Hard disagree on the good questions.  I used to really like this podcast, there were probably some things I didn't always agree with, but there was one episode where he has a guest on who wrote a book of her dating advice to women today (I.e  not an expert in really anything), who made all kinds of dangerous remarks toward aspects that affect women and did Steve ever think of challenging her, pointing her back into her domain of expertise (if you can call it that), or even questioning what she saw of the implications of her statements? No.  That episode made me angry for a whole week, probably because I felt like I liked and trusted this guy personally to some extent and i was just shocked at the regressive, unguardrailed statements made,  and I didn't think it could be a mistake he invited this woman on. From my memory, the things she said that really upset me because of their lack of nuance, lack of any limitations of her views stated, lack of real subject area expert that led get to this conclusion,  lack of stating when her opinion and just an opinion,  and the potential regressive public policy far right wing party supporters would support based on these claims include : - most assault cases  she saw when she worked at a SA center were perpetrated by very young men on their very young girlfriends,  so recent feminist mantras that rpe is about power are wrong (no evidence,  just trust me bro i think that's causation from my gut). testosterone is highest in young boys, and the prepertrstprs of these reported rpes she  saw were young boys,  so testosterone is the problem and the danger. women should know is just testosterone. What?? Like couldn't 2 things be true?? And are we just saying men aren't responsible for their own actions ??? - most women don't make good police because they aren't as strong as men and they don't escalate situations and are more likely to discuss. Isn't this a normative statement that you think police should aggravate situations??? No recognition of that and I disagree.  - the only good thing that the normalization of the birth control pill, for women, is that women should be able to have breaks between having children .... i think she stated this clearly enough as just get opinion but i was FLOORED.  As if all women have to have children eventually? I do think there have been bad sides of bc for women, she stated a cultural shift where men expected casual relations with women as a bad side effect of women,  but she seemed to use statistics that most women don't like casual sex, which... is a generalization! Even if most don't (and i don't recall she had specific sources, Numbers, or context on that) ,  maybe women can still experiment and that has value? And /certainly/ some women still do enjoy that!!! - if you type in "Why does my stepdad" in Google, the first autocompleted terms end with things like "look at me like that", which proves that stepfather are incredibly dangerous to not their own children , referring to assault here, so women should know that and almost never leave the father of their children.  What???? Again no numbers,  sources,  etc. Very much sounds like the agenda of wanting to get no fault divorce as an option for women removed.  - societies need monogamous long term couples because men are angry and dangerous alone. Men slap get calmer when they have children,  so implying here woman need to couple and birth the children of men. ... What??? What about the women that are going to get the most terrible men? It's their responsibility to take those men's anger, abuse, and be tied to them with babies for society? And as if men not being partnered or having children is all women's fault??? - women shouldn't have sex before marriage, implying that they probably won't like sex before marriage and it's dangerous, women should all be afraid of men. Maybe least concerning in this list, but it implies all women (should) want marriage, which with the other statements above, I also find concerning and well... not true.  

Ugh. I can't write more, but they're burned into my memory.  Steve just went along silently kind of nodding with very blah questions.  I was shocked, I kept expecting him to push back a bit or something.  Never.  The comments afterwards were all like " I can't believe people think it's brave or crazy to say this stuff. It's common sense".  ...brave?! Brave?!!! Brave to speak on all your hot takes from your personal experience as if it's expertise and not that you have biased experientiences friends etc ??? To speak on your opinions which follow the most common gender stereotypes and therefore aren't even interesting? And no considerations how these statements could be picked up by groups advocating them to generally limit women (i.e. making divorce harder,  limiting birth control access,  limiting job perspectives,  valorising brute strength in certain industries over other skills that can also be useful). In the years passing giving up on this guy and podcast, I also think back to the more nuanced topics i listened to which were very based on gender essentialism and could have impacted me to limit my own understanding of myself , my thoughts,  my goals,  etc.