I liked it when Mary said, “I studied feminism in college, I ticked all the boxes, I was a committed feminist. Then I had a baby and was shocked to find that I liked being a mother”. Bahahaha
Special place for the women who railed for feminism who are all work from home housewives who married rather wealthy men. It is a trend I have noticed from the anti-feminist women space... How many women did they poison and doom to a life of futility and depression while they golden parachuted out. I really like Louise Perry but Michael Knowles did point out this trend.
35:00 - the problem with rejecting assisted dying as something unnatural is that modern technology can prolong living in the unnatural states of suffering for quite long. When things were natural, a person had to actually make an effort to survive, but now this is often optional and medical personnel will do all the choosing and efforts for you. What's left for you is suffering.
thanx for inviting Mary, its always a pleasure to listen to her. She's a rare combination of sharp mind and wonderful deep personality, not to mention her explanation kinda helps to cope with reality we have to deal with today
Love you ladies! Thank you for sticking your neck out. As a woman, I love having women like you in the spotlight on this very important issue. You truly care about women and I have so much appreciation for you taking this on. All the love and respect.
Whilst I agree, in this case I felt they lost the mark. Myself and the women I know aren't just right winged. We are far right. We are anti immigration, anti woke, anti feminism, anti gender theory, and CRT. We want hetero sexual families. And we own the farms and we produce the food.
Giving birth really was my turning point too - The thing about giving birth is most of us until that point ... have managed to convince ourselves that we are refined humans - and giving birth & then feeding a baby feels more animalistic. We can pretend we aren't again or can embrace that we are - and start connecting more with evolution, nature and how we are meant to live. Tech, medicalising our fertility, transhumanism as Mary calls it - is a way of pretending we are something removed - but we're more like our ancestors than we realise. I see assisted dying in the same way too. We are trying to remove ourselves from the mess and trauma of being human - but I'm not sure we can or should.
Mother nture is not misogynistic, modernity is - misanthropic too - it seeks to negate everything inherently powerful in both men and women, denying us the vital nourishment that comes from listening to what the world wants to tell us. Instead, modernity has us constantly trying to bend the world to our will and denying the fact of nature... Your discussion of motherhood and assisted dying was excellent and important!
"Their counterpart to childbirth is battle, and most men don't go to battle." Not quite, men 's counterpart is Toil (as in physical labor,) in which war is the most extreme form of toil. In this regard, men's role is still to toil.
I love 37:09 "Their counterpart to childbirth is battle, and most men don't go to battle." It makes me want to go to battle. And maybe, maybe that world is returning.
Men find metaphors for battle. The fact it's ersatz creates a sense that something's not fully fulfilled or appreciated in that key aspect of masculinity.
@@p382742937423y4Yeah and women always have to give birth. That’s why Louise said war is the male equivalent. Women absorb internal damage of a community and men absorb external damage.
Your conversations with Mary Harrington keep getting better. As soon as Algo recommended this video I knew I needed to watch it, and this was the best yet. Brava!
Mary restores faith in humanity. What a blessing she has given / been given to us. Is it generalizable, to some extent, to say that people whose perspective has undergone a significant transformation are probably in a better position to see clearly?
Hypothesis here, but I keep seeing the same pattern where ever I look and it came up here. Women look to build egalitarian networks bottom up with an emphasis on shared experiences, men look to establish top down coalitions to acquire and retain resources. People, egalitarian, bottom up. Things, coalitions top down. Whatever the society, we figure it out where they meet. Friction occurs when egalitarian structures are applied to accumulating things or coalitions applied to developing people. I also believe there is a time aspect overlaid with resources matter today and people matter tomorrow.
@@grannyannie2948 Agreed, women’s power is most effective in the home and local societies. Men build the spaces to enable women to build the society. Overly simplistic but really helps with the premise that the two structures are separate and integration is what matters.
Everything comes back to whether or not you want to take for yourself and control or submit to what’s above you and discover in relation to what’s above you
Only twenty minutes in, but with the subject matter, I wonder if reading the Abolition of Man by CS Lewis is pertinent to this discussion of value, technology and hierarchies. That is if both these learned women have not already read it.
Very interested in the idea of natural parental authority, never really thought about that. I think age and ‘maturity’ of the child might play into parental authority and the rightness of it, my own experience seems to support my prejudices. There is a book in this 😳😊
One trouble with granting high IQ people power is that they are artificially given the ability to avoid suffering. Suffering is the door to wisdom. My advice to you two is this, “Seek the few who have suffered greatly and can think- give them a voice.”
Suffering might lead to wisdom. No promises. I like how some people say That which does not kill me makes me angry Or That which does not kill me makes me wish it did.
I love this thought but I think that artificially being able to avoid suffering is not obly something happening to high IQ individuals in positions of power but rather all people in positions of power as well as everywhere else.
The notion of "left and right"is a misdirection. There is primarily the center. What are the center concepts, ideas, their systems of propagation, and the people who embody their facilitation.
You are describing the tyranny of the centre from which my home suffers. We get to choose between two parties with the same policies. Is that even democracy. For example immigration. The left want mass immigration for diversity, the right want it for GDP and to help big business. What if we don't want it at all. Everything is like this, it's compulsory for us to vote but we can't change anything.
@@grannyannie2948 This is why I call it "Oligarchy of donor class." No matter how much the people don't like something, if the political campaign finance people want something, they'll pay all parties to be in on it. Before Trump, both sides loved more immigration, because how dare the people form organized labor to demand better workplaces and pay?!
@@skylinefever Very true. I also view them as globalist puppets. When you dig into the global agreements they make they don't care about the country or the people. Here in Australia our previous Prime Minister was personally praised by Schwab for using covid to advance their aims.
I am of the firm belief that human beings have a biological imperative to procreate along with all other living things. The one difference is that human beings can choose not to but that doesn’t change the imperative for the group.
There is nothing more empowering, if that is what you want, than being the mother of a large family. There is something majestic about a mother surrounded by a group of children. I think Mary overthinks everything somewhat. I am a member of a church, nothing weird, where women have 4-5 children & it is not a big deal, it is normal. Having children is what women were created to do, even when it is hard & dangerous. Obviously too, these are the families that will continue when many, many others are dying out.
I rly am very much a fan (almost somewhat despite myself) of both this Heideggerian Sith Lord, and her young apprentice LP, who might be gradually turning back to the light side, but then she'd be so much less heavy metal albeit in a low-key, intellectual sort of way.
24:30 These people do exist. Evangelical Christians in big city suburbs. I live in a suburb of OKC. All churches around here are growing, full of university educated, married couples. Having only 2 kids or less is odd and 3 or more is the norm. The moms all stay home with their young children and have internet enabled side gigs like online marketing. Homeschooling on various levels is normal. Most people are upper middle class with some younger people being poorer and older people being richer. My husband is literally a tech guy. And we are both millennials in our 30s.
Yes Empress Harrington, personally I AM having fun online most of the time, but of course that doesn't mean I have nothing real to say, just because my attention span is too fried to read as much as I used to, plus paid subscriptions to read things don't jive with my part-time wage work broke af lifestyle. For instance, let me help with sociopolitical spectrum, in a way that's only partly hilarious: I'll start with the punchline; which is that ppl seem to have flipped the spectrum, I'll elaborate after outlining the original breakdown. For the more purely "politics" part, (in US, but we're internationally broadcasting this general dynamic,) the closest thing to what the country's supposed to be politically is Libertarian, as understood within last 50-100 yrs. But "Libertarian" is too broad. It used to have a more center-right Classical Liberal, and less right AnCap connotation. Now it's the opposite. For clarification one should deemphasize the "Libertarian" generalization, and instead discuss those two somewhat separate, but pretty closely related positions. Then, for the 'bleeding heart left,' that is half politics, half culture/religion? That's the "Christian left". Which of these tends to be more stereotypically 'fem,' the left, or the center-right/right? (Obvious). Now for the trippy part: there was a new field called "neuropolitics," before the tragic untimely death of academia. Why are most ppl now discussing this "left" as though it were the "center-right/right," and vice versa? I don't actually know the answer, but I'm gonna say that the way the left brain controls the right side of body, and right brain controls the left side, might well involve the most epic doctorate thesis yet, that I will never research or write. When our politics/society are more cerebral and carefully calibrated, Imma say the real spectrum breakdown is more clear. When they more involve 'shooting from the hip' and reactivity, then the ol' switcheroo happens. But I can't prove it, I can only rant abt it on the interwebs.
Oy mayte, awre yew maykin fun uh how dem Brits tawlk?!! Without our British progenitors, we would not have evolved this splendid Mid-Atlantic regional American accent, that spread everywhere a couple decades ago for some reason, with just a touch of California.
Conservatism has always just being "not so fast" progress as this by Robert Lewis Dabney on Conservatism in 1897: "This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation."
That isn't entirely true though. We have a tendency to only see the change that has happened, not the change that has been prevented. It is easy to take for granted what still exists, and ignore just how different things could be if effort hadn't been made to counter those who want to destroy or change things. As an aside, the influence of American southerners on just about everything has been wholly negative. They should have picked their own cotton.
@@jenniferlawrence2701 Well, it would be American Southern Democrats. Specifically, the small number of slave owners. But one could also say that it would have been better if the English and New Englanders had not blown up the demand for cotton in the 1790s or found non-slave production sources elsewhere. The slave-state influence on US politics is directly tied to the increased demand for cotton in the first half of the 19th century.
Wait, we can't successfully do embryo selection for intelligence? The Collins's and their twelve children they already had by this means, are gonna be so disappointed *autistic tears cried in regularly recurring intervals*
Funny to me they take as a given pregnancy being miserable. When I was pregnant (at 24 in the early 90s) I felt strong, energized, and not depressed for once. At the same time I felt guilty because in my extremely leftist social milieu, having a child was seen as self-indulgent. How dare I when a child was a luxury but I did not have a luxury income. It was anxiety-provoking to see motherhood as NOT economically viable. At the time I believed the pressure to be economically viable was due to corporatism. But in retrospect I think it was more to do with feminism.
That's weird, extra MMM's are occurring, and I was just watching a vid abt Nietzsche's eternal recurrence and Buddhahood on the Seeker to Seeker channel.
In response to the discussion around hyper online right men saying women shouldn't have the vote etc It's not so much that we think you didn't have power in society before : au contraire, I think we recognise that feminism isn't new - women have always complained about stuff and wielded power over men. It's simply that we want our political parties back, so there's a chance that maybe one of them isn't dominated by left wing concerns.
I do understand this sentiment much better thanks to abortion issue in USA. We have to accept that if we wanted authority over our own body, it means it ups to us, not to the state, to manage our reproductive system. Abortion isn't your right. Healthcare is and only in some rare instances abortion is that. And yes, when you see that half of population cannot grasp the concept of personal responsibility, you starting to think that it isn't fair that that part of population holds the power to outweigh the issues like national security, immigration, inflation etc...
People need to give up on the left/right dichotomy as a political model. It's totally useless. I don't understand why anyone in an intellectual sphere insists on using it other than it's so engrained through propaganda. "Yeah there's another axis there" Yeah the terribly flawed political compass is 2 axis' but people still feel compelled to conflate socialism with liberalism which is dumb af. And actually there's way more than just 2 axis'. Politics is basically a conflict of opinions on "oughts" and each subject has a LOT of nuance. Boiling down to a tribal binary is caveman stuff.
And yet those of us who want to end mass immigration and embrace social conservatism are called far right by both groups. Its fast becoming a badge of pride.
@@grannyannie2948 What you mean like it's a tribalist tactic and you're successfully being baited into becoming one of the tribe with simple reverse psychology? Yeah my dear, exactly. I want to ignore your "ought" and get myself some cheap imported labour? I'll just frame you as part of a group which I label extreme and then I can ignore you. Then you go " yeah well it's a badge of pride" and you have lost because you now identify yourself as part of that group.
@@grannyannie2948 Also, most socialists are actually anti unregulated, unskilled immigration because it's used by liberals to undercut wages. But you don't think that because you think liberals and socialists are the same thing and can't tell the diffference.
@@shamanahaboolist No it's a constant joke occurring in my country. Our far left public broadcaster makes up names for the people, racist, anti vaxer, far right Nazis. People used to care and get defensive, but that's letting the left set the rules. Best to nod your head and continue your argument. The national broadcaster is so unpopular now they have to disable comments.
Increase maternity leave for a year for the first two and have schools open from 0830 - 1700 hrs. We should move relying on childcare who milking it with the government.
I would challenge the directness of the correlation between modernity and falling birth rates. You should look into the Philippines or Israel as a bit of countervailing evidence to that theory. Seems like the birthgap is largely a cultural phenomenon of so-called "coordination errors" driven by X, Y, Z tropes or memes or trash values that have indundated Western culture which we are now exporting via mass media, but which are not necessarily inherent to the underlying technological substrate, not to mention the various pharmaceutical interventions. Look at that tribe in South America that just got access to Starlink. After a brief phase of wholesome use cases, the very next thing they did is get addicted to porn! "One elder said people in the tribe have become “lazy” and are “learning the ways of the white people,” but she still asked for the internet access to remain." We have to remember that social networks in some ways mimic the structure of how people are influenced by affiliation and might find information in the wild, right? Like think about what happens when an adolescent falls in with "the wrong crowd". They become influenced, maybe they start doing stupid drugs, they start slacking off on homework, start bullying other kids. We basically just need to find a way to circumvent that proverbial "bad influence" and interject at that stage with "good influences", just like you would do for a troubled kid. Sure, there will always be some people that can't be reached, that are too far gone, but the beauty of good ideas is that they tend to win if you can simply introduce them, you simply spark this notion that there is a better way. If the key to bad speech is good speech, surely the key to bad influences is good influences, and getting people to take accountability for choosing to consume either bad or good influences, like an active recognition of whether or not your media consumption is playing a positive or negative role in healthy decision making, that recognition of "Hey maybe I shouldn't watch this stuff, maybe it's not good for me." Perhaps a better framing than good or bad influences might be "proliferative" or "degerative" influences. Which social behaviors lead to prosperity and which lead to societal despair? Our information structures encourage degenerative behavior and then we wonder why we can't find a partner that's not fallen victim to that. Some basic truths should just be taught in school, and one is that life is a mirror, not a window. Magical thinking has gripped the West for nearly a century, it runs on it. We need to quit lying to people and telling everyone they're special. We need to get real with them, tell them the facts, and actually prepare them to make adult decisions in the world. Enough iterations of that and the world will start to stand back upright again, I'm sure of it. Frankly I think if we could find a way to just stuff the channel with Meaningwave, dose everyone on shrooms, and just have a good ole fashioned "love-in" we'd shake off this silliness and get back to the great work of being human, but that would just be my own magical thinking now wouldn't it.
Strength and power? What's another, less ruthless arbiter? Ok, get ready to join my cult: HUMAN HEALTH is the arbiter that matters. (In the broadest possible sense). Too much ruthlessness is anxiety-inducing, and increases neuroticism, which is typically maladaptive for humans? Ok, so by any sane metric, we can delineate that a certain amount of agreeableness in the population is healthier than not. I could go on, and of course the question is one of whether we can see via a comprehensive enough macro-perspective, to recognize the optimal parameters for the ultimate health of the species, but isn't this obviously what we're going for? (Ppl say this overemphasizes collectivism, but humans aren't hive-dwelling honey bees, so it's sociobiologically HEALTHIER for us to be ascribed, at least provisional legal individual autonomy under a functional system, OBVIOUSLY).
I wonder how much of the big 5 traits are genetically hardwired and how many can be shaped. I often say this by saying "Will you educate the children of the Idiocracy to be Einsteins?"
@@skylinefever Just saw a good Theories of Everything episode related to this question, with Alfonso Arias. (These are our best general metrics at present, but if they were replaced with something better as our knowledge improves that would obviously be great, it's unlikely that they'll actually be completely negated).
Harrington: "Civil society is rly just 19th century women". Holland: "Civil society is rly just Christianity". Me: "Civil society involves ppl agitating for their interests in a free society, in any place, at any time, from within any subculture that doesn't negate society". Dictionary: "Yeah, pretty much that last one obviously, why are you even asking me dude?"
Don't get hung up on hierarchies of power. Hierarchies of competence are as important and more prevalent, especially in the modern world. Joe Rogan has influence (power) purely because he climbed the competence hierarchy, for example.
It's a combination of IQ and certain kinds of trait profiles, that a healthy meritocracy will select for, male or female leaders. And not just a quantifiable meritocratic metric, if ppl don't have awaress of and responsiveness to the culture as well, they'd be unlikely to get elected. *Initially describes how systems we already have are actually supposed to work, subsequently drops mic*
Starting off with a few women have played important women in right wing movements is not a challenge to most women are temperamentally left. I like both of you but you are outliers. We’ve seen that women liberated of their biology will squander their youth and then rather than warn younger women will seek to sabotage them.
Most men don't go to battle yes, but the mortality of pregnant women is so close to zero, in the developed world, as to make it irelevant (just need to look at male/female life expectancy stats). And if you add things like pain killers it becomes very hard to characterise pregnancy as an experience of intense suffering. I know a few war veterans and none of them would ever want to go back to a battlefiled, but for some reason the pain women feel during pregnancy doesnt seem to stop them from wanting to have more children (siblings being more common than only-children). Just need to read Nora Vincent's experience as a man to see that those who say that men have it better than women are completely detached from reality. Interesting to note how so much of the whining comes from the most privileged...
I wouldn't have phrased it that way, but I have to admit that even though Louise makes this point often, I kind of agree with you. There are various sacrifices involved in becoming mothers, for women who might end up working less, and who go through physical changes and difficulties, obviously all true and society needs to value women for taking on this task, and to encourage them in this undertaking. But I have trouble seeing how the combat comparison/equivalency holds up. Something physically dangerous, painful, socially important, for civilians? Sounds like a volunteer firefighter or something, more men could definitely do this, would be excellent to encourage. Something that requires dedication of time, commitment, exhausting long hours? Sounds like the kind of work most men do to support families. I always want to include these caveats: not only do I have zero problem with women having careers, but I WANT to live in a society that encourages, and capitalizes on EVERYONE'S talents, I recognize that our culture needs to do a much better job at enabling women to balance one or more careers over a lifetime, including any education needed, with raising children for a number of years, which most women want to do (and which we all require). But, the risks and challenges of birth and motherhood, are perhaps the female near-equivalent of entering a war zone? Ahem, ummm, very not.
No shit. If women didn't conveniently forget the pain and trauma of labour (like the brain somehow deletes that part) that'd be pretty unhelpful for procreation.
@@acacia_w Before contraceptives women didnt really have the choice of pregnancy. The short term gratification of sex and poor capacity of human beings to anticipate the consequences of their actions probably explains why women would allow themselves to be pregnant (assuming they consented which is not guaranteed). So it is difficult to claim that women would be biologically evolve to "forget the trauma". The idea that women's "brain somehow deletes that part" is a great example of low IQ pop science. For some reason trauma supposedly affect people for years if not decades, except in this one specific case of labour. And as I said in my original comment, claiming that pregnancy is life threatening in a world with modern medicine is as silly as saying that a minor infection is deadly in a world of antibiotics. One could say that the birth of the child "compensate" for the suffering which is why women still want children after a painful labour. But this is also difficult, since women who experience miscarrages don't seem to be discouraged by the pain they went through, even though it didn't yield any positive result..
My trouble with modernity is that motherhood isn’t paid. I don’t want to choose between working like crazy in and out of the office or being a stay at home mom and hoping that relying on a man works out well
Feminism introduced No Fault Divorce to make it dangerous for wives to depend on husbands and vice versa. In Australia women were paid to be stay at home mothers but feminists said they wanted subsidised daycare instead, but they don't.
Yes, my freshman woman studies professor was adamant that it’s foolish to stay at home with children. Which certain people on the right would probably rail against…but it’s true? If your husband turns abusive and you have no income, work history, and small children to support you are likely fucked.
I just hate that when the theocracy was gone, the Moldbug Atheocracy came in, and it also argued that caliphate takes over instead. I find it funny how Japan and South Korea haven't let the caliphate in.
No, we're not against women voting because we "hate women", we're against it because women think more emotionally than men; women want to "help" while men wonder how much "helping" will cost. Please don't discount the idea so flippantly.
I never understood left and right very well because I joke about the American left and right. American boomer conservative: Rugged individualism built the USA! Leave conformism in Red China. Now be a good American, marry, pop out kids, and buy a house in suburbia! Yeah? Screw you, I won't do that, I was ripped out of nonexistence without my consent. I won't do that to others. American boomer conservative: Small government and deregulation are awesome. Me: So hookers and blow? No? Screw you hypocrite! I joke that such crowds say that you can either follow Jesus or Marx. Too bad they never showed any Christ like behavior to money changers. The left and right arguments you make remind me of Chesterton's discussion. He argued that people are demolishing fences without even asking why the fences were built in the first place. The prophet and wizard argument made me think of a similar environmental question. People asked "Was Thomas Malthus completely wrong, or did tech delay the Malthusian catastrophe." Hierarchies. Well, maybe one way to deal with it is to make being on the bottom of the hierarchy not so awful. I tell the alt right types that there is one way of using tech to meet their goals. I often argue that people who naturally get baby rabies should be examined, and they can go make a "Baby rabies generator" to raise birth rates of people who should have kids. I say "Should have" meaning nobody needs more unwanted kids made by accident. The stone age will do the job of ending the spiteful mutants. The industrial revolution and its consequences include a collapsed Darwinian selection, and the sick kids will live long enough to reproduce and make sicker kids. The centrism argument is interesting. I see it because many people see centrism as taking a view that endorses half of the left and the right. Charles Dawkins argued that natural selection is taking place. It selects for people who can't remember condoms. I like that you brought the Collins foundation into it. I do admire them for trying to get religion for people who concluded that the existing religions are just plain scams. Wizard and the prophet makes me think of Curtis Yarvin's Cathedral and Bazaar. He also goes by "Mencius Moldbug." He argued that the "Market of ideas" will not select for smartest ideas. It will select for ideas that make the Cathedral more powerful. What would be as popular for the power hungry as an environmental movement that says population control is a must? I argue that rational thinking is a disaster because once children do not have a ROI, why spent a cent on any? Well, there goes the line of the rational thinkers. Maybe if the cushy life discourages pregnancy, maybe invent tech that makes pregnancy effortless? People endured pain more back then? How many just sent their sick old people to the woods as wolf bait? I just say if you want no MAID, I say make continued existence worth it to the people who are. I say "We were put on this Earth without our consent. The least we could get is an exit with our terms."
📰Subscribe to Maiden Mother Matriarch here to listen to full extended episodes: louiseperry.substack.com
I liked it when Mary said, “I studied feminism in college, I ticked all the boxes, I was a committed feminist. Then I had a baby and was shocked to find that I liked being a mother”. Bahahaha
Shows women's hypocrisy about equality.
Equality when they want it or it benefits them.
Special treatment f or women when it doesn't.
Peterson recently said something like „misplaced maternal instinct“ making young women prone to accepting woke ideas.
Special place for the women who railed for feminism who are all work from home housewives who married rather wealthy men. It is a trend I have noticed from the anti-feminist women space... How many women did they poison and doom to a life of futility and depression while they golden parachuted out. I really like Louise Perry but Michael Knowles did point out this trend.
You realize that feminists have children and love being mothers too, right? RIGHT?
@@angiebams123 why are you telling me? I just relayed what Mary Harrington said.
These two should have a monthly chat on the record.
MARY IS BACK!!! :))))
😂That’s exactly what I thought after I checked that this was released 2 hrs ago 🎉
Is anyone else in love with Mary's laugh?
Mary Harrington's laugh is the cutest thing.
35:00 - the problem with rejecting assisted dying as something unnatural is that modern technology can prolong living in the unnatural states of suffering for quite long. When things were natural, a person had to actually make an effort to survive, but now this is often optional and medical personnel will do all the choosing and efforts for you. What's left for you is suffering.
thanx for inviting Mary, its always a pleasure to listen to her. She's a rare combination of sharp mind and wonderful deep personality, not to mention her explanation kinda helps to cope with reality we have to deal with today
Love you ladies! Thank you for sticking your neck out. As a woman, I love having women like you in the spotlight on this very important issue. You truly care about women and I have so much appreciation for you taking this on. All the love and respect.
Mary is the GOAT! 🙌
At what?
It is a rare pleasure to hear intelligent adults converse about important subjects.
Whilst I agree, in this case I felt they lost the mark. Myself and the women I know aren't just right winged. We are far right. We are anti immigration, anti woke, anti feminism, anti gender theory, and CRT. We want hetero sexual families. And we own the farms and we produce the food.
Two of my favourite women online.
Giving birth really was my turning point too - The thing about giving birth is most of us until that point ... have managed to convince ourselves that we are refined humans - and giving birth & then feeding a baby feels more animalistic. We can pretend we aren't again or can embrace that we are - and start connecting more with evolution, nature and how we are meant to live. Tech, medicalising our fertility, transhumanism as Mary calls it - is a way of pretending we are something removed - but we're more like our ancestors than we realise. I see assisted dying in the same way too. We are trying to remove ourselves from the mess and trauma of being human - but I'm not sure we can or should.
Mother nture is not misogynistic, modernity is - misanthropic too - it seeks to negate everything inherently powerful in both men and women, denying us the vital nourishment that comes from listening to what the world wants to tell us. Instead, modernity has us constantly trying to bend the world to our will and denying the fact of nature... Your discussion of motherhood and assisted dying was excellent and important!
Well said.
"Their counterpart to childbirth is battle, and most men don't go to battle."
Not quite, men 's counterpart is Toil (as in physical labor,) in which war is the most extreme form of toil. In this regard, men's role is still to toil.
Two intelligent ladies.Respect.
Louise isn't "intelligent", you can look at her other videos how she talks about men. That doesn't display "intelligence" for sure
Id love to hear you two talk about Paglia.
I love 37:09
"Their counterpart to childbirth is battle, and most men don't go to battle."
It makes me want to go to battle. And maybe, maybe that world is returning.
Men find metaphors for battle. The fact it's ersatz creates a sense that something's not fully fulfilled or appreciated in that key aspect of masculinity.
Sadly I fear it is. Lots of things reported in the Pacific get censored when I discuss
It's ALWAYS men who have to go to battle right?
@@p382742937423y4Yeah and women always have to give birth. That’s why Louise said war is the male equivalent.
Women absorb internal damage of a community and men absorb external damage.
Your conversations with Mary Harrington keep getting better. As soon as Algo recommended this video I knew I needed to watch it, and this was the best yet. Brava!
Two of my favorite ladies together again
Mary restores faith in humanity. What a blessing she has given / been given to us. Is it generalizable, to some extent, to say that people whose perspective has undergone a significant transformation are probably in a better position to see clearly?
Hypothesis here, but I keep seeing the same pattern where ever I look and it came up here. Women look to build egalitarian networks bottom up with an emphasis on shared experiences, men look to establish top down coalitions to acquire and retain resources. People, egalitarian, bottom up. Things, coalitions top down. Whatever the society, we figure it out where they meet. Friction occurs when egalitarian structures are applied to accumulating things or coalitions applied to developing people. I also believe there is a time aspect overlaid with resources matter today and people matter tomorrow.
This is why women should have power in the home and local community, and men beyond that.
@@grannyannie2948 Agreed, women’s power is most effective in the home and local societies. Men build the spaces to enable women to build the society. Overly simplistic but really helps with the premise that the two structures are separate and integration is what matters.
"Zey is vighting viz God."
Said by an old Eastern European immigrant to the USA when talking about "progressives" and the WEF types.
The Australian Prime Minister who oversaw covid in Australia, Morrison, was personally praised by Schwab for advancing their aims.
21:41, so much time for this sentiment. I just worry how much damage will be done along the way.
Necessary but not sufficient.
This appears to be a difficult concept. There can be bad hierarchies but no hierarchies is death.
2 of my favorite thinkers!
Everything comes back to whether or not you want to take for yourself and control or submit to what’s above you and discover in relation to what’s above you
Two of my favourite wammin ✨😍
I love Mary H!!!!
Louise, you post faster than I can watch all the while having a toddler, husband and house. How in the world do you manage that?
While pregnant, no less! Nothing but respect and admiration (and maybe a little envy?).
Great conversation! Thanks
Only twenty minutes in, but with the subject matter, I wonder if reading the Abolition of Man by CS Lewis is pertinent to this discussion of value, technology and hierarchies.
That is if both these learned women have not already read it.
Very interested in the idea of natural parental authority, never really thought about that. I think age and ‘maturity’ of the child might play into parental authority and the rightness of it, my own experience seems to support my prejudices. There is a book in this 😳😊
One trouble with granting high IQ people power is that they are artificially given the ability to avoid suffering. Suffering is the door to wisdom. My advice to you two is this, “Seek the few who have suffered greatly and can think- give them a voice.”
High IQ people are more prone to depression.
Suffering might lead to wisdom. No promises. I like how some people say
That which does not kill me makes me angry
Or
That which does not kill me makes me wish it did.
I love this thought but I think that artificially being able to avoid suffering is not obly something happening to high IQ individuals in positions of power but rather all people in positions of power as well as everywhere else.
We’ll said
love the consistent posting. great content
11:12 “It probably smells in there” 😂
The notion of "left and right"is a misdirection. There is primarily the center. What are the center concepts, ideas, their systems of propagation, and the people who embody their facilitation.
You are describing the tyranny of the centre from which my home suffers. We get to choose between two parties with the same policies. Is that even democracy. For example immigration. The left want mass immigration for diversity, the right want it for GDP and to help big business. What if we don't want it at all. Everything is like this, it's compulsory for us to vote but we can't change anything.
@@grannyannie2948 This is why I call it "Oligarchy of donor class."
No matter how much the people don't like something, if the political campaign finance people want something, they'll pay all parties to be in on it.
Before Trump, both sides loved more immigration, because how dare the people form organized labor to demand better workplaces and pay?!
@@skylinefever Very true. I also view them as globalist puppets. When you dig into the global agreements they make they don't care about the country or the people. Here in Australia our previous Prime Minister was personally praised by Schwab for using covid to advance their aims.
The Christian answer is that which is above gives itself to that which is below and that which is below submits to that which is above. Self sacrifice
I am of the firm belief that human beings have a biological imperative to procreate along with all other living things. The one difference is that human beings can choose not to but that doesn’t change the imperative for the group.
There is nothing more empowering, if that is what you want, than being the mother of a large family. There is something majestic about a mother surrounded
by a group of children. I think Mary overthinks everything somewhat. I am a member of a church, nothing weird, where women have 4-5 children & it is
not a big deal, it is normal. Having children is what women were created to do, even when it is hard & dangerous. Obviously too, these are the families that will continue
when many, many others are dying out.
And being a grandmother is truly empowering. You are truly the hand rocking the cradle of future society.
I rly am very much a fan (almost somewhat despite myself) of both this Heideggerian Sith Lord, and her young apprentice LP, who might be gradually turning back to the light side, but then she'd be so much less heavy metal albeit in a low-key, intellectual sort of way.
24:30 These people do exist. Evangelical Christians in big city suburbs. I live in a suburb of OKC. All churches around here are growing, full of university educated, married couples. Having only 2 kids or less is odd and 3 or more is the norm. The moms all stay home with their young children and have internet enabled side gigs like online marketing. Homeschooling on various levels is normal. Most people are upper middle class with some younger people being poorer and older people being richer. My husband is literally a tech guy. And we are both millennials in our 30s.
46:55 Wait, aren't LP and MH also taking issue with the Industrial Revolution? I guess, partly yes, and partly no.
Maybe there will be an episode discussing the tedpill?
Mary, always lovely to have you on the channel ☺️
You should invite Nick Fuentes next.
Great conversation😊 please could you host Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith thank you 🤗
Do an episode on J.Unwin's "Sex and Culture."
Yes Empress Harrington, personally I AM having fun online most of the time, but of course that doesn't mean I have nothing real to say, just because my attention span is too fried to read as much as I used to, plus paid subscriptions to read things don't jive with my part-time wage work broke af lifestyle.
For instance, let me help with sociopolitical spectrum, in a way that's only partly hilarious:
I'll start with the punchline; which is that ppl seem to have flipped the spectrum, I'll elaborate after outlining the original breakdown.
For the more purely "politics" part, (in US, but we're internationally broadcasting this general dynamic,) the closest thing to what the country's supposed to be politically is Libertarian, as understood within last 50-100 yrs.
But "Libertarian" is too broad. It used to have a more center-right Classical Liberal, and less right AnCap connotation. Now it's the opposite. For clarification one should deemphasize the "Libertarian" generalization, and instead discuss those two somewhat separate, but pretty closely related positions.
Then, for the 'bleeding heart left,' that is half politics, half culture/religion?
That's the "Christian left". Which of these tends to be more stereotypically 'fem,' the left, or the center-right/right? (Obvious).
Now for the trippy part: there was a new field called "neuropolitics," before the tragic untimely death of academia.
Why are most ppl now discussing this "left" as though it were the "center-right/right," and vice versa?
I don't actually know the answer, but I'm gonna say that the way the left brain controls the right side of body, and right brain controls the left side, might well involve the most epic doctorate thesis yet, that I will never research or write.
When our politics/society are more cerebral and carefully calibrated, Imma say the real spectrum breakdown is more clear.
When they more involve 'shooting from the hip' and reactivity, then the ol' switcheroo happens.
But I can't prove it, I can only rant abt it on the interwebs.
Hello and welcome to madnmthamatriarch
Oy mayte, awre yew maykin fun uh how dem Brits tawlk?!!
Without our British progenitors, we would not have evolved this splendid Mid-Atlantic regional American accent, that spread everywhere a couple decades ago for some reason, with just a touch of California.
Being a Londoner, it's funny how I don't even realise how we say things until someone quite literally spells it out hahaha - brilliant
Conservatism has always just being "not so fast" progress as this by Robert Lewis Dabney on Conservatism in 1897:
"This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation."
That isn't entirely true though. We have a tendency to only see the change that has happened, not the change that has been prevented. It is easy to take for granted what still exists, and ignore just how different things could be if effort hadn't been made to counter those who want to destroy or change things.
As an aside, the influence of American southerners on just about everything has been wholly negative. They should have picked their own cotton.
@@jenniferlawrence2701 Well, it would be American Southern Democrats. Specifically, the small number of slave owners.
But one could also say that it would have been better if the English and New Englanders had not blown up the demand for cotton in the 1790s or found non-slave production sources elsewhere. The slave-state influence on US politics is directly tied to the increased demand for cotton in the first half of the 19th century.
In Australia I have gone from a lefty Labor voter to the far far right without changing a single opinion.
in other words we will take the long way round to figure out what the ancients knew already
Wait, we can't successfully do embryo selection for intelligence? The Collins's and their twelve children they already had by this means, are gonna be so disappointed *autistic tears cried in regularly recurring intervals*
Feel like I read an article about this and they selected for traits that were suggestive of intelligence but it’s not that cut and dry.
Funny to me they take as a given pregnancy being miserable. When I was pregnant (at 24 in the early 90s) I felt strong, energized, and not depressed for once. At the same time I felt guilty because in my extremely leftist social milieu, having a child was seen as self-indulgent. How dare I when a child was a luxury but I did not have a luxury income. It was anxiety-provoking to see motherhood as NOT economically viable. At the time I believed the pressure to be economically viable was due to corporatism. But in retrospect I think it was more to do with feminism.
That's weird, extra MMM's are occurring, and I was just watching a vid abt Nietzsche's eternal recurrence and Buddhahood on the Seeker to Seeker channel.
I love you both! You won’t get far with Christianity without God
In response to the discussion around hyper online right men saying women shouldn't have the vote etc
It's not so much that we think you didn't have power in society before : au contraire, I think we recognise that feminism isn't new - women have always complained about stuff and wielded power over men.
It's simply that we want our political parties back, so there's a chance that maybe one of them isn't dominated by left wing concerns.
I do understand this sentiment much better thanks to abortion issue in USA. We have to accept that if we wanted authority over our own body, it means it ups to us, not to the state, to manage our reproductive system. Abortion isn't your right. Healthcare is and only in some rare instances abortion is that. And yes, when you see that half of population cannot grasp the concept of personal responsibility, you starting to think that it isn't fair that that part of population holds the power to outweigh the issues like national security, immigration, inflation etc...
A conflict of visions
People need to give up on the left/right dichotomy as a political model. It's totally useless. I don't understand why anyone in an intellectual sphere insists on using it other than it's so engrained through propaganda.
"Yeah there's another axis there"
Yeah the terribly flawed political compass is 2 axis' but people still feel compelled to conflate socialism with liberalism which is dumb af.
And actually there's way more than just 2 axis'. Politics is basically a conflict of opinions on "oughts" and each subject has a LOT of nuance. Boiling down to a tribal binary is caveman stuff.
And yet those of us who want to end mass immigration and embrace social conservatism are called far right by both groups. Its fast becoming a badge of pride.
@@grannyannie2948 What you mean like it's a tribalist tactic and you're successfully being baited into becoming one of the tribe with simple reverse psychology?
Yeah my dear, exactly.
I want to ignore your "ought" and get myself some cheap imported labour? I'll just frame you as part of a group which I label extreme and then I can ignore you.
Then you go " yeah well it's a badge of pride" and you have lost because you now identify yourself as part of that group.
@@grannyannie2948 Also, most socialists are actually anti unregulated, unskilled immigration because it's used by liberals to undercut wages. But you don't think that because you think liberals and socialists are the same thing and can't tell the diffference.
@@shamanahaboolist No it's a constant joke occurring in my country. Our far left public broadcaster makes up names for the people, racist, anti vaxer, far right Nazis. People used to care and get defensive, but that's letting the left set the rules. Best to nod your head and continue your argument. The national broadcaster is so unpopular now they have to disable comments.
Increase maternity leave for a year for the first two and have schools open from 0830 - 1700 hrs. We should move relying on childcare who milking it with the government.
I would challenge the directness of the correlation between modernity and falling birth rates.
You should look into the Philippines or Israel as a bit of countervailing evidence to that theory.
Seems like the birthgap is largely a cultural phenomenon of so-called "coordination errors" driven by X, Y, Z tropes or memes or trash values that have indundated Western culture which we are now exporting via mass media, but which are not necessarily inherent to the underlying technological substrate, not to mention the various pharmaceutical interventions.
Look at that tribe in South America that just got access to Starlink. After a brief phase of wholesome use cases, the very next thing they did is get addicted to porn! "One elder said people in the tribe have become “lazy” and are “learning the ways of the white people,” but she still asked for the internet access to remain."
We have to remember that social networks in some ways mimic the structure of how people are influenced by affiliation and might find information in the wild, right? Like think about what happens when an adolescent falls in with "the wrong crowd". They become influenced, maybe they start doing stupid drugs, they start slacking off on homework, start bullying other kids. We basically just need to find a way to circumvent that proverbial "bad influence" and interject at that stage with "good influences", just like you would do for a troubled kid. Sure, there will always be some people that can't be reached, that are too far gone, but the beauty of good ideas is that they tend to win if you can simply introduce them, you simply spark this notion that there is a better way. If the key to bad speech is good speech, surely the key to bad influences is good influences, and getting people to take accountability for choosing to consume either bad or good influences, like an active recognition of whether or not your media consumption is playing a positive or negative role in healthy decision making, that recognition of "Hey maybe I shouldn't watch this stuff, maybe it's not good for me." Perhaps a better framing than good or bad influences might be "proliferative" or "degerative" influences. Which social behaviors lead to prosperity and which lead to societal despair?
Our information structures encourage degenerative behavior and then we wonder why we can't find a partner that's not fallen victim to that.
Some basic truths should just be taught in school, and one is that life is a mirror, not a window.
Magical thinking has gripped the West for nearly a century, it runs on it.
We need to quit lying to people and telling everyone they're special. We need to get real with them, tell them the facts, and actually prepare them to make adult decisions in the world. Enough iterations of that and the world will start to stand back upright again, I'm sure of it.
Frankly I think if we could find a way to just stuff the channel with Meaningwave, dose everyone on shrooms, and just have a good ole fashioned "love-in" we'd shake off this silliness and get back to the great work of being human, but that would just be my own magical thinking now wouldn't it.
I suppose magical thinking will end when corporate motivational slogans are finally seen as the lies or reckless exaggerations they are.
No drop in child birth in rural Australia.
Strength and power? What's another, less ruthless arbiter? Ok, get ready to join my cult: HUMAN HEALTH is the arbiter that matters. (In the broadest possible sense).
Too much ruthlessness is anxiety-inducing, and increases neuroticism, which is typically maladaptive for humans? Ok, so by any sane metric, we can delineate that a certain amount of agreeableness in the population is healthier than not.
I could go on, and of course the question is one of whether we can see via a comprehensive enough macro-perspective, to recognize the optimal parameters for the ultimate health of the species, but isn't this obviously what we're going for?
(Ppl say this overemphasizes collectivism, but humans aren't hive-dwelling honey bees, so it's sociobiologically HEALTHIER for us to be ascribed, at least provisional legal individual autonomy under a functional system, OBVIOUSLY).
I wonder how much of the big 5 traits are genetically hardwired and how many can be shaped.
I often say this by saying "Will you educate the children of the Idiocracy to be Einsteins?"
@@skylinefever Just saw a good Theories of Everything episode related to this question, with Alfonso Arias.
(These are our best general metrics at present, but if they were replaced with something better as our knowledge improves that would obviously be great, it's unlikely that they'll actually be completely negated).
Harrington: "Civil society is rly just 19th century women".
Holland: "Civil society is rly just Christianity".
Me: "Civil society involves ppl agitating for their interests in a free society, in any place, at any time, from within any subculture that doesn't negate society".
Dictionary: "Yeah, pretty much that last one obviously, why are you even asking me dude?"
Don't get hung up on hierarchies of power. Hierarchies of competence are as important and more prevalent, especially in the modern world. Joe Rogan has influence (power) purely because he climbed the competence hierarchy, for example.
It's a combination of IQ and certain kinds of trait profiles, that a healthy meritocracy will select for, male or female leaders. And not just a quantifiable meritocratic metric, if ppl don't have awaress of and responsiveness to the culture as well, they'd be unlikely to get elected.
*Initially describes how systems we already have are actually supposed to work, subsequently drops mic*
Starting off with a few women have played important women in right wing movements is not a challenge to most women are temperamentally left.
I like both of you but you are outliers.
We’ve seen that women liberated of their biology will squander their youth and then rather than warn younger women will seek to sabotage them.
You missed the point that female voting patterns used to be virtually the opposite of current ones.
I wouldn't take a few bitter anonymous men on the internet fantasizing about removing the vote from women too seriously.
Most men don't go to battle yes, but the mortality of pregnant women is so close to zero, in the developed world, as to make it irelevant (just need to look at male/female life expectancy stats). And if you add things like pain killers it becomes very hard to characterise pregnancy as an experience of intense suffering. I know a few war veterans and none of them would ever want to go back to a battlefiled, but for some reason the pain women feel during pregnancy doesnt seem to stop them from wanting to have more children (siblings being more common than only-children). Just need to read Nora Vincent's experience as a man to see that those who say that men have it better than women are completely detached from reality. Interesting to note how so much of the whining comes from the most privileged...
I wouldn't have phrased it that way, but I have to admit that even though Louise makes this point often, I kind of agree with you. There are various sacrifices involved in becoming mothers, for women who might end up working less, and who go through physical changes and difficulties, obviously all true and society needs to value women for taking on this task, and to encourage them in this undertaking.
But I have trouble seeing how the combat comparison/equivalency holds up.
Something physically dangerous, painful, socially important, for civilians? Sounds like a volunteer firefighter or something, more men could definitely do this, would be excellent to encourage.
Something that requires dedication of time, commitment, exhausting long hours? Sounds like the kind of work most men do to support families.
I always want to include these caveats: not only do I have zero problem with women having careers, but I WANT to live in a society that encourages, and capitalizes on EVERYONE'S talents, I recognize that our culture needs to do a much better job at enabling women to balance one or more careers over a lifetime, including any education needed, with raising children for a number of years, which most women want to do (and which we all require).
But, the risks and challenges of birth and motherhood, are perhaps the female near-equivalent of entering a war zone?
Ahem, ummm, very not.
No one thought that Nora person was a man. Otherwise I agree with your points.
No shit. If women didn't conveniently forget the pain and trauma of labour (like the brain somehow deletes that part) that'd be pretty unhelpful for procreation.
@@acacia_w Before contraceptives women didnt really have the choice of pregnancy. The short term gratification of sex and poor capacity of human beings to anticipate the consequences of their actions probably explains why women would allow themselves to be pregnant (assuming they consented which is not guaranteed). So it is difficult to claim that women would be biologically evolve to "forget the trauma". The idea that women's "brain somehow deletes that part" is a great example of low IQ pop science. For some reason trauma supposedly affect people for years if not decades, except in this one specific case of labour. And as I said in my original comment, claiming that pregnancy is life threatening in a world with modern medicine is as silly as saying that a minor infection is deadly in a world of antibiotics. One could say that the birth of the child "compensate" for the suffering which is why women still want children after a painful labour. But this is also difficult, since women who experience miscarrages don't seem to be discouraged by the pain they went through, even though it didn't yield any positive result..
My trouble with modernity is that motherhood isn’t paid. I don’t want to choose between working like crazy in and out of the office or being a stay at home mom and hoping that relying on a man works out well
Feminism introduced No Fault Divorce to make it dangerous for wives to depend on husbands and vice versa. In Australia women were paid to be stay at home mothers but feminists said they wanted subsidised daycare instead, but they don't.
Yes, my freshman woman studies professor was adamant that it’s foolish to stay at home with children. Which certain people on the right would probably rail against…but it’s true? If your husband turns abusive and you have no income, work history, and small children to support you are likely fucked.
Ma-ry! Ma-ry! Ma-ry!
This country is vast distances from Christianity..it's becoming legally prejudiced..agagainst white Christian British men.
I just hate that when the theocracy was gone, the Moldbug Atheocracy came in, and it also argued that caliphate takes over instead.
I find it funny how Japan and South Korea haven't let the caliphate in.
🤏🎻
@@chasingthesun-bi6cx Fine. You go live next the atheocracy and caliphate, and let free association exist for everyone.
😘😚🌹💋💋
Louise Perry is illogically pretty.
XD
No, we're not against women voting because we "hate women", we're against it because women think more emotionally than men; women want to "help" while men wonder how much "helping" will cost. Please don't discount the idea so flippantly.
I never understood left and right very well because I joke about the American left and right.
American boomer conservative: Rugged individualism built the USA! Leave conformism in Red China. Now be a good American, marry, pop out kids, and buy a house in suburbia! Yeah? Screw you, I won't do that, I was ripped out of nonexistence without my consent. I won't do that to others.
American boomer conservative: Small government and deregulation are awesome. Me: So hookers and blow? No? Screw you hypocrite!
I joke that such crowds say that you can either follow Jesus or Marx. Too bad they never showed any Christ like behavior to money changers.
The left and right arguments you make remind me of Chesterton's discussion. He argued that people are demolishing fences without even asking why the fences were built in the first place.
The prophet and wizard argument made me think of a similar environmental question. People asked "Was Thomas Malthus completely wrong, or did tech delay the Malthusian catastrophe."
Hierarchies. Well, maybe one way to deal with it is to make being on the bottom of the hierarchy not so awful.
I tell the alt right types that there is one way of using tech to meet their goals. I often argue that people who naturally get baby rabies should be examined, and they can go make a "Baby rabies generator" to raise birth rates of people who should have kids. I say "Should have" meaning nobody needs more unwanted kids made by accident.
The stone age will do the job of ending the spiteful mutants. The industrial revolution and its consequences include a collapsed Darwinian selection, and the sick kids will live long enough to reproduce and make sicker kids.
The centrism argument is interesting. I see it because many people see centrism as taking a view that endorses half of the left and the right.
Charles Dawkins argued that natural selection is taking place. It selects for people who can't remember condoms.
I like that you brought the Collins foundation into it. I do admire them for trying to get religion for people who concluded that the existing religions are just plain scams.
Wizard and the prophet makes me think of Curtis Yarvin's Cathedral and Bazaar. He also goes by "Mencius Moldbug." He argued that the "Market of ideas" will not select for smartest ideas. It will select for ideas that make the Cathedral more powerful. What would be as popular for the power hungry as an environmental movement that says population control is a must?
I argue that rational thinking is a disaster because once children do not have a ROI, why spent a cent on any? Well, there goes the line of the rational thinkers.
Maybe if the cushy life discourages pregnancy, maybe invent tech that makes pregnancy effortless?
People endured pain more back then? How many just sent their sick old people to the woods as wolf bait? I just say if you want no MAID, I say make continued existence worth it to the people who are. I say "We were put on this Earth without our consent. The least we could get is an exit with our terms."
Yo Skyline, I laughed, I agreed, I disagreed, I mostly just laughed some more.
waffle waffle waffle. boring interviewee.