YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → The Sexual Revolution and the Radical Redefinition of Feminism — A Conversation with Mary Harrington

The Sexual Revolution and the Radical Redefinition of Feminism — A Conversation with Mary Harrington — Transcript

by Albert Mohler · 7,450 words · 1,047 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00[Music]
0:02this is thinking in public a program
0:04dedicated to intelligent conversation
0:06about Frontline theological and cultural
0:08issues with the people who are shaping
0:10them I'm Albert Mo your host and
0:12president of the Southern Baptist
0:13Theological Seminary in Louisville
0:15Kentucky Mary Harrington is a columnist
0:18and editor for the online platform
0:20unheard and she runs her own substack
0:22entitled reactionary feminist born in
0:25the United Kingdom she graduated with a
0:27first in English literature from Oxford
0:29University in 2002 Mary's work has been
0:32published in first things American
0:34Affairs the New York Post The Spectator
0:36the Statesman the London times and the
0:38mail on Sunday we're going to be talking
0:40today about her new book feminism
0:42against progress Mary Harrington welcome
0:45to thinking in public thank you for
0:47having me so you have made a very
0:50provocative thesis in this book feminism
0:53against progress and there's so many
0:55aspects of it I'd like to ask you about
0:57but I I think just for the sake of the
1:00ation it' be helpful if I just ask you
1:03why did you write this book and what do
1:04you see as its main
1:08point I I wrote the book as a way of
1:12answering a question which preoccupied
1:16me for a number of years which is this
1:18is it possible to be a feminist if you
1:20don't believe in progress and it's a
1:22very long story how I came to to Lose My
1:25Faith in progress and how I came to how
1:28I came to think of prog ress as a belief
1:31in in a in a sort as a theology if you
1:34like in its own right right um but
1:36anyway this is where I found myself and
1:38yet you and and there are by and there I
1:41was trying to trying to figure out you
1:43know is it possible I don't believe in
1:45progress and I was thinking well hang on
1:46if you don't believe in progress then
1:49I'm also a woman and the situation of
1:51women now is quite different to the
1:53situation of women say even 100 years
1:55ago let alone 300 years ago and if you
1:58say to anybody as I did on occasions I
2:00don't believe in progress they say ah
2:02but you want to go back to you you want
2:03to go back to a nation when we couldn't
2:04vote there's progress so so what do you
2:06make of that then ah gotta and I thought
2:09about this and I thought well yeah you
2:11kind of got a point but also um you I I
2:14think it should not be beyond the wit of
2:16man to to care about women's interests
2:20and yet to not believe in progress
2:22because here I am I don't believe in
2:23progress but I still care about women's
2:25interests and I still think they I I
2:27still think these matter and that
2:28women's interests and Men interests are
2:30not always the same and that sometimes
2:32women's interests can be sidelined in
2:33the larger political conversation so I'm
2:36I I find myself in this bind so how do I
2:38resolve this um and the feminism against
2:41progress which is the book I wrote I
2:43guess is the is the very long answer to
2:45that question is it possible to be a
2:46feminist if you don't believe in
2:47progress and the answer is always yes
2:49and no isn't it and really the slightly
2:51longer one is it depends what you mean
2:52by feminism and it depends what you mean
2:54by
2:54progress yeah I guess the part of the
2:57book in its original thesis uh because
3:00you identify it you say it's quasi
3:01theological this uh this false idea of
3:03progress in fact you call it progress
3:05theology um you know during the 20th
3:08century uh Britain was the hot spot for
3:11what was called process theology but uh
3:14yours is I think a far more pervasive
3:16theology frankly but I I it makes me
3:20think we have to Define progress in a
3:24way that uh first of all we understand
3:27what you mean by it and then we
3:28understand that we do believe in change
3:31and some of that change is better than
3:33other change but the the Western idea
3:36that progress is inevitable is is that
3:40the main point that you're trying to to
3:42deny that there's an inevitability and
3:45kind of a a comprehensiveness about this
3:49progress sure let me explain a little
3:51bit more what I mean when I talk about
3:52progress um so obviously you know we
3:56don't live in the same world now as in
3:57say Roman Britain you know clearly
3:59things
4:01change um but what what I my process my
4:04process for thinking this through was
4:06that yes things are different now but is
4:08it it seems to me an unfalsifiable
4:11assertion that things are better in some
4:13absolute sense now than they were under
4:16say in say ran Britain and it seems to
4:18me that in order to make that case and
4:20people do people do argue that things
4:21are better in some absolute sense
4:23progressives tend to do this you know to
4:25make that argument you need to you need
4:27to ignore the trade-offs you need to
4:29ignore the things which which have got
4:30worse um by at which point you which
4:32means you have to Define your terms you
4:36know your metrics for progress and once
4:38you've defined your metrics and excluded
4:39the things that you don't care about
4:40you've rigged the game you've you've
4:42assumed the truth of what you set out to
4:43prove so in a sense it becomes a
4:45circular reasoning and so I came to the
4:47conclusion that this isn't necessarily
4:49this isn't this doesn't necessarily mean
4:50we have to discard thinking about
4:52progress but we need to accept that it's
4:54not it's not a fact it's a belief and we
4:57can and you know there are whole there
4:58are a whole dis discipline dedicated to
5:00to discussing the details of beliefs I
5:02mean but that's what we call theology
5:04isn't it Christopher lash who I've
5:05mentioned in the book um describes
5:07progress as a secularized version of
5:09Christian eschatology um the Christian
5:11belief in Providence specifically and
5:14and this so and but in a sense it's got
5:17all of the Transcendent bits sanded down
5:18you know we we've we've abandoned the
5:20death judgment Heaven and Hell stuff and
5:22you know certainly certainly we're not
5:23talking about the end of days and
5:26seven-headed beasts and any of that you
5:27know we we we can do that all this stuff
5:29but we're and what what we're left with
5:30is a very minimalist version of the
5:32Christian eschatology which is wholly
5:34stripped of transcendent content and
5:36which which has only really retained the
5:39the linearity the directionality of the
5:41Christian narrative which again is in is
5:43very culturally distinct in a way that
5:45progressives often don't acknowledge so
5:47but this but the Christian story says
5:48that history is a history is a thing you
5:51know that you know the world was created
5:53and then some stuff happened and then
5:54you know Jesus and right and if we want
5:56to think if I wanted to if I want to
5:58answer to respond to this question of
6:01how do I how do I Square my my concern
6:03for women with my skepticism of progress
6:06theology then I need I'm going to start
6:08from the basis that this is a belief and
6:10not a fact and I'm going to say what
6:12happens to feem what what does feminism
6:14look like if you remove that frame and
6:16and try and and try and find another
6:18another way of telling the same story of
6:20everything of what has changed for women
6:23over the last say 300 years because it's
6:24it's a huge it's a huge amount and and
6:27so I tried that and really that's the
6:29that's the substance of the book is
6:30looking looking at the history of the
6:32women's movement since since the
6:33Industrial Revolution and then looking
6:35ahead a bit at where where that if you
6:38that that industrialization of ourselves
6:41is taking us you know I have to say
6:42first of all I I am I'm one of those
6:44theologians who actually does believe in
6:46the metaphysic so I I am looking for all
6:48those things that you mention a secular
6:50society is not looking for anymore I
6:52appreciate your reference to Christopher
6:53lash and uh I I I think he understood
6:57that actually he was trying to to do
7:00this theological analysis of what was
7:02going on in society when when when
7:03frankly he wasn't buying into the
7:05theology the Orthodox Christian theology
7:08either but I I I think just for
7:11listeners as as you're speaking about
7:13this idea of progress
7:15theology it it clearly you're not
7:19suggesting that thing nothing has gotten
7:21better you're suggesting that there is
7:23no inevitability and comprehensiveness
7:26to this secular commitment to progress
7:31yes it seems it seems unfalsifiable sure
7:36to to me that things are things are
7:38getting better in some secular material
7:40sense you know show some things are
7:42getting better other things are getting
7:44worse it's better that I would argue
7:48just in terms of classical Western
7:51thought it it it it's better that there
7:53be some kind of social
7:56Mobility uh whereby you could have a
8:00young person go to college and and makes
8:02that that's better than the absolute
8:04fixed situation immobility say of of
8:0712th century Society but
8:10comprehensively there have been gains
8:12and losses in all of this rapid social
8:15change right I mean and one one example
8:18I could I could site this is you leaving
8:22um would be would be our relation to
8:24animals you know if we want to talk
8:26about you know Moral Moral improvements
8:28and moral declines you know it's judging
8:31from from what I can discern in
8:33literature and in history um routine
8:36abuse of animals um is now is now very
8:39much more frowned upon than it used to
8:40be you know people no longer routinely
8:43dock dogs dogs extremities and um beat
8:46horses to death in the street and so on
8:48however we also have industrial factory
8:49farming which is straight you know it's
8:51a it's these are factories that
8:52producers a byproduct industrial
8:55quantities of misery and fear and pain
8:57suffering sickness and pollution so you
9:00know how do you how do you weigh how do
9:01you weigh these two yeah and and this is
9:04and you you throw pretty much any ex any
9:06Improvement at at me I I I'll I'll show
9:08you the tradeoffs I think a classical
9:11Christian worldview understands this is
9:13this is not to
9:14say yeah yeah and this is and this is
9:17not to say that uh that we shouldn't
9:20care about or or that we shouldn't try
9:22and grapple with those th the the evils
9:24that we have now you know as we've tried
9:25to Grapple with the evils that we had
9:27then but but also to accept that where
9:29we're unlikely to be able to instantiate
9:31heaven on Earth and then in in a sense
9:33this is a this is a process which is
9:35simply ongoing and it's kind of a moving
9:37Target right you know the other word I I
9:39need to ask you about is the word
9:40feminism so you know I understand modern
9:43ideological feminism first way second
9:45way now third and fourth way feminism so
9:49you clearly believe that feminism is
9:51something important so what is
9:55it okay we could be tight about but I'll
9:59I'll try and be I'll try and be Asin as
10:01I can I mean this is this is really this
10:03occupies really the first two-thirds of
10:05the book is right um unpacking what I
10:08mean by this so I've I've divided I've
10:11divided the women's movement into into
10:13three stages so canonically the first
10:16wave was was suffragism the second wave
10:19was the sexual Revolution and the third
10:21wave is all the kind of all the nebulous
10:23me too stuff that and and various
10:26transgender movements that we have now
10:28that's very crude that's that's that's
10:30the that's the canonical history um and
10:33what I wanted to show in the book was
10:34that the women's movement begins very
10:36much earlier than is generally
10:37understood and it emerges out of very
10:40radical transformations in the relation
10:43between men and women that arrived with
10:45modernity with
10:47industrialization so up up to that point
10:50Family Life which absolutely transformed
10:52family life so the basic economic unit
10:56of of the polic was was no long a
10:59household and it was no longer a
11:00productive household which was the which
11:02had been the case um and but when
11:04industrialization happened um the the
11:07economic productive aspect of of the
11:10household left bled away from the home
11:12first first working men left the home to
11:14work in factories and other settings um
11:17leaving and and and then women's work
11:20bled away it was a radical change in in
11:23how men and women related to one another
11:25and in fact what one of the and one
11:27counterintuitive effect of fact
11:29was that from between premodernity and
11:31modernity women lost economic agency um
11:34so women women lost economic agency
11:36because they lost they they they lost
11:38their productive role and and yet and
11:41yet they they still needed to somebody
11:43still needed to look after the kids um
11:46which created a whole new set of
11:47dilemmas depending on how wealthy you
11:48were and how much you could subcontract
11:50and how able you were to find to to get
11:52help and how close your extended family
11:54is um and and whether you need to work
11:56yourself so whereas whereas a woman
11:58might have been weav textiles within a
12:00within a cottage industry in in in the
12:02premodern world suddenly she's got to
12:04work in a factory what does she do with
12:05her breastfed baby you know she could
12:07may be nurse whilst whilst working at
12:09home now she can't do that anymore what
12:10do you do and and really the the early
12:13history of the women's movement emerges
12:14from confronting these these very
12:17concrete uh transformations in in family
12:20life and from this from this then
12:22developed two characteristic ways of
12:24trying to trying to slice this new this
12:26new normal um if the the bour the bouris
12:31uh literate educated women by and large
12:35either made either set out to make the
12:37case for Domesticity um and this is so
12:41which which then prompted a whole 19th
12:43century women's movement oriented
12:46towards valorizing the home valorizing
12:48domestic life you know extolling the
12:50virtues of motherhood and the importance
12:52of motherhood and women's crucial role
12:54in um educating children and shaping the
12:56moral world but then the the flip side
12:58of that is that this sort of this this
13:00model of bouro Domesticity and public
13:02social reform only works with the
13:04Proviso that your husband is a good guy
13:07um so that he that he's that he's able
13:09to support the family that he doesn't
13:10drink the money away that he doesn't uh
13:13he doesn't beat you he doesn't abuse the
13:15children you know this if and what do
13:17you do if the Legacy legal environment
13:20that you that you're living in um is
13:22still premised on the idea of a
13:23household as as a as the economic unit
13:26which was really the the the world that
13:2819th century women found themselves in
13:30because within the model of the
13:31household as the primary economic unit
13:33women don't have separate representation
13:35as individuals and and so there's this
13:37this this other dimension this this
13:38other side of feminism which comes into
13:40being to challenge some of the ways that
13:43women had lost economic and political
13:45agency and have found themselves
13:47radically dependent and in some cases
13:49you know woefully abused as a
13:51consequences of really of these these
13:53these far-reaching material changes and
13:56this is this is the this is the way I've
13:58I've chosen to tell the story of early
14:00feminism and the way and in and my
14:03argument in feminism against progress is
14:07the point where the canonical story of
14:10feminism is said to begin which is to
14:12say the sexual revolution in my view is
14:14the point where it ended the sexual
14:15Revolution killed feminism because up to
14:18that point um the the women's movement
14:21had been arguing for um an an a proper
14:25balance of the relations between men and
14:27women given these changing material
14:29economic conditions in recognition of
14:31the fact that men and women were
14:32fundamentally different you know only
14:34women can get pregnant only women can be
14:35mothers that in a sense men women exist
14:38and we need to find a way of living
14:39together we need that that that's the
14:40point isn't it I mean it seems to be a
14:43major point of your book is that there
14:46is a physicality and more importantly
14:48there's a relationality there's a an
14:50ontological
14:52function uh that uh that falls to women
14:56and and you know you can try to argue
14:58this in purely terms I can't do that but
15:01but at some point the whole logic of
15:04feminism falls apart in in terms of just
15:07the reality of motherhood I think you
15:09make that point very
15:12clearly yeah I think this is a um just
15:15to to to go a little bit deeper into
15:19your point um the the feminism which
15:23denies the reality of our of our
15:26twofoldness if you like of our of our
15:28sex nature as men and women um the the
15:31history of that denial begins really
15:33with another technological
15:35transformation and I think again this is
15:37this is under under discussed in in the
15:39canonical story where because because we
15:42have because we're looking at it through
15:43progress theology we tend to see it as a
15:45series of moral
15:47changes whereas you you can tell the
15:49same story as a series of technological
15:51developments and suddenly it it it takes
15:53on quite a different coloring so if we
15:55take off the progress Theology goggs and
15:57we look at what happened with the sexual
15:58reolution what we what we're actually
16:00looking at is another technological
16:02transformation On a par with and I would
16:04say in continuity with the Industrial
16:06Revolution it is in a sense it's a it's
16:08a it's a continuation of the Industrial
16:10Revolution by other means except now we
16:12we began to industrialize our own bodies
16:15and really ground zero for the
16:16industrialization of people was women um
16:20and specifically through the technology
16:21of the contraceptive pill which promised
16:24to free us it promised to free women in
16:26particular from our embodied limits
16:28which is to say our our specific
16:31reproductive role and to free us and and
16:33by by freeing us from from the reality
16:36that only women get pregnant you know
16:38then then to liberate us to be more like
16:40be more like men um or and really
16:43implicitly it takes it takes the male as
16:45a standard for what being what
16:46personhood is and then says okay now
16:49because you women are a little bit AIT a
16:51little bit faulty as as humans we we're
16:54going to use this technology to fix you
16:55so that you're more like standard humans
16:57and then you can then you can be free
16:58and then you can be people in the same
16:59way as real people that's that's really
17:02the message that the contraceptive pill
17:03as a feminist technology is is offering
17:06to say you know we we can use this
17:08technology to fix you 4 to humans so you
17:10can be more like real humans um and and
17:12what it what it then and it worked up to
17:15a point it really does you know there's
17:16a in you know if you if you view um the
17:19right to access higher education to
17:21enter the workplace to to plan your life
17:24without without the the prospect of an
17:26unexpected pregnancy at any minute um if
17:30if you view all of those things as
17:31Improvement and many do I mean I'm let's
17:33be honest I'm grateful I'm grateful for
17:35my my years at Oxford University I I
17:38enjoy I here I am in the United States
17:40now speaking you I would I I might not
17:43be in those positions if I were if I
17:44were born prior to to to the age we live
17:47in now however um what it's also telling
17:50us is that women women are only people
17:52to the extent that we can technologized
17:55away the differences between us and real
17:57people um
17:59sense there's also I think it's very
18:02important to say there there is a an
18:04anti-natalism in in the birth control
18:06movement ideologically which they owned
18:09they they talked about it openly in
18:10other words it's not you I think the
18:12point you make is is brilliant you know
18:14they're trying to to make women into men
18:17in economic terms but the other thing is
18:19they just wanted less babies
18:22period they wanted less hum and now of
18:25course now now of of course everybody's
18:28everybody's doing a full 180 and saying
18:29well can we have some more babies please
18:30and it's like I don't know right I don't
18:32know can we do that now you know it
18:34might be too late to turn the ship
18:35around but I guess it's I'm afraid
18:37culturally and morally yeah culturally
18:39and morally I'm afraid I'm afraid it it
18:41is uh because quite frankly I think this
18:44the second way feminism was far more
18:46successful than conservatives feared at
18:49uh transforming Society in a way that
18:51appears to be nearly irreversible I want
18:54to ask you a key methodological question
18:56just in terms of your work the one
18:59response that that you know
19:01conservatives first offered uh to what
19:04we seeing as the uh the the the the
19:06faults of second way feminism what those
19:09were grounded in either Christian
19:12assertions and I speak as a Christian
19:14Theologian or in assertions that only
19:15made sense in a Christian context the
19:18interesting thing is is that some of the
19:19categories you're using are more uh
19:22Marxist or neo-marxist in other words
19:24you're looking at the fact that it's
19:26it's not just ontology but it's uh
19:29you you're you're ascribing an economic
19:31motive uh toh to why
19:34Society uh sought to uh to call this
19:38Liberation for women but it it it really
19:40was about a larger economic and social
19:43purpose for the
19:47society yeah I think that's right I mean
19:49One reviewer and this made me laugh
19:51accused me of having scaled The North
19:53Face of the Vatican without ropes or
19:55pipes
19:59reverse engineered reverse engineered a
20:01very a very Catholic critique of
20:04Technology um through pretty much every
20:06means at my disposal apart from Catholic
20:08Social teaching um and I think there's
20:10probably some justice in that and I and
20:12I I suppose the honestly the thing I
20:14would say to that is is a it's a te it's
20:17more of a technical question than
20:18anything else which is you know speaking
20:20as a journalist I can
20:23you you know yes there are easier ways
20:26to there are more direct ways of making
20:27the arguments that I make but speaking
20:28as a journalist U my my intent is always
20:31to meet people where they are and
20:33bluntly in terms of the The Wider
20:36reading public I think you know the
20:37reality whether we like it or not is
20:39that the LI the the people who've read
20:43Catholic Social teaching or you know
20:45that that that who read within that uh
20:47Canon um don't probably don't need
20:50probably don't need to hear what I have
20:51to say um because they're kind of
20:53already there and if you want to make
20:55the arguments beyond that you have to
20:56find other ways of doing it yeah that
20:58makes sense you know I I I think the
20:59other thing going on here is that uh
21:03conservatives generally just kind of an
21:05allergic recoil uh to anything that Karl
21:09Mark said for for a very good reason but
21:12the interesting thing is that uh even as
21:14Karl marks and Eng Les and and uh you
21:17cite Engles as well even though they
21:19point to this future without a family
21:21what what they described the Industrial
21:23Revolution doing to the family was not
21:24all wrong uh what what they believed
21:27would come out of that you know via
21:29communism that that that's horrifying
21:31but but they weren't wrong when they
21:34said look this is
21:36alienating um persons from their their
21:38their
21:39end absolutely I mean I think the the
21:42the basic Marxist analysis is not is not
21:46a million miles wrong what I I would
21:48dispute the Mad tileology U which is I
21:52mean yeah I think it was Eric vogin who
21:54described it as trying to immanentize
21:55the es you know and I just with you I'm
21:59I'm with you on on on feeling that this
22:01is probably a misguided thing to try and
22:03do um but you know if we if we stop
22:06trying to imti the escaton and we just
22:07look at the the critique of Technology
22:10contained within Marx's Marx's Des
22:12Capital um he's not wrong and I think we
22:15can and we can take we can take some of
22:17those critiques and we can we can take
22:18them in a different direction if we want
22:20to I think the as you say that's what I
22:23saw you do simply coming out in hives
22:25and going in a different direction yeah
22:27you know is perhaps you know we're
22:30leaving we're leaving useful lines of
22:31argument um behind us which we could
22:34which we could do something very
22:35fruitful with yeah as a as a as a very
22:37young person a college student uh
22:40assigned to read marks and Eng Les the
22:42thing that struck me was biology is
22:45going to uh is is is going to make this
22:49impossible you know in other words I as
22:52a conservative uh I I see the the
22:55Revolutionary portion of uh the
22:57communist
22:59uh Theory the Marxist theory to be you
23:01know inherently horrifying but it it
23:04it's just at the granular level you just
23:07can't work this out because eventually
23:10nobody's going to have babies and
23:12nobody's going to care for those babies
23:14no one's going to love those babies and
23:15and so a society that actually follows
23:17this is is simply going to fall into
23:19nothing to so in other words he's right
23:21he's right when he says and Les was of
23:23course the prosperous son of an
23:24incredibly wealthy industrialist um but
23:27this is what industry is doing it it
23:29takes the man out of the home and soon
23:31it's going to take the woman out of the
23:32home as
23:34well yeah absolutely I mean I think my
23:37I've
23:38reflected a great deal more on the the
23:40relationship between technology and
23:43utopianism and and and human human
23:46nature which is it's an unfashionable
23:48concept these days not least not least
23:50because of progress theology which which
23:52which claims or at least implies that we
23:54don't really have a nature and that in a
23:56sense we can technologized ourselves all
23:58the way to Perfection and in as much as
24:01we have a nature it's probably fallen
24:02and it's probably probably amable to be
24:05to a tech fix I mean in in and in that
24:08sense it very much belongs within the
24:10the sort of Gnostic critique that Eric
24:12rogalin has of immanentizing the escaton
24:14you know in a sense the the the
24:16technological Paradigm is a is another
24:18version of that sort of you that that
24:21kind of Gnostic e push for for replacing
24:25our fallen world with with a more
24:26idealized and more perfected one um but
24:30but the thing the what I've tried to
24:32show in feminism against progress is
24:34that it doesn't matter how many times
24:37you apply a tech fix to human nature
24:39what what you reveal is never the the is
24:42never heaven on Earth what you reveal is
24:44in the end always the enduring reality
24:47of human nature and you know yes you can
24:50you you you can agree or disagree with
24:52with the Christians that this is a
24:53created human nature and you can agree
24:55or disagree with the the with the the
24:57theologic narrative which lies behind
24:59seeing our creativeness but the reality
25:02but it doesn't matter how how often you
25:04technologe us you know as in marks and
25:05Engles trying to make women men and
25:07women the same in invariably in the end
25:10you'll you'll you'll come up against the
25:11reality that uh that our nature is still
25:15there and I quoted horrus in the book
25:16who's who's who's framing whose
25:18formulation for this is the most famous
25:20he says you can drive nature out with a
25:22pitchfork and still she comes back yeah
25:25and actually he's complaining about
25:26gardening I think if you remember
25:27rightly but it's it's true it's true
25:29yeah it doesn't matter how often we try
25:31and please go on no I I have to ask so
25:34so I'm I'm I'm trying to to discern
25:37whether in your book uh you're kind of
25:41bracketing uh leave progress theology
25:44let me just talk Christian theology for
25:46a moment are are are you are you
25:47bracketing all the ontological issues
25:50and just saving that for later or are
25:51you suggesting like when you talk about
25:53human nature is is that an evolutionary
25:55product is that an accidental
25:56sociological process or human nature
25:59something real with Transcendent meaning
26:01and value and
26:04anchor I don't
26:06know I don't know but but but what I
26:09what I do know is that it's real you
26:11know we have a nature and we can't
26:13technologized away um you know there is
26:15a well worked out body of Christian
26:18thinking on our nature you know there
26:19are there are other ways of looking at
26:21it as well you can you can view it as
26:22evolved you could view Evolution as as
26:25as the sign of God's creation in the
26:26world if you wanted to you know there
26:28are there are a number of different ways
26:29you can slice it but the but what what
26:31i' I've simply settled in the book for
26:34saying for now I it's enough for me to
26:36say that this exists this is real and
26:39and and my my argument is that we need
26:41to we need to stop treating this as a
26:43problem to be solved through technology
26:46and accept that and and try and try and
26:49take a more
26:52pragmatic and try try build develop a
26:55more pragmatic relation to our nature
26:57the headlines about your book uh and and
27:01I I don't mean that just in terms of say
27:02the mainstream media but the the uh the
27:07thought World Rel relating to your book
27:09the shock is how clearly you address
27:12issues related to the sexual Revolution
27:15abortion birth control and um and
27:18frankly your own your own experience of
27:19motherhood being a part of that uh has
27:22that surprised you or were you
27:23intentionally provocative in in leading
27:26on those
27:27issues I don't think I set out to I
27:30didn't set out to make people angry or
27:32incensed or shocked um I simply told I
27:36simply told my story right I had I I I
27:40came fairly late to Motherhood after
27:43after a very radical youth um and it
27:45made me rethink it made me rethink a lot
27:48of the things that I believed up to that
27:49point um really my and yeah having a
27:53baby was very much one of my starting
27:55points for this this very radical
27:57rethinking what I believed up until that
27:59point about particularly about the
28:01women's movement because it made it
28:04becoming a mother
28:06so made it clear to me that simp simply
28:09seeing um women's interests as lying in
28:11a greater freedom from just doesn't make
28:14sense the moment there are children in
28:16the picture right um because I I
28:17realized at the point where I had a
28:19dependent child that my freedom from
28:21couldn't include freedom from my child
28:24and that this this created you know for
28:26any woman who is a mother a certain
28:28intention within the the the liberal
28:30Paradigm full stop and that this is
28:32something which um well I mean in
28:34classical In classical liberal the you
28:36know Philosophy for example Russo just
28:38solves this by excluding women from the
28:40liberal Paradigm altogether right you
28:41know sort of uh Charming compliance
28:43support humans and I'm thinking well I
28:45I'm not I'm not sure I'm signed up to
28:47that um quite aside from anything else
28:49you know Russo send all of his six
28:51children to an orphanage because he
28:52didn't think well let's not get into
28:54Russo I'll be I'll be renting furiously
28:56for those but
28:59[Laughter]
29:01I don't I don't doubt that yeah it's
29:05it becoming a mother makes
29:08liberalism make a whole lot less sense
29:11um or at least much more complicated for
29:13women and it makes a great deal of
29:16Freedom feminism make a whole lot less
29:18sense um
29:20and it it raises a whole series of
29:23questions about why it is because it's
29:25not as though femin maternal feminism
29:27doesn't exist it's not as though there
29:29isn't a very well worked out body of
29:31maternalist thinking for about women's
29:34interests um actually a huge amount of
29:36that has been happened in the 19th
29:38century and has been memory hold because
29:40because those those maternalist women
29:42turned out to be against granting women
29:44the vot which sort of complicates the
29:46feminist narrative a little bit but the
29:48yeah maternal feminism in the 20th
29:50century is very much the poor relation
29:53and a significant reason for this is
29:55because uh the legal right to abortion
29:57became such a central plank of the
29:59liberal feminist program and it's very
30:01difficult to square the maternalist one
30:03the valorization of women as
30:05interdependent creatures in in the light
30:07of our unique phys physiological
30:10generativity um with the idea that
30:12women's personhood can only be accessed
30:14through a right to to be free from that
30:17uh unique generativity so this is this
30:20is not this is not attention which can
30:22easily be resolved and the consequence
30:23of that has been that maternal feminism
30:25has been the poor relation ever since
30:27and I suppose you could probably
30:28describe me as a kind of maternal
30:30feminist or really some somebody who
30:32wants to get to grips with with the
30:34question of motherhood and to Grapple
30:36with the the tension between that and
30:38and liberal
30:39feminism yeah yeah the uh the the
30:41approach right now taken by the left and
30:44and I don't just mean the far-left uh
30:46but the uh the political left uh you
30:49know by by jumping on the issue of
30:51abortion all the time is that the the
30:52main issue of their uh even political
30:55campaigning it means they're not talking
30:58about a woman as a mother at all it's
31:00like motherhood has now been completely
31:02eclipsed they they just can't talk about
31:04it now it's it's all about a woman's
31:06right as they style it to choose not to
31:09have a child and uh you know the the the
31:12Christian Theologian in me goes you know
31:14even just at the at the the level of uh
31:18of the pragmatic um you you there's not
31:21a future in that argument I'll just put
31:22it that way there there's not a future
31:24in that argument you may win an election
31:25on it but you your own movement is is
31:28absolute sterility and uh I I I I really
31:32appreciated your book and and your push
31:34back because without using even poetic
31:38language you're making very clear uh the
31:40rejection of motherhood is is is the
31:42rejection of of what it means to be a
31:45woman and I don't mean every woman being
31:47pregnant I as mean but motherhood as a
31:52destiny I I think I see paraphrasing
31:56slightly I think the way I phrased it in
31:57the book is by by arguing that a a
32:01movement which claims that women
32:03accesses personhood to the extent that
32:05she can be freed from her own
32:09physiological capacities is is a
32:11movement which sets us it sets us
32:14constitutively at war with our own
32:16biology and I I'm I'm simp I'm just
32:18unconvinced that there's a a long-term
32:21emancipatory future for us in in in in
32:25that line of thinking I think we we we
32:27need to find some more some more
32:30compassionate accommodation with our
32:32with our own embodied reality otherwi
32:35otherwise we're not just setting
32:36ourselves constitutively at war with our
32:38own our own physiology we're also
32:40setting ourselves at war with our own
32:41future literally um I mean this is you
32:44know we we've talked a little bit about
32:46antinatalism this is this is where we
32:47are now and and none of this is to say
32:50that none of this is to say
32:52that un unplanned or unwanted
32:55pregnancies don't happen or that
32:57historically there haven't been equally
32:59grave and and Grim means of managing the
33:02managing pregnancy risk or that this is
33:05the or that this is a problem that
33:06admits of any utopian solution in a
33:09world which is fundamentally fallen and
33:11and and unlikely to be unlikely to be
33:14returned into heaven on Earth tomorrow
33:16you know none of this is to say that uh
33:18n that that abortion isn't at least one
33:20attempt to to slice one of the one of
33:22the most difficult challenges of of of
33:26our human existence particularly women
33:28which is to say the the tension between
33:30our needs and the implications of you
33:32know hosting another potential human
33:34being on our own bodies you know these
33:36are these are these are the these are
33:38the questions you know these are the
33:39fundamental questions of life and of
33:41death you know it's not likely to be an
33:43easy answer but my my my stance on this
33:47is that you know these are these are
33:48grave these are grave things to do and I
33:51I I I simply have questions about the
33:53abortion the the contraceptive and the
33:55abortive Paradigm as offering a
33:58long-term emancipation or a true an
34:01emancipation of women that gives due
34:04regard to our humanness and also to our
34:06Collective human future I think there
34:08has to be a better way there has to be
34:10another way you know I appreciate your
34:11cander you know speaking as a as a
34:13Orthodox Christian uh I I I I see that
34:16in in I guess what you would say the the
34:19easier terms in in terms of right and
34:21wrong and the horror of it uh is far
34:25more apparent to someone operating out
34:26of a out of a biblical worldview the
34:28answer is that this this can only lead
34:30to massive human misery because it is it
34:33is it is a massive subversion of the
34:36sanctity of life I I I I I think that
34:40leads me to another point which I I want
34:41to ask you uh you know you've got uh a
34:45lot of readers on among conservatives a
34:47a lot of conservatives of different
34:49stripes are reading your book published
34:51by a conservative publisher and uh the
34:53conversation has been it's been pretty
34:56uh intense in conservative circles what
34:58in the world is the left done with your
35:00book what you know what what what are
35:02you getting from the left or uh well
35:06I'll just leave it at that what what
35:07what what what is the left
35:09saying a lot of them I think just didn't
35:12notice me to begin
35:13with I mean you know you know you know
35:16how polarized everything is now I think
35:19the it depends so in in Britain as
35:22you're probably aware the conversation
35:24around transgender activism is quite
35:26different to the the conversation in the
35:29United States for a whole host of comp
35:32don't okay the turf island is it's
35:35called Turf Island for a reason um and
35:38among gender critical feminists men most
35:41of whom in the UK are left leaning you
35:44the the gender critical movement which
35:46is you usually it's traduced as you know
35:49fascist adjacent by trans activists but
35:51it but really in the United Kingdom most
35:53of those women are just straightforward
35:55radical feminists of the old stripe or
35:56they're liberals who M by reality or
35:58broadly speaking they're they're left
36:00leaning and and simply simply you know
36:03they they happen to know that biology
36:04exists um in that in those communities
36:07there
36:08are my my arguments are generally
36:12appreciated although by and large the
36:16gender critical side will stop short of
36:19my critique of some aspects of my
36:21critique of of Biotech and specifically
36:24and particularly where it comes to
36:25abortion and birth control they won't go
36:27there but they'll say you know I think
36:28you know a lot of what Mary says is
36:29great but I I'm still I'm not really
36:31sure about that bit um on the left left
36:35you know the the fully cyborg left um
36:37they they know I exist and they just I'm
36:39I'm just an
36:41AA I I think that's probably that's a
36:44fair
36:44summary um and on the right on the right
36:47it again it varies a great deal you know
36:49right right Liberals are often they're
36:52Often unconvinced by the by the critique
36:54of Biotech or you know a bit a bit wary
36:56of the critique of markets or not really
36:58sure what they're doing in the same
37:00place right no I I I I get that you know
37:04interestingly as I say I think uh the
37:07response to your book among the people
37:08to whom I speak it it's it's kind of
37:10like the people who are finding it most
37:12interesting not agreeing on everything
37:14but but most
37:15interesting are those who are kind of
37:17the organic conservatives and the
37:19Christian conservatives who are saying
37:21you know I think this is a very very
37:23important critique um I think that you
37:25know for another conversation one day
37:28uh the conversation could be where do we
37:30go from here but at this point I I do
37:33think it's interesting that the the
37:35people who are talking about this book
37:36that I'm I'm hearing from uh and and and
37:39there are an increasing number they they
37:41are very interested in the critique and
37:43understanding that modern conservativism
37:46in the most uh classic sense um has to
37:51come to terms with these realities and
37:54uh so I think it's something of an
37:55interesting fact that it was a
37:56conservative public in house that
37:58published your book uh 30 years ago that
38:00would have been Unthinkable I think uh
38:03today it it it makes a lot of sense does
38:05that make sense to you yeah I think I
38:07think so I think I have a challenge for
38:09both sides in the sense I've got a I
38:11have questions for the left on on social
38:14libertin is social liberalism if you
38:16like but I also have questions for the
38:17right on economic liberal liberalism and
38:20I have questions for both about the
38:22there a whitewashed IDE IDE the the
38:24ideological but very in a very
38:27very concealed way um aspect of our of
38:30our Collective across both sides faith
38:33in technology and I think more more than
38:35anything else you know at the
38:36fundamental level my book is a is a
38:38feminist critique of technology and
38:41markets um and it's and from that point
38:44from from that vantage point it's a it's
38:45a provocation really to both
38:48sides a very interesting development and
38:51as I expected a very interesting
38:53conversation uh we look forward to your
38:55next work and where these arguments take
38:57you Mary Harrington thank you for
38:59joining me for thinking in
39:00public thank you so much for having
39:11me many thanks to my guest Mary
39:13Harrington for thinking with me today if
39:15you enjoyed today's episode of thinking
39:17in public you will find more than 200 of
39:19these conversations at Albert m.com
39:21under the tab thinking in public for
39:24more information on the Southern Baptist
39:25Theological Seminary go to ts.edu for
39:29information on Boyce College go to Boyce
39:31college.com thank you for joining me for
39:33thinking in public and until next time
39:36keep thinking
39:39[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of The Sexual Revolution and the Radical Redefinition of Feminism — A Conversation with Mary Harrington by Albert Mohler, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,450 words across 1,047 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.