One of your best. Written with so much clarity and depth. Thank you for the Hellmouth reference ;).
Rogan is the founder of the establishment of anti-establishment podcasting. His swag masterfully hides his covert aggression tactics and his posturing as open-minded when he has usually already decided, but will never say it out loud.
Overall, I think you're right. We are coded to want a benevolant dictator. Even our US is founded on the idea of a natural God who bestows our rights and holds our leaders accountable.
I would, though, disagree with your description of the Rogan vs. Murray debate. First, I don't think Murray has a claim to a higher level expereince than Rogan. Second, while mockery can be used as you say, the way men and women mock is different. Men bust each other's balls to call out and eliminate weakness. Women use mockery to create weakness.
"Don't be a bitch" from a man is a call to action
"Don't be a bitch" from a woman is a call to inaction
I know I'm hyper-simplifying here and I may be mis-reading your intent but that was my initial gut reaction. Men use mockery much differently than women.
Thanks, Michael. I appreciate your thoughtful engagement and want to clarify a few key points.
This piece isn’t about female narcissism or gendered pathology. It’s about relational power dynamics and how certain behaviours function to preserve status without direct confrontation. When I use the term “female-coded aggression,” I’m referring to tactics like mockery, tone-lightening, and alliance-building. These strategies are culturally associated with indirect power and social destabilisation, not because women use them exclusively, but because they’ve historically been framed that way. Anyone can use them. The point is function, not identity.
I also wasn’t moralising Rogan’s behaviour or denying Murray’s defensiveness. Murray’s posture was equally strategic and not exactly humble. He was controlled, elevated, and positioned himself as above the fray. What made the moment so compelling was the contrast in how they each protected their authority. It was a subtle negotiation of dominance, expressed through different relational styles.
Which brings me back to why discernment matters. Sometimes our strongest reactions are less about the content and more about our loyalties and projections. When someone we admire is challenged, it’s easy to interpret critique as an attack, especially when we’ve cast them as the outsider, the underdog, the truth teller, or the last honest man standing.
But that discomfort can also point to a blind spot, not about the person being critiqued, but about what we’re trying to protect and why. That’s part of the deeper invitation in this piece: to reflect on our attachments and the motives behind our reactions.
Thanks Michael for getting me to think more about this.
I also find it interesting that she accused a straight male icon - of the only ones we have - of using "female coded aggression" and lionized two gay men in her piece. I agree with some of the ideas here though. It's just something to be aware of.
That's a valid critique I hadn't considered but you're right. It supports my observation about interpreting male mockery for a feminized mockery. I love what Nathalie writes and I worry this one is 'expecting from others what you expect from yourself.' She's doing a great job of highlighting the dangers of female narcissism.
This is such an eloquent, thoughtful, and laserlike analysis of how we do the business of ideas in the digital age. Discernment is more or less nowhere to be found, and in the vacuum it leaves, all sorts of thuggish, nasty behavior masquerades as intellectual integrity. It's on display online, for sure. It is also dominating workplaces, families, youth culture. Your recommendations for cultural repair resonate a great deal. I would add to them that storytelling that models the behaviors you recommend is also critical. Where argument shuts us down, stories open us up. We are free to learn new ways of doing and being from stories, and we don't have to be wrong or humiliated to get there.
I always thought Joe Rogan was a child In a man’s body. You can see right through his insecurity. But no one wants to think for themselves anymore. They want to tune in to someone who can Tell them what to think. It’s laziness. It’s hard work to develop critical thinking skills and do your own research, like everything else in society, we want it easy.
I think Rogan can be an excellent interviewer, but I his whole comedy coterie has never sit right for me. Rogan and gang are (mostly) not funny and full of themselves. This sentence just nails it: "He leans on female-coded relational aggression: public mockery that cloaks humiliation in [humor], alliance-building through taking sides and subtle loyalty tests, and tone-based undermining by using performative lightness to signal superiority without direct confrontation."
"Alliance-building" seems to be the foundation of his entire comedy career. Whereas other stand-ups either live successfully outside of the orthodoxy (Daniel Tosh) or refuse to bend the knee while being a conventional standup (Norm Macdonald), Rogan follows the same path he has for decades and insists that others do, too. He has even built his own temple/comedy club in Austin to proselytize his dogma. Rogan mocks the "civilians" who exist outside of his world; I don't think Macdonald really cared and yet had a better understanding of his business and its history than the Rogan-types.
My work involves some teaching work that has some analogues to standup, so I find how standups do their job interesting and relevant. Stand up often seems more about connecting with an audience and knowing what buttons to push (the part that I think about), and less about being funny. Steve Martin was funny, but he also had creative interests so he was able to succeed in show business once he got tired of comedy. Dave Smith, like Rogan, seems to fit the button-pushing mold: He knows how to work the audience more than he does how to be funny. The people I see supporting Smith just keep repeating the same criticisms of Murray (appeal to authority!) and how Smith destroyed. Smith offers no expertise, novel insight, or anything else, yet he knows how to get people to lap up the same tired, propagandist tropes.
"Real authority requires accountability to what’s true, which includes examining one’s motives, methods, and the subtle ways performance can masquerade as principle." Very true, and in vanishingly short supply these days.
Benevolent dictatorship is never having to say you're sorry.
I have never understood the popularity of Joe Rogan. He sounds stupid, his diction is poor, his word choice is elementary and he throws out gratuitous profanity just like every dope who wants to be seen to be cool.
But more importantly, when I listened to him, and I no longer do, his questions never really got to the meat of the matter, because I don't think he has nearly the intellectual capacity of those who just 50 years before and had interview shows were capable of. David Frost, Dick Cavett, David Susskind. There are some who still do of course, like Lara Logan and Sharryl Atkisson.
"Accountability that isn’t a PR move or an acceptable social script, but as a consistent linking of action to impact, even when no one’s watching."
I do not understand this sentence and hope you can and will clarify, though I fully understand that you have no obligation to do so. Perhaps you have written about it elsewhere and I just need a link to understand the background. Perhaps I am too in love with the way I would use the term "accountability" as meaning, roughly, 'I did it, for these reasons, and accept the consequences to me, whether pain or pleasure.' Are we saying the same thing and I don't yet recognize it? Thanks.
Thanks for your thoughtful question Jackson. I think we’re mostly aligned.
What I meant by that line is the difference between real accountability and the version that’s just public performance. Real accountability means taking responsibility for the impact of our actions, even when there’s no audience and no immediate consequences. It’s about living with integrity, not just managing optics.
You captured the heart of it...you just said it more directly.
I am about 1/2 way through that podcast, so I'm not sure I've heard the exchange you mention. But listening to Murray, I did not hear expertise from Murray as much as a message indistinguishable from USAID, on Ukraine and Gaza. Repeatedly he suggests I don't have a right to question him because I have not been to Ukraine or Gaza, or merely that I am not an "expert." Never mind my government has bankrupted my country, supporting Israel and NATO.
I have wanted on several occasions during this podcast, to mock Murray. His near sneering condescension needed a knock down. I am considerably less a fan of his after this. As for Rogan, he was also fruatrated by Murray continually interrupting.
Any man in my presence who acts like Murray did in that podcast is going to be mocked. Not because of what he believes about the issues, but because of that holier than thou attitude. But even as I say that, I would probably mock him too, asking if he is pissed off that he lost his USAID funding.
Otherwise, I agree with you that we are all in need of some authority, as well as a sense of purpose, meaning and connection as part of a community. Online does not suffice.
Thanks for your comment William! Yes, I completely get that. I don’t think Murray was warm or particularly gracious in that conversation either. He came in guarded and posturing, which didn’t invite trust or dialogue. What fascinated me was how both men were performing authority in different ways. You’re absolutely right...mockery in that moment wasn’t just ideological, it was relational which is why it stood out so clearly. And I’m with you on the last part about our need for meaning and real connection can’t be met by performance alone. That’s the deeper illness I’m trying to name. More coming soon!
That need can be easily hijacked, most evident with the toxic empathy on the left, but in young men on the right, particularly during times of war. We are seeing a lot of conservative “influencers” preying on that need, guiding it it for the benefit of whoever is paying the influencer. As for Rogan, it is true that he is a mover of the conversation, but he can also limit it.
I’m glad you did not think my comment too critical.
He was angry, because he couldn't take the "question-askers" anymore. He is British. Forced niceness, fake warmth, or culturally endorsed anti-intellectualism are North American virtues (possibly more US than Canadian, but then I don't know Canada too well). Their price is too steep, and Murray knows it. And, if you notice, the only critique the woke right has been able to produce is his alleged elitism and British accent; none of the comedians knows history beyond YouTube. The only novel thing here is the retraction of America's blind worship of Commonwealth accents.
I would be so curious to hear your thoughts on the session in the House of Commons here in the UK, Foreign Affairs Committee inviting evidence on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The session in question is the one with Natasha Hausdorff - see my note from today. Just the first ten minutes are a masterclass in woman on woman aggression and the mockery of expertise. But curious to hear your thoughts…
I’d be most curious and grateful to hear your POV on Dame Emily Thornberry - less so the political aspect but her conduct. A case of woman on woman aggression? A masterpiece in bias? Moral superiority paired with passive-aggressive gaslighting? I’d say all of the above - whilst I may personally not agree with NHs conclusions legally, the Dame’s conduct was so subterranean it has left a lasting impression on me.
Nathalie, this was interesting, " many of the people being elevated by algorithmic advantage aren’t doing real work. They’re not grounded in practice, accountability, or long-term service. They’re NPCs with massive reach skilled in performance, fluent in the right language and vibe, and rewarded for visibility. "
I am neutral on Joe Rogan, I listened to a few podcast episodes and liked them, mainly because he actually let his guests speak.
But there is a softer, insidious form of bullying that men (in my experience it is usually men, but not always) do with asking questions to set a trap and then being belligerent or using "just joking!" to belittle the interviewee or the "expert."
The pattern is:
1.) Them- So, like, why does Congress have to pass laws? Why do cases take so long to go to the Supreme Court? Seems like you make money from that, no?
2.) Me- No. I do not. [NB: I am not a lawyer.] The problem is an executive order can simply be "undone" by the next president. This is why Congress needs a law that fixes the issue.
3.) Them- So you hate DOGE? You can just do things. Lol.
4.) Me- No. I am saying that, unfortunately, unraveling some problems is sticky and requires Congress. Here are three examples X, X, X.
5.) Them- LOL! Somebody takes themselves seriously. Look at these photos of donuts I made! Lol guys, get a load of this bitch... EXCUSE ME, Mrs. George Washington. Anybody watching School House Rock?!?
All that having been said, "experts" have behaved so badly in the past 20-30 years that now everyone else to clean up the mess.
I would only add that "psychological turf war disguised as commentary" is paralleled by the fact that Meta has 4 Billion Users globally and is growing 7 times faster than population growth.
Another line of thought (that occurs to me now) is how "marketing discipline" could inform your observations. Marketing discipline focuses on finding problems, needs, and openings that motivate people to act. Marketers ask, "What are these needs?" You may be aware of this already: the term "call to action" (CTA), for example, refers to mechanisms that will embed messages that get people to, well, take action. We could posit a theory on how "marketing discipline" becomes grafted onto your psychological observations. Which makes sense, because we fashion ourselves as products. Hmmmmm.
Much of propaganda tactics overlaps with marketing. I hated having that realization as a kid. 😅 One "need" that propaganda fills is the desire to be told what to think about a certain thing so one doesn't have to do the work necessary to draw a logical conclusion regarding, make an informed opinion on, or obtain an understanding of the thing in question.
One of your best. Written with so much clarity and depth. Thank you for the Hellmouth reference ;).
Rogan is the founder of the establishment of anti-establishment podcasting. His swag masterfully hides his covert aggression tactics and his posturing as open-minded when he has usually already decided, but will never say it out loud.
Thank you Kate!! I couldn't resist bringing in Buffy wisdom, thanks to you.
Your appraisal of Rogan is succinct perfection. Nothing more to say here!
Phooey!
I refuse to let this awesome post get lost in the mix. Restocked with a plug.
I don’t know what to say beside thank you @Todd Kashdan!!
Overall, I think you're right. We are coded to want a benevolant dictator. Even our US is founded on the idea of a natural God who bestows our rights and holds our leaders accountable.
I would, though, disagree with your description of the Rogan vs. Murray debate. First, I don't think Murray has a claim to a higher level expereince than Rogan. Second, while mockery can be used as you say, the way men and women mock is different. Men bust each other's balls to call out and eliminate weakness. Women use mockery to create weakness.
"Don't be a bitch" from a man is a call to action
"Don't be a bitch" from a woman is a call to inaction
I know I'm hyper-simplifying here and I may be mis-reading your intent but that was my initial gut reaction. Men use mockery much differently than women.
Thanks, Michael. I appreciate your thoughtful engagement and want to clarify a few key points.
This piece isn’t about female narcissism or gendered pathology. It’s about relational power dynamics and how certain behaviours function to preserve status without direct confrontation. When I use the term “female-coded aggression,” I’m referring to tactics like mockery, tone-lightening, and alliance-building. These strategies are culturally associated with indirect power and social destabilisation, not because women use them exclusively, but because they’ve historically been framed that way. Anyone can use them. The point is function, not identity.
I also wasn’t moralising Rogan’s behaviour or denying Murray’s defensiveness. Murray’s posture was equally strategic and not exactly humble. He was controlled, elevated, and positioned himself as above the fray. What made the moment so compelling was the contrast in how they each protected their authority. It was a subtle negotiation of dominance, expressed through different relational styles.
Which brings me back to why discernment matters. Sometimes our strongest reactions are less about the content and more about our loyalties and projections. When someone we admire is challenged, it’s easy to interpret critique as an attack, especially when we’ve cast them as the outsider, the underdog, the truth teller, or the last honest man standing.
But that discomfort can also point to a blind spot, not about the person being critiqued, but about what we’re trying to protect and why. That’s part of the deeper invitation in this piece: to reflect on our attachments and the motives behind our reactions.
Thanks Michael for getting me to think more about this.
I also find it interesting that she accused a straight male icon - of the only ones we have - of using "female coded aggression" and lionized two gay men in her piece. I agree with some of the ideas here though. It's just something to be aware of.
That's a valid critique I hadn't considered but you're right. It supports my observation about interpreting male mockery for a feminized mockery. I love what Nathalie writes and I worry this one is 'expecting from others what you expect from yourself.' She's doing a great job of highlighting the dangers of female narcissism.
I know, those damned gays and Joos are making your life so hard, Bob.
This is such an eloquent, thoughtful, and laserlike analysis of how we do the business of ideas in the digital age. Discernment is more or less nowhere to be found, and in the vacuum it leaves, all sorts of thuggish, nasty behavior masquerades as intellectual integrity. It's on display online, for sure. It is also dominating workplaces, families, youth culture. Your recommendations for cultural repair resonate a great deal. I would add to them that storytelling that models the behaviors you recommend is also critical. Where argument shuts us down, stories open us up. We are free to learn new ways of doing and being from stories, and we don't have to be wrong or humiliated to get there.
I always thought Joe Rogan was a child In a man’s body. You can see right through his insecurity. But no one wants to think for themselves anymore. They want to tune in to someone who can Tell them what to think. It’s laziness. It’s hard work to develop critical thinking skills and do your own research, like everything else in society, we want it easy.
I get it now: The Death of Expertise by Nichols was long ago prognostic of our times…
Sounds intriguing. Do you think it's still worth a read today? I have such a backlog of books, essays, articles, etc... 😅
Absolutely positively! Best book about being an intellectual, curious person!
Yes!
Thanks! I may move it to the front of the queue! 😅
This is a great, insightful piece.
I think Rogan can be an excellent interviewer, but I his whole comedy coterie has never sit right for me. Rogan and gang are (mostly) not funny and full of themselves. This sentence just nails it: "He leans on female-coded relational aggression: public mockery that cloaks humiliation in [humor], alliance-building through taking sides and subtle loyalty tests, and tone-based undermining by using performative lightness to signal superiority without direct confrontation."
"Alliance-building" seems to be the foundation of his entire comedy career. Whereas other stand-ups either live successfully outside of the orthodoxy (Daniel Tosh) or refuse to bend the knee while being a conventional standup (Norm Macdonald), Rogan follows the same path he has for decades and insists that others do, too. He has even built his own temple/comedy club in Austin to proselytize his dogma. Rogan mocks the "civilians" who exist outside of his world; I don't think Macdonald really cared and yet had a better understanding of his business and its history than the Rogan-types.
My work involves some teaching work that has some analogues to standup, so I find how standups do their job interesting and relevant. Stand up often seems more about connecting with an audience and knowing what buttons to push (the part that I think about), and less about being funny. Steve Martin was funny, but he also had creative interests so he was able to succeed in show business once he got tired of comedy. Dave Smith, like Rogan, seems to fit the button-pushing mold: He knows how to work the audience more than he does how to be funny. The people I see supporting Smith just keep repeating the same criticisms of Murray (appeal to authority!) and how Smith destroyed. Smith offers no expertise, novel insight, or anything else, yet he knows how to get people to lap up the same tired, propagandist tropes.
"Real authority requires accountability to what’s true, which includes examining one’s motives, methods, and the subtle ways performance can masquerade as principle." Very true, and in vanishingly short supply these days.
Benevolent dictatorship is never having to say you're sorry.
I have never understood the popularity of Joe Rogan. He sounds stupid, his diction is poor, his word choice is elementary and he throws out gratuitous profanity just like every dope who wants to be seen to be cool.
But more importantly, when I listened to him, and I no longer do, his questions never really got to the meat of the matter, because I don't think he has nearly the intellectual capacity of those who just 50 years before and had interview shows were capable of. David Frost, Dick Cavett, David Susskind. There are some who still do of course, like Lara Logan and Sharryl Atkisson.
Beautiful work Natalie… a valuable perspective
You wrote:
"Accountability that isn’t a PR move or an acceptable social script, but as a consistent linking of action to impact, even when no one’s watching."
I do not understand this sentence and hope you can and will clarify, though I fully understand that you have no obligation to do so. Perhaps you have written about it elsewhere and I just need a link to understand the background. Perhaps I am too in love with the way I would use the term "accountability" as meaning, roughly, 'I did it, for these reasons, and accept the consequences to me, whether pain or pleasure.' Are we saying the same thing and I don't yet recognize it? Thanks.
Thanks for your thoughtful question Jackson. I think we’re mostly aligned.
What I meant by that line is the difference between real accountability and the version that’s just public performance. Real accountability means taking responsibility for the impact of our actions, even when there’s no audience and no immediate consequences. It’s about living with integrity, not just managing optics.
You captured the heart of it...you just said it more directly.
I am about 1/2 way through that podcast, so I'm not sure I've heard the exchange you mention. But listening to Murray, I did not hear expertise from Murray as much as a message indistinguishable from USAID, on Ukraine and Gaza. Repeatedly he suggests I don't have a right to question him because I have not been to Ukraine or Gaza, or merely that I am not an "expert." Never mind my government has bankrupted my country, supporting Israel and NATO.
I have wanted on several occasions during this podcast, to mock Murray. His near sneering condescension needed a knock down. I am considerably less a fan of his after this. As for Rogan, he was also fruatrated by Murray continually interrupting.
Any man in my presence who acts like Murray did in that podcast is going to be mocked. Not because of what he believes about the issues, but because of that holier than thou attitude. But even as I say that, I would probably mock him too, asking if he is pissed off that he lost his USAID funding.
Otherwise, I agree with you that we are all in need of some authority, as well as a sense of purpose, meaning and connection as part of a community. Online does not suffice.
Thanks for your comment William! Yes, I completely get that. I don’t think Murray was warm or particularly gracious in that conversation either. He came in guarded and posturing, which didn’t invite trust or dialogue. What fascinated me was how both men were performing authority in different ways. You’re absolutely right...mockery in that moment wasn’t just ideological, it was relational which is why it stood out so clearly. And I’m with you on the last part about our need for meaning and real connection can’t be met by performance alone. That’s the deeper illness I’m trying to name. More coming soon!
That need can be easily hijacked, most evident with the toxic empathy on the left, but in young men on the right, particularly during times of war. We are seeing a lot of conservative “influencers” preying on that need, guiding it it for the benefit of whoever is paying the influencer. As for Rogan, it is true that he is a mover of the conversation, but he can also limit it.
I’m glad you did not think my comment too critical.
He was angry, because he couldn't take the "question-askers" anymore. He is British. Forced niceness, fake warmth, or culturally endorsed anti-intellectualism are North American virtues (possibly more US than Canadian, but then I don't know Canada too well). Their price is too steep, and Murray knows it. And, if you notice, the only critique the woke right has been able to produce is his alleged elitism and British accent; none of the comedians knows history beyond YouTube. The only novel thing here is the retraction of America's blind worship of Commonwealth accents.
I would be so curious to hear your thoughts on the session in the House of Commons here in the UK, Foreign Affairs Committee inviting evidence on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The session in question is the one with Natasha Hausdorff - see my note from today. Just the first ten minutes are a masterclass in woman on woman aggression and the mockery of expertise. But curious to hear your thoughts…
Ooh intrigued Pebbles! I will go through your Notes and find footage of the session.
I’d be most curious and grateful to hear your POV on Dame Emily Thornberry - less so the political aspect but her conduct. A case of woman on woman aggression? A masterpiece in bias? Moral superiority paired with passive-aggressive gaslighting? I’d say all of the above - whilst I may personally not agree with NHs conclusions legally, the Dame’s conduct was so subterranean it has left a lasting impression on me.
So good. Will def reread. I don’t know the drama controversy Rogan/Murray or the context but the gist of what you address here is important.
Thank you for writing this.
Thank you for reading!
Nathalie, this was interesting, " many of the people being elevated by algorithmic advantage aren’t doing real work. They’re not grounded in practice, accountability, or long-term service. They’re NPCs with massive reach skilled in performance, fluent in the right language and vibe, and rewarded for visibility. "
I am neutral on Joe Rogan, I listened to a few podcast episodes and liked them, mainly because he actually let his guests speak.
But there is a softer, insidious form of bullying that men (in my experience it is usually men, but not always) do with asking questions to set a trap and then being belligerent or using "just joking!" to belittle the interviewee or the "expert."
The pattern is:
1.) Them- So, like, why does Congress have to pass laws? Why do cases take so long to go to the Supreme Court? Seems like you make money from that, no?
2.) Me- No. I do not. [NB: I am not a lawyer.] The problem is an executive order can simply be "undone" by the next president. This is why Congress needs a law that fixes the issue.
3.) Them- So you hate DOGE? You can just do things. Lol.
4.) Me- No. I am saying that, unfortunately, unraveling some problems is sticky and requires Congress. Here are three examples X, X, X.
5.) Them- LOL! Somebody takes themselves seriously. Look at these photos of donuts I made! Lol guys, get a load of this bitch... EXCUSE ME, Mrs. George Washington. Anybody watching School House Rock?!?
All that having been said, "experts" have behaved so badly in the past 20-30 years that now everyone else to clean up the mess.
Oh my you've outlined the male covert bullying playbook to a tee. This is a great example to highlight the boys being boys theatre.
I'm also neutral on Joe but I do like to speculate about his unconscious and conscious drivers given his status and influencing power.
I would only add that "psychological turf war disguised as commentary" is paralleled by the fact that Meta has 4 Billion Users globally and is growing 7 times faster than population growth.
Important point Demian, and a scary one.
Another line of thought (that occurs to me now) is how "marketing discipline" could inform your observations. Marketing discipline focuses on finding problems, needs, and openings that motivate people to act. Marketers ask, "What are these needs?" You may be aware of this already: the term "call to action" (CTA), for example, refers to mechanisms that will embed messages that get people to, well, take action. We could posit a theory on how "marketing discipline" becomes grafted onto your psychological observations. Which makes sense, because we fashion ourselves as products. Hmmmmm.
Much of propaganda tactics overlaps with marketing. I hated having that realization as a kid. 😅 One "need" that propaganda fills is the desire to be told what to think about a certain thing so one doesn't have to do the work necessary to draw a logical conclusion regarding, make an informed opinion on, or obtain an understanding of the thing in question.