As I recently mentioned with some ceremony (well - a Facebook post with a picture), I last week received - and have now read - a much-publicised new book: 'The Case Against The Sexual Revolution'.
Written by a self-described feminist, Louise Perry is just 30 years old, born in the heady heights of early nineties' Cool Britannia - so, hardly the backwards old Mary Whitehouse figure many associate with screeds against sexual liberation.
The basic premise of Perry's book is that young women have been lied to and led astray by the current cultural norms around intimate relationships: that the "sexually liberated" culture of today, with all its attendant appendages of porn, 'sex work', and hook-up dating apps, has devastated the romantic landscape for young women, leaving them unable to form lasting, loving relationships, and instead, lost in a desolate wasteland of meaningless, uncommitted, and - not infrequently - painful transient liaisons. There's a lot of solid evidence to support Perry's thesis, and she presents it articulately.
However: she is the latest in a very long line of authors to do so. Two other excellent tomes I'd highly recommend, which make many of the same arguments and draw many of the same conclusions, are Sex Matters by Mona Charen and Subverted by Sue Ellen Browder.
I'm sure you've never heard of them. Since, unlike Ms. Perry's tome, they barely made a ripple on the worldwide literary scene - despite the fact that Browder was a former, highly prolific staff writer for Cosmopolitan magazine, and so would have had many connections in the publishing world.
Conversely - and despite her youth and inexperience (this is her first book) - Louise Perry has somehow managed to enjoy the kind of extensive publicity for her debut offering that frequently eludes seasoned, multiply-published authors, several decades her senior.
Three lengthy excerpts in the UK's second-most widely read newspaper (The Daily Mail) is the kind of exposure most writers can only dream of - and 99% go their whole careers never coming close to. Writing is an extraordinarily difficult profession to break into at the professional level (believe me...), and there are thousands upon thousands of hugely talented, prolific authors out there, that you've never heard of and never will. The tiny, tiny fraction who become household names (for example, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Margaret Atwood), well... that happens for a reason. If you know that all the world's a stage, it's crucial to follow this theatrical allegory through to its logical conclusion, and realise that that stage, is also stage managed. Nothing happens by accident. No character debuts on the world stage unless their appearance is all pre-scripted, pre-planned, and signed off at the highest levels. In understanding how the world actually works, it's critical to make the distinction between those toiling away in relative obscurity and who are never given a mainstream platform for their work - and those who are launched to prominence using mainstream (and therefore elite controlled) platforms.
Is Louise Perry wildly more talented than every other budding young writer out there? No. Is she saying anything fresh and original? Again, no. I listed just two of the literal library of books out there saying the same kinds of things.
Therefore, the most critical question to ask about Louise Perry and her book is the same question we must ask of anyone launched so prominently and bombastically onto the world stage: - why her, why this, why now?
I will answer this question with a question: what do Louise Perry, the US's Matt Walsh, and his contemporaries Candace Owen and Ben Shapiro, have in common with Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and The Beatles?
At first glance, nothing, right? They are wildly different ages (some are long dead), some are male, some are female, some are liberal, some are conservative, some are religious, some are not... so what on Earth could they have in common?!
The answer is this: they are all change agents.
Okay - so what is a change agent? You may well ask. In the simplest possible terms, a change agent is defined as 'someone who promotes and enables change to happen within any group or organisation.'
Sounds pretty innocuous, right? And at the micro level - in small groups, workplaces, social groups and so on - sure, it is.
But what about on the macro level? What if change agents aren't restricted to simply facilitating small and local-level change, as agreed to by the groups in question, but are also involved in much more significant projects? What if they are professional cultural weapons: intensively trained, handsomely bankrolled, and globally enabled to engender change on the world stage? Change affecting whole societies, cultures, and ways of life?
Well...they are. This is exactly what happens, and has done for a very long time.
Whenever a powerful, well-publicised, and seemingly anti-establishment voice appears on the world stage - on mainstream channels, like well-known newspapers and popular talk shows - then you can be sure that person has been put there for a reason, and that they are not there unless they have been cleared by (and are thus controlled by) those at the highest levels. Change agents on the world stage are, in effect, intelligence assets: establishment controlled human resources, tasked with effecting a dramatic sea-change in the culture.
I know that few people reading this would have any problem accepting the above about voices they don't agree with or warm to. People like Piers Morgan (surely no better universal symbol for antipathy and derision...). We can all likely agree he is quite obviously nothing but a mouthpiece for the ultra-wealthy elite interests he serves (Murdoch et al).
Where we struggle, however, is accepting that voices we like and agree with, also fall into the category of elite-controlled establishment assets. And hey, I get it. I myself love Matt Walsh. I love Candace Owens. I think much of what Jordan Peterson says is brilliant. But that's the point. To be effective change agents, they have to appeal to large numbers of people and they have to appear credible and sincere. They quite likely even believe much or all of what they say. If you're going to have a change agent, you might as well have one who actually agrees with what they're trying to push.
But that doesn't take away from the central and ineffable fact: nobody gets a prominent mainstream platform, nobody becomes an international household name, unless this is arranged and facilitated by the stage managers of the grand world show. If anybody the stage managers have selected deviates from their very carefully constructed role, if anyone goes 'off script', they are immediately booted off the stage and all their opportunities instantly dry up (see what happened to Milo Yiannopoulous for a very revealing example. Top global "political superstar" one minute, rotting in poverty and obscurity the next, after his clear emotional problems made his behaviour too erratic and unpredictable for his masters to any longer trust him).
So, we must all be aware of the vulnerabilities our own biases create in us. It's very easy to call out "controlled opposition" when we don't agree with what a person is saying. But it's much harder when we do. So please always try to examine anyone who makes it onto the world stage with an objective and critical eye, and always ask: why this person, why this message, why now? The people I have mentioned so far - Walsh, Owens, Shapiro, and of course Perry - are elite assets meant to facilitate huge cultural change. We may agree with much of what they say. We may want to see this change happening ourselves. But that doesn't make it organic and that doesn't mean there isn't a very sinister agenda behind its reasonable, 'cool' external façade.
We last saw such a huge cultural shift in the 1960s, as cultural norms swung from traditional and conservative to far more liberal, and this happened with great rapidity and global coordination, all across the Western world. This, too, was pushed by the change agents of the day. Marilyn Monroe and Hugh Hefner, The Beatles and The Stones. There are many more, mostly all household names. Many ordinary people agreed with these cool, new liberal voices and their messages of free love and personal liberation. Many thought this was progressive and enlightened. Many failed to see the true, deeply destructive and dark agenda behind it all - and that this was all being meticulously planned and orchestrated by dangerous dark forces behind the scenes. Huge global events and worldwide movements always are.
But, my "conspiratorial" ramblings aside (more on that later), back to Louise Perry's book...
I was very interested to acquire this tome, which I did the very first day it came out, because it is exactly in line with several predictions I made about 14 months ago (in this post here), regarding the dramatic cultural shift I could see was rapidly gathering pace. To sum, I said that society was being pushed to "peak liberalism" (extreme, insane levels of libertine degeneracy that nobody reasonable agrees with) in order to galvanise support for a vehement pushback - which will ultimately see the pendulum swing violently back the other way.
Well, in a bit of a break with the traditional book review (since we're all about being anti-establishment on this site), I am going to quote almost its penultimate paragraph:
"My friend the writer Katherine Dee has been predicting a change for some time. 'I believe the pendulum with sexuality is going to swing, big time,' she wrote last year. 'We're diving headlong into something that's been simmering in the background since 2013, 2014... The pot is about to boil over.'" ('The Case Against The Sexual Revolution", Perry, L., p. 186)
And, having read it, I can tell you, for a certain and ineffable fact, that the previous 185 pages of this book, were just a lengthy, detailed preamble, leading to this already foregone conclusion. That is to say, the conclusion is the reason the author wrote the book, and it is the conclusion that is the whole point of the book, and of Perry's overall role as change agent. Predictive programming, if you will: "the change is coming", she is telling us, loud and clear. "Get ready."
Now, we might well agree with Perry that the sexual and "romantic" climate has become very disfigured and damaging to contemporary young people (largely because the last vestiges of 'romance' have been entirely removed from the equation), and that it needs to change. I do agree with her on that. The 'dating' climate - if we can even call it that - for under-30s appears utterly hideous and irretrievably broken, and it does need to change.
But the question is, into what? Simply calling for "change" is not enough, obviously, because something can easily be changed from something bad, into something even worse.
So, we must examine the angle that Perry is approaching this subject from, and the kind of change she is calling for.
The first clear distinction to make is to correct an error I originally made when descibing the book. I called it a 'treatise' against the sexual revolution, treatise meaning, "a written work dealing formally and systematically with a subject".
But, having read it, I now see it isn't a treatise at all. It's a polemic. A polemic is, 'a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something'. The distinction is crucial: a treatise is a reasonably fair and balanced overview of something. A polemic is an agenda-driven, blistering critique, meant to degrade, attack, insult and, ultimately, destroy.
This latter description is exactly what Perry's book does: and what is it precisely that she degrades, attacks, insults, and (attempts to) destroy? Is it 'the Sexual Revolution', as the book eponymously claims? No, it is not.
The subject matter quite unabashedly degraded - to the repeated point of dehumanisation and demonisation - is not the sexual revolution at all.
It is men.
This is not my subjective interpretation, she says it herself repeatedly throughout the book: the sexual revolution was designed, she says, only to cater to and benefit men's interests, and men's interests - she informs us repeatedly, graphically, and in deeply depressing detail - are pretty much evil. Sure, she never uses that exact word, but chapter after chapter, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, of all these awful degrading, violent, abusive things men do to women, by the end, leave the reader feeling almost abused themselves. It makes for grim and dispiriting reading, what with all the rape statistics and DV descriptions and lengthy, explicit paragraphs about men's "dark sexuality" and their love of violent porn - and even child abuse. Yes, she does say once or twice, "not all men" - but she says it very limply and without any real conviction. Any attempt at nuance or balance (for instance, any detail at all on the millions of men who DON'T rape, beat, or otherwise abuse women) is extremely conspicuous by its absence.
Before we go further into understanding the ideological motivation of Louise Perry, there are two very salient facts the reader should be made explicitly aware of, namely that:
Well, forgive me for saying so, but I don't think someone who's first experience of professional life was being immersed in a deeply harrowing environment entirely focused on the worst extremes of poor male behaviour, who is also going through the immense physiological, emotional, and hormonal changes associated with pregnancy and new motherhood (it's her first child), is going to be hugely well placed to give a perfectly balanced and objective overview on the very delicate and complex subject of the relationship between the sexes. And I think that that is by design. She isn't meant to be objective and balanced. That is never what is required of change agents. Change agents are meant to be extreme - but they're meant to couch their extremity in seemingly 'reasonable', non-radical language that is highly emotionally influential, in order to enact a powerful impact on the desired demographic - in this case, young and impressionable women. As the author says:
"And while I wrote this book in the hope it would be read by men and women of all ages, my dearest wish is that it will be read by young women in particular - the group who have been utterly failed by liberal feminism, and who have the most to gain from a swing back against its excesses." (p. 187)
See? She's not even pretending this is about helping men or improving men's lives, whereas it's perfectly obvious that to facilitate a positive change in relationships between men and women, you have to appeal to both men AND women. Not one at the exclusion or expense of the other. Nevertheless: Perry is all about the women - young and vulnerable ones in particular. This is because, young, vulnerable people often absorb cultural offerings (books, films etc.) with an unfiltered open mind, rather than with a critical one. A hurt, confused, lonely young female (the demographic the author explicitly says the book is aimed at) is going to read this book looking for explanations and answers - and take what it says at face value. That is going to be catastrophic for young women's interpersonal relationships.
If I had read this book as a 20-year-old, I would have come away from it thinking all men are (at least potential) violent abusive monsters, whose inner wiring is so dark, so misogynist, and so utterly, terrifyingly dangerous, that the only sensible solution is to remain as far away from them as possible, forever.
And I fully believe that this is the intended purpose of the book. Yes, there's a chapter unconvincingly tacked on at the end about the importance of marriage, but after reading seven long chapters about all the despicable evils that men do (and even if they don't do, really want to do), the last thing any young woman - who, courtesy of the hook-up culture Perry rails against, may well never have been in a long-term, committed relationship before, and Perry knows that - is going to want to do at the end of it, is marry one of them!
Because NOWHERE in this book, in amongst all its hideous statistics and graphic anecdotes of violent, abusive men, are there ANY examples of the good men do. There are no humanising portraits of kind, respectful, devoted men, who would never dream of hurting their partners or children. There are no mentions of all the huge sacrifices throughout the ages men have made to protect women and children, and still do, today. There are no details about all the innovations and inventions men have pioneered, primarily to help better house, feed and shelter, women and children.
Instead, men are presented as sex-crazed, violent, potentially murderous, monsters. I'm not exaggerating. At one point, Perry boldly declares that most men can kill most women with their bare hands, the reverse is not true, and that matters.
This is nothing but a transparently obvious attempt to instil abject terror into the hearts of young women. Such an ominous announcement is quite plainly getting on board with all the Sarah Everard hysteria, that women should live their lives in a state of perennial fear, too scared to even go out for a walk, since one half of the entire world's population are constantly on the verge of killing them - and this is both ludicrous and reprehensible as an idea to feed into the minds of the young and yet to be fully formed.
I do not live my life in that kind of fear, regardless of the behaviour of a small and unrepresentative number of men, and to insinuate that other women should is obscene.
After all, consider the implications of this very similar statement: "Almost all women can kill almost all children with their bare hands, and the reverse is not true. This matters."
Is that an appropriate, justifiable thing to say? I mean, it's true - women are bigger and stronger than children and could in most cases kill them (and certainly there are cases in which they have) - but what would the purpose of my boldly stating this be? It's obvious what the purpose is, especially in the context of a polemical book: it's to demonise the stronger demographic as being potential murderers, and to insinuate, therefore, that the weaker group are never really safe around them.
If you think that would be an appalling, unconscionable thing to insinuate about all women where it comes to children (and you'd be right), then it's equally as unconscionable - and, obviously, agenda-driven - to say about men.
Yet a skilled polemicist - and Perry is certainly that - knows exactly how to elicit the desired response in the target audience (defined by herself as young women), without their realising they are being manipulated. This concept is known as the 'manufacture of consent', a key and central concept in successful propaganda and social change. Perry skilfully deflects any attention from herself as the string-pulling polemicist, intentionally casting men in a deeply dark and frankly terrifying light, by casting herself merely as the caring maternal figure, nursing her newborn as she writes, and just looking out for these poor, duped young women, in the ways their mothers ought to do (the concluding chapter is even called, 'Listen To Your Mother').
A polemicist, of course, can't just blindly rage against a perceived problem, they also have to offer solutions, and Perry does: not really marriage, as she claims (since as I say, why on Earth would you write a book totally demonising an entire class of people and then inform the reader the solution to these terrible, dangerous people is to contractually commit yourself to one for life?), but to neutralise men. That's exactly what she says, but she uses much more incendiary language than that. Her exact words are;
"A society composed of tamed men is a better society to live in." (p. 182)
Uh, tamed? Tamed? So we are explicitly relegating men to the level of Calibanesque wild beasts, now? You do not, after all, 'tame' a human being, it is a word exclusively reserved for undomesticated animals.
The acutely degrading and dehumanising nature of this language aside, Perry is - of course - wildly wrong. A society of 'tamed' men is not better at all - except for one specific group of people: the ruling elites, to whom the only real, robust, credible challenge to overthrowing and controlling any society throughout history has always been 'untamed' men.
"A harmless man is not a good man," clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson once most astutely observed. "A good man is a very, very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control."
If the more vulnerable members of society - women and children - want to be properly protected from tyrannical overlords who hate them, then the only thing - the only thing - standing between these vulnerable groups and hostile forces capturing and destroying them, is strong, untamed men who will fight to the death to protect them (which, as mentioned, men have always historically done, again and again and again: laid down their lives for women and children, and often for very little - or no - recognition or reward).
So, to repeat, the only demographic "tame men" are of benefit to is - absolutely NOT women or their children - it's the ruling elites: the same ruling elites who have commissioned and hotly publicised this book, and the same ones who are planting their trendy young change agents everywhere to usher in their next desired cultural change.
Of course, Perry and her ilk would dismiss this - the idea that ultra-powerful and well-resourced ruling elites get together and coordinate and plan world events - as a "conspiracy theory". I know this, because of two revealing passages in the book. One, where Perry states:
"But, while it is certainly true that the conspiracy theories generated by groups such as QAnon are false, it is also true that there have been some shocking examples of child sexual abuse taking place at scale and without detection. Jimmy Savile abusing up to 1,000 children on BBC premises would sound like a conspiracy theory if we didn't know it to be true, just as Jeffrey Epstein supplying underage girls to famous and powerful men sounds like particularly bizarre fiction, and yet these things really happened." (p. 61-62)
(Note that, naturally, no mention is given to Ghislaine Maxwell's role in the crimes associated with Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein is dead - allegedly - and so there's not much that can be done to punish him, yet Ghislaine Maxwell is alive and well and has been found guilty for her crimes by a jury: yet, according to Perry, she merits not even a mention when discussing Epstein's terrible violations.)
Perry admits she would have dismissed these events as "conspiracy theories" in the past, but now we "know them to be true".
Well, how do we know? What turned them from conspiracy "theory" into conspiracy "fact"?
It's that people in and around these conspiracies, after years of denying them, acknowledged they were in fact true (just as conspiracy "theorists" had been saying for years). So that is Perry's yardstick for judging social truth involving organised crime - that it only becomes true when the perpetrators and their enablers admit it is.
Which leads us onto perhaps the most risible and absurdist statement in the whole book (perhaps in any book, ever):
"And when it comes to a big historical event such as the sexual revolution - which nobody designed or even fully foresaw..." (p. 162)
Excuse me, but... Are. You. Effin'. SERIOUS!
The sexual revolution "just happened", did it, organically and unprovoked, a bit like a tornado ripping through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a Being 747? Jeez, Louise! I know your desired audience is young and impressionable, but please credit them with the slightest semblance of intelligence!
The sexual revolution was one of the most deftly designed and highly coordinated social assaults ever, and the evidence and literature on this subject is absolutely overwhelming. It's beyond the scope of this essay to address comprehensively (I shall dedicate a future article to this), but some very rudimentary research on the 'change agents' previously mentioned - such as Gloria Steinem and her CIA connections - confirms this irrefutably. (For readers looking for more detail, David McGowan's excellent 'Laurel Canyon' explains in fantastic, extraordinary detail just how intelligence agencies and top military factions created and controlled the 1960s music scene and "free love" culture.)
I strongly suspect that Perry knows this only too well. You cannot research the sexual revolution in the depth and scope that she has done without coming across this kind of information.
Therefore, I strongly suspect, also, that this absurdly erroneous statement about the sexual revolution's supposedly 'accidental', organic nature, is to push the notion that the subsequent revolution - the very one Perry is tasked with pushing herself - will be 'accidental' and organic, as well.
There is some rather damning evidence to suggest that Perry is not merely a naïve ingenue, innocently unaware of how the world really works, by claiming that "stuff just happens" and nobody plans or coordinates it, and it's this: Louise Perry's publishers are an outfit called 'Polity'. Polity are also the publishers of none other than Theodor W. Aldorno.
I know the brains of all my conspiraptorial friends are lighting up like pinball machines right now, and for very good reason. A founding member of the notorious Frankfurt School, Aldorno could reasonably be described as one of the most influential and powerful change agents of all time. Aldorno and the Frankfurt School are an essay in themselves (a good primer can be found here), but to give you a general idea of just how impactful Aldrono and his ideas were, he has frequently been suspected of being the true author of the lyrics of The Beatles. Whether he was or not, to even be accused of this - and for it to be relatively common knowledge that he has been, again and again - shows you just how socially impactful this man was. It is, of course, not a coincidence that the publisher that has published over a dozen of his books, is now publishing Louise Perry.
To return to her tome and its overwhelming anti-male bias, it's prudent to mention that I said in my bumper 'predictions post' last year, where I suggested some of the cultural changes we might soon see (many being laid out for us in the hugely popular and prominent Handmaid's Tale series), that I suspected the impending ultra-conservatism would have a gender-based 'twist'. I said:
"However, in terms of The Handmaid's Tale's predictive programming, I believe there will be a twist. Because the overlords just love to invert everything, I don't believe it is women who are going to be turned into grotesque parodies of fifties housewives, brutally oppressed and prevented from doing anything, That would be too obvious and would attract too much opprobrium and outrage in a culture that has a decades-long obsession with the supposed oppression of women. I believe in the overlords' vision of the future, the cowed subordinates of the society will be men. Oppressing and crushing men will get past all the liberal censors, as it will be presented by the slick propaganda machine of the press as a shimmering victory for liberty and equality, finally ending the oppression of all women everywhere!"
Uh, yeah. Just a little bit prescient where Ms. Perry's book is concerned, but not hard to deduce, given all the extraordinary anti-male propaganda strategically weaved through the press with increasing frequency.
To a tyrannical ruling elite obsessed with power and control it does, of course, make far more sense to oppress men than to oppress women, as men are the ones who are more of a threat. The fears Perry is trying to instil into young women about men, are really the fears the elite have themselves, regarding what large numbers of strong young men could do to them (and have done, often, throughout history) if ever they realised, en masse, what the elite are really up to.
To neutralise this threat, then, men - in particular young and strong men - must be, in Perry's words "tamed". Well, how do you effect lasting 'taming' in a male creature? Perry disingenuously says "by having children" - since being involved in the care for their small children lowers male testosterone and therefore aggression and sex drive.
Yes it does, but what's the obvious caveat there? That small children don't stay small for long. Once the baby days are over, male testosterone returns to normal levels. Perry also informs us several times throughout the book that men have two modes - "dad mode" and "cad mode", and that they frequently switch between the two throughout their lives. So even if they do have children, and thus remain in "dad mode" for a while, there is absolutely nothing stopping them - as Perry takes pains to repeatedly impress upon the reader - from returning to "cad mode" later on.
So marrying and having children quite clearly isn't a solution to all the horrific male behaviour Perry so graphically outlines.
She says (and she's chosen this language very deliberately and carefully) that men must be "tamed" - and she means permanently.
How do you permanently tame a male creature? All pet owners know the answer to this question.
That's right: you castrate them. That is the only way of permanently neutralising - "taming" - all the male-typical traits associated with high testosterone levels.
Not incidentally, we happen to live in a society where castration has become quite de rigeur for a number of men, as they pursue lives as "trans women". This doesn't necessarily involve surgery, chemical castration options are also available (of the type typically prescribed to prolific sex offenders, which Perry's book attempts to impress upon us, most men potentially are).
This may sound fantastical and obscene (and it is), but a future where men are forced to take castration drugs as they are deemed "too dangerous to women" otherwise, would not surprise me one bit, because you tell me: what other possible conclusion can we draw from Perry's book? Marriage/children is only a very temporary salve, as we've seen (not that any young woman is going to voluntarily commit to marriage after reading the preceding seven chapters), so it's either castration - or radical segregation of the sexes.
As I've detailed in previous posts, radical segregation of all people, so that we are all sitting alone in our SMART pods with our robo-pets, is very much an elite goal, so that may be the Faustian bargain the overlords intend to make with the male masses - "live alone OR agree to take castration drugs".
Sounds far-fetched? Seriously: so would the entire latter half of the 20th century to anyone born in 1945 (and 2020 to the rest of us).
Ultimately, Perry's book is about fostering maximal distrust and hostility between the sexes - making women downright terrified of men - and therefore driving permanent division. It is quite obvious that this is her agenda by simply the words that accompany her promotional headshot on the inside cover of the book: "Louise Perry is a writer, New Statesman columnist, and campaigner against male sexual violence."
Er, why male sexual violence? Why not just "sexual violence"? or "violence against women"? In a climate where nearly 1 in 5 young people don't identify as straight, many relationships or liaisons young women experience are not with men, they're with other women.
Perry's rhetoric would like, of course, to pretend these situations are completely safe and peaceful, posing no physical threat to women at all. They must be, right, since no evil, violent, sadistic male brutes are involved!
Of course, the evidence - and as a social scientist, Perry will know this - shows the exact opposite. Of the three permutations of one-on-one relationships - man and man, man and woman, woman and woman - the most violent and abusive is woman and woman.
So clearly, anyone who was genuinely motivated by a desire to protect women from violence would care about that. That Perry does not even mention it clearly belies her true intentions - especially since, if you demonise and demean men as much as Perry has done, the obvious corollary for many young women - very many of whom these days claim to be 'bisexual', or otherwise not straight, as this is now very fashionable - are going to try women, instead. This, then, immediately throws young women into the most dangerous demographic possible, since a staggering 75 per cent of bisexual women report having experienced a violent partner, compared to 43 per cent of straight women (for gay men - the dynamic which by Perry's warped 'logic' would be the most dangerously violent of all - the rate is 40 per cent).
I could extend this essay for a lot longer, pulling out endless indicting quotes from Perry's book, testing them against the evidence and showing them for what they really are, but I trust the reader has got the general gist by now, and for more such incriminations, please do check out the book yourself (I'm sure it will quickly be installed in every library in the land!).
Instead, I'd like to conclude by returning to the subject of Jordan Peterson. Yes, a change agent, but like all change agents, to be effective, has to first win a fan base by saying a lot of sensible things - change agents often sharply change their tune thereafter (the 'bait and switch' approach - see Peterson's abrupt capitulation to state-mandated tyranny by taking the Covid vaccine).
But back to the illustrative point: a few years ago, while he was still building up his base, Peterson was invited onto a Channel 4 news show to 'debate' with newscaster and feminist, Cathy Newman. This debate was extremely entertaining to watch, based as it was around a similar premise to the one Louise Perry is trying to push: namely, that men are all evil and women (and other 'minorities') are all oppressed by them.
Jordan Peterson very calmly and cleverly rebutted all Ms. Newman's points until she was left, quite literally, speechless. He'd exposed her devious, fraudulent narrative for what it was, and she knew it.
"Ha," said Peterson, grinning widely. "Gotcha."
I think over the course of this essay, we have seen Louise Perry for what she really is and what she's trying to do, and I'd dearly love to see her try to rationally and calmly refute the points I have made (without calling me a "conspiracy theorist" - or, if she does, admit her colleagues at Polity, such as Mr. Aldorno, are as well).
Unless and until I do see that, I do not think it too immodest to conclude by saying:
Louise Perry - gotcha.