of the things I found very, very unsettling about her was that everything that happened to her, she had written about first. She didn't describe her experiences in retrospect. She described them as in foresight. For example, her first single authored published book, because she wrote for a while in collaboration with her lover, Derek Stanford, but her first single authored book was a biography of Mary Shelley.Henry: Great book.Frances: An absolutely wonderful book, which really should be better than any of the other Mary Shelley biographies. She completely got to Mary Shelley. Everything she described in Mary Shelley's life would then happen to Spark. For example, she described Mary Shelley as having her love letters sold. Her lover sold Mary Shelley's love letters, and Mary Shelley was then blackmailed by the person who bought them. This happened to Spark. She described Mary Shelley's closest friends all becoming incredibly jealous of her literary talent. This happened to Spark. She described trusting people who betrayed her. This happened to Spark.Spark was the first person to write about Frankenstein seriously, to treat Frankenstein as a masterpiece rather than as a one-off weird novel that is actually just the screenplay for a Hammer Horror film. This was 1951, remember. Everything she described in Frankenstein as its power is a hybrid text, described the powerful hybrid text that she would later write about. What fascinated her in Frankenstein was the relationship between the creator and the monster, and which one was the monster. This is exactly the story of her own life. I think where she is. She was really interested in art monsters and in the fact that the only powerful writers out there, the only writers who make a dent, are monsters.If you're not a monster, you're just not competing. I think Spark has always spoken about as having a monster-like quality. She says at the end of one of her short stories, Bang-bang You're Dead, "Am I an intellectual woman, or am I a monster?" It's the question that is frequently asked of Spark. I think she worked so hard to monsterize herself. Again, she learnt this from Elliot. She learnt her coldness from Elliot. She learnt indifference from Elliot. There's a very good letter where she's writing to a friend, Shirley Hazzard, in New York.It's after she discovers that her lover, Derek Stanford, has sold her love letters, 70 love letters, which describe two very, very painfully raw, very tender love letters. She describes to Shirley Hazzard this terrible betrayal. She says, "But, I'm over it. I'm over it now. Now I'm just going to be indifferent." She's telling herself to just be indifferent about this. You watch her tutoring herself into the indifference that she needed in order to become the artist that she knew she was.Henry: Is this why she's attracted to mediocrities, because she can possess them and monsterize them, and they're good feeding for her artistic programme?Frances: Her attraction to mediocrities is completely baffling, and it makes writing her biography, a comedy, because the men she was surrounded by were so speck-like. Saw themselves as so important, but were, in fact, so speck-like that you have to laugh, and it was one after another after another. I'd never come across, in my life, so many men I'd never heard of. This was the literary world that she was surrounded by. It's odd, I don't know whether, at the time, she knew how mediocre these mediocrities were.She certainly recognised it in her novels where they're all put together into one corporate personality called the pisseur de copie in A Far Cry from Kensington, where every single literary mediocrity is in that critic who she describes as pissing and vomiting out copy. With Derek Stanford, who was obviously no one's ever heard of now, because he wrote nothing that was memorable, he was her partner from the end of the 40s until-- They ceased their sexual relationship when she started to be interested in becoming a Catholic in 1953, but she was devoted to him up until 1958. She seemed to be completely incapable of recognising that she had the genius and he had none.Her letters to him deferred to him, all the time, as having literary powers that she hadn't got, as having insights that she hadn't got, he's better read than she was. She was such an amazingly good critic. Why could she not see when she looked at his baggy, bad prose that it wasn't good enough? She rated him so highly. When she was co-authoring books with him, which was how she started her literary career, they would occasionally write alternative sentences. Some of her sentences are always absolutely-- they're sharp, lean, sparkling, and witty, and his are way too long and really baggy and they don't say anything. Obviously, you can see that she's irritated by it.She still doesn't say, "Look, I'm going now." It was only when she became a novelist that she said, "I want my mind to myself." She puts, "I want my mind to myself." She didn't want to be in a double act with him. Doubles were important to her. She didn't want to be in a double act with him anymore. He obviously had bought into her adulation of him and hadn't recognised that she had this terrifying power as a writer. It was now his turn to have the breakdown. Spark had the mental breakdown in 1950, '45. When her first novel came out in 1957, it was Stanford who had the breakdown because he couldn't take on board who she was as a novelist.What he didn't know about her as a novelist was her comic sense, how that would fuel the fiction, but also, he didn't recognize because he reviewed her books badly. He didn't recognise that the woman who had been so tender, vulnerable, and loving with him could be this novelist who had nothing to say about tenderness or love. In his reviews, he says, "Why are her characters so cold?" because he thought that she should be writing from the core of her as a human being rather than the core of her as an intellect.Henry: What are her best novels?Frances: Every one I read, I think this has to be the best.[laughter]This is particularly the case in the early novels, where I'm dazzled by The Comforters and think there cannot have been a better first novel of the 20th century or even the 21st century so far. The Comforters. Then read Robinson, her second novel, and think, "Oh God, no, that is her best novel. Then Memento Mori, I think, "Actually, that must be the best novel of the 20th century." [laughs] Then you move on to The Ballad of Peckham Rye, I think, "No, that's even better."The novels landed. It's one of the strange things about her; it took her so long to become a novelist. When she had become one, the novels just landed. Once in one year, two novels landed. In 1959, she had, it was The Bachelors and The Ballad of Peckham Rye, both just completely extraordinary. The novels had been the storing up, and then they just fell on the page. They're different, but samey. They're samey in as much as they're very, very, very clever. They're clever about Catholicism, and they have the same narrative wit. My God, do the plots work in different ways. She was wonderful at plots. She was a great plotter. She liked plots in both senses of the world.She liked the idea of plotting against someone, also laying a plot. She was, at the same time, absolutely horrified by being caught inside someone's plot. That's what The Comforters is about, a young writer called Caroline Rose, who has a breakdown, it's a dramatisation of Sparks' own breakdown, who has a breakdown, and believes that she is caught inside someone else's story. She is a typewriter repeating all of her thoughts. Typewriter and a chorus repeating all of her thoughts.What people say about The Comforters is that Caroline Rose thought she is a heroine of a novel who finds herself trapped in a novel. Actually, if you read what Caroline Rose says in the novel, she doesn't think she's trapped in a novel; she thinks she's trapped in a biography. "There is a typewriter typing the story of our lives," she says to her boyfriend. "Of our lives." Muriel Sparks' first book was about being trapped in a biography, which is, of course, what she brought on herself when she decided to trap herself in a biography. [laughs]Henry: I think I would vote for Loitering with Intent, The Girls of Slender Means as my favourites. I can see that Memento Mori is a good book, but I don't love it, actually.Frances: Really? Interesting. Okay. I completely agree with you about-- I think Loitering with Intent is my overall favourite. Don't you find every time you read it, it's a different book? There are about 12 books I've discovered so far in that book. She loved books inside books, but every time I read it, I think, "Oh my God, it's changed shape again. It's a shape-shifting novel."Henry: We all now need the Frances Wilson essay about the 12 books inside Loitering with Intent.Frances: I know.[laughter]Henry: A few more general questions to close. Did Thomas De Quincey waste his talents?Frances: I wouldn't have said so. I think that's because every single day of his life, he was on opium.Henry: I think the argument is a combination of too much opium and also too much magazine work and not enough "real serious" philosophy, big poems, whatever.Frances: I think the best of his work went into Blackwood's, so the magazine work. When he was taken on by Blackwood's, the razor-sharp Edinburgh magazine, then the best of his work took place. I think that had he only written the murder essays, that would have been enough for me, On Murder as a Fine Art.That was enough. I don't need any more of De Quincey. I think Confessions of an English Opium-Eater is also enough in as much as it's the great memoir of addiction. We don't need any more memoirs of addiction, just read that. It's not just a memoir of being addicted to opium. It's about being addicted to what's what. It's about being a super fan and addicted to writing. He was addicted to everything. If he was in AA now, they'd say, apparently, there are 12 addictions, he had all of them. [laughs]Henry: Yes. People talk a lot about parasocial relationships online, where you read someone online or you follow them, and you have this strange idea in your head that you know them in some way, even though they're just this disembodied online person. You sometimes see people say, "Oh, we should understand this more." I think, "Well, read the history of literature, parasocial relationships everywhere."Frances: That's completely true. I hadn't heard that term before. The history of literature, a parasocial relationship. That's your next book.Henry: There we go. I think what I want from De Quincey is more about Shakespeare, because I think the Macbeth essay is superb.Frances: Absolutely brilliant. On Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth.Henry: Yes, and then you think, "Wait, where's the rest of this book? There should be an essay about every play."Frances: That's an absolutely brilliant example of microhistory, isn't it? Just taking a moment in a play, just the knocking at the gate, the morning after the murders, and blowing that moment up, so it becomes the whole play. Oh, my God, it's good. You're right.Henry: It's so good. What is, I think, "important about it", is that in the 20th century, critics started saying or scholars started saying a lot, "We can't just look at the words on the page. We've got to think about the dramaturgy. We've got to really, really think about how it plays out." De Quincey was an absolute master of that. It's really brilliant.Frances: Yes.Henry: What's your favourite modern novel or novelist?Frances: Oh, Hilary Mantel, without doubt, I think. I think we were lucky enough to live alongside a great, great, great novelist. I think the Wolf Hall trilogy is absolutely the greatest piece of narrative fiction that's come out of the 21st century. I also love her. I love her work as an essayist. I love her. She's spooky like Spark. She was inspired.Henry: Yes, she is. Yes.Frances: She learnt a lot of her cunning from Spark, I think. She's written a very spooky memoir. In fact, the only women novelists who acknowledge Spark as their influencer are Ali Smith and Hilary Mantel, although you can see Spark in William Boyd all the time. I think we're pretty lucky to live alongside William Boyd as well. Looking for real, real greatness, I think there's no one to compare with Mantel. Do you agree?Henry: I don't like the third volume of the trilogy.Frances: Okay. Right.Henry: Yes, in general, I do agree. Yes. I think some people don't like historical fiction for a variety of reasons. It may take some time for her to get it. I think she's acknowledged as being really good. I don't know that she's yet acknowledged at the level that you're saying.Frances: Yes.Henry: I think that will take a little bit longer. Maybe as and when there's a biography that will help with that, which I'm sure there will be a biography.Frances: I think they need to wait. I do think it's important to wait for a reputation to settle before starting the biography. Her biography will be very interesting because she married the same man twice. Her growth as a novelist was so extraordinary. Spark, she spent time in Africa. She had this terrible, terrible illness. She knew something. I think what I love about Mantel is, as with Spark, she knew something. She knew something, and she didn't quite know what it was that she knew. She had to write because of this knowledge. When you read her, you know that she's on a different level of understanding.Henry: You specialise in slightly neglected figures of English literature. Who else among the canonical writers deserves a bit more attention?Frances: Oh, that's interesting. I love minor characters. I think Spark was very witty about describing herself as a minor novelist or a writer of minor novels when she was evidently major. She always saw the comedy in being a minor. All the minor writers interest me. Elizabeth Bowen, Henry Green. No, they have heard Elizabeth Bowen has been treated well by Hermione Lee and Henry Green has been treated well by Jeremy Treglown.Why are they not up there yet? They're so much better than most of their contemporaries. I am mystified and fascinated by why it is that the most powerful writers tend to be kicked into the long grass. It's dazzling. When you read a Henry Green novel, you think, "But this is what it's all about. He's understood everything about what the novel can do. Why has no one heard of him?"Henry: I think Elizabeth Bowen's problem is that she's so concise, dense, and well-structured, and everything really plays its part in the pattern of the whole that it's not breezy reading.Frances: No, it's absolutely not.Henry: I think that probably holds her back in some way, even though when I have pushed it on people, most of the time they've said, "Gosh, she's a genius."Frances: Yes.Henry: It's not an easy genius. Whereas Dickens, the pages sort of fly along, something like that.Frances: Yes. One of the really interesting things about Spark is that she really, really is easy reading. At the same time, there's so much freight in those books. There's so much intellectual weight and so many games being played. There's so many books inside the books. Yet you can just read them for the pleasure. You can just read them for the plot. You can read one in an afternoon and think that you've been lost inside a book for 10 years. You don't get that from Elizabeth Bowen. That's true. The novels, you feel the weight, don't you?Henry: Yes.Frances: She's Jamesian. She's more Jamesian, I think, than Spark is.Henry: Something like A World of Love, it requires quite a lot of you.Frances: Yes, it does. Yes, it's not bedtime reading.Henry: No, exactly.Frances: Sitting up in a library.Henry: Yes. Now, you mentioned James. You're a Henry James expert.Frances: I did my PhD on Henry James.Henry: Yes. Will you ever write about him?Frances: I have, actually. Just a little plug. I've just done a selection of James's short stories, three volumes, which are coming out, I think, later this year for Riverrun with a separate introduction for each volume. I think that's all the writing I'm going to do on James. When I was an academic, I did some academic essays on him for collections and things. No, I've never felt, ever, ready to write on James because he's too complicated. I can only take tiny, tiny bits of James and home in on them.Henry: He's a great one for trying to crack the code.Frances: He really is. In fact, I was struck all the way through writing Electric Spark by James's understanding of the comedy of biography, which is described in the figure in the carpet. Remember that wonderful story where there's a writer called Verica who explains to a young critic that none of the critics have understood what his work's about. Everything that's written about him, it's fine, but it's absolutely missed his main point, his beautiful point. He said that in order to understand what the work's about, you have to look for The Figure in the Carpet. It's The Figure in the CarpetIt's the string on which my pearls are strung. A couple of critics become completely obsessed with looking for this Figure in the Carpet. Of course, Spark loved James's short stories. You feel James's short stories playing inside her own short stories. I think that one of the games she left for her biographers was the idea of The Figure in the Carpet. Go on, find it then. Find it. [laughs] The string on which my pearls are strung.Henry: Why did you leave academia? We should say that you did this before it became the thing that everyone's doing.Frances: Is everyone leaving now?Henry: A lot of people are leaving now.Frances: Oh, I didn't know. I was ahead of the curve. I left 20 years ago because I wasn't able to write the books I wanted to write. I left when I'd written two books as an academic. My first was Literary Seductions, and my second was a biography of a blackmailing courtesan called Harriet Wilson, and the book was called The Courtesan's Revenge. My department was sniffy about the books because they were published by Faber and not by OUP, and suggested that somehow I was lowering the tone of the department.This is what things were like 20 years ago. Then I got a contract to write The Ballad of Dorothy Wordsworth, my third book, again with Faber. I didn't want to write the book with my head of department in the back of my mind saying, "Make this into an academic tome and put footnotes in." I decided then that I would leave, and I left very suddenly. Now, I said I'm leaving sort of now, and I've got books to write, and felt completely liberated. Then for The Ballad of Dorothy Wordsworth, I decided not to have footnotes. It's the only book I've ever written without footnotes, simply as a celebration of no longer being in academia.Then the things I loved about being in academia, I loved teaching, and I loved being immersed in literature, but I really couldn't be around colleagues and couldn't be around the ridiculous rules of what was seen as okay. In fact, the university I left, then asked me to come back on a 0.5 basis when they realised that it was now fashionable to have someone who was a trade author. They asked me to come back, which I did not want to do. I wanted to spend days where I didn't see people rather than days where I had to talk to colleagues all the time. I think that academia is very unhappy. The department I was in was incredibly unhappy.Since then, I took up a job very briefly in another English department where I taught creative writing part-time. That was also incredibly unhappy. I don't know whether other French departments or engineering departments are happier places than English departments, but English departments are the most unhappy places I think I've ever seen.[laughter]Henry: What do you admire about the work of George Meredith?Frances: Oh, I love George Meredith. [laughs] Yes. I think Modern Love, his first novel, Modern Love, in a strange sonnet form, where it's not 14 lines, but 16 lines. By the time you get to the bottom two lines, the novel, the sonnet has become hysterical. Modern Love hasn't been properly recognised. It's an account of the breakdown of his marriage. His wife, who was the daughter of the romantic, minor novelist, Thomas Love Peacock. His wife had an affair with the artist who painted the famous Death of Chatterton. Meredith was the model for Chatterton, the dead poet in his purple silks, with his hand falling on the ground. There's a lot of mythology around Meredith.I think, as with Elizabeth Bowen and Henry Green, he's difficult. He's difficult. The other week, I tried to reread Diana of the Crossways, which was a really important novel, and I still love it. I really recognise that it's not an easy read. He doesn't try, in any way, to seduce his readers. They absolutely have to crawl inside each book to sit inside his mind and see the world as he's seeing it.Henry: Can you tell us what you will do next?Frances: At the moment, I'm testing some ideas out. I feel, at the end of every biography, you need a writer. You need to cleanse your palate. Otherwise, there's a danger of writing the same book again. I need this time, I think, to write about, to move century and move genders. I want to go back, I think, to the 19th century. I want to write about a male writer for a moment, and possibly not a novelist as well, because after being immersed in Muriel Sparks' novels, no other novel is going to seem good enough. I'm testing 19th-century men who didn't write novels, and it will probably be a minor character.Henry: Whatever it is, I look forward to reading it. Frances Wilson, thank you very much.Frances: Thank you so much, Henry. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

I'm sure you're familiar with the term mansplaining. If not, let me explain. I'm kidding! I don't think I have an issue with it; if I do, no one has pointed it out to me. I give everyone, man or woman, the benefit of the doubt that they know what I'm talking about. If they don't understand, I have no problem offering guidance at that point. But I've run into a situation that is not precisely the same; I view it similarly. I've dubbed this 'Britsplaining'. Since much of our social media team works in London, I must be aware of cultural differences. Writing reports can get interesting... Click Here To Subscribe Apple PodcastsSpotifyAmazon MusicGoogle PodcastsTuneIniHeartRadioPandoraDeezerBlubrryBullhornCastBoxCastrofyyd.deGaanaiVooxListen NotesmyTuner RadioOvercastOwlTailPlayer.fmPocketCastsPodbayPodbeanPodcast AddictPodcast IndexPodcast RepublicPodchaserPodfanPodtailRadio PublicRadio.comReason.fmRSSRadioVurblWe.foYandex jQuery(document).ready(function($) { 'use strict'; $('#podcast-subscribe-button-13292 .podcast-subscribe-button.modal-6850baad8b3af').on("click", function() { $("#secondline-psb-subs-modal.modal-6850baad8b3af.modal.secondline-modal-6850baad8b3af").modal({ fadeDuration: 250, closeText: '', }); return false; }); });

In this spirited episode of Barrel Room Chronicles, host KerryMoynahan sits down with two trailblazing women who are reshaping the whiskey world—Women Who Whiskey founder Julia Ritz Toffoli and Kim Ohanneson, head of the Los Angeles chapter.In This Episode:·       The origin story of Women Who Whiskey·       Julia's first taste of whiskey—and how it changed everything·       How Kim launched the LA chapter and grew it to 2,000+ members·       The club's motto: “Whiskey without mansplaining”·       Whiskey + Poetry Salons, brand partnerships, and bottle releases·       How to join or start a chapter in your city·       Why whiskey is for everyone—novices, nerds, and everyone in between·       Celebrating Chizuru Fukano with a special Fukano bottle collaboration·       https://potomacwines.com/index.php?route=product/search&search=women%20who%20whiskey

No programa desta semana, Luana do Bem narra a epopeia digital da compra de bilhetes para o concerto do porto-riquenho Bad Bunny no Estádio da Luz, Luís Pedro Nunes explora os novos velhos modelos de masculinidade tóxica, José de Pina dá as novidades sobre o catálogo da marca de gelados com nome de cumprimento, e a convidada Maria Francisca Gama explica o conceito de competição de histórias tristes. Com moderação de Pedro Boucherie Mendes, o Irritações foi emitido a 16 de maio, na SIC Radical. Por questões de autoria na plataforma Spotify, a música final é agora retirada deste episódio podcast.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textTo meet the increased demand for carbon-free electricity that might mitigate the climate crisis that is already upon us, nations the world over are reconsidering nuclear energy.  Mansplaining listeners of a certain age remember the No Nukes movement that gained steam after frightening meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  What they may not realize is that nuclear power remains an important piece of the world's energy portfolio.  Joe and Mark assess nuclear's risk profile to determine whether it's part of the problem or part of the solution. (Recorded May 11, 2025.)

Have you ever noticed a man explaining something to a woman in a supremely confident way which suggests he absolutely knows more than her about the subject? Well, there's a term for that, which is mansplaining. A recent thread on parenting forum Mumsnet invited women to share their worst examples of mansplaining. Among them were patronising explanations of the offside rule, a gas man telling a qualified engineer to wait for her partner to get home so he could tell him how to fix the boiler rather than her and a male doctor telling a pregnant woman not to worry as C-sections aren't painful! How long has mansplaining been around? Why do men do this then? Are they really all that bad? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: How can you avoid bed bugs when you travel? What is microwork? How does pollution affect my mental health? A podcast written and realised by Joseph Chance. First broadcast: 19/7/2021 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frauen haben heute so viele Möglichkeiten wie nie zuvor - und stoßen doch im Berufsleben immer wieder an unsichtbare Grenzen. Ob schlechtere Bezahlung, stereotype Vorurteile oder subtile Widerstände: Der Weg nach oben ist für Frauen oft steiniger als für Männer. Wie können Frauen sich in solchen Umfeldern klug, gelassen und kraftvoll positionieren? Sollen sie männliche Eigenschaften übernehmen oder liegt wahre Stärke gerade darin, die eigene Energie authentisch zu leben? Darüber spreche ich in dieser Folge mit Kathrin Leinweber, High-Performance-Coach, Speakerin, Buchautorin und erfahrene Führungskraft. Über 20 Jahre lang war sie selbst in der Investmentbranche erfolgreich, unter anderem als stellvertretende Abteilungsdirektorin. Heute unterstützt sie Frauen und Unternehmen dabei, Kompetenz sichtbar und wirksam zu machen. Ihr aktuelles Buch „Wie Frauen erfolgreich in Männerdomänen durchstarten“ liefert die perfekte Gesprächsgrundlage. In dieser Folge sprechen wir darüber: - Warum es sich lohnt, "Erfolg" für sich zu definieren, um erfüllt zu sein - Wie Frauen selbstbewusst in klassischen Männerdomänen auftreten können – ohne sich zu verbiegen - Wie wir aus Vorurteilen Vorteile machen können - Mansplaining, Hepeating und Manterrupting: Wie können Frauen klug auf unpassendes Verhalten reagieren? - Von Pumps bis Turnschuhe: Wie sieht die ideale Businesskleidung aus? In unserem Gespräch bekommt ihr die besten Tipps und Hacks von Kathrin für alle Frauen, die beruflich erfolgreich sein wollen. Mehr zu Kathrin findet ihr auf https://kathrinleinweber.de und auf LinkedIn unter: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathrin-leinweber-female-empowerment-speaker-369k/?originalSubdomain=de Wenn euch diese Folge gefallen hat, schreibt doch bitte eine Rezension auf Spotify oder Apple. Das würde mir sehr helfen. Vielen Dank. Alle Informationen zu meiner Arbeit findet ihr wie immer unter: www.hannah-panidis.de Und hier begegnet ihr mir meist tagesaktuell: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hannahpanidis LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hannah-panidis-55141a145/?originalSubdomain=de Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HannahPanidisKommunikation/?locale=de_DE

Episode 43: Throw on some Talking Heads or adorn yourself in doll heads and meet the crew in Tabula Rasa, a futuristic Las Vegas on steroids as we team up with Zoey Ashe to both demean and defeat a roid raging ultra-male named Molech. Join the discussion with Escape the Earth: email: saplescapetheearth@gmail.com goodreads: www.goodreads.com/group/show/10939…escape-the-earth libguide: guides.mysapl.org/ETE

we gaan het uitgebreid hebben over 'mansplaining' de ongevraagde adviezen van het andere geslacht. Want poeh daar kennen wij wel wat voorbeelden van! Enjoy!!Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Second Sunday of Easter Luke 24:13-35 at Common Table: Mansplaining vs. the Proustian Moment w/ Drew Willson

Does mansplaining even exist? Jen talks about why it's bad for women to think that men are constantly talking down to them. But, more importantly, there's rap beef news!   NOTE: This episode was recorded before Pope Francis' passing. Requiescat in pace, Pontifex.   PATREON: Join Jen's Patreon here and get instant access to great content + Jen's “State of the Dumpster Fire” chats   UPCOMING SHOWS - NEW MATERIAL! 4/23 - TYLER, TX - *NEW LINK* 5/7 - COLUMBUS  5/10 - NYC    JEN'S COMEDY SPECIAL: Maternal Instinct on YouTube   EMAIL LIST: Join Jen's email list!   YOUTUBE: Jen's Youtube channel  

When was the last time someone stole your idea or explained something to you that you were the expert on? It happens more often than one thinks.Welcome to another transformative episode of the Shedding the Corporate Bitch Podcast with Bernadette Boas. In this powerful conversation, executive coach Kelly Meerbott joins us to unpack the nuanced, often contentious issue of mansplaining and its impact on workplace dynamics and leadership credibility.Episode Highlights:Understanding Mansplaining: Discover what mansplaining truly entails and its subtle mechanisms aimed at undermining confidence, particularly in women leaders.Real-Life Scenarios: Kelly shares insightful stories that illustrate how mansplaining shows up in professional settings and how women can unintentionally find themselves silenced or their ideas overshadowed.Strategies to Reclaim Ownership: Learn actionable strategies to elevate your confidence and leadership presence. From aligning with female colleagues for mutual support to mastering communication techniques like alpha tonality, gain insights on how to effectively reclaim your voice and ideas.The Role of Men in the Dialogue: Delve into the important role men play in dismantling patriarchal practices. Hear about the significance of allies and how both genders can collaboratively foster an inclusive environment.Inter-generational Advocacy: Explore the challenges and opportunities in bridging generational divides among women in corporate settings. Understand the importance of support networks and mentorship for elevating emerging female leaders.Practical Takeaways: Whether you're combating imposter syndrome or seeking to bolster your leadership style, Kelly offers profound advice on building enduring confidence, aligning with core values, and navigating corporate power dynamics with authenticity and strength.Connect with Kelly Meerbott:Website: kellymeerbott.comLinkedIn: Find Kelly Meerbott on LinkedIn for insights and updates.Join us as we tackle the intricacies of gender dynamics in the workplace, empowering you with the tools to lead with resilience and authenticity. Whether a victim of mansplaining or as someone striving to create a more inclusive work environment, this episode offers something valuable for everyone aiming to unleash their powerhouse potential.Don't miss out—tune in now to accelerate your journey towards transformative leadership!SUBSCRIBE, FOLLOW, and LIKE the show whereever you get your podcasts and on ShedtheBitchTV on YouTube.Support the show

When was the last time someone stole your idea or explained something to you that you were the expert on? It happens more often than one thinks.Welcome to another transformative episode of the Shedding the Corporate Bitch Podcast with Bernadette Boas. In this powerful conversation, executive coach Kelly Meerbott joins us to unpack the nuanced, often contentious issue of mansplaining and its impact on workplace dynamics and leadership credibility.Episode Highlights:Understanding Mansplaining: Discover what mansplaining truly entails and its subtle mechanisms aimed at undermining confidence, particularly in women leaders.Real-Life Scenarios: Kelly shares insightful stories that illustrate how mansplaining shows up in professional settings and how women can unintentionally find themselves silenced or their ideas overshadowed.Strategies to Reclaim Ownership: Learn actionable strategies to elevate your confidence and leadership presence. From aligning with female colleagues for mutual support to mastering communication techniques like alpha tonality, gain insights on how to effectively reclaim your voice and ideas.The Role of Men in the Dialogue: Delve into the important role men play in dismantling patriarchal practices. Hear about the significance of allies and how both genders can collaboratively foster an inclusive environment.Inter-generational Advocacy: Explore the challenges and opportunities in bridging generational divides among women in corporate settings. Understand the importance of support networks and mentorship for elevating emerging female leaders.Practical Takeaways: Whether you're combating imposter syndrome or seeking to bolster your leadership style, Kelly offers profound advice on building enduring confidence, aligning with core values, and navigating corporate power dynamics with authenticity and strength.Connect with Kelly Meerbott:Website: kellymeerbott.comLinkedIn: Find Kelly Meerbott on LinkedIn for insights and updates.Join us as we tackle the intricacies of gender dynamics in the workplace, empowering you with the tools to lead with resilience and authenticity. Whether a victim of mansplaining or as someone striving to create a more inclusive work environment, this episode offers something valuable for everyone aiming to unleash their powerhouse potential.Don't miss out—tune in now to accelerate your journey towards transformative leadership!SUBSCRIBE, FOLLOW, and LIKE the show whereever you get your podcasts and on ShedtheBitchTV on YouTube.Support the show

Support the show⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.FilmBustersPOD.co.uk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | FilmBusters@outlook.comPATREON: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/filmbusters⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠MERCH: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://filmbusters.myspreadshop.co.uk/

Emma joins the crew at Agronomy on Ice to talk about how she's working on a new line of Egg With Emma merch, how to deal with mansplainers of the world, and she gives a pretty detailed dissertation on grain baggers in there somewhere.   Emma - Ag With Emma Sam Paulson - Sales Specialist Manager Chris Horob - Precision Support Manager Luc Jacobson - Technology Manager

Amy grabbed a little lamb, it's fleece was white as snow, and when she lobbed it over the fence, on her merry way she did go. There are tales of personal growth, colonialism, getting lost in a field, public rights of way and when they should be destroyed, and we accidentally convince ourselves that £140 shorts are a fair deal.

Today, John and Shaun ride the roller coaster of texting anxiety, threesomes, slippery self-care hacks, and the occasional social media meltdown. They break down why a simple “Good morning” text can feel like a high-stakes game and the many unexpected uses of coconut and olive oils.Special guest, Lydia from Face Yoga by Lydia, joins to prove that, yes, your face needs a workout too. Expect expert guidance from Lydia and some endearingly awkward attempts from John and Shaun as they stretch and sculpt their way to eternal youth.The duo also reflects on the emotional toll of online backlash and how it can unexpectedly get under your skin. And finally, they unpack the "Blowing Brian" story—plus a few very personal confessions along the way.A little humor, a little wisdom, and a lot of things you can't un-hear. Buckle up.Resources Mentioned:Face Yoga with Lydia → faceyogawithlydia.comKripalu Love Camp → kripalu.org/presenters-programs/love-campThe Instagram post that caused a stir → instagram.com/p/DHt6dbiyzQNLeave a one-minute voicemail for John and Shaun at 657-549-1001.Enjoying the show? Don't forget to subscribe, also rate us on Spotify, and leave a comment - we read every single one (yes, even the spicy ones)!Please take a moment and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. Your support truly means the world to us!Find out more about John HERE.Follow John on Instagram HERE.Find out more about Shaun HERE.Follow Shaun on Instagram HERE.

Mansplaining – when a man explains something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident manner – is rife in sport, and running is no exception. Sabrina Pace-Humphreys and Bethan Taylor-Swaine explain why the consequences of these kinds of comments can be damaging and long-lasting. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us a textLike its cousin AGI, quantum computing, which harnesses the quantum states of subatomic particles to perform impossibly difficult computations at lightning speed, is a new-ish technology that many of its proselytizers believe is thisclose to reality.  The “quantum supremacy” of this new technology over classical computing promises stunning breakthroughs in areas as disparate as drug development, materials science, weather forecasting, and cybersecurity. Is it for real, though? Joe and Mark discuss the coming quantum revolution, the ways it's likely to change our lives, and whether it'll arrive quickly enough to be the subject of a future episode of Mansplaining. (Recorded March 28, 2025.)

A truly baffling tube interaction, some controversial hot cross bun takes, and a candid menopause exploration with the hilarious and brilliant JEN BRISTER!FOLLOW JEN: @JenBristerComedyNEW MERCH: www.trustyhogs.com/merchThank you so much for listening!Support us at www.patreon.com/TrustyHogs for exclusive bonus content, merch, and more!Trust us with your own problems and questions... TrustyHogs@gmail.comPlease give us a follow @TrustyHogs on all socialsBe sure to subscribe and rate us (unless you don't like these little piggies - 5 Stars only!)All links: https://audioalways.lnk.to/trustyhogsSNThank you to our Patreon supporters...EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: Guy Goodman / Simon Moores / Stefanie Catracchia / Oliver Jago / Anthony Conway / Neil Redmond / Angela S / Sadie Cashmore / Sarah DeakinPRODUCERS: Elle / Richard Bald / Harald van Dijk / Tim & Dom / David Walker / Rachel R / Claire Owen-Jones / Sarah & Molly / Raia Fink / Cordelia / Rachel Page / Helen A / Tina Linsey / Amy O'Riordan / Abbie Worf / Matt Sims / Luke Bright / Leah / Kate / Liz Fort / Taz / Anthony / Klo / Becky Fox / Dean Michael / Sophie Chivers / Carey Seuthe / Charley A / KC / Jam Rainbird / Tamsyne Smith-Harding / Ezra Peregrine / Bryn / Laura Pollock / Leah Overend / Steven Chicken / Hayley Singer / Dougie RobertsonWith Helen Bauer (Daddy Look at Me, Live at the Apollo) & Catherine Bohart (Roast Battle, Mock the Week, 8 Out of 10 Cats)FOLLOW HELEN, CATHERINE & ANDREW...@HelenBaBauer@CatherineBohart@StandUpAndrew Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

ON TODAYS SHOW: We had a jam-packed show full of Flava friends, Naia & Bailee from Te Kuru Marutea, Monty Betham and Jazz Tevaga. We took a trip down memory lane with some nostalgia night clubs. Plus, we had a HUGE announcement for our next Air Flava. For more, follow our socials: Instagram Facebook TikTokSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Was hat sich getan - von einem Weltfrauentag zum nächsten? Eine berechtigte Frage jedes Jahr am 8. März. Denn wenn Frauen benachteiligt, unterdrückt, geschlagen oder getötet werden, nur weil sie Frauen sind, dann werden Menschenrechte verletzt. Von selbst tut “sich“ allerdings gar nichts von einem Weltfrauentag zum nächsten. Es sind Menschen, die für die Menschenrechte von Frauen kämpfen, ob sie sich nun feministisch nennen oder nicht. Und es sind Menschen, die das Gegenteil tun, indem sie gar nichts tun oder aktiv dagegenhalten. Gerade am diesjährigen Weltfrauentag sind nicht nur Fortschritte oder Stillstand das Thema, wenn es um die Frage geht, wie frei, selbstbestimmt und sicher Frauen leben können. Sondern auch ein immer heftigerer antifeministischer Gegenwind. Darüber müssen wir reden. Und vor allem fragen: Was können und sollten wir tun? Damit „sich“ bis zum nächsten Weltfrauentag „mehr tut“ für Gleichberechtigung und Selbstbestimmung, für Freiheit und Sicherheit und überhaupt für die Menschenrechte von Frauen. Zu Gast sind diesmal: Linda Kagerbauer, Referentin für Mädchen*politik und Kultur im Frauenreferat der Stadt Frankfurt, Asha Hedayati, Rechtsanwältin im Einsatz für gewaltbetroffene Frauen, Nadja Mitzkat, Journalistin beim NDR und an einer Recherche zum Thema Anti-Abtreibungs-Lobby beteiligt, und Judith Rahner, Geschäftsführerin beim Deutschen Frauenrat. Podcast-Tipp: rbb - Ein Zimmer für uns allein Hören vor Handeln - In 4 Schritten zum Feministen Dürfen Männer Feministen sein? Wie ertappe ich mich beim Mansplaining? Und wie lebe ich meine Ideale auch dann, wenn es unbequem wird - zum Beispiel, wenn es um Aufträge geht? Diese Fragen beschäftigen André der das Gefühl hat: Je mehr ich mich mit Geschlechterfragen beschäftige, desto komplizierter wird es. Die Alltagsfeministinnen sprechen heute über Feminismusfrust (den auch Frauen kennen), über den Unterschied zwischen Erklären und "Herrklären" und wir verraten euch im "Feminismus to Go" wie ihr in 4 Schritten zum Feministen werdet (inspiriert vom Feminist Lab s.u.). https://www.ardaudiothek.de/episode/ein-zimmer-fuer-uns-allein/hoeren-vor-handeln-in-4-schritten-zum-feministen/bayern-2/13112761/

Mansplaining Mammograms! Being a parent is a tough job; luckily The Morning Scramble is here to help tackle all of the challenges with ‘Momtroversy.’ This week a mom and dad want to know: Is it okay to miss your kid’s activities? Do both parents have to attend?  The Morning Scramble is dreaming BIG for this ... Read more

Recorded 1/20/25. Amber hosted. Phil, and Jake were there, too. Get your hard-hitting news and help us bring America back together.American Fork: Cavettes earned 3rd place at Regional 3 drill meet. Also received an academic award for having a majority of the team with a 3.75 GPA. Squiff!Utah: Utah man held victims hostage inside Riverton home. The victims didn't seem to be in distress, despite being threatened by the culprit. The sword wielder was shot, but not killed.National: The inauguration came and went without a hitch. Trump thought, “It was the greatest inauguration, some say I was the best ever to be inaugurated in all of inaugurating. It was a terrific inauguration.” A lot of executive orders signed on day 1. Anchor babies are no longer a thing. The Musk Nazi salute seen around the world. Snoop went back on his word and basically roasted himself. Carrie Underwood nails it a cappella. TikTok left and came back so bigly. Fires in California. Joe Biden pardoned the J6 committee before he left.Main Topic: We discussed our most embarrassing moments. Trent was actually embarrassed once. Amber saw Jake nakey once. Jeff's EARTHQUAKE moment with Devin!Tangent: What is the terminal velocity of a potato?Find us at americanforked.com. You can donate to help support the show at patreon.com/americanforked. Please rate us on iTunes and Apple Podcasts. Send an email to info@americanforked.com with a screenshot of your review and we'll send you a special gift.

Hes very kinda sketchSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Cindy Esliger talks about that nagging sensation in the back of our minds that something is wrong at work. Not a big catastrophe, but a subtle persistent feeling that something isn't right and it's causing unease. We start to question whether anything actually is off or it's just us. We wonder if this feeling of discontent is just the way work is meant to be. Cindy is here to assure us that we are not imagining that feeling and talk us through how to identify and deal with those sensations.   The first challenge with this unease is recognizing it for what it is. We're not unhappy enough to quit but we're not happy staying. Cindy calls the feeling ‘psychological silt' and it's the residue of a thousand small unsupportive things that build up over time. The negative impacts of this create a lot of stress, self-doubt and low morale. Cindy shares 7 examples of these kinds of microaggressions and pinpoints of unease to help us identify them.  Cindy points out that the constant questioning and self-shame we subject ourselves to over whether or not we're imagining this unease is a form of self-gaslighting. It is paralyzing and undermining us. She urges us to break from the loop of doubt and guilt with 6 tips for addressing the issues: 1) Name the problem, 2) Trust our feelings, 3) Seek support, 4) Set boundaries, 5) Push back on normalization, and 6) Stop gaslighting ourselves. She examines how each step works to set us free to reclaim our careers. Resources discussed in this episode:Guide to Recognizing Your Worth at WorkAstronomic AudioConfidence Collective—Contact Cindy Esliger Career Confidence Coaching: website | instagram | facebook | linkedin | email

Thelma & Louise are grilling "Golden Bachelorette" contestants Chock, Gary, and Guy and getting all the good stuff!Golden fans will be in shock at Chock. And, then in an unexpected twist the guys put Thelma and Louise on blast. You'll never believe which Golden Guy was catfished after being on the show!Email us at: IDOPOD@iheartradio.com or call us at 844-4-I Do Pod (844-443-6763)Follow I Do, Part 2 on Instagram and TikTokSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thelma & Louise are grilling "Golden Bachelorette" contestants Chock, Gary, and Guy and getting all the good stuff!Golden fans will be in shock at Chock. And, then in an unexpected twist the guys put Thelma and Louise on blast. You'll never believe which Golden Guy was catfished after being on the show!Email us at: IDOPOD@iheartradio.com or call us at 844-4-I Do Pod (844-443-6763)Follow I Do, Part 2 on Instagram and TikTokSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thelma & Louise are grilling "Golden Bachelorette" contestants Chock, Gary, and Guy and getting all the good stuff!Golden fans will be in shock at Chock. And, then in an unexpected twist the guys put Thelma and Louise on blast. You'll never believe which Golden Guy was catfished after being on the show!Email us at: IDOPOD@iheartradio.com or call us at 844-4-I Do Pod (844-443-6763)Follow I Do, Part 2 on Instagram and TikTokSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thelma & Louise are grilling "Golden Bachelorette" contestants Chock, Gary, and Guy and getting all the good stuff!Golden fans will be in shock at Chock. And, then in an unexpected twist the guys put Thelma and Louise on blast. You'll never believe which Golden Guy was catfished after being on the show!Email us at: IDOPOD@iheartradio.com or call us at 844-4-I Do Pod (844-443-6763)Follow I Do, Part 2 on Instagram and TikTokSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thelma & Louise are grilling "Golden Bachelorette" contestants Chock, Gary, and Guy and getting all the good stuff!Golden fans will be in shock at Chock. And, then in an unexpected twist the guys put Thelma and Louise on blast. You'll never believe which Golden Guy was catfished after being on the show!Email us at: IDOPOD@iheartradio.com or call us at 844-4-I Do Pod (844-443-6763)Follow I Do, Part 2 on Instagram and TikTokSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thelma & Louise are grilling "Golden Bachelorette" contestants Chock, Gary, and Guy and getting all the good stuff!Golden fans will be in shock at Chock. And, then in an unexpected twist the guys put Thelma and Louise on blast. You'll never believe which Golden Guy was catfished after being on the show!Email us at: IDOPOD@iheartradio.com or call us at 844-4-I Do Pod (844-443-6763)Follow I Do, Part 2 on Instagram and TikTokSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thelma & Louise are grilling "Golden Bachelorette" contestants Chock, Gary, and Guy and getting all the good stuff!Golden fans will be in shock at Chock. And, then in an unexpected twist the guys put Thelma and Louise on blast. You'll never believe which Golden Guy was catfished after being on the show!Email us at: IDOPOD@iheartradio.com or call us at 844-4-I Do Pod (844-443-6763)Follow I Do, Part 2 on Instagram and TikTokSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Im-puissance, terme ô combien castrateur pour parler des problèmes d'érection. Comment aider les hommes à sortir des blagues de boomers et à vivre consciemment leur sexualité et ses aléas ? Un épisode avec Thomas Messias. Un podcast Bababam Originals Ecrit par Hélène Vézier Monté par Romain Redon Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Madame Meuf ici. Première diffusion : 19 décembre 2023. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Flight to Nowhere. Morons in the News. Oscar Nominations.   The People’s Movie Critic: “The Pitt” Everyone Needs a Laugh. Bob’s MANSplaining.   Talkback Callers. Can You Believe This? Don’t Huff That.   The Zippy Zodiac. From the Vault.

Send us a textThe year 2024 brought more than its share of misfortune to your Mansplaining co-hosts, what with the double whammy of layoffs and a terrible election result.  But in the spirit of turning the page to the New Year, Mark asked Joe what he's feeling good about in 2025 and beyond, from multiple perspectives (personally, locally, nationally, and internationally). With hopefulness in short supply, Joe soldiered on with some reasons to be cheerful, but it soon became apparent that a more expansive, proactive definition of "hope" was in order. (Recorded January 3, 2025.)

Reddit rSlash Storytime r amithejerk? where AITA for sacrificing the guest room instead of the office space? AITA for telling my FIL that he cannot arrive at our house at 1am? AITA for refusing to help my sister with childcare after her son bullied mine? AITA for Refusing to allow a Recent Widower to have his Annual Christmas Party in my house? AITA for not telling Mum and Step Dad I was saving money? AITA for refusing to take down a poster in my bedroom after step-mom told me to AITA for refusing to take my teen driving AITA for keeping food from my wife? AITA for not telling a man that the research he was mansplaining to me was my own? AITA for telling my sister if her boyfriend doesn't start contributing he has to go? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textIn continuation of a Mansplaining tradition of holiday-themed conversations, Mark and Joe consider how we might heal our deepening political rupture and bring peace to a divided nation.  It's a daunting task that may take years, if it happens at all.  Making it happen involves redressing the loneliness and isolation wrought by a decades-long breakdown in civic trust.  Government has a role to play, but mostly it requires individuals to turn away from the purveyors of fear and disunion, listen to our fellow citizens, and plant the seeds of hope in a jaded body politic. (Recorded December 20, 2024.)

In this episode, Therese Markow and Mark Greene discuss the pervasive issue of mansplaining, a phenomenon where men explain things to women despite their lesser expertise. Mark explains that mansplaining is rooted in "Man Box Culture," a set of rigid masculine rules that discourage emotional expression and promote dominance. He highlights that these rules, which include not showing emotions and being a breadwinner, have been ingrained since the Industrial Revolution and are still prevalent today. Mark emphasizes the need for men to unlearn these behaviors to form meaningful connections and improve their mental health. He also discusses the impact of these cultural norms on men's professional and personal lives, advocating for a shift towards more inclusive and emotionally open masculinity.    Key Takeaways: No culture is monolithic. No culture is non-changeable.  Mansplaining is one direct product of a culture of masculinity that says: Don't show your emotions. Always be tough, be right, know more.. Never talk about anything deep. Man Box Culture is not traditional masculinity The breaking of connection is what leads to Man Box Culture and the increased rates of suicide in teenage boys and mental health challenges in adult men. Authentic, deep, caring relationships require emotional sharing. If you spend your life mansplaining, you don't have connection.   "My work is around the idea that we want to get men to wake up to the limitations of Man Box Culture and shift that culture to a healthier culture of expression and connection." —  Mark Greene   Episode References:  Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608464660  The Man Box Study by Equimundo: https://www.equimundo.org/resources/man-box-study-young-man-us-uk-mexico/  When Boys Become Boys by Judy Chu: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0814764800  Niobe Way: https://www.niobe-way.com/  Catalyst: How Combative Cultures Prevent Men from Interrupting Sexism: https://www.catalyst.org/research/combative-culture-sexism-infographic/  The Good Men Project: https://goodmenproject.com/    Connect with Mark Greene: Website: https://remakingmanhood.com/  Twitter: https://x.com/remakingmanhood  Book: The Little #MeToo Book for Me: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0983466963  Book: The Relational Book for Parenting: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1979378657  Remaking Manhood Podcast: https://remakingmanhood.com/2019/04/01/the-podcast/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mrkgreene/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/remakingmanhood/    Connect with Therese: Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net Threads: @critically_speaking Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net   Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it. 

Sarah and Carlos experience The Substance (2024 dir Coralie Fargeat) in our first review spotlight for a newly released movie. Also Carlos preys on Sarah's deep rooted insecurities. TW: Body Dysmorphia, Mansplaining and Speaking Ill of the DeadMusic by Karl Casey

Buckle up, because this week we're throwing the rulebook out the window and hitting the gas on a hilarious journey into the world of petty crimes. Trevin opens the episode with a heartfelt reflection on the strange emptiness he's been feeling since the election, leading to a recommendation for the documentary Join or Die. In his quest for community, he also has some exciting news to share—Live, Laugh, Larceny has two new team members! A-Line and Jess are bringing fresh creativity to the show, with stunning designs and video editing that'll take things to the next level. Amanda kicks off the crime-themed fun with a dreadful dilemma that dives back into the chaos of the school pickup line. This time, a mysterious man appears, handing out unsolicited directions and maybe even trying to land a date. One thing is certain: nobody asked for his help. Later, during Killer Facts, Amanda revisits her beloved Ripley's Believe It or Not to share the bizarre tale of a hamster testing space tourism, while Trevin answers the burning question: “Have Brussels sprouts really gotten tastier?” When it's time for stories, things take a strange turn. Trevin's tale features a futuristic Arizona traffic stop that feels like something straight out of Black Mirror. Meanwhile, Amanda introduces us to Jack, a wannabe hockey player whose dreams are dashed by his lack of skills and a drinking problem that leads to an unforgettable (and illegal) adventure. What ties these two stories together is their shared theme of strange vehicles. Whether it's an encounter with cutting-edge technology during a traffic stop or a misguided attempt to fulfill hockey dreams on wheels, these petty criminals prove that the road to crime is anything but ordinary. Tune in to find out how these hilarious missteps unfold! Today's Stories: Into The Black Mirror Danger: On ice! (Discussions Include: Finding Community, Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone, After School, Parenting Problems, Mansplaining, Better Homes and Gardens, Ripley's, Hamster, Autonomous, Waymo Car, Self-driving, Cruise, Quebec, Canada, Phoenix, Hockey, Skating, Technology, Drinking and Driving, Ride App) Join our Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/livelaughlarcenydoomedcrew For ad-free episodes and lots of other bonus content, join our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/LiveLaughLarceny  Check out our website: HereFollow us on Instagram: HereFollow us on Facebook: HereFollow us on TikTok: HereFollow us on Twitter: Here  If you have a crime you'd like to hear on our show OR have a personal petty story, email us at livelaughlarceny@gmail.com or send us a DM on any of our socials!

12 - 11 - 24 MANSPLAINING A BREAST MILK DROPOFF by Maine's Coast 93.1

In this episode, I delve into self-ownership, societal dynamics, and personal responsibility. We discuss "mansplaining," highlighting how it can obscure knowledge gaps, and critique the current political landscape as a battleground of propaganda rather than genuine discourse. I analyze gender dynamics, comparing financial and sexual exploitation and examining societal expectations that hinder authentic connections. Emphasizing personal accountability, I argue that societal dysfunction originates in individual choices and urge listeners to confront uncomfortable truths. We briefly explore philosophical arguments for the existence of God, expressing skepticism about claims of divine knowledge. The episode wraps with a critique of the welfare system, framing it as a means for privileged individuals to feel virtuous without real accountability. Ultimately, I call on listeners to embrace responsibility for true societal change.GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, the interactive multi-lingual philosophy AI trained on thousands of hours of my material, private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022

Katherine Dudas and Lizzy Pace break down the Haunting of Hill House pilot! Stay tuned for another pilot next week!New Episodes every Monday!BONUS EPISODES of The Bear S3, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Curse, Severance, Yellowjackets, Silo, The Fall of the House of Usher, The Holiday, May December, patreon.com/HBOLAX Subscribe today:Instagram:@hbolaxpod@pacecase@katherinedudas_YouTube:@hbolaxTikTok:@hbolax@pace_case@katherinedudasSupport the showNew Episodes every Monday!BONUS EPISODES of Severance, Yellowjackets, Silo, The Fall of the House of Usher, The Holiday, May December, patreon.com/HBOLAXSubscribe today: Instagram:@hbolaxpod@pacecase@katherinedudas_YouTube:@hbolaxTikTok:@hbolax@pace_case@katherinedudas

Amy kicks off the ep. with some football talk. Maya is on a staycation and is totally jazzed for all the work she's going to get done around the house. Suburban life! Next up, a Dave Grohl scandal update involving a last-minute festival cancelation. Amy is not having it. If you work at a bank and you have an affair, you still have to go to work. In sad local news, food company Schwan's went out of business. No more hiding from the Schwan's man. RIP Schwan's. There's more Chappell Roan news this week. Spoiler Alert: She's also canceling festival appearances. Maya recaps the SNL season premiere with a guest star-studded election year cold open. Animal Report: Snapping turtles are nearly impossible to help. One snapping turtle in the road will shut down the suburbs! Also, Maya has a one-footed turkey in her neighborhood. In a total right turn, it's revealed that Producer Tyler attended a live taping of Designing Women. In other music news, Lana Del Rey marries an alligator tour operator. The ladies can't get over Amy's mom's social posts. There is a fact check on a previous story on the pod involving Amy's mom Marsh. Amy declares she is basically a “summer rat”.

Charlie, Jack, Blake, Andrew and Tyler have a spirited debate on several life-altering questions, such as:   -Should Pete Rose be admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame, or should his gambling offenses keep him barred forever? -What's "mansplaining" and why is the left talking about it after the debate? -Who makes America's best fast-food burger, and why is it In-n-Out?Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe to Mamamia Cheat codes for life. Do you need one, what are they, and what are ours? It's a chaotic Friday wisdom dump. Plus, our weekly recommendations include the TV show that Holly would rather be watching RIGHT NOW (and so would you), Jessie's got something er, ‘depressing' for you to watch and Mia shares her latest fashion hyperfocus. And, ugly birthday cakes, debunking teenage conspiracies and a very confronting drivers' licence photo. Yes, it's our best and worst. What To Listen To Next:  Listen to our latest episode: Mansplaining & Resting Worried Face - VP Debate Debrief Listen: The Heated Ozempic Debate We Had To Have ICYMI Wednesday's Episode: Chappell Roan Can't Come To Work Today ICYMI Monday's Episode: What Ellen DeGeneres Wasn't Allowed To Say Listen: Demure Nudes & Digital Cheating Listen: Ballerina Farm And The Tradwife Conspiracy Listen: Ugh. Are You The Affirmation Friend? Connect your subscription to Apple Podcasts  Sign up to the Mamamia Out Loud Newsletter for all our recommendations and behind-the-scenes content in one place.  Want to try our new exercise app? Click here to start a seven-day free trial of MOVE by Mamamia  What to Read:  Read: With four words, Nobody Wants This has healed millennial women. Read: 'I didn't think there was anything wrong with my passport photo. Then I saw a video.' Read: Why everyone just wants a 'dumb job' right now. GET IN TOUCH: Feedback? We're listening. Send us an email at outloud@mamamia.com.au Share your story, feedback, or dilemma! Send us a voice message Join our Facebook group Mamamia Outlouders to talk about the show. Follow us on Instagram @mamamiaoutloud CREDITS: Hosts: Holly Wainwright, Mia Freedman & Jessie Stephens Executive Producer: Ruth Devine Senior Producer: Emeline Gazilas Audio Production: Leah Porges Mamamia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the Land we have recorded this podcast on, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:05pm- At one point during Tuesday night's Vice-Presidential debate, moderators Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan attempted to “fact check” J.D. Vance with inaccurate information. Vance corrected the moderators and also noted that all parties had agreed to not issuing real-time fact checks—CBS quickly responded by muting his microphone. During MSNBC's post-debate coverage, host Nicolle Wallace said that it was “mansplaining” and sexist for Vance to correct the moderators despite the fact they had broken the rules and were using misleading information. 5:10pm- Even Mainstream Media Believes Vance Won Debate. The New York Times Editorial Board—which endorsed Kamala Harris earlier this week—said they believe J.D. Vance won Tuesday's Vice-Presidential debate. Similarly, CNN's Abby Phillip said Vance successfully landed “a bunch of punches” on Tim Walz. NBC's Kristen Welker said she received text messages from “panicked” Democrats following Walz's performance. 5:15pm- On Wednesday, Department of Justice appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a 165-page claim that former President Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution and that his actions following the 2020 presidential election were “private criminal conduct.” 5:30pm- Rich breaks ANOTHER studio microphone. According to our tally, this is at least the 3rd time in 2024. Will engineering kick him out of the building? 5:40pm- Biden Admin Empowers Venezuelan Dictator. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes: “Treasury hasn't revoked its 2022 general license for Chevron Corp. to export oil from Venezuela. Chevron's production is generating more than $100 million a month in income to the Maduro regime. We don't usually say this, but Mr. Biden might listen to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. The Democrat has drafted legislation that he says would ‘immediately halt investment by United States persons in the energy sector of Venezuela until the legitimate results of the July 28, 2024, election are respected.'” You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/joe-biden-venezuela-election-nicolas-maduro-edmundo-gonzalez-urrutia-dick-durbin-oil-sanctions-bb4041ac?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Trump is desperate for women to vote for him. Trump and Vance continue fear mongering about immigrants at a rally. Mark Robinson refuses help to exonerate him from the allegations on his comments on a porn forum. Marjorie Greene escalates her feud with Speaker Mike Johnson. Ron Desantis has new insane rules for school's sex education classes. A republican representative dodges allegations of putting his mistress on the payroll. Host: John Iadarola (@johniadarola) Co-Host: Garrison Hayes (@garrison_hayes) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport?sub_confirmation=1 TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@thedamagereport?lang=en INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/thedamagereport/ TWITTER: ☞ https://twitter.com/TheDamageReport FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/TheDamageReportTYT/

This episode share is an important one! You've seen it on your TikTok and Instagram feeds, or maybe even at your own gym. Men interrupting others, mostly women, while they work out to give them advice, often unwelcome.  On this “NASM-CPT Podcast,” host, and gym owner, Rick Richey talks all things mansplaining with “Better Than Fine” host Darlene Marshall, and NASM Certified Personal Trainer, Danielle Young. The trio deep dives into this one-of-a-kind conversation about mansplaining in the gym. They'll talk about when it happens, why it happens, and what you might do if it happens to you. If you like what you just consumed, leave us a 5-star review, and share this episode with a friend to help grow our NASM health and wellness community! Did you hear? The most trusted name in fitness is now the most trusted name in sports performance nutrition. Become an NASM Certified Sports Nutrition Coach and optimize performance and recovery. https://bit.ly/3WYAkYp