How Did We Skip Her? Andrea Dworkin: RIP

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

As is Juan the cabana boy eh??

 

[sgtmac_46]

As is Juan the cabana boy eh??

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

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.....