Wow, I just went down a rabbit hole and read a bunch of her stuff.
I’m left to wonder why her ideas gained any traction at all? But I’ve had enough of Dworkin for one day, so maybe I’ll just stay morbidly curious and move on with my life. I feel like I need some chocolate and a fuzzy blanket now…safety…security…sanity.
if I’ve learned anything its that everything this obnoxious has its roots in CIA meddling bullshit.
If you guys keep exposing her questionable politics I won’t be able to fake being a feminist by claiming I read Intercourse anymore, please stop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat:_The_Jews,_Israel,_and_Women's_Liberation
In Scapegoat, Dworkin compared the oppression of women to the persecution of Jews, discussed the sexual politics of Jewish identity and antisemitism, and called for the establishment of a women’s homeland as a response to the oppression of women, just as the Zionist movement had established a state for Jews.
Writing in Spectre, Sophie Lewis argued that Scapegoat represents the “despairing culmination” of Dworkin’s thought, contending that the book advocates the creation of an “Israel” for women and links women’s liberation to nationalist violence. Lewis criticized the work as relying on sweeping historical analogies and described its argument as “dazzlingly erudite and stunningly stupid,” ultimately characterizing its political vision as “fascistic.”
What if there was a country but it was just for the ladies?
like that greek island?
What if it was Hisrael and it was just for the fellas?
Hizrl and Herzl
I haven’t read that book of her yet.
But in her book “woman hating” she has a chapter on chinese footbinding and writes that mutilating the opposite sex is a form enslavement. Her being jewish - there’s an obvious irony.
Though I would not personally use the word slavery, I think there’s something to be said about viewing women’s bodies as property to the point where they are mutilated in a way that makes it more difficult to do even the most basic of tasks. Women were bought and sold chiefly by and for the benefit of men and things were done to them, often against their will, to make their market rate higher. Again, not sure I’d use the word slavery, but mostly because in the US it is so closely associated with chattel slavery that it is hard to warrant a comparison, even though it is pretty close to other forms of slavery.
Her being jewish - there’s an obvious irony.
I don’t understand the obvious irony. What is it?
Circumcision I’m guessing?
trueanon rule: be normal
This is a topic I am fully chud-brained on. Some things should be illegal because I just find them that gross and off-putting. You can give me some convoluted argument explaining how consent between adults in incestuous situations is invalid, but we all know that incest between consenting adults is illegal purely on the grounds of being repugnant to the majority of people, and that that’s the way it ought to stay.
“consenting adults” is doing some lifting there because of grooming and power dynamics.
very very rarely unwitting siblings who were adopted into separate households grow up without knowing each other, meet without knowing they’re related and start a relationship and sometimes courts decide that isn’t illegal as long as they don’t reproduce. biologists can chime in on whether one generation is enough to Hapsburg.
i think it’s motivated by disgust but it’s also a pretty good heuristic for abuse, unlike sodomy laws.
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. In the incredibly unlikely scenarios where two siblings of the same age who are now grown adults and independently decide, free of any insidious influence past or present, that they are in love and want to be together without ever having children, I still want them to be lowered into a hole and for that hole to be covered forever (humanely).
what if they’re half siblings from one of those sperm bank fraud weirdos? that’s probably happened a few times without anyone knowing.
I can’t get on board with this because this exact reasoning also works for sodomy laws.
Removed by mod
leftist rationales around laws forbidding bestiality […] are so strained
The left rationale around outlawing bestiality isn’t strained at all. Animals can’t give informed consent. If that’s not self-evidently enough for you, then I don’t know what to say.
The vegan leftist rationale outlawing bestiality isnt strained. The non-vegan leftist rationale that the animal’s consent matters when it comes to sex with a human but not when it is forcibly impregnated or killed by a human is strained.
The Banned Comment
I know, that’s why it’s chud-brained. And I think that’s why liberal or leftist rationales around laws forbidding bestiality and incest are so strained, no one wants to lend credence to a “it should be illegal based on my personal feelings about it” mindset. But ultimately nothing is objective, all law have a root in morality and all morality ultimately has a subjective basis. And this is one area I’m just gonna have to skip the line and say it’s bad because I feel that it’s bad very strongly.
The abolishment of the nuclear family is something I’ve never been sold on. Like, here in the US, we don’t even have multi generational households generally, and I’ve spent some time in places where people live in close proximity to a lot of their relatives. I haven’t been anywhere that let’s say “primary” relationships (as in nuclear) aren’t significant.
My family is nuclear in that proximity to them is radioactive to me and therefore I see greater value in the “weaker” (i.e. non blood) but more various forms of connection I’ve formed since, with people who don’t talk about murdering people like me. But that’s just my exp
Friends are family you get to choose
I fully get that. I’m fortunate in that I have good relations with my “blood” family, but I do have extremely close relationships that I consider “family” or closer. I’m just saying I’m not sold on the idea on a general, social level.
Yeah I mean definitely jealous of people who have that in a stable form haha. But decentering that family model and normalizing leaving it when it is not functional and uplifting alternate models is good for others, while those in stable families can continue to be
If you like your family, you can keep themNot that I think you disagree I’m just musing
Yeah we’re on the same page :)
If I’m not mistaken there have been some family abolitionists who tried to raise kids without parents. Turns out that’s exactly how you breed kids with attachment disorders. Young kids use their relationship with their primary caretakers as a template for the rest of the major relationships in their life.
The nuclear family is a historical aberration and it’s not unusual for infants to have multiple primary caregivers that they can rely on to get their needs reliably met.
Attachment theory as popularly understood is basically astrology for how you and your mommy got along before you were 18 months old. Attachment is at minimum a dyadic process; an attachment “style” is something that emerges from the social interaction of two or more people.
I could go on at length here.
i would read an effort post
