Laura Kipnis: How Colleges Criminalized Sex
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2017
- Feminist author and Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis wrote the recently released book, Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus, which details the insanity of regulating sex on college campuses with administrative tribunals and sexual conduct codes.
Subscribe to our CZcams channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
"The rules and the codes [on campuses] have been rewritten behind closed doors such that almost all sex can be charged as something criminal," says feminist author and Northwestern University film professor Laura Kipnis. "It reinforces a traditional femininity that sees women as needing protection, sees women's sexuality as something that is endangering to them."
Kipnis' new book is Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus, which explores the insanity of sexual conduct codes and attitudes at American universities. It grew out of Kipnis' own experience of being investigated under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act at Northwestern for a 2015 essay she published in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
She sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to talk about feminism, sex on campus, her personal experience with Title IX, the dismissal hearing of her former Northwestern colleague Peter Ludlow, which Kipnis has characterized as a "witch trial," and her uneasy new alliance with conservative and libertarian groups.
Edited by Paul Detrick. Shot by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander.
"I'm finding myself in strange company..." I love that. Funny understatement.
Good interview, btw, very interesting!
This is what feminism should look like. Emphasizing female control of their own lives rather than extending the helpless damsel tradition.
Why? The only things she spoke to was due process and free speech, all of which can be had (and more authoritatively imho) without the feminist slant. Feminism adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
And then she pulls from the "not all feminist are like that bag", unwilling to critique the aspects of feminism that leads to Dworkin and gender studies courses; that's not honest inquiry, but a repacking feminism into something more palatable to people horrified at what feminism has wrought on campus.
The ending nailed it where the expectation is for civil judges to roll back the excesses of campus tribunals instead of feminist demanding it themselves. Couldn't be more damseling if she tried.
Because there are still segments of society where feminism provides adequate critique.
Summary: Women should have their right to make bad choices protected. Women benefit from having their innocence exploited and so should be left to consent to that exploitation by professors.
This is a great interview. The book is also wonderful
Poor audio volume. Have to listen in a silent closet with the door closed to catch most of the conversation. Gillespie speaks down into his throat a lot and his words get lost.
I've asked ReasonTV if they want a good audio mixing engineer on staff. I have plenty of credentials and would even do one short video mix for free. They haven't got back to me.
Excellently done. Like Kipnis I am basically an old school leftist who believes in values like free speech, due process, personal responsibility, intellectual honesty, all values many of those who currently call themselves leftists are abandoning for a heavy handed authoritarian thought police mentality that seeks to squash any speech they don't like and implement rules that criminalize normal human behavior. At this point I'm starting to feel much more at home with Libertarians, although I find much of their world view simple minded, especially as regards big business and the environment
For a 60 year old, she kinda hot.
Let me guess. You are going to make some Unwanted Advances on her aren't you.
She does a great job explaining the issues but always pulls up short when saying what is causing the issues, e.g. identity politics, new age feminism, the leftist nanny state (which is similar to the Christian right, which she had no issue going after), infantile college students etc...
She's moving in the right direction nevertheless. Have patience
What a great interview! Kipnis has a new fan.
Her assertion about the universities' motives. Universities are positioning themselves so they don't get sued when a student is assisted.
Regarding the parent thing, adulthood generally is being delayed for an increasing number of young people. Increasingly, people are experiencing a protracted adolescence. There's just something about getting a mortgage, a house to take care of, kids to feed, etc., that really forces the transition to adulthood and that used to take place, at the latest, by mid-late 20's. For many young people, this just isn't happening until late in life - if at all.
Also, for those that do, modern parents seem to be uncomfortable with the concept of being authority figures. Overall, the distinction between child and adult is becoming vague. However, I think this will be short-lived. Young people need structure and we're seeing, in part, their desire for it since previous generations broke it down. This is the first generation of young people that I'm aware of that is "rebelling" in favor of restrictions on their own sex lives and just private lives in general. It's an incredible aberration which suggests that we perhaps went too far in the 60's.
I was born in the middle of the 1950s and we had an extended adolescence. We were not, however, sex-phobic or in any way like these insane young adults today.
Due process is the only issue here. Laws exist to protect citizens from sexual harassment. Let's work to teach our generation to treat the sexes with respect.
IDK if it's make up, lighting or a post processing filter, but Kipnis looks waaay flattened.
ugh, thank God I'm gay, these heteros make everything way too complicated
i know... like giving birth
those bastards.
Maybe you gays make things too simple.................................
That's something that I've been thinking recently. Although as a gay white male, things are more ambivalent: as a white male, I always have to "check my privilege" but at the same time, I can always play the gay-victim card!
Maybe. But one of the examples she gave in the interview was between two men.
It's pretty ridiculous that RT is one of the best news outlets in the United States.
helmeteye lmao for a second I thought you said RT as In Russian TV and not RT reason tv
+helmeteye Russia are the new freemarket capitalists, America are the new Communists.
i hate quasi governmantal organizations worse than real ones. Campus and student governmants are as bad as homeowners associations
You know what I call Millennials is the generation that killed comedy!
she looks like a robot in the thumbnail
Victim complex hysteria of helicopter parenting and the helicopter parented wanting to go back to their mother's womb to have their comfort never challenged
lol She's a marxist but claims to problems with certain types of authoritarianism lol
Seems women aren't equal after all if they can't be trusted to choose sex partners carefully. I suggest separate schools and universities for the sexes, like the old days.
Just a couple more years before mandatory chastity belts and muzzles and I would be perfectly fine with that.
Look at this sad attempt at narrative-building. "Kids are too prudish today, except for their hookup culture which isn't but still is somehow. And rape culture is a myth except I don't wanna trivialize the very real problem of campus sexual assault." This is seriously just two old people bitching about "kids these days" with no understanding of what is happening.
God bless Nick for trying, but as it's painfully obvious here, at best libertarians and liberals will only have small, temporary alliances on some issues. But their ideology stems from Marxism, as she herself admits. Any alliance ends once you leave the bedroom. For better or worse, it's with conservatives , whose ideology stems from libertarians, that the future of the movement has to be with. Which is why Gary Johnson's 2016 run was such a disaster.
Lost on allowing students to date professors... the rules are clearly meant to curb people in positions of intellectual and organizational authority from exploiting their position.
Clearly it is targeted towards women because women are biologically and psychologically more prone to be attracted to older/powerful men. Young women should be protected from men abusing their authority whether in a corporate or university environment. The number of female grad students who just happen to fall for their sponsoring professor is significant.
Dating a professors seems like a good place for reasonable rules, but an outright ban on it also seems unreasonable and it stops adults from making their own consenting choices. I mean, I think it is reasonable to not allow professors to not be allowed to date anyone whom they have in a class because of the potential for abuse of power. But there is no go reason to try to prevent all professors to not date any student. Just like in corporate work, it only because it issue when someone has direct power over someone else. Dating a coworker or someone from a different department should not be an issue. The thing you should be trying to avoid are exchanges for rewards for sex or punishment for refusing sex, not just trying to "protect young women" who fall for professor. They don't need protection, they are adults.
Fair enough to expect some flexibility, but I think it's overly optimistic to think students and professors are at all equal in the first place. One is clearly in a social group of employees (typically tenured) and thus in extremely secure and authoritative positions, the student is there only so long as they can pay tuition, make the grades (maintain approval from the professor class), and not be found guilty of some campus rulebreaking. Grad students specifically are essentially employees of the professors who manage them. The power differential, even if it's not the person you report directly to, is huge.
I can't imagine folks accepting similar behavior in another industry. Male managers of farms with migrant workers hooking up with the youngest ladies? Or to your corporate point - say a Division Director at Apple dating his last 3 admins? But under the guise of high-mindedness this is semi-acceptable in higher ed.
Power differential is not important, only when the power is direct to the two people is it important. Is a professor and student want to date, I think it is fine as long it the student is not that professor student. This is not about "protecting young women" but avoiding conflicts of interest. If a professors and student want to date, they need to not be directly connected. A policy that works to avoid sex for advantages is a good one in business and higher ed. But if a professor and student want to date and they don't have any current educational connection (classes, ect), then there is no reason they should not be allow to date.
Coming from a healthcare background, I can say it is stunning how many nurses do anything they can and fall all over themselves trying to get "exploited" by doctors, those doctors having positions of intellectual and organizational authority over them. Absolutely. Stunning.
The rules were created to stop students getting inflated grades and other favouritism through sexual favours.
Yea everything is sexual assault. "Hi" "help!!! Help!!!"
no way I'm first, but it seems so. will edit with substance after watching. :)
edit 1: definitely need to scrap preponderance of evidence system. I think we as libertarians we have a lot we can come to the table with alongside feminists. I'm just an undergraduate but this is what I'm thinking about.
edit 2: i think we should discuss how we define feminine and masculine, find some neutralish way of educating the population to promote individual responsibility as far as possible.
***** it's a tremendous responsibility but one which I do indeed take seriously.
Since watching this video I've sort of been thinking, what moral obligations do we have in this culture war? We are starting to win it seems, but if we don't want postmodernist bullshit rearing its ugly head down the line, we are definitely going to need to synthesize some new structures.
Maybe we need a new cultural meta narrative, one which incorporates the culture war itself as a sort of symbolic cutting away the dead wood so that the tree of our civilization can grow fresh new branches, as opposed to having its old branches taken over by rot.
OMG this lady is emblematic of what's gone wrong with the "intellectual" approach to feminism.
"Marxist Feminist" she's a bit naive.
Btw people are too afraid to really say what is true.
She's like saying to people like.... oh yeah, it's not minimizing sexual assault but gives information prior that DOES minimize it because the whole point of the interview is to minimize it because it's a problem. People are just afraid and coward's legit shit.
Losers.