Proof 10-Year-Olds in the 1700's Were Smarter than Today's College Students, No More Sitcoms About the Middle Class?, What "Romantasy" Novels Tell Us About Modern Society (The Five for 06/19/25)
Plus, The X-Files reboot described as "very scary." Game of Thrones creator's video game movie adaptation.
Hey, welcome to The Five, a publication about the stories that matter, but don’t always make the front page.
It’s Friday, so let’s dive into Culture & Commentary.
[one]
The most viral TikTok of the week came from a person who isn’t just smarter than you, but also smarter than every person who lived in the past (just ask her).
When the founding fathers made this great country, I'm gonna stop you right there. The founding fathers own slaves, the founding fathers had less access to education than a modern day 12-year-old. They don't know anything. I don't care what they wanted. I don't care what they think. It's unconstitutional.
I should hope so. The Constitution was written by people who didn't think women should vote. The Constitution was written by people who had 15-year-old wives dying in childbirth. Frequently. The Constitution was written by people who had little cartoon Elmer Fudd shotguns, not automatic war machines, capable of ripping down a hundred children in a minute and half, and will again, the whole point is to change the whole.
Point is to progressively make better decisions so we do not repeat the atrocities of our ancestors. If I was born at any other time in American history, I would've been burned at the stake or lobotomized, and we think the people doing that are the ones who know what should be going on today. We don't wanna listen to the people who cured tuberculosis or decided, hey, maybe we shouldn't put lead in house paint. You're actively repeating the atrocities of your ancestors. You're doing it on purpose.
I don't care about the founding fathers.
Let’s take this one piece at a time.
A: “founding fathers had less access to education than a modern day 12-year-old.”
Well, 12-year-olds were also smarter then. The Federalist Papers were written to the “common farmers” with a fifth grade education.” Today, that material is taught at the college level.
Jefferson, Madison, and Adams, for instance, had classical educations, spoke multiple languages, and studied law, philosophy, and science. Jefferson alone spoke or read English, French, Latin, Italian, Greek, Spanish and German (some he mastered, others were basic fluency).
Their education was different (often from a tutor, not a credentialed institution), not inferior—they lacked modern knowledge of technology and medicine that did no exist yet (which is weird to hold against someone). Nevertheless, the average American in the 1700’s was more intellectually rigorous than the avereage American today…by leagues.
But let’s break it down.
B: “Owned slaves.”
Some, yes. Inexcusable, yes. Horrible, yes. But many signers thought they could eliminate slavery within 40 years of winning the war against the British—a nuance I doubt the woman in the video can grasp.
C. “Elmer Fudd Shotguns/Weapons of War”
Yes, the founders all owned the weapons of war—of the day. Cannons were also legal for private ownership. By comparison, we’re much more liberal on guns today.
D. “Progressively make better decisions.”
You mean like…the 27 times the Constitution has been amended to abolish slavery, offer equal protection under the law, right to vote regardless of race, women’s right to vote, banning poll taxes and lowering the voting age to 18?
E. “written by people who had 15-year-old wives dying in childbirth. Frequently.”
Women married around 20-22. The idea of early-teen marriages is a myth. Tragically, child birth has always been dangerous—in all times and cultures. This has as much to do with the Constitution as “lead in house paint and curing tuberculosis.” Again, you can’t judge people for not having future inventions, you weirdo.
To close this out, let’s look at what one of these “stupid” future Presidents “with no education” was like at the age of 10.
“Smollet” refers to Tobias Smollett, a British historian’s four volume set on the history of England, totaling 4,700 pages. (Again, not 4,700 words—pages).
And the reading level? REALLY tough.
According to a Project Gutenberg edition of The History of England (which aligns closely in style and period with Smollett’s work), the Flesch–Kincaid reading‑ease score is around 44.9, indicating college-level complexity oro.open.ac.uk+3gutenberg.org+3en.wikipedia.org+3. This suggests that both Smollett’s original and its continuation are similarly dense, requiring higher educational reading skills (late high school/college).
This kid was TEN YEARS OLD corresponding with his father about a college-level text. Which means the average 4th grader in 1776 would think the median TikToker in 2024 is an absolute moron.
(And that 4th grader would probably be right).
[two]
Before we begin…my friend Craig Dunham of Second Drafts covered a story so well this morning, I’m running his excellent piece here with a few footnotes of my own. Click the link below to subscribe, which I would highly recommend.
One of the advantages of publishing every couple of weeks (as opposed to every day or even every week) is you sometimes catch larger themes developing within the daily stories others are reading, writing about, or commenting on.
One such example has to do with men. The New York Times Magazine published an article titled “Where Have All My Deep Male Friendships Gone?” in late May, claiming that men everywhere are experiencing loneliness. Somewhat autobiographically, author Sam Graham-Felsen explained,
“I know I’m still capable of connecting deeply with friends, but it would be a stretch to say that I’m close to them the way I once was. I hardly ever talk on the phone with my friends, and rarely spend time with them one-on-one. On the rare occasion that I do, it’s usually in the context of—or rather, under the pretext of—watching a game. Then, with eyes directed at a screen, we discuss topics: politics, podcasts, food, fitness routines, the game itself. Maybe we’ll playfully smack-talk a fellow friend, or commiserate about some schleppy aspect of parenthood. Rarely (as in, never) do we turn to each other and ask: ‘How are you doing?’”
Loneliness not withstanding, the world of politics is plenty interested in helping men—particularly young men—find friends and a place to politically call home. Democrats hired self-described “queer, plus-size, disabled Latina” influencer Olivia Julianna and are spending $20 million dollars to study young men. What assumptions underlie these choices? How might they be perceived by the target audience? Cultural critic Aaron Renn argues that it might not take much more than these attempts to work if for no other reason than Republican contempt:
“The Democrats realize they have a man problem, namely that they are losing men’s votes. Their efforts to diagnose and address this problem to date have been cringey to say the least.
But it would be a big mistake to think that it’s impossible for Democrats to lure men back. While that party has internal dynamics that make it difficult to appeal to men, traditional Republicans also hate men, and often openly and harshly criticize them.”
To illustrate, Renn linked to a screen cap of the conservative Ingraham Angle show:
Continues Renn:
“Since both parties basically hate men, if Democrats simply stopped overtly hating on men, a large chunk of them would be very open to voting Democrat. In fact, not that long ago, many of them like Joe Rogan actually were much greater supporters for the left. Most men are non-religious, want to indulge their appetites, and aren’t interested in moralistic scolding—particularly when it’s clearly directed only at them. So whoever stops kicking them first will have a lot of appeal.”
Anthony Bradley offers his analysis, championing more risk-taking as a solution:
“We are now witnessing the consequences of this cultural failure across every corner of American society. A generation of young men between the ages of 18 and 24 is drifting through life, trapped in extended adolescence. Some are enrolled in college, some are living at home and not doing hard work—but across all contexts, the crisis is the same: they are not being exposed to enough real risk, challenge, or responsibility to mature into capable men.
The failure is not primarily one of laziness or incompetence. It is a failure of formation. We have engineered a culture that allows young men to extend the comforts of childhood indefinitely. Instead of forcing them to confront the disorientation and pressure that historically forged maturity, we insulate them from hardship with a steady diet of familiarity, safety, and predictability. The result is millions of young men who may look like adults on the outside but are still boys internally.”
Not much I can add to Bradley’s paragraphs or the whole of his perspective, as his analysis offers a compelling lens. What specific “risks, challenges, or responsibilities” are most lacking for young men today, and how might those be reintroduced? How does Bradley's “failure of formation” perspective intersect with or diverge from Renn's political critique? The answers have consequences.
My observations:
A). For whatever reason, I’ve never struggled with this (wait, I know the reason…extreme extroversion).
B). If I can offer some nuance here, sports, politics, current events, etc. offer light, easy inroads to deeper friendships. If you want to make a lifelong friend, starting by inviting them over for the UFC fight is better than meeting someone and leading with “my cousin died, and I’m having a hard time getting over it.”
C). A general observation is that women bond face-to-face (over coffee) and guys bond shoulder-to-shoulder. For generations, golf was a big one for male friendships (not really an option for me, as a shoulder injury from basketball makes the game painful).
For me, live music, attending sports events, shooting (bows and guns—EVERYBODY loves this, even people who claim to be staunchly anti-gun have a blast), hiking, kayaking and working out (I’m building out my garage so a friend and I can work out together a couple times a week this summer) are all great points of connection.
Something tells me that if we bring back hobbies, deep male friendships may take care of themselves. It’s probably not more therapy—but more time in the wilderness, that could fix this right up.
D). While I’m happy to run a quote from author Anthony Bradley, will point out I removed him from my social media and returned Bradley’s book to Amazon after Bradley made unhinged claims that Lynyrd Skynyrd frontman Ronnie Van Zandt was a racist.
There's just as much evidence that Ronnie Van Zandt was racist is there is that Ghengis Kahn was a Chicago Bulls fan.
Van Zandt, a fatherless teenager who ran the Southern rock band like a military unit, is one of the most inspirational stories in music, pushing the band through extensive practices in an un-airconditioned tin shed the brutal Florida heat, allegedly telling them that the only way to “avoid the Ford plant” (main employer in town) was “three guitars or a life of crime.”
Ronnie took a public stance against segregation, and the band’s biggest “summer party song,” often heard at college football games and beaches throughout America, was actually a scathing statement about racist Alabama governor George Wallace and a stand, pointing out they had done all they could to stand against him:
In Birmingham they loved the governor
Boo, boo, boo
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?
Tell the truth
So, I’d recommend you take Bradley seriously on this topic, but perhaps look to other voices on matters of music.
[three]
[Note: don’t miss the above video clip]
While you weren’t looking, the middle class disappeared from TV.
From Brittany Hugoboom on X:
I’ve been thinking about how rarely we see middle-class America on television anymore. In the ’90s and early 2000s, shows like Roseanne, King of Queens, and Everybody Loves Raymond centered on everyday families. Talking about grocery budgets, juggling jobs, raising kids.
Even The Simpsons regularly joked about money problems. Now, most shows seem to orbit the ultra-rich. Succession, The White Lotus, Sirens, all great in their own ways (okay maybe not Sirens), but worlds away from anything resembling a normal American life.
Even Sex and the City, once about a scrappy NYC writer making rent, has become And Just Like That, where Carrie owns designer shoes, prime real estate, and grief-funded publishing houses. Why did we stop telling stories about the middle class?
One theory: with fewer nuclear families (especially among millennials in their 30s), the default household sitcom has lost its foundation. The format that once reflected most Americans no longer reflects media creators or their audience. Not to mention, international audiences gravitate towards the big cities in the US. But here’s the contradiction: every article today is about inflation, budgeting, or recession anxiety.
We’re inundated with economic survival content, yet the TV screen shows us only rarefied wealth. A modern-day Sex and the City wouldn’t look like And Just Like That. It would be women splitting rent and Venmoing for wine, not rearranging furniture in $6 million brownstones. As much as I love aspirational television (Gossip Girl is a guilty pleasure), I do think there’s an audience that would love to see middle-class America again.
[four]
One of the more insightful pieces this week came from The Wall Street Journal: What Hot Dragon-Riders and Fornicating Faeries Say About What Women Want Now
“Romantasy” novels are booming at a time when real‑life romance appears to be in decline. Some recent titles feature world‑building so vivid it verges on immersive erotica—iron‑clad dragon‑riders whose single touch can spark desire, fey who forage in moonlit groves, and heroines whose magic is entwined with their bodies. These stories don’t just depict sex; they place female pleasure front and center, often exploring themes like consensual overwhelming passion, emotional vulnerability, and mutual empowerment.
Many readers trace their attraction to romantasy back to frustrations with modern dating. In a world riddled with ghosting, dating‑app fatigue and performative courtship, these books offer something different: lovers bound through fate, psychic connection or metaphysical contract. The result? A sense of safety—an assurance that vulnerability will be rewarded, not weaponized.”
Sure, except that “safety” comes with a price—the hollowness of an emotional substitute. Just as the phenomenon of Gen-Z being so porn-brained that young men are now terrified to approach and walk to a woman in real life (there’s also the aftershocks of Me Too in this), women are also turning to a fake world for real needs…and the sugar crash hits hard.
A fake world is fine until you need a supportive partner to prop you up during your grandparents funerals, or share an ocean view sunset with.
Professor Marcela Di Blasi—who studies literature, media and cultural trends—observes that “because these scenes always take a woman’s point of view, they are helping female readers reframe ‘how they understand their own pleasure.’ The heroine’s joy isn’t secondary to a hero’s gratification; it’s central. She’s not simply an accessory to a man’s story. Instead, she is often the catalyst, the author of both her own magic and erotic agency.”
Di Blasi notes that this shift isn’t superficial—it reflects a broader cultural moment in which women are reclaiming autonomy over their bodies and desires. Romantasy, then, becomes both escapism and subversion: escapism by transporting readers to magical mundos, subversion by offering them erotic narratives that center on women who discover power through pleasure.”
“Escapism and subversion.” You know what else is subverted? Reality.
Before social media and self-appointed relationship experts on TikTok, most people found love within a couple of hours where they lived, and seemed to be pretty happy living actual lives in actual reality. Did women in the 90’s read fiction? Sure. But probably not to escape the desperation of a world where young men just don’t initiate dating (which is not the fault of women).
What I don’t want you to hear me saying here is that books are bad (nor are all books good), any more than all movies or video games are bad (or good). Instead, we have to reckon with the fact that we now live in a culture where mass media can appear to quench our surface-level needs, as the deepest parts of us rot away.
And that is quite concerning.
[five]
As always, let’s head into the weekend with a pop culture roundup:
[movies] Well, it looks like we really are getting a summer full of hit movies. 28 Years Later, the third film in the zombie series arriving 21 years after the original, is getting a LOT of buzz going into opening weekend, according to the score on Metacritic. || Thunderbolts, which took a more serious, less silly tone than recent Marvel fare, has done so well that the MCU tapped the director, Jake Schreier, to helm the X-Men reboot. || Alex Garland (Civil War, Ex Machina) is partnering with George R.R. Martin (Game of Thrones) for a movie adaptation of Elden Ring, a G.O.T.-ish video game Martin wrote.
[shows] After the success of SINNERS, Ryan Coogler (CREED, Black Panther) is turning his “full attention” to The X-Files reboot, and claims some of the episodes are going to be “really scary” in a new interview with The Last Podcast on the Left.
[music] Producer Shooter Jennings (Turnpike Troubadours, Charlie Crockett) is in the process of preparing a release of multiple lost albums from his late father, Waylon Jennings. The first release, The Songbird, will be out on 10/03, with Charlie Crockettt, Elizabeth Cook and Ashley Monroe contributing to additional production and backing vocals.
A few years ago, I remember a good friend (who typically had excellent taste in music) telling me he just didn’t “get” Bruce Springsteen.
I no more can explain The Boss than I can convince you to like ice cream or the softness of a hoodie sitting next to a bonfire in autumn.
If you get it, you understand that Jeremy Allen White (The Bear, Shameless) appears to capture Springsteen perfectly circa his famous Nebraska recording sessions. White’s vocals in the trailer are…mind boggling. In theaters 10/24.
Dang, I love how much westerns are back. Untamed is a mystery from the writer of The Revenant and American Primeval and features Sam Neill (Jurassic Park, Thor: Love and Thunder) and Eric Bana (Troy, The Time Traveler’s Wife) lead the cast.
Streming 07/17. This one is near the top of my list.
Spoof movies had a good run in the 1980’s and 90’s (Spaceballs, Hot Shot Part Duex) but died off around the time of the Y2K computer bug (reference might be lost on younger Millennials/Gen Z).
Who knew the mostly dour Liam Neeson (Schindler’s List, Taken) had so much comedic talent we hadn’t seen? See it 08/01.
[new music]
Apple Music | YouTube Music
Liz Vice is a Gospel and Soul musician originally hailing from Portland, OR, but now appears to be a bit of a globetrotter (she relocated to New York, and now to France), likely influenced by her “bonus life.” Originally, Vice wanted to pursue film, but didn’t think she would “live long enough” to see that dream happen.
In her teens, Liz’s dream of being a touring musician was impossible due to dialysis until she received a kidney transplant in 2005. Vice calls this her “bonus life” and has poured herself into yet another excellent album.
Recommended if you like Lauren Daigle, Leon Bridges, John Mark McMillan, Alicia Keys or Yola.
Until the next one,
-sth