Andrea Dworkin is dead

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Andrea Dworkin is dead

I love that quote because it's so true.

I love it because it's not even original. Irina Dunn, an Australian, wrote the saying as graffitti in 1970. However, even that was not original; it was a paraphrase of "Man needs religion like a fish needs a bicycle," which is earlier and was certainly common by the 1960s. (It's known as Vique's Law.)

 

[LostAngeles]

Re: This

What I remember was that she believed that even consentual sex was a sexual assault on a woman. To me that seemed so old school - that sex is something a man does to a woman. The argument is that it's an aggressive act because the man is "penetrating" the woman. One could just as easily argue that the woman is enveloping the man.

So what I want to know is how she wanted humanity to reproduce because the enveloping of a penis by a vagina is generally the most efficient and effective method.

Hence I jump to the conclusion that she was the King of All Misanthropes (yes, I'm using "king" to be a *itch.) and simply didn't want humanity to continue it's verminous existence across the planet.





BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY IT MAKES SENSE. *weeps*

 

[billydkid]

I hate the way

I hate the way guys get to own the word 'gay'.

Lesbians are gay too, dammit!

I hate the way gays have taken possesion of the word "gay".

 

[billydkid]

Yes.

Am I the only one who thinks he's kinda cute?


Jeremy

I would have to say.....yes.

 

[aerocontrols]

I hate the way gays have taken possesion of the word "gay".

That doesn't bother me so much.

 

[Ladyhawk]

Never heard of Dworkin. Never read her. Never heard her. And given the testimony on this thread, I'm glad I didn't. I could have turned out more screwed up than I already am....

As for Gloria Steinem's famous quote "

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle ", I think some may misconstrue her intent. I think Steinem was simply saying that women didn't have to settle for being a wife and/or mother as their life time goals. In the simplest of terms, I believe she was saying that women shouldn't believe that being a successful woman is defined by how long you've been married or how may kids you have. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it and, I agree.

from RandFan

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

Well, I think a heterosexual woman (or man, for that matter) can find fulfilling relationships outside of intimate relationships. A select few are happier without what they perceive to be 'the entanglements' of a marriage/long term relationship.

Pornography
Many feminists rally against pornography but, hell, why should any man care? They've not been successful and probably never will be. I don't know that I view porn as degrading (as an industry) to the people who participate in it. I agree with Tragic Monkey and others on their point of view. I do, however, think many women are intimidated and emotionally hurt by pornography and I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to understand why.

Prostitution
I wish they would finally legalize it. I really do! For one thing, the pros would be better protected and could be mandated to follow certain health regulations. For another, I'd like to see those girls get taxed like the rest of us poor bums

Dworkin probably did more to hurt the feminist movement than help it. In fact, I've always taken issue with the word "feminist". Why should a seperate label have to be applied to a group of people who simply feel that gender shouldn't stand in the way of one's pursuit of happiness?

When I was quite young, my father told me simply,
"Don't burn your bra or walk on protest marches to be taken seriously. Act like you deserve to be respected and most people will respond that way. Wave some flag demanding to be respected because you're a woman, and all you'll do is to draw attention to the fact that you're a female....not that you're a capable human being". About 90% of the time, I found he was right.

 

[epepke]

Never heard of Dworkin. Never read her. Never heard her. And given the testimony on this thread, I'm glad I didn't. I could have turned out more screwed up than I already am....

Good for you. I spent a lot of time studying this stuff after going to a school production of Don Juan which had a "feminist countertext" written by the Women's Studies department. It opened my eyes, and I wanted to get to the bottom of it, which I did, although it didn't help my blood pressure any.

You probably have heard of some of the things that Dworkin and MacKinnon have pushed for, such as some of the pornography importation laws of Canada under which, ironically enough, some of Dworkin's own books were stopped at the border.

Many feminists rally against pornography but, hell, why should any man care? They've not been successful and probably never will be.

To a certain extent I agree. However, there is one exception. While the Dworkins and the Brownmillers and the Dalys and the Morgans of the world largely did their damage and petered out by the mid-1990s, they remain a force in academic women's studies. Even this wouldn't matter except that in many universities, women's studies courses are mandatory for all first-year students. The sheer amount of hateful vitriol and guilt-tripping is really a hell of a thing to shove down the throat of a 17- or 18-year-old college student, whatever long-term value it may have as a Nietzschean innoculation.

Dworkin probably did more to hurt the feminist movement than help it.

I'd say certainly.

In fact, I've always taken issue with the word "feminist". Why should a seperate label have to be applied to a group of people who simply feel that gender shouldn't stand in the way of one's pursuit of happiness?

Lots of younger people have the same idea these days, which is probably the one good thing that resulted from the crazy years of feminism.

 

[Ladyhawk]

Even this wouldn't matter except that in many universities, women's studies courses are mandatory for all first-year students. The sheer amount of hateful vitriol and guilt-tripping is really a hell of a thing to shove down the throat of a 17- or 18-year-old college student, whatever long-term value it may have as a Nietzschean innoculation.

I've heard this and would be very curious to hear from anyone who has had to take such classes recently. I'd especially like to know what "hateful vitriol" has been presented in these courses.

Lots of younger people have the same idea these days, which is probably the one good thing that resulted from the crazy years of feminism.

Well, let's try to be fair here, epepke. Some good things did come out of the feminist movement. Women were motivated to believe that their gender should not dictate but one route in life for them to take.

Let's not ignore the fact that women were repressed for quite some time. I mean, we've only had the right to vote for less than half of this country's lifetime. We've come a long way and still have a long way to go. I also think that a lot of feminists need to get back to center. In the effort to elevate women from being solely mothers and housewives, the feminist movement has been perceived as condemning these roles. Personally, I think a woman who is a full time mother and housewife has THE toughest job on earth; bar none. Feminists (women and men alike) need to embrace these women again and give them the respect that they rightfully deserve.

They also need to preach respect for BOTH genders. I don't see anything wrong with a 'womens studies' class. After all, women have been attending classes for decades that highlighted only men's achievements. Nothing wrong with a little equal time. But, I'm totally opposed to any course that instills hatred, fear or prejudice. Feminism can be as venomous as chauvinism. Believe me, I know.

 

[epepke]

I've heard this and would be very curious to hear from anyone who has had to take such classes recently. I'd especially like to know what "hateful vitriol" has been presented in these courses.

You could talk to my ex-wife, but I don't have her number.

Well, let's try to be fair here, epepke. Some good things did come out of the feminist movement.

I'm talking about the crazy years of feminism, as opposed to the sane years. Which is why I called them the crazy years. I am not asserting that the crazy years are representative of all feminism. If you want to make that leap, fine, but that would be your choice, and don't blame it on me.

 

[Ladyhawk]

I'm talking about the crazy years of feminism, as opposed to the sane years. Which is why I called them the crazy years. I am not asserting that the crazy years are representative of all feminism. If you want to make that leap, fine, but that would be your choice, and don't blame it on me.

Understood.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I did some googling on Dworkin, since I wasn't familiar with her work. Sounds like a lot of the more controversial ideas might have been misrepresentations, according to this site:


http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LieDetect.html


I also ran across a few opinions that much of the ire against Dworkin was due to her appearance, as much as her ideas.

 

[epepke]

Understood.

OK, thanks. Sorry for being brusque. It's just that, back in the day, I got called an "anti-feminist" sooooo many times for having the audacity to criticize people like Dworkin and Brownmiller that I'm a bit touchy about it.

 

[epepke]

I did some googling on Dworkin, since I wasn't familiar with her work. Sounds like a lot of the more controversial ideas might have been misrepresentations, according to this site:


http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LieDetect.html

I looked at that site. I don't know about any of those statements, but they seem like straw men to me. Anyway, you can make up your own mind by reading the stuff that Dworkin has written.

 

[RandFan]

I think some may misconstrue her intent. I think Steinem was simply saying that women didn't have to settle for being a wife and/or mother as their life time goals.

A sentiment I completely agree with. People say dumb things for very good reasons. Steinem's quote was dumb. Statistically speaking Men and women need each other. Especially heterosexual men and women.

At least, that's how I've always interpreted it and, I agree.

I accept your interpretation and agree with the intent of the interpretation. The statement is still dumb.

Well, I think a heterosexual woman (or man, for that matter) can find fulfilling relationships outside of intimate relationships. A select few are happier without what they perceive to be 'the entanglements' of a marriage/long term relationship.

No argument at all. The problem is that your argument is besides the point. What about women who do want intimacy?

I do, however, think many women are intimidated and emotionally hurt by pornography and I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to understand why.

I think it appropriate not to force any woman to see what they find offensive.

Great post! We can agree to disagree about the Steinem remark. The right of a woman to CHOOSE to be without a man or even a woman is what is most important.

Now if she chooses to be with two women and include me then... I digress.

Thanks Ladyhawk.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Andrea Dworkin is dead

I nominate Gloria's statement as one of the dumbest of the 21st Century.

Context is everything here. The fact that she said it this way (with humor and not straight "women don't need men at all") shows it is not to be taken literally.

What she meant at the time was closer to the claim that women don't need men to BE somebody: they can have a life apart from being so-and-so's wife.

Not the same as saying women literally don't need men for anything.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Andrea Dworkin is dead

Not the same as saying women literally don't need men for anything.

I imagine there are plenty of fish who would love a nice bicycle. If dumped into their tank, it would provide lots of interesting spaces to dart into and out of, and lay eggs in, and swim through while making pop-pop mouth gestures.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Andrea Dworkin is dead

Context is everything here. The fact that she said it this way (with humor and not straight "women don't need men at all") shows it is not to be taken literally.

What she meant at the time was closer to the claim that women don't need men to BE somebody: they can have a life apart from being so-and-so's wife.

Not the same as saying women literally don't need men for anything.

Well it turns out that it was Irina Dunn who had said it and Steinem was simply quoting Dunn.

Hey Skeptic,

I accept your thesis Skeptic. If she was joking then it would be less dumb. How do you know she was just kidding? And why are you pissing on my parade?

 

[Skeptic]

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

This comes our of Mill's "On Liberty": the idea that one is free to do anything one wishes as long as one does not hurt one's neighbor.

The problem with Mill's view, of course, is that it undercuts ANY system of morals whatever. The custom of looking on certain practices with aversion is the very essence of morality--and not just on such practices that can be shown to directly hurt somebody.

As James Stephan noted as far back as 1873, Mill had

Strenuously preach and rigorously practise the doctrine that our neighbor's private character is nothing to us, and the number of unfavorable judgments formed, and therefore the number of inconveniences inflicted by them can be reduced as much as we please, and the province of liberty can be enlarged in corresponding ratio.

Stephan replies:

Does any reasonable man wish for this? Could anyone desire gross licentiousness, monstrous extravagance, ridiculous vanity, or the like, to be unnoticed, or, being known, to inflict no inconveniences which can possibly be avoided?

Of course not, he says. And why? The very distinction of "self-regarding" and "other-regarding" is wrong, as is rather obvious. Very few acts effect ONLY ourselves; if we degrade ourselves, we degrade society and others as well. Mill's view is

radically vicious. It assumes that some acts regard the agent only, and that some regard other people. In fact, by far the most important part of our conduct regards both ourselves and others... men are so closely connected together that it is quite impossible to say how far the influence of acts apparently of the most personal character may extend.

No, in reality, to not mind the deparvity and disgusting excesses of pornography--or any other outrageous behavior--is possible only when

Complete moral tolerance is possible only when men have become completely indifferent to each other--that is to say, when society is at an end.

I say that when you say that, hey, they chose to do the job, it's just a job, nobody forced them, etc. as a reason, not for not interfering LEGALLY with porn (I am against such legal interference) but to claim there is NOTHING MORALLY WRONG with it, or with prostitution, you can only do so if you are indifferent to the exploitive and soul-destroying nature of those "jobs".

Mill's argument is really Cain's argument: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Yes, you are.

 

[toddjh]

to claim there is NOTHING MORALLY WRONG with it, or with prostitution, you can only do so if you are indifferent to the exploitive and soul-destroying nature of those "jobs".

Enlighten us. What is morally wrong with porn or prostitution, and in what way are either of those, when legal and properly regulated, "exploitive and soul-destroying?"

I'll repeat my question: do you know any sex workers personally? If not, what is the basis for your opinion here?

Mill's argument is really Cain's argument: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Yes, you are.

To argue thus requires each person to attempt to enforce his own peculiar version of ethics on the world. That's not something I could ever get behind. You're talking about a million tiny wars every day. Better to live and let live, and not waste your time.

Jeremy

 

[RandFan]

I say that when you say that, hey, they chose to do the job, it's just a job, nobody forced them, etc. as a reason, not for not interfering LEGALLY with porn (I am against such legal interference) but to claim there is NOTHING MORALLY WRONG with it, or with prostitution, you can only do so if you are indifferent to the exploitive and soul-destroying nature of those "jobs".

Hi Skeptic,

I'm paying close attention to your posts. I think you make some valid points. You are correct, Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally correct. There are a number of anecdotal accounts to prove that there are problems associated with the porn industry that seem unique to that industry. I think some people are defiantly exploited. And while I might be tempted to agree with you I have not seen any data beyond the anecdotal and suspect that the argument might be specious. I really don't know.

I'm not convinced that the industry is per se soul destroying. I will keep an open mind. I grew up in a religion that held that porn was evil and I held that view for some time. I also held that masturbation was evil. I don't hold either view anymore. Perhaps one should not be connected to the other.

I sincerely thank you for your contributions to the discussion.

RandFan