#952 Gwendolyn Dolske: Existentialism, Feminism, and Simone de Beauvoir

00:00 Ricardo Lopes: Hello, everyone. Welcome to a new episode of the Center. I'm your host as always Ricardo Lobs. And today I'm joined by Doctor Gwendolyn Dals. She is Professor of Philosophy at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and host of the Goodies in the Details podcast. And today we're talking about existentialism, feminism, the philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir and other related topics. So, Doctor Toski, welcome to the show. It's a huge pleasure to have you

00:29 Gwendolyn Dolske: everyone. Thank you for having me.

00:32 Ricardo Lopes: So let me just start by asking you sort of a more general question. So you're a philosopher and people who are not philosophers themselves or might not think that philosophy? Is that interesting of a subject? What would you tell them when it comes to the role that philosophy plays in your own personal life? And it, and that it can also play in people's lives more generally.

01:04 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yeah, I think i it, it's a good question to start out. A lot of times when I say I study philosophy or I teach philosophy, there will be some random person who say, oh philosophy, there's like no right answer and then I have to stop and say OK, let's examine that claim. Let's do philosophy here. If there is no right answer, then you're presupposing a definition of right in order for you to make that claim. So if there is no right answer, then that claim could not possibly be right. So that's what philosophy does philosophy examines the ideas that underscore our view of the world, our assumptions about the world. Philosophy is ultimately a wonderment. How does this work? How, how does that work? I also talk about it in terms of problem solving, but it's a unique type of problem solving. So for example, I have my phone here. If we were to say, does this phone exist? It would be a very short conversation. Um If we were in person, we could use the five senses, you can hear it, I guess, smell it, see it all the five senses to establish that this is here. Now, if I want to ask the question, what is justice that requires a different set of thinking skills? We do not have the five senses to come to a conclusion because it doesn't occupy space. So I say philosophy is problem solving for things that don't occupy space. Like what is justice? What is beauty? What is goodness? Um What does it mean to be virtuous, to be a good person? What is good character? And so those are the types of things that philosophy deals with. And when we have an understanding of that like justice or rightness or wrongness that underscores the way we can address things in our everyday lives, how we teach our Children, for instance, you know, do not steal. I mean, why, why not really like philosophy can answer the question of where do we get these ideas? But the same thing with our own judicial system in a court of law, it's important to be able to establish the distinction between rightness and wrongness before law can even be established.

03:15 Ricardo Lopes: So uh I'm a big fan of your podcast. Goodies in the details. I've listened to a lot of uh its episodes. I mean, not all of them, of course, but lots of them. And uh I would like to ask you what goals did you have in mind when you started your podcast? I mean, did you have specific goals in mind and why do you explore the kinds of topics you explore there and try to expose them to a more to a wider audience?

03:48 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yeah, I mean, it started out really as a hunch. So in teaching philosophy, I have a lot of students who come through for General General Ed, meaning that the university requires them no matter what your major is to take a few subjects outside of your major. The overwhelming majority of my students in my philosophy classes are in that camp where they're majoring in something like engineering or literature, but they have to squeeze in an extra class. So I would have these wonderful conversations with my students at the end of the semester long after the semester, I'd get these emails saying they saw this movie that reminded me, that reminded them of something from our class. Just there was a lot of joy in being introduced to the subject. And so I had a hunch of why do we need to gate keep gatekeep this behind the university walls. This should be available for everyone. Now, it was just a hunch to go ahead and tackle these philosophical issues that we do on goodies in the details. But shortly in it caught on to a broad audience, which is what I wanted. But I didn't, I didn't really expect that. And so the success of the podcast has been very exciting where we have academics from different areas. We have people from medicine to comedy and entertainment, come on and we want to get to the ideas that underscore their work and the purpose of the show. I think first of all, it's personal enjoyment. I can't, I can't get around that if someone would be like, why do you do this? I'm like, because it makes me happy. It's just an absolute delight to be able to tap into some of the best talent and have an hour of their time to discuss their work. But the other thing that Rudy, my co-host Rudy Salo and I, we genuinely believe that one of the pillars to happiness and to enjoying one's life is intellectual growth, that foundation of curiosity. And so a lot of times when people talk about happiness and this is 100% correct. We talk about the physical like move, take a walk, we talk about the spiritual, which appeals to a lot, a lot of people. Um WE talk about emotional things and relationships. All of those are part and parcel of a good life in addition to curiosity and intellectual development. Another thing that we really want to have is our goal is that when somebody listens to the episode that they learn something that they didn't know, they didn't know. And we always say that that's in the spirit of Socrates. One of the greatest lessons I think that we learn from Socrates is this idea that when you dialogue with others, when you have this mission for self improvement, that it requires engagement with others and not just a retreat from the world, but the more you learn, then the more humble you become not arrogant, arrogance comes from when you think you know everything humility and curiosity and joy come from learning more and then knowing that there's more to learn. And so that's what Rudy and I are doing for ourselves. And we want the audience to be on that journey with us.

07:03 Ricardo Lopes: Great. So, I mean, the questions I'm going to ask you are most of them. At least you explore in your podcast. And a, as a philosopher, of course, there are an immense amount of topics that you could be interested in. But uh I noticed that you are particularly interested in existentialism and more specifically the philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir. So what got you interested in existentialism? And then her specifically,

07:37 Gwendolyn Dolske: I, I think I was in graduate school and I was assigned something by the philosopher Kirkegaard. I think it was either or and after coming from a tradition of analytic philosophy, um I, I was stunned when I was reading care, I was that I didn't know that this type of thinking existed. Now. One of the things that I've loved that ever since I was a child is that I am a bookworm. I am constantly reading fiction. It is how I unwind the way people do. Netflix Binges for instance, is what I'll do with like mystery genres. Um I'm completely in love with them. So I had always separated that love for fiction from my enjoyment of philosophy. I loved the analytic tradition of thinking about what is justice or how do you put together, um you know, arguments and how do you dismantle arguments? It's a different type of thinking. It's more of like a mathematical type thinking. Whereas fiction was for my imagination and joy. When I came across Kirkegaard, it was the first time that I saw you could do both. Uh I think my daughter is gonna come in the books that you could actually do both. And um what I was gonna say before I, before I take off, um is that with Kirkegaard, the way in which he approached philosophy was, he saw the analytic tradition and he was saying, we still need to know what it means to be human. That philosophy is avoiding the most interesting question. He said, subjectivity is the case in point. It doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It's that the most unique and interesting thing about our existence is not discovering absolutes, but it's an understanding our unique position and the way in which we experience the world. And he used pseudonyms and a bit of fiction in order to come across in order to make that point. And then I started to study that tradition and I fell in love with Simone de Boire. So then what got me into Simone de Bois? I remember it specifically. Now people, some people might not know this people outside of academia. But um philosophy is a male dominated field. I never even read any women philosophy. It wasn't until I was in my first year of my master's program that I asked a professor, what um are there any female philosophers like I didn't even know that if they existed or not. And so he gave me a little book by um Hannah and that was my first introduction to being like, oh women philosophers do exist. Then fast forward about another year. It was a summer holiday, a summer break and I decided to sit down and read the work of Simon de be before. I thought, who is this woman? So I did it on my own. Never from a class or anything like that. And the first thing I picked up was her fiction. All Men are Mortal. And I remember being at a cafe and getting that and I didn't, I didn't move. I was just so stunned and so intrigued by this novel that then I had to read everything else by her. And I think that what it wasn't just that she was a woman philosopher. It wasn't just that she was an existentialist. I think the fact that she was also in literature and writing fiction in order to be philosophical was what really interested me.

11:04 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm. No, I, I have to tell you that I'm also very much into existentialism and Simone de Beauvoir specifically is probably in the top three of my favorite philosophers. I mean, number one is diogenes, number two is Nietzsche. And then probably Simone de Beauvoir. I, I mean, Nietzsche, it, it's not because he's a man, of course, because it doesn't matter to me at all if someone is a man or a woman philosopher. But uh I just like him a little bit better than the bavois perhaps because he was very influential for uh French existentialists. But a anyway, uh I, I th those are my preferences and the respect of bois very, very, very much. And, uh talking about that, well, you're also interested in feminism. Where would you place the, the bois in the history of feminism? I mean, how important would you say she is in that history? And in what ways do you think feminism would intersect with existentialism?

12:12 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yeah, I think she is, she's extremely, extremely important. Um, I would say one of the first works of feminist writing in philosophy. Um It might go back to a thinker by the name of Mary Wilson Craft. And I always tell my students, I say you may not have heard of Mary Wilson Craft, but you've definitely heard of her daughter. So Mary Wilson Craft was writing in the late 17 hundreds. And it makes sense that in the West, we, you had this upheaval of the American revolution, the French revolution, there was this upheaval in the west of we can govern ourselves. And Mary Wilson craft was very much situated in that time frame and writing that women ought to have the right to education. And in order for her to even make the point that women should be able to be educated, she had to backtrack about a lot of assumptions about women based on the body into which they were born, namely this idea that for a woman to be virtuous or good meant that she was obedient. And Mary Wilson Craft was saying, but that's not what virtue is virtue, by definition is using reason to make ethical decisions. If you deprive a woman of education, you're depriving her of reason. Therefore, you're depriving her of the possibility of being virtuous. So Mary Wilson craft really laid out this argument of the problems of presupposing what a person is capable of based on the body in which they were born. And she did that using virtue theory. 200 years later, you have Simone de Bois and Simon Bear is in that same vein. But she's really picking apart this idea of existentialism that in, in existentialism, she is rejecting the idea of order. She's rejecting the idea that there is human nature. She is um an advocate for freedom that we always have choice, but something that she was able to accomplish that her male counterparts, people like. So people like Kamu were not able to accomplish is that she really um drove home the importance of being in a body. And the history of philosophy with male thinkers have not had taken for granted the the body. And it took somebody who was kind of on the outside of the tradition like Simone de Boire to be like, no, wait, I have to interact in a world. I can't, I'm not just a mind, I'm not just a floating thought bubble that is being rational. I have to interact in a world that is hostile to me that is telling me what I can and cannot do that has created a bunch of rules for way I'm supposed to behave. So women would have this extra existential trek if you will, that they're not just thrown into existence, but they're thrown into a world that is not structured for them. And so in order for them to be successful, they have these extra hurdles that is extremely important. The Simone de Bobois prioritized the way in which we are in a body. AND that is how our freedom is engaged with that extra caveat. And the reason why bobois is so important is because you can even look at the trajectory of feminist thought where it still has that same principle of let's have um a conversation, an authentic conversation about what it is like to be born in a body and that that body is interacting or being commented on treated legally, socially, economically different. And that opened up the doors for a lot of work, especially for women of color who have said, wait, the way that the world treats us is different from, let's say a white woman. But we're able to kind of have conversations and understand that reality, I think because Beauvoir was putting into the ethos if you will, that it is relevant, that it is relevant. We can't just talk about, oh, you know, you are free to make decisions to do whatever you want. No, that we kind of find out who we are in situation and some situations are more complex or cause more of an obstacle than other situations. So as a woman, for instance, in my little girl, I have different um obstacles in the world than Amanda. And this um can be like just in terms of the way that I'm treated, let's say, historically, the way that women are treated economically in athletics, in medicine. And that's something to take into account when we're figuring out our existence. So I think Simone de bois and feminism are, they're very, very relevant. They're very, they're very important. And I love how Simone De Boar puts existentialism as the lens for feminism where she's still highlighting the importance of subjectivity and the way in which, um, the uniqueness of our existence. And if, if, is it OK, if I give an example, because there's a novella by far that I'm in love with and it's, that drives home this point to me. Now, this is a novella called The Woman Destroyed. And when I first read it, when I was in graduate school, it didn't really resonate with me. Um, I loved all men are mortal. I loved the Mandarins. And then of course, her philosophical pieces like the second sex and, um, the ethics of ambiguity. But later I reread The Woman Destroyed. And I thought, hm, it gave me pause. Now I'm 46 20 years away, over 20 years from the first time I read it and I read it over and over again, for one of the classes that I teach. And without exception, every time I read it, I have to sit down and be alone with myself because I am just astonished at what she accomplished in this novella and why I didn't get it when I was in my twenties. And at the time that Beauvoir published this, she was, she was older. And so she's writing um in a diary format, the trajectory of the demise of a woman who this woman, Monique is writing a diary about how her life is falling apart. Her kids are grown and her husband is moving on with the mistress and she doesn't know what to do. And so this question of destroyed is so important because you have to ask yourself what is being destroyed? Is it the version of herself or is she destroyed? And the reason why it always resonates with me now is because there's such a difference between being a feminist in your twenties to being a feminist in your forties. When you're a feminist in your twenties, you're rejecting this idea that you're only good for X, that you're only good for reproduction. For instance, you're only good as a wife and a mother in your forties. You're rejecting the idea that you're not good at all because you're past the the baby making point. So the feminist in her forties is has a different calling being like I still matter. I still exist. Whereas in your twenties. You're like, I don't just exist for you in your forties, fifties, sixties, you're arguing that you still matter because everything is placed on that baby making era. The goodness of women and the tragedy of the woman destroyed is that Monique bought into the idea that that was her value and she's finding out that it's not and everybody's moving on. Her kids are moving on. Her husband is moving on. And I think it's such an important lesson because it is this idea of accepting that there is truth in our choices. But also trying to sit back and wonder what choice was mine. Am I just living according to what other people decided was of value for me. How do we find out what is valuable? And then also we have that opportunity to grow and change just because you thought something was really cool in your twenties, doesn't mean it still has to be cool in your forties. You can, you can do whatever you want. You can train to run a marathon, you can redefine yourself. You can say, you know what I'm gonna learn how to cook. I've never cooked before. You can say I'm gonna learn Sanskrit. I don't know like there are all of these possibilities and what it means to be human. And the scary part in the novella, The woman destroyed is how often we ignore all of the possibilities and potential for our life. We're not just a thing. We're not just a role and that is an existentialist and a feminist position. And also keeping in mind that Simone Bobo was born, I wanna say it was like 1908, 1906 or 1908. That her love of literature and philosophy, she didn't have a huge catalog of women to read. So what she did is she starts to introduce different female characters who have different points of view. Whereas before her, a lot of female characters, when they were introduced, the fact that they were women was the character that that's it. But what Simone Du Boi in her, in her novels and novellas is giving different, different character traits to different women. And she's doing that and pioneering that there wasn't that much to go on with writers before her. There's a few but not that many.

21:56 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm. You know, one thing that I find really interesting about all of this is the ways in which, uh feminism might intersect with the existentialism, existentialism in its more individualistic aspects. Because when it comes to the feminist side of things, it seems to me that there are these sort of common experiences that someone who identifies, uh, within the social category of women, uh, tend to experience collectively. But also, uh, there are individual traits that different women have and that's where each of them might develop differently, even though they might share a common experiences, socially, politically, et cetera.

22:47 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yeah. Well, I mean, in the United States there's definitely, um, I wanna figure out how to say this. There's, uh, I'll just give the example of white women and black women, American women. Um, THERE'S a really different experience of the world and something that a lot of black women writers and thinkers have tried to and I think successfully, I don't want to say just tried but to really, um flesh out that distinction, that importance and that it's not, you know, it's not nothing, it's, it's treated differently. You know, women are treated differently economically in interpersonal relationships. And so I think that what existentialism allows us to do is to step away from categorizing and really respecting and honoring that there are um different uh different things in life where there's different rules. There's a lot of rules that people are supposed to be following that are simply the creation of man, you know, and it, it can change. But I think that existentialism gives us that space to appreciate and acknowledge that when somebody is saying this is my experience of the world to take that seriously.

24:07 Ricardo Lopes: What does it mean to not really being born a woman but becoming a woman? What does that

24:15 Gwendolyn Dolske: mean? It is, you know, I, I'm wondering if anybody really did that before her. And it's so funny today that this book when she wrote that is 80 years ago and today in the United States, there's a lot of tension over this idea of what do you mean, what is a woman like, kind of mocking this idea when it comes to um issues with um transgender, transgender people. And I'm thinking before I raised this 80 years ago and it's what she is talking about. I'm afraid I'm gonna, I'm gonna like Buzzfeed this make it too small. But it is so interesting that the idea of what it means to be a woman cannot just be reduced to physicality. It is something or biology. It is a cultural thing. And I know today there's a lot of resistance to that because of the issues of transgender. Um But I mean, all you have to do is go around the world and see what it means to be a woman. You can see that there are different expectations, there are all these cultural things that are embedded. Um And if we say that like, like today, if you were to say, well, what is a man? And you were to describe a man as like with short hair and wears pants. That's absurd. I can show you a picture of people throughout history of men who are definitely men, but that is not the costume they were wearing at the time. So what she is saying is that to be a woman is not the same thing as female, which is an idea of the biology. But the woman is a type of what Judith Butler would call a type of performance or presentation. Um It's abiding by a lot of rules. This is really important. I'm trying to collect my thoughts on this because this actually reminds me of what Mary Woolton Craft couple 100 years later was trying to say, is that trying to make a person fit into what you think is natural, is problematic. And that's what Boudoir is also tackling is that women are reduced to nature, They're naturally X or they're naturally Y. And it's incredibly problematic because there's no evidence as to what the nature of a woman is. So if somebody wants to um say, well, women are naturally, you know, mothers or instinctual or they naturally want to have Children or they should have Children because that is natural. And you notice that that always goes for women. We don't talk about men naturally that way. In the same way, men, naturally, we say like, oh they're, they're rational. They naturally want to go and create and build. But women are supposed to be making babies because they have that capacity. So this is one of the problems with it. And this is definitely me being influenced by Simon de bei is that because you have the biological capacity for something, it doesn't follow that you should do that. We're putting that burden on women, you have the biological capacity for lots of things. The human brain, for instance, has the biological capacity to know several different languages would we tell men you should or you, you ought to know six different languages fluently because it's naturally you're capable of doing that. Therefore, you're wrong and not doing it. Or here's another thing, the human body is capable of long distance movement. That's one of the distinguishing traits of Homo SAPIEN. How many marathons have you done? It's natural. You should do that. No, it's, but we're so comfortable saying that because women have this biological capacity that then they should do it. But we don't do that burden in any other way. We, you know, the reason why I don't do marathons because I don't want to. But that is not how I want to spend my life. I can't imagine if somebody were to be like, but you should be, you ought to, it's moral for you to do it because it's natural. No. So why would we do that when it comes to Children? And we don't do that for men. Men are the causal factors for pregnancy. We don't say like, oh, you were supposed to be doing that. We never reduce men to their biological capacity in the way in which we do that to women. So that's where I think um this idea of becoming a woman is really saying you're culturally ascribing to all of the do s and don't of that society in that given time frame.

29:00 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, I, I mean, I guess that if we would uh equate uh good with what is natural, then we would get into very muddy waters because it's also natural for women to very frequently die when giving birth. It's also natural for infants to die during birth. It's also natural for people to die at 35 or 40 years old. So,

29:28 Gwendolyn Dolske: well, what you put there, that's, that's the other very interesting thing to me is this assumption that nature or natural is goodness because though all of human history, what we have done is try to interrupt nature. That's what technology is. That's what medicine is. So we don't look at um a hurricane and be like, that's natural is good. Don't do anything or we don't look at cancer and be like it's natural. Everything that we do is to interrupt the natural course of thing. I mean, even us having this conversation, it's not natural for the internet like doing this. So I don't know why there is there is that presupposition built in there in terms of natural, that is never really addressed or explained because in other areas of our life, we don't really put it up here. We're trying to do everything to not be natural and Yeah. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Spot on.

30:25 Ricardo Lopes: And what does it mean to live uh particularly from an existentialist perspective, authentically, what does it mean to be authentic

30:34 Gwendolyn Dolske: from an existential point of view? Authenticity? And I like the word authenticity as opposed to rightness or wrongness. Um WHAT it means to be human. So it's kind of tricky because the existential have to come up with a definition at the same time saying that they want to avoid definitions and absolutes. So they came up with something that can encompass all humans. There is the fact of your existence, namely when you were born, the body in which you were born into your first language, geography, economic bracket. Like there are all these facts of your existence, your nationality. And that's part of what it means to be human, that you have these facts. Then there's also the reality of being human is transcendence, which means that you're not just the physical facts of your existence, you can do more. What it means to live authentically is to accept these two parts of your existence. So for example, if I were to say that, oh, I can't study philosophy, I'm just a woman because it's a male dominated field that would be bad faith that wouldn't be authentic. I would be denying something that I really enjoy. The transcendence is that it is possible for me to study more and to do more to not just be in this state of knowledge, but to do more. That would mean being being authentic, would be understanding that I really love philosophy and to pursue it more, it would be bad faith to say I'm just a woman that means I'm forgetting the transcendence part of my existence. And just relying on the facts of my existence. It would also be inauthentic for me to say, you know what I can be in the W NBA, the women's national basketball association. I'm 53 and I'm terrible at sports. That would be me saying like, yeah, I can do it. That would be me being like all transcendence and not facts of my existence. So to be authentic is to be in accepting of those two parts of what it means to be human. Don't say that you can't just do something because of, you know, the just, just because of the the age and the time in which you were born, um have some kind of love and appreciation for the time in which you were born, the body into which you were born, but never use that as a limit to the things that we're capable of doing, creating, projecting ourselves. She Beauvoir wrote about that action is project. We are literally projecting ourselves onto the world when you create something, when I do the podcast, when I do good is in the details. I'm projecting myself. I'm doing the project, putting my stamp on something new in the world as are you by doing this? So those are the types of things that it we want to take into consideration. What does it mean to be authentic? Am I just living according to a cultural norm to that, that I didn't create, that I didn't invent um and to find happiness in that way, like again, that was Monique's downfall in the woman destroyed, she just subscribed to cultural norms and that was it. Um SO authentic is when you can have that space and think about um what it is that you enjoy. What do you want to think about? Um Are you saying that you like something, you're doing something just because somebody else said for you to do it? That's what it means to be authentic, I think.

34:03 Ricardo Lopes: And apart from being, from being authentic, what does it mean to lead a good life, how do we determine what a good life is? I mean, is that something that I can do individually for myself or do I have to follow a specific steps to find that out?

34:23 Gwendolyn Dolske: I think this is something where I'll get into, um the philosophy because the philosophy of Kamu really, really stood out to me. I also fell in love with his work. Um One of his, you know, famous works in terms of fiction is, um is the stranger. It's like it's a staple that's read in high school. I have to tell you, I fell in love with Kim's work when it came to the novella, um the fall. And it's another one of those books that I've read over and over again. And I always have to sit with myself afterwards. And also the Myth of Sisyphus. I'm gonna yield to Kamu here where he is talking about living, living well or enjoying your life requires letting go of this idea of order in the world. He talks about the absurdity of existence, not as a negative thing, but he says you have to breathe with the absurd and it can strike anybody at a street corner. And that for me was a really beautiful and interesting um view of existence. If we are trapped in this idea of order, this is the way things should be. We are going to suffer a lot because the reality of things is that, that's not the way life goes. Like if somebody passes away at a young age and we say, or they shouldn't have or it's not supposed to be that way. While the death is tragic. Obviously, if you are trapped in this idea of, that's the way that wasn't supposed to happen, you're gonna have a bigger existential hurdle than if you accept that the world is a contradiction has absurdities. And then when you breathe with it, you're able to have more freedom and more happiness. And at the end of the myth of Sisyphus, something that really caught me. I had to sit and like, think what the hell is Kamu talking about. But for any of your, for any of your listeners, the myth of Sisyphus is the ancient Greek myth where Sisyphus is condemned for all eternity to push a boulder up a hill. Only for when he gets up, it falls down and then he has to go and push it back up for all eternity, pushing this boulder up the hill. And Kamu challenges us to think about our own boulders if you will. And Kamu also says at the end of the myth of Sisyphus, after this analysis of it, we must imagine Sisyphus happy. And I am telling you, I don't, I didn't see how, how and when it dawned on me, the one thing that Sisyphus is in control of is the way in which he views that situation, the gods were gonna punish him by giving him something that they thought would be miserable. But, but Sisyphus is still in charge of the way in which he thinks he goes down that hill the way he pushes it up, he still has control and freedom in those moments. And that's what it means. I think for authentic living to enjoy your life, you cannot be condemned. You have to allow that space that you have the freedom to interpret whatever situation you are in. You don't have to take somebody's harsh words, for instance, as a declaration of who you are, you can say that person's crazy and toxic and I'm going to withdraw all my energy instead of focusing in on what somebody else wants to tell you when somebody else wants to tell you what your value is or what you're supposed to do, you can exit that and think differently of it and think differently about what your potential or possibility is what you want to do with your time. So, I think, uh, excuse me, I think that living well and good is to, um, be engaged in the way in which you're participating in the world. Be engaged. Don't, um, don't be afraid of limitations that other people want to put on you. Right. Like if somebody says you're too old to do something like you're too old to learn how to do blank, forget it. You're not, you can do whatever you want. It is such a strange feeling when you just, it hits you. Like Camus said, you can be at the street corner and the absurd hits you when it hits you that you can do whatever you want, you can think however you want. And when you are honest about that, then you're able to be more receptive to other people's humanity as well. When other people feel stuck or if they're in a system that is trying to pin them down when you understand the value of freedom and that space for thinking, then you're able to appreciate people when they are in a situation where somebody is trying to put them down and to try to assist in that freedom and alleviate and alleviate that pain or that injustice, I think.

39:29 Ricardo Lopes: Great. So I guess this is a good point to ask you about uh let's say a, a question related to how we uh relate to other people because of course, human life is not just about us as individuals, but also there's a big element of our social lives, how we relate to other people in different ways. And I know that you teach, for example, courses on the philosophy of sex and love. That's a very big component of how we relate to other people. So, I mean, from perhaps again, an existentialist perspective, what would you say? Uh HOW do you look at how the sexes relate to one another and the role that things like love, romance and sex play in our lives?

40:19 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yeah, it's, you know, there's been recently a lot of work on um I know it's an American culture I can't speak for, for other um other areas of the world, but that there's been a bit of a demise. Um There has been this perceived threat to men and what is considered to be masculine. And so there's been this backlash of um of of anger um uh between, between the sexes in terms of heterosexual relationships. And because there's been this upheaval in the United States of this questioning of just the very things that we've been talking about. Like, do I have to get married? Do I have to have Children by this age? Um Can I take care of myself? And so there have been a lot of shifts and I want to say a lot of it came from the seventies and that, and this is so again, I wanna make sure that I'm clarifying, this is in American law. But, um, there was a big shift, I wanna say it was at the very end of the sixties, one of the biggest shifts when it came to relationships is that in some states it was up to the states who they would marry. So it could be illegal to be, or it could be perfectly legal to be in a state where the judge would not marry you based on race. And that was just in a few states, not every state, the Supreme Court ruled that that was illegal in all 50 states. That was a really big shift in the understanding of love because remember law is the expression of our values. And so when the law made it, that it is legal for you to marry somebody that is not of the same race, um that started to put into motion, this idea that you are allowed to love and to be engaged with people of your choosing. Like this restriction is lifted. It's not, you know, it would be considered illegal. It would be considered in this country. Very dangerous for black men to be in relationships with white women. It would be a threat to their lives. That's how serious it was. So, just on the cusp of the seventies, you have this big shift in what is legally allowed in relationships then. You have this big shift where Title nine is introduced and Title nine in the seventies said that any public institution had to give an equal amount of funding to women's groups, sports as to men. So the concept of the female athlete is really born because before that women could play sports, but there was no coach, there was no team, there were no uniforms, there was no equipment now that exists. And now all of a sudden young girls in, let's say, junior high and high school, they have something to do after school. They're not just thinking about their boyfriends, they're not just thinking about how pretty they are for their boyfriends. They're thinking about a personal goal where they're working with other young women to achieve something that's huge. That changes the mindset. Right. All of a sudden women have something other to do than worry about their boyfriends or if they're gonna be picked to be married or whatever they have goals now that belong to them. Um, AND then the other change is that in the late seventies, women could have their own checking account, their own banking account. This changes everything. Oh, and no fault, divorce. I'm sorry. Also, this means that women, well, you could leave a marriage based on the fact that you don't want to be there anymore before that you could only get a divorce if you could prove and it would be up to a judge to decide that your spouse did something wrong. You would have to prove that. So, uh, and it didn't go over well, like there were some judges that would say things to women. Like, well, he only hit you twice. You know, like it would be up to a judge to decide if you could leave a marriage. So no fault, divorce, meaning that you don't have to prove this. Something did something wrong. You can simply just leave exit that relationship because you don't want to be in it anymore. Those things changed the trajectory of relationships because relationships before then depended on economics. Meaning you did not necessarily have to love who you were married to. You just had to be provided for women had to be provided for by their husbands. And if the husbands wanted to climb the corporate ladder, they had to show that they were protecting a wife and kids. So people, the desire or attraction was not part of the equation. It was just economic survival. You remove economic survival because all of a sudden women can have their own checking accounts. Um Women do not have to be married in order for economic survival, they can have their own goals. All of a sudden men are like they making money is not sufficient for them to have a wife and for women like they have all these other choices. And so I, I don't know, I think that that made improvements. This is my point of view. But some people say that was a detriment to relationships from my point of view. The fact that when you are with somebody, it is not because you have to, but it is because you want to. And the fact that you can exit that relationship is actually what gives that relationship its value. Knowing that every day when you wake up, you are choosing to be with that person and respecting the fact that that person is choosing to be with you. That is what gives its value. The fact that they could choose not to. The fact that when they are with you every single day is a testament to their appreciation and reaffirming the choice. It's not that you just got married one day, but you don't have to think about it anymore. It's the fact that yeah, you do and you constantly have to work together and evolve is what gives it its value. And so the dynamics have shifted. And like I said, there's a lot of people who are not on board with this shift. They want to say that women are just good for making babies and for taking care of the home. And then when they say things like that, women will say this too. This isn't just men when they say things like that, then people are saying, well, you know, you're just not valuing my choice. I mean, I think there's also this unnecessary tension by suggesting that women who want to be, stay at home moms and take care of their Children and they enjoy the domestic labor and they enjoy taking care of their man that somehow that is um negated or not of value or they're not allowed to want everything all at once. Like have the career, have the Children, have the hubby. Like there doesn't need to be that tension. I think the most important thing is you allow people to discover what works for them and there shouldn't be a legal hurdle from that. So the most important thing is the legal hurdles removed, saying that a woman like couldn't exit a relationship or couldn't have particular jobs. That's the most important thing. But culturally is taking some time to pick up on that one second. There we go. Ok.

47:44 Ricardo Lopes: Uh Yeah. So, uh I mean, there are many aspects to all of this. I'm going to comment on a few of them and please feel free to comment on what I'm about to say. But I guess that first of all, uh I think it's a bit silly for people to just assume that women back in the fifties, sixties and even before that were happy, just Gao's wives because we know that many of them took psychiatric pills and got drunk because they couldn't stand their marriages anymore, but they just couldn't opt out of them. And then, I mean, when it comes to this more recent backlash of course, I think it derives very much from the sort of uh uh cultural norms, uh uh this cultural legacy that we have from these gender roles that were established decades ago, centuries ago. And we also, we still live with that, or at least people still have that in their minds collectively. But also, I guess that another aspect to consider here is the fact that uh economics, it changed a lot, particularly after the 2008 economic crisis. I mean, it's much harder now for people to get stable jobs to get a good income. And also that also influences people settling down or getting partners. Because I mean, I always look back to Japan, for example, in the late eighties, early nineties where they had a big economic crisis. And it was exactly at that point where marriage rates started plummeting and we have much, many more single people now because before that people went to university and then they had a guaranteed job because there were this sort of uh private public relations between the state and certain big companies in Japan. So whoever finished university until up, the late eighties would have a guaranteed job for life. So it would be almost impossible for them to be fired and all of that. So there's also that component. And also, I mean, I think there's also component of since women started going to university and they found out that they could have their own careers or own, earn their own money. They could be more independent and many women nowadays just report that they like that kind of thing. I mean, they like to be independently, they like to earn their own money. And so many women nowadays just look for things in their partners beyond them, earning more than them or something like that. And if men get into this sort of red pill, black pill men movement on the internet and so on, then they hear all the time that it's all because of feminists, all of women being hyper grams or something like that, then perhaps they don't develop the sorts of traits that women, many women nowadays prefer. I mean, I don't know, what do you think about all of that?

51:02 Gwendolyn Dolske: I do. It's I think one of the mistakes and this is one of the issues with the whole nature thing or one becomes a woman. Um The, the idea is that there was just this, you know, binary idea of what it meant to be a man versus a woman. And what we're finding is that actually this is from Mary Wilson craft to Simon de bois is that a lot of the things that were deemed masculine are just human. And so like me studying philosophy is not me being masculine, it's me being human or you know, this idea, like you said, independent, that's not being masculine, that's just being human. That's what human beings crave they like creativity. Um They do like family relationships. So by the same token, um men who enjoy being fathers, taking care of their babies, taking care of their Children. Um YOU know, the that they're not being feminine, they're being human. That's what it means to be a parent. So a lot of these ideas about what constitutes femininity and masculinity. If you notice a lot of the stuff that's described as masculine is actually human. And then what is described as feminine is almost animal, like, like the way we would describe a dog as being good dog, a great pet. Um OBEDIENT does what it's a, it has all these lessons. But what it takes to become feminine to become a woman requires a lot of training. So for example, I have a daughter as you've seen her like run around and everything. She is no different from the little boys in her preschool just wants to run around, makes messes falls down, wants to climb stuff that is just human over time. What people will do is they'll start to say like quite, quite, you know, they'll try to, you know, quiet her or say why don't you play with the doll instead of the ball like start they so being feminine requires not taking up space, it requires being small, being quiet and that is antihuman and that is training like that's what that is. And I think the same thing for young men told not to cry. Now, crying is a human emotion but being told not to, requires a lot of training and a lot of stuffing down of feelings that ends up exploding. So this, you know what war was suggesting? This idea of, you know, becoming a woman is really led to the trajectory of masculine and feminine. When we just scratch the surface, it's not a natural state at all. It's, it's not. Um, NOW there are all by the same token I happen to like a lot of things that are feminine. I mean, I get my nails done, I get my hair done. I, I like pink. I can't help it. I just do, I will always, I will like pink. Um There are things like that. There are things like that but I can't be, I don't want to be pigeonholed in that I'm not allowed to because I'm because I'm a feminist or something like that. You know what I mean? Um I think that we just have to give people the space to be and the thread when I thought about it with this backlash. Um I haven't totally understood it. Like why is it that people are so upset when men will be a little bit more feminine or women are a bit more masculine? Like why are people so angry about that? And I think it has to do with, in an economic structure. It has to do with power that femininity is not, it does not yield like any kind of economic power. And so when a man displays anything that would be deemed feminine, it is such a, it's such an insult, a loss of power or if women display any masculine traits, it's a trend to take of power when really what we are doing is we're just being like, that's what it is. It's not trying to like me having my own checking account, producing a podcast, getting sponsors making money from that. And then also being in the university system is not me trying to claim power from somebody else. I'm not trying to take away from anybody. It is just me expressing myself and same thing with, I think that's what Bobo was really advocating for. When you read her work. It's not um a lot of it is following the trappings of not being authentic. It's not like this girl power thing of wonder woman and women taking over or anything like that. When you read her stuff, it's cautionary to see what happens when you don't live your authentic stealth. Yeah, I think I lost, I think I lost the, the original question there. I hope that works.

56:09 Ricardo Lopes: Uh No, I mean, I just put on the table several different thoughts that I have about where this backlash comes from and what led to the sort of dating slash mating con context that we live in right now. And uh I just wanted for you to comment on that. I mean,

56:27 Gwendolyn Dolske: yeah, it's huge. Well, I'll, I'll give you one, I'll give you one example. And this was so, this was so disturbing and so upsetting and I brought it up with my class because the philosophy of sex and love class, the subtitle of it is current debates and sexuality, which means that whatever is going on in the news, I didn't realize there was so much sex in the news. But there is like, ever since I've been teaching this class, I like something comes up all the time, but this came up. This is really, really disturbing and it generated new laws as a result of this. But you know, Taylor Swift is like after Time magazine's People of the year, she's on top of her game, right? And what was the backlash to that? Somebody decided to generate a I um pornographic images of her and put it on the internet and it took a good, like it took a good like 10 to 12 hours before that was taken down. That is now illegal right now. They have to create a law to say it is illegal to make pornographic images of somebody. And but the the pornographic images were extremely demeaning in a sexual manner. And that is the backlash that Taylor Swift got for what, what did she do? What was her crime being a successful woman in her industry? That's the crime. So how are we gonna get back at her. We're gonna show what it looks for her to be in not just sexual but in demeaning to reduce her to an animal status as something that is to be used. That is the kind of backlash that, that people, that people get. And it's similar with, with racism that when somebody is at the top of their game, then you'll notice that the reply will be reducing, that person will be like going to some sort of a racial or ethnic slur. And here is the thing or when it comes to sexism, racism or ethnic type of slurs, the one thing that we can say when that happens is it, that means the person who's throwing that out has nothing. They have nothing, they've got nothing to say except for that except for something that is, it's an effort to try to bring somebody down when you've got no reason to put them down. It shows that you've got nothing up here because what is the argument against Taylor Swift? Right? What is the argument when it comes to, let's just say like Beyonce is also an extremely talented artist and it's just extraordinary what, what is left but some sort of a combination of racism and sexism and why it means you've got nothing, it means you have nothing intellectual to say. Um And we saw that with, um you know, we've seen that with uh different figures, whether it's political or athletes when that stuff comes out, I would really like for it to stop. But when that stuff comes out, it also just goes to show the terrible weakness in whatever the backlash is. And this attempt to hold on to power because it's always going back to some sort of a power structure that is being eradicated and which we realized that power structure was based on nothing like when it comes to racism, that power structure was based on a perceived hierarchy that was arbitrary, arbitrary. And when somebody wants to go back to that by using those kinds of that kind of language, they in existential terms, they are not being authentic to themselves. They're appealing to a structure that is just nothing like it's just nothing but that's the kind of thing that when we're talking about sexuality um and backlash when women are just claiming their own space, when people of color are just claiming their own space, just claiming to take up space in their talent. Um The resistance to that gets uglier, the more powerful they are. But that ugliness also tells us how much that needs to be eradicated as well and how weak it is.

1:00:46 Ricardo Lopes: Uh So I I was also interested in hearing your thoughts about um the sex industry and sex workers because I know that uh for example, among feminists, this is also a very contentious topic. There are more, I mean, I know that these are not the precise terms but I, I will call them sex positive and sex negative feminists. Feminists who are completely against the sex industry, pornography, prostitution and all of that and others that, uh, are not against it. Uh, uh, THEY are not necessarily for, but they are not against it. So, where do you stand on that topic since we're also talking here about, uh, sex?

1:01:37 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yes, I think, um, there is a lot, there is a lot to, to unpack with this topic. I thought about it in the United States. It's, um, it's illegal. I think when it comes to sex work, I think the parameters are when it comes to, um, if it's ok if I'm explicit but I think it's, uh, any kind of penetration, I think any kind of exchange of fluids, then that's when it is illegal. But if it is, um, if that does not take place then it's legal. So you can, um, do like internet type stuff. You can, um, be a stripper ad, you know, dancer. Like that's all legal. It's all under the umbrella of sex work though, is essentially when it's some sort of an exchange for money for some sort of sexual gratification pleasure and some of it is illegal. Some of it is not. And I've been thinking about why is it that sex work, um, let's say when it comes to something like prostitution, why is that illegal? Because normally when it comes to something needs to be illegal, it presupposes there's some sort of harm involved. Any law you look at is um an attempt to alleviate or prevent or minimize harm. So when you look at business is legal and sex is legal, so why would it be illegal to mix the two of them? And I was trying to find the harm and I found it, but it's not a war. I think this is my theory. I think that what it is that when it comes to women's sexuality, um the man historically is always benefited. So let's just say in a western wedding ceremony, you've got the woman is in white for the bride that's to represent her virginity. But that's sexual, that's she's pure. She's in the white and then her father is walking her down to give her away. So he is, she is the property of her father and she is pure and he's got this hot commodity that he's walking down the aisle and then is asked who takes her? And it's the next man and then her name is transferred from her father's to her new husband. It's a transfer property. Don't mention this. If anybody is getting married any time soon, it'll ruin it. I don't think that women who are genuinely excited to get married now or like I can't wait to be like transferred. You know, and I don't think dads who are so proud to be walking their daughter down the aisle are like misogynistic people. Like I'm just talking about the tradition itself. How I'm gonna get back to this is that you can see that um men are the ones who have been exchanging the woman when women are getting money for theirselves. That's the offense. Women are now trading their sexuality and they are the recipients of the funds for that, not somebody else. And I think that is the offense. Um I think that when it comes to, when it comes to sex work, um the other thing we need to keep in mind is that it's the women who are shamed. It's mostly women, men do. Um There are male sex workers, but it is primarily women because it is, uh it's primarily a male clientele because men are the one who are seeking that out more. Um And the women are the ones who are shamed for it because of the idea that they're not supposed to want sex, they're not supposed to get money for it, but men are not shamed in the same way because we treat men as though it makes sense that they're sexual. So I think that when it comes to our attitudes of sex work, we have to really pay attention to. First of all, it makes a lot of money. That's the reality. We women who are on only fans or they are, you know, they're, they're making a lot of money through sex work. And that also seems to be the other offense. And if you really want to do something about sex work or minimize it, you have to make other options appealing. I mean, if it, if you can make more money in sex work, then you can, um, getting over 100 grand in debt from an education or to become a lawyer or a doctor, you know, like, or to be a teacher. Right. Like you have to make the other things more appealing. I would like to get rid of the shame around it. But I also have to be um completely like honest. This is a complicated topic. I absolutely despise the idea of shaming a woman um who is making, who is making money. I also want for her to be protected legally because that's also vulnerable for abusive situations. And if you're already doing something illegal, it's infinitely more difficult to go to the police and say get protection because in the United States that's illegal. Um If they are killed, right, nobody's looking for them. There's so that kind of thing. Absolutely. Um Crushes me. I can see it in our own American politics right now. The way that this trial of Donald Trump is being handled, um that both left wing and right wing media are disparaging. Stormy Daniels, who is the adult film actress. That's kind of the impetus of all of this and both the liberal left. They will always say porn star, Stormy Daniels and why are they doing that? They are highlighting the fact that she is in sex work to embarrass Trump. I am not a fan of Trump by the way to be clear. But if Stormy Daniels had any other profession, if she was a dentist, do you think, how often do you think they'd mentioned dentist, Stormy Daniels and her case c they're using, they're using that they're degrading her, the implication to embarrass him And right wing media is doing the same thing. They are talking about her as a porn star in order to embarrass and diminish her credibility. That why would he be with her? And so in the way in this climate, if you were in sex work, you are less than human, you are not protected. And I'm it, that's awful. And then when you make a lot of money at it, then you're even more despised. So this is the complexity of it. So I want to be 100% transparent. I also I have a daughter, you know, the one that you've been seeing running around. If she were to say this is what she wants to do for a living, for a profession, I would want her to do something else. So that's the complexity of it, right? Like if I'm being transparent, I don't want any woman to be in danger. I don't want any woman to be shamed. Um And at the same time, it's not a profession that I think that I would want my daughter to aspire to. So that's why I have to be completely honest and then I have to think about why. And it's because maybe this is like the second wave versus the third wave feminism. Right? There's a part of me that would just, um, that I, I think that there would just be um more to, more, to enjoy out of life. Um, SO I, at the same time, I never like, I, I don't know, it's, it's a complicated issue and I think that it's important, I mean, that, that I am transparent about that. Like I can't, I can't run around and um pretend as though that is something that I would, that I, I would say that I want for my daughter to aspire to in the same way I want for her to aspire to other professions. So, but what I would love to do is um just create a society where that is beneficial where that is a path or that men have authentic relationships with women in their lives where um but you know, it's like, well, what, what is the draw to sex work? Why are you spending your money on this? What, what is going on? Is there some way for you to get that in your interpersonal life? To be honest about your own sexuality, to be honest about what you want in the bedroom so that you don't need to go outside of a relationship to go pay for it out elsewhere. Like there's also so much um There's also so much that's closed in relationships like I'll, I'll give you an example when this is early on and good is in the details. I was in touch with a professional Dominatrix and she had a, a dungeon in um in downtown L A and she invited for me to come and interview her and she has a phd in psychology and she and I are about the same age. And um I invited my friend who is also in academia that I met through Simone de Bois conferences, Dr Ellie Anderson and Ellie now has her own fantastic podcast called overthink. That's also philosophy based. And so I asked Ellie if she would come with me because Rudy, you know, Rudy is very conservative and he's a big wig lawyer. He, he's like, I'm, this is not for me and I'm like, I, I study philosophy, I can do this. So um and I was also curious, right? I was just totally curious. So here's a woman this is under the umbrella of sex work. She's a phd in psychology and she has a place and toys and yeah, I wanna go see. But something that really stood out to me was that all of the evidence of um being more honest with your sexuality. And if it includes the Deviant stuff like B DS M that when people are allowed to express that they are healthier and happier in their everyday lives and that she has men who she is the only person in a lot of men's lives who are familiar or know what their needs are and what they want. And she's able to offer that to them with 100% secrecy privacy. But they are able to explore a part of themselves with this woman that they're not able to anywhere else. And so I think to me that's one of the issues, especially when it comes to these ideas about masculinity and femininity. What is it that men are afraid to admit that they want from a partner and the more open you are, then you can find the right partner or partners if you want an open relationship, a poly amorous relationship, um a non monogamous relationship, but you still want your person but you want all these other things. And so that's also important when we're talking about sex work. I think that our fascination and our demonizing on the women who are making money is, is one of the biggest cultural problems. Um But it's also why, um why is, is the industry there in the first place and have an open and honest conversation about that?

1:12:48 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah. So, uh let me just quickly give my two cents on the topic and please, if you agree or disagree with anything, I'm about to say, uh tell me so, but uh uh I mean, this is a, a very complex topic. I agree with you but, uh, I'd rather turn on it from both sides of the aisle. The feminists who are in favor of it, the feminists who are against it and also some empirical research and I guess that, uh, the, the ideas that come to mind the are that, of course, there's the harm side of it. And I guess that with that in mind, at least in certain circumstances, it would be good for it to be legalized because that way it's easier for sex workers to get access to help, to denounce particular situations, to persecute particular people and so on. It's easier for them to do that that way. And also when it comes to, I, I heard this is very interesting. I've heard, uh, a discussion one time between only fans girls. It was three of them, they were debating a conservative guy and one of them said that he asked them, oh, would you if, if you met a girl? And she was saying that she would like to be only friends cam girl or something like that, would you, what would you tell her? And she was very honest and sad. Well, I, I guess I would tell her that it would depend on her personality traits because I like being an only fans girl, but it's because of my personality. So I don't know exactly what kinds of traits she was referring. To, I would imagine like uh in the case of being an escort scoring high on socio sexuality, like liking to be with multiple uncommitted partners, something like that. Or perhaps when it comes to personality traits being more open to experience something like that, I, I mean, I don't know the exact details there. Uh AND then when it comes to uh things I've read from sex workers themselves, of course, there's a multitude of different experiences that they report. They report, but some of them actually report positive experiences with their clients and some of them, even men, for example, when it comes to clients with certain needs, men with disabilities, for example, that they are the only way they can have access to sex and be sexually satisfied because otherwise it's virtually impossible for them to have sex with women or with whatever kinds of partners they prefer. Uh And then there's also organizations out there, like for example, I've, I've read about organizations in the UK and the US, specifically in Las Vegas, I think where ex prostitutes organize and they go out on the streets and they identify if people who are selling sex and they approach them and give them a pamphlet or something like that. And so you look, if you are ready or if you'd like to leave this business, your work, then come to us, we will help you. So I think that's also very positive. Uh I I mean, those are just the immediate thoughts that come to my mind. There would be many, many other things to talk about. But uh, what do you think of that?

1:16:37 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yeah, I think um, one of the, see in the United States there are also um we just have weird feelings around sex and sexuality. And so this idea of it being a, just um this idea of it being like, um a fun or pleasurable experience. Like there's something very funny about um hi about um about American culture where we just, we make, we make sex sound like it's just completely private and dirty and there's only one way to do it and things like that. And so when I think that's also why sex work um has become so or is so popular, it's because that's not the way that that's not the way that sex works. It's not just like this, it's not just to make a baby real fast. And then that's the end of the story. You know, there's a way, there's, there's a lot of closeness, there's communication, there's playfulness and we don't ever talk about sex in that way. In fact, um a lot of places in the United States, if you get sex education, it's really just describing a fertilized egg. It's not actually talking about sex. And so people are just confused and not understanding or they're taught that it is just some dirty thing that you're only, maybe only supposed to experience with one person. And so then you have like, you know what you're talking about where there's this um people are enjoying themselves and there's this playfulness to it. And one woman who was in sex work, she described it to me. She said I provide an experience like, like a, like a masseuse she was describing and I thought I'd never looked at it that way. Um But I think that one of the assumptions is that um people who are in it need to be rescued and they don't want to, but there's a lot of women. Um AND men as well that this is something they want to do. The money is good. It's fun, it's playful and they enjoy it. Um So I think that again, one of the things that I think when we start to have a better idea about sex education and the value of healthy self, sexual relationships and by value, I mean that it's a form of communication, closeness, a way to understand yourselves. It's a very human thing. Then you can start to see the decrease of the phenomenon or the allure of sex work as a profession. Like there are so many things that need to be in place. But as long as we are secretive about sex or talk about it as though like certain positions or certain ways of doing it or wrong, you're always gonna have that sex work where people are going to find it and, you know, you seek it out, they're gonna do it when people are not open. Um, BUT I do think the idea of being rescued, I don't think that applies to everyone in, in sex work. And so,

1:19:39 Ricardo Lopes: isn't it also a little bit condescending or can be a little bit condescending?

1:19:45 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yeah. Yeah, because some women, like, I mean, I think, I know what show you're talking about where they have, they have a conservative person and they have sex workers on their only fans and there's just kind of, there's just such a disconnect. It's, I mean, as far as a show, I guess it works because you've got like, these two, um, opposite sides of the spectrum. But what I have noticed with shows like that is that the men seem so comfortable in the way in which they disparage the women, the way they talk about them. Like Candace Owens who is a conservative thinker. She was on a show like that and she said to these women, um, I think your whole life is fascinating. It's ho flash and, you know, whole short for a slang for horror. And I, I was just stunned, this is a woman who talks about her Christianity and she's sitting there and talking about women as though they are nothing to their faces. And it was just like, it was just extraordinary to me that she felt so comfortable in talking to these women and just to their face calling them that, um, and it's a way to just flatten somebody's personality. So women who engage in sex work, women who make money from that, uh, don't forget. Like they also have friends, they have family members. Um, THEY also want to go to the movies. Maybe they thought the end of Game of Thrones sucked too. Like they, they have all these other parts to them and we're willing to do that from any, for any other employment. Right. Like, I think, I mean, my students know for instance that when I'm on campus and I'm teaching and I'm the professor that is just one way of me being. But I clearly am a mom also. I'm also a partner. I'm somebody who likes to cook every once in a while and somebody likes to go on hikes every once in a while. Like there are all these other aspects to my personality. Um, WE know that for every worker, we know that when you go to a restaurant and you're, you know, you're ordering something from a server, you know, that they have an end to their shift that their whole life isn't about bringing you food. But Candace Owens and some of these other thinkers are perfectly comfortable in treating a woman who is making money and actually has work hours as though that's her entire life and she has nothing else outside of that and therefore it's ok to talk about her, like she is a thing. So, or he, you know, like I said, men are, men do this as well. It's mostly women but men do it as well.

1:22:10 Ricardo Lopes: Also. Sorry for interrupting. But I guess that when it comes specifically to conservative women and some of the sex negative feminists are also conservative is that they look at sex, uh, female sex workers as competition.

1:22:29 Gwendolyn Dolske: I think that's part of it. I think it's because, I mean, that's who their husbands are going to, right? Like that's, I think that's part of the, I think that's part of it. And I think one of the under um the other like myths that have been taught to women, um is that your power is in your sexuality and in your appearance and women who have bought into, that are the ones who are angry, right? Like, uh but the truth of the matter is that that's not your, your power doesn't come from your physical appearance. Your power comes from, from your capacity for empathy, listening, learning, being curious, that's genuine power. Even financial power, right? Like a lot of women are bought into this idea that if you spend all your money on plastic surgery or expensive bags, you're gonna be more powerful because your power is in your looks. When actually if you took that financial money, you took that money and invested it, bought more property. For instance, you've got a lot more power. So we've convinced women that power is in their capacity to look young and to be an object of desire. And if you buy into that, then you're gonna be angry at women who have successfully become an object of desire. You're gonna be pissed at them because you're perceiving that that is power and that's not, it's not power.

1:23:56 Ricardo Lopes: Great. So, Doctor Dolsky, I'm getting really mindful of your time. So perhaps it's better for us to wrap up the interview here. Maybe if you're open to it somewhere in the future, we can do a second

1:24:09 Gwendolyn Dolske: episode and I'll have a better, I'll have a better backdrop.

1:24:14 Ricardo Lopes: Uh So just really quickly before we go, where can people find you on the internet? And in which places can they find your goodies in the details podcast?

1:24:27 Gwendolyn Dolske: Yeah. Thank you for asking goodies in the details is available on all platforms. Um You know, apple overcast, Google, Play, Spotify. Um I love for people to check out the show. It's definitely one of my, it's one of my favorite things. It's one of my favorite things to do to learn to grow. Um And good is in the details pod is on Instagram and is also on Facebook and from my personal page at um Prof Dolsky. That's me on Instagram.

1:24:58 Ricardo Lopes: Great. So I'm leaving links to that in the description of the interview and thank you so much for doing this. I really love the conversation.

1:25:07 Gwendolyn Dolske: Thank you. I appreciate it. Have a good day.

1:25:11 Ricardo Lopes: Hi guys. Thank you for watching this interview. Until the end. If you liked it, please share it. Leave a like and hit the subscription button. The show is brought to you by the N Lights learning and development. Then differently check the website at N lights.com and also please consider supporting the show on Patreon or paypal. I would also like to give a huge thank you to my main patrons and paypal supporters, Perera Larson Jerry Muller and Frederick Suno, Bernard Seche O of Alex Adam Kel Matthew Whitten Bear. No wolf, Tim Ho Erica LJ Connors, Philip Forrest Connolly. Then the Met Robert Wine in NAI Z Mark Nevs calling in Holbrook Field, Governor Mikel Stormer Samuel Andre Francis for Agns Ferus and H her meal and Lain Jung Y and the Samuel K Hes Mark Smith J. Tom Hummel s friends, David Sloan. Wilson Yaar, Ro Ro Diego, Jan Punter, Romani Charlotte, Bli Nico Barba, Adam Hunt, Pavlo, Stassi Nale medicine, Gary G Alman, Sam of Zal Ari and YPJ Barboa, Julian Price Edward Hall, Eden Broner Douglas Fry Franca Beto Lati W Cortez or Solis Scott Zachary FTD and W Daniel Friedman, William Buckner, Paul Giorgio Lu Loki Georges, Theophano Chris Williams and Peter Wo David Williams, the Ausa Anton Erickson, Charles Murray, Alex Shaw, Marie Martinez, Coralie Chevalier, Bangalore Larry Dey Junior, Old Ebon Starry Michael Bailey. Then spur by Robert Grassy Zorn, Jeff mcmahon, Jake, Zul Barnabas Radick, Mark Kempel. Thomas Dvor Luke Neeson, Chris Tory Kimberley Johnson, Benjamin Gilbert Jessica. No week in the Brendan Nicholas Carlson, Ismael Bensley Man, George Katis, Valentine Steinman, Perras, Kate Van Goler, Alexander Abert Liam Dan Biar Masoud Ali Mohammadi Perpendicular Jer Urla. Good enough, Gregory Hastings David Pins of Sean Nelson, Mike Levin and Jos Net. A special thanks to my producers is our web, Jim Frank Luca Toni, Tom Veg and Bernard N Cortes Dixon Bendik, Muller Thomas Trumble, Catherine and Patrick Tobin, John Carl, Negro, Nick Ortiz and Nick Golden. And to my executive producers, Matthew Lavender, Si Adrian Bogdan Knits and Rosie. Thank you for all.