Andrea Dworkin is dead

[Beerina]

Re: Re: Andrea Dworkin is dead

Cool, if you can't say something nice...

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bycicle" --Gloria Steinem

I love that quote because it's so true.

I also love the idea men are an evolutionary abberation (note: this is males of most species.) We (men) occupy a large local minima on the evolutionary (and highly dynamic) gradient descent space. The usefulness of sexual reproduction (which started, obviously, before some ancient species had different sexes) is so massive to faster evolution that it overrides the evolutionary disincentives such as one member having to do "all the work", while the other struts and preens and does little more than prove he is the best at beating up other males, i.e. physical size, which is only minorly useful to the species vis-a-vis other species, and definitely has its disadvantages in increased resource usage.

More accurately, sexual reproduction is a massive advantage. Sexual differentiation in the species is a minor advantage in that it outweighs the disadvantage of both parters not being able to impregnate each other.


So:

Males

Advantages:

1. Sexual reproduction (massive)

2. Large size (minimal advantage)


Disadvantages:

1. Large size --> Increased resource usage (large disadvantage)

2. Fights other males (massive disadvantage, see all human history)

3. Lets female do all the work (medium. Oh, he may help, but does not have to, and very frequently does not.)

Yes, I agree heartily. We males are a massive plague on the race making life miserable. We only exist because sexual reproduction is so advantageous for rapidly changing in an evolutionary environment.

Note also this is yet another nail in the coffin of "God" existing, specifically, as a male. It's a clownish concept.

 

[IllegalArgument]

Paglia, now there is a woman. She loves and admires men AND she is a lesbian.

BTW, Paglia is one of a number of Sex-positive Feminists. Count me a feminist.

Paglia always an interesting read, she can be a bit wierd. She has-had belief in astrology and some other pseudo-stuff. When someone gets on her bad side, like Dworkin did, her nickname is "Hurricane Camila". She has a new book coming out.

 

[Bjorn]

OK, then get back on topic...

Provide us with an example of porn that *Dworkin* said was not degrading.

I don't know what she said was not degrading (I guess she didn't) - I was commenting on Skeptic agreeing that porn IS degrading ("porn and prostitution is degrading and exploitive").

An animated pornographic male homosexual movie couldn't be degrading to women, could it? But it would still be porn ...

 

[crimresearch]

...An animated pornographic male homosexual movie couldn't be degrading to women, could it? But it would still be porn ...

Uhhmm...according to Dworkinism, yes, it would be, if anything hard and pointy went inside anything round and moist.

She was not just *any* feminist...

Don't confuse her views with more centrist feminist views about pornography.

 

[Bjorn]

Uhhmm...according to Dworkinism, yes, it would be, if anything hard and pointy went inside anything round and moist.

Male homosexual acts degrading for women?

I guess I shouldn't bother reading her ...

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Andrea Dworkin is dead

I love that quote because it's so true.

Perception is great isn't it.

I nominate Gloria's statement as one of the dumbest of the 21st Century. Far dumber than anything Dan Quale ever said and Gloria is heads and shoulders above Quale, should have known better.

It is anecdotal but I trust that it is the rule: Most women I know are heterosexual and want intimacy, family and children. Now, perhaps it is a bit naive of me but it seems that if homosexuals are not easily converted to heterosexuality then it would stand to reason that the reverse is true. The need for relationships for most of us seems prima facie. So many of us enter into them even at great risk. We keep doing it even when we fail. In other words, the need for these relationships is not far behind food and shelter. Of course like food and shelter it is linked at least in part to our survival so there is some reason for that.

Today, theoretically, a woman can have children without a man. But how does a heterosexual woman have intimacy and a relationship without a man?

Dumb, dumb statement but that is just MHO.

 

[RandFan]

Paglia always an interesting read, she can be a bit wierd. She has-had belief in astrology and some other pseudo-stuff. When someone gets on her bad side, like Dworkin did, her nickname is "Hurricane Camila". She has a new book coming out.

She takes herself a bit too seriously. You are right she is an interesting read. Vamps and Tramps was a bit odd for me but worth reading none the less.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Uhhmm...according to Dworkinism, yes, it would be, if anything hard and pointy went inside anything round and moist.

That's funny. By that definition, gay male anal sex porn is degrading to women, but a men-on-woman scat bukkake film wouldn't be degrading to women.

 

[Bjorn]

but a men-on-woman scat bukkake film wouldn't be degrading to women.

I have no idea what you're talking about, you dirty ... Am I too old or too young?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have no idea what you're talking about, you dirty ... Am I too old or too young?

Er, I don't know either. I was just repeating something I heard those older kids talking about on the back of the bus, Mom. That's not my magazine, either. The people who lived here before us must have left it in my closet on the top shelf under a stack of Ranger Rick magazines.

 

[Quinn]

Random question that's been in my mind for years: I heard, once upon a time, that one of the points in Dworkin's bizarre agenda was to ban urinals in men's rooms, because peeing while standing up was an "expression of male aggression." Anyone know if this was true?

 

[varwoche]

This discussion of radical feminism reminds me of a protest that occured in Santa Cruz, CA in the early 70's. Feminists were protesting the rape of female sea lions by male sea lions.

The sisterhood -- standing (and swimming) together.

 

[Skeptic]

Derailing again: You certainly don't think all porn is degrading and exploitive, do you?

No, I don't. Not ALL. But it is in general a degrading thing to both the actors and the viewer to the financial benefit of the producer. Do exceptions exist? Sure. But they are few and far between. The porn industry is a sordid business, using the financial desperation of the actors to satisfy the prurient interests of the viewers.

Should it be illegal? No. People have a right to privacy and a right to free speech; so if you want to make a porn film, or you want to watch it without being harassed, you should be able to. But wouldn't we be better off if there was less porn?

 

[Grammatron]

But wouldn't we be better off if there was less porn?

No.

 

[Skeptic]

An animated pornographic male homosexual movie couldn't be degrading to women, could it? But it would still be porn ... [/B]

Come on, Bjorn--this is the fallacy of the atypical example: when I said "porn" here, you know damn well I meant the typical porn movie, in its common form of heterosexual sex, not the case of some off-the-wall example like animated male porn.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, I don't. Not ALL. But it is in general a degrading thing to both the actors and the viewer to the financial benefit of the producer.

It's a job. The actors are paid, and therefore they are receiving financial benefit. They choose to do the work, and are perfectly able to seek other work if they dislike it.

Do exceptions exist? Sure. But they are few and far between. The porn industry is a sordid business, using the financial desperation of the actors to satisfy the prurient interests of the viewers.

Sordid? Your feelings. Not necessarily theirs. Financial desperation? In the sense that everyone works out of desperation for money. There are other jobs they could do if they wanted. Nobody's forced to work in porn.

Should it be illegal? No. People have a right to privacy and a right to free speech; so if you want to make a porn film, or you want to watch it without being harassed, you should be able to. But wouldn't we be better off if there was less porn?

Why would we be? If you don't watch porn, then how can its prevalence or rarity affect you in any way?

 

[Bjorn]

An animated pornographic male homosexual movie couldn't be degrading to women, could it? But it would still be porn ...

Come on, Bjorn--this is the fallacy of the atypical example: when I said "porn" here, you know damn well I meant the typical porn movie, in its common form of heterosexual sex, not the case of some off-the-wall example like animated male porn. [/B]

I know, and the example wasn't directed at you - more at the thought (of Dworkin) that ALL porn was degrading.

Which isn't saying that I agree with you, my only (and serious if it was true) objection to porn movies would be if actors were forced to participate. It might be that some of them are, but for the typical American porn movie I have no reason to belive it's so.

Degrading to the viewer? How?

Would we be better off with less or no porn? Why?

 

[aerocontrols]

Dworkin.... Dworkin.

That's a name with some character. I'm gonna get a puppy and name it Dworkin or something.

I love saying it. Dworkin.

Pass me the dworkin pliers.

What are you doing? Just dworkin' around.

Get me a dworkin' pistol, you fargon iceholes.

 

[Kodiak]

If Dworkin said websites like this were exploitive and degrading, that's reason enough to peak my interest...

 

[Bjorn]

If Dworkin said websites like this were exploitive and degrading, that's reason enough to peak my interest...

When you posted a link I thought it was something interesting ....