>Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for women’s bodies.
>Every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.
Dworkin isn't liked by mainstream liberal feminists whatsoever.
>Every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.
You omit the first part of this statement, which is "under patriarchy".
Andrea Dworkin was literally a batshit insane, ugly, morbidly obese Jewess who advocated genociding all men. People like her make even /pol/sters seem perfectly sane and rational and frankly, compared to feminists they are.
>According to people like her the entire history of human civilization is patriarchy.
It is. Prehistory is less clear. Nevertheless, the fact that something has been ubiquitous throughout time doesn't make it inherent and immutable, that would be the fallacy of induction. As crazy as she was, Dworkin did not believe men were inherently bad.
She is unpopular with liberal feminists due to her sex-negativity, lesbian separatism and transphobia. Liberal feminists aren't opposed to things like pornography and prostitution in principle, but certain tropes associated with them. She claimed to have been sexually abused at some points in her life, and while that might not be true and wouldn't justify her vitriol if it was, it would explain her obsession with rape.
>sex-negativity from a fugly hambeast (sour grapes much)
>lesbian separatism even though she was straight
>transphobia because even actual MEN can look more womanly than she did
Dworkin is what happens when terminal butthurt gets combined with autism.
I wasn't claiming she was credible. I explicitly dismissed that when I said
>She claimed to have been sexually abused at some points in her life, and while that might not be true and wouldn't justify her vitriol if it was, it would explain her obsession with rape
>wouldn't justify her vitriol if it was
Correcting specific misconceptions does not mean I agree with the opposing side. I wouldn't elaborate on her schism with liberal feminists if that were the case. I'm sure I would also agree with Hitler on a number of issues, such as opposition to smoking, but this does not make me a Nazi.
For the record, while Dworkin was undeniably misandrist, where did she say she wanted to genocide all men? All I can recall is her supporting the ability of rape victims to murder their rapist and beaten women to kill their abusers - a sentiment that many conservatives would agree with. Genocide was something she spoke unfavorably of and connected to biological determinism
>Genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination.
1. Which, if you accept that, means that the meaning of the quote is completely unaffected by the two words being left off.
2. If you're unwilling or unable to see the difference between current year Scandinavia and Taliban Afghanistan then there's no way to rationally converse with you.
>Which, if you accept that, means that the meaning of the quote is completely unaffected by the two words being left off.
No, because recorded history doesn't encompass the entirety of human existence, nor do unbroken historical trends guarantee that they are immutable states of affairs, or even expressions of innate biological qualities.
> If you're unwilling or unable to see the difference between current year Scandinavia and Taliban Afghanistan then there's no way to rationally converse with you.
I never said this you disingenuous little shit. Accepting existence of male dominance itself doesn't imply that a binary model is more accurate than a continuum. Progressive philosophy has always taken the opinion that social change takes time and isn't accomplished overnight.
All you've done is re-state your opinion that the entire history of human civilization (including right now) is patriarchy. Nobody needed clarification on your opinion, we understood you the first time.
Clearly you didn't understand me, because here you are reducing the entirety of what I said to your initial binary strawman. You do realize Sweden is one country in the developed world, a relatively small one at that, and that developing countries are roughly 2/3 of the world population? Not to mention Sweden in the year 2016 isn't exactly relevant to the 1970s where Dworkin was prominent, you off-topic dipshit.
Dworkin claimed to have been raped like 50 times, once by a Frenchmen who carried her out of her hotel window, down through the city to his apartment, then back to her hotel through said window.
Keep in mind she weighed over 300lbs at the time this occurred.
Pointing out the fallacy of composition isn't a no true scotsman. This is such simplistic "spot the fallacy" Sargon of Akkad type bullshit.
Nobody is denying that Dworkin was a feminist, just that she belonged to an extreme fringe that was widely criticized even in her day, not even mentioning her complete incompatibility with the third wave.
On the one hand, this is, aduh, a description of the purportedly malformed heterosexual relations obtaining under the patriarchy, and anyone failing to understand that should be roundly ignored.
On the other hand, it's always bothered me how much of this sort of thing is effectively lit-crit on a cultural level. Decidedly unempirical, basically - hard to disagree with, and not in the good way. And even more bothersome how it's treated as gospel - more properly, as solid science - in some circles.
But yeah, OP, if you need a good ragewank, >>>/pol/ is the place to be. Off you toddle.
Well, yes - that is a fundamental aspect of the discussion. That's why you attempted to justify the patriarchy by appealing to nature - because its moral foundation has been questioned. Try to keep up.
>moral foundation has been questioned
>some fat whale on a mongolian shadowpuppetry website is going to start the fire that brings down an age old system
That was not me. And in fact morals are not a fundamental aspect of the discussion. The value of patriarchy is. You only run to morals because it's the only way for you to justify your hate for it (well not even really, but it's not like you can get any better reasons). The dude appealed to nature to show how patriarchy is just what society tends to default to, due to reasons (efficiency most likely).
>If you're unwilling or unable to see the difference between current year Scandinavia and Taliban Afghanistan then there's no way to rationally converse with you.
Are you implying there's a difference?
>That was not me. And in fact morals are not a fundamental aspect of the discussion. The value of patriarchy is.
You know what the indefinite article indicates, right? If you want to say morality is irrelevant to the discussion, well, fine - you don't understand the discussion. Conversation over, good chat.
>the fact that something has been ubiquitous throughout time doesn't make it inherent and immutable
You're right, let's murder our children instead of letting them grow up.
I mean, it's a fallacy of induction to think that's bad. Just because humans have always done that doesn't give it any validity whatsoever.
Are we going to point out.she never actually said this?
Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, claiming thatIntercourseargued that "All heterosexual intercourse is rape." That statement, however, is not directly made in the book, and her comparisons of intercourse to "occupation," "possession," "collaboration," etc. are made in the context of discussions of the way in which intercourse is depicted "the discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography",:122and the enforcement of those terms through men's social power over women.
Dworkin rejected the interpretation that "All heterosexual intercourse is rape" as a grave misunderstanding of her work.When asked in a later interview, she explained:
No, I wasn't saying that [all heterosexual sex is rape] and I didn't say that, then or ever. ... The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. InIntercourseI decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the all sex is rape slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality. It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especiallyPlayboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others likeTimewho, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
>I mean, it's a fallacy of induction to think that's bad.
It would be a fallacy to think it's bad simply because that's the way we've been doing it. We don't think killing children is bad because that's the way it's always been, we think it's bad for reasons relating to our concepts of empathy, justice, and practicality.
Nobody thinks the "subjugation of women" is good because it's unempathetic, unjust and unpractical.
There's no good reason to diverge from tradition for it's own sake.
Besides, being anti-patriarchy is literally codified into our culture now. The people who can't see it are just stupid.
>i think i can prove things on the internet by copy pasting wikipedia and leaving out the crucial paragraph at the end that disagrees with me
ok i'll play your game
>Some critics, such as Gene Healy and Cathy Young, claimed that they found Dworkin's explanation hard to square with her frequent willingness to criticize ordinary heterosexual practices as violent or coercive. Young went on to claim that, given Dworkin's expressed views, arguments over whether Dworkin actually said that heterosexual intercourse is rape can be dismissed as "quibbling". Stating Dworkin was "anti-sex".
>Whatever her defenders say, Dworkin was anti-sex. No, she may not have ever written the actual words "All sex is rape" or "All sexual intercourse is rape." But she did extensively argue, in particular in the 1987 book, Intercourse, that (1) all heterosexual sex in our "patriarchal" society is coercive and degrading to women, and (2) sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform." A chapter from the book, filled with such insights as, "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women," can be found here. (Again, if a male writer had written book after book arguing that women were evil creatures whose sole purpose in life is to sexually manipulate and destroy men, would we spend a lot of time quibbling over whether he actually used the phrase, "All women are whores"?)
Just admit you're wrong or stupid. The summary of her argument is that all heterosexual sex is rape, whether she literally said that quote exactly is irrelevant.
>Wow, you knocked it out of the park buddy
>Anon said I really hit a home run
>No I didn't say that. Prove it! Show me the quote where I say you "really hit a home run". You have no evidence and are just making excuses!
>The summary of her argument is that all heterosexual sex is rape
But that's wrong. The summary of her argument is that heterosexual relations in a patriarchal society feature a fundamental power imbalance anathema to equitable dealings. She frets that it may not be possible to do anything about this, but doesn't directly claim it.
There's like fifty different ways to argue with her on this point. Why are you drawn to the clickbaity straw man like some moth-fly hybrid to a lightbulb made of shit?
It's remarkable how similar that story is to medieval stuff about the devil abducting women in their sleep and doing nasty shit to them, then returning them to their beds.
>all she said was there was a power imbalance
Bullshit. She compares sex to a military invasion and says that women have no choice but to be invaded because that's how they are biologically (i.e. they are 'forced' to be invaded to propagate the species).
You can deny that means 'rape' all you want but it seems the plain meaning of the text to just about everyone but you.
A lot of what she said is taken out of context, she isn't making absolute statements, but a commentary on what things represent in culture. She's not super profound, but she's a pretty solid thinker. I don't, personally, feel like patriarchy is inherently a bad thing, but the patriarchy did abuse its position, which is what lead to feminism. If men actually stayed faithful to their wives and considered them just as valuable socially, ladies would never have become discontent. Patriarchy continues to misuse its power by snipping away every shred of clothing from women and getting them to dress as immodestly as possible to cater to increasingly lewd tastes.
>She compares sex to a military invasion and says that women have no choice but to be invaded because that's how they are biologically
Yeah, she's accounting for the partial biological underpinnings of patriarchal relations. I would have thought /pol/ would be bang alongside that shit, honestly.
As for the rest, oh shit, the apparent plain meaning of a text on a casual, headline-scan reading is in fact something more subtle. Why, this is unprecedented!
You don't know what it's like to be a woman. I'm not saying there aren't women who love the new sex-sex-sex way of things, but if you are attractive and dress conservatively, like with a shirt down to your ankles, you're looked at as some sort of weirdo, and will still bother you a lot, and while most men are polite enough to stop, there are plenty of men who won't take the hint and some who say really crass things.
Every human being IS a unique and special snowflake, anon
How much does this really matter anyway?
Tradition by defintion is"for it's own sake " doing anything just because is objectively retarded, unless there is an observable measurable gain that can be proven to the act in question as opposed to the alternatives stop doing it.
Sure. Save for the fact that "invasion" is more than often inaccurate. It's more like throwing open the gates for your beloved defenders, capping off their march homewards where they might finally rest, eat, and be merry.
Why does this thread exist? Take this garbage to /pol/ so you can go argue with the autistic neo-nazis.
>Patriarchy continues to misuse its power by snipping away every shred of clothing from women and getting them to dress as immodestly as possible to cater to increasingly lewd tastes.
Women do that to themselves; what's popular in women's fashion is largely dictated by women, as they are the consumers that purchase the clothing and thus dictate the markets.
>I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
what an ignorant she is. I bet she refuses to see that most men crave attention from women, because she is isolated in her castle and her easiness to have chads eating her puss puss.
>You're right, let's murder our children instead of letting them grow up.
How does this relate to what I said? I wasn't even using immutability in an ethical context whatsoever. Total non sequitur.
>I mean, it's a fallacy of induction to think that's bad. Just because humans have always done that doesn't give it any validity whatsoever.
You act like infanticide never existed. If we follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion we'd all be living like cavemen and never changing.
Yeah, I'm sure Andrea fucking Dworkin was getting her sexual needs fulfilled all the time by men, who couldn't wait to tap that.
You robots are so delusional, you can't even recognize your own.
Everytime some psycho-babbling misandrist opens her mouth about how gender relations function, it's always with the caveat that this how patriarchal societies function, as if this is news to anyone.
Women have a fucking vagina, and men have a dick. If women don't want to get fucked by men, why the fuck do they have to tell us? Why can't they just fuck off and go muff-diving, and leave us with the rest of the women who actually enjoy a good dicking?
Jesus Christ they are overcompensating for something. They're like a man buying Hummer because he's got a small dick.
>Women have a fucking vagina, and men have a dick. If women don't want to get fucked by men, why the fuck do they have to tell us?
I have a funny feeling the average young man on 4chan wasn't her target audience
Yes actually, often that is the case. There are non-feminist women, and there would have been many more in the 20th century. Lesbian separatism isn't something you really *know*, it's a lifestyle choice one must be convinced of.
>There are non-feminist women
That's completely wrong. Feminism is simply a woman's self interest subsumed into a political ideology, and every single woman has self-interest.
If a woman is publicly stating that she is against feminism, it's because she doesn't need it to further her own goals in life at that time, simple.
Women love the D. It is just that occasionally a woman gets into a relationship with a socio because she mistakes aggression for dominance, he then proceeds to beat the living shit out of her, she is traumatized for life and falls for the "demographic group is X based on my experiences with 1 or a few of them" meme.
When it comes to broader social and political issues, rationality is necessary to determine self-interest, as all discussion is bloated with obfuscation, emotive language, cognitive biases, spooks and outright lies that all benefit powerful groups. Pretending that women are immune to ideological manipulation is absurd.
I never said they were immune to ideological manipulation, but humans are animals just like any other, and don't need to be rational to have self-interest, even if that self-interest has long term negative consequences.
>I don't fully understand the mechanism nature uses to pass on genes to future generations
>therefore there must be no mechanism and everything is socially constructed by an evil manspiracy
Is this feminism in a nutshell?
Oh they know everything m8.
They just can't handle being the lesser creature, and I don't blame them. If I bled once a month from my fuck-hole, and had to be hormonal like a 14 year old, and on top of that had to deal with the potentiality of being pregnant, I'd be fucking miserable too.
>Every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman
>Every Chuck E. Cheese employee is his potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another sweaty person in a rat costume
>Every tree's caretaker is it's potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another tree
>All I can recall is her supporting the ability of rape victims to murder their rapist and beaten women to kill their abusers - a sentiment that many conservatives would agree with.
>a sentiment that many conservatives would agree with.
No they wouldn't what in the hell are you talking about. The death penalty? Not the same thing as vigilantism m8 also I don't think anyone's ever been given the death penalty for domestic violence.
>For the record, while Dworkin was undeniably misandrist, where did she say she wanted to genocide all men?
Nah she just blamed men being in charge for quite literally all the evils in the world like how Hitler blamed the jews being in charge for quite literally all the evils in the world. But there's no way that could possibly imply genocide.
If anything practicing infanticide is actually much more common then not practicing it throughout history, the only real reason we don't have it today is because we've got safe, legal abortions available instead, which is a definite improvement.
there are two women
-the woman who loves money and sex
-the woman who loves sex and money
there are two men
-the men who love to try to be noticed by women in order to please them (men see their existence validated)
-the men who are not devoted to other people (for a few, not even themselves)
Just because we can build cities and put a man on the moon doesn't mean we're able to transform human nature at will. All this patriarchy talk is such delusional utopian nonsense, you sound like fucking communists.
Well, she isn't wrong. But at this point, we should begin to argue whether rape really is bad, and then try to create rape which is acceptable.
>you sound like fucking communists.
Thats what they are though.
Make no mistake, the real enemy doesn't even exist in this dimension, for as David Icke has pointed out their overlords reside in another dimension and probably have a base on the moon, but mundanely speaking, yes, feminists and many other pc theorists are communists at their core.
>She claimed to have been sexually abused at some points in her life
Worked as a prostitute I do believe, but the cheap sort that get shitty clients.
If I'm not mistaken, she left an abusive husband, became homeless, and had to prostitute herself. Understandably, her experiences have affected her worldview in a negative way.
each woman loves to be officially whore, but only in dilettante and with men whom she wants (aka, nothing much needs to be done on her side, or the man pays to give her orgasms).
There's also that guy with a deep knowledge of mysticism that always blabbers about how one can't understand enlightement with words and has to experience it directly and the universe is so amazing and wow we're all fundamentally the same
>>describes experiences widely spoken of by approximately half the members of society
>Your shitposting algorithm needs work.
How can one person's thoughts POSSIBLY be generalizable to all women? Some women love attention and getting hit on, some think it's sexist and holding society back. Some women love BDSM porn and some think it's "damaging to womankind".
It is fallacious for one woman or a group of women to speak "on behalf of" woman. It's always retarded, because not everyone agrees, this is why feminism is so inherently divisive and ridiculous. Here's a tissue for when you're mug of male tears starts to overflow tho