 In the old world that if you were a man and you were doing a job that maybe wasn't in and of itself usually fulfilling, you still got fulfillment from it because it was the way you were looking after your family. And so the fulfillment was secondary in that sense, but you could take pride and purpose from the fact that this was a bread winning role and without you doing this job, whether you love it or hate it, that your family wouldn't be able to eat or have a roof over their heads. But that's of course not so true anymore. And it's interesting. I got very interested in this research on self complexity, which I kind of flick out a little bit in the book. And I think it could be up your street because what it talks about is the different ways that yourself can get meaning and identity. And the more ways there are, the more complex yourself is. And what we see is quite a big gender gap. And so there's much more self complexity for women, especially now because they're actually, they can get sources of identity from different domains, right? So women have expanded the range of roles they can kind of fill. And what it means is that if you're unfulfilled in one domain, then maybe there's compensating fulfillment in another domain, right? So put it at its bluntest, you're a terrible day at work, but you're still a good mom or vice versa. And actually men have much less self complexity. And again, it's this cultural lag thing, which is like, okay, where are you getting your sense of fulfillment? Where are you getting your sense of self from? And there is this rise of what some scholars have called the haphazard self, which is meant to DIYing their self. And of course that sounds great in theory, but in practice is incredibly hard to DIY yourself without signposts, without cultural institutions around you. And that's why Jordan Peterson and others are doing so well, because there's a hunger for purpose, fulfillment and structure. The danger is that we get dragged backwards. The danger is that some of the pie mix from those sorts of quarters are essentially saying, it's the fall of feminism. We need to go back to back when men were real men. We warned you this would happen. And so as a bring backery to some of their rhetoric, and that seems to me to be entirely immoral and impractical. So, so we got to do better. Yeah. And it speaks from a place of more competition between men and women, right? It's putting us back now, exactly in a zero sum mindset. And I think that's really hard for a lot of men to wrap their head around is, well, I don't really feel like that's a great answer to what's going on either, but I'm aware that there's a problem. But what we're seeing also is this idea of the bread winner now being shared. So in a family setting, you may have a spouse who earns the same, if not more than you. And as you talk about in the book for a lot of men, their roles are actually more likely to be replaced by automation and immigrants and workforce replacement and offshoring of these jobs that men typically fulfilled. So we're now competing for a subset of jobs with a workplace environment that's bringing and welcoming more and more women into it. And yet men culturally are taught to be the provider protector. And when you can't fulfill that role and you have a lack of self complexity, you don't find fulfillment in other areas. Well, then you can be radicalized by some of these elements that are preaching, go backwards and take a very dim view of the opposite sex and B zero some gain, which is also very worrisome. And we hear this from some of our potential clients as well of like, oh, I wish it was how it was 30, 40 years ago, right? And they want to undo all of the progress that's been made because they think, well, back then things were easier. Of course, there's a whole other host of challenges there. But I think we're now getting on this, this workplace.