To think that Louise Perry is overly pessimistic to write : 'All else being equal, a woman will never have as much social status as a man. '?

[Carla786]

I think she means in a work context- the rest of the article argues that rather than try to raise women's status at work, we should accept presumably that they'll have less respect there so should raise the status of motherhood,since this is something men can't receive more respect than women for.

To which I'd say, can't we raise women's status in both fields? Can't we raise motherhood's status while not accepting that whatever a woman achieves at work, she'll always have less respect than an equivalent man?

(For those not familiar with Louise Perry, she's a so-called 'reactionary feminist' who made a stir a few years back with the book The Case Against The Sexual Revolution. Imo she made a lot of good points in it as well as a lot of overstatements. She's now got a podcast about sexual politics, Maiden Mother Matriarch, which I view similarly to the book (good points but doesn't really push back on her guests much, who include some genuinely reactionary figures), & is writing a new book urging people to have kids. )

Anyway, this article kind of typefies my view of her : plenty of valid points, but quite a lot of ideas taken too far.

Sorry, here's the link to the full article :

https://fairerdisputations.org/women-and-children-first/

Mary Harrington's Twitter can be pretty extreme in places, & she has quite openly attacked the idea of democracy. You have to listen more carefully to pick up the message behind Perry's noise, as she's the more skilled politician of the two, but it is clearly there. Some deep and nasty attacks on black Britons in her podcast with Rakhib Ersan, for example - figleaved by the fact that her interviewee is not white.

The reason I know so much about this btw is that, when I have the time (which is not often), I'm trying to put a book together about how badly mothers need feminism that actually meets their needs. Judging by the what is lumbering into life in the USA, if we don't solve the problem soon, it will be too late.

Tbf Protestanism doesn't have that. But yes, the celibate & arguably misogynist vision promoted by St Paul & later figures like St Jerome also sits uneasily with that.

I did the Wife of Bath some time ago for A Level, and a big part of her monologue is about mocking misogynist clerics/religious writers who rejected relationships with women & demanded other men agree on how awful they were. In fact, it's occurred to me that that's how some MRA forums like MGTOW operate : I suppose those impulses have always existed in some..

I love, love, love the Wife of Bath!

Goodness...Hartington has gone that far? Does she actually think we shouldn't have democracy? Was this on X then- I don't suppose you could link? I follow her Substack but can't read as most posts are paid & I can't afford at the moment.

Can I ask what Black Britons Perry attacked, and why?

So do I! I don't think Chaucer's portrayal of her can really be called feminist in a modern sense (which would ofc be unlikely in the 1400s) but he definitely hit some nails on the head re society's treatment of women then (and in some ways now).

Incidentally, I agree with Harrington in some ways on women having some economic power in medieval times through stuff like brewing. But she arguably ignores the fact that medival Christianity often condoned prostitution as a necessary evil, as I said above. The bawdiness of a lot of medieval literature (including Chaucer) arguably shows that male sexuality wasn't hugely restrained then, despite the controls of the church.

Protestantism modelled itself on Judaism, which has always been very family-centred.

As you say, there’s nothing new about misogyny. What is new, when you look at history, is the idea that women should have any kind of equality at all. It’s a fragile concept, and it will not survive this century unless we protect it.

Harrington also overlooks the fact that mediaeval women were excluded from guilds, ranked below men in inheritance and, in village life, could be waterboarded to death on the ducking-stool. They had the minimum economic power required to keep the economy running - then as now. That they had a bit more autonomy pre the Industrial Revolution doesn’t alter this.

And as to her hostility towards the Pill…seriously, wow. What a display of ignorance. I notice that there’s no issue with men taking testosterone-blockers to treat prostate cancer, or indeed with HRT, both of which fit her definition of “transhumanist” projects as well.

Mothers deserve better advocates than this pair of posh clowns…

Perry opens by denigrating Afro-Caribbeans as fatherless and more prone to commit crime than other immigrants. Ostensibly, it's to make a point about different communities having different values, but the real point is obvious. She then goes on to attack Caribbean nurses for being complicit in damaging their home countries' health services.

The clear implication is that this country would be better off without Afro-Caribbeans. For more candidly ethno-superior stuff, you have to look at her writing on more right-wing platforms, which are mainly behind paywalls. Tho' there is one MMM podcast, I forget which, where she says that Clarkson's Farm is proof that English people are better than Eastern Europeans. Which does seem a touch deranged.

This may be a controversial opinion, but I think a lot of this is in our hands. How many times do you hear posters on here saying "it made sense for me to be the one that went part time because he earned more".

Of course it makes sense if QOL is your main goal, as it is with many people. However, this choice perpetuates the situation whereby men are the higher earners and also facilitates discrimination from employers who choose the male candidate because he's less likely to go part time in a couple of years.

And plenty of women don't rush to return to full time work or push the career once the kids are at school and they're working three days a week with a high earning husband. I don't blame them but it's a choice and many do choose that path.

A lot of people will pick the option that provides a substantial and tangible benefit to themselves and their families over the option that supports their ideological leanings but is in reality a drop in the ocean. And enough drops in the ocean and you have a wave.

Good point: I came across this religious history Substack a while ago which was interesting but had a definite sexist edge. They described Judaism as the 'most feminine' religion due to its focus on family, and also, to my 🤮 'because it centres on submission to an all-powerful male God'. Very odd way of putting things, and Judaism isn't the only religion to urge submission to an at least nominally male God.

But it's definitely true that Judaism's focus on family could give women some soft power (of course it's matrilineally passed down). Otoh traditionally Judaism also had a strong patriarchal edge, shown for instance in men's daily prayer of thanks for not having been made women.

Yes, definitely! Frankly, go too far with her philosophy & you end up branding practically any medical or scientific advance as transhumanist. I read a smart review of her book in a Quaker magazine that I'll try to find, among others, it pointed out that she ignores that the Pill isn't the only contraceptive method available, frankly. It's so annoying that so much valid criticism of the medical effects of the Pill has been taken too far by wackos like her. I find her argument that sex is more exciting without contraception particularly suspect.

On medieval women, it should be pointed out that Harrington has no historical training, (like a lot of thinkers who use history for their arguments, unluckily) and relies very heavily on Karl Polanyi's theories by her own account. Polanyi himself was criticised for romanticised views of rural/peasant life.

Afro-Carribeans in Britain do score higher on fatherlessness and crime stats. Obviously this does NOT make this innate (was Perry trying to imply that?) and I'd previously thought Ehsan had some good points on self-improvement and responsibility whilst att the same time advocating social welfare policies. If she'd being racist, and he's propping that up, I'm very saddened by that.

She was denigrating Carribean nurses for coming here? That makes me furious. They've collectively been so valuable to the NHS. There is a valid conversation to be had re brain drain generally, but not like this. Jamaica even now, for one, is classed as a 'flawed democracy' with serious crime & corruption problems, as well as still more regressive attitudes to women compared to other countries (some forms of music haven't helped with this, eg. Soca). I can't blame individual women for wanting to avoid this (not that, frankly, we can take much of a high ground on political corruption).

Re the horrible Carribean nurses comment, did she not mention that our government actively recruited them because the NHS was struggling? And that the British Empire encouraged Carribeans to see Britain as the mother country? If in her view they damaged Carribean by moving, surely our government also deserves blame? Unless she meant later arrivals, though I still think it's an unfair point.

There was a good BBC programme on this though sadly not available right now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b083dgtb

Re the Clarkson's Farm business, presumably this was a joke? If not, what did she mean?

I'm Polish via my grandfather (WW2 soldier) and I'd hardly say that Poland, for one, is indifferent to the needs of rural farmers.

There’s a large Polish community in my town from WW2 as it happens, so large in fact that we have an ex-servicemen’s club.

The Clarkson’s Farm stuff was truly bizarre. It was about how “Anglo” people have an inherent sense of fairness, or something like that. Part of the endless dancing around the idea that “Anglo” people are superior.

What possible use is this to real-life mothers, with real-life problems?

That's nice : mine still has a club too, they've been really good at fundraising for Ukraine.

I definitely think fairness is a strong British tradition (with contradictions like the class system coexisting in tension with it) but I resent her implication that this is a big contrast with Eastern Europe. Focusing on Poland, which I'm most familiar with, there's been plenty of thought on topics of social progress and greater equality (we had an early constitution in the 1700s after all, and women got the vote fully in Poland in 1920 while in the UK the full vote only came in 1928): if she could get off her high horse, she might be able to get a lot of interesting stuff from reading Solidarity movement philosophers like Leszek Kolakowski, or others like the ones on this list. There's also several conservative Catholic philosophers (have some valid points but regressive on women among others) who ironically I imagine she'd vibe well with.

https://culture.pl/en/article/10-polish-philosophers-who-changed-the-way-we-think

It's worth noting that small countries like Czech Republic and Lithuania are currently providing good living standards for most citizens. That Czechia does this while also being pretty secular makes an interesting challenge to Perry's theories of widespread religiosity being indispensable for societal wellbeing, as do the Scandi countries (and I say that as a religious person).

There was actually a book I read recently about Poland which I think is relevant to the thread topic re mothers ; by this sociologist called Belinda Brown. She's rather irritating to me as she & her late husband Geoff Dench had some valid points but took them too far on gender especially (Dench, for one, argued that women have to pretend men are in charge, ie. Patriarchy, even if they they're not, or men won't want to be civilised husbands and fathers but would prefer to be wild men living in the forest or whatever. Maybe Perry would agree!)

But Brown does make some good points about women she interviewed who worked for Solidarity. She pointed out that the local nature of the movement made it easier for women with kids to still play a key role. She also notes that mother's position of passing down values is politically powerful in that way, (could say similar about Jewish mothers being important in passing down tradition).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.amazon.co.uk/Private-Revolution-Polish-Underground-Movement/dp/0952352923&ved=2ahUKEwi7mN_<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?opi=89978449&%3B%3Brct=j&%3B%3Bsa=t&%3B%3Bsource=web&%3B%3Burl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.co.uk%2FPrivate-Revolution-Polish-Underground-Movement%2Fdp%2F0952352923&%3B%3Busg=AOvVaw2xZWzwfObbZe3oz6YwtaYd&%3B%3Bved=2ahUKEwi7mN%3Cu%3ERu%3C%2Fu%3EKQAxWEWEEAHZ2MKXQQFnoECBwQAQ&%3Btag=mumsnet&%3Bascsubtag=mnforum-feminism-5441482-to-think-that-louise-perry-is-overly-pessimistic-to-write-all-else-being-equal-a-woman-will-never-have-as-much-social-status-as-a-man&tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-feminism-5441482-to-think-that-louise-perry-is-overly-pessimistic-to-write-all-else-being-equal-a-woman-will-never-have-as-much-social-status-as-a-man" rel="nofollow" target="blank">RuKQAxWEWEEAHZ2MKXQQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2xZWzwfObbZe3oz6YwtaYd

Don't know why the link went all weird like that!

Please tell us about your book when it's finished! It would be great to have a book on motherhood & feminism which isn't wacky & pseudo-trad like Perry & Harrington.

Harrington is someone who's clearly smart but seems to have had their brain broken by too much time online in weird subcultures. The anti-democracy stuff makes me wonder of she's now being influenced by neoreactionaries.

Something that's increasingly concerning me is the influence of so-called 'neoreactionary' and 'Dark Enlightenment' figures like originator Curtis Yarvin. The man's got a finger in every pie, hobnobbing with Trump figures, tech Trumpists like Peter Thiel (another sinister figure), & UK politicians like Robert Jenrick (tipped as Tory leader soon ofc) & Maurice Glasman of Labour (I actually like him & feel he means well but I think he's making a big mistake in being friendly with Vance & Yarvin).

He's openly anti-democracy, (among other disturbing positions such as appearing to suggest slavery was a better time for black people) and I'm worried by the amount of influence he seems to have with politicians.

So many politicians (possibly spearheaded by Trump) seem to feel that online is where the youth are & that can't be changed, ergo it's good or at least inevitable to be Extremely Online. Vance has boasted about being plugged in to 'weird, online, right-wing subcultures' as if it's positive for a Vice President to be very into 'weird online subcultures' of any kind. 🙄

Vance's behaviour seems to show the influence of ultraconservative Catholicism, supported by his membership of the cultlike sect Opus Dei. Steve Bannon's Breitbart was openly key to the online alt-right movement & suspiciously tried to whitewash the disturbing aspects of this movement (eg. White nationalism & scientific racism in some sections).

Robert Jenrick seems to be in the grip of a related -to-neoreactionarism movement called Anglofuturism (he has openly pledged his allegiance). On the surface it seems positive, with talk of creating tech like flying cars rather than more tablets & phones. But it has some distinctly weird aspects. Key members have suggested sending people out from Britain to colonies like Gibraltar or Falkland Islands as Britain is apparently failed (if they're so patriotic, why don't they fix Britain rather than sending people off to faraway islands?) or even trying to reconsider former colonies like South Africa (suggested by Yarvin, this stuff seems pipe dreams but worrying still). There's also a racist undercurrent to much of it (no, I don't mean simply anti more immigration)

Sorry, that was rather too long! The problem with this stuff is that most ordinary people are unaware of these weird online movements. Thus, like the trans stuff, it's only apparent later what problems they're causing.

I think we should keep a close eye on politicians here (& in US since we catch a cold when they sneeze) to ensure they're not getting influenced by this kind of anti-democratic stuff.

Re Anglofuturism, the movement's leaders' apparently advocacy of capital punishment is also disturbing.

https://www.anglofuturism.co/p/dark-abundance-and-the-caning-question?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

Totally agree with all of the above, many thanks for the links. It's a very dark movement, and I sense a lot of Kremlin involvement - certainly, Putin stands to benefit immensely from Europe collapsing back into war, which it will quickly do if it loses its democratic ethic. Much Russian money has gone into Reform.

Interestingly, you're not the first person I have met with a connection to Poland who is much more alert to this danger than people with more mainstream English backgrounds. This country has never been invaded or occupied - well, not for a long time - and I don't think many people understand how precarious their freedom could be.

Thank you. It's definitely worrying : I don't think the UK or US are in imminent danger of not becoming democracies but otoh I could see a lot of activity happening behind the scenes to slowly undermine democracy. Good point re Putin : I hadn't actually considered he could be pushing neoreactionary stuff but that would make sense.

He's definitely pushing some weird stuff in the West. The online tradcath stuff probably : there's also an interesting but worrying BBC programme about American men who feel the US Church isn't conservative enough so convert to Orthodoxy (some of whose priests seem to push Putinism).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002bsx9