Search results

Nicholas Vrousalis argues that exploitation is a form of domination, namely enrichment through the domination of others. This form of domination, being reducible to neither unfairness nor to defective consent, structurally pervades capitalist relations between consenting adults, as well as oppressive gender and race relations.

"An urgent exploration of men's entitlement and how it serves to police and punish women, from the acclaimed author of Down Girl, which Rebecca Traister called "jaw-droppingly brilliant." In this bold and stylish critique, Cornell philosopher Kate Manne offers a radical new framework for understanding misogyny. Ranging widely across the culture, from the Kavanaugh hearings and "Cat Person" to Harvey Weinstein and Elizabeth Warren, Manne shows how privileged men's sense of entitlement--to sex, yes, but more insidiously to admiration, medical care, bodily autonomy, knowledge, and power--is a pervasive social problem with often devastating consequences. In clear, lucid prose, she argues that male entitlement can explain a wide array of phenomena, from mansplaining and the undertreatment of women's pain to mass shootings by incels and the seemingly intractable notion that women are "unelectable." Moreover, Manne implicates each of us in toxic masculinity: It's not just a product of a few bad actors; it's something we all perpetuate, conditioned as we are by the social and cultural currents of our time. The only way to combat it, she says, is to expose the flaws in our default modes of thought, while enabling women to take up space, say their piece, and muster resistance to the entitled attitudes of the men around them. With wit and intellectual fierceness, Manne sheds new light on gender and power and offers a vision of a world in which women are just as entitled as men to our collective care and concern"--

THE FIGHT FOR THE SOCIAL EQUALITY OF WOMEN HAS BECOME A MASS STRUGGLE; AND IT DEEPLY INVOLVES THE WORKING CLASS, SINCE ALL THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF SEXUAL INEQUALITY PILE UP ON THE SHOULDERS OF WORKING WOMEN. THIS DEMAND SHOULD BE INTEGRAL TO WORKING-CLASS STRUGGLE TO CHANGE SOCIETY.

"Proponents of human exceptionalism claim that only humans possess certain morally significant capacities, and as a result are entitled to be treated better than members of all other species. In the last fifty years, scientists have discovered how these capacities are shared by other species, which only raises the questions of how and why we evade responsibility for inhumane behavior, not only to animals but to one another. To answer these questions, independent scholar Peter Marsh examines in depth three different ideologies: ethnonationalist supremacism (the Holocaust in Hungary), racial supremacism (the rule of King Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo), and gender-based supremacism (men's treatment of women in Victorian and Edwardian England). He shows how supremacists applied mechanisms of moral disengagement to legitimize and evade personal responsibility for oppressing and exploiting members of a less-powerful group. Marsh then considers whether these different types of supremacism have common features and compares them to the way we treat animals to examine whether that, too, causes unjustified harm to members of a weaker group and is wrong in the same way racism, sexism, and other supremacist ideologies are. Finally, he asks what we can do to overcome human supremacism and other supremacist ideologies, providing practical examples of cross-cultural collaboration, humane education, veganism, and extending concepts of identity beyond borders of culture, race, and nation"--

The paper starts with a number of propositions outlining what feminism means for the purposes of my argument, and goes on to give a brief account of what I mean by the ideology of individualism. The body of the paper is devoted to a detailed discussion of one text, Judith Grant's Fundamental Feminism, as an exemplary instance of a widespread problem within academic feminism—the deletion of the problematic of male domination. Grant identifies 'Woman', 'experience' and 'personal politics' as the 'core concepts' of feminism, and suggests 'gender' as the solution to the problems entailed by those concepts. I argue that, while these concepts undoubtedly appear throughout feminist writings, any inadequacies in the ways they have been used can be rectified by situating them within the context of the social relations of male supremacy. I also argue that 'gender' is worse than useless for feminist purposes because it is incoherent and because it obliterates the social problem of male domination.

"Only sissies and women sew": an introduction -- Needlework and the creation of masculinities: "the prick" of patriarchy -- "Killing the angel in the house": Victorian manliness, domestic handicrafts and homosexual panic -- "The mesh canvas": amateur needlecrafts, masculinity and modernism -- Masculinity and "the politics of cloth": from the "bad boys" of postmodern art to the "the boys that sew club" of the new millennium -- Conclusion: "Men who embroider.