How Did We Skip Her? Andrea Dworkin: RIP

[raedyn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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??

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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!)

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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."

Again, more evidence of the point I made.

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]

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.



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.



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



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.

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