How do you feel about a more utilitarian belief in Christianity similar to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently wrote about? Do you believe the project of creating a more Christian sexual ethic might best be served by a belief in Christianity?
I have just come home from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's talk at UnHerd this evening. She also mentioned a very personal aspect to her recent conversion to Christianity. Louise, it would be wonderful to have Ayaan on the pod!! Especially to talk about Christianity and the role of women in the Abrahamic faiths, and the things she has written about in her book Prey.
Given the almost-total and rather dark explanation for all human behaviour provided by evolutionary psychology, how do you find the positives in the human condition?
I'd like to hear about marriage. I found the arguments in your book about how marriage is not necessarily a bad thing for women (despite the message we get from some kinds of feminism) quite persuasive. However, I'd like to hear more about how we should ameliorate some of the practical asymmetries that a traditional marriage can bring about (mostly relates to heterosexual marriage). It seems to me the more traditional the marriage (man focused on paid work outside the home, woman focused on kids/home) the more these asymmetries accrue, leading to the woman being dependent on the man's goodwill and this increasing over time. For example; even though in the context of the marriage, the money he earns is "shared" in reality and the law it only shared to the limited extent divorce settlements would enforce this (jurisdictions differ). This is even more evident in terms of earning power. A woman's earning power erodes over the years she's at home with the kids, while her husband's builds (having a wife at home is great for your career!). Similarly the pension contributions accrue to him, etc etc, and on it goes. All this is fine if they stay together and agree to share everything. However, gradually over time the woman becomes more and more dependent on her husband's goodwill, she will be very disadvantaged if the relationship ends. He, on the other hand, could decide to leave and would take his higher salary, earning power, and pension etc with him. Having seen friends go through this, I'm not sure a divorce settlement can really account for the asymmetry, even in the jurisdictions most favourable to women (like the UK). So what is the solution to this practical problem? A less traditional marriage where earning/family responsibilities are more evenly split (but women end up doing the double shift?), just don't get divorced (even if it means putting up with infidelity and other bad behaviour?). I ask this as someone who's married, and whose marriage ended up being more traditional than I had assumed it would be (life is complicated). Looking back I wonder what I could have done to plan it better? What can young couples do?
Great question. Whenever I consider this the only conclusions I can come to is to end no-fault divorce and increase social norms/control for good behaviour (i.e. greater public shaming for infidelity, local pub will not serve you if you keep spending all the family income on drink, greater appreciation and respect for the virtuous man (and woman) within the community). This only really works though in tight knit communities.
I've noticed a few times (more when you're a guest on other people's podcasts than here) comments from men complimenting your physical attractiveness. Do these comments make you feel flattered or uncomfortable?
My husband and I are currently trying for our first baby. I am already worried about how to counter the messaging that casual sex is normal from the teen years onwards for our potential child. Do you have any advice, or thoughts on how you will handle this with your child(ren) when approaching/in the teens? X
Also, if you had a daughter who, let´s say she wants to have a family in the future, what advice would you give her? being a SAHM, work from home with a remote job while raising kids or pursue a career if she wants and delegate the care work? Thanks.
I enjoy listening to the broad concepts and policy ideas discussed in your show. Given, however, that most of us can't affect culture or politics in a significant way, could you please suggest some simple practical things that you have done or heard about that can help us escape "the Machine" in our everyday lives. For example, how are you balancing career with pro-natalism? Are there ways you have found to construct stronger family and community ties? Are there institutions or charitable ventures that you think are worth investing in?
Hi Louise. Do you have any relationship and marriage advice for lesbians? I find your take on marriage and men/women relationships illuminating, but I feel like some of it doesn’t apply or translate to lesbians. Many thanks!
Can we hear more about your dissertation on the perils of child birthing before medical technology? As I remember it was subject you did intense research on during your graduate school years
For anyone, men and women alike, wishing to untangle themselves from the omnipresent lie that pregnant and birthing women are / have been “saved” by medicine you’ll find these three accounts enormously liberatory. @livewildbirthfree @bauhauswife. @freebirthsociety
Is there such a thing as a branch of feminism that is not full of resentment and nihilism? How would we create a feminism that gives both men and women hope for the future rather than saying everything should be destroyed? Do you think if more people understood the nihilistic (and deeply perverted) origins of 1960s left-wing academia (I am thinking of Sartre et al who advocated for total sexual freedom because he was pro-p*dophilia), we would be able to have a more constructive debate about feminism and sexual mores?
Thanks so much for this opportunity to ask a question.
In Shannon Hayes’ book ‘Radical homemakers: reclaiming domesticity from a consumer culture’, she offers up a feminist argument for reclaiming the homeplace as a radical site for culture and economy making, and not a place of isolation and alienation as the ‘home’ is often framed (mostly rightly so) in an alienated nuclear family context.
To us, as former industrial-culture feminists, or what we now call Empire feminists (or career feminists), we find that it is in the household and community economies where women and men have the most agency (if the nuclear family alienation context is actively responded to and composted). The household is a place where autonomous and meaningful productivity can take place, which can lead to uncoupling ourselves from the demands, stresses, shit jobs, pollutions, and insanity of the dominant cultural and economic paradigm.
We employ this feminist, earth honouring practice of homebased culture and economy making to stay grounded to what is real, well below the poverty line, switching money for time, living richly on very little. We don’t call it self-sufficiency but rather ‘community sufficiency’ as we have actively cultivated or supported households around us to transition to post industrial ways of life.
We are not suggesting this is a feminism for everyone, no feminism is. However, as society requires a diversity of responses to the predicaments of our time, we feel it is yet another way for women to feel empowered. We call this feminism and masculinism of the homeplace a neopeasant response.
Your comments or response would be greatly appreciated.
How do you feel about a more utilitarian belief in Christianity similar to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently wrote about? Do you believe the project of creating a more Christian sexual ethic might best be served by a belief in Christianity?
I have just come home from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's talk at UnHerd this evening. She also mentioned a very personal aspect to her recent conversion to Christianity. Louise, it would be wonderful to have Ayaan on the pod!! Especially to talk about Christianity and the role of women in the Abrahamic faiths, and the things she has written about in her book Prey.
Absolutely. Also, I have no idea why this woman is not worshiped by all the feminists, being a symbol of female resilience and persistence.
I second that!
Given the almost-total and rather dark explanation for all human behaviour provided by evolutionary psychology, how do you find the positives in the human condition?
What are you most worried about regarding the future of your son and the society in which he’ll inherit?
I'd like to hear about marriage. I found the arguments in your book about how marriage is not necessarily a bad thing for women (despite the message we get from some kinds of feminism) quite persuasive. However, I'd like to hear more about how we should ameliorate some of the practical asymmetries that a traditional marriage can bring about (mostly relates to heterosexual marriage). It seems to me the more traditional the marriage (man focused on paid work outside the home, woman focused on kids/home) the more these asymmetries accrue, leading to the woman being dependent on the man's goodwill and this increasing over time. For example; even though in the context of the marriage, the money he earns is "shared" in reality and the law it only shared to the limited extent divorce settlements would enforce this (jurisdictions differ). This is even more evident in terms of earning power. A woman's earning power erodes over the years she's at home with the kids, while her husband's builds (having a wife at home is great for your career!). Similarly the pension contributions accrue to him, etc etc, and on it goes. All this is fine if they stay together and agree to share everything. However, gradually over time the woman becomes more and more dependent on her husband's goodwill, she will be very disadvantaged if the relationship ends. He, on the other hand, could decide to leave and would take his higher salary, earning power, and pension etc with him. Having seen friends go through this, I'm not sure a divorce settlement can really account for the asymmetry, even in the jurisdictions most favourable to women (like the UK). So what is the solution to this practical problem? A less traditional marriage where earning/family responsibilities are more evenly split (but women end up doing the double shift?), just don't get divorced (even if it means putting up with infidelity and other bad behaviour?). I ask this as someone who's married, and whose marriage ended up being more traditional than I had assumed it would be (life is complicated). Looking back I wonder what I could have done to plan it better? What can young couples do?
Great question. Whenever I consider this the only conclusions I can come to is to end no-fault divorce and increase social norms/control for good behaviour (i.e. greater public shaming for infidelity, local pub will not serve you if you keep spending all the family income on drink, greater appreciation and respect for the virtuous man (and woman) within the community). This only really works though in tight knit communities.
I've noticed a few times (more when you're a guest on other people's podcasts than here) comments from men complimenting your physical attractiveness. Do these comments make you feel flattered or uncomfortable?
My husband and I are currently trying for our first baby. I am already worried about how to counter the messaging that casual sex is normal from the teen years onwards for our potential child. Do you have any advice, or thoughts on how you will handle this with your child(ren) when approaching/in the teens? X
Also, if you had a daughter who, let´s say she wants to have a family in the future, what advice would you give her? being a SAHM, work from home with a remote job while raising kids or pursue a career if she wants and delegate the care work? Thanks.
Hi Louise,
I enjoy listening to the broad concepts and policy ideas discussed in your show. Given, however, that most of us can't affect culture or politics in a significant way, could you please suggest some simple practical things that you have done or heard about that can help us escape "the Machine" in our everyday lives. For example, how are you balancing career with pro-natalism? Are there ways you have found to construct stronger family and community ties? Are there institutions or charitable ventures that you think are worth investing in?
Thanks.
Are there any updates of the possible appearance of Will Jordan (The Critical Drinker) and Dr Theodore Dalrymple on Maiden, Mother, Matriarch?
I second this!!! I am absolutely elated at the thought of Dalrymple being on MMM, it would be a seriously fantastic podcast interview.
Hi Louise. Do you have any relationship and marriage advice for lesbians? I find your take on marriage and men/women relationships illuminating, but I feel like some of it doesn’t apply or translate to lesbians. Many thanks!
Will you making any sort of response to Clementine Ford’s latest book, ‘I Don’t: the Case Against Marriage’ or have her on the podcast? Thank you.
Hi Aunty Louise, I'd like you please to go into the reasons / evidence for why you predict the end of the current welfare state. Thanks.
PS: I intend to pester until you explain this!
What is your view on modesty in women's clothing?
Can we hear more about your dissertation on the perils of child birthing before medical technology? As I remember it was subject you did intense research on during your graduate school years
For anyone, men and women alike, wishing to untangle themselves from the omnipresent lie that pregnant and birthing women are / have been “saved” by medicine you’ll find these three accounts enormously liberatory. @livewildbirthfree @bauhauswife. @freebirthsociety
Is there such a thing as a branch of feminism that is not full of resentment and nihilism? How would we create a feminism that gives both men and women hope for the future rather than saying everything should be destroyed? Do you think if more people understood the nihilistic (and deeply perverted) origins of 1960s left-wing academia (I am thinking of Sartre et al who advocated for total sexual freedom because he was pro-p*dophilia), we would be able to have a more constructive debate about feminism and sexual mores?
Thanks so much for this opportunity to ask a question.
In Shannon Hayes’ book ‘Radical homemakers: reclaiming domesticity from a consumer culture’, she offers up a feminist argument for reclaiming the homeplace as a radical site for culture and economy making, and not a place of isolation and alienation as the ‘home’ is often framed (mostly rightly so) in an alienated nuclear family context.
To us, as former industrial-culture feminists, or what we now call Empire feminists (or career feminists), we find that it is in the household and community economies where women and men have the most agency (if the nuclear family alienation context is actively responded to and composted). The household is a place where autonomous and meaningful productivity can take place, which can lead to uncoupling ourselves from the demands, stresses, shit jobs, pollutions, and insanity of the dominant cultural and economic paradigm.
We employ this feminist, earth honouring practice of homebased culture and economy making to stay grounded to what is real, well below the poverty line, switching money for time, living richly on very little. We don’t call it self-sufficiency but rather ‘community sufficiency’ as we have actively cultivated or supported households around us to transition to post industrial ways of life.
We are not suggesting this is a feminism for everyone, no feminism is. However, as society requires a diversity of responses to the predicaments of our time, we feel it is yet another way for women to feel empowered. We call this feminism and masculinism of the homeplace a neopeasant response.
Your comments or response would be greatly appreciated.