The New York Times Doesn't Understand Men
Plus: The economic impact of tariffs, ethics concerns around Trump’s foreign business dealings, and a listener question on NCAA deregulation
This week, editors Peter Suderman and Matt Welch are joined by Reason reporter Eric Boehm and special guest Emily Jashinsky, host of After Party. They begin with the media's growing fixation on men and masculinity, from a wave of New York Times essays to broader questions about dating, education, and work. What does this coverage reveal about how the media sees men, and about younger male voters drifting from the Democratic Party?
The panel then examines President Donald Trump's escalating tariff policy, its economic consequences, and how it fits into the administration's broader approach to trade and inflation. A listener question prompts a discussion of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's shift toward deregulation, and the growing calls to reverse course. The panel also looks at Trump's overseas business activity and the ethical questions it raises about the use of public office for personal gain.
0:00–How men are characterized in the media
13:00–The publishing industry's struggles with men
19:15–The tradeoffs of Trump's tariff policies
42:52–Listener question on NCAA deregulation
50:56–The ethics of personal profits as president
1:00:14–Weekly cultural recommendations
Mentioned in This Podcast
"Your Relationship Problems Aren't Always About the Patriarchy," by Emma Camp
"Yes, Tariffs Are Raising Prices," by Eric Boehm
"Firing the Data-Collectors," by Liz Wolfe
"Amateur Hour Is Over: College Athletes Can Get Paid by Schools," by Jason Russell
"Trump Is Openly Using the Presidency To Enrich the Trump Brand," by Matt Welch
"The Naked Gun Is Stupid in the Best Possible Way," by Peter Suderman
Today's Sponsors:
Therapy can feel like a big investment, but the state of your mind is just as important as your physical health. Let's talk numbers. Traditional in-person therapy can cost anywhere from $100 to $250 per session, which adds up fast, but with BetterHelp online therapy, you can save, on average, up to 50 percent per session. With BetterHelp, you pay a flat fee for weekly sessions, saving you big on cost and time. Therapy should feel accessible, not like a luxury. With online therapy, you get quality care at a price that makes sense and can help you with anything from anxiety to everyday stress. Your mental health is worth it—and now, it's within reach. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 5 million people globally. It's convenient, too. You can join a session with the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life. As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp connects you with mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise—so you can find the right fit. Plus, switch therapists at any time. Your well-being is worth it. Visit betterhelp.com/roundtable today to get 10 percent off your first month.
- Producer: Paul Alexander
- Video Editor: Ian Keyser
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The female NYT crowd might end up with a beta male cuck/simp/provider but they aren’t likely getting a high value man. Certainly not a successful, tall, well-groomed guy that looks like a cop.
Many cops that I have known look like they have been WAAAAY too far into the doughnuts!
Yeah, I'm pretty sure women want a guy that looks like a fireman.
He might think they want a schizophrenic retard that eats shit. His orderlies might agree with him…just to make it easier to get him to take his meds.
They'll never get Chad. They'll get River, Avery, and Kai.
unitary executive theory is incompatible with libertarianism.
lol and you guys do? can you hear my eyes roll?
Gay men understand straight men more than the women of the NYT do.
That was once true. When homosexuals were oppressed in this society, gay boys had to study the behavior of straight males carefully in order to "pass" even though straight behavior did not come to them instinctively. Now that the stigma of being gay has faded, gay boys are no longer under that pressure, and so might not grow up to be as wise about masculinity as in the past.
Umm... Reason... have you read your own magazine. Pot/kettle and all that.
I'd like to hear from all the women in the commentariat about that. Oh...nevermind.
The New York Times is a DNC media organ. The DNC is losing young men by the day because they have nothing of value to offer. Of course they don't understand men, because if they did, they wouldn't be bleeding support while growing their Neurotic College Educated Femtard demographic.
If they hadn't made feminism and race marxism the cornerstones of their platform over the last generation, they wouldn't have this issue.
"Why don't they love us? What's wrong with them? Can't they see how much better we are than them?
They're so stupid and evil, they are the reason for everything in the world that is bad. They don't deserve to live. I hate them so much."
Said virtually every Democratic/liberal/progressive voter about anyone who doesn't think the way they do.
Or, in the immortal words of Arty, "Respect your betters, clingers."
Democrats hate everything I like.
There is no incentive for compromise, they have nothing to offer, there in no middle in which to meet.
Compromise is a misnomer for concession. Often expressed as "common sense and reasonable."
Real men wear leather jackets and sport Fonzi comb overs in their senior years.
And own akitas.
Stupid homophobic Akitas. They're not LGBTQ friendly.
They tend to protect children, so Shrike would be doubly screwed if he ever encountered one.
Chum this Akita meme is going to be your legacy.
He might enjoy being screwed by an Akita.
They don't understand women, either, for that matter.
Can they even define what one is?
"The New York Times Doesn't Understand Men."
Of course not.
Leftists, especially leftists writing for liberal rags like the NYT, do not understand men, masculinity or being a male.
How do you do my fellow kids, what's up with this coocoo bananas late stage feminism?
'The New York Times Doesn't Understand Men'
Since when does "doesn't understand" mean hate and wish dead?
AFAICT, "men" is just being placed at the bottom of a long list of things not understood by "readers of The New York Times".
I believe their agenda is those women who wish to bear children at a mature phase of the professional lives [when they can afford child care without work interruption, because career is the most important thing] will do so with an artificial squirt, thus rendering those awful men to the level of depositors to their local sperm bank. Any son they may bear will of course be defined as gender neutral at birth, and encouraged to visit the "pink aisle" during their formative years.
The challenge for the ensuing years will of course be to maintain a reasonably health supply of donors they will otherwise not have to interact with. The typica male however should not be a problem, as they will generally be either gay or trans. Either way they will be a hit at the cocktail parties.
There, I believe that is fourth wave feminism in a "nut" shell.
Science Fiction boasts a large catalog of stories about such societies.
All of the panelists were pretty rough on "trump’s honest graft". They all even mentioned some of the counter-arguments that are often in the comments here when trump's graft is mentioned, if only to make the point that Trump's graft beats everyone else's, by a lot.
They're right though that none of the graft is sneaky. It's all wide open and even intentionally publicized. I suppose this new era of out-in-the-open government corruption and self-dealing is better than the old days of sneaking around. Trump really has made graft and corruption great again. There is no need to seek graft in secret or have any shame about it.
Because no women would ever hide behind "filters and curated personas" online....
Women don't have to go online for that. They present filtered and curated personae in real life.
Today's Sponsors: [Online therapists]
That tracks so hard.
Huh...nobody on the panel stood for the freedom of schools to make their own rules, alone or in voluntary association. They treated the topic as if higher ed were a government function, and that therefore loosening of NCAA rules was deregulatory.
Why didn't the panel have any men?
Because any "man" who is not gay or trans is by definition "toxic."
[they're a lot like soldiers; you don't give them much thought until you need them; you know that gentle men sleeping soundly because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf Churchill stuff]