Louise Perry (7:58)

There are situations in which I would want an abortion for myself and I would want it to be legal, you know, and I would want an abortion for my daughter and I would want it to be legal. I'm not in any way like absolutist on abortion, but I do think that this a casual attitude towards it, the idea that it's just like pulling a tooth, which you will hear from some activists I think is is expressive of that kind of repaganization.

Julian Walker (8:22)

Okay, so it's to listen to that and not hear some version of abortion for me, but not for thee. She would want it for herself and her daughter under certain circumstances. But all of those other women who treat abortion really casually, like pulling a tooth? No, no, no, not for them. It sounds to me like she's perhaps implying that there should be stringent laws forbidding abortions that she would deem as mere acts of con. And to be fair, maybe she doesn't mean legal restrictions, maybe she's talking more about cultural norms. But because she doesn't say more about this, we're left with the impression that she probably only endorses medically ending pregnancies associated with rape or in which the mother's life is at risk. This is supported by other statements she makes about how corrosive premarital Sex without consequences has actually been in the West. But did you notice how she used the term repaganization? Let's rewind a little bit to hear that again and then see what she says next.

Louise Perry (9:36)

A casual attitude towards it. The idea that it's just like pulling a tooth, which you will hear from some activists, I think is, is expressive of that kind of repaganization. And actually, I think that a big part of the reason why abortion is such a vexed political issue in America in particular and elsewhere is because it is, is precisely this. It's a battle about dechristianization. Like, are we a Christian society or aren't we?

Julian Walker (9:59)

Well, I just have to say we are not politically and legally in Christian societies anymore since the separation of church and state. And that's a crucial aspect of living in a democracy. So no, we aren't. And yes, it does sound like she's arguing that we should be. Especially if Perry thinks the sexual morality of the 50s got it right because the Roe vs. Wade decision didn't happen until 1973. It should not be lost on us here that her book the Case against the Sexual Revolution came out the same year that the landmark abortion rights case was overturned after almost 50 years in 2022. No discussion here of the consequences of returning to a time of back alley abortions, women and girls being forced to give birth to their rapist babies, or the criminalization of doctors who provide non obstetric care that might still endanger unborn babies, leading to even worse outcomes for patients. What about birth control?

Louise Perry (11:12)

I have used a lot of hormonal. I'm using hormonal contraception right now. Right. I think that the pill is really useful, is really useful at the individual level. It's only when it scales that it causes problems. And I think that actually if I was going to go back to any moment in time in terms of hormonal contraception, probably the best arrangement was actually a fairly brief period in the 1960s in America when it was available only to married women.

Julian Walker (11:39)

Once again, Peri has a reasonable sounding start which then turns kind of self serving and then exposes what I can only describe as an underlying moral disgust and reactionary idealization of the past, which it takes a while to get through the smoothness of her delivery and her presentation to start to really detect this enough times to see the pattern. This even handed sounding rejection of social progress also extends into dating and marriage.

Louise Perry (12:16)

Whereas in the past, and indeed in other cultures, my first degree was in anthropology, so I always come at this with a kind of the mind of the anthropologist and thinking, what is it about us that makes us different from other cultures? And other cultures invariably have much more formal ways of doing things in terms of matchmaking young people and getting them married and getting them starting families. And we don't. And in some ways that's good, right? It does mean that the outlier people, the unusual people can be experimental and can have more freedom and can have more options. And that's really good for them. But I think for most people, actually it just produces a degree of passivity and almost flailing. I think that that's so much of what we see actually among young people now. There's a kind of. There's this profound uncertainty and we see that in the data.

Julian Walker (13:10)

Yes, other cultures have much more formal ways of doing these things. I think it's called arranged marriage, Louise. It sure sounds like it. And then there is this ironic turnaround in her analysis where she says young people complaining of the overwhelming deluge of potential partners to choose from on dating apps are rendered flailing. And here's the important word, passive. Now, to my mind, there's nothing more romantically passive than having your parents pick your spouse. But I guess I'm just one of those soft headed progressives. This is actually an example of a criticism that came up for me throughout this interview, and it's typical of a lot of this kind of heterodox media discourse, the incredible prevalence of false dichotomies. So in this case, Perry says the data shows that young people are incredibly uncertain. They're spoiled for choice, which we've already established in terms of bodily autonomy is not a word. She values choice and they are lonely and disillusioned. This may well be the case, and it is certainly something worth researching, like what is causing this phenomenon. It's true that millennials and Gen Z are dating less, they're getting married less. And what she doesn't say is they're having sex less than Gen X and boomers did at their age. And there are many interesting hypotheses to explore about Internet culture, socioeconomic factors, how they were parented, and so on. But for Perry, this seems to suggest that we've lost that crucial practice from non Western cultures and from days gone by at home. Arranged marriage or if I really lean into not wanting to put words into her mouth, more formal ways of matchmaking young people and getting them married were her exact words. While I'm being fair, she did also say that the absence of this arranged marriage may be A good thing for the outliers, the unusual people who want to experiment and have more options, even though apparently this doesn't work for everyone else. So she does this false dichotomy thing on the next topic too, when there.

Louise Perry (15:48)

Are no established rules. And not least. Right. And I know that this is a controversial issue. When premarital sex is completely normalized, women's leverage is reduced dramatically. Yeah, yeah. And it does become the case that if you're a high status man and you're attractive and you do really well on the apps, which is true for a minority of men, you. You don't have to do really anything that women ask of you. Right. Because there's like an endless supply of new women available and there is no stigma attached to leading them on.

Bari Weiss (16:21)

Well, there's all of these interesting studies that show that there's a tiny percentage of men that basically get all of the women on the apps and then all of the rest of the men are sort of left with nobody.

Louise Perry (16:31)

Yeah. And I'm miserable about it.

Julian Walker (16:33)

All I can really hear is the bog standard conservative argument that you won't want to buy the cow if you can get the milk for free. It completely fails to acknowledge, as does Perry, every time I hear her interviewed, the widespread convention of serious relationships in which people have monogamous premarital sex as a kind of prelude test run to eventually getting married if it works out. There's also this hearkening back to this mythic, she calls it back in the day, where you just couldn't have premarital sex. Which if we take her at her word, also means the period where young women who did have premarital sex and they would get pregnant more often because of a lack of contraceptive technology would then be ostracized and shamed and they would often be forced to give up their babies for adoption after carrying them to term. This happened to an estimated 1.5 million women in America in the 1950s, according to Ann Fessler's book the the Girls who Went Away now, the kinds of maternity homes to which these unmarried young women were sent and where they were encouraged to give up their babies for adoption. They're on the rise again in the US in the wake of overturning Roe vs Wade. And unsurprisingly, they're usually associated with anti abortion Christian organizations. But then, did you notice that piggybacking on all of this is the much less smooth sounding language of romantic and sexual economics and hierarchies, language that's often used by the red pilled manosphere types, you know, high status men, high value men, hypergamy, which is women seeking out wealthier and in the mouths of those red pilled dudes, more powerful men. This interview with Perry also references data from dating apps as illustrating a terrible cultural trend of high status men getting all the female attention and so not having to commit to monogamy while all the other guys languish in loneliness. And this is often used as a justification for incel culture and for why young men are so angry and are turning to maga. Like many on the right, Perry and Weiss will often bring up survey data that shows that Gen Z is dating less and whispered having less sex. Which always sounds kind of hollow to me because on the one hand they, or should I just say Perry is anti premarital sex. But on the other hand, it's such a shame that Gen Z are not doing it. You'd think they'd actually celebrate this trend, but there's a lack of consistency here. I also just want to say Gen z are roughly 13 to 28 years old right now. So I am neither surprised nor alarmed to learn that the younger half of that demographic may still be relatively romantically and sexually inactive.

Louise Perry (19:49)

And look, the thing is, it is the case, I think it is certainly the case that back in the day when you couldn't have premarital sex and when the expectation was that you would get married and you would have children and it was rare to not do so, there were women who probably felt as if they'd kind of settled and felt like they were married to men who were dissatisfying in various ways. I think that we have to face up to that. That clearly was the case. Having said that, I do wonder if our modern, our very, very modern conception of what marriages ought to be like is in a sense unhealthy. There's this. Eli Finkel wrote this book called the all or Nothing Marriage some years ago. It's a great book about the stages of marriage in terms of looking at American history specifically. And he kind of modeled it on Maslow's hierarchy of. So when you're living in a society which is very strained materially, say you're living on the frontier, right. In 19th century America, really your priority is living. Yeah. So you want a partner who can like chop wood for you, grow food for you. You know what I mean? It's very much a union of survival and of course of reproduction and then allowing your children to survive as well. But then as society becomes more comfortable, more Affluent people start to actually expect more from their marriages and they think, well, maybe I want someone who's actually kind of fun to be around. Maybe I want someone who I have a real romantic connection with. And you get to the point. Now in 21st century America and other parts of the west where actually we expect so much from our marriages, we don't just expect them to be economic and practical unions, we expect them to be sites of self development and of authenticity. You know, all this stuff, which frankly, some marriages can meet that threshold, but most can't.

Julian Walker (21:37)

Okay, so let me get this straight. Economic and social progress leading to climbing Maslow's hierarchy of needs and therefore expecting more compatibility, fulfillment, intimacy and shared personal growth from marriage, that's a bad thing, especially for women. This is more misguided, lost golden age stuff. But here's the kicker. And the nodding smile from Barry in the video is telling too. Listen here for her hushed yes, as she supports what Louise is saying. Because this is how the pipeline maps out.

Louise Perry (22:19)

I kind of ended up almost, as you say, I came from a secular background. I came from quite a left wing background, particularly, you know, my early 20s when I first started thinking about this stuff. Very much a feminist background. This was motivated reasoning. Okay. If anything, this was quite painful reasoning to actually, I almost reconstructed traditional Christian sexual ethics from the ground up from looking at data, from looking at cross cultural studies, from. Yeah, Thinking really deeply about some of these contemporary issues, I kind of like painfully and reluctantly ended up reaching the conclusion that actually the sexual culture of the 1950s was pretty good. Like to the extent that you can solve like some profound and eternal human problems through social technologies, you can't always. Everything has trade offs, that every culture has its flaws. Like, there isn't a utopia. There's never been one. There isn't going to be one. But in terms of like balancing these different challenges, actually I think we did it pretty well right up until the sexual revolution when we threw it out the window.

Julian Walker (23:30)

Next, Barry asks about Andrew Tate. Do you remember him? He's the outrageously misogynist millionaire online influencer who targets young men and boys and who flaunts having gotten rich by manipulating women who are falling in love with him into doing sex work. He's the guy that the Trump administration just pressured last week, just pressured the Romanian government to allow to essentially escape to Florida by getting them to lift travel restrictions around their pending human trafficking criminal charges.

Louise Perry (24:09)

You know, the really crucial difference between John Peace and Andrew Tate, there are obviously lots of differences, but the one that I think is most salient to this issue is Jordan Peterson is basically preaching a Christian message and Andrew Tate is not. I, the more I think about it, the more I think that actually that's really the key dividing line if you're thinking about American culture in particular. And again, this is one of these, like I've argued myself into this position almost against my will, but actually that I think there is.

Bari Weiss (24:42)

You're like, I am a Christian fundamentalist. I don't want to be, but I am.

Louise Perry (24:46)

The facts, Barry.

Julian Walker (24:47)

Yeah, there you have it. The only difference between the Tate brothers and Jordan Peterson is that Jordan Peterson is a Christian. And so now here's Barry asking what she calls a crazy question. Is our smooth talker who's actually, as it turns out, very conservative on abortion, premarital sex, contraception, and who by the way, believes in abolishing no fault divorce because just as with supposed casual abortion, and let's just say it, slutty women who want consequence free sexual pleasure by taking the pill, no fault divorce is really just about convenience and usually for trivial reasons. Never mind the fact that if we go back to the time before the sexual revolution and even after it, for a good 10 years, there was no such thing as marital rape and it was much harder for women to leave abusive marriages. So is our smooth talking and well bred, very bookish anthropologist a Christian?

Bari Weiss (25:57)

This is, this is crazy. I can't even believe. I don't know the answer to this. I assume the answer. Are you Christian?

Louise Perry (26:03)

Oh, good question. I would call myself a Christian agnostic.

Bari Weiss (26:07)

Okay. I'm cultural Christian.

Louise Perry (26:12)

Yeah, I guess so. Well, I keep going to church in the hope that I might suddenly believe and it hasn't really happened. I can make a very strong, like, sociological defense of Christianity. Yeah, but that's not quite, you know, I'm told by Catholic friends that's Jesus part. Yeah, I'm told by Catholic friends that that's me being very Protestant about it. It's me thinking like I have to have like a super strong authentic inner belief in order to be a Christian. And I can't find it. And I think, oh no, like something wrong with me. Apparently that's not, that's not necessary, they tell me, but we wouldn't call it.

Bari Weiss (26:42)

This, but do you think we live in a pagan society?

Louise Perry (26:45)

I think increasingly, yeah. And that's. And I'd say that our increasing acceptance of assisted dying is a sign of that. I think that our increasingly casual attitude towards abortion is a sign of that.

Julian Walker (26:58)

Did you notice Barry talking over Louise insistently to try to establish what I think of as a dog whistle which has become common amongst the public figure atheists who've slowly made common cause with the religious right in recent years. The term cultural Christian. To me this is just a marriage of convenience, and it's also purely motivated by intellectual laziness. I believe X, Y and Z, and it turns out that those beliefs fit with certain traditional religious values. And even if I don't believe the underlying metaphysics, they invite me on their podcasts and I speak at their conferences. They pay my bills and importantly, they provide a God of the gaps basis for my ideas being true. Surely if they are rooted in an ancient religious source, they must be wise. They must have emerged from some core truth about the human condition. Okay, don't get me wrong, I can anticipate the objections. I want to be fair, I don't think of Louise Perry or Barry Weiss as ultra conservative religious extremists. I'm not saying that Weiss has in fact recently warned about how fringe online bigotries on the right can easily migrate into the mainstream, and me thinks that horse has already bolted, but she still is erroneously under the impression that she can shut the barn door even as she moves in circles of horse thieves and has been made wealthy by their funding. But I also don't think the smooth heterodox reasonableness of what they present is true either. They're not just centrist intellectuals who are willing to have the brave conversations that censorious lefties supposedly forbidden. Contextually, culturally, politically, they are situated on the right. For this not to be true, they'd have to be doing a much more nuanced and thoughtful job of differentiating certain observations which may have some merit from a more centrist or left leaning stance. They'd have to be differentiating those, with lots of caveats about the crucial importance of female equality and choice from the reactionary, traditionally religious and conservative agendas that are ubiquitous in their professional circles. Like this interview is not Perry and Weiss discussing the incredible dangers to women that accompany the breakneck implementation of Project 2025 or of an ascendant Christian nationalism, and then thoughtfully discussing what they think the left may be missing or what cultural trends to which Project 2025 and Christian nationalism are decidedly not. The answer may tell us about the current state of marriage and relationships and the equality of the genders, for example. This is the irony, because the entire heterodox project prides itself on nuance and data and adopting points of view that are not beholden to political conformity or convenience, so they say. Now yes, Weiss is a Jewish lesbian who claims some center left positions, and yes, Perry has some less conservative attitudes about exceptions for abortion, say incest or protection of the life of the mother or rape. But those facts seem to me to serve practically, even if that's not the intention. Mostly to launder what are anti feminist, anti choice, pro patriarchy talking points that not only gloss over what was actually terrible for women before the 1960s in America and other places and how much has actually improved. It not only glosses over that, but also the real world impacts of the kinds of legislative policies that ride on these outdated cultural attitudes about women and their place in our societies. Here's my prediction though. I think that these types of figures are extremely useful to the right and they have a lot of influence over centrists or people disenchanted by the woke excesses that the right has cynically amplified, generalized and smeared to the extent that people like Weiss trumpeted those excesses before the election as being much more dangerously authoritarian than maga. But as useful as they are, their day will come when they suddenly realize that the audience they've catered to has a much larger percentage of misogynists, antisemites and homophobes in it than they idealistically imagined. Just search YouTube for gay MAGA convert Dave Rubin's amazement that his good friend and supposedly more tolerant than the woke Ben Shapiro told him point blank during an interview that no, he could never come to an anniversary party for he and his husband because he believed that gay relationships were against his religion. Or what about the livestream feed of hateful anti gay and fundamentalist religious condemnation when Rubin announced to his audience that he and his husband were going to adopt two kids they had fathered through surrogacy? Surrogacy is also, by the way, something that our smooth talking, culturally Christian, anti feminist anthropologist opposes on moral grounds. If you're curious to dig into this more, go and watch the public debate held at an LA theater hosted by the Free Press with Bari Weiss moderating from about a year ago. It's titled has the Sexual Revolution Failed Women? It's a complete disaster of a debate with Perry, of course, on the side of yes, the sexual Revolution has failed women, coming across as the most prepared, calm and reasonable participant while making the same case. I've been critiquing here. Thank you so much for your time. If you'd like to support the work we do here at Conspirituality, you can go to patreon.com conspirituality and support us for as little as $5 a month. In exchange, you can listen to all of our episodes ad free and get access to our Monday bonus episodes that we love creating for you. See you soon.