I wish I’d heard that (or could currently find a recording of it):

Marina sent the perfect question:

Seriously. How can Kate Manne talk about something named “male entitlement” or “male privilege” if she doesn’t know who male people are? How does she know they’re not all trans women but just haven’t worked up the courage to say so yet?

Festival of Ideas blurbs the conversation:

Philosopher Kate Manne offers a radical new framework for understanding misogyny. She ranges widely across the culture — from the Kavanaugh hearings and ‘Cat Person’ to Harvey Weinstein and Elizabeth Warren — to show how the idea that a privileged man is tacitly deemed to be owed something is a pervasive problem. Male entitlement can explain a wide array of phenomena, from mansplaining and the undertreatment of women’s pain to mass shootings by incels and the seemingly intractable notion that women are ‘unelectable’. The consequences for girls and women are often devastating.

Male entitlement can explain a wide array of phenomena, from mansplaining and the undertreatment of women’s pain to mass shootings by incels and the seemingly intractable notion that women are ‘unelectable’ not to mention the ease with which men can announce that they’re trans or non-binary and instantly shed all trace of privilege and instead become the victims of those monsters, women who don’t believe men can become women.

As Manne shows, toxic masculinity is not just the product of a few bad actors; we are all implicated, conditioned as we are by the currents of our time. She sheds new light on gender and power and offers a vision of a world in which women are just as entitled as men to be cared for, believed and valued.

Unless they’re TERFs. Or Karens. Or both.