Transcription
Well, well, well. It seems like the author of the scathing "Ballerina Farm" article from The Times is facing the consequences of her own actions, as she should be. How the turntables! After facing severe backlash and major virality surrounding her hit piece on Hannah and Daniel's marriage and their business, and possibly the threat of a defamation lawsuit, Megan, the author of that piece, has released a follow-up article.
And wouldn't you know, she completely changed her tune. Now, is it genuine? Probably not. Will it help change the minds of millions of people who have been convinced that Hannah is now in an abusive marriage? Also probably not. But at least somebody is setting the record straight—better late than never.
Before we dive into this story, though, make sure that you like this video, subscribe to this channel if you’ve not already, and of course, ring that notification bell so that you never miss one of these comment section episodes.
I mean, all of this is just so predictable at this point. Journalists do this in politics all the time; it's not new. They print and publish literal lies, complete fabricated information. They let the headlines and the news spread like wildfire, and then weeks, months, sometimes even years later—it's been 84 years—they'll quietly issue a little correction, a little update, so that they can be on the right side of factual history. Yet by that point, the damage will have already been done.
They also don't publicize the fact that they're doing an update or a correction; they just slide it in at the bottom of the article. So, six months later, if you want to go back and read what The New York Times was saying about X, Y, and Z, then you'll see, "Oh, well, actually, they lied about this." But they don't admit it; they don't actually tell anyone.
And that's basically what happened here with the "Ballerina Farm" hit piece. Now, if you guys have not read the original article or have not seen our episode that we did on it last week, pause here, go watch that, go read that, because it is wild and you need the context.
With the way that the author wrote about Hannah Neilan and her family, you would literally have thought that she was living in an abusive, toxic marriage straight out of "The Handmaid's Tale." Literally! And millions upon millions of readers and people on social media were convinced of that. But to their credit, many could also sniff out the fact that this was an incredibly slanted and incredibly biased article. Even people who don't like Hannah's lifestyle, who think that she should still be a dancer in New York, admitted that this was very biased.
The article was more about the author and her reporting goals and what she wanted to say about society and tradwives, and not actually about Hannah. Over the weekend, everybody started calling her on it, and I am sure that the Ballerina Farm family and their team also called her on it in a legal way. Now, I don't know that for sure, but I would guess that is what happened because based on what we know now, the lies that were told are just insane.
Now, all of this got especially tense and heated when people realized that The Times, which is the newspaper that published this article, has a podcast. This author, Megan, had gone on the podcast to talk about this amazing article that she was writing about tradwives and about Hannah Neilan. In this podcast, she releases actual audio recordings from the interview that she did with Hannah and Daniel and their whole family, which was just the worst thing that this author could have done for herself.
What we all hear in this podcast is drastically different than the story that she printed. Just listen here:
"Give up a piece of yourself? I don't think I would. Daniel was like, if you want to dance, you know, go dance. We were open to anything, but I knew deep down that I wanted to raise my babies."
You know, she seemingly loves her life there, so I'm not saying that she's kind of tricked or coerced into going at all.
"Oh, not at all!"
No, that is literally what you wrote in the article! We hear Hannah say, "Daniel said I could dance. We were open to anything, but I knew that I wanted to raise my babies." And then the journalist on this podcast goes, "Yeah, well, I'm not saying she was..." You again, you literally wrote that! Are you so blind to honesty or the idea that somebody could make a different choice than you and it not be based in coercion and toxic masculinity that you literally cannot see what you're saying and that it is a complete lie?
I just—I have no words. We just heard what Hannah said, and then immediately after playing that recording on a podcast, that is what the journalist says. I mean, it's just laughable.
Anyway, Hannah goes on and continues to debunk everything that this journalist said in the article. And remember, this is not after the fact; this is what she told the journalist, which is why it is just so shocking and appalling what was actually printed.
"We're a partnership now. I don't feel like I'm at home raising kids by myself. That's hard. Women need support. When Daniel was like, 'Okay, let's build something together,' we really carry the mantle together."
That's amazing! And that also was what she was trying to convey in this interview. She was saying, "I wanted to be working with my husband." And Daniel was saying, "We are co-CEOs." Even though the author did give them that and did quote them in the article, she was like, "I'm not really convinced. Is this really what she wants? She was a ballerina; all she wants to be is a ballerina, and now she's just a baby-making machine."
When literally they are sitting in front of you talking to you about their choices and what they want, what she wants, the choices that she made.
Alright, here's another person who also clipped some parts from this podcast episode. She also says some great things about Daniel:
"Well, you know, I gave up dance, which was a big sacrifice for me. Daniel gave up his career ambitions, and we were like, 'Okay, let's start something together.' Like, big sacrifices for us."
So again, this is a decision that they made together. She was not coerced; Daniel also had to make sacrifices. That is what happens in a marriage. That's what happens when you're parents; you both have to make sacrifices. They are saying that in the interview. Was this conveyed in the original article? No, absolutely not, because that would not fit the author's agenda.
So basically, to recap, if you guys remember the original article, remember all the lies that were told, the accusations, the assumptions—all of that is completely blown up by these actual audio clips from the interview where she says, "Daniel encouraged me to dance. He would have been fine if I wanted to stay in New York and dance. He told me to follow my passion. We could make it work; we were open to anything."
And then they talk about building this business together as co-CEOs. It is a partnership; they are carrying the mantle together, which I just love that way of thinking. She obviously found her purpose, and it just so happened to be outside of dance and outside of what she expected her life to look at.
And you know what? That happens sometimes. In fact, Grand Canyon University can help you find your calling. Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university in the beautiful Phoenix, Arizona. Grand Canyon University believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with a purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation in your community for generations to come. By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community, just like Hannah and Daniel have been impacting their community and the entire social media landscape with Ballerina Farm for years.
I mean, she's changing the world for good as she puts her family first, glorifies God, and helps her community. And that's because she found her true purpose, which you also can do. Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, a master's, or a doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
With over 330 academic programs as of December of 2023, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is truly yours, so find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University. It is private, it's Christian, and it's affordable. Visit gcu.edu/cooper today.
So everything that we just listened to—that doesn't sound very abusive or misogynistic, does it? Well, Megan, maybe your logic and judgment were clouded by your ideas and your biases, but that is not the case for everyone. Because when they saw these clips, when they heard what Hannah was actually saying, everything changed.
And then randomly, a second follow-up article was released, and it sounded totally different from the original. Imagine that! I wonder what happened.
Now, to cover all of her bases, I'm sure at the beginning of the second article, the author began by stating her noble intentions about her journey to the American West, stating that she really just wanted to know whether all of this was true. She wanted to know the truth of Ballerina Farm, if Hannah and her life were really the way that people believed it to be online.
She said, "Before I left to interview her, the main question I had from friends, family, and colleagues was whether it was all true. One of the most watched people on the internet, her children looked chaotic and happy, homeschooled and free-range. How did she keep it all together? How was she always so calm? Was it really like that?"
But the irony of all of this, the irony of this question, was that Megan never answered this question while writing about Ballerina Farm. She never actually marveled at Hannah's obvious ability to juggle it all while still being sincere and beautiful like she is online.
I mean, we just heard her speak. There's chaos happening all around her—kids screaming, chickens clucking—and she's very thoughtfully handling this interview and answering these questions, and none of that was mentioned in the article.
To be honest, I don't think Megan even asked the question. She just made assumptions based on her preconceived biases about Ballerina Farm. Yet clearly, the author did find her to be all of those things; she was just too busy painting Hannah out to be some kind of victim than to take the time to marvel or be in awe of her endless abilities as a farmer, as a business owner, and as a mother.
And even in this second article, she just couldn't help herself and continued to take little jabs at Daniel. She wrote, "He expected his wife to stay at home with the children. He was a firm believer, he said, that men make stuff work and women beautify. He wanted his parents to get remarried despite their divorce 12 years ago."
"Is that on the cards?" I asked.
"Well, I don't know," he said. "The whole divorce thing is so tough because you have a family get-together, and you have to go to two events, so the parents end up seeing the kids half as much, and the kids see the parents half as much, so it's just bad for everyone."
Now, first of all, based Daniel! Number two, what kid would not want their parents to be together in an ideal world? That's not a bad thing by any means. But she goes on about how this is all so traditional; he's so trad. He had these ideas going into the marriage and was forcing Hannah to be involved in this.
Also, that line about women beautifying—that's lovely! That's wonderful! I would love to be thought of as somebody who beautifies things. That's not a bad thing.
Now, to be fair to Megan, even though I don't really want to be fair to Megan, this was a lot more mild than what she accused him of in the original article. But of course, because it's the media, there were no apologies. Instead, Megan came to her own defense—classic female response, always the victim—after she saw people coming out of the woodwork on social media to point out her biases as a single, childless, 30-something-year-old city dweller with no strong understanding or interest in learning about women who live lives unlike her own.
Now, what was that JD Vance said about childless single women? Just kidding, just kidding! I'm not trying to paint her as that, but also, in all seriousness, based on my research into her social media, I think that this New York-based chick is exactly that.
However, I digress; we won't get into that today. In the original article, the primary focus was on Hannah's husband, Daniel, and it was on society and the author's feelings. But finally, as it should have been from the get-go, this follow-up article sort of refocused on Hannah, which was the intention allegedly from the beginning.
And like I've said multiple times now, it was much more toned down than the first article, which just so abundantly patronized Hannah's quiet demeanor and called that submission. It called Daniel's outgoing, vocal nature a clear, obvious sign that he was some kind of overbearing, dominating husband, forcing his wife to live out in the middle of nowhere and just be some kind of baby machine.
Like, that is literally what she accused him of, as if Hannah is just some kind of thoughtless victim rather than an empowered woman, an empowered mother making sacrifices for the good of her family and for the good of her children.
But finally, finally, Megan let the truth slide out just a little bit. She said, "In recent days, there has been criticism that I, a childless, unmarried woman, didn't understand that this is the reality of having eight children, all homeschooled and with no childcare. But I felt the exact opposite when I was there. It made me understand exactly how it was to be a woman with eight children in no childcare—demanding and rewarding and gloriously intimate and difficult to find a space to speak."
I'm sorry, rewarding? What was that? Gloriously intimate? So suddenly, that's why she was struggling to speak to you and was struggling to get a moment of quiet to do the interview—not because of her oppressive husband that was trying to be involved in all of your questions?
Okay, Megan, that's interesting because you never highlighted that in your original article. Instead, you lied, you criticized them, you demeaned, and you doubled down on all of it, and we watched all of it happen.
Now, luckily, at the end of her second article, she finally started to connect the dots, but I don't even know if I want to give her that much credit. She just started to be honest, which is what she should have been doing as a journalist from the beginning.
She wrote, "I think that this is the reason why she inspires such strong opinions. The trad life makes women feel threatened by one another's choices."
Now, once again, she has said she does not identify with tradwives; she's not a tradwife. So you're still trying to plug your own ideas and what you want to talk about into this article.
Okay, going back to it, she is right; that is the reason why you also, Megan, are feeling insecure. It is as if one lifestyle is going to inhibit the other, that our freedom, however we interpret freedom, is being undermined by the existence of someone else's.
That is exactly what you think is happening and what many feminists think is happening when they look at tradwives or women that are not girl bosses working in corporate America. Whatever! Women who work at a paid job feel terrified that by promoting the seeming peace and harmony of a traditional home life, Neilan is threatening their ability to choose otherwise.
They fear that they're going to experience guilt or resistance if other women choose otherwise. And of course, we have to address this, but none of that is Hannah's fault. Obviously, it's your right to feel that way; you can feel insecure, you can feel jealous, you can project, but she did not do that to you.
She is not forcing that upon you; that is your response to her just living her life. And being completely unpraised, the journalist painted you as an insecure, bitter woman—just being honest.
But at least she did say the quiet part out loud, and now we know where all of that insecure projecting tone came from. I mean, like, God forbid women watch Hannah's content and feel even slightly inspired to sacrifice what they thought were their dreams in exchange for more time with their family and the ability to be a very involved mother.
To second guess their girl boss corporate baddy position after watching another mom be at home with her kids and frolic through the field with her eight babies running around her, or to consider radical ideas like being home with your kids and homeschooling them and home births and making meals completely from scratch for the benefit of your family's health.
I mean, not only would that ripple effect impact modern feminism, but it would impact society as a whole. It would disrupt this entire system that has been built upon the expectation that both parents have to work, they're both going to pay taxes while their kids spend 12 years in school being educated by the government and basically becoming little government drones, because that is what happens in the American school system.
But most importantly, more importantly than all of that, people watching and enjoying Hannah's content would make the feminists feel icky and would make them feel less morally superior. And that's what this really comes down to, clearly.
I mean, just watch one of these responses. If you haven't read The Times article yet on Ballerina Farm, you need to stop this video and read it right now. Incredibly well written!
It's written by Megan Agu. Is it Agu? I hate-watch accounts like Ballerina Farm. I don't like the way they make me feel. After watching those videos, I feel like I'm not doing enough as a mother, a wife, that I have the wrong priorities. I dislike her while I'm watching them, but I also want to be her at the same time.
She's like put last every day; she puts herself last. Her family puts her last.
You were so close! You were so close! You were about to acknowledge that it was about you, that this is your response, and then you fed into the BS. You fed into the BS of, "You know, she's lost herself; she's put last."
Rather than saying, "This is an empowered woman who made a choice that goes against what I would do, but that's okay. She made a choice; she makes sacrifices for her children like every mother does and should do, and that makes me uncomfortable."
That is all you needed to say! You got inches away, and now once again, it's a problem with Hannah and her family and Daniel, who's allegedly doing all of this to her.
And that's where the moral superiority comes in, where it's like, "It's so sad. I'm also a mother, and I don't do that. I have not had to give up things my husband does." Yada, yada, yada, yada.
Again, it's not your life! You do not need to feel bad for her and put yourself in a higher position over her just because your life is different than hers.
I don't know how I feel about the fact that she still perpetuates this online and monetizes it. She monetizes being a good wife and mother? Oh, the travesty! How awful for our society!
No, actually, how awful for you and your ego! That is what you are upset about! My God!
But at the same time, she's so ill from being overworked and exhausted that she can't get out of bed for a week. Like, are we still believing that lie when there was no context?
I mean, what about the fact that she has given birth eight times? That maybe she was sick after one of her births, or she just got sick? She overworked herself, so she stayed in bed, and Daniel talked about it in passing, probably talking about her in a positive light, like, "She is so amazing; she works so hard for us."
You know, she was in bed for a week and included that in some story, but obviously, Megan, the author, only included that little blip to make him look awful and make her look like a victim.
And everybody ran with it, and we're not thinking about all the context that we're missing.
I don't even know how I feel about that account now. I'm questioning everything.
And I mean, guys, that is just one video out of literally thousands, and these videos have millions upon millions of views and comments. We read some of them in the original article, and I do have to give this woman some credit because, unlike basically everyone else who was losing their minds over Hannah in this article, this woman actually did say the quiet part out loud.
Her reaction is based on her insecurity. So, like I said, she was so close; she could almost taste the honesty, and then she had to go lose it.
But people were calling her on this in the comment section. One person said, "It sounds like you're projecting your own fears and shortcomings onto others. Why can't we celebrate women instead of hate-watching them?"
Yes! Another person said, "I don't love or hate Ballerina Farm, but it sounds like this is more of a you problem, not a Hannah and Ballerina Farm problem." Spot on! Boom!
I mean, I've said this before; I will say it again: Hannah has done nothing wrong, nothing problematic, except living her life the way that she and her family see fit. And that alone is enough to spark outrage, which is just laughable.
It is laughable that our society has turned so upside down that her being at home with her kids and starting a business with her husband and working on a farm and just sharing that with her audience is so insanely problematic and is fodder for some feminist hit piece that turns her into a victim.
Like, that just tells you so much about modern women and modern society, about how people are overwhelmingly willing to compromise integrity and truth and empathy to make themselves feel better about their choices.
And if you call them on it, will they immediately suddenly become the victim, just like Megan painted herself out to be in the second article? I mean, it is an endless cycle.
But I am so glad that there was some semblance of accountability to be had here, even though I'm sure that it required some kicking and screaming from the journalist.
But she lied; she completely twisted the truth to further an agenda based on her own judgment and her own insecurities based on her life.
And the worst part is that she did this at the expense of a wonderful, again, unproblematic, uncontroversial family who happily welcomed her into their home and into their intimate lives.
She should be ashamed, and she deserves a lot more blowback than she's currently getting.
Hey guys, Brett here. For more stories and videos just like that, make sure you subscribe to my show. See you next time!