Laura Kipnis on Lockdowns, #MeToo, and Sexual Paranoia on Campus
The essayist and cultural critic talked about her new book Love in the Time of Contagion, at a live event in New York City.
HD DownloadDuring the heyday of the sexual revolution "it was the right that was ranting against licentiousness," notes Laura Kipnis. "Now it's the right that are the swingers. They're out there with their pool boys and their threesomes, and it's the left [who practice] H.R. sexuality under the auspices of human resources departments."
Kipnis is a professor emerita of film and journalism at Northwestern University and the author of the new book Love in the Time of Contagion: A Diagnosis, which explores the effects of COVID-19 on intimate relationships and the ever-changing battlefields in culture wars over sex, gender, and desire.
Nick Gillespie interviewed Kipnis for Reason at a live event held on Monday, March 7, 2022, at New York's Caveat theater. They discussed how lockdowns supercharged the #MeToo movement and intensified existing generational resentments among boomers, Gen Xers, millennials, and Gen Zers. They also talked about the ridiculous disciplinary hearing Kipnis went through after graduate students at Northwestern filed a Title IX complaint charging they felt unsafe after she published an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education about "sexual paranoia" on campuses (an experience she wrote about in 2017's Unwanted Advances).
Edited by Adam Czarnecki.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And during the height of the liberal revolution (aka, the 1960s) it was the right ranting about people not conforming to social norms and defying ideological doctrine. Now the right has to champion free speech and individual choice, while the left acts as the scolding establishment, demanding that people follow their vision of proper behavior.
Perhaps when all generations reach middle age they can't help turning authoritarian. Only the flavor of the preferred doctrine changes.
Don’t mistake the right’s desire to have their side’s speech be unfettered, even when spreading lies on privately-owned social media sites, as defense of free speech in general.
And the right is not uniformly a champion of individual choice, either, when it comes to things like having an abortion, “gender reassignment” surgery, or using drugs.
Come on, stop ignoring the question on Abortion. The opposition has always been clear on the reasoning behind their objections. It's not about choice. It's about murder. Whether or not you agree with their assessment, pretending that it's about choice is avoiding the unwinnable real argument by pretending that you've already won.
Mike Liarson is inherently dishonest.
And not very bright.
And a poor sense of humor.
So probably a leftist. Or maybe autistic.
Hates babies anyway.
[BECOME A MEMBER] I make over $200-$300 an hour for online work. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining I easily made $30k with no online jobs knowledge. rty Just try it out on the attached page.
...
More details....... http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/
For early abortions, it isn’t about murder. It’s about not recognizing that other people don’t belong to your religion, don’t believe as you do that a soul enters the human body at conception, and not recognizing others’ religious freedom.
Concern for murder also conveniently figleafs misogyny and a desire to punish others for making what you consider poor life choices (i.e. straight-up psychological conservatism, unease with perceived ickiness of those unlike yourself).
Add biology as another subject Mike doesn't understand.
Mike's pretending most abortion happens 24 hours in when you're a zygote rather than 9 weeks in when you're an fetus with nerves, blood, bones, organs, eyes, a brain, skin and a beating heart.
Dishonest as fuck, but that's Mike.
None of which could survive outside a womb for a few seconds. And 4-8 weeks tends to be about as soon as someone finds out they’re pregnant. So, as much as I hate to agree with Mike, I think the pro-lifers are the dishonest agents on this specific angle of the abortion debate.
I’m wholly sympathetic to getting public money out of funding abortions. Late term abortions are depressing and weird (though statistically rare and often illegal), and I have to agree some lefty arguments for “pro-choice” drift into the creepy and eugenic.
But if we’re going to use government force to coerce women into being incubators, the legal bar for granting a fetus full legal rights should be set a little higher than “it looks vaguely human at this point in gestation, and there are some moving bits”.
“Pain” seems to me to be a virtually immeasurable standard. Basic biological Viability as a living individual seems more a workable baseline.
Definitely a leftist.
Right, sure. No possibility I’m a libertarian hanging out at a libertarian website.
No. No possibility you're even remotely a libertarian.
a desire to punish others for making what you consider poor life choices
ding ding ding
Among the non-religious set who oppose abortion, that comes across a lot. Having an abortion is "escaping personal responsibility", and the child should be a daily reminder to the woman of what a horrible terrible slut she was.
And, as I’ve talked about many times here, few who have no hesitation stepping into a woman’s life and telling her she has to have a baby show any interest in making sure that baby’s life goes well after being born.
Seeing taking responsibility for your actions as a punishment is the attitude of a child, not an adult.
It’s not seeing it as a “punishment”. It’s seeing it as vindictiveness on the part of conservatives interfering in womens’ lives.
I would refer you to the Hippocratic Oath
I swear by Apollo Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses,
...
I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.
...
Yep, those ancient Greeks were really hardcore Christians, swearing to Apollo like that. The idea that a fetus is a living person is older than Christianity itself.
They believe that a fetus is a human being. Present a counterargument that it isn't instead of pretending that it's an argument about religion.
Again, stop ignoring the question.
I have seen this Hippocratic Oath talking point before. It banned one specific way of administering an abortion (a pessary). Abortions were common in the ancient world.
I forgot, was it Clinton or Obama or Biden who removed marijuana from Schedule 1?
The republican Joe biden passed the early 90s drug bills.
Nah, it has nothing about age, its political... its a reverse southern strategy - social stigma edition. The right you refer to all went to the democratic party. We all know freedom loving free speechers will always by in the democrat party right? So this is the only explanation - they've moved to the Dems where they can exert their freedom killing tendencies because the Dems have all the power.
I guess that means all those lefties have to start voting R now.
The mythology of the US during the 1960s makes much of the non-conformism, but one suspects that this in-group was as conservative in its own way as any other. This is born out from hanging out with some of the geezers and the now self-important biddies. They certainly have tried to influence how the post-industrial world views them, and have moved into spheres of influence and power to consolidate any changes they thought were important. Never trust a hippy.
I happened to catch Supertramps Logical Song on the radio today.
"Watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, LIBERAL, oh fanatical, criminal
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, oh presentable, a vegetable"
The script may have flipped, but it hasn't really changed has it.
the right has to champion free speech
There is a difference between "free speech" and "consequence-free speech". The right likes to champion the latter far more than the former.
A sex article without ENB? Was there a coup at Reason?
resentments among [...]Gen Xers [...]
WHO?!!
During the heyday of the sexual revolution "it was the right that was ranting against licentiousness," notes Laura Kipnis. "Now it's the right that are the swingers. They're out there with their pool boys and their threesomes, and it's the left [who practice] H.R. sexuality under the auspices of human resources departments."
Someone's paying attention.
She only made one minor mistake... the left had the Andrea Dworkin wing of feminism that essentially became the modern left. So the left was always a little iffy on the 'sex' front, depending on whom you talked to.
We Never Have Sex Anymore