Is your marriage harming your career?

Nat: Kristen, Powrsuiters are dying to know — how many dating apps have you been on?

Kristen: Well, myself personally, none, and I swear that is the truth. I do not have any profiles anywhere.

Nat: You haven’t been having secret affairs? You weren’t on that Ashley Madison one?

Kristen: No. No, but I did watch that doco. That was fascinating.

Nat: That was fascinating. Apparently you can still search it and find names on it.

Kristen: I know.

Nat: Ooh, I’ll keep that on my radar.

Kristen: Yeah, yeah. So, never. However, out of pure curiosity — because I’ve missed the whole dating app phenomenon, if that’s what it is — I’ve grabbed a couple of friends’ phones and done the flipping through. I just found it entertaining, fascinating. I also appreciate it can be really depressing. So here we are chatting about love and careers. We’re gonna take a few directions today. But dating apps for you, Nat?

Nat: Yeah, I’ve been on… I was on Tinder. Did I get on Bumble? I can’t remember, because I’ve done the same thing, seen some friends’ ones. But I’m pretty sure I missed Bumble. I don’t know. And now there’s Raya and something else — other ones I think… What’s the unique thing about them? I think Raya is the hot celebrity spots one, for famous people, is it? And then there’s another one — I can’t remember what it’s called — but I think weirdly it’s going back to traditional internet dating, like: tell people some things about yourself. Don’t just share your top five fishing photos —

Kristen: Or hunting photos.

Nat: — or hunting photos. So I think there’s a move back. And my understanding, as an aside, is that initially internet dating was on a browser — you’d create a full profile about yourself, and people would find you and build a relationship. Tinder was a disruption because they effectively said no one cares about you or who you are. Most connections are made basically by looks alone when you think about the swiping thing. They also wanted to use technology to remove the friction from dating. But as we’ve discussed numerous times, friction is very important when it comes to various things, and I think dating is one of them, because we’re probably going to talk a bit today about how that kind of dating app never quite… it took off and it’s sort of blown up a little bit.

Kristen: Well, we want to first chat about it in terms of the overlap between our love lives and work lives, because, you know, there is one. We are whole people.

Nat: We are.

Kristen: And so I’m like, “What strings can we pull here?” But first of all — we love tech and, and the, what is it, the enshittification of tech. So I think let’s talk about dating apps, number one.

Nat: Well, we don’t love the enshittification, but we do like talking about it.

Kristen: We love chatting about it. And the whole swiping thing, and swipe fatigue, and actually as it applies to another interesting area as well — the job matching area. Secondly, let’s talk about the third place, our back-for-meeting-people, which includes work, and talk a bit about that. And then finally, we always love a little “be careful who you marry.”

Nat: And we’re gonna close out with that. For those who aren’t married yet, or don’t have a partnership, we just want to offer up some auntie advice.

Kristen: Yeah, I know. Who knows? Anyway, okay. Dating apps. Let’s talk tech and apps. Dating app fatigue — it’s a thing. Everyone I talk to hates them. So who is still on them?

Nat: My understanding is women do better on dating apps because, as the incels have taught us, I think it’s only about two to ten percent of men who get all the matches on the dating apps. And I’ve talked about this a bit with some friends, because I probably know three single men, and I reckon all of them are in the top ten percent — not because I’m arrogant, but… I’m like, “I know only the hot men.” But when I look at their approach to life, you’re like, “Of course they would be.” I think the incels like to paint it as only attractive men get women, but my understanding is it’s the men who have spent more than half a second taking a photo. They’ve staged a photo, they’ve used it to show their personality, not just a fish photo or a shot from a weird upward angle under their chin, or a group shot with a thousand mates in it where you’re not sure which one they are. They’ve actually curated it. They’re intentional, they share information about themselves and their interests. And the third — and probably most critical — thing is that when they go on a date, or when they’re talking to someone on an app, they ask questions and are curious about the other person. These are all things, looks aside, that anyone can do on a dating app if they were willing to put in more than zero effort. But what that’s led to is a lot of men will just swipe right on everyone, and then basically say, “Whoever swipes right back on me, that’s my pool.” They’re not discerning, they just blanket-apply. Which means when you go on a dating app as a woman, it can be fairly overwhelming.

Kristen: It’s funny — humans are hilarious, how our behaviour evolves to adapt to the constraints of a thing, and all the unintended consequences of how the apps are set up.

Nat: What I find humorous is that the solution was to swipe right on everyone rather than improve your photos, ask questions, be interesting.

Kristen: I know, I know. It’s the great dating app hack. Another hack we learned chatting with a friend the other night is that once you start engaging with someone on a dating app, they quickly share their OnlyFans profile — using the app as lead gen into their OnlyFans, effectively to commercialise and monetise you.

Nat: Of course it’s a hunting ground for OnlyFans. I get it.

Kristen: I get it. And it’s also one of those hilarious things — I’ve known enough men who’ve been to strip clubs and said, “I think the stripper really liked me,” to know that it’ll work. These women are like, “Yeah, this is great marketing for me, they’ll totally believe I’m interested in dating them,” even though she’s twenty years younger and looks like an absolute supermodel, and he’s got five under-shots of his chin in a crowded group photo and somehow thinks that means she’ll be wildly into him.

Nat: Mixed reviews on them anyway. But for the most part — I do know friends who’ve married people thanks to dating apps. I know people who’ve initiated relationships through them, and hopefully — I know nothing, but — the filters are narrow enough that you might find a normal human in your radius, possibly with shared interests. But the interesting thing is that they are the algorithm. Really, success for a dating app is engagement, you using it again. It’s not you finding your person.

Kristen: Well, wasn’t one of them designed to make you cancel or something, so you’d never use it again?

Nat: Yeah, yeah. I don’t know if they ever lived up to that.

Kristen: Who knows? But anyway, people are willing to pay for it. I think the older generation, especially those who want to remain discreet — and my circles are the older generation, I mean the mature generation, not old —

Nat: [laughs]

Kristen: — they’re willing to pay because they want privacy. The world is small, we’re all separated by a couple of degrees, so I can appreciate the whole paying-for-privacy thing, not having your profile shown, or going on a slightly more exclusive dating app, more like a matchmaker thing. That, that would be something I might consider. It’s very controversial, but I might. However, I did see stats that Gen Z is dumping dating apps, and I think the whole over-digitisation thing — a lot of people are starting to really limit their screen time. They want to get out there and meet people IRL.

Nat: Yeah. There was a quote I heard ages ago about “you get what you measure,” and I suspect a lot of those dating apps measure the number of connections you make. And that leads to the motivation of using them being to make a lot of connections rather than necessarily find the one. But also, the other phenomenon I’ve noticed among my friends is that the dumpster fire the apps have often been referred to as has led them to go, “Why do I care so much about finding one romantic partner?” And instead they’ve gone down a path of really getting comfortable being a single lady. I joke about the stat that single women are the most happy — it is a true stat, but it’s hilarious how much we fight it. So what I’ve noticed with a lot of my friends is they’ve gone, “Why am I hurting myself and my emotions, throwing myself up against a brick wall on these apps that aren’t designed to help me make meaningful relationships, when I could just go out into the world and make meaningful relationships, romantic or otherwise?” And I feel like sometimes the worst enshittification of platforms leads us to go, “Oh, we don’t actually want that.” And I really like that people have started to not just think about different ways of dating, but why date at all, unless you meet someone you actually want to date.

Kristen: That’s the whole “boy sober” thing. I was reading about this comedian — what’s her name — Hope Woodward, and she ended up launching…

Nat: We need merch, by the way.

Kristen: But she had a bit about going boy sober and deleting her app. No doubt her jokes were great, and there was a massive trend that caught on, with young women deleting their dating apps and buying her merch and using #boysober. And I think what she realised was she was caring for her aging grandmother, and her grandmother wouldn’t let anyone else do anything, unless it was the husband doing it — wouldn’t accept any help — and there was this strange dependency and reliance on the husband. And what she realised was she was hoping to meet someone, and when she did, it was the same type of dependence, this weird reliance on a boy. So she went on an entire year — twelve months — of “boy sobriety.” And it kind of caught on, and it was a nice check on: why do you want someone, understand companionship, but does it have to be this, and is this the channel?

Nat: Yeah. We’ve talked before about de-centring men, and that can be a really controversial topic. But effectively it’s a challenge not about men, but to women who, through generations of conditioning, have ended up centring men in our decision-making, our lives, how we dress, how we feel about our bodies, our food, our glam, how we interact — and actually having more of an intentional awareness of who am I putting first. Maybe it should be me and the things I care about, rather than this real default conditioning.

Kristen: I feel like we’re going down a real tangent now, but the last thing I want to say on whether you should even go into a relationship — I was listening to a podcast this morning from 2015, and there was a woman on it doing her pet peeve of the moment: her sister had gotten engaged. Her sister had been engaged twice by 2015, who knows how many times now, had been married and divorced. And she waited a couple of days to break it to this woman that she’d gotten engaged, and when she did, she said, “I’ve gotten engaged,” then did a sad face and went, “I just really want to make sure you feel comfortable with it, because you’re not engaged and you’ve never been engaged.” And this woman was furious, because she was delighted for her sister, but couldn’t understand why an engagement announcement immediately led to everyone thinking “woe is the girl who’s not engaged,” and the stigma around not being in a relationship. And her sister got divorced, and that’s okay, and getting married again is okay, but being single is apparently atrocious. I just thought — I wonder how much that’s changed in the last ten years.

Nat: I think even that default is really interesting, that a woman is “on the shelf,” she’s so nice, what’s wrong with her that would stop a man wanting to choose her? And I think dating apps have really embedded some of that feeling — that if you’re not chosen, if you’re not in a relationship, you’re missing out.

Kristen: And aunties contributing as well, no doubt.

Nat: Mm-hmm. Your favourite aunties and grandmothers.

Kristen: As an aside to this — swipe culture, swipe fatigue — it’s interesting that a lot of people were inspired by the simplicity of dating apps, this concept of swipe and match, and as a result job-hunting apps followed suit. And what we’ve heard in this space is a massive amount of backlash and fatigue with job applications. We know people, particularly in these tough economic times, who’ve applied to hundreds, if not a thousand job ads with that same simple swipe — throw my application in, because ultimately that’s the only route to applying. And the same stats apply: success for a job platform is “you’ve had five hundred applications,” but ultimately it’s just sorted by AI, you’re ghosted by recruiters, you never hear back. I think it’s interesting how this inspiration from dating-app tech — minimal engagement over actual human connection — is leaking into other arenas, including the job search, which sounds highly annoying and depressing.

Nat: We wouldn’t necessarily call this a dark pattern, but I do find it interesting. Dark patterns are when designers deliberately design workflows and experiences that lead to poor outcomes — we often talk about infinite scroll as one, designed effectively like a gambling machine to keep people scrolling. So “dark” being that it’s not great for humans. This wouldn’t be that, but it is designed for odd outcomes, and I think you’re bang on with the job one. Removing friction — some things should have friction. And when we go, “Let’s remove friction from job ads or dating,” it leads to half the population going, “I’m just going to try for mass, get as many applications in.” Same as someone who just swipes right on everyone — remove any friction, just do that. And then the other side of the marketplace is overwhelmed, with no clear way of discerning, so they apply very simple rules and cut a lot of things that could potentially have been the right job and/or partner. It creates poor behaviours and unintended side effects to what they claimed they wanted to achieve.

Kristen: Just as an aside — and I’m outing myself here — when I do scroll in the mornings, my algorithm often catches me up on the latest sporting events, and news, US politics, the Tour de France right now, whatever.

Nat: Is this on Instagram? Is this what you’re talking about?

Kristen: Instagram, yeah, yeah, yeah. Or TikTok. I sometimes do TikTok.

Nat: Oh, are you TikTok-ing? Are you a TikToker?

Kristen: I’m not a TikToker, but I downloaded it. Oh God, that’s another conversation for another day. Instagram is my primary algorithm — I’ve trained it to world events, US politics, Tour de France, mind you that’s over today. But do you know what I’ve noticed? As a product design person, Nat — when I’m first falling asleep, I do it. Can’t the thing just scroll without me physically scrolling? Can I just have it on and it scrolls itself? I don’t want to have to do the thing — talk about friction — can you remove that for me?

Nat: Do you know what’s funny? I was thinking about that watching the Commonwealth Games this morning. I was like, “Can’t the TV just jump between channels whenever a New Zealander is playing in any one of the sports?” And I went down this exact same thinking process and ended up going, “No,” because half the time it would drive you bonkers, because you’d spend a different amount of time on each one, and sometimes—

Kristen: No, I just listen to the reel and —

Nat: — you mean it would force you to sit through the entire thing?

Kristen: No, it would just keep going, three seconds or whatever, or at the end. I’m okay if I’m tired, just give me a thing to do that.

Nat: So it’s almost a default — it just ends and scrolls to the next one, but you can force it?

Kristen: Yeah, I mean —

Nat: I’ll get right on it. Call it “sleepy time” or something.

Kristen: Call it “perimenopausal tired woman mode.”

Nat: I like that friction. I think we keep that friction to keep us off Instagram, otherwise people come back in five years and we’re all just little blobs in the matrix, watching reels, scrolling.

Kristen: Honestly, honestly, people — swipe fatigue.

Nat: Okay, so speaking of swipe fatigue all over the place, I don’t want to swipe anymore. Third places are back — moving back into meeting humans in real places.

Kristen: Mm-hmm. Like we’ve talked about run clubs before.

Nat: Oh my gosh, those are taking off around the world, very cool.

Kristen: I’ve got a child going to them, which is quite cool. Great place to meet humans IRL. But also — work. Interestingly, when I think back to work and meeting people and relationships, it was a little bit more taboo in my Generation X. I think about a third of us found relationships in the workplace or whatever. But for Gen Z, almost half say they’ve dated a coworker. So it’s becoming a third place.

Nat: Have you ever dated a coworker?

Kristen: No.

Nat: Oh, I’ve dated so many.

Kristen: Oh, that’s not true. Pre-career, I worked at a climbing and camping shop, an outdoors shop, and I love the outdoors, and that’s where I met all my boyfriends — all of them, through my entire teen years, starting when I was fifteen and going all the way through uni. That was my hunting ground, shared adventures, and I just jumped from one coworker to another.

Nat: No, I didn’t.

Kristen: I was a serial monogamist though. But yeah, I had great adventures thanks to my climbing coworkers.

Nat: How about you, Nat? What were the other ways?

Kristen: Well, I’m trying to think of all the ways I’ve met people. I was the classic millennial — actually this is probably a Gen X thing too — I probably met a bunch of my boyfriends either at a pub. This was — I don’t know, I’ve heard it was very different around the world, and the US and probably Canada had more of a dating culture. Whereas back in the good old days in New Zealand, there wasn’t really a concept of dating — you’d meet someone in a bar, probably between midnight and 3am, if you finished the night… would we even have had phones? We would’ve had phones. I’m gonna say getting their phone number, that would be your relationship until it ended. I feel like that was how most of my early relationships started, and they could last anywhere between three months and probably a year and a half — my longest was two, three years. So that was one hunting ground for me.

Nat: Hunting ground.

Kristen: And then, yes, I’ve probably met — I was the opposite of you, I was always kind of a single gal, and I find it interesting, this is the longest relationship I’ve ever been in. Kyla and I are coming up on five years. Up until her, I’d have the six-month itch for sure, twelve months was about the longest before I’m like, “Ugh, what am I doing?” I was not a stick-around kind of gal. So I probably have had a lot more short-term relationships than you. A couple of them through work, and I was working for myself, so it would be people working in the same office space, not necessarily a colleague.

Nat: Yeah, co-working spaces.

Kristen: Yeah, but we’d be working together.

Nat: Fair, fair, fair.

Kristen: So I did that. And I did — when it was probably like when we first met, so about seven, eight years ago — I probably got on the dating apps then, for about a year.

Nat: Yeah, you were a disaster. You took us all through that rollercoaster.

Kristen: That was a rollercoaster. And my mum would always say, “Go on two dates, because you don’t want to optimise for the people who are really good at their first date and are really smooth and charming, because they’re probably not the right people for you.” Whereas the nerds, the kind of awkward people —

Nat: That’s my mum too. My mum’s other advice was shake hands first, always with a bit of insinuation. And my friend once said back, “Oh, Rosemary, we’ve been doing a lot of handshaking.” I was like, “Oh, gross.”

Kristen: Yeah, so those were the two. I’m trying to think, I’ve never really met anyone doing sports or anything.

Nat: No.

Kristen: But yeah, work and bars.

Nat: Yeah, it’s a thing, and it does feel like a thing. I would just say, make sure everyone checks their policies. That’s always good to do, you can do it easily — just check HR policies and make sure everyone’s okay with that, because that’s often when it blows up. One, if there’s a specific policy, and another time is naturally when there’s a direct working relationship, a boss —

Kristen: A power imbalance, obviously.

Nat: Yeah, okay, a power imbalance. Let’s check that and make sure you’re never put into a situation where you’re feeling uncomfortable. That goes without saying.

Kristen: Well actually, that’s a good thing to raise, because — as you well know, this will be a story for another day, the full story — but I met Kyla at our last company. That was all very out of the blue, that I fell madly in love with her, very odd given we were both straight. But I was very uncomfortable with the power dynamic, because I was not her boss, and I actually wasn’t even in any reporting line for her, but I was a founder, and she was not. And I remember at the time, other than feeling immense guilt because my understanding of power imbalances is how terrible they are and how easily abused — I also strongly felt that she would be the one who was judged. And at the time she was like, “Why? Why would anyone care?” And it was only recently that I think she’s seen it play out somewhere else and gone, “Oh, yeah.” I think that was potentially true for her, that she was an incredibly high performer well before we even got to know each other. You, her, and I would be working together quite a lot in a purely work context, and she was a very high achiever, got promoted, and all of that I felt would be undone — all the credit she deserved would be undone — if people found out, even if it was entirely unrelated and a year or so later, that she ran a real risk of undoing all the credit she deserved. And I just hate that idea. But I do feel there are guardrails you can put around it. Fortunately, I was planning to leave the company, so by the time I had my meltdown it was fine. But I do think transparency is really critical — make sure HR or the right people know, so there’s full clarity, and then you’re in a bit of clear space. But it is complicated, because in the early days of dating you’re like, “Is it even worth saying anything, because it may not even be a thing.”

Kristen: Yeah. Definitely chat, but check your policies. I hadn’t thought about it from the other way around, and how strange it must have been — well, I know it’s been strange for you as well, but here we are.

Nat: But it was strange for me, but I also knew — and this is always the case with the power imbalance — I would also be the one to stay. There were so many elements of it that put her at risk. And granted, Kyla and I talked about it a lot at the time, and she was like, “I don’t care, I’ll get another job,” it wasn’t a thing to her, but it was all the different elements that, if you’re in the power position, it’s easy to brush off. But actually it’s really critical to recognise it’s not nothing — it’s actually a huge deal.

Kristen: She’s Gen Z, is she?

Nat: I claim she’s Gen Z, she claims she’s at the other end of the millennial spectrum.

Kristen: Okay, well, whatever — we’re both cuspies.

Nat: I think we’re both cuspies. I’m millennial-Gen X, she’s millennial-Gen Z.

Kristen: Yeah, okay, well, anyway — young people. Oh my God, the cradle-snatcher thing as well, that’s a whole other power imbalance. You can imagine, if you’re listening now, the six months, three months, of absolute angst and anxiety and self-flagellation I went through. People were like, “Those early days are so fun,” and I was like, “It was the worst time of my life.” All to say — young people, so Kyla claims she’d quit her job to be with someone she fell for at work. So there you are, don’t feel bad, it’s just your generation.

Nat: Which actually moves us to — we’re just going to spend a few minutes on this, because we’ve already discussed it at length in episode 129. So go back and listen to episode 129 if you haven’t — it’s all about how who you marry, and I’m going to use the broad term “marry” to mean cohabitate, commit to, move in with, whatever — that person makes or breaks your career. We go into it in depth. We had a friend who wrote an article for Stuff or somewhere, which was a little bit controversial, of course, because that’s quite a controversial statement — who you marry, or end up with, or partner with, makes or breaks your career.

Kristen: But I just think it’s worth pointing out, to bring this dating thing back to work — it actually does matter for your career. When I think about it, it’s one of the biggest factors in your career success, your progression. Everything from your values around where you’re going to live, how you want to live, what your lifestyle’s going to look like, whether you’re both career-led or lifestyle-led, family planning — and actually, let’s even talk pre-family-planning, household management, and all the things to do at home, who’s navigating that, is there a fair division of it. And then it comes to caregiving, both for children and family responsibilities, and who does the burden of that fall to, is there fair division there. And those that are genuine partners — for women anyway, let’s just talk about that — women are far more likely to succeed when they have actual partners at home, where there’s a fair division of labour in all of these things. So it impacts you by hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as meaning, in your career, if that’s something important to you.

Nat: Yeah, there was a study recently — I think I’ve shared this already — about a doctor and a lawyer. They must have asked married couples who were doctors and lawyers. I’ll have to look into this research more, it might be hard to find, but when the woman was the doctor and the man was the lawyer, the woman would claim her schedule was far more flexible, and that’s why she took on the majority of the childcare and home burden. And when they flipped the roles and asked the same question, the woman said exactly the same thing. And the conclusion was that flexibility is a choice. I see it in a few of my friends’ relationships and ex-relationships, where the man is very quick to talk about the inflexibility of his role, and the woman is very quick to go, “Well, I’m not leaving my kids alone at school, so I’ll drop things and change things.” Now I’ve seen that research, I’m like — flexibility is a choice, and you want to be with someone who makes it.

Kristen: I think the final thing I’d like to say about relationships at work, and meeting people, especially with that power imbalance thing, is there’s a difference between a relationship and sexual harassment. And I think it has to be said in something like this, because there are so many situations where someone will make you feel uncomfortable, or hit on you in a way that’s inappropriate, and we have to be very clear that’s very different from two consenting adults deciding to start a relationship. I never want anyone to feel like, in a workplace, “Oh well, hitting on you is nuanced” — you actually have to be very careful about when and how you make a move, if you do.

Nat: Yeah, because again, with the power imbalances — if your colleague, consent is not always a given, because there are situations where even if you say yes, you may not feel like you can say no. So I just wanted to say that as well, because we’ve seen some horror stories recently in the news in New Zealand, where you just think, “That’s not a relationship,” but one half of it has claimed that it is.

Kristen: There’s such an interesting Netflix show on right now — I think it’s called Toxic Partner or something. You don’t do Netflix, eh?

Nat: Well, I just don’t at the moment. We’ve got Neon.

Kristen: Absolute trash, but good trash for the weekend — I think it’s called Toxic Partner, and it was fascinating. In the end, they first thought it was a manipulation of one woman, she was sent to jail — I’m not going to go into the story — it turns out it was the other woman, and then at the end, plot twist, it turns out the man was behind the whole thing. Anyway, fascinating. Not helpful, because I’m not going into detail, I don’t want to —

Nat: Well, you’ve already ruined it, here we go.

Kristen: You want a spoiler alert. Yeah, spoiler alert, I won’t say the title of it.

Nat: But I’d just like to end on — it’s worth questioning and having these conversations really early in a relationship. And one thing I want to say about pay equity, and the fact that women are often in careers that are lower paying, and that’s where a lot of the pay gap comes from — is that we do not value the types of work that women have historically chosen, over men’s. And as a result, women are the ones who go, “Well, I make less, so I’m the one who’s going to take time out of my career.” I think this goes right back to how we value the type of work we do as a society, in terms of gendered roles and work.

Kristen: Well, I make less, thus I should pick up more of the slack at home.

Nat: Yep, yep, that’s that. And then also, just have these conversations about division of labour, the mental load, the digital load, everything that comes along with that.

Kristen: And renegotiate regularly.

Nat: Yeah, like this is not a set-and-forget situation, as we’ve talked about a lot before. It’s something that will change — your lives will change, your situation will change, your children will grow up, you’ll get a dog, whatever happens, you’ll move country — and you’re going to have to renegotiate how you both interact.

Kristen: We did that a couple of years ago.

Nat: Okay, well, there you go.

Kristen: A bit of a random one — our balance got out of whack at our house a couple of weeks ago, and we rebalanced it.

Nat: Good, have you ever rebalanced yours?

Kristen: It just naturally happened, I didn’t have to renegotiate.

Nat: Oh, that’s nice.

Kristen: Yeah, no, it’s more that I think sometimes some things can end up being invisible, and then you’re like, “Oh gosh, I didn’t notice you were doing all that,” or vice versa. But I also — I married someone who took half of parental leave, so —

Nat: Yeah, maybe you’re the one who’s dropping the ball.

Kristen: I probably am. Do you know — she’s a Japanese-American comedian, she’s going to be in Auckland shortly, by the way — Asuk— gosh, what’s her name — Asuko something, she’s so funny. But she was talking about how one of her friends told her about their husband, how he doesn’t fold laundry, throws it all over the floor, doesn’t do any of the home stuff. And she’s like, “And I’m just like, ‘Oh my God.’” She’s got this hilarious bit — she’s the one with the bowl cut, you know her?

Nat: Oh, I love her, she’s hilarious.

Kristen: And then she walks away, and she goes, “And then when I walk away with my friends, I’m like, I am the husband. I am the husband.” And I’m like, “Me too, girl, I am the husband.”

Nat: There’s a few wife-husbands out there. I love it, I love it.

Kristen: Okay, thanks everyone. Powrsuit.com, check it out, come join us, because we actually chat about this stuff in really practical ways and give you the tools to have these conversations, both in the workplace and at home, when it comes to negotiation and so on and so forth.

Nat: And as of about a week or two ago, we now are putting the videos on YouTube as well, not just the audio.

Kristen: Ah yes, check out our YouTube, our podcast — you can now see us.

Nat: And at the moment, if you come watch us right now on YouTube, I am bathed in sunlight, squinting, probably looking really grumpy because I’m all squinted at the sun.

Kristen: It’s all good, it’s all right. Thanks, everyone, we’ll catch you next time. Bye.