Comments on: When Dworkin Is A Gift http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/ Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:35:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Blog Against Sexism Day at Pandagon http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-14116 Blog Against Sexism Day at Pandagon Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:33:36 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-14116 [...] And we have a couple of good quotes. To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue none the less to exist to him also; mutually recognizing each other as subject, each will yet remain for the other an other. –Simone de Beauvoir Feminists have a vision of women, even women, as individual human beings; and this vision annihilates the system of gender polarity in which men are superior and powerful. This is not a bourgeois notion of individuality; it is not a self-indulgent notion of individuality; it is the recognition that every human being lives a separate life in a separate body and dies alone. In proposing “the individuality of each human soul,” feminists propose that women are not their sex; nor their sex plus some other little thing—a liberal additive of personality, for instance; but that each life—including each woman’s life—must be a person’s own, not predetermined before her birth by totalitarian ideas about her nature and her function, not subject to guardianship by some more powerful class, not determined in the aggregate but worked out by herself, for herself. Frankly, no one much knows what feminists mean; the idea of women not defined by sex and reproduction is anathema or baffling. It is the simplest revolutionary idea ever conceived, and the most despised. –Andrea Dworkin (Shamelessly swiped, as is half my stuff, from Twisty.) [...] […] And we have a couple of good quotes. To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue none the less to exist to him also; mutually recognizing each other as subject, each will yet remain for the other an other. –Simone de Beauvoir Feminists have a vision of women, even women, as individual human beings; and this vision annihilates the system of gender polarity in which men are superior and powerful. This is not a bourgeois notion of individuality; it is not a self-indulgent notion of individuality; it is the recognition that every human being lives a separate life in a separate body and dies alone. In proposing “the individuality of each human soul,” feminists propose that women are not their sex; nor their sex plus some other little thing—a liberal additive of personality, for instance; but that each life—including each woman’s life—must be a person’s own, not predetermined before her birth by totalitarian ideas about her nature and her function, not subject to guardianship by some more powerful class, not determined in the aggregate but worked out by herself, for herself. Frankly, no one much knows what feminists mean; the idea of women not defined by sex and reproduction is anathema or baffling. It is the simplest revolutionary idea ever conceived, and the most despised. –Andrea Dworkin (Shamelessly swiped, as is half my stuff, from Twisty.) […]

]]> By: Sam http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13082 Sam Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:00:05 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13082 “Force–the violence of the male confirming his masculinity–is seen as the essential purpose of the penis, its animating principle as it were, just as sperm ideally impregnates the woman either without reference to or against her will. The penis must embody the violence of the male in order for him to be male." A momentary version of this goes through my mind every time I see reference to the cable network for men known as <i>Spike</i>. “Force–the violence of the male confirming his masculinity–is seen as the essential purpose of the penis, its animating principle as it were, just as sperm ideally impregnates the woman either without reference to or against her will. The penis must embody the violence of the male in order for him to be male.”

A momentary version of this goes through my mind every time I see reference to the cable network for men known as Spike.

]]> By: Cass http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13067 Cass Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:38:27 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13067 Mandos, I would love a response to my points... as our dear President says, bring it on!! Not, however, if this response will consist of the same pretentious, relativistic drivel that passes for thought in your universe. As for saying your motivation here is resentment, that's merely an educated guess, hardly amounting to psychoanalysis. (I've heard quite a bit of resentment from our male brothers over the phone while working on a DV hotline, with quite a few bogus "intellectuals" wishing to engage me in debates.) What may be the orgin of these feelings is hardly my business either. All I suggested was that it must be very unpleasant to carry around such a load of resentment, and you'd be well advised, for your own sake, to seek some relief from it. One more point. Spending your mental energy trying to make the dehumanization of any group of people respectable is a serious matter, even here. I have very strong feelings about this, not only because I'm a woman (and a decent human being) myself, but because my career involves dealing with the horrific suffering caused by the dehumanization of women daily. Now by all appearances, Mandos, you're nothing more than a pretentious fool, and an empty-headed windbag; I wouldn't expect an argument based on moral gravity to have much of an effect. There may be other, more impressionable lookers-on about though; and its to them I'd address this humble appeal... Mandos, I would love a response to my points… as our dear President says, bring it on!! Not, however, if this response will consist of the same pretentious, relativistic drivel that passes for thought in your universe. As for saying your motivation here is resentment, that’s merely an educated guess, hardly amounting to psychoanalysis. (I’ve heard quite a bit of resentment from our male brothers over the phone while working on a DV hotline, with quite a few bogus “intellectuals” wishing to engage me in debates.) What may be the orgin of these feelings is hardly my business either. All I suggested was that it must be very unpleasant to carry around such a load of resentment, and you’d be well advised, for your own sake, to seek some relief from it.
One more point. Spending your mental energy trying to make the dehumanization of any group of people respectable is a serious matter, even here. I have very strong feelings about this, not only because I’m a woman (and a decent human being) myself, but because my career involves dealing with the horrific suffering caused by the dehumanization of women daily. Now by all appearances, Mandos, you’re nothing more than a pretentious fool, and an empty-headed windbag; I wouldn’t expect an argument based on moral gravity to have much of an effect. There may be other, more impressionable lookers-on about though; and its to them I’d address this humble appeal…

]]> By: syfr http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13024 syfr Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:08:03 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13024 Thanks for the quote, Twisty; it's gorgeous. Thanks for the quote, Twisty; it’s gorgeous.

]]> By: Mandos http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13023 Mandos Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:53:41 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13023 <i>Don’t get me wrong, it would be incredible if 70% of American women were entirely uninterested in ever getting married and having babies. It’s just not realistic when keeping in mind how pervasive conservatism is.</i> A too large disparity in expectations may also have the effect of generating a larger and more likely backlash. Don’t get me wrong, it would be incredible if 70% of American women were entirely uninterested in ever getting married and having babies. It’s just not realistic when keeping in mind how pervasive conservatism is.

A too large disparity in expectations may also have the effect of generating a larger and more likely backlash.

]]> By: cinder http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13004 cinder Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:09:25 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-13004 Somehow I find it extremely hard to believe that 70% of American women are not interested in marriage and children. Maybe that statistic would make sense if that many weren't interested in diving into those things right NOW, but would prefer to save it for later. I'm also curious as to what age bracket this statistic is supposed to apply to, as well as where people were surveyed. If the surveying took place in new york city, or san francisco than there you go. But if this proportionately includes the midwest and the bible belt, or pretty much any rural or suburban population then I don't believe it. It seems to me like it's actually a minority of us that are against the thought of EVER getting married, and that a lot of people are simply doing it later in life than is traditional in our culture. Women are having thier first baby in their 30's and even 40's rather than popping out 3 or 4 before they make it to 25. I think more women have decided that thier 20's are for partying, school and/or career building and are choosing to hold off, not cancel all that shit entirely, just wait awhile. Don't get me wrong, it would be incredible if 70% of American women were entirely uninterested in ever getting married and having babies. It's just not realistic when keeping in mind how pervasive conservatism is. Somehow I find it extremely hard to believe that 70% of American women are not interested in marriage and children. Maybe that statistic would make sense if that many weren’t interested in diving into those things right NOW, but would prefer to save it for later. I’m also curious as to what age bracket this statistic is supposed to apply to, as well as where people were surveyed. If the surveying took place in new york city, or san francisco than there you go. But if this proportionately includes the midwest and the bible belt, or pretty much any rural or suburban population then I don’t believe it.

It seems to me like it’s actually a minority of us that are against the thought of EVER getting married, and that a lot of people are simply doing it later in life than is traditional in our culture. Women are having thier first baby in their 30’s and even 40’s rather than popping out 3 or 4 before they make it to 25.

I think more women have decided that thier 20’s are for partying, school and/or career building and are choosing to hold off, not cancel all that shit entirely, just wait awhile.

Don’t get me wrong, it would be incredible if 70% of American women were entirely uninterested in ever getting married and having babies. It’s just not realistic when keeping in mind how pervasive conservatism is.

]]> By: ae http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-12998 ae Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:06:37 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-12998 Louise, I'm not sure where you live, but here in Murka our elderly -- those who don't get to retire to Boca -- are basically warehoused in state facilities, which I think is not only a crying shame but reprehensible. A more compassionate and just society would be ideal, and if we had one, women and men may feel freer in making reproductive choices that include bringing more humans into a world of limited resources, limited imagination, and the hysterical philistinism of our current social order. Support in its many manifestations and safety in its many manifestations would be a nice start for women to (again?) consider marrying and having children. Frankly, if that percentage is correct, it gives me a little hope for the world. Freedom from the responsibilities for marriage and a family may be just what the doctor ordered in allowing the time and space to agitate successfully for one's rights. Louise, I’m not sure where you live, but here in Murka our elderly — those who don’t get to retire to Boca — are basically warehoused in state facilities, which I think is not only a crying shame but reprehensible. A more compassionate and just society would be ideal, and if we had one, women and men may feel freer in making reproductive choices that include bringing more humans into a world of limited resources, limited imagination, and the hysterical philistinism of our current social order. Support in its many manifestations and safety in its many manifestations would be a nice start for women to (again?) consider marrying and having children. Frankly, if that percentage is correct, it gives me a little hope for the world. Freedom from the responsibilities for marriage and a family may be just what the doctor ordered in allowing the time and space to agitate successfully for one’s rights.

]]> By: Lorenzo http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-12986 Lorenzo Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:26:59 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-12986 <i>If it is indeed true as someone said above, that 70% of American women have no interest in marriage or children, don’t you think that holds out a rather bleak prospect for the future? A rather empty and desolate future it will be, with a geriatric population, and no-one to look after them. Is this really something to be pleased about?</i> Louise, Well, then I guess society will finally have to change enough that women no longer see marriage or children as the bad deal they have always been for women in patriarchy. Or, if the fundies win, we'll go back to imposing social reproduction on women. If it is indeed true as someone said above, that 70% of American women have no interest in marriage or children, don’t you think that holds out a rather bleak prospect for the future? A rather empty and desolate future it will be, with a geriatric population, and no-one to look after them. Is this really something to be pleased about?

Louise,

Well, then I guess society will finally have to change enough that women no longer see marriage or children as the bad deal they have always been for women in patriarchy. Or, if the fundies win, we’ll go back to imposing social reproduction on women.

]]> By: Chris Clarke http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-12983 Chris Clarke Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:19:00 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-12983 I've seen what passes for children these days, Louise. I have a two-part answer. 1) Yes, very much so. 2) It's a moot point, because by the time I'm geriatric, they'll all have driven their hand-me-down SUVs into telephone poles while texting other SUV drivers on their phones. I’ve seen what passes for children these days, Louise. I have a two-part answer.

1) Yes, very much so.

2) It’s a moot point, because by the time I’m geriatric, they’ll all have driven their hand-me-down SUVs into telephone poles while texting other SUV drivers on their phones.

]]> By: louiseculmer http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-12980 louiseculmer Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:10:25 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/23/when-dworkin-is-a-gift/#comment-12980 If it is indeed true as someone said above, that 70% of American women have no interest in marriage or children, don't you think that holds out a rather bleak prospect for the future? A rather empty and desolate future it will be, with a geriatric population, and no-one to look after them. Is this really something to be pleased about? If it is indeed true as someone said above, that 70% of American women have no interest in marriage or children, don’t you think that holds out a rather bleak prospect for the future? A rather empty and desolate future it will be, with a geriatric population, and no-one to look after them. Is this really something to be pleased about?

]]>