108 Comments

Wanna know why young women don’t identify with feminism? Listen to Jill for 5 minutes.

Expand full comment
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022

What an episode. Bari just keeps on DOING it. :)

I’m glad I read through the comments before posting this. A lot of folks saved me some writing. That said, what an awesome group of folks who listen to "Honestly" and read Common Sense!

I’m wondering how “shame” and “stigmatism” have become so unpopular, yet people reveal time and again their hypocrisy in using both not only in name-calling/labeling folks they disagree with, but to outright cancelling some they really disagree with. Are we simply trying to avoid the truth that both shame and stigmatism have their uses? No offense to anyone, but isn’t that a bit childish? I mean, I know there are really terrible words that rarely if ever need to be used, but I believe these two have useful utilitarian value in society's vocabulary (e.g.“Pedophilia is shameful and all proven offenders should carry the stigmatism for the safety of the rest of society.”) if anything. People KNOW when we mean to shame someone. And folks also know when they're being stigmatized. Is the truth that their definitions are simply too much for us to admit now? Strange.

Jill. She gave it a shot. Good on her for that. As much as I disagree with the bulk of what she said, I’m glad she gets to say it. Folks certainly need to hear her side as well. I get the feeling she doesn’t really like men much though. I hope I’m wrong, but that’s the vibe I got the entire podcast. And perhaps her obsession with sexual pleasure blinds her to the realities that await her in her later years. For many reality is the wall you run into while chasing after foolish dreams.

Louise. I literally pre-ordered the Kindle version of her book because of this episode. I’m SO looking forward to August 29th (the book's release date) now. Well done by you dear lady! She's certainly on my radar now. And may motherhood be even more of a blessing than she ever expected.

Bari Weiss. I just keep smiling and shaking my head at the force that she has become. As crazy as this may sound, I’m so glad about the NY Times incident. Look what it unleashed.

Expand full comment
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022

Bari, you're seeing very low response and interest to this because neither of these women are representative of what women think or want. I myself care deeply about issues affecting women but I don't want to hear anymore from either of them. Both of them have some very fanciful ideas that are just their views imo, and are not truly beneficial to women at all. While I understand the apparent appeal of having a debate of two sides with radically opposing views, I honestly wish you had given us a panel of speakers who are more representative of a more common sense approach to the challenges women face today and how women can best navigate today's world.

On another note, what I would want to see even more is a deep dive into the impact of porn today on our society, especially the younger generations, and not just from a "feminist" perspective (I quote "feminist" here because I think people today have very different ideas on what feminism mean, so I don't even think any so-called "feminist" view can claim to be represent women as a class...and of course there's the problem that we don't even have a coherent definition of women anymore and some people can't even define what a woman is but I digress...). Anyhow, back to the point, I'd love to read a deep investigative report on the impact of porn on our society today; what porn has become today and the constant need to promote violence for shock value where nothing is shocking anymore; on the harms it is doing to both women and men, girls and boys; on how porn is literally impacting how people have sex or driving them away from sex; on how it is impacting the psychology of children. I can't understand for the life of me why no media has looked into this. The closest thing I've ever seen that address this is a little-known film by Joseph Gordon Levitt years ago. We need to talk about why young men and boys are unable to have real sex as a result of porn, and why choking and degradation of women, and (dare I say hetero anal sex?) has become common and normalized, without these questions being shut down by dumb speech-stifling accusations of "kink shaming".

No media seems to want to touch this. Would you please consider taking this on?

ETA: A couple of years ago I went to dinner with a friend and her then 14 year-old daughter. We were going to see a play and her daughter brought along a friend who was the same age. Both of these girls were smart, well brought up, and just sweet wonderful girls. I remember looking at them and thinking how it just breaks my heart to think that in a few years' time, some young men would be choking them in bed. And I dared not even bring this up with my friend. My friend is a GenXer like me and I don't think she has a clue. Almost all of my GenX friends have no idea this is what normal sex is today. Both she and I had our wild days when we were single, and choking was never part of our rite of passage. Strangulation is literally an act that can kill. Most average guys in my generation would never think of doing it. None of my male friends in my generation (and I have many) would even be able to do it. They say these acts is just "kink". If it's just kink, then why is it done as a "thing" that only goes one way? Why is choking, degradation, and anal not reciprocated and done on men as a norm?

Expand full comment

Jill's argument is very weak. She claims simultaneously, that we need to change the nature of men, while admitting that we don't know how much of men's behavior is nature vs. nurture. Well, if that is the fundamental basis of your argument, you should have that understanding clear. Fortunately Louise sets her straight and calls her bullshit.

On the flip side, I am definitely going to read some of Louise's stuff.

Expand full comment

Jill’s only argument is, “We cannot fix this (hookup culture/porn) until we fix misogyny.” As Louise points out, these phenomena have become AGENTS of misogyny. And alienation! Maybe that’s not inevitable, but it is.

Expand full comment
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022

There were so many head scratchers that Jill offered in this podcast.

For one, the idea that feminism has been unsuccessful due to continued misogyny or unfinished feminism is laughable. First wave feminism respected the natural differences between men and women, but all subsequent waves have attempted to erase any such differences. Starting with Simone de Beauvior and especially with the pseudo intellectual work of Judith Butler, women have essentially been told to be "free" they must deny their very bodily existence and become more like men. The advent of the pill has turned female fertility into a pathological condition that needs to be treated chemically. The rejection of female embodiment will never lead to a complete, fulfilling, and joyful life, and instead creates a division within each female person between her body and soul. Furthermore, by removing the natural end of sex, the creation of a new human life, it has turned sex into a recreational act. Instead of building our society on marriages that respect the complementarity and dignity of a man and a woman and is ordered towards the production and raising of new life, we have unleashed Pandora's box with our self centered, sterile, and destructive redefinition of marriage. While this is a complicated issue, I believe we can trace the roots back to the introduction of the pill.

Secondly, Jill talks a lot about freedom without ever explaining what freedom is for. The biggest lie of modern feminism is that our telos is to define our telos. They offer a freedom from and not a freedom for. We can be free from fertility, responsibility, nature, shame, etc. but what are we free for? Jill also spent much time saying women should be free from shame without ever engaging the positive aspect of shame. Shame can point out that something is not right, like when a women feels shame after another casual hook up or is engaging in public sex acts for strangers as with pornography.

Thirdly, and most mind boggling to me, was her assertion that pornography has to become more "humane." Pornography is inherently dehumanizing. Rather than the body revealing a person, the producers are only offering their bodies for the physical pleasure and gratification of the consumer. Sex is an interpersonal and relational act, but the consumption of pornography often involves self gratification and is an impersonal act. It is impossible to connect with another person when that person is just an image on a screen. What's more, it teaches men, who are the primary consumers of pornography, that women are objects for their consumption and sexual pleasure rather than a person to be loved, protected, and defended. Her sexual pleasure is secondary to his needs and wants. This has all been to the detriment of women and marriages as pornography has led to generations of men who have been trained to necessarily dehumanize and objectify women.

There's so much more, but I'm really grateful that Louis called Jill out on much of the nonsense she spewed.

Expand full comment

I'm an hour and ten minutes in and Jill F. is driving me nuts. She constantly says " we need to rethink...blah blah blah" but then never shares in concrete details "...the structures that allow that to happen..." Well, spit it out sister! That's why we have a 90 minute episode; so that you can gives us the details. It's why overly educated people are ignored by most...too much logical hand-wringing. We need people to think like plumbers dispatched to a flooded house. Fix the leak.

Expand full comment

“They could control when they got pregnant”

Then why are there any abortions?

Expand full comment

I note a sentiment that we are fortunately past the “bad old days” when the sexual rules of the game were enforced by women. That is, the responsibility of saying “no” was on the woman’s side. This has since morphed into very complex arguments about a new idea, “consent”, and what it means in an era of supposed sexual equality. I think the ideal of the sexual revolution would be to allow pre-marital sex amongst couples that have developed a true relationship. Instead this idea of “free sex” has morphed into a culture of “hook ups” and expectations of sex from the first encounter - prior to even the consideration of a relationship. Rather than empowering women, this has dehumanized them and allowed a relatively small group of men to have “teenage nirvana” with unlimited sex. As noted in the podcast, this accrues to only a small percentage of men, those at the “top of the food chain” of desirability. For most men, and practically all the women, this is a disastrous outcome. I would also say the concept of “toxic masculinity” ( I suspect Jill would recognize this) is contributing to the decline of our boys and young men. I think we need to recognize the differences and needs of both sexes if we are to fix this problem.

Expand full comment

Coming to this a bit late, I see that many have said what I thought, which is that replace 'socialism' with feminism and Jill kept saying what we hear so often, "It just hasn't been done right." If Jill could create people from scratch her ideas might have a chance, but dang it, we're already here.

Bari honestly admitted that when she was 20 she wasn't as wise as she is today. Things she thought were good ideas might not have been. She, like all of us, needs to have the humility to accept that at 40 we may be making similar mistakes that we will recognize decades from now. I know I am in the minority, but I am very against government-forced paid family leave and government-mandated family policies in general, not because I hate women and children, but because I think these policies are actually disguised pro-government, pro-business, and anti-family policies. Europe does not have a flourishing birth rate and they have those policies. Why do we want to emulate them?

Finally, Louise didn't answer Jill's assertion that Hillary lost because she was a woman (probably as a Brit, Louise didn't think she could). One of the most demeaning claims to me as a woman was that I had to vote for Hillary because she had certain body parts. Like many others, I would have happily voted for a woman of integrity, wisdom, and good policies. She was not that.

Expand full comment

I listen to all of Bari's podcasts. I tend to be much to the right of her, but we have a lot in common. I drive a couple of hours a day and that's when I listen. I look forward to new episodes. This morning, I started this episode without reading the intro, and when I heard the name "Jill Filipovic" in the first few seconds, I just stopped the podcast and listened to classic rock instead. I can't say this about very many people, but I HATE Jill Filipovic. I have read some of her "work" over the years, and there are very few people who are as arrogant, unable to have the slightest bit of nuance an any subject, totally convinced of her rightness (although Paul Krugman is in the same league), unable and unwilling to even give the slightest acknowledgement that anyone that doesn't completely and thoroughly align with every one of her points of view could possibly be anything by a moron or totally corrupt and evil. There is no good faith or nuance in Jill Filipovic. The only possible answer to her from anyone else is 100% agreement or you might as well cease to exist. I couldn't bring myself to listen. I was so disappointed. I can't think of another of Bari's guests that I feel is so intractable and so dehumanizing of others. I usually love Bari's guests because I learn, I am persuaded, I feel like I come into communion with them and we are edified together. After reading these comments, I may try it after all because it seems that she doesn't hold her own. Maybe she needs someone as a foil so it is evident how off the mark she is. We'll see... gotta drive 2 hours tomorrow, too.

Expand full comment
founding
Aug 3, 2022·edited Aug 3, 2022

i’ve always thought the invention of birth control is forcing along the evolution of the human race. I had a professor tell me that anything that changes the gene frequencies in a population is in essence causing us to evolve. With so many people declining to have children and not pass their genes along. we might be seeing a change in gene frequency in our population. if there’s any sort of genetic commonality between who is currently choosing to have kids and who is not. if it’s people with a nurturing streak, maybe humans will start to reflect that. or whatever else it might be.

I also wonder if it’s going to make kids more of a battle ground. people understand the importance of shaping the minds of children in terms of what that will do for the future. but a lot of people aren’t having kids anymore.

Expand full comment

Oh Bari. Your love of feminism is your Achilles heel. You rail against wokeness, but appear blind to the fact that feminism is one of the original pillars of wokeness.

You and your guests spent most of the discussion excluding men from the conversation about sex and porn (when sex and porn inextricably involve both men and women) and instead treated them as misogynists, then wondered why men are faring so badly!

Jill Filiopvic’s claim that, “Men don’t derive meaning from fatherhood as a primary identity source” is utterly false. Every father I know, including myself, derives their primary life meaning from their children. Filiopvic fails to notice the obvious: that men’s derivation of a sense of meaning from being a breadwinner is because the bread they win is used to feed their families (their primary source of meaning). Men usually love their families by being away from them. Women usually love their families by being with them. Their love is the same.

Expand full comment

I'm definitely happy I listened to this episode, and I'm also happy that Bari chooses to platform people who might be controversial and that not all of her listeners (or even she) might agree with. But I do take issue with quite a bit of what Jill was saying.

She spent quite a bit of time saying we just don't have enough data to make judgements based on differences of sex, but I would submit that we have millennia of data and human history to tell us otherwise.

Also, I found her one-dimensional view on how Christianity shaped our western view of sex incredibly lacking. How Christianity has viewed sex over the last 2000 years has changed dramatically with the time period, geography, denomination, sub-denomination and more. It's honestly hard to tell which attitudes come from which Christian sects and which come from how Louise put it "the Evangelical right."

I found a lot of her — and many feminist — arguments were basically, "Well men just need to change." I find this is about as helpful as telling a depressed person to "just be happy." It's easier said than done, and I don't always see people proposing actionable alternatives to how men are acting now. Telling some deadbeat to stop beating his wife is easy enough to say, but unless you actually address the underlying issues (insecurity around women, mental health, sense of worthlessness, etc.) and have a way for him to learn better behaviors, he's going to keep being a piece of crap husband. We need to meet people where they are rather than just expect them to come up to our "enlightened" sphere. If you haven't considered him yet, you should try and get Warren Farrel onto the podcast to talk about this.

And as far as porn and casual sex go — it's kind of the same thing as above. You can't just tell people to change something that is, at its core, exploitative and is meant for the consumption of someone else. It's inherently self-serving, so automatically, at least one party is going to have more power and just not care about the other person. (And frankly, the science on porn is pretty settled: https://bit.ly/3zYXbaH)

Expand full comment
founding

I was looking forward to this discussion but found it disappointing. Neither of the guests presented a logical argument for their positions, rather they each relied on their own wishful thinking as the basis for their respective claims. I’d love to see you revisit this discussion with evolutionary biologists and US attorneys.

Expand full comment

Speaking as what Jill and Louise may label me, a puritanical conservative right winger,

I found this debate very depressing. It used to be that intellectuals and thought leaders would read, study and grapple with the Bible so they could frame their arguments in some grounding morality but it was really clear that Jill (and possibly Louise) had never done this. Yet they felt really confident speaking about how us conservative Christians view sex. I’m probably preaching to the choir on this comment board (haha) but just in case some clarity is needed… the Bible tells us that women and men both have equal value because we are created in God’s image. God also created sex. To be enjoyed no less! And it’s best enjoyed in deeply committed and intimate relationships where both partners respect and honor their ‘helpmate’ (Rough English translation from the original Hebrew). This is where we find true freedom and not in pursuing our base hedonistic urges, which without this moral compass we are prone to do. The Bible tells us this as does pew research and even casual observation of the world around us. Obvious case is now what is happening with porn. Women and increasingly children are trafficked and abused in this for profit industry. The online images are purposely designed for addiction. Brain chemistry is permanently altered. There is no satisfaction here- for anyone. People trapped in this industry are literally enslaved to either their addiction to it or their participation in it. Opposite of the coveted ‘freedom’ these speakers seek.

Expand full comment