Podcast appearances and mentions of elizabeth brake

Send us a textWe're stepping into a new book at Earl Grae Cafe! In this episode, Earl (she/they) reads Elizabeth Brake's foreword to Justin Clardy's Why It's OK to Not Be Monogamous. Earl sets the stage for deeper conversations on monogamy and non-monogamy, inviting us to reconsider what it means to love freely and ethically.This short (~12 minutes) episode is the perfect entry point into our new read. And if you haven't tuned in to the first seven episodes of Earl Grae Cafe, now's the time to catch up! Like, subscribe, and join us on PAGES Pod as we keep reading good books, but having even better dialogue.Past Episodes of Earl Grae Cafe:Episode 01: Earl Grae Cafe- The Origin of Others (Foreword)Episode 02: Earl Grae Cafe- The Origin of Others (Chapter 1)Episode 03: Earl Grae Cafe- The Origin of Others (Chapter 2)Episode 04: Earl Grae Cafe- The Origin of Others (Chapter 3)Episode 05: Earl Grae Cafe- The Origin of Others (Chapter 4)Episode 06: Earl Grae Cafe- The Origin of Others (Chapter 5)Episode 07: Earl Grae Cafe- The Origin of Others (Chapter 6)Other Pages Pod Episodes you might like:PAGES Pod Volume XX: Problems with LovePAGES Pod Volume IX: Sad LovePAGES Pod (Live)- A Fireside Chat on Why It's OK to Not be MonogamousVisit the PAGES TRG Online Library - Here

“In 2011, Elizabeth Brake first coined the term amatonormativity, to describe the overarching, culturally embedded belief that romantic relationships are essential to well-being.1 Heteronormativity refers to the assumption that all people are heterosexual and does not allow for individuals who hold diverse sexual orientations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, or asexual, which describes people who experience no sexual attraction to others. Allonormativity describes the stereotype that all people experience some form of sexual attraction. Allonormative makes space for heterosexual attraction as well as alternative attractions including lesbian, gay, and bisexual. However, an allonormative view ignores the existence of asexual individuals.2 Cisnormative expectations refer to the construct of being cisgender, which is holding an identity that matches the sex a person was assigned at birth.3 Cisnormative beliefs do not make space for individuals whose identities reflect aspects of transgenderism. People who believe that individuals should have only a single, monogamous romantic partner at any given time support mononormativity.4 Both mononormativity and amatonormativity address expectations regarding the pursuit of romantic relationships, however, mononormativity is based on the assumption that all people are interested in romantic relationships. Sexual normativity refers to the assumption that all people experience sexual desire and seek opportunities to act on that desire.5 This concept is highly related to amatonormativity as they both create a culture in which the lack of interest in romantic or sexual relationships is seen as abnormal6.” -ChoosingTherapy. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

PAGES the Reading Group presents Volume XIX: How Does Stalking Wrong the Victim?Straightforwardly, the act of stalking is morally wrong. But why? Said differently, how does stalking wrong the victim?In this episode of the PAGES Pod, @Nannearl_ and @Urfavfilosopher discuss the wrong of "stalking" by exploring Elizabeth Brake's recent and provocative paper, "How Does Stalking Wrong the Victim?" Be prepared for a critical discussion as we parse through common thoughts about why stalking is wrong.Brake's paper challenges conventional assumptions about stalking and argues that the central wrong in all cases of stalking lies in the fact that stalkers "force a relationship" on to their victims. Join us as we navigate through Brake's unique perspective, questioning societal norms and shedding light on the nuanced aspects of interpersonal relationships.Follow us across our social media channels:Patreon- patreon.com/pagesTRGIg- @PagestrgTikTok- @PagesthereadinggroupWebsite- www.Pagestrg.com

“Amatonormativity is the set of societal assumptions that everyone prospers with an exclusive romantic relationship. Elizabeth Brake coined the neologism to capture societal assumptions about romance.[1][2] Brake wanted to describe the pressure she received by many to prioritize marriage in her own life when she did not want to. Amatonormativity extends beyond social pressures for marriage to include general pressures involving romance.[2][3] The word amatonormativity comes from amatus, which is the Latin word for "loved", and normativity, referring to societal norms.[4][1] Another word which is similarly related to the word amatonormativity is amative. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word amative as: strongly moved by love and especially sexual love. Relating to or indicative of love. Amorous is a closely related word also derived from amatus.[5] Related terms include allonormativity, which means a worldview that assumes all people experience sexual and romantic attraction, and compulsory sexuality, which means social norms and practices that marginalizes non-sexuality.[6] The term was modeled after the term heteronormativity, the belief that heterosexuality is the default for sexual orientation.[7] Elizabeth Brake describes the term as a pressure or desire for monogamy, romance, and/or marriage. The desire to find relationships that are romantic, sexual, monogamous, and lifelong has many social consequences. People who are asexual, aromantic, and/or nonmonogamous become social oddities. According to researcher Bella DePaulo, it puts a stigma on single people as incomplete and pushes romantic partners to stay in unhealthy relationships because of a fear the partners may have of being single.[8][1] According to Brake, one way in which amatonormativity is institutionally applied is the law and morality surrounding marriage. Loving friendships, queerplatonic, and other relationships are not given the same legal protections romantic partners are given through marriage.[9] Brake wrote a book, Minimizing Marriage, in which she defines amatonormativity as "the widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship."[10]” --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

Peter McGraw welcomes Laura Grant and Amy Gahran into the Solo Studio for the first ever Solo book club. They discuss Elizabeth Brake's book: Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law.Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share! https://www.petermcgraw.org/solo/

Vul onze enquête in! https://forms.gle/3muMLnyPd3j6MBUx7 Merijn en Eva hebben het over amatonormativiteit. Wat is singlisme? Hoe heeft aromantiek met amatonormativiteit te maken? En hoe valt het huwelijk hierbinnen? Tara Mooknee's video over amatonormativiteit: Amatonormativity De site van Elizabeth Brake: elizabethbrake.com/amatonormativity/ Volg ons op instagram! @pridepraatpod Wil je iets kwijt? Iets tegen ons zeggen? Een essay voor ons schrijven? Stuur een mailtje! pridepraatpod@gmail.com

In a recent paper, Stanford professor Chuck Eesley and Notre Dame professor Yong Suk Lee observed that formal entrepreneurship education helped Stanford alumni founders raise more funding and scale more quickly than peers who received no formal entrepreneurship training. But entrepreneurship education didn't lead to a higher rate of startup creation itself. What should that finding mean for entrepreneurship educators? In this episodes, Eesley poses that question to three thought leaders devoted to training future innovators: Jon Fjeld of Duke's Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative, Hadiyah Mujhid of HBCUvc, and Elizabeth Brake of Venture for America. The conversations explore the many ways that entrepreneurship education can impact students and aspiring innovators — even if they never found a company themselves.

This is part 1 and part 2 of the lecture on Elizabeth Brake's article "Do Subversive Weddings Challenge Amatonormativity? Polyamorous Weddings and Romantic Love Ideals" (Analize Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies. New Series. Issue No. 11/2018).

There’s a widespread assumption that we are all are better off in relationships, that you can and must find your soul mate, and that true love conquers all. Mandy Len Catron has been aware of the power of love stories, ever since her childhood in rural Appalachia in the American south. As the daughter of a cheerleader and a football coach, her family stories read like the perfect American Dream. But when the reality of life fell short of these idealised, and highly feminised, notions, Mandy turned to science to explore what other narratives might be available. From her research came a blockbuster essay in the New York Times, and then a book,  How To Fall in Love With Anyone. Mandy continues to write and think about how the powerful narratives from our childhoods and our culture can be flipped into something infinitely more interesting. This episode of It's a Long Story is hosted by Edwina Throsby Show notes Mandy Len Catron at Sydney Opera House Mandy's New York Times Modern Love column Arthur Aron's 36 Questions to fall in love Elizabeth Brake on Amatanormativity  

This week on ...   For the People... law in plain language with Debra D. Rainey, Esq.   FORCED FATHERHOOD?  When 1 night turns into 18 years! Is it really FORCED FATHERHOOD, if a man takes all precautions but the woman still gets pregnant? After all when folks lay down to “indulge” they know the risks. The FTP FAM and special guest Walter Rodriguez tackle this issue from all angles: abstinence, birth-control, vasectomies and much more.  The Feminists on the FAM were raging! You gotta Tune in to hear this explosive conversation! “If women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not them to support a resulting child!” Elizabeth Brake, Feminist & Political Philosopher, 2005 Journal of Applied Philosophy   Studio Line 215-609-4301 TEXT LINE 215-435-4099 Listen. CALL. talk LIVE. DiScUsS. TUESDAY'S 8-9:30 PM (EST) Host: Debra D. Rainey, The Compassionate Lawyer Cohosts: Blaq aka the “Broke Poet and Chamara aka "Cheddar" Cotton Executive Producer: Renee Norris-Jones Managing Producer: Chamara Cotton aka ‘Ladygohard' Assistant Producer:  Robbin K. Stanton, aka “Aunt Robbin” FTP Team: Senorita Nora Norris Introducing: BreeAyre Andersons aka “Breeze” FTP team member hopeful! This episode was produced by Robbin K. Stanton Weekly Podcasts: iTunes & Podomatic Like us FACEBOOK    ~   Follow us TWITTER Air date: March 25, 2014 ~ LISTEN with the TUNEIN APP on your SMARTPHONE ~    

From the time we are children, we are encouraged to see our lives as in large measure aimed at finding a spouse. In popular media, the unmarried adult is seen as suspicious, unhealthy, and pitiable. At the same time, marriage is portrayed as necessary for a healthy and flourishing adult life. And we often see the event of a wedding to have a morally transforming power over the individuals who get married. But with only a little bit of reflection, our popular conception of the meaning and significance of marriage begins to look problematic. Is marriage really so different from other kinds of interpersonal relations that it should be accorded such a central place in our popular views about adulthood? Are those who happen to never fall in love and so never get married really doomed to an inferior or morally impoverished kind of life? And when one considers the significant social and legal benefits, rights, and privileges that accrue to individuals in virtue of their being married the standard picture seems all the more objectionable. These thoughts have led some to conclude that marriage should be disestablished as a civic status. In Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law (Oxford University Press, 2012), Elizabeth Brake criticizes the popular view of marriage as intrinsically dyadic, heterosexual, and focused on romantic love and sexual exclusivity. She also rejects the idea that marriage is a unique kind of moral relation, one that differs in kind from friendships and other kinds of caring relationships. Brake also challenges the current political and legal significance that currently attaches to marriage. Yet she also rejects marriage disestablishment; employing arguments drawing from John Rawls’s later work, Brake opts instead for a conception of minimal marriage in which marriage is conceived as a relation between two or more people for purposes of mutual care. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From the time we are children, we are encouraged to see our lives as in large measure aimed at finding a spouse. In popular media, the unmarried adult is seen as suspicious, unhealthy, and pitiable. At the same time, marriage is portrayed as necessary for a healthy and flourishing adult life. And we often see the event of a wedding to have a morally transforming power over the individuals who get married. But with only a little bit of reflection, our popular conception of the meaning and significance of marriage begins to look problematic. Is marriage really so different from other kinds of interpersonal relations that it should be accorded such a central place in our popular views about adulthood? Are those who happen to never fall in love and so never get married really doomed to an inferior or morally impoverished kind of life? And when one considers the significant social and legal benefits, rights, and privileges that accrue to individuals in virtue of their being married the standard picture seems all the more objectionable. These thoughts have led some to conclude that marriage should be disestablished as a civic status. In Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law (Oxford University Press, 2012), Elizabeth Brake criticizes the popular view of marriage as intrinsically dyadic, heterosexual, and focused on romantic love and sexual exclusivity. She also rejects the idea that marriage is a unique kind of moral relation, one that differs in kind from friendships and other kinds of caring relationships. Brake also challenges the current political and legal significance that currently attaches to marriage. Yet she also rejects marriage disestablishment; employing arguments drawing from John Rawls’s later work, Brake opts instead for a conception of minimal marriage in which marriage is conceived as a relation between two or more people for purposes of mutual care. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From the time we are children, we are encouraged to see our lives as in large measure aimed at finding a spouse. In popular media, the unmarried adult is seen as suspicious, unhealthy, and pitiable. At the same time, marriage is portrayed as necessary for a healthy and flourishing adult life. And we often see the event of a wedding to have a morally transforming power over the individuals who get married. But with only a little bit of reflection, our popular conception of the meaning and significance of marriage begins to look problematic. Is marriage really so different from other kinds of interpersonal relations that it should be accorded such a central place in our popular views about adulthood? Are those who happen to never fall in love and so never get married really doomed to an inferior or morally impoverished kind of life? And when one considers the significant social and legal benefits, rights, and privileges that accrue to individuals in virtue of their being married the standard picture seems all the more objectionable. These thoughts have led some to conclude that marriage should be disestablished as a civic status. In Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law (Oxford University Press, 2012), Elizabeth Brake criticizes the popular view of marriage as intrinsically dyadic, heterosexual, and focused on romantic love and sexual exclusivity. She also rejects the idea that marriage is a unique kind of moral relation, one that differs in kind from friendships and other kinds of caring relationships. Brake also challenges the current political and legal significance that currently attaches to marriage. Yet she also rejects marriage disestablishment; employing arguments drawing from John Rawls’s later work, Brake opts instead for a conception of minimal marriage in which marriage is conceived as a relation between two or more people for purposes of mutual care. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From the time we are children, we are encouraged to see our lives as in large measure aimed at finding a spouse. In popular media, the unmarried adult is seen as suspicious, unhealthy, and pitiable. At the same time, marriage is portrayed as necessary for a healthy and flourishing adult life. And we often see the event of a wedding to have a morally transforming power over the individuals who get married. But with only a little bit of reflection, our popular conception of the meaning and significance of marriage begins to look problematic. Is marriage really so different from other kinds of interpersonal relations that it should be accorded such a central place in our popular views about adulthood? Are those who happen to never fall in love and so never get married really doomed to an inferior or morally impoverished kind of life? And when one considers the significant social and legal benefits, rights, and privileges that accrue to individuals in virtue of their being married the standard picture seems all the more objectionable. These thoughts have led some to conclude that marriage should be disestablished as a civic status. In Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law (Oxford University Press, 2012), Elizabeth Brake criticizes the popular view of marriage as intrinsically dyadic, heterosexual, and focused on romantic love and sexual exclusivity. She also rejects the idea that marriage is a unique kind of moral relation, one that differs in kind from friendships and other kinds of caring relationships. Brake also challenges the current political and legal significance that currently attaches to marriage. Yet she also rejects marriage disestablishment; employing arguments drawing from John Rawls's later work, Brake opts instead for a conception of minimal marriage in which marriage is conceived as a relation between two or more people for purposes of mutual care.