The Reading Lists

Want to know what books I like? You can read an interview with me by Phil Treagus of The Reading Lists blog here. His questions were fascinating to think about and very hard to answer!

Against Marriage on BMJ blog

Richard Smith writes in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) blog that he is persuaded by the arguments of Against Marriage. You can read the full article here.

“Chambers is against marriage on the grounds of equality and liberty. Women are not equal with men within marriage, and the state by attaching a bundle of rights and duties to marriage creates a hierarchy of relationships with marriage at the top, making unmarried couples and single people inferior. Much of the population, including my wife and I, thinks that “common law wives” have similar rights to married women, but in fact they have none. By bundling rights and duties together, marriage (and civil partnerships) restrict autonomy; if they weren’t bundled people might choose different combinations of rights and duties.

“There is a need, Chambers accepted, for the law to regulate relationships, particularly to protect the vulnerable, but neither marriage nor civil partnership, which all the speakers criticised as being “one size fits all,” need to be that mechanism. She pointed out that parenthood might be a better basis for regulation than marriage, not least because parent-child relationships are more durable than couple relationships. Tatchell advocates a model whereby people would select “any significant other” (perhaps a best friend, sibling, or lover) and then choose among a menu of rights and duties. Such an arrangement would lead to greater equality and autonomy. All three speakers agreed that something along those lines would be better than either marriage or civil partnerships.

“And at dinner afterwards, my wife and I, despite being married for 40 years, agreed.”

 

The Politics of Marriage at LSE Forum

Marriage is an odd mix of sex, religion, and politics. Our speakers ask what marriage is and whether there is there any distinctive moral value in it. Should the state promote it? Is it possible to have an ‘equal’ marriage, or is marriage fundamentally an oppressive institution? Should marriage be rejected in favour of civil partnerships, or something else, or perhaps nothing else?

You can watch a video of the event and listen to the podcast here.

Speakers
Clare Chambers
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Cambridge

Sir Paul Coleridge
Former high court judge and Chairman, The Marriage Foundation

Peter Tatchell
Activist and Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation

Chair

Sarah Fine

Fellow, The Forum
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, King’s College London

Broadly at Vice.Com

photoI provided comment and analysis for an article on the sharing economy by Sirin Kale at Broadly, titled “ ‘There was a Stranger in My Own House’: Is the Sharing Economy Safe for Women?”. You can read the article here.

Women and minorities appear more likely to experience violence and discrimination on platforms like Uber and Airbnb. How did the gig economy go so wrong?

Philosophers on same-sex marriage at Daily Nous

header-w-sub-daily-nousI am one of a panel of philosophers discussing the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage at the Daily Nous blog. You can read it here.

On Friday, June 26th, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the recognition and provision of same-sex marriage. It requires each of the 50 states in the US to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples seeking them, and to recognize legitimate same-sex marriages  performed in other jurisdictions. … The decision is a landmark in the development of the rights and liberties of gay and lesbian people in the US, and is not without its controversy, of course. Many questions have arisen about the reasoning of the majority and that of the dissenting justices, as well as the significance of the decision. To get clearer on some of these issues, [Daily Nous] asked several philosophers to contribute some brief remarks on the ruling. They are: Elizabeth Brake (Arizona State), Cheshire Calhoun (Arizona State), Clare Chambers (Cambridge), John Corvino (Wayne State), Brook Sadler (South Florida), Edward Stein(Cardozo), and Kevin Vallier (Bowling Green). 

Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference (2006)

The Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference was held at the Centre for the Study of Social Justice (CSSJ), University of Oxford, in 2006. You can hear the podcasts of the day here, with thanks to the CSSJ for allowing them to be posted.

Session 1:

Sheila Jeffreys, “Not just about pornography: the radical politics of Andrea Dworkin”
Alison Assiter, “Pornography: its significance for feminism”

Session 2:

Finn McKay, “Prostitution and Andrea Dworkin’s relevance to young feminists”
Valerie Bryson, “Andrea Dworkin, feminist political thought, and the role of men”

Session 3:

Michael Moorcock, “Andrea Dworkin’s fiction”
Julie Bindel, “Myths about Andrea Dworkin”
John Stoltenberg, “What Andrea knew about her work”

Plenary session:

Professor Catharine A. MacKinnon, “Going Her Own Way”

 

Fabiana

Fabian_Society_Logo_CMYKMy work was cited in Fabiana, the magazine of the Fabian Society Women’s Network, issue 2 p. 7 (Winter 2012). Print and on-line, on-line available here.

Philosophy Bites

mza_7220911957896699341.600x600-75My Philosophy Bites podcast on “Liberalism and Intervention”, an interview with Nigel Warburton produced by David Edmonds, is part of the special series “Multiculturalism Bites”, available here.