This post is mainly a review of Louise Perry’s book. However, the last section also serves another purpose. I was not surprised to get some push-back on my last post, A Gentleman’s Strike. The last section, below, The Way Forward, is my amplification of what I was trying to get at, approached from the positive rather than the negative perspective. But now to The Case Against the Sexual Revolution…
The Main Event
I will have some harsh things to say about this book. But I would not wish that to distract from the only issue that really matters: the author’s conclusion regarding the sexual revolution and the recommended way forward. Simply put, she concludes that the sexual revolution has been very bad for women and a far better path through life (for women) is to embrace chastity outside of marriage and monogamy within marriage.
Some of us have been saying that for decades. I must add that I think that marriage and family is the most fulfilling path through life for men too. I also agree with the author that marriage should ideally be life-long, though she seems to doubt that this is a practical possibility. The life-long commitment to marriage and monogamy, and confining sex to marriage, are a price worth paying for stable families and a decent society comprised of contented individuals.
Where Perry and I differ is the little matter of whether real marriage still exists to render this ideal easily achieved.
In broadest summary my criticism of the book is the same overarching criticism I had of Mary Harrington’s book (reviewed by me here plus here, and here), namely that, for all I applaud their direction of travel and recommended course of action, the gynocentrism of these women remains firmly in place.
Before I started reading I wondered whether there would be any hint within the book that men have an innate desire to provide and protect women, an attitude based on genuine altruism not self-interest, an attitude which also encourages a degree of deference to women’s wishes. Many in the men’s movement will dismiss this as mere gynocentrism, but I demur. However, the answer turned out to be “no”, there was almost no acknowledgement of any such thing. I was not surprised, though disappointed. I will re-read Mary Harrington’s book with the same objective and the same suspicion. Inevitably I wonder if these (otherwise well-informed) women do not know this about men, or whether it was just not something they thought significant enough to mention. The former is entirely possible. I long ago discovered that most women are remarkably ignorant of male psychology. The question is important, though, because it relates to one of the key bits of glue that stabilises the long-lived human pair-bond. Crucially, it is asymmetric: women do not have the same instinct towards men.
The nearest approach in the book to acknowledging men’s altruistic impetus in marriage was, “The reductive feminist analysis of marriage sees it as a method used by men to control female sexuality. And it does do that, of course, but that was never its sole function. There is also a protective function to marriage, but it’s one that makes sense only when understood in relation to children.” It is correct to view marriage, and an ethos of sexual restraint outside of marriage, as a means of preventing destructive sexuality running rampant but this applies to both sexes and is imposed by society as a whole, especially by women themselves (the “ancient matriarchs”).
I almost stopped reading before I started. An accolade from Julie Bindel will do that. I should have anticipated that what I had coming was a long tirade about the sexual nastiness of men, and this was indeed the burden of all but the last chapter. Feminists are obsessed with sex. This book is no exception. I need to go easy on quoting too many examples of what I found annoying because in these respects the book is similar to other feminist writing – but with one major difference. Perry acknowledges that liberal feminism has encouraged a sexual modality which has been disastrous for women.
(A Few of the) Annoying Bits
Anyone from another planet, after reading the first seven chapters, would conclude that men were universally vile and that no woman should ever contemplate having any relationship with one of these beasts whatsoever. And yet she ends up recommending marriage so there must be something positive about men. One wonders what it could be.
What have Harvey Weinstein, Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein to do with me? The implication is that all we men are the same, or would be if we could. The first words of chapter 1 are “Hugh Hefner”. Perry writes, “Hugh Hefner experienced ‘sexual liberation’ very differently from (Marilyn) Monroe, as men typically do…” Logically that does not claim that all men are like Hugh Hefner, but it does give that impression. Am I being overly sensitive?
What Louise Perry may not appreciate is that men of my age and older, men still living, never experienced the sexually depraved world she describes in her first seven chapters. The world was not like that when we were young, and everyone tends to take their birth cohort along with them in a time capsule through life, especially as regards sex and marriage. I have spent my entire life in sexual continence whilst also being indirectly castigated for my sexual vileness by women who valorise their own sexual incontinence, and perhaps several abortions. Why would I not be annoyed? Some of us did not need to spend half a century in a grand experiment to see how catastrophic uninhibited sexual licence would be, just as we don’t feel the need to stick our heads in a fire to see if it burns.
Louise Perry has discovered that rape is about sex. Well done. She is like a man who has spent 50 years claiming to be Napoleon and who now berates us for believing it. Err, we didn’t. “What if hierarchy, and viciousness, and violence are baked in?” asks Perry, referring to men – apparently all men – and essentially attributing the same nastiness to men as is standard in feminism but with the added twist that it is irradicable. Lovely. This is how emphatic is the negative answer to my question above. There is nothing good about men to be found in this book. The answer, by the way, is that we are all naturally vicious, our subconsciousnesses like cess pits, but where would be the virtue in virtue if it had not this to overcome? And virtue is possible, if not perfectly.
Perry writes “…women who work at male-dominated organisations such as Google often experience everyday sexist insults that range from mild condescension to outright sexual harassment…” Really? At Google? I have worked in a male-dominated environment with minority women. Most women are fine but there is the odd one who is determined to find sexist issues and does so – not merely at the slightest opportunity but even when there is no opportunity at all except in their own heads. One knows that they will complain. One knows that, however scrupulously one rehearses everything one says and every nuance of one’s behaviour, the complaints will come just the same. Some men then start to avoid these troublemakers (against whom they are powerless) whilst others, more long suffering, continue to put up with it. Such women do no good; they are very destructive of women’s own cause…and they drive men away.
After discussing how much stronger men are than women, Perry continues, “any feminist analysis of the power dynamic between men and women begins with the recognition of this fact”. Well, you can begin with it if you wish, but you should not end with it. In the vast majority of cases the fact that the man is the physically stronger partner is an irrelevance. Perry could do with some exposure to male victims of female-perpetrated domestic abuse. The overwhelming majority of men will not use physical force against a women except to ward off incoming blows. Men can be physically abused on a routine basis, and to a point close to death, and still not fight back. This can be the case for a six foot four, twenty stone rugby player faced with a five foot two nine stone woman – because physical strength is then irrelevant. And he will be disbelieved by everyone. In any case, on a hierarchical list of types of power, muscle power is the least puissant. Men can be, and routinely are, psychologically and emotionally controlled by their female partners and are effectively powerless before them. With her background, Louise Perry must have an understanding of coercive control and this is just as applicable to male victims of female abusers as the reverse (the conviction statistics notwithstanding).
One of the most irksome things is that, in this tirade of male nastiness, our aforementioned visitor from planet Zog would get the impression that the sexual revolution was created by men with these outcomes in mind. In fact, men have merely reacted to the conditions created by feminism (with eminently predictable results). Yes, yes, of course men who do the vile things discussed at length in the book are solely responsible for their own behaviour, just as a thief is solely responsible for stealing your car despite you having left it unlocked with the keys clearly visible. But the sexual revolution was the creation of feminism while men of my generation looked on with incredulous bewilderment.
The issue is actually deeper than the nasty stuff that now happens to women in a culture of sexual depravity. It is also about women’s loss of control. One the things that is never admitted is that female sexuality is bound up with the desire to control their man (the projection of which gives us the feminist theory of male power and control). In a hook-up culture of meaningless casual sex, the opportunity for control goes out of the window. It is not only that women miss the emotional commitment in this obnoxious arrangement, they also miss the element of control which is important to their sense of security. Indeed, their seeking of “commitment” from a man is actually to obtain an indication of successful control. I do not mean that such control is abusive; it is natural and differs from abusive control as matricentrism differs from gynocentrism.
Perry writes, “…hook-up culture is a solution to the sexuality mismatch that benefits some men at the expense of most women.” Yes, and to that sentence you could add “and most men”. Incredibly Perry appears not to appreciate that the men to which she’s referring in respect of hook-up culture are not all men. They are not even all men who use dating apps. She is referring to the 20% of men that get the attention. 80% of men get no attention at all and eventually give up. So it is not correct to suggest that, whilst the sexual revolution has been terrible for women, it’s been a bonanza for men. No, it’s been a bonanza for a minority of men and despair for the majority. Does she really not know this? Or, more likely, is it something she knows but which got filtered out from any mention by the empathy gap?
This is an important point because it is this fact – that sexual liberation has been bad for most men too – that could lead in due course to majority support for her conclusion regarding a return to traditional sexual mores.
In the context of men regarding their sexual partners as disposable Perry writes, “It isn’t nice to think of oneself as disposable”. This renders me speechless.
Quoting her grandmother Perry writes, “women have been conned”. Yes, indeed. But it was feminists who conned you, ladies, and it would have been good to add that. Men, however nasty some may have become as a result of rampant sexual libertinism, were only reacting to the conditions brought about by feminism and over which they had no influence.
Louise Perry has perhaps never imagined what it has been like to be a man of my generation, or older, as we watched our culture become sexually degenerate. I have never lived the life she describes in chapters 1 to 7. In fact, though dimly aware of it, some of the horrible details were unknown to me. The four questions she asks of male readers I answer emphatically in the negative. She writes, “I cannot help but harbour a sneaking suspicion that many men – perhaps all – do realise that operating in ‘cad’ mode is not actually harmless”. Of course, that’s why men of my generation, or older, would not have behaved in such a manner – except for those few who really were cads and were always treated as such when their behaviour became known. We spoke against these lamentable changes in sexual ethos and were ignored or vilified by the feminists who drove it forward. Now, it seems, we are the ones to blame.
She writes, “The only difference (from pre-sexual revolution) I can see is that the arse licking is now literal. Women are still expected to please men and to make it look effortless.” I can only say again that she is describing a world I have never known. Perhaps it is the world of liberals?
Rape
After reminding us of the statistics on rape convictions, Perry concludes, “No, I’m afraid rape is a male crime…” Well, yes, of course, because in English law it is defined as penetration using a penis, which precludes biological females. She writes, “I joke with my friends that I want to market a range of tiny guillotines to deal with rapists in a very direct manner….I would like convicted rapists to spend much longer in prison – their whole lives, if needs be…”
I see. I have a couple of difficulties with this. Firstly, just how is Perry going to be certain that the man in question is guilty before she chops his dick off? It would be a little embarrassing for her if he is later exonerated. Or perhaps she would emulate the Ministry of Justice who, in such circumstances – when their own criminal justice system is proved to have incarcerated an innocent man for many years – respond, not with contrition, but by sending him a bill for his board and lodging. I’m not kidding, this is standard practice, see here and here, for examples. Perhaps Louise Perry could send a surgery bill for the operation?
It may be that she believes such miscarriages of justice are so rare as to pose no problem in practice. Not so. They are commonplace. In a trawl of newspaper reports covering mostly a period of 6 years I easily found 146 cases of false allegations of rape or serious sexual assault in the UK (excluding politicians and celebrities). In 69 cases a trial was scheduled, but in 26 cases the prosecution ultimately (and usually at the last moment) declared they had no evidence to offer. 15 cases initially resulted in conviction and imprisonment (up to 25 years actually being served). 25 cases involved serial accusers who had accused more than one man in separate incidents (up to 15 separate allegations). 16 deaths were associated with the cases, of which 12 were suicides of the innocent man, one was the suicide of the falsely accused’s mother, and one was the death in gaol of an innocent man. In a follow-up study of senior politicians or celebrities in the UK I found 70 cases of allegations of sexual assault or rape, of which it appears that 50 were innocent.
The actual proportion of rape allegations that are false is endlessly debated, and rather fruitlessly as the question is so ill-defined (what is an “allegation”, what is “false”?). A discussion of the issue has been published in Male Psychology The Magazine, 1 March 2022, False allegations of rape: the true extent remains unknown. What is clear is that the rate is not small, and some arguments suggest more than half of allegations are false.
The determination of the CPS, via initiatives like Operation Soteria, to continue a culture of failing to disclose exculpatory evidence drives increasing numbers of innocent men into gaol. I have little doubt that there are at least a thousand innocent men in prison. Holding a high view of British justice is not a delusion that is available to a man once he has been accused. This is the background that should be taken into account for anyone contemplating Louise Perry’s punishment regime.
Perry should also be aware that it was specifically men who were innocent who served the longest sentences, because continuing to insist on your innocence disqualified you from parole. This is the way the Ministry of Justice punished men for bringing them into disrepute by highlighting their failures. (As of about a year ago, parole has been denied all those convicted of serious sexual offences).
On the positive side, a return to a culture of sexual restraint – specifically chastity outside of marriage – would, I believe, reduce allegations of rape, both false and true, considerably.
My second difficulty with Perry’s draconian punishment proposal relates to what she, and virtually the whole of society, will not admit and are content to keep secret: women’s own sexual offending, both against minors and against adults (of both sexes). As regards minors, forensic psychologist Naomi Murphy discovered, after more than 15 years working with the most serious sex offenders in HMP Whitemoor that 70% had been the victim of sexual abuse as children, and, in 54% of these cases the perpetrator had been a woman, generally acting alone. This joins other evidence, going back centuries, that female sexual offending is not as rare as people like to think (for more studies see chapter 20 of The Empathy Gap). But it is no good looking at conviction statistics to gauge its prevalence because female offenders are very rarely caught – because no one ever suspects a woman. The above statistics speak for themselves. With around 14,000 men in prison for sexual offences, Naomi Murphy’s data would imply over 5,000 women who had been guilty of sex offences against male children in the recent past. This does not include female sex offenders against girls. The number of women in prison for sexual offences is less than 100.
And then there is women’s sex offending against adult men. Are you still one of those people who think that such a thing is not even physically possible? I again refer you to chapter 20 of The Empathy Gap for sources. Stemple, Flores and Meyer (2017) analysed data collected by four major US surveys, the Centres for Disease Control, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Crime Victimisation Survey and the National Intimate and Sexual Violence Survey. Quote, “the surveys have found that men and women had a similar 12-month prevalence of nonconsensual sex (i.e., 1.6 million women and 1.7 million men were raped or made to penetrate in 2011 data)”. There is no equivalent data for the UK because the relevant questions are not asked.
Perry writes “young women should feel free to get hammered with their girlfriends or highly trusted men…” Perhaps, but my advice to men would be to get out of there after the second drink because it may be you that is at risk.
Perry opines, “…we should treat our sexual partners with dignity. We should not regard other people as merely body parts to be enjoyed. We should aspire to love and mutuality in all of our sexual relationships…We should prioritise virtue over desire.” I couldn’t agree more. But there’s no evidence of love for men in this book whatsoever.
Deadbeat Dads
The author writes, “Now, deadbeat dads are commonplace. In the UK less than two-thirds of non-resident parents – almost all of them fathers – are paying child support in full.”
The phrase “deadbeat dads” is a red rag to me. What I hear is “dead or beat dads”.
To support that “two-thirds” figure, Perry references HOC Hansard vol.561 col.229 (15 April 2013) which does not exist. HOC Hansard vol.561 col.229 occurs on 16 April 2013, but it says nothing to that effect (and that debate was on an unconnected issue).
In any case referencing such an old source is inappropriate and misleading as regards the current system, not least because the Child Maintenance System (CMS) underwent radical change in August 2014, see New child maintenance system fit for the 21st century starts today – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Under the prevailing system, parents may opt for Direct Pay in which the paying parent pays the receiving parent directly without CMS involvement. (The payment which is due can be worked out using a calculator on the CMS site). However, they can also opt for Pay & Collect in which the CMS takes the money direct from the paying parent’s bank account or obtains it directly by docking his wages. (I will now refer to the paying parent as the father, which is correct in 95% of cases).
If Direct Pay is being used and the father defaults the mother can inform the CMS who will then transfer the case to Pay & Collect. The CMS then have draconian powers to extract the money from the father, initially by taking it from his bank account or wages (which the father cannot prevent). If that fails (because he simply doesn’t have the money) they can seize his property and sell it to raise the cash. Ultimately the CMS can send the man to prison though they are likely to have exhausted his resources first, so what there is to be gained by this is unclear. Debtors prisons were abolished in the Victorian era, but they have been recreated now by the CMS. Consequently, talk of non-payments is inappropriate because, providing the mother reports non-payment to the CMS, any cash or belongings the father has will be seized.
A series of FOIs by Brian Hudson and helpers has revealed the abnormally high death rates among CMS payees. For those who are classed as “in arrears” so that the above enforcement powers are applicable, their death rate is some 14 times larger than that of men of the same age in the general population. The cause of these excess deaths is officially unknown but the circumstances suggest that suicide will be a major contributor to it and specific cases are known where this was established. Consequently, for some of us “CMS” means Cause of Male Suicide. But Louise Perry prefers the label “deadbeat dads” and the usual knee-jerk opprobrium. What part of “empathy gap” do you still not get?
Dependency and Caring
Perry writes, “…it isn’t possible to reject dependency altogether because, even if a woman chooses never to have children, she will one day grow old and depend on other people as if she were an infant all over again.” This is true but is an underestimate of our universal mutual dependency of grotesque proportions. To understand how we are all mutually dependent, try being parachuted naked and alone into the most remote jungle. The author vetoes from consideration our entire infrastructure of physical support, just taking it for granted. For her “dependency” is equated with caring only, it seems. What she has vetoed from consideration, namely our physical infrastructure of housing, transport, energy, clean water, sewerage and food, is of overwhelmingly male construction and maintenance.
But even in the context of human-to-human caring she is egregiously gender biased and quite wrong. She writes, of women, “always caring, never cared for”. It is so careless to write throw-away remarks like that, and it perpetuates myths. Here are some data,
From the Office for National Statistics based on the 2011 census we find,
- From age 65 males provided more unpaid care than females.
- In England and in Wales, more men than women were in full-time employment while also providing 50 hours or more unpaid care per week;
- A greater percentageof men over 50 than women under 50 perform caring roles.
- Overall, women did provide a higher proportion of unpaid care than men in 2011 but in England the percentage difference was only 2.9% while in Wales it was only 3.2%.
The 2021 census provides information about unpaid carers disaggregated by marital status (married, divorced, never married, widowed). It also disaggregates by age and sex. I have compiled data into three age ranges: up to 50, from 50 to 64, and 65 and above. Results were,
- The percentages of men or women in the same age range who were providing unpaid care was less than 20% for marital categories divorced, never married and widowed, with only one exception namely the never married under 50s for which 57.08% of men were providing care compared with 48.59% of women;
- The predominant factor in being an unpaid carer is not sex but being married;
- For married couples the proportions of people the same age and sex who were providing unpaid care were,
- Under 50s: 36.36% men, 39.33% women;
- 50 – 64: 65.09% men, 62.71% women;
- Over 65s: 84.53% men, 76.23% women;
- Hence, in the married category for which caring peaks, a greater percentage of men of age 50 and over were providing unpaid care than women in 2021.
This is not the picture implied by Perry’s throw-away that women are “always caring, never cared for”. It’s so wrong it’s a calumny. Moreover, she missed the opportunity to sing the praises of marriage as this is where the unpaid caring is mainly taking place, whichever spouse is doing it.
The Way Forward
“There was wisdom to the traditional model in which the father was primarily responsible for earning money while the mother was primarily responsible for caring for children at home.” Yes indeed, which is why this is the opinion expressed by the great majority of people in British Social Attitudes surveys – results which have been imperiously ignored by feminists.
“The institution of marriage, as it once was, is now more or less dead”, writes Perry. Yes, exactly. And this is the little problem that needs to be overcome before the proffered solution becomes possible. This she fails to acknowledge. Despite that her advice is to “get married. And do your best to stay married. Particularly if you have children and particularly if those children are still young” – and she is fundamentally correct. The problem is this…
Feminism set out to destroy marriage and has succeeded with impressive efficiency. What now exists in the name of marriage is a hollow sham. In the UK marriage can be annulled, unilaterally and uncontestably, with the same ease as cancelling a magazine subscription. And the Children Act 1989, the inspiration of the feminist former President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, contains the fatal line: “The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished”.
One cannot, in all conscience, recommend that a man take on the responsibilities and duties of real marriage when in return he is given the sham version which provides no security of tenure over his children. This is the glaring hole in Perry’s analysis (and Mary Harrington’s).
The function of real marriage is to create stable fatherhood. But to feminists, fatherhood is patriarchy and smashing the patriarchy was their aim. This was accomplished in the domestic arena by smashing real marriage.
Real marriage must be undertaken for life, with divorce being hard to obtain and rare, and – most crucial of all – it must create a man’s tenure over his children born within wedlock which cannot be sundered except in rare and extreme circumstances. Furthermore, this must be accompanied by a sexual ethos which stigmatises sex outside marriage and childbirth outside marriage.
Real marriage, as it existed before sexual “liberation”, was bolstered by the triple lock of legislation, religious moral guidance and social stigma for sex outside marriage. All these safeguards have failed under feminist pressure.
What chance is there of a return to real marriage and its associated sexual ethic? Lamentably, within Western culture as a whole the chance is as near to zero as makes no difference (in my opinion). But why should those of us who regard the current situation as degenerate and reprehensible continue to go along with it?
The answer is that, as regards marriage, men need not do so. But there are decent, marriageable women out there. Choose your woman wisely. Here’s some advice from Hannah Spier on how to do so and who to avoid. As Belinda Brown said of feminists years ago, do not breed with them. My suggestion is that small local communities should form, of like-minded men and women, who can – perhaps with the active involvement of uncorrupted religious leaders – have a mutual understanding that marriage means real marriage. Within such communities the required support (and, yes, stigma for those who renege) can be implemented, regardless of the wider culture, and perhaps religious support also. National legislation is a far harder objective and must remain out of sight for the time being. Politics is downstream of culture; the latter is the initial target.
So, what about the marriage strike that was suggested in my last post? This is the same thing. Here I have merely introduced it from the positive side of real marriage first. Men (and women) must exercise great caution when considering marriage. In particular, the “strike” element is simply the refusal by men to consider a woman as a potential wife unless she is fully on board with real marriage. Without legislation it is true that this will be a matter of trust and judgment (and, perhaps, religious involvement). Other safeguards would include long engagements and the involvement of parents in such decisions.
“But how to persuade men into – if not chastity – sexual continence?” asks Lousie Perry. This makes it sound like it would be an extraordinary thing that has never been tried before. Ms Perry, there are those of us still alive who have lived this life and recall the time when this was true of 95% of men. It only seems to be a difficulty because you have been raised in a degenerate culture.
“Under these circumstances, if a man wants to have sex in a way that’s socially acceptable, he has to make himself marriageable, which means holding down a good job and setting up a household suitable for the raising of children.” I quite agree. And real marriage should take that on board too.
Source: The Illustrated Empathy Gap, on October 5, 2024
Comment on the website:
I find it disturbing so many “right-wing” commentators, podcasters, and politicians, have been duped into believing Louise and Mary are on their team. This seems to have happened because the ladies in question parrot some “conservative” talking points pretending to believe them for the same reasons, which is demonstrably false as you have shown.
I established Louise was not to be trusted simply by reading her own website. She has now scrubbed her website of previous information but the way back machine still has archives of what it once displayed.
On her website, before the changes, she stated she is “the Director and Co-founder of The Other Half” … “a non-partisan feminist think tank” which is quite the oxymoron, and rather funny in a “who believes this absurd claim” macabre kind of way. The stated aims of this “think tank” are:
“Our mission is to promote popular, commonsense policies that serve the interests of the other half of society:
- Women, as well as men.
- The home, as well as the workplace.
- The domestic, as well as the public.”
This is exactly what society requires, another “women have it worse, blah blah” pressure group. And the idea woman are the excluded half from the home and the domestic is, well… I’ll leave that sentence there and let you enjoy your laughter.
She also stated she is “the Press Officer for the campaign group We Can’t Consent To This, which documents cases in which UK women have been killed and defendants have claimed in court that they died as a result of ‘rough sex’.”
On the website for We Can’t Consent To This they have a list of cases of women killed during sex, and rightly some of these men are despicable murderers attempting to use a false claim of sex gone wrong. But as I read through the list (admittedly, some time ago) the cases became ever more dubious, which is a given as they are simply being used to further the agenda. I’m almost positive you wrote about this subject previously (if you have done, then a link would be appreciated to refresh my memory).
I remember a twitter exchange I saw where someone pointed out the dubious nature of some of these claims (many with acquittals based on evidence) to some famous feminist who’s name escapes me, who seemingly straight faced replied it didn’t matter if the woman was a willing partner and a terrible accident had happened, the man still killed the woman and should be punished as such. Standard fare.
Recent Comments