[ 25 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

somewhat misguided lady who brought

---

quote:

---

Beginning with the premise that violence born of anti-Semitism and from the hatred of women are similar, she argues that both wage a "war on the body" of the scapegoat and that resistance has taken the form of Zionism and feminism.web page

---

She's got a couple of winners there.

I found it hard to believe that someone who was intelligent and had written a lot of books and was famous enough to be widely quoted would actually believe that men can't have sex without committing a moral atrocity, so I looked up some of the books myself. And lo and behold, I can say that if you are a careless reader with an agenda, you can, in fact, obtain that interpretation of her writing.

In fact, I would say that if you aren't reading her carefully at all, you could honestly come by the "all sex is rape" interpretation. And that's a problem: she was a very very passionate writer, and she didn't write with any distance from her subject, and she didn't, perhaps, anticipate (or care) about the damage that this reading would do.

But what I understood her, after some thought, to be really saying, was that in our present culture, all sexual acts are somewhat corrupted by power issues between men and women. Even if a man and a woman have as loving and egalitarian and consensual relationship as possible, there's a whole cultural/psychological context which taints the entire process. That puts a bit of threat or predation into everything. That doesn't make a man who has sex with a woman into a rapist, necessarily: you have to intend to rape in order to be a rapist, and some of this happens with or without intention. But it does, according to Dworkin, make rape a subtext of normal sexual activity.

Just like bad things are subtexts of all kinds of innocent and normal activities, but cannot be avoided.

Dworkin loved her father and loved her brother and wrote about it: remember, no distance. At least one of these men had sex for sure. She didn't hate him for it, and she hated rape.

There are a number of things that I still deeply disagreed with when I read her. The most concrete thing being her attempt at doing an end run around free speech via civil litigation. One of the most positive qualities of the US is that it is still harder to use both civil and criminal law to restrict expression than most countries including Canada. So I'm glad her advocacy on this front did not succeed.

That is, she didn't want the state to take the initiative under criminal law to ban pornography, but instead to enable women to take legal action, akin to libel suits, against what she believed to be a series of dangerous libels against women.

quote:

---

Even if a man and a woman have as loving and egalitarian and consensual relationship as possible, there's a whole cultural/psychological context which taints the entire process. That puts a bit of threat or predation into everything.

---

It's pretty damn well impossible to summarize the incredible scope of her life and thoughts in one sentence. But the essential Dworkin is this: (my interpretation)

Abuse and control over women is something which is deeply engraved into the world around us. Many men feel bad about this, but that's not enough. Many men claim it isn't them, and many of them may be right, but that's not enough. If men feel bad, they should not be telling us, they should be telling their fellow men - whenever they see them, at strip-clubs and strip-malls, in their own homes, and in the halls of government.

Or even more succinctly, in six words -
Men. Stand up and do something.

Edited to add: She is NOT sex-negative. The site above has a great deal of her writing on it, check out a few of her articles or speeches to get a more precise bead on her thoughts regarding this issue. Alternatively, I think that information has been compiled nicely in the Lie Detector page for easy reference. Glad you're interested.

[ 26 November 2005: Message edited by: Serendipity ]

quote:

---

She wasn't in favour of a blanket ban on pornography. She (with MacKinnon) believed it was possible to define---in civil law---a connection between pornography and harm caused to women that would enable women to sue pornographers and put them out of business.

---

But that's the thing. There's an undercurrent of fear in all unequal relations. It's impossible to avoid untainted relations in most things. In this context, you can still be a good person if you avoid making use of the advantages of the inequality inherent in the relationship---and since it is inherent, you aren't personally responsible for more. But you can be REALLY good, in an unequal relationship, if you act to redress the inequality itself. Dworkin frequently pleaded for good men to "stop your [men's] side" in the war against women.

quote:

---

I feel right silly. I spent half a thread arguing against the law, and it turns out to be quite inoffensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rsfarrell:
I found a section on her website where she denies at length the various bad things that have been said about her over the years. That discussion usually reveals a lot about a person.

---

No denial is ever sincere? Is that it?

We are told most sexual arousal and satisfaction happens inside the head. Maybe, for the root to need what it would seem it needs, we might take the time to consider that the heads of men have been seriously tampered with by this culture and it's slavering worship of all things pornographic?

I would suggest we are all quite crippled by our Puritan-influenced upbringings. Certainly penis insertion is helpful if what one is trying for is pregnancy but how many active non-BWAGA babblers really strive for pregnancy? I think too many men have really only made it to first base sexually, and really need to improve their game. Otherwise, guys, you're not apt to hit a home run.

It isn't true that the dong rules. Thinking it does, and believing it's only "play" until the dong is inserted kind of, to me, adds credence to Dworkin's ideas.

She and I did not really see eye to eye on many things but migawd! what a mind, what a groundbreaker! I particularly differed with some of her observations regarding "Right Wing Women"; she used the word "think" too often and I still don't believe most of them ever do that!

[ 26 November 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
I spent more than a thread not too long ago arguing about this, because I do find this idea offensive. So did a few other babblers, like skdadl. I don't approve of civil law to limit speech much more than I do of criminal law.

---

Well, there are loop holes in it which can be abused, I just can't remeber what they are.
I must admit that during the discussions about this topic I was more interested in the blanket ban the law would cause rather then how it would cause it. When one is swept up in a bout of rightous anger, one hardly ever bothers with legal minutiae.
I should have said that it looks inoffensive. In the debate on this issue, you mentioned something called "chill" what is it?

Edited for clarity.

[ 26 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 26 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

She and I did not really see eye to eye on many things but migawd! what a mind, what a groundbreaker!

---

Mostly where we differed was in and around her view of the far right wing. I didn't feel Dworkin understood just how fanatic these people can be and I felt she didn't really grasp the difference between "think" and "believe". Any of us can think any damn thing at any given time but not many of us believe so deeply we would cheerfully kill or die because of our beliefs.

I continue to feel we underestimate the extreme kkkristians. Every now and again I tune in to Swaggart (or one of his ilk). I feel totally split while watching them, part of me wants to howl with laughter, part of me feels chilled to the bone.

Recently, at an otherwise sane and pleasant party, a youngish man came over to talk Canadian politics with me. (mistake, son!). He said the reactions people had to Harper made him feel Canada wasn't ready for an "honest politician".

I thought for a minute I'd had a brain burp or something and asked him to repeat what he'd said. He said it again. I tried to remain restrained and refeened and all good stuff but still wound up telling him I'd slit my throat and wash the incision with Drano before I'd vote for the miserable little worm. Turns out this young man, who considers himself informed in all matters political, has never examined the connection between the Harper fanatics and the US dominated KKKristians. He even thinks religion is separate from politics.

I'm not sure Dworkin ever fully believed there is no limit to what those fundamentalist extremists will do. And feel good about doing.

But even at the time I felt that any differences we had were mere nit-picking quibbles. I wish we could get our hands on a time machine! I'd like to take younger people back to "the good old days" and let them spend a week in the mire in which our feminism was rooted. If Dworkin seems dated now it is because those of us who studied her work have taken society so far forward in such a little time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
She wasn't in favour of a blanket ban on pornography. She (with MacKinnon) believed it was possible to define---in civil law---a connection between pornography and harm caused to women that would enable women to sue pornographers and put them out of business.

---

I tried to say this in another thread, but without too much success. Many other posters kept insisting that I was promoting censorship, as in a government official or bureaucratic tribunal deciding on tapes, magazines, etc., something along the lines of the Liberal Canada Customs people.

I would insist, without getting much traction, that the McKinnon-Dworkin approach was a more American approach, one based on litigation. Agrieved victims of sexual violence would be able to sue pornography producers and distributors for damages. I think it's worth remembering that McKinnon and Dworkin had been invited to Minneapolis by people who lived in a lower income area that was being seriously blighted by peep shows, prostitution, porn shops and the like.

I recall being told by Skdadl that this would be just as dangerous and oppressive as any kind of government officialdom, since the "chill" of legal expenses would act like "libel chill" to close down adventuresome and innovative artists.

Frankly, I can't see the difference between criminal laws permitting the suppression of certain kinds of expression by broad category and civil laws permitting suits by the same categores. Where is the difference? I don't see the difference.

What I see right away is the potential to shut up serious artists and especially dissenters. I see that right away, and that is because I have watched entire runs of books being pulped.

No one can afford to defend against such a suit. No one. No publisher in North America.

quote:

---

MD, I admire Dworkin for her analysis of the deep structures of gender prejudice in North America, for her passionate commitment and her rhetorical accomplishment, but I do not admire her acquiescence in MacKinnon's banal and (to me) cynical legal project.

---

[ 26 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
MD, Mandos agreed with Skdadl.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
MD, I admire Dworkin for her analysis of the deep structures of gender prejudice in North America, for her passionate commitment and her rhetorical accomplishment, but I do not admire her acquiescence in MacKinnon's banal and (to me) cynical legal project. No, I don't.

Frankly, I can't see the difference between criminal laws permitting the suppression of certain kinds of expression by broad category and civil laws permitting suits by the same categores. Where is the difference? I don't see the difference.

What I see right away is the potential to shut up serious artists and especially dissenters. I see that right away, and that is because I have watched entire runs of books being pulped.

No one can afford to defend against such a suit. No one. No publisher in North America.

Anyone proposing such law is, to me, a blind agent of the ruling class.

---

Mandos had two postings on this subject:

The first was:

She wasn't in favour of a blanket ban on pornography. She (with MacKinnon) believed it was possible to define---in civil law---a connection between pornography and harm caused to women that would enable women to sue pornographers and put them out of business.

That is, she didn't want the state to take the initiative under criminal law to ban pornography, but instead to enable women to take legal action, akin to libel suits, against what she believed to be a series of dangerous libels against women.

The second was:

I spent more than a thread not too long ago arguing about this, because I do find this idea offensive. So did a few other babblers, like skdadl. I don't approve of civil law to limit speech much more than I do of criminal law.

I only read the first. As for the chill, I know what you're talking about, and indeed, where pornographers are concerned I am sure that was part of the idea! And yes, I can agree that in theory, if you have poorly trained police and prosecutors this kind of law could become a legal cost burden for genuine artists, or at least those who consider full colour visuals of genital insertion to be a critical artistic element. Along with the obligatory thongs and high heels, of course, but I digress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:

No denial is ever sincere? Is that it?

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

I only read the first. As for the chill, I know what you're talking about, and indeed, where pornographers are concerned I am sure that was part of the idea!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

MD, I think the point that Skdadl was trying to make was that this law is a journalistic Golem, it may chill out pornogaphers, but it would also end up chilling other forms of artistic sexual expression too. I'm not exactly sure how, (I'm not a laywer) but skdadl has probably been involved in the world of literature since before I was born, she is a publishing elder, a literary seuth sayer, and I respect her opinion.

---

Not just sexual expression.

BTW, the angry vilification of men and promotion of violent conflict between the sexes in Dorwkin's work has a very negetive impact on society. Perhaps what we need is a civil litigation mechanism by which Dorwkin and her ilk can be held responsible for the damage their views do to society. If women who have read her works evolve into man-hating feminists, we long-suffering admirers of strong, intelligent women get her house.

Or am I kidding? Do you see how easily this "expression harms society" rhetoric can be adapted to limit political speech?

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

if you have poorly trained police and prosecutors this kind of law could become a legal cost burden for genuine artists, or at least those who consider full colour visuals of genital insertion to be a critical artistic element. Along with the obligatory thongs and high heels, of course, but I digress.

---

You actually trust the legal system, the American legal system, a system that's done it's best to screw over gays and women for decades, to do the right thing where art and sex is concerned!?

Edited to change "our" to American since we are in fact talking about the American "Justice" system.
[ 26 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 26 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

I objected, and still do, to the idea of thinking individuals have the resources to confront systemic bias. They clearly do not, and Dworkin's faith in the idea that civil law would rectifiy what American-style jurisprudence, after 300 years of slavery and apartheid could not do, seemed naive.

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Rsfarrell: Her name was Dorwkin, not Dworkian. If you don't even know the spelling of her name, you probably shouldn't talk about her.

---

OK, let's start correcting each other's spelling and judging arguments on that basis.

quote:

---

I objected, and still do, to the idea of thinking individuals have the resources to confront systemic bias. They clearly do not, and Dworkin's faith in the idea that civil law would rectifiy what American-style jurisprudence, after 300 years of slavery and apartheid could not do, seemed naive.

---

I only mentionned your fairly long-winded commentary on Dworkin because you spelled her name wrong, consistently. It wasn't a typo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Ah, gimme a break, Farrell.

---

You first.

quote:

---

I only mentionned your fairly long-winded commentary on Dworkin because you spelled her name wrong, consistently. It wasn't a typo.

---

Long-winded? It was five lines long! Maybe for someone whose idea of an intelligent discussion is to dismiss other posters as ignorant and their opinions as worthless, that is a long-winded post. For people who actually like to talk about issues, it's pretty short.

quote:

---

It's obvious, by that alone, that you know nothing about Andrea Dworkin.

---

quote:

---

Rsfarrell: Her name was Dorwkin, not Dworkian.

---

quote:

---

You're gonna

..get your teats in a wringer with Michele if you don't watch your posts, man.

And, I'm going to laugh my arse off.

It's so entertaining to see you putting people down with your dismissive spelling flames, your claims that those you disagree with do not understand your "nuanced" arguments (when, in fact, they are anything but nuanced), when you call people names (a routine "counter-argument" technique you often employ) and a variety of other lame "rebuttals" that indicate you're simply either lazy or too stupid (I don't know which) to construct a logical rebuttal to thoughtful assertions you happen to disagree with.

I had a bit of an epiphany when I read the following post of yours:

“I never bothered thinking of making a success of myself in the private sector because I didn't think it would be worthwhile; I could only see myself in the position of franchise owner or some cog in a large, multi-national corporation. I might have considered becoming a small business owner (restaurateur or some craft enterprise) but I'm not much of a risk taker, and I have no inherited wealth to fall back on. So, I went into a profession that relied on public funding that I thought was stable and justifiable.”

I though, “Wow! Now I understand why this guy has no clue about how the free-market works, how product and service innovations are actually created, where risk capital comes from to support highly uncertain ventures.”

You really should start a business and see what it’s like to risk everything you have on a business idea with no certainty that it will succeed and a significant likelihood you’ll lose everything you have. It would do wonders for your understanding, to say nothing of your empathy, for the productive members of society.

---

Isn't that precious?

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Based on a spelling error, or on the content of his posts? Because all you did was rebut his spelling error, so it's easy to draw the conclusion that it was a spelling flame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well that wasn't very nice. Stick Sven on ignore, as far as the PM's go. Frankly Farrel and the Hinterland are two of my favourite babblers. I am not sure that a Cueball reference goes far here, but that is my view.

---

And you're one of my favourite babblers. And so is Farrell...*sob*...I love you GUYS!!!

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Fuck off, Red. As everyone here knows, I don't care to be scolded from people I've rarely heard from.

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

---

1. I believe that human beings are stimulated visually (we will not get into sex differences here--humans are, in general, sexually stimulated visually to some extent) and hence I do not believe that we can ever be fundamentally rid of objectification, including sexual objectification, nor am I even sure it's possible to minimize it to harmlessness, nor am I even certain that it is necessarily desirable to do so.

2. To some extent, and to respond to one of anne's previous posts, the very mechanics of sex demand that male psychology focus on you-know-what. It, uh, has a particular shape, and, worse, most of the sensation is concentrated on the end of it, and worse than that, there are certain conditions under which most men seem to agree it is best physically stimulated! Whereas for women the foci of physical sexual pleasure seem to be spread out and less specific---or so women regularly seem to claim. Discussion of penetration or enveloping metaphors aside, if your problem with male sexuality is that male sexual pleasure is excessively penis-focused, it's hard to imagine how it could have happened any other way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Wow: ignorant, hypocritical, self-rightous, and a foul mouth to boot. You're really the whole package, aren't you?

---

quote:

---

Profile for Red Winnipeg  

Member Status: recent-rabble-rouser

Babbler Number: 11148

Registered: 27 November 2005

Posts: 1

Location: Man.

Occupation: Student

Postal Code: The Tundra

Gender: Male

Year of Birth: 1980

How did you hear about rabble?: Googled it...

---

Nor would I go to the trouble of inventing an entirely new account just to goose someone whose idea of a brillant comeback is "fuck off." 'Cause that's kind of like using a Howitser to swat a fly, you know what I mean?

"Save the prissy protestations,"

Save the whiny love-letters to ignorant loudmouths.

Now, I didn't have to sputter profanity, but you still know what I think of you. You see how that works?

" I also wouldn't call Hinterland hypocritical OR self-rightous."

Then of course, he couldn't be.

Hinter's a moron. Deal with it.

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rsfarrell:

So is there an accusation there? If you're curious, I don't use any other aliases on babble.

No, I said "troll", not "sock puppet. There *IS* a difference.

Save the whiny love-letters to ignorant loudmouths.

What was "whiny" about what I wrote?

Now, I didn't have to sputter profanity, but you still know what I think of you. You see how that works?

I don't give a shit if you spout profanity all fucking day. 'Coz I'm not a prig, like some people.

Hinter's a moron. Deal with it.

Of course, because you say so, he is.

Hinterland's not a moron. Deal with it.

---

quote:

---

What was "whiny" about what I wrote?

---

Let's see:

quote:

---

surely this isn't the first time you've seen the word "fuck" on this board, so save the prissy protestations, please. I also wouldn't call Hinterland hypocritical OR self-rightous, and he is FAR from being ignorant.

---

Surely you can hear the violins in the moaning about prissiness and UNNECESSARY CAPS?

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

I don't give a shit if you spout profanity all fucking day. 'Coz I'm not a prig, like some people.

---

Uh-huh. Your free and easy way with words is an inspiration to us all.

I like it when people work a little on what they want to say, rather than throwing out the "fuck off."

That has the advantage that a whiny moron like you, with nothing to contribute to the discussion, gets to exercise his little grey cell when trolling the thread, rather than going for the quick four-letter word.

Being thought a prig by you as a result is going to keep me up nights, honest. I do admire you so.

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Just out of curiosity, who do you think you're quoting?

You, ya big dorkus malorkus...

Originally posted by rsfarrell, 27 November 2005 05:59 AM:

Save the whiny love-letters to ignorant loudmouths.

See, right there... "whiny".

Surely you can hear the violins in the moaning about prissiness and UNNECESSARY CAPS?

Oh my GAWD! UNNECESSARY CAPS! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO??? (again)

"Unnecessary caps" are what Peter C. Newman wears -- we all *know* he's bald.

Uh-huh. Your free and easy way with words is an inspiration to us all.

I like it when people work a little on what they want to say, rather than throwing out the "fuck off."

Oh just admit it -- you're a straightlaced, prudish prig who gets your shorts in a knot over a simple little "fuck" -- why else would you keep bleating on and on and bloody well ON over such a weak point. Now fuck off, you're bloody well boring me.

---

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

So....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Discussion of penetration or enveloping metaphors aside, if your problem with male sexuality is that male sexual pleasure is excessively penis-focused, it's hard to imagine how it could have happened any other way.

---

Hey Mandos, ever heard of pegging? From the feedback I've received, from the times that I have, um, been the "peg-er" it feels incredible, and sometimes there's not any penis-touching done at all. Hope that wasn't TMI!

Back to Dworkin:
Quoted from rsfarrel:

quote:

---

BTW, the angry vilification of men and promotion of violent conflict between the sexes in Dorwkin's work has a very negetive impact on society

---

Wow, really? One feminist theorist, who most progressives (and feminists, btw) have admitted to never having read has had this kind of impact on society?!? So shall we just ignore rampant misogyny, an adveritsing industry in the billions that cashes in on various levels of degrading images of women, etc, I could go on?

As far as I'm concerned, Dworkin's most incredible achievement is that by taking a rather extreme stance, similar to Valerie Solanos, she got people talking about (a certain kind of)feminism, how far is "too far", and gender oppression awareness in general. I don't think that's why she took her stance, nevertheless, that is what remains.

quote:

---

Hey Mandos, ever heard of pegging? From the feedback I've received, from the times that I have, um, been the "peg-er" it feels incredible, and sometimes there's not any penis-touching done at all. Hope that wasn't TMI!

---

As I always say, I learn something new every day!

quote:

---

Wow, really? One feminist theorist, who most progressives (and feminists, btw) have admitted to never having read has had this kind of impact on society?!? So shall we just ignore rampant misogyny, an adveritsing industry in the billions that cashes in on various levels of degrading images of women, etc, I could go on?

---

First of all, Sven, the private message function isn't there for you to send rude or abusive private messages to other members. You're on thin ice. One more stunt like that, and you're gone.

Secondly, Hinterland and rsfarrell and Hephaestion - seriously, I like all of you, but you need to knock it off. I think rsfarrell was being sincere in what he wrote, and sometimes people DO get mental blocks regarding certain spellings. I know I have at least a couple of constantly-wrong spelling quirks, and it's not because I've never seen the words in print before. So let's end both the spelling flames and the insults-in-return, okay?

Red Winnipeg, it's more productive to send an e-mail to a moderator rather than use your first post to chastise people on the board. You may be a great person and all, but usually in an online community, berating people with your first post is not the best way to get to know everyone.

quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned, Dworkin's most incredible achievement is that by taking a rather extreme stance, similar to Valerie Solanos, she got people talking about (a certain kind of)feminism, how far is "too far", and gender oppression awareness in general.

---

Extreme? How so? Outside of the anti porn law she created and her stance against objectification.( we all objectify each other at some point) her beliefs seem perfectly reasonable.

Edited to add: I would just like to add that I think her position on postitution was really awful.

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

While I'm not defending what Solanas eventually did, and I accept that she stared too long at her own visions, I do read the SCUM Manifesto as a work of art -- "taking it seriously" may be the mistake that you are making, Mandos, if by seriously you mean literally, social-scientifically, or politically.

It is a great work of rhetoric with political implications, but it is certainly no political guide.

quote:

---

While I'm not defending what Solanas eventually did, and I accept that she stared too long at her own visions, I do read the SCUM Manifesto as a work of art -- "taking it seriously" may be the mistake that you are making, Mandos, if by seriously you mean literally, social-scientifically, or politically.

---

I don't think we disagree. I didn't say that I take it seriously. I was saying is even if one takes it seriously...

quote:

---

1. I believe that human beings are stimulated visually (we will not get into sex differences here--humans are, in general, sexually stimulated visually to some extent) and hence I do not believe that we can ever be fundamentally rid of objectification, including sexual objectification, nor am I even sure it's possible to minimize it to harmlessness, nor am I even certain that it is necessarily desirable to do so.

---

I agree completely.

quote:

---

To some extent, and to respond to one of anne's previous posts, the very mechanics of sex demand that male psychology focus on you-know-what. It, uh, has a particular shape, and, worse, most of the sensation is concentrated on the end of it, and worse than that, there are certain conditions under which most men seem to agree it is best physically stimulated! Whereas for women the foci of physical sexual pleasure seem to be spread out and less specific---or so women regularly seem to claim. Discussion of penetration or enveloping metaphors aside, if your problem with male sexuality is that male sexual pleasure is excessively penis-focused, it's hard to imagine how it could have happened any other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Boys, boys, boys! This is really distressing to me, since all the players in this flame-out are people I have reason to respect and like, as Cueball says.

C'mon ... group hug. And then we can get back on topic?

---

quote:

---

Whereas for women the foci of physical sexual pleasure seem to be spread out and less specific---or so women regularly seem to claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Geez. Where to begin.

---

Michelle:

I think you're imposing a double standard. If not, I'd like to know what I'm missing.

In response to my private message to Hinterland (which he then publicly posted--I'm not sure how that squares with babble etiquette), you told me this:

"First of all, Sven, the private message function isn't there for you to send rude or abusive private messages to other members. You're on thin ice. One more stunt like that, and you're gone."

The reason I say you are imposing a double standard is because Hinterland, routinely and publicly, engages in far worse abuse of other babblers, such as (and these are but a few examples, out of many, many others, of Hinterland's posts that illustrate his habit of uncensored abuse):

"I believe this is the last time I'm going to address some fucking, cock-sucking, shit-for-brains arsehole like Lukewarm. Listen up, fuckwad. I don't fucking care that you think every time someone challenges you on your uninformed, lazy-arsed opinion, it's always a matter of some elitist snob looking down on you. That's your fucking problem. I will, however, not be accused of elitism when I'm simply pointing out that some shit-for-brains has once again said something so goddamn stupid that any self-respecting two year-old would be ashamed to say it. If you don't like that, Lukewarm, then you can suck my fucking cock."

OR:

"Oh, fuck off, you censorious bitch. I'll engage whatever discussion I want."

OR

"Fuck you. I was just asking you to substantiate something I had a hard time believing, despite it appearing uncomplicated and factual. If you can't do that, fine. But don't get pissy about it, asshole."

In fairness, Michelle, how is what I said in my private message to Hinterland more "rude" or "abusive" than that, and thus deserving censorship?? Besides that, Hinterland flings his snit with me into a thread that I had nothing to do with.

Sven

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
"I believe this is the last time I'm going to address some fucking, cock-sucking, shit-for-brains arsehole like Lukewarm.

---

This has been linked before, but maybe worth a link again:

quote:

---

I loved that she dared attack the very notion of intercourse. It was the pie aimed right in the crotch of Mr. Big Stuff. It was an impossible theory, but it wasn’t absurd. There is something about literally being fucked that colors your world, pretty or ugly, and it was about time someone said so.

---

quote:

---

Cripes, if only someone could let Andrea Dworkin loose on this thread.

---

I think these paragraphs especially are acute:

quote:

---

The people she admired most in life were her father, her brother, and partner John Stoltenberg. She was a scholar of great men, and the one she studied the most, the Marquis de Sade, was someone she could quote up one side and down the other. I'm the one who said she was his feminist reincarnation. She rewrote his Juliette when she wrote her novel Ice and Fire. So much for man-hating.

It was Andrea’s take-no-prisoners attitude toward patriarchy that I always liked the best. Bourgeois feminists were so BORING. They wanted to keep their maiden name and have it listed in the white pages; they wanted to get a nice corner office in the skyscraper. When I was a teenager in the 70s I couldn't relate to those concerns. It was Dworkin's heyday.

---

quote:

---

quote: Cripes, if only someone could let Andrea Dworkin loose on this thread.

Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

If you have to ask, you ain't never gonna know.

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the angry vilification of men and promotion of violent conflict between the sexes in Dorwkin's work has a very negetive impact on society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, really?[/quote]

No, not really. Read the whole post.

quote:

---

So shall we just ignore rampant misogyny, an adveritsing industry in the billions that cashes in on various levels of degrading images of women, etc, I could go on?

---

You can ignore it, you can pay attention to it, you can refuse to consume it, you can protest it. What you do not have and should not have is legal recourse to sue people because you do not like what you think they are saying about women. That's a bad idea with legs. It can be logically extended to many other kinds of expression.

Nor do I buy the idea that porn is the problem. Patriarchy exists in a lot of cultures -- most of them -- and those which allow porn are not the more backward in terms of their treatment of women. The refusal of Saudis to objectify the female form does not seem to have led to the rise of gender equality in the kingdom. If anything, the collolation runs the other way; more porn -- less oppression of women.

[ 27 November 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
My, what a big, long, unbroken dotted line you have, Grandma!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
My, what a big, long, unbroken dotted line you have, Grandma!

---

I seem to have acquired my very own troll:

(Stick in the ass actual size)

You might not have noticed Hep, but the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation. Which is the only reason your last tantrum got a pass.

All the spelling flames, formatting flames, and fake Britishisms are not going to change the fact that you got verbally spanked in this thread. We can go round after round, and apparently will, since I let you have the last word in the thread and you still can't move on.

quote:

---

(Stick in the ass actual size)

... the futile efforts to appear manly with fake accents and profanity! I can read between the lines. Sorry, Hep; I'm spoken for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
By the way, RSF, take your "cutesy" homophobic double-speak:

... and shove it up past your clenched sphincter muscle, hoseclamp.

---

I see we've arrived at that point in the flame war where the troll runs short of ideas and starts ladeling out accusations of anti-Semitism/homophobia/racism sexism. Snooze.

I could care less which gender you wish would sleep with you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlynn:
Uhm, I thought this was a pro-feminist discussion forum. What's with all the crapola?

B-\

---

Really. I don't think this thread has been consistently "pro-feminist" since this post:

quote:

---

BTW, the angry vilification of men and promotion of violent conflict between the sexes in Dorwkin's work has a very negetive impact on society. Perhaps what we need is a civil litigation mechanism by which Dorwkin and her ilk can be held responsible for the damage their views do to society. If women who have read her works evolve into man-hating feminists, we long-suffering admirers of strong, intelligent women get her house.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:

I totally don't understand how a private flamewar spilled over onto this thread.

---

quote:

---

Ah well, I think it's kinda good that Andrea even from beyond the grave is still able to turn people, especially male people, into frothing fools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:

Largely because "Rachel Marsden" Farrell tried to start a flamewar by PM but I put him on my ignore list... but "Rachel" is too obssessive-compulsive to drop it, so he continued it here.

And now ya know and now I'm done.

*dusts hands*

---

Actually you continued it.

Pop quiz, sunshine: Who jumped onto the thread without even pretending to say anything about Andrea Dworkin in any of his posts (that would be you)?

Who dropped it and went back to the subject, responding to someone else, only to have you jump back into the mix five minutes later (that would be me)?

You got one free flame and, I'm sorry, that's all you get.

You showed up to troll, it's all you ever did here, and good riddance to you.