What Mary is sharing is so important! Growing up as an immigrant to the West, I found myself torn between my Eastern traditional values and Western 'feminist' ideas, which I was never able to reconcile. It made things awkward for me around dating, and though I couldn't 'overcome' my Eastern values despite being made to feel I should, I could see that they protected me from so much heartache. Mary's sense-making here is leading me to a lot of Aha! moments. It is so orienting to have the distinction made between the feminism of Care and the feminism of Freedom. As a working mother of teens, I finally have language for the tension that I feel in wanting to be there for my kids while also feeling both the pressure to be as well as the benefit of being an independent, working woman. This new, systemic view on women's history is helping me to name what I really want as a woman: the dignity that traditional values afford me balanced with the agency to speak for myself. Let this be the beginning of a movement!!!!
The most interesting thought for me was the effect of the pill. Rather than structuring society and work in a way that accommodates women’s natural cycles and childbearing years, it’s structured in a way that women are forced to rely on a biomedical intervention to be productive participants in society. 🤔
To be fair, women don't * have * to take the pill, and never did. They just have to abstain from s*, and could then still be "productive participants" in the workplace by not falling pregnant. They were never forced to use biomedical interventions, they just wanted to have s* and not be popping out kids every time.
Hardly! Firstly, raising children IS being a productive participant in society. Secondly, women who are determined to be 'productive participants in society' and don't want to use the pill can abstain from sex, or use other methods of birth control, or engage in sex practices other than penile/vaginal.
@@jrd33 yes I should say if a woman wants to engage with society on the same terms as a man than an intervention is needed. If you are happy to admit that you are different from a man, then there are options and alternatives. And yes raising children is productive and important but at least where I live women who chose to stay at home are views as backward and second class 🤷🏻♀️
Mary Harrington has always been my favourite columnist on UnHerd and this interview really cemented that. I met Harrington briefly after an event in London: she seems like a thoughtful caring person in real life. Freddie conducted a wonderful interview. The history of women's work and Harrington's unique perspective on it were fascinating. With respect to modern days, she is prepared to reveal the negative realities attached to (supposed) progressivism, and defends them in the most nuanced way. Thank you Mary, Freddie and UnHerd! Frances (Perth, Australia)
At around 49 minutes Mary and Freddie perfectly contrast the "feminism of care" with the "feminism of freedom". Freddie seems shocked that the "feminism of freedom" could be a bad deal for women. He argues, or plays devils advocate, that women can't/shouldn't withhold casual sex from uncommitted men. Mary is right that it is a powerful thing for women to withhold sex.
Coming from an emotional place (and in a respectful way) I LOVE THIS AMAZING WOMAN. Also a progressive in the early 2000s, then changed, her 'story' resonates 100%. Can't get enough of her. Thank you for this interview.
Mary reminds me of one friend of mine who, when she had a child, told me that "no one knows what real love is until they have a child". I don't have children, but unlike my friend, I understood the value of interconnectedness and accepted sacrifice as part of close relationships very early in my life. She never felt she should or was willing to sacrifice for anyone else. She even told me that she wouldn't be able to look after her mother in law the way I looked after mine. She never looked after kids of other members of her family, before she had her own. I did. My friend didn't know love until she had a child - but that doesn't mean no one can know love without having a child. What "nuked" Mary's world view, was that for the first time in her life she loved someone. That's what love is, when someone else becomes a part of you in a way that is beyond your control. I realise that motherly love is different to an extent, more animalistic, it plays on our own survival instinct. But when we deeply love humans or animals, we use the same hormones, the same chemical and emotional mechanisms - we're not equipped with a separate set of those specifically for loving our children.
Thank you for writing this. It's such a good summary. :) Yes, it's hard to know what love is when you don't have a distinct mixture of experiencing and not experiencing it. And it's sometimes hard to know whether others know or not. It's true of so many other words, but that's part of what learning is about, without getting lost in a deluge of words: being able to identify feelings with the appropriate description and, hopefully, the opportunities to do that, safely!
My father used to say that and I HATED it. All people deserve love, not just children, and if you cannot feel love until you have your own child, then you have psychological issues and are probably also using your child as an emotional crutch.
@@blackswan4486 I think there are people who love no one apart from their children - but even that chemically enhanced love for one's offspring tends to fade when the children grow up and become more separate beings. It's kind of sad.
A very refreshing interview which covered many areas I’ve thought about but feared to discuss. Mary goes a bit far for me in some areas but she made some points which I found powerful. I know quite a number of women of my own age (about 60) who I believe were ultimately ill-served by contraception in that they spent, in some cases, ten or more fertile years with a man who was never forced to reach a decision and make a commitment, and who eventually left them, and as a result they never had children. It is hard to ask such a woman (and harder still perhaps for them to think about) whether they would have liked to be mothers but I’m pretty sure some of them missed out. She also made such a powerful point about men-only environments (very far short of Freddie’s caricature of boardrooms or gentlemen’s clubs) which have just vanished. I ran a scout troop for 5 years when it was still allowed to be all male. Most of the boys were brought by mothers desperate for a place where it was ok for them to play rough games, light fires, have adventures and blow off some energy; just for a couple of hours a week. They loved it (the boys and the mothers) and it was a great place to raise with the boys questions of how men should behave and what kind of attitudes are acceptable and good in society. Tragically the scouts decided the modern thing to do was to become mixed and that, legally, is a one way decision; thus the last all male space in society was lost. I have also for ten years run father and son adventures on a sailing ship. Again, this is not lifelong segregation by sex, just one chance for boys to be boys and to get to know their dads (not through circle time on scatter cushions but by spending a night in a bivouac or climbing a mast together) before it is too late. One of the most interesting observations was how much less showing off and bad behaviour happened when girls were absent. It was a chance for boys to explore their masculinity in a positive and uncompetitive way and in the presence of a range of male role models.
When I was studying law in Scotland for a year in the mid 2000s (I'm from NYC), not a big drinker, I had culture shock at the amount of drinking and the crazy pub/bar/nightclub culture I encountered. And there were NO CAFES or non-alcoholic places to go to after 5pm in the evening. If you didn't want to be around drinkers and smokers (I hate snooker/pool halls) you had no place to go, not even on campus. One day, an African student invited me to visit the local mosque off campus that international Muslim students would attend. When I got there, I saw many redhaired, blue eyed Scottish teenagers hanging out with their Arab and South Asian friends. Curious, I spoke to one young guy who I knew was Scottish on why he converted. He told me the initial reason was he wanted to break the cycle of alcoholism and debauchery that existed in his family and social circles, but later he found it was really nice to be in an ALL MALE environment, without the expectation of dealing with girls that is now everywhere. Spiritual reasons were tertiary.
In Australia we have community Men's Sheds, to combat male loneliness. They are where men can go and use power tools and work together on joint projects. And on a practical level if your lawnmower breaks down you have access to tools and the knowledge of other men. I think the UK could really benifit from a program like that, perhaps the US too, though I've never been there. I went to a girl's only highschool and I also advocate for same sex highschools. I don't think it's historically natural, or good for young adolescents to be forced to spend all day together. In my country girl's schools had affiliation with boys school's and vice versa. We would meet up on supervised occassions to work on joint projects, or at organised dinner dance's and movie nights. The level of respect we showed each other just didn't exist in co-ed schools. The whole trans disruption makes same sex schools difficult recently ofcourse.
I'm much (much) older than both of you, and it has been a long time, since I have heard such a strong feminist way of being. The "no sex" before an established commitment by both parts. I don't even insist on "marriage" because some of the most successful "marriages" are personal honest commitments.
I just can't in good conscience let that comment ride. You make a vow before family friends that you will remain committed through thick and thin. I just don't see how saying oh sure we have a personal commitment. And the stats just do not bear it out sorry
@@anthonygoodman48 Stats to not bear it out that making a public statement will hold you to a commitment. Whereas if you commit to yourself, you have to be a sorry being that does not respect your own commitment, just a matter of opinion.
@@anthonygoodman48 I can't "in good conscience" let your comment ride. A marriage -- in whatever form it takes -- is to your partner. The commitment and promises you make are to your partner. It is not a performance. Those promises are not made more real whether they're witnessed by a thousand people or none. Having an audience is completely beside the point. The only reason the audience came about was because marriages typically required a blessing or seal of approval by either a religious or civil authority, all of which is wholly insignificant in the context of the sincerely made promise. It seems as though you think you need the strength of others to keep your promises. Maybe you should consider that. Do you only keep your promises because other people would see if you failed to keep your promises? If that's the case, then perhaps you just shouldn't make any promises?
A Yoga Mindset 11 minutes ago It's very easy to think abstractly about the world when you're a young, single and idealistic modern woman. You have spent years filling your head up with nonsense , feeling angry at the world, not understanding why it is that you're clashing with it all the time. You wind up thinking "its them" that's the problem, so you get even more angry and try again. It isn't until you're grounded in reality through being a mother that you realise that was all utter B.S. I agree with Mary in that there is no such a thing as progress. What there is is only change. My advice to young women is to not sleep with anyone you wouldn't want to marry. That would significantly reduce your s3×ual encounters with men.
It's very refreshing to hear someone talk so honestly about themselves and excepting that we all change in lots of different ways as we grow older. It does seem to me that a big problem with a lot of people is that their intelligence out strips their maturity, so they come up with interesting ideas, preconceptions and ideals, but it's subjective, totally relating to themselves, they don't have the maturity to realise that the rest of the world might have a different agenda!
Mary's input resolves so much about cognitive dissonance between men and women in the 2020s. I would love to hear her and Heather Heying discuss this further
Oh my god my heart just stopped. 😂 Mary + Heather feel like Aunties to me, or like my favorite teachers in school. Those two and Louise Perry… these are the “feminists proper” and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
This could have also been called "the curious story of a woman wrestling with mother nature and father time, and discovering that she was always outnumbered".
The Wife of Bath is a good example of a liberated woman of the 1300s but let's not forget the women who provided for Jesus out of their own means, including Joanna whose husband was in Herod's service. Can't imagjne the fight those 2 would have had over the dinner table. She sure went her own way.
Mary, God bless you! I am spreading your interview here far and wide. Freddie is commended too for asking the hard questions. I completely support everything that Mary is suggesting. I started to embrace such logic when I became a Catholic in 2013. It is refreshing to hear Mary rephrase this is a secular way. (I turned 17, was in my senior of high school, when Roe v. Wade was decided...to put my brief comment here in some kind of context.)
At the moment of my comment, Mary is on a press junket for her new book. Unfortunately it seems mostly "conservative" media that interviews her, which rather flattens the diligence, compassion and humor that clearly exemplifies her thinking. She often ends up shoehorned into the cartoon of "angry feminist, has baby, goes tradwife", where she clearly colors well outside those lines. In fact her most devastating blows, it seems to me, are directed at the (de)evolution of classical liberalism into the logic of the hyper techno marketplace, (sex and gender being but one of it's feedstocks), something free market libertarian conservatives cherish rather slavishly. This interview is excellent as it offers some genuine steel man counters that get to the nuance of her critique.
So, Mary is obviously absolutely brilliant. She has a great analytical and critical mind and is presenting great thoughts, ideas, views, takes on a lot of topics I've honestly never even thought to think about. That said, I think Mary is also a bit of an extremist. She was extreme in the way she embraced progressiveness when she was young and quite extreme in the way she is now embracing this thought pathway. That is not a criticism, it's just my observation. I loved listening to Mary and she really made me reflect and consider the topics she was talking about. I may even buy her book.
She was literally trying to force being normal on herself, whilst in the background, unbeknownst to Mary, the processes for this top level change were already well underway.
Love this conversation. Somehow feels like each generation is buuing into some illusion that makes them self their sole and go away from their family. I was a believe in CAREER and realised in my 30s it's nonsence. Most people have Jobs, very few have careers. And what is a career? Anyway, truth and meaning is in the simple things. Hope after all these years it's possible to learn and be satisfied in the safety and simplicity of intimate relations, where interdependency is accepted and welcomed. ♥️🌷
I'm male, single and 65. There's a gang of us - it's great fun...I was married to a feminist, I think she hated me deep down. I feel sorry for women - they've been conned.
I am Australian and fifty years ago when I was a little girl I watched as in my mind the feminists stole my future as a woman. All I'd wanted was to fall in love and get married like the movies on TV. But instead I was told that was no good anymore. We needed to go on the pill and go to work. Which is what Mum did. So then I was a little latch door kid, with cleaning and ironing and little siblings to care for. The only reason I guess the got from that was the only way to really liberate little girls from feminism was to abort them, or not have kids at all. I rebelled. I was always a straight A student. But every time teachers tried to encourage me into further study I kept saying I just wanted to get married and have a family. And it did happen just that way. I got married at 17 and now I have lots of gkids.
@@Pyasa.shaitanThat is one of the best comments I've read. I agree. Feminism has always been elite women and greedy governments and corporations. Never really in the interest of women, men, and least of all children.
Turnabout is fairplay...once the generation of men raised with the old chivalry are dead & gone & the ethnic demographic shift has tilted it's going to get very interesting for women young & old, (but especially unnattached to a man), in Chinese proverbial way.
Whomever replied & whatever you've said, this digispace's overlord has hidden it from me, (perhaps if you @ me it may make a difference). Btw if I could wish this impending future away I would, but absent that I can only prepare my daughters for it as best I can and enjoy the small warm & bitter pleasures of deserving people getting what's coming to them and fearfully hold to the belief that cosmic justice is ultimately enacted.
Very relieved that she does not take the stand that abortion should be illegal in this society, which I would think a very irresponsible stance. I’m interested in this woman’s ideas, and feel my own brand of feminism is probably more aligned with her than most other feminist thinkers. I would, however not consider myself reactionary nor conservative, but more oriented towards an grounded experience of being a human woman, and of the opinion that the world should have appreciation for the immense contribution of women have when we live in line with out nature rather than ideals others impose.
I have heard this in multiple contexts: males occupy formal establishment structures, while women dominate informal structures. I don't think it is incidental that this differentiation plays to each sexes strengths.
I need help in understanding something. By defining yourself as gay, lesbian, binary, non-binary, trans, etc. - isn't that just telling people "this is how I have sex"? I know within each group there's probably a whole list of cultural differences and values, but as someone who is on the outside, I couldn't imagine going around telling people I was heterosexual because that would tell people really nothing about me. Nothing really fundamentally important. I think by defining people basically on how they have sex, we lose track of what connects us all, our humanity. I'm open to being educated, however.
absolutely right with the last bit. the woke are using sexuality as political identities. that's where your blind spot is it seems. Also, they ignore that id is something created socially, not subjectively (by proclamation, or word magic )
True...its similar to nationality. Ive travelled a lot all over the world and stating nationality doesn't really tell me anything about the person. Even in small families the differences are big....my brother is totally different than me in nearly every aspect...height, salary, taste in music, dress sense, humour, diet....
@@nickbrennan3389 True, but at least when you know someone's nationality it can be used for having an interesting conversation about their culture. I can't imagine this being applied to the situation where someone tells me their sexuality 😐
There is a lot of hidden information is "I'm a lesbian". For example 1. I am tolerant or positive about alternative sexualities 2. I am sexually attracted to (some) women and may be open to sexual approach or flirting by women 3. I do not want to be approached by men with sexual intent.
“To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.””
MEN TALKING WITH MEN Listening to this interview was much more interesting than I thought it would be. Compared to the usual, I expected an only slightly less programmatic and arrogant spokesperson of feminism. Instead, I met a real person with real experience and real concerns. Being a man, I particularly appreciated the “invitation” (or “permit”) to men to talk with men. Men should long have done that, and ideally by their own initiative and drive. Instead, men have one-sidedly given way to and applauded the other, advancing sex. There are quite a few things men could talk with men about. Like the women, we could talk about family, sex and relationships - but based on the experience and perspective of men. However, we would not as quickly as women (?) jump into such private issues. We are (more?) competitive. So, fairness in work-life and in the broader society could be a better first theme. We want to compete with each other, and with women, but preferably within a framework of fairness. What would that look like? And what is masculinity? Among other things, I will suggest: clarity and borders - borders surrounding individuals as well as collective bodies in society, and also surrounding societies in the broader world. Integrity and respect - I am sure you have “heard of it”. How was the INTEGRITY of our health authorities during the Covid pandemic? Is the West able to strike a RESPECTFUL deal with Russia? You may see a lack of masculinity in our culture. Men should be the first agents of masculinity; women may join. Having discussed the above and many other issues, men would be ready to meet women. Women would no longer have to struggle with the futile project of trying to be a sex - alone.
Enjoyed this interview after having read pieces on Unherd. I agree with her about sheds, having just taken down a couple of delapidated ones I am grateful for still one to potter in; also agree men should be able to congregate together if they want to although my experience of all male environments has made me appreciate the mixed company of women.
It's mighty generous of feminists to allow men the shed - the pinnacle of masculine ambition. Careful though, don't spoil us. We might get carried away, and want to have our shed and eat it too..
I skipped quite a lot of this because Mary covered it all in her recent Triggernometry interview. but she is never less than compelling. And she always seems to have a complete understanding of the many trends etc that simply bemuse the rest of us.
I thought Triggernometry interview was much better, but the introduction in this one complemented what I learned earlier. So both are good. I still think that Konstantin and Francis managed to connect with Mary better than Freddy did.
Mary, imo, is being very patient with Mark, who seems horrified at the idea of restricted sexual access and wants to compare it to theological belief, when in fact Mary's argument is a biological one. Very interesting Convo :) edited to replace 'Mark' with Freddie, lol
Not sure what century she has lived in. I’m 77 and all I can remember of my mother, grandmother and relatives was that most of the women had shit lives. Dominated by aggressive, abusive and arrogant men who thought most women belonged in the kitchen. The men dented sex every Friday night and the women just kept on dropping babies while the men got pissed in the pub. She has a very rose tinted idea of what life was really like, it was mostly hell for women unless they were rich in which case they could feel a bit better surrounding themselves with luxury and stuff. Completely mad ideas about sex, the pill and abortion. I went through terrible traumas with my girlfriend in the early 60s when she became pregnant and we had to find an abortion. To tell young people how n a free society not to have sex is like going back to some kind of fundamentalist regime which I’m sure she won’t want to live under. To suggest that we should not have parity in the board room etc is to deny the ability of women who bring so much to any enterprise. Unfortunately, she poses a very well articulated and intelligent sounding argument, however, it’s completely flawed by her own ferocious reactionary attitudes. Thanks for the insight though.
That's purely a personal experience..doesn't mean a jot..my parents are the same age as you...still married..5 happy kids..no violence ever between them
She uses 1450 as a model, not 1950. I think some nuance is missing in this talk, but I agree with some of your overall criticism of the views as they are articulated in this interview.
I'm 61 and I don't know on which planet your female relatives lived to have such "shitty lives,beaten by husbands who then went to a pub to get wasted". No one in my family in 4 generations ever went to a pub or beat his wife EVER,and I'm from the Balkans. And your whole "construction" about the pill and its consequenties lacks any understanding or empathy towards women suffering emotionaly from casual sex. Also insistance on 50% female representation always includes boardrooms only,never coalmines or draft. Not to mention that "affirmative actions" of any kind ALWAYS produce poorer overall quality of specialised organisations. Are we gonna choose surgeons,pilots,scientist on their gender or on their quality?
Doesn't seem like you've listened. She's talking about the autonomy that women lost post-industrialism and how all feminism labelled as such was in response to that; the loss of work that accommodated our being and biology. How all productive work being taken outside of the home robbed women and made them more dependent. She builds this argument starting in the Middle Ages. You're talking about the 50s and 60s.
She is speaking from a more systemic point, and less anecdotally. I can assure you from the science/numbers side she is correct, if only somewhat gynocentric, which isn't surprising as a fem.
Abortion to preserve autonomy of the putative mother only works if she is childless. Some women with children will want abortions for other reasons. Just a point, I generally welcome and value Mary's views. Edit: thinking about it more, this seems like Mary's tendency to abstraction sometimes (ironic given her thesis), and I can absolutely imagine her in her earlier, postmodern stage
I'd argue the opposite of Mary's hypothesis, "Progress is bad for Women." On the face of it, it fails to acknowledge we all have agency - the ability to make decisions to change our lives. Since the beginning of time, women's bodies have always been a commodity. Women's progress started from the bottom and has been helped from the top. If you consider the world society, not only western civilization, we women can and have gotten on and off the technology treadmill. It has improved many lives. Don't put down those who have chosen differently. I, for one, will never want to retreat to a bygone era where women couldn't vote, get an education, receive equal pay, own property, have healthcare, break the glass ceiling, drive, and only be chattel. In more simple terms, I wouldn't give up vaccines, dishwashers, washing machines, refrigerators, or microwaves. Yes, we have a long way to go in many areas, but we can't lose the progress we've achieved for a small narrow focus that doesn't consider how progress has helped ALL women. We must continue educating women and men to improve themselves in society so they know they have choices. Retreating a bygone era isn't the answer. If a few want to or can throwback or retreat, ok, but don't present progress as unfavorable for all women.
I have always felt that woman where the glue of society. Since they went to work outside their house, during the industrial revolution, the smallest union of a society, the family’s union, was broken somehow. This rippled through society.
Which is fine unless you don't want to be glue. I'm 58, been in the haulage industry all manliness. Hate home making and children. Never wanted to be married. Comfortable round men being nen. Grateful I live at a time where I've had a choice.
@@blackswan4486 yes. But promiscuity curbs male interest in women long term. For more reasons than one. It is all of our duty, but if there truly aren’t suitable women for long term relationships, and they themselves favor short term excitement, what is my role in this? Should I force them to want a long term relationship and change their view from thinking children are just a massive obstacle to their career and happiness? Or is it a societal problem that is much deeper than you, I and these guests combined?
@@nickthompson1812 why just women? You realize if had a sexual men are having sex then that means a woman is having sex also, and vice versa. You can’t have virgin women and no virgin men.
"I've no idea what men do..." We talk rubbish, take the piss out of each other and argue about sport. That's all there is to it love. We're simple animals at heart.
Especially the taking the piss out of each other bit. Male friendships, certainly British ones, are all about trying to entertain each other and make your mates laugh. Piss taking being a part of that but the humour is essential.
If we did not have positive discrimination towards women in the boardroom, but rather a elevated estimation of women’s work in more traditional sense,I imagine we could come a long way. If women as mothers and grandmothers could gain appraisal for doing that job well, then a feminine politician could assent to power. Not to criticize the female politicians that are now in their positions, but it seems women who would succeed in a workplace modeled on male attributes have to also attain some male attributes to be counted in those systems, and although women occupy positions of power, they are seldom able to use their feminine attributes in those positions.
Power whether political or business etc attracts psychopaths whether functional or clinical... The traits of a psychopath are the opposite of the typical feminine associated traits and involve the negative range of hyper masculine traits. There are ofc female psychopaths (and toxic females) but few and far between in the masculine expression of psychopathy. It is no wonder that most women do not generally desire or function on par in that elite space.
I agree with some of her points but, she states the obvious with plenty of words...and then stumbles when put on the spot. She makes a strong point, then when asked more detail adds all kinds of conditions and, "don't listen to me." She has basically said nothing new of real importance.
A very brave and independent thinker ❤. I applaud Mary. I still think that we gained with the technological progress in absolute terms, at least because every born baby has much much higher chance of survival, much better quality of care and medicine. I’m not all convinced that women working in the fields under the sun, wind or rain had any easier time looking after their babies while working at the same time compare to the same challenges while working in industries. Vast majority of them chose to move to factory jobs for better earnings leaving their peasant life behind. Though if course, no new stage of progress is usually problem free, I still don’t think many would prefer to go back in time. And absolutely , happy committed relationship provides much better sex than a casual one. Thank you very much for a very interesting conversation.
S woman who had her 90 birthday. Surrounded by five generations. Over a hundred people all from her. All her descendents. Gratefully for her, loved by them, respected. No one nor she gave a dam about her "career".
She is very lucky she made it till 90. Many women of her generation, died in labour, leaving their children orphans. Like my grandmother who died giving birth, when my mother was just 2 years old. Until very recently being pregnant meant potentially losing one's life. It still means that for women in countries where abortion is illegal. Also there are so many old mothers in nursing homes, I have a friend who worked in one, she told me about a lady who said this to her: Don't get me wrong, I love my children. But if I could turn back time, I wouldn't have them.
@@frusia123 being pregnant still means risking one's life. Life is a risky business. Perhaps you drove a car today, walked up a flight of stairs or crossed the road.
I've literally had no blood family for 30 years now and my partner died 10 years ago. Im 58 and happy with that. I just don't like children at all, no point having them just to have someone to look after you when you getold.
We, the children, and our children, the grandchildren feel that my mother's career is something that made our entire family better. Very proud of my mother for that.
It would have been interesting if her own childhood and relationships during that time was explored more because it shaped her to an extent and caused her to be lost all of those years.
This is my 4th listen to Ms Harrington. I'm a male left of center. She is speaking by understanding, metamodernism. It parallels in ways a line of thinking I've always acknowledged it has been weird listening to folks talk about their sexuality in commoditzed terms. I never gained the ability. Another way she speaks truth is to were power goes on unacknowledged. This analysis dovetails with what I've learned studying complexity science. Ways of seeing past hierarchies towards what are constraints and modulators of systems lay. This how nature works and has been freeing for my mind.
I live in Greece part of the year. It is still true here there are distinct spheres for both men and women. Certainly men still know how to be ‘men’ while women have not lost touch with their femininity. Zorba the Greek situations for women are (largely) history … as far as this British male can see.
I'll say. On average, women in the West fare better than men in nearly every area relevant to well-being: in longevity, health, health care spending even after accounting for reproductive and maternal care; in education, homelessness, violent crime victimization, drug addiction, alcoholism, and preferential treatment in sentencing throughout the criminal justice system. Also, In the most comparable cohort, childless men and women ages 20 through 40, women outearn men $1.08 for every $1.00 earned. Feminism makes no effort whatsoever to remediate any of those advantages, somehow, despite claiming 'feminism is good for men, too!'
Starting in 9th grade girls should have a once a month class on how to track your period/cycle. You do not need a birth control pill or IUD. You just need an app. I've tracked mine for 20 years (since before apps) and it's just autopilot for me now. Easy.
I love you, Mary Harrington, for giving a voice to all of us feminists who also recognize what women have lost, what women need, and what could make women's lives happier.
I think it's ridiculous that Harrington has set feminism of care versus feminism of freedom as a dichotomy and you have to choose one over the other. I am a feminist. I know tons of women who are feminists and mothers. Isn't the whole point of feminism that women should have a "choice." Maybe in Mary Harrington's world you have to choose one or the other, but I don't know anyone in the real world who does that. What if you have a child and your husband buggers off and you have to work to care from your family. What feminist political ideology as described by her defines that woman? What if a woman has a career and is advancing and then she decides to have a child, she spends time at home, then later decides to write a novel and go on book tours and does interviews. Does she neatly fit into one classification? Of course not. Just because Mary Harrington had a child does not mean that all of feminist, or even female, history has to be re-evaluated. Ten years from now when her daughter is a teenager and can't stand her guts, she'll be proposing another answer for the ages.
What many don’t understand is that “choice” is now decided for you by capitalism. She can explain to her daughter than capitalism doesn’t let you choose if there is money to be made. Now women are good little consumers, tax payers, and home owners/renters. There’s money to be made and feminism directly plays into it. Maybe I should be happy, my income is 100% from the market at the moment 😅
I still wonder if advocating for no sex before marriage would rush people to get married for the wrong reason. (E.g lust not love). No sex before authentic connection and genuine respect for the other makes more sense to me. The most common intention of sex in modern times is not to create offspring, but to experience pleasure. I agree with Mary’s point that sex is typically more enjoyable for a woman when intimacy has been established. I’m definitely not into the hookup culture, but « no sex before marriage » seems too extreme. I also find it disheartening, as someone who would have loved to have children but did not, this age old idea that having a child is the be all and end all of a women’s existence. Maybe that’s not what Mary’s saying. I think there are a lot of people that have children for the wrong reason, and they continue to live selfishly as a parent. There are also people who don’t have children, who come to understand one consciousness and the illusion of separateness through other life experiences. Where true equality lies, I believe, is in understanding we (humans) are all sharing a human experience, irregardless of sex/gender/race/religion/ or whatever other identity classification we attach to.
i find it hard to reconcile that she seems to have very conservative views yet is vehemently against banning abortion (and the host too is very keen to stress that, as if even the thought of it is some kind of heresy). Then it occurred to me that she's coming at it from a 'feminist' point of view, even though she's not a regular feminist. her only interest is whether banning abortion will harm some women at this point (yet based on her own line of argument, it could help many women as well, cos both women and men would be weary of casual sex, and particularly unprotected sex-abortion actually promotes unprotected sex, as many young ppl use it as a form of birth control). she doesn't seem to care much about the harm that it causes babies or getting into the argument of 'personhood' of a fetus. so, even though her line of argument looks attractive for a conservative, it too is narcissistic. it's not borne out of genuine care for the unborn or the society at large. it is only based on what's in it for women. it just an alternative kind of feminist sexism that only values female well being over all else. bottom line is you cannot expect someone who only looks out for one gender, in whatever shape or form, to not be sexist and exploitative of other genders and other human beings (including children).
Had a surprising amount of emotional reactions to this interview. As a grandmother, I can categorically state that having children was the most rewarding thing I've ever done, exciting career notwithstanding. However to go back to a time when women were not in control of their own birth control (and then to take away abortion) is absolutely a retrograde step. Mary's husband and these other "natural birth control" husbands may be responsible men but so many others are not, and it's always the woman left holding the baby. In a world where shame is no longer effective in coercing men into doing "the right thing", women are likely to be abandoned with the consequences. I suspect in a decade or so Mary will have rethought her current proposal, just as she's realised the folly of her twenties.
"may be responsible men but so many others are not, and it's always the woman left holding the baby" - But don't you think that's because society allows them to be irresponsible? I believe Mary has said shotgun weddings as a practice virtually disappeared after the pill, because society now thinks "If she got pregnant, that's up to HER." So of course men are let off the hook to be fathers, because society stopped being rigid about the necessity of a man who fathered the child absolutely needing to marry the woman and stick around and perform the roll of father.
@@L_Martin potentially that's what's happened, but the genie is out of the bottle. You're never going to get shame to work like that again because men and women are generally far more shameless than previous generations. The anonymity of the internet has contributed to that. Unless we have a collapse of civilization and go back to a pre-industrial society I think personal responsibility for a whole raft of things is pretty much lost.
She is taking this stance because the pill has many side effects. It can be harmful to women. So if it is harming women then it's not a successful contraceptive solution.
This woman talks such incredible good sense, I am humbled to listen to her. The knowledge that we have lost due to the loss of Christian education has wreaked havoc upon our society. Just knowing these things is transformative. This woman though is very pragmatic, she realizes the realities we face also, and is sensitive to what is the right way to proceed. But of course there had to be the inevitable 'Freddie-isms', here are some of his clangers : He says she was 'enamoured' with her new way of life - hardly the right word for what she is describing which is of a high moral and truth value - 'enamoured' does not exactly comport with that too well, but its Freddie I guess, what can we expect. He compared the ability in medieval times of women to publicly expose miscreants within the community and thereby shame them (despite their not having 'rights' as we would perceive them today) TO modern day 'cancel culture' - again attempting to lower the tone of what his guest is saying - he does it every interview. If it isn't what Prince Charles says then it's not acceptable because Prince Charles owns all the land - that's pretty much Freddie's mentality. After his summarizing of what she said, she replied that she needed to 'finesse' his analysis - a polite way of rebutting his club-footed and offensive Prince Charles style interpretations. Freddie's job is to sound out the 'common people' to see what they are thinking, and to assess their threat to the landowners hegemony. No matter how much logos and reason his guests display he must always ultimately remind them that they don't own the land and they can be kicked off it any time the landowners choose.
Mary's thinking is truly thought provoking. My thinking crosses paths with hers in many many spaces, but not in plenty others. Maybe the one thing missing from Mary's analysis is "coupledom" as the assumption, versus pre-civilisation EVOLUTIONARILY living humans who were NOT one-on-one mated, because humans lived as groups, groomed as a group, ate as a group, slept as a group, sexed as a group, and paternity was simply not known until nuclear family living was invented in western civilisations some 7000 years ago. Comparing "today" to "medieval times" is much too short a lens. In pre-civilisation times, "the pill" wasn't needed because female fertility was actually very low! Seasonal amenorrhoea was prevalent, and the males were simply frequently away from camp. And even for those who did become pregnant, miscarriage and neonate death and childhood deaths before age 5 were huge, so women living as a group raised a few kids as a group, and there weren't cases of 10-15 kids per woman as the Catholic church espoused, because those who did become mothers breastfed until teething, which kept their fertility much lower. Comparisons to a few centuries ago are really comparing to a ridiculous time in history. What we need to compare is "civilisation vs pre-civilisation" (or nurture vs nature).
I find it shattering that a (well deserved) critique on blatant individualism is nowadays made out of a self-identified as conservative, and ...reactionary perspective. This is even more unsettling if you consider that many of her arguments do make sense and are honest, if seen independently of what they build up to... I am all for relationships. Should they be patriarchal though? The traditional patriarchal marriage? And chastity before marriage? Is that the only way to have committed and/or meaningful relationships? Is that the only way to have and/or raise kids and to have a kid friendly culture? Is that the only way to cherish some sort of interdependence between people? Should we not explore other ways? /// I happen to be transexual. I was born this way , it is no "lifestyle" choice -plus, I am strongly disinterested in getting into any company boards (whether by some quota or otherwise). Is there a place for people like me in your paradigm, Mary Harrington, you brilliant ....reactionary feminist? Or is it just conversion therapy into cisness or get thrown in some ditch, for us? /// That said, we are the same age, we are of the same generation, I can relate to quite a few of the things she says, which leaves me even more bewildered. I actually think I, quite genuinely, like her... Perhaps I can still see that old boy Sebastian in her... (which she can't -or doesn't want to, any more). It is just a pity that her whole logic seems to work up to giving me (and people like me -and, yep, Sebastian too) the boot...
Freddy at being a information facilitating interviewer. ... My first rewatch of unherd after moving away after Freddy's poor performance with the Jeffrey sacks interview. ... However, she came to it, Mary seems to be a coherent, informative explainer. Thank you both.
Thank you for interviewing Mary. I think she's brilliant. Her no sex outside marriage stance is on the same thread as Jordan Peterson's stance. I actually agree to a certain extent but wonder how that would play out in my next relationship, wherever that is. What makes it difficult to shift back to sex within marriage is perhaps that there's no current societal memory of sex within marriage now? Both men and women(Not all) have become slightly commitment phonic and pleasure centric. To have sex within marriage is linked to a greater sense of feeling safe for women so definitely that works for women (maybe not all) but it does seem like too much pressure to wait till marriage to have sex or perhaps that's just a misconception. To change it would require changing of social norms first or perhaps just the individual. Abortion is just really sad unless it's unconsensual. I think industrialisation and modern long hours of school have made us into humans living our lives without much family. Instead of being 'owned' by spouses or families, we're owned by our bosses. Perhaps so much focus on work and especially economic work outside the household has made humans more disconnected. Modern feminism is perhaps just a reflection of current social norms and not real feminism or reactionary feminism by Mary. Don't think that we should stipulate DEI or gender balance. It's rather contrived and doesn't get to the root of the issue. The gender balance would also work out differently in every industry. If we want more gender balance, how about making more co-ed schools top-notch instead of all-boys schools? The shed concept does sound relaxing from my point of view as a woman. Haha. X
Blame contraception, but what it comes down to is cultural attitudes. The thing is, she had the choice to experiment with different relationships and jobs, had the choice to have ONE child with her husband, had the choice to pursue an education and career. She's enjoying feminist progress to the max and complaining about it at the same time.
57:37 Exactly ! This is what happens in the corporation I work. They lauched a Female Leadership Program and opend it for all empliyees who “identify” as Women. It’s ridiculous.
"No sex outside of a committed relationship." Dude keeps saying... "No sex outside of marriage." There is a clear difference. Why is he so deaf? He seems pretty suggestive in this interview and twists words into something else too much.
@@noraanderson3503 I'm not excluding the experience of motherhood; I'm including the experience of fatherhood. As a father, I totally relate to what Mary has to say about becoming a parent. At 13:15 Freddy tries to steer the discussion towards the physical aspects of motherhood (childbirth, breastfeeding), but Mary continues speaking about the experiences common to both fathers and mothers.
The admiration she gets for her discovery of motherhood is the same Jordan Peterson gets for saying men cannot be women and vice-versa. How brilliant and brave, right. She reminds me of some women from my youth who always bugged me because I wasn't enough of a feminist for them. And then they discover what women have known since the beginning of time and they bug you again how you are too much of a feminist, and that you don't get it again. Enough.
Haha, Freddie stumped with bio men identifying as women. Freddie under estimating the competitiveness of men. Modern dating has shown how men adapt to the rules imposed by women.
Thank you for your recent article on excruciating Drew Barrymore. If psychoanalysis is of interest, enough to include it in your greatly appreciated writing, I recommend psychoanalyst Melanie Klein, following Freud, who had an abundance of valuable observations about the primitive, psychotic, preverbal, preoedipal murderous rage fantasies (phantasies) in infants towards the mother. The reason we might leave certain Freudian theories behind at this point is that society has rapidly regressed to the psychotic realm discovered by Klein in her observations of wordless infants, and enraged if not balanced by recognition of the mother who is cherished. This same person, object of love and rage, in infancy is not recognized by the baby as one and the same person. Our society has left Freud behind because the Oedipal is much more advanced than the abyss of preoedipal insanity we are plunged into.
Lastly, education is key. Women aren't second class citizens and moving forward we need to focus on education. Open everyone's mind body, and spirit to be the best person they can be without pulling society backwards in accepting antiquated morals to appease a few who are unwilling to accept progress. Educate. Educate. Educate.
@@nickbrennan3389 One can only hope people can change. Perhaps I'm too optimistic. After all humans are animals with certain tendencies that guide their behavior which is why we cured famine, poverty, crime, war and all the other ills of the world. Now, this topic threatens the progress of women. Is progress doomed? Do we roll back any gains in search of the good old days of the 1400s? If I have to remain alone in this topic, so be it. With 7 billion people on the planet and counting there are bound to be different opinions but I believe we should strive for a free, educated, independent and critical thinking, human female species who knows her own and controls her own body without weaponizing it or defaulting to use it as chattel.
@@hermitpermit2553 even though that may be true as an adult you have the ability to change that - improve your learning process. Plus education goes beyond what is taught in institutions - read. Women must talk to their daughters. Women must talk to other women. Open the dialogue. Building your value as a woman - a person. Improve self esteem. Craft your character. Shed the stereotype of victim hood. Learn to be assertive. These are just a few things that anyone but especially women need to develop and they can be done without the formal institutional education. Start looking for answers - solutions and not excuses. A Buddhist monk told me once, "We all have every second of every day to change - to improve ourselves so embrace the opportunity". I'll add that educating oneself doesn't stop once you complete your formal institutional education. Yes, there are some constraints to this but it's not impossible whether you're in a western or non western society. Keep learning. Keep thinking. Keep improving. Keep evolving. Stop being a passive participant in your life - just following along. Take a more active role. If we are truly the higher form of animal we have the ability to break away from those primal behaviors and be more - do better. History has shown us that so there's no reason to go backwards except to learn not to make those mistakes again. Enjoy the remainder of your weekend.
@@nickbrennan3389 education does help you learn and open your mind to new things, as well as to critically think and so on. I don't think she's referring to the extremely intelligent people who are usually socially awkward.
51:40 >A plea in defense of sheds >The garden shed is the minimal viable unit of male space where no scatter cushions are allowed 😂 Deep truth in this and comedic genius. Scatter cushions lol
In Australia there is an actual thing called Men's Sheds. They are a government idea to help prevent male loneliness/depression. They are community sheds where men gather to work with power tools on group projects. I don't know about scatter cushions, but many are equipped to make tea and coffee.
Everything has its pros and cons and I have had a very rich and fulfilling life without being married or having children. I have been shunned. I have had hateful things said to me and about me. From a young age I learned I couldn't have children so no pill for me but I didn't use it as a way to become promiscuous. People like Mary would not see my value or condemn my desire to have sex. This is disgraceful. Reducing women's rights back to another century isn't the answer.
I don't think that what you are saying has anything to do with what Mary is saying. What do you mean when you write that Mary wouldn't see your value? Why would you say that?
It seems to me that Mary Harrington is writing this for a very privileged audience. None of what she says resonates with me or my rural, hard knocks upbringing. This is all fine and good if you are upper middled class with loads of options and privileges, but if her vision succeeds, it would curtail the safety and wellbeing of so many women, men and children. She keep posing this as a freedom vs caring model. For me it is an agency/safety vs domination model. I can only conclude that she poses the argument this way because she comes from a privileged background. The betterment of my lower-economic rural community came out of laws protecting women and children, the availability of divorce and abortion (which was primarily used by married couples in consideration their other other offspring's wellbeing), and positive changes in the workplace for women (and men). The examples she uses of modern women are not the women I know or grew up with... it isn't rampant sex and lack of consequences. In the lower economic world everything has consequences, and good laws support women in these important life choices. The whole conversation gives me a big yuck... she said that her advice is just for some women, but the problem with that is that academic arguments filter down into laws that, in this case, harm average women who are just trying to make a better life for their children and families.
As a college nurse, I witnessed the trauma, for women, who felt peer pressured into involved in casual sex and more abortion… so sad
Those women should not give birth in the first place.
@@Pyasa.shaitan I would be happy that they are not continuing their line but a baby's death is not worth that.
Thank you! Its extremely traumatic. Killing your offspring should be.
Just try dating one of them. Talking permanent damage here.
What Mary is sharing is so important!
Growing up as an immigrant to the West, I found myself torn between my Eastern traditional values and Western 'feminist' ideas, which I was never able to reconcile. It made things awkward for me around dating, and though I couldn't 'overcome' my Eastern values despite being made to feel I should, I could see that they protected me from so much heartache.
Mary's sense-making here is leading me to a lot of Aha! moments. It is so orienting to have the distinction made between the feminism of Care and the feminism of Freedom. As a working mother of teens, I finally have language for the tension that I feel in wanting to be there for my kids while also feeling both the pressure to be as well as the benefit of being an independent, working woman.
This new, systemic view on women's history is helping me to name what I really want as a woman: the dignity that traditional values afford me balanced with the agency to speak for myself. Let this be the beginning of a movement!!!!
There's nothing wrong with you and how you feel! Just the dominant ideas in society do not take into account very important things for women
The most interesting thought for me was the effect of the pill. Rather than structuring society and work in a way that accommodates women’s natural cycles and childbearing years, it’s structured in a way that women are forced to rely on a biomedical intervention to be productive participants in society. 🤔
To be fair, women don't * have * to take the pill, and never did. They just have to abstain from s*, and could then still be "productive participants" in the workplace by not falling pregnant. They were never forced to use biomedical interventions, they just wanted to have s* and not be popping out kids every time.
Hardly! Firstly, raising children IS being a productive participant in society. Secondly, women who are determined to be 'productive participants in society' and don't want to use the pill can abstain from sex, or use other methods of birth control, or engage in sex practices other than penile/vaginal.
@@jrd33 yes I should say if a woman wants to engage with society on the same terms as a man than an intervention is needed. If you are happy to admit that you are different from a man, then there are options and alternatives. And yes raising children is productive and important but at least where I live women who chose to stay at home are views as backward and second class 🤷🏻♀️
It forced women to be consumers and tax payers
Beautifully put❤
Mary Harrington has always been my favourite columnist on UnHerd and this interview really cemented that. I met Harrington briefly after an event in London: she seems like a thoughtful caring person in real life. Freddie conducted a wonderful interview. The history of women's work and Harrington's unique perspective on it were fascinating. With respect to modern days, she is prepared to reveal the negative realities attached to (supposed) progressivism, and defends them in the most nuanced way. Thank you Mary, Freddie and UnHerd! Frances (Perth, Australia)
Me too
At around 49 minutes Mary and Freddie perfectly contrast the "feminism of care" with the "feminism of freedom". Freddie seems shocked that the "feminism of freedom" could be a bad deal for women. He argues, or plays devils advocate, that women can't/shouldn't withhold casual sex from uncommitted men. Mary is right that it is a powerful thing for women to withhold sex.
I just heard of her by accident. What a brilliant person. I am fascinated by people who change. Most of us are locked in our views. Refreshing
Coming from an emotional place (and in a respectful way) I LOVE THIS AMAZING WOMAN. Also a progressive in the early 2000s, then changed, her 'story' resonates 100%. Can't get enough of her. Thank you for this interview.
What a refreshingly beautiful open-hearted thoughtful interview. Both of you gave such care to language and ideas.
yes Mary has a way of speaking which is extremely thoughtful and a beautiful blend of ideological modesty and boldness all at once.
Thanks Freddie, for giving valuable push back to Mary as a way of bringing coherence to the dialogue.
Even though I don't hold rhe same values or opinions with him, I'm nevertheless always grateful and impressed by his inquiry skills.
Mary reminds me of one friend of mine who, when she had a child, told me that "no one knows what real love is until they have a child". I don't have children, but unlike my friend, I understood the value of interconnectedness and accepted sacrifice as part of close relationships very early in my life. She never felt she should or was willing to sacrifice for anyone else. She even told me that she wouldn't be able to look after her mother in law the way I looked after mine. She never looked after kids of other members of her family, before she had her own. I did. My friend didn't know love until she had a child - but that doesn't mean no one can know love without having a child.
What "nuked" Mary's world view, was that for the first time in her life she loved someone. That's what love is, when someone else becomes a part of you in a way that is beyond your control.
I realise that motherly love is different to an extent, more animalistic, it plays on our own survival instinct. But when we deeply love humans or animals, we use the same hormones, the same chemical and emotional mechanisms - we're not equipped with a separate set of those specifically for loving our children.
Thank you for writing this. It's such a good summary. :)
Yes, it's hard to know what love is when you don't have a distinct mixture of experiencing and not experiencing it. And it's sometimes hard to know whether others know or not.
It's true of so many other words, but that's part of what learning is about, without getting lost in a deluge of words: being able to identify feelings with the appropriate description and, hopefully, the opportunities to do that, safely!
My father used to say that and I HATED it. All people deserve love, not just children, and if you cannot feel love until you have your own child, then you have psychological issues and are probably also using your child as an emotional crutch.
@@blackswan4486 I think there are people who love no one apart from their children - but even that chemically enhanced love for one's offspring tends to fade when the children grow up and become more separate beings. It's kind of sad.
Sacrifice is the least recognized form of love. Possibly the noblest and enlightened . When extending charity and empathy, we are elevated.
@@Cloudopatra Beautifully-put, and I agree completely.
It is always interesting to see what happens when young people find out how life actually works.
A very refreshing interview which covered many areas I’ve thought about but feared to discuss. Mary goes a bit far for me in some areas but she made some points which I found powerful. I know quite a number of women of my own age (about 60) who I believe were ultimately ill-served by contraception in that they spent, in some cases, ten or more fertile years with a man who was never forced to reach a decision and make a commitment, and who eventually left them, and as a result they never had children. It is hard to ask such a woman (and harder still perhaps for them to think about) whether they would have liked to be mothers but I’m pretty sure some of them missed out.
She also made such a powerful point about men-only environments (very far short of Freddie’s caricature of boardrooms or gentlemen’s clubs) which have just vanished. I ran a scout troop for 5 years when it was still allowed to be all male. Most of the boys were brought by mothers desperate for a place where it was ok for them to play rough games, light fires, have adventures and blow off some energy; just for a couple of hours a week. They loved it (the boys and the mothers) and it was a great place to raise with the boys questions of how men should behave and what kind of attitudes are acceptable and good in society. Tragically the scouts decided the modern thing to do was to become mixed and that, legally, is a one way decision; thus the last all male space in society was lost.
I have also for ten years run father and son adventures on a sailing ship. Again, this is not lifelong segregation by sex, just one chance for boys to be boys and to get to know their dads (not through circle time on scatter cushions but by spending a night in a bivouac or climbing a mast together) before it is too late. One of the most interesting observations was how much less showing off and bad behaviour happened when girls were absent. It was a chance for boys to explore their masculinity in a positive and uncompetitive way and in the presence of a range of male role models.
When I was studying law in Scotland for a year in the mid 2000s (I'm from NYC), not a big drinker, I had culture shock at the amount of drinking and the crazy pub/bar/nightclub culture I encountered. And there were NO CAFES or non-alcoholic places to go to after 5pm in the evening. If you didn't want to be around drinkers and smokers (I hate snooker/pool halls) you had no place to go, not even on campus. One day, an African student invited me to visit the local mosque off campus that international Muslim students would attend. When I got there, I saw many redhaired, blue eyed Scottish teenagers hanging out with their Arab and South Asian friends. Curious, I spoke to one young guy who I knew was Scottish on why he converted. He told me the initial reason was he wanted to break the cycle of alcoholism and debauchery that existed in his family and social circles, but later he found it was really nice to be in an ALL MALE environment, without the expectation of dealing with girls that is now everywhere. Spiritual reasons were tertiary.
In Australia we have community Men's Sheds, to combat male loneliness. They are where men can go and use power tools and work together on joint projects. And on a practical level if your lawnmower breaks down you have access to tools and the knowledge of other men. I think the UK could really benifit from a program like that, perhaps the US too, though I've never been there.
I went to a girl's only highschool and I also advocate for same sex highschools. I don't think it's historically natural, or good for young adolescents to be forced to spend all day together. In my country girl's schools had affiliation with boys school's and vice versa. We would meet up on supervised occassions to work on joint projects, or at organised dinner dance's and movie nights. The level of respect we showed each other just didn't exist in co-ed schools. The whole trans disruption makes same sex schools difficult recently ofcourse.
I'm much (much) older than both of you, and it has been a long time, since I have heard such a strong feminist way of being. The "no sex" before an established commitment by both parts. I don't even insist on "marriage" because some of the most successful "marriages" are personal honest commitments.
"some of the most successful "marriages" are personal honest commitments"
I like that expression.
I just can't in good conscience let that comment ride. You make a vow before family friends that you will remain committed through thick and thin. I just don't see how saying oh sure we have a personal commitment. And the stats just do not bear it out sorry
@@anthonygoodman48 Stats to not bear it out that making a public statement will hold you to a commitment. Whereas if you commit to yourself, you have to be a sorry being that does not respect your own commitment, just a matter of opinion.
@@anthonygoodman48 I can't "in good conscience" let your comment ride. A marriage -- in whatever form it takes -- is to your partner. The commitment and promises you make are to your partner. It is not a performance. Those promises are not made more real whether they're witnessed by a thousand people or none. Having an audience is completely beside the point. The only reason the audience came about was because marriages typically required a blessing or seal of approval by either a religious or civil authority, all of which is wholly insignificant in the context of the sincerely made promise.
It seems as though you think you need the strength of others to keep your promises. Maybe you should consider that. Do you only keep your promises because other people would see if you failed to keep your promises? If that's the case, then perhaps you just shouldn't make any promises?
@@anthonygoodman48 what stats would those be then?
We need more voices like Mary! Thanks Unherd!
Right: You may or may not agree with her but there's no denying she has an interesting and intelligent point of view.
A Yoga Mindset
11 minutes ago
It's very easy to think abstractly about the world when you're a young, single and idealistic modern woman. You have spent years filling your head up with nonsense , feeling angry at the world, not understanding why it is that you're clashing with it all the time. You wind up thinking "its them" that's the problem, so you get even more angry and try again. It isn't until you're grounded in reality through being a mother that you realise that was all utter B.S. I agree with Mary in that there is no such a thing as progress. What there is is only change. My advice to young women is to not sleep with anyone you wouldn't want to marry. That would significantly reduce your s3×ual encounters with men.
It's very refreshing to hear someone talk so honestly about themselves and excepting that we all change in lots of different ways as we grow older. It does seem to me that a big problem with a lot of people is that their intelligence out strips their maturity, so they come up with interesting ideas, preconceptions and ideals, but it's subjective, totally relating to themselves, they don't have the maturity to realise that the rest of the world might have a different agenda!
The experience of becoming a father made me a reactionary as well.
So you let your wife sleep with others?
Are you a polyamorous?
Mary's input resolves so much about cognitive dissonance between men and women in the 2020s. I would love to hear her and Heather Heying discuss this further
They'd be like two cats in a bag! Chuckle!!! There would be fireworks at that meeting of minds.
Oh my god my heart just stopped. 😂 Mary + Heather feel like Aunties to me, or like my favorite teachers in school. Those two and Louise Perry… these are the “feminists proper” and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
This could have also been called "the curious story of a woman wrestling with mother nature and father time, and discovering that she was always outnumbered".
👍
The Wife of Bath is a good example of a liberated woman of the 1300s but let's not forget the women who provided for Jesus out of their own means, including Joanna whose husband was in Herod's service. Can't imagjne the fight those 2 would have had over the dinner table. She sure went her own way.
Mary, God bless you! I am spreading your interview here far and wide. Freddie is commended too for asking the hard questions. I completely support everything that Mary is suggesting. I started to embrace such logic when I became a Catholic in 2013. It is refreshing to hear Mary rephrase this is a secular way. (I turned 17, was in my senior of high school, when Roe v. Wade was decided...to put my brief comment here in some kind of context.)
At the moment of my comment, Mary is on a press junket for her new book. Unfortunately it seems mostly "conservative" media that interviews her, which rather flattens the diligence, compassion and humor that clearly exemplifies her thinking. She often ends up shoehorned into the cartoon of "angry feminist, has baby, goes tradwife", where she clearly colors well outside those lines. In fact her most devastating blows, it seems to me, are directed at the (de)evolution of classical liberalism into the logic of the hyper techno marketplace, (sex and gender being but one of it's feedstocks), something free market libertarian conservatives cherish rather slavishly. This interview is excellent as it offers some genuine steel man counters that get to the nuance of her critique.
Beautifully said. Thank you.
So, Mary is obviously absolutely brilliant. She has a great analytical and critical mind and is presenting great thoughts, ideas, views, takes on a lot of topics I've honestly never even thought to think about. That said, I think Mary is also a bit of an extremist. She was extreme in the way she embraced progressiveness when she was young and quite extreme in the way she is now embracing this thought pathway. That is not a criticism, it's just my observation. I loved listening to Mary and she really made me reflect and consider the topics she was talking about. I may even buy her book.
A valuable observation. Thank you.
She was literally trying to force being normal on herself, whilst in the background, unbeknownst to Mary, the processes for this top level change were already well underway.
Love Mary Harrington! Thanks for featuring her yet again.
Love this conversation. Somehow feels like each generation is buuing into some illusion that makes them self their sole and go away from their family. I was a believe in CAREER and realised in my 30s it's nonsence. Most people have Jobs, very few have careers. And what is a career? Anyway, truth and meaning is in the simple things. Hope after all these years it's possible to learn and be satisfied in the safety and simplicity of intimate relations, where interdependency is accepted and welcomed. ♥️🌷
I'm male, single and 65. There's a gang of us - it's great fun...I was married to a feminist, I think she hated me deep down. I feel sorry for women - they've been conned.
The middleclass is being conned by the rich
I am Australian and fifty years ago when I was a little girl I watched as in my mind the feminists stole my future as a woman. All I'd wanted was to fall in love and get married like the movies on TV. But instead I was told that was no good anymore. We needed to go on the pill and go to work. Which is what Mum did. So then I was a little latch door kid, with cleaning and ironing and little siblings to care for. The only reason I guess the got from that was the only way to really liberate little girls from feminism was to abort them, or not have kids at all. I rebelled. I was always a straight A student. But every time teachers tried to encourage me into further study I kept saying I just wanted to get married and have a family. And it did happen just that way. I got married at 17 and now I have lots of gkids.
@@Pyasa.shaitanThat is one of the best comments I've read. I agree. Feminism has always been elite women and greedy governments and corporations. Never really in the interest of women, men, and least of all children.
"Great Harrington Declaration" - Freedie at his best.
Turnabout is fairplay...once the generation of men raised with the old chivalry are dead & gone & the ethnic demographic shift has tilted it's going to get very interesting for women young & old, (but especially unnattached to a man), in Chinese proverbial way.
Whomever replied & whatever you've said, this digispace's overlord has hidden it from me, (perhaps if you @ me it may make a difference).
Btw if I could wish this impending future away I would, but absent that I can only prepare my daughters for it as best I can and enjoy the small warm & bitter pleasures of deserving people getting what's coming to them and fearfully hold to the belief that cosmic justice is ultimately enacted.
“There are no solutions, only trade offs.” Thomas Sowell. Thank you 🙏
And because those trade offs may not be obvious for decades, it might be best to open up more dialogue and slow down on rushing into change.
Mary Harrington blows my mind with every new sentence
Very relieved that she does not take the stand that abortion should be illegal in this society, which I would think a very irresponsible stance. I’m interested in this woman’s ideas, and feel my own brand of feminism is probably more aligned with her than most other feminist thinkers. I would, however not consider myself reactionary nor conservative, but more oriented towards an grounded experience of being a human woman, and of the opinion that the world should have appreciation for the immense contribution of women have when we live in line with out nature rather than ideals others impose.
I have heard this in multiple contexts: males occupy formal establishment structures, while women dominate informal structures. I don't think it is incidental that this differentiation plays to each sexes strengths.
I need help in understanding something. By defining yourself as gay, lesbian, binary, non-binary, trans, etc. - isn't that just telling people "this is how I have sex"? I know within each group there's probably a whole list of cultural differences and values, but as someone who is on the outside, I couldn't imagine going around telling people I was heterosexual because that would tell people really nothing about me. Nothing really fundamentally important. I think by defining people basically on how they have sex, we lose track of what connects us all, our humanity. I'm open to being educated, however.
absolutely right with the last bit. the woke are using sexuality as political identities. that's where your blind spot is it seems.
Also, they ignore that id is something created socially, not subjectively (by proclamation, or word magic )
True...its similar to nationality. Ive travelled a lot all over the world and stating nationality doesn't really tell me anything about the person. Even in small families the differences are big....my brother is totally different than me in nearly every aspect...height, salary, taste in music, dress sense, humour, diet....
@@nickbrennan3389 True, but at least when you know someone's nationality it can be used for having an interesting conversation about their culture. I can't imagine this being applied to the situation where someone tells me their sexuality 😐
There is a lot of hidden information is "I'm a lesbian". For example
1. I am tolerant or positive about alternative sexualities
2. I am sexually attracted to (some) women and may be open to sexual approach or flirting by women
3. I do not want to be approached by men with sexual intent.
@@jrd33 No. A lesbian is a woman who is exclusively sexually attracted to other females.
“To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.””
MEN TALKING WITH MEN
Listening to this interview was much more interesting than I thought it would be. Compared to the usual, I expected an only slightly less programmatic and arrogant spokesperson of feminism. Instead, I met a real person with real experience and real concerns.
Being a man, I particularly appreciated the “invitation” (or “permit”) to men to talk with men. Men should long have done that, and ideally by their own initiative and drive. Instead, men have one-sidedly given way to and applauded the other, advancing sex.
There are quite a few things men could talk with men about. Like the women, we could talk about family, sex and relationships - but based on the experience and perspective of men.
However, we would not as quickly as women (?) jump into such private issues. We are (more?) competitive. So, fairness in work-life and in the broader society could be a better first theme. We want to compete with each other, and with women, but preferably within a framework of fairness. What would that look like?
And what is masculinity? Among other things, I will suggest: clarity and borders - borders surrounding individuals as well as collective bodies in society, and also surrounding societies in the broader world. Integrity and respect - I am sure you have “heard of it”.
How was the INTEGRITY of our health authorities during the Covid pandemic? Is the West able to strike a RESPECTFUL deal with Russia? You may see a lack of masculinity in our culture. Men should be the first agents of masculinity; women may join.
Having discussed the above and many other issues, men would be ready to meet women. Women would no longer have to struggle with the futile project of trying to be a sex - alone.
Yada yada yada yada yada. So much for being profound and wise is so fleeting.
Mary is that rare combination of fascinating and profound
Enjoyed this interview after having read pieces on Unherd. I agree with her about sheds, having just taken down a couple of delapidated ones I am grateful for still one to potter in; also agree men should be able to congregate together if they want to although my experience of all male environments has made me appreciate the mixed company of women.
It's mighty generous of feminists to allow men the shed - the pinnacle of masculine ambition. Careful though, don't spoil us. We might get carried away, and want to have our shed and eat it too..
So you got bullied?
@@svenjorgensenn8418 No.
I skipped quite a lot of this because Mary covered it all in her recent Triggernometry interview. but she is never less than compelling. And she always seems to have a complete understanding of the many trends etc that simply bemuse the rest of us.
I thought Triggernometry interview was much better, but the introduction in this one complemented what I learned earlier. So both are good. I still think that Konstantin and Francis managed to connect with Mary better than Freddy did.
I just pre-ordered the US publication on the big river. Here's to hoping that your book gains traction Mary, where it will do the most good!
Mary, imo, is being very patient with Mark, who seems horrified at the idea of restricted sexual access and wants to compare it to theological belief, when in fact Mary's argument is a biological one. Very interesting Convo :) edited to replace 'Mark' with Freddie, lol
We are sex to men. Im not sure what other value they see in us besides maybe cleaning & cooking.
Not sure what century she has lived in. I’m 77 and all I can remember of my mother, grandmother and relatives was that most of the women had shit lives. Dominated by aggressive, abusive and arrogant men who thought most women belonged in the kitchen. The men dented sex every Friday night and the women just kept on dropping babies while the men got pissed in the pub.
She has a very rose tinted idea of what life was really like, it was mostly hell for women unless they were rich in which case they could feel a bit better surrounding themselves with luxury and stuff.
Completely mad ideas about sex, the pill and abortion. I went through terrible traumas with my girlfriend in the early 60s when she became pregnant and we had to find an abortion. To tell young people how n a free society not to have sex is like going back to some kind of fundamentalist regime which I’m sure she won’t want to live under.
To suggest that we should not have parity in the board room etc is to deny the ability of women who bring so much to any enterprise.
Unfortunately, she poses a very well articulated and intelligent sounding argument, however, it’s completely flawed by her own ferocious reactionary attitudes.
Thanks for the insight though.
That's purely a personal experience..doesn't mean a jot..my parents are the same age as you...still married..5 happy kids..no violence ever between them
She uses 1450 as a model, not 1950. I think some nuance is missing in this talk, but I agree with some of your overall criticism of the views as they are articulated in this interview.
I'm 61 and I don't know on which planet your female relatives lived to have such "shitty lives,beaten by husbands who then went to a pub to get wasted". No one in my family in 4 generations ever went to a pub or beat his wife EVER,and I'm from the Balkans.
And your whole "construction" about the pill and its consequenties lacks any understanding or empathy towards women suffering emotionaly from casual sex.
Also insistance on 50% female representation always includes boardrooms only,never coalmines or draft.
Not to mention that "affirmative actions" of any kind ALWAYS produce poorer overall quality of specialised organisations. Are we gonna choose surgeons,pilots,scientist on their gender or on their quality?
Doesn't seem like you've listened. She's talking about the autonomy that women lost post-industrialism and how all feminism labelled as such was in response to that; the loss of work that accommodated our being and biology. How all productive work being taken outside of the home robbed women and made them more dependent. She builds this argument starting in the Middle Ages. You're talking about the 50s and 60s.
She is speaking from a more systemic point, and less anecdotally. I can assure you from the science/numbers side she is correct, if only somewhat gynocentric, which isn't surprising as a fem.
Abortion to preserve autonomy of the putative mother only works if she is childless. Some women with children will want abortions for other reasons. Just a point, I generally welcome and value Mary's views.
Edit: thinking about it more, this seems like Mary's tendency to abstraction sometimes (ironic given her thesis), and I can absolutely imagine her in her earlier, postmodern stage
I'd argue the opposite of Mary's hypothesis, "Progress is bad for Women." On the face of it, it fails to acknowledge we all have agency - the ability to make decisions to change our lives. Since the beginning of time, women's bodies have always been a commodity. Women's progress started from the bottom and has been helped from the top. If you consider the world society, not only western civilization, we women can and have gotten on and off the technology treadmill. It has improved many lives. Don't put down those who have chosen differently. I, for one, will never want to retreat to a bygone era where women couldn't vote, get an education, receive equal pay, own property, have healthcare, break the glass ceiling, drive, and only be chattel. In more simple terms, I wouldn't give up vaccines, dishwashers, washing machines, refrigerators, or microwaves. Yes, we have a long way to go in many areas, but we can't lose the progress we've achieved for a small narrow focus that doesn't consider how progress has helped ALL women. We must continue educating women and men to improve themselves in society so they know they have choices. Retreating a bygone era isn't the answer. If a few want to or can throwback or retreat, ok, but don't present progress as unfavorable for all women.
amen!
I have always felt that woman where the glue of society. Since they went to work outside their house, during the industrial revolution, the smallest union of a society, the family’s union, was broken somehow. This rippled through society.
Women want the man who makes them feel secure
That's why 80% of women only chase the top 20% of men
We’re not glue. We’re people. It’s everyone’s job to hold society together.
Which is fine unless you don't want to be glue. I'm 58, been in the haulage industry all manliness. Hate home making and children. Never wanted to be married. Comfortable round men being nen. Grateful I live at a time where I've had a choice.
@@blackswan4486 yes. But promiscuity curbs male interest in women long term. For more reasons than one. It is all of our duty, but if there truly aren’t suitable women for long term relationships, and they themselves favor short term excitement, what is my role in this? Should I force them to want a long term relationship and change their view from thinking children are just a massive obstacle to their career and happiness? Or is it a societal problem that is much deeper than you, I and these guests combined?
@@nickthompson1812 why just women? You realize if had a sexual men are having sex then that means a woman is having sex also, and vice versa. You can’t have virgin women and no virgin men.
"I've no idea what men do..." We talk rubbish, take the piss out of each other and argue about sport. That's all there is to it love. We're simple animals at heart.
Especially the taking the piss out of each other bit. Male friendships, certainly British ones, are all about trying to entertain each other and make your mates laugh. Piss taking being a part of that but the humour is essential.
Not all men are simple
thats a lie that men tell themselves, it is simply not true. men are complex creatures just like women, they just have different motivations.
@@blackswan4486 are you a man?
If we did not have positive discrimination towards women in the boardroom, but rather a elevated estimation of women’s work in more traditional sense,I imagine we could come a long way. If women as mothers and grandmothers could gain appraisal for doing that job well, then a feminine politician could assent to power. Not to criticize the female politicians that are now in their positions, but it seems women who would succeed in a workplace modeled on male attributes have to also attain some male attributes to be counted in those systems, and although women occupy positions of power, they are seldom able to use their feminine attributes in those positions.
Well said
they do, all the time. look at the "squad"
Power whether political or business etc attracts psychopaths whether functional or clinical... The traits of a psychopath are the opposite of the typical feminine associated traits and involve the negative range of hyper masculine traits. There are ofc female psychopaths (and toxic females) but few and far between in the masculine expression of psychopathy. It is no wonder that most women do not generally desire or function on par in that elite space.
Maybe only aggressive, ambitious, and ruthless people aspire to power and influence, whether they be male or female.
I agree with some of her points but, she states the obvious with plenty of words...and then stumbles when put on the spot. She makes a strong point, then when asked more detail adds all kinds of conditions and, "don't listen to me." She has basically said nothing new of real importance.
This woman is a singular voice making a powerful claim in a world gone mad.
A very brave and independent thinker ❤. I applaud Mary.
I still think that we gained with the technological progress in absolute terms, at least because every born baby has much much higher chance of survival, much better quality of care and medicine.
I’m not all convinced that women working in the fields under the sun, wind or rain had any easier time looking after their babies while working at the same time compare to the same challenges while working in industries. Vast majority of them chose to move to factory jobs for better earnings leaving their peasant life behind.
Though if course, no new stage of progress is usually problem free, I still don’t think many would prefer to go back in time.
And absolutely , happy committed relationship provides much better sex than a casual one.
Thank you very much for a very interesting conversation.
S woman who had her 90 birthday. Surrounded by five generations. Over a hundred people all from her. All her descendents. Gratefully for her, loved by them, respected. No one nor she gave a dam about her "career".
From the top g himself
She is very lucky she made it till 90. Many women of her generation, died in labour, leaving their children orphans. Like my grandmother who died giving birth, when my mother was just 2 years old.
Until very recently being pregnant meant potentially losing one's life. It still means that for women in countries where abortion is illegal.
Also there are so many old mothers in nursing homes, I have a friend who worked in one, she told me about a lady who said this to her: Don't get me wrong, I love my children. But if I could turn back time, I wouldn't have them.
@@frusia123 being pregnant still means risking one's life. Life is a risky business. Perhaps you drove a car today, walked up a flight of stairs or crossed the road.
I've literally had no blood family for 30 years now and my partner died 10 years ago. Im 58 and happy with that. I just don't like children at all, no point having them just to have someone to look after you when you getold.
We, the children, and our children, the grandchildren feel that my mother's career is something that made our entire family better. Very proud of my mother for that.
It would have been interesting if her own childhood and relationships during that time was explored more because it shaped her to an extent and caused her to be lost all of those years.
This is my 4th listen to Ms Harrington. I'm a male left of center. She is speaking by understanding, metamodernism. It parallels in ways a line of thinking I've always acknowledged it has been weird listening to folks talk about their sexuality in commoditzed terms. I never gained the ability.
Another way she speaks truth is to were power goes on unacknowledged. This analysis dovetails with what I've learned studying complexity science. Ways of seeing past hierarchies towards what are constraints and modulators of systems lay. This how nature works and has been freeing for my mind.
Brilliant how the discussion down here in the comment section adds so much to the great discussion in the video! Unherd viewers are the best!
I live in Greece part of the year. It is still true here there are distinct spheres for both men and women. Certainly men still know how to be ‘men’ while women have not lost touch with their femininity. Zorba the Greek situations for women are (largely) history … as far as this British male can see.
I'll say. On average, women in the West fare better than men in nearly every area relevant to well-being: in longevity, health, health care spending even after accounting for reproductive and maternal care; in education, homelessness, violent crime victimization, drug addiction, alcoholism, and preferential treatment in sentencing throughout the criminal justice system. Also, In the most comparable cohort, childless men and women ages 20 through 40, women outearn men $1.08 for every $1.00 earned.
Feminism makes no effort whatsoever to remediate any of those advantages, somehow, despite claiming 'feminism is good for men, too!'
the salary comparision is interesintg. thanks for sharing. do you happen to have a source/link?
What planet are you living on?
Sources Please.
@@RuneDrageon clown. go use a search engine
@@gertrudewest4535 no what planet are YOU living on that you deny this, and the list could even go on for a while.
read more, ffs
Starting in 9th grade girls should have a once a month class on how to track your period/cycle. You do not need a birth control pill or IUD. You just need an app. I've tracked mine for 20 years (since before apps) and it's just autopilot for me now. Easy.
Mary makes complete sense in a very easy to comprehend way, thank you. 😊
She just described, as ideal, the devout evangelical, catholic and mormon approach to living. Essentially a traditional Christian approach
Mary posesses such an exquisite heart and mind; wisdom.
I'm a fan after hearing her speak for only the second time now.
Book already pre-ordered
Apparently the sensitivity readers have just got hold of it. You might be waiting for some time.
I love you, Mary Harrington, for giving a voice to all of us feminists who also recognize what women have lost, what women need, and what could make women's lives happier.
I think it's ridiculous that Harrington has set feminism of care versus feminism of freedom as a dichotomy and you have to choose one over the other. I am a feminist. I know tons of women who are feminists and mothers. Isn't the whole point of feminism that women should have a "choice." Maybe in Mary Harrington's world you have to choose one or the other, but I don't know anyone in the real world who does that. What if you have a child and your husband buggers off and you have to work to care from your family. What feminist political ideology as described by her defines that woman? What if a woman has a career and is advancing and then she decides to have a child, she spends time at home, then later decides to write a novel and go on book tours and does interviews. Does she neatly fit into one classification? Of course not. Just because Mary Harrington had a child does not mean that all of feminist, or even female, history has to be re-evaluated. Ten years from now when her daughter is a teenager and can't stand her guts, she'll be proposing another answer for the ages.
What many don’t understand is that “choice” is now decided for you by capitalism.
She can explain to her daughter than capitalism doesn’t let you choose if there is money to be made. Now women are good little consumers, tax payers, and home owners/renters. There’s money to be made and feminism directly plays into it. Maybe I should be happy, my income is 100% from the market at the moment 😅
I still wonder if advocating for no sex before marriage would rush people to get married for the wrong reason. (E.g lust not love). No sex before authentic connection and genuine respect for the other makes more sense to me. The most common intention of sex in modern times is not to create offspring, but to experience pleasure. I agree with Mary’s point that sex is typically more enjoyable for a woman when intimacy has been established. I’m definitely not into the hookup culture, but « no sex before marriage » seems too extreme. I also find it disheartening, as someone who would have loved to have children but did not, this age old idea that having a child is the be all and end all of a women’s existence. Maybe that’s not what Mary’s saying. I think there are a lot of people that have children for the wrong reason, and they continue to live selfishly as a parent. There are also people who don’t have children, who come to understand one consciousness and the illusion of separateness through other life experiences. Where true equality lies, I believe, is in understanding we (humans) are all sharing a human experience, irregardless of sex/gender/race/religion/ or whatever other identity classification we attach to.
@UnHerd any chance of a review of your bookshelves? A lot of these I have never hErd of, but intrigued.
i find it hard to reconcile that she seems to have very conservative views yet is vehemently against banning abortion (and the host too is very keen to stress that, as if even the thought of it is some kind of heresy). Then it occurred to me that she's coming at it from a 'feminist' point of view, even though she's not a regular feminist. her only interest is whether banning abortion will harm some women at this point (yet based on her own line of argument, it could help many women as well, cos both women and men would be weary of casual sex, and particularly unprotected sex-abortion actually promotes unprotected sex, as many young ppl use it as a form of birth control). she doesn't seem to care much about the harm that it causes babies or getting into the argument of 'personhood' of a fetus. so, even though her line of argument looks attractive for a conservative, it too is narcissistic. it's not borne out of genuine care for the unborn or the society at large. it is only based on what's in it for women. it just an alternative kind of feminist sexism that only values female well being over all else. bottom line is you cannot expect someone who only looks out for one gender, in whatever shape or form, to not be sexist and exploitative of other genders and other human beings (including children).
Nothing about Mary the distance runner in this interview. What is her personal best half-marathon time? Is that her favourite race distance?
Speaks to me on many levels
Love the way Mary H laughs every now and again!! I wish I had her brains, when I was young.
Fascinating conversation. Mary gave me so many new ideas and new ways of seeing things. She is a terrific critical thinker.
She is mentally ill
Thank you one and all.
Had a surprising amount of emotional reactions to this interview. As a grandmother, I can categorically state that having children was the most rewarding thing I've ever done, exciting career notwithstanding. However to go back to a time when women were not in control of their own birth control (and then to take away abortion) is absolutely a retrograde step. Mary's husband and these other "natural birth control" husbands may be responsible men but so many others are not, and it's always the woman left holding the baby. In a world where shame is no longer effective in coercing men into doing "the right thing", women are likely to be abandoned with the consequences. I suspect in a decade or so Mary will have rethought her current proposal, just as she's realised the folly of her twenties.
"may be responsible men but so many others are not, and it's always the woman left holding the baby" - But don't you think that's because society allows them to be irresponsible? I believe Mary has said shotgun weddings as a practice virtually disappeared after the pill, because society now thinks "If she got pregnant, that's up to HER." So of course men are let off the hook to be fathers, because society stopped being rigid about the necessity of a man who fathered the child absolutely needing to marry the woman and stick around and perform the roll of father.
@@L_Martin potentially that's what's happened, but the genie is out of the bottle. You're never going to get shame to work like that again because men and women are generally far more shameless than previous generations. The anonymity of the internet has contributed to that. Unless we have a collapse of civilization and go back to a pre-industrial society I think personal responsibility for a whole raft of things is pretty much lost.
She is taking this stance because the pill has many side effects. It can be harmful to women. So if it is harming women then it's not a successful contraceptive solution.
Absolutely agree. And then she will write another book. 😊
That wasn't her point though. She was talking about already being in a loving committed relationship. And the no abortion being in her utopia.
This woman talks such incredible good sense, I am humbled to listen to her. The knowledge that we have lost due to the loss of Christian education has wreaked havoc upon our society. Just knowing these things is transformative. This woman though is very pragmatic, she realizes the realities we face also, and is sensitive to what is the right way to proceed.
But of course there had to be the inevitable 'Freddie-isms', here are some of his clangers :
He says she was 'enamoured' with her new way of life - hardly the right word for what she is describing which is of a high moral and truth value - 'enamoured' does not exactly comport with that too well, but its Freddie I guess, what can we expect.
He compared the ability in medieval times of women to publicly expose miscreants within the community and thereby shame them (despite their not having 'rights' as we would perceive them today) TO modern day 'cancel culture' - again attempting to lower the tone of what his guest is saying - he does it every interview. If it isn't what Prince Charles says then it's not acceptable because Prince Charles owns all the land - that's pretty much Freddie's mentality.
After his summarizing of what she said, she replied that she needed to 'finesse' his analysis - a polite way of rebutting his club-footed and offensive Prince Charles style interpretations.
Freddie's job is to sound out the 'common people' to see what they are thinking, and to assess their threat to the landowners hegemony. No matter how much logos and reason his guests display he must always ultimately remind them that they don't own the land and they can be kicked off it any time the landowners choose.
Mary's thinking is truly thought provoking. My thinking crosses paths with hers in many many spaces, but not in plenty others. Maybe the one thing missing from Mary's analysis is "coupledom" as the assumption, versus pre-civilisation EVOLUTIONARILY living humans who were NOT one-on-one mated, because humans lived as groups, groomed as a group, ate as a group, slept as a group, sexed as a group, and paternity was simply not known until nuclear family living was invented in western civilisations some 7000 years ago.
Comparing "today" to "medieval times" is much too short a lens.
In pre-civilisation times, "the pill" wasn't needed because female fertility was actually very low! Seasonal amenorrhoea was prevalent, and the males were simply frequently away from camp. And even for those who did become pregnant, miscarriage and neonate death and childhood deaths before age 5 were huge, so women living as a group raised a few kids as a group, and there weren't cases of 10-15 kids per woman as the Catholic church espoused, because those who did become mothers breastfed until teething, which kept their fertility much lower.
Comparisons to a few centuries ago are really comparing to a ridiculous time in history. What we need to compare is "civilisation vs pre-civilisation" (or nurture vs nature).
I find it shattering that a (well deserved) critique on blatant individualism is nowadays made out of a self-identified as conservative, and ...reactionary perspective. This is even more unsettling if you consider that many of her arguments do make sense and are honest, if seen independently of what they build up to... I am all for relationships. Should they be patriarchal though? The traditional patriarchal marriage? And chastity before marriage? Is that the only way to have committed and/or meaningful relationships? Is that the only way to have and/or raise kids and to have a kid friendly culture? Is that the only way to cherish some sort of interdependence between people? Should we not explore other ways? /// I happen to be transexual. I was born this way , it is no "lifestyle" choice -plus, I am strongly disinterested in getting into any company boards (whether by some quota or otherwise). Is there a place for people like me in your paradigm, Mary Harrington, you brilliant ....reactionary feminist? Or is it just conversion therapy into cisness or get thrown in some ditch, for us? /// That said, we are the same age, we are of the same generation, I can relate to quite a few of the things she says, which leaves me even more bewildered. I actually think I, quite genuinely, like her... Perhaps I can still see that old boy Sebastian in her... (which she can't -or doesn't want to, any more). It is just a pity that her whole logic seems to work up to giving me (and people like me -and, yep, Sebastian too) the boot...
Thank you Mary, reactionary feminism chimes with me and I'm looking forward to reading your book
Freddy at being a information facilitating interviewer. ... My first rewatch of unherd after moving away after Freddy's poor performance with the Jeffrey sacks interview. ... However, she came to it, Mary seems to be a coherent, informative explainer. Thank you both.
Thank you so much! It gives hope we may create conditions for better lives for women and men, in the end. Thank you.
Quite a brilliant discussion, thank you!
We’re all individuals and we’re all connected. This comports with actual liberalism just fine.
Thank you for interviewing Mary. I think she's brilliant. Her no sex outside marriage stance is on the same thread as Jordan Peterson's stance. I actually agree to a certain extent but wonder how that would play out in my next relationship, wherever that is. What makes it difficult to shift back to sex within marriage is perhaps that there's no current societal memory of sex within marriage now? Both men and women(Not all) have become slightly commitment phonic and pleasure centric. To have sex within marriage is linked to a greater sense of feeling safe for women so definitely that works for women (maybe not all) but it does seem like too much pressure to wait till marriage to have sex or perhaps that's just a misconception. To change it would require changing of social norms first or perhaps just the individual. Abortion is just really sad unless it's unconsensual. I think industrialisation and modern long hours of school have made us into humans living our lives without much family. Instead of being 'owned' by spouses or families, we're owned by our bosses. Perhaps so much focus on work and especially economic work outside the household has made humans more disconnected. Modern feminism is perhaps just a reflection of current social norms and not real feminism or reactionary feminism by Mary. Don't think that we should stipulate DEI or gender balance. It's rather contrived and doesn't get to the root of the issue. The gender balance would also work out differently in every industry. If we want more gender balance, how about making more co-ed schools top-notch instead of all-boys schools? The shed concept does sound relaxing from my point of view as a woman. Haha. X
A verbose way of letting us who know that you have nothing worth saying.
She's right about men having their own spaces.
Blame contraception, but what it comes down to is cultural attitudes. The thing is, she had the choice to experiment with different relationships and jobs, had the choice to have ONE child with her husband, had the choice to pursue an education and career. She's enjoying feminist progress to the max and complaining about it at the same time.
So the lady is saying that sex "committed" with the potential conception of a baby is better ...what are the consequences for "same" sex intercourse?
A pretty pointless question.
@@noraanderson3503 ok
57:37 Exactly ! This is what happens in the corporation I work. They lauched a Female Leadership Program and opend it for all empliyees who “identify” as Women. It’s ridiculous.
"No sex outside of a committed relationship."
Dude keeps saying...
"No sex outside of marriage."
There is a clear difference. Why is he so deaf? He seems pretty suggestive in this interview and twists words into something else too much.
I'd call it parenthood, not motherhood
That’s a tell
No, motherhood was the proper term. There’s also fatherhood. No other.
Why would you exclude the experience of motherhood from the discussion?
@@noraanderson3503 I'm not excluding the experience of motherhood; I'm including the experience of fatherhood. As a father, I totally relate to what Mary has to say about becoming a parent. At 13:15 Freddy tries to steer the discussion towards the physical aspects of motherhood (childbirth, breastfeeding), but Mary continues speaking about the experiences common to both fathers and mothers.
Im a woman and a mother. Its motherhood. Its very different from fatherhood.
The admiration she gets for her discovery of motherhood is the same Jordan Peterson gets for saying men cannot be women and vice-versa. How brilliant and brave, right. She reminds me of some women from my youth who always bugged me because I wasn't enough of a feminist for them. And then they discover what women have known since the beginning of time and they bug you again how you are too much of a feminist, and that you don't get it again. Enough.
Haha, Freddie stumped with bio men identifying as women. Freddie under estimating the competitiveness of men. Modern dating has shown how men adapt to the rules imposed by women.
Women don’t make rules.
@@blackswan4486 Good one🤣🤣🤣🤣
I didn't enjoy this interview. The interviewer kept interrupting and trying hard to control the discussion.
Thank you for your recent article on excruciating Drew Barrymore. If psychoanalysis is of interest, enough to include it in your greatly appreciated writing, I recommend psychoanalyst Melanie Klein, following Freud, who had an abundance of valuable observations about the primitive, psychotic, preverbal, preoedipal murderous rage fantasies (phantasies) in infants towards the mother. The reason we might leave certain Freudian theories behind at this point is that society has rapidly regressed to the psychotic realm discovered by Klein in her observations of wordless infants, and enraged if not balanced by recognition of the mother who is cherished. This same person, object of love and rage, in infancy is not recognized by the baby as one and the same person. Our society has left Freud behind because the Oedipal is much more advanced than the abyss of preoedipal insanity we are plunged into.
Too little is comprehended by many prescribed birth control. They are not candy and the effects should be better explained.
Lastly, education is key. Women aren't second class citizens and moving forward we need to focus on education. Open everyone's mind body, and spirit to be the best person they can be without pulling society backwards in accepting antiquated morals to appease a few who are unwilling to accept progress. Educate. Educate. Educate.
Education and being " open minded " are not linked together. Actually people with high IQs are less likely to change their mind on a certain subject.
@@nickbrennan3389 One can only hope people can change. Perhaps I'm too optimistic. After all humans are animals with certain tendencies that guide their behavior which is why we cured famine, poverty, crime, war and all the other ills of the world. Now, this topic threatens the progress of women. Is progress doomed? Do we roll back any gains in search of the good old days of the 1400s? If I have to remain alone in this topic, so be it. With 7 billion people on the planet and counting there are bound to be different opinions but I believe we should strive for a free, educated, independent and critical thinking, human female species who knows her own and controls her own body without weaponizing it or defaulting to use it as chattel.
I think the issue in western societies is the quality of education. We are taught what to think not how to think, even in universities.
@@hermitpermit2553 even though that may be true as an adult you have the ability to change that - improve your learning process. Plus education goes beyond what is taught in institutions - read. Women must talk to their daughters. Women must talk to other women. Open the dialogue. Building your value as a woman - a person. Improve self esteem. Craft your character. Shed the stereotype of victim hood. Learn to be assertive. These are just a few things that anyone but especially women need to develop and they can be done without the formal institutional education. Start looking for answers - solutions and not excuses. A Buddhist monk told me once, "We all have every second of every day to change - to improve ourselves so embrace the opportunity". I'll add that educating oneself doesn't stop once you complete your formal institutional education. Yes, there are some constraints to this but it's not impossible whether you're in a western or non western society. Keep learning. Keep thinking. Keep improving. Keep evolving. Stop being a passive participant in your life - just following along. Take a more active role. If we are truly the higher form of animal we have the ability to break away from those primal behaviors and be more - do better. History has shown us that so there's no reason to go backwards except to learn not to make those mistakes again. Enjoy the remainder of your weekend.
@@nickbrennan3389 education does help you learn and open your mind to new things, as well as to critically think and so on. I don't think she's referring to the extremely intelligent people who are usually socially awkward.
"All my experimental living situations seemed to end badly." Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings always seem to get the last word, don't they?
TH-cam refuses to translate mark 55'24"" to 55'36". It's a free speech platform as you know.
51:40
>A plea in defense of sheds
>The garden shed is the minimal viable unit of male space where no scatter cushions are allowed
😂 Deep truth in this and comedic genius. Scatter cushions lol
In Australia there is an actual thing called Men's Sheds. They are a government idea to help prevent male loneliness/depression. They are community sheds where men gather to work with power tools on group projects. I don't know about scatter cushions, but many are equipped to make tea and coffee.
Everything has its pros and cons and I have had a very rich and fulfilling life without being married or having children. I have been shunned. I have had hateful things said to me and about me. From a young age I learned I couldn't have children so no pill for me but I didn't use it as a way to become promiscuous. People like Mary would not see my value or condemn my desire to have sex. This is disgraceful. Reducing women's rights back to another century isn't the answer.
I don't think that what you are saying has anything to do with what Mary is saying. What do you mean when you write that Mary wouldn't see your value? Why would you say that?
@@noraanderson3503 I'm traveling in the Middle East and I'm unable to provide you a proper reply because this topic has many layers.
It seems to me that Mary Harrington is writing this for a very privileged audience. None of what she says resonates with me or my rural, hard knocks upbringing. This is all fine and good if you are upper middled class with loads of options and privileges, but if her vision succeeds, it would curtail the safety and wellbeing of so many women, men and children. She keep posing this as a freedom vs caring model. For me it is an agency/safety vs domination model.
I can only conclude that she poses the argument this way because she comes from a privileged background. The betterment of my lower-economic rural community came out of laws protecting women and children, the availability of divorce and abortion (which was primarily used by married couples in consideration their other other offspring's wellbeing), and positive changes in the workplace for women (and men). The examples she uses of modern women are not the women I know or grew up with... it isn't rampant sex and lack of consequences. In the lower economic world everything has consequences, and good laws support women in these important life choices.
The whole conversation gives me a big yuck... she said that her advice is just for some women, but the problem with that is that academic arguments filter down into laws that, in this case, harm average women who are just trying to make a better life for their children and families.
Truth, I say after 68 years of life, learning so many things “the hard way”. Thank you for stating truth in these anti-truth days.