Whilst Kate alludes to how who we desire is shaped by what we desire (which in Mackinnon’s terms all of sexuality is about eroticisation of domination producing masculinity and eroticisation of subordination producing femininity), she doesn’t go into detail about how these two things are connected. What we see in for example racial preferences is that the process of sexuality is precisely what creates the desires we have for “races”. For example, a gay black man is eroticised as dominant, due to the way black men may be thought of in culture as hypermasculine. This fact means that a gay “top”(the one who penetrates) excludes black gay men who prefer to be the submissive partner from their sexual preferences. I think this shows that when we really get to the fundamentals of who we desire we are ultimately led back to the question of what we desire because we cannot desire anyone in a way that isn’t shaped by that fundamental gendered eroticisation that comes from male dominance.
The issue you discuss in the beginning reminds me of the idea from the book when men behave badly, that men and women have a differenr s3xual psychology. Im ultimately critical of the books framing of this psychology as an evolved trait as opposed to be a result of different physical and social experiences but i nonetheless found it to be a valuable observation that men and women consider s3xual comfort in a very different way. I think the concept of enthusiastic consent was created specifically for situations involving strangers whereby it would be difficult for either party to really know what's going on in the other persons head unless the consent was made highly obvious through obvious enthusiasm. The obvious issue with enthusiastic consent is that if strangers are involved then the idea that there will always be enthusiasm which is highly dubious but if they know each other well then knowing each others body language and communication habits would mean that communication and trust would generally take precedence over enthusiasm (particularly if s3x has become a routine). The alternate model for consent that apparently aims to address these issues is continuous consent where continuous communication and checking in is stressed between strangers so in that situation you mention the woman continually verbalising no should be considered as a way of expressing discomfort and a lack of free cosnent even if she was physically going along with it. What do y'all think?
Thank you both! I really love the way you continue your discussion as a dialogue, I find myself wanting to interject or add my thoughts on them as if I am part of the circle, your reading group. I didn't know about Jane Gallop's personal demeanor as a professor but I agree with her about the sexual/affective dimension of student & teacher relationship. She is referring to the Freudian transference love, which may also take place between a student and a teacher, where the student looks up to the teacher, admires and wants to be good at the subject, all those affective space of care and love. We can trace that to the Platonic pedagogy as well. But I am currently interested in the boundaries that are or can be put into place by learning institutions such as universities, and how they ground their reasoning, from a radical feminist perspective as there are so much discrepancies between countries and regions. Shall radical feminists push toward such institutional regulations for instance in universities?
i have worked at two universities that i thought had reasonable policies - the first permitted relationships but said they had to be declared, which would help to avoid conflict of interest situations like marking that student's work. the second prohibits the initiating of any relationship where there could be a conflict of interest, which would definitely include your own students and would probably include any students in your discipline. i don't really see a justification for prohibiting all student / teacher relationships, there can be people of a similar age in completely different disciplines where there would seem to be no good reason to stop them from dating if they liked each other. (or, stopping them would be very paternalistic - like mandating all / any hierarchy in relationships away, but hierarchy of one kind or other is very common). but these aren't specifically radfem thoughts, they're just what i think makes sense.
@@hollylawford-smith Hello The truth of the matter is serious Read about Red Bell, Megtao and Black Bell. And the heibergami and the monkey jumping in the woman After listening to CZcams videos about red pill, megtow, woman's super mating, monkey jumping, beautiful man Chad and Bad Boy, I have a hatred for the opposite sex. I'm a man.
@@hollylawford-smith I see feminism as nothing but abhorrent racism, serving rich men and bad boys, and physical emancipation for the strongest and best men to have relationships with women, contempt, the expulsion of the humble average man, the service of rich women in society, and a man said about feminst strong women that they are bee queens. And the average woman is just a torkeeper in the service of the queen bee.
@@hollylawford-smith I don't have the honor of serving feminism or supporting women. Helping a woman who only suffers, helping poor women, and scorning the evil man who persecutes the oppressed woman. As for supporting women, physical emancipation, and serving women for sex with very powerful men, very rich, bad boy, no, my principles and my human psyche tell me not to do that. I don't have the honor of supporting women's emancipation. And I have nothing to do with jealousy as long as the woman is not my wife. You do whatever you want to free her, but I won't support her even a simple word. A weak and poor woman who is persecuted on my head A liberal feminist, even a good word you don't hear from me. Just luxury and spoiling and a white woman to serve the beautiful and rich woman
@@hollylawford-smith Genetic racism in women Only a poor person serves her. A strong man with principles wouldn't be feminist, even if he didn't have sex. In the end, this feminist man could be in The Frindson or Beta Provider. The nice, poor guy. The rich, strong man and the real Bad Boy. They say in the red pill. An alpha man enjoys women, and a man of beta is just a servant. And I've seen a rich American man with muscles around him, eight women. There seems to be a problem between women and masochism and submission to a rich and strong man. I don't have the honor of supporting a masochi even in a word. It's okay for a guy to be nice. But the problem is if he is a nice man and serves women with money and serves women and defends them and is exploited
czcams.com/video/JLVS8pCPTq4/video.html - I think that ignores that we are attracted to 'beauty' because in nature it usually indicates health, healthy individuals are a better pick for healthy offspring. Like in Utah, because of the health code, (word of wisdom), you tend to get more even features, better teeth, skin etc - all that lends to 'good looking'. We are attracted to beauty, haven't finished watching this, but beauty has power - certainly power over men and I've certainly seen women subjugate men through beauty. I feel that woman is looking at one reason 'why' - it might have logic, but it's one thread for why out of many.
definitely - but the evolutionary explanation wouldn't discriminate based on race. so even if it could explain some of the other exclusions, it couldn't explain that one?
@@hollylawford-smith is this author looking for a universal explanation that explains all? even evolutionary explanations are still contextual - if survival is an evolutionary goal, the choice of mate includes other competing considerations e.g. like 'resources' - so an ugly mate with masses of resources would still be in the mix - the incredibly gorgeous woman who's chosen ugly old millionaire husband over stud. - I don't come away wanting to read the book. :?
@@CatherineKarena in the right to sex essay (which was initially published in the london review of books, and then later republished as the title essay of this book) she's not really seeking an explanation, as much as simply asking people to consider what social / cultural forces have shaped the desires they in fact have, and how this might show that the move to simply accept them as they are is mistaken. and this is all motivated by an apparent empathy for those who are excluded from sex. i think her ultimate interest is in inclusion in sex, compatible with still not saying that anyone has a right to sex. don't know if that helps...
I would have alot more respect for the author if she had straight forwardly said, this is how you should be, this is my reasoning/evidence and you're free to agree with me or not instead of being wishy washy and backtracking in order to avoid looking moralising.
This was great. Oliver Traldi and Becca Rothfeld’s reviews also touched on some of the criticisms you made. Also this series doesn’t get nearly enough credit for how incisively sharp and witty you both are!
found them. loved this line in becca's: "an approach that initially titillates begins to madden when it is extended over the course of an entire collection."
Honestly, it was just refreshing to read both reviews + watching your review here. Every other response I’ve seen just heaps vacuous praise on the book. Also, I cannot wait for your book! My brain was just melting with every new volume of Hypatia, but thank god you and Kathleen arrived on the scene.
I would say that a teacher-student relationship is always unnaceptable if they are in the same department. Beyond issues of transferrence, the teacher has influence over the students grade, their assessments and their capacity to focus. That could create pressures on the student that are unreasonable and potentially damaging.
Its strange to talk about uncorrupted desire such that people should ideally be attracted to all types of bodies. It's a contradiction. If she wants to assert that no one has the right to s3x then it shouldnt be anyones imperative to "expand" their desires to be more inclusive regardless of whether or not this would have been their original and uncorrupted state. Firstly the assertion that an uncorrupted s3xuality would necessarily be inclusive is an unproveable claim to make. Trens bodies dont exist naturally and obesity wasnt common in our ancestral history so cant someone posit that an "uncorrupted" s3xuality might actually end up being _less_ inclusive of certain individuals? Secondly, if we are truly shaped by society then isnt it fundamentally impossible to be completely free from societal corruption? A society is 2 or more people and we'll never exist without that short of solitary confinement. Her idea of inclusive s3xuality would still be a result of societal influence, but in her view its more just than the alternative but calling it "just" returns us to the original problem; it gives the implicit implication that some people are _owed_ s3x (or at least people being s3xually attracted to them) by virtue of being in the margin. She is ultimately suggesting that people can gain _some_ right to s3x (or at least the righ to fight for other people's "liberation" from "corruption" which has disturbing implications about entitlement) through their involuntary exclusion from it. We cannot refer to s3x with certain groups as "just" without implicitly suggesting that those groups have a right to s3x. A person struggling with not being desired is ultimately their own task to deal with and manage in healthy way. It is not somebody else's task to force themselves to feel attracted to that person. If we truly want to argue that no one has the right to s3x then it should be accepted that some people will be excluded and sometimes their exclusion will be on the basis of belonging to a certain group. If we want to argue that _every_ group be included then on what basis can we argue that without contradicting the original premise that s3x isnt owed? (As a side note, the idea if not having a right to s3x has interesting implications for the acceptance of people who experience no s3xual attraction/orientation, i.e asexuals, and people who willfully choose c3libcy, abstinence or vlrginity yet i somehow doubt that the book touches on celibacy beyond those who experience it involuntarily nor do i think it will discuss as3xual acceptance.)
Waking up with this notification was such a treat! Thank you, can't wait to watch it! 👌
You're back! Excellent.
yes! sorry! we've been a bit useless but we are resuming! :)
Fantastic discussion! Thank you both!
Whilst Kate alludes to how who we desire is shaped by what we desire (which in Mackinnon’s terms all of sexuality is about eroticisation of domination producing masculinity and eroticisation of subordination producing femininity), she doesn’t go into detail about how these two things are connected. What we see in for example racial preferences is that the process of sexuality is precisely what creates the desires we have for “races”. For example, a gay black man is eroticised as dominant, due to the way black men may be thought of in culture as hypermasculine. This fact means that a gay “top”(the one who penetrates) excludes black gay men who prefer to be the submissive partner from their sexual preferences. I think this shows that when we really get to the fundamentals of who we desire we are ultimately led back to the question of what we desire because we cannot desire anyone in a way that isn’t shaped by that fundamental gendered eroticisation that comes from male dominance.
ahhh so nice to see you back!!!!
The issue you discuss in the beginning reminds me of the idea from the book when men behave badly, that men and women have a differenr s3xual psychology. Im ultimately critical of the books framing of this psychology as an evolved trait as opposed to be a result of different physical and social experiences but i nonetheless found it to be a valuable observation that men and women consider s3xual comfort in a very different way.
I think the concept of enthusiastic consent was created specifically for situations involving strangers whereby it would be difficult for either party to really know what's going on in the other persons head unless the consent was made highly obvious through obvious enthusiasm. The obvious issue with enthusiastic consent is that if strangers are involved then the idea that there will always be enthusiasm which is highly dubious but if they know each other well then knowing each others body language and communication habits would mean that communication and trust would generally take precedence over enthusiasm (particularly if s3x has become a routine). The alternate model for consent that apparently aims to address these issues is continuous consent where continuous communication and checking in is stressed between strangers so in that situation you mention the woman continually verbalising no should be considered as a way of expressing discomfort and a lack of free cosnent even if she was physically going along with it.
What do y'all think?
Thank you both! I really love the way you continue your discussion as a dialogue, I find myself wanting to interject or add my thoughts on them as if I am part of the circle, your reading group. I didn't know about Jane Gallop's personal demeanor as a professor but I agree with her about the sexual/affective dimension of student & teacher relationship. She is referring to the Freudian transference love, which may also take place between a student and a teacher, where the student looks up to the teacher, admires and wants to be good at the subject, all those affective space of care and love. We can trace that to the Platonic pedagogy as well. But I am currently interested in the boundaries that are or can be put into place by learning institutions such as universities, and how they ground their reasoning, from a radical feminist perspective as there are so much discrepancies between countries and regions. Shall radical feminists push toward such institutional regulations for instance in universities?
i have worked at two universities that i thought had reasonable policies - the first permitted relationships but said they had to be declared, which would help to avoid conflict of interest situations like marking that student's work. the second prohibits the initiating of any relationship where there could be a conflict of interest, which would definitely include your own students and would probably include any students in your discipline. i don't really see a justification for prohibiting all student / teacher relationships, there can be people of a similar age in completely different disciplines where there would seem to be no good reason to stop them from dating if they liked each other. (or, stopping them would be very paternalistic - like mandating all / any hierarchy in relationships away, but hierarchy of one kind or other is very common). but these aren't specifically radfem thoughts, they're just what i think makes sense.
@@hollylawford-smith Hello
The truth of the matter is serious
Read about Red Bell, Megtao and Black Bell.
And the heibergami and the monkey jumping in the woman
After listening to CZcams videos about red pill, megtow, woman's super mating, monkey jumping, beautiful man Chad and Bad Boy, I have a hatred for the opposite sex.
I'm a man.
@@hollylawford-smith I see feminism as nothing but abhorrent racism, serving rich men and bad boys, and physical emancipation for the strongest and best men to have relationships with women, contempt, the expulsion of the humble average man, the service of rich women in society, and a man said about feminst strong women that they are bee queens.
And the average woman is just a torkeeper in the service of the queen bee.
@@hollylawford-smith I don't have the honor of serving feminism or supporting women.
Helping a woman who only suffers, helping poor women, and scorning the evil man who persecutes the oppressed woman.
As for supporting women, physical emancipation, and serving women for sex with very powerful men, very rich, bad boy, no, my principles and my human psyche tell me not to do that.
I don't have the honor of supporting women's emancipation.
And I have nothing to do with jealousy as long as the woman is not my wife.
You do whatever you want to free her, but I won't support her even a simple word.
A weak and poor woman who is persecuted on my head
A liberal feminist, even a good word you don't hear from me.
Just luxury and spoiling and a white woman to serve the beautiful and rich woman
@@hollylawford-smith Genetic racism in women
Only a poor person serves her.
A strong man with principles wouldn't be feminist, even if he didn't have sex.
In the end, this feminist man could be in The Frindson or Beta Provider.
The nice, poor guy.
The rich, strong man and the real Bad Boy.
They say in the red pill.
An alpha man enjoys women, and a man of beta is just a servant.
And I've seen a rich American man with muscles around him, eight women.
There seems to be a problem between women and masochism and submission to a rich and strong man.
I don't have the honor of supporting a masochi even in a word.
It's okay for a guy to be nice.
But the problem is if he is a nice man and serves women with money and serves women and defends them and is exploited
czcams.com/video/JLVS8pCPTq4/video.html - I think that ignores that we are attracted to 'beauty' because in nature it usually indicates health, healthy individuals are a better pick for healthy offspring. Like in Utah, because of the health code, (word of wisdom), you tend to get more even features, better teeth, skin etc - all that lends to 'good looking'. We are attracted to beauty, haven't finished watching this, but beauty has power - certainly power over men and I've certainly seen women subjugate men through beauty. I feel that woman is looking at one reason 'why' - it might have logic, but it's one thread for why out of many.
definitely - but the evolutionary explanation wouldn't discriminate based on race. so even if it could explain some of the other exclusions, it couldn't explain that one?
@@hollylawford-smith is this author looking for a universal explanation that explains all? even evolutionary explanations are still contextual - if survival is an evolutionary goal, the choice of mate includes other competing considerations e.g. like 'resources' - so an ugly mate with masses of resources would still be in the mix - the incredibly gorgeous woman who's chosen ugly old millionaire husband over stud. - I don't come away wanting to read the book. :?
@@CatherineKarena in the right to sex essay (which was initially published in the london review of books, and then later republished as the title essay of this book) she's not really seeking an explanation, as much as simply asking people to consider what social / cultural forces have shaped the desires they in fact have, and how this might show that the move to simply accept them as they are is mistaken. and this is all motivated by an apparent empathy for those who are excluded from sex. i think her ultimate interest is in inclusion in sex, compatible with still not saying that anyone has a right to sex. don't know if that helps...
@@hollylawford-smith thx, it does.
I would have alot more respect for the author if she had straight forwardly said, this is how you should be, this is my reasoning/evidence and you're free to agree with me or not instead of being wishy washy and backtracking in order to avoid looking moralising.
Did you ever review Helen Joyce’s book?
This was great. Oliver Traldi and Becca Rothfeld’s reviews also touched on some of the criticisms you made. Also this series doesn’t get nearly enough credit for how incisively sharp and witty you both are!
thanks so much! reviews in print? would i find them just by searching those two names? keen to read. cheers!
found them. loved this line in becca's: "an approach that initially titillates begins to madden when it is extended over the course of an entire collection."
Honestly, it was just refreshing to read both reviews + watching your review here. Every other response I’ve seen just heaps vacuous praise on the book.
Also, I cannot wait for your book! My brain was just melting with every new volume of Hypatia, but thank god you and Kathleen arrived on the scene.
I would say that a teacher-student relationship is always unnaceptable if they are in the same department. Beyond issues of transferrence, the teacher has influence over the students grade, their assessments and their capacity to focus. That could create pressures on the student that are unreasonable and potentially damaging.
Its strange to talk about uncorrupted desire such that people should ideally be attracted to all types of bodies. It's a contradiction. If she wants to assert that no one has the right to s3x then it shouldnt be anyones imperative to "expand" their desires to be more inclusive regardless of whether or not this would have been their original and uncorrupted state.
Firstly the assertion that an uncorrupted s3xuality would necessarily be inclusive is an unproveable claim to make. Trens bodies dont exist naturally and obesity wasnt common in our ancestral history so cant someone posit that an "uncorrupted" s3xuality might actually end up being _less_ inclusive of certain individuals?
Secondly, if we are truly shaped by society then isnt it fundamentally impossible to be completely free from societal corruption? A society is 2 or more people and we'll never exist without that short of solitary confinement. Her idea of inclusive s3xuality would still be a result of societal influence, but in her view its more just than the alternative but calling it "just" returns us to the original problem; it gives the implicit implication that some people are _owed_ s3x (or at least people being s3xually attracted to them) by virtue of being in the margin. She is ultimately suggesting that people can gain _some_ right to s3x (or at least the righ to fight for other people's "liberation" from "corruption" which has disturbing implications about entitlement) through their involuntary exclusion from it.
We cannot refer to s3x with certain groups as "just" without implicitly suggesting that those groups have a right to s3x.
A person struggling with not being desired is ultimately their own task to deal with and manage in healthy way. It is not somebody else's task to force themselves to feel attracted to that person.
If we truly want to argue that no one has the right to s3x then it should be accepted that some people will be excluded and sometimes their exclusion will be on the basis of belonging to a certain group. If we want to argue that _every_ group be included then on what basis can we argue that without contradicting the original premise that s3x isnt owed?
(As a side note, the idea if not having a right to s3x has interesting implications for the acceptance of people who experience no s3xual attraction/orientation, i.e asexuals, and people who willfully choose c3libcy, abstinence or vlrginity yet i somehow doubt that the book touches on celibacy beyond those who experience it involuntarily nor do i think it will discuss as3xual acceptance.)