Philosophy Test 2

Front 1

Briefly describe the 3 main assumptions made about sexual orientation that Hopkinson calls into question.

Back 1

3 main assumptions behind norms of s.o.:
1.sexual orientation comes before sexual action. we know our sexual orientation before we experince it.

2. sexual orientations are permanent. Normal ppl are either gay or straight, they which one they were since they were kids and live that out for the rest of their lives.

3.sexual orientations follow strict gender lines.Norms of sexual orientation give a strong sense of a gender binary (woman and man only) and we can only prefer one of them. That is, if we follow a path toward one gender then we are working away from the other.

Hint 1

sexual orientation BEFORE action
non-dynamic
gender binary

Front 2

Which assumption of Hopkinson's does Hopkins consider most deeply, and how does he think we can best challenge it?

Back 2

Hopkins is taking up the 3rd assumption made by Hopkinson and challenges it.
Gender is important for self identities largely b/c gender norms go unnoticed- assumed immediately.

gendered performance of masculinity is behind homophobia. Men are required to to be masculine as best they can.

By altering the practices of masculinity, we can help resolve the problem of homophobia.

Hint 2

masculinity (gender line) and homophobia.

Front 3

Does Stein think empirical scientific research can help subvert heterosexist assumptions about sexual orientation? Why or why not?

Back 3

The arguments we normally use to protect queer orientations are:
1.protected group status: genetic basis for queerness. BUT genetic status doesn't always give protected group status (eg hair color)

2. determinism: our identities and actions are determined rather than chosen. If homosexuality is biological then queer orientations are not a choice. BUT there is still an element of choice involved , even though orientations aren't chosen, queer behaviours are.

3.Naturalness: if queer orientations exist in nature then a certain protection is going to be needed. BUT while queer orientations exist in non-humans, identities and relationships don't occur in nature.

4.pragmatic argument: regardless of genetics, in practice, something that is biological should perhaps deserve rights. Anti gay medical practices. If it turns out to be wrong then we have no other way of arguing it.

Hint 3

1. protected groups status
2. determinism
3.naturalness
4. pragmatic argument

Front 4

explain with particular reference to the slave analogy and the problem of cohabitation, why Card thinks that the queer community shouldn't fight for same sex marriage rights.

Back 4

Card considers the general question fo marriage for everyone from the perspective of same sex marriage. Even though laws against same sex marriage are wrong, she does not think that gays should fight for the right to get married given how problematic the institution of marriage is.

There are many problems with the institution of marriage including the strange incentives and benefits we have to get married, the cost and difficulty of divorce.

The slave analogy goes as follows: women were not allowed to own slaves in the past. If they they fought for this right it would have been morally reprehensible. Therefore, it does not advance the cause of justice on the whole. This relates to gays fighting for same sex marriage.

There is also the problem of cohabitation: your spouse has the legal right to access all of their possessions, and body. this makes married ppl vulnerable to very serious harms.

Front 5

How does Calhoun defend same sex marriage? explain her defense in light of her claim that "genuine equality for gays and lesbians requires more than merely coming to be tolerated."

Back 5

denying same same marriage rights is the same as denying them certain citizenship rights.

Front 6

Why does Collins think understanding the harms of heterosexism requires understanding gender, race and sexuality as overlapping aspects of our identities? What does it mean to say that racism and heterosexism mutually construct each other?

Back 6

We need to thik of our identities as overlapping aspects rather than separate. One aspect of our identity is related to ALL aspects of our identity.
The 3 major aspects are gender race and sexuality... there associated harms are overlapping as well, gender policing, racism and heterosexism respectively. Therefore, these harms mutually construct each other or make each other possible.

When we combine these aspects in a certain way we get a mythical norm and any variation of this is questionable. This creates an important distinction between normal and deviant.

Deviance connects blackness to queerness. within the context of blackness there has been an associated promiscuity or a deviancy caused by an excess of heterosexual desire. queer ppl are supposed to have an absence of heterosexual desire.
when a person is affected by more than one of these harms, they are being affected by a new type of harm.

we need to need to learn how to dismantle these mutually constructing systems of oppression in order to make all sexualities available to everyone. they need to be be worked against all at once, not separately.

Hint 6

normal vs deviant

Front 7

Explain using examples from Froyum how racial stigmatization can impact Black teens' sexuality. How do Froyum's findings confirm Collins' claims about connection between racism and heterosexism?

Back 7

These teens identify strictly and in more resticted ways because they have disadvantaged situations. They justify this by tying sexuality to gender and relating it to superior morality. That is they consider heterosexuality to be moral and legitimate and homosexuality to be the exact opposite.

Their race has undergone stigmatization, so they feel the need to protect themselves against further stigmatization. This is done by maintaining gender norms. Otherwise their peers will harass them. in fact, they can gain resources (power, normality, etc) by strongly identifying as heterosexual.

These findings connect racial oppression to other connected types of oppression. Particularly, to racial and gender oppressions.

Front 8

Describe May's 'group based' account of the harms of pornography. Explain, with reference to his pollution metaphor, how pornography impacts the interests and options of groups.

Back 8

May has a pollution metaphor when it comes to the harms of porn. he believes that porn is contributing to a certain type of environment or climate. That it can shape our sexual desires and, ultimately, change our actions.

it is really hard to prove that there is a correlation between action and porn but the change in attitude can be connected to porn on an individual level.

when conceptualizing harm we must consider the following: harm must be non-relativistic (it needs to apply to all ppl at all times) and interest related (it has to affect the person we are as a whole). A person is harmed when their interests are set back or options are restricted even if that person doesn't necessarily want to pursue that option.

He believes that group-based harm (as opposed to group harm ) is a better way of talking about gender groups; it's a type of harm that is based on group membership.

There is a group based harm to the status of women. They are portrayed in a non-power position while men are in a power position. this restricts our options and interests.

Front 9

Explain how Tisdale argues against anti-pornography analyses by emphasizing the options pornography can make available.

Back 9

Tisdale believes that porn can provide options rather than deny them.
1. it provides options for knowledge. she gains knowledge not only about sex but about self by experience various emotions while watching it.

2. options for working against shame. porn helps us put a face on our sexual desires and face them.

3. options for agency. By agency she means acting out in different ways, not just sexually. Gives her a liberty for breaking certain sorts of social rules.

Front 10

-What, according to Frye and Shafer, is the most significant harm of rape? Explain this threat with reference to their relevant claims about consent, personhood, and domain.

Back 10

They believe that there are many harms of rape, and sall of them are significant but the most significant one is disrespect.
in their article the term rape means sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman involved. Woman in this case, is the person in the submission position of the course of actions.

Consent in this context is a speech act. When you engage in a speech act you are permitting a new event to come into existence. Consent reverses the kind of presumptions we need to have in certain situations. There are certain conditions to consent: it must be revocable and it requires that others are prone to consider your wishes.

As persons, we all have domains. These are the physical (includes our bodies), emotional, and psychological spaces that our consent has some sort of control over.
The morally appropriate way to encounter other ppl's domains is with respect and consent. we can mistakenly impose on other ppl's domains but there are other types of encounters that are morally reprehensible.

if we neglect/ignore/deny ppl the control they have over particular domains (as ppl do when they rape someone), and disregard their consent as relevant then we have disrespected them.

To fail to defer to a person's consent is denying them their personhood or their personal identity which is the ultimate type of disrespect.

Hint 10

rape means what?
consent means what?

Front 11

- How can the merger of identity involved in a romantic relationship diminish the autonomy of one or both of its partners? Explain Friedman's understanding of the identity merger and describe five of the asymmetries she presents.

Back 11

autonomy is the capacity for self-governance. it's being able to recognize our possibilities, make decisions and act in accordance with this decisions. it is more than just taking responsibility for our actions. a social competency.

in the case of romantic mergers, the merging of two identities or the forming of a "we", personal autonomy is diminished more often than not.

she believes that there are 10 features of romantic mergers (that contain much overlap) that describe how it might be experienced and understood from the viewpoint of lovers themselves. There are also corresponding asymmetries to these mergers which explain how romantic mergers can diminish our personal autonomy:

for example
1. needs and interests: the well being of both lovers become intertwined. BUT the needs or interests of one partner might come to take precedence over the other's.

2.caring and protection:we tend to contribute to our lovers' well being and protect them when in danger. BUT one lover might be better at taking care of the other.

3. deep mutual familiarity: couples are often able to communicate with one another using insignificant verbal or bodily cues. BUT one partner might be better at reading the other so their concerns may take the backseat.

4. attention: one's attention to circumstances can become guided by their salience for the needs and interests of one's beloved. BUT the lover who is quicker to respond is more able to determine how they both grasp what is happening to them.

5. decision making: both lovers contributing to the final resolution. BUt one partner may be better at making decisions, and may therefore, become the more decisive partner in joint undertakings.

Front 12

- Explain how Nozick thinks that the desire to form a 'we' is intrinsic to the nature of love. Describe the characteristics of such a 'we.'

Back 12

Romantic love intends the formation of a 'we.' It is not really clear who is intending, if they know that they are intending in order to intend, etc

there are a number of characteritics about a we:
1.involves being tied up with the other person
2. pool autonomy and power over decisions
3. division of labour
5. we ourselves must be the ones who are loved
6. the object of desire has to be the person x with whom we are in love, we must love the whole person NOT just portions of them
7. we are loving that particular person as someone non-exchangeable with someone else.