It's a good thing for her she ignored her friend's advice. I'm glad she's had the fortitude to speak her mind on these things. Many, many people need to hear this message.
Such a good point about the idea that our ancestors were stupid and we are better in every way. Yes, the scientific principle has enabled us to learn so much more in a short amount of time, but in anything regarding politics, society, and the self we lose so much wisdom by ignoring the past. I think one of our most underrated assets at the moment are historians.
Louise Perry is great. She has a disarming and really effective way of raising tricky issues without seeming confrontational or "clickbaity". Yeah, a big fan. ✊
@@biggsubz3122 simping implies that he’s kissing up to her because he has a crush on her, why do u think he has a crush on her? Nothing in his comment hints towards that.
I was reading into Sex and Cultures(1934) by JD Unwin. It was basically saying that Sexual Liberation equates to Societal Collapse 3 generations after the Liberation is implemented. When you relate it to our Western Society, sexual liberation started in the 70s. The study took into account 86 different dead civilizations. Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations of the change in sexual freedom. So how are we doing as we enter the second generation since our own sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century? As predicted, absolute monogamy has already been replaced with modified monogamy. Common-law relationships are becoming the norm. Although divorce occurred prior to the 1970’s, the mainstream of our culture still maintained the view that marriage should be for life, and common-law relationships were regarded with some distaste. That has clearly changed. Those who actually practice life-long commitments in marriage have become the minority, with couples born prior to the sexual revolution much more likely to maintain a life-long commitment in marriage. Deism is already rapidly declining, exactly as predicted. Prior to the 1960’s, a combination of rationalism and a belief in God was the norm for mainstream culture. Not only has belief in God greatly decreased since the 1960’s, but there has been a trend to remove the concept of God from government, the educational system, and the public forum. Those who still believe in God sense a strong societal pressure to keep deistic beliefs private. In its place, is a surprising rise in superstition,[7] classified by Unwin as a “monistic” culture, two levels down from the rationalist culture we had prior to the sexual revolution. There has also been a huge increase in the percentage of the population that classifies itself as non-religious, a symptom of the lowest, “zoistic” level of Unwin’s categories.[8] The swiftness with which rational thinking declined after the 1970’s is astounding. In its place arose post-modernism, characterized by “scepticism, subjectivism, or relativism” and “a general suspicion of reason”.[9] But it gets worse … post-modernism is giving way to “post truth”. In direct contrast to rational thinking, a post-truth culture abandons “shared objective standards for truth” and instead, stands on appeals to feelings and emotions, and what one wants to believe.[10] People can now “identify” themselves as something which flat-out contradicts science and rational thinking and, in many cases, receive the full support and backing of governments and educational systems. Not only do people feel they have a right to believe what they want, but any challenge to that belief, even if supported by truth and logic, is unacceptable and offensive. Here is a quote from Unwin that has become particularly a propos in the last couple decades since our own sexual revolution
The basic problem with conversations like this is that the impact on society is rarely if ever considered. What passes for "society" in these conversations is nothing but a thinly veiled consideration of the self. We have plummeting birth rates, for example, but the reasons for that are never addressed, because if they were to be addressed we might have to consider being responsible personally rather than being narcissistic.
So called "private" sexual decisions are nothing but. It is almost impossible to imagine anything with far further reaching public implications than sexual decisions. How many children you have, and how you have them, with whom you have them, and when you have them, determine almost everything for everyone alive and yet to be born. The decision not to have children has crippling and existential implications for others, and even affects their own ability to have children. And our society and leaders are almost totally silent on this.
But what she won't ever do is come out & categorically say that the lies of ''you can have it all'' first world feminism has only completely destroyed the lives of all women for the last four generations or so & not forgetting those closest to them too & the reason why she won't is simply because she is still a feminist herself & of course to tell the truth that bluntly will only incur even more wrath & scorn from the still totally brainwashed & hysterical feminists that are all around us & that's just the simps & beta males!!!!!!
That's because popular feminism for a long while has talked about women fitting into men's boxes without saying so directly. But she's talking about the realities women face and their real lives, a side of the conversation which amongst and about women has been missing for far too long. A popular documentary recently came out in America is called "What Is A Woman?" which challenges transgender ideology. But after covid and stay home orders, women are finally asking, "WHEN do I get to be a woman?". Hopefully this side of the popular narrative comes back, it needs to be be throughly discussed.
There's a difference between shrill and audible, though. I miss a lot of her words and have to replay often, due to the sotto voce style of speech. Compelling points, though.
There are some issues. She is framing the sexual revolution as "women adopting male sexuality" That is simply not true. The sexual revolution is not women trying to be men in a sexaul context. It was women have just as much say about sexuality as men have. In her book she talks about how women are pressured to "have sex like men"...but in reality women face far more criticism for being promiscous than men do. Men are praised for "body count" by men and women...while women are shamed for "body count" by men and women. That is still the mainstream view. In my view she is projecting. She might have less open and more conservative views about her own sexuality. But if other women don't feel the same way she tries to frame as masulinity being forced upon them just bc they don't agree with her personal preferences. Don't get me wrong she raises some valid points about double standards and roles women are forced to deal with. But her solution seems to be that you should let "traditional roles" be your only valid guiding factor instead allowing people to define their own roles. That plants her squarely in the conservative camp. But at least she does not use pseudo science evolutionary biology to justify it. At least she talks alludes to socielogy and her own person psychology to make her points.
@@memegazer How is evolutionary biology pseudoscience? We are mammals and the point of sexuality is ultimately to reproduce which is the goal of all mammals. How is this not relevant to a discussion of human sexuality and the difference between male and female sexuality?
If women are public property, then why are there so many men who can not get laid? Women being free to make their own choices, does not make them property. We can of course discuss back and forth how capable women or for that matter men are of making good choices, but Western women are not "public property" in the sense which that sentence imply. I have - fortunately - never heard of any government service, where just about any man could get laid with an enslaved woman. It does not exist. And should not exist. Some women have casual sex with top tier men not because they are enslaved and forced to do it, but because they choose to. The point about the right wing considering women private property, have a bit more validity to it. At least in some less developed countries. In the West, there are mostly fringe groups and possibly some immigrant groups that view women this way. Western mainstream rightwingers do not consider women property, and neither does leftists. If you have a problem with women´s choices, then talk to women about it. Don´t go around and lament about women being "property", when they are clearly not.
@@JohanDanielsson8802 it seems women gravitate towards making harems if they are given free choice.. and Harems can destabilize society, only benefitting a few top men.. this implies that women are incapable of making rational decisions, they behave like overgrown children.. Should they even make free choices ?
Louise is brilliant. My daughter lives in Switzerland and they only have 4 months of maternal leave. It is heartbreaking and definitely not what she wants. They provide a half-hour extra lunch break for breastfeeding mothers but only for the first year. And this is just the beginning of making children suffer in the so-called interests of the mother. Child care is a sad substitute for child love.
Swiss society leading figures still consider women to stay at home when they have kids anyway. Which is why they only grand 4 month of paid leave. After that the roles are clear. Father goes to work and earns the money, mother stays home. Which is why all the day care is still called "Familienergänzende Betreuung". It couldn't be much more far from reality. Simply a shame.
Your daughter seems to have a very generous system, one that is unavailable to working class women in my country. Our daycare centres cater for infants from six weeks of age. In my country (Australia) in the 1970s I distinctly remember feminists promising to elevate the role of housewives and mothers. But they abandoned them quickly because the big corporations who benifited from married women in the workforce could not profit from them. We had a male Prime Minister in the eighties who introduced an allowance to be paid to married mothers who didn't work to allow them to care for their own children instead of working. At first this lasted until the child was 16. Feminists were not impressed. The allowance never kept up with inflation, and now ends before the child is seven, instead they demand free daycare from birth. If women want their babies back they need to fight and collectivise just as the feminists fought to end motherhood for women. Or simply decide to live within their husbands income. Sorry for the long comment.
I’m a citizen of America, where both parents have no guaranteed family leave, no sick leave, etc. I’ve worked with a single mother who could not skip work even though she just broke her arm. It was at a fast food restaurant and she was wincing and groaning in pain at every move she made. Our system here is disgusting, considering we could change it pretty easily. It’s also profoundly anti-family, but the “Conservatives” here support it while claiming to be for “family values”
@@gorgzilla1712 Here in Australia the minimum wage is slightly higher if you don't receive holiday or sick leave. In theory people are supposed to put a little aside. But as this work is poorly paid to begin with, very few people actually do so.
Great work Louise. It's common sense and balance at the end of the day. These are the discussions we need to be having ,because toxic relationships and a lack of respect have become the norm, and this is right from the offset, which is why I haven't dated much, and why I have practiced celebacy for big chunks of my life. Keep up the great work ladies.
Our birth rates are dropping through the floor. once you have one child child care and work are so difficult that it puts people off having a second child.
@Hugh Oxford A Muslim has a duty to the all mighty Allah. It is not some bum choice made out of thin air. A Muslim must serve the purpose regardless of how difficult it may seem. The God always gives the strength to he who serves the almighty.
As a conservative Christian, who disagrees with some of the assumptions (I.e abortion), it is refreshing to hear such a sharp mind challenging the status quo. I would add to the discussion that the original motive for biblical standards are in order to bring life; sadly these were corrupted, mainly by men, but it is interesting to me that an honest mind is at least taking a step toward truth. We will never have utopia, but we can at least promote a better way of living.
Fascinating interview. At my ripe old age, I never thought I'd conclude that the Roman Catholic church is right in declaring that sex is for the procreation of children. To expect any more from it only leads to misery.
That is a MONSTROUS attitude, FUCK the catholic church and its fascist attitude towards especially female sexuality. Granted, parts of the sexrevolution has gone way over the top, but to embrace the flamin' catholic church is like going from socialism to fascism.
Actually the RC is somewhat incorrect in this. Sex is not purely for procreation. It is a very deep spiritual experience between a man and a wife, joining them together as one flesh. It is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and His Church, which represents His Body. This is why it's a Holy Sacrament. The procreation element is the fruit of this union, a wonderful Blessing from God. I am an Orthodox Christian.
Great interview and I agrees with almost everything she said. Her near whispering throughout and constant trailing off with her speech was infuriating! If I had it loud enough to hear her, then the host was deafening.
@@rollinmark8952 Yes, the British tend to speak more softly, even apologetically, than Americans. Obviously there are exceptions. We tend to find American voices unpleasantly loud and hectoring. Obviously there are exceptions there too. But here the issue seems to be the disparity between the volume level of Louise Perry versus that of Katy Balls.
Just a little aside…..As an anthropologist living in Polynesia I should point out an inevitable exception to the rule. In pre-European Enana/Enata or Marquesan culture a polyandrous system existed. A women had a Vahana or first husband and then based upon status and means secondary ones called pekio. Then inevitably Catholic missionaries put an end to that in the course of the 19th Century.
You’re forgiven - I think you will find that those from a more indigenous connected to the earth culture (in this case) had a very different reality sexually than the culture that gave birth to Christianity. And there in lies the problem - much like Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life. Helpful though it might be there are no absolutes and in both cases their words are being received that way. I think in Jordan’s case also delivered that way.
This culture definitely had its pitfalls. In cultures that practice polyandry, women and children often suffer from male violence based on jealousy, infaticide, intrasexual competition, and industrial-scale murdering.
@@Agamemnon-oy9qt And of course, the women are left to fend for themselves, with men mostly being visiting partners rather than permanent residents to protect and provide.
@@aruunmenon Women cannot provide for themselves, and in polyandrous cultures men still provide for women, although they are less interested in it, or they are simply always in poor health due to polyandry, and this affects their productivity.
18:19 Christianity brought an end or put the brakes on male privilege (encouraged men to be monogamous) by being responsible to the family vs feminism brought the opposite ie; encouraged women to spread their legs whenever they felt like it. (I am paraphrasing). Atta girl !! Beauty and brains combined.
The public memory in general for conservative feminist history and thinking has been poor for decades and even long forgotten; it's more than just Christian, it's undeniably western conservative/right of center. But Protestant Christian women were initially the leading thinkers so to speak...interestingly a surprising number of the popular "rebel" feminists of the 1960's had come from a Catholic background, but no one mentions it because we aren't supposed to make the distinction even though everyone knows Catholicism is all kinds of effed up, it is not modern Protestant. Conservative women, at least In America (not sure about UK) in the 1960's wanted to talk about childcare when women started to get into the workforce, but they were drowned out and ignored. By the late 60's to early 70's, Christian women and their arguments were increasingly marginalized by the popular feminism of the day, swept aside by the new "liberal" feminist dogma, which actually started out as a type of American libertarianism. The "liberal" contribution an origin seems overblown, but now they own it. No one disagrees that the progress made regarding women's health and reproductive health was a step in the right direction, even a step up, but that was soon pushed away in exchange for focussing exclusively on sex itself by the late 70's early 80's. By the 90's "gender feminism" exploded onto the scene and hasn't left since.
@@stevenseagull7.7bviews47 Feminism has and is amorphous. No direction, no center, born, bred and thrives on resentment. If you were to give them the two minutes of hate (a la 1984), they would be screaming: We haye patriarchy We hate men We hate society Men are rapists Men are batterers Marriage is slavery Children are a burden . . .we hate ourselves Feminism has distilled to a movement that wants to tear society apart but doesn't know what Will come after they have achieved this.
As far as the type of feminist Louise is, I'll float the term "difference feminist." Difference feminism had a brief moment in the late 80's and early 90's I think, and is premised on the idea that women and men are different and of equal value. Their problem wasn't the typical feminist one, where they thought any talk of difference meant reinforcing a hierarchy. Their concern was to find ways to talk about on-average differences between men and women in a way that was still egalitarian. Their concern was that the stuff we've traditionally set for women to do have been systematically devalued in society, and while women (like men) should have a range of freedoms, we need to make it so that the choices women more often make (motherhood, sexual selectivity, caring professions) are as valued socially as the choices men typically make.
I'm glad that adults are beginning to speak out about the alternative culture which has its foundation in older principles which have validity. Christ was a Councillor before his time. To admit another's love is a sacred thing and Louise makes very pertinent points on the issues of equality and compassion. It is no freedom to abuse the sanctity of marriage or commitment for one another for we are not simply walking genitalia but sentient beings with history and responsibility for humility and resolution. It is a great privilege to find a soul mate and bring a child unto the world and inherit a tradition founded in rational thought and humanity. Good luck to her for it is a noble thing to swim against self aggrandisement and narcissistic cult. Bless you.
yes... you two can see what isn't working, and why... You even have some workable solutions... It's a lot to change. Please keep in mind most of the problems are symptoms though, so targeting the three to five causes will make them go away too. This makes your job much easier too :) hopefully more and more women will start talking with you both... best of luck
Neither would I but some would and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. There is a lot there that people would consider “successful” in life and so seems reasonable even if I her husband is basically a sexual deviant - maybe she doesn’t know
Most people are forever-children... when you allow children to run free, have no rules or boundaries, do they become generous harbingers of peace and prosperity... or do they become selfish, delinquent little monsters? Like everything, it's all about balance... and balance is extremely tricky to get right.
I didn't view the q & a but I was disappointed that she didn't bring out the effect of the divorce laws and how that has changed the sexual revolution and the reticence of people to marry
The industrial revolution was characterised by an increase in industrial output, the agrarian revolutions by an increase in crops and food. The sexual revolution was characterised by a collapse in the birthrate. It wasn't a revolution, it was a sexual rebellion.
Like the agrarian and industrial revolution, the sexual revolution wasn't a social change but a technological one. It was the invention of the pill (and a decade later abortion on demand.) If there things had not been available the the sexual revolution would have lasted about six weeks. All of the women would discover they were pregnant, and we'd probably call it the weeding revolution.
Some New Paradigm is Birthing and is through the Women Movement...taking the best out of the Left and Right... Illuminating the Worse of the Right and Left...to Identify Differentiate Integrate and Transcend ❤️💚💜
Louise Perry describe the "attractive men who profit from the sexual revolution" as the Hugh Hefners of the world, who "consume" women, without considering that Hugh Hefner would not be able to "consume women" if said women were not willing. Accountability really is kryptonite for women.
@@youtubeyoutube936 Do you want a woman to date all the men in the dating app? Given there are many more man than women it makes statistical sense more men would be rejected.
I wonder whether Louise Perry and Camille Paglia have had a conversation. Camille was one of the sexual revolutionists and she’s spoken recently about the problems they didn’t foresee when they asked for the freedom to risk rape in the aim to be as restraint-free as men bureaucratically. This is in the context of having an 11PM curfew that men didn’t have. It would be interesting to see/hear them in conversation.
@18:14 Perry reminds me of a lot of the anti-woke liberals who wanted history to stop maybe a decade or two ago but don't seem to realize that that is not an equilibrium - radical individual autonomy won't stop where they want it to stop. In a similar fashion, I don't think Perry can take a bit of Christian sexual ethics that she likes and then take the parts of the sexual revolution she likes and put them together. It won't work.
Basically, women got most of what they ask for, but not what they wanted: “The advantages of a man, the privileges of a woman, and the responsibility of a child.” Ironically, what she doesn’t say is that men are gradually realizing that feminism has liberated men ... and they don’t like it one bit.
Would dispute - I think women’s infidelity has been understated, and men’s use of “paid sex” is overstated. In my middle class circle, at younger ages there are a minority of men that are very promiscuous and I see some of that reversed in the over 45s. In my cohort of friends and family, I would say 6 to 4 women leaving their husbands for other men. The idea of men being promiscuous, women not has been shattered through my personal observing friends and my social network …
One of the main points is that promoting a society in which most men are able to get married to a woman is what has led to the civilised and mostly peaceful societies we enjoy today. In less civilised and less peaceful societies you tend to have a small number of men with a large number of wives, and a huge number of men who don't have any families, leading to violence and unrest, and extreme repression from the men in charge. The problem is if you give women a completely free choice as to what to do, they unwittingly tend to gravitate towards the latter scenario: they only want to marry an alpha male, and if they can't, they refuse to get married at all. This is line with the type of society where large numbers of men don't get married. But what's best for everyone overall is the first scenario where most men are able to get married. [This is not the same thing as telling women exactly what they ought to be doing with their lives].
The thing that sort of strikes me is... is this real. Perhaps I'm sheltered and interact with the middle class... but to me people mostly have monogamous relationships mostly eventually get married and eventually have children. The age of first child has been pushed back and there are issues related to housing here. I just don't see the end of the world here, the change from before is that people have a bit more sex and sure here there might be some odd dynamics but most people just view this as a phase and move on... and I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing. Perhaps things are more extreme than this.... or perhaps the Internet is just pushing them. Like to me what matters are: * accurate understanding of contraceptions immediate health effects and alternatives * help for those who have abortions * Perhaps and understanding for young people thar sex can be damaging Sometimes I feel like the author is sort of pushing a catastrophised notion of shame. "No one will marry with you if you sleep with too many people". And it's like... or.... you find some other people or no one cares ... or... no one knows you sleep with.
Thank you, very interesting. As for "Christians having weird ideas about unborn children".... Christian approach to abortion is similar to that of other monotheistic religions, i.e. Judaism and Islam. I'm sure that, when Christians in ancient Rome opposed throwing unwanted babies and infants into rivers or dumpsters, they were also considered weird, so it's not necessarily such a useful criterion in deciding if something is right or wrong.
@@gosiachaaban2484 I would get charged with the murder of a woman AND a child. Yet a woman has somehow the license to kill that child legally for her convenience?
Abortion is about nothing more than feminine narcissist solipsism in the extreme. All of the talk about rape and women's health is a (debunked by data) smoke screen to cover this fact. All the privilege and perceived rights of men, none of the costs.
Great interview ladies. Of course !!...motherhood and building a strong family is just as important or more in some respects to the male role...The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world ! Yes the 20s are the decade for men and women to get married and start the miraculous and seemingly impossible task of starting a family. Limited money, demands of infants and toddlers and much more make these extremely difficult years and the lazy way is to opt out of taking this plunge. Thank God for the model and guidance of Christianity to help with this. It's sooooo difficult to do it without this structure. More and more young people are discovering what an important part of the equation it is.
For traditional family structures to compete, child rearing and home keeping need to be recognised as important work and paid for accordingly. Without such measures society will collapse, so it’s a small price to pay.
I don't think this is a 'left-right' issue as much as folks tend to want to identify positions in simplistic 'this or that' (politics of division). I think this is a unifying position that she clearly expresses appeals, in part, across some of our political divisions (aka: so called conservatives and liberals)... and also get's push back as well from both so called 'sides'.
Classic schroedingers femunism! Women are both empowered and oppressed at the same time. All she has to do is decide which state gives her the optimal outcome and collapse the discussion to just that
I agree with most of what's said here, but even with this there's still this undercurrent that women deserve things. The sexual revolution was bad for women? That may be, but it's bad for men too. Women are reliant on the state? Well, proportionately, men are working to pay for those women. I understand that if people can only empathise and not think about things, then they need arguments that show how they (or people like them) are disadvantaged, but ultimately it's never going to be a good way to get to good conclusions.
The amount of time and effort spent on talking about Sex constantly amazes me. SEX is how we create the next generation of our species, END OF. Male and Female bringing up children creates Balance and Continuity. It's simple, it doesn't need to be analysed or discussed, just accepted.
People shouldn’t worry about sex before marriage but sex after marriage! Louise might think that marriage is good for women but is it good for men? I can’t say that I’d recommend it for my son but would for my daughter
I’m sure it’s a view not just held by Louise. Maybe the best way to fix thing is to require women to sign up for or against marriage so that we know where they stand. And abolish the welfare state at the same time. I wonder what the latter would do to opinions
Lol, she’s reinvented the wheel but because she is a young woman she will be hailed a genius 😂 Conservative men have been saying this for around 1,700 years (give or take a few months)
While agree that changes need to be made it comes across as though Louise only wants these changes not because of harm done to society but to women specifically.
@@qsa59 while that is true I think the advice he gives 12 rules for life is fairly universal. He also points out how many things that might initially appear to only affect men will hurt society and a whole and therefore women.
Well no, this is a consequence of the whispered discussions which began taking place in the 1990's when gender feminism erupted into the mainstream...prior to that it was considered fringe and reserved for the weirdo side of the universities which no one took seriously because it was bunk...Peterson is twenty years late: he started talking like Christina Hoff Sommers, and she was decades ahead of him, and she's a woman.
I think there's countless things wrong with societies of today, and while I may agree with several things with Peterson, I just cannot stand him as a person, as I think he's a grandiose jackass who's main mission is to keep himself in the limelight and to gain more and more notoriety as some kind of all knowing expert on everything and a leader of all things anti-woke. And I hate those kinds of peoole with no humility and with that much eagarness to be some kind of though leader. I reject people who in my opinion smell power hungry and enjoy too much their position of being "popular". He has a cultish vibe with his over confident declarations and the general attitude of coming down from his throne above to set things right for all us dumbasses. There's hardly anything these days that Jordan isn't an "expert" on. So he's first and foremost just another ideological pundit.
I have suffered my whole life and watched pretty much everyone else I knew suffer all my life because of feminism and the pill. I hate both. Men and women - and above all children - need marriage and families for society to work. That is what society is. The alternative is that men compete for power and women compete for the most powerful men.
I regard the likes of Perry, Harrington and Nina Power as being halfway down a road who's destination is accepting that "patriarchy" as described by feminism is actually a natural outgrowth of the proven differences between men and women, and that monogamy is actually vital for regulating those differences. Women are hypergamous (expect to partner up with someone higher in the social hierarchy), therefore men have an innate evolved pressure to "become" that women simply don't have. This difference can explain the mythical "pay gap", more men in STEM, greater risk taking and status seeking by men and the move towards polygyny in the dating market.
No. Evolutionary sociology and psychology = pseudoscience and both are riddled with post modernist ideology. "Patriarchy" doesn't mean anything because it used to be used in a different context and you are making the same bloody mistake.
That's actually a false comparison. Rome collapsed when it had been a Christian nation for over 100 years with harsh sexual morals. Rome during it's growth and height was sexually promiscuous in contrast.
also, the Christian social system is a work of genius level social engineering... I'm not sure hybridizing it can give you workable results... You wouldn't take out all the parts you don't like from an opera just because they make you sad. You'd be left with a disney movie, boring and self indulgent garbage... You'll need to find super-genus women social engineers to help you build a new system and make it solid and workable in modern times... it needs a solid foundation with some flexibility I hope that's helpful :)
I've allways thought the sexual revolution played far more to men than women, to the point that sometimes I had a sneaky suspicion it was actually being led by men not women. I've had to put myself in romantic and sexual exile because its far too crazy for me out there these days. I've never kept my views to myself about this. I've raised my 2 sons and had a few different jobs. A hairdresser and my husband and I ran an advertising agency, a few other jobs, but hairdressing was also a career. I never put my kids before my work, my boys allways come first. I don't subscribe to a lot of modern day mothers attitudes of waiting to put kids off to the point that a lot of women leave it too late then they find it so hard to cope that they het post natal depression. You can't get depressed about having your children unless something is wrong in the first place. I don't believe it's a hormonal thing, I don't think it's normal to be depressed because you had a baby, unless something is wrong in the first place. I'm a feminist because I don't support oppression but that dosnt mean I support a lot of what's going on with women today. This woman is about to start a real revolution hopefully.
the sexual revolution only benefits the tiny percentage of high value men, most men who are looking for a meaningful relationship with a good woman do not benefit from it at all.
In hookup culture, 5-10% of men get sex, the rest are sexless! So how do you qualify your statement under this reality? Or are you just another woman blaming men for the actions of women!
This audio needs work- mostly because she's practically whispering but there's no way that you can set it so you can hear the interviewee without the interviewer suddenly blasting out.
From my perspective here in Manhattan, I have a distinctly elemental question --- not to mention a simply aesthetic one. And that is: Why is Louise Perry presented on camera with extremely flattering lighting on her --- whilen Katy is sitting under lighting that might be described as the visual equivalent of someone holding a flashlight under her face? Now, I've heard of 'presenting a guest in a good light'....but this is really taking things, well, shall we say: Beyond the...pale? Just sayin'. end
Also, she didn't define "better". What is better? And for 5% of men? That doesn't qualify as a large enough sample you can generalize to men. Ah the hubris of a proper British hypocrite.
Love Truth above All Things ❤️ Accept and Thank the Suffering 💚 (from the Knowledge of Truth) Confront and Illuminate Malevolence 💜 Tirany is the Seed of its Own Destruction !!! From the Unconscious Hell ❤️ To the Conscious Hell 💚 Until the Paradise of Consciousness 💜 Thaaannnk Yooouuu ❤️ 💚 💜
I think Louise has important things to say but unfortunately no matter what podcast she's on, including her own, I can't hear a damn thing she's saying. She needs to speak up.
Women complaining anout the consequences of their own choices and actions. Colour me surprised! No doubt they will simultaneously heap blame on and yet expect t h e Patriarchy to fix the area of their dissatisfaction!
Louise encapsulates why feminists got it so badly wrong in the 1970's and still do today. Whilst you have to generalise when discussing society, you still have to be reasonably accurate in determining what people will accept, whether it's good for them or not. At best, Louise recognises that women aren't getting the results feminism promised but it's naive to think we can go back to monogamous lifelong marriages simply by changing our attitude. Even if the marriage laws became sympathetic to, errr, marriage, and the effects of the sexual revolution were accounted for, the loss of faith in any union with the State or women can't be easily reversed. Men have no rights over their own children. None. He doesn't even have the right to know if he has children or if the ones he knows about and pays are his!! These issues and countless others are conspicuous by their absence in any debate of this kind and Louise can't distance herself from the worst of feminism and all the damage done in the past 50 years by simply saying to women "get back in the kitchen" , which is roughly what her rally cry boils down to. In truth, we are seeing the demise of democracy and the conventional family life that went with it. Ironically, it was that convention feminists were breaking away from in the 70's as depicted in films like 'The Stepford Wives'. Crazy to think that a staid but nonetheless idilic scene could've been so reviled. How dare beautiful women enjoy sex with their stable, not going anywhere husbands?!! As the film suggests, we are hurtling towards a dystopian future but I feel Louise Perry, like the feminists of old, appear to be the problem and not the solution. "Consent is not enough"? Hmm, what does that mean exactly? That women can't think for themselves, that even when they actively seek out extreme sexual encounters, or any other variety, it is the men and only the men who are held accountable or responsible? She warns of the danger of infantilising women whilst she is doing just that. Everyone, male or female, film's everything now anyway and who can blame them? No one is taking any chances. Big brother has well and truly arrived and I think Louise helping the fear culture along.
Ive been inclusive and open my whole entire life but now that young People are starting to see Monogamy as some silly-Norm-that-needs-to-be-broken, i nope outta here.
The fact that she wears make-up puts the lie to her entire body of work. Makuep was once the province of prostitutes -- and for clear reason. It's a lie designed precisely to trick men -- to add a more youthful appearance to an XX than reality would confer. It's called neoteny -- the appearance of youth. Makeup (and other masks) are a lie designed to fool men into believing an XX is seggsually receptive to all men in all public places at all all times. That's it's only designed purpose -- to tweak male instincts to gain social advantage. Thus we witness run-of-the-mill hypocrisy -- a contradiction between word and deed which tells us all we need to know. The philosopher flaunts her own philsoohy. She uses the tools of fee-mayle deception while holding pretensions of some ideal natural human interaction. When you pollute the discourse of ostensible propriety with a bald display of vulgar seggsual arrosal, your assertions of seggsual temperance are a farce. I fear we're so far gone that nobody in this row of comments has yet pointed out this glaring dissonance between word and deed. This XX is a charlatan. One of many who pretend to have the prescription for what ails us -- all the while our legal and social frameworks continue to feed on the rotting flesh of a culture which died the day we gave the vote to those who weren't accountable or responsible for any of their political choices -- no matter how vile, selfish, or self destructive. They voted themselves exponentially increasing freebies while providing nothing in return to anyone. Such a parasitic relationship can only end one way -- collapse... which we'll see in my lifetime. Real collapse -- the kind that ends civilization. What do you call authority without responsibility? What do you call responsibility without authority? Until XXs learn those 2 simple concepts and how they relate, society will continue it's slide into the sewer as those who have the authority without responsibility feed like parasites upon those who have the responsibility without any authority. It's a mathematical certainty that the end is coming for those who have grown dependent upon male productivity for their futures. That productivity was only generated in response to men forming families for which they instinctively over-produced to provide. But that was before vvahmanists conned XXs into joining the workforce and corporations sold out the American dream to serve the same type of hunger which drives the leech -- a free meal at the expense of the host. Inflation was the final nail in the coffin. Until XXs destroy their own unearned privileges, their loneliness and poverty is inevitable. The stats are grim. By 2030, the suffering will have only just begun. It will be the beginning of 40 years of an empty life. From 40 to 80 is a long time to live without love or family. This will be the fate of 45% of XXs by 2030. Daddy Gubment isn't coming to save them because the freebies they'll try to vote themselves only existed when most men were providing for families and forced to work 3 times as much as a single and childless man has to work and has to buy. Savers don't generate tax revenue. The more such men are taxed, the less they'll work. Once there are no increase rewards for increased productivity, nobody become more productive. They start to scale down even more. This isn't even a debate, it's a fait accompli -- already baked into the cake. I'm just bearing witness as the clock winds down -- dying from the entropy born of empowered ingrates. They build nothing, they only erode and degrade the foundations from which they stridently bark for more as they gorge themselves on the last remnants of a Republic which was founded to protect itself from the depredations of the parasitic classes. The experiment in democracy is over.
Yes look at marriage and consent within marriage. I think a woman can say no to sex but there isn’t a reciprocal position for a husband to say actually this week I don’t feel like sharing my resources maybe next week.
@@youtubeyoutube936 There is a saying in legal circles "it isn't that every woman wants to destroy a man, it's just that every woman can". We're well past the point of a 'good reason' for marriage for any man with resources. A 50% chance of divorce and no standing at all for custody or parental rights. Would you let your son enter into any legal contract that disadvantaged him to that extent? Can any contract truly work when it is that biased? Women are married to the state. The state has taken the role of men and greatly weakening society in the process. Fantastic social engineering. It's the great unspoken about.
Thank you for talking about the colour pink. Why is that even considered a girl colour? I'd much rather have orange or yellow. Or if it has to be pink, make it a dusty rose, or something like that. Not this awful fluorescent version of pink that just hurts the eyes 👀
@@prestonbane4176 It was considered male in the early 20th century, as it was linked into the colour and vibrancy of blood and therefore associated with men. There is also "the pink pound" which is associated more with gay men. Your reason for pink now being associated with women is just nonsense you've plucked out of the air.
It's a good thing for her she ignored her friend's advice. I'm glad she's had the fortitude to speak her mind on these things. Many, many people need to hear this message.
Such a good point about the idea that our ancestors were stupid and we are better in every way. Yes, the scientific principle has enabled us to learn so much more in a short amount of time, but in anything regarding politics, society, and the self we lose so much wisdom by ignoring the past. I think one of our most underrated assets at the moment are historians.
"People work with what they have" as some people often say....
Louise Perry is great. She has a disarming and really effective way of raising tricky issues without seeming confrontational or "clickbaity". Yeah, a big fan. ✊
Louise Perry has some very interesting things to say and her book deserves the widest audience.
Stop simping
She's pathologically selfish.
@@biggsubz3122 simping implies that he’s kissing up to her because he has a crush on her, why do u think he has a crush on her? Nothing in his comment hints towards that.
@character5748 no simping doesn't just imply that, when he says "her book deserves the widest audience" that's when you know he's simping hard.
I was reading into Sex and Cultures(1934) by JD Unwin. It was basically saying that Sexual Liberation equates to Societal Collapse 3 generations after the Liberation is implemented. When you relate it to our Western Society, sexual liberation started in the 70s. The study took into account 86 different dead civilizations.
Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations of the change in sexual freedom. So how are we doing as we enter the second generation since our own sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century?
As predicted, absolute monogamy has already been replaced with modified monogamy. Common-law relationships are becoming the norm. Although divorce occurred prior to the 1970’s, the mainstream of our culture still maintained the view that marriage should be for life, and common-law relationships were regarded with some distaste. That has clearly changed. Those who actually practice life-long commitments in marriage have become the minority, with couples born prior to the sexual revolution much more likely to maintain a life-long commitment in marriage.
Deism is already rapidly declining, exactly as predicted. Prior to the 1960’s, a combination of rationalism and a belief in God was the norm for mainstream culture. Not only has belief in God greatly decreased since the 1960’s, but there has been a trend to remove the concept of God from government, the educational system, and the public forum. Those who still believe in God sense a strong societal pressure to keep deistic beliefs private. In its place, is a surprising rise in superstition,[7] classified by Unwin as a “monistic” culture, two levels down from the rationalist culture we had prior to the sexual revolution. There has also been a huge increase in the percentage of the population that classifies itself as non-religious, a symptom of the lowest, “zoistic” level of Unwin’s categories.[8]
The swiftness with which rational thinking declined after the 1970’s is astounding. In its place arose post-modernism, characterized by “scepticism, subjectivism, or relativism” and “a general suspicion of reason”.[9] But it gets worse … post-modernism is giving way to “post truth”. In direct contrast to rational thinking, a post-truth culture abandons “shared objective standards for truth” and instead, stands on appeals to feelings and emotions, and what one wants to believe.[10] People can now “identify” themselves as something which flat-out contradicts science and rational thinking and, in many cases, receive the full support and backing of governments and educational systems. Not only do people feel they have a right to believe what they want, but any challenge to that belief, even if supported by truth and logic, is unacceptable and offensive. Here is a quote from Unwin that has become particularly a propos in the last couple decades since our own sexual revolution
There's a reason why this book is unreasonably expensive on amazon... they don't want people to buy it. This book has too many uncomfortable truths.
really interesting, thanks.
I think Deism began declining in 1660 in England....
It all just feels like evidence light doom mongering with oddly specific productions.
In the time of "strict prenuptial chastity" child molestation and "seduction" were prevalent.
I doubt it but if so it had been replaced by mass abortion as a means of birth control
The basic problem with conversations like this is that the impact on society is rarely if ever considered. What passes for "society" in these conversations is nothing but a thinly veiled consideration of the self. We have plummeting birth rates, for example, but the reasons for that are never addressed, because if they were to be addressed we might have to consider being responsible personally rather than being narcissistic.
Precisely!
So called "private" sexual decisions are nothing but. It is almost impossible to imagine anything with far further reaching public implications than sexual decisions. How many children you have, and how you have them, with whom you have them, and when you have them, determine almost everything for everyone alive and yet to be born. The decision not to have children has crippling and existential implications for others, and even affects their own ability to have children. And our society and leaders are almost totally silent on this.
Yoich!
Don't understand what you mean
@M W I'm very sorry your brain timed out during a paragraph of text.
Thank goodness, Louise! You are putting words to what has been in my mind for the past 20 years. I completely support your position.
I agree with her totally. A voice of reason amongst all the modern, woke and cheaply shrill.
But what she won't ever do is come out & categorically say that the lies of ''you can have it all'' first world feminism has only completely destroyed the lives of all women for the last four generations or so & not forgetting those closest to them too & the reason why she won't is simply because she is still a feminist herself & of course to tell the truth that bluntly will only incur even more wrath & scorn from the still totally brainwashed & hysterical feminists that are all around us & that's just the simps & beta males!!!!!!
That's because popular feminism for a long while has talked about women fitting into men's boxes without saying so directly. But she's talking about the realities women face and their real lives, a side of the conversation which amongst and about women has been missing for far too long. A popular documentary recently came out in America is called "What Is A Woman?" which challenges transgender ideology. But after covid and stay home orders, women are finally asking, "WHEN do I get to be a woman?". Hopefully this side of the popular narrative comes back, it needs to be be throughly discussed.
There's a difference between shrill and audible, though. I miss a lot of her words and have to replay often, due to the sotto voce style of speech. Compelling points, though.
There are some issues.
She is framing the sexual revolution as "women adopting male sexuality"
That is simply not true.
The sexual revolution is not women trying to be men in a sexaul context.
It was women have just as much say about sexuality as men have.
In her book she talks about how women are pressured to "have sex like men"...but in reality women face far more criticism for being promiscous than men do.
Men are praised for "body count" by men and women...while women are shamed for "body count" by men and women.
That is still the mainstream view.
In my view she is projecting.
She might have less open and more conservative views about her own sexuality.
But if other women don't feel the same way she tries to frame as masulinity being forced upon them just bc they don't agree with her personal preferences.
Don't get me wrong she raises some valid points about double standards and roles women are forced to deal with.
But her solution seems to be that you should let "traditional roles" be your only valid guiding factor instead allowing people to define their own roles.
That plants her squarely in the conservative camp.
But at least she does not use pseudo science evolutionary biology to justify it.
At least she talks alludes to socielogy and her own person psychology to make her points.
@@memegazer How is evolutionary biology pseudoscience? We are mammals and the point of sexuality is ultimately to reproduce which is the goal of all mammals. How is this not relevant to a discussion of human sexuality and the difference between male and female sexuality?
She’s the voice that we need. Come to Utah in the US Louise! You will be heard. ❤
"The right considers women to be private property the left consider them to be public property." Whoever that was who Louise Perry quoted was spot on.
Andrea Dworkin
The right considers women to be private property owned by men.
The left considers women to be private property owned by themselves.
Although, for some issues, it seems to be the exact opposite.
If women are public property, then why are there so many men who can not get laid?
Women being free to make their own choices, does not make them property. We can of course discuss back and forth how capable women or for that matter men are of making good choices, but Western women are not "public property" in the sense which that sentence imply.
I have - fortunately - never heard of any government service, where just about any man could get laid with an enslaved woman. It does not exist. And should not exist.
Some women have casual sex with top tier men not because they are enslaved and forced to do it, but because they choose to.
The point about the right wing considering women private property, have a bit more validity to it. At least in some less developed countries. In the West, there are mostly fringe groups and possibly some immigrant groups that view women this way. Western mainstream rightwingers do not consider women property, and neither does leftists.
If you have a problem with women´s choices, then talk to women about it. Don´t go around and lament about women being "property", when they are clearly not.
@@JohanDanielsson8802 it seems women gravitate towards making harems if they are given free choice.. and Harems can destabilize society, only benefitting a few top men.. this implies that women are incapable of making rational decisions, they behave like overgrown children.. Should they even make free choices ?
Louise is brilliant. My daughter lives in Switzerland and they only have 4 months of maternal leave. It is heartbreaking and definitely not what she wants. They provide a half-hour extra lunch break for breastfeeding mothers but only for the first year. And this is just the beginning of making children suffer in the so-called interests of the mother. Child care is a sad substitute for child love.
Swiss society leading figures still consider women to stay at home when they have kids anyway. Which is why they only grand 4 month of paid leave. After that the roles are clear. Father goes to work and earns the money, mother stays home. Which is why all the day care is still called "Familienergänzende Betreuung".
It couldn't be much more far from reality. Simply a shame.
Your daughter seems to have a very generous system, one that is unavailable to working class women in my country. Our daycare centres cater for infants from six weeks of age.
In my country (Australia) in the 1970s I distinctly remember feminists promising to elevate the role of housewives and mothers. But they abandoned them quickly because the big corporations who benifited from married women in the workforce could not profit from them.
We had a male Prime Minister in the eighties who introduced an allowance to be paid to married mothers who didn't work to allow them to care for their own children instead of working. At first this lasted until the child was 16. Feminists were not impressed. The allowance never kept up with inflation, and now ends before the child is seven, instead they demand free daycare from birth.
If women want their babies back they need to fight and collectivise just as the feminists fought to end motherhood for women. Or simply decide to live within their husbands income.
Sorry for the long comment.
@@thomasbern2860 Good on the Swiss.
I’m a citizen of America, where both parents have no guaranteed family leave, no sick leave, etc. I’ve worked with a single mother who could not skip work even though she just broke her arm. It was at a fast food restaurant and she was wincing and groaning in pain at every move she made. Our system here is disgusting, considering we could change it pretty easily. It’s also profoundly anti-family, but the “Conservatives” here support it while claiming to be for “family values”
@@gorgzilla1712 Here in Australia the minimum wage is slightly higher if you don't receive holiday or sick leave. In theory people are supposed to put a little aside. But as this work is poorly paid to begin with, very few people actually do so.
Great work Louise. It's common sense and balance at the end of the day. These are the discussions we need to be having ,because toxic relationships and a lack of respect have become the norm, and this is right from the offset, which is why I haven't dated much, and why I have practiced celebacy for big chunks of my life. Keep up the great work ladies.
Our birth rates are dropping through the floor. once you have one child child care and work are so difficult that it puts people off having a second child.
If people want to have children, they will.
@@hughoxford8735 some people can't think logically, so multiple children are born.
@@hughoxford8735 It's about far more than just wanting to. Economics is a thing.
@@stevenseagull7.7bviews47 Muslims have loads of kids. Most of them are poor. They find a way.
@Hugh Oxford A Muslim has a duty to the all mighty Allah. It is not some bum choice made out of thin air. A Muslim must serve the purpose regardless of how difficult it may seem. The God always gives the strength to he who serves the almighty.
This is the best ASMR ive ever heard.
Check out Jonathan haidt...
🤣
As a conservative Christian, who disagrees with some of the assumptions (I.e abortion), it is refreshing to hear such a sharp mind challenging the status quo. I would add to the discussion that the original motive for biblical standards are in order to bring life; sadly these were corrupted, mainly by men, but it is interesting to me that an honest mind is at least taking a step toward truth. We will never have utopia, but we can at least promote a better way of living.
This crazy world still has heroes. My God this is refreshing and long overdue.
Perry’s voice is soo relaxing
her voice is so soothing !
Fascinating interview. At my ripe old age, I never thought I'd conclude that the Roman Catholic church is right in declaring that sex is for the procreation of children. To expect any more from it only leads to misery.
That is a MONSTROUS attitude, FUCK the catholic church and its fascist attitude towards especially female sexuality. Granted, parts of the sexrevolution has gone way over the top, but to embrace the flamin' catholic church is like going from socialism to fascism.
Yet the clergy sexually abuse children and women
Actually the RC is somewhat incorrect in this. Sex is not purely for procreation. It is a very deep spiritual experience between a man and a wife, joining them together as one flesh. It is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and His Church, which represents His Body. This is why it's a Holy Sacrament. The procreation element is the fruit of this union, a wonderful Blessing from God. I am an Orthodox Christian.
Great interview and I agrees with almost everything she said.
Her near whispering throughout and constant trailing off with her speech was infuriating! If I had it loud enough to hear her, then the host was deafening.
Agreed, much of it was unintelligible; serious production issues.
Agreed. Is it me or do the British tend to do this a lot? I'm American. No offense meant.
@@rollinmark8952 Yes, the British tend to speak more softly, even apologetically, than Americans. Obviously there are exceptions. We tend to find American voices unpleasantly loud and hectoring. Obviously there are exceptions there too. But here the issue seems to be the disparity between the volume level of Louise Perry versus that of Katy Balls.
@@russellsharpe288 Thanks Russell, yes we Americans tend to be loud. I'm not sure exactly why that is. Too much open space? 😉😁😆😅🤣
But she is very articulate and clever
It seems odd to me that when a woman says that men and women are different, she receives a standing ovation
Just a little aside…..As an anthropologist living in Polynesia I should point out an inevitable exception to the rule. In pre-European Enana/Enata or Marquesan culture a polyandrous system existed. A women had a Vahana or first husband and then based upon status and means secondary ones called pekio. Then inevitably Catholic missionaries put an end to that in the course of the 19th Century.
Please forgive me what's the point
You’re forgiven - I think you will find that those from a more indigenous connected to the earth culture (in this case) had a very different reality sexually than the culture that gave birth to Christianity. And there in lies the problem - much like Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life. Helpful though it might be there are no absolutes and in both cases their words are being received that way. I think in Jordan’s case also delivered that way.
This culture definitely had its pitfalls. In cultures that practice polyandry, women and children often suffer from male violence based on jealousy, infaticide, intrasexual competition, and industrial-scale murdering.
@@Agamemnon-oy9qt And of course, the women are left to fend for themselves, with men mostly being visiting partners rather than permanent residents to protect and provide.
@@aruunmenon Women cannot provide for themselves, and in polyandrous cultures men still provide for women, although they are less interested in it, or they are simply always in poor health due to polyandry, and this affects their productivity.
18:19 Christianity brought an end or put the brakes on male privilege (encouraged men to be monogamous) by being responsible to the family vs feminism brought the opposite ie; encouraged women to spread their legs whenever they felt like it. (I am paraphrasing).
Atta girl !! Beauty and brains combined.
The public memory in general for conservative feminist history and thinking has been poor for decades and even long forgotten; it's more than just Christian, it's undeniably western conservative/right of center. But Protestant Christian women were initially the leading thinkers so to speak...interestingly a surprising number of the popular "rebel" feminists of the 1960's had come from a Catholic background, but no one mentions it because we aren't supposed to make the distinction even though everyone knows Catholicism is all kinds of effed up, it is not modern Protestant.
Conservative women, at least In America (not sure about UK) in the 1960's wanted to talk about childcare when women started to get into the workforce, but they were drowned out and ignored. By the late 60's to early 70's, Christian women and their arguments were increasingly marginalized by the popular feminism of the day, swept aside by the new "liberal" feminist dogma, which actually started out as a type of American libertarianism. The "liberal" contribution an origin seems overblown, but now they own it.
No one disagrees that the progress made regarding women's health and reproductive health was a step in the right direction, even a step up, but that was soon pushed away in exchange for focussing exclusively on sex itself by the late 70's early 80's. By the 90's "gender feminism" exploded onto the scene and hasn't left since.
@@stevenseagull7.7bviews47 Feminism has and is amorphous. No direction, no center, born, bred and thrives on resentment. If you were to give them the two minutes of hate (a la 1984), they would be screaming:
We haye patriarchy
We hate men
We hate society
Men are rapists
Men are batterers
Marriage is slavery
Children are a burden
.
.
.we hate ourselves
Feminism has distilled to a movement that wants to tear society apart but doesn't know what Will come after they have achieved this.
As far as the type of feminist Louise is, I'll float the term "difference feminist." Difference feminism had a brief moment in the late 80's and early 90's I think, and is premised on the idea that women and men are different and of equal value. Their problem wasn't the typical feminist one, where they thought any talk of difference meant reinforcing a hierarchy. Their concern was to find ways to talk about on-average differences between men and women in a way that was still egalitarian. Their concern was that the stuff we've traditionally set for women to do have been systematically devalued in society, and while women (like men) should have a range of freedoms, we need to make it so that the choices women more often make (motherhood, sexual selectivity, caring professions) are as valued socially as the choices men typically make.
The shock on Katie’s face when she said they got 2 Guardians a day… 😂
I'm glad that adults are beginning to speak out about the alternative culture which has its foundation in older principles which have validity. Christ was a Councillor before his time. To admit another's love is a sacred thing and Louise makes very pertinent points on the issues of equality and compassion. It is no freedom to abuse the sanctity of marriage or commitment for one another for we are not simply walking genitalia but sentient beings with history and responsibility for humility and resolution. It is a great privilege to find a soul mate and bring a child unto the world and inherit a tradition founded in rational thought and humanity. Good luck to her for it is a noble thing to swim against self aggrandisement and narcissistic cult. Bless you.
yes... you two can see what isn't working, and why...
You even have some workable solutions...
It's a lot to change. Please keep in mind most of the problems are symptoms though, so targeting the three to five causes will make them go away too. This makes your job much easier too :)
hopefully more and more women will start talking with you both... best of luck
Beyoncé is not a woman that I would consider looking to as an example to live my life by.
Beyoncé famously sang the 'put a ring on it' anthem.
That's what they're alluding to... not her particular lifestyle choices.
@@commonwunder 👌
Neither would I but some would and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. There is a lot there that people would consider “successful” in life and so seems reasonable even if I her husband is basically a sexual deviant - maybe she doesn’t know
@@zenwarrior1984 What do you mean by "sexual deviant"?
@@toomuchinformation oh a friend of mine used to work for them … she left in a hurry sadly not without a few emotional scars.
Most people are forever-children... when you allow children to run free, have no rules or boundaries,
do they become generous harbingers of peace and prosperity... or do they become selfish, delinquent little monsters?
Like everything, it's all about balance... and balance is extremely tricky to get right.
I’ve often called them talk children.
Tiresome argument...
Fantastic, love Louise’s book it’s what we all know deep down, but no one’s saying it. Until now that is ❤
I didn't view the q & a but I was disappointed that she didn't bring out the effect of the divorce laws and how that has changed the sexual revolution and the reticence of people to marry
“I’m not a joiner-inner” - strangely put, but somehow still well put - as I know exactly what Mrs. Perry means and share that same aversion.
Great interview! Found Louise from her interview with Jordan Peterson but this was much better!
I am left wing and I agree entirely with this
Louise, your eyebrows!!! ❤❤❤ Perfect, immaculate, realistic, beautiful!
Interesting interview.
The industrial revolution was characterised by an increase in industrial output, the agrarian revolutions by an increase in crops and food. The sexual revolution was characterised by a collapse in the birthrate. It wasn't a revolution, it was a sexual rebellion.
Like the agrarian and industrial revolution, the sexual revolution wasn't a social change but a technological one. It was the invention of the pill (and a decade later abortion on demand.) If there things had not been available the the sexual revolution would have lasted about six weeks. All of the women would discover they were pregnant, and we'd probably call it the weeding revolution.
a collapse in the birthrate and an explosion of sexual immorality, pornification of society and promiscuity
I don't know you wanted more children... but it has even been accompanied by a drop in sex
Some New Paradigm is Birthing and is through the Women Movement...taking the best out of the Left and Right... Illuminating the Worse of the Right and Left...to Identify Differentiate Integrate and Transcend ❤️💚💜
Great interview!
Interesting and excellent - ironically, I heard Dennis Prager saying much the same recently.
Louise Perry describe the "attractive men who profit from the sexual revolution" as the Hugh Hefners of the world, who "consume" women, without considering that Hugh Hefner would not be able to "consume women" if said women were not willing. Accountability really is kryptonite for women.
Ive seen videos of research data where women discount 80% of men on dating apps. Whereas men it is 50:50. Says it all
Women never own up to the dark side of hypergamy. All roads lead to "men bad" as the ultimate cope and scapegoat.
@@youtubeyoutube936 Do you want a woman to date all the men in the dating app? Given there are many more man than women it makes statistical sense more men would be rejected.
What is her solution for sexless marriages?
When women unilaterally turn off access while expecting every other aspect of marriage to continue?
I wonder whether Louise Perry and Camille Paglia have had a conversation. Camille was one of the sexual revolutionists and she’s spoken recently about the problems they didn’t foresee when they asked for the freedom to risk rape in the aim to be as restraint-free as men bureaucratically. This is in the context of having an 11PM curfew that men didn’t have. It would be interesting to see/hear them in conversation.
When was this curfew please?
Look up her stance on pedophillia
@@MrPolicekarimOstensibly in the late 60's, when I believe Camille was in college.
No our ancestors where as wise as we are and as deserving of our freedom. What changed is men no longer are able to systhematicaly controll woman
Wonderful book (all my Christian friends say the same)
Interesting that even a non-believer like Louise recognises that Christianity was better for women than the Paganism that preceded it.
Maybe because this is her hundredth interview, but it didn't really go into the depth of how the sexual revolution has manifested.
Contraception, pretty much.
Ding.
@@pezushka Contraception plus widespread antibiotics. People in the 1960s really did think that STDs had been defeated forever.
She's got a book...
Also, this was a relatively short interview.
This girl gives me the butterflies...
Totally agree with her, but she needs to "project" her voice consistently if she is to be heard on podcasts.
@18:14 Perry reminds me of a lot of the anti-woke liberals who wanted history to stop maybe a decade or two ago but don't seem to realize that that is not an equilibrium - radical individual autonomy won't stop where they want it to stop. In a similar fashion, I don't think Perry can take a bit of Christian sexual ethics that she likes and then take the parts of the sexual revolution she likes and put them together. It won't work.
Basically, women got most of what they ask for, but not what they wanted: “The advantages of a man, the privileges of a woman, and the responsibility of a child.” Ironically, what she doesn’t say is that men are gradually realizing that feminism has liberated men ... and they don’t like it one bit.
@@jefferytokarsky1930Yep u figured it out
Would dispute - I think women’s infidelity has been understated, and men’s use of “paid sex” is overstated. In my middle class circle, at younger ages there are a minority of men that are very promiscuous and I see some of that reversed in the over 45s. In my cohort of friends and family, I would say 6 to 4 women leaving their husbands for other men. The idea of men being promiscuous, women not has been shattered through my personal observing friends and my social network …
One of the main points is that promoting a society in which most men are able to get married to a woman is what has led to the civilised and mostly peaceful societies we enjoy today. In less civilised and less peaceful societies you tend to have a small number of men with a large number of wives, and a huge number of men who don't have any families, leading to violence and unrest, and extreme repression from the men in charge. The problem is if you give women a completely free choice as to what to do, they unwittingly tend to gravitate towards the latter scenario: they only want to marry an alpha male, and if they can't, they refuse to get married at all. This is line with the type of society where large numbers of men don't get married. But what's best for everyone overall is the first scenario where most men are able to get married. [This is not the same thing as telling women exactly what they ought to be doing with their lives].
It should be 70-80% but the current rate is quite low.
The thing that sort of strikes me is... is this real.
Perhaps I'm sheltered and interact with the middle class... but to me people mostly have monogamous relationships mostly eventually get married and eventually have children. The age of first child has been pushed back and there are issues related to housing here.
I just don't see the end of the world here, the change from before is that people have a bit more sex and sure here there might be some odd dynamics but most people just view this as a phase and move on... and I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing.
Perhaps things are more extreme than this.... or perhaps the Internet is just pushing them.
Like to me what matters are:
* accurate understanding of contraceptions immediate health effects and alternatives
* help for those who have abortions
* Perhaps and understanding for young people thar sex can be damaging
Sometimes I feel like the author is sort of pushing a catastrophised notion of shame. "No one will marry with you if you sleep with too many people". And it's like... or.... you find some other people or no one cares ... or... no one knows you sleep with.
I see what you mean, I struggle to make sense of this too
It's not really failing they are getting or receiving what they want free will and men are adjusting accordingly to their desires
It is bad for your mental health to keep something you believe so strongly just to yourself. How did we get into this situation. It's sad.
The first words that came out of my mouth within 3 seconds of watching this video were... "Oh my god, she is so pretty!"
I love her posh English accent.
*Insert 'Anakin saying to Obi Wan Kenobi: "wait, this whole operation was your idea."' meme*
Because evolution.
But we've decided the past 5 minutes we know better than millenia of human history.
Thank you, very interesting. As for "Christians having weird ideas about unborn children".... Christian approach to abortion is similar to that of other monotheistic religions, i.e. Judaism and Islam. I'm sure that, when Christians in ancient Rome opposed throwing unwanted babies and infants into rivers or dumpsters, they were also considered weird, so it's not necessarily such a useful criterion in deciding if something is right or wrong.
If I kill a pregnant women, I get charged with a double murder. That's a tough circle to square.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 what a strange comment... why would you kill anyone? Single murder is serious enough.
@@gosiachaaban2484 I would get charged with the murder of a woman AND a child.
Yet a woman has somehow the license to kill that child legally for her convenience?
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 yes, that's true.
Abortion is about nothing more than feminine narcissist solipsism in the extreme. All of the talk about rape and women's health is a (debunked by data) smoke screen to cover this fact. All the privilege and perceived rights of men, none of the costs.
Great interview ladies. Of course !!...motherhood and building a strong family is just as important or more in some respects to the male role...The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world ! Yes the 20s are the decade for men and women to get married and start the miraculous and seemingly impossible task of starting a family. Limited money, demands of infants and toddlers and much more make these extremely difficult years and the lazy way is to opt out of taking this plunge. Thank God for the model and guidance of Christianity to help with this. It's sooooo difficult to do it without this structure. More and more young people are discovering what an important part of the equation it is.
For traditional family structures to compete, child rearing and home keeping need to be recognised as important work and paid for accordingly. Without such measures society will collapse, so it’s a small price to pay.
because men and women are different.. duh
Mrs perry looks sweet as I believe and the reason I do say that she was asked if she happyI think so she is a happy person
I don't think this is a 'left-right' issue as much as folks tend to want to identify positions in simplistic 'this or that' (politics of division). I think this is a unifying position that she clearly expresses appeals, in part, across some of our political divisions (aka: so called conservatives and liberals)... and also get's push back as well from both so called 'sides'.
Classic schroedingers femunism!
Women are both empowered and oppressed at the same time. All she has to do is decide which state gives her the optimal outcome and collapse the discussion to just that
I agree with most of what's said here, but even with this there's still this undercurrent that women deserve things. The sexual revolution was bad for women? That may be, but it's bad for men too. Women are reliant on the state? Well, proportionately, men are working to pay for those women. I understand that if people can only empathise and not think about things, then they need arguments that show how they (or people like them) are disadvantaged, but ultimately it's never going to be a good way to get to good conclusions.
The amount of time and effort spent on talking about Sex constantly amazes me.
SEX is how we create the next generation of our species, END OF.
Male and Female bringing up children creates Balance and Continuity.
It's simple, it doesn't need to be analysed or discussed, just accepted.
I'm not an advocate for feminism but this girl Louise is beautiful
People shouldn’t worry about sex before marriage but sex after marriage! Louise might think that marriage is good for women but is it good for men? I can’t say that I’d recommend it for my son but would for my daughter
Only Louise thinks marriage is good for women. Many women don't share that sentiment
I’m sure it’s a view not just held by Louise. Maybe the best way to fix thing is to require women to sign up for or against marriage so that we know where they stand. And abolish the welfare state at the same time. I wonder what the latter would do to opinions
Marriage is a great investment, better than bitcoin. Marry up, increase the asset values, cash in on divorce. Good for women.
Lol, she’s reinvented the wheel but because she is a young woman she will be hailed a genius 😂
Conservative men have been saying this for around 1,700 years (give or take a few months)
Measured, cogent and makes sense. It does no harm that she's easy to look at.
omg get your other head out of the gutter.
While agree that changes need to be made it comes across as though Louise only wants these changes not because of harm done to society but to women specifically.
I think she's still in the process of overcoming her feminist brainwashing.
Well yeah, feminists do focus on women.
@@sophy4055 right and im saying why make it a women's only issue
@@sigma4337 you could say the same thing about Jordan Peterson, he focuses a lot more on men than on women. And it's ok
@@qsa59 while that is true I think the advice he gives 12 rules for life is fairly universal. He also points out how many things that might initially appear to only affect men will hurt society and a whole and therefore women.
When are women going to take responsibility for their own decisions and stop blaming men.
Genuinely never.
It’s human nature to blame others before oneself…but it does seem that women specialize in blaming men for their problems.
Important topics, but "Women with balls" is such an insulting title for both women and men.
This sounds very like a Jordan Peterson analysis, which I think is great.
Camille Paglia make all these points 30 years ago. Peterson is Marion Woodman with a penis.
Well no, this is a consequence of the whispered discussions which began taking place in the 1990's when gender feminism erupted into the mainstream...prior to that it was considered fringe and reserved for the weirdo side of the universities which no one took seriously because it was bunk...Peterson is twenty years late: he started talking like Christina Hoff Sommers, and she was decades ahead of him, and she's a woman.
I think there's countless things wrong with societies of today, and while I may agree with several things with Peterson, I just cannot stand him as a person, as I think he's a grandiose jackass who's main mission is to keep himself in the limelight and to gain more and more notoriety as some kind of all knowing expert on everything and a leader of all things anti-woke. And I hate those kinds of peoole with no humility and with that much eagarness to be some kind of though leader. I reject people who in my opinion smell power hungry and enjoy too much their position of being "popular".
He has a cultish vibe with his over confident declarations and the general attitude of coming down from his throne above to set things right for all us dumbasses.
There's hardly anything these days that Jordan isn't an "expert" on. So he's first and foremost just another ideological pundit.
Louise please speaker louder on podcasts, literally.
Perry’s this generation’s iteration of ‘family values’. I would hardly label her non-partisan; her appearances tend to be with other righties.
I have suffered my whole life and watched pretty much everyone else I knew suffer all my life because of feminism and the pill. I hate both. Men and women - and above all children - need marriage and families for society to work. That is what society is. The alternative is that men compete for power and women compete for the most powerful men.
I can't get a copy of her book yet 😢
It's not in Waterstones
I agree
I regard the likes of Perry, Harrington and Nina Power as being halfway down a road who's destination is accepting that "patriarchy" as described by feminism is actually a natural outgrowth of the proven differences between men and women, and that monogamy is actually vital for regulating those differences. Women are hypergamous (expect to partner up with someone higher in the social hierarchy), therefore men have an innate evolved pressure to "become" that women simply don't have. This difference can explain the mythical "pay gap", more men in STEM, greater risk taking and status seeking by men and the move towards polygyny in the dating market.
yup
No. Evolutionary sociology and psychology = pseudoscience and both are riddled with post modernist ideology. "Patriarchy" doesn't mean anything because it used to be used in a different context and you are making the same bloody mistake.
Paygap doesnt needs to be explained because it hasn't been (not even nearly) proven
What a very interesting insight that were returning to a more Roman style of sexual ethic. Two collapsing empires.
That's actually a false comparison. Rome collapsed when it had been a Christian nation for over 100 years with harsh sexual morals. Rome during it's growth and height was sexually promiscuous in contrast.
What a woman
Wow so many men in the comments, i thought i would be the only one. She's fantastic
Why is she whispering half the time?
also, the Christian social system is a work of genius level social engineering...
I'm not sure hybridizing it can give you workable results...
You wouldn't take out all the parts you don't like from an opera just because they make you sad. You'd be left with a disney movie, boring and self indulgent garbage...
You'll need to find super-genus women social engineers to help you build a new system and make it solid and workable in modern times... it needs a solid foundation with some flexibility
I hope that's helpful :)
I've allways thought the sexual revolution played far more to men than women, to the point that sometimes I had a sneaky suspicion it was actually being led by men not women. I've had to put myself in romantic and sexual exile because its far too crazy for me out there these days. I've never kept my views to myself about this. I've raised my 2 sons and had a few different jobs. A hairdresser and my husband and I ran an advertising agency, a few other jobs, but hairdressing was also a career. I never put my kids before my work, my boys allways come first. I don't subscribe to a lot of modern day mothers attitudes of waiting to put kids off to the point that a lot of women leave it too late then they find it so hard to cope that they het post natal depression. You can't get depressed about having your children unless something is wrong in the first place. I don't believe it's a hormonal thing, I don't think it's normal to be depressed because you had a baby, unless something is wrong in the first place. I'm a feminist because I don't support oppression but that dosnt mean I support a lot of what's going on with women today. This woman is about to start a real revolution hopefully.
the sexual revolution only benefits the tiny percentage of high value men, most men who are looking for a meaningful relationship with a good woman do not benefit from it at all.
Lmao sexual revolution doesnt favor anyone. How does 10% of men getting all the women benefit men as a whole?
In hookup culture, 5-10% of men get sex, the rest are sexless!
So how do you qualify your statement under this reality? Or are you just another woman blaming men for the actions of women!
This audio needs work- mostly because she's practically whispering but there's no way that you can set it so you can hear the interviewee without the interviewer suddenly blasting out.
There are some marriages that ought end, sadly the alternatives dont work as well.
Have to agree there; alienated couples shouldn’t stay together.
From my perspective here in Manhattan, I have a distinctly elemental question --- not to mention a simply aesthetic one. And that is:
Why is Louise Perry presented on camera with extremely flattering lighting on her --- whilen Katy is sitting under lighting that might be described as the visual equivalent of someone holding a flashlight under her face?
Now, I've heard of 'presenting a guest in a good light'....but this is really taking things, well, shall we say:
Beyond the...pale?
Just sayin'.
end
Hmm.. I don't find the "better for men than women" a legitimate argument really and all rather "zero summy".
Also, she didn't define "better". What is better? And for 5% of men? That doesn't qualify as a large enough sample you can generalize to men. Ah the hubris of a proper British hypocrite.
How do you describe persistence on your work specially on young people?
The concept that sec is a need is the most toxic and destructive idea in the world today.
Love Truth above All Things ❤️
Accept and Thank the Suffering 💚
(from the Knowledge of Truth)
Confront and Illuminate Malevolence 💜
Tirany is the Seed of its Own Destruction !!!
From the Unconscious Hell ❤️
To the Conscious Hell 💚
Until the Paradise of Consciousness 💜
Thaaannnk Yooouuu ❤️ 💚 💜
As a man I d like to marry a person like her
I think Louise has important things to say but unfortunately no matter what podcast she's on, including her own, I can't hear a damn thing she's saying. She needs to speak up.
Women complaining anout the consequences of their own choices and actions. Colour me surprised!
No doubt they will simultaneously heap blame on and yet expect t h e Patriarchy to fix the area of their dissatisfaction!
Louise encapsulates why feminists got it so badly wrong in the 1970's and still do today. Whilst you have to generalise when discussing society, you still have to be reasonably accurate in determining what people will accept, whether it's good for them or not. At best, Louise recognises that women aren't getting the results feminism promised but it's naive to think we can go back to monogamous lifelong marriages simply by changing our attitude. Even if the marriage laws became sympathetic to, errr, marriage, and the effects of the sexual revolution were accounted for, the loss of faith in any union with the State or women can't be easily reversed. Men have no rights over their own children. None. He doesn't even have the right to know if he has children or if the ones he knows about and pays are his!! These issues and countless others are conspicuous by their absence in any debate of this kind and Louise can't distance herself from the worst of feminism and all the damage done in the past 50 years by simply saying to women "get back in the kitchen" , which is roughly what her rally cry boils down to.
In truth, we are seeing the demise of democracy and the conventional family life that went with it. Ironically, it was that convention feminists were breaking away from in the 70's as depicted in films like 'The Stepford Wives'. Crazy to think that a staid but nonetheless idilic scene could've been so reviled. How dare beautiful women enjoy sex with their stable, not going anywhere husbands?!! As the film suggests, we are hurtling towards a dystopian future but I feel Louise Perry, like the feminists of old, appear to be the problem and not the solution.
"Consent is not enough"? Hmm, what does that mean exactly? That women can't think for themselves, that even when they actively seek out extreme sexual encounters, or any other variety, it is the men and only the men who are held accountable or responsible? She warns of the danger of infantilising women whilst she is doing just that.
Everyone, male or female, film's everything now anyway and who can blame them? No one is taking any chances. Big brother has well and truly arrived and I think Louise helping the fear culture along.
Ive been inclusive and open my whole entire life but now that young People are starting to see Monogamy as some silly-Norm-that-needs-to-be-broken, i nope outta here.
The fact that she wears make-up puts the lie to her entire body of work. Makuep was once the province of prostitutes -- and for clear reason. It's a lie designed precisely to trick men -- to add a more youthful appearance to an XX than reality would confer. It's called neoteny -- the appearance of youth.
Makeup (and other masks) are a lie designed to fool men into believing an XX is seggsually receptive to all men in all public places at all all times. That's it's only designed purpose -- to tweak male instincts to gain social advantage.
Thus we witness run-of-the-mill hypocrisy -- a contradiction between word and deed which tells us all we need to know. The philosopher flaunts her own philsoohy. She uses the tools of fee-mayle deception while holding pretensions of some ideal natural human interaction.
When you pollute the discourse of ostensible propriety with a bald display of vulgar seggsual arrosal, your assertions of seggsual temperance are a farce.
I fear we're so far gone that nobody in this row of comments has yet pointed out this glaring dissonance between word and deed.
This XX is a charlatan. One of many who pretend to have the prescription for what ails us -- all the while our legal and social frameworks continue to feed on the rotting flesh of a culture which died the day we gave the vote to those who weren't accountable or responsible for any of their political choices -- no matter how vile, selfish, or self destructive.
They voted themselves exponentially increasing freebies while providing nothing in return to anyone. Such a parasitic relationship can only end one way -- collapse... which we'll see in my lifetime. Real collapse -- the kind that ends civilization.
What do you call authority without responsibility? What do you call responsibility without authority? Until XXs learn those 2 simple concepts and how they relate, society will continue it's slide into the sewer as those who have the authority without responsibility feed like parasites upon those who have the responsibility without any authority.
It's a mathematical certainty that the end is coming for those who have grown dependent upon male productivity for their futures. That productivity was only generated in response to men forming families for which they instinctively over-produced to provide. But that was before vvahmanists conned XXs into joining the workforce and corporations sold out the American dream to serve the same type of hunger which drives the leech -- a free meal at the expense of the host. Inflation was the final nail in the coffin.
Until XXs destroy their own unearned privileges, their loneliness and poverty is inevitable. The stats are grim. By 2030, the suffering will have only just begun. It will be the beginning of 40 years of an empty life. From 40 to 80 is a long time to live without love or family. This will be the fate of 45% of XXs by 2030.
Daddy Gubment isn't coming to save them because the freebies they'll try to vote themselves only existed when most men were providing for families and forced to work 3 times as much as a single and childless man has to work and has to buy. Savers don't generate tax revenue. The more such men are taxed, the less they'll work. Once there are no increase rewards for increased productivity, nobody become more productive. They start to scale down even more.
This isn't even a debate, it's a fait accompli -- already baked into the cake. I'm just bearing witness as the clock winds down -- dying from the entropy born of empowered ingrates. They build nothing, they only erode and degrade the foundations from which they stridently bark for more as they gorge themselves on the last remnants of a Republic which was founded to protect itself from the depredations of the parasitic classes.
The experiment in democracy is over.
Yes look at marriage and consent within marriage. I think a woman can say no to sex but there isn’t a reciprocal position for a husband to say actually this week I don’t feel like sharing my resources maybe next week.
@@youtubeyoutube936 There is a saying in legal circles "it isn't that every woman wants to destroy a man, it's just that every woman can". We're well past the point of a 'good reason' for marriage for any man with resources. A 50% chance of divorce and no standing at all for custody or parental rights. Would you let your son enter into any legal contract that disadvantaged him to that extent? Can any contract truly work when it is that biased? Women are married to the state. The state has taken the role of men and greatly weakening society in the process. Fantastic social engineering. It's the great unspoken about.
Agree. Made a similar comment somewhere else on this item podcast
She reminds me of Michelle Dockery
Thank you for talking about the colour pink. Why is that even considered a girl colour? I'd much rather have orange or yellow. Or if it has to be pink, make it a dusty rose, or something like that. Not this awful fluorescent version of pink that just hurts the eyes 👀
bc it's the color of internal soft tissues, labia, endometrium,etc...
@@prestonbane4176 It was considered male in the early 20th century, as it was linked into the colour and vibrancy of blood and therefore associated with men.
There is also "the pink pound" which is associated more with gay men.
Your reason for pink now being associated with women is just nonsense you've plucked out of the air.