# How Did We Skip Her?  Andrea Dworkin: RIP



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 19, 2005)

The arch-feminist died this last week, and somehow we here in the study missed it.

A damning write-up in "Reason":

http://www.reason.com/cy/cy041905.shtml


Any thoughts on her?  Does anybody even remember her?  Personally I think she did a great deal of damage to the left, giving far too much voice to a fringe feminism that wasn't reflective of the movement's ideals.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The arch-feminist died this last week, and somehow we here in the study missed it.
> 
> A damning write-up in "Reason":
> 
> ...



I remember her, back in the day, she seemed to have some nutty ideas, but for the most part, I could see where she was coming from.  I had a psychology professor that worshipped her, she we got Andrea stories all of the time...

She was a controversial figure and said things that pissed people off and made people think.  I respect that.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 19, 2005)

First off, don't take, "Reason," magazine too seriously. Their motto is, "free minds and free markets," and they're another one of these ideological rags (they're libertarians) that tries to mask their ideology in a claim that they have no ideology, just common sense. 

One good sign of this is that while they're tearing into the departed Ms. Dworkin, they also throw in some slaps against Martha Nussbaum--a pity, since a) Prof. Nussbaum is a scholar and writer at a level that the, "Reason," guys couldn't reach if they redid the famous experiment with the ape and the banana, put a ladder on a box, stood on the tippy-top of the ladder, and waved a long stick wildly, b) her discussion of feminism is anything but simple-minded and one-sided, as you can see if you look at the first of the articles linked below, c) Nussbaum offers some pretty good reasons to suspect that Dworkin had a point about men's fear and hatred of women, and fantasies of subjecting them. But take a look for yourself.

http://www.tnr.com/archive/0299/022299/nussbaum022299.html

http://www.countercurrents.org/guj-nussbaum290704.htm

All that said, she and Catherine MacKinnon shoulda been chased down the street with squirt-guns (yes, weird image in this context) for announcing loudly their political cooperation with Pat Robertson and his cronies about making porn illegal.

I can tell you for a fact that she wasn't all that influential in academic circles--except, she did help crystallize a lot of discussions about patriarchy back about twenty-five years ago. I flipped through a couple of her books of cultural criticism, and they weren't bad--at times kinda out there, but usually decent stuff.

I've avoided the word, "strident," because, well, I get tired of seeing women written off as strident because then say things men don't like. (You know--guy stands up, he's being a man; woman stands up she's a *****.) Dworkin certainly had some stupid moments--but was she really worse than the Promise Keepers, with their loud assertion that Jesus wants husbands to command their wives like children, or the TV preachers screaming about women and evil, or the makers of, "Hustler," or the director of movies like "Bad Boys," which around the edges had some truly ugly things to say about women, or writers like Joe Esterhaz?

There really isn't any such thing as an arch feminist. She was, though, the feminist men love to hate.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 19, 2005)

Andrea Dworkin was a sad example of what can happen to people due to the legacy of trauma, violence, and sexual abuse.  

 As she survived and overcame that past, she focused her powerful intellect on forms of revenge-based violence of her own that did as much to harm feminism and reconciliation between men and women as help.

 As Gandhi-ji pointed out, verbal violence is just as damaging as any other kind, and Andrea Dworkin's wild fantasies, while explainable and maybe even understandable, were verbal violence.  Her death serves as an excellent reminder to me to examine my own tendencies towards the same, and how it's not fitting a martial artist or a human being.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 19, 2005)

The fact that childhood trauma inspires one's field of study does not mean that one's field of study--on comments about it--is invalid because of childhood trauma.

Unfortunately, taking a good a look at events described in the second of the two links I posted--they date from 2002!--will tell you that Dworkin had a point. It isn't just a question of, "reconciliation," between men and women--it's also a question of getting men to stop their hatred, violence, pathetic fantasies, and desperate attempts to keep women under control no matter what.

Or did they just elect a liberal Pope who intends to fundamentally change the way that women are second-class citizens in the Church?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The fact that childhood trauma inspires one's field of study does not mean that one's field of study--on comments about it--is invalid because of childhood trauma.


 At no point did I suggest that her entire field of study was invalid. I do, however, find a great deal of Andrea Dworkin's work to be intellectually baseless, as you yourself seemed to imply above. If her response to trauma had been to avoid a violent counterresponse, I think we could very easily be discussing how well Dworkin bridged gaps between patriarchal society and the modern feminist movement.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It isn't just a question of, "reconciliation," between men and women--it's also a question of getting men to stop their hatred, violence, pathetic fantasies, and desperate attempts to keep women under control no matter what.


 Those are absolutely laudable goals, that were _mis-served_ by the levels of rhetorical extreme that Dworkin reached.


----------



## raedyn (Apr 19, 2005)

It surprises me that no one is charging in here tearing apart everything they think she was trying to say. Everywhere else online I've seen her death mentioned, there have been people - left & right - getting all worked up about her controversial ideas. (especially the uh.. umm.. *tries to think of an appropriate word* less-than-feminists?)

My guess is that there are few people on here who know who she is and about all the controversy she whipped up. I think she had a greater impact when many of us (myself included) were too young to know what the heck was going on.


----------



## raedyn (Apr 19, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Those are absolutely laudable goals, that were _mis-served_ by the levels of rhetorical extreme that Dworkin reached.


I absolutely agree. Like if you try to make the point that some porn can be negative & exploitative, people on the "all porn is always okay" side of the debate will quote Dworkin out of context and imply you're saying things that you aren't. So arguements that do have validity get dismissed out of hand because the otherside hears the most extreme views she espoused, and won't listen to the actual point raised.

I apreciate learning about her ideas, because they spur me to questioning things, and attempting to see them from new perspectives. But I certainly don't agree with her extreme position.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> She was a controversial figure and said things that pissed people off and made people think. I respect that.


 Yeah, I can get behind this.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 19, 2005)

Uh...did folks happen to read the articles I linked to?

Here's an excerpt, which concerns riots that took place in India during 2002:

"Particularly striking were the mass rapes and mutilations of women. The typical tactic was first to rape or gang-rape the woman, then to torture her, and then to set her on fire and kill her. Although the fact that most of the dead were incinerated makes a precise sex count of the bodies impossible, one mass grave that was discovered contained more than half female bodies. Many victims of rape and torture are also among the survivors who have testified. The historian Tanika Sarkar, who played a leading role in investigating the events and interviewing witnesses, has argued in an important article that the evident preoccupation with destroying women's sexual organs reveals "a dark sexual obsession about allegedly ultra-virile Muslim male bodies and overfertile Muslim female ones, that inspire and sustain the figures of paranoia and revenge."1 This sexual obsession is evident in the hate literature circulated during the carnage, of which the following "poem" is a typical example:

Narendra Modi [Chief Minister of Gujarat] you have ****ed the mother of [Muslims] 
The volcano which was inactive for years has erupted 
It has burnt the **** of [Muslims] and made them dance nude 
We have untied the penises which were tied till now 
Without castor oil in the **** we have made them cry. . . 
Wake up Hindus, there are still [Muslims] alive around you 
Learn from Panvad village where their mother was ****ed 
She was ****ed standing while she kept shouting 
She enjoyed the uncircumcised penis 
With a Hindu government the Hindus have the power to annihilate [Muslims] 
Kick them in the **** to drive them out of not only villages and cities but also the country. 
[The word rendered "Muslims" ("miyas") is a word meaning "mister" that is standardly used to refer to Muslims.] 

As Sarkar says, the incitement to violence is suffused with anxiety about male sexuality, and the treatment of women that resulted seems to enact a fantasy of sexual sadism far darker than mere revenge."

I agree that some of Dworkin's public statements were a bit out there, and that at times she was deeply unwise about politics. But not everybody has to win a popularity contest--and given the sort of thing just quoted, the sort of thing that we could all come up with lots of examples for around the world--was the "radical," claim really all that radical?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...did folks happen to read the articles I linked to?


 Yep.

 And despite your excerpts, and the millions of examples of horrible sexual, physical, political, psychological, and moral treatment of women throughout history, I still refuse to get behind the extremist ravings of a radical.  

 The mass of wrongs by the patriarchy doesn't buy the feminist movement any passes.  The mass of wrongs by the right doesn't buy the left any passes.  If we don't demand the highest levels of rhetoric, thinking, and logic from our own, we'll never get past simply shouting at one another.

 What's more, Dworkin's beliefs, while challenging and worth studying for many of the reasons listed above, consist of a psychologically unresolved desire for revenge and violence towards others that I also refuse to support.  This by no means reflects on other feminists or the feminist movement as a whole; simply on Dworkin's specific statements.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 20, 2005)

In the first place, I wonder whether when, say, Pat Robertson dies, somebody will get on a foruman announce that the, "arch-patriarchist," died today.

In the second, well, as much as I think Freud had it right about discussing the roles that both fantasy and trauma play in the construction of the psyche, Dworkin wasn't making this stuff up. Nor was it an isolated creep here, an isolated maniac there--she described modes of thought, and actual actions, that are epidemic in our society. Or did the Green River Killer not exist? Did all those women who've been murdered around Juarez just go on vacation? Do we not see things like, "dowry murders," and the rise of the Taliban in the Third World? How about the woman teacher in Algeria who was decapitated and her head left on the desk in front of her grade school students, who were forced to sit there for a couple hours so they'd get the message that women are not supposed to teach or be seen in public? 

How would you interpret this stuff? Or did it not even happen?

Fact is, whatever Dworkin's pathology--and I wonder why somebody so ordinarily sensible would suddenly be so willing to diagnose ("a psychologically unresolved desire for revenge and violence")--much of what she says is, regrettably, true. Even if she were nuts--and again, what's your basis for that claim, exactly?--it wouldn't make her altogether wrong.

And again: it always amazes me that in our culture, men can say all sorts of crazy things about women, build their religion around keeping women corralled, proliferate magazines and writing that go way beyond porn in their attacks on women, but boy, let some chic say something about it, and...cowabunga, there's a problem.

It's Hillary Clinton syndrome. I note that guys like Tom de Lay are by any rational measure far more strident and bitchy, far more corrupt, far more power-wacky, but nobody's calling them lesbians.

And, guys like De Lay do a helluva lot more than write books and lecture. They act--and often, they act out of what a blind dog can see is pathology. So Dworkin--and I'm not arguing that she didn't often talk like a jerk--seems pretty civilized and sane, by comparasion. Seems to me like the standard of normalcy in this culture is pretty seriously warped.

Gandhi, too, had a few little personal kinks and twists. He too got called a lunatic, a radical, etc. etc. Did that make his life's work wrong?


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's Hillary Clinton syndrome. I note that guys like Tom de Lay are by any rational measure far more strident and bitchy, far more corrupt, far more power-wacky, but nobody's calling them lesbians.


 That's because he's a closet ****.   Robertson's the lesbian.

  Jeff


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nor was it an isolated creep here, an isolated maniac there--she described modes of thought, and actual actions, that are epidemic in our society.


 I never suggested otherwise; in fact, I've used words in this very thread like "millions".  Women are tortured, raped, abused, discriminated against, mutilated, thrown on funeral pyres, all simply because they're women every single day all around the world.  

 This is really, really, *really* bad.  As bad as it gets.  Even though it slowly gets better in some places, it's still rotten. Intellectuals like Andrea Dworkin served important roles in kickstarting the feminist movement in the 20th century and highlighting these abuses for a partriarchal society, but there's a long, long, *long* way to go, everywhere from Hindu villages where suttee is still practiced to American stadiums where Promise Keepers take solemn vows to keep Christian women in their place.

 But despite these massive crimes against women everywhere, we still gain nothing if we overreact, and lash out too far.  

 Dworkin did that, alienated many, and played precisely into the hands of the patriarchy... now, any attempt to reasonably discuss feminism in this country rapidly gets poo-pooed by some knuckle-dragger with "You mean one'a dem man-haters like Andrea Dworkin?  She said all sex is rape!"  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Even if she were nuts--and again, what's your basis for that claim, exactly


 Dworkin's claims about the inherent violence in intercourse, pornography, and gender relations project, IMHO, her own traumatic past into the relationships between all people.  It's a violent form of discourse that is counterproductive.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And again: it always amazes me that in our culture, men can say all sorts of crazy things about women, build their religion around keeping women corralled, proliferate magazines and writing that go way beyond porn in their attacks on women, but boy, let some chic say something about it, and...cowabunga, there's a problem.


 I think that sucks too, but I refuse to be counter-corralled into a world where you cannot criticize women or feminists or leftists or environmentalists when they say stupid things or go too far simply because "the other side" has such a long, drawn-out history of being complete bastards.  Come on, Robert... do you honestly think *I'm* cool with the 700 Club, the Promise Keepers, the Taliban, and the like?

 Your mention of Hillary Clinton is a perfect example.  She has been deified by Democrats and by the left; Tom de Lay is certainly far more criminally corrupt, but Clinton is a snide politician who never met a change of position she didn't like if it didn't increase her chance of increasing a poll standing or getting a chance to run for president.  That doesn't make it acceptable to call her daughter ugly or call her a lesbian or "Billary"; I also, however, refuse to declare her politics off-limits while railing on male politicians left and right.  You see, Hillary does more that write books and lecture too -- she voted for cute things like the War in Iraq.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Gandhi, too, had a few little personal kinks and twists. He too got called a lunatic, a radical, etc. etc. Did that make his life's work wrong?


 Being a radical or even a lunatic doesn't make your life's work wrong, and again, you're projecting, Robert... I can't think of a single person in this thread who said Dworkin's life's work was wrong.  If you find the quote, I'd appreciate if you'd highlight it for me.

 The strongest criticism I've had for her was that her verbal violence was counter-productive.  You've responded that various conservative clerics and Senators seem equally, if not more, insane, which I can't dispute, but I still stand by my assertions around Dworkin's work, pro and con.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 20, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> That's because he's a closet ****.   Robertson's the lesbian.
> 
> Jeff


 OOps. Pat Robertson that is.

 Jeff


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, don't take, "Reason," magazine too seriously. Their motto is, "free minds and free markets," and they're another one of these ideological rags (they're libertarians) that tries to mask their ideology in a claim that they have no ideology, just common sense.



I was well aware of their libertarian stance.  That alone doesn't invalidate any of the article's observations.  Others, centrist and left of center, hold similar critical views of Dworkin.

Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, has lambasted Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon for their anti-first amendment stances.  Put simply, Dworkin and MacKinnon's form of feminism is anti-liberal, pro-censorship, misandric, and hyperbolic to the point of silliness.

Their writing has caused a bit of a backlash within the movement. Other feminists have rejected this fringe feminism and have stated that it is okay to wear make-up; men are not rapists by default; the penis is not a weapon; and its okay for women to go out on heterosexual dates.  This more centrist (if that's what it is) stance is held by most feminists who reject the fringe and their almost hysterical posturing...it rejects feminism as a position of hand-wringing, finger-pointing victimhood and embraces a form of feminism that is empowering.  Glass ceiling?  Don't moan about it...kick through the damned thing.  This latter type of woman has a true will to power.  Those buying into the Dworkin/MacKinnon paradigm do not.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Glass ceiling?  Don't moan about it...kick through the damned thing.


 Let's not forget that many women never even had the opportunity to "kick through" the "glass ceiling" until "hand-wringers" started "moaning" about it.  

 Ideally, women shouldn't have to kick through the glass ceiling -- we should all rise based on our ability, yes?  Until that ceiling is removed, it needs to be constantly decried.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 20, 2005)

MOD. NOTE:

 Two posts on this thread have been edited due to the use of a slur.  In the interest of all member, please review the hate speech policy:


> *Hate Speech:*
> Hate speech is not allowed. Posts that contain material that is racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, or otherwise offensive, are not allowed. While discussion of certain social and political issues may require the use of sensitive or potentially offensive terms, outside of those limited contexts the use of such terms is not allowed on this board.


 Georgia Ketchmark
 Sr. Moderator


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 20, 2005)

Oddly enough I have similar problems with both Pat Robertson and Andrea Dworkin. The tendancy to stereotype others and apply arbitrary harmful motivation to others.  Thus I feel that Family values are important but fail to see why gay couples do not display "family values." Likewise while recognizing that predjudice  and Male bias have shaped Americaqn culture, most Men I know do not intentionally "rape" actually or symbolically the women in their lives.  

Jeff


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 20, 2005)

Well, this is becoming a truly symptomatic conversation.

First off--did anybody actually bother to read what I actually wrote? Which certainly wasn't anywhere near a set of statements that Dworkin was Right About Everything, and in which I repeatedly said stuff like, "I agree that some of Dworkin's public statements were a bit out there, and that at times she was deeply unwise about politics...?"

Second off--how in the heck does anybody on this Forum actually know that Hillary Clinton, "has been deified by Democrats and by the left... a snide politician who never met a change of position she didn't like if it didn't increase her chance of increasing a poll standing or getting a chance to run for president?" "Snide," referes to personal character--and none of us have ever met the woman, I suspect. Then there's the little matter that there's hardly anything unexpected about a politician watching the polls and adjusting positions--unless, I guess, they're a girl. Looks to me as though the standards applied to the Clintons are pretty unique--not only is she a girl, she's a bit leftist. So, her personality is bad. So, she's this. So, she's that. But funnily enough, let Tom de Lay get up there and act like a petulant loon, and nobody says a word about his gender or his personality. Let Jerry Falwell get on TV and rant about 9/11 being God's Revenge for the ACLU and gay people--no psychopathology there at all!

Then there's the political fantasy that says in the end, the Left and the Right are the same. Nope--at present, the Left is a lot more ineffectual, for one thing. And it's ineffectual because of decades of wacko bombardment: you're a lefty, so you're nuts, you're strident, you hate America, you Must Be Gay, whatever....see Freud. See "defense mechanisms of the ego." See, "projection."

Then there's this stuff: "I feel that Family values are important but fail to see why gay couples do not display "family values." OK, fine. a) can you define  family values for me? b) how do you know gay couples don't exhibit them? research? personal experience with a bunch? I know--TV. c) wwhat seems to be the track record of "family values," among Bible thumpers and family values mavens in this country? Let's see--Jimmy Swaggert; caught twice in motels with hookers. Tom de Lay--paid wife and daughter with campaign funds. Henry Hyde: drove girlfriend to clinic for abortion. Strom Thurmond: illegitimate daughter with black woman, lied about it his whole career. Or all the closet gay right-wing Republican politicians, from Hoover and Roy Cohn through Terry what's-is-name? Sheesh, you don't even have to look very far. At least if the dems are sleazy, they usually haven't been incredibly sanctimonious right up to when they got caught.

But OK. Everything Dworkin wrote was wrong. She was sick and twisted. Whatever. So how do YOU explain the endless list of sexual violence against women?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

When it comes to describing the culture of hatred toward women that our culture instill in men, I think that Ms. Dworkin was right on.  I remember reading her writing and really thinking that it was unfair, because I'd NEVER done violence like that...then I looked a little deeper and found a lot of small things in my language and in my actions that not only showed a disdain for women, but outright humiliating hatred.  Think what you will, right or wrong, Dworkin's rhetoric changed the way alot of people think about women.  It had an effect on me...


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 20, 2005)

Actually Robert I was trying to say that the gay couples I know do display family values. In my experience people like Delay, P. Robertson, Swaggart etc. are the ones deficient in what I would call family values.  Dworkin was not totally wrong but racism and sexism are bad regardless of your genetic make-up. In general I feel that her writing was counter productive.  

I believe that Hillary Clinton has been unfairly vilified and speaks for family and personal values and growth more than the P. Robertsons or A Dworkins of the world do.  

As to the 





> endless list of sexual violence against women.


 Most sexual activity is not violent and most men care deeply for their female partners. 

Jeff


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 20, 2005)

Fair enough. 

However, I'm a bit Freudian about "normalcy," being a compilation--a propping-together--of all sorts of competing impules and drives and desires. And I buy his basic take that in sex, we're ALL perverts...at least if we do it right. Why, I can remember....yes....uh, I'm back.

Going back to the violence/objectification issue, I have to say that at some point, what we see in our culture is a lot more than a few isolated incidents and a few "sick," minds. Think about the jokes men tell; the popularity of, "Girls Gone Wild," and the Swimsuit Issue; think about our films and their weirdness about women and sex; think about advertisement and fashion (my favorite style movement in this regard--sometime in the Eighties, the, "New Vulnerability," look for women); the fact that in Tokyo, you can go into a whorehouse and pay to harrass, smack around and have sex with what appears to be a secretary or fellow executive....

personally, I think Samuel R. delany had a point. personally, I think Dworkin did. Is their rhetoric sometimes extreme? Yes--but no more extreme than innumerable things we take for granted every day.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 20, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that many women never even had the opportunity to "kick through" the "glass ceiling" until "hand-wringers" started "moaning" about it.
> 
> Ideally, women shouldn't have to kick through the glass ceiling -- we should all rise based on our ability, yes?  Until that ceiling is removed, it needs to be constantly decried.




Decried, yes.  Of course.  HOW is the issue here.

If women assert themselves, grand.  I think they ought to.  I question the rhetoric of some of them.  

Case in point:  When Feminists Anti-Censorship Taskforce (FACT) stood up to MacKinnon's anti-pornography efforts  in 1987, she quipped "'The Black movement has Uncle Toms and Oreo cookies. The labor movement had scabs. The women's movement has FACT.''  

This is divisive and stupid.   She was lambasting the likes of Rita Mae Brown, Betty Friedan and others opposing her censorship efforts.  She and Dworkin split the movement.  Linda Williams, a feminist and UC Berkeley film studies professor, spoke for a number of women in the movement who didn't want such restrictions on their own fantasies: 'Really, who are they to tell us where our sexual imaginations should go?''

Thanks to MacKinnon and Dworkin's efforts at getting anti-porn legislation passed in Canada, Gay and Lesbian bookstores were targeted for preferred harrassment.  Oddly, even two of Dworkin's books were seized because they "illegally eroticized pain and bondage."

As for handwringers...I'd say there are a number of feminists who are not of that ilk.  Their power is through the press, largely, but they don't take a victim's stance nor alienate males.  There are indeed some who have kicked through their own glass ceilings.  This is to be respected.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 20, 2005)

Dunno about the late Ms. Dworkin here....

But, all's I know is that its not a particularly congenial idea to impose the values of a particular generation's culture (say, the postmodern West's feminist and pluralistic values --- which are _solely_ a product of _our_ time and _our_ culture) onto all cultures throughout all of history.

Laterz.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off--did anybody actually bother to read what I actually wrote? Which certainly wasn't anywhere near a set of statements that Dworkin was Right About Everything, and in which I repeatedly said stuff like, "I agree that some of Dworkin's public statements were a bit out there, and that at times she was deeply unwise about politics...?"


 Given your seeming unwillingness to comprehend most of the statements I've made, there is a certain irony in the above quote.  But, once again: can you find anyplace where anyone said "That Robert, he sure thinks Dworkin's writings were the cat's meow!"



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Second off--how in the heck does anybody on this Forum actually know that Hillary Clinton, "has been deified by Democrats and by the left... a snide politician who never met a change of position she didn't like if it didn't increase her chance of increasing a poll standing or getting a chance to run for president?"


 The only thing about that statement that I don't stand fully by is the word "snide", and only because I regret that you interpreted it as an assault on her due to her gender; it applies to *all* politicians rather than Hillary Clinton in particular.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Then there's the little matter that there's hardly anything unexpected about a politician watching the polls and adjusting positions--unless, I guess, they're a girl.


 It's becoming clear to me that you and I are unable to communicate in a friendly and rational manner on this subject.  I've made it clear not only in this thread that I support women but leftists; you respond with this sort of projective, attacking statement that, frankly, falls in with the kind of verbal violence that I disliked among some of Dworkin's work as well.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Looks to me as though the standards applied to the Clintons are pretty unique--not only is she a girl, she's a bit leftist.


 What on earth about my writing history on this message board makes you think that I would criticize a member of the Clinton family for being _leftist_, Robert?  On the contrary, I criticize the Clintons because they are not leftists, they are _opportunists_, and their political legacy has been to sell out leftist and progressive ideals at every turn.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But funnily enough, let Tom de Lay get up there and act like a petulant loon, and nobody says a word about his gender or his personality. Let Jerry Falwell get on TV and rant about 9/11 being God's Revenge for the ACLU and gay people--no psychopathology there at all!


 You're right, Robert.  We're now in bizarro-world, where I _never _criticise Tom deLay or Jerry Falwell's personality, where I'm _constantly _railing on female leftist political figures with sexist terminology.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Then there's the political fantasy that says in the end, the Left and the Right are the same.


 The Left and the Right are _not _the same -- I never said otherwise.  But if you think the Democratic party, represented by New Democrats like the Clintons, are leftists, then _you're_ the one belaboring under political fantasy.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, all's I know is that its not a particularly congenial idea to impose the values of a particular generation's culture (say, the postmodern West's feminist and pluralistic values --- which are _solely_ a product of _our_ time and _our_ culture) onto all cultures throughout all of history.


 Is it not the case, though, that some concepts should rise above multiculturalism for the sake of humanity?

 For instance, one simply cannot support the forceable mutiliation of female genitalia, no matter what the cultural context.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 20, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Is it not the case, though, that some concepts should rise above multiculturalism for the sake of humanity?



Sure. Of course, the question could then be leveled by the happy-go-lucky multiculturalist, "Who the hell determines what is for the 'sake of humanity'???" It can be a slippery slope, y'know.

The point I was making, rather, was our collective desire to impose a particular value system onto all of human history and culture --- a "privileged position" or "zero point", if you will. Y'know, as opposed to looking at things in a more evolutionary or developmental context.

I personally think it does no one any good to complain about the absence of feminist values in human history when they have only existed within the past 200 years or so. Its the same with "reason". T'was a long, long, long time until humans started evincing an ability to actually use reason and logic in their interactions with others (and we're _still_ not getting it down right, anyway).

Y'can call it "progress" or "evolution" or "cultural growth" or "random accumulations of sociocultural epistemes" or "twinkle twinkle little star". It doesn't much matter to me. But, the point is things happen in a sequence of increasing of complexity and increasing holism. We didn't just pop out of great ape ancestors with a full knowledge of advanced calculus, y'know??

That's my take, anyway.  :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 21, 2005)

I just love it when the liberals on this forum argue.  It provides some of the best debating we've ever had.

I want to clarify something for Peach...when I used the phrases "handwringing" and "moaning" I was attempting to convey the spirit of Naomi Wolf's book "Fire With Fire."  I will still take responsibility for the phrases and acknowledge that they might at first blush seem insensitive to the Feminist movement...I, however, am not.  At least I don't think myself so.

My thoughts on Feminism have been colored by Wolf, by Nadine Strossen's "Defending Pornography" (a feminist work which has less to do with porn than it has to do with 1st Amendment rights) and Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power."   

Feminism, to be effective, needs to have a dialogue with men.  In 1837 abolitionists Sara and Angelina Grimske delivered seventeen lectures to eight thousand men and women in Massachussetts.  One man who attended wrote he would "never forget the wonderful manifestation of this power..the audience so quiet and intensely absorbed....The effective agent in this phemomenon was Angelina's ...wonderful gift, which enchained attention, disarmed prejudice, and carried her hearers with her."

This was in a time when women were not seriously considered for suffrage and still weren't allowed to speak in most churches throughout New England.  Yet the sisters, particularly Angelina, were so effective that they engaged the men of the area and helped plant the seeds of the women's movement.  They were censured, of course, for their political and social impetuosity for scandalously speaking before mixed audiences...but they carried the day with the force of their character and words.

Andrea Dworkin failed to do this.  Was she a man-hater?  Some say no, but reading her essays I find it difficult to believe otherwise.  Did she equate sexual intercourse with rape?  She devotes a whole piece to this proposal. Did she project her own tragic experience on all women?  It would seem so. Did she inspire a dialogue with men?  Not hardly.  

Feminism of this nature, that stereotypes and lumps all men into one basket, is the exact mirror reflection of that which it demonizes.  Men are objectified and labeled--all are oppressors and perpetrators.  Maleness is to be ridiculed.    Our accident of birth is something we're supposed to be ashamed of and for which we assume culpability.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The point I was making, rather, was our collective desire to impose a particular value system onto all of human history and culture --- a "privileged position" or "zero point", if you will. Y'know, as opposed to looking at things in a more evolutionary or developmental context.



Continuing with what I stated in my previous post, the following e-book --- _WORLDS WITHIN WORLDS: The Holarchy of Life_, by Andrew P. Smith --- is an excellent summary towards how I myself view "evolution". 

Of particular interest is Chapter 9: Darwinism Evolving, which is a critique of the neo-Darwinian model that has become dogma in many academic circles.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

First off, my point is that while of course there's criticism of De Lay et al, what we DON'T see is the sort of claim against Dworkin (and in passing against Clinton): that her ideas are driven entirely by psychosexual trauma, that her good points are hidden by her stridency. If it's a guy, it's a question of his action and his politics; if it's a girl, she's sexually twisted. For example, why (given the context) wasn't there something like, "Well, maybe what Dworking shows us is that good analysis can come out of sexual trauma, whether real or imagined--just as Gandhi's embrace of absolute poverty (like his interest in having women given him regular enemas), which undoubtedly had roots in his early childhood, helped him both understand what was wrong in India and provide an example to millions?

I agree that there's a prob with rational communication--it's just not mine.

Second off, I was quite specific about the Clintons being mildly leftist, which they are--especially by opresent standards. More to the point, I'm still waiting for any sort of explanation of the endless list (and it is an endless list) of not only crimes, but day-to-day assaults of every kind upon women: if Dworkin doesn't have anything to say, then what's the explanation for where this stuff comes from?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Feminism of this nature, that stereotypes and lumps all men into one basket, is the exact mirror reflection of that which it demonizes.  Men are objectified and labeled--all are oppressors and perpetrators.  Maleness is to be ridiculed. Our accident of birth is something we're supposed to be ashamed of and for which we assume culpability.



Well said, Steve.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, my point is that while of course there's criticism of De Lay et al, what we DON'T see is the sort of claim against Dworkin (and in passing against Clinton): that her ideas are driven entirely by psychosexual trauma, that her good points are hidden by her stridency. If it's a guy, it's a question of his action and his politics; if it's a girl, she's sexually twisted. For example, why (given the context) wasn't there something like, "Well, maybe what Dworking shows us is that good analysis can come out of sexual trauma, whether real or imagined [...]
> 
> I agree that there's a prob with rational communication--it's just not mine.



If I may, Robert, I believe what Steve is basically trying to say is...

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring
Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man
Logical Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make A Right

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, Steve. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> More to the point, I'm still waiting for any sort of explanation of the endless list (and it is an endless list) of not only crimes, but day-to-day assaults of every kind upon women: if Dworkin doesn't have anything to say, then what's the explanation for where this stuff comes from?



Personally, I believe the only viable way to look at these sorts of things is within a developmental context --- not imposing an Absolute Truth (feminist or otherwise) on all people throughout all history. An Absolute Truth which, by the way, only a handful of us (coincidentally, all feminist extremists in the Western democracies) have been clever enough to figure out in the past +100,000 years of human evolution and development.

Just my take, anyway. Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

Yup, fair enough--reaction formation, kinda like the Nation of Islam in this country.

However--what seems to be getting swept under the carpet is that even paranoids have enemies; from my point of view, men and women have created--and continue to profit by--a set of economic and familial systems that largely depend on the objectification and exploitation of women. 

Or are men and women really equals in this society--paid equally, treated equally in professional matters, etc.?


----------



## raedyn (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or are men and women really equals in this society--paid equally, treated equally in professional matters, etc.?


To some of us, clearly not. But how have so many people been convinced that it really is this way, we've gotten over our sexism and now we're a free equal feel-good society? Where did anyone get that idea?

The first waves of feminism bought us a lot. I live a much more free and equal life than my grandmother did. I have more opportunities, less overt controlling, etc. And yet, there are still many sexist influences, everywhere. My daughter is growing up in a world that still has a double standard when it comes to boys vs girls. It's just more subtle and underhanded than it was in generations past. We still have rigidly defined male/female roles: the deifinitions have changed over the years, but they're still there.

She's praised for being "pretty" and "nice". Her male playmates are praised for being "strong" and "tough". For all the way we've come... we still haven't come that far. We are still denying both genders the wonder and struggle and beauty and challenge of the full range of human experience.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, my point is that while of course there's criticism of De Lay et al, what we DON'T see is the sort of claim against Dworkin (and in passing against Clinton): that her ideas are driven entirely by psychosexual trauma, that her good points are hidden by her stridency.


 I don't recall saying that her ideas are driven entirely by psychosexual trauma; she clearly has a vast body of work and thought that several commenters, including myself in passing, have pointed out as being of benefit and forwarding the feminist cause.

 The sorts of claims we see instead of guys like De Lay et al are, if anything, less positive; on the left, we refer to them as "wingnuts", "loons", "psychopaths", "monsters". But I guess that's somehow better than occasionally analyzing the past of a particular feminist and how it applies to her violent tone, at least in your book.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Well, maybe what Dworking shows us is that good analysis can come out of sexual trauma, whether real or imagined--just as Gandhi's embrace of absolute poverty (like his interest in having women given him regular enemas), which undoubtedly had roots in his early childhood, helped him both understand what was wrong in India and provide an example to millions?


 The reason I didn't say that was because Dworkin's primary contribution was not her good analysis, but her revenge fantasies that set back feminism, damaged male-female relationships, armed the likes of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson for decades.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I agree that there's a prob with rational communication--it's just not mine.


 Given your proclivity to simply not read large portions of my previous posts in this thread, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Second off, I was quite specific about the Clintons being mildly leftist, which they are--especially by opresent standards.


 _Nixon _was mildly leftist by present standards -- that doesn't make him a leftist. As a brief review, the Clintons (I sweep them up in a category unfairly to cover the acts of both President and NY Senator):

  -- Supported sanctions that killed millions of Iraqis without harming the dictator
 -- Began the process of shipping prisoners overseas to countries where torture was legal to "improve interrogation" (bet you thought that was a Bush innovation)
  -- Began the depradations of civil liberties found in the Patriot Act (bet you thought that was a Bush innovation)
  -- Gave us the Welfare Reform Act
  -- Initiated and supported Social Security Privitization (bet you thought that was a Bush innovation)
  -- Let's not forget, constantly lied, dissembled, purjured, and evaded to cover an affair with an intern
  -- Taking stands against really critical issues like videogame violence
  -- And supported, voted for, and continue to support the War in Iraq

  Wow, they sound like stand-up progressives to me.

 And when you ask how I can dare say people "deify" the Clintons, maybe it's because I constantly hear leftists say "I wish we could just have Clinton back" or "I can't wait until Hillary runs for president!" These are people who either have no idea what Bill Clinton actually accomplished as president, what Hillary intends to "stand for" as a candidate, or who don't care what really happens to the country as long as the "other team" isn't in power.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> More to the point, I'm still waiting for any sort of explanation of the endless list (and it is an endless list) of not only crimes, but day-to-day assaults of every kind upon women: if Dworkin doesn't have anything to say, then what's the explanation for where this stuff comes from?


 As evidenced by your continued inability to find evidence to the contrary, no one ever said Dworkin had nothing to say; EVERYONE on this thread has said she had something to contribute.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or are men and women really equals in this society--paid equally, treated equally in professional matters, etc.?


 Nope.  Has anyone in this thread suggested that they are?  In fact, can you find a poster in this thread who has suggested anything other than the fact that there continue to be massive depradations against women all over the world?

 Your logical fallacies have been pointed out time and again, both implicitly and explicitly -- I'm honestly not sure what it is you think you're arguing against anymore.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> II will still take responsibility for the phrases and acknowledge that they might at first blush seem insensitive to the Feminist movement...I, however, am not. At least I don't think myself so.


 I apologize if I was too harsh above, Steve -- I know you're not insensitive to the feminist movement, I just felt that was something that needed clarifying and defending, post-haste.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

OK, fine...I wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy if it bit me in a well-lit room, though I've been teaching this stuff for two decades and more, fine if you say so--so AGAIN and for the fourth time: how do you explain those differences, and how do you explain the commonplace nature of the objectification of women and violence against them in our, "advanced," society?

Just offer an explanation that's better than Dworkin's.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> OK, fine...I wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy if it bit me in a well-lit room, though I've been teaching this stuff for two decades and more, fine if you say so [...]



Ummm....

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Authority



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> [...] so AGAIN and for the fourth time: how do you explain those differences, and how do you explain the commonplace nature of the objectification of women and violence against them in our, "advanced," society?
> 
> Just offer an explanation that's better than Dworkin's.



Well, personally, my view is that it does no one any good to present historical illusions about some masculinist Fall From Grace in the Far-Off Past in which "the men" collectively decided to oppress, malign, and otherwise abuse "the women". And, furthermore, that "the men" somehow all agreed to do this on pretty much a worldwide scale. And that, even furthermore, "the women" all collectively agreed to submit, acquiesce, and otherwise cower under the collective might of "the men". And then, yet even furthermore, "the women" also agreed to this acquiesence on a pretty much worldwide scale, as well.

Because, as we all know, there is no historical proof of some worldwide Great Gender War in which "the men" and "the women" slapped the hell out of each other for dominance. Meaning, that the only way "the women" would have submitted to all this domination was if they were markedly dumber and/or more cowardly than "the men".

I personally don't buy this sort of reconstructive history crap, but it is a view that is implicitly present (albeit not explicitly so) in the work of theorists like Dworkin. In fact, its the only way that the idea of women being the Universal Victim and men being the Universal Victimizer can be supported.

Laterz.


----------



## raedyn (Apr 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> its the only way that the idea of women being the Universal Victim and men being the Universal Victimizer can be supported.


That's not the view I have at all. Women are part of the system that keeps women 'in their place'. It's more often women that admonish little girls for being 'unladylike'. The women's magazines with the tips on how to please your man, and do your makeup are staffed by women. It's mostly female peers that pressure women to keep up the difficult balance of having so many balls in the air: career success, family, 'personal life'. I wouldn't say men are the Perpetrators and women the Victims, rather we are *all* denying ourselves and each other many wonderful possibilities.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> That's not the view I have at all. Women are part of the system that keeps women 'in their place'. It's more often women that admonish little girls for being 'unladylike'. The women's magazines with the tips on how to please your man, and do your makeup are staffed by women. It's mostly female peers that pressure women to keep up the difficult balance of having so many balls in the air: career success, family, 'personal life'. I wouldn't say men are the Perpetrators and women the Victims, rather we are *all* denying ourselves and each other many wonderful possibilities.



Bingo.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

Do please try to read carefully.

"from my point of view, men and women have created--and continue to profit by--a set of economic and familial systems that largely depend on the objectification and exploitation of women..."

Second off, didn't mention some long-ago Garden of Eden; nor would I. What I asked was: how DO you folks explain the ongoing, intense objectification of women, their continuing inequality in minor things like jobs and pay, and the commonplace facts of sexual violence against women in this country and around the world?

What's your explanation? Or are we going with the, "No, not true, doesn't happen, never happened," approach? Problem: I can multiply example, since you've apparently missed the previous ones. Or shall we try the, "You're saying that men got together and conspired..." approach, who cares that I wrote nothing of the kind? Oh, I know--why not the, "Women are to blame, really," theory?

All I'm asking for is your better explanation. The constant detours into personal; attack and irrelevancies are persuasive of Dworkin's having had a point.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

Oh, come now, Robert. Actually *read* what I typed there, brah.   

In no way did I single you out with that little pseudo-historical dissertation. It was a counter-explanation to the ideas implicit in theories like Dworkin's. Not Robertson's. I haven't actually heard any in-depth explanation of feminist theory on your part, so I couldn't comment one way or the other.

The point I was *trying* to make is that the feminist writers that portray women as the Perennial Victim and men as the Perennial Villian have a nasty little historical explanation implicit in their ideas. Namely, that at some point in history, "the men" collectively smacked down "the women" --- and, what's worse, that "the women" just took it without so much as a whisper.

I, of course, don't buy that crap for a second. I'm in agreement with Steve that any ideology of that ilk does little more than perpetuate the myth of Woman as Slave. There's no empowering or equalizing there. Just self-victimization. I happen to think that what we are calling 'patriachy' was collectively co-created by *both* men *and* women.

But, more importantly, what the historical record does show us can get even creepier. Patriarchal (or, at least, patrilineal or patrifocal) institutions began to arise worldwide around roughly the same time as the rise of the complex city-state. This is around the time we start to see deities like Greece's Zeus, Israel's Jehovah, or India's Indra replace older feminine figures in terms of cultural prominence. The image of the Solar Hero --- born of, and rising above, the Great Mother --- slaying the nature-based Dragon.

What this tell us, instead, is that since these sorts of things started cropping up all over the world --- from Greece and Rome to India and Japan --- that its clearly not the product of any particular cultural system, historical event, or social institution. Instead, it may very well start to tell us something about "human nature" (if we can call it that). Something we very well may not like.

Remember, human beings didn't abolish slavery --- for the most part, anyway --- until some 100 to 150 years ago. That oughta tell you something.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

Ah. Your explanation is that patriarchy is an archetypal pattern, engraved into the deep structures of the human psyche as a reflection of universal Truth. 

Fair enough as a clear statement. Sexist as hell, but fair enough as a clear statement. And, a good proof of my claim that these sorts of essentialism erase or collapse history, inasmuch as "history," simply becomes the repetitive expression of the same underlying human biology and/or archetypal patterns in different disguises.

On the other hand, I'd argue that history actually matters: there are evolutionary patterns visible in our history, and different historical periods actually differ.

And oh yes--that human history is the result of collective human action in the material world over time, not the repetition of biology and archetype.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. Your explanation is that patriarchy is an archetypal pattern, engraved into the deep structures of the human psyche as a reflection of universal Truth.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

Ummm... no. I actually said nothing of the sort. And, projecting pseudo-Jungian mythos into my posts won't change that.

I, for example, equate the rise of patriarchy with a particular epoch of time in human history --- roughly, five to ten thousand years ago, if I recall correctly. I used examples from mythology to denote the shifts that were occurring in cultural worldviews at the time (such as Indra's slaying of the nature-demons). "Archetypes" are not historical invocations.

I view patriarchy as a very _historical_ and _evolutionary_ emergent. I don't think it was "predestined" or "archetypal", or anything of the sort. Of course, all of this was made quite clear in my previous post. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Fair enough as a clear statement. Sexist as hell, but fair enough as a clear statement. And, a good proof of my claim that these sorts of essentialism erase or collapse history, inasmuch as "history," simply becomes the repetitive expression of the same underlying human biology and/or archetypal patterns in different disguises.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Hasty Generalization
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

In a previous post, I cited an e-book that contains a very good summary of my take on "evolution" and "history". It is nothing even remotely to what you are making it out to be.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I'd argue that history actually matters: there are evolutionary patterns visible in our history, and different historical periods actually differ.



Gee. Don't suppose you've ever read Up From Eden??   



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And oh yes--that human history is the result of collective human action in the material world over time, not the repetition of biology and archetype.



I would argue that human history is the result of collective human action in both the material _and_ the cultural world(s) over time. No materialistic reductionism, if you please.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

Sorry, but I was going by what you actually wrote.

"...what the historical record does show us can get even creepier. Patriarchal (or, at least, patrilineal or patrifocal) institutions began to arise worldwide around roughly the same time as the rise of the complex city-state. This is around the time we start to see deities like Greece's Zeus, Israel's Jehovah, or India's Indra replace older feminine figures in terms of cultural prominence. The image of the Solar Hero --- born of, and rising above, the Great Mother --- slaying the nature-based Dragon.

What this tell us, instead, is that since these sorts of things started cropping up all over the world --- from Greece and Rome to India and Japan --- that its clearly not the product of any particular cultural system, historical event, or social institution. Instead, it may very well start to tell us something about "human nature""

1. Patriarchy arose worldwide at the same time.
2. One set of "male," deities replace an older "female," set.
3. The"Solar Hero," vs., "Great Mother:" essentialist, Jungian terms.
4. "It's clearly not the product of any particular cultural system, historical event, or social institution."
5. "It may very well...tell us...human nature."

Translation: patriarchy appeared everywhere simultaneously, as a fascination with male images replaced a fascination with female ones. This is when the systemic exploitation of women begins. This is NOT a result of culture, historical event, or social structure. It probably traces to human biology as much as it traces to developments on the archetypal level.

I should very much like to see documentation for a number of these claims, since none is actually available for all of the world's cultures. On the level of theory, however, I'm afraid that I stand by the claim that history is made out of cultural development, historical events, and social evolutions, as complex human collectives interact.

What you are arguing is, simply, an essentialist version of the reason for the sorts of events that were described in the articles by Martha Nussbaum I linked. You are of course perfectly entitled to make such an argument; my only comment is that, a) it is what it is, and b) essentialisms have in general consistently been employed to "explain," and to legitimate oppresive institutions such as sexism and slavery. Of course, with the rise of the likes of Pol Pot, so have theories of cultural and historical construction.


----------



## raedyn (Apr 22, 2005)

Heretic:
Okay, so the first part of your post spends a lot of time saying both men & women are responsible for the current situation. And obviously (see my last post) I agree. However, I don't understand what your point is here



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> since these sorts of things started cropping up all over the world --- from Greece and Rome to India and Japan --- that its clearly not the product of any particular cultural system, historical event, or social institution. Instead, it may very well start to tell us something about "human nature" (if we can call it that). Something we very well may not like.


So... It's human nature for us all to get together to repress women? Is that what you're saying? Or... what? It seems pretty straighforward that's what you said. My head is spinning trying to interpret that any other way - I just don't see what else that paragraph could possibly mean. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but geez! Help me out?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 23, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I apologize if I was too harsh above, Steve -- I know you're not insensitive to the feminist movement, I just felt that was something that needed clarifying and defending, post-haste.




No apology necessary.  I didn't think you too harsh.  My comment was typed in haste, and after your post I realized it needed clarification.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Brother John (Apr 23, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The arch-feminist died this last week, and somehow we here in the study missed it.
> 
> A damning write-up in "Reason":
> 
> ...


I've always felt that I agreed with the base premises of 'feminism'... the 'ideal'... but that the movement had long ago been hijacked by the fringe.
I think She was the main 'hijacker'. 

Too bad about her passing, but we'll all pass through that door eventually.

Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 23, 2005)

Among the classic dismissals of modern feminists from Mary Wollestonecraft on: well, those girls have a few good points, but they're much too strident and radical.

I'd still be interested in finding out why such a critique never gets applied to, say, the current incarnation of the Republican Party, which is at least as strident and radical as anything Dworkin ever said.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 23, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 23, 2005)

Among the classic dismissals of modern feminists from Mary Wollestonecraft on: well, those girls have a few good points, but they're much too strident and radical. 

I'd still be interested in finding out why such a critique never gets applied to, say, the current incarnation of the Republican Party, which is at least as strident and radical as anything Dworkin ever said.

For the sixth time or so: I haven't claimed that Dworkin's arguments and ideas are all just great. (Personally, I always thought she was rather tiresome and not all that smart, when I'd read her writing or seen her on TV....just less nutty than Camille Paglia or Ann Coulter.) I'm simply arguing that she had a point about a few things, that it might just be a mistake to attack her arguments and her ideas without having any real understanding of what the hell they are.

Oh yes--I've also pointed out that a lot of the knee-jerk responses to feminist theory are symptomatic, as they have been for several centuries if not more. It's hardly surprising: look at what they used to say about people like Dorothy Day and the founders of Planned Parenthood.

But I've made my point and more for this thread; let me just say that I wish you and Chewie many happy years together.


----------



## heretic888 (May 3, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> So... It's human nature for us all to get together to repress women? Is that what you're saying? Or... what? It seems pretty straighforward that's what you said. My head is spinning trying to interpret that any other way - I just don't see what else that paragraph could possibly mean. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but geez! Help me out?



Awww... c'mon now, raedyn. Surely you give me more credit than that? 

Truth be told, I probably didn't express my ideas in as detailed a manner as I should have (to be fair, it _is_ a pretty damn complicated subject). I'll see if I can't clarify my position for you. Now, then...... 

I should state right off the bat that I don't believe there is such thing as any pre-existing, unchanging, fixed "human nature". Those of you familiar with my postings in the past know that the paradigm I accept is principally one of a developmental, dialectical, evolutionary, and "holonic" manner. I actually linked an e-book on this very thread that gave a view very similar to my own take on human development and evolution. 

What seems "natural" or "appropriate" at one stage of development can quite easily become frowned upon, even despised, at a later stage. This is true whether we are talking about structural-cognitive development (Piaget), moral reasoning (Kohlberg), worldviews (Gebser), or historical-cultural development (Habermas). And, precisely such a thing has happened to many post-industrial nations. Namely, we have have begun to accept a moral viewpoint of egalitarianism and shared humanity (Kohlberg's postconventional reasoning), in lieu of the sociocentrism that had ruled Western civilization for the past several thousand years (which itself replaced the even more "primitive" forms of ethnocentrism and egocentrism). The point I was trying to make was, that from an evolutionary-developmental context, it does no good to lament about the absence of feministic values in human history when the worldview that would allow such values to exist is a relatively recent emergent in our cultural evolution (beginning perhaps no earlier than the famed 'Age of Reason').

In any event, "patriarchy" (or, to be more accurate, patrifocalism) seems to have emerged cotemporaneously with a type of linear, formalistic reasoning --- what Piaget would later refer to as formal operations. So, in some ways, we could say the emergence of "patriachy" was naturally-given in a historical sense: masculinity typically accompanies Apollonian reasoning, or "linear" thinking. 

On the other hand, in other ways, the "patriarchy" was a very _un_-natural reactionary attack against the previous matrifocalism (not a "matriarchy", mind you), in which men had relatively little cultural significance in the agrarian societies. It was believed for a long time, for example, that men did _not_ contribute to pregnancies; that it was solely a product of the menstrual blood (the phallus need not apply). This is why we see strong emphases on fertility goddesses, the 'Mother Earth', who typically required ritual sacrifices of literal blood to rejuvenate the harvest. Life begins with the menstrual blood, it was believed.

It, of course, didn't help things that with the establishment of agrarian societies, humans became almost exclusively _dependent_ on the 'gathering' part of the whole hunter-gather equation. Hunting became less and less significant, and it was the menfolk that went out and did the killin'.

No surprise, then, that this is the first time we see the development of secretive "men's societies" and "men's lodges". In many ways, they were a precursor of the "patriarchy" that was to come with the complex city-state... 

*shrug* Like I said, its a complicated subject. 

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## raedyn (May 4, 2005)

Thank you for that explanation. :asian: When you put it like that, I think I can even agree with you. (I was hoping my first interpretation was incorrect!)



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make was, that from an evolutionary-developmental context, it does no good to lament about the absence of feministic values in human history when the worldview that would allow such values to exist is a relatively recent emergent in our cultural evolution (beginning perhaps no earlier than the famed 'Age of Reason').


That makes sense to me. Our cultural values are shifting, and it's difficult, if not silly, to measure history with the metrics of today. However, I'd add to that - It's difficult, if not silly, to apply historical practices and beliefs to a modern world for the same reasons - our cultural values are shifting and what once was acceptable may not still hold sway.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2005)

Among the reasons that feminist writers like Dworkin are dismissed--beyond the fact that they said stupid things--was that they have a nasty habit of pointing out the symptomatic character of men's writing: for example,   substituting, "feministic," for, "feminist," or, "women's," what with "feministic," being a term that I've never seen used except by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. 

They also have a bad habit of taking a good close look at the ways invented histories (we don't actually know just how civilization got started, let alone how people lived before it), mis-translations of concepts ("naturally-given in a historical sense," is oxymoronic), and Western-limited views of culture ("Apollonian," for example, is meaningless outside Western culture, unless you believe that Jung was right and all cultures are at bottom the same), cover up the desire to legitimate the Way Things Are. 

For one thing, feminism--like the collection of threads in culture we stick together under the label, "minorities,"--has a rather longer history than 200 years or so. For another, I quite agree--the whole point is to rework our lives and our culture, not to remain completely stuck in our biology and our history.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

Well, first off, if you're going to make a big poo-bah about me saying "feministic" instead of "feminist" --- if the letters "i" and "c" upset you so much --- I think perhaps you should re-evaluate the logic of your arguments.

Secondly, let's not be coy and collapse "feminist" thinking with "women's" thinking. Not all women are feminists, and not all feminists are women. Ever.

Thirdly, all "histories" are invented. Or, rather, are interpretations of some variation or another. Myth of the given, and all that.

Fourthly, I never claimed to "know" how "civilization" started. I just merely pointed out that highly agrarian societies began to manifest across the board beginning around, oh, 2,000 BCE or so. And, furthermore, that these societies were almost universally patriarchal. If I recall citations of Gerhard Lenski's research, something like 90% of these societies had only male gods as their principal deities.

Fifthly, I think its rather silly not to point out that certain conditions and constraints that exist in cultures do not influence, if not outright determine, later social changes. That is very "natural".

Sixthly, "Apollonian" can easily be traded for any number of solar deities that began to crop up in agrarian societies around 10,000 to 8,000 years ago --- Osiris, Amaterasu Omikami, Quetzacoatl, or even Vishnu (associated with 'celestial light' at this point). The point doesn't change.

Lastly, it was my understanding that the first "feminist" treatise in history was Mary Wollstonecraft's _Vindication of the Rights of Women_, published in 1792. You have something earlier??

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

"Lysistrata," dude. Couple hunnert years BC. Christine de Pizan--"City of Women," medieval Europe. 

No, "Apollonian," cannot be, "easily traded," for any other solar deity. It means ignoring historical, linguistic and cultural differences, as well as the ways these gods functioned in their societies. Unless you believe in the Jungian archetype bit, which is what I said, it just ain't all the same.

Me no get sentences.

Oh. I didn't claim to know how civ started, I just claimed that civ started out as a set of patriarchies.

If all histories are invented, why do you insist on yours?

Never said feminist=woman. Said that changing "feminist," or "woman," to, "feministic," was symptomatic. Nothing "coy," about this--though again, given what, "coy," means, your use of the word is symptomatic.

Logic and facts and interps fine, thank you. You just don't agree--that's fine too. Just try and disagree without pretending that you actually think I don't know what I'm talking about, and how to argue logically. 

Again: Jung's ideas are inherently stereotyping, patriarchal, and repressive.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...did folks happen to read the articles I linked to?
> 
> Here's an excerpt, which concerns riots that took place in India during 2002:
> 
> "Particularly striking were the mass rapes and mutilations of women. The typical tactic was first to rape or gang-rape the woman, then to torture her, and then to set her on fire and kill her. Although the fact that most of the dead were incinerated makes a precise sex count of the bodies impossible, one mass grave that was discovered contained more than half female bodies. Many victims of rape and torture are also among the survivors who have testified. The historian Tanika Sarkar, who played a leading role in investigating the events and interviewing witnesses, has argued in an important article that the evident preoccupation with destroying women's sexual organs reveals "a dark sexual obsession about allegedly ultra-virile Muslim male bodies and overfertile Muslim female ones, that inspire and sustain the figures of paranoia and revenge."1 This sexual obsession is evident in the hate literature circulated during the carnage, of which the following "poem" is a typical example:


 
Perhaps this phenomenon has an evolutionary component.  In inter-tribal conflict, killing men results in a temporary respite from conflict.  Killing the women and the children wipes out a neighboring tribe.  Perhaps this fixation on the sexuality of an enemies women is a motivator to destroy the ability of an enemy people to reproduce, thereby destroying them as a threat.  We see this trend reproduced in countless atrocities.  In addition, even if the women aren't slaughtered, ritual and widespread rape allow the enemy to be "Bred" out, thereby ensuring the children that are born, are not the children of the conquered but the children of the conquerers.  How many times did we see this used by the Serbians in Yugoslavia.  Old grudges result in a desire to entirely wipe the enemy from the planet.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Narendra Modi [Chief Minister of Gujarat] you have ****ed the mother of [Muslims]
> The volcano which was inactive for years has erupted
> It has burnt the **** of [Muslims] and made them dance nude
> We have untied the penises which were tied till now
> ...


Again, more evidence of the point I made.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I agree that some of Dworkin's public statements were a bit out there, and that at times she was deeply unwise about politics. But not everybody has to win a popularity contest--and given the sort of thing just quoted, the sort of thing that we could all come up with lots of examples for around the world--was the "radical," claim really all that radical?


 

As far as Dworkin is concerned, I was thinking, while reading this post, If I were a lesbian, I would be interested in convincing all women that heterosexual sex was about degradation and domination, and that all women should be lesbians, and avoid "evil men". I'm sure i'll catch flack for that statement, but before I do, at least ask yourselves if there might be some validity to it. That's not an indictment of all lesbians, but merely a question about the motives of someone who so obviously hated men and maleness with every fiber of her existence, so much so as to make it a personal crusade to convince women that heterosexual sex was sleeping with the enemy. All evangelical religions need converts, why not radical feminism.  I mean, what's the point of believing something "important" if you can't convert the whole world. 

Funny how simplisitic personal motives begin manifesting themselves in to massive philosophies, finding rationalizations for themselves. I'm thinking of an indepth investigation of this phenomenon. Perhaps all philosophies are nothing more than selfish, self serving rationlizations. Or perhaps not. Food for thought.

As for her overall argument, that men are violent and repressive, i'd have to say "Yes". They are both those things, and many many more. They are also the same men who developed philosphies that lead to women ultimately beginning to be considered equals.

That having been said, a great deal of conflict is created by this biological thing we call sex. Biological quality rears it's ugly head, and many bad things happen as a result. That's why created societies to begin with, to deal with biological quality.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule
> Logical Fallacy: Straw Man
> 
> Ummm... no. I actually said nothing of the sort. And, projecting pseudo-Jungian mythos into my posts won't change that.
> ...


Bravo, very well put and argued.  And no, I don't suppose he has.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

Oh. One repeatedly cites Jung, repeatedly claims that there are indeed archetypes that determine human thought and culture, and insists--even in the last post!--that these have nothing to do with history, but one is in no way relying on Jung's ideas or insisting that there are archetypes that determine human thought and culture and have nothing to do with history.

And simultaneously, I don't know how to argue, I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm pretty much correct.

Well, all righty then. I think that's great.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh. One repeatedly cites Jung, repeatedly claims that there are indeed archetypes that determine human thought and culture, and insists--even in the last post!--that these have nothing to do with history, but one is in no way relying on Jung's ideas or insisting that there are archetypes that determine human thought and culture and have nothing to do with history.
> 
> And simultaneously, I don't know how to argue, I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm pretty much correct.
> 
> Well, all righty then. I think that's great.


I think you may have lost it.  That came out as more of an incoherent rant than anything else.  Could you take a deep breath and try that again?


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free. 
Andrea Dworkin

Which begs the question, who is going to redefine "manhood" and enforce that new definition on all us "ravaging" men?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (May 29, 2005)

Sometimes, enough is enough. I can take a lot of crap but for someone who looks like a bag of meat in an old dusty corner to tell us what good and bad sexuality is, that is not acceptable. Repeat: NOT acceptable.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.
> Andrea Dworkin
> 
> Which begs the question, who is going to redefine "manhood" and enforce that new definition on all us "ravaging" men?


I think we took these radical feminists WAY to seriously. Fact is, they were never the threat that many people thought they were. They represented, at BEST, 10% of the female population (and probably only a percentage of that). The agenda to stop women from sleeping with the enemy? Based on nothing but the most wrong headed wishful thinking imaginable. Theirs was the belief that heterosexuality was a choice, that women could simply choose NOT to be. 

They had lost before they began, because they never understood that sexuality was mostly biological. Women could choose NOT to engage in heterosexual relationships with men no more than men could, or that either could choose to flap their arms and fly away. Many women couldn't even choose the KINDS of men they decided to engage in those relationships with. 

I know lots of left leaning, independent heterosexual women and one thing I can assure you is, a knuckle dragging neanderthal with a hard body and confident, masculine characteristics still has a better chance of getting a date than a sensitive Woody Allen type. Why? Genetics, biology, men and women have preferences that go far beyond choice. 

Want more proof of this? Look at the religious rights' abstinence programs. How are those working out for us? Biology wins out most of the time.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Im sure that the women who love Brad Pitt think hes an intelligent, sensitive, "Woody Allen" under that masculine facade.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im sure that the women who love Brad Pitt think hes an intelligent, sensitive, "Woody Allen" under that masculine facade.


In fact, i'm absolutely certain of it.  He's Woody Allen with defined abs.


----------



## shesulsa (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im sure that the women who love Brad Pitt think hes an intelligent, sensitive, "Woody Allen" under that masculine facade.


 Yeah, that's it.:ultracool


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

As is Juan the cabana boy eh??


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> As is Juan the cabana boy eh??


Yep, it's all about being a sensitive male.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

If everybody were to be honest and state what they REALLY wanted in a mate, it would probably offend the opposite sex 9 times out of 10. So we all say things like "looks dont really matter", "money doesnt really matter", (size doesnt really matter???), "Its the personality that really matters" yadda yadda. We all know what we "really want" we just know for the most part that we cant find it all perfectly contained in one person, because we are all people and therefore complex....hell I couldnt meet the standards of the "perfect male" by a long shot myself.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

I believe that the fact that about the last six posts fall back on biological determinism coupled with the claim that Andrea Dworkin was fat and ugly can pretty much speak for the intellectual quality of the argument presented. 

And I think that's great.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Were are unbound by our biology..I dont have to breathe, eat, sleep or ****......


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

I believe that the fact that about the last seven posts fall back on biological determinism coupled with the claim that Andrea Dworkin was fat and ugly can pretty much speak for the intellectual quality of the argument presented. 

And I think that's great.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Of course biological differences, like mens better upper body strength, only means that they were better suited for certain tasks like hunting and fighting. It doesn't mean they "deserved" any special status over women. The sad fact is that most of human history has been about who can "take" their status rather than who deserved it. In our quest to be fair (and a good quest it is) its important to not ignore the fact that we do indeed have differences.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I believe that the fact that about the last six posts fall back on biological determinism coupled with the claim that Andrea Dworkin was fat and ugly can pretty much speak for the intellectual quality of the argument presented.
> 
> And I think that's great.


Hey, you wanted chapter and verse, robertson, about how you insult your opposition personally? This is a good example.  Your argument consisted solely of insulting the intellectual quality of your opponents.  A quick quip and you were off.  At any rate, who claimed Andrea Dworkin was fat and ugly?   She may have been, but I don't recall that being claimed.  Still, fascinating post there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 30, 2005)

1. The post: "biology wins out most of the time," is what I had in mind when citing, "biological determinism."

2. A different poster's remark, "for someone who looks like a bag of meat in an old dusty corner to tell us what good and bad sexuality is, that is not acceptable," led to the note about describing Dworkin as, "fat and ugly," rather than discussing her ideas.

3. And the constant adversions to, "Juan the cabana boy," as well as the constant personal insults ("I think you may have lost it") and distortions of my remarks into some unequivocal support for Dworkin's claims and analyses, lead one to wonder about what is being articulated in place of actual discussions. (Translation: this kinda stuff bespeaks somebody's anxieties, but not mine.)

And I think that's great.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. The post: "biology wins out most of the time," is what I had in mind when citing, "biological determinism."
> 
> 2. A different poster's remark, "for someone who looks like a bag of meat in an old dusty corner to tell us what good and bad sexuality is, that is not acceptable," led to the note about describing Dworkin as, "fat and ugly," rather than discussing her ideas.
> 
> ...


 lol, keep trying robertson. You have a lot to teach me about personal insults. Perhaps if you didn't have to be so pretentious sometimes, you could relax and enjoy yourself. Perhaps you've lived so long in academia, where most of what you say is left unquestioned, that you get offended anytime someone disagrees with you. It's ok, we can disagree and still be friends. I do find it ironic that you believe that claiming you may have lost it because of an incoherent post is any more of an insult than claiming an argument or philosophy sounds like "fascism", or trying to anchor and idea as though it might have came from "hitler". Any person of political standing you disagree with you label corrupt or dangerous. I also like this little gem.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> it's also a question of getting men to stop their hatred, violence, pathetic fantasies, and desperate attempts to keep women under control no matter what.


You are of course talking about those who embrace a different political perspective than you, of course. Those who are conservative in their leaning are, of course, violent, hate women, have pathetic fantasies and desperately seek to keep women under control, right? lol.  Using the word "Men" without qualifier would seem to suggest that ALL men or MOST men (except those enlightened as you are) fit this critique.

I actually can't believe you got offended by the Juan the cabana boy.

As far as "biological determinism" is going, your comments about THAT are like most of your arguments, based on nothing more than a quick shot across the bow and then a victory dance. A dismissive remark is not an argument, sorry if I refuse to accept it as one. 

And I think that's great.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

I take this sort of thing...

"You have a lot to teach me about personal insults. Perhaps if you didn't have to be so pretentious sometimes, you could relax and enjoy yourself. Perhaps you've lived so long in academia, where most of what you say is left unquestioned, that you get offended anytime someone disagrees with you. It's ok, we can disagree and still be friends."

...as precisely the sort of male aggressivity I was talking about--direct insult, coupled with a set of ridiculous claims (the other guy's pretentious and can't relax; the other guy knows nothing about the real world; the other guy never gets challenged; the other guy flies off the handle, doubtless in some feminine way; as the daddy, I can attack by pretending to reassure while covering up my aggression) rather than simple discussion of the issues and evidences. Sorry; you'll need better rhetoric than that.

I am afraid that I will have to ask you actually to read what I wrote, and perhaps even to learn a little bit about the feminist discussion of this matter, before any further reply I might make would be useful.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

I have seen very few examples of "simple discussion" from some people who cry most about it. And that has been seen in many threads, with various people. 

One would think that the problem isnt entirely with the other people.....


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 1, 2005)

_*Moderator Note:

  Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful and return to the original topic.

  -Georgia Ketchmark
  -MT Senior Mod- *_


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

"Some people who cry most," eh? Interesting language, on a thread discussing men's aggressivity.

To repeat what I wrote several pages ago: I don't find Dworkin's ideas terribly interesting or original, since they're pretty much just a ripoff of DeBeauvoir's "second sex," discussion. And I certainly think her "action," items are asinine. At a bare minimum, she should've thought a lot longer and harder about getting into political bed with the likes of Pat Robertson. Good thing that she really wan't very influential on academic ideas, because hers are second-rate at best.

However, I also recognize what's going on when a pack of guys start shrieking about people, ideas and books they know little or nothing about.


----------

