Talk:Andrea Dworkin/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 27 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

This article is shit

Why has this moonbat's article been minimised? What happened to RW:SPOV? This seems like an apologist piece now, can we get back some of the old kick it had. (I am of the opinion everyone deserves a good kicking ever now and then). - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 07:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I brought the article in line with who she was and what she did. The moonbat comments could be put back but she wasn't a misandrist (that's not even a word). --Astrophilia 08:05, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Misandrist is a word, misos hatred, anér man, hence therefore hatred on men. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 08:11, 3 March 2009 (EST)

No, it's a portmanteau by the combination of two words in another language. "Misanthrope" is a word and means the same thing. "Misandry" is not a terrible social ill, either. There is no institutionalized sexism against men. My point is further clarified here. --Astrophilia 09:08, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I would consider hating any group of people a "terrible social ill" regardless of how non-institutionalized it is. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 09:27, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Prejudice only becomes a social ill if it is institutionalized. --Astrophilia 09:43, 3 March 2009 (EST)

The word "misanthrope" means hatred of humanity in general, so the term "misandry" was created to refer to hatred of men. Stupid harmonic Phantom! 11:43, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Except when you break down "misanthrope", it means hatred of men. Because when solely men have public voice and control over every aspect of society, "everyone" becomes "men". Misandry was a term coined solely to antagonize feminists, as it implies that any hatred of men can be on the same level as misogyny. --Astrophilia 12:10, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Regardless of what you think, "misanthropy" means hatred of the human race as a whole, just as "philanthropy" means generosity and kindness. Why do you take such offence at the term "misandry"? Are you saying that hatred of men is OK? Stupid harmonic Phantom! 14:23, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I take offense at the term "misandry" because of how it is predominantly used to slander feminists and the feminist movement and shut down arguments about male privilege, and how "misandry" is treated as some sort of terrible social ill and somehow on par with misogyny and the global oppression of women. Hatred of men is absolutely understandable considering the level of violence men as a class have shown to women as a class. Women, as a class, do not have the power to back up gender-based prejudice against men. So I do not consider it a terrible social ill, nor do I care much for the male viewpoint (considering it's the subject of nearly every aspect of our culture.) --Astrophilia 18:36, 3 March 2009 (EST)

"[N]or do I care much for the male viewpoint." When you say things like that it is hard to take you seriously. Why should I care for your viewpoint? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Because the female viewpoint is not written in every book, plastered on every billboard, shouted from every politician's mouth, and projected from every screen. Your difficulty in taking women concerned solely with women seriously speaks a lot about you. --Astrophilia 09:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Oh, and "only men have public voice and control over every aspect of society"? When do you think this is, the 19^th Century? Stupid harmonic Phantom! 14:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)

The benevolent gift of power from the oppressors to the oppressed has only happened in recent years, very, very slowly. See TheoryOfPractice's response. --Astrophilia 18:36, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Phantom, I might dial it back a little tiny bit from Astra's position. Tell you what (and keeping it in the American context)--let's count Cabinet members, Senators, Representatives, Governors, State Senators and Representatives. Then presidents, CEOs and other top executives at Fortune 500 companies. Now let's add in the 100 richest people in America. Now Supreme Court Justices. And judges. And members of the Bar. And the AMA. And tenured professors--don't forget the hard sciences and engineering departments, okay? And people who have had opinion columns/news analyses published in any of the top-100 circulating newpapers, or on television or radio--and pretty newsreaders don't count. Now because that data set is probably evenly divded between men and women...oh, wait. It's not. TheoryOfPractice 14:50, 3 March 2009 (EST)

That's typical fembot nonsense. The issue is the power of men as a whole against women as a whole; citing hundreds or even thousands of examples is meaningless as that's tiny compared to the whole country. Fall down

I take offense at the use of the term "only". Stupid harmonic Phantom! 11:30, 4 March 2009 (EST)

It looks like it's only actually lost two or three snarky remarks. I think the moonbat comments could be reinstated, but the "when she went crazy" tag for the alleged date rape incident is going a bit too far. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:51, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Not that anyone asked my opinion

But here I am, tossing my support behind not including her in the moonbat and wingnut categories, especially since the best rationale for putting her in has been "I don't like her". --Kels 06:36, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Some of the things she says are extreme, it is hard not to call her a wingnut or moonbat. She is list on moonbattery.com, not the most impartial people but... Lets be honest her positions on sex and child birth pretty much lead to the end of the human race, if that is not extreme moonbattery I don't know what is.- User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 08:14, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Actually, no. Her positions on sex and childbirth pretty much lead to the end of male privilege and patriarchy. --Astrophilia 09:09, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I think she's as "moodbat" as De Beauvoir was when she started writing. I can't imagine what the first woman who said "no, I'm not going to wear makeup/pantyhose/veils" was seen as, in other parts of the world, in other times of our history. I actually get quite offended that her very real and very important points are so easily dismissed as "she's crazy". She was a victim of her circumstances, and that prompted her to write - but to my fellow male travelers of this existence, I know that I (and I suspect most women) have been right where she is at times. Saying "men control everything, and the only way out of that is to teach our sons not to follow in their father's footsteps". It has only been 20 years, since the last state made it illegal to rape your wife. I just don't think she's as "out there" as some people make her out to be. --En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 11:32, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Nutter

She suffered under some male individuals and projects this hatred on all men. I hope no-one buys into all of her bullshit... DSFARGEG 08:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)

She never hated all men, for one. She hated male privilege. Read the article. At least a quarter of women suffer under "male individuals". This is either the biggest coincidence of all time, or a humanitarian crisis. Guess which one I think it is. --Astrophilia 09:07, 4 March 2009 (EST)

DSFARGEG please meet Astrophilia. Astrophilia enjoys dominating this article and associated talkpage, thinks hating men is justified, and would one day like to turn the USA into a socialist state, despite the fact that it has failed everywhere else. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I forgot that the UK, Cuba, France, and many other countries have "failed". Oh, did you mistake Stalinism for socialism? Ha, ha! I'm an anarchist, dear. I don't know where you got that state idea from.

For the thousandth time, I think hating male privilege and how men as a class act with this privilege is completely justified. Again, considering how much men are wrapped up in their privilege, it's difficult to disentangle the two. --Astrophilia 09:07, 4 March 2009 (EST)

We all see the world through the lens of our own experiences, and project onto them what we wish. Z3ro^talk 09:55, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Male "privilege" is rapidly decreaisng in much of the developed world (which is a good thing), but there is a train of thought among certain feminists that sons should be punished for their fathers sins, as well as other garbage, which Dworkin is apparently wont to spout. By the way, I'm sure hating sex is perfectly natural and mentally healthy. DSFARGEG 10:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Rapidly? No. Also, consider that she wrote that quote in 1976. The Dworkin quote does not say that "sons should be punished for their fathers' sins"; it states that in a patriarchal system, a woman's son is most likely going to become like his father. She expanded upon this in her later works, explaining how patriarchy hurts male children by turning them into oppressors. Dworkin, as well, did not "hate sex". She hated the power differential and the domination/submission paradigm of patriarchy which inevitably crept into sex. Read her work. --Astrophilia 10:10, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Nothing compares to a feminists persecution complex does it? You're right about "privileges not rapidly diminishing, I guess. Since there's very few "privileges" left to recieve in comparison to a mere 100, or even 50 years ago. nd no. I am not saying everything is equal, it's not. I suppose women are all saints too? Of course there's no such thing as women molesters or child abusers... oh wait. Shit. There are women sex offenders and voilent women too. By the way, I'm nothing like my father, or my father's family snd neither is my brother.DSFARGEG 10:21, 4 March 2009 (EST)

This conversation is over. I am not going to coddle you. --Astrophilia 10:28, 4 March 2009 (EST)

In any society I approved of cunts like you would be tied up, raped, and sodomised. True socialism is anti-feminist, so you're abusing the word, too. Fall down

For what it's worth, this kind of stuff shouldn't be tolerated, and I would happily make this my first block if i see it again. Even if it gets me blocked for doing it. Disagree, yell, argue all you want. but keep this out of it.--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 11:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I looked into this guy. Apparently doing things like this makes his day; he's over at RationalWikiWiki and comes here to troll. The best we can do is ignore him and set him as an example of the anti-Dworkin. --Astrophilia 11:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Wait, you mean set him as the example of people who are opposed to Dworkin? Stupid harmonic Phantom! 11:42, 4 March 2009 (EST)

The example of the people who espouse ideas completely contrary to Dworkin and who are anti-feminist to their core. As Dworkin said, anti-feminism is the direct expression of misogyny.

Fall Down did get one thing right though; rape is the preferred tool of the patriarchy to keep women silent, afraid, and ashamed. --Astrophilia 11:46, 4 March 2009 (EST)

There is no patriarchy; it's just your punching bag for everything women fail at. Fall down

Yep, feminists just completely pulled this idea out of their asses. Men don't control society completely and never have. Women are and have always been completely free to do whatever they like without fear of rape, murder, or ostracism. All institutions of power are there to make women safe, comfortable, and independent. My bad. Now will you go away? --Astrophilia 11:52, 4 March 2009 (EST)

That's right, men never have controlled society completely as they've always been controlled by pussy. As for your next point, do you seriously think that men have ever been 'completely free to do whatever they like'? My normal rule is to never argue with a woman; it's like teaching a pig to sing. I think ir's time for me to implement that. Fall down

Yep, men are completely mindless sub-human animals who are slaves to their passions and will do anything for a bit of sex with a woman. No institutions were created in order to keep women under the sexual control of men. Wait, wait... I can't keep this up. Where did you get such a horrible, essentialist view of your own gender? --Astrophilia 12:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Sing, Porky, sing it with me! Fall down

Or you're running out of socks and want to get some vandalism in before you use them all up. Stupid harmonic Phantom! 12:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Incessant edit warring

Stop it. From now on, all changes should be discussed on the talk page. Stupid harmonic Phantom! 12:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Okay, fair enough. Here's my rationale for my edit: You can see the proposed ordinance online. It was not censorship; she was trying to make it easier for women who are hurt/exploited/degraded by porn to seek damages. She did not like censorship of any kind, and she spoke out against the lobby for the Canada obscenity law for that reason. The current revision misrepresents her views. --Astrophilia 12:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

(EC) The disputed section (around the Susie Bright reference) contains no mention of censorship. ListenerX^TalkerX 12:43, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Except it says that the ordinance was proposed by other people who don't care about women's rights. It wasn't. It was proposed by them. Plus, you used the first ordinance as a justification of deleting my assertion that she was anti-censorship... Except the first ordinance was not censorship, only dismissed as such. --Astrophilia 12:45, 4 March 2009 (EST)

EDIT: Alright you changed it. It's much better now. It is still unclear in the article as to whether the wingnuts who don't care about women proposed her ordinance or not. --Astrophilia 12:48, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I have qualified the "anti-censorship" statement to say that she did not believe in it "via obscenity laws," which is true under both definitions of censorship. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

You reverted this edit with no explanation. Please explain. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:24, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Seems to me, one answer might be a sorta "side by side" esque (or, why she's a nutter/why she's not) presentation on the main page. That is, Those who think her work has historical and psychological merit say so, and in another section, those who think she would make the entire world be gay and never have children, say so. --En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 12:40, 4 March 2009 (EST)

That sounds like setting the stage for an edit war. --Astrophilia 12:45, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Isn't that the very definition of what you all are in right now? --En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 12:59, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Sounds to me like a way to present varying perspectives. Dang, how did I miss this fiasco? Serves me right for using my watchlist instead of recent changes... ħuman 01:42, 5 March 2009 (EST)

For what it's worth

Herein you can find my thoughts on Dworkin's article. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ the alfalfa of all belts! 12:58, 4 March 2009 (EST)

You don't understand the oppressive power dynamic that goes into domestic violence. More often than not a woman cannot simply dial 911. She's afraid for her life. She's afraid for the lives of her children. She has no where to go. Her friends and family don't believe her. No nearby shelters. Saying a woman can simply dial 911 is extremely shortsighted, and blames the victim.

You also don't understand the oppressive power dynamic that defines the patriarchy, which routinely takes away a woman's agency. But that's another discussion. --Astrophilia 13:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)

While I appreciate your perspective, saying "you don't understand..." to other editors is not a good way to build a good article. Especially since you don't know them. ħuman 01:51, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Okay, but saying to sufferers of domestic violence "Hey! Just pick up the phone! Magic number called 911, press charges!" is totally ignorant of the nature of domestic violence, and really damn insulting. --Astrophilia 05:07, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Last line at the top there

"Her views became much more radical and more sensational later in her life, further alienating potential supporters, but only her critics had the gall to point this out."

Isn't somebody pointing this out a critic by definition? Was this supposed to mean a non-feminist critic? I'm a feminist and I still criticize Dworkin; does that make me a critic or not? I'm honestly confused by this line and think it should be reworded, but I don't understand what it's saying enough to figure out how to fix it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Better now? I admit to some uneasiness still, since the ref actually doesn't say anything about alienation, but perhaps the implication is that Cathy Young/Reason Magazine "ought" to have been sympathetic to a less "radical and sensationalist" version of Dworkinite feminism? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Cant we find a better picture?

Not all photos make her look like this! There are a few where she is smiling....^{— Unsigned, by: ICANTSTOP / talk / contribs}

Can't quickly find one that isn't copyright -- this one is the only one on the Commons. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But they're right that it seems like it's chosen for lighting and expression that makes her look like a terrible person. (Nevermind whether she is or not) Ikanreed (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a lousy picture and I would rather see no image than a bad one. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's so bad about this image. Is it the haircut? Is it the casual clothes? Is it that she's fat? Is it so significant that she isn't smiling? Was she a woman that smiled a lot? Really, would we have this discussion if this were some guy's picture? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I specifically said the lighting was a concern, among other things. Leaving the face half-shadowed is a common photographic technique to make people seem "darker" or "meaner". It's not like the picture is objectively hostile, just subjectively a bit problematic. Ikanreed (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)