I'd argue that the use of the word "sex" to label both the deleterious role of patriarchy-informed genital/cranial exploitation and manipulation, and the activity between loving, consensual adults, is unhelpful.
My background is in domestic violence and coercive control, and my reference is to the work of Canadian and Australian¹ thinkers who regard "sex" as the positive, healthy expression of physical intimacy between caring adults.
For crimes of violence, such as rape, they use the term "sexualised," arguing that using genitals to commit acts of violence does not constitute "sex," but rather a gross and extreme perversion of the mutually-healthy activity described above.
A significant factor in all this is the place of neurology. The manipulation begins in our brain, and from there extends to our genitals. Without that initial manipulation can the rest follow?
Thank you for this excellent article. Gives me lots to think about. I was a 16-year old Catholic high-school student run by an incredible group of very liberal Immaculate Heart nuns when I attended a talk by a visiting speaker - none other than Gloria Steinem. I credit these women and the times we lived in with our development as strong, intelligent and very independent women. In hindsight, however, I have always felt that the drive to empower women did just that, but it left out men, and it should not have. The fact is that we need each other, and we need each other to be at our best and at our fullest.
One piece of trans ideology that I will never understand is the pressure put on the wives of suddenly demanding, crossdressing men whose secrets got discovered or he revealed. Anyone else remember the Oprah shows with those couples on, the man in a wig explaining to this always receptive host that he's going to wait patiently while his wife "adjusts?" The seamy side that Oprah never brought up is the pornography, the kink and the role play expectations of the wife, as part of this "now female" husband's "embodiment goals." Let me put this another way; I was sexually harassed by my then husband's therapist in 1995. She told me what I needed to do in bed, what I need to watch with him and, in her words, "spice up your sex life" in order to "keep your family together." I said no. The words she then used to describe me, to my face, were "spunky yet traditional." Trans widows who "tried it out" for a time have much more to get over after leaving this untenable marriage. Some were unwittingly lured into dangerous rough sex.
I know, I'm part of a support group with women all over the world who refuse to say "she/her" about the ex husband in our own recovery therapy. The last therapist I rejected in the initial phone call said, "Oh yes, that's standard now." when I asked about the expectations regarding how I discuss recovering from my former husband's (and his therapists') gaslighting. I have a fantasy of seeing these "sexologists" on the stand in testimony before Congress regarding their sexual harassment of the wives in service of their lucrative trade. I pick Rep. Nancy Mace for this investigation.
The oppressive 'gender roles' that are imposed and ENFORCED so forcefully from the minute we are born and the mindset that it is INEVITABLE that one group has to be on 'top', keeps us all in this terrible struggle for domination: men over women, one class or religion or ethnicity or country over another....the brutality and destruction goes on and on. It is NOT INEVITABLE!!!
As far as I know, no one articulated and fought for deep, revolutionary change to all of this more eloquently and courageously than Andrea Dworkin.
Macmillan/Picador is reprinting (3) of her books in February, 2025 - people are finding their way back to her. She is compassionate, brilliant and INSPIRES us to think and ACT!!
"Instead of accepting that men must aggressively seek dominance in competition with other men and should always seek control over women. . ."
The need to compete with other men has nothing to do with always seeking control over women, unless the men are specifically competing with other men for the prize of who controls women the most. Competition is not toxic masculinity. It can be an important and effective motivator.
"We can’t opt out of being male in a male-dominant world," so opting out of competition is futile.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dr Jensen's assessment of the sex "industry's" harm toward women, children, men and poisoning the relationship between them all. But my position doesn't originate in prior-held ideological positions such as the concept of patriarchy, it is simply consequentialist - these things clearly result in harm, so I'm opposed to them.
The demand that people accept a binding ideological framework to explain social dynamics also results is them demanding very narrow solutions to whatever problems result. And this is the part where things go wrong because you can't right young men onto a better path by haranguing them. The RadFem approach to fixing young men isn't working - it is only pushing them into the Tate's and co. You cannot change men by labelling them eternally "bad" anymore than you can get Americans to vote Democrat by keeping eternally calling them racist and stupid.
The final conclusion is positively comical in its lack of self-awareness: it asks men to stop seeing Radical Feminism as an enemy - but makes no demand of the other side to stop seeing men as such. IE it demands men cease treating women's advancement as zero-sum, but does not make the reciprocal demand.
Please avoid using the term "radfem". That is a modern version, actually a reversal, of the original and best ideas of the second-wave women's movement. It indicates that you don't know much about actual radical feminism other than what's been presented to you by postmodernist popular culture. Patriarchy is not a concept, it's a reality. Because you don't want to see it, it doesn't mean it's not there. And it harms women, children and men, and I think that was Robert Jensen's point. There are women, as well as men, who uphold the "values' of patriarchy, so no one needs to blame just men or all men for the state of things. But it is a problem adults are to blame for, like it or not, and it's a tradition of values and behavior that has been forced onto society generation after generation.
I really a[[reciate Jensen's work. it looks through fads and stays trained on the essntials of power.
I'd argue that the use of the word "sex" to label both the deleterious role of patriarchy-informed genital/cranial exploitation and manipulation, and the activity between loving, consensual adults, is unhelpful.
My background is in domestic violence and coercive control, and my reference is to the work of Canadian and Australian¹ thinkers who regard "sex" as the positive, healthy expression of physical intimacy between caring adults.
For crimes of violence, such as rape, they use the term "sexualised," arguing that using genitals to commit acts of violence does not constitute "sex," but rather a gross and extreme perversion of the mutually-healthy activity described above.
A significant factor in all this is the place of neurology. The manipulation begins in our brain, and from there extends to our genitals. Without that initial manipulation can the rest follow?
Late note:
¹ To my huge embarrassment, I can't remember the relevant names ...
Thanks for never giving up Robert .
Great article. I'd sort of vaguely come across Robert Jensen - will now look him up for further reading.
Thank you Julie, a great read and good to know that good men can grasp the messages of radical feminism.
Thank you for this excellent article. Gives me lots to think about. I was a 16-year old Catholic high-school student run by an incredible group of very liberal Immaculate Heart nuns when I attended a talk by a visiting speaker - none other than Gloria Steinem. I credit these women and the times we lived in with our development as strong, intelligent and very independent women. In hindsight, however, I have always felt that the drive to empower women did just that, but it left out men, and it should not have. The fact is that we need each other, and we need each other to be at our best and at our fullest.
One piece of trans ideology that I will never understand is the pressure put on the wives of suddenly demanding, crossdressing men whose secrets got discovered or he revealed. Anyone else remember the Oprah shows with those couples on, the man in a wig explaining to this always receptive host that he's going to wait patiently while his wife "adjusts?" The seamy side that Oprah never brought up is the pornography, the kink and the role play expectations of the wife, as part of this "now female" husband's "embodiment goals." Let me put this another way; I was sexually harassed by my then husband's therapist in 1995. She told me what I needed to do in bed, what I need to watch with him and, in her words, "spice up your sex life" in order to "keep your family together." I said no. The words she then used to describe me, to my face, were "spunky yet traditional." Trans widows who "tried it out" for a time have much more to get over after leaving this untenable marriage. Some were unwittingly lured into dangerous rough sex.
I know, I'm part of a support group with women all over the world who refuse to say "she/her" about the ex husband in our own recovery therapy. The last therapist I rejected in the initial phone call said, "Oh yes, that's standard now." when I asked about the expectations regarding how I discuss recovering from my former husband's (and his therapists') gaslighting. I have a fantasy of seeing these "sexologists" on the stand in testimony before Congress regarding their sexual harassment of the wives in service of their lucrative trade. I pick Rep. Nancy Mace for this investigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLhxvxm-a7o&t=7s
Wonderful to read this: YES!
The oppressive 'gender roles' that are imposed and ENFORCED so forcefully from the minute we are born and the mindset that it is INEVITABLE that one group has to be on 'top', keeps us all in this terrible struggle for domination: men over women, one class or religion or ethnicity or country over another....the brutality and destruction goes on and on. It is NOT INEVITABLE!!!
As far as I know, no one articulated and fought for deep, revolutionary change to all of this more eloquently and courageously than Andrea Dworkin.
Macmillan/Picador is reprinting (3) of her books in February, 2025 - people are finding their way back to her. She is compassionate, brilliant and INSPIRES us to think and ACT!!
https://jaxsplace.substack.com/p/women-hating-back-in-print
"Instead of accepting that men must aggressively seek dominance in competition with other men and should always seek control over women. . ."
The need to compete with other men has nothing to do with always seeking control over women, unless the men are specifically competing with other men for the prize of who controls women the most. Competition is not toxic masculinity. It can be an important and effective motivator.
"We can’t opt out of being male in a male-dominant world," so opting out of competition is futile.
Thank you.
Do you have proposals to right the wrongs you see ?
I wholeheartedly agree with Dr Jensen's assessment of the sex "industry's" harm toward women, children, men and poisoning the relationship between them all. But my position doesn't originate in prior-held ideological positions such as the concept of patriarchy, it is simply consequentialist - these things clearly result in harm, so I'm opposed to them.
The demand that people accept a binding ideological framework to explain social dynamics also results is them demanding very narrow solutions to whatever problems result. And this is the part where things go wrong because you can't right young men onto a better path by haranguing them. The RadFem approach to fixing young men isn't working - it is only pushing them into the Tate's and co. You cannot change men by labelling them eternally "bad" anymore than you can get Americans to vote Democrat by keeping eternally calling them racist and stupid.
The final conclusion is positively comical in its lack of self-awareness: it asks men to stop seeing Radical Feminism as an enemy - but makes no demand of the other side to stop seeing men as such. IE it demands men cease treating women's advancement as zero-sum, but does not make the reciprocal demand.
Please avoid using the term "radfem". That is a modern version, actually a reversal, of the original and best ideas of the second-wave women's movement. It indicates that you don't know much about actual radical feminism other than what's been presented to you by postmodernist popular culture. Patriarchy is not a concept, it's a reality. Because you don't want to see it, it doesn't mean it's not there. And it harms women, children and men, and I think that was Robert Jensen's point. There are women, as well as men, who uphold the "values' of patriarchy, so no one needs to blame just men or all men for the state of things. But it is a problem adults are to blame for, like it or not, and it's a tradition of values and behavior that has been forced onto society generation after generation.