Dr. Carrie Gress’s The End of Woman traces feminism from Wollstonecraft’s 1792 manifesto to Shelley’s occult-infused egalitarianism, framing it as a Marxist-driven rejection of motherhood and vulnerability. She links Betty Friedan’s 1963 Feminine Mystique—dismissed as a communist tool—to modern trans activism and hookup culture, arguing "smashing patriarchy" replaced masculine roles with resentment. Gress blames delayed motherhood, career obsession, and societal collapse on feminist indoctrination, advocating Judeo-Christian values over Marxist materialism to restore order. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to this week's interview with Dr. Carrie Gress, the author of a new book called The End of Woman, How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us, which is a really interesting title and a really interesting subject.
It's actually a historical view of how we got from the start of feminism in the Romantic era to where we are today.
Really interesting.
It starts, as I have talked before, about how, you know, in that revolutionary moment, that moment after the Industrial Revolution had settled in and as the French Revolution was about to transform Europe, the role of women came up for discussion and everything was on the table, including free love in England that ultimately resulted in a much more, I think, productive time, the Victorian era.
Some people hated it.
Some people, like me, think it was one of the greatest moments in European history.
I want to talk to Carrie Gress about how we got from there to today.
She is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a great group.
And again, the book is called The End of Woman, How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us.
Carrie, thank you for coming on.
My pleasure.
Thanks so much for having me.
First of all, great title, a great subtitle.
The idea that smashing the patriarchy has destroyed us is not that popular with some feminists.
But let's take it the way you take it.
This is an historical book, a historical survey.
And you begin with Mary Wollstonecraft, which is where I think this does begin.
Are the seeds of the feminism we have today there at the very beginning?
Yeah, I think some of them are.
With Mary Wollstonecraft, I think, you know, as we can discuss further, her son-in-law, who she obviously never met, Percy Shelley, did more to leave his stamp on feminism than she did.
But she started the discussion, certainly with her book, The Vindication of the Rights of Woman.
And that really is where we have this idea, you know, as you know well, of Thomas Paine and trying to move towards this more egalitarian movement.
And so that's how she's writing about women is, you know, she's very critical of any kind of hierarchy.
She's critical of monarchy.
She's critical of anything related to the church because she wants to see this sort of collapse down into egalitarianism.
And so I think that that's really the first movement is, you know, how she kicks it off.
And then, you know, her son-in-law sort of takes a football and runs with it much further down the field than she ever imagined.
But that's really where it started.
That's a really interesting thought.
I mean, I think Shelley was a great, great poet, but one of the truly terrible people of literature.
And I've written about how Mary Shelley's book, Frankenstein, is really about the removal of women from the process of creating life.
And I think that it may have been a reaction to living with this guy who she adored him.
She almost worshipped the ground he walked on.
How did he become, I mean, he was not a very successful writer in his time.
How did he become such a guide to where feminism was going?
Yeah, I think that's a great question because part of it is really answered by certainly his fascination with Mary Wollstonecraft, who, again, died before he ever met her.
But he knew of her reputation.
And of course, he also really appreciated and loved the work of his father-in-law, William Godwin, who was very much an anarchist and was very much against marriage.
And that was how he was known.
So Shelley, I think, takes a lot of these ideas.
And he makes what he calls the women's revolution.
And he's also very involved in the occult.
And that was one of the pieces that he kind of added to the movement that we see just like a cycle kind of moving through the movement throughout the centuries.
So that was a piece, that's what he adds to Mary Wollstonecraft's egalitarianism, which ultimately I argue becomes this idea of smashing the patriarchy.
And then, of course, he adds onto it the contribution from his father-in-law, this free love idea, which of course he was living in spades.
And, you know, this is why he was such an awful man and had, you know, so many dead people and dead children that just this, you know, awful trail of misery that followed his life.
But those are the really the three things that I think he, how he left his stamp on feminism.
But he also was really interested in, you know, you probably know better than I do, in the works of Milton and sort of rewriting the Genesis story, which is another one of those, you know, themes that we see through throughout feminism kind of coming back over and over again is this idea of how do we how do we sort of um reframe Eve so that she and Adam didn't really fall.
But what he does is he takes the work of Milton and makes it so that Eve is really the heroine.
She's, you know, she gets this special kind of knowledge from the serpent and she ends up becoming a heroine.
And that is one of those ideas that comes through the movement with certainly with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, which we can get to.
So in that way, and then I think the final way that he really, and perhaps maybe the most creative way that he impresses himself upon the movement is with this creation of this character named Sitna, who, you know, while Mary Shelley is writing about Frankenstein and his creature, Percy is writing about this woman, Sitna, who becomes sort of the first independent woman because she doesn't have a husband, she doesn't have children.
And I think that was what really captured the imagination of so many women of that era.
And that's certainly we see, you know, 60, 70 years later in the suffrage movement too, is this notion of a woman being truly independent of family, which was very, you know, incredibly revolutionary at that time.
So let's talk about this idea of the occult for a minute, because one of the things that Shelley, in dealing with Paradise Lost, he was one of the first people to say that the devil was the hero of Paradise Lost, which is now the first thing that every student writes, first paper every student writes, if they still teach Milton at all.
How do you mean that occultism has become integrated into feminism?
What do you mean by that?
I think that's a great question.
And I think, you know, it's one of those things I try not to focus so much on this in the book because I just, I didn't want the book to sort of become this esoteric discussion of things that we can't see, touch, feel, think about, you know, in very tangible ways.
And I didn't want it to be just go into crazy land.
But, you know, Percy Shelley was obviously, you know, had sympathies for the occult.
We know that he was thrown out of school for writing about atheism.
But that's a big jump to the occult.
But he also was fascinated by darkness and creation.
He spent the night in a church in a tomb, actually, trying to summon the devil.
So this is something that was just kind of part of his persona, part of his personality.
He was very much of this era of pushing taboos and pushing against everything that sort of smacked of traditionalism.
And so the occult was, I think, a big source of fascination for him.
And we see this, you know, again, in Elizabeth Cady Stanton back later on with the suffrage movement, because she's actually very involved in seances and using mediums.
And this was actually just sort of part of this, you know, part of the whole feminist movement was very much connected with this notion of spiritualism and then of free love as well.
So it's, it's, but the first time that we see them all together is certainly with Shelley and, you know, just the whole era that's, I think, fascinated in these taboo eras.
You've got Desaud writing at that time as well.
And Shelley was just very much part of his personality to push any kind of boundary that he could.
And what could be more boundary pushing than dabbling in Satanism?
Yeah, what else?
When you look at this period, there's a sense that women were oppressed.
Were women before feminism oppressed?
Is that a fair assessment of their state in Western culture?
Women's Oppression Debate00:03:18
You know, I think it's a really interesting question.
I mean, obviously, we know that there are bad men and there are bad women and people will do bad things and mistreat each other.
I think there's also, you know, what seems to be a lot of the reaction is just the struggles that women had, largely because of their fertility and bearing children.
And I think that that's what motivated a lot of these feminists was to ask the question of, certainly we see in Wallstone Craft and moving forward, but how do we help women become more like men?
And she sort of ruminates on this a lot, this idea of how do we help women move in that direction.
And, you know, if you start looking at the feminist movement through that lens of that question, I think it sort of clarifies a lot of things and it helps us understand even what's happened in second wave feminism, you know, all the more, what's happening certainly with the trans movement, that this has been a goal to really separate a woman from her fertility, from her children, from her husband, and make this idealized, independent woman.
And then, but at the expense of all that's feminine and the vulnerability certainly that comes with childbearing and whatnot.
So I think that's the main goal.
You know, it wasn't a question of how do we help women as women.
It was a question of how do we change them to be more like men and sort of putting the masculine on a pedestal.
So, you know, I think if we're going to talk about oppression, we have to, there's so many other tentacles to get into in terms of socioeconomic realities, of wars that are going on.
You have something as basic as laundry that women had to do and people were just trying to do things to survive as families.
So I think that question of oppression is just a little bit too vague to really articulate and say, as a matter of fact, everyone's oppressed.
I don't think we can make it that simple.
I think there's a lot of competing historical realities that are going on that make it very difficult to make that claim.
But I think they see a problem with, you know, women have difficult lives.
How do we make them simpler?
But they just answer it in the wrong way.
As you might know, we're all fans of our friends at Genucelle.
Don't just take my word for it.
Ella from Rockford says, I have both age and acne spots, and this stuff is actually fading both of them.
This serum is worth every penny.
Ella is raving about the famous dark spot corrector from Genucelle, a must-have after months of record heat and humidity.
Sunspots, brown spots, discoloration, even red inflame patches all disappear in front of your very eyes.
And here's the Genucelle amazing guarantee.
You will see results on day one or your money back.
So take advantage of Genucell's most popular package, which now includes the Dark Spot Corrector plus the classic Genucelle bags and puffiness treatment and immediate effects, all at about 70% off so you can try the best skincare in the world for yourself completely risk-free.
It's simple.
Go to genucelle.com slash Claven and start looking years, even decades younger tomorrow.
Say goodbye to darkened liver spots, bags, and puffiness under the eyes and crow's feet at genucell.com slash clavin.
That's genucelle.com slash clavin.
Talking to Dr. Carrie Gress, author of The End of Woman, How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us.
And I want to get to that idea as quickly as possible.
Betty Friedan's Anger00:13:45
So I'm going to skip through a little history here and get to, let's say, around the 60s in America.
And one of the things that has always struck me about, say, Betty Friedan as an example, is how dramatic and angry the language of early feminism was.
I mean, I grew up in that period.
The idea of the woman as homemaker was kind of respected.
I mean, I'm sure that there, as you say, there were bad men, there were bad women.
But the idea of the mother was very, was held higher than I think it is today.
And they certainly, in my neighborhood, were the sort of linchpin of the community.
They were the reason there was a community because mothers were doing what they were doing.
Betty Fredan said, this is like a concentration camp.
This is like, which always strike, whenever I hear that, it always strikes me.
I could understand saying, well, I'm dissatisfied with this.
But the actual power of that, the fact that it caught on, the fact that people were interested in it, what do you think was behind that?
Why was that such a powerful idea?
Yeah, when I read that, I just, I couldn't believe she got away with being able to publish that.
You know, I've been out into actual concentration camps and they looked nothing like these suburban homes that Betty Fredan was complaining about.
So yeah, I think it's pretty remarkable.
I think what's really going on is Betty Fredan was very much a communist.
She had really absorbed a lot of the Marxist ideas and she wanted to get women to start thinking like Marxists, but she didn't want to come out and say think like Marxists.
So she ended up being incredibly clever.
And, you know, if you read The Feminine Mystique, it's really interesting because she has this background in psychology.
And you have this impression that she's just sort of this housewife, dissatisfied.
That's kind of where she's coming from.
But if you start really looking at what she's doing, she actually has, you know, the whole focus is to try to get women out of the home.
And we know from one of her biographers that she has had this quote in one of her journals about that Engels wrote about how women will only be free if they get outside the home and start doing productive work.
So Fredan was very much a mouthpiece of the communist movement and was really focused on this idea of how do we get women out of the home.
But she, you know, her friend Simone de Bouvoir said, well, if you tell, you know, if we tell women to leave the home or give them the option, they'll never leave.
And so, you know, Fredan comes along and says, well, let me try.
Let me try my hand at this.
And so she uses all kinds of just incredible psychological tactics to get women on board for this.
And, you know, it's very, it's masterful, really.
It's genius.
And it's just incredible how successful she was using this.
But she appeals to this sense that women have of being victims, of being in this comfortable concentration camp.
That's one way that she does it.
She also appeals to, I think, our sense of missing out, which, you know, can be very strong in women, this fear of missing out.
And so that's another aspect in which, you know, another way she tries to make us think like Marxists.
So yeah, it's incredible.
She sold 3 million copies of that book in the first few years of its publication.
And it just, you know, swept through the culture like wildfire.
So yeah, it's amazing how she did it.
But we know the reasons why she did it.
Again, it was to focus on how do we get women to be doing productive work?
Because the Marxists at that point had already decided that being at home with children was not productive.
And so they had to get us out of the home.
And this was really her effective way to do it.
It also establishes, I mean, motherhood and homemaking establish a different set of values to the male values, male, more materialist values.
And if Marxism is nothing else, it's materialist.
And I think it actually is at odds with motherhood and homemaking.
It actually, those are not two things that can survive in tandem.
You know, this idea, I mean, I keep coming back to this idea of the smashing the patriarchy has destroyed us.
First of all, can you define the patriarchy?
Because I'm not sure.
I may have missed it.
Yeah.
No, and that's right.
That's the Achilles heel of the book.
I'm sorry.
I did not put a succinct definition of the patriarchy in there.
I think partially because it just feels so ubiquitous.
But yeah, the more that I'm seeing of it, that everybody kind of, it's sort of this empty word that people sort of fill up with whatever they want, I'm noticing.
But the patriarch goes back to this Wall Stonecraft idea of getting rid of any kind of hierarchy and getting rid of what are typically considered the masculine traits, characteristics, gifts, you know, in military or church or other, you know, leadership kinds of roles.
So sort of reducing everything down to a much more egalitarian notion.
So anyway, that's, I think, you know, how I'm using the word smashing the patriarchy.
But so that's been a certainly a piece that we use so readily that I think most people don't realize all of the other pieces that go along with it.
Or maybe they do, I don't know.
But I guess the real idea is devaluing men and trying to put women in their place.
And I think that's part of the aspect of what they're working with with this idea of smashing the patriarchy and getting rid of men doing the roles that they've done so well throughout history.
So how does smashing the patriarchy destroy women?
Why is that the end of woman?
Well, I think because if you have women who are fundamentally envious of men, I mean, you have to remember, as you know well, that Marxism set up men and women against one another.
Men are automatically the oppressors, women are automatically the victims.
And so if you have all these women who are trying to get rid of men, you know, you're never going to build a culture if it's built on resentment or envy or class warfare.
And that's really what we're seeing is this deep, deep wedge that has been placed between men and women just fundamentally, you know, from the very start.
This is what the ideology tells us.
And so you can't really get out of that.
And as a result, you're not going to have happy families.
You're not going to have flourishing communities.
You're not going to build anything because it's all built on kind of resentment and jealousy and the desire for that which we can't have, especially when it's built on things that are not even intrinsic to our human nature.
Well, that's okay.
I mean, I can't help but note.
The one thing about envy and materialism is it makes sense.
I get envy and materialism.
Somebody has something.
I want it.
I want more.
I don't want to miss out.
Staying at home with children can make you miss out on a lot of things.
But I also can't help but notice that young women, especially, are miserable.
When I speak in colleges, I frequently start by saying, it seems to me young women are miserable.
If I'm wrong, please step up and tell me.
And not only has no one ever stepped up to say that, they all sort of say, you don't even know the half of how miserable we are.
And yet, when I ask people, well, what is the value system that stands up to Marxism, that stands up to envy?
What kind of value system are we trying to create?
People start to get very scared.
They don't want to say, let's go back to the old days.
They don't want to say, yes, men and women have different places in the world.
What do you say?
What would you tell?
You've taken this historical perspective, which is great, and you go through the ideas and how they unfold.
What are you offering instead?
Well, I think, you know, the first thing is we have to recognize how much we have been indoctrinated as women.
And this is one of the things I think this book does, is it helps men have a little bit more compassion towards women and when we are being awful or narcissistic or whatever, because I don't think any of us really realizes how much the culture has worked against us as women.
They have not only defined themselves as, if you look at sort of the typical feminist woman, she looks very happy.
It's very attractive.
You know, this is sort of the model that we're supposed to be emulating.
But they have also been really clever because they have been able to articulate what they think the opposition looks like.
So, you know, every time we have an issue about abortion, outcome, the women and the red robes and the red bonnets and this, you know, they're trying to imply that if you are not these kinds of women, then you are absolutely part of a fertility cult.
And, you know, this is bad.
And this, you know, so you're either part of a fertility cult or you are, you know, a doormat or you're just not very smart.
Like that's, I mean, it's genius again, where they have they've defined both sides of the argument in their own terms.
What we don't have, and this is really where I think conservatives have so much catching up to do, is we haven't really flooded the market in any way of with images of what actually healthy, ordered women look like.
We don't have any kind of moral imagination of how that looks or what a normal woman looks like.
And I think this is a huge failing on our part because we've spent so much time, you know, rightfully so on legislation and different ways to end abortion and whatnot.
But we have completely missed the cultural side, which is actually how and where most women absorb their content, whether it's on social media, it's in Hollywood, it's daytime TV, what, you know, fashion magazines.
All of those areas are really where women's ideas are largely formed about what they think.
I mean, this is why Barbie was such is such a remarkable tool to see.
Like this is pure propaganda.
Like there's the complete, there's not a single man in it that is necessary or good.
And, you know, order comes back when women are in charge and the men are like put in their corner kind of thing.
But it's got amazing, you know, shine on it.
It's got a lot of pink, it's got a lot of nostalgia, it's got some tender moments.
And so, you know, our reason is not engaged, but all of these other areas of the emotions are engaged.
So I think this is the biggest problem.
It's that, you know, certainly a Judeo-Christian vision is hugely important because that's where we understand that there's male and female.
This is also what the French Revolution was trying to get rid of.
It was trying to get rid of any reliance upon the Ten Commandments.
And this is very fundamental.
They were trying to get rid of that and rely completely on this just notion of pure reason, not realizing that, you know, what seems reasonable in the 1790s might not seem very reasonable in 2023.
So that's the big problem is this slide that's happened.
So I think it's just very basic things like 10 commandments, but I think we also have to do a much better job of filling in those gaps with real women who are attractive and compelling and people want to be like.
Also, because our message is better than what the left is putting forward too.
So I think that it's not really as hard as we think.
It's just that all the categories have been sort of stacked against us in terms of the public opinion about what is good and what is bad.
And so people just don't know how to really articulate it anymore.
You know, they're bringing out a live version of the old movie of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
And there's made a lot of, it's made a lot of, gotten a lot of publicity because the star of the movie has said, well, there's not going to be any of this men coming to rescue me, which I find really sad because I think that if you don't have men who actually want to defend you and rescue you, you're going to have all kinds of other men that are not going to be all that pleasant.
And they're still going to have just as much power as they did before.
So is that a story that can be told to a modern woman?
you know, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, these ideas that, yeah, you know, there is a defense and rescue role that you want men to have because the other role that they would take is kind of ugly.
I guess what I'm trying to say to you is, yeah, Barbie tells this story well.
Is there a story that we're not telling that can be told in the modern era?
Yeah, I think that there's, you know, we have a lot of opportunities of storytelling.
You know, I personally don't have any interest in seeing Snow White in that iteration.
I mean, that's just going to be work related if I go see it.
It's not going to be because I want to.
But yeah, I think, you know, there seems to be kind of a new fascination, certainly with Jane Austen film or novels and recreating them.
I think there's, you know, we have this amazing, we have amazing resources in novels and storytelling.
And we're just not really doing it well.
And I think that's, you know, part of the problem is that everything is being woked over and made to fit with the narrative.
And so it's just not that compelling.
But that's one of the reasons why Barbie also has been so, I think, been so successful is because of the fact that it just almost, it's supposed to be fun.
But we don't have a lot of fun movies anymore because they just become so busy indoctrinating us into something.
So yeah, I think some, you know, there's always going to be fodder in something like an Austin novel, but I think that there's so much room for something more creative and new and fresh, or there's something to be said from remaking older films or older stories like Snow White for a contemporary audience, but still leaving it intact the way the story was meant to be told instead of tossing the Prince Charming out or revisiting it,
Believing in God's Joy00:06:56
making it some sort of independent woman battle crying.
So I have two last questions, but they're kind of the key questions, especially as I listen to you.
The first is about sex.
As you point out with Shelley, he was all for free love and he made extensive use of that, leaving bodies in his way, actual corpses in his way.
And yet now I hear so many women who are miserable, who have what they now call a body count, which is how many men they've slept with.
And of course, it's an amazing number because who would say no?
I mean, there's nobody to say no.
If the woman stops saying no, nobody says no.
And so I guess what I'm asking is, is what's your prescription to a modern woman going out into the world who says, well, everybody else is sleeping around.
A guy can find sex elsewhere.
They don't really want virginal women.
They don't really even want responsible women.
What do you say to them to start to turn this around, to start to turn their own misery around?
Well, I mean, I think that's part of the question is they are miserable and you have to identify why they're miserable.
I mean, women are just not made to be promiscuous.
And the emotional baggage that it creates is just incredible.
I mean, there's, and certainly the biological baggage is incredible as well.
So I think we need to just help women understand that this is not who they were made to be.
And it's awfully hard, especially if you are in these circles where everybody that you know is doing this.
And I think that that's really the big thing is to sort of figure out, maybe these are not the right people in my life.
Maybe there are other people.
And it can be incredibly isolating and very challenging.
But I think just even understanding the ways in which we've been indoctrinated and the ways in which, you know, even something like free love creates a kind of dependency that we have, you know, we end up being more dependent upon the government.
We end up more broken.
You know, even back in the 70s and 80s, you had magazine editors conspiring.
How do we have more broken women?
Because we sell more products, we sell more magazines, all of these kinds of things have been working against us.
So, maybe in a certain respect, that's obviously why I've written the book so that people have a sense that this is a dead end reality.
This is not going to lead them to a place of happiness.
But I think that begs the question, well, where do they go?
Well, I think it's also.
you know, finding people, whether it's wise women that you respect or, you know, finding other people at some place like church or in different communities or in colleges or, you know, whatnot.
People are out there.
It's just a matter of sort of finding them, getting out of this cycle where you think that, you know, the hookup culture is really the way that people live their lives, because that's certainly not going to lead to the kind of happiness that women want.
And, you know, maybe this is the real piece is there's so many women, so many women that I've met that say, you know, I did everything that I was supposed to do, that the world told me I was supposed to do.
The feminist movement, you know, pointed me in all these directions.
And, you know, then I meet them, they're 50, 60, 70 years old, and they're saying, well, this is not the life that I wanted.
I thought I would have a family.
I thought I would have, it wouldn't just be me.
I thought, you know, there would be more in my life than what I've got at this point.
So I think that's really the key is women need to start thinking about, well, what do I want my life to look like when I'm older?
Instead of just focusing on the challenges of now and start sort of moving in that direction, planning ahead and sort of getting out of this narrative that we've been told is really the only way to think in the culture these days.
This leads me to my last question I have to ask, because we started with the satanic element.
It really is a satanic element in some of this.
And to tell people that there is great joy in missing out in order to raise children and make homes, that there is great joy in missing out on for men on a promiscuous life and to have a home and to have a wife and family.
How much of this is dependent on faith, on having faith in God?
Is there a way forward without that?
Because I sometimes, I mean, God has been such a joy in my life and such a central part of it, but I get tired of banging the drum because people sort of roll their eyes and say, oh, but it just seems there's no other, it seems there's no other road forward.
Am I wrong?
You know, I think you're right, because I think that the, you know, as I talk about in the book, I have a whole chapter on this, that really what has happened is we've made man the idol.
This desire to change our human nature, to make all this kind of flexibility and reinvention and whatnot, that's really the idolization of ourselves and our body and our wills.
And so the only way to really get an ordered sense of this is, of course, like I said, going back to something as basic as the Ten Commandments, but I think, you know, it can go much deeper than that.
It really has so much to do in believing that there is a God who knows us and loves us and wants to be part of ordering our lives and bringing us happy and joy, happiness and joy.
So yeah, I think you're right.
I think it's very, it would be incredibly difficult to navigate all of these things without any kind of theistic touchstone.
And just even the traditions and the kinds of wisdom that we get from those who are believers and have, you know, through the whole Judeo-Christian tradition offers so much.
But I think that's also, you know, when we're in a culture that really focuses on fun and personal satisfaction, those are very difficult things to give up when you've been told that those are the primary things that you should be after.
And those are not primarily God, you know, the values that come to us from the tradition.
Things like perseverance and even suffering, that these kinds of things.
You know, it's very hard to make this case without again having real examples of how these people look and how people who are enduring this, what their family life looks like, what they're even the end of their lives look like, and so I think this is why we really need to get back to storytelling and to the culture and to start showing people you know how much different our lives look when we believe in god versus when we, you know, believe in ourselves.
Yeah, dr Carrie Gress, the author of a new book, The End Of Woman, how smashing the patriarchy has destroyed us.
I think it's really important to see these things in historical perspective, because people are born into it and they don't know where it came from.
They think it's just the the way it is.
Uh, thank you so much for coming on.
It's really nice talking to you.
Oh, my pleasure.
It's great meeting you.
Really interesting conversation and really interesting how all this fits together.
As I keep Saying, these ideas did not just fall out of the sky, they were given to you, they can be taken back, they can be fixed, they can be corrected.
Really interesting to talk to her, and we will have more interesting talk on Friday with the Andrew Clavin show.