Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon: Enemies to Feminism

[Taverner]

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people and deserve respect. In addition, I would argue that it is also the notion that they deserve equal pay for equal work, and equal respect on top of that.

So how is it that Dworkin, and MacKinnon, both hypocrites and theorists with axes to grind were symbolic of 90's feminist theory? Dworkin would argue that all hetrosexual sex is an affront to women

"Intercourse with men as we know them is increasingly impossible. It requires an abortion of creativity and strength, a refusal of responsibility and freedom: a bitter personal death. It means acting out the female role, incorporating the masochism, self-hatred, and passivity which are central to it. Unambiguous conventional heterosexual behavior is the worst betrayal of our common humanity"

And MacKinnon:

"I think that what women are conditioned socially to experience as love is a form of annihilation of self ... Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage and sexual harassment. Compare victims reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike ... In this light the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot see anything wrong with it."

So how is it these folks would be considered anything but anti-feminist in that they advocate restricting freedom, specifically sexual freedom?

[Zerex71]

1. I'm sorry, but it's the rantings of a bitter, ugly woman.

I mean, have you seen Dworkin? At some point it's just what passes for an intellect lashing out at probably not being able to score a date.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. She's dead

She's dead, so cut her a break, and don't be so superficial. You're better than that.

Now, post your picture. Come on. I mean it.

[Taverner]

6. I dunno...I would feel soooo....VIOLATED

;D

[noiretextatique]

67. intersting that dworkin's physical appearance was (and is) such a issue

apparently, is was the source of much pain for her. sad that some still consider a woman's physical appearance reflective of her intellectual and psychological state.
in a thread on feminist enemies...consider yourself one :puke:

[atommom]

103. My thoughts exactly. It's just a sign of how far we HAVEN'T come.

[Rich Hunt]

229. yeah, really...

I thought this was going to be a thread about feminism, not Andrea Dworkin's looks.

As for Dworkin, I don't agree with most of what I've read from her, but she's a very powerful writer, and I think that's what attracts people to her, whether negatively or positively.

[Dorian Gray]

236. I think

her upbringing and her resulting sexuality played more of a role in her view on male/female sexual relations, and her looks really should have little to do with this discussion.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. They had a following,

but they're more generally known as the headcases they truly are. Real feminists - or humanists, as I like to think of us - dismissed them as troubled and angry women who chose the written word in lieu of serious and intensive therapy.

McKinnon is the more insidious of the two, I think, because she looks normal. (Dworkin never looked anything but nuts, unfortunately.) She's also quite respectable in terms of her CV, but, really, she's just a rightwingnut with a nice hairdo.

[Taverner]

5. "she's just a rightwingnut with a nice hairdo."

EXACTLY! And what really bugs me is that after all her anti-porn rant, she married a lawyer who made his fortune on fighting in behalf of porn. I have no problems with someone being pro-porn as am I, but the hypocrisy is astounding!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. Well, good for you

for calling her out on it, even if it's only here.

There are those, alas, who still think she's onto something, but, personally, I find her academically-inspired bad writing just blather to the nth degree.

[PinkTiger]

12. These statements were made in a context that is more easily understood.

At the time, in that context, any act that made a woman subordinate to the man was considered suspect.
It was an important, watershed moment in women's consciousness, making us aware that we should examine every act, every interraction between male and female and look for ways to make it more equal.
I agree with Dworkin's comments, but in context.
Sexual intercourse between men and women must be on equal footing, or it is a way to put women down.
Today, many years later, I can say we have achieved a modicum of this in our interpersonal relationships, but not all women have this.
So get over the angry, ugly woman attacks.
We have the right; we HAD the right and we still DO to examine our conventional behavior.

Get over it if you don't like it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. Oh, please

Bell bottoms were part of that context, too, but I wouldn't go near them today.

In the beginnings of the feminist movement - I was in undergrad school at the time, newly married - there was a cross-current of unhappy women, unhappy with their lives, unhappy in marriages, unhappy with their kids, and it was all manifested as anger at men.

Instead of taking at look at what they were doing, they struck out and blamed men for everything.

I remember walking out of one "consciousness-raising session" because a friend of mine was being lambasted for not finding fault with her husband on any number of issues - the one I remember most vividly is that she mentioned spilling a box of detergent in the laundry room, and he cleaned it up - the harpies in the group landed on her for that, screeching that HE should have been doing the laundry.

Yeah, that was the context in which Dworkin and McKinnon found fertilization, so to speak. That context had nothing to do with feminism.

[Taverner]

17. "...making us aware that we should examine every act..."

This I can understand - and if it were the only legacy left by Dworkin and MacKinnon then at least something good came out of it.

But personally (and I might get laughed at for this) I think Seinfeld addressed the topic better when Jerry was dating a woman of Asian descent and (incorrectly) argued that a statement isn't racist if it's a good thing....

[PinkTiger]

19. Well, don't blame me for your refusal to be real.

Here's a link that discusses better than I do some of this:
http://www.radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/10/andrea_dworkin

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. Taverner's not REAL?

Ah-HA!

That would explain the refusal to post a photograph.............;)

[Taverner]

26. I admit it...I am JimmyJazz's sock puppet

:D

[PinkTiger]

32. Cute.

So you really don't want a meaningful discussion, but a fun discussion where you come out on top.

Typical man.

[Taverner]

36. I want a meaningful discussion

And at the same time a fun one.

Because I know here we all can "agree to disagree."

Besides, if we were talking the Iraq war or how Dean is maligned by the media, i can only hear so many Amens.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

54. As do I

There is much to be said on this matter, ideas to be exchanged, opinions to be expressed, thoughts to be shared.

Now, take off that shirt, and send another picture.

[Taverner]

57. LOL....and I agree

We all have opinions, and this is something that has to be discussed.

I'm sick of telling wingnuts that I am a feminist, and having them roll their eyes.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

53. Cheap shot

No wonder Dworkin and McKinnon appeal to you. They're humorless.

That "typical man" crack is a cheap shot.

Now, post your picture.

[booley]

86. DE-AMMM!

You are such a {further comments censored by the FCC}

[Finder]

188. Is this really you?

Just curious.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. Is that true?

Oy!

[SteppingRazor]

3. I believe Dworkin repudiated her sex=rape comments,

did she not?

As for MacKinnon, her comment is patently absurd -- "major distinction between intercourse and rape is that the former happens so often that one cannot see anything wrong with it."

Um... there's also the matter of "consent." That kinda makes a difference between the two, does it not?

[bluestateguy]

7. I don't really pay much attention to either one of them

I like to think that they don't represent feminism.

[Fleshdancer]

8. I personally think they hurt the movment more than they helped it

As a feminist and as a woman, I was offended by the notion that my sexuality - something I take very seriously - was insulted this way. There is a spiritual beauty for me that takes place when I allow someone into my body. Comparing my decision to have sex to rape is as insulting as exploiting female sexuality for advertising/marketing/music etc. Either way, it strips away the concept that my sexuality is my own and belittles it by making it about other people.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Same here

Those women really had it in for the porn industry, too, claiming that women who participated were all 'sex slaves.'

There is something I would like to say about those two, right here on the tip of my cybertongue, but, really, it would be so wrong.

They really came across as women-haters, did they not?

[Fleshdancer]

23. I would definitely agree to that

They came across as self-hating. Two women who proudly wore their need for therapy on their sleeves. I can't read their stuff without saying to myself over and over "dear Goddess, what did he or they do to you?!" My heart would literally ache from what seemed like a lot of personal pain.

As far as the porn industry goes, I've said it on DU before, but porn is an multi-billion dollar industry which means it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Instead of insulting or ignoring porn workers, we should accept their choices and work our asses off making it a safe industry. Regulation and unionization.

[Rich Hunt]

230. yeah, but...

The real reason it 'hurt' feminism is that the media seized upon these two and promoted them as if they were the only thing going.

There is a historical context for the Dworkinnon ideology - if you look at the 'reformist' writings of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, you could see the same attitudes toward women's sexuality. Similar arguments were made against drinking - that alcohol was bad because lower-class men who consumed it were more likely to beat their wives.

What's funny is that women were making a lot of progress in the 1980s and 1990s, when these arguments were in vogue.

Puritanism disguised as 'feminism' goes back much further than the 1970s. You might even have to go back to the 1870s.

[amazona]

10. anti-feminist media made them symbols to marginalize women's causes

Dworkin was severely mentally ill. I don't especially blame her. I don't believe she was in control of her imaginings. I don't know what to think about McKinnon. Perhaps she is "black ops" working deliberately to harm the feminist cause. I'm old enough to remember when the feminist movement was about getting good sex for women, getting equal access to porn and stimulation, about discovering the clitoris. Seems Dworkin and McKinnon just wanted to go back to the days when intercourse was a terrible, terrible imposition on the female. I never saw anything particularly progressive or creative in going back to the days of, "Lay back and think of England." I'm sorry that McKinnon finds intercourse unpleasant, suggest that she refrain from participating if she dislikes it so. But she goes too far when she tries to take it away from the rest of us. It is hard to believe that she's all that sincere.

[Zenlitened]

100. DING DING DING! We have a winner!

"anti-feminist media made them symbols to marginalize women's causes"

:thumbsup:

[catzies]

139. AGREED! That's it in a nutshell.

n/t

[mistertrickster]

214. Nice re-write of history, with a huge dollop of conspiracy theory thrown

in.

These two were HUGE in academic feminism for two decades. Who was bigger, only Brownmiller, perhaps, and she wasn't far away ideologically, having written the influential "Against our Will: Men, Women and Rape."

Remember when feminists pulled men's names from phone books, pinned them to telephone poles under the heading "POTENTIAL RAPISTS!"

Gee, wonder where they got that idea?

And now we're supposed to believe they weren't real feminists.

Okay, and Stalin wasn't a communist . . .

[noiretextatique]

124. some women don't like intercourse

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

192. I don't like cheddar cheese

but I don't argue that it's intrinsically evil, either. :shrug:

[noiretextatique]

194. i don't think either one of these women did that

:shrug: argue that intercourse is "intrinsically evil" that is.

[amazona]

243. certainly dworkin did

Read her work. Such books as "Fire and Ice" are a blunt-edged re-working of de Sade. "Intercourse" makes it flat-out explicit. To the end of her days, she was hallucinating that people, known and unknown, were raping her. She was upfront that her relationship with her long-time partner did not involve intercourse.

Anyone can say anything about anyone after they're dead, but when Dworkin was alive to speak for herself, she was an out-spoken opponent of intercourse, which she did not feel could ever be an equal exchange between men and women in society as we know it.

To my mind, no different from what Norman Mailer said about men and women in the 1950s. No different from "everybody" thought about sex in the Victorian era. It was for the pleasure of men and just a job or an imposition for women. Nothing radical here, folks. People like McKinnon who jumped on the bandwagon and made a whole academic study of pretending this was radical were fakes. Poseurs. Come on.

There is more "radical" in Annie Sprinkle's little finger than in Catherine McKinnon's entire body. The radical discovery was that women ARE sexual, we CAN enjoy sex, we CAN take and use men and discard them too when we're done.

Jeez Louise, I can't be the only person here who remembers the 1970s. There was a decade when sex was for fun, not to lasso some hopefully well-compensated man into marriage. But, alas, commercial interests have won out. A society where people have casual sex and handfastings or a society where stupid people spend tens of thousands of dollars on weddings? Not hard to see which vision the mass media, which relies on advertising, was going to sell.

[noiretextatique]

256. IF you have a quote

i'd love to see it. hallucinating, huh...while dying? well, that's an indictment if there ever was one :eyes:
dworkin had a hard life, and it reflected in her work. the same is true...of anyone. she had male lovers at some point in her life, even though she apparently identified as lesbian. as i mentioned before, some women really don't like intercourse :shrug: i still think calling her an "outspoken opponent of intercourse" is ridiculous...truly.
interestingly enough, both dworkin and mackinnon did a lot more than what they are notorius for, which is why focusing on the notority,
and ascribed so much importance to it is as much absurd absolutism as they are criticized for.
dworkin knew what she was, and she also knew that the movement would evolve beyond her. personally, i think some of best work was the stuff on abortion, cloning, etc, that few have mentioned in this thread.
i came of age in the seventies...the mid to late seventies. things were much different by the time i came along. sex was for fun...and that was pretty much it. the rw backlash and AIDS had a lot to do with the changes that came later.

[amazona]

258. people have given you plenty of quotes

"Fire and Ice" and "Intercourse" which I cite are BOOK-length works. If I pick out a quote, you'll say it is out of context, even though it clearly says what it says. So pick up the books. Read them. You will be amazed at what she claims. This is the second thread full of quotes and statements from Dworkin, so it is not quite fair to ask us to keep typing in the same thing over and over if you've not even bothered to read her work!

By the by, an example of one of her more incredible rape claims was published in the Guardian. You may read it here:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,327399,00.html

The woman was not sane, and the people who pretended she was in order to get academic status for themselves and to help marginalize the real work of feminism used her and harmed her and guaranteed that she would live her life as a delusional woman who never had a moment's peace.

That is just wrong, ya'll.

[noiretextatique]

275. i've read some her books...including intercourse

but for some reason...i am not troubled what she wrote, not particularly amzed either. :shrug: she was but one of many; she and granted she was eccentric, clearly she enjoyed making shocking statements and being provocative. not everyone agrees with you about her work. some people thought she was brilliant...i found her interesting, nuts at times, but mostly interesting.

[Tsiyu]

185. Thank you! Why not a post on noble feminists?

It's always more fun to bash the kooks and for some to imply that ALL are kooks and man-haters. Sensationalism at it's best!

Many expect the feminist movement to be devoid of zealots before it's palatable to their sensitivities, but they forget that many writings, especially in the 60's and 70's, (Think Dialectic of Sex) were written as a reaction to the misogyny and limitations of the times.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/fireston.htm

If you want to take the most extreme examples of these writings - out of context no less- and hold them up as examples, oh, well. To each his or her own, but I find it so unproductive and really only another jab at feminism itself.

Oh, well. We've come a long way. NOT!!!!!

[mistertrickster]

218. Radicals can rant all they want, but when they hijack the Democratic

party and turn it from its focus on class to a focus on gender, and alienate its working class base (remember all the blue collar men AND women who turned out for Reagan and never came back?), then it DOES become my problem and yours.

[KnowerOfLogic]

193. When s.o. mentions Dworkin you know they're looking for an excuse to

diminish the whole notion that there ever has been or is now any discrimination against women. The minute i hear her name i know the person saying it has got an attitude problem when it comes to women (unless it is brought up specifically to point this out).

[SarahB]

205. Excellent post!

:thumbsup:

[JHB]

11. What prompts this rant?

Is there a particular reason for bringing this up here and now, or did you happen to think we don't have enough to do what with *, his war, the Republicans, etc.?

[Taverner]

14. Coworker brought up Dworkin in a discussion

Basically arguing what I argued.

It's sad that here on DU one can't bring up an unrelated issue witout everyone getting suspicious.

[amazona]

66. dworkin passed recently

So there has been some renewed interest in the topic.

[1monster]

15. Definitely over the top, but this part of her statement

"I think that what women are conditioned socially to experience as love is a form of annihilation of self."

is true.

When a girl or woman first falls in love, she will do things for her lover; i.e. cleaning his home, his laundry, cooking, and other general or specific services. She most likely has been conditioned most of her life to do this. She sees these services as gifts of love. Many men, (i hombres muy estupidos !) take these little gifts of love for granted or as their rightful due.

If the woman stops doing these little services, quite often the relationship hits a big snag. In order to keep the peace and to keep her lover happy, she continues doing the drudge work. But I'm not so sure the services continue to be a gift of love and somehow, she has lost a piece of her autonomy and self.

That said, equating a consensual and or loving sexual relationship with rape is absurd.

(I note that it is mostly men answering this thread. How 'bout some other female input?)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. Holy shit!

What girls do you know? Who the hell behaves like that?

I certainly never did. No woman I know ever did. My daughters surely never did those things.

Calling men "stupid" doesn't do much for anyone, either.

You're talking about housekeepers, I think.

And if you think I'm a man, you're dead wrong.

[1monster]

38. Loads of them. Many of them are now middle aged and older and in unhappy

marriages or divorced. And you can't be all that old if you don't know some women who did/do just that.

The fact that studies continue to show that even women who work outside the home are still the ones doing more than 90% of the house work and child rearing chores pretty much proves my point. A lot of men think that if they take the garbage to the curb on garbage day, they've done their part.

I menat to imply that "some" men are stupid, not all.

And when I typed that, you were the only woman who had posted.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

50. You state things strangely

Are you talking about what marriages are like for some women? Because that's not at all what you wrote - you wrote something like "when a girl falls in love, she cooks, cleans, etc.," and that's something completely different.

I don't know women who lived lives like that, no. I have had clients who lived lives like that, but they're not in my personal world. In my generation - and I'm older than you might think - we fought for our independence, but we were smart enough never to measure who took out the trash with equality.

How can you tell by screen names who's male and who's female? It never occurs to me, since it's so irrelevant.

[1monster]

81. When the thread is about gender issues, I sometimes check the profiles...

You have left your gender undelclared, but I have seen you around on the board long enough and often enough to know that you are female.

And I really didn't express my point well in the above two posts. Pink Tiger does a much better job below.

As to who and what kind of woman or girl makes the mistakes I focused on above? I did not marry until I was thirty-five (probably a small rebellion from my upbringing and seeing so many of the marriages of my college friends break up within a year or three), but all the women in my rural farm country part of Pennsylvania were reared to become wives and mothers and to marry young. We were taught that a woman did these things for her husband.

Even the very smart ones went to college (and it was mostly only the smart ones who were college bound) were expected to get their education and then get married, produce children and be a stay at home wife and mother.

(I remember my mother picking out the man she wanted me to marry when I was sixteen.... a fundie minister! :scared:)

Married women took care of the home and the children and submitted to the head of the household...

Most of my seven sisters were married by age 20. One was, I think, 24 when she married and established a career and ground rules first. And all of my sisters, save that one, have more traditional marriages.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

85. I came out of an impoverished PA coal region borough

Even back in the sixties, when we graduated from high school, that kind of thinking was around, but it was always clear that we had other things to do besides marry and raise kids and take care of husbands. Sure, some of my classmates did just that, and they're happy with what they chose.

Choose being the operative word. Even back then, we had choices, and your choosing not to marry until your thirties is proof of that.

[1monster]

92. Some of us had choices. Some of us were not even aware of choices.

"Choose being the operative word. Even back then, we had choices, and your choosing not to marry until your thirties is proof of that."

I did a lot of reading and was better educated than many of my peers. Also, I really didn't want to end up like my mother with nine pregnancies and ten children. I moved a thousand miles away from their sphere of influence. That helped a lot.

[noiretextatique]

136. your person experience is irrelevant

to quote you.
i know plenty of women who do this, by staying in abusive relationships, for example. or women who allow themselves to be controlled and dominated. i women "buying" men with money, cars, clothes, etc., because they are so desparate to have a man. i see them everyday: at work, on the street, at church...everywhere.

[shrike]

265. I've known a few young gals who did that

Former co-worker of mine, good-looking young photographer, had a girlfriend who ironed his shirts, did his laundry and cleaned his place. He saw nothing wrong with that; he probably expected it. She did it out of love, he felt. That is what women do when they are in love.

I can think of a few other examples -- I think some of these ladies were trying out to be wives. "See how good you'll have it if you marry me." Though in my experience that's not what prompts a guy to pop the question. Although the photog did marry his girlfriend/maid.

[Scout]

271. I know several women like that...

they wait on their husbands hand and foot, do all the cooking and housework even if they work full time outside the home, even if they make the higher wage. (They did this before marriage as well.)

The cater to his whims, bow to his judgement ... at least to his face. They have to ask his permission to do things with friends, or out of routine.

In short, these are the kind of women I call pussies.

Some of the men are truly appreciative of their mates, more of them just take it for granted that he's in charge and she should wait on him and defer to him, always. :shrug:

[Fleshdancer]

29. I think men and women do all sorts of things when falling in love

People of both genders do things for the object of their affection during courtship. For me and my husband, one of the secrets to our marriage is to not stop doing these services for one another. The biggest trick is to make the effort not to take the small actions for granted.

[JHB]

37. Speaking of "muy estupoidos" (hopefully lightheartedly)...

...plenty of women can fail to recognize mens' "service gifts of love" too.

There have been plenty of books on this sort of miscommunication, but I still think one of the best treatments is the chapter or two on it in Carol Tavris' "The Mismeasure of Woman".

[booley]

95. I hate to break this to you...

"When a girl or woman first falls in love, she will do things for her lover; i.e. cleaning his home, his laundry, cooking, and other general or specific services. "

But men do this too.

Traditionaly who was responable for working however long it took to make money to support the family? who traditionaly tries to woo a mate with gifts and signs of financial indpendence?

Couldn't working long hours to support a family you never have time to see be considered drudgery?

What you are describing occurs among gay men as well.

me thinks it's not mysogyny but human nature that we tend to do things we wouldn't normally do when we are in a relationship.

Though for the record, My Mom was not the one who did most of the cleaning. My step father was the neat freak in the house.

[noiretextatique]

200. it's not misogyny...it is social conditioning

and gender role socialization, not "human nature."
it's not "human nature" that excluded women from the workforce and forced men to work to support families. btw, not all women had the luxury of not working, and not all men supported their families.

nor is buying gifts and wooing just human nature...if it was, traditionally, women would have done more of that too.

nor is it always just "human nature" that determines what tasks people perform in a relationship.

[booley]

207. warn me when you switch subjects like that

becuase i was responding too "When a girl or woman first falls in love, she will do things for her lover; i.e. cleaning his home, his laundry, cooking, and other general or specific services. "

In other words, the post I was respondign to seemed to make a claim that women, becuase they fall in love, did stuff like like "drudgery" to keep thier spouse happy and this was a burdon on women.

of course, men also sacrifice for the ones they love. The actual social stereotypes are irreevant. Since women and men both make sacrifices for thier families.

THAT IS HUMAN NATURE.

Hey, perhaps this shows the value of Feminism for men, since breaking down these stereotypes would allow both men and women to make more realistic sacrifices for thier loved ones.

Unfortunatly you went off on something else.

I most certainly DID NOT claim that it is ""human nature" that determines what tasks people perform in a relationship. "

In fact, I beleive if you had bothered ot read my post instead of assigning some other meaning to it, you would have noticed that I claimed the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim I said.

[noiretextatique]

208. i think i read your post just fine

but i think you misread the post you responded to, hence your use of the word drudgery. the original post stated that women are taught that self-annihilation = love, when in fact self-annihilation is neither love or sacrifice. the poster then cited some examples of what she considered self-annihilation, examples that happened to be tasks the you called drudgery.
her post was not about sacrifice or drudgery: it was about self-annihilation, which is not human nature.

perhaps she should have used better examples, but i think the point is: women are taught that self-annihilation = love. perhaps men are too, but the examples you cited were not stereotypically gender-specific. women have always worked, for example. there was no time in modern history that men earned all the money to support families...unless the family was privileged in some way. on the other hand, house-cleaning drudgery was, and mostly still is, considered women's work...even if the woman works long hours to support the family.

finally, when you cited the example of your stepfather cleaning house, not your mother, because he is a neat freak. now...that i consider human nature.

[VelmaD]

18. Ok...Tav you know me...

and you know that I'm a very sex positive person. But you took those quotes out of context and then seriously misread them. What Dworkin was talking about was sex as demeaning to women when they were forced to play the "female" role as it has been molded through centuries of misogyny. The expectation that women are sexually passive and masochistic is what was demeaning to women. Being forced into that role regardless of what your actual sexual desires are...that demeans women.

MacKinnon also had some valid points. How is she wrong when she says that what women are socialized to accept requires annihilation of the self? Are you denying that for centuries women have been told over and over and over that love for us means giving up our identity and name and any aspirations we may have and subsuming them in caring for a man and children...but not to expect that same level of care in return from men who "love" us?

[Taverner]

28. Like any good propagandist...she starts off with a truth

And leads into an untruth. Any good propagandist will start off with a truth ("You are all out of work!") and then lead into BS ("It's the {insert scapegoat here} that caused it!!!")

Irregardless of whether women are socialized to anhiliate the self (I think she was right here) both go on to argue that sex itself is a destructive act. That is complete erroneous BS, and I don't think I'm taking them out of context as that is their conclusion.

[VelmaD]

42. Do you really not see how sex under those conditions...

where woman (and men too) are forced into a role against their natural inclinations, is a destructive act? As long as the woman is forced into anihilation of the self as a prerequisite to the relationship...the relationship itselt is destructive and as is any sex within that relationship.

Oh, and irregardless is not a real word. :P

[Taverner]

52. But shes not arguing that

Shes arguing that all sex is then anhililation of self, because all women fall into these roles.

And to be honest I think sex is often the great catharsis...ever notice how the biggest alpha males are the ones who sign up for the dominatrices? And how the meekest church mice are the guys who like to be the Dom?

[VelmaD]

58. Which part of...

"sex with men as we know them"...did you not get? I interpret that to mean sex with men who are bound to traditional gender roles. Not all men.

As to how male personality effects bottom/top roles...please do not tempt me any more to bring personal information about you and your sex issues into this conversation. :P

[NashVegas]

195. Sidenote on Loss of Identity

In some places, that may be a newer conception than others.

I once lived in Southern Vermont, a block away from a Revolutionary War era cemetery, where Ethan Allen's widow is buried.

In several, if not most, of the family plots, the names on the wives' headstones carry their maiden, not their married names (the Allen widow included). For example, you'd see a grave marker for "John Smith" and right next to it, "Beth Jones," with the annotation, "beloved wife of John Smith."

Maybe marrying for love just ain't all it's cracked up to be :)

[Djinn]

210. so why all the aggro at porn then

What Dworkin was talking about was sex as demeaning to women when they were forced to play the "female" role as it has been molded through centuries of misogyny. The expectation that women are sexually passive and masochistic is what was demeaning to women. Being forced into that role regardless of what your actual sexual desires are...that demeans women.

porn is one of the very few places you'll see women taking on a "masculine" role in regards to sex, while I'm a bit on the fence re porn being a good/bad thing from a feminist perspective this is one aspect where it's definetly a plus

[donsu]

21. I disagree - Dworkin and Mac Kinnon fought hard for us women

Dworkin said things no one had the guts to bring up and discuss. she opened doors and let the light in.

MacKinnon did heroic work.

to say they were "enemies to Feminism" is ridiculous

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. What did Dworkin and MacKinnon accomplish

in the name of feminism?

Seriously. I see them as empty vessels, giving off a hollow, ringing sound. But, I'd like to know what you think they contributed that endures.

[PinkTiger]

27. Read this

Michael Moorcock: After "Right-Wing Women" and "Ice and Fire" you wrote "Intercourse". Another book which helped me clarify confusions about my own sexual relationships. You argue that attitudes to conventional sexual intercourse enshrine and perpetuate sexual inequality. Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse--it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.


Link:

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

[Taverner]

33. Good point and sex=rape may not have been the crux of her argument

But she still says that - even if it wasn't the eventual direction of her argument.

[VelmaD]

48. Did you actually read the post you replied to

Find me a source where she actually says what you're accusing her of saying.

[noiretextatique]

59. she doesn't say that...what she says is she was slandered

repeatedly by people who claimed she said that.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

60. That's Dworkin clarifying her muddy prose

Good. I don't care about that.

Again, tell me what YOU think those two women's works have contributed to the world, to the feminist movement (such as it is), to the enlightenment of the public.

Please don't link me to some irrelevant clarification. I want to know what you think.

[redqueen]

91. Why do you say it's irrelevant, if it challenges the veracity of the OP?

More specifically... it challenges the veracity of the quote used to illustrate Dworkin's status as an "enemy"... I would think this a pretty valid point.

:shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

105. Because it's irrelevant to the question I asked.

Keep up.

Now, go see the question I asked.

I just love this nonspecific - and ill-conceived - lashing-out when someone doesn't toe the line. My goodness............

[redqueen]

132. I was judging more in the context of the thread...

than as a response to your post.

Why are you so hostile and dismissive in this thread? Does this discussion strike a nerve with you or something?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

135. You're confusing intensity

with hostility and dismissiveness, I believe.

It was a fine discussion until the line went off the rail at someone's refusing to allow some man to "decide" something, when, in fact, it was just a man voicing an opinion with which the posted didn't agree.

Loads of discomfort and intolerance here for things that don't go along the Party line, I note.

Now, what else would you like to know about me personally?

[redqueen]

142. No, when you use terms like "babe"

in an insulting way in a thread like this, that's hostility.

I won't pretend to judge when the conversation went off the rails... however I will note your copious responses to posts in the thread, regardless of whether they were directed at you or not. That's not rare or otherwise meaningful except to make it clear that the subject is one you feel passionately about.

The discomfort and intolerance, on my part (because I won't presume to speak for anyone else, unlike others) stems partly from reading statements like yours about babes needing to get their heads out of their rear ends. That's offensive, hostile, and not conducive to having a fine discussion, which you claim to want to have.

There's nothing else I want to know about you personally... I was only curious as to why you were so venomous in this thread.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VelmaD]

151. I don't think Miss Manners would agree with you...

that telling someone to pull their head out of their ass is "polite".

[OldLeftieLawyer]

160. Now, aren't you a little bit curious

as to why I'm the center of attention here, and not the Mesdames Dworkin and MacKinnon?

[VelmaD]

165. I just figure it's because...

you have nothing better to do today than reply to every single person who posts on this thread.

Then again...neither do I. :)

[redqueen]

155. Thanks for your kind and helpful suggestions as to what I should do.

:hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

162. Hmmm?

Now you're taking things personally when they were simply presented in an objective voice.

Ah, well.

I love you, too.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

175. There were absolutely no suggestions aimed at you

Boy, the power to personalize here is just incredible.

[redqueen]

178. "Ignoring me is always your choice. You should do it"

So the "You" in that sentence is directed at whom exactly?

(I'm tempted to add a "polite" reminder that you should try to "Keep up"...)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

181. It's the universal "you"

Otherwise, I'd have addressed you directly.

In my home town, it would have been "youse."

Incredible. I'm the topic. What a hoot.

:woohoo:

I so rule.

[redqueen]

184. Nice try.

I'll take that advice now. :hi:

[Zenlitened]

148. Wow. Anger-management, would you?

Take a few deep breaths and step away from the computer for a bit, maybe?

The whole world is not out to get you. So there's no need to go lashing out at the whole world.

Really, you're not exactly covering yourself in glory, here.


Edited to add: Your posts are "polite, reasoned, literate, and not personal"?

Dude or dudette, you've got to try for a moment to read your words through another's eyes. Saying "I didn't mean to be..." doesn't really count for much. Maybe you need to find a better means of communicating.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

152. heh heh heh

Damn right. That whole world is out to get me. Damn straight.

Especially those babes ........... oh, never mind.

I think I love you, though.

[Zenlitened]

159. "I think I love you, though."

I think I need an Alka-Seltzer. :puke:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

164. You puke a lot

That's not good.

[Zenlitened]

169. Really? What else would you care to tell me about me?

I though civil, reasoned debaters such as you didn't do that sort of thing.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

173. I hope this helps, honey

http://tinyurl.com/dcjyn

[Zenlitened]

174. Hee hee hee! Excellent use of the word "honey"!

You sure are a "master" of subtlety, aren't you?

:spray:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

176. I'm gonna have to leave you now

There are other things to do - like wait for the Michael Jackson verdict.

I do hope you feel better, honey. No wonder you're so cranky. Puking's no fun.

[Zenlitened]

179. Oh, must you go so soon? I was just gonna ask...

... how you came to the conclusion that I'm "so cranky."

I mean, you've just completed an excellent, beautifully articulated lecture on why we must not impose our own emotional states on the statements of other posters.

What a riot! I hope you'll find a way to come away from this conversation with a real "guess I showed THEM" kind of feeling. Please, use that feeling to motivate yourself for another round of excellent comedy theater.

The audience is dyin' for more! :D

[OldLeftieLawyer]

180. You're adorable

I can't help peeking back to see what you'd do. That's so cute of you.

I didn't show anyone anything, and that was never my intent. Again with the personalizing, and now it's moved into projection.

Man, it's nothing but a message board, not a defining moment in my life.

Get the Pepcid. You'll feel better.

[Zenlitened]

191. I'm disappointed now. "I'm rubber, you're glue"?

I expected something much more entertaining than that. :(

[redqueen]

157. After I read "polite, reasoned, literate, and not personal..."

I decided there really isn't any point. :)

[Zenlitened]

167. Hahahaha!

Look at me! I'm bein' objective and civil and reasonable an' stuff!

Nice method, huh? If I say so often enough, it MUST be true -- no matter how much evidence argues against it.

[amazona]

259. oh you know getting pictures of Demi Moore pregnant banned in Canada...

...getting Little Sisters bookstore harassed in Canada...yeah, they had real accomplishments to be proud of. :sarcasm: At least Dworkin had the excuse of she was quite simply barking mad, what's McKinnon's excuse? A way to distinguish herself from the crowd and make that extra nickel?

[PinkTiger]

25. Thanks.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who understands the context and the meanings of what she said. People demonized Betty Freidan, too, but without these ultra-feminists we wouldn't have the freedoms we have today in life.
What I find interesting is, the Radical Rightwing attacks feminists as a matter of course. Let's not do it here.

[Taverner]

30. No I posted this for a disagreement

I'm hoping for a flameless discussion here. So far, everyone has been sticking to the issue, and not flaming.

We just need more coffee ;)

[PinkTiger]

34. I think I've had enough coffee.

But I also think you don't want to talk about the issues, just make fun of Andrea Dworkin.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

61. How unfair

How terribly dishonest and unfair.

No one's mocking Dworkin - that's patently absurd.

And you're the one making the snide comments.

Not nice.

This is a civilized and civil discussion that's going along well without personal shots.

[Zenlitened]

163. Oh, man, Given all the posts that have followed, this might be...

... the funniest post on the whole thread!

"This is a civilized and civil discussion that's going along well without personal shots."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Taverner]

168. Well it *was* civil

When this was posted...the discussion took a big turn in the wrong direction however....

[VelmaD]

170. You know I luv you more than my luggage...

but you coulda picked a less inflammatory headline.

[Zenlitened]

172. Oh, absolutely. I agree. I think your thread's been hijacked, though.

No fault of yours by any means. :hi:

[noiretextatique]

31. who are your feminist sheroes?

color me suspicious...
personally, i don't consider either one of tose women enemies to feminism. i think both had some controversial theories, but in no way were they "enemies" to feminist theory.
and your two quotes don't exactly prove your thesis.

[Taverner]

41. Well I might get flamed but...

Camille Paglia (even if she is an Ayn Rand Objectivist at heart)
Simone De Bouvier
Emma Goldman
and Gloria Steinem to some extent (I don't agree with her on Pornography, but on other things she's dead on.)

[noiretextatique]

46. i see

well, thanks. i despise camille paglia and consider her a patriarchist, but i can get with the others. definitely not as controversial as some others.

[Taverner]

56. I don't like Paglia's economics

Social Darwinism always scares me.

But in terms of sexuality, I do see Madonna as a feminist icon of sorts. I mean think about it - she truly "seized the means of production." And in seizing that, she reclaimed what was hers (her body.)

[noiretextatique]

62. madonna is pure T&A

she just did it on differnt term. there's nothing particularly interesting about her from a feminist perspective, imho. i don't know if she seized any assets, e.g., owning her songs, producing, distributing, etc...if so, i consider that more interesting. personally, i think paglia just has a crush on her :D

[shrike]

268. You bet

She's had a crush on a lot of people -- Princess Di, Marilyn Monroe.

[donsu]

248. agree with you on paglia

nt

[shrike]

266. I used to chuckle when I heard women talk about paglia

I used to work with a few reactionary young women who felt feminism had ruined things, that oldfashioned romance is best, etc. Well, Paglia appeared on 60 minutes and went on this rant about women baking cookies and staying home with children and being "feminine." They all thought it was great. They had no idea she was a lesbian academic who'd probably never baked a cookie in her life.

[geek tragedy]

35. What is it about feuds inside ideological movements--feminism, Socialism

as two examples--that causes them to turn so nasty?

[PinkTiger]

44. Because it turns personal.

If you and I disagree (for example) and neither will see any part of the other person's argument, then it can get personal.

Personally, I don't care that much to go futher with this, except to say that I was a feminist who "saw the light" at the age of 20, when in a conventional marriage that began to close doors for me. Instead of giving me the freedom I thought it would, marriage was a prison.

Today I am married to another man for 28 years, and it has not been a prison at all. Just a different environment.
But so many women, especially those of my generation, didn't ever experience the freedom I have.

[1monster]

64. Thank you, Pink Tiger. You just stated a point I was trying to make far

better than I did in an earlier post. Too often, marriage has closed doors for women, rather than opening them. Those of our generation were at the forefront of the feminist movement. Do you remember that magazine NEW WOMAN? A lot of us "New Women" married "Old" men...

[PinkTiger]

79. Yes I remember the magazine.

And I also echo the sentiment. My first husband was doing everything by the "rules" he believed were sacrosanct. There was little thinking behind it, just rote behavior in tune with his peers.
I couldn't reason with him.
He would never have wanted me to go to college, get degrees, work in meaningful ways and make more money than him.

Poor guy, really.

[geek tragedy]

76. To me it's seemed that people inside of movements tend

to view their "opponents" inside the movement much more darkly than they do their opponents outside the movement. It would seem that the accusation of being a 'traitor' to the movement is a bigger deal than being accused of merely being on the other side.

Full disclosure: My s.o. works on sex trafficking/industry issues, and the vituperation that flows between the two sides of that issue are worse than any DU/Freeper name-calling.

[Bridget Burke]

39. What prompted you to post these quotations?

Are they in the news?

They are two of many feminist theoriticians. Many have disagreed with some of their ideas--me, for one. But neither is fairly represented by these out of context quotations.

Yes, they are considered feminists--even if many women did not share all their opinions.

Perhaps you could offer quotations from some of your favorite masculinists?

[Lexingtonian]

40. It helps to put them in context

Andrea Dworkin died a few weeks ago. From the obituaries she really had a painful, sad, horrible life for long stretches. She came out of a very barbaric part of blue collar America, circa 1960; she was bisexual or lesbian, she had a career in American feminism as long that barbaric part of society was there in a significant way and many women could relate to its emotional and physical violence being the normal condition of their lives. But it faded away substantially during the Eighties.

Catherine MacKinnon comes from a different, more white middle class religious background and a later point in political time. There's this horrible fervent dogmatist sense to her (easy to find in ex-Catholics and Calvinists) and this unbelievably inflated selfconsciousness that considers any human contact not initiated or formally agreed to by oneself frightening and defines it as a violation of oneself.

Feminism or not...look, the celebrity feminist that followed on them was Camille Paglia. Who believed that Madonna was the feminist ideal incarnate.

I dunno. American feminism cannot be purely what nice, wise, goodlooking, well educated, straight white women from happy and typical families consider their best interests and good ideas. Like any social phenomenon, it will carry the social history of the people it consists of with them. It will reflect the social pathologies and injustices and bad compromises of the society they come from. It will have baggage of the past of its own.

I refer you to my .sig for thoughts I agree with on bitter and long lasting conflicts of liberation.

[Taverner]

47. I like this quote of yours

"American feminism cannot be purely what nice, wise, goodlooking, well educated, straight white women from happy and typical families consider their best interests and good ideas. Like any social phenomenon, it will carry the social history of the people it consists of with them. It will reflect the social pathologies and injustices and bad compromises of the society they come from. It will have baggage of the past of its own."

Very good thing to keep in mind during this argument....

[PinkTiger]

51. Yeah, that quote is great.

no text

[hfojvt]

134. reminds me of the argument I had with the prom queen

at my 20 year reunion. She was kinda dumping on me for not being "successful" and arguing that "all things are possible". I feel that outlook was colored by the fact that she is "one of the beautiful people".

Also, Andrea Dworkin died on Apr 9, not as long ago as I thought, but I still wonder if 8 weeks counts as "a few weeks". I only found out about it because there was a "I miss Andrea Dworking" thread in the women's issues forum "a few weeks" after her death.

[Warpy]

43. Dworkin was an all or nothing thinker

but MacKinnon had some important things to say, things most men don't want to hear.

Honestly, how much sex IS coerced? How many times have men used that old blue balls line? How about threatening abandonment in favor of someone else if those "needs" aren't satisfied? Look at this stuff honestly and without trying to put a nice face on it, and you'll see her point.

Women enjoy a good bang as much as men do, but honestly, there are times we just aren't up to it, and that is when the coercion comes in. No, we don't enjoy it under those circumstances, and yes, we fake it just to keep the peace. That's what MacKinnon was talking about.

Nearly every man who reads this will get defensive and flame. Go ahead, have a nice catharsis. However, what I've said is true.

[Taverner]

70. Well blue balls is never an excuse

Honestly..."no means no" was one of the best things to come out of 90's feminism. It became a rallying cry, and one of the best ones in my opinion. It's implications were simple, but pretty all encompassing.

But I do think MacKinnon meant much more than just that by those statements. And as a lawyer, she should have understood how her words could be interpreted.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

80. Blue Balls?

Suddenly, I'm sixteen years old again, and poor Boyfriend is trying to tell me what's going to happen to him.

Didn't work, though.

That's the last time I heard THAT old chestnut.

How stupid are some women, anyway? At least as stupid as the men still trying that line (who are now old enough to be our sons).

[Hello_Kitty]

223. Ah yes....

The universal applicability of your own experience....So you never were coerced or pressured into sex you didn't want. Goody. Therefore, any woman who has should just keep her mouth shut in shame about it.

Tell me, have you ever been in a relationship where you were financially dependent on a man? Or in an ongoing abusive situation (physical or mental) where you actually feared for your safety or security if you didn't give in to sexual demands?

Oh wait, of course not. You're too smart for that. :sarcasm:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

232. heh heh heh

Let's see - we were talking about men using the blue balls excuse as a way to get sex, and you want to know if I'm financially dependent on a man.

There's a disconnect in your thinking, you know. A bad one.

You might have a case of blue balls yourself, you know. Don't have to have balls to have it, I hear, and, clearly, you don't.

[Hello_Kitty]

257. Life is more complicated than that

There are not always exact, easy-to-see connections. So yes, a woman who is financially dependent on a man or in the abusive situation will be more likely to heed the "blue balls" excuse out of fear of losing her resource or worse. Pretty easy for me to see, even though I'm not in either situation.

And maybe I don't have "balls", as you say, but at least I have compassion.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

262. What does that have to do

with your wanting to know if I'm financially dependent on a man?

I still fail to see the connection.

And now, compassion.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following you.

But, if it helps, no, I've never been financially dependent on a man - not since Mom and Dad sent me off to school - on scholarships and with jobs.

[VelmaD]

49. BTW Tav, consider yourself lucky we are friends...

because I'm going to give you the most lenient version of this rant. As a man you have NO right to decide for women who our enemies and friends are.

[Taverner]

63. Well lets agree to disagree

Since by that rationale, men shouldn't be able to vote on Abortion.....

[VelmaD]

68. You missed my point...

and I'm thinking you must have missed out on a lot of the conversations in here re: feminism over the last 4 years. Women on this board (and in the world generally) have been told over and over again BY MEN what issues we should really consider important and when we've DARED to stand up for our right to our own opinions...we've been called names and told we were being divisive and that we should basically sit down and shut up and wait our turn. No. More.

You have to understand where you thread headline fits into that history...just another man telling women what to think about what really is and isn't "feminism" because we're obviously not capable of figuring that out for ourselves. *sigh*

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

99. by your words

don't tell women if they make mistakes (just as you would do with a male collegue)

don't make propositions to women

basically don't talk to women at all apart from "yes ma'am" if you don't agree, just stfu

else you will be told you try to dominate and control women and what they do.

a well no woman here so i'll just disqualify from debate and off to the door...

[VelmaD]

102. Where the hell did you get THAT...

from what I said? What I said was that men do not get to define for women what we consider important issues nor do they get to decide what feminism is and who are our "enemies".

Do you lack reading comprehension skills or were you being intentionall obtuse?

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

221. if you ask so

You have to understand where you thread headline fits into that history...just another man telling women what to think about what really is and isn't "feminism" because we're obviously not capable of figuring that out for ourselves. *sigh*

Sort out what you want. Either you wan't a humanist/feminist movement which is an all-female movement or a mixed movement. If you want a mixed movement: there is a good chance its followers don't want to be mere spectators and claqueurs be it female or male and will act or say something.

Oh and i disagree with that "they" (men) don't get to decide what feminism is. Not only self-perception also foreign-perception is part of defining things. But i might be nitpicking here...

Peace

[mongo]

281. If that's the case

What I said was that men do not get to define for women what we consider important issues nor do they get to decide what feminism is and who are our "enemies".

Then since only MEN fight in combat, I expect that women will not give any further opinions on the occupation of IRAQ. It's a MALE issue after all. So, your viewpoint is just "divisive".

How's that shoe feel on the other foot?

[mopinko]

69. well, there you have it

men shouldn't vote on abortion. at the very least a bunch of rich white males shouldn't be voting on abortion. we the people, of course, have never been asked to.
did you ever read a whole book by either of them? or are you just relying on public opinion and a few out of context quotes?
you are not a progressive.

[bicentennial_baby]

72. Excuse me?

"you are not a progressive"

and just who are you to judge? litmus tests and judgement calls, just for stating an opinion... :puke: :eyes:

[Taverner]

74. I have read books by both of them

and I'm not taking these quotes out of context.

Love the last dig...care to call me a freeper while you're at it? You're avoiding the issues and resorting to name calling. Tell me how in a debate this fosters discussion? How does it strengthen your case? Are you now seen as scoring a point using your "Al Bundy" style tactics?

[redqueen]

94. Didn't post #27 show that the Dworkin quote was out of context?

Have you got a source for that quote, so that we can see the context for ourselves?

Others have even challenged that the quote is even accurate... so that increases the need for a source for the quote.

[Taverner]

96. Let me look that up.....

But Post #27 only indicated that Dworkin qualified it later - but in no way did her qualification change the initial message of her quote. It may not have been the crux of her argument, but it was still said.

[redqueen]

98. Someone said it was slander...

so now I'm VERY interested to know if the quote is even accurate.

Are you going to share your source for the quote or do I have to look it up?

[Taverner]

101. ahhh here we go!

http://www.equityfeminism.com/andrea_dworkin/dworkin_001.html

[VelmaD]

104. Gee...and that link...

is not biased at all. :eyes:

It doesn't provide any more context for that quote than you did. Try again.

[redqueen]

128. That site links ifeminists.net

A few interesting things from the linked site's faq:

"Mainstream feminism tells us that girls are in constant danger of being sexually abused by their fathers, that women face the same from their husbands, etc. Ifeminism says to get the state out of personal issues. Wouldn't your individualist stance would leave all these victims without protection?

First, we must recognize that the alarmism of mainstream feminism often blows problems way out of proportion and reports them out of context. It is true that some men abuse. However, the vast majority of men do not abuse, and most women are not at risk of abuse by the men in their family. Furthermore, studies also show that this is not a problem of male violence as portrayed by mainstream feminism. Rather, women perpetrate violence against their children and spouses at rates that are at least comparable to those of men. This is not to say that abuse is not a significant problem. It just isn't the problem that mainstream feminism portrays it to be.

(snip).."

Empasis mine. Is this accurate? Are women guilty of being the violent offender as often as men in domestic violence situations?


"What about all the research supporting the contentions of mainstream feminism? Is it wrong? Biased?

Much of the "research" cited in support of the claims of mainstream feminists is politically rather than factually based. The only way to really judge a scholarly work is to look at it critically. (back to top)"

I love the blanket condemnation of 'much of the research'. How comforting, to ... some group. How convenient that they don't state plainly which research they're talking about.



"Why are so many ifeminists libertarians? What is the relationship?

Individualist feminism and libertarianism are similar in that both philosophies uphold individual freedom and personal responsibility as core values. It is natural that libertarians interested in issues that affect women are drawn to ifeminism. (back to top)"

Interesting.


"Are equal rights and respect for both men and women good for women, or do women need more than that? Wouldn't it be better for women if they had total control over all aspects of society?

People generally do not thrive when they have little or no control over their lives. This is as true of men as it is of women. Were men to be systematically controlled in such a manner, we would see a dramatic decline in the technical, artistic, social and other accomplishments and advances that men have contributed to human civilization since the birth of humanity. Moreover, women would lose any claim to moral decency as well as the respect of men. While it might satisfy a few power-hungry monsters, stifling the creativity and intellect of half the population would not be beneficial for the vast majority of women. (back to top)"

:wtf:



"What is the ifeminist position on having women's studies programs at public universities?

Women's studies programs are a good example of why universities should not be publicly funded. Many people find that their tax dollars are funding poor scholarship and dissemination of offensive and inaccurate information in the name of women's studies. It is likely that such disinformation would have a hard time taking hold in a marketplace of ideas. Yet they are easily propped up when we are forced to support them against our will through taxes. The ifeminist position is that women's studies programs should compete in the free market. Let those who choose to fund them voluntarily do so, but it is inappropriate to force those who would otherwise not choose to fund them to "contribute" through taxation. (back to top)"

I didn't go to college... what in women's studies is offensive and inaccurate?

Whatever.



"Doesn't lack of identical representation in all fields imply that someone is attempting to prevent women's participation? Why aren't women found equally in all fields?

Lack of identical representation of men and women in all fields may be caused by a number of factors, of which intentional exclusion is only one possibility. Unequal representation might instead indicate that fewer women than men are interested in a given field or that fewer women than men are economically competitive or qualified in a given field. By the same token, there are a number of fields in which men are in the minority. There aren't a lot of male quilters or midwives, for example. Again unequal representation in these fields does not necessarily indicate that someone is trying to prevent men's participation. Given the diversity of professions, hobbies, etc. to choose from, there simply isn't a blanket answer for why women and men do not always participate in equal numbers in all fields. (back to top)"



"Under what laws are women and men not treated equally?

There are two ways women and men are not treated equally under the laws of today's governments. The first is fairly straightforward- some laws explicitly spell out that women and men will be treated differently. For example, the Women, Infants, and Children program- in spite of the claim of non-discrimination posted on its website- explicitly excludes adult males from eligibility (though their tax dollars are used to support the program). Many communities allow men to remove their shirts in public while it is an imprisonable offense for women to do so.

The second way is less straightforward- some laws which purport to treat men and women equally are, in fact, enforced disproportionately to the disadvantage of one gender or the other. For example, the increased "security" in airports following the 9/11 attacks in the United States has resulted in a barrage of complaints from women who have been fondled by the "security" guards who are reportedly targeting women for such abuse. In the area of child custody and support, women are much more likely to get custody of the children based on inaccurate assumptions about the nature of women/mothers and men/fathers. Men who are behind on child support payments are much more likely to be jailed than are women who are behind on their payments.

These are just a couple of brief examples of the gender inequities that are imposed upon us by governments. There are plenty of other examples, and there is still much work to be done to correct them. (back to top)"


Unfrickinbelievable...

[noiretextatique]

182. good find, red queen

these folks are C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

65. As a woman,

I wonder who said Taverner is "deciding" anything?

Jesus, some of you babes really have your heads up your butts with this manbashing crap. Get over it, and quit whining.

[noiretextatique]

71. i know this is supposed to humorous

but wasn't it you who called dworkin and mackinnon "anti-woman"?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

73. I did

And it wasn't supposed "to be humorous," no.

Yes, their writings are enormously opposed to women in any meaningful sense, but they're presented in such a way as to convince a not-very-careful reader that they're just the opposite. Those writings of those women were designed to make waves, not to accomplish anything positive. Propagandists of their own personal agendae, that's how I see them.

Telling any man that his opinions don't matter, or that he can't "decide" about feminist matters is thinking so lame and backward as to be slightly mad. D and M run amok.

[noiretextatique]

82. true..but

telling an ill-informed person, man or woman, that using two quotes to brand these women as "enemies" of feminism is fine with me, because that is who this man happens to be. at least that's the sense i get from his posts.

i understand your criticism, however, i still disagree with the term "enemies."

[Taverner]

89. The 'enemies' title

I'll admit, that title was meant to provoke (look through my posts and I am encouraging all this discussion. It's healthy and all us Progressives *NEED* to talk about it.)

In retrospect, I should have cited more examples on how I sincerely think that D and M pushed back the femnist movement by years because of their misandry.

But this all does bring up a question - are men a part of the feminist movement or not?

Some here might argue that men can in no way be part of a feminist movement, while others would argue that they must take a part on one side or the other.

[noiretextatique]

110. How did they "push back the feminist movement?"

can you explain what you mean by that? i might even agree with you, but you haven't really come up with much besides some quotes taken out of context.
sure...men are a part of the movement...you are, aren't you? i suggest you ask some other men about that.

[Taverner]

129. push back the femnist movement

Intentionally or (most likley) unintentially they pushed theories that were nothing short of misndry - the hatred of men. By declaring sex as equal to rape, they gave rightwingnuts the fodder they needed to discredit the movement.

In addition, they also turned off a lot of potential recruits with these statements. I don't remember how many times during the 90's, I would meet a woman who would say something like "Well I'm not a feminist, but I think men and women should be treated equally."

[noiretextatique]

145. i doubt, seriously, they had the impact you claim

because i don't believe feminism was that accepted in the first place. i think, as amazona mentioned, that these two were seized upon by the other side as being reflective of the entire movement. you know...the reactionary backlash to feminism that we have yet to recover from, replete with faux feminists (anti-feminists) like paglia babbling about madonna.
i would argue that the backlash anti-feminist movement had more to do with the creation of the "well, i'm not a feminist, but..." crowd than dworkin or mackinnon.

[Taverner]

156. Susan Faludi would agree with you

And I hold her in very high esteem...so you make a good point.

However, I do think that feminism was gaining more acceptance than it did, say 5 years hence.

[noiretextatique]

171. that's entirely possible

considering the intensity of the backlash.

[Djinn]

213. it's insane to sideline all men

and to tell them they can't even have an opinion - I personally didn't take your OP as "telling women who their enemies are" all I saw was a single person's opinion that McKinnon and Dworkin set feminism backwards and frankly come/came across as more disdainful of women than many of the staunchest defenders of the patriarchy. This particular female feminst agrees.

[VelmaD]

75. Since this reply was directed to my post...

I'm going to feel free to answer. You have no clue what you're talking about. I love men. Most of my friends are men. Taverner and I are close friends. But I have lived through too goddamn many threads on THIS BOARD where men tried to tell me what "real" feminism was and what issues were "really important" and my opinion on the matter and the opinions of other women meant NOTHING to them. And this is allegedly liberal men.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

Spare me

Your generalized assertions have no legs, and the wrong-headed notion that anyone here on a message board was trying to "decide" anything for any women is just fantasy.

This is the kind of manhating stuff that just turns me off. There are so many smart women who know better, and running into this kind of tired old bitterness makes me think some women traded one kind of perceived oppression for another, real kind of ill-controlled anger that presents itself in the most unappealing way.

[VelmaD]

84. Thank you for completely disregarding my personal experience...

I have been personally involved in threads where men on this board told women that our concerns were not "real" concerns. Period. That we were upset about things that were not "important". That we were being irational, emotional, too sensitive...every hackneyed standard they pull out when they want to belittle. Try jumping in on the next thread that comes by about sexist language (especially the word bitch) and see how willing some men are to tell women to sit down and shut up.

When my own political party starts talking about putting my rights on the back burner because choice is costing us elections and I should just keep quiet about it and not rock the boat...yeah, that feels like men deciding what's important for me.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

88. Your "personal experience" is not relevant here

Your trying to personalize this thread is simply muddying the waters. It's not about you or your experience - it was about the relevance and meaning of the Dworkin/MacKinnon words.

Jesus, but I'm tired of self-obsessed, whining, demanding women who fail to see that there are angles on issues that extend beyond their own subjective realities. This is the precise kind of weak and indulgent and intellectually bereft thinking and behavior that keep some women from ever accomplishing anything.

Your post is so off the wall, I really don't understand it. I do glean from it, though, that you'd like your "personal experience" to validate, in some strange way, what two other women wrote.

It doesn't.

It's a message board, not real life.

[VelmaD]

90. Actually if you will go back to my post you originally responded too...

it wasn't about the two women in question at all. It was taking Tav to task for calling those two women enemies of feminism. How about you address my point from that post...that as a man he does not have that right. The stories of my personal experience were replies to you insisting that men weren't trying to "decide" anything for us. I'm trying to explain to you that oftentimes...yes they are.

BTW, your name-calling is most unbecoming.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

109. I did

He wasn't "deciding" anything. You tried to nail him for "deciding" things for women. Damn, the poster was expressing an opinion, something to which everyone entitled. Agree or disagree, but do not ever think that telling someone his or her opinion is not allowed should go unanswered. No one has that right, not here, not anywhere.

Namecalling? Do you confuse characterization with namecalling?

Now you're rambling, and, frankly, I guess it's a case of my having a very different perspective on what I think feminism is from what yours is. So, that's what opinions are for.

[VelmaD]

113. You can call it "characterizing" or whatever you want...

but all you're doing is perpetuating a stereotype that one usually sees from the right wing nutjobs.

Man-bashing. Man-hating. Bitter. Self-Obsessed. Demanding.

That's just the short list. Got any more you want to use. I mean you haven't even gotten to hysterical yet.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

115. So you've had people say this sort of thing to you before?

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

You know the definition of "neurotic"? In shorthand, it's "doing the same thing the same way over and over and expecting a different result."

As I said, none of this is about you. It's about the words of two other women, and what they meant. It is sad, however, that you've had to work so hard to try to get it to be about you, but, thank you, no, I really have no interest in you personally.

I wish you well, though.

[VelmaD]

118. Yet again you don't get it...

whether people have said these things about me personally is not the issue. They say them about ANY woman who has the temerity to stand up for herself. One would think, since you're the expert, that you would have that much understanding of the history of the women's movement.

You have yet to make any point to address my original comment directed, I might add, at Taverner and not you, other just stating that you think I'm wrong and then characterizing me as some sort of man-hating harpy when I try to explain to you why I believe the way I do.

So far I am remarkably unimpressed with your debate skills.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

121. No, they do not

If you knew anything about me and my history, you'd not make such a blanket and erroneous statement.

Go back and read what I wrote to you, and you'll perhaps see where you lost your way.

I'm not here to debate you, and this was never a debate. Odd that you would characterize it as such. No, I would never play with my food like that.

You do, though, again go out of your way to try to insult me personally. I hope that makes you feel better.

[VelmaD]

122. You have a very strange sense...

of what is and is not a personal insult. Especially for someone who used pretty much all of the traditional put downs for females to characterize me just a few short posts ago.

Whatever.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

126. See?

You made it all personal. You couldn't stay with the topic of the original post, and you took it right down a personal road because that's what's relevant to you, I suppose. Your exhortation of your "personal experience" was a red flag, but I thought maybe there was more to you.

So, I was wrong. So sue me.

There's nothing more amazing to me than the rapidity with which some people - who demand their liberty and rights, as well they should - so quickly try to shut down or negate those with whom they do not agree. Using the guise of my "namecalling," you completely overlooked the whole point of the thread.

But, you did prove one thing. Thank you for affirming it for me.

[redqueen]

137. What did she prove?

That posting comments like: "some of you babes really have your heads up your butts with this manbashing crap" will be read as offensive?

[VelmaD]

138. I'm so glad we have you here...

to ensure that we don't ever stray from the approved topic. Gods and goddesses forbid we should ever go any deeper than the OP and maybe talk about related topics. What. Ever.

My personal experience only came into play when you asserted that men do not try to "decide" for women. I brought out my personal experience of how this has happened on this board to refute your statement in response to a post that, yet again, was not directed at you. Yet you felt perfectly justified in jumping in. But I'm the one who makes things personal.

I have never insisted that anyone on this board does not have a right to their opinion or tried to shut down debate and to say so shows that you know nothing about my history on DU. I relish these debates, if for no other reason than that they let me know where people stand. I have yet to alert on any post within this thread and seldom do so...even when directly called names more insulting than the "characterization" you threw around today.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

140. I asserted no such thing

Boy, did you ever mangle my simple declarative sentence.

You're protesting too much. Relax. It's only a message board. No harm done. No hard feelings.

it's only a message board.

[VelmaD]

146. To quote you upthread...

"the wrong-headed notion that anyone here on a message board was trying to "decide" anything for any women is just fantasy."

What you asserted seems pretty straight forward to me.

And what in the world makes you think there are any feelings involved?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

154. Oh, man

Can't you read?

You know, if I'm going to worship you, you're going to have to work on that reading comprehension. I mean it.

I think I love you, too.

[VelmaD]

161. I guess that 750 on the GRE Verbal...

was a fluke of nature.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

166. You're kidding, right?

You put that there as a joke, didn't you?

Because if you didn't, the notion that you actually .........

Never mind.

It's just turned terribly sad.

Best of luck to you, VelmaD.

[VelmaD]

190. Well, there went my sense of humor...

Next time when someone disagrees with you try addressing their points rather than casting aspersions on their intelligence.

For the record...750 Verbal, 750 Analytical, 720 Math

I don't need luck...I have brains. :)

[Scout]

272. If none of this is about VelmaD

why are you spending so much time responding to her posts?

Why don't you just not respond if you think she is whining, self-obsessed or bitter? If you truly have no interest in her personally, yet wish her well, what is the point in posting?

[Hello_Kitty]

224. Read your own post #80 then.

You know, about how you didn't give into the old blue balls chestnut. Seems like someone was using her own personal experience to belittle others, wasn't she?

[Scout]

274. heh, heh, heh

well, well, it's different when I do it!
:eyes:

[Zenlitened]

107. Disagreeing with a man, or several men, for that matter...

... does not equal "man-hating."

Hyperbole like that just sounds too much like Limbaugh's "feminazi" crap.

Just sayin'.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

117. No, the prose of Dworkin and MacKinnon

did enough of that, in their overheated and unreadable claptrap.

[Zenlitened]

120. They may or may not be. It was your calling some of the women...

... posting here "man-haters" that set off my Rush-radar.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

125. I called their thinking "manhating," and

that's very different from calling them manhaters.

Catch up, kid. . .

[Zenlitened]

131. Oh, you mean your statement was pulled from its context,...

... interpreted along an extreme, and used to depict you in an unfavorable light?

Golly, that is so wrong!

:rofl:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

133. No, I don't mean that at all.

I mean you didn't read a simple sentence correctly.

That's all.

[Zenlitened]

143. That must be it.

:eyes:

Edited to add: "Overheated and unreadable." You might want to examine some of your own prose, here. Whatever meaning you've attempted to convey has been almost completely obscured by a tone of bitterness, defensiveness and hostility.

[donsu]

249. some comments from reading your many posts in this thread

I've rarely heard a woman call another woman babe.

you difinately have an agenda about Dworkin/MacKinnon. are you old and read them at the time of publising? or did you just come across their writings?

why are you so grumpy?

[mongo]

282. Are you trying to imply something here donsu?

I've rarely heard a woman call another woman babe.

[lukasahero]

93. you babes really have your heads up your butts with this manbashing"

"crap. Get over it, and quit whining." :puke:

[redqueen]

97. Yeah, that caught my attention as well.

Interesting.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

106. Your eloquence is only exceeded

by your having absolutely nothing to say.

[VelmaD]

108. Well, it's easy to be eloquent...

when you're quoting such refined and elegant prose. :eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

112. Thank you

There are those of us who actually think about what we're going to say and then go ahead and say it, in spite of people who might not agree with us.

I should think, though, that you'd come up with something more substantive that an emoticon. I mean, really. Do you want to advertise your ....... oh, never mind.

[VelmaD]

114. I can't think of a polite way to say this...

but you need to get over yourself. If you're going to dish out snarky comments then you damn sure need to learn to take them in return.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

116. Why personalize?

You don't like my opinions, so you attack me personally?

That's not very nice, nor is it on the subject at hand.

[VelmaD]

119. Where have I attacked you personally?

I am merely stating an easily observable fact from this thread. You seem perfectly capable of making snotty comments to others but do not seem to like it very much when the same behavior is directed back at you.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

123. As I said,

I know when I'm playing with my food, and you have now deteriorated to the point where there's no point, really.

As I said, I do wish you well.

[VelmaD]

127. Have you ever considered...

how off-putting your condescending attitude is? I mean really.

When you have nothing to say...imply you're too good for the conversation. Does this tactic generally work for you? If it does, I can only say you need to get out and meet more intelligent people to play with. :)

Have a nice day.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

130. No.

What you read as "condescending" - probably because you can't keep up or because you disagree with my opinions - is just someone who's different from you and you aren't comfortable with it.

As I said, personalizing it - my "attitude" - really? - is so unworthy.

[VelmaD]

144. Thank you

for proving my point.

You do realize that attempts to make oneself look better by tearing other people down generally backfire.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

149. You're welcome

I think you ought to grab a victory anywhere and any way you can.

You have vanquished me, and I stand humbled before you.

My conqueror, my heroine, my babe with her head up her butt.

:yourock:

[VelmaD]

158. You know it's a damn good thing...

I have a sense of humor.

I have come to the conclusion that about 75% of what you've said today is total bullshit designed solely to get a reaction...and since I engage in exactly the same behavior who am I to complain. Poor Tav...having to suffer the two of us on his thread.

[Zenlitened]

177. Not only do you have a sense of humor, you might be far too generous.

75%? Id' peg it closer to 90.

But I mean that in a nice way! :rofl:

[redqueen]

150. No, you're being condescending.

"Jesus, some of you babes really have your heads up your butts with this manbashing crap. Get over it, and quit whining."

That was in your post to VelmaD. Manbashing crap? Because she views his post differently than you do, you call her criticism "manbashing crap".

That's hostile, and dismissive, and condescending.

If you had responded to Tav's OP with sentiments about manbashing babes, it might be reasonable for you to ask that she not take it personally. As it is... well...

[newportdadde]

55. Should be interesting...

:popcorn:

:nuke:

[NashVegas]

77. I Don't Believe They Were Anti-Feminists, But

I do believe they, unwittingly, worked to halt the sexual revolution dead in its tracks, and helped entrenched powers set the sexes against each other to keep it from going any further than it already had.

Early feminists preached the gospel of free love. What could be more liberating for a woman - or anyone, for that matter - than to freely engage in sexual relations with whomever he/she chooses, *without* all the manipulations and games required by society? It is an incredibly subversive thing and as James Carse put it (paraphrasing), it was no coincidence that the US public was able to rise up against an unpopular war (Vietnam) at the same time the sexual revolution was at its apex.

McKinnon & Dworkin told women that it was not possible to engage without the power games, going against more than 100 years of feminist thought. What did they know that the others hadn't? Perhaps the main difference was that they came to prominence in the information age, when studies regarding sexual violence and abuse were at their fingertips and first-hand stories were openly shared for the first time. Call it the darker side of the coin that was the sexual revolution. It's great that we now can discuss these matters openly just as we came to discuss the brighter matters openly; however, to concentrate on the negative side is to lose all sense of balance, and that's where I think McK & D went wrong.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

111. There were those of us

who did our parts to make sure the sexual revolution stayed on track, at full speed, and, boy, oh, boy, are we glad we did!

Today, we still laugh about our escapades, and how glad we were that we were living in a time that allowed us that kind of exploration and adventure and delight. Once birth-control pills appeared, we were the Chosen Ones.

Wouldn't have missed it for the world. I guess we were the "Anti-Dworkins" who did what we could.

[mondo joe]

78. Some "leftists" are just fascists when you come down to it.

They are just a different flavor of fascist than the usual.

[booley]

83. Be glad dworkin's ideas didn't have the effect here they did Canada

here her attempts to get porn outlawed was pushed back on constitutional grounds.

but in canada, they took root and allowed the government to start censoring.

naturally the first place they started censoring was a lesbian feminist book store.

Censorship has NEVER been a friend of feminism.

[redqueen]

87. No, they're not.

You can pull quotes from just about any figure and say that the thoughts expressed in those quotes makes them an "enemy to X", but it doesn't make it true. It just means they said controversial things.

I'm sure we could all point to some quote some public figure has made and say that the quote indicates that they're an "enemy to feminism" or an "enemy to progressivism" or an "enemy to whateverthehellyouwannafindaquoteabout" but we're not all going to agree.

You think they're anti-feminist, and others disagree. It shall always be so, on a vast number of issues.

[Vladimir]

141. Dworkin a man hater? Hardly.

In the interest of a little balance with regards to the various attacks on Dworkin, people might wish to read some of the following:

http://www.andreadworkin.net/memorial/jenson.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1464891,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1457398,00.html

http://newyorkmagazine.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11907/index.html

And from Germain Greer:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1568220,00.html

PS I haven't read any of Dworkin's works first hand, but am quite suspicious of any feminist writers getting called man-haters. So I am not passing judgement on her place in the feminist movement, since I am in no position to do so, but just saying that people might want to consider the other side of the coin...

[noiretextatique]

153. thanks for the links, Vladimir

from the germain greer article:

Dworkin’s death was saluted as marking the end of old-style, hairy, dungaree-clad feminism. Man-hating has been declared dead. Unfortunately woman-hating is alive and thriving; even in mild-mannered Britain in 2005 two women every week will meet their deaths at the hands of their male partners. Dworkin’s object was always “to speak truth to power”, to bear witness against the oppression of women. What she said was often shocking; the shock was the shock of the true.

i think that's the best response to the misandry refences.

[mistertrickster]

216. Here's what the link says, a direct quote from Dworkin--

"Have you ever wondered why we (women) are not just in armed combat against you (men)? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence."

Well as Shakespeare might put it, that's a little too low for high praise, a little too dark for fair praise, and being that she is as she is, I do not like her.

[Vladimir]

222. I gotta tell you, I love that quote

maybe its just my sense of humour. :shrug:

[livinginphotographs]

183. As a man, I like Andrea Dworkin.

I thought there were some incredibly insightful points made in "Intercourse." Admittedly, I'm not as familiar with her work as some DUers might be, though. Anyway, I don't expect to agree with her on everything 100%, but the people who say that Dworkin thinks that all sex is rape are misinterpreting her work as badly as the people who say that Peter Singer wants to euthanize all retarded people.

on edit: and those who try to discount her work with the fact that she's "ugly," well, that says more about them than Andrea Dworkin.

[noiretextatique]

187. since you actually read the book

i think you are MORE familiar with her work than many posting in this thread :hi:

[livinginphotographs]

189. Touche.

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

186. I strongly disagree with anyone who pushes censorship.

I can't speak for any other causes, but anyone who argues it should be against the law for consenting adults to look at pictures of other consenting adults having sex is no friend of freedom. It's wrong when it comes from Phylis Schlafly and "Concerned Women for America", and it's wrong when it comes from the Dworkin-MacKinnon camp.

I think their statements and records over the years speak for themselves, on subjects like heterosexual sex as well as free speech issues. I also think those views have headed more towards irrelevance in the larger liberal community as we have moved nearer to a nation in which right-wing censorship and increasing intrusion of government by the other party's control freaks into people's private lives becomes more of a day-to-day reality.

One would hope that when progressive minded people see right wingers rail against, say, gay sex on a daily basis, it might make them reconsider waging a jihad against the hetero kind, even if they personally may find it distasteful.

[Senior citizen]

196. I recommend MacKinnon's book, "Only Words."

It argues ferociously FOR free speech, but it does not equate pornography with free speech, quite the contrary. If you need to use somebody else's body in order to speak, you probably don't have anything valuable to say.

I can't give a kid a loaded gun along with a lot of pictures of guns being used to kill people, and then, if the kid kills someone, claim that all I was doing was merely exercising MY right to bear arms. My right to bear arms stops with me, it doesn't give me the right to involve or arm others. Since when does your freedom of speech entail the right to use other people's bodies?

IMO, by equating pornography with free speech, the right was able to take over the MSM without a peep of dissent from those who were distracted by the benefits they were reaping from the multi-billion dollar porn industry, whether they were producing it, selling it, buying it, or just using it as a pacifier to sublimate their hunger pangs for real news. Who needs news when you have porn? Who needs dissent at public meetings and hearings when you have porn? Who needs open debate in Congress when you have porn?

There was actually a thread recently where someone said that a person had deserved to be raped because only a bad person would own a porn video. So who is the enemy of feminism, the person who is pro-porn, even if it depicts females as "bad" and deserving of rape, and then turns around and says someone is bad and deserving of rape because they own a porn video, or the person who warns of that kind of hypocrisy?

In "Only Words" MacKinnon argues that the purpose of freedom of speech was to enable the powerless to speak truth to power--using it to enhance the powers of the powerful and silence their victims is the exact opposite of how free speech was intended. What Dworkin and MacKinnon said was that your free speech stops where my body begins. And if you don't recognize that your freedom ends where my chin begins, you obviously don't play well with others.

Right now, today, here in America, you already have censorship--and if you don't think that the right wing is happy that porn sites today will get millions more hits than the Downing Street minutes, think again. Ask a dozen school kids if they've seen porn or ads for porn sites this week, and then ask them if they know what the Downing Street minutes are. Check how many Americans have rented porn videos in the past year against how many have rented David Ray Griffin or other 9/11 truth videos.

They playin' you, homey, and you don't even know it.

[Warren DeMontague]

199. So let me get this straight:

If you need to use somebody else's body in order to speak, you probably don't have anything valuable to say."

First off, who are you to decide which speech is "valuable", and which speech isn't? Surely only the speech we particularly consider worthy should be protected, that's a great way to interpret the first amendment. Secondly, you will note the judicious use of the words "consent" and "adults" in my previous post. If someone chooses to appear in a porno, who is "using" someone else's body? Why does the porn star's body belong to YOU- in that you want to tell him or her what they can or can't do with it? If they're an adult, they can make up their own mind. Unless you subscribe to the idea that some people, particularly women, need "protection" from the choices they themselves would make- but that, to me, is an extremely patronizing attitude and hardly speaks of "empowerment".

"I can't give a kid a loaded gun along with a lot of pictures of guns being used to kill people, and then, if the kid kills someone, claim that all I was doing was merely exercising MY right to bear arms. My right to bear arms stops with me, it doesn't give me the right to involve or arm others. Since when does your freedom of speech entail the right to use other people's bodies?"

Please wait while I try to navigate the logic of this paragraph. If you give a kid a loaded gun and he kills someone, clearly you are culpable. Clearly he is culpable. A lot of pictures of guns being used to kill people are pretty much beside the point. And, you're bringing children into the argument when, again, the words "Consenting" and "Adults" were written plainly in English in my previous post. Then, you're tying it into porn, by jumping from guns to pictures of guns to violence to porn, which is kind of like going from World War II to Tora! Tora! Tora! to unprovoked military attacks to your golf game. And lastly, again, somehow you get "using other people's bodies" from porn- and unless you can prove non-consent in the adult materials you are presumably referencing, the question REALLY should be "since when does your right to restrict freedom of speech entail the right to tell other people what NOT to do with their bodies, when it's really none of your business what they choose to do with them, in front of a camera or not"?

"There was actually a thread recently where someone said that a person had deserved to be raped because only a bad person would own a porn video."

News flash: Any crackhead can say any ridiculous thing they want, which doesn't give it any weight. Welcome to the internet.

"So who is the enemy of feminism, the person who is pro-porn, even if it depicts females as "bad" and deserving of rape, and then turns around and says someone is bad and deserving of rape because they own a porn video, or the person who warns of that kind of hypocrisy?"

I spent years helping run a chain of indie video stores. Believe me, we dealt with a lot of erotic materials or smut or whatever you wish to call it. If you want to believe that mainstream porn is mostly about depicting females as "bad" or deserving of rape, be my guest. But it isn't. And this isn't about warnings regarding hypocrisy, it's about censoring what other people choose to read or watch.

"In "Only Words" MacKinnon argues that the purpose of freedom of speech was to enable the powerless to speak truth to power--using it to enhance the powers of the powerful and silence their victims is the exact opposite of how free speech was intended. What Dworkin and MacKinnon said was that your free speech stops where my body begins. And if you don't recognize that your freedom ends where my chin begins, you obviously don't play well with others."

Yes. Exactly. Your freedom ends where mine begins. Which is why if you don't like porn, no one can force you to watch it, or be in it, for that matter. But unless you own the bodies of EVERYONE ELSE, I don't see how what consenting adults do with their bodies is any of your business, at all. So who doesn't "play well with others"?

And this is why so many of us have problems with people like MacKinnon- people who would helpfully inform us what the "purpose" of freedom of speech is. Another News Flash: Any freedom that is only allowed to fit one defined purpose or agenda is not much of a freedom at all.

The argument in the rest of your post seems to center around the idea that Americans aren't paying attention to the DSM or the Iraq war because they're all too busy watching porn. This is too ludicrous to really warrant a detailed response, but I will say this: Of the folks who voted to re-elect Bush, I would wager there was far higher percentage of pro-censorship, anti-sex bible belt folks (even if they are hypocrites on the subject) than there was a slice of socially libertarian, urban porn watchers.

They playin' you, homey, and you don't even know it.

Yes, because if I don't sign on to a pro-censorship agenda, clearly I'm not capable of making up my own adult mind on these matters. Hmmm- I think I see a theme here.


Also, on edit: One more question- out of curiosity, do you think gay porn should be banned? Or just the straight stuff?

[Senior citizen]

201. Just out of curiosity,

what makes you think I want porn banned?

Quit trying to equate porn with free speech, and smearing anyone with concerns about porn as pro-censorship. It is getting old and tired.

What you have is exactly what you deserve--freedom of porn, but very little freedom to speak truth to power. I pointed out that the average person has more access to porn than to the information they need to be a responsible citizen.

You're the one with the pro-censorship agenda, because you don't see the problem. As long as you can have and sell porn, you don't see that the trade-off you made. It is the same trade-off patriarchy has always made: we give you access to and control over females, and in return all you have to give us is unquestioning obedience and your lives as cannon fodder.

The multi-billion dollar porn industry isn't going away. You've won. Total and complete victory. You have all the porn you can possibly want. It is everywhere--in stores, on TV, on the net, anywhere and any way you want it. What you don't have is freedom of speech.

I'm not saying people aren't paying attention to the news because they're too busy watching porn. I'm saying the corporatocracy is giving them porn instead of news. I'm saying they're being played: they're being stroked instead of being informed. They think it is okay if the right wing owns the MSM and censors left wing views, because free speech only applies to porn, not to news. As long as they, and you, are convinced that free speech means pornography instead of an open exchange of all essential information, they, and you, are being played. Literally.

[Warren DeMontague]

206. I just don't see the connection, sorry.

You will get no argument from me that the MSM isn't reporting the news, but it's not Jenna Jameson they're pushing in its place, it's the runaway bride. Jacko. Brad and Jennifer and Angelina. Shark attacks. Bald people who credit their regrown hair to Jesus.

I will be the first to admit that what passes for "journalism" in this country has rapidly become a joke- but that has jack diddly squat to do with porn.

In fact, the one place where you have a relatively free exchange of information NOT being covered by the MSM is the internet, and you have that free exchange for the exact same reasons that you have dirty pictures floating around without everyone who posts a picture of a boobie being hauled off to jail.

"You're the one with the pro-censorship agenda, because you don't see the problem. As long as you can have and sell porn, you don't see that the trade-off you made. It is the same trade-off patriarchy has always made: we give you access to and control over females, and in return all you have to give us is unquestioning obedience and your lives as cannon fodder."

This paragraph, in particular, makes absolutely no sense to me. Guess I slept through that part of college. All I know is, saying that I have a "pro-censorship agenda" is like saying the Pope is going to be the grand marshal at this year's San Francisco Gay Pride Parade.

And I never said that because porn was available it meant that we had some kind of optimal situation with regards to other information or free speech in this country- quite the contrary- all I said was, I consider censorship of pictures of consenting adults having sex, something both Dworkin and MacKinnon have come out in favor of- an infringement upon the first amendment and also a ridiculous over-reach of governmental power.

I'm glad to hear you're not in favor of censorship- we are in agreement on the central point of my original post.

[Senior citizen]

212. We do have a difference of opinion, though, and there is a connection.

You see, you think Dworkin and MacKinnon opposed sex and pornography.

They didn't.

They opposed patriarchy.

You think Dworkin and MacKinnon weren't good feminists. Do you think that if patriarchy didn't exist no one would have sex? Do you think that if patriarchy didn't exist, noone could take pictures of consenting adults doing whatever they wished?

The only thing that would be different would be that people would have sex as equals. That is totally unimaginable to people who have a strictly hierarchical world view--and if they try to imagine it, they think it wouldn't be any fun. If patriarchy didn't exist, there would still be erotica, but most of it wouldn't be what it is now.

There's a dirty little secret patriarchy doesn't want kids to know. The secret is that it is a zillion times more exciting to hold hands with or kiss someone you love, than to have the hottest, kinkiest sex in the world with someone you don't.

The average teen today knows who Paris Hilton is, but hasn't read the Downing Street minutes. And that's exactly the way the recruiters want it. That's exactly the way the BFEE wants it. That's exactly the way patriarchy wants it. Don't think of each other as people, think of each other as meat, because we want you killing each other. Did you think, "Make love, not war," was just some stoner talking out of his head?

There is a connection between what Dworkin and MacKinnon have written, and all the political problems in the world, including freedom of speech, including war, including overpopulation, and including ordinary human communication. You may be too young, or too economically vested, to want to understand the difference between doing something to somebody and doing something with somebody, but the difference is the difference between fascism and democracy. It is the difference between "might makes right" or "the law of the jungle" and what Ghandi said would be a good idea if it existed: civilization.

Please don't say that I agree with you. If you cannot understand Dworkin and MacKinnon, I am no more in agreement with you than I am with Commander Cuckoobananas. And I have no more hope of communicating. Understanding the message of Dworkin and MacKinnon is like learning the alphabet of peace, love, and understanding. Pornography has nothing to do with sexual freedom whatsoever--dead troops don't have sexual freedom even if their commanders remove the pornography from their effects before shipping them home.

In order to have sexual freedom, you have to be alive. In order to be alive, you have to end wars. In order to end wars, you have to end cyclical overpopulation. In order to end cyclical overpopulation, you have to have education and equality. Ecologists define an ecologically viable species as one that doesn't overpopulate because it can control its reproduction in accordance with available resources. There are some species of amoebae, "brainless" one-celled animals that can do that. We are not a viable species. The reason we are not a viable species is because patriarchy profits from cyclical overpopulation peaks and the ensuing big die-offs, the same way it profits from selling women and selling porn.

You know, I once had an acquaintance who worked in a porn store. He knew I was a feminist. But when he needed difficult problems solved, he came to me because I was the smartest person he knew. The answers weren't anywhere in the porn store. He'd already checked.

They're playing you, homey. They want you to think Dworkin and MacKinnon are the enemy, not the MSM, not the PNAC, not the BFEE, not the recruiters--it is all Dworkin and MacKinnon's fault. If not for them you'd have all the pornography and sexual freedom you want. Well YOU ALREADY HAVE ALL THE PORNOGRAPHY AND SEXUAL FREEDOM YOU WANT. Dworkin and MacKinnon didn't take it away from you. They didn't even suggest taking it away from you. They were trying to tell you that there is a difference between a rapist and a lover, just as there is a difference between a fascist and a liberal.

And I'm too damned old and tired to try to reason with people who understand only conflict. This isn't about whether you win an argument or I win an argument. This is about whether we can stop despoiling the planet, stop killing each other, and survive. In order to do that we have to stop seeing each other as men and women, Moslems and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Israelis and Palestinians, Hutus and Tutsis, etc., etc., etc., and learn how to start seeing ourselves as people, an ecological species that can either continue to metastacize, or can learn the controlled growth that will make it possible to preserve the habitat that supports us.

You've won. The pillagers have slaughtered the tillers. But you didn't start a thread criticizing the MSM, the PNAC, or the BFEE. You started a thread critizing a legal scholar and a dead woman. Because you know you can't fight the MSM, the PNAC, or the BFEE. But you can vilify feminists, even after they're dead. You can misinterpret them, blame them, try to get others to avoid reading them--anything but face the fact that you've won everything you wanted and it didn't get you anything you really need.

[shockra]

227. Superb posts, Senior citizen!

I've read MacKinnon's Only Words as well as Feminism Unmodified and most of Dworkin's books. You've really synthesized their perspective and speak with much wisdom.

:applause:

[Warren DeMontague]

264. Yes, she wins the George Orwell "Freedom Is Slavery" Prize for the day.

Using crystal clear arguments like, "your freedom ends where my chin begins" to justify telling OTHER people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

Yippie.

[lukasahero]

244. Wow! I'm going to print and frame this!

Bravo!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Warren DeMontague]

253. Amazing... I don't buy the Dworkin/Mackinnon agenda hook, line and sinker

and all of a sudden I'm personally responsible for wars, dead troops, the difference between fascism and freedom, the Hutus, the Tutsis, PNAC, and the death of planetary civilization.

Shit, somehow now I'm even responsible for this thread which- by the way- I didn't start.

Amazing, too, that I'm responsible for all that, and presumably the smut-ban-happy religious right groups like CWA and Focus on the Family get a free pass, even though they- unlike, say the ACLU- actually support the war that is bringing home the dead troops.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. It's literally pictures of naked ladies that are causing the kids to come home from Iraq in coffins, how silly of me to forget. You know, you bury those kinds of .... assertions in the middle of an extended ramble about civilization and patriarchy, and one almost might not know they were there. Almost.

I'm going to put it very simply, in English:

I. Am. Opposed. To. Censorship.

If somehow being opposed to censorship makes me a warmongering fascist, then I guess that's what I am. Apparently, I'm also "too young" and too "economically vested" (Wow.. You figured me out- I'm a 12 year old Halliburton CEO) to understand the deep wisdom of someone who equates all heterosexual sex with rape (and then hems and haws and qualifies her way out of the quote) and how that amounts to a language of "peace, love and understanding".

Well, speaking of time, I don't have time to reason with someone who spins paragraph after paragraph of unrelated flarm while consistently avoiding the one central issue I brought up, namely the freedom -and yes, it is freedom- of consenting adults to make up their own damn minds about things, even if that includes posing for or looking at dirty pictures.

Logically, it's either/or. Either you, like Mackinnon and Dworkin, believe it should be against the law for people to get their jollies by looking at pictures or movies of other people having sex.. (which is, by definition, censorship, and thus a "pro-censorship agenda"...) or, as you implied via statements like "where did I say it should be banned?", you don't- in which case, no matter how much you may believe porn is evil or bad or chipotle flavored, you agree with me on the central issue of censorship. I'm sorry if it's upsetting to you to agree on one small logical point with a young, economically vested PNAC oppresor of the phallocracy such as myself, but there really isn't any way around it.

And I am not "vested" in the debate because I'm some kind of smut peddler. I had a job once where I ancillarially had to deal with the stuff (because most video stores that carry porn are not "porn stores", per se) but it did give me enough insight to realize that men, women, and couples watch porn and manage to be healthy human beings at the same time, porn runs the gamut from tasteless to fairly high budget and arty, and the facts that are taken as gospel truth in the Smith College Womens Dept. about the oppressive phallic conspiracy behind all pornography are generally a load of hooey. So, I don't believe "all the answers" are in a porn store, personally I'm not all that fond of most porn- but I'm even less fond of control freaks who spend hours trying to justify attempts to foist their own personal interpretation of how things like other people's sexuality SHOULD be onto everyone else. I'm "vested" in the debate because as much as you bemoan the fact that people are able to look at pictures of other naked people without fear of arrest in most places in this country, we ARE currently dealing with forces that would censor the things consenting adults can read and watch in the privacy of their own homes, and they're the same people who want to replace what's left of our constitution with a Christian theocracy. I'm flabbergasted that you seem to think keeping people from watching other people have sex on DVD is important enough to align yourself with that crowd, even marginally.

Nor do I believe that "Dworkin and Mackinnon are the enemy as opposed to the MSM". Again, you've pulled these dichotomies seemingly out of thin air, perhaps because you are filtering absolutely everything that takes place on this planet through the lens of the one big battle of the patriarchy vs. your personal feminist heroes. I never said they were the enemy, in fact I didn't really criticize them much at all- I only said they have spoken in support of censorship, which I don't agree with.

Are lots of people in capitalist, western society totally incapable of seeing beyond the surface of things, of understanding the difference between style and substance... or telling shit from shinola? Yes, absolutely. Is there a deeper human connection that is missing from most people's interactions, even many of the intimate ones, in our society? Certainly. Is sex with someone you truly love and deeply understand far and away better than any other kind? In my mind, for sure.

But these are all different issues from whether or not pictures of naked men and women, either alone or having sex, should be censored because some people don't like them.

My own personal take on porn and the attendant debate is that most men and women are, to an extent, wired differently- and most men are more visual in terms of sexuality than women are. Many women also seem to have more of a tendency to find sex and emotional intimacy indistinguishable, whereas men- who, at least some of the time- are perfectly capable of understanding that emotional intimacy is the core of lots of kinds of really good sex, also are capable of (or have a tendency to) compartmentalizing the experience a great deal more than women. Some women, I suspect, find this disturbing. Hell, maybe evolutionarially that means that women have a deeper and more evolved understanding of sex- that's certainly possible.. But there are also perfectly logical evolutionary explanations as to why our respective heads would tend in those different directions.

You're right- this is really about whether we can all get along, as it were. I don't understand 'only' conflict, but I DO understand conflict- and many, if not most of the conflicts you describe have one glaring thing in common- people who are pathologically incapable of understanding that just because THEY see something a certain way, they don't have to kill their neighbors for believing things differently or try to impose their way of thinking upon them. It is fundamentalists and rigid dogmatists who are overwhelmingly driving the wars that you speak of, not freethinkers and (gasp!) porn consumers- as much as you continually want to assert that Larry Flynt is somehow as culpable for the body bags coming home from Iraq as Donald Rumsfeld is. There are a lot more wars in places where porn is against the law than there are in places where people have a more libertine attitude towards sex.

Want a blueprint for a planetary human race that can co-exist in peace? Here it is: Consenting adults who understand that just because THEY don't like something, they don't have to make it against the law for their neighbors. People who are grown up enough to grasp that THEY can believe something without needing to foist it on or try to convert all their neighbors. People who understand that just because THEY see the world in terms of Jesus vs. Satan, evil abortionists vs. righteous pro-lifers, or even the Global Patriarchy vs. Dworkin and MacKinnon for that matter, it doesn't mean that they need to try to force the rest of us to live inside their personal mental constructs. Don't like porn? Want to rail against it and call it evil? Hey, that's great. But as soon as you- like your icons here have historically done- start trying to pass LAWS against how other adults choose to get their jollies, that's when I have a problem with it. It's really not a complicated concept.

[mongo]

285. Well said!

Thanks.

[noiretextatique]

276. senior citizen

thank you.

[mongo]

283. I'd reccomend Defending Pornography by Nadine Strossen

It argues ferociously FOR free speech, but it does not equate pornography with free speech, quite the contrary. If you need to use somebody else's body in order to speak, you probably don't have anything valuable to say.

So, only speech valuable to YOU should be protected?

I can't give a kid a loaded gun along with a lot of pictures of guns being used to kill people, and then, if the kid kills someone, claim that all I was doing was merely exercising MY right to bear arms. My right to bear arms stops with me, it doesn't give me the right to involve or arm others. Since when does your freedom of speech entail the right to use other people's bodies?

Where do you get the right to tell OTHER consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies? The rest of your analogy is just hyperbole.

IMO, by equating pornography with free speech, the right was able to take over the MSM without a peep of dissent from those who were distracted by the benefits they were reaping from the multi-billion dollar porn industry, whether they were producing it, selling it, buying it, or just using it as a pacifier to sublimate their hunger pangs for real news. Who needs news when you have porn? Who needs dissent at public meetings and hearings when you have porn? Who needs open debate in Congress when you have porn?

Oh, I get it now. It's ALL PORN'S FAULT! What the hell does a porno have to do with political debate?

There was actually a thread recently where someone said that a person had deserved to be raped because only a bad person would own a porn video.

That is a mischaracterization of the thread you are citing. In that "hypothetical" case, a woman who was date raped had a porno out that was seen by the rapist before anything occurred. The post in question pointed out that this would be seized upon by a defense lawyer as a mitagating factor in the case. But no one actually said that "only a bad person would own a porn video, and most every response in that post said that a porn tape being out should in no way be an invitation to be raped.

So who is the enemy of feminism, the person who is pro-porn, even if it depicts females as "bad" and deserving of rape, and then turns around and says someone is bad and deserving of rape because they own a porn video, or the person who warns of that kind of hypocrisy?

Here we go again with the characterizations that porn in general depicts females as "bad".


In "Only Words" MacKinnon argues that the purpose of freedom of speech was to enable the powerless to speak truth to power--using it to enhance the powers of the powerful and silence their victims is the exact opposite of how free speech was intended. What Dworkin and MacKinnon said was that your free speech stops where my body begins. And if you don't recognize that your freedom ends where my chin begins, you obviously don't play well with others.

So, a persons right to free speech ends when you are offended? How does other people making porn affect YOUR body?

[mongo]

284. I'd reccommend Defending Pornography by Nadine Strossen

It argues ferociously FOR free speech, but it does not equate pornography with free speech, quite the contrary. If you need to use somebody else's body in order to speak, you probably don't have anything valuable to say.

So, only speech valuable to YOU should be protected?

I can't give a kid a loaded gun along with a lot of pictures of guns being used to kill people, and then, if the kid kills someone, claim that all I was doing was merely exercising MY right to bear arms. My right to bear arms stops with me, it doesn't give me the right to involve or arm others. Since when does your freedom of speech entail the right to use other people's bodies?

Where do you get the right to tell OTHER consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies? The rest of your analogy is just hyperbole.

IMO, by equating pornography with free speech, the right was able to take over the MSM without a peep of dissent from those who were distracted by the benefits they were reaping from the multi-billion dollar porn industry, whether they were producing it, selling it, buying it, or just using it as a pacifier to sublimate their hunger pangs for real news. Who needs news when you have porn? Who needs dissent at public meetings and hearings when you have porn? Who needs open debate in Congress when you have porn?

Oh, I get it now. It's ALL PORN'S FAULT! What the hell does a porno have to do with political debate?

There was actually a thread recently where someone said that a person had deserved to be raped because only a bad person would own a porn video.

That is a mischaracterization of the thread you are citing. In that "hypothetical" case, a woman who was date raped had a porno out that was seen by the rapist before anything occurred. The post in question pointed out that this would be seized upon by a defense lawyer as a mitagating factor in the case. But no one actually said that "only a bad person would own a porn video, and most every response in that post said that a porn tape being out should in no way be an invitation to be raped.

So who is the enemy of feminism, the person who is pro-porn, even if it depicts females as "bad" and deserving of rape, and then turns around and says someone is bad and deserving of rape because they own a porn video, or the person who warns of that kind of hypocrisy?

Here we go again with the characterizations that porn in general depicts females as "bad".


In "Only Words" MacKinnon argues that the purpose of freedom of speech was to enable the powerless to speak truth to power--using it to enhance the powers of the powerful and silence their victims is the exact opposite of how free speech was intended. What Dworkin and MacKinnon said was that your free speech stops where my body begins. And if you don't recognize that your freedom ends where my chin begins, you obviously don't play well with others.

So, a persons right to free speech ends when you are offended? How does other people making porn affect YOUR body?

[Nikia]

197. I read Intercourse

And Dworkin makes some good points. My husband agrees with me too.
Dworkin seriously examined the issue of inequality in sexual relations as they have been practiced in the past and unfortunately continue to be practiced, in some cases, in the present. These issues needed to be discussed and should be continued to discuss.
Perhaps many DUers are in environments and associate with people who are not affected by such things as domestic violence, sexual coercion, rape, and the sexual double standard. These things are still alive and well here in working class Wisconsin. From what I gather, they were common everywhere a generation ago. Yes sex can be liberating and enjoyable for women, but it is was good that she examined why it could be used to oppress women as well.

[noiretextatique]

209. i met a woman recently

who is from the midwest, raised in a working class environment. she told me she never realized sex was meant to be pleasurable until she was in her early thirties. she said she was raised to be a "fuck toy," and that all of her sexual experiences prior to leaving the area, her family, and that life, were brutal and demeaning. she's about 40 now.

[Djinn]

215. well then she's a sad fuckwit

I'm relatively young and had the fortune of having progressive parents (or probably more specifically a mother who'd never have put up with any shit) but mum's in her 60's and she never felt like this, I also had an enlightening conversation with my paternal grandmother before she died where I found out she was no meek lamb either.

not saying the patriarchy doesn't exist but at some point you've got to make your own decisions, if you keep screwing and not enjoying it then you're a moron

[Hello_Kitty]

225. "I'm relatively young and had the fortune of having progressive parents"

That's YOUR reality. You are harshly judging someone whose life history and circumstances you know nothing about, which makes YOU look like a fuckwit.

[noiretextatique]

240. people do the best they can from where they are in consciousness

this woman is a massage therapist now...she specializes in massage therapy for the terminally ill. she was a rape/sexual abuse counselor and advocate, and she's also survived a usually deadly form of cancer. and, she took care of both of her parents and her grandmother when they got ill and eventually died. she is the first to admit she's had a hard life, but she never complains about it...even now that her cancer has returned. she's analyzed her experience, grown from it, and she's helped others do the same.
consider yourself VERY fortunate...you are, and many aren't as lucky as you are.
until you can walk a day in this woman's shoes: you have no right to judge her. none at all.

[TreasonousBastard]

198. I don't know that they were...

symbolic of 90's feminist theory.

They certainly led one school of thought, which seems to be fading away, but something so complex as feminism has to have its radicals floating around. It's not simply a question of the rights of women, but deals with the basis of our social fabric. And sex is involved-- always leading to more fun with logic.

Personally, I disagree with most of what I've heard them say, just like I disagree with a lot of what I hear, but I rarely disagree with the concept of some half-assed ideas getting a full hearing, even if just to get the rest of us thinking seriously about the subject. And I find their views occasionally refreshing and opening up new ways of thinking about our sexuality, even if we end up on opposite sides to them.

Do I think they both had some personal issues that drove their thought? Of course they did, but so did just about every other great thinker, male or female.

[Finder]

235. Good post. n/t

[Kathy in Cambridge]

202. Incredible

just incredible...

[Zenlitened]

203. Just because you think it's incredible doesn't mean everybody

thinks it's incredible and what do you have against credible I'll bet your a credible-hater and really why don't you worry about stuff that's credible this incredible issue is so divisive why can't you understand that are you dumm or somthin you big poopyhead.




:hi:


:D

[SarahB]

204. Hmmm....

On one level, sometimes extremism is necessary to bring about change. To shake things up and really get people to think. In some sense, ignoring a woman's sexual needs with a simple "wham bam thank you mam" is using a woman as a vessel for pleasure and not a partner completely neglecting the primary orgasmic source for women. Some men really are like that and I'd assume men of the 50's and 60's in general may have been more like that. Perhaps that's what some of it was trying to illustrate. If that's the case, I get it. I still like men though a lot. I can't help it. It's a curse. :cry:

Just when you think you know me. :P

[mistertrickster]

211. Why have the blue collar abandoned the Democrats? You're looking at it.

You can only get told "you're the enemy and you can not be rehabilitated" so often before you tell liberals to go fuck themselves (which ironically is exactly what these particular liberals seem to be doing, but I digress).

[Senior citizen]

217. Do you know any blue collar people?

More specifically, do you know of any blue collar people who've abandoned the Democrats? This board has been full of stories of blue collar people who have abandoned the Republican party, and the polls show that they're doing it in droves.

Do you know of any unions that contribute to Republicans?

The Democratic Party has often abandoned the working class in favor of the corporations, but the Republicans still have to rig the elections and photoshop campaign flyers to make it look like they've got supporters. Even wingnuts admit Gore got the popular vote. And they still can't explain the exit polls that favored Kerry.

If you're the enemy, you're the only one who knows it for sure. If you can't be rehabilitated, that's your problem. But it isn't very tricky, Mr. Trickster, to miss the points made in an entire thread, set up a strawman argument, and indulge in an irrelevant putdown of all liberals. It's transparent to everyone.

[mistertrickster]

219. Do I know any blue collar workers who have abandoned the Democratic

party?

That's like asking if I can find any piles of horseshit in a barnyard.

I was shop steward for UPS for a couple years that included the 1980 election, and I never saw so many teamsters vote Republican in my life. I also used to deliver to farmers. Even though Jimmy Carter WAS a farmer, they were all voting for Reagan.

It's the academic feminists in their air conditioned offices with their sabbaticals and their nine-month contracts and their six-hour a week teaching jobs who had no FUCKING CLUE of the irrevocable harm they were doing to the party of Eleanor Roosevelt.

The French feminists of the time had the right idea, but no, we couldn't be reasonable . . .

On edit--BTW, I consider myself to be a liberal, so the slam wasn't against liberals, it was against groups that alienate others under the banner of "liberalism."

[Senior citizen]

220. Glad you found the horseshit, but pleast don't post it here.

How many of those farmers still own their farms? How many of those teamsters are still working? Or did they get what they voted for?

So you think that when people voted against their own economic interests, it was because feminists were to blame?

What irrevocable harm was done to the party of Eleanor Roosevelt by feminists? If you'd read this thread, you'd know that feminists were not proposing banning porn or censorship, although the right wing may have used that argument to frighten people who believe anything they're told. And French feminists have won much greater victories than U.S. feminists would ever dare aspire to. Compare how the two countries treat unwed mothers, for example.

Don't blame the feminists. The average Joe on the corner may not have a job, he may not have a place to live, he may have PTSD and inadequate health care, but he has access to all the porn he wants. In fact, there are so many mentally or physically ill, jobless, homeless females out there with him, that he probably has access to all the sex he wants too.

Anybody who voted Republican because they were more concerned about pornography than about jobs, didn't do their homework. It is the right that consistently proposes censorship and banning porn, not feminists. Feminists have been fighting too hard for freedom of speech for themselves to try to censor anyone else.

I'm sure the right is happy if people want to blame feminists, immigrants, Jews, or any other group. Anything to direct attention away from the people outsourcing their jobs, repossessing their homes and farms, and making health care unaffordable. You're trying to say that blue collar males were more concerned that feminists might try to take away their porn, than that the corporatocracy might take away their jobs and farms, so they left the Democratic Party. All I can say is if they were that dumb, I'm not so sure I want them back.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

231. This subject line pretty much says it all:

If you're looking for the simplest and most naked example of attempted censorship, here it is ------------>

"220. Glad you found the horseshit, but pleast don't post it here."

Scratch an alleged feminist, find a censor. Clearly, someone has decided who should post what on a message board.

Interesting, but not surprising.

Intolerance, inflexibility, and that ongoing perceived sense of victimhood, coupled with an irrational and barely controlled anger at men are the sad virtues of the American feminist movement, and that is why it ended as such a sorry puddle.

[Vladimir]

233. Censorship? Don't make me laugh

if the censors of history had used language like "please don't publish this book", we would have had a lot more books...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

234. Agreed

That's why the post I cited was so laughable.

Real censors don't ask. They censor, because they have power.

[Vladimir]

237. The post you cited was pretty intelligent IMO

sadly this thread has been less about discussing Dworkin/McKinnon's works, and more about a return to high school debating. Which is a real shame, cos it was never that great in the first place...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

238. I didn't cite the post

Listen up - I cited the subject line.

Not the same.

[Vladimir]

239. Oh well I'm sorry

it was just cos you said "... the post I cited was so laughable", you see. My error is duly noted.

[mistertrickster]

245. Thanks for getting my back here, Leftie. I didn't mention porn once,

I don't give a damn about porn.

What I'm concerned with is men who left the liberal cause because they were told by liberals (feminists) that THEIR INTRINSIC MANLINESS WAS THE ROOT OF EVIL in society.

These are men who feel powerless to stop the horrible changes sweeping over their world--outsourcing of jobs, wage stagnation, rich getting richer, no pension, no health care, no upward mobility, having to follow the stupidity of middle management, etc--and on top of that the feminists are telling him he's part of the "white male power structure."

Oh please . . .

No wonder they vote for an idiot in a cowboy hat (Reagan). At least he's not insulting and alienating them for being men.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

251. You're very welcome

There's very little tolerance or understanding by the aggrieved, and that's cost more than has been gained, I think.

Women have no idea how much they've lost in the interests of feminism and liberation. What started out as a perfect idea and a fair and just concept got lost in the individual pathologies that have come to define so much of it.

I look at women today, and then I think of how it was when I started practicing law almost thirty years ago. Some obvious gains have been made - no female in law school gets called "Lawyerette," as I did by professors who didn't want women there - but, in the long run, much, much more has been lost, not the least of which is support and goodwill of the men who have been denounced and driven away.

Your line about Reagan is, I fear, just as correct about the current Ratface.

[amazona]

260. they voted for Reagan because they were racist

I'm sorry but I knew too many men at the time who said flat out that they left the Democratic Party and voted for Reagan because of the "blacks," except they didn't always use the word "black." The whole October Surprise thing about the Iranian hostages was in there somewhere too.

Don't blame women for the wholesale abandonment of the Democratic Party by badly educated white men, especially in the south. They left because the Democrats did the right thing, which was to change and embrace civil rights, and in a tight economy these men then felt threatened for their jobs.

If we all reproduced by budding, and women didn't exist, the same men would have crossed over to vote Reagan anyway.

[Bridget Burke]

226. Yes, the Teamsters were offended by Andrea Dworkin.

They often deconstructed her theories of feminism while sipping double espressos at the union hall.

[noiretextatique]

241. indeed...

:rofl: dworkin was discussed quite often at the UAW civil rights conference i attended...NOT.

at the time, Mandela had just been elected president, so the big topic of conversation was the UAW's participation in monitoring that election, at the behest of south african trade unionists. another very interesting seminar was about the ever-increasing white supremacy movement, and its ties to a certain mainstram political party :eyes: the sexual harrassment seminar was also well-attended, and i was heartened to see that people, men especially, were really intersted in understanding how they could help in make changes in their workplaces.
another popular seminar was about workers running for local offices in their communities.
my local had just been formed...it is a local that includes mother jones magazine and the sierra club, and has no auto workers.
however, by attending that conference, i got to meet auto workers, blue collar workers, from across the country.
it was great to see that blue collar workers are as informed and commmited to social justice and progressive politics as those pointy-head liberal academics who sip lattes while deconstructing dworkin and mackinnon :7

[mistertrickster]

246. Clever . . . but sarcasm isn't going to get those working class voters

back. Of course they weren't familiar with the leading feminist intellectuals, but the message filtered down.

Men who felt powerless to stop horrible changes in their society--job outsourcing, wage and benefit stagnation, wealth inequality, health care spiraling out of control, no upward mobility, community decline--are being told by feminists that they're part of the "white male power structure" and that their inherent manliness is the root of all evil in society.

Rightly or wrongly, that was the message they heard, loud and clear.

And it's really disingenuous to blame this on a media conspiracy to discredit feminism. There was plenty of alienating messages coming from feminism itself, such as the "potential rapist" poster college students put up with men's names taken from the local phone books.

That wasn't media hype--that was a staged event by feminists to whip up "gender conciousness," with predictable results.

[Bridget Burke]

250. So start a thread on "The Feminization of American Culture"

Speaking of media hype....

[redqueen]

254. So you're blaming the shift to the right in this country on feminists.

Am I reading that right?

[Pithlet]

270. Seems to me that you are the one maligning working class voters

You seem to insist that they're all a bunch of knuckle draggers who can't understand the concept of equal rights. Coming from a blue collar background, that is highly offensive to me. I don't think the working class needs your kind of voice to speak up for them. Or women, for that matter.

[noiretextatique]

242. well, the UAW at least

is very committed to protmoting equality. too bad so many got seduced by reagan's regressive claptrap because they were so RESENTFUL of the progress made by women and people of color. perhaps it's time for some to stop swallowing rw propaganda designed to make them feel victimized, when in fact they are even more victimized by rw policies.
what impact did dworkin and mackinnon have on your life? probably none.

[mistertrickster]

247. And that's the problem. The union leadership is still on our side.

But the individual workers have been alienated by these gender divisions that took our eye off the prize of economic fairness.

[noiretextatique]

252. what "gender divisions" are you talking about?

specifically? spit it out in plain english. the uaw workers i met were male and female, democrats, and committed to fairness and equity.

[redqueen]

255. Who said "you're the enemy and you cannot be rehabilitated"?

Did anyone say that?

[Pithlet]

269. The feminists did!

But don't worry. He/she only cares about the party, and are worried we're losing votes. That person is only trying to help us! :sarcasm:

[redqueen]

273. It's baffling...

I thought it was a general trend towards selfishness in the 70's / 80's which cost us votes (stuff like the "welfare queen" crap which encouraged people to want more for themselves... the IGMFU mentality).

:crazy:

[Pithlet]

267. Feminism costs us votes?

We're half the population, for crying out loud!

Run away, women of DU! Run away from feminism! We're the reason we lost!

God, how I hate that useless, baseless argument. And it comes up often. "X is the reason we lose votes, so we should pay less attention to/get rid of x." x being any number of progressive causes or perceived slights against the majority. All it is is an argument to censor ideas you don't like, and cloak it in benevolence. Making it appear as though concern for your party is the only reason you're against x. It is transparent, and no one buys it.

[mistertrickster]

278. Okay, if you refuse to see my point, fine, we can't have a discussion.

I'm not arguing against equal rights, I'm not saying blue collar workers are too stupid to support equal rights--what I'm saying is that when you lay the ills of society on someone's GENDER (as in "you're bad because your a man"), that has a very alienating effect on a lot of men, particularly men who don't feel very powerful to start with (like blue collar men who rightly see themselves as pawns of corporations).

And they're right--they aren't very powerful in an economic sense, they are completely at the mercy of the "free market system" which in America means socialism for rich corporations, and it's insulting and absurd to say they are part of a "male power structure" as if a white male custodial worker enjoys more status and wealth than Oprah, just because he's a white male.

BTW, on more than one occasion I have counter-protested against right to lifers in front of our local clinic. So I don't think the cutting remarks against my motives and person are either relevant or warrented.

French feminists made more gains than we did, and they did it without the alienating and intentional gender conflict. Too bad that only now (see Susan Faludi's "Stiffed" about the way working class males are victimized in many of the same ways as women) is feminism moderating its anti-male tone.

[Pithlet]

279. You are the one who refuses to see the point

Your contention that feminism lays all the ills of society on one gender is wrong.

Sorry, but if you're going to make such assertions, be prepared to get called on it. I stand by everything I've said to you. You want to see feminists as the enemy against men. And that is YOUR hangup.

[mistertrickster]

280. Look at the original posts by Dworkin and McKenny. How could any

one not see that as "anti-male." Equating marriage and prostitution. Calling intercourse a kind of rape.

If you don't see that this kind of rhetoric is highly alienating to a lot of men, you can't see why so many men are rallying to the Republicans who say, "we understand you."

[Nikia]

277. Are you saying what I think that you are saying?

There is a theory that poor white men are more racist and sexist than richer men. The richer man feels superior to the poor man because he has more money. The poor white man felt superior to women and black men because society told him that he was superior to them. Even though he was poor, he could feel that he was better than whole groups of people. This why, of course, that non slave holding Southerners supported slavery and later supported Jim Crow.
Then those Democrats started pushing for equal rights and preaching that white men really weren't bettter than other people. They started saying that businesses couldn't exclude certain people from certain jobs. They said that businesses couldn't pay people less by virtue of their skin color or sex. Then those uppity women and blacks came in and stole the jobs of those hard working white men. After that happened, they couldn't support the Democratic party anymore.
I hope that's not what you are saying.

[sendero]

228. I don't know how many...

... actual feminists embraced the thinking of people like Dworkin. Based on certain people I've been acquainted with, I'd say at least some.

But I don't think that most women agree with her. or even 10% for that matter.

Anyone wishing to can look up a book by Philip Wylie, written I believe in the 40s called "Generation of Vipers".

I would call it the male equivalent of Dworkin et al, full of bitterness and basically hatred to the opposite gender. It's really a sad spectacle, since if you are heterosexual your happiness pretty much depends on relationships with the opposite sex. By definition, if you cannot get along with them you have a serious problem.

[amazona]

261. oh yeah wylie -- that's another sick puppy!

He was responsible for half of the "blame the mother" crap that you heard well into the 60s, I really think so! He really, really hated mothers, didn't he? I'm a little young for him but by chance I stumbled over his "work" and it was really icky to say the least.

[ismnotwasm]

263. Late to the party, as usual

But I'm pretty inspired by you all. Even with the sometimes nasty disagreements, It's great to see a thread this long on feminism. The "isms" of the world is where I got my user name. It's feminism, not feminwasm, if you get my drift. We still have a long way to go. God bless the ground breakers, the earth shakers, the women who wouldn't back down, and paid the price. We build on this, and it's taken centuries, not decades.