Review of ‘The Right to Sex’

[LukewarmCustard]

This is a glorious review of the uber-woke book, The Right to Sex, by Amira Srinivasan.
unherd.com/2021/08/what-moden-feminism-is-hiding/

“ If you were a greengrocer in Soviet Czechoslovakia, it would be prudent to display, in your window, a poster proclaiming: “Workers of the world, unite.” This is the famous example Vaclav Havel used, in The Power of the Powerless (1978), to illustrate mass conformity to Communist dogma. Havel’s greengrocer probably never thinks about that slogan, let alone believes it; he puts it obediently in his window to signal compliance with the regime. As Havel puts it: “If he were to refuse, there could be trouble.” I was reminded of Havel’s greengrocer when reading The Right To Sex, a much-lauded new book on women and feminism by Amia Srinivasan”

Biology, children, love.

As much as I disagree with her arguments, Amia Srinivasan does put up a coherent defence of her work when she's interviewed about the book.

She raises some thought-provoking issues (mentioned on other threads).

I'm grateful Srinivasan has created a set of hypotheses and ideas that can form the basis of a discussion. Helen Joyce and others have lamented the lack of a decent argument to deconstruct - in a somewhat tangential and occasionally overlapping sphere, Srinivasan has put forth some ideas and arguments.

I thought that review extremely odd.

But then I read the essay the book is based on, and that too is extremely odd. And now I think the review is on to something. The essay is meandering and incoherent despite the author’s obvious intelligence. The conclusions are woolly.

And there’s an abrupt tone shift when she changes from discussing Eliot Roger and “incels” to discussing the “cotton ceiling” - which she takes seriously in the text as a real problem that lesbians should solve by examining their desires or whatever. But after reading that review I wonder if the abrupt shift in tone is distracting the reader from the smooth transition in topic.

There’s also a bit where she deftly points out the contradiction that transwomen’s sexual desires/identity must never be questioned (and she acknowledges that desire and “identity” aren’t separate!) and yet transwomen expect everyone else to question and interrogate their own desires.

Yet she still mouths all the correct woke orthodoxies. If it’s done on purpose it’s fucking brilliant.

Essay link here

www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex

Hmm … I would perhaps have more respect for the review - if the reviewer did not display such repeated animus towards a woman who she clearly feels does not deserve a professorial role “previously held by luminaries such as Isaiah Berlin”.

There’s a distasteful agenda there that renders the whole review sadly pointless. (I’ve had half a century to learn to recognise that tone applied to my own sparse achievements.)

And there’s an abrupt tone shift when she changes from discussing Eliot Roger and “incels” to discussing the “cotton ceiling”

yes indeed. I found the essay very hard to read. I zipped through the first section about incels. the writing, intentions and conclusions were clear.

but then she started talking about sex being like a sandwich but not a sandwich and basically trying to convince herself, I think, that women should try to desire some men that they don't desire.

unlikely that she'll be changing any minds with that essay (or by extension the book). It's just not clear enough what she's actually arguing.

Thread about her essay from 2018.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3232613-London-Review-of-Books-article-Who-has-the-right-to-sex

What frustrates me about that book is the title. It isn't about 'the' (sex-neutral) 'right to sex'. It is about men's right to sex.

Please do read Carole Pateman's ^The Sexual Contract". It is a far more revealing explanation of men's sex rights.

www.supersummary.com/the-sexual-contract/summary/

[quote allmywhat]I thought that review extremely odd.

But then I read the essay the book is based on, and that too is extremely odd. And now I think the review is on to something. The essay is meandering and incoherent despite the author’s obvious intelligence. The conclusions are woolly.

And there’s an abrupt tone shift when she changes from discussing Eliot Roger and “incels” to discussing the “cotton ceiling” - which she takes seriously in the text as a real problem that lesbians should solve by examining their desires or whatever. But after reading that review I wonder if the abrupt shift in tone is distracting the reader from the smooth transition in topic.

There’s also a bit where she deftly points out the contradiction that transwomen’s sexual desires/identity must never be questioned (and she acknowledges that desire and “identity” aren’t separate!) and yet transwomen expect everyone else to question and interrogate their own desires.

Yet she still mouths all the correct woke orthodoxies. If it’s done on purpose it’s fucking brilliant.

Essay link here

www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex[/quote]
So incel demand for sex from women who dont want them = bad

Trans woman demand for sex (from lesbians, so woman who dont want sex with them) = good?

Thank you for posting, I might actually read the book because of this part of the review:

“It’s now commonplace to acknowledge that the age of “free speech” is over, and The Right To Sex responds pragmatically to this state of affairs. It recites every conventional woke opinion the commissars could demand, while between the lines sketching the contours of an entirely different argument, conveyed in the only register such a thing could be conveyed in without trashing a prestigious career: esoterically.

And this shadow message implies many heresies: that the refusal to address love, biology, and children are driving us and our discourse mad. That loveless sex is hell. That pornography is hell, and is devastating young people, who long for loving sexual commitment. That trans women are not women. That “patriarchy” is a paper tiger. That there are irreducible trade-offs to be made between identity groups.

It’s of course impossible to know whether Srinivasan means this argument to emerge from her meandering if mercifully short volume. Given her prominent standing in an institution whose role is to shape elite youth into morally correct regime functionaries, she wouldn’t tell me if that were the case.”

Im sorry, this author sounds awful. She is trying to justify womans oppression with feminist language?

Oh well, I guess you dont get offered such academic baubles for nothing.

I dont respect this person.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Thank you for posting, I might actually read the book because of this part of the review:

“It’s now commonplace to acknowledge that the age of “free speech” is over, and The Right To Sex responds pragmatically to this state of affairs. It recites every conventional woke opinion the commissars could demand, while between the lines sketching the contours of an entirely different argument, conveyed in the only register such a thing could be conveyed in without trashing a prestigious career: esoterically.

And this shadow message implies many heresies: that the refusal to address love, biology, and children are driving us and our discourse mad. That loveless sex is hell. That pornography is hell, and is devastating young people, who long for loving sexual commitment. That trans women are not women. That “patriarchy” is a paper tiger. That there are irreducible trade-offs to be made between identity groups.

It’s of course impossible to know whether Srinivasan means this argument to emerge from her meandering if mercifully short volume. Given her prominent standing in an institution whose role is to shape elite youth into morally correct regime functionaries, she wouldn’t tell me if that were the case.”

So basically the reviewer is saying her theories justifying misognyistic bullshit are so weak, anyone reading the book cant help but reflect on the actual reallity of the situations she is trying to whitewash?

Some of Srinavasan'sessay is clear and interesting but a lot isn't.
The whole section at the end about choosing to change perception to consciously see fat/black/disabled as beautiful and sexually attractive. I can see why that idea is appealing but also surely it invokes conversion therapy- for example, as a gay man, you can choose to find women attractive if you consciously change your perception.

My own opinion is sexual attraction is innate, based on loads of factors (innate things like sexual orientation and pheromones, social things like a person's childhood schema of "good partners" abd whats seen as attractive in the culture they live in). Trying to unpick that and change seems fruitless abd the only purpose is "inclusivity". But surely sex is the one place someone can be as picky as they want to be? It's no-ones business apart from my own who I do/don't want to sleep with and people shouldn't be asked to provide justification.
I don't really see a clear position in what she's written so I tend to agree with the review.

@dyslek
So basically the reviewer is saying her theories justifying misognyistic bullshit are so weak, anyone reading the book cant help but reflect on the actual reallity of the situations she is trying to whitewash?

No the reviewer is saying that she is doing doublespeak. This is when you parrot the orthodoxy and then ask lots of rhetorical esoteric questions about the orthodoxy works in real life to show subversively that the orthodoxy is actually a mess and full of flaws. You can’t come out and tear apart the orthodoxy straightforwardly because that’s career suicide in an age with no freedom of speech. The reviewer is saying she thinks the author doesn’t believe in the orthodoxy.

*orthodoxy refers to statements such as right to sex, sex work is work, transwomen are women, and so on.

In her interviews she calls upon everyone to interrogate the default nature of their desire as indicative of their concealed prejudices.

In this, she's no different to everyone I've seen who state it's a matter of bigotry etc. for people to swipe past people who have disabilities, might be conventionally less attractive, have a larger body habitus etc.

She does put up some coherent and interesting arguments when she's in conversation. My standard caveat is that I've only seen her interviewed by sympathetic people rather than anyone who
– is taking a robust attitude
– done any fact-checking
– is more in sympathy with a different wave of feminism.
Interviews promoting books will mostly always be quite superficial.

By the time she'd finished one particular interview, I remained unpersuaded but did wonder how anyone would be able to feel any degree of desire again by the time they'd finished problematising and interrogating the drivers of their desire for various prejudices, bigotries etc.

Like Harrington, I did find the sex work paragraph really blunt, jarring and imprecise from an academic:
"Third wave feminists are right […] that sex work is work, and can be better work than the menial labour undertaken by most women"
What on earth does "better" mean? What is the "menial labour" that's worse than sex work, that most women do? Does she mean cleaning? Because I'd far rather clean other people's toilets for money than give them oral sex, for example. And the "menial labour" of cleaning the family toilet bothers me not a jot.
How can someone waffle and theorise so much then write a sentence like that which means nothing? I guess maybe it means "sex work is work, nothing to see here, move along"

If she thinks stripping on camera is better than cleaning toilets, well that maybe true, but it isn't how most sex workers make their money and for most women, we'd stand a better chance making money cleaning toilets with toothbrushes than getting people to pay for nude videos when there's an overwhelming amount of free content of "hot, blonde sluts" (to use the essay language) online. Very disingenuous argument.
Huh. The more I think about this, the more bollocks it appears to be.

@QuentinBunbury

Like Harrington, I did find the sex work paragraph really blunt, jarring and imprecise from an academic: "Third wave feminists are right […] that sex work is work, and can be better work than the menial labour undertaken by most women" What on earth does "better" mean? What is the "menial labour" that's worse than sex work, that most women do? Does she mean cleaning? Because I'd far rather clean other people's toilets for money than give them oral sex, for example. And the "menial labour" of cleaning the family toilet bothers me not a jot. How can someone waffle and theorise so much then write a sentence like that which means nothing? I guess maybe it means "sex work is work, nothing to see here, move along"

You need to read the rest of what she said “Each of these orthodoxies is presented with moral certainty, as simple statements: “Third wave feminists are right […] that sex work is work, and can be better work than the menial labour undertaken by most women”.

But having made a simple statement of the official position, our lucid Oxford professor proceeds to convey a sense that everything around that position is hopelessly muddled. Sex work is work, but:

“to understand what sort of work sex work is […] surely we have to say something about the political formation of male desire. And surely there will be related things to say about other forms of women’s work: teaching, nursing, caring, mothering. To say that sex work is ‘just work’ is to forget that all work – men’s work, women’s work – is never just work: it is also sexed.”

She is subversively tearing apart the sex work is work argument through asking questions...questions that highlight the fact that sex work is sexed work assigned to the female sex by patriarchy.....and it is to feed male desire.

You can’t come out and tear apart the orthodoxy straightforwardly because that’s career suicide in an age with no freedom of speech.

Is that true? I'm thinking of other university professors, like Kathleen Stock, Rosa Freedman, Jo Phoenix, Selina Todd, Alice Sullivan...

Of course they have been no-platformed, vilified on social media and in the left-wing press, but as far as I know, none of them have actually lost their jobs over this. But perhaps they are willing to take that risk because if you don't try to stop something you believe to be wrong you are actually part of the problem.

The reviewer is saying she thinks the author doesn’t believe in the orthodoxy.

Even if this is true, I have less respect for her than for the brave women mentioned above and others who have had the courage to speak out. She's a privileged woman who could speak out if she wanted to. And if she is genuinely too scared to speak out, it would be better to keep quiet rather than appearing to give support to the side she disagrees with.

This is an interview with her in the Guardian from a few weeks ago which was discussed on here.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/08/amia-srinivasan-the-right-to-sex-interview

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4318085-interesting-interview

I think she truly believes what she's saying. But as someone put it on that thread, she might be smart but she doesn't have a clue.

@OldCrone

Agree with you, but in some ways having a subversive within the orthodoxy side quietly weakening them is due as much respect as someone on the outside critiquing the orthodoxy.

Being no platformed is a big deal and career suicide doesn’t necessarily mean you lose your job, it can mean you are sidelined and never offered tenure, no chance of being Department head at a university, no publisher touching your written works. You are gagged and made irrelevant.

That’s why I now want to read her book because I’m not entirely convinced the reviewer is correct that she is an undercover saboteur....quietly chipping away on the inside. She could believe in the orthodoxy...so want to read her works and see what I think for myself. I’m open to either possibility....part of the problem orthodoxy or brilliant saboteur.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@dyslek
So basically the reviewer is saying her theories justifying misognyistic bullshit are so weak, anyone reading the book cant help but reflect on the actual reallity of the situations she is trying to whitewash?

No the reviewer is saying that she is doing doublespeak. This is when you parrot the orthodoxy and then ask lots of rhetorical esoteric questions about the orthodoxy works in real life to show subversively that the orthodoxy is actually a mess and full of flaws. You can’t come out and tear apart the orthodoxy straightforwardly because that’s career suicide in an age with no freedom of speech. The reviewer is saying she thinks the author doesn’t believe in the orthodoxy.[/quote]
Ahhh, interesting.
I wonder if that is the case? its an interesting thought. What a weird world we now live in.

It would be brilliant to get her on here for a webchat.

Would she?

s that true? I'm thinking of other university professors, like Kathleen Stock, Rosa Freedman, Jo Phoenix, Selina Todd, Alice Sullivan...

Isn't there a website of academics who have been silence/lost jobs? And there are more and more stories of people being edged out of the NHS and going quietly because they'd otherwise have no chance of a reference or a job elsewhere?

I wonder if “does she believe what she’s saying?” is even a relevant question regarding some people. Or most people? If you tell any lie often enough you start to believe it.

I mean, do people who say “Trans women are women” believe what they’re saying? On some level they fully know it’s nonsense.

I think Kathleen Stock is on to something when she describes it “trans women are women” as immersive fiction that everyone is expected to play along with. Maybe this woman is so skilled at doublethink that she’s managed to take on board the whole of woke feminism as the premise for the interactive fiction she’s exploring. So she “believes” what she’s saying because it’s necessary for career survival, but equally on a less conscious level knows it’s bollocks.

It’s a bit weird for a philosopher to be an expert doublethinker though. If any sort of person should value logical consistency in their worldview! But she’s hardly alone among philosophers in that way.