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/

I hadn't thought re my Polish background making me more aware of movements like this, interesting you've seen that with others : it's definitely made me aware of the importance of free speech and dangers of extremism, as you say. My mother was taken as a small child in the 70s to see the family who remained in Poland and it made a big impression on her (it was risky to even go as the authorities apparently questioned my grandfather in case he was a Western spy).

I agree lots of people don't seem to appreciate the value of freedom. I think a lot of people do, but otoh when governments seem to be corrupt and not improving life quality, it gives room to extremists to promise that 'everything will be better when X is in charge'. I never understand people who get disillusioned with democracy for those reasons: yes, democratic politicians often behave very badly. But why would the solution to that be to elect an autocratic leader? Why would the solution to politicians ignoring popular opinion be to elect someone who has no obligation to pay even lip service to it? It just seems badly illogical.

I think online stuff amplifies this kind of stuff because it allows completely unrealistic ideas to be reinforced in echo chambers (cf : trans again). I also think there may be a few in the US who idealise the reactionary 'monarchical' or 'feudal' ideas Yarvin & Co. promote as they've never had a monarch & so view it in a romanticised way.

I think a better path for feminism (maternal & otherwise) & politics in general is to try & stay away from US politics as far as possible. Europe has plenty of faults but they're generally more moderate.

The book Vassal State is a good summary of how far US business etc is trying to influence us & think similar applies to politics. Politicians like Badenoch & Farage are using increasingly US-tinged rhetoric & the US centrism of SM doesn't help. Hopefully the gradual reduction of tech use (bans for Gen Alpha etc) will help reduce this. British patriotism & politics isn't typically loud & overt the way US is, and it's ironic that supposed 'patriots' want to promote US-style polarisation.

Though they would never admit it, the young men flocking into the tradcath and neo-Orthodox movements are fleeing the internet. Men have always been more vulnerable to addiction than women, and the digital world - especially its huge pornographic underbelly - has acted as a multiplier on this. So many young boys underperform at school and in the labour market because they have been swallowed alive by screens. Old-school religion, with its hard boundaries, has come to look like a safe refuge. Which it isn't going to be, if it has to cater to the manosphere.

I'll read that, thanks very much for the reference. Have you read the history around how the Nuremberg Laws were copied from the Jim Crow South? America sees the whole world through its wonky racial lens, and is always ready to share it. Play silly games, get silly prizes...

Tony Benn had a fantastic response to anyone who asked him about his view on the monarchy. "Well,", he would say, "my view counts for nothing, and neither does yours, because we live in a monarchy. That's how monarchy works. Next question?"

Many Europeans are very sheltered. I have a close friend whose mother escaped Hungary for the West, just after the Soviets rolled in. She too was scarred by what happened to her homeland, and exasperated by Westerners who couldn't see the seeds of the same thing waiting to happen here. It germinates in darkness, and these days it's pretty dark for many people.

Yes, we have to avoid that lens. Not just race, they seem to have many other disturbing ideas.

The mention of American racial ideas reminded me of these vile people profiled in thus article, many adjacent to Yarvin. Compact magazine has a strong conservative Catholic streak and I don't always agree but they've definitely nailed this one. The author, Michael Lind, has always seemed sensible to me.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/against-the-eugenicons/

Really fascinating article, thanks. Lind is right to identify the deep disconnect between Christianity and the eugenicons. The one teaches that we should care for the vulnerable; the other thinks that the vulnerable are a kind of pollutant, to be dealt with accordingly.

Lind also does an excellent job of exposing eugenicon pseudoscience, but there’s actually an even quicker way to take them down. Even if my neighbour has double my IQ, why should I entrust my assets to him? He has no inbuilt reason not to exploit me: placing him in control of my life might well multiply my suffering, and that of my dependents, rather than lessen it. And whatever the differences between us, we have an equal capacity to suffer. The hard-right never bring any evidence that they are motivated to improve the lives of others. This, in itself, should disqualify their claim to power.

It is in our hands, true, but without decent childcare and elder care (at the minimum), mothers have one hand gaffer-taped behind their backs. Deciding (as I did) to be a SAHM in an economy the heavily penalises couples who try to share the load is hardly a free choice. It’s a survival-move.

Thank you : exactly, while I have strong disagreements with aspects of conservative Christianity, the role Christianity serves in urging care for the weakest is incredibly important. I normally dislike Justin Welby, but his intervention on the dangerously vague assisted dying Bill before it got watered down was valuable.

I hope the positive aspects of Christianity can serve as a buffer against these kinds of ideas taking root. This article on the so-called 'post religious right' is interesting.

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2024/8/5/is-there-a-post-religious-right-on-the-horizon

That said, while Vance & his orthobros/theobros may not be as loathsome as the eugenicists, I don't think they're good news either- not really the kind of Christians needed. I'd also note the 80s Religious Right were arguably often NOT a compassionate influence: see tolerance for televangelists & prosperity gospel stuff, not to mention horrible attitudes to AIDS victims.

Yes, of course some people won't have a choice. But when you're talking about relatively high earners with kids in private school etc then I believe many could've got by with a few sacrifices but just chose to prioritise household income instead.

I think with less wealthy couples there's less likely to be a choice for one partner to not work, so when you see somebody talking about how they chose not to return to work I'm thinking it's probs more a lifestyle choice than anything else - and who can blame them rallying.

Clearly, the more money you have, the more choices you have. But even for high earners, there are “cold spots” where care is very hard to organise, even if you’re ready to pay. School-age children need to be cared for before and after the school day, but not during: the options for this kind of coverage are very limited, without one or other parent curtailing their working hours. Then there are half terms, inset days, the inevitable sick-days. Giving up on work altogether might look like a lifestyle choice, but is it? Lots of people manage the juggle, but many are broken by it, too. The charity “Pregnant Then Screwed” has some good case-studies.

Elder care meanwhile can run into thousands of pounds per week - well beyond the means even of the wealthy.

Unfashionable opinion incoming: I think that more women than men do enjoy being in a caring role. I don’t think that they enjoy losing their ability to earn, however. Nor, when pension poverty hits, the consequences.