the violent and out-of-control nature of the schools in which she was being raised, at least educationally speaking. A number of people are saying that's not some outlier, that is a normal public school. And the same is true of the Internet. There's stuff that's out there that is far beyond their cognitive capacity and emotional maturity to be able to process and deal with. There's this discussion already about their sexual prowess and preferences and, you know, very sexually focused conversations seem to be happening amongst these young people. when a teacher just comes in and says, I ama, you know, whatever, and they start opening the door to this, it's being done not in those dark corners of the internet, but in school. Hello and welcome to Awake at the Wheel. So in previous episodes we've discussed a lot about men in men's mental health. But the source of this is, of course, boys and our boys at some point. So there is a TV series that recently came out on Netflix. But to introduce the topic today and the episode today, we're going to start out by just watching a video, but okay, so of course, we watch the show. There's a lot of overlapping themes that she mentioned there that are certainly relevant to the discussions that we have. So of course, I want to start out by just kind of criticizing her take on it to begin with. So I suppose before we jump in, spoiler alert to anybody who hasn't watched the TV series, we're going to get into some of the details of it and some of the themes. So if you want to watch the series first, certainly do so. But be aware we're going to maybe spoil the ending for you. So nonetheless, I think that she, in my opinion, frames this show as presenting the norm of what's going on out there with teens. So I certainly think that some of the themes that are in the show, such as bullying and harassment and, you know, interpersonal challenges and family challenges and all of those things that teens deal with. Absolutely. But I almost get the sense that she thinks that these extreme outcomes seem to be the increasing norm. And I just don't know if that's the case. So my first thought is there's some dangerous framing around it. What do you think, Oren? Well, now I want to be careful here going on to a rant, but I know before I even saw the show I was seeing popping up to my feed people complaining about the, let's say, directorial choices made. Now, the director or the writer who also plays the boy's father, I'm blanking on his name. A wonderful actor. I remember seeing him in Snatch many years ago, I think Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels before that. Many, many years ago. A wonderful, intense actor I should remember. His name, I think is Stephen something, but some people are saying that what I'm about to say is simply a reflection of the fact that since he wanted to be in his own show, if he's going to choose his son, if that's the role he's playing the father, then the boy is going to be white and others are. And, you know, so they're saying that's all that there is. There's nothing beyond that. Whereas other people are saying the knife crime that is committed here, you know, we're talking about young girls getting stabbed and they're making it look like this is an increasing trend. Well, you know, again, just don't get too much into politics here. But there are very few stories of white girls being stabbed by white boys, not adults, but boys. But where there are young men or adolescents or boys stabbing girls, they are not usually white. And that's what people are complaining about, saying that framing. So if you want to talk about framing, so people are saying, of course it has to be the white male, nobody else. Yes, there is. You know, there are some black kids in the in the show and I think some brown as well. But they you know, they're not the main characters. It's this white boy. So a lot of people are seeing this as yet another attack on white males. So I just want to put that out there as a framing. Again, I don't know if it was deliberate or if they were trying to avoid controversy, but that's one of the framings. And the second one, as far as the, you know, these outcomes, yeah, violence is getting worse for sure. Once again, the violence, who's the perpetrator, who's a victim that may not have been necessarily accurately reflected in the program when you think about the numbers. But, you know, there is you know, I was watching other people's commentary on this, people from the UK and several people were saying that the schools so it's not just, you know, this horrific act that's committed where this boy murders this girl, but, you know, the the violent and out-of-control nature of the schools in which she was being raised, at least educationally speaking. A number of people are saying that's not some outlier, that is a normal public school. So I think there are some, you know, whether we put aside the politics or whether we put aside some of the, let's say, questionable framing in the show and the commentary, the fact is, I think it does touch upon some factors that I think people should pay attention to. And of course, the harmful influence of social media and influences like Andrew Tate cannot be ignored. But when you blow it up the way that they do, that's going to cause a number of people to just tune out. And I think one of the challenges, too, is I'm sure a lot of parents are scared watching this because the portrayal, at least I think in the first episode, is like this Jamie kid was such a good boy and all of a sudden he went bad. And I think that's really problematic because the reality is, as we know, when we're looking at situations from a psychological and sociological perspective, there are the collection of risk versus protective factors. One of the challenges that I had with watching this was there wasn't a whole lot that was provided about his history. And that's just, you know, my my need to know these things to kind of make sense of what happened and so on. But I don't think they told us too too much about like what life was like before all of this happened. But nonetheless, I did want to go through a list that I've kind of compiled here in watching it about what the risk factors were, what the protective factors were. I think there are far more risk factors and protective factors, which is problematic. But my point in doing this is I want parents to understand that it isn't just a light switch that all of a sudden your good little boy is going to go bad and go and murder somebody. I think there was a little bit of of course, at the TV shows, there is some dramatization of it and hyperbole and so on and so forth. But real life isn't that black and white. Right. Okay. Well, why don't we go through the list and comment? Okay. Absolutely. So first off, and I have like a cluster of different things, like I kind of went nuts writing this out because it just kept flowing as I was thinking about it. But I think one of the biggest problems that arose for this kid is that he had unsupervised, unrestricted access to the Internet. So we've spoken about this in other episodes before as well. And essentially like, no, never. This should not be the case. I don't care, You know, what the rationale is. Kids are not equipped to be able to have completely unrestricted access to the Internet. There's so much stuff out there and analogy that I often use is you wouldn't send your kid out into the woods without any proper training, equipment, resources, tools. And the same is true of the Internet. There's stuff that's out there that is far beyond their cognitive capacity and emotional maturity to be able to process and deal with. And the insinuation throughout the show is that this kid was accessing such content. So I know that it's no longer the nineties and it's not like when I was growing up and the computer was in a centralized place in the home where everybody saw what was going on. But I do think that some version of that is possible. Even nowadays, for example, you know, computer usage with the door closed and not to say that one should be spying on their kid at all times and watching what they're doing at all times. But I think the understanding of, you know, mom and dad or mom or dad or whoever supervising the kid can hear what's going on and can be aware of what's going on. Is something that could be a protective factor as opposed to having that completely unrestricted free access and full privacy to. Right. And it's difficult because, you know, if the kid has a phone, they can find that privacy. So, you know, and they're out in the house a lot of the time. So there are many opportunities for the child to have unfettered access to these, you know, social media and the Internet. But, you know, the parents have to try it. You can't just throw up your hands, say, well, what can we do right now? We've talked before about this, having discussions with them, finding out what they're into and so on. And, you know, it's not doesn't mean that they're going to be honest with you. But just giving up and abdicating your responsibility is obviously not the right path. Absolutely. And I think that leads into the next factor that I have noted here is the fact that this kid was clearly accessing content that was portraying negative portrayals of masculinity and so on. And again, no, we can't protect our kids from everything that's out there on the Internet. But it is on us as parents to ensure that we're having regular discussions about, you know, what they're watching, what they're seeing, and helping them to critically process what they're seeing and not just take it at face value. Right. I think that's really important that the parents, once again, even if it's not about parents lecturing the kids, it's not all parents saying, my God, that Andrew Tate’s a monster or whatever, because the kid's just going to say, Well, you don't know what you're talking about. This is like every generation, the history, you know, I always thought their parents are out of touch and don't know. So it's asking questions, having a discussion. Even if you don't like it, it's again, hearing what your kids are thinking about this. So it's what are they accessing? What are they thinking about it? What are they doing about it? And, you know, you don't have that. You don't get that information if you're just lecturing the child. Exactly. Another thing that was, I don't think, focused on too much in the show, but was certainly highlighted at some points, was that this kid apparently had low self-esteem and limited interests. So this can be a risk factor, certainly, because, you know, if if he's not feeling great about himself or a kid's not feeling great about oneself, they're potentially going to seek out things that either, I think, support the narrative that might be in their mind or bolster their confidence in perhaps negative ways for example, I think they mentioned that this kid was interested in art and there weren't really opportunities for him to bolster his self-confidence through mastery in something that he's very good at. So something that parents can do in situations like this are paying attention to what your kid is into, what they're really good at, and helping them to master those skills, which in turn can help to bolster their self-confidence. Right. And conversely, there was a bit of mention about the fact that his father, you know, you could see, you know, he's in shape, he's a manly man, and he tried to get him into sports. And, you know, and it was clear that, you know, even the father was embarrassed. I think both the father and the son mentioned that to the psychologist and the father mentioned that to his wife afterwards about like I couldn't even look at him or all the other parents were laughing at him when he was in goal. I believe. So, You know, and that's something that a lot of parents have to be careful about because, you know, I've worked with a number of parents who are trying to get their children into activities that they think will make them, you know, popular or give them confidence. They say, okay, great, but be prepared for the fact that it might not be their aptitude. And if you put them in with a bunch of kids, especially as they're getting older, you know, five or six year old, the let's say, with sports, kids are all pretty not great. You know, there might be one or two superstars, 8 to 10 now, you know, the skills of differentiating, especially 12 to 14. Now you really see it. So if you put a child in with a bunch of kids, again, I think in sports, that's the number one thing that people think with their boys. It really may not be what they're into. So and the show, again, they kind of hinted at it that he was he had this more artistic side so they could have you know and I think they even mention I can't remember in the last episode that both of the parents were sort of, you know, lamenting the fact that they didn't, you know, again, sort of foment that talent more so anyway, so that it's important to know what they, you know, potential that they can do and also be prepared that it could blow up in your face. And kids are really, really mean even if you if your kid's pretty good at chess set into a chess club, you never know how nasty. And you know the chess the other chess players can be and make them feel like crap. So again, having discussions with them about their experiences, you know, again, whether it's online virtually, or whether it's with other peers and seeing whether this really is the thing for them and not just thinking whether because it's your interests or because you think, you know, this is the right thing, push them in a direction that's not good for them or show that that they're not going to, you know, really flourish and could backfire. And I think to add to that, too, especially starting from a young age, perhaps even having shared interests with your child and doing an activity together, building that skill together, that's not only going to help with their self-confidence and mastery, as I mentioned, but also helping to further foster that connection between you and your child and ensuring that you have kind of built in space where you can talk and explore what's going on. So I think that's a good strategy that could assist with that. But tying into what you were saying earlier, I think another risk factor that this child Jamie had was a limited peer circle. It seems like he had a few friends, but it also seemed like he maybe was in a bit of an echo chamber. So friends with maybe similar challenges that he was experiencing. And another thing this is maybe tangential, but I think ties in to the peer circle challenge is that it seems like at the age of 13 and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this differs quite a bit from when we were younger. There's this discussion already about their sexual prowess and preferences and, you know, very sexually focused conversations seem to be happening amongst these young people. And developmentally speaking, that seems quite young. Well, yeah. I mean, it's younger than it was before by let's say, a couple of years. Ironically, in the last few major surveys, children are actually waiting later to actually have sexual intercourse. They may have other sexual acts. And we know I don't want to get too graphic, but we know that oral sex has become something that once was very taboo even among adults. Now it's to go to it's become so minimized and everything like that. But having actual sexual intercourse, it's later it's with fewer partners than before. But the talk about it, the implication that everybody's doing it has only got much worse. And it does start younger. And you're right, people don't have the capacity that by the way, I'll tell you right now, I put some of that blame. Not all you know, but some of that on teachers because there has been such a push in because of the gender madness, the gender ideology craze, that, you know, teachers will come in and they will say, I am and they're telling me what they identify as. And I've you know, I've got parents telling me my kid is like six years old or eight years old. They're saying I am an asexual, blah, blah, blah, or I am a pansexual because kids are hearing this, these words. And it's not just on media, it's in the classrooms. When you So again, I really want to lay a lot of the blame, not all, but a lot of it on quote unquote, educators, especially the ones who are so narcissistic that they believe that they should be, you know, sort of imposing their own lifestyles on the kids. And everyone who knows me knows I am very, very liberal and open minded. I believe in proper comprehensive sexual education or sex education. And I think but it has to be age appropriate. So again, when a teacher just comes in and says, I ama, you know, whatever, and they start opening the door to this, it's being done not in those dark corners of the internet, but in school. So kids are being taught, this is something we should be talking about. There's something we should know about this, you know, that we should be exposed to. And again, the kids are just learning this language and it's just normalizing it at such a young age. It's habituated them to these concepts that they're not ready for. So and again, it just makes it look like everyone's talking about everyone's doing it. I should be doing it, too. And the kids are really not equipped, especially eight, ten, 12, 13. I didn't even consider that as. But yeah, that makes complete sense. But I wonder at what point, because you said it's being habituated and it's become normalized at too young of an age, but then it even seems to like the example of the show be then weaponized. So it's interesting how it I think like we always talk with good intentions, execute poorly. I'm sure the schools were well intentioned in presenting this. Obviously it's not age appropriate, but where do you think it kind of gets twisted and weaponized amongst these young people then? Well, you give them anything that's taboo, that's different. Even those being normalized, certain aspects of it are still, let's say, whether it's taboo or they just know that it's something like, for example, I'm just I think I don't use the wrong language, let's say. And and kids can use anything as a weapon, anything. So if you get something like this, which again, even if it's if is being normalized, they still know it's something that's just there's something different about it. So I won't even say taboo. It's exotic in some way. So kids will take any of that. They will use that and twist it, and especially if in the get go on social media and they learn, I don't even have to weaponize it myself. They're being taught what is the greatest weapon? And in the program they made it exceedingly clear that being called an incel, which that term was not used, that was not well known until I don't get that you're wrong, but it was in Toronto where this person who was a self-identified incel, you know, horrifically and easily, you know, ran down a number of people. I bet, you know, in the north end of Toronto in his van. And that that was the first time it was being really, you know, articulated in the public. People saying incel incel incel I want to say was eight years ago between six and eight years ago, I should know that. And I talked about a lot at the time. And at the same time, it wasn't just him, but he was referring to, again, another incel in the States who everyone like that was his hero, basically, because he had gone out and he had shot a number of women. And if I'm not mistaken, that particular person also shot a number of men. But that didn't get much of the talk. But the point is, suddenly incel, we're talking about very new term. I was was you know, was in the vernacular. And it was these people, these incels were portrayed in a certain way. So from the very beginning, these, let's say, offputting, socially awkward, can't get a woman very rueful and jealous and upset at the, you know, the guys who are successful and, you know, and the hateful toward the women who spurned them and so on. So from the very beginning, it became a very potent insult. And so, you know, and again, the the program makes it very clear that there was almost nothing worse that can be called than an insult. Yeah. Yeah. So additional risk factors, I think, come from the family situation. And generally speaking, they seem to be, I think, a typical family. But if you dig a little bit deeper, I do think that there are some problematic things that could serve as risk factors. So the first one I'm going to say here I think is controversial, but we know that the data supports this, unfortunately. So they appear to at least the way they were portrayed was to be, I think, a lower income, lower socioeconomic status. Family. Am I saying that people who don't have money are murderers? No, I want to be very clear about that. But there are factors that come along with socioeconomic status that can impact the way that a child perceives the world around them with they interact with the world around them and so on. In this particular situation, I think some of the challenges could arise from if there are financial stressors in the household that can cause tension and problematic exchanges and just general stress in the household. Let's use his art as an example. Perhaps they didn't have the finances to put him into an art class or help him to buy art supplies that would enhance his skills. Things such as that do play a role. And like I said, I know that that's controversial, but I do think that in this particular situation, that potentially could have been a risk factor. It could have. And, you know, also just more directly when it comes to his status with his peers, if you don't have the money, you can't buy the new shoes or, you know, whatever is trendy. And that puts him more on the margins, more a potential target for bullying and so on. So, yes, and of course, people who are bullied and are marginalized in that way, that's a huge risk factor. So, you know, it can be an indirect cause, a direct cause. So for sure, and again, in I think people should know we're not making any negative comments about, you know, people socioeconomic status, because we can also find many people who come from privilege. That's a huge factor as well, because they don't learn consequences and the parents bail them out and they think they can get away with doing anything. So, you know, it's so it's just once again, we're not we're not stigmatizing anybody. Yeah. And I think it ties in to that as well. Is it it appeared that the father worked very long hours. So in working those longer hours, he wasn't as physically present and therefore not as emotionally present as would be ideal. So I think that ties into it as well. There's also insinuation in this show of like a poor, poor or absent or dysfunctional communication in the family, it doesn't sound like they were the most psychologically competent or emotionally aware family in the discussions. I think that kind of came out in the last episode where they said that they could have done more, they could have said more, they could have talked more, so on and so forth. So I think that the family dynamic doesn't appear to be one that is open about communication and discussion, specifically surrounding emotions. And I mean, they if that's the case, it would be, I think, on the milder form, because, you know, they did talk, they did joke around, they did go out on the right. So it's not like I want to be very clear here. I don't want people thinking, we're looking at this family. my God. They were a huge shock. No, it was on the you know, on the margins, so to speak. It was I don't think it was that bad. So you're saying that. But again, it's a show and you only have four episodes to try to flush all this out. So or flush out. So they it's like they're hinting at certain things, know so and you know, one of the if I can to say I mean one of the limitations, which was also kind of the fascinating thing about I have to say it's incredible to have shot each episode in one take. And apparently they did every one of those episodes. Really? They shot every time, ten times, I think, ten or 12 to do it. So that to me just blew my mind because I've seen this with other movies or shows with they'll do a seven or ten minute take that's, you know, incredibly difficult and other times they do it with. So it looks like it's a full, you know, a straight take. But in fact, they cut it here or there in this case, that's the big selling point that, you know, one take for everything. So on the one hand, amazing, just amazing cinematography. On the other hand, by doing it that way, you prevent the ability to, you know, sort of to input certain cues, other, you know, that where you could have sort of elaborated on certain things, there could have been flashbacks that just sort of hinting out or talking about it could have shown scenes that would have given us a broader picture on, you know, on the factors that could have led up to this situation, because a lot of people were left. And again, I was watching a lot of commentary. A lot of people were left saying, you know, it just doesn't really it doesn't all add up. It does. It's great because either you say, my God, kids on the Internet, they're watching and you take they're going become murderers. Or you say, there are 20 steps in between. What were they? Let us understand that. So you know, that that's, I think, a limitation. Agreed. Yeah. And I think the acting was like amazing. I was I will agree with that completely. And yeah, to that point I am speculating a bit with some of these risk factors that I'm pointing out here simply because the the gaps were not filled in. Right. But again, I imagine that some parents are kind of taking that catastrophic approach of like, my gosh, my kids on the Internet, too, are they going to become a murderer? So my my hope here is to illustrate that there are so many factors that can lead to that type of behavior. So on that note, though, in my preparation for this episode and creating the list of risk factors and protective factors, I kind of came up short as far as protective factors, not to suggest that there were none. And what I mean by protective factors for our listeners are things that can buffer a child against, you know, negative outcomes even if they are exposed to these negative things. One positive protective factor that I identified was that the family does seem to be in the parent specifically caring, nurturing, lots of love. They seemed like very well intentioned, loving parents. But what I'll say about love and I don't know if this is controversial or a popular opinion or whatever the case may be, but I think that when parents think of love, they think of allowing their kids to do whatever they want. And I think that there is an absence of love in this situation in so far as giving him that unrestricted access to the Internet and not being aware of what he was doing. Part of loving a child is setting clear boundaries and expectations and restrictions and expectations of how they should be behaving. So while I think the family was very loving, I think love was absent in that respect. Yeah. And I remember my my mentor years ago, he was saying, you know, you remember that old Beatles song, All You Need is Love, because we were doing parenting capacity assessments. And he said, No, all you need is structure, right? So because the kids need to internalize that obviously need love as well. But as you say, love is not parenting by guilt, is not parenting by just letting. It can do whatever you want. It's being able to foster the kind of relationship that enables you to and not in a non authoritarian way, but authoritative way, saying, here's the proper conduct, here's what's expected of you and you know, and that's that is part of love. And you're right, a lot of parents, especially today, I mean, they throw up their hands, say, what can I do? And they as I said earlier, they've kind of given up on their responsibilities of oversight and guidance and in helping the child internalize structure. Yeah. And the only other protective factor I came up with and it ties right in to that is he came from an intact family. And this is something that we often consider in our profession of a protective factor, simply because when there are two parents in the household, there's a higher likelihood of having more support, more structure, more boundaries, guidelines and so on and so forth. So we're not suggesting here and I'm not suggesting here that a single parent family is going to necessitate poor outcomes. But we do know from the data that being in an intact two parent household is a protective factor. And just one that I want to go off in a rant here. But because people are so, let's say, self-focused, let's say insecure, that when you say something like that, the statistics are undeniable. Yes. And but the problem is when people say, well, I know lots of people where, you know, there was a mother and father and it was horrible and it was this. Yes, there were many cases like that. But people have to step outside of their own experience trying to defend their choices or their circumstances and just look at the data. And now data can be manipulated. But sometimes when the data are so strong and this is something that has been shown in almost every metric of well-being, which is having an intact family will not for everybody, but statistically speaking, will lead to better outcomes. It's a huge protective factor and is also minimized or say, let's say, reduce it somewhat, sometimes largely. The many of the risk factors that we talked about. So people shouldn't get so defensive. They should step back and say, okay, what is in the best interest of the children? What is in the best interest of society? That's and again, I'm not I don't want to be labeled as, you know, someone who's trying to promulgate some old fashioned 1950s. But okay, we're just saying look at the stats. There's a reason for this. And if you you know, anyway, just I'm just I want people to get out of their own experiences, put down the defensiveness, and let's just try to look at the facts and see what's again in everyone's best interests. Yeah. So those two aside, are there any other protective factors that you identified in watching this series? In the series, No. I was thinking more about the risk factors because it was the absence of protective factors. For example, once again, getting back to school, having having teachers who take an interest in kids who and I've got you know, I think we've talked before, you know, we have a number of patients who are amazing teachers who spend the time after school to do these programs, you know, whether it's, you know, sports or drama or something like that. And they take an active interest. They make the child feel that they're valuable, they're worthy, they you know, they help them to flourish and then to grow. And as we talked about with these special talents or abilities and so on. So, you know, it was the absence of the protective factors that sort of stood out. And the school I mean, the program made it really clear these teachers are burnt out, they're apathetic. What can they do? The kids are out of control. And like I said, when I was watching other people talk about, you know, UK schools, they said this was not an anomaly, this was not hyperbolic. This was the state in many different public schools. So that's you know, there was a huge absence of that protective factor. Yeah. And I guess the school that school environment to me I thought was hyperbolic and I don't think it's like that over here in Canada, but I certainly could be wrong. I recognize that I live in my little bubble here as far as the clients that I work with and even the neighborhood that I live in, there's problems, but it's not to that degree. But do you know, like how how different it is? Can A versus the UK in terms of our public schools? Well, it really depends on which region you're talking about in Toronto that I've got many parents and teachers who say that it would be as bad as that. Okay, now maybe not on the grand scale. Might not be all the teachers that we only saw, a few of the teachers. Maybe there were other teachers that weren't so burnt out. They're obviously trying to make a point. But, you know, but teachers not giving a crap, having burnt out, not trying to have a positive influence, kids being able to rule the roost, you know, that's that I've heard so many stories about that. So, you know, and even with my own kids, to some degree, not nearly as bad. I've got them in good schools, at public schools, but I've always had, you know, I wanted them to be in a healthy environment in that regard. They knew how important it was. And I was very, very active. And I will say on a we've talked about this before, but it's worth mentioning now, it's not only the school or the schools, it's not only the people above them, the trustees, the directors and so on who are, you know, making the the education system a that's a shambles, but it's also the teachers who are sorry, the parents, the parents who don't take responsibility for their children, who don't who don't play an active role and who don't, you know, try to see is my child, you know, contributing to the healthy environment or are they disrupting? I mean, when I go to my youngest ones, parent teacher nights, you know, I always ask them, I say, how is she in class? I mean, I can see how she's doing the grades. I can see if you do her homework. But I want to make sure that she's one of those people who's actually contributing to a healthy environment. All right. Now, I'm hypocritical because as a kid myself, I was well known as being the class clown. And beyond that, I was a disruptive force. But I wasn't anything like with these kids. It wasn't violence was just tomfoolery, as we would say. But in any event, so, you know, parents really they we've talked about it before, but I'll say it one more time. I hate to belabor the point, but parents have to be more active and they can't so many parents are just throwing up their hands saying, what can I do? Or equally bad, they're so wrapped up in their own lives, whether it's work, whether it's, you know, the social lives that so many parents are not as engaged as they should be. And I get it. You know, parents are working, parents are busy. And, you know, that that does make it difficult. But there is only a limited window within which we can ensure that we're doing the absolute best that we can and setting our kids up for success. So while it's difficult, we can do difficult things and it's imperative to ensure that you're as involved as possible. And I think there's a balance between being involved and smothering, but I think being acutely aware of what your child is into and engaging in who they're friends with, what they do for fun, what they do outside of school. Be very aware. And it's funny because I, I, I hesitate to say this, but I almost think that like the the Indian mom way of being is actually pretty good. As much as I probably didn't like it as a kid. My mom knew everything I was doing. My mom knew who I was friends with, all the things I just mentioned. And I think it did help keep me on track. Right. And there has to be a happy medium. We can't have we can't write, can't articulate, because boundaries. And just one more thing before I forget, because I think I'd be remiss if I didn't say this. If we're looking at census, two things that I think were touched upon, but not enough, which is if you look at the school environment, the fact is I can I'll speak about Canada, and I know it's the same in the States that many of the teachers, a large majority men in many cases are females. We're trying to you know, we're trying to teach boys through a female lens, Right? We're trying to feminize boys or we're not allowing boys to be masculine in certain and healthy ways. Right. And so they're finding that about mask. They're finding out about masculinity through maybe unhealthy influences like talk, and that's the toxic masculinity. But and that term was used, I believe, in the in the series, right? I'd be surprised if it wasn't. And you and I have talked about this, the difference between toxic masculinity and healthy or traditional masculinity. And unfortunately, when you have a bunch of women who are the teachers, I'm not saying all women, but when they are the teachers, when they're the principals, when they are the the trustees and so on, they really don't know what they're talking about. Much of the time. And so maybe they have good intentions, but they are really executing them poorly and they're doing a terrible job. So that's number one. The number two, once again, the show touched upon it, but not nearly enough, which is what about toxic femininity? What about that, the growth? And let's be clear here. All right. I hate to have to leave these caveats every but we're not saying this girl deserved to be murdered for bullying this. Person right. Now. Obviously not. However. Well, let's look at the role of female influencers, female peers, what message? There is a lot of toxic femininity, you know, being promulgated all over the place and that doesn't get talked about enough. And it's not a zero sum game. It's not who's worse? It's the same. Let's say that there are negative or unhealthy influences there on the male side. On the female side, on any side. Let's take a look at that. And you know, I can, but that applies to every type of group you can imagine. And when you focus to shine the flashlight on the spotlight only on one group, it gives a distorted image. And so some people will just tune out automatically all why? Why did you, you know, such short you give such short shrift to these other factors so they don't give credence to the good points in adolescence and others. It's just again, there's missing the point completely. And they're looking in only one area and they're missing these other areas. And, you know, again, I can't emphasize that enough. Oren, you bring up such an important point there. And I think that that leads into it's going to be part two of this episode where we discuss some real data surrounding these exact problems that you've mentioned. So to our listeners, let us know your thoughts about our analysis of adolescence. Have you watched the show? I encourage you to take a look at it, but do so with the critical eye. Right. And just one last thing. Speaking of critical like it just came out, it's all over the all over X where this I think it was a politician was on a BBC show and they were saying, you haven't washed adolescents and they were treating it like it was a documentary. They I think they actually use the word documentary. So they're sort of like, what's wrong with these people? And they were chastising her for not having watched it. Right. So there are a lot of flaws and we didn't even talk about so many other types. We were just looking more at the risk factors and the protective factors. But there's so much we could have talked about that the interplay between, the boy and the psychologist and everything, we could have gotten so much. But, you know, we're trying to get you know, there's only so much that we can do. All right. But I'm just saying, like some people like, it's ridiculous. Let's let's treat it for what it is. Let's not give it too much credence. Let's not deny it, but let's say value. So anyway, on that note, until next time, keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel.