Mary Harrington’s Feminism Against Progress dismantles woke feminism by tracing its divorce from biological realities—like reproductive roles and two-parent families—to a "normophobic" rejection of human nature, citing surrogacy and institutional daycare as symptoms of a mental health crisis in children. A self-described "reactionary feminist," she argues liberal feminism’s focus on materialism over relational needs has hollowed out women’s lives outside elite circles, while conservatives’ conflation of feminism with leftist ideology cedes the term to progressives. Harrington links post-Christian moral vacuums to cultural fragmentation but sees Catholic-influenced thinkers like Erica Bacchiochi as offering a path to reclaim feminism’s core: dignity without progressive dogma. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Clavin with this week's interview, which is with Mary Harrington.
I always tell you on the Andrew Clavin show that I give you tomorrow's news today, and I was, I think, maybe the first person to notice this movement among highly intelligent women to suddenly look askance at feminism.
I noticed Erica Bacchiochi and Angela Franks and Louise Perry, but prime, first among equals perhaps, is Mary Harrington, a brilliant lady who is a contributing editor at Unheard.
She's a self-described reactionary feminist, and I'll talk to her about that.
And that's the name of her substack as well, reactionary feminist.
And the author of the book, Feminism Against Progress, which I highly recommend, is coming out this month in paperback from Regnery.
Mary, it is great to see you again.
How are you doing?
I'm very well.
Thanks, Andrea.
Thanks for having me.
Oh, thank you for coming on.
I just got, you know, I just the other day got into a debate with my son Spencer, where he had written a piece for fairer disputations, where you sometimes appear about chivalry.
And I described it, I've described fairer disputations as women who are smart enough to realize that feminism has gone bad, but refuse to get rid of the name feminist.
And he rebuked me.
He said that I was allowing the left to co-opt the term feminism and that since I care about the rights of women, I myself am a feminist.
So I was forced, I stabbed him.
That may have been an overreaction, but I just couldn't stand that.
But who's right there?
I mean, I feel that feminism has been a failure.
And maybe we should just say that.
But does he have a point?
I'm going to be ecumenical on this.
I'm going to say you're both right.
All right.
Spencer's right in the sense that there is more than one feminism.
And I don't think it's self-evident that we have to hand feminism to the left.
But I think you're right in the sense that particularly in the United States, and I do think this is very, especially pronounced in the United States for reasons that I can bore you with for hours if you let me.
But it's especially pronounced in the United States that a certain subset of feminism has become so dominant that everybody on the right thinks that's just the entirety of the movement.
They don't get the history because it's been memory holed by people who don't like us.
And so what America in particular understands by feminism is a very limited, a very narrow and a very aggressively liberal, aggressively disembodied and aggressively, I would argue, elite bourgeois version understanding of the movement, which is hostile to a great many conservative aims and actively sets out to attack a great many conservative keystone positions.
So, I mean, from an American perspective, I'd say you're right, but from a more historical, more nuanced, more international perspective, I would say Spencer has a point as well.
Weak, weak, Mary.
I'm sorry.
You've got to choose.
You know, what is it?
I can elaborate.
Historically, the women's movement is internally very fractious.
You know, we've always argued amongst ourselves about what it means.
My framing for why that is is that it's, I think we need to throw the progress story out of the window.
I think the progressivist narrative that says we're going from the bad past to the good future and that this can continue indefinitely and this always means more freedom and it always means more stuff and it always means more leftism.
I think that's BS, if you forgive me.
It's simply false and is obviously, we're obviously reaching a point now with a lot of these liberatory movements where we're really scraping the barrel, we're reaching diminishing returns.
And I would say that for all but a very elite subset of women, the liberal feminist narrative is very obviously at that point now.
It's actively degrading life for all but the wealthiest women.
And again, from an American perspective, I would, if I thought that was all a feminism, as I think you'd be forgiven for thinking if you were an American conservative, you know, I would absolutely want to chuck it out of the window and say, a plague on all of your houses, be gone.
You know, let's start again with a fresh slate.
When I started reactionary feminist in my Twitter bio, it was kind of as a joke.
It was the end of a long-running Twitter argument.
Twitter did, all through Twitter direct message with a friend about whether or not post-liberal meant anything.
We argued about this for months.
And eventually he said, no, no, you should use reactionary.
And I said, no, no, post-liberal is useful.
And I'm not going to bore you with the details.
But in the end, I conceded the point.
I was like, okay, yeah, no, I buy a reactionary.
It's more punk.
Okay, fine.
Yeah, no, let's get rid of post-liberal.
Let's have reactionary instead.
It's fightier.
So I changed my Twitter bio just to see how long it would take him to notice.
It took about three days, I think.
But in the meantime, a bunch of other people noticed, including Matt Schmitz, who was then at First Things, who said, Would you like to write something for First Things about what you mean?
This is an interesting term.
And then I had to figure out what I meant.
And now I've now it's a book.
So that's kind of the origin story.
It literally started as a meme, which then became a thing.
And I like it because it's a signal scrambler.
It says, well, what, you know, it asks, but it poses the question which really you started with, which is to say, you know, do you have to believe in progress if you want to be a feminist?
Can you care about the interests of women without signing up to the whole of the rest of that baggage train?
And it's a long baggage train now.
I mean, as you spend every week discussing, as the Daily Wire is very fond of going into in some depth, it's a long baggage train.
And there's a lot of stuff there that you might or might not be signed up to.
There's a great deal of it that I'm not signed up to, but I still think that men and women are fundamentally different in some ways which you can't just, you know, in an innovate away and that you can't just pretend are not true.
And that we are irreducibly, you know, we're equal, we're equal in dignity and our capacity for excellence, yada, yada, yada.
However, there are some irreducible differences, particularly where it comes to sex reproductive roles.
And those things have political consequences.
You know, at scale, they matter politically and they still matter, even though we lead pretty comfortable, materially frictionless lives, you know, as denizens of the high-tech developed first world.
There are still some material differences.
I mean, particularly when you have kids, the rubber hits the road.
And, you know, men can't breastfeed, men can't gestate.
And there's a whole bunch of subtler differences as well.
Those things still matter.
You know, if we're not going to call giving us stuff about that and wanting to talk about it and wanting to have a politics which engages with that, if we're not going to call it feminism, what are we going to call it?
Because it's a thing, right?
Yeah.
I say, why shouldn't we?
Let's just take the word back.
Why should I have it?
I want mine now.
That was Spencer's argument, take the word back.
And, you know, I guess what I was saying is that you in the book, Feminism Against Progress, you have a chapter that was almost word for word, a chapter in my book, The Truth and Beauty, except you approached that, you came there through sociology and I came there through reading poetry, which was this idea that the Industrial Revolution had gutted the cottage industries and essentially stripped women of the huge financial contribution,
economic contribution that they were making to society as homemakers and as workers in the home.
And I guess what I feel is that maybe that was the problem and the answer was wrong and we have to go back to that first problem in order to find the real answer.
Maybe I thought starting again might be a good idea, but you probably can never go back.
So that makes sense.
You can't step in the same river twice.
You know, there are times, there are times when I wish I said, I think, well, you know, maybe it would be nice.
But I mean, there were, yeah, I don't believe in progress and I don't believe in regress either.
You know, things change.
And you can notice that without ascribing a moral value to it.
I dare say there were plenty of things about living an agrarian subsistence life which sucked.
Some things are definitely better now than they were before.
Some things are arguably worse.
As an anti-progressive, as somebody as a progress atheist, I think I should say.
I'm not signed up to progress theology, which says, you know, the arc of the arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards, I don't know, whatever, more blue hair, whatever it is.
I don't buy that.
But it doesn't follow from that that the past was necessarily better.
It was just different.
So we have to deal with where we are now.
And I think there are definitely lessons from the past.
This is something that Spencer is fantastic on, about drawing out the lessons from the past, bringing with us the wisdom of the ages and trying to apply it afresh to where we are now.
So not simply saying, oh, you know, we have to go back to the 1950s or, you know, insert decade of your choice and then ignoring whatever it was about that decade which sucked.
But to say, you know, we're here now.
And I think we have some challenges to face now, which we've never faced before.
And, you know, perhaps the wisdom of the ages is something to teach us there.
And perhaps if we just put down the progress theology goggles, we might have more materials at our disposal for thinking about how we live together now.
Because it's, you know, at the end of the day, men and women are going to have to go on living together, right?
Otherwise, we're not going to make more humans.
And then, you know, it's over for all of us.
So we have to figure something out.
And it's my, you know, I have great faith in human nature and I have great faith in all of us in the aggregate.
I think, you know, one way or another, we're going to figure something out.
But I guess, you know, I have a daughter.
I'd prefer whatever it is that we come up with, not to throw all of the babies out with the bathwater.
You know, there were some things which were good, which came out of the, you know, treating, you know, women are considered people.
You know, I think that's a good thing.
That's an unalloyed good.
You know, as a speaker, as a woman, that's in my interests.
And it's in my daughter's interest as well.
I do not want to find myself in a world where somehow as a sort of backswing on a kind of overreach, a tech-enabled overreach, which pretends that none of us have to rely on each other to live together.
That somehow we end up in a place where my daughter loses the privilege of being considered a person.
That matters a lot to me, which is, I guess, is for all that, I cling very devotedly to reactionary, because I'm pretty reactionary these days.
In my sensibility, I also cling to progress.
And I guess that will be my positive case for it as well.
Not just why shouldn't we have the word, but also actually, it really matters.
And each, any of us, any of us that has daughters should take seriously the positives which have come out of women's emancipation and not just think of the negatives.
And, you know, we could be here all day listing the potential downsides, the atomization of society and the dissolution of the family and the scores of children that grow up fatherless and yada But there are, you know, I would also like my daughter not to lose the privilege of being considered a person.
So can we, surely there's something there we could work with, right?
Yeah, well, you know, it always startles me about all of this is that most of us, I would say a vast majority of us, kind of enjoy the fact that there are men and women and that we get together and live together and create new life.
We kind of think that's a lot of fun and actually meaningful.
And that's why I was really interested in your article in the April edition of First Things, Normophobia, which I thought was a terrific piece.
I'm just going to let you describe what normophobia is exactly.
So I was invited by Rusty Reno to write a paper.
We had a colloquium to talk about, and he wanted me to write a paper about the family.
And I thought, okay, well, you know, I could write something about policy.
You know, we know what those policy papers look like.
You know, can we adjust the tax system to make it easier for people to have more kids?
You know, surely there's something we could do to make it easier to have a stay-at-home parent.
You know, there's all of those policy arguments.
And I was thinking, no, actually, something more fundamental is amiss.
And I was thinking at the time a great deal about, and there's a fundamental disposition that we have towards thinking about the family, you know, sort of basic paradigm in which most people live, which makes it almost impossible to think about the family except on the back foot.
And that's a sort of dispositional resistance to the idea that the human normal exists at all.
And so I decided, why don't I see if I can come at it from the other direction?
Instead of trying to make the case for family, you know, against this frame, which I'm just going to accept, why don't I say, I reject this frame and I'm going to give it a name.
And I'm going to say, let's name it, you know, uncharitably in our own rhetorical interests, you know, not as a legitimate thing, but as a kind of bigotry, you know, a bigotry against the normal and the observed and the everyday and the gestalt and the inductive and the stuff that everybody, anybody with eyes and a functioning brain can see.
You know, we all know that there's a whole load of that stuff.
You know, cats behave a certain way, dogs behave a certain way, different types of dogs have different traits and temperaments.
These things are known where it comes to dogs.
We find it very difficult to talk about where it comes to people.
This is just something within us which recoils from the idea of talking about human nature, which is really what I'm – and so when I talk about normophobia, it's the – if you like a worldview which is predicated on bigotry against the idea that human normal exists.
And from a normophobic perspective, which is really the entire world that we inhabit, it becomes almost impossible to talk about the family.
I mean, it's very difficult to talk about men and women, you know, even to say that we exist as physiologically distinct, you know, sex dimorphic beings.
And even more difficult when you start to talk about normative differences between men and women.
But it becomes incredibly difficult to talk about the family, which is a problem for anybody who wants to, particularly for conservatives who want to think about the family and to make the case for, for example, some types of family structure being better than others, which is demonstrably true.
And I can point you in the direction of any number of sociological studies, which will show that some kinds of some, I mean, there are even liberals who publish, who the two-parent privilege, I think it's called, came out recently.
A very nice, very respectable liberal in good standing, who's done the, you know, she's read the papers and she's done, she's crunched the numbers.
And she's very sorry to report New York Times, but it's true.
Two-parent families are better off.
Their children are better, more well-adjusted, you know, and none of this, pointing, none of this is to say that single-parent families don't often do a fantastic job under difficult circumstances.
Two-Parent Privilege00:03:06
You know, noticing that some kinds of family structure are better than others is in no way to detract from the great many people whose lives don't quite follow that pattern and who nonetheless do a great job.
However, we need to be able to talk about the fact that there are that some, that humans have a nature and particularly that children have needs.
Because it's one thing to deny that men and women have a nature or that humans in general have a nature.
But the moment we start to point the normophobic mindset, the bigotry against human normal towards the family in the name of and invariably the bigotry against human normal is pointed at any well, any human normal, if you like, will constrain what it is that we're free to do.
So if you say, oh, you know, women aren't normally interested in going and doing science, I might say, well, I want to be free to go and do a science career if I want to.
So therefore, I reject the idea that it's normatively true that women are more interested in something else.
And perhaps it is, you know, there are plenty of great women scientists.
But every war we wage in the name of personal freedom on a norm, however flexible that norm might be, ends up having a cost.
And the more we liberate ourselves through the medium of technology from the constraints of our nature, the more we rely on those who can't escape the constraints of their nature.
And ultimately, my argument in normophobia, and really the focus of that whole article, was to say that when we deny that such a thing as normal exists, particularly in the context of the family, the people who end up paying the price are children.
So, for example, in the context of surrogacy, we might say, oh, you know, we can't speak about the fact that you need a parent of each sex in order to make a child.
We can't talk about that anymore.
We're going to say it's fine for same-sex couples to adopt.
It's fine for same-sex couples to procure a baby via surrogacy.
And that this is all, you know, all that matters is love.
I think this is a common sort of normophobic platitude.
You know, what really matters in a family is love.
And there are the, but, but against that, we might note that there are, in fact, a great many stories and a growing number of stories from children who've been raised in families like this who say, no, actually, I always wanted to know who my real father was, or I always wanted to know who my real mother was.
And I always felt like that was missing from my life.
And I never understood, I wanted to know where this trait or that gesture or that, and who've experienced a lifelong hunger for the missing parent as a consequence of something which everybody pretended just wasn't really a thing.
And this is, you know, I dare say, again, there are a great many very loving same-sex couples who raise children.
Longing for Sleep00:02:14
But acknowledging the pain and the longing for a family of your own, which I've experienced, I've experienced miscarriage.
I wasn't able to have a child for a long time.
I'm very grateful for the one that I have now.
So I know what it's like to long for a child when you don't have one.
But to acknowledge that pain and that longing is not the same as to say we have a right to displace that pain and that longing onto the child themselves in another form in order to meet more of our wants and pretend that this is okay because we've decided that normal is not really a thing.
Well, I slept an entire four and a half hours last night.
I'm so excited.
And nothing will help you get to sleep like Beam Dream.
Beam Dream contains a powerful, all-natural blend of racey, magnesium, l-theanine, apigenin, and melatonin to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refresh.
I don't care what's in it either.
But the thing is, it's not just a run-of-the-mill sleep aid.
It's a concoction carefully crafted to help you ease into the sweet embrace of rest without the grogginess that often accompanies other sleep remedies.
And as you can see, I'm now wide awake.
Sleep is the foundation of our mental and physical health.
That's why I'm usually such a wreck.
You must have a consistent nighttime routine to function at your best.
Today, my listeners get a special discount on Beam's Dream Powder, their best-selling hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar, now available in delicious flavors like cinnamon cocoa, chocolate peanut butter, and mint chip.
Better sleep has never tasted better.
Just mix Beam Dream into hot water or milk, stir or froth, and enjoy before bedtime.
You get one of those little frothing things or lots of fun.
If you find yourself battling the bedtime blues, give it a shot.
Your weary self will.
Thank you.
If you want to try Beam's best-selling dream powder, take advantage of a 40% off offer for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com/slash Claven and use code Claven at checkout that's shopbeam.com/slash Claven with my promo code Claven for up to 40% off your order.
I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking anyone can spell Beam.
How do you please tell me?
How do you spell Klavan?
Challenging Normative Exclusions00:12:05
The argument the left is always making when you stand up for the normative is that you are now excluded.
I mean, even that line, the two parent privilege, as if it were some kind of unfairness that this works well, that you are now excluding the people who are abnormal.
And I have often wondered myself whether believing as I do that a male-female marriage for life is in fact the best thing that can happen to civilization, to the people involved, to the children that are created by it.
Is there a mindset that humans can have where they think that without feeling that they have to unload hatred and discrimination on gay people or somehow exclude people from the normal joys of living?
Is there a problem with elevating normalcy, which I think we should, but is there a problem with excluding everybody else?
So you're saying the leftist argument is that there's nowhere, it's not simply not possible to elevate and to center and to speak to normality without it then having a punitive set of backlashes on people who don't fit into that template for one reason or another.
I don't think it has to be like that.
I mean, the caveat of their arguments on my latest novel tried to take out the word crippled because they said it made it sound like somebody was that that was less than being whole.
But in fact, it is.
And nobody wants to be crippled.
Everybody wants to be whole.
And there's nothing wrong with saying that.
That doesn't mean I kick people in wheelchairs down the street.
Right.
To me, to me, it should not be beyond the wit of man to acknowledge, for example, that gay and lesbian people exist and that same-sex desire is real and has a long documented history.
It should not be beyond the wit of man to acknowledge that this is true.
And that also, one, what we understand that to mean has varied a great deal over the course of human culture and civilization.
And two, that this, that it's that the default remains heterosexuality for very straightforward biological reasons.
Yeah, we can we can surely hold those two thoughts in our heads at the same time, can't we?
Yeah, and that we, you know, we can go and go and have a cocktail with our friend who is non-standard in that way.
And then, but also acknowledge the fact that this is not the default and the default exists for a reason.
I believe it's possible to hold those thoughts in mind at the same time.
I don't think it follows that I don't think ought.
I don't think there's necessarily a prescriptive logic that follows from the descriptive one.
You know, to notice, to notice that the sexes are normally a certain way is not to say that if you vary a little bit from that, that you should be punished.
You know, just to say, to notice that children have certain developmental needs is not to say is not to say that we can't make the best of it if things don't quite work out that way.
But it's to say we should be aiming for that normal.
You know, we should treat it as a target wherever possible and that we can surely do so in a capacious way, which has space for those of us who maybe deviate from the template a little bit.
I feel like that ought to be possible.
Somehow it seems very difficult.
I find that very frustrating.
But I think, you know, my focus in that essay was particularly children, because I think the normophobic mindset asks a great deal of children, asks more perhaps of children than the rest of us.
I mean, in a sense, you know, it's not a big ask of an adult to accept variations on the theme, you know, to accept that life doesn't always follow exactly a stock template.
But to ask children to sacrifice what are a lot of the time fundamental developmental needs so that adults can have more freedom or a different set of life choices is, I think, a gross inversion of the duty of care that we ought to have to children.
And I mean, we can take much less, much less dramatic and much less contentious, much more normalized, ironically, examples to illustrate that.
I mean, institutional daycare really being a case in point.
And this is pretty much a third rail across both sides of the political spectrum because everybody, so much of the economy and so much of how we do things is bound up in the continued existence of these facilities.
However, particularly with extremely young children, they have certain normative developmental needs.
And one of those is for a tuned relationship.
And this is particularly pronounced and particularly acute and particularly vital from birth up to about the age of 15 months.
And if you ask an infant, especially a neonate, to relinquish that in order that his or her mother can work, and perhaps she needs to do that in order to be able to eat.
And again, this is not the exclusionary one that denounces the woman necessarily for doing what she has to do to survive.
But I think particularly on your side of the pond, where there's no federally mandated maternity leave, there is pretty much no provision, particularly for poorer women, available for mothers after maternity.
And there are a huge number of women who go back to work within a few weeks.
And that and normalizing this is asking more, I think, than people realize of the babies.
And I mean, I can't prove it, but I think a great deal of what we're now calling the quote-unquote mental health crisis, and indeed a great deal of the youthful psychiatric and highly disturbed and highly dysregulated activism that you see cropping up or, frankly, street violence lower down the socioeconomic scale, as we saw in 2020.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the reason that kind of dysregulated behavior has been on the increase is straightforwardly connected to a fundamental state of deprivation, which is engendered in children who are left without those developmentally vital relational resources, particularly in early infancy.
And actually what we're seeing are babies who were simply not mothered enough for reasons often beyond the control of their mothers, because this was simply the position that they found themselves in.
To be crystal clear, I'm extremely cautious about making all of this women's fault, because it's always, this is a whole culture situation that we're talking about.
But then it's a whole culture paradigm that we've all accepted to a degree in principle.
And the people who are paying the price and who are in loss and in suffering and in a profound deficit of care and love and relational resources are babies.
And they're paying that price in the name of economic growth or in the name of individuals' personal freedom.
And to me, that's a radical. upside, a radical inversion of the care that we owe to the people who need it most, which is infants.
And so when I talk about a bigotry against the normal, it's in those sort of those blind spots to the normative developmental needs of children that I think it's everyday atrocities can be found.
And they're starting to become visible at scale.
And I think eventually people will cotton on, but by then it'll be too late for several generations of children who are now adults.
You know, I've only got a couple of minutes left.
I hate to dump a very complicated question on you under those circumstances, but there is something I want to ask you because you have this paragraph, which I think is terrific in the article about normophobia and first things.
It says, we cannot wait for the silent majority to rise up and demand a return to common sense or mumble about postponing action until we've re-Christianized the West or until we've devised a fully worked out post-Christian metaphysics of human nature.
We may lament the Christianity shaped holder in our discourse, but just because much of modern culture is post-Christian doesn't mean we no longer have a nature.
All we've lost is our common framework for naming that nature.
But I notice also at the same time that among your cohort, these neo-blue stockings who I love so much who are now appearing.
I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking of him like that.
There seems to be a strong hat.
I'll take for that.
Yeah.
There seems to be this strong Catholic strain.
Erica Bacchiochi, Angela Franks, whose work I just love.
Louise Perry, I know is wrestling with Christianity at this point.
Is it just a way of describing for naming our nature?
Or in fact, is there something important there that we're going to have to recover to find our way?
There is definitely something going on.
And you're not the first person to ask me this.
I suppose there's different ways you could come at it.
You might say that feminists who think through how we got to be feminists at all and how we ended up with the value system which underpinned feminism might not unreasonably come to the conclusion that doing away with Christianity does away with most of the moral premises upon which our entire political project is founded.
And therefore, to try and be a post-Christian feminist is to be sawing off the branch on which you're sat.
I think Louise has actually used that phrase.
So that's one angle that very straight, we've now de-Christianized to the point where it's becoming increasingly obvious that to be, if you want to make the case for the equal dignity of men and women in the kinds of terms that our corner of feminism does, it is very difficult if you don't have that conceptual framework at your disposal.
So that's thing number one.
But I think there's something broader going on as well amongst, you know, not just in our corner, but much more widely amongst people who are thinking about where we are politically, you know, on the who are, I suppose, right adjacent, but not necessarily in a Trumpy way, if you know what I mean.
You know, the kind of the bookish right, you know, considered more generally.
There's a lot of people who I think are coming, you know, sometimes reluctantly to the conclusion that we're in a kind of Helm's deep situation here.
If you'll forgive the Tolkien metaphor.
Actually, the Tolkien metaphor is pretty apt because what he set out to do was to create some sort of, I suppose a kind of concealed delivery mechanism for the Christian mythos that might be able to travel beyond church sermons and so on.
But I think to a great degree, to a significant extent, we're in a kind of Helm's deep situation.
And there are minor doctrinal differences.
We can argue about the doctrine of grace and works, but it just doesn't seem to matter very much relative to what we're facing.
Whether that's tech dystopia or some other kind of repaganization.
And I think even ambivalent agnostics are, even Richard Dawkins recently, he's been roundly condemned.
He's been roundly condemned for sort of weakly calling himself a cultural Christian, having spent the last 20 years or whatever it is, sawing off the branch he was sat on.
But, you know, I'd say, you know, let's welcome the, maybe we should welcome the prodigal son.
Maybe, you know, you know, what's that line from from the Lord of the Rings?
You know, the elf and the dwarf fighting shoulder to shoulder.
You know, if everything in front of you is orcs and I've got Richard Dawkins next to me, if that's where we are in five.
I'm with you 100% on this.
Mary, I have to stop you here.
Welcome the Prodigal Son00:00:44
I'm sorry.
I hope you'll come back.
I always love talking to you.
I love reading your stuff.
And you're doing great work.
Again, the Feminism Against Progress is coming out in paperback from Regnery.
Really good book.
Mary, always great to see you.
Thank you for coming on.
Such a pleasure.
Thank you for having me.
Again, Mary Harrington, the author of Feminism Against Progress.
And you can find her work at Reactionary Feminist.
That's her substack name.
And she writes, she's a contributing editor at Unheard and she's always in first things.
And again, one of the first among equals of these new intellectual women who I think are really establishing a new place for all women that is going to be a good thing if they catch on and if they have their way.