正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Murphy's Law Rewind: #Cyclones won: Period. Ward Opts-Out: Perplexing. Pop-Tarts Marketing: Brilliant.
20,063 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)
8 条评论

Cyclone Jim Carrey1 年前
Solid coverage, @MurphyKeith.

GroverISU1 年前
For all the talk about bowl game opt out this makes it pretty clear.

Cameron🌪️ Panile1 年前
This was great Keith

Pam Beasly1 年前
This was perfect. 🤩

James Benjamin1 年前
Well said Murph. Thank you.

Rhonda Rathje1 年前
It made me go buy some pop tarts!

Alex Robert Grunhovd1 年前
Well said, as always Keith.

Keith Murphy1 年前
🙏🏻
相关视频
1:33
Sensitive content
Andrea Dworkin appeared in a May 21, 1988 episode of the British late-night talk show ‘After Dark’ titled “What Is Sex For?,” featuring others like Anthony Burgess, Jim Haynes, Julia Ronder, Jack Dominian, and Roz Kaveney. While Dworkin brought up pornography being a multibillion-dollar industry that exploits women and girls, Jim Haynes, who co-launched the counterculture sex newspaper ‘Suck’ in 1969, philosophized about sexual value judgments around pornography. Ironically, even though Burgess won a “Sexist Pig of the Year” award in 1980 from the Female Publishers of Great Britain, he was the least dickish toward Dworkin, and he was relatively thoughtful and receptive toward her ideas. The most tiresome was Dominian. A moment from that episode that I really love is when Dominian, a psychiatrist and lay Roman Catholic theologian (what a combination that is), replied to Dworkin saying that her “thesis is absolutely psychologically unsound.” To which she replied: “I hope so because my respect for psychology is not very great.” Dworkin explained that psychology has functioned in conditioning women to submit to their subordination, so “psychologically unsound” actually sounds fine to her. There are some clips of Dworkin’s responses in that episode on YouTube, which are great to watch. Fortunately, I think feminist uploaders, like “feminist vhs archive,” mostly cut out the men. Such are the small mercies. - - - - - - - - - - DWORKIN: What I have done has been to say: Here is an area of human experience that everyone presumes to know and understand. And, if we women want equality, we have to face the fact that movement after movement of egalitarian agitation has been pushed back and suppressed. Now, why? Yes, let’s look at the politics of economics, but let’s also look at the politics of sexuality. And, in particular, it seems to me that you sort of need to answer this question, at least for me: Why is it that law mandates intercourse as an act for women exactly through the period when women are chattel to men? I think that we have to deal with the fact that intercourse has, is, and has become—and has been—one of the main expressions of the ways in which men own women. And if what we want is more sexual equality, then we have to deal with what intercourse does to us. DOMINIAN: I think your thesis is absolutely psychologically unsound. DWORKIN: I hope so because my respect for psychology is not very great, because of the impact of psychology exactly on trying to deal with questions of women’s inferiority and with psychology’s role in trying to reconcile women to accepting a subordinate status in society. So, I hope that it is not part of it.
Donovan Cleckley
53,930 次观看 • 5 个月前
