When The Free Press decided to rent a theater with 1,600 seats for our first-ever live debate a few months ago, most people looked at us with a mixture of pity and concern. We would have to fill all 1,600 seats. The theater we’d booked in L.A.—not exactly a city known for its culture of public debates—was smack in the middle of downtown, where after-hours can look a little bit like San Francisco during the day. To make matters worse, we had only managed to get the place on a Wednesday night.
As a listener in the grandmother generation, my main take is that anyone who thinks women don't have more agency now than they did 50 years ago is nuts. While I enjoyed listening, I do think the speakers were largely inarticulate, academic, and whiny. Too much victimhood.
I was also surprised at how inarticulate the four speakers were. They also mostly didn't respond to questions, but instead continued to press the points they had already raised. There were no practical ideas about how to actually move forward from their views.
Technology, from the wheel to AI, accelerates everything we can do as humans. And what we do as humans ranges from the magnificent to the obscene. Our smartphones allow us to access the entirety of human knowledge. It also allows access to the worst depravity the human mind can comprehend. What humans have always needed is the education to access and utilize new technology and many people are lacking that education. As a result, the educated users are accelerating their achievements and prosperity with technology while the uneducated fall further and further behind. That is perfectly illustrated by the statistic from the discussion that says 85% of children born to wealthy (and presumably well educated) mothers grow up in two parent families while only 30% of low-income children have that advantage. This gap has widened considerably in the last 50 years.
The other thing humans need, really a subset of education, is a moral framework to help us control the slide into negative outcomes that are within all of us. I would suggest the accumulated wisdom of mankind includes the ideas behind the Seven Deadly Sins. We need to be taught and to understand that a tendency to gluttony or sloth is a natural thing, but not a good thing. With complete freedom to choose, one might argue why this would not be a rational choice. We need encouragement and a reason to pursue the more difficult character attributes of temperance or diligence, to name just two.
The sexual revolution freed us from old taboos and restrictions and technology has accelerated us on whichever path we choose. I would suggest the people with an education and a moral compass have gained tremendously from the sexual revolution. Those lacking those resources are sliding into a pit of despair.
The premise of whether the sexual revolution has failed is not a good one. The discussion went to the real question - what were the negative consequences of the sexual revolution and should we be concerned?
The two ladies representing 'Yes' were far more cogent and made many excellent points. The two ladies defending 'No', and Bari as well, were much less convincing and often defaulted to absurdity assuming the other side were proposing extreme and repressive things.
For example, Bari saying a woman in Iran was executed for showing her hair - how can we go back to that? That was intellectually pathetic and shallow. Perhaps the puritans had *some* views similar to Muslim theocratic states, but the sexual revolution happened in the 1950's and 60's and not the 1650's. The norms they were combatting were not execution for showing your ankles or hair.
One of your panelists used a great phrase, saying that “the Sexual Revolution may have been good for the pikes, but bad for the minnows.” In that analogy, I think men are the pikes and women are the minnows. This got me thinking that it might be very interesting, and might advance the discussion about the success or failure of the sexual revolution, apply that analogy between women and between men. First, are all women really “minnows” in the Sexual Revolution? Or, are there women “minnows” who suffered from the sexual revolution that can be distinguished from women “pikes” who benefitted? Similarly, as a result of the Sexual Revolution, are all men “pikes?” Or, are there men “minnows” who can be distinguished from men “pikes?” I would love to read anything you and your guests might write on these questions.
As a listener in the grandmother generation, my main take is that anyone who thinks women don't have more agency now than they did 50 years ago is nuts. While I enjoyed listening, I do think the speakers were largely inarticulate, academic, and whiny. Too much victimhood.
I was also surprised at how inarticulate the four speakers were. They also mostly didn't respond to questions, but instead continued to press the points they had already raised. There were no practical ideas about how to actually move forward from their views.
Technology, from the wheel to AI, accelerates everything we can do as humans. And what we do as humans ranges from the magnificent to the obscene. Our smartphones allow us to access the entirety of human knowledge. It also allows access to the worst depravity the human mind can comprehend. What humans have always needed is the education to access and utilize new technology and many people are lacking that education. As a result, the educated users are accelerating their achievements and prosperity with technology while the uneducated fall further and further behind. That is perfectly illustrated by the statistic from the discussion that says 85% of children born to wealthy (and presumably well educated) mothers grow up in two parent families while only 30% of low-income children have that advantage. This gap has widened considerably in the last 50 years.
The other thing humans need, really a subset of education, is a moral framework to help us control the slide into negative outcomes that are within all of us. I would suggest the accumulated wisdom of mankind includes the ideas behind the Seven Deadly Sins. We need to be taught and to understand that a tendency to gluttony or sloth is a natural thing, but not a good thing. With complete freedom to choose, one might argue why this would not be a rational choice. We need encouragement and a reason to pursue the more difficult character attributes of temperance or diligence, to name just two.
The sexual revolution freed us from old taboos and restrictions and technology has accelerated us on whichever path we choose. I would suggest the people with an education and a moral compass have gained tremendously from the sexual revolution. Those lacking those resources are sliding into a pit of despair.
Host a debate about the poster ripping, I have nuance for Nellie!
Also I would like to write a weekly column for you in response to tgif, 'Nuance for Nellie' is too good to pass
The premise of whether the sexual revolution has failed is not a good one. The discussion went to the real question - what were the negative consequences of the sexual revolution and should we be concerned?
The two ladies representing 'Yes' were far more cogent and made many excellent points. The two ladies defending 'No', and Bari as well, were much less convincing and often defaulted to absurdity assuming the other side were proposing extreme and repressive things.
For example, Bari saying a woman in Iran was executed for showing her hair - how can we go back to that? That was intellectually pathetic and shallow. Perhaps the puritans had *some* views similar to Muslim theocratic states, but the sexual revolution happened in the 1950's and 60's and not the 1650's. The norms they were combatting were not execution for showing your ankles or hair.
I would gladly sell my soul for a transcript of this debate...
Bari,
One of your panelists used a great phrase, saying that “the Sexual Revolution may have been good for the pikes, but bad for the minnows.” In that analogy, I think men are the pikes and women are the minnows. This got me thinking that it might be very interesting, and might advance the discussion about the success or failure of the sexual revolution, apply that analogy between women and between men. First, are all women really “minnows” in the Sexual Revolution? Or, are there women “minnows” who suffered from the sexual revolution that can be distinguished from women “pikes” who benefitted? Similarly, as a result of the Sexual Revolution, are all men “pikes?” Or, are there men “minnows” who can be distinguished from men “pikes?” I would love to read anything you and your guests might write on these questions.
Loved the debate and love your Substack.
Regards,
Michael
Orgasms r down due to antidepressants. It ruins sex