1. Ooh I like Phoebe. You all have a lovely rapport. I sense that you really enjoyed this interview. I generally think you do a terrific job of coaxing a thread from your guests, but this felt more warm. More banter. I think you should have her back.
2. I really didn't understand the fixation on the mansphere's response to Gould. I see enough idiocy on twitter and NextDoor to know it's best just to dismiss it and not give it oxygen. I haven't read the Gould critiques but I just couldn't imagine it's something worth spending much time on....unless its somehow indicative of a trend that is interesting in itself (e.g. incells, male backlash, etc), but you all didn't explore this idea meaningfully. It all just sounded a bit gossipy and about folks that don't deserve much airtime.
Enjoyed this conversation. Personally I thought the Gould piece was interesting stylistically. It seemed most people were concerned with the events of the story (understandable, I guess), but to me it was just a good piece of writing. The mixing of her personal story with an overview of the literary divorce genre was really well done.
As a big fan of Phoebe and Kat’s podcast, this was a real treat.
During my own divorce, lo these many years ago, I could feel the pitiless judgment of the divorce literary industrial complex’s narrative on me, flattening a complex situation into a simple story that I was the villain of. To push back on the narrative too forcefully would just implicate me further, like B’rer Rabbit punching the Tar Baby. The whole situation codes male self respect as right wing, which should bother us for practical political reasons and is counter to our humanistic values.
I really resonated with your comment about the dangers of seeing your personal relationships through the lens of systemic oppressor/oppressed narratives. Seeing your relationship that way, or expecting that your partner will see your relationship that way is so corrosive to the trust needed for the intimacy we seek from those we love and hope love us in return.
1. Ooh I like Phoebe. You all have a lovely rapport. I sense that you really enjoyed this interview. I generally think you do a terrific job of coaxing a thread from your guests, but this felt more warm. More banter. I think you should have her back.
2. I really didn't understand the fixation on the mansphere's response to Gould. I see enough idiocy on twitter and NextDoor to know it's best just to dismiss it and not give it oxygen. I haven't read the Gould critiques but I just couldn't imagine it's something worth spending much time on....unless its somehow indicative of a trend that is interesting in itself (e.g. incells, male backlash, etc), but you all didn't explore this idea meaningfully. It all just sounded a bit gossipy and about folks that don't deserve much airtime.
Enjoyed this conversation. Personally I thought the Gould piece was interesting stylistically. It seemed most people were concerned with the events of the story (understandable, I guess), but to me it was just a good piece of writing. The mixing of her personal story with an overview of the literary divorce genre was really well done.
As a big fan of Phoebe and Kat’s podcast, this was a real treat.
During my own divorce, lo these many years ago, I could feel the pitiless judgment of the divorce literary industrial complex’s narrative on me, flattening a complex situation into a simple story that I was the villain of. To push back on the narrative too forcefully would just implicate me further, like B’rer Rabbit punching the Tar Baby. The whole situation codes male self respect as right wing, which should bother us for practical political reasons and is counter to our humanistic values.
I really resonated with your comment about the dangers of seeing your personal relationships through the lens of systemic oppressor/oppressed narratives. Seeing your relationship that way, or expecting that your partner will see your relationship that way is so corrosive to the trust needed for the intimacy we seek from those we love and hope love us in return.