Diabolical Lies

Host(s): Katie Gatti Tassin & Caroline (Caro) Claire Burke
Episode: Scott Galloway vs. Heated Rivalry: Who Will Save the Men?
Date: January 11, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode of Diabolical Lies takes a witty, incisive, and thoroughly-researched look at the contemporary "masculinity crisis," contrasting Scott Galloway’s bestselling book Notes on Being a Man with the hit television series Heated Rivalry. The hosts, Katie and Caroline, dissect Galloway’s central arguments, critique his evidence (or lack thereof), explore how media narratives shape notions of masculinity, and argue for a more expansive, equitable vision of gender—drawing on both academic research and pop culture.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Revisiting the "Crisis of Masculinity" (00:00–10:00)

• Recurring Theme: The hosts reflect on how the crisis of masculinity persists, noting a cottage industry of thinkers (Scott Galloway, Richard Reeves, Jonathan Haidt, etc.) who profit from diagnosing and pontificating about "what’s wrong with men."
• "Better than Andrew Tate" Bar: The episode opens with Caroline mocking the low intellectual bar set by defending men like Galloway simply because “they’re better than Andrew Tate.”
• Quote (Caroline, 00:00):
  "Better than Andrew Tate is the intellectual bar that we are working with as we enter 2026."

2. Scott Galloway's Biography & Persona (05:00–08:30)

• The hosts give a rundown of Galloway’s career, noting his financial success, high media profile, and pivot from tech/business commentary to masculinity literature.
• Galloway's Lack of Expertise: Katie and Caroline poke fun at their own "general lack of formal expertise," but distinguish themselves from Galloway by stressing their commitment to transparency and citing sources.
• Quote (Caroline, 08:54):
  "The difference between us and Scott Galloway is we show our work."

3. The Galloway-Reeves-Haidt "Disgusting Brothers" Dynamic (10:44–13:19)

• The episode features a “back-and-forth” clip among Galloway, Richard Reeves, and Jonathan Haidt responding dismissively to a critical New Yorker essay by Jessica Winter.
• Sexism in Dismissing Women’s Critique: Caroline notes the men’s dismissive tone and wonders aloud if Galloway is interested in truly engaging with women’s perspectives on masculinity.
• Quote (Caroline, 17:38):
  "If he didn’t find that article by Jessica Winter to be worthy of legitimate response, then I think that we have a bigger conversation to be had about the extent to which these men are interested in listening to what women have to say about this topic."

4. Dissecting Notes on Being a Man

A. The “Educational System Is Against Boys” Argument (18:37–33:17)

• Selective Statistics: The hosts scrutinize Galloway’s claim that boys are “falling farther, faster” than any other group, pointing out that this ignores centuries of female (and nonwhite male) exclusion from opportunity.
• Quote (Caroline, 22:57):
  "What is the proper amount of loss for white men?"
• They debunk the idea that schools are “biologically” biased against boys, highlighting historical and infrastructural reasons for current gender imbalances.
• Katie’s Sarcasm (24:00): "Chop that rhetorical claim up and just snort it through your little nose holes."

B. The College Enrollment & Economic Claims (33:18–44:36)

• The hosts dispute Galloway and Reeves’ assertion that the ROI on college is the same for men and women, citing conclusive data on persistent gender wage gaps.

• Quote (Katie, 36:32): "Reeves saying that the ROI on a college degree is even close to parity for men and women, like, that is just, like, very clearly untrue."

• Selective Omission: Galloway never addresses persistent male overrepresentation in corporate leadership; his only stat is that “nearly 80% of my senior management has been women or gay men”—which is anecdotal and unrepresentative.

C. The “Social Contract is Broken” & Mating Crisis (46:09–51:45)

• Galloway attributes men’s failures to economic change and a supposed “mating crisis,” rooted in the decline of traditional family/marriage patterns (“women mate up, men mate down”).

• Katie and Caroline highlight how this analysis ignores women’s historical legal and economic constraints.

• Quote (Caroline, 50:05):
  "Traditionally, women were property. So, yes, traditionally, Scott, women did marry up. And traditionally, men did marry..."

D. Shoddy citations & Framing of Men’s Suffering (51:45–59:36)

• The hosts expose Galloway’s shock-stat tactic—a Twitter poll characterized as rigorous social science, misleading claims about living arrangements, and a failure to acknowledge that these “crises” apply equally (if not more so) to young women.

• Quote (Caroline, 54:35):
  "Scott Galloway has shared this information on CNN. He told Anderson Cooper. Tim Ferriss has shared it. He wrote it in his book. It’s all over the internet... This stat is not verifiable. It was a Twitter poll."

• They stress: these are systemic, society-wide phenomena, not “male-specific” crises.

E. The 3 Ps of Masculinity: Protect, Provide, Procreate (65:50–73:06)

• The critical heart of Galloway’s book is the “three-legged stool” of masculinity—protect, provide, and procreate.
• The hosts note that these are simply a restatement of patriarchy, dressed up in progressive trappings, and argue that this framing makes women into a “reward” for male accomplishment.
• Quote (Caroline, 72:08):
  "For people like Scott Galloway, who claim to be radical centrists...what they want is reactionary, but they know that they can’t argue for it in that way. And so they end up making progressive arguments for reactionary outcomes."
• Quote (Katie, 74:27): "It’s like, masculinity can only be achieved as refracted through the approval of women or the affirmation of women."

5. Heated Rivalry: Fiction Offering an Alternative Future (82:20–137:00)

A. Show Overview (82:30–92:09)

• Katie describes watching Heated Rivalry (originally a Canadian smut romance adapted by HBO), a series centered on two rival/closeted professional hockey players and their evolving romantic relationship, as well as a secondary romance subplot.

B. Why Women Are Obsessed: Equality, Yearning, Safe Masculinity (93:07–100:52)

• The hosts play a viral TikTok in which a straight woman unpacks why Heated Rivalry resonates so profoundly:
  • Even playing field (no inherent gendered power imbalance)
  • Vulnerability and desire without objectification
  • Safe masculinity: strong, but never threatening/dominant
  • Grief, not loneliness: mourning the seeming impossibility of experiencing equal love as a straight woman
  • Female emotional caretakers: women support male growth but rarely receive reciprocal care

C. Revolutionary Portrayal of Intimacy & Consent (104:01–110:12)

• The show demonstrates deep intimacy and chemistry without power imbalance.
• Both partners pursue, both are vulnerable, both have agency—a radical break from traditional heterosexual romance tropes.
• Quote (Out Magazine, 105:20): "The show does not eroticize imbalance. It eroticizes attunement."

D. The Impact of Queer Representation & "Imagining Forward" (120:00–128:21)

• The hosts point to Heated Rivalry as not only a model of queerness, but as a vision of partnership and masculinity that’s possible for everyone, queer and straight alike.
• The major difference between Galloway and Heated Rivalry:
  • Galloway’s model "looks backward" to an invented golden age.
  • Heated Rivalry "looks forward" to a world where respect, care, attunement, and partnership are accessible, regardless of gender.
• Quote (Caroline, 128:42):
  "One version of masculinity is like looking forward and imagining something that could be, versus the other that’s looking back and trying to capture something that never was. That’s very fucking poetic, Caroline. Very poetic."

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Caroline on Galloway's Arguments (22:57):
  "What is the proper amount of loss for white men?"

• On Education (28:16):
  "The purpose of school is to teach you the operating guidelines for the society that you live in. I think we all know anyone with a remotely rational approach to this conversation would know that schools were not designed for girls. Girls were not allowed in school when modern schooling began."

• On Power and Chemistry (105:20):
  "The show does not eroticize imbalance. It eroticizes attunement.” (Out Magazine)

• On Fiction vs. Nonfiction (120:00):
  "The difference between these two portrayals of masculinity is that one of them looks back and one of them looks forward. ...one denies the ability and the existence of queer people, and one harnesses the power of queer imagination.”

• Final Rallying Cry:

  • Katie (137:10):
    "Don’t trust them. Like, hold your standards. Do not have children with a man that you have to take care of. Don't do it. Hold out. Hold out for heated rivalry. Get a vibrator, get a good female business partner, and hold out for a good husband, because we're not going to let these bitches win."

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------| | 00:00 | Mocking “better than Andrew Tate” defense; setup | | 05:00 | Scott Galloway's bio and pivot to masculinity | | 09:10 | "We show our work" vs. Galloway’s lack of citations| | 13:42 | Disgusting Brothers clip—pushback on NY’er essay | | 23:10 | Dissecting the “fall of men” & education crisis | | 33:40 | College ROI/wage gap argument | | 41:09 | Galloway’s management anecdote; concealment of facts| | 49:50 | The “mating crisis” narrative and its blind spots | | 54:49 | Debunking Galloway’s Twitter poll/“approach” stat | | 65:50 | The 3 Ps of masculinity, critique, and implications| | 82:20 | Transition: Heated Rivalry as alternative vision | | 93:07 | Viral TikTok: Why women find Heated Rivalry gripping| | 104:01 | Out Magazine: Attunement over power imbalance | | 120:00 | Fiction vs. non-fiction, imagining forward | | 128:42 | Summing up the backwards/forwards gaze, final word | | 137:10 | Katie’s final rallying cry |

Tone & Language

Caro and Katie blend rigorous research, snark, and directness—peppering the discussion with sarcasm (“Chop that rhetorical claim up and just snort it”) and genuine vulnerability about their own experiences. Memorable moments include their gleeful dissection of Galloway’s bro-science, their mutual “marriage” jokes, and the poignant, poetic closing segment about what partnership could mean if liberated from tired gender roles.

Conclusion

The episode offers an unflinching critique of mainstream “crisis of masculinity” narratives, calling out their shoddy reasoning and reactionary roots. Katie and Caroline argue for more honest, forward-looking conversations—rooted in research, attentive to queer and feminist perspectives, and open to imagining genuine, reciprocal partnership. Their resounding advice: Don’t settle for “soft patriarchy.” Demanding more is not just possible, it’s necessary.