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”

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@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.[/quote]
I just don't have time to try and second-guess some clever intellectual game.

If she believes in women's rights she needs to say so clearly.

If she thinks the orthodoxy is crap she needs to say so clearly.

If academia is going to be relevant it needs to get over being so damn opaque and clever that nobody actually understands what is tryign to be said.

There is real, dangerous shit going on. There's no time for pointscoring sophistry.

Stand up and speak out, Amia Srinivasan, or sink into pointless obscurity.

tl;dr: fuck doublethink.

This essay has made my blood boil.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@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.[/quote]
How long does this 'quiet weakening' have to go on for? She's been doing this since at least March 2018 when she wrote her essay.

I know this is going to be a long hard slog, but for how long does she intend to play this game? Because if that's what she's doing, it is all just a game to her.

Surely the whole point of philosophy is being clear about an argument and the ramifications? I think it is nice to believe she could be a saboteur but what's the point if noone knows that's what's happening? I think she's putting lines down ("sex work is better than more menial work most women do") then asking rhetorical questions cos she can't justify her argument directly.

I think she's putting lines down ("sex work is better than more menial work most women do") then asking rhetorical questions cos she can't justify her argument directly.

Reading her LRB essay I think it's more a case that she's not interested in commiting to an argument of her own. She comes across as one of those thinkers more interested in the process of analysing issues rather than the outcome of reaching definitive answers.

It's all very much, "This person said this which has this implication, but another person said this which implies something different, and then there's this other issue implied in this rhetorical question which means we might have to think in this other way but that conclusion has to be hedged against this other thing that we must also consider" ad naseum.

I agree with NotDavidTenant. But with a large dose of naivety thrown in too. This is not a worldly woman. Strikes me as someone who has lived a very sheltered life. The style of the piece is infuriating in the extreme. It shows up the paucity of thinking underpinning the lib fem world view.

Owen Jones is a fan.

I don't know that a book written by an academic philosopher has to come to conclusions that can be instantiated by activists or politically. The idea that philosophy exists for that has been bad for philosophy IMO. It's part of the reason we are where we are.

I'm not entirely convinced she is trying to undermine the orthodoxy. The phenomena exists, you can see it in writings for example from the Soviet era, where certain things would simply not be published. People became quite good at writing, and reading, between the lines.

It's true she likely could stand up more than a Soviet era academic, though despite people like Kathleen Stock many more academics we don't hear about have been pushed out. But, if her purpose is to undermine, it may be that she thinks that she is likely to be more effective by taking a more oblique approach.

What is 'instantiated'?

Philosophy that is not useful or relevant to anyone outwith philosophy is just more intellectual masturbation.

@ArabellaScott

What is 'instantiated'?

Philosophy that is not useful or relevant to anyone outwith philosophy is just more intellectual masturbation.

That's rather like saying that science that isn't directed from the outset toward instantiated goals like technology is just intellectual masturbation. And yet we can all see what subverting pure academic scientific research in universities and making it subject to practical application as a test of it's worth has done to the sciences.

Good ideas will lead to action or changes in society eventually if people are moved by them. But subjecting philosophy from the outset to the goals of activists has simply undermined good thinking and resulted in the mess of activists determining what is ok to think and say based on some a priori goals of their own.

@OldCrone
How long does this 'quiet weakening' have to go on for? She's been doing this since at least March 2018 when she wrote her essay.

I think that very much depends on when the politics of academia return to a more centrist balance. Currently, most universities are unapologetically and fanatically far left and push out anyone who doesn’t adhere to that- students, lecturers, professors, speakers, ...they have an echo chamber to preserve by any means necessary.

I mean, this comes from the attitude really that philosophy isn't about anything real - it's just useful sophistry to convince people to do what you want. So good philosophy is philosophy which supports your political goals. Which can only be about power, since they certainly aren't about truth.

That's rather like saying that science that isn't directed from the outset toward instantiated goals like technology is just intellectual masturbation
That's incorrect. It's more like saying that a scientific method that cannot be understood and therefore applied by someone else is intellectual masturbation. Which I would also agree with.

If someone can't communicate the purpose of what they are writing, what is the point?

If its meant to be accessible only to other philosophers, why publish it as a book and frame it around the history of feminists in defining sexual politics?

It's lazy and trying to pretend that people on this board don't get it cos we don't understand is ridiculous. We are the target audience!

Rubbish, Lobster.

I'm not talking about philosophy with an end point in mind. I'm talking about being straight, clear, lucid and honest.

And I may know next to fuck all about philosophy or academia - I have a rough idea what 'a priori' means but it's been many years since I read any Kant - but I'm fairly sure that 'truth' is itself something people spend years discussing and defining.

So I'm not talking about conclusions reached, I'm talking about the methods used.

And it might be that I have PMT today and just little patience. Apologies if I am being blunt.

There is value in thinking ideas through simply for the purpose of greater clarity and understanding without it having to feed directly into activism. Indeed, it can be argued the one of the problems of the 'genderist' movement is too much focus on activism and not enough on the clarity (and consistency) of their ideology.

Some woke academia reminds me of Watership Down (bear with me here). I mean Cowslip’s warren, where the farmer is putting down snares to catch the odd rabbit, but the rabbits decide to pretend he isn’t because he’s also feeding them lots of nice, juicy lettuce. They eat the lettuce and make lots of symbolic and poetical art works to comfort themselves that don’t really say anything … and if anyone does dare to mention the truth behind the Big Lie then they chase them out of the warren.

I agree that philosophy doesn't necessarily have to lead to activism. It doesn't need to have a call to action and there certainly is value in the process of thinking just for the sake of thinking. However this essay fails on both fronts. It's unclear what she is saying. But the worst failure is that it fails to illuminate anything. To expand on anything. To refuse anything. It does nothing. I will watch the interview tonight with Owen Jones. I probably shouldn't though......

love this from Harrington:

"Given her prominent standing in an institution whose role is to shape elite youth into morally correct regime functionaries ..."

Take that, Oxford University!

@QuentinBunbury

That's rather like saying that science that isn't directed from the outset toward instantiated goals like technology is just intellectual masturbation That's incorrect. It's more like saying that a scientific method that cannot be understood and therefore applied by someone else is intellectual masturbation. Which I would also agree with.

If someone can't communicate the purpose of what they are writing, what is the point?

If its meant to be accessible only to other philosophers, why publish it as a book and frame it around the history of feminists in defining sexual politics?

It's lazy and trying to pretend that people on this board don't get it cos we don't understand is ridiculous. We are the target audience!

I was referring to the idea that she needs to come to conclusions. I don't think she does. You can ask questions and that's useful in itself. Even in a book not only meant for philosophers.

As far as clarity of thinking, yes, ideally, it should be there. But that seems to be the premise of the review - it's not there as a way of indicating that the ideas are problematic without coming right out and saying so.

After watching the interview with Owen Jones, I've concluded she's a charlatan.

Okay, trying again and apologies, Lobster, if I was short earlier.

I don't think philosophy has to draw conclusions nor lead to activism or any action, necessarily.

I do think it needs to be useful in that it needs to be clarifying, not deliberately obfuscating. The idea that this philosopher is being cleverly disengenuous to subtly undermine a body of theory is just too much game-playing to me. I mean, if she is doing that then I have no time to sit about stroking my chin and wondering at how clever it is.

I think these issues are urgent, exigent, and call for clear statements.

CBA watching the Own Jones interview, thanks for reporting back, Franca!

I completely agree ArrebellaScott. And I don't recommend the interview - ruined my evening!