What is Love
At one point (around page 38), Jenkins discusses the significance of the word 'slut.' What point does she try to make when discussing this word?
"But learning the word 'slut' at an early age will influence our perception of women for the rest of our lives" (38.) Jenkins suggests that the words we use shape our understanding and interpretations of our world; "transmitting and reinforcing cultural values."
Nussbaum states her position in the following way:
"I shall argue that in many if not all cases, the difference between an objectionable and a benign use of objectification will be made by the overall context of the human relationship in question." (271) Provide an example of the kind of context she has in mind. -interview example
On p. 119, Jenkins raises a 'conceptual question.' What is this question, and how does she answer it?
"If the role of romantic love defines what romantic love is at the social level, then shouldn't any change to the role mean that romantic love gets destroyed and replaced with something else? How can romantic love be one thing over time if it is under constant construction and reconstruction?" We can make small changes to our construct of love, in which case love is evolving rather than being replaced. (ie. someone's new haircut does not change who they are - it's still Jim)
On p. 256, Nussbaum provides a partial answer to this question: what is objectification? What is her answer?
"One is treating as an object what is really not an object, what is, in fact, a human being." "I suggest that at least the following seven notions are involved in that idea."
On p. 275, Nussbaum asks "Why is Lawrentian objectification benign?" What does this question mean, and what is her answer to it?
"Where there is loss of autonomy in sex, the context is, or at least can be, one in which, on the whole, autonomy is respected and promoted; the success of the sexual relationship can have..." It was equal in symmetry in this example.
5) Jenkins argues that love has a dual nature. What does she mean by this? Explain some of the details of her dual nature of love.
"love is like an actor playing a character: there's the social role, and then there's the biological machinery playing the role" (101). Social is more malleable.
Jenkins discusses a common 'playground rhyme.' What is this rhyme, and what conclusions does she draw from her discussion of it?
----- and ------ sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage. She suggests that it engrains the idea of romantic love in children's head; marriage for reproduction, hetero, two people, and physical affection. Created nuclear family units and are locked down by 'social and legal benefits.' It shows how we have built social constructs and what the expectation (construct) is - almost cyclic.
Interpret the following proposal and then explain May and Strikwerda's response to it:"Our view, that violence of both sorts is increased in likelihood by patterns of male socialization which then creates collective male responsibility, may be countered by pointing out that socialization patterns are created by both men and women, thereby seemingly implicating both men and women in collective responsibility for rape and war." (142)
5 categories of responsibility for men: 1. Perpetrators of rape/rapists 2. Socialize other people into thinking rape is okay (collaborators) 3. Potential rapists: never committed an act of sexual violence but would do it if they could without inhibitions. 4. Could have acted to prevent rape but didn't/bystander 5. Benefit from the existence of rape (being able to walk alone at night, not worrying about their drinks) Men get the status of being protectors.
Jenkins explains a number of Helen Fisher's findings about the biology of love. What are some of the most important elements of Fisher's biological theory of love? Which elements of Fisher's theory does Jenkins reject? Why does Jenkins reject them?
After conducting an fMRI study, Fischer found that individuals' rewards systems were lit up in association with being in love and that specifically, dopamine is released. As a result, Fischer believes that love is a human drive like food or water. "All the basic drives are associated with elevated levels of dopamine." Fischer believes the three elements of this are lust (testosterone), romantic love (dopamine), and attachment (oxytocin and vasopressin). According to Fischer, stable/calm love doesn't count as romantic love which Jenkins disputes; "not all relationships have to begin with passion and fireworks..." Jenkins disagreed with: Love is driven by evolution - pair bonding. Evolution; women needed men to carry their baby for them all the time
What is endonormativity? What does Jenkins conclude about amatonormativity?
Amatonormativity "says that romantic love is the normal or ideal condition for a human life, so lives that don't include it are imperfect or abnormal" (65.) Jenkins condemns this; "This is a horrible - and untrue- thing to say. Many well-adjusted, happy, productive and socially valuable people and single and haven't been in love" (650).
When discussing the distinction between ethical and unethical objectification, Marino says that it is "the background context that is most important, since it is crucial to ensuring that consent is possible and genuine" (p 23). What does she mean by this, and what kind of background context does she have in mind?
Background context: poverty, porn/workers, social and political (social equals and consent)
What does it mean to suggest that rapists are "victims of biology" (138)? How do May and Strikwerda respond to this proposal?
Biological drive which they don't have control over. Evolved from uncivilized creatures (men who are 'sexually violent' would have more offspring - spread as a male trait through to present time). An adaptive response to biological differences between men and women. "boys will be boys"
What is a 'rape myth' and what role does Pineau think they play in perpetuating date rape?
Date rape seems to be understood by men's natural sexual aggression and women's sexual reluctance. The myths are popular and emerge in arguments of judges and policeman to not prosecute. "She asked for it" is the most common rape myth. I think then people see others getting away with it and feel they can too (because the reality, is they probably can because of these myths and how they are used in the legal system).
Jenkins identify some "tricky issues" (32) that arise when we try to take a purely biological approach to love. What are these issues?
First, "current scientific research on romantic love relies heavily on self-reporting: when selecting study participants who are "in love." Therefore, it can be inaccurate. Second, if we say that love is solely biological than we suggest creatures without our identical makeup, cannot love (rules out artificial intelligence love too.) Creates theoretical constraints (34.) We lose societal element (then it can't change)
On p. 81, Jenkins considers three different ways that we might understand love as both biological and social. However, she argues against all three of these approaches. What are these three approaches, and why does she reject them?
First: love is a natural phenomenon (biological) or can be localized to specific cultural contexts - she argues we want to say it's equally both but when it comes down to proving it, we can never go all the way through with it. Second: love is a social construction prompted by biology. The biology of love is downgraded to a historical precursor. Third: love is both - contradiction.
Frye says that "sex-marking and sex-announcing are equally compulsory for males and females; but that is as far as equality goes in this matter" (849). What does she mean by this?
I think Frye is suggesting that, yes there are expectations for how a man and woman should be, but that the inequality for woman continues from there. Men are given the power to construct these expectations. Addressing men is done in a way of respect whereas with women there is inferiority.
Jenkins spends a considerable amount of Chapter Two (40) discussing what it would mean (and what it would not mean) if love was a social construct. In your own words, explain what it would mean for love to be a social construct.
I think love being a social construct would mean that the love as we know it in our culture, is created by us (to make it what we want it to be.) I would maybe compare this to how we hear of how in the past, boys would pick up girls and they would share milkshakes etc. whereas now hookup culture is prevalent, and a lot of popular shows capture that. Jenkins conclusions: "many social constructs are real, and some of them are really awful. If romantic love is indeed a social construct, that doesn't mean that it isn't serious business of that it isn't seriously messed up" (50).
As a partial response to Nussbaum's position, Marino claims that "contexts of intimacy, symmetry, and mutuality can make instrumental use more morally troubling rather than less" (p. 9). Why does she think this, and what kinds of examples does she use?
Intimacy may make instrumentalization 'murkier' (easier to consent to a stranger than to a partner). Typist example
Pineau identifies a common belief in "the especially insistent nature of male sexuality" (413) as playing a large role in the perpetuation of rape myths. What are the details of this rationale, and how does it promote rape myths?
It justifies sexual violence and excuse perpetrators.
Jenkins identifies a problem with the way the 'philosophical canon' related to love has been understood. What is this problem?
Its sole focus is on merit rather than status, class, gender, race or anything else - the oppression of women and their ideas in philosophy. 68 "the philosophy of love is done about women rather than by them."
Jenkins spends a significant amount of time describing Bertrand Russell's philosophy of love. What are some of the elements of Russell's work that she admires? What are some parts of it that she finds concerning?
Jenkins admires how ahead of the time Russel was in his book Marriage and Morals, as he "utterly rejected the idea that sex was shameful, sinful or dirty" (56). He thought we should be "less prudish about" porn, wanted men to make sex more enjoyable for women, campaigned for homosexuality and denounced the disrespect sex workers receive. He also stressed the importance of sex education and contraception's. Jenkins is concerned with Russell's philosophy of men wanting control over as many women as possible for reproductive power, whereas women have learned to just accept this inferiority due to society. Jenkins states that, "philosophizing about what women - or, for that matter, men - want in the absence of empirical data is a risk business" (63.) She later says, "What if there is no single model of what women (or men) want? What if some of us "naturally" want monogamy and others don't?" (63). Jenkins is also concerned with the union view that Russell hints to support. He suggests we cannot meet our best or feel happy (harmful to society) without having experienced equal sexual love.
On p. 3, Jenkins states that we face a "stark choice" between two different ways of understanding romantic love. What are these two different ways of seeing romantic love? Do you think one of these explanations is more plausible than the other? Why?
Jenkins discusses how some suggest love is biological while others see it as being social/cultural. Jenkins argues that a philosophical theory could incorporate both - I would agree that this would most plausible because I think it really is a mix of the two. We have innate drives but also have become impacted by social constructs by media, religion, education systems, etc.
On p. 168, Jenkins investigates the problems with the concept of everyone having 'one true love.' What problems does she identify with this concept?
Problems 1. High and rising divorce rates 2. The idea that we will eventually lose sexual romantic interest (169). 3. Ignores the dual nature of love: the biology and social role (mismatch) (170) - biology machinery (cannot maintain that) and the main social assumption: it will last forever
In the Prologue of her book, Jenkins tells us some facts about herself and explains how these facts motivated her to write this book. Describe some of these facts and explain why she was motivated to write about the nature of romantic love.
Jenkins opens her book with, "I am a philosopher. I am also a human being." She then goes onto share how she has both a husband and a boyfriend - and how she finds both truthful and untruthful ways to make this work. She states that she really does love them both, but that social constructs suggest romantic love must be monogamy (unlike biology). This then pushed Jenkins to explore her relationships and feelings of love, but also 'what love could be.'
When discussing the medicalization of love, Jenkins considers two questions: If possible, would it be good for us try to 'cure' love? 2) If possible, would it ever be a good idea to induce love? How does she answer these questions?
Jenkins suggests that looking for a cure to love is an indication that "something has gone wrong with your conceptions of love - and your worldview" (156). She suggests curing this may not be a bad idea because 'love' can cause some to overlook partners flaws and endure years of abuse - but then you are not curing love but what someone may wrongly perceive as love. Negatives of cures (ie queers) on page 159. She suggests we should approach this with consideration of all aspects, we can change the nature and definitely the social script. Changing the biological role is a possibility and these ethical questions are things we will have to pay extra attention to.
Jenkins extensively discusses the "romantic mystique" (7). What is this phenomenon, and what does she think 'props it up?'
Jenkins uses the 'feminine mystique' coined by Betty Friedan, to create a similar idea about love; "the romantic mystique." Jenkins suggests that we see love as being mysterious and accepting it, without understanding. It "celebrates ignorance and acquiescence" (8.) She thinks it has been 'propped up' is because people are too afraid to dig deeper - they fear it will affect their own love lives. She also believes it's a fear of losing faith or becoming cynical about love. Overthinking is a "powerful motivator."
In Chapter 6, Jenkins identifies a number of things that she thinks needs to change about our society's conception of romantic love. What does she think needs to change?
Love associated with marriage and kids Autonormativity Gender roles Monamgamy
Jenkins claims that the goal of understanding love is "not simply a question for intellectual satisfaction, like solving a crossword" (6). Why does she think that understanding love philosophically is practically important?
Love is much more than crossword puzzles (fun and figuring out) but because it's important to know that we are making good decisions in our lives.
May and Strikwerda claim that "rape is not best understood in individualistic terms" (137). What do they mean by this, and how do they support it?
Men contribute in various ways to rape; male bonding and socialization in groups contributes to the prevalence of rape. Men in groups seem much more likely to encourage each other into these crimes. Perpetrators are not the only ones who are responsible. (in particular, the individuals who contribute in a group to push an individual to---)
May and Strikwerda consider the following objection to their view. Read the objection, and then explain their response to it:
Nearly all men fit at least conditions 3 and 5. Clouded perception?
What is "sex-marking behavior" (846) and what role does it play in Frye's analysis of sexism?
One example of 'sex marking behavior' is someone addressing a man but not the woman with them or addressing a woman with their given name vs the male with his surname. These behaviors feed into society's differing constructs of men vs women, therefore building onto the sexism. Reflect on your own behaviors.
Frye begins with a potential definition of sexism, but she then provides some reasons to reject it. What is this definition, and what are the problems with it?
Sex is relevant (not meaning it isn't sexist) - have a larger perspective Frye defines sexism as being "not always apparent to those who are" effected or inflict it onto others. The usage of the term 'sexist' alongside 'gender and sex' are contributing to the problem of categorizing or targeting (sexism). "sexism is primarily in the framework, not in the particular act" (846).
At the end of the paper, Frye provides us with a new definition of sexism. What is it, and what does it mean? What acts count as sexist under this definition?
Sexism: "cultural and economic structures which create and enforce the elaborate and rigid patterns of sex-marking and sex-announcing which divide the species...": It reconstructs our own selves (we lose our individuality). 'youre screwed if you go the non binary route to not fit constructs and you are also screwed if you go female"
Marino defines the "standard view" towards sexual objectification on page 2. What is this standard view?
Sexual objectification is okay when intimate, symmetrical and mutual.
What is the difference between weak and strong instrumental use, and what philosophical role does this distinction play in Marino's account of the ethics of sexual objectification?
Strong: wrong regardless Weak: asking a partner to do something you know they don't necessarily want to do (so symmetry and no mutuality). "For neither kind of instrumental use is intimacy, symmetry and mutuality is..."
Jenkins proposes a 'dual-nature' account of "what belongs to the biology of love and what belongs to its social script" (116). Summarize her findings.
The social role is to take attraction and output a nuclear family unit (we see this with the oppressiveness queer partners face). The attraction we have is due to our biological. Biological drives the social; "only with an understanding of love's biology...love as natural, objective and unchanging" (120/121) - importance of both aspects. "only biology is biology" - don't refer to things as social when they're biological - 'boys will be boys'
Frye notes that "the intense demand for marking and for asserting what sex each person is adds up to a strenuous requirement that there be two distinct and sharply dimorphic sexes" (847). What is the problem Frye is identifying?
Those outside the categories / constructed a black and white world / not a scientific reality Frye identifies the issue that not everyone fits in these two categories (ie. Transgender, bodies are all different, varying interests and manners etc). It is confining. biological spectrum
1) Pineau identifies a principle that she thinks will help us "construct a more rational and more plausible norm of sexual conduct" (416). What is this principle?
Throughout it, it is your duty to ensure that an encounter is mutually enjoyable and to check on them throughout; do you want to continue? It gives us an obligation to promote sexual ends of your partner. Communitive sexuality which combines appropriate knowledge and respect for their desires. Accomplished two things: locates guilt of date rapists in failure of communication and makes it more positive for both sides. Obligation: to know.
Beginning around p. 174, Jenkins starts providing her account of how we should think about romantic love. In your own words, explain Jenkins' perspective regarding how we should view romantic love.
We should view romantic love as something that is more malleable, and we can have more than one - we have started to see this with a shift in wedding vows ('for as long as our love lasts') and more temporary marriages. "Polyamory...paternity control through the sexual restriction of women and...one's private property" (175.)
On page 18, Marino asks the following question: "when, if ever, is it appropriate to sexually instrumentally use people in other ways?" What is her answer to this question? How does she support this answer?
Whenever they consent to, ask for or want to be used in this way - whenever, that is, autonomy is not being violated (it is not about intimacy, symmetry or mutuality). Two examples: wearing a certain outfit intending to pleasure those who see them / posting pictures
Nussbaum says that seven notions are involved in the idea of treating someone as an object. What are these 7 notions? Be able to offer examples that show the differences between them.
· Instrumentality: The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes // using partner as a pillow. · Denial of autonomy: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in autonomy and self-determination. // deny that they can make their own decisions · Inertness: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity // animal crossing (cold shoulder/ignore) · Fungibility: The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type, and/or (b) with objects of other types. // replaceable (chalk) - porn · Violability: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary- integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into. · Ownership: The objectifier treats the object as something that is owned by another, can be bought or sold, etc. / exchanged for money · Denial of subjectivity: The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
