It was horrible. You can see the shallowness of it. For all the tension of the 20th century, it came as a race. It came unglued, not simply, not easily, not painlessly, for sure. But there were certain things that caused the House of Cards to fall. You look at some of the most effective ways that you ended race or discrimination were in sports and in the military. I think that one of the key things about this, those are both uniformed services. You put on a uniform and that's what makes you, you. In 1947, you have the integration of the military and that happened with all sorts of bumps and pains and horrors. But at the other hand, it did not take that long before what mattered was the guy in the trench with me wearing the same uniform as me. That's what mattered. Then the sports as well, you see these famous things that are like, Bear Brian, I'm an Alabama fan, Bear Brian, whatever his moral stance, he really pushed for some of these integration things. He may have simply wanted to win football games, but he pushed for integration on these things. It shows the shallowness of it that they put the uniform on the black guys and the white guys and all of a sudden everybody's fine with it. That was actually very interesting. What you see, I think, when we're talking about things like the issue of maleness and femaleness and related to those issues, there's a Latin phrase I won't try to pronounce because I'm not very good at it, but it's abuse does not negate legitimate use. What I mean by that is that the world looked at the horrors of racial discrimination and certain horrors when it sends and immorality is when it came to gender, sexual discrimination. And they said, okay, discrimination is bad. Therefore, all discrimination is bad. There's no difference between anyone whatsoever. I remember when I took a college class and one of our assignments, I think it was a sociology class or something, we were supposed to go to a toy store and you're supposed to go see, in the past, there was the pink row and the blue row, you might say. You go and there's, I mean, you still see this in a lot of places. I think in California, it's actually illegal now. Everything's illegal in California. Yeah, this is true. This is true. Except pot. This is true. Very much and all sorts of things. You go and the toy aisles were very much gendered in one sense that was wrong in the sense that there are girls who like Star Wars and there are boys who like, well, don't like Star Wars, whatever it is that they do like. They noted that they noted something real. People noted that, you know, it's not so simple as only boys only like Star Wars and tucks and tanks and only girls only like pink and dolls and dollhouses and whatnot. That was an exaggeration. The thing is, there's an exaggeration of a real thing. You get generally speaking, you get boys a choice. They're going to go for the trucks and tanks and whatnot. You're generally speaking. And it's one of those things that like, it's the difference between a description and a prescription. Generally, little boy is not going to go pick up at all. Generally, sometimes he will, but generally he's not going to and the reverse is true as well.

Well, and this is where you get that like sladism coming in because the unspoken contention in mixing the toy aisles is that the only reason that boys gravitate toward the Star Wars and the guns and the trucks and things like that is because they've been taught by their upbringing. And they've internalized these values that this is what a little boy who's going to become a man likes. And so I'm going to go for that. Whereas the girls see the pink and the they see the little pink is a sort of arbitrary signifier of these things because because in some cultures, pink is like masculine. It's very funny, but or royal or rich or something. But they look for the, you know, the baby dolls, the strollers, things that they they was, what is they can dress up and make beautiful and the there's a bunch of crafts and stuff that go in there. There's all kinds of things in the in the girls aisle that that used to exist in most stores. And they gravitate toward those things. And the contention is again that the girls have just been taught. They've just been cultivated into that. But that's what they've been. They've absorbed those values and that if you actually had a blank slate child, there would be no preference one for the other because this is not a matter of nature. It's a matter of nurture. And that's the fundamental feminist contention that people really are blank, generic human units. And then this is a performance that we take on later because of our culture. And then that's illegitimate to imposing some of the counterclaim, which I think is, you know, hilariously easy to make is that is it look, you can do a cultural control for this. Look at every society in the history of the world. There's no society where men are the primary caregivers of children. There's no society where women are the primary warriors and builders and, you know, hunters, it literally does not exist. It is a it is a non starter anthropologically. And so you're left with this question as as Esslyn says in his book, okay, is it more likely that these things really do reflect some intrinsic difference between the sexes that goes down to that to the deepest level of our being or that every culture just happens to be in this grand conspiracy to force these essentially equivalent and generic children to be one or the other thing, which is, I mean, take your pick.