The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

This is a live recording from our recent show at The Royal Institution Theatre in London. The panel includes returning guests Philip Goff (professor of philosophy at Durham) and Rowan Williams (former Archbishop of Canterbury), as well as two new panellists, Elizabeth Oldfield (the popular writer) and Alex O’Connor (the popular YouTuber). It’s a very warm and good-spirited debate exploring the problems with traditional religion and atheism. The main arguments discussed are the argument for God from design and the argument against God from evil. Veteran listeners will be familiar with these arguments; still, in each case, it’s fascinating to hear the responses from both sides of the aisle on what their opponents take to be the strongest objections to their view. Without further ado, here’s the audio from our live show…we hope you enjoy the conversation.

This is a live recording from our recent show at The Royal Institution Theatre in London. The panel includes returning guests Philip Goff (professor of philosophy at Durham) and Rowan Williams (former Archbishop of Canterbury), as well as two new panellists, Elizabeth Oldfield (the popular writer) and Alex O’Connor (the popular YouTuber). It’s a very warm and good-spirited debate exploring the problems with traditional religion and atheism. The main arguments discussed are the argument for God from design and the argument against God from evil. Veteran listeners will be familiar with these arguments; still, in each case, it’s fascinating to hear the responses from both sides of the aisle on what their opponents take to be the strongest objections to their view. Without further ado, here’s the audio from our live show…we hope you enjoy the conversation.

The Western world faces a tidal wave of secularisation, which shows no signs of receding. In the UK, Christian self-identification has plummeted – dropping, for example, from 72% in 2001 to 47% in 2021. The secularists argue that this trend reflects a shift towards an inclusive and intellectually progressive society; their critics, however, warn that the decline of faith erodes our moral foundations and frays our social ties. “The secular flood isn’t just about church attendance,” they say, “but strikes at the heart of our nation’s identity and stability.” For many conservatives, nowhere is this betrayal of our values more evident than our education system. In the UK, the 1944 Education Act introduced free secondary education to all children for the first time – with grammar schools said to offer exceptional educations to our most talented students. Today, grammar schools are in decline, and the founding of new ones prohibited. It was argued that these schools favoured the middle classes and perpetuated social divisions; others, however, believe that closing these pathways has reduced educational and social opportunities. Like the Christian identity of the nation, grammar schools are at risk of being confined to history books. In this episode, we’ll be speaking with Peter Hitchens – British journalist, author, and social critic – about what religious and educational changes mean for the soul of Britain. Together, we’ll explore whether this shift marks the dawn of a more inclusive era – or the washing away of a once Great Britain. Links Peter Hitchens, Mail Online: Blog Peter Hitchens, The Spectator Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God (book) Peter Hitchens, A Revolution Betrayed (book)

The Western world faces a tidal wave of secularisation, which shows no signs of receding. In the UK, Christian self-identification has plummeted – dropping, for example, from 72% in 2001 to 47% in 2021. The secularists argue that this trend reflects a shift towards an inclusive and intellectually progressive society; their critics, however, warn that the decline of faith erodes our moral foundations and frays our social ties. “The secular flood isn’t just about church attendance,” they say, “but strikes at the heart of our nation’s identity and stability.” For many conservatives, nowhere is this betrayal of our values more evident than our education system. In the UK, the 1944 Education Act introduced free secondary education to all children for the first time – with grammar schools said to offer exceptional educations to our most talented students. Today, grammar schools are in decline, and the founding of new ones prohibited. It was argued that these schools favoured the middle classes and perpetuated social divisions; others, however, believe that closing these pathways has reduced educational and social opportunities. Like the Christian identity of the nation, grammar schools are at risk of being confined to history books. In this episode, we’ll be speaking with Peter Hitchens – British journalist, author, and social critic – about what religious and educational changes mean for the soul of Britain. Together, we’ll explore whether this shift marks the dawn of a more inclusive era – or the washing away of a once Great Britain. Links Peter Hitchens, Mail Online: Blog Peter Hitchens, The Spectator Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God (book) Peter Hitchens, A Revolution Betrayed (book)

Listening to a podcast on the morning commute, drowning out the office noise with your favourite album, getting lost in an audiobook as you walk home – for many of us, navigating the world through headphones is second nature. But is there more to these everyday experiences than listening to our favourite content? Is there more to headphone listening than meets our ears? In this episode, we’ll be exploring the philosophy and psychology of sound and headphone listening with Dr Jacob Kingsbury Downs, Departmental Lecturer in Music at the University of Oxford. Named as one of 2024’s BBC New Generation Thinkers, Jacob’s research takes place at the intersection between sound studies and continental philosophy, and seeks to reveal how headphone use shapes our minds and the fabric of society. According to Downs, headphones do more than play our favourite sounds. They transport us into sensory shelters – intimate spaces of comfort and focus – and our own private theatres. Headphone listening, he argues, is about safety, control, and reconnecting with feelings of home. Yet, not all sounds are soothing; as we shall see, sometimes our intimate sonic spaces can be exploited as a means of torture, brainwashing, and corrupting our sense of self. Don’t worry, though; you’re safe with us. Plug in your headphones; it’s time to relax. After all, there’s no place like home. The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/warms up your headphones Links Jacob Kingsbury Downs, Website Jacob Kingsbury Downs, ‘Acoustic Territories of the Body: Headphone Listening, Embodied Space, and the Phenomenology of Sonic Homeliness’ (paper) Jacob Kingsbury Downs, ‘Headphones, Auditory Violence and the Sonic Flooding of Corporeal Space’ (paper)

Listening to a podcast on the morning commute, drowning out the office noise with your favourite album, getting lost in an audiobook as you walk home – for many of us, navigating the world through headphones is second nature. But is there more to these everyday experiences than listening to our favourite content? Is there more to headphone listening than meets our ears? In this episode, we’ll be exploring the philosophy and psychology of sound and headphone listening with Dr Jacob Kingsbury Downs, Departmental Lecturer in Music at the University of Oxford. Named as one of 2024’s BBC New Generation Thinkers, Jacob’s research takes place at the intersection between sound studies and continental philosophy, and seeks to reveal how headphone use shapes our minds and the fabric of society. According to Downs, headphones do more than play our favourite sounds. They transport us into sensory shelters – intimate spaces of comfort and focus – and our own private theatres. Headphone listening, he argues, is about safety, control, and reconnecting with feelings of home. Yet, not all sounds are soothing; as we shall see, sometimes our intimate sonic spaces can be exploited as a means of torture, brainwashing, and corrupting our sense of self. Don’t worry, though; you’re safe with us. Plug in your headphones; it’s time to relax. After all, there’s no place like home. The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/warms up your headphones Links Jacob Kingsbury Downs, Website Jacob Kingsbury Downs, ‘Acoustic Territories of the Body: Headphone Listening, Embodied Space, and the Phenomenology of Sonic Homeliness’ (paper) Jacob Kingsbury Downs, ‘Headphones, Auditory Violence and the Sonic Flooding of Corporeal Space’ (paper)

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing up to 80,000 civilians, with another 40,000 dying soon after from burns and radiation poisoning. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the surrender of the Japanese Army, marking the end of the most destructive war in history. War has been a constant throughout history. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have waged war against one another. Some argue that war is ingrained in human nature, from our ancestors battling over resources and empires seeking expansion, to biblical genocides and acts of human sacrifice—Homo sapiens are seemingly insatiable for conflict. Others, however, believe war is not inevitable and that we have the capacity for humility, justice, and kindness without resorting to armed conflict. We must remember that explaining war is not the same as justifying it. While pacifism, as exemplified by Jesus and Gandhi, is often seen as noble, is non-violence truly effective against regimes intent on ethnic cleansing? If not, how do we determine when war is justified and what defines proportional force? Can the killing of innocent civilians ever be justified? And, if not, how do they differ from innocent combatants? War, huh, good god, what is it good for? Links A.C. Grayling, War: An Enquiry (book) Richard Overy, Why War? (book) Jeff Mcmahan, Killing in War (book) Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (book) Carl von Clausewitz, On War (book) War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing up to 80,000 civilians, with another 40,000 dying soon after from burns and radiation poisoning. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the surrender of the Japanese Army, marking the end of the most destructive war in history. War has been a constant throughout history. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have waged war against one another. Some argue that war is ingrained in human nature, from our ancestors battling over resources and empires seeking expansion, to biblical genocides and acts of human sacrifice—Homo sapiens are seemingly insatiable for conflict. Others, however, believe war is not inevitable and that we have the capacity for humility, justice, and kindness without resorting to armed conflict. We must remember that explaining war is not the same as justifying it. While pacifism, as exemplified by Jesus and Gandhi, is often seen as noble, is non-violence truly effective against regimes intent on ethnic cleansing? If not, how do we determine when war is justified and what defines proportional force? Can the killing of innocent civilians ever be justified? And, if not, how do they differ from innocent combatants? War, huh, good god, what is it good for? Links A.C. Grayling, War: An Enquiry (book) Richard Overy, Why War? (book) Jeff Mcmahan, Killing in War (book) Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (book) Carl von Clausewitz, On War (book) War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing up to 80,000 civilians, with another 40,000 dying soon after from burns and radiation poisoning. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the surrender of the Japanese Army, marking the end of the most destructive war in history. War has been a constant throughout history. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have waged war against one another. Some argue that war is ingrained in human nature, from our ancestors battling over resources and empires seeking expansion, to biblical genocides and acts of human sacrifice—Homo sapiens are seemingly insatiable for conflict. Others, however, believe war is not inevitable and that we have the capacity for humility, justice, and kindness without resorting to armed conflict. We must remember that explaining war is not the same as justifying it. While pacifism, as exemplified by Jesus and Gandhi, is often seen as noble, is non-violence truly effective against regimes intent on ethnic cleansing? If not, how do we determine when war is justified and what defines proportional force? Can the killing of innocent civilians ever be justified? And, if not, how do they differ from innocent combatants? War, huh, good god, what is it good for? Links A.C. Grayling, War: An Enquiry (book) Richard Overy, Why War? (book) Jeff Mcmahan, Killing in War (book) Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (book) Carl von Clausewitz, On War (book) War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

They say money can’t buy happiness, but it can buy power, freedom, and security. The one per cent – who control nearly half of the world’s wealth – understand this better than anyone. In capitalist democracies, corporations spend billions on political donations and lobbying to influence economic policies in line with their own interests. The trillions spent by governments in propping up the banks following the 2008 financial crash – and the bailing out of the largest corporations through the Covid Corporate Financing Facility – speak volumes: the state and the economy are not separate entities. The goal of the state is clear: “Steady the ship and maintain course.” Corporations don’t just pose a threat to our economic freedoms, but the future of the natural world. Just a handful of firms are responsible for over seventy per cent of carbon emissions, and despite public pressure, corporate action on the climate crisis has been largely ineffective. We shouldn’t be surprised; after all, industry holds the power, and turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. Links Grace Blakeley (website) Grace Blakeley (twitter) Grace Blakeley, Vulture Capitalism: Corporate Crimes, Backdoor Bailouts and the Death of Freedom

Philosophy is about concepts – what it is to be moral, to be in love, or belong to the human species – and these concepts pervade every aspect of our lives. Yet, what images come to mind when you think of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, or René Descartes? For many of us, we imagine Descartes in his armchair, Hume at his desk, and Kant on one of his solitary walks. We certainly don’t imagine these figures, wearing boiler suits… For Mary Midgley, the image of a philosopher withdrawn from the realities of everyday affairs represents precisely where philosophy has gone wrong. For Midgley, philosophy is best understood – not as an exercise of self-indulgent scholarship – but as a sort of plumbing. Our concepts run through our societies like the pipes through our homes, and it’s the job of the philosopher – that is, the plumber – to examine the pipes and keep the water from swamping the kitchen floor. For Midgley, we need philosophy, just as we need plumbing…philosophy’s not a luxury; it’s a necessity. Joining us to discuss the philosophy of Mary Midgley is Dr Ellie Robson. Dr Robson is a British Society for the History of Philosophy Postdoctoral Fellow and Teaching Associate at Nottingham University. Ellie – whose work primarily focuses on the history of philosophy and meta-ethics – is one of the leading scholars of philosophy on Mary Midgley’s life and work. In this episode, she’ll illustrate Midgley’s meta-philosophy and meta-ethics through her analysis of the concept of beastliness. Let’s dig up the floorboards and see what’s leaking. Contents Part I. The Roots of Human Nature Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Ellie Robson (website) Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley’s Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature: a re-appraisal (paper) Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley on Water and Thought: Is Public Philosophy Like Plumbing? (article) Mary Midgley, The Concept of Beastliness (paper) Mary Midgley, Beast and Man (book) Mary Midgley, The Myths We Live By (book) Mary Midgley, What Is Philosophy For? (book) Gregory McElwain, Mary Midgley: An Introduction (book)

Philosophy is about concepts – what it is to be moral, to be in love, or belong to the human species – and these concepts pervade every aspect of our lives. Yet, what images come to mind when you think of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, or René Descartes? For many of us, we imagine Descartes in his armchair, Hume at his desk, and Kant on one of his solitary walks. We certainly don’t imagine these figures, wearing boiler suits… For Mary Midgley, the image of a philosopher withdrawn from the realities of everyday affairs represents precisely where philosophy has gone wrong. For Midgley, philosophy is best understood – not as an exercise of self-indulgent scholarship – but as a sort of plumbing. Our concepts run through our societies like the pipes through our homes, and it’s the job of the philosopher – that is, the plumber – to examine the pipes and keep the water from swamping the kitchen floor. For Midgley, we need philosophy, just as we need plumbing…philosophy’s not a luxury; it’s a necessity. Joining us to discuss the philosophy of Mary Midgley is Dr Ellie Robson. Dr Robson is a British Society for the History of Philosophy Postdoctoral Fellow and Teaching Associate at Nottingham University. Ellie – whose work primarily focuses on the history of philosophy and meta-ethics – is one of the leading scholars of philosophy on Mary Midgley’s life and work. In this episode, she’ll illustrate Midgley’s meta-philosophy and meta-ethics through her analysis of the concept of beastliness. Let’s dig up the floorboards and see what’s leaking.   Contents Part I. The Roots of Human Nature Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Ellie Robson (website) Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley’s Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature: a re-appraisal (paper) Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley on Water and Thought: Is Public Philosophy Like Plumbing? (article) Mary Midgley, The Concept of Beastliness (paper) Mary Midgley, Beast and Man (book) Mary Midgley, The Myths We Live By (book) Mary Midgley, What Is Philosophy For? (book) Gregory McElwain, Mary Midgley: An Introduction (book)

Birds sing joyfully, dogs smile as they fetch their sticks, and philosophers laugh at their own jokes on podcasts. It is a happy world after all. In fact, if we ponder upon such delights for long enough, it is possible to infer – even during our darkest days – that these are gifts bestowed by a benevolent creator, for these are not necessary for our survival but are gratuitous goods. Yet, says another, what if these delights are no more proof of a benevolent creator than they are a malevolent one? What if these goods are given just to amplify our suffering when they are inevitably taken from us? And, what if, for every reason given for believing in a good-god, there was room for an evil-god to just as easily take his place? In this episode, we’ll be exploring the evil-god challenge with Dr Jack Symes, teacher and researcher at Durham University and editor Bloomsbury’s popular book series, Talking about Philosophy. According to Symes, whilst the evil-god challenge has its merits, we should be sceptical about its attempts to draw parallel arguments to those in favour of god’s goodness. Ultimately, for Symes, there are enough asymmetries in these parallel arguments that we should consider the evil-god challenge defeated. Contents Part I. Defeating the Evil-God Challenge Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Jack Symes (website) Jack Symes, Defeating the Evil-God Challenge: In Defence of God’s Goodness (book)

Birds sing joyfully, dogs smile as they fetch their sticks, and philosophers laugh at their own jokes on podcasts. It is a happy world after all. In fact, if we ponder upon such delights for long enough, it is possible to infer – even during our darkest days – that these are gifts bestowed by a benevolent creator, for these are not necessary for our survival but are gratuitous goods. Yet, says another, what if these delights are no more proof of a benevolent creator than they are a malevolent one? What if these goods are given just to amplify our suffering when they are inevitably taken from us? And, what if, for every reason given for believing in a good-god, there was room for an evil-god to just as easily take his place? In this episode, we’ll be exploring the evil-god challenge with Dr Jack Symes, teacher and researcher at Durham University and editor Bloomsbury’s popular book series, Talking about Philosophy. According to Symes, whilst the evil-god challenge has its merits, we should be sceptical about its attempts to draw parallel arguments to those in favour of god’s goodness. Ultimately, for Symes, there are enough asymmetries in these parallel arguments that we should consider the evil-god challenge defeated. Contents Part I. Defeating the Evil-God Challenge Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Jack Symes (website) Jack Symes, Defeating the Evil-God Challenge: In Defence of God’s Goodness (book)

In the early part of the twentieth century, three thinkers – Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji – founded the Kyoto School of Philosophy, a group of scholars working at the intersection of Japanese and European thought. The Kyoto School, deeply influenced by the German tradition, wrote extensively on the works of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger exploring themes such as the limits of our reason and the nature of nothingness. Tanabe, himself a student of Heidegger, explored such topics at length, building on the rich body of thought and – as we shall see – igniting his own philosophy. In this episode, we’ll be investigating the profound insights of Tanabe’s philosophy with two of the world’s leading Tanabe scholars: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Gregory S. Moss and Lecturer in Non-Western Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Takeshi Morisato. As we explore Tanabe’s work, we’ll see Japan’s, Kyoto School’s, and Tanabe’s histories, unique philosophical paths, and the many questions they illuminate along the way. As we do so, we’ll uncover the invaluable insights of their work and the legacy they left behind. Contents Part I. The Kyoto School Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Gregory S. Moss (website) Takeshi Morisato (website) The Dialectics of Absolute Nothingness: The Legacies of German Philosophy in the Kyoto School (book)

In the early part of the twentieth century, three thinkers – Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji – founded the Kyoto School of Philosophy, a group of scholars working at the intersection of Japanese and European thought. The Kyoto School, deeply influenced by the German tradition, wrote extensively on the works of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger exploring themes such as the limits of our reason and the nature of nothingness. Tanabe, himself a student of Heidegger, explored such topics at length, building on the rich body of thought and – as we shall see – igniting his own philosophy. In this episode, we’ll be investigating the profound insights of Tanabe’s philosophy with two of the world’s leading Tanabe scholars: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Gregory S. Moss and Lecturer in Non-Western Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Takeshi Morisato. As we explore Tanabe’s work, we’ll see Japan’s, Kyoto School’s, and Tanabe’s histories, unique philosophical paths, and the many questions they illuminate along the way. As we do so, we’ll uncover the invaluable insights of their work and the legacy they left behind. Contents Part I. The Kyoto School Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Gregory S. Moss (website) Takeshi Morisato (website) The Dialectics of Absolute Nothingness: The Legacies of German Philosophy in the Kyoto School (book)

‘The clouds are grey, the sun obscured and you are walking through the countryside in the overcast of winter. Passing from field to woodland, the trees shed coats of frosty bark to celebrate the passing of another icy season. It feels too early for spring, but echoes of swallows in the canopies sing songs of new beginnings. You pause to catch a glimpse of your woodland companions. With effortless precision, your eyes track the birds as they zip between empty branches and, combining countless neurons, you forecast the birds’ trajectory each time they fall out of view. You walk on, emerging from the trees, and return to the open fields. You look back, appreciate the woods and see a river flowing into the trees from the east. Where does the river begin? Escaping the clouds, the sun will soon be free of the sky altogether; if you want to discover the river’s source, you had better get walking.’ Contents Part I. Out of Nothing Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Philosophers on God: Talking about Existence (book)

‘The clouds are grey, the sun obscured and you are walking through the countryside in the overcast of winter. Passing from field to woodland, the trees shed coats of frosty bark to celebrate the passing of another icy season. It feels too early for spring, but echoes of swallows in the canopies sing songs of new beginnings. You pause to catch a glimpse of your woodland companions. With effortless precision, your eyes track the birds as they zip between empty branches and, combining countless neurons, you forecast the birds’ trajectory each time they fall out of view. You walk on, emerging from the trees, and return to the open fields. You look back, appreciate the woods and see a river flowing into the trees from the east. Where does the river begin? Escaping the clouds, the sun will soon be free of the sky altogether; if you want to discover the river’s source, you had better get walking.’ Contents Part I. Out of Nothing Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Philosophers on God: Talking about Existence (book)

‘The kitchen needs cleaning, but only one of us seems to notice. I mean, he looked straight at the dishes in the sink…and just stacked his dish on top of them. How high does this precarious tower of crockery have to be until he decides to wash the dishes or, more likely, they collapse into an unrepairable heap? I suppose I’ll have to wash them. They won’t get washed otherwise, and I’d rather get them off my mind.’ The unequal distribution of household labour is a familiar concern amongst feminists. Despite the progress in women’s rights and freedoms, women across the world continue to bear the responsibility of domestic chores and childcare. This raises an important question: why do women in monogamous, opposite-sex relationships continue to shoulder a disproportionate amount of housework work despite their political gains? In this episode, we’ll be exploring this question with two outstanding philosophers of morality and mind: Paulina Sliwa (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vienna) and Thomas McClelland (Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge).  According to Paulina and Tom, our disparities and perception of domestic labour are determined by our feelings, beliefs, and social norms. In other words, the way we perceive the world is radically different. The dishes don’t call out to some – in need of cleaning – in a moment of perception, as they do to others. So what can we do to change this disparity…that is, if it’s in need of changing at all. Contents Part I. Affordance Perception Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Thomas McClelland and Paulina Sliwa, Gendered Affordance Perception and Unequal Domestic Labour (paper) Coverage of Gendered Addordance Perception in the media (website) Thomas McClelland (website) Paulina Sliwa (website)

‘The kitchen needs cleaning, but only one of us seems to notice. I mean, he looked straight at the dishes in the sink…and just stacked his dish on top of them. How high does this precarious tower of crockery have to be until he decides to wash the dishes or, more likely, they collapse into an unrepairable heap? I suppose I’ll have to wash them. They won’t get washed otherwise, and I’d rather get them off my mind.’ The unequal distribution of household labour is a familiar concern amongst feminists. Despite the progress in women’s rights and freedoms, women across the world continue to bear the responsibility of domestic chores and childcare. This raises an important question: why do women in monogamous, opposite-sex relationships continue to shoulder a disproportionate amount of housework work despite their political gains? In this episode, we’ll be exploring this question with two outstanding philosophers of morality and mind: Paulina Sliwa (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vienna) and Thomas McClelland (Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge).  According to Paulina and Tom, our disparities and perception of domestic labour are determined by our feelings, beliefs, and social norms. In other words, the way we perceive the world is radically different. The dishes don’t call out to some – in need of cleaning – in a moment of perception, as they do to others. So what can we do to change this disparity…that is, if it’s in need of changing at all. Contents Part I. Affordance Perception Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Thomas McClelland and Paulina Sliwa, Gendered Affordance Perception and Unequal Domestic Labour (paper) Coverage of Gendered Addordance Perception in the media (website) Thomas McClelland (website) Paulina Sliwa (website)