What do you think?
Rate this book
The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century
Thrilling, sharp, and deeply humane, philosopher Amia Srinivasan's The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century upends the way we discuss—or avoid discussing—the problems and politics of sex.
How should we think about sex? It is a thing we have and also a thing we do; a supposedly private act laden with public meaning; a personal preference shaped by outside forces; a place where pleasure and ethics can pull wildly apart.
How should we talk about sex? Since #MeToo many have fixed on consent as the key framework for achieving sexual justice. Yet consent is a blunt tool. To grasp sex in all its complexity—its deep ambivalences, its relationship to gender, class, race and power—we need to move beyond yes and no, wanted and unwanted.
We do not know the future of sex—but perhaps we could imagine it. Amia Srinivasan’s stunning debut helps us do just that. She traces the meaning of sex in our world, animated by the hope of a different world. She reaches back into an older feminist tradition that was unafraid to think of sex as a political phenomenon. She discusses a range of fraught relationships—between discrimination and preference, pornography and freedom, rape and racial injustice, punishment and accountability, students and teachers, pleasure and power, capitalism and liberation.
The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century is a provocation and a promise, transforming many of our most urgent political debates and asking what it might mean to be free.
How should we think about sex? It is a thing we have and also a thing we do; a supposedly private act laden with public meaning; a personal preference shaped by outside forces; a place where pleasure and ethics can pull wildly apart.
How should we talk about sex? Since #MeToo many have fixed on consent as the key framework for achieving sexual justice. Yet consent is a blunt tool. To grasp sex in all its complexity—its deep ambivalences, its relationship to gender, class, race and power—we need to move beyond yes and no, wanted and unwanted.
We do not know the future of sex—but perhaps we could imagine it. Amia Srinivasan’s stunning debut helps us do just that. She traces the meaning of sex in our world, animated by the hope of a different world. She reaches back into an older feminist tradition that was unafraid to think of sex as a political phenomenon. She discusses a range of fraught relationships—between discrimination and preference, pornography and freedom, rape and racial injustice, punishment and accountability, students and teachers, pleasure and power, capitalism and liberation.
The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century is a provocation and a promise, transforming many of our most urgent political debates and asking what it might mean to be free.
241 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 21, 2021
1,767 people are currently reading
40.2k people want to read
About the author
Amia Srinivasan
5 books434 followersAmia Srinivasan is the Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at All Souls College, Oxford. Previously she was an associate professor of philosophy at St John’s College, Oxford, and before that a lecturer in philosophy at University College London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,795 reviews
August 31, 2021
I admire Srinivasan greatly, but I have to say, this book wasn't particularly mind-blowing for me. I wonder if I was necessarily the target audience. Each essay offers a wonderful introduction to contemporary feminist issues regarding sex, including incel culture and student-teacher relationships. The issue is, as someone who had already been exposed to thorough commentary on each of these issues, I didn't find that the essays offered any new insight for me. I think that for someone who is new to this field, this book would be a brilliant read. I, on the other hand, craved more detail, more of a firm stance on each issue. I obviously don't know Srinivasan personally, so I won't make any claims on her passion for the subjects she discusses – clearly, the time and dedication required to research and craft a book like this indicates some level of commitment. But at the same time, many of her essays lacked a sense of urgency, an indication of having personal stakes in each issue, which I believe make social commentary most powerful. Indeed, the essay I enjoyed most was 'On Not Sleeping with Your Students', a chapter where Srinivasan's own teaching experience and personal pedagogy showed through again and again. I thought that the other essays lacked this sense of personal involvement. Additionally, I was often frustrated by the lack of detail given in many parts of the text. Again, I think this goes back to my observation that I do not seem to be the target audience for this book – for someone just beginning to learn about these topics, too much information would be overwhelming. But since I already had a decent grasp on each of these topics, I question why Srinivasan is so hesitant to offer details into the potential solutions for them. For example, why is it that she only briefly mentions alternatives to carceralism that are already beginning to be implemented at the end of her essay 'Sex, Carceralism, Capitalism', on the penultimate page of the entire book? Why is it that more space is not given not only to recognising the issues of the present day, but to concrete paths to a better future? This is a response I have to many books on feminist issues, and maybe I am being too demanding of Srinivasan and authors like her. Or perhaps the issue is that this book is borne of academia, sensitive to but many levels detached from the very real material needs of the vulnerable people it discusses. And maybe there is a discomfort with that observation that I do not yet know how to articulate fully.
September 15, 2021
"on not sleeping with your students" is for sure the strongest essay, and "sex, carceralism, capitalism" is the second strongest. i agree with some others that srinivasan's tone still feels too measured and respectful, even when it comes to people/ideas that she explicitly wants to condemn. the fact that catherine mackinnon is undoubtedly the most-cited thinker in this book but that srinivasan doesn't really go into/confront mackinnon's anti-sex worker stances feels like an intellectual failure when the entirety of this book is about considering/exploring, and then countering, ideas in feminism that srinivasan disagrees with. i also think that, as a UK-based cis feminist, she should have been more clear about who in her citations is trans-exclusionary (eg what is the point of simply name-dropping julie bindel -- whom srinivasan lists as an "anti-prostitution feminist" and leaves it at that?). overall, i felt that srinivasan spent a little too much time describing/summarising and a bit less time engaging in thorough critique - I would have loved to hear more of her very interesting ideas and point of view. for instance, in the porn essay, srinivasan perfunctorily mentions chinese yaoi (which is called danmei, actually) being "porn by women for women" yet completely fails to mention that the porn DEPICTS MEN, which you'd think would actually be very interesting to her arguments on the depiction of women in porn - if she didn't want to get into it, then why mention it in the first place? anyway, perhaps the smaller flaws/issues are an editorial fault rather than srinivasan's. i really enjoy and respect her work and i look forward to reading more from her
December 1, 2021
THIS BOOK.
It's a special kind of criticism, for me, that has one actively thinking alongside an essay, and sometimes outside it, about one's own experiences and observations. I don't know that I agree with every single assertion made throughout, but I do know that I hugely enjoyed Srinivasan's constructions, her arguments, and her line-level writing (the Coda chapter is especially remarkable). Taking on questions of College Campus dynamics, pornography, incels and beyond - and all the way through, I was riveted.
It's not immersion, not like fiction, that makes a book like this sing. I left it feeling like I'd had a conversation.
It's a special kind of criticism, for me, that has one actively thinking alongside an essay, and sometimes outside it, about one's own experiences and observations. I don't know that I agree with every single assertion made throughout, but I do know that I hugely enjoyed Srinivasan's constructions, her arguments, and her line-level writing (the Coda chapter is especially remarkable). Taking on questions of College Campus dynamics, pornography, incels and beyond - and all the way through, I was riveted.
It's not immersion, not like fiction, that makes a book like this sing. I left it feeling like I'd had a conversation.
April 14, 2022
well researched and very thoughtful and thought provoking, I think this is the type of book people who want to extend beyond Hood Feminism by Mikki Kendall should go to, because it’s a bit more academic with the citations and content referenced. There are a few details that I think could have been more thoroughly argued, but I really enjoyed the title essay as well as the essay about teacher/student relationships. This book feels like an introductory women and gender studies class with an emphasis on contemporary issues and modern culture but without the annoyingness and cringe of fellow students’ inane input lmfao. I really appreciate how the last essay addressed carceral feminism and socialist movements, but I dislike how it posits all abolitionists of the sex trade as carceral feminists because that’s not true, and I wish’s that the essay on pornography came to more a more hearty conclusion than “the kids will figure it out” lol but a really solid read regardless. Maybe 4.5 stars
October 22, 2021
wow. i feel like my brain has physically expanded after reading this.
May 24, 2023
Chciałbym, żeby więcej osób przeczytało tę książkę.
February 17, 2022
Srinivasan’s texts have been widely discussed, and they certainly are interesting to read, but many are also overly long and meandering, which is something I don’t appreciate when it comes to essays that specifically aim to make argumentative points. As a German, I also found it striking that the author is strongly focused on feminist debates and writers in the US and the UK, although thinkers from other countries have been of utmost importance to the Western feminist discussion (not to mention female activists and authors from other world regions). Still, the six chapters have held my attention and I liked the references to real-life cases and hypothetical scenarios that illuminated the theoretical points – it’s just that her own arguments should have been rendered more clearly, especially as they are partly controversial or at least debatable.
The chapters deal with
- The (non-existent) „conspiracy“ against men
- Pornography
- Incels
- Reactions to the publication of the essay about incels
- Why teachers (also university professors) shouldn’t sleep with students, even if they consent
- Sex, carceralism, and capitalism
Kudos to Srinivasan for not only feeding into Instagram feminism that tackles easy points in order to collect likes: This book also considers difficult questions that seem impossible to decide, and that’s what makes it intellectually challenging.
The chapters deal with
- The (non-existent) „conspiracy“ against men
- Pornography
- Incels
- Reactions to the publication of the essay about incels
- Why teachers (also university professors) shouldn’t sleep with students, even if they consent
- Sex, carceralism, and capitalism
Kudos to Srinivasan for not only feeding into Instagram feminism that tackles easy points in order to collect likes: This book also considers difficult questions that seem impossible to decide, and that’s what makes it intellectually challenging.
June 26, 2024
Full commentary at Holodoxa
The Right to Sex by Amia Srinivasan is billed as an important, nuanced, and provocative work of philosophical feminism. Unfortunately, Srinivasan's collection of interrelated essays may have been more persuasive and/or effective if the billing had been humbler, the title changed, and the actual science of sexual dimorphism was engaged rather than ignored or denied. Feminism, both philosophical and political iterations, will inevitably be doomed to failure and irrelevancy as long as it clings desperately to magical thinking about sex and sex differences. If feminists do indeed abhor reactionaries, chauvinists, and traditionalists like they claim, then they would be wise to actually address the world as it actually is rather than how they wish it to be.
Srinivasan's biological denialism, stereotypical of third/fourth wave feminist thought, is evident immediately in The Right to Sex. In her first piece, she recycles the boilerplate language of transgender activists by claiming that sex is "assigned" at birth. This claims (and this idea generally) is frankly ridiculous or is a bad faith reference to the process of putting male or female on a birth certificate as if this legal formality has any import to the actual underlying biology of any individual. Sexual identity is an innate characteristic - one that concerns gamete size (small and many for males vs large and few for females). In other words, sex is about reproductive modality, one that is necessarily binary by design. Even in disorders of sexual development (DSDs), individuals often referred to as intersex, gamete production either adopts or attempts to adopt a male or female mode not both nor something else entirely. Moreover, intersex individuals are typically infertile, unable to participate in reproduction and are external to the evolutionary history and future of the Homo sapiens. Moreover, there is an abundance of research across multiple scientific disciplines that illustrates beyond any reasonable doubt that there are morphological, behavioral, and psychological differences (i.e. sexual dimorphism) attached to sexual identity (for a quick, accessible primer on some of these see T: The Story of Testosterone by Carole Hooven).
There are other examples throughout The Right to Sex that underscore Srinivasan's sloppiness (yes, a discussion of sex without some grounding in empirical reality is an enormous oversight). In another one of her earlier essays, Srinivasan claims that the critics of the "believe women" meme, who tend to be proponents of silly common law practices like due process and the presumption of innocence, are committing a category error. It is hard to call this type of argument anything other than - and I loathe the overuse of this term - gaslighting:
Srinivasan tries to claw herself out of this quasi-fascistic hole by expressing ambivalence about the whole project of punitive justice (a vogue idea among many progressives like herself, which is inconsistently set aside for particular violent crimes like rape or even non-violent sexual misconduct). However, this is of little practical meaning or import. There is no alternative correctional model that exists in any civilized society of any magnitude. Srinivasan's messy skepticism about the liberal project generally is useless and as we can see the actual implementation of ideologically aligned policies/efforts like the "dear colleague" Title IX guidance and the #MeToo canceling panic have unlocked a Pandora's box of damage to civil society.
But quite possibly, the most galling aspect of the whole work, is the argument emerging from the titular essay and other related pieces that purportedly interrogate why humans desire what they desire. Both frustratingly and amusingly, Srinivasan largely dismisses the biological and "pre-political" inputs for desire and just assumes the preferences we see expressed today are instantiations of received oppressive ideologies (i.e. white supremacy, sexism, etc). She also just patently rejects sex redistribution as a reactionary project. Ironically, it could likely be quite empowering to woman depending on the mechanisms of allocation. She doesn't engage with any of the literature or journalism that has actually investigated or ruminated on these questions (excepting Douthat's piece and Robin Hanson's work). There is no discussion of anthropological studies of sexual preference across cultures and time nor reckoning with the rigorous and robust findings of sociobiology. She mentions "hypergamy" in the same breath that she's implying that Jordan Peterson is the "custodian of the patriarchy" but doesn't investigate whether the phenomenon actually describes female mating strategies and preferences. Moreover, she doesn't wrestle with related phenomena like assortative mating, which shed light on people's actual mating practices, or how sorting has become more efficient over the last several decades. She does dip into the recent data on the "sex recession," but she downplays it and fails to grasp the implications of these data.
Although Srinivasan deserves praise for her willingness to engage with thinkers most feminists would reflexively condemn or sneer at without reading and for her ability to express some epistemic humility about her political program, it isn't enough to save the work. She still piles contradiction on top of contradiction, commits oversight after oversight, over-simplifies facile explanatory models, and navel-gazes about solipsistic or irrelevant ideas. I don't see anything of meaning or insight being added to the otherwise compelling topic. The real evidence of this is that despite all the kvetching about the tensions between sex-negative vs sex-positive feminism, neoliberal feminism vs socialist feminism, contemporary sexual dynamics, and the historical alliance of traditionalists and sex-negative types on anti-porn activism, Srinivasan is basically a party-line fourth wave feminist whose political program is broadly socialist; it is the reliable default for every troubling question or potential contradiction that arises. It appears her economic priorities supersede any of her gender-based program (Is this really feminism anyhow? Who's to say that a feminist can't be a capitalist?). How is this anything other than exactly what anyone can find from most left-leaning, college-educated 18-35 year old women on Twitter minus the usual vitriol?
The Right to Sex by Amia Srinivasan is billed as an important, nuanced, and provocative work of philosophical feminism. Unfortunately, Srinivasan's collection of interrelated essays may have been more persuasive and/or effective if the billing had been humbler, the title changed, and the actual science of sexual dimorphism was engaged rather than ignored or denied. Feminism, both philosophical and political iterations, will inevitably be doomed to failure and irrelevancy as long as it clings desperately to magical thinking about sex and sex differences. If feminists do indeed abhor reactionaries, chauvinists, and traditionalists like they claim, then they would be wise to actually address the world as it actually is rather than how they wish it to be.
Srinivasan's biological denialism, stereotypical of third/fourth wave feminist thought, is evident immediately in The Right to Sex. In her first piece, she recycles the boilerplate language of transgender activists by claiming that sex is "assigned" at birth. This claims (and this idea generally) is frankly ridiculous or is a bad faith reference to the process of putting male or female on a birth certificate as if this legal formality has any import to the actual underlying biology of any individual. Sexual identity is an innate characteristic - one that concerns gamete size (small and many for males vs large and few for females). In other words, sex is about reproductive modality, one that is necessarily binary by design. Even in disorders of sexual development (DSDs), individuals often referred to as intersex, gamete production either adopts or attempts to adopt a male or female mode not both nor something else entirely. Moreover, intersex individuals are typically infertile, unable to participate in reproduction and are external to the evolutionary history and future of the Homo sapiens. Moreover, there is an abundance of research across multiple scientific disciplines that illustrates beyond any reasonable doubt that there are morphological, behavioral, and psychological differences (i.e. sexual dimorphism) attached to sexual identity (for a quick, accessible primer on some of these see T: The Story of Testosterone by Carole Hooven).
There are other examples throughout The Right to Sex that underscore Srinivasan's sloppiness (yes, a discussion of sex without some grounding in empirical reality is an enormous oversight). In another one of her earlier essays, Srinivasan claims that the critics of the "believe women" meme, who tend to be proponents of silly common law practices like due process and the presumption of innocence, are committing a category error. It is hard to call this type of argument anything other than - and I loathe the overuse of this term - gaslighting:
It is uncool and unhelpful to have standards of evidence in our justice system and have them buttressed by cultural beliefs. We should totally replace this with the super rigorous model that just accepts any claim made by a person who is a woman (side note: we can't exactly define what a woman because that'd be trans-exclusionary); no questions asked. At least this way, we can arbitrarily and often vindictively discipline and control all of our least favorite people.
Srinivasan tries to claw herself out of this quasi-fascistic hole by expressing ambivalence about the whole project of punitive justice (a vogue idea among many progressives like herself, which is inconsistently set aside for particular violent crimes like rape or even non-violent sexual misconduct). However, this is of little practical meaning or import. There is no alternative correctional model that exists in any civilized society of any magnitude. Srinivasan's messy skepticism about the liberal project generally is useless and as we can see the actual implementation of ideologically aligned policies/efforts like the "dear colleague" Title IX guidance and the #MeToo canceling panic have unlocked a Pandora's box of damage to civil society.
But quite possibly, the most galling aspect of the whole work, is the argument emerging from the titular essay and other related pieces that purportedly interrogate why humans desire what they desire. Both frustratingly and amusingly, Srinivasan largely dismisses the biological and "pre-political" inputs for desire and just assumes the preferences we see expressed today are instantiations of received oppressive ideologies (i.e. white supremacy, sexism, etc). She also just patently rejects sex redistribution as a reactionary project. Ironically, it could likely be quite empowering to woman depending on the mechanisms of allocation. She doesn't engage with any of the literature or journalism that has actually investigated or ruminated on these questions (excepting Douthat's piece and Robin Hanson's work). There is no discussion of anthropological studies of sexual preference across cultures and time nor reckoning with the rigorous and robust findings of sociobiology. She mentions "hypergamy" in the same breath that she's implying that Jordan Peterson is the "custodian of the patriarchy" but doesn't investigate whether the phenomenon actually describes female mating strategies and preferences. Moreover, she doesn't wrestle with related phenomena like assortative mating, which shed light on people's actual mating practices, or how sorting has become more efficient over the last several decades. She does dip into the recent data on the "sex recession," but she downplays it and fails to grasp the implications of these data.
Although Srinivasan deserves praise for her willingness to engage with thinkers most feminists would reflexively condemn or sneer at without reading and for her ability to express some epistemic humility about her political program, it isn't enough to save the work. She still piles contradiction on top of contradiction, commits oversight after oversight, over-simplifies facile explanatory models, and navel-gazes about solipsistic or irrelevant ideas. I don't see anything of meaning or insight being added to the otherwise compelling topic. The real evidence of this is that despite all the kvetching about the tensions between sex-negative vs sex-positive feminism, neoliberal feminism vs socialist feminism, contemporary sexual dynamics, and the historical alliance of traditionalists and sex-negative types on anti-porn activism, Srinivasan is basically a party-line fourth wave feminist whose political program is broadly socialist; it is the reliable default for every troubling question or potential contradiction that arises. It appears her economic priorities supersede any of her gender-based program (Is this really feminism anyhow? Who's to say that a feminist can't be a capitalist?). How is this anything other than exactly what anyone can find from most left-leaning, college-educated 18-35 year old women on Twitter minus the usual vitriol?
January 25, 2022
Feminism has completely abandoned poor women.
The latest book by a "feminist" academic (for the record people, there is no such thing as a feminist academic) was just as bad as I'd feared.
If this book had a theme song, it would be "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke.
The cruelest part, as always, is the part that deals with women and kids who've been trafficked, and referred to by sheltered academics as "sex workers".
Dr. Srinivasan believes that pimping and sex buying should be legalized - but not in her upscale neighborhood. She doesn't want skeevy sex buyers coming in and out of her apartment at all hours of the night, or cruising up and down her neighborhood streets looking for people to buy.
Privileged women like Dr. Srinivasan only want sex buying and pimping made legal in poor neighborhoods - she wants zoned areas for "sex work" - which means, of course, that anyone who sells sex outside of legal zones (her neighborhood) will be prosecuted - which means the police will still be involved in criminalizing prostitution to protect the upper classes.
Her level of hypocrisy makes me choke.
She dismisses Andrea Dworkin - an actual survivor of prostitution, just as she dismisses ALL survivors of the Sex Industry - in favor of Pimp Lobbyists who have an economic incentive to legalize sex buying and increase their profits.
Here are the two question Dr. Srinivasan is afraid to ask when it comes to "sex work":
1. Does sex trafficking exist?
2. How could sex trafficking possibly exist without sex buyers?
Many sheltered academics simply claim that sex trafficking is a myth created by young Black women like Cyntoia Brown (google her) who does NOT want sex buying decriminalized.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/cynto...
As for question number 2, it's obvious that sex trafficking could not exist without sex buyers - no industry can exist without consumers.
The main problem with legalized sex buying is that it inevitably normalizes sex buying and increases demand.
Because there is never enough willing "supply" to meet demand, sex trafficking will exist as long as sex buying exists - and increased demand has been proven by studies such as this one by the London School of Economics to increase sex trafficking (why wouldn't it???)
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neum...
Dr. Srinivasan claims that "sex workers" have been saying for years that criminalizing any aspect of "sex work" - including pimping and sex buying - does not protect them.
But which "sex workers" is she listening to?
Which "sex workers" have access to privileged academics like Dr. Srinivasan?
Upper middle class academics have zero interest in protecting "sex workers".
Their only interest is in protecting their own husbands, brothers, and boyfriends who are those most likely to prey upon trafficked women and kids.
Dr. Srinivasan's book she be called The Right to Rape: Feminism's Betrayal of the Poor and Exploited in the Twenty-First Century.
That's exactly what this book is. Please don't fall for the BS.
The latest book by a "feminist" academic (for the record people, there is no such thing as a feminist academic) was just as bad as I'd feared.
If this book had a theme song, it would be "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke.
The cruelest part, as always, is the part that deals with women and kids who've been trafficked, and referred to by sheltered academics as "sex workers".
Dr. Srinivasan believes that pimping and sex buying should be legalized - but not in her upscale neighborhood. She doesn't want skeevy sex buyers coming in and out of her apartment at all hours of the night, or cruising up and down her neighborhood streets looking for people to buy.
Privileged women like Dr. Srinivasan only want sex buying and pimping made legal in poor neighborhoods - she wants zoned areas for "sex work" - which means, of course, that anyone who sells sex outside of legal zones (her neighborhood) will be prosecuted - which means the police will still be involved in criminalizing prostitution to protect the upper classes.
Her level of hypocrisy makes me choke.
She dismisses Andrea Dworkin - an actual survivor of prostitution, just as she dismisses ALL survivors of the Sex Industry - in favor of Pimp Lobbyists who have an economic incentive to legalize sex buying and increase their profits.
Here are the two question Dr. Srinivasan is afraid to ask when it comes to "sex work":
1. Does sex trafficking exist?
2. How could sex trafficking possibly exist without sex buyers?
Many sheltered academics simply claim that sex trafficking is a myth created by young Black women like Cyntoia Brown (google her) who does NOT want sex buying decriminalized.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/cynto...
As for question number 2, it's obvious that sex trafficking could not exist without sex buyers - no industry can exist without consumers.
The main problem with legalized sex buying is that it inevitably normalizes sex buying and increases demand.
Because there is never enough willing "supply" to meet demand, sex trafficking will exist as long as sex buying exists - and increased demand has been proven by studies such as this one by the London School of Economics to increase sex trafficking (why wouldn't it???)
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neum...
Dr. Srinivasan claims that "sex workers" have been saying for years that criminalizing any aspect of "sex work" - including pimping and sex buying - does not protect them.
But which "sex workers" is she listening to?
Which "sex workers" have access to privileged academics like Dr. Srinivasan?
Upper middle class academics have zero interest in protecting "sex workers".
Their only interest is in protecting their own husbands, brothers, and boyfriends who are those most likely to prey upon trafficked women and kids.
Dr. Srinivasan's book she be called The Right to Rape: Feminism's Betrayal of the Poor and Exploited in the Twenty-First Century.
That's exactly what this book is. Please don't fall for the BS.
December 25, 2022
I really liked this book (collection of 5 essays) — I’ve found girlboss or representation flavored feminism to be distasteful for a while, and, you know, at this point who doesn’t already know about intersectionality, but I don’t know that i’ve thought deeply about feminism in general as an intellectual tradition and history of practice, much less specifically wrt sex in particular.
in a strictly intellectual sense this does a really good job of tracing major modern/historical debates among feminists (in both theory and practice); but also it was a good interrogation of my own desires (sexual/romantic and otherwise) and the politics thereof, how i personally move around the world and how i expect others to interact with me.
obviously this whole book is about ~ the personal and the political ~; i think sex is just a fascinating object of study because it at a foundational level it lives in this real, physical, intensely personal space (but maybe hyperreal lol? see porn essay) but that hasn’t stopped anyone from trying to regulate/police/otherwise make it legible, it still is informed by politics in a macro sense, has political consequences. in all 5 essays, srinivasan emphasizes the limits of state-based solutions, of regulation, the temptation of carceral and punitive measures. a lot of legal theory, explaining precedents set by court cases, etc — here’s stuff people tried to do with the cards they were dealt, here’s how that ended up shaking out.
favorite essays were 3.5 (followup to “the right to sex”) and 4 (“on not sleeping with your students”)
a few things i especially appreciated in each essay:
“the conspiracy against men” — on men who are(n’t) “cancelled” for assault/harassment/etc. there are many spheres of “recourse” — the literal legal/judicial system, quasi legal bureaucracies (eg title 9), the “court of public opinion” — none of which seem to be particularly effective at achieving what we really want.
“talking to my students about porn” — on “representation” (both in the cheugy ~where are my role models~ way, and in a more nuanced “why” way), porn as speech (in a legal sense) vs porn as film (in an artistic sense), a platform studies/ algorithmic mediation lens on porn and its distribution.
“the right to sex” — how are our personal preferences shaped by external factors? what do people “deserve”? a “political critique of desire.”
there’s a followup to this essay, taking the form of a numbered series (a la bluets), where srinivasan actually directly engages with some of the critiques of that essay, notably andrea long chu. i love this sort of form because it means the content also feels less constrained; she discusses (with sympathy and empathy!) the MRAzn phenomenon, for example. a few of the numbers are dedicated to a list of incel mass murderers in the past few years, ending with the 2021 GA spa shootings. (I cried, here, because (a) I wasn’t sure about the publication date and whether it came before or after spring 2021, and (b) because I remember so viscerally trying to write about it in the aftermath, and just continually drawing blanks.) why should we care about who fucks who? because… :/ people die.
“on not sleeping with your students” — omg I loved this one, really refuses to be reductive. what does it mean to be a good teacher? discusses a bit of freud’s “transference,” describes the dynamic between a teacher and student not just as a power imbalance but as epistemic asymmetry, and on the nature of desire here: is it that they want to be them or have them? and a bit of a coda on youth.
“sex, carceralism, capitalism” — this is the one i feel like i knew/thought the most about already, on abolition, the impulse for “punishment” as the reification of violence, on the necessity of strategy that accounts for the most marginalized rather than blanket-level approaches. on reform vs revolution and “ideal” vs “non ideal” politics, eg, angela davis vs silvia federici on wages for housework. but the question she’s asking, i think, is important and makes sense for the final essay: what do we do once we have power? — because some of us do.
--
so many highlights but i'll just put this one from the beginning: What would it take for sex really to be free? We do not yet know; let us try and see.
in a strictly intellectual sense this does a really good job of tracing major modern/historical debates among feminists (in both theory and practice); but also it was a good interrogation of my own desires (sexual/romantic and otherwise) and the politics thereof, how i personally move around the world and how i expect others to interact with me.
obviously this whole book is about ~ the personal and the political ~; i think sex is just a fascinating object of study because it at a foundational level it lives in this real, physical, intensely personal space (but maybe hyperreal lol? see porn essay) but that hasn’t stopped anyone from trying to regulate/police/otherwise make it legible, it still is informed by politics in a macro sense, has political consequences. in all 5 essays, srinivasan emphasizes the limits of state-based solutions, of regulation, the temptation of carceral and punitive measures. a lot of legal theory, explaining precedents set by court cases, etc — here’s stuff people tried to do with the cards they were dealt, here’s how that ended up shaking out.
favorite essays were 3.5 (followup to “the right to sex”) and 4 (“on not sleeping with your students”)
a few things i especially appreciated in each essay:
“the conspiracy against men” — on men who are(n’t) “cancelled” for assault/harassment/etc. there are many spheres of “recourse” — the literal legal/judicial system, quasi legal bureaucracies (eg title 9), the “court of public opinion” — none of which seem to be particularly effective at achieving what we really want.
“talking to my students about porn” — on “representation” (both in the cheugy ~where are my role models~ way, and in a more nuanced “why” way), porn as speech (in a legal sense) vs porn as film (in an artistic sense), a platform studies/ algorithmic mediation lens on porn and its distribution.
“the right to sex” — how are our personal preferences shaped by external factors? what do people “deserve”? a “political critique of desire.”
there’s a followup to this essay, taking the form of a numbered series (a la bluets), where srinivasan actually directly engages with some of the critiques of that essay, notably andrea long chu. i love this sort of form because it means the content also feels less constrained; she discusses (with sympathy and empathy!) the MRAzn phenomenon, for example. a few of the numbers are dedicated to a list of incel mass murderers in the past few years, ending with the 2021 GA spa shootings. (I cried, here, because (a) I wasn’t sure about the publication date and whether it came before or after spring 2021, and (b) because I remember so viscerally trying to write about it in the aftermath, and just continually drawing blanks.) why should we care about who fucks who? because… :/ people die.
“on not sleeping with your students” — omg I loved this one, really refuses to be reductive. what does it mean to be a good teacher? discusses a bit of freud’s “transference,” describes the dynamic between a teacher and student not just as a power imbalance but as epistemic asymmetry, and on the nature of desire here: is it that they want to be them or have them? and a bit of a coda on youth.
“sex, carceralism, capitalism” — this is the one i feel like i knew/thought the most about already, on abolition, the impulse for “punishment” as the reification of violence, on the necessity of strategy that accounts for the most marginalized rather than blanket-level approaches. on reform vs revolution and “ideal” vs “non ideal” politics, eg, angela davis vs silvia federici on wages for housework. but the question she’s asking, i think, is important and makes sense for the final essay: what do we do once we have power? — because some of us do.
--
so many highlights but i'll just put this one from the beginning: What would it take for sex really to be free? We do not yet know; let us try and see.
September 30, 2021
This is not a bad book per se, but it is not what it was advertised as, aka a ‘treatise’ on sex, society, and feminism. The only essay that feels like a fully formed polemic is ‘On Not Sleeping With Your Students’ (and for this it is of course easily the best one) - everything else feels more like a primer, an introductory guide to whatever particular aspect of modern sexuality and sexual dynamics is being discussed. Srinivasan presents a nuanced and balanced overview of the debates over the meaning of sex, but in almost all cases she pulls back just before the end of the essay, reluctant to propose any kind of resolution. It’s like she takes your preconceived ideas, makes a point that disrupts them, but instead of continuing on and articulating her own position just leaves you with a ‘makes you think, doesn’t it?’ and a wink. Which is fine for a textbook, or a primer, but not for supposedly rigorous sociological-philosophical analysis.
January 17, 2022
I was hoping for some original ideas, but this entire book of essays is very rote and ho-hum. It was published in 2021, and yet it reads as if Amia Srinivasan has just heard about incels and #MeToo for the first time. She cites Catharine MacKinnon a lot and cobbles together over-reported news stories and ends up with very little original to say at all. Nothing is new or interesting here: Feminism is muddy. The sexual revolution didn't give us freedom. Racism is closely related to our treatment of women. Poverty matters. And so forth. The book is almost entirely focused on the U.S., which is also boring, as I was hoping for a broader worldly perspective from someone who teaches in the U.K. and, according to the dust jacket, was "raised in London, New York, Singapore, and Taiwan."
September 10, 2022
What I liked most about this short essay collection was the author's willingness to engage with multiple viewpoints and facets of discussion. It's difficult to argue with her, because she argues so thoroughly with herself!
This wasn't so much a polemic as a philosophical examination of the issues prominent in modern feminism. Like many books on the subject, it made me miserable and it made my head ache.
There were points that I disagreed vehemently with Srinivasan on, but it wasn't so much her assessment of the situation - she does a fantastic job of pointing out all that is crummy in our society - but the emphases she places on possible solutions.
I'll give a couple of examples.
In the final essay, the opinion she seems to be propounding is that the only solution to inequality is to bring about the end of capitalism. Now, don't get me wrong, over the last few years I have become increasingly disenchanted with capitalism, however, I'm still to be convinced that bringing about the complete destruction of our current system will leave the disadvantaged any better off than trying to improve what we already have. When tackling social ills, a sensible approach would be to start from where we are now, rather than envisioning the demolition of all our current social structures before anything can be achieved. That doesn't mean that radical change can't happen - but we mustn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Also, I felt her musings on whether we should be encouraged to try and examine / reprogramme our desires in the view of disparities in desirability were completely unrealistic. There are some people whose preferences evolve or are fluid / negotiable as time goes on, but for the majority of people, who and what they desire sexually is fixed and (a lot of the time) bears no resemblance to what is politically correct. To suggest that the average person ought to attempt to scrutinise their sexual preferences and, if possible, modify them to be more inclusive... ridiculous idea.
(More effective ways of changing who and what people find sexual would be positive representation, inclusivity, diversity, empowerment and changing the popular narratives in the media we consume.)
I found this book gave me lots of food for thought and the analysis of the issues was rigorous and deep. I'm rounding up to 4 stars for the wider perspective and intellectual nourishment it gave me.
Some of the essays were stronger than others, but all dissected and dealt with issues that are important to feminism in the ongoing fight for freedom and equality.
This wasn't so much a polemic as a philosophical examination of the issues prominent in modern feminism. Like many books on the subject, it made me miserable and it made my head ache.
There were points that I disagreed vehemently with Srinivasan on, but it wasn't so much her assessment of the situation - she does a fantastic job of pointing out all that is crummy in our society - but the emphases she places on possible solutions.
I'll give a couple of examples.
In the final essay, the opinion she seems to be propounding is that the only solution to inequality is to bring about the end of capitalism. Now, don't get me wrong, over the last few years I have become increasingly disenchanted with capitalism, however, I'm still to be convinced that bringing about the complete destruction of our current system will leave the disadvantaged any better off than trying to improve what we already have. When tackling social ills, a sensible approach would be to start from where we are now, rather than envisioning the demolition of all our current social structures before anything can be achieved. That doesn't mean that radical change can't happen - but we mustn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Also, I felt her musings on whether we should be encouraged to try and examine / reprogramme our desires in the view of disparities in desirability were completely unrealistic. There are some people whose preferences evolve or are fluid / negotiable as time goes on, but for the majority of people, who and what they desire sexually is fixed and (a lot of the time) bears no resemblance to what is politically correct. To suggest that the average person ought to attempt to scrutinise their sexual preferences and, if possible, modify them to be more inclusive... ridiculous idea.
(More effective ways of changing who and what people find sexual would be positive representation, inclusivity, diversity, empowerment and changing the popular narratives in the media we consume.)
I found this book gave me lots of food for thought and the analysis of the issues was rigorous and deep. I'm rounding up to 4 stars for the wider perspective and intellectual nourishment it gave me.
Some of the essays were stronger than others, but all dissected and dealt with issues that are important to feminism in the ongoing fight for freedom and equality.
February 28, 2023
I’ve been reading books about feminism in order to bring my knowledge up-to-date. My understanding of the topic mostly came from personal experiences and a brief introduction to Simone De Beauvoir when I was in college. In 2019 I read Bad Feminist by Roxane Gay and find it funny and reassuring. Gay confirmed my observations but didn’t give a systematic review of feminism. The most accessible feminism book I’ve read is Dear Ijeawele, or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Early this year I read Ain't I A Woman by bell hooks and found it an eye-opener, especially regarding the entanglement between gender, race and class in North America up until the 1980s.
The Right to Sex is an essay collection by Amia Srinivasan, a philosopher and an Oxford scholar with Indian background. The collection covers a wide range of topics in the realm of feminism. It includes following:
– The (non-existent) Conspiracy Against Men
– What Is to Be Done? (feminism and pornography)
– The Right to Sex (male violence against women, male entitlement, Incel culture, the many sides of desire and dating preferences)
– Coda (reactions to The Right to Sex and further analysis)
– On Not Sleeping With Your Students (sex and power on campus)
– Sex, Carceralisim, Capitalism (work, housework, and sex-work (or not))
What strikes me most is how knowledgeable she is and how nuanced her arguments are. It is still not a systematic review I am looking for, but because the author presents different views along with her nuanced analysis, I am able to get a better picture of the topics discussed. They are hard questions. For example: is porn the emblem of male-domination or a symbol of women’s liberation? Is sex-work work? Pros and cons of different sex-work regulations, and, is there a solution that improves sex-workers’ life, or should they be sacrificed for the greater good of all women? Does “cotton-ceiling” exist or is it just a word to coerce women into sexual submission? When does a personal choice such as dating preference become a social one therefore has bigger consequences? Do college students have the right to date their professors? Is consent the only question one should ask when it comes to interpersonal relationships?
Srinivasan invites readers to ask deep questions, both inwards–what is your desire and how it has been shaped–and outwards. She distinguishes between reformists and revolutionists, although it is unclear which side she is on. Perhaps both. She also asks readers to think about gender roles outside the current capitalist box.
There is one statement that I have problems with. She says that those feminists whose goals, however unintentionally, align with the political Right, such as anti-porn feminists in the past and trans-exclusive feminists today, are usually white and rich and exert more power. I think this statement is rushed. Unlike women’s rights and homesexual rights, the trans rights movement today is still mainly an European and North American phenomenon. Both sides are equally white and share similar socio-economic status. The trans-inclusive feminists exert powers too, perhaps more, and some of their male allies are equally nasty to women. Think of those proponents of gender self-id laws who at the same time insist on replacing sex with gender everywhere, including sports, prisons, bedrooms and refugee camps. Who in the end will suffer the consequences? Definitely not the rich and powerful. I think the author fails to see the possibility that the current trans rights movement, especially trans women's rights movement, can be hijacked too.
We are first biological then social animals. Sex and desire is deeply rooted in our biology as well as our social enviornment. The author is a philosopher, not a biologist, so her arguments do not include biology.
The Right to Sex is an essay collection by Amia Srinivasan, a philosopher and an Oxford scholar with Indian background. The collection covers a wide range of topics in the realm of feminism. It includes following:
– The (non-existent) Conspiracy Against Men
– What Is to Be Done? (feminism and pornography)
– The Right to Sex (male violence against women, male entitlement, Incel culture, the many sides of desire and dating preferences)
– Coda (reactions to The Right to Sex and further analysis)
– On Not Sleeping With Your Students (sex and power on campus)
– Sex, Carceralisim, Capitalism (work, housework, and sex-work (or not))
What strikes me most is how knowledgeable she is and how nuanced her arguments are. It is still not a systematic review I am looking for, but because the author presents different views along with her nuanced analysis, I am able to get a better picture of the topics discussed. They are hard questions. For example: is porn the emblem of male-domination or a symbol of women’s liberation? Is sex-work work? Pros and cons of different sex-work regulations, and, is there a solution that improves sex-workers’ life, or should they be sacrificed for the greater good of all women? Does “cotton-ceiling” exist or is it just a word to coerce women into sexual submission? When does a personal choice such as dating preference become a social one therefore has bigger consequences? Do college students have the right to date their professors? Is consent the only question one should ask when it comes to interpersonal relationships?
Srinivasan invites readers to ask deep questions, both inwards–what is your desire and how it has been shaped–and outwards. She distinguishes between reformists and revolutionists, although it is unclear which side she is on. Perhaps both. She also asks readers to think about gender roles outside the current capitalist box.
There is one statement that I have problems with. She says that those feminists whose goals, however unintentionally, align with the political Right, such as anti-porn feminists in the past and trans-exclusive feminists today, are usually white and rich and exert more power. I think this statement is rushed. Unlike women’s rights and homesexual rights, the trans rights movement today is still mainly an European and North American phenomenon. Both sides are equally white and share similar socio-economic status. The trans-inclusive feminists exert powers too, perhaps more, and some of their male allies are equally nasty to women. Think of those proponents of gender self-id laws who at the same time insist on replacing sex with gender everywhere, including sports, prisons, bedrooms and refugee camps. Who in the end will suffer the consequences? Definitely not the rich and powerful. I think the author fails to see the possibility that the current trans rights movement, especially trans women's rights movement, can be hijacked too.
We are first biological then social animals. Sex and desire is deeply rooted in our biology as well as our social enviornment. The author is a philosopher, not a biologist, so her arguments do not include biology.
November 27, 2023
2,5 Sterne
Versuche ein paar versöhnliche Töne anzuschlagen. Das Buch kann nix dafür, dass ich andere Bedürfnisse habe und aus einem verschobenen Blickwinkel auf die Welt schaue.
Grundsätzlich muss ich der Autorin zugute halten, sich der Schlammschlacht rechts/links und den überdrehten Postmodernen Theorien zu verweigern.In den letzten beiden Essays, die ich am stärksten fand, blitzen dynamische Gedankengänge durch. Sie übt Kritik an reduktionistischem Denken und spricht das Problem des Moralisierens an. Sie bringt den Begriff Verantwortung ins Spiel. Hinterfragt den Impuls der Regulierung. Ganz zaghaft fragt sie nach Pragmatismus.
Das Recht auf Sex beackert nahezu ausschließlich den öffentlichen, politischen Diskurs zum Thema Feminismus, Pornografie, Patriarchat, Rassismus und Kapitalismus.
Eine analytische, philosophische Auseinandersetzung findet nicht statt.
Sie verwendet primär Beispiele und Erfahrungsberichte aus ihren Studentenreihen, Medien und Debattenbeiträgen. Zitiert hier und da Kollegen und kommt am Ende des Buches kurz auf Freud und Plato zu sprechen. Zum Thema Feminismus und Pornographie wird auf Diskursbeiträge aus den 70/80er Jahren zurück gegriffen, die meines Erachtens nach, nicht mehr auf die Landschaft, die sich präsentiert passen. Extrempositionen werden einander gegenüber gestellt.
Sie selbst hält sich in den ersten beiden Essays mit eigener Positionierung sehr zurück. Diese beiden liefern kaum Erkenntnisse, Lösungsstrategien oder eigene interessante Gedanken. Sie formuliert schwammig und zu allgemein. Die Argumente werden ehr auf der emotionalen, Bauchgefühl Ebene vorgetragen.
Zu Irritationen führen Begriffe wie „Begehren“ und „Dialektik“, die in einem anderen Kontext verwendet werden, als ich sie kenne. Und hier liegt auch für mich das Grundproblem des Buches. Im Bemühen ein allgemein verständliches Sachbuch zu schreiben, simplifiziert es zu sehr. Es bekommt einen oberflächlichen, anspruchslosen Charakter. Begriffe werden nicht ausdefiniert, diese dann wie das „Begehren“ auf einer Bedeutungsebene verwendet, die von der vollen Kontrolle darüber ausgeht. Das komplette Essay zum Thema Pornographie schießt dadurch komplett am Grundproblem vorbei. Ich kann diesbezüglich nur jedem nahe legen, sich mit der Psychoanalyse Lacans zum Thema Begehren und dem Thema „es gibt kein Geschlechtsverhältnis“ auseinander zusetzen. Denn hier entpuppt sie sich als Opfer ihrer eigenen Kritik und ist reduktionistisch unterwegs.
Wie sie den Begriff der Dialektik begreift, lässt für mich die Frage aufkommen, ob sie jemals was von Hegel gelesen hat.
Um erste Impulse zu setzen, mag das Buch durchaus tauglich sein. Für eine ernsthafte Auseinandersetzung ist eine deutlich komplexere Herangehensweise nötig, die sich von Erfahrungsberichten/Anekdotischem loslöst und ins prozesshafte Denken führt.Die sich tief in die Strukturen von symbolischer Ordnung gräbt und das starre Gerüst des Verortens auf sprachlicher und identifikatorischer Ebene aufbricht. Und nicht nur in einem Teilbereich, sondern Universell.
Gerade ein passend Zitat aus Absoluter Gegenstoß: Versuch einer Neubegründung des dialektischen Materialismus gelesen:
Das Reale ist zugleich unmöglich und notwendig (unvermeidlich). Darin liegt der wahrhaft dialektische Status der Allgemeinheit: Im ersten, klassisch marxistischen Schritt müssen wir akzeptieren, dass die reine abstrakte Allgemeinheit unmöglich zu erreichen ist
- jede Allgemeinheit ist bereits von irgendeinem besonderen Inhalt überdeterminiert, der im Vergleich zu den anderen besonderen Inhalten bevorzugt wird - einem privilegierten Inhalt, der, wie Marx gesagt hätte, der betreffenden Allgemeinheit ihre spezifische Farbe verleiht. (Im Kapitalismus, so Marx' Beispiel, ist die industrielle Produktion nicht nur eine Produktionsart unter mehreren anderen, sie färbt vielmehr das gesamte Spektrum der Produktion, so dass alle anderen Produktionsarten - die land-wirtschaftliche, die handwerkliche - durch sie »vermittelt« und
»industrialisiert« werden.) Im zweiten Schritt müssen wir dann feststellen, dass diese unmöglich zu erreichende Allgemeinheit auch unausweichlich ist. Wie sehr wir uns auch bemühen, eine Allgemeinheit in einen Kontext einzuordnen und auf ihre besonderen Bestandteile zu reduzieren - die leere Form der Allgemeinheit hört nicht auf, uns zu verfolgen. Denken wir an den ambivalenten Status der allgemeinen Menschenrechte; zwar lässt sich immer ein besonderer Inhalt ausmachen, der von der allgemeinen Form privilegiert wird (»die Menschenrechte sind eigentlich die Rechte weißer Männer mit Eigentum«), aber die allgemeine Form hält dennoch immer einen Spalt offen, sie lässt eine Lücke, in die andere (Frauen, Arbeiter, andere ethnische Gruppen ...) im Verlauf eines Kampfes um Hegemonie ihre Forderungen einschreiben können. In diesem Sinn ist für Lacan das Begehren unzerstörbar (ewig, absolut), insofern es unmöglich ist. Es ist nicht deswegen unzerstörbar, weil es eine beständige, unveränderliche Substanz ist, die jeglichem Druck standhält, sondern gerade weil es durch und durch nichtsubstantiell ist, ein kaum wahrnehmbares Funkeln eines X, das sich schon wieder auslöscht, bevor es überhaupt ganz da ist. Das Begehren ist, mit anderen Worten, real - ein inkonsistentes, fragiles X, das wir zwar nie zu fassen bekommen, das aber auf ewig dazu verurteilt ist, wiederzukehren und uns zu verfolgen."
Ach, und beim Sex Objekt zu sein und das Gegenüber zum eigenen Objekt zu machen ist sogar Voraussetzung! Der Porno zeigt wie's geht. Fragt Zizek und Lacan 😬
Versuche ein paar versöhnliche Töne anzuschlagen. Das Buch kann nix dafür, dass ich andere Bedürfnisse habe und aus einem verschobenen Blickwinkel auf die Welt schaue.
Grundsätzlich muss ich der Autorin zugute halten, sich der Schlammschlacht rechts/links und den überdrehten Postmodernen Theorien zu verweigern.In den letzten beiden Essays, die ich am stärksten fand, blitzen dynamische Gedankengänge durch. Sie übt Kritik an reduktionistischem Denken und spricht das Problem des Moralisierens an. Sie bringt den Begriff Verantwortung ins Spiel. Hinterfragt den Impuls der Regulierung. Ganz zaghaft fragt sie nach Pragmatismus.
Das Recht auf Sex beackert nahezu ausschließlich den öffentlichen, politischen Diskurs zum Thema Feminismus, Pornografie, Patriarchat, Rassismus und Kapitalismus.
Eine analytische, philosophische Auseinandersetzung findet nicht statt.
Sie verwendet primär Beispiele und Erfahrungsberichte aus ihren Studentenreihen, Medien und Debattenbeiträgen. Zitiert hier und da Kollegen und kommt am Ende des Buches kurz auf Freud und Plato zu sprechen. Zum Thema Feminismus und Pornographie wird auf Diskursbeiträge aus den 70/80er Jahren zurück gegriffen, die meines Erachtens nach, nicht mehr auf die Landschaft, die sich präsentiert passen. Extrempositionen werden einander gegenüber gestellt.
Sie selbst hält sich in den ersten beiden Essays mit eigener Positionierung sehr zurück. Diese beiden liefern kaum Erkenntnisse, Lösungsstrategien oder eigene interessante Gedanken. Sie formuliert schwammig und zu allgemein. Die Argumente werden ehr auf der emotionalen, Bauchgefühl Ebene vorgetragen.
Zu Irritationen führen Begriffe wie „Begehren“ und „Dialektik“, die in einem anderen Kontext verwendet werden, als ich sie kenne. Und hier liegt auch für mich das Grundproblem des Buches. Im Bemühen ein allgemein verständliches Sachbuch zu schreiben, simplifiziert es zu sehr. Es bekommt einen oberflächlichen, anspruchslosen Charakter. Begriffe werden nicht ausdefiniert, diese dann wie das „Begehren“ auf einer Bedeutungsebene verwendet, die von der vollen Kontrolle darüber ausgeht. Das komplette Essay zum Thema Pornographie schießt dadurch komplett am Grundproblem vorbei. Ich kann diesbezüglich nur jedem nahe legen, sich mit der Psychoanalyse Lacans zum Thema Begehren und dem Thema „es gibt kein Geschlechtsverhältnis“ auseinander zusetzen. Denn hier entpuppt sie sich als Opfer ihrer eigenen Kritik und ist reduktionistisch unterwegs.
Wie sie den Begriff der Dialektik begreift, lässt für mich die Frage aufkommen, ob sie jemals was von Hegel gelesen hat.
Um erste Impulse zu setzen, mag das Buch durchaus tauglich sein. Für eine ernsthafte Auseinandersetzung ist eine deutlich komplexere Herangehensweise nötig, die sich von Erfahrungsberichten/Anekdotischem loslöst und ins prozesshafte Denken führt.Die sich tief in die Strukturen von symbolischer Ordnung gräbt und das starre Gerüst des Verortens auf sprachlicher und identifikatorischer Ebene aufbricht. Und nicht nur in einem Teilbereich, sondern Universell.
Gerade ein passend Zitat aus Absoluter Gegenstoß: Versuch einer Neubegründung des dialektischen Materialismus gelesen:
Das Reale ist zugleich unmöglich und notwendig (unvermeidlich). Darin liegt der wahrhaft dialektische Status der Allgemeinheit: Im ersten, klassisch marxistischen Schritt müssen wir akzeptieren, dass die reine abstrakte Allgemeinheit unmöglich zu erreichen ist
- jede Allgemeinheit ist bereits von irgendeinem besonderen Inhalt überdeterminiert, der im Vergleich zu den anderen besonderen Inhalten bevorzugt wird - einem privilegierten Inhalt, der, wie Marx gesagt hätte, der betreffenden Allgemeinheit ihre spezifische Farbe verleiht. (Im Kapitalismus, so Marx' Beispiel, ist die industrielle Produktion nicht nur eine Produktionsart unter mehreren anderen, sie färbt vielmehr das gesamte Spektrum der Produktion, so dass alle anderen Produktionsarten - die land-wirtschaftliche, die handwerkliche - durch sie »vermittelt« und
»industrialisiert« werden.) Im zweiten Schritt müssen wir dann feststellen, dass diese unmöglich zu erreichende Allgemeinheit auch unausweichlich ist. Wie sehr wir uns auch bemühen, eine Allgemeinheit in einen Kontext einzuordnen und auf ihre besonderen Bestandteile zu reduzieren - die leere Form der Allgemeinheit hört nicht auf, uns zu verfolgen. Denken wir an den ambivalenten Status der allgemeinen Menschenrechte; zwar lässt sich immer ein besonderer Inhalt ausmachen, der von der allgemeinen Form privilegiert wird (»die Menschenrechte sind eigentlich die Rechte weißer Männer mit Eigentum«), aber die allgemeine Form hält dennoch immer einen Spalt offen, sie lässt eine Lücke, in die andere (Frauen, Arbeiter, andere ethnische Gruppen ...) im Verlauf eines Kampfes um Hegemonie ihre Forderungen einschreiben können. In diesem Sinn ist für Lacan das Begehren unzerstörbar (ewig, absolut), insofern es unmöglich ist. Es ist nicht deswegen unzerstörbar, weil es eine beständige, unveränderliche Substanz ist, die jeglichem Druck standhält, sondern gerade weil es durch und durch nichtsubstantiell ist, ein kaum wahrnehmbares Funkeln eines X, das sich schon wieder auslöscht, bevor es überhaupt ganz da ist. Das Begehren ist, mit anderen Worten, real - ein inkonsistentes, fragiles X, das wir zwar nie zu fassen bekommen, das aber auf ewig dazu verurteilt ist, wiederzukehren und uns zu verfolgen."
Ach, und beim Sex Objekt zu sein und das Gegenüber zum eigenen Objekt zu machen ist sogar Voraussetzung! Der Porno zeigt wie's geht. Fragt Zizek und Lacan 😬
May 20, 2022
I'm ashamed to say I haven't read much feminist theory. I believe in equality between men and women, but if I'm honest, I don't exactly know what that means, per se.
The Right to Sex is a good summary of the issues occupying contemporary feminism: sexual harassment, porn, the issue of consent.
It also is a critique - although a not very forceful one - of the approach that modern feminists use to try to overcome the issues that women face. Modern feminists, goes her argument, rely too much on a legalistic, codified view of sexual morality. These issues are often too nebulous to be pinned down with clear, universally applicable rules, rules that, when broken, often result in punishments that reinforce the carceral state.
The problem with Srinivasan's approach is that she doesn't touch on the issue of power, not really. The feminism that she criticizes emerged from the same place that all contemporary liberal identitarian politics did. NGOs, academics and, I'm increasingly convinced, lawyers. These groups, despite their genuinely well meaning intentions, exist to interpret and implement civil rights legislation for, whether they like it or not, the institutions which hire them against the people who the laws ostensibly exist to protect.
In the last part of the last essay in the book, Srinivasan takes on what she calls class reductionism. Yes, she says, modern feminism is driven by rich white women. But if feminists focused on that, and that alone, they run the risk of reproducing racial inequalities within their movement.
I don't deny that working class movements need to fight sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and all the rest within their own ranks. However, Srinivasan deploys a vulgar class critique which is common among liberals (as well as many leftists) that drives me nuts. Class analysis isn't just saying the rich run the show. It's trying to understand how and why. Srinivasan doesn't do this at all and thus fails to understand how the feminism she critiques is not only a class project, but what purpose it serves.
Her condemnations of sexism are peppered throughout with a vague "anti-capitalism." This stance is in vogue amongst left liberals. Capitalism is obviously bad, they say, but they say it without a real positive vision or a comprehension of how power functions. Stuck as she is within this liberalism, Srinivasan ultimately can only appeal to personal choice. She closes the essay with a demand that the liberal feminists in charge of the movement cede their leadership, in a grand gesture of liberal Third Worldism, to the most marginalized and most powerless women in our society. How this would happen, and to what end, she doesn't say.
The Right to Sex is a good summary of the issues occupying contemporary feminism: sexual harassment, porn, the issue of consent.
It also is a critique - although a not very forceful one - of the approach that modern feminists use to try to overcome the issues that women face. Modern feminists, goes her argument, rely too much on a legalistic, codified view of sexual morality. These issues are often too nebulous to be pinned down with clear, universally applicable rules, rules that, when broken, often result in punishments that reinforce the carceral state.
The problem with Srinivasan's approach is that she doesn't touch on the issue of power, not really. The feminism that she criticizes emerged from the same place that all contemporary liberal identitarian politics did. NGOs, academics and, I'm increasingly convinced, lawyers. These groups, despite their genuinely well meaning intentions, exist to interpret and implement civil rights legislation for, whether they like it or not, the institutions which hire them against the people who the laws ostensibly exist to protect.
In the last part of the last essay in the book, Srinivasan takes on what she calls class reductionism. Yes, she says, modern feminism is driven by rich white women. But if feminists focused on that, and that alone, they run the risk of reproducing racial inequalities within their movement.
I don't deny that working class movements need to fight sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and all the rest within their own ranks. However, Srinivasan deploys a vulgar class critique which is common among liberals (as well as many leftists) that drives me nuts. Class analysis isn't just saying the rich run the show. It's trying to understand how and why. Srinivasan doesn't do this at all and thus fails to understand how the feminism she critiques is not only a class project, but what purpose it serves.
Her condemnations of sexism are peppered throughout with a vague "anti-capitalism." This stance is in vogue amongst left liberals. Capitalism is obviously bad, they say, but they say it without a real positive vision or a comprehension of how power functions. Stuck as she is within this liberalism, Srinivasan ultimately can only appeal to personal choice. She closes the essay with a demand that the liberal feminists in charge of the movement cede their leadership, in a grand gesture of liberal Third Worldism, to the most marginalized and most powerless women in our society. How this would happen, and to what end, she doesn't say.
June 27, 2024
I am unfathomably tired, as a lesbian, as a poor woman, to be used as a "gotcha!" in arguments against those who seek to protect me most - namely, anti-porn feminists like Andrea Dworkin. This author does not actually care about poor women and it became all too apparent, that poverty has never been part of her lived experience.
I am tired of feminist academics who sit in their little ivory towers and look down on us, the poor, the queer, and intellectualize our lived experiences and the traumas we bear.
Imagine writing so much about porn and prostitution without once (!!!) talking about trafficking. If you only hear those, to whom sex-work is a choice, how adequate can then your evaluation be?
If you dismiss Andrea Dworkin so easily, you can never be a feminist.
I am tired of feminist academics who sit in their little ivory towers and look down on us, the poor, the queer, and intellectualize our lived experiences and the traumas we bear.
Imagine writing so much about porn and prostitution without once (!!!) talking about trafficking. If you only hear those, to whom sex-work is a choice, how adequate can then your evaluation be?
If you dismiss Andrea Dworkin so easily, you can never be a feminist.
October 16, 2021
These essays were uncompelling and poorly argued. These essays present no new information to a reader reasonably familiar with the topics, and the points, when something resembling an argument is made, are often contradicted by the information two pages back. The essays fail to grapple with the real world implications of their topics, and do not seek to actually interrogate the issues they question. The author seem bound to make the point, regardless of how it intersects with the rest of the essay.
February 28, 2021
an uncommonly brilliant book, achieves the feat of being staunchly feminist without resorting to lazy dogma or moral hectoring
November 28, 2024
another solid essay collection! srinivasan tackles a handful of feminist issues in these well-researched, well-written essays. she takes an intersectional look at incels, professor-student relationships, carceralism, and more. i won’t get into my thoughts on all the topics but i thought the collection was balanced and liked that she explored the topics through a modern lens (as the title suggests), showing how our thinking needs to evolve from the ideals of the women’s liberation movement in the 1970s in order to encompass today’s technology and politics.
my one complaint is that i found the rhythm of my reading experience to be interrupted by “coda: the politics of desire”. i’m not 100% sure why that piece was structured the way it was (numbered paragraphs that felt a bit disjointed) and i felt that it lacked the clarity of the other 5 essays in the collection. interesting ideas were brought up but for some reason i struggled to follow her line of thought in a way that i didn’t in the rest of the book.
glad i added this into my november nonfiction lineup at the last minute!
my one complaint is that i found the rhythm of my reading experience to be interrupted by “coda: the politics of desire”. i’m not 100% sure why that piece was structured the way it was (numbered paragraphs that felt a bit disjointed) and i felt that it lacked the clarity of the other 5 essays in the collection. interesting ideas were brought up but for some reason i struggled to follow her line of thought in a way that i didn’t in the rest of the book.
glad i added this into my november nonfiction lineup at the last minute!
October 3, 2021
Amia Srinivasan is clearly an excellent analytic philosopher, combining analytical prowess with clarity. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to mirror other reviews on this site and suggest that perhaps I wasn't the proper audience for the book: for all their sophistication, the essays' conclusions and complications will likely seem pretty unsuprising for someone plugged into events and discourse around gender in the last few years in the Anglo-American sphere. I share her basic political sympathies: to be internationalist, socialist, and radical over affluent-centric, Anglo-American, and carceral, but maybe because of this agreement, I simply didn't get much out of it.
Brief overview of the essays:
The best essay for me was probably the mid-book Coda made out of 88-bullet points critically discussing the fallout and responses over her LRB essay (also reproduced), because the relatively unpolished style presents a fascinating view of a keen mind working in real time in the midst of fire from all sides. Talking to my Students about porn makes the fascinating case that the anti-porn feminists weren't wrong, just ahead of their time: their arguments seem prescient only now when porn has become ubiquitious, even authoritative. The Conspiracy Against Men starts with the startling "I know two men who were, I am fairly confident, falsely accused of rape", before going to more traditional points about how women being disbelieved is far more common. Sex, Carceralism, Capitalism wrestles with standard questions about how a careceral feminism might not be in the interests of all women.
The weakest essay for me was probably On Not Sleeping With Your Students: she make the point that the usual targetting of female students by male teachers inhibits their pedagogical trajectory in a culture that already teaches men and women to interact with and interpret authority and aspiration differently. However, this seems a little too clean, an uncharacteristic unwillingness to recognize more disordered and unpredictable narratives about what the erotic and pedagogy consist in: her engagement with Jane Gallop, for example, deals superfically with Gallop's notion of "transference", leaving out her fascinating (if wildly utopian) arguments about how proper sexual harrassment has to be seen as a form of sex discrimination (otherwise it's just anti-sex), about the difficulty of assuming the intellect and sex are completely distinct and separate (especially for women's studies), about how she used sex to humanize people who intimidated her intellectually, and how there's a dialectic between feminists who stress women's vulnerability and those who stress liberation. Instead, Srinivasan assumes sex (reduced now to the act, instead of Gallop's more expansive eroticism) can only be only distraction from teaching, with instruction now transformed into a sombre professional, hierarchical activity with strict boundries that cannot admit transgressive play of any kind. Which is fine as policy defense, but in the midst of her other more expansive essays, falls somewhat limp and unsatisfying.
Brief overview of the essays:
The best essay for me was probably the mid-book Coda made out of 88-bullet points critically discussing the fallout and responses over her LRB essay (also reproduced), because the relatively unpolished style presents a fascinating view of a keen mind working in real time in the midst of fire from all sides. Talking to my Students about porn makes the fascinating case that the anti-porn feminists weren't wrong, just ahead of their time: their arguments seem prescient only now when porn has become ubiquitious, even authoritative. The Conspiracy Against Men starts with the startling "I know two men who were, I am fairly confident, falsely accused of rape", before going to more traditional points about how women being disbelieved is far more common. Sex, Carceralism, Capitalism wrestles with standard questions about how a careceral feminism might not be in the interests of all women.
The weakest essay for me was probably On Not Sleeping With Your Students: she make the point that the usual targetting of female students by male teachers inhibits their pedagogical trajectory in a culture that already teaches men and women to interact with and interpret authority and aspiration differently. However, this seems a little too clean, an uncharacteristic unwillingness to recognize more disordered and unpredictable narratives about what the erotic and pedagogy consist in: her engagement with Jane Gallop, for example, deals superfically with Gallop's notion of "transference", leaving out her fascinating (if wildly utopian) arguments about how proper sexual harrassment has to be seen as a form of sex discrimination (otherwise it's just anti-sex), about the difficulty of assuming the intellect and sex are completely distinct and separate (especially for women's studies), about how she used sex to humanize people who intimidated her intellectually, and how there's a dialectic between feminists who stress women's vulnerability and those who stress liberation. Instead, Srinivasan assumes sex (reduced now to the act, instead of Gallop's more expansive eroticism) can only be only distraction from teaching, with instruction now transformed into a sombre professional, hierarchical activity with strict boundries that cannot admit transgressive play of any kind. Which is fine as policy defense, but in the midst of her other more expansive essays, falls somewhat limp and unsatisfying.
February 4, 2023
Oivallinen! Ihanaa lukea analyyttistä feminististä tekstiä someinfluenssereiden jo kaikkien tiedossa olevien pointtien toistelun sijaan. Akateemisuus näkyy, ja hyvä niin. Mitenkään vaikea teos ei mielestäni ole, mutta olen toki yliopistokoulutettu yhteiskuntatieteilijä ja jonkin sortin practising feminist eli feministisiä periaatteita elämässäni parhaani mukaan noudattava ja soveltava iniminen ja kulkija.
Srinivasan käsittelee minulle tuttuja feministisiä kysymyksiä mutta onnistuu tuomaan niihin uusia näkökulmia. Opin siis uutta ja koin ymmärryksen hetkiä.
Srinivasan tuo hienosti esille feminismin sisäisiä ongelmia ja osoittaa keskinäisen mittelön ongelmat olematta itse tuomitseva. Joku on Goodreads-arviossaan ollut harmissaan siitä, ettei Srinivasan tuomitse siteeraamiensa ajattelijoiden (muita kuin käsiteltävän asian kannalta ongelmallisia) ajatuksia, mutta minusta juuri se on virkistävää. Ja nyt tätä kirjoittaessani vasta tajuan, että Srinivasanin teos on vapaa niin sanotusta canceloinnistä. Se on ihanaa ja virkistävää.
Oma suosikkini oli ehkäpä yliopisto-opettajien ja -opiskelijoiden välisiä (seksi)suhteita käsittelevä essee, jonka äärellä sai tarkastella niin ajatuksiaan kuin tunteitaan (entisenä, nykyisenä, ainaisena?) opettajana ja opiskelijana.
Srinivasanin feminismi on intersektionaalista. Hänen ajattelunsa ponnistaa anglosaksisesta perinteestä: se edustaa etenkin aiheidensa puolesta osin leimallisen yhdysvaltalaista mutta myös minulle tutumpaa brittiläistä sorttia.
Haluaisin kovasti luetuttaa tämän itseään niin kovin edistyksellisinä pitävillä valkoisilla liberaalifeministeillä, jotka ovat heränneet lähinnä siihen, että heillä tai heidän lähipiirillään eivät asiat ehkä olekaan ihan niin täydellisesti kuin he ovat aiemmin erehtyneet luulemaan, mutta joilla on vielä pitkä matka rodullistettuja ja köyhiä (naisia) kohtaan tunnettuun ja harjoitettuun solidaarisuuteen.
Srinivasan käsittelee minulle tuttuja feministisiä kysymyksiä mutta onnistuu tuomaan niihin uusia näkökulmia. Opin siis uutta ja koin ymmärryksen hetkiä.
Srinivasan tuo hienosti esille feminismin sisäisiä ongelmia ja osoittaa keskinäisen mittelön ongelmat olematta itse tuomitseva. Joku on Goodreads-arviossaan ollut harmissaan siitä, ettei Srinivasan tuomitse siteeraamiensa ajattelijoiden (muita kuin käsiteltävän asian kannalta ongelmallisia) ajatuksia, mutta minusta juuri se on virkistävää. Ja nyt tätä kirjoittaessani vasta tajuan, että Srinivasanin teos on vapaa niin sanotusta canceloinnistä. Se on ihanaa ja virkistävää.
Oma suosikkini oli ehkäpä yliopisto-opettajien ja -opiskelijoiden välisiä (seksi)suhteita käsittelevä essee, jonka äärellä sai tarkastella niin ajatuksiaan kuin tunteitaan (entisenä, nykyisenä, ainaisena?) opettajana ja opiskelijana.
Srinivasanin feminismi on intersektionaalista. Hänen ajattelunsa ponnistaa anglosaksisesta perinteestä: se edustaa etenkin aiheidensa puolesta osin leimallisen yhdysvaltalaista mutta myös minulle tutumpaa brittiläistä sorttia.
Haluaisin kovasti luetuttaa tämän itseään niin kovin edistyksellisinä pitävillä valkoisilla liberaalifeministeillä, jotka ovat heränneet lähinnä siihen, että heillä tai heidän lähipiirillään eivät asiat ehkä olekaan ihan niin täydellisesti kuin he ovat aiemmin erehtyneet luulemaan, mutta joilla on vielä pitkä matka rodullistettuja ja köyhiä (naisia) kohtaan tunnettuun ja harjoitettuun solidaarisuuteen.
June 20, 2023
this is such a thoughtful, well-written and well-researched exploration of feminist issues that doesn’t shy away from problems with no easy solutions. if we’re going to have real conversations about these things, we need to get into thorny territory! a couple of quotes I like:
“It would be disingenuous to make nothing of the convergence, however unintentional, between sex positivity and liberalism in their shared reluctance to interrogate the formation of our desires.”
(chapter about student-professor relationships): “We can say that she is ‘really’ in love with what he represents, rather than the man himself. But who falls in love any other way?”
“Symbolism, of course, matters: patriarchy establishes itself at the level of words and signs, not just bodies. But the demands of the symbolic can stand in tension with those of the real women who must pay their bills, feed their children, and sometimes are assaulted by the men to whom they sell sex. When these women are assaulted, will they have any recourse—or will they be trapped in a closed space with a violent man, a quiet sacrifice in a war of symbols?”
“It would be disingenuous to make nothing of the convergence, however unintentional, between sex positivity and liberalism in their shared reluctance to interrogate the formation of our desires.”
(chapter about student-professor relationships): “We can say that she is ‘really’ in love with what he represents, rather than the man himself. But who falls in love any other way?”
“Symbolism, of course, matters: patriarchy establishes itself at the level of words and signs, not just bodies. But the demands of the symbolic can stand in tension with those of the real women who must pay their bills, feed their children, and sometimes are assaulted by the men to whom they sell sex. When these women are assaulted, will they have any recourse—or will they be trapped in a closed space with a violent man, a quiet sacrifice in a war of symbols?”
July 12, 2022
Definitely want the physical copy for my own book. I think this book was pretty good though I wish we had more of her opinion on things even if I may have ended up disagreeing with them. I don’t know if I agree with writing a book and claiming it’s not meant to sway or persuade anyone I just don’t trust that but maybe I don’t understand philosophy. I found that the book suffered from trying to copy too many topics with some essays feeling fleshed out and some feeling rushed like the last one, and CODA. Overall I have minor gripes with the writing style but found it a worthwhile read
April 5, 2023
No morjes, mikä teos! En tajunnutkaan, miten paljon oon kaivannut feminististä teoriaa. Tämä oli yleistajuinen mutta aivot ihanasti solmuun pistävä kirja, joka todella on ajassa kiinni. Jos kysymykset sukupuolten välisistä valtasuhteista, seksistä, rodusta ja sosialismista kiinnostaa, lue tämä. Jos ei kiinnosta, lue silti.
En uskalla antaa viittä tähteä, koska luulen että mun pitää lukea tää uudestaan ennen sitä.
En uskalla antaa viittä tähteä, koska luulen että mun pitää lukea tää uudestaan ennen sitä.
November 21, 2021
It's nice to read a brilliant theorist discuss issues of sex, consent, misogyny and I also love how some of the parts of the book are written in response to her critics. If I have a criticism and it's not a minor one, it is that the book feels too much like a series of articles with widely varying levels of quality.
September 30, 2024
Vynikajúci úvod a prehľad niektorých súčasných feministických tém a perspektív, citlivý, uvážlivý - skvelo a pútavo napísaný. Tých a 5 a pol eseje vám ubehne rýchlejšie, než by ste čakali.
PS: Oplatí sa čítať aj poznámky pod čiarou.
PS: Oplatí sa čítať aj poznámky pod čiarou.
August 2, 2021
will have many words later, but Wow!
October 31, 2021
The Right to Sex is a sharp, incisive book: it cuts to the heart of the matter. Its essays take apart feminist issues the same way you would take apart a device to try to understand it: you get rid of the outer casing, pry it open, and take in the many interconnected, minute pieces that make it work. And Srinivasan is so good at this--at zeroing in on the linchpin of the issues she is discussing, getting at their most fundamental or central aspects. The topics that these essays cover, too, are not straightforward or clear-cut: there is, of course, the question of whether anyone has a "right to sex," but there are also questions around pornography, teacher-student relationships, sex work, and consent. None of these topics are new to feminism, and indeed Srinivasan is not really interested in putting forth some kind of "new" argument about any of them. What she is interested in, however, is trying to grapple with the ambivalence that lies at the heart of all these topics--and it is this emphasis on ambivalence that I think truly distinguishes this book as a collection of critical essays.
Ambivalence, in The Right to Sex, is not about finding complication that is not there, but rather about the messiness that is inherent to any kind of intersectional approach to feminism. This isn't an easy approach to take with regards to issues like consent or pornography, either; fundamentally, it means highlighting the many ways in which a feminism that is a straightforward project of uniting "all women" is bound to fail. All of this is to say, Srinivasan may take apart these issues and their structural underpinnings as you would take apart a device, but she isn't interested in putting that "device" back together into a neat, discrete thing, so to speak. The exposed device is precisely the point: to open this thing, look at how it works, mess around with the things that make it work, and then leave it to its messiness. Srinivasan unravels the complications, yes, but she doesn't offer easy answers.
For me, The Right to Sex works as a book not just because it is compelling in its ideas, but also because it is remarkably lucid in its delivery of those ideas. Srinivasan renders complexity in a sparse, direct style that is still able to preserve the heft of that complexity, and that is all the more impressive for how accessible it is. What I always ask myself when I read a book like this is: did I come away learning something new after reading it, or did it make me think about something differently? And in the case of The Right to Sex, the answer is: absolutely.
Thanks so much to FSG for providing me with an audiobook of this via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review!
"The question, then, is how to dwell in the ambivalent place where we acknowledge that no one is obligated to desire anyone else, that no one has a right to be desired, but also that who is desired and who isn’t is a political question, a question usually answered by more general patterns of domination and exclusion."
Ambivalence, in The Right to Sex, is not about finding complication that is not there, but rather about the messiness that is inherent to any kind of intersectional approach to feminism. This isn't an easy approach to take with regards to issues like consent or pornography, either; fundamentally, it means highlighting the many ways in which a feminism that is a straightforward project of uniting "all women" is bound to fail. All of this is to say, Srinivasan may take apart these issues and their structural underpinnings as you would take apart a device, but she isn't interested in putting that "device" back together into a neat, discrete thing, so to speak. The exposed device is precisely the point: to open this thing, look at how it works, mess around with the things that make it work, and then leave it to its messiness. Srinivasan unravels the complications, yes, but she doesn't offer easy answers.
For me, The Right to Sex works as a book not just because it is compelling in its ideas, but also because it is remarkably lucid in its delivery of those ideas. Srinivasan renders complexity in a sparse, direct style that is still able to preserve the heft of that complexity, and that is all the more impressive for how accessible it is. What I always ask myself when I read a book like this is: did I come away learning something new after reading it, or did it make me think about something differently? And in the case of The Right to Sex, the answer is: absolutely.
Thanks so much to FSG for providing me with an audiobook of this via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review!
September 18, 2021
Mimoriadne smart + dobre píše.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,795 reviews