The future of feminism

There has been much debate about what wave of feminism we are currently in ( and whether any of that even matters ) .
Have we officially moved past the riot-grrrl third and its disruption to the disruption of gender norms ?
Did we squarely enter a fourth , with the rise of Donald Trump and Me Too — the grip of the patriarchy personified and the rallying against it , both of which exposed how much more we had to learn from Kimberlé Crenshaw ’ s lessons of intersectionality ?
Even with all the recent attention paid to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the movement is still grappling to understand the ways race , social class , education , and queerness play into the systemic and everyday problems women of color and nonbinary people face .
Add to that , the unfortunate side effects of feminism going mainstream because of events like the Women ’ s March — the corporate branding of “ persistence ” shirts , empty gestures about lady empowerment — that have brought fatigue to all this feminism talk .
Which leaves us wondering : now what ?
For International Women ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feminists and scholars where they thought feminism was headed .
Many believe the movement indeed needs to make serious strides to address intersectional issues , especially in the face of climate change .
Others , meanwhile , are hopeful that as that happens , the next phase will bring something more rewarding than female domination — true , unfettered support of each other .
In 20 years , I want feminists to see it as standard to consider the impact of proposed policy on women in every single community — not just wealthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create and sustain policies that would be intersectional by default because the impact on those with the least privilege and resources would be the first concern .
Feminist marchers would turn up en masse to protest everything from police brutality to cuts to food aid .
Candidates backed by organizations like Emily ’ s List would push for everything from decriminalization of sex work to advocating for immigration policies that aren ’ t the mishmash of cruelty and racism that we see now .
Instead of bans based on religion and race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictating who is worthy of citizenship , we could steer away from colonialist ideals of a nation that only serves the interests of the rich .
We could honor existing treaties with Indigenous nations as well as create new ones informed by current events instead of white supremacist rhetoric .
We ’ d see mainstream feminism support movements ranging from disability rights to labor activism because it would understand that every issue that impacts women is a feminist issue .
I don ’ t expect perfection in 20 years .
But it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of feminism live up to the goal of actually advancing equality and safety for all .
Mikki Kendall is an author , activist , and cultural critic .
Her latest book , Hood Feminism , was just published .
When people say we are living in divided times , I say we are living in a time of extremes : we both have role models like Rihanna and we can ’ t get a woman in the White House .
A woman is told she can “ have it all ” — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Measuring feminist progress can be challenging .
In many ways , women ’ s lives are dramatically better than they have ever been .
But there are also places where feminism ’ s work is far from over : women who don ’ t have access to sanitary products , women in certain states fighting for access to reproductive health care , women everywhere facing the constant threat of harassment and assault , to name but a few .
There is an endless list of places we could expend our feminist energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status of women globally for the next 20 years and beyond , the one crisis that is not seen as a gendered issue , but often is , is climate change .
Women stand to lose the most as we continue to see the impacts of global warming .
As communities are displaced , women are the most vulnerable to the implications of mass migrations and home loss ( according to one statistic , 80 % of those displaced from climate change are women ) .
It is often women farmers in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off crops they will no longer be able to produce , seeds they no longer have access to .
As climate change related diseases increase , such as zika , it is often women who suffer the greatest consequences .
It is also women and girls who are fighting on the frontlines of the global climate crisis .
The future of feminism is Greta Thunberg .
It is Jamie Margolin .
It is Xiya Batisda .
It is the Sunrise Movement .
It is the Indigenous organizers who have led the way for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the woman farmers in the global South .
As the ecofeminist and activist Vandana Shiva , who has worked to raise awareness for both how women are impacted by the degradation of the environment and how women hold the solutions for it moving forward , famously said : “ We are either going to have a future where women lead the way to make peace with the Earth , or we are not going to have a human future at all.
” Samhita Mukhopadhyay is the executive editor of Teen Vogue and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feminism , Resistance and Revolution in Trump ’ s America .
Historically , male-dominated politics and structures have been zero-sum games : For you to have more , I must have less .
Value is gained by devaluation elsewhere , and for anyone to win , someone must lose .
It ’ s a framework built on scarcity , and it ’ s an illusion created by those in power , to keep them in power .
Over the past two decades working with domestic workers — nannies , caregivers , and housekeepers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have seen the leadership we need for the future of feminism .
Domestic workers have lived and worked in the shadows of the economy and society for generations , excluded from traditional sources of power , so they have turned to each other to build power , rather than look for a source to take it from .
Our movement is expansive and abundant : It is multiracial , multilingual , and multigenerational .
And rather than creating a hierarchy of issues that further our cause , we challenge the way all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender , race , and immigration .
Despite what seems obvious , the opposite of male-dominated politics ( and the future of feminism ) is not female-dominated politics and power structures .
Instead , it is to move beyond the zero-sum game to systems and structures of abundance , where power is built and shared .
This third option is best described as the “ shine theory ” by Ann Friedman and Aminatou Sow : “ I don ’ t shine if you don ’ t shine.
” It understands that when I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shine , ” my own “ shine ” becomes brighter .
It ’ s a theory of power built on multiplication rather than addition and subtraction .
It moves beyond competition and the dualism of less-more .
This future feminism creates the path to a world where all people have the support to realize their full potential .
Where every worker is valued for their contributions to our economy and professional women working out of the home aren ’ t building power on the backs of the domestic workers who support them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other for the value we can add , rather than the power we can take .
Only then can we build a society where we value every person , their lives and their contributions , with dignity and respect .
It ’ s the end of zero-sum politics , and it ’ s the future of feminism .
Ai-jen Poo is the director of Caring Across Generations , an advocacy group for families and domestic workers .
The feminism of our future will hold the whole of me .
In the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am a feminist , Latina , queer , and progressive .
The feminist movement will be tethered to the Black , Latinx , Asian , and Native experience .
It will be informed by a politics of liberation , of sovereignty , of belonging , and of movement building .
It will be a feminism of organizers and intellectuals , a feminism of artists and innovators , and a feminism of presidents and political leaders .
The good thing is that today , in my community , this doesn ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I see for today ’ s feminism is how it is funded .
As the incoming president of a nationally endowed foundation — the youngest and only Latinx person to hold this position in the country — I worry that the vast majority of funding to feminist movement organizations continues to move to white and wealthy organizations .
I worry that as funders , we like belonging in our organizations and networks so long as it ’ s not in the leadership or boards .
I worry that it has taken us too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feminist agenda beyond a woman president and abortion .
I worry that we don ’ t see parity in funding to those seeking to address the treatment of Black mothers by our health care system , the political representation of our Native and Asian sisters , the protection of our Trans sisters , and the fact that it takes Latinas 23 months to earn what the average white man earns in 12 months .
We all need to be at the forefront of a feminist movement of the 21st century .
The next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the movements for economic opportunity , political power , and representation .
It will be about protecting the vulnerable among us and holding those who make us unsafe accountable as well as imagining and creating a democracy and economy that works for all of us .
The next wave is upon us , and I can ’ t wait to surrender to its possibility .
Carmen Rojas is the founder of the Workers Lab and the soon-to-be CEO of the Marguerite Casey Foundation , which provides grants to low-income families advocating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismantling white supremacy as a core project of feminism .
This is not about being a better “ ally , ” though certainly there is no valid feminism that doesn ’ t prioritize the liberation of women of color .
White supremacy is literally built on the subjugation of women : White supremacist men sterilize women of color against their will , allow them to die from pregnancy and childbirth at astonishingly high rates , and outright rape and murder them — anything to keep them from having more children .
And they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lest we choose not to have children , or to parent with someone other than a white man .
That ’ s why there is no path to feminist liberation that doesn ’ t involve dismantling white supremacy .
And for reasons of both efficacy and equity , the labor of taking it apart must be disproportionately borne by white feminists .
Too many white women cosign white supremacy because of the bargain it offers them : uphold the power of white men who see you as nothing more than a combination housekeeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispenser , and you can wield some of that reflected power against people of color , LGBTQ folks , and more .
White supremacist men also offer to “ protect ” white women against the imaginary dark man lurking in the bushes , while never mentioning that those same white men are themselves the greatest danger to the safety of the women they purport to love .
We ’ re all right now living out the daily consequences of this devil ’ s bargain between white men and white women .
If white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more white women to break their white supremacist pact , it could be politically transformative .
Imagine the tectonic shift that could happen when white women recognize that white patriarchal men will never treat us as equal humans ; when we withdraw our consent to be governed by them and en masse join with the women of color already at the forefront of feminism .
When white women stop trusting white men more than women of color ( or even ourselves ) , feminism will be unstoppable .
Jaclyn Friedman is a feminist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a podcast exploring paths to sexual liberation .

There has been much debate about what wave of feminism we are currently in (and whether any of that even matters). Have we officially moved past the riot-grrrl third and its disruption to the disruption of gender norms? Did we squarely enter a fourth, with the rise of Donald Trump and Me Too — the grip of the patriarchy personified and the rallying against it, both of which exposed how much more we had to learn from Kimberlé Crenshaw’s lessons of intersectionality?
Even with all the recent attention paid to the long centering of “white feminism,” the movement is still grappling to understand the ways race, social class, education, and queerness play into the systemic and everyday problems women of color and nonbinary people face. Add to that the unfortunate side effects of feminism going mainstream because of events like the Women’s March — the corporate branding of “persistence” shirts, empty gestures about lady empowerment — that have brought fatigue to all this feminism talk. Which leaves us wondering: Now what?
For Women’s History Month, we asked five renowned feminists and scholars where they thought feminism was headed. Many believe the movement indeed needs to make serious strides to address intersectional issues, especially in the face of climate change. Others, meanwhile, are hopeful that as that happens, the next phase will bring something more rewarding than female domination — true, unfettered support of each other.
In 20 years, I want feminists to see it as standard to consider the impact of proposed policy on women in every single community — not just wealthy white women. Mainstream feminism would consistently create and sustain policies that would be intersectional by default because the impact on those with the least privilege and resources would be the first concern.
Feminist marchers would turn up en masse to protest everything from police brutality to cuts to food aid. Candidates backed by organizations like Emily’s List would push for everything from decriminalization of sex work to advocating for immigration policies that aren’t the mishmash of cruelty and racism that we see now. Instead of bans based on religion and race, family separation policies, and arbitrary bigotry dictating who is worthy of citizenship, we could steer away from colonialist ideals of a nation that only serves the interests of the rich. We could honor existing treaties with Indigenous nations as well as create new ones informed by current events instead of white supremacist rhetoric.
We’d see mainstream feminism support movements ranging from disability rights to labor activism because it would understand that every issue that impacts women is a feminist issue. I don’t expect perfection in 20 years. But it would be nice to see the next wave of feminism live up to the goal of actually advancing equality and safety for all.
Mikki Kendall is an author, activist, and cultural critic. Her latest book, Hood Feminism, was just published.
When people say we are living in divided times, I say we are living in a time of extremes: We both have role models like Rihanna and we can’t get a woman in the White House. A woman is told she can “have it all” — but women are still paid less than men.
Measuring feminist progress can be challenging. In many ways, women’s lives are dramatically better than they have ever been. But there are also places where feminism’s work is far from over: women who don’t have access to sanitary products, women in certain states fighting for access to reproductive health care, women everywhere facing the constant threat of harassment and assault, to name but a few.
There is an endless list of places we could expend our feminist energy, but as we look at the status of women globally for the next 20 years and beyond, the one crisis that is not seen as a gendered issue, but often is, is climate change.
Women stand to lose the most as we continue to see the impacts of global warming. As communities are displaced, women are the most vulnerable to the implications of mass migrations and home loss (according to one statistic, 80 percent of those displaced from climate change are women). It is often women farmers in the global south who have fed their families off crops they will no longer be able to produce, seeds they no longer have access to. As climate change related diseases increase, such as Zika, it is often women who suffer the greatest consequences.
It is also women and girls who are fighting on the front lines of the global climate crisis. The future of feminism is Greta Thunberg. It is Jamie Margolin. It is Xiye Batisda. It is the Sunrise Movement. It is the Indigenous organizers who have led the way for decades on environmental activism. It is the women farmers in the global south.
As the ecofeminist and activist Vandana Shiva, who has worked to raise awareness for both how women are impacted by the degradation of the environment and how women hold the solutions for it moving forward, famously said: “We are either going to have a future where women lead the way to make peace with the Earth, or we are not going to have a human future at all.”
Samhita Mukhopadhyay is the executive editor of Teen Vogue and the co-editor of the anthology Nasty Women: Feminism, Resistance, and Revolution in Trump’s America.
Historically, male-dominated politics and structures have been zero-sum games: For you to have more, I must have less. Value is gained by devaluation elsewhere, and for anyone to win, someone must lose. It’s a framework built on scarcity, and it’s an illusion created by those in power, to keep them in power.
Over the past two decades working with domestic workers — nannies, caregivers, and housekeepers who are predominantly women of color — I have seen the leadership we need for the future of feminism.
Domestic workers have lived and worked in the shadows of the economy and society for generations, excluded from traditional sources of power, so they have turned to each other to build power, rather than look for a source to take it from. Our movement is expansive and abundant: It is multiracial, multilingual, and multigenerational. And rather than creating a hierarchy of issues that further our cause, we challenge the way all hierarchies of power create harm — including gender, race, and immigration.
Despite what seems obvious, the opposite of male-dominated politics (and the future of feminism) is not female-dominated politics and power structures. Instead, it is to move beyond the zero-sum game to systems and structures of abundance, where power is built and shared. This third option is best described as the “shine theory” by Ann Friedman and Aminatou Sow: “I don’t shine if you don’t shine.” It understands that when I lift you up, when you “shine,” my own “shine” becomes brighter. It’s a theory of power built on multiplication rather than addition and subtraction. It moves beyond competition and the dualism of less-more.
This future feminism creates the path to a world where all people have the support to realize their full potential. Where every worker is valued for their contributions to our economy and professional women working out of the home aren’t building power on the backs of the domestic workers who support them in their homes. Where we look to each other for the value we can add, rather than the power we can take. Only then can we build a society where we value every person, their lives and their contributions, with dignity and respect. It’s the end of zero-sum politics, and it’s the future of feminism.
Ai-jen Poo is the director of Caring Across Generations, an advocacy group for families and domestic workers, and the director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.
The feminism of our future will hold the whole of me. In the future, we will take for granted that I am a feminist, Latina, queer, and progressive. The feminist movement will be tethered to the Black, Latinx, Asian, and Native experiences. It will be informed by a politics of liberation, of sovereignty, of belonging, and of movement-building. It will be a feminism of organizers and intellectuals, a feminism of artists and innovators, and a feminism of presidents and political leaders. The good thing is that today, in my community, this doesn’t feel impossible or far off.
The challenge I see for today’s feminism is how it is funded. As the incoming president of a nationally endowed foundation — the youngest and only Latinx person to hold this position in the country — I worry that the vast majority of funding to feminist movement organizations continues to move to white and wealthy organizations. I worry that as funders, we like belonging in our organizations and networks so long as it’s not in the leadership or boards.
I worry that it has taken us too long to expand the aperture of a feminist agenda beyond a woman president and abortion. I worry that we don’t see parity in funding to those seeking to address the treatment of Black mothers by our health care system, the political representation of our Native and Asian sisters, the protection of our Trans sisters, and the fact that it takes Latinas 23 months to earn what the average white man earns in 12 months. We all need to be at the forefront of a feminist movement of the 21st century.
The next wave of feminism will be a core part of the movements for economic opportunity, political power, and representation. It will be about protecting the vulnerable among us and holding those who make us unsafe accountable as well as imagining and creating a democracy and economy that works for all of us. The next wave is upon us, and I can’t wait to surrender to its possibility.
Carmen Rojas is the founder of the Workers Lab and the soon-to-be CEO of the Marguerite Casey Foundation, which provides grants to low-income families advocating for change.
White feminists must recognize dismantling white supremacy as a core project of feminism.
This is not about being a better “ally,” though certainly there is no valid feminism that doesn’t prioritize the liberation of women of color. White supremacy is literally built on the subjugation of women: White supremacist men sterilize women of color against their will, allow them to die from pregnancy and childbirth at astonishingly high rates, and outright rape and murder them — anything to keep them from having more children. And they refuse white women our bodily autonomy, lest we choose not to have children, or to parent with someone other than a white man.
That’s why there is no path to feminist liberation that doesn’t involve dismantling white supremacy. And for reasons of both efficacy and equity, the labor of taking it apart must be disproportionately borne by white feminists.
Too many white women cosign white supremacy because of the bargain it offers them: uphold the power of white men who see you as nothing more than a combination housekeeper, broodmare, trophy, and sex dispenser, and you can wield some of that reflected power against people of color, LGBTQ folks, and more. White supremacist men also offer to “protect” white women against the imaginary dark man lurking in the bushes, while never mentioning that those same white men are themselves the greatest danger to the safety of the women they purport to love.
We’re all, right now, living out the daily consequences of this devil’s bargain between white men and white women. If white feminists can figure out how to convince more white women to break their white supremacist pact, it could be politically transformative.
Imagine the tectonic shift that could happen when white women recognize that white patriarchal men will never treat us as equal humans; when we withdraw our consent to be governed by them and en masse join with the women of color already at the forefront of feminism. When white women stop trusting white men more than women of color (or even ourselves), feminism will be unstoppable.
Jaclyn Friedman is a feminist writer and activist. She hosts Unscrewed, a podcast exploring paths to sexual liberation, and co-edited the new book Believe Me: How Trusting Women Can Change the World.


vox--2020-03-07--RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant Sherry Pie is disqualified after admitting to sexual misconduct

RuPaul ’ s Drag Race has disqualified Sherry Pie ( real name : Joey Gugliemelli ) , one of its drag queen contestants and frontrunners , amidst allegations of sexual misconduct .
“ In light of recent developments and Sherry Pie ’ s statement , Sherry Pie has been disqualified from RuPaul ’ s Drag Race , ” the show posted on its official Twitter account .
Over the course of the week , at least five different men came forward with stories about Gugliemelli using a fake identity to promise acting opportunities .
They claimed that Gugliemelli coerced them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of following through on the job offers .
“ It was a tough pill to swallow , knowing that I hadn ’ t listened to my gut instinct about how uncomfortable I was .
That I had sent suggestive videos of myself , and I didn ’ t know what the videos were being used for , ” Ben Shimkus , one of the actors Gugliemelli had allegedly coerced , wrote in a post on Facebook .
Gugliemelli issued an apology on Thursday night , saying sorry to the men he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifics , but claimed that he is receiving treatment for his behavior ; he did not say what the treatment was for specifically , nor what he was sorry for .
Gugliemelli isn ’ t the only contestant on this season of Drag Race facing sexual harassment allegations .
But Gugliemelli is the only one to have been disqualified thus far in season 12 , which is currently airing on VH1 .
Although much of this season has already been filmed , it ’ s sure to be one of the biggest storylines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is a dark moment for a show that is considered to be a pioneer in LGBTQ representation , whose fanbase has only grown over the course of its 12 seasons and many spinoffs .
And when you take the full story of the allegations into account , the moment gets even darker .
The accusations facing Gugliemelli involves allegations of deceit , a fake identity , and manipulation .
On March 4 , 25-year-old Ben Shimkus posted a long Facebook update detailing his history with Gugliemelli .
The pair had attended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State University .
After he graduated a friend had alerted Shimkus to a role into a new play .
The person he was told to contact was named “ Allison Mossey.
” Shimkus explained that over the span of 150 e-mails , Mossey had discussed rehearsals , the new play , and asked that Shimkus audition via video for the role in question .
That ’ s where things got uncomfortable , he said .
Eventually Shimkus called Playwright ’ s Horizons , the theater company Mossey had worked for , and found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the company .
Shimkus then called his friend who had initially told him about Mossey and found out that he had gotten Mossey ’ s information from Gugliemelli .
Shimkus wrote that the more he talked about it , the more that his friends would also say they had similar experiences with Mossey : The connection Shimkus makes is that Gugliemelli was using Mossey as a front to get these audition tapes and take advantage of these young actors .
Since Shimkus ’ Facebook post , four other actors have come forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posing as Mossey , led them to film embarrassing and degrading “ auditions.
” .
One told Buzzfeed that he even felt pressured to masturbate on camera for Gugliemelli : Joey Gugliemelli a.k.a .
Sherry Pie did not deny the accusations , and apologized Late on March 5 , Gugliemelli — who had not responded to any media outlet ’ s request for comment — addressed the allegations in his own Facebook update .
But the post functioned as little more than a blanket apology .
“ This is Joey .
I want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am that I caused such trauma and pain and how horribly embarrassed and disgusted I am with myself , ” he wrote , stating that his actions were due to mental health issues .
“ I know that the pain and hurt that I have caused will never go away and I know that what I did was wrong and truly cruel .
Until being on RuPaul ’ s Drag Race , I never really understood how much my mental health and taking care of things meant , ” he added , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I learned on that show how important ‘ loving yourself ’ is and I don ’ t think I have ever loved myself .
I have been seeking help and receiving treatment since coming back to NYC .
I truly apologize to everyone I have hurt with my actions.
” VH1 and RuPaul ’ s Drag Race have yet to address the allegations against Gugliemelli and his admission On Friday afternoon , Drag Race announced on its official Twitter account that Gugliemelli had been disqualified , but that it would air the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planned .
To be clear , the show has already been filmed and edited , and the competition has already wrapped .
Drag Race can not simply fire Gugliemelli from the show , because he ’ s already participated and placed in it .
On Friday night ’ s show , Gugliemelli was one of the top performers of the week .
( In past seasons , Drag Race filmed its finale before a live audience , and to avoid spoilers , the show films each finalist queen winning the crown before airing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And while re-editing the show to take out Gugliemelli might be an option , it seems that Gugliemelli had placed in the finale if he had to be “ disqualified.
” Queens on Drag Race are usually voted off week by week until the grand finale , and a disqualification seems to indicate that Gugliemelli still had a shot at winning until the accusation came to light , rather than being one of the weekly boots .
Other contestants this season facing sexual harassment allegations include Brita Filter , whose real name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 of assaulting a man while the alleged victim slept .
On August 3 , 2018 , Havea flatly denied the allegations and yesterday , again on Facebook , again denied that the claims were true : “ I need to re-address the false allegations raised against me in 2018 , ” Havea wrote .
“ I reiterate that the claims made against me are untrue .
As someone who cares very deeply about the importance of consent ( from first-hand experience ) , I always actively attempt to bring that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have.
” Havea is still on the show and Drag Race hasn ’ t commented on the 2018 allegation .
Vox has reached out to VH1 and RuPaul ’ s Drag Race for comment on Gugliemelli and Havea and will update with more upon receipt .

RuPaul’s Drag Race has disqualified Sherry Pie (real name: Joey Gugliemelli), one of its drag queen contestants and frontrunners, amidst allegations of sexual misconduct.
“In light of recent developments and Sherry Pie’s statement, Sherry Pie has been disqualified from RuPaul’s Drag Race,” the show posted on its official Twitter account.
Over the course of the week, at least five different men came forward with stories about Gugliemelli using a fake identity to promise acting opportunities. They claimed that Gugliemelli coerced them into sending him sexually suggestive fetish videos instead of following through on the job offers.
“It was a tough pill to swallow, knowing that I hadn’t listened to my gut instinct about how uncomfortable I was. That I had sent suggestive videos of myself, and I didn’t know what the videos were being used for,” Ben Shimkus, one of the actors Gugliemelli had allegedly coerced, wrote in a post on Facebook.
Gugliemelli issued an apology on Thursday night, saying sorry to the men he had hurt. He stopped short of detailing specifics, but claimed that he is receiving treatment for his behavior; he did not say what the treatment was for specifically, nor what he was sorry for.
Gugliemelli isn’t the only contestant on this season of Drag Race facing sexual harassment allegations. But Gugliemelli is the only one to have been disqualified thus far in season 12, which is currently airing on VH1. Although much of this season has already been filmed, it’s sure to be one of the biggest storylines. It’s hard to ignore that this is a dark moment for a show considered to be a pioneer in LGBTQ representation, whose fanbase has only grown over the course of its 12 seasons and many spinoffs. And when you take the full story of the allegations into account, the moment gets even darker.
The allegations facing Drag Race’s Sherry Pie involve a catfish scheme
The accusations facing Gugliemelli involve allegations of deceit, a fake identity, and manipulation.
On March 4, 25-year-old Ben Shimkus posted a long Facebook update detailing his history with Gugliemelli. The pair had attended the same musical theater program at Cortland State University. After he graduated a friend had alerted Shimkus to a role in a new play. The person he was told to contact was named “Allison Mossey.”
Shimkus explained that over the span of 150 emails, Mossey had discussed rehearsals, the new play, and asked that Shimkus audition via video for the role in question. That’s where things got uncomfortable, he said.
I had to film scenes that felt particularly sexual and awkward, but the opportunity seemed too good to let the overt sexual nature or my inhibitions get in the way. I simply told myself that my parents wouldn’t be allowed to see the show, but I wanted the professional experience and the bright and shiny object on my resume.
He added:
The specific video submissions I sent were of me taking steroids and immediately growing larger muscles and gaining physical power. The character, Jeff, talked about how much his armpits began to stink and how much he liked that. It was a tough pill to swallow, knowing that I hadn’t listened to my gut instinct about how uncomfortable I was. That I had sent suggestive videos of myself, and I didn’t know what the videos were being used for.
Eventually Shimkus called Playwright’s Horizons, the theater company Mossey had supposedly worked for, and found out that Mossey wasn’t affiliated with the company. Shimkus then called his friend who had initially told him about Mossey and found out that he had gotten Mossey’s information from Gugliemelli.
Shimkus wrote that the more he talked about it, the more his friends would also say they had similar experiences with Mossey:
When I began telling my friends about what had happened to me, one of my best friends told me that a colleague who had worked at a theatre doing Hairspray with Sherry [Gugliemelli] also had the same experience with Allison Mossey. Another friend said the same thing had happened to someone she knew. Her friend was also in close contact with Sherry. Wherever Sherry seemed to go, Allison would follow. Since being open about my experience, six people have corroborated stories with me.
The connection Shimkus makes is that Gugliemelli was using Mossey, a false identity, as a front to get these audition tapes and take advantage of these young actors. Since Shimkus’s Facebook post, four other actors have come forward to Buzzfeed News alleging that Gugliemelli, posing as Mossey, led them to film embarrassing and degrading “auditions.” One told Buzzfeed that he even felt pressured to masturbate on camera for Gugliemelli:
Then, Lillyman said, Gugliemelli suggested he go into the bathroom and masturbate in order to feel more macho. Reluctantly, Lillyman obliged. He was desperate for the part. Other actors had done more for less, he reasoned. When he emerged, Gugliemelli suggested he do it again on camera. It was only the casting director who would see it, Lillyman thought. Again, he did as he was told.
Joey Gugliemelli a.k.a. Sherry Pie did not deny the accusations, and apologized
Late on March 5, Gugliemelli — who had not responded to any media outlet’s request for comment — addressed the allegations in his own Facebook update. But the post functioned as little more than a blanket apology.
“This is Joey. I want to start by saying how sorry I am that I caused such trauma and pain and how horribly embarrassed and disgusted I am with myself,” he wrote, stating that his actions were due to mental health issues.
“I know that the pain and hurt that I have caused will never go away and I know that what I did was wrong and truly cruel. Until being on RuPaul’s Drag Race, I never really understood how much my mental health and taking care of things meant,” he added, saying he was getting mental health treatment.
“I learned on that show how important ‘loving yourself’ is and I don’t think I have ever loved myself. I have been seeking help and receiving treatment since coming back to NYC. I truly apologize to everyone I have hurt with my actions.”
VH1 and RuPaul’s Drag Race have yet to address the allegations against Gugliemelli and his admission
On Friday afternoon, Drag Race announced on its official Twitter account that Gugliemelli had been disqualified, but that it would air the 12th season, Gugliemelli included, as planned.
...Out of respect for the hard work of the other queens, VH1 will air the season as planned.
Sherry will not appear in the grand finale scheduled to be filmed later this spring.” – spokesperson for VH1 and World of Wonder — RuPaul's Drag Race (@RuPaulsDragRace) March 6, 2020
To be clear, the show has already been filmed and edited, and the competition has already wrapped. Drag Race cannot simply fire Gugliemelli from the show, because he’s already participated and placed in it. On Friday night’s show, Gugliemelli was one of the top performers of the week. (In past seasons, Drag Race filmed its finale before a live audience, and to avoid spoilers, the show films each finalist queen winning the crown before airing the real result on finale night).
And while re-editing the show to take out Gugliemelli might be an option, it seems that Gugliemelli had placed in the finale if he had to be “disqualified.” Queens on Drag Race are usually voted off week by week until the grand finale, and a disqualification seems to indicate that Gugliemelli still had a shot at winning until the accusation came to light, rather than being one of the weekly boots.
Other contestants this season facing sexual harassment allegations include Brita Filter, whose real name is Jesse Havea, who was accused in 2018 of assaulting a man while the alleged victim slept. On August 3, 2018, Havea flatly denied the allegations and yesterday, again on Facebook, repeated his denial that the claims were true:
“I need to re-address the false allegations raised against me in 2018,” Havea wrote. “I reiterate that the claims made against me are untrue. As someone who cares very deeply about the importance of consent (from first-hand experience), I always actively attempt to bring that to the forefront of any sexual encounter I have.”
Havea is still on the show and Drag Race hasn’t commented on the 2018 allegation.
Vox has reached out to VH1 and RuPaul’s Drag Race for comment on Gugliemelli and Havea and will update with more.


vox--2020-03-07--Tulsi Gabbard won two delegates, but won’t be in the next debate

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard finally won some delegates : She came in second in the American Samoa caucuses on Super Tuesday , winning two pledged delegates .
That win doesn ’ t put her in contention for the nomination — she ’ d need 1,899 more delegates to become the nominee — but under the rules for the last Democratic debate , it would get her on the stage .
Under the new rules , however , she will not be invited to the next Democratic debate on March 15 .
Xochitl Hinojosa , the Democratic National Committee ’ s communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course the threshold will go up.
” “ By the time we have the March debate , almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated , ” Hinojosa wrote .
“ The threshold will reflect where we are in the race , as it always has.
” Friday , the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) announced what the new threshold will be , as Cameron Peters explained for Vox : This means that even if Gabbard were to take home all of the delegates on offer in March 10 ’ s contests — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rules for allotting delegates based on proportion of vote share — she still would not have enough delegates to be invited to the debate : in such a scenario , she would have only 367 of the 373 needed delegates .
The new guidelines are a marked change from the criteria for getting into the February 25 debate in Charleston , South Carolina .
Then , the DNC said candidates had to have one or more of the following : at least 12 percent support in two DNC-approved South Carolina polls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DNC-approved national polls , or at least one delegate from any contest that had been held so far .
As Hinojosa noted , the DNC has worked to make the rules for debate participation more stringent as the primary has gone on .
When the primary started , a candidate had to have at least 1 percent support in at least three state or national polls or have raised money from at least 65,000 individual donors ( spread over at least 20 states , with at least 200 donors in each of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , candidates had to meet both a polling and individual contribution requirement .
Eventually , both the contribution and polling level thresholds became more exacting , leading to a number of candidates then still in the race , like Sen. Cory Booker and writer Marianne Williamson , being excluded .
As the increasingly high debate bar began to exclude candidates of color , there were calls to loosen the restrictions to ensure the debates featured diverse perspectives .
In December , nine candidates came together and sent a letter to the DNC saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had “ unnecessarily and artificially narrowed ” the race .
The DNC dismissed this criticism but did announce a major change in February — no longer were individual contributions required .
The move was widely seen as being made to allow former candidate and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg onto the debate stage .
And it upset a number of the candidates , including Sen. Bernie Sanders , who called the decision “ the definition of a rigged system.
” The DNC disregarded the criticism , and Bloomberg appeared in both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , with most candidates — including Bloomberg — out of the race , the DNC has changed the debate rules again , meaning the race ’ s last woman candidate and last candidate of color will not appear in the next debate .

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard finally won some delegates: She came in second in the American Samoa caucuses on Super Tuesday, winning two pledged delegates.
That win doesn’t put her in contention for the nomination — she’d need 1,899 more delegates to become the nominee — but under the rules for the last Democratic debate, it would get her on the stage.
Under the new rules, however, she will not be invited to the next Democratic debate on March 15.
Xochitl Hinojosa, the Democratic National Committee’s communications director, tweeted Tuesday evening that “of course the threshold will go up.”
“By the time we have the March debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated,” Hinojosa wrote. “The threshold will reflect where we are in the race, as it always has.”
Friday, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced what the new threshold will be, as Cameron Peters explained for Vox:
This means that even if Gabbard were to take home all of the delegates on offer in March 10’s contests — something virtually impossible under the DNC’s rules for allotting delegates based on proportion of vote share — she still would not have enough delegates to be invited to the debate: in such a scenario, she would have only 367 of the 373 needed delegates.
The new guidelines are a marked change from the criteria for getting into the February 25 debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Then, the DNC said candidates had to have one or more of the following: at least 12 percent support in two DNC-approved South Carolina polls, at least 10 percent support in four DNC-approved national polls, or at least one delegate from any contest that had been held so far.
As Hinojosa noted, the DNC has worked to make the rules for debate participation more stringent as the primary has gone on. When the primary started, a candidate had to have at least 1 percent support in at least three state or national polls or have raised money from at least 65,000 individual donors (spread over at least 20 states, with at least 200 donors in each of those states).
As time went on, candidates had to meet both a polling and individual contribution requirement. Eventually, both the contribution and polling level thresholds became more exacting, leading to a number of candidates then still in the race, like Sen. Cory Booker and writer Marianne Williamson, being excluded.
As the increasingly high debate bar began to exclude candidates of color, there were calls to loosen the restrictions to ensure the debates featured diverse perspectives. In December, nine candidates came together and sent a letter to the DNC saying the increasingly difficult to meet debate criteria had “unnecessarily and artificially narrowed” the race.
The DNC dismissed this criticism but did announce a major change in February — no longer were individual contributions required. The move was widely seen as being made to allow former candidate and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg onto the debate stage. And it upset a number of the candidates, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, who called the decision “the definition of a rigged system.”
The DNC disregarded the criticism, and Bloomberg appeared in both the Nevada and South Carolina debates. Now, with most candidates — including Bloomberg — out of the race, the DNC has changed the debate rules again, meaning the race’s last woman candidate and last candidate of color will not appear in the next debate.


vox--2020-03-07--Trump announces Mark Meadows as his new chief of staff

Rep. Mark Meadows ( R-NC ) will replace Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney as White House chief of staff , becoming the fourth person to hold that position since President Donald Trump ’ s inauguration .
President Donald Trump announced the news late Friday through his Twitter account , giving no explanations as to why the change was made .
While thanking Mulvaney for his service , Trump simultaneously appointed him as the United States special envoy for Northern Ireland .
Although the announcement was abrupt , it was a change that had also been anticipated for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire Mulvaney on multiple occasions during his 14 month tenure , and according to CNN , grew especially displeased with the former acting chief of staff after Mulvaney admitted that Trump attempted to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals .
Mulvaney later tried to retract this admission , saying , “ I have news for everybody : Get over it .
There ’ s going to be political influence in foreign policy , ” but the damage had already been done — albeit not to a devastating enough degree for Republicans in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s removal following his impeachment .
Despite the president ’ s reported dissatisfaction with how Mulvaney handled the Ukraine scandal in general , close aides urged the president to refrain from dismissing his now former chief of staff to avoid causing unnecessary turmoil during his Senate impeachment trial , according to CNN .
After his acquittal in the Senate , many had predicted Mulvaney would be part of Trump ’ s major restructuring of staff — a restructuring that included the dismissal of former US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reassignment of another impeachment witness ( and his brother ) , Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman .
In the months following the impeachment trial , Mulvaney began to appear less and less by Trump ’ s side , most recently missing the president ’ s state visit to India .
Mulvaney learned about the news of his replacement the same day Trump tweeted it out , according to NBC News , although he was reportedly told before the president made his announcement on Twitter .
Meadows , who takes Mulvaney ’ s place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made his mark as a fierce defender of the president since the 2016 presidential campaign cycle .
Sources told the New York Times that Trump had tapped Meadows on Thursday — reportedly before Mulvaney knew he was to be ousted — to become his newest chief of staff .
The North Carolina congressman , who had announced that he would not seek reelection last year , will now be the fourth person to take on that title in three years .
“ It ’ s an honor to be selected by President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Meadows said in a statement .
“ This President and his administration have a long list of incredible victories they ’ ve delivered to the country during this first term , with the best yet to come — and I look forward to helping build on that success and staying in the fight for the forgotten men and women of America.
” Mark Meadows ’ hiring is a key example of how Trump rewards his closest allies Loyalty is one of the most important qualities to Trump when he hires staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having been one of Trump ’ s closest and earliest allies .
When other Republicans had hesitated to rally behind Trump during the 2016 campaign season , Meadows became one of the first to throw his support behind him .
He appeared with Trump on the campaign trail in North Carolina in June 2016 , just after the Republican National Convention .
And when the impeachment inquiry began , Meadows , a member of the House Oversight Committee , rose as a vocal defender of Trump .
He often used the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry a “ sham partisan process ” and claiming that “ everybody has their impression of what truth is ” — while appearing on conservative talk shows to shut down mounting momentum for impeachment .
Meadows ’ work didn ’ t go unnoticed .
During his post-impeachment speech , Trump took the time to thank Meadows for his help during the trial : “ Mark Meadows is an extraordinary guy , ” he said .
“ He ’ s an incredibly talented man , not just as a politician but as a human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The way he worked , and Jim and all of you guys , the way they worked , it was like their life was at stake.
” To which Meadows responded : “ I just wanted to say that this reflection today is a small reflection of the kind of support you have all across the country .
We ’ ve got your back.
” Meanwhile , Meadows also showed his loyalty with money : His campaign has spent at least $ 11,435 at Trump ’ s Washington , DC hotel , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post .
Considering Meadows long history of vocal support for Trump , it ’ s not a surprise that he was selected for the chief of staff position .
Many had predicted that he would take on a role in the White House at some point , something Meadows himself alluded to in his farewell statement when he announced that he wouldn ’ t be running for reelection .
“ My work with President Trump and his administration is only beginning , ” he wrote .
“ This President has accomplished incredible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , and I ’ m fully committed to staying in the fight with him and his team to build on those successes and deliver on his promises for the years to come .
”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) will replace Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney as White House chief of staff, becoming the fourth person to hold that position since President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
President Donald Trump announced the news late Friday through his Twitter account, giving no explanations as to why the change was made. While thanking Mulvaney for his service, Trump simultaneously appointed him as the United States special envoy for Northern Ireland.
....I want to thank Acting Chief Mick Mulvaney for having served the Administration so well. He will become the United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland. Thank you! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2020
Although the announcement was abrupt, it was a change that had also been anticipated for a while. Trump reportedly wanted to fire Mulvaney on multiple occasions during his 14-month tenure, and according to CNN, grew especially displeased with the former acting chief of staff after Mulvaney admitted that Trump attempted to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals.
Mulvaney later tried to retract this admission, saying, “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy,” but the damage had already been done — albeit not to a devastating enough degree for Republicans in the Senate to vote for the president’s removal following his impeachment.
Despite the president’s reported dissatisfaction with how Mulvaney handled the Ukraine scandal in general, close aides urged the president to refrain from dismissing his now-former chief of staff to avoid causing unnecessary turmoil during his Senate impeachment trial, according to CNN.
After his acquittal in the Senate, many had predicted Mulvaney would be part of Trump’s major restructuring of staff — a restructuring that included the dismissal of former US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, who testified during the impeachment hearings, and the reassignment of another impeachment witness, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (and his brother).
In the months following the impeachment trial, Mulvaney began to appear less and less by Trump’s side, most recently missing the president’s state visit to India. Mulvaney learned about the news of his replacement the same day Trump tweeted it out, according to NBC News, although he was reportedly told before the president made his announcement on Twitter.
Meadows, who takes Mulvaney’s place, is a Trump ally who has made his mark as a fierce defender of the president since the 2016 presidential campaign cycle. Sources told the New York Times that Trump had tapped Meadows on Thursday — reportedly before Mulvaney knew he was to be ousted — to become his newest chief of staff. The North Carolina congressman, who had announced that he would not seek reelection last year, will now be the fourth person to take on that title in three years.
“It’s an honor to be selected by President Trump to serve alongside him and his team,” Meadows said in a statement. “This President and his administration have a long list of incredible victories they’ve delivered to the country during this first term, with the best yet to come — and I look forward to helping build on that success and staying in the fight for the forgotten men and women of America.”
Mark Meadows’ hiring is a key example of how Trump rewards his closest allies
Loyalty is one of the most important qualities to Trump when he hires staff, and Meadows perfectly fits this criteria, having been one of Trump’s closest and earliest allies.
When other Republicans had hesitated to rally behind Trump during the 2016 campaign season, Meadows became one of the first to throw his support behind him. He appeared with Trump on the campaign trail in North Carolina in June 2016, just after the Republican National Convention.
And when the impeachment inquiry began, Meadows, a member of the House Oversight Committee, rose as a vocal defender of Trump. He often used the president’s talking points — calling the inquiry a “sham partisan process” and claiming that “everybody has their impression of what truth is” — while appearing on conservative talk shows to shut down mounting momentum for impeachment.
Meadows’ work didn’t go unnoticed. During his post-impeachment speech, Trump took the time to thank Meadows for his help during the trial:
“Mark Meadows is an extraordinary guy,” he said. “He’s an incredibly talented man, not just as a politician but as a human being, he’s incredible. The way he worked, and Jim and all of you guys, the way they worked, it was like their life was at stake.”
To which Meadows responded: “I just wanted to say that this reflection today is a small reflection of the kind of support you have all across the country. We’ve got your back.”
Meanwhile, Meadows also showed his loyalty with money: His campaign has spent at least $11,435 at Trump’s Washington, DC hotel, according to a September 2019 report from the Washington Post.
Considering Meadows’s long history of vocal support for Trump, it’s not a surprise that he was selected for the chief of staff position. Many had predicted he would take on a role in the White House at some point, something Meadows himself alluded to in his farewell statement when he announced he wouldn’t be running for reelection.
“My work with President Trump and his administration is only beginning,” he wrote. “This President has accomplished incredible results for the country in just 3 years, and I’m fully committed to staying in the fight with him and his team to build on those successes and deliver on his promises for the years to come.”


vox--2020-03-07--If God is dead, then ... socialism?

If God is dead, then ... socialism?

It ’ s the biggest question anyone has ever asked , and there is no easy answer .
It ’ s even harder to answer if you consider this possibility : That this life — the here and now — is all we have .
There is no heaven nor hell , no eternal beyond , no consciousness of any kind after death .
We are thrown into existence , we live for a while , and then we pass away into nonexistence .
If all of that ’ s true , how should we spend our time ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly , what do owe each other ?
A new book , called This Life , by Yale philosopher Martin Hägglund somehow tackles all of these questions and much more .
For Hägglund , the best religious and philosophical traditions all implicitly recognize that the highest good , the thing we ’ re really after , is this life that we share together .
And that means we have to think about meaning and commitment with this truth in mind .
This is Hägglund ’ s point of departure , and it leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political ideas and finally to a deep critique of capitalism and the values that undergird it .
In the end , Hägglund argues that some form of socialism is the only political project that takes the human condition seriously because , unlike capitalism , it allows us to devote ourselves to projects that we actually care about as opposed to selling our labor — and time — for the sake of profit and survival .
This excerpt is part of a much broader conversation Hägglund and I had on The Ezra Klein Show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ click here or find it wherever you get your podcasts .
Why is “ How should we spend our time ?
” the most important question humans beings can ask ?
Because that is the question that underlies and informs all the other questions we ’ re asking .
Everything we commit to is inseparable from this question of what we think we should do with our time and what our priorities are .
We show our valuation of things by devoting our time to them .
And , of course , sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That something wasn ’ t worth our time .
That it was a waste .
But all that just shows that every question about value and worth goes back to this question about what ’ s worthy of our time .
You ’ re focused on time in part because death plays such a huge role in the argument you want to make .
Now , most people , even most atheists , concede that heaven would be lovely if it existed , but you reject this .
Why is the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a bad thing ?
I don ’ t think death is a blessing ; I think life is a blessing .
I don ’ t want to die , but it ’ s only by virtue of being mortal , of running the risk of death , that things can matter at all .
So the reason I don ’ t think heaven or eternity or Nirvana is desirable is precisely because it would be the same thing as death .
Built into any meaningful life is the reality that it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spin this argument the other way : If death is final , why does any of it matter ?
I agree with you that death makes life all the more sacred , but I understand why someone might stare into that abyss and find it unbearable .
Absolutely , and I ’ m not dismissing these sorts of feelings or dispositions .
What you were just recounting was this very familiar existential trope of thinking , “ Well , when I contemplate that all of this is going to get lost , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the despair at the prospect of dying wouldn ’ t even exist if you didn ’ t already believe in the significance of the thing that was going to be lost , which is your life .
So a distinction I ’ m trying to make is that the desire not to die , which makes the prospect of death so terrifying , actually comes not from a desire for eternity but from a desire for what I call living on .
So the impulse for eternity is really better understood as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And not just living longer but living better , living fuller .
There ’ s an interesting paradox here .
If you ’ re right that death is what gives life its meaning and shape , and I think you are right , then why is it that death is something almost everyone refuses to think about ?
Most people live their lives as though it will go on forever , which is to say we take so much of it for granted .
The things we waste our time on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is absurd in light of the fact that one day this will all end .
How do you make sense of all that ?
It ’ s not that death gives life meaning ; it ’ s just that it ’ s only in light of death that we can even be gripped by the question of whether our lives are meaningful or meaningless .
Questions like “ Am I wasting my life ?
” or “ Is my life worthy or good ?
” require a relation to death because otherwise it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that the religious belief in eternity or the hereafter prevents people from doing what is necessary to improve this life right now ?
I want to be careful here because obviously people can derive a sense of meaning and purpose from their religious beliefs and their religious commitments .
But the big question I ’ m trying to ask is , what is required for us to recognize our life together as the highest good ?
I argue in the book that what truly matters is how we treat one another in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the communities we build and the way we recognize and take care of one another .
The problem with many religious traditions is that they consider the highest good not to be this fragile life we have together but a state of being that would transcend that .
I want to show that the best insights and practices in these traditions can be better understood in secular terms , and if we develop that fully , we will develop the resources to recognize that the highest good is this life that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and commitment in those terms .
Where is the love ?
It ’ s between us .
Where ’ s the responsibility ?
It ’ s between us .
It ’ s not vertical ; it ’ s horizontal .
“ What we need is the transformation of the very measure of value in our society ” You actually go further than most in the book and argue that moral responsibility would be impossible without a secular understanding of freedom .
What I ’ m calling secular faith is something that is shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental notions of moral responsibility , the golden rule , are only intelligible in terms of what I ’ m calling secular faith because it requires both that you believe in the intrinsic value of yourself and others as ends in themselves , so that they should be treated as ends in themselves .
That ’ s a condition for taking responsibility .
But that also means that we must grasp that they are finite and fragile because if they weren ’ t then it wouldn ’ t be of such deep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one another .
So I think our sense of responsibility , our sense of care , is already built into our understanding of ourselves and of others .
I just want to make that explicit .
You ’ re not interested in disproving God or championing capital-R Reason .
You ’ re saying that lurking in every well-meaning religious believer is actually a secular humanist who doesn ’ t yet recognize herself as such .
What do you want a religious person who comes to your book in good faith to take away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say is that a helpful way of thinking about what I ’ m doing in the book is deepening Karl Marx ’ s understanding of religion .
Marx was faced with the question , “ Why do we have these various religious ideas of heaven or eternity ?
” His answer was that our actual historical form of life is unsatisfying and not what it ought to be .
But if we had a satisfying form of social life , then those religious ideas of something beyond our fragile social historical life would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s right , but Marx doesn ’ t give an account of why it is right .
To ground Marx ’ s argument one has to counter the religious idea that we dream of something beyond this life because it ’ s inherently unsatisfying to be a finite , fragile , vulnerable human being .
On the religious conception , regardless of how satisfying and emancipated our shared life becomes , we ’ re always going to long for something beyond this world , for eternal rest , whether the emptiness and stillness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So one thing I ’ m trying to show is that those visions of an eternal life can not actually fulfill what we desire and what we ’ re committed to in leading our lives .
My argument thus provides the ground for Marx ’ s claim that if we transform our social conditions we will be able to let go of religious ideas of eternity and we will be able to recognize that our life together is the highest good .
Capitalism values time in the sense that someone has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t value the ability to spend our time in ways that aren ’ t connected to survival or money .
Everything turns on wealth and profit and property , and you ’ re defined by what you own , what you possess .
It ’ s the most spiritually impoverished way of being I could possibly imagine .
Yes , but the thing about Marx is that , even though he ’ s very critical of capitalism and thinks it has to be overcome , he also thinks it was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life .
And the question of time is at the center of that .
There ’ s a contradiction here because , on the one hand , capitalism is the first social form of life which recognizes that everyone ’ s time is valuable in the sense that you have to pay someone to do something rather than just enslave them .
What you ’ re saying to the enslaved person is that you don ’ t own your time at all ; I own you and your time .
So capitalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our time is important .
Even if you ’ re not a capitalist or don ’ t own any property , you at least own the time of your life .
In other words , there ’ s a negative recognition that your time is valuable because it costs something to buy it , and this is a qualitative shift that capitalism makes possible .
Can you say a little more about Marx ’ s critique of capitalism and why it was both a necessary step on the way toward something like socialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order for us to really own our time in the way you think we should ?
Well , Marx asked , how did we come to embrace this idea of everyone ’ s right to freedom and equality ?
And the answer is that capitalism helped gives us this language , this way of thinking , because this mode of production , of buying and selling our labor on the market , couldn ’ t be justified by race or caste or any of these things .
But this is where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re all formally equal under capitalism in terms of our rights to sell our labor , we ’ re still unequal because we have different amounts of capital .
So we ’ re minimally free in that no one can just enslave us or force us to do something , but we ’ re only free to sell our labor in order to survive .
This is progress over the old feudal system , and it helps to establish the importance of freedom and equality , but it can ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because if I don ’ t have sufficient capital , then I have to sell my time to a capitalist who employs me and who decides the purposes of production .
And even if you ’ re a capitalist producer , you ’ re not really free to ask , “ What would be the best thing for me to produce given the actual commitments and values I have and what would be good for our society ?
” Instead , you have to create something that is profitable .
The distinction between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial to you — why ?
It has to do with the depth of our critique of capitalism and whether it ’ s limited to how wealth is distributed , or the more fundamental question of how wealth is actually produced under capitalism .
What we need is the transformation of the very measure of value in our society such that we would actually produce and work , not for the sake of profit , but for the sake of what we can recognize and affirm as the common good .
As long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ redistribution of wealth , then we will always be beholden to the production of capital and the priority of making profits , which generate the wealth that you can then tax and redistribute .
I agree with you for the most part , but by the time I got to the end of your book , I felt ... stuck .
You diagnose these problems and they all seem true to me .
All we have is this life and so much of it is wasted on pointless drudgery , which means in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being stolen from us .
And yet this is the world we have , even if it ’ s not the world we want , but I don ’ t know how to get from this world to the world you imagine , and I ’ m not sure you do either .
Well , like Marx , I ’ m trying to show that there ’ s a contradiction in the form of life we have , and we have to understand why it ’ s a problem before it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right about the uncertainty about the transition .
I don ’ t pretend to have an answer to that in the book .
I consider a book like this groundwork for approaching that question in a new and better way .
Because if we don ’ t have a rigorous account of what capitalism is and how it works , and why it is inimical to our freedom , and if we don ’ t have an account of why we need a revolution and what the principles of that revolution would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieving that transformation .
What ’ s interesting about our historical moment is that for the first time in a long time , these fundamental questions about how we should organize our economy , how we should live and work together , are being reopened in a profound way .
And there ’ s a vague sense that there is something called capitalism that there ’ s something wrong with and there ’ s something called socialism that we need .
But there ’ s very little clarity about what we mean by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what we mean by socialism and why it would be a better form of life .
Those are questions I am providing answers to in the book , and in light of those answers I want to open the further question of how the transformation could be possible .

What’s the meaning of life?
It’s the biggest question anyone has ever asked, and there is no easy answer. It’s even harder to answer if you consider this possibility: That this life — the here and now — is all we have. There is no heaven nor hell, no eternal beyond, no consciousness of any kind after death. We are thrown into existence, we live for a while, and then we pass away into nonexistence.
If all of that’s true, how should we spend our time? What should we care about? And most importantly, what do owe each other?
A new book, called This Life, by Yale philosopher Martin Hägglund somehow tackles all of these questions and much more. For Hägglund, the best religious and philosophical traditions all implicitly recognize that the highest good, the thing we’re really after, is this life that we share together. And that means we have to think about meaning and commitment with this truth in mind.
This is Hägglund’s point of departure, and it leads him through the history of religious and political ideas and finally to a deep critique of capitalism and the values that undergird it. In the end, Hägglund argues that some form of socialism is the only political project that takes the human condition seriously because, unlike capitalism, it allows us to devote ourselves to projects that we actually care about as opposed to selling our labor — and time — for the sake of profit and survival.
This excerpt is part of a much broader conversation Hägglund and I had on The Ezra Klein Show. To hear the full version, click here or find it wherever you get your podcasts.
Sean Illing
Why is “How should we spend our time?” the most important question humans beings can ask?
Martin Hägglund
Because that is the question that underlies and informs all the other questions we’re asking. Everything we commit to is inseparable from this question of what we think we should do with our time and what our priorities are. We show our valuation of things by devoting our time to them. And, of course, sometimes it turns out that we were wrong. That something wasn’t worth our time. That it was a waste. But all that just shows that every question about value and worth goes back to this question about what’s worthy of our time.
Sean Illing
You’re focused on time in part because death plays such a huge role in the argument you want to make. Now, most people, even most atheists, concede that heaven would be lovely if it existed, but you reject this. Why is the possibility of life after death, however unlikely, a bad thing?
Martin Hägglund
I don’t think death is a blessing; I think life is a blessing. I don’t want to die, but it’s only by virtue of being mortal, of running the risk of death, that things can matter at all. So the reason I don’t think heaven or eternity or Nirvana is desirable is precisely because it would be the same thing as death. Built into any meaningful life is the reality that it can be lost.
Sean Illing
Couldn’t we spin this argument the other way: If death is final, why does any of it matter? I agree with you that death makes life all the more sacred, but I understand why someone might stare into that abyss and find it unbearable.
Martin Hägglund
Absolutely, and I’m not dismissing these sorts of feelings or dispositions.
What you were just recounting was this very familiar existential trope of thinking, “Well, when I contemplate that all of this is going to get lost, I fall into despair.” But very interestingly, the despair at the prospect of dying wouldn’t even exist if you didn’t already believe in the significance of the thing that was going to be lost, which is your life.
So a distinction I’m trying to make is that the desire not to die, which makes the prospect of death so terrifying, actually comes not from a desire for eternity but from a desire for what I call living on. So the impulse for eternity is really better understood as a commitment to prolonging and sustaining life. And not just living longer but living better, living fuller.
Sean Illing
There’s an interesting paradox here. If you’re right that death is what gives life its meaning and shape, and I think you are right, then why is it that death is something almost everyone refuses to think about? Most people live their lives as though it will go on forever, which is to say we take so much of it for granted. The things we waste our time on, the way we use our attention, is absurd in light of the fact that one day this will all end.
How do you make sense of all that?
Martin Hägglund
It’s not that death gives life meaning; it’s just that it’s only in light of death that we can even be gripped by the question of whether our lives are meaningful or meaningless. Questions like “Am I wasting my life?” or “Is my life worthy or good?” require a relation to death because otherwise it wouldn’t matter.
Sean Illing
Do you think that the religious belief in eternity or the hereafter prevents people from doing what is necessary to improve this life right now?
Martin Hägglund
I want to be careful here because obviously people can derive a sense of meaning and purpose from their religious beliefs and their religious commitments. But the big question I’m trying to ask is, what is required for us to recognize our life together as the highest good? I argue in the book that what truly matters is how we treat one another in this life and that the highest good is the communities we build and the way we recognize and take care of one another.
The problem with many religious traditions is that they consider the highest good not to be this fragile life we have together but a state of being that would transcend that.
I want to show that the best insights and practices in these traditions can be better understood in secular terms, and if we develop that fully, we will develop the resources to recognize that the highest good is this life that we share and we should think about meaning and commitment in those terms. Where is the love? It’s between us. Where’s the responsibility? It’s between us. It’s not vertical; it’s horizontal.
“What we need is the transformation of the very measure of value in our society”
Sean Illing
You actually go further than most in the book and argue that moral responsibility would be impossible without a secular understanding of freedom.
Martin Hägglund
What I’m calling secular faith is something that is shared by everyone implicitly in practice. These fundamental notions of moral responsibility, the golden rule, are only intelligible in terms of what I’m calling secular faith because it requires both that you believe in the intrinsic value of yourself and others as ends in themselves, so that they should be treated as ends in themselves. That’s a condition for taking responsibility.
But that also means that we must grasp that they are finite and fragile because if they weren’t then it wouldn’t be of such deep and profound and irrevocable importance how we treat one another. So I think our sense of responsibility, our sense of care, is already built into our understanding of ourselves and of others. I just want to make that explicit.
Sean Illing
You’re not interested in disproving God or championing capital-R Reason. You’re saying that lurking in every well-meaning religious believer is actually a secular humanist who doesn’t yet recognize herself as such. What do you want a religious person who comes to your book in good faith to take away from it?
Martin Hägglund
The first thing to say is that a helpful way of thinking about what I’m doing in the book is deepening Karl Marx’s understanding of religion. Marx was faced with the question, “Why do we have these various religious ideas of heaven or eternity?” His answer was that our actual historical form of life is unsatisfying and not what it ought to be. But if we had a satisfying form of social life, then those religious ideas of something beyond our fragile social historical life would wither away.
I think that’s right, but Marx doesn’t give an account of why it is right. To ground Marx’s argument one has to counter the religious idea that we dream of something beyond this life because it’s inherently unsatisfying to be a finite, fragile, vulnerable human being. On the religious conception, regardless of how satisfying and emancipated our shared life becomes, we’re always going to long for something beyond this world, for eternal rest, whether the emptiness and stillness of nirvana or the harmony of heaven.
So one thing I’m trying to show is that those visions of an eternal life cannot actually fulfill what we desire and what we’re committed to in leading our lives. My argument thus provides the ground for Marx’s claim that if we transform our social conditions we will be able to let go of religious ideas of eternity and we will be able to recognize that our life together is the highest good.
Sean Illing
Capitalism values time in the sense that someone has to pay us for it, but it doesn’t value the ability to spend our time in ways that aren’t connected to survival or money. Everything turns on wealth and profit and property, and you’re defined by what you own, what you possess. It’s the most spiritually impoverished way of being I could possibly imagine.
Martin Hägglund
Yes, but the thing about Marx is that, even though he’s very critical of capitalism and thinks it has to be overcome, he also thinks it was a form of progress compared to previous forms of life. And the question of time is at the center of that.
There’s a contradiction here because, on the one hand, capitalism is the first social form of life which recognizes that everyone’s time is valuable in the sense that you have to pay someone to do something rather than just enslave them. What you’re saying to the enslaved person is that you don’t own your time at all; I own you and your time.
So capitalism, at least minimally, recognizes that our time is important. Even if you’re not a capitalist or don’t own any property, you at least own the time of your life. In other words, there’s a negative recognition that your time is valuable because it costs something to buy it, and this is a qualitative shift that capitalism makes possible.
Sean Illing
Can you say a little more about Marx’s critique of capitalism and why it was both a necessary step on the way toward something like socialism and why it had to be discarded in order for us to really own our time in the way you think we should?
Martin Hägglund
Well, Marx asked, how did we come to embrace this idea of everyone’s right to freedom and equality? And the answer is that capitalism helped gives us this language, this way of thinking, because this mode of production, of buying and selling our labor on the market, couldn’t be justified by race or caste or any of these things.
But this is where the contradictions emerged for Marx. While we’re all formally equal under capitalism in terms of our rights to sell our labor, we’re still unequal because we have different amounts of capital. So we’re minimally free in that no one can just enslave us or force us to do something, but we’re only free to sell our labor in order to survive.
This is progress over the old feudal system, and it helps to establish the importance of freedom and equality, but it can’t really deliver it in any meaningful way. Because if I don’t have sufficient capital, then I have to sell my time to a capitalist who employs me and who decides the purposes of production.
And even if you’re a capitalist producer, you’re not really free to ask, “What would be the best thing for me to produce given the actual commitments and values I have and what would be good for our society?” Instead, you have to create something that is profitable.
Sean Illing
The distinction between actual democratic socialism and social democracy is crucial to you — why?
Martin Hägglund
It has to do with the depth of our critique of capitalism and whether it’s limited to how wealth is distributed, or the more fundamental question of how wealth is actually produced under capitalism. What we need is the transformation of the very measure of value in our society such that we would actually produce and work, not for the sake of profit, but for the sake of what we can recognize and affirm as the common good.
As long as we’re just talking about redistribution of wealth, then we will always be beholden to the production of capital and the priority of making profits, which generate the wealth that you can then tax and redistribute.
Sean Illing
I agree with you for the most part, but by the time I got to the end of your book, I felt ... stuck. You diagnose these problems and they all seem true to me. All we have is this life and so much of it is wasted on pointless drudgery, which means in a very real way that our lives are being stolen from us. And yet this is the world we have, even if it’s not the world we want, but I don’t know how to get from this world to the world you imagine, and I’m not sure you do either.
Martin Hägglund
Well, like Marx, I’m trying to show that there’s a contradiction in the form of life we have, and we have to understand why it’s a problem before it can be overcome. But you’re right about the uncertainty about the transition. I don’t pretend to have an answer to that in the book.
I consider a book like this groundwork for approaching that question in a new and better way. Because if we don’t have a rigorous account of what capitalism is and how it works, and why it is inimical to our freedom, and if we don’t have an account of why we need a revolution and what the principles of that revolution would be, then we have no chance of achieving that transformation.
What’s interesting about our historical moment is that for the first time in a long time, these fundamental questions about how we should organize our economy, how we should live and work together, are being reopened in a profound way. And there’s a vague sense that there is something called capitalism that there’s something wrong with and there’s something called socialism that we need. But there’s very little clarity about what we mean by capitalism and what its contradictions are; and what we mean by socialism and why it would be a better form of life. Those are questions I am providing answers to in the book, and in light of those answers I want to open the further question of how the transformation could be possible.