>> name of the book, "jfk in the senate: pathway to the presidency." the author, john shaw. >> it's a rare constant in american political life. you look at it, say congress in 1901, less than 2% of members came from working-class backgrounds, got into politics and eventually wound up in congress. the average number of congress spent less than 2% a year doing manual jobs, service industry jobs. so this is one thing that hasn't changed out the different aspects of the political process. broadcast television, cable news, big money in politics while this is happening, one of the constants during the last hundred years or so is that

working-class people are not getting elected to political office. >> up next on booktv, "after words" with hanna rosin. it takes about five this book "angry white men: american masculinity at the end of an era." an economist in a book

university professor argues many white men increased shatner and quality to their downward mobility and they're angry about their declining dominance in american society. this program is about an hour. >> congratulations on your book, michael. i thought it was an interesting idea the first time he told me about it. it does seem like there is anger out there and nobody's made of it. i'm glad she took the time to do that. one thing that strikes me as a journalist reading your book since you're an academic is that you operate like a reporter. you're unusually adventurous. i would ask you, why do you do your books that way where you are out in about a talking to different people? >> first of all, i appreciate that. i want sometimes to be out and about. i want to be out talking to

people i don't want to manipulate numbers. i found the interviews to be fairly revealing, particularly with people i don't understand or don't really get their worldview. i actually didn't start this book thinking i was going to go to a lot of interviews of different groups. the work, for example, the chapter on the extreme right wing, do you not see white supremacists i figured they had so many websites. i figured i could do most of it on the internet. so i would go onto these chat rooms and listen to people talking. it occurred to me when i was when i was on these chat rooms that there would be eight people. suddenly it dawned on me there's a people here. four of them are graduate students in anthropology. one of them as a high school kid goofing around. two were actually real white supremacists in the other ones click me.

i can't tell who's who. >> how are you going to verify quick >> the journalist, you have to have sources that you can at least see them. so i decided to go talk to them. as they begin to do the research, as i was actually working on the boat, i wanted to tack to people as much as a kid. >> so let's talk about your relationship with richter yesterday boquist because i think it will give a sense of who we are talking about, where are we in america and also a little bit about your relationship with the people you're interviewing. >> rick is the guy that i met out one of the very first places that i went to interview white supremacists and neo-nazis. that's really interesting. when i told lance is going to be

doing work on the extreme right, they said you're going to have to go to the deep south, the home of the clan or something like that. i said i don't think so. i want the actual mason-dixon line today, there were quite a large number of white supremacists, extreme right wing strongholds. it turns out in a lot of suburban schools along western new jersey, said in pennsylvania, a lot of public schools are so starved for cash at some schools printout their auditorium, there jim ferguson shows on w@ shows on weekends. some i went to basically what is a high school. inside the gym as tables in tables and tables of gun. postcode is there also a middle-school basketball game? >> guest: as he walked in, there are tables and from.

not prior to entering the gun show. the pamphlets are all how the government is trying to take away your right to have guns. obama carries this impact in terrible. those are the guys i wanted to talk to come to the guys the ideas. so i went up to my table and said if i pick up a pamphlet, is this yours? prayer for a guy standing around a talking and. they looked at me suspiciously. >> host: no offense, but you sound like what you are. you sound like a new yorker. >> guest: payment or clan, jewish sociologist, right? so pack two. so of course i'm not going to take some accent.

>> host: could you even do it? >> guest: i don't think i would try. so i said to them, and sister stuff? they said yeah, who are you? i am an academic doing research on these organizations, these ideas and try to understand that. i actually studied men who believe it. a bunch of them in looked at me suspiciously asked the questions. i said look, here's what i am. i don't get it. but here's my job. i want to understand how you guys see the world. i want to understand your worldview. look, you will not convince me and i will not convince you. that's off the table. what is on the table as i want to understand why you think the way you do. so here's the thing thing that is interesting. i would say roughly half of the guys they approach would not talk to me. so there are biases in my

research and not knowledge those. basically i don't i talk to you. though never understand one or two sets of being anti-semitic out of his bag. but basically i don't want to talk to you. i'm fine with that. here's recently by pitch. your whole complaint as i understand it is you are the forgotten american. you're the americans on whose back this country was built. he built the country and no one is listening to you. i will. i will listen to you. i will not agree with you. that's not why i'm here, but i will listen. i promise. my job is to safely as i can represent the world as you see it. so if you contrast that, i want to talk to you. >> host: paint the picture. before we get to what is used

either. who are we talking about? >> guest: i do want to say this is only one chapter in which i try to pick up a lot of different groups. he was cerda funny when we met for the first time privately. we had to face the next morning at a coffee shop. so she's about mid-30s. he does have a job and he was working in a construction crew. here's the interesting thing about it. all of the guys who run the extreme right with whom i spoke, all of them had the same class background. they are downwardly mobile, lower middle class. some of the guys, their fathers were independent farmers. they closed the store would

wal-mart moved here. the independent farmers have foreclosed. high wage in unprotected factory workers. so these guys are downwardly mobile. they will not have the wages for the job protection that their fathers had. in fact, many of them were like smith and sons. they were the sons. a lot of those guys i talked to were independent, nonunion contract workers. not eating. off the books. they were all downwardly mobile. that was the background. so he shows up in the sides of be playful with me. that's one of the reasons are chosen to introduce the book. he wears an old flannel shirt and baseball hat because we are now sorted in central pennsylvania. but he also wears a black t-shirt with a confederate flag on it.

so as he sits down can he opens his flannel shirt and starts going like this. give it to me so i don't have to make them up. >> guest: break, right. the question if he and his wife are trying to make it. finally secure. has two kids. add 17 is the time interviewed him. really unhappy with the quality of schools. of course the conversations we were going to have his is not going to be nice if we had free childcare? if you could exercise their rights to free health care. we didn't have those conversations. we had a conversation about what he expected as he was growing up, what he thought was going to be his and what he didn't get and how he feels somewhat

basically screwed by the system. >> like things that had been taken away that were rightfully his. that's the connective tissue among all of the different staffers. my percussive resonance with yours. the betrayal of the american men. >> guest: she similarly visits different parts of america and different ages of people in the true line is this similar one of what was promised to me when i was growing up. the fathers in the 50s down to the center of no bottles for man had an note easy thing to grasp onto as a model for success. before we get to the intent of a question totally essential to your book, since the book in

many ways this uncomfortable is rippling assertive racism, sexism and anger that's frightening when you read it and i think combest. so since we just talked about rick, how quickly before you get to the racism and sexism? how does that come up in your different conversations? >> guest: it comes up in two ways. the racism comes up self-consciously. either it's right at the front because they want to shock me. >> host: a lot about obama. it's not obama specifically. it's a generalized sense of how daryn kagan, how they are taken with ours, that sort of thing. post a interest and i commend my brother is very working class. i feel like a blast zero -- i haven't heard it so much in a

while. it's like where did this come from? is just like all over new york in a way -- >> guest: for thailand, how not to firefighter prior to the new york city fire department is as wide as it gets. and so, i heard that -- i heard a little bit of that, but i haven't gone back and listen to it around the mixed-race marriage. but really, were going to talk about this for how long? remember that these guys know i'm not one of them. it's clear. i make it clear. i'm not going to try to pretend. >> host: are they self-conscious about racism? >> guest: that's the thing. it's utterly self-conscious. the occasional swipe at hillary.

but there's never a sense of sexism because they are also proclaiming the shell box and where sarah palin. >> host: is meant also that the rage is channeled through probably a person i can maximize? not have necessarily. you can own sexism or because you have personal experience of a woman who was whatever. >> guest: in our culture, i think that sexism is far more permissible than racism. >> host: it seems like that. >> guest: let me give you a way to think about that. during the primary season of 2008 when clinton was running against obama for the democratic administration that there was a guy who up one of clinton's rallies held up a sign that said iron my shirt. so i asked my students.

i said how many of you remember that? in 2000 asked this question. not five, six years later. i asked him if he remembered that? 10%, 20% hands. it passed under the media radar. a few of that cabal of a series of things do it. imagine if that an obama rally they held up a sign that said polish my shoes. don't you think every media outlet would've been front page. even john mccain. every republican would've said stop everything. that's wrong. postcode is it because they don't think it's dangerous? >> guest: i think it's because it just seems more accessible. racism prior to 2008 -- right after to fascinate, that's going to go away. boy were we wrong about that. but i think that in fact

someways obama has become such a lightning rod for the resurgence over racism. >> host: overt? he's not one of us. we know he's one of them, right? part of this has always been somewhat startling. after all, obama is not a black president. he is actually a mixed race. his african-american. he has one white and one african. this is like the one drop rule. so it is really interesting that sexism is farmer casual partly because it's the interpersonal, these guys i was talking with actually -- yes, there've

ex-wives they hate ex-wives lawyers who they hate even more. but they also have come to you know, women in their lives getting ahead of that. okay, so we are going to return to the subject of talk about specific groups. i think it is important not to defend central concept in your book, the idea of aggrieved in tolerance. i have a lot of questions. just tell the viewers what is that. >> guest: other groups i talk about, the father rights groups to the guys to beat up their wives or partners or kill them in some cases to guys who go postal or sort of opened fire at the work place to do man on the extreme right. i think the thread that binds all of them is this notion of a greek impediment. the easiest way i can describe it to you is to tell you one

story where i first encountered it. i was on a tv talk show opposite for these men who were angry white men. they all believed that they were the vic dems have reverse discrimination in the work place. so it was a work is showing much they would talk about how affirmative action was actually reverse discrimination against white men. they were qualified for jobs. they were qualified for promotions. they didn't get them and were they angry about it. so how does they are opposite them alongside jill nelson, the journalist who would volunteer slavery. said the two of us were the opposite end to respond to them. the reason i'm telling you the stories my first inkling of it was a quote from one of these men which became the title of the show. the title of the show was a black woman stole my job. i thought, i have one question for you guys.

and it's about the title of the show, it bought woman stole my job. it's one word of the title. i want to know about the word night. where did you get the idea it was your job? why is that the of the show.woman got a job? without confronting men's sense of entitlement, we don't understand why many men have gender equality because this is a level playing field. you think this reverse discrimination against us. so this is what after entitlement sounds like. these are our jobs. these are the ones we were told when we were little, this is what is waiting for you. this is the funniest scenes of this entitlement that never seem goes to the castle of and the holy grail.

one day this will all be fences. it's like one day this will all be yours. that is that fathers have had two sons. they were entitled that. and i are telling me they're not going to get it. now you're telling me you have to play fair. and so my feeling was that i felt like when i heard those, if registered for me. it began as i was doing the research of the book, i began to hear it in a lot of different venues. so i try to use that as a framing device because my argument in the book or in no way, the way that our books kind of run parallel to each other and i think this is the end of an era of assumed entitlement. the end of an era -- postcode the end of male privilege.

so that's what i kept hearing from these guys. and they were kind of blindsided by it. you know, it's in our lifetime that the rules have completely changed from the office space and not then the more the men have the corner offices of the women are in a corral and you have your pick. it is like an office perk to harassment, without having corner offices. the pace of this change -- and i think you point this out -- it is dizzying. what happened? >> host: one thing i did while reading your book is try to imagine one of these guys reading your book. you know, the entitlement makes absolute sense. but i did find this hard to accept them as entitled anymore. say you have a friend which

makes total sense when you read it, especially to meander. so you had tens of thousands of years. i was never a level playing field. we have the advantage in that we don't have the advantage anymore. i wasn't yours to begin with. but they don't feel that way. they're looking at obama and hillary clinton. they're looking out the field looks at. they can't get a job. one of them says the only job in my town is to be a wal-mart hostess and i'm not doing that job. that's a gross job or not at that good of a job. i have a hard time conceiving why they should accept your argument that they were entitled. just go to levels of answers. the first is, does this actually describe their experience in the second is why should they then agree with me? the first part it seems to me is

the mistake that we made, that we are a menace 1970s. feminism first began to permeate the culture. the argument looks something like. men have all the power. just look at every single corporate board, state, local, national, international. every university board. men have all the power. individually -- the women don't have the power and don't feel powerful. we as a group need to balance power at the top and individually feminism was about an hour at women to have a wider range of choices around family, balancing work and family, all those sort of things. so there is a symmetry between the aggregate powerlessness and individual experience of power.

you apply that to men. men have all the power in the world. therefore, men must feel powerful. the men would do what are you talking about? are you out of your mind? i am completely powerless. that analysis failed to resonate for men even then because men don't feel powerful. >> host: never did work just now? >> guest: is only one king of the hill. as soon as likely have to be subservient to idiotic bosses. when i tried telling my male students that they have all the power -- >> guest: the idea was also prevalent that men are looking a little caught in the wheel. essaouira fun and then we all have said dirty segments. >> host: the revolutionary road. you can't exactly. >> guest: as a result, that kind of model didn't really

apply to men. so you had all of these groups has brought up in the 70s that basically said, you know how you don't feel powerful? you're right. they have all the power. come on, guys. we have another purposes you don't powerful coming your way. here's the power stake in german enchanting. assaulters wall street yuppies in power with some kind of fashion accessory. because the idea was men were supposed to feel powerful but didn't. that's entitlement. they were supposed to do it this way. i don't feel this way. whose fault is that? and then when you move to whose fault is that, that's why they should agree with me. i think they have the bill of goods. they have been duped. they been betrayed. a. they been betrayed. all of the sorts of things. not by the people they think. not by those lower than that.

not by the black woman who stole their jobs. but the arrogant elites who are manipulating them into going after those below them when in fact they can make common cause. that argument to them as it is not connecting day. it is tom jones who is your model. the one who makes common cause, who recognizes his wife. >> host: expanded that is. >> guest: to make the goodbye everyone knows is the oklahoma city bomber. tom jones is the grapes of wrath, a guy who was displaced a migrant oakey on his way to california outfitted a cynical -- impossible bureaucratic odds. farmers who ripped them off. he finally realized that it's not the other guys who are trying to make the bugs that are the problem. it is the people above him. he then goes off and says to his mother in the great scene, can't

you just see henry fonda sitting there by the candlelight sameness to his mother? wherever there's a man looking for a job, that's where i'll be. so tom jones at the end is fascinating to me that both timothy mcveigh and nelson mandela used the same poem as their motto, that guys like tom jones or bruce springsteen is another example, white working class guys who make common cause with those below him rather than turns them into the enemy. >> host: the thomas frank what's the matter with kansas idea, which he quoted the book, which are hating the wrong people. instead of hitting the powers that have shifted a job overseas and completely forgotten about you and the elements come to you hate the people below you. you hate women or black people. >> guest: and yes, i have

great respect for that argument as well because i think there's a kind of distraction going on very often with these and it's a very seductive distraction. >> host: one of the original chapters is about the rampage shooter and that we get wrong. he said if we can see who it is. can you talk about that? school shooters. >> guest: every chashooters. >> guest: every chapter in paris go postal. >> host: not them. that's different. i got school shooters. columbine shooters. >> guest: clattered you think i have a take on not. i'm interested what you think that is. i'll tell you what i think is new about it. the sociology of it. all of the work on the school shooters, all of the research that has been done except for wanting to prevent him and his brother book called rampage.

virtually all of the ways we've approached them have been a focus on the psychology of the shooters. so you have the extremes that college, for example, some of the work on columbine, which basically is like looking at a painting like really close you don't see a picture at all. or his guns, violence, video games, marilyn manson, any of the number of these causes that leave these guys to explode. and then there are those who have the more social, psychological. it's a fact they were completely bullied, constantly be done. >> host: where is the aggrieved entitlement in that situation? >> guest: the additional part -- the additional piece i

add is that it's not enough to quote the shooter. .. this is not suicide by cop. this is suicide by mass murder. you take that as many of them as you can because they have done you wrong. and it is a constant line that goes through. the constant line that goes through all. >> host: i'm sorry, explain it again. >> guest: their accounts are,

you have done as wrong. you have fully be a mess up, spreader roars about us, lied about us. what is really interesting, i was kidding about this the rampant schools users are analogous to the boy version of these girls to commit suicide after being so relentlessly cyber bullied and shawn then all of that. they cannot take it anymore. the boys explode, the girls internalize. so it is a similar kind of dynamic. it is not true that only boys bully. we know that that is not true, but there are different kinds of responses. and so these boys, they feel wronged. they feel badly done by. they feel ignored. i will show you. i will get even with you. that is their logic. now, there are thousands of boys who are feeling this all the time.

why is it that school shootings are although horrifying and in some ways a regular occurrence, also reasonably rare. 99 percent of schools does not have one. thousands of boys are feeling this every single day in their basements, attics, bedrooms, blowing of the galaxy and the computer, one to take revenge. why don't they? in there you have a profile of schools. they have certain characteristics. they are -- one sociologists call it jock autocracy. columbine, for example, one of the players parts to summer in a 15 minutes on all day, never get a ticket because the administration basically protected in perry these has ruled the school. the administration and faculty collude with them. take the case not that long ago. these guys, these athletes, grover what happened. this is what entitlements sounds

like. these guys gang raped his girl and one of them got worried and said to the other one, you know, we can get in trouble for this. like yap. the other one said, don't worry about it. the cuts will take care of this. and what is the coach to? that day he immediately did exactly what this guy said, questioned why the girl was there, when she was wearing, she was drinking, whether she had led them on. >> we have had several. >> so how they deal with this terrific response by cuts? a rehire and. we are not talking about steubenville to, now we're talking about rallying behind the coach who runs interference for the players. that is what entitlements sounds like. this football player was right. he was entitled to read everything worked out as he expected would be read so my feeling is that that is what i want to interrupt. >> it seemed to be a slightly

different point and the one in the rest of the books because those can enter the agreement that limits. that is the more real phenomenon than other places. one day those jobs could be at the gun show. at the moment they're not. that is like old-fashioned class . >> that is really interesting. these guys, the athletes, the top jocks, the homecoming king also feel that they have agreed entitlement. you are athletes, i status guys on campus, we are walking around with targets are back are everyone is looking to get as. we are the poor victims year. >> everyone wants to be a victim. the relationship between the shooters and digoxin you describe, you know, that could have taken place in many decades. it is like the entitlement of the jock, the hummer. it is more just what happens to

them. that is a new thing where every guy feels like he just can't make it. and then my only other response to that chapter is, it did not seem to me like you have to choose between psychology and sociology. they are both whenever. sociology and in some people interact with that sociology in a way that makes him crazy. >> i don't think to sacrifice one for the other. i think that sociology faugh provides the context in sociology provides the insight. >> host: this section of your book that i appreciated, the thorough take on the men's rights movement because i think there is lot of confusion about what is this? you have a sense that they are very angry, but you have a sense that they have legitimate grievances and the sense that there is an old history to it. but it was very useful to put all of those strands together and kind of separate them in a

way that she did. maybe i will start with the history of the men's rights movement which was quite new to me. can you talk about the origins and where it comes from? >> and locate the origins in the 1970's, the response to the beginning of the women separation feminist movement. there were a lot of men who were -- because what feminism basically challenged was what was called by social psychologists the female sex role. you have to be nice, pretty, quiet camino, and do all of those. member saying, that is not who we are. assertive, confident. we want to do stuff. and we don't want to sacrifice any of that nice, nurturing, loving stuff either. you want to be mom's and workers and all that stuff, lean in, listen up. so men basically are saying -- and the women in our lives are all, you know, like getting --

becoming feminist and critiquing our own behavior. a lot of guys said, you know, they are right. women have gotten a raw deal here. they cannot be all. gully. so we -- we have gotten a raw deal. you can never express your feelings. you can never tell people that you love them. all of your relationships with men are completely, you know, restricted by homophobia, the terror that other people might get the wrong idea about you, whenever he being a man sucks too. then there are those who say it sucks just as much. it sucks more. but basically the origins, from what was then called the men's liberation movement. men need liberation to from restrictive, restraining, oppressor roles. ♪ sympathetic. >> initially it was. >> that was new. that was interesting. >> it was sympathetic, but there was also -- as one become angry,

and i think there is still a man is a liberation movement and pulse that is independent of feminism or sees itself as independent of feminism, but not anti feminist, that is basically faded. what has emerged now is part of the men's rights movement, women have -- basically the men's rights movements takes as true the same thing i often hear from my female students which is when i come to my glasses and start to tell them the history of the gender revolution, my students say, well, feminism, that was your generation's issue. we won. thank you so much, but we don't have to worry about that now. we can do anything we want. the women say this because they have not been there yet. five years after they graduate they come back and go, you were right. before that, you know, feminism is over. we want. we can have as much sex as we

want, drink as much as we want, like sports, google law school. some the men have the same critique in a funny way. it basically think that feminism has been so victorious that women have basically taken over. and there are several ways in which the men's rights movement embraces many of the original claims of men's liberation. for example, round man self. now, before we get angry and say there is too much funding for breast cancer and not enough for prostate cancer, of wedding gift they do say the traditional definition of masculinity basically means you are indifferent to health concerns. men do not cut to the doctor as often for routine screenings. all of those health issues are true. that is the extent the men's rights movement has some positive things to offer, particularly around health current stress related diseases, masculinity leads.

we agree. okay. so that part i agree with. somehow because women have taken over the medical establishment, all this funding for prostate cancer, i think not. no funding for prostate cancer. funding for breast cancer. i don't think so. but i don't think -- i don't blame women for this but you think that that critique is a reasonable one. the critique -- that is one. i think the major tributary defeats the river of rage and the men's rights movement and has to do with entitlement around five other -- father had. >> is that a minor strange? why the father's rights movement , essentially i think of the bitterness about divorce, overwhelming amounts of bitterness. >> in child custody. >> but it becomes -- the only humans i don't answer are immense i recognized because they are so vile that it is

shocking. and so where does that -- >> it is understandable. in the 70's the critique of the male sexual enable man or in some ways inspired men to become more involved fathers. this is where the men's liberation and women's liberation movement actually coincided. feminist women were saying we need you to be better fathers, we need you to do fair house work. we want to go to work. and it is good for you. men took that seriously. starting to think about your own husbands, think about -- >> host: compared to my father speaks to my father had to fight , fought and lost to be in the delivery room when i was born. >> host: that explains a lot about you. and as feminist father. >> guest: they lost. you that there would not let the men. al if a man is married and he is not there, 95 percent of men are

there. think of how it is changed. men are far more involved in child care. far more. and like it. so what happens says the 70's, and so this is why there was a trickle of stuff about fatherhood. that grew into a veritable ocean of positive stuff, you know, the beautiful pends to involve daddy had and all of this. daddy and me. i mean, it's great. but what happened was that those men became more involved a more active fathers. the laws did not change. the court system thinks of them as our fathers' generation. the core system thinks of them as wallets. the core system thinks of them as utterly uninvolved in married to their jobs and does not the knowledge that they have more input. so when they come to a custody decision it feel like water that put in all this work and effort

only to lose everything? a little reality is helpful here because the majority of custody cases are not contested. it is not a case where i want join in you once told. is most of the time and about over 80 percent of cases, the husband and wife who are divorcing agree on custody prior to the court date. >> host: free in what direction? >> guest: usually is joint or why. there are one out of five cases, there really is some conflict. he was joined, she one soul, he was so as she was -- whatever. he once more than she wants courts tend to side. and much of the father, they probably have some validity.

most of the time the courts tend to side with her. i have an analysis that suggested may not be all that wrong. there are a lot of cases, a lot of extenuating circumstances. one does not know. there are all kinds of charges of some of -- violence in the home which is also quite pervasive. it tends to be some correlation with those custody cases. whenever. but what i am saying is by and large the anger that fuels a lot of the father and men's rights group is the sense that we change and the institution seven. they're furious. i think after all the chapters of the book actually think that they have a legitimate gripe.

have a legitimate right. i think this is taking, delivering their angry mail to the wrong address. >> host: a legitimate institutional right. how about that. there is some institution which is, you know, not -- has not met the current era or something like that, some institution which has not moved forward. simply loopy. someone has done wrong. >> host: a friend of yours does supervisor. spend time with it and pier is still busy working in his dad's

rights movement. that was that was very kind. so i want to return to their rage against women because you in on this very depressing chapter, this guy who comes in ships of -- sheets of the women that is him because he can at candidate. the sense that there is this toxic wage building, we will end on a more the mills of men's rights gas. justice sense of anger against women that is hard to take. very brazen. and so, you know, what do you do with that? where is that come from and what you do that. a lot of guys have felt personally so buffeted by the

changes in women's lives iran sexual empowerment, enter into the workplace they feel the emotion they feel confused and bereft and bullard. kind of nazi then make you feel like you can't get your foot. and at think that the anger is a way to sort of stabilize yourself. now, in this case, he is the leader of the chapter. >> host: the one he shot of the women at the gym. >> guest: and in his testimony he said he had not had sex in years, and not have a date, all these gorgeous women, not a bad looking guy, and he is not. >> host: i work alone. such a depressing letter. >> guest: it breaks your heart.

a lot of guys think about -- the angry white men who are learning to be successful because artists , think about those out it went -- and remember when i was a kid. parents are based colognes. women cannot stay away. guaranteed camino. what is that guarantee if you don't get some tonight. all the strategies, a friend of mine has done some research on how guys prepared for going out and had you go up to a bar in which the chances of you actually having sex that night with someone you pick up of less than 5%. how you prepare for failure every single weekend. there is a kind of resentment, a kind of anger. and then there is all this confusion. look. women have refused to sacrifice

their femininity for being confident in the workplace. want to be taken seriously as women and as workers. so they're beautiful. they're sexy. they are hot. they like sex. how come not me. so i get that. and i can understand that anger. and i feel a resentment. ♪ the on -- >> host: the odd thing, fantods. one is that you read it. what he is saying incorrectly, but what you see his logic is the mind doing everything i need to do to be a man commanded is now working. that is the fundamental truth of his life. it is all superficial. on wariness, working out, doing this, looking for a job, doing all these things, and it is utterly failing. >> and doing all these things that you told me i'd have to do. >> the commercials that i "in my book that ran in the super bowl

one year where you have the silent man. i picked to be laundry. i held your lipstick. it's new. it's like the men are completely frozen and used. >> narrated by dexter. >> you jerks. you have done all this to me. >> guest: and visited to drive a stupid 1970's car. >> host: exactly. yeah. so the other, this is out this commercial the not necessarily work. the challenger. >> my mom had guns challenger. the of the thing about the letter. you're supposed to get over that. when i was in no school, we felt like the grows at something. this is the me and not supposed to have when you're 40. you're supposed to understand the world in a slightly more sophisticated way. that is the other thing mr. meese said.

select the path of a 14 year-old boy cannot afford year-old man. >> the 40 year-old man and put him back 26 years. twenty-six years ago he was right. twenty-six years ago of 40 euro would have been right to think those things. you see what i'm saying? basically, you're right to say this. that he embraced the heady that when emporia will have all of these things. and so it is regressive. a lot of the stuff is progressive. some of the guys i "in the beginning of the book, they're taking away our country. it is very nostalgic. but he was right 24 years ago. that seems to me to be key. things to change that quickly. you cannot rely on -- not on draper. they don't exist any longer.

>> seeking go to work, put on perfume, look good, and he will get the girls. >> right. i want to end. we all got through that at the end of the book they read what can you do when you get this little bubbling seething rage on the radio and online and in life. what do you do with all of this? of the address these? there genuinely suffering and falling off the mat in many, many ways so they may not be right, they may not be entitled to their and parliament and get their suffering. a couple of things that they can do. >> this is important because it defines both of our postures. you and i disagree somewhat in some respects, but we also run

on parallel lines. one of the things that think a similar is that we both have a significant amount of compassion for these guys who are suffering. we recognize that. what i say is that their pain is real, but it is not necessarily true. that is, they are feeling real feelings. anger, of course, is the one feeling men are allowed to feel. they're feeling your feelings, but the analysis of why does not match up with what i understand to be the data. ♪ saudi you turn the ship, convince these guys it is not the black woman who still your job. >> there are two ways one can do this. first of all, it is a done deal. seeking the women are going to have some v-8 moment where they're going to go, oh, i have to go back home, driving cars, having orgasms, forget that. let's get back to the way it used to be. no. >> the corporations in a bill like a mile, you're right, we should have left the factory in alabama.

>> that's not happening. exactly. good point. so the ship sailed. the question is, we going to get on board while we going to swim after it. the ship sailed. here is where i think we have something to offer. the data on men who -- because of this is a very -- in some ways i am making it a big movement. but it is actually a declining number of men because most men, you know, maybe your husband, in fact, maybe most of my friends are very quietly accommodating to greater gender equality in their relationships and families. you know what, they don't hate. they like having somebody to talk to is smart and interesting in engaging. they like having those kinds of relationships with their kids. they're actually feeling better about themselves. men who share housework and child care are more likely to get to the doctor for routine screening. but less likely to end up in the er, less likely to get a

therapist a lesson to be diagnosed with depression. less likely to be diagnosed with a phd. so here is what i would say, the answer to your question, in a sense come on the one hand, the deal is done. on the other hand, you know what, it's actually better. that's the personal side. on the political side to think we have to say the institutional , structural constraints that have prevented us from living the lives we want to live. how about adequate health care. how about universal child care for our children so that -- >> host: like laugh in your face. >> of course there would. of course there would. >> host: they just have to get used to then. >> guest: my feeling is a if enough of those keep saying this communal, and i am sure that this is part of what was happening in the backyards last weekend coming in know, the next -- the likely next mayor of the city of new york has proposed universal child care to be paid

for by taxing the wealthy. you know, okay. probably won't happen, but it is on the agenda. someone is talking about it. eventually, eventually we're going to end up looking a little bit more like the rest of europe, like the rest of the industrial world. >> host: i actually personally put a lot of faith in the slow, gradual, personal experience. watch tv and you see a lot of guys taking care of their children, much more two or three years ago. mainstream sitcoms, everyone has their show, guys with kids, whenever the immediacy that and it seems more normal. you're out of work in and picking it is up from school. the situation of a lot of men these days. you just slowly acclimate. culturally we slowly acclimate. >> guest: all i am saying, in the corporation to say that you want on-site child care, we have always thought of that as a women's issue. it is not. it is appearance issue. you know, when men come on his parents we're going to say, here is what i want.

and, of course, women will get it unless men supported. i am saying that this is a -- greater gender equality is actually in men's distress. that is a different argument and saying, you know, given up, guys, the ships sailed. that may be true, but i want men to feel motivated toward this. i think that as you say, the quiet accommodation is the biggest trend. and as the most dominant one, it has that kind of rippling effect. and i think that is terrific because you see that all over the country, all of the country. this is not a red or blue state or even a purple state thing. this is across the board manner spending more time with their kids. more value. again, you know, in parentheses the courts will have to recognize this eventually c-span2 -- >> host: let's end on that note.

>> that was after words, book tv signature program in which authors of the lead is nonfiction books are interviewed by journalist a public policy makers, legislators, and others familiar with the rich aerial. airing every weekend on book tv at 10:00 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9:00 p.m. on sunday, and 12:00 a.m. on monday. you can also watch online. gutted booktv.org and click on after words in that book tv series and topics less than the upper right side of the page. >> the senate about to gamble and to move forward on the 2014 defense authorization bill, setting defense programs for the upcoming fiscal year and laying the groundwork for working on the budget agreement this week.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, thank you for your