|
Post by sargassosea on Jul 3, 2010 13:03:50 GMT -5
One:
A good deal of the undereducated and/or superficial opposition to Andrea Dworkin’s work is attributable to her use of the word “fuck” to describe sexual intercourse.
However, this word is the only verb there is in the English language to articulate the act of sexual intercourse.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jul 3, 2010 19:03:46 GMT -5
What about copulate? What is wrong with "sexual intercourse"? (Do we have to have a single word verb for it? Is that the point?) Or if you understand a certain etymology of the development of the word, another interpretation might be "fornicate." Copulate doesn't exactly roll off the tongue of all people with eloquence, but I don't think that this offered alternative necessarily does either. Why not call it "sexing" or some other such created term? Why not use a new non-derogatory transliteration from some other language, as that is where I understand that term originated? A huge number of our words in Germanic English derive from transliteration. "To show disrespect" also presents a word that has no active verb form in a single word, too, so intercourse is not the only example of this occurrence. Society has informally adapted the language to accommodate the need, following "The Godfather" films. The "f" word was a word of vulgarity long before this other individual used it, an individual with whom I am completely unfamiliar. Please note that it differs from profanity but would be a vulgar or "common" term. Even in Great Britain where more people use the word much more freely in common, informal speech, they still consider it a vulgar term. Is Dworkin's issue a protest against polite and considerate speech? If Dworkin purposed to write a scholarly work, why use a pejorative, or why not establish her own less offensive term as the primary term of use so that her work would be recognized and received? It is a human trait to have different vocabularies which are used appropriately in different venues. There is also a difference between formal writing and informal writing, depending on the purpose. Is that an underlying issue in her argument? That societies should not have separate formal and informal venues? If that is part of the purpose for the topic, it was not clearly stated. I understand that there is great disparagement over the etymology of the word itself. I understand that it came from a low German dialect (which was commonly spoken in the area where I was raised, in fact and am familiar with its use in contexts unrelated to sex also ), a dialect very close to Yiddish describing things that were imperfect or "messed up." I have talked to individuals (asking why they also use the term with me) who claim it is a legal term for unlawful common knowledge, an etiology which others describe as an urban myth. But why not select another transliteration that is not associated with a pejorative or vulgar term. In many ways, I can relate to the problematic nature associated with connotation, as I frequently use two terms ("cult" and "covert incest") in my own efforts related to QF/patriarchy, though I can also stand on the fact that these terms have been established by others as legitimate and well-qualified terms in academic settings. I am sometimes torn between the pejorative nature of the connotation and the proper use of the terms, as sometimes it is appropriate to be offensive, as these terms describe highly offensive, horrible things. In some sense, though it is right to be deeply offended by them, I sometimes question the use of the terms because it does alienate certain others. And just because these wiser others used these terms in professional literature long before I came along, that doesn't necessarily exonerate me in my own use of them, depending on the venue in which they're used. I also expect to "pay" for my use of the terms, too. But I find Dworkin's effort to establish her term to be quite diffferent. I am not a prude and live in a glass house at times, so I am certainly not trying to approach this because I am offended to see this word in print. It is used commonly enough. But why pick such a poignantly vulgar term? This is not a topic that is of tremendous interest to me, but I am very interested in facilitating a respectful environment on this forum, so I decided to respond here. I am troubled by the way the topic has been presented, as an authoritative statement which makes some informal logical errors in its presentation. If it had been presented as "What do participants here have to say in response to Dworkin's comments that people who are not comfortable with her choice of "f" are undereducated and superficial?" then I would not be concerned. The topic was presented without a show of respect to those who find Dworkin's argument and choice of terms weak or unwise, and from my reading of the new post on this topic, anyone who takes any issue with Dworkin's position automatically becomes ignorant and unsophisticated. I don't know if this was missed, but it is a leading question and demonstrates what Cialdini qualifies as the "Weapon of Influence" of Committment and Consistency. The comment is very manipulative and seems to elicit a particular response of protest by design. According to Cialdini, we have human tendencies that can be exploited, one of which is "consistency" or the desire to have others think of us in the way that we think of ourselves. A salesman may say, "Only the wisest and most discriminating buy my product, and they won't settle for less." People generally like to think of themselves as wise, so they will be baited into buying the product -- like a knee-jerk response-- because we will feel strangely compelled to prove to the salesman (and ourselves) that we are wise. This board comment does exactly the same thing, as it baits people to agree with Dworkin because they don't want to think of themselves as ignorant and biggoted. Disagreeing with Dworkin does not make this true, but Dworkin has framed the argument out so that she says that it is true. She's employing informal logical fallacy in a manipulative way to do so. Well, daring to be the dissident against manipulation that I am, I will risk being called undereducated and superficial by anyone, choosing to offer my criticism of the points I find wrong with this argument. These are the same unfair and manipulative tactics that QF/patriarchy/complementarianism uses to advance their agenda and dupe the unsuspecting. I don't know if this "Weapon of Influence" was missed in the posting of the topic and how it was presented, but I am disappointed to see this here today.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 3, 2010 20:03:40 GMT -5
I agree Cindy. I also don't understand why the thread is here since this is not a general women's studies website but dedicated to a particular subject and worldview. When other subjects come up in relation to it naturally that is one thing, but it doesn't seem that this is an appropriate forum to branch out into unrelated controversies within academia. As for the word cult, I find it useful in certain contexts when trying to describe something to a specific group of people but otherwise it's use is prone to alienating others and causing confusion as well. I often say that I was in a cult. It was a hippie sixties/seventies things and we were separate from every single other church/belief system out there and believed we alone had all truth and that absolutely no one who was not under our roof was saved and if you left at all you were damned. Period. At least for the first ten years or so we were that strict about it. We lightened up toward the end there. We were a cult, in the way I think of the term. We were a cult like Peoples Temple was a cult, like Children of God were a cult. The way people understood the term in the seventies. So I use that term to describe where I was. Most people in abusive churches or who follow legalistic doctrines and fundamentalism are not in cults. There is a difference. I do object to the use of the word 'cult' to simply describe abusive institutional situations and tendencies because I think the term reflects more upon the presumptions of the author than upon the actual facts of the subject far too often. It is too freely used to describe beliefs and churches that the author does not approve of, or for which a level of sacrifice is found by the author to be undesirable. There is a fine line there that can be drawn but when you factor in who is doing the drawing you find yourself in all kinds of problems. JPUSA was big in Chicago in the seventies. They published a newspaper/magazine called Cornerstone. I was given a copy once and decided to subscribe to it so it arrived every month and I loved it. I really liked what they were doing in Chicago at the time. It appealed to my youthful enthusiasm and communal lifestyle within a hippie church environment. (Did I mention this was the seventies?) Reading religious material of any kind other than the bible was forbidden in my group (in retrospect a good thing because we avoided the fads of the evangelical church which were common at that time through sheer ignorance of them). For this reason I hid Cornerstone and felt very guilty for reading it, but not guilty enough to stop. I still have all those old magazines in a storage box. They represent a fond yet weird memory of my youth. Anyway, they had a series of articles in Cornerstone about 'cults', and addressed one a month. Some of the cults they explained and exposed were Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholicism, etc. Their criteria for 'cult' was quite different than the deprogrammers of the day was -- did the church involved have sound biblical doctrine and eschew extrabiblical beliefs, etc? If it didn't, it was a cult. Which all was fascinating to me at the time. And also quite ironic because in point of fact JPUSA was an actual cult by the standards of the rest of society. Eye meet beholder. Or put another way: If your entire family is devoted Catholics and you decide to dedicate your entire life in sacrifice to God, take a vow of poverty and celibacy and take Holy Orders to become a nun, are you therefore in a cult? Should we then talk about how weak minded and brainwashed you are, how you need to be rescued in some way? This is my problem with demonizing in a one size fits all fashion. Take a checklist and go down the bullet points and presto! you too can be found to be in a cult. I really don't think so. Are there abusive systems out there? Yes. Should people be warned about them, so they don't wind up hurt unnecessarily? Yes. Should we be looking out for ourselves so we don't make the same mistakes, or stop making those mistakes? Yes. But not all fundamentalists are in cults. Not all people who decide to make sacrifices for their religious beliefs are in cults. Not all belief systems we don't like are cults. I find the term 'cult' to be very limiting and perjorative and ultimately not helpful in understanding a particular group or how to talk about them or to them.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jul 3, 2010 20:34:12 GMT -5
Nitka,
I think that we have a few fundamental misunderstandings about the use of the term cult and that which pertains to spiritual abuse.
I'm also sorry to see this hijack yet another another thread.
Considering that I am still very much an Evangelical Christian and essentially a fundamentalist because I do embrace fundamental doctrines, I have never labeled all groups including my own as a cult. I also embrace the concepts of patriarchy as expressed in Scripture including male headship (as opposed to lordship) and general male governance (that is not a system of despotism for women who are free to teach, speak and use their gifts).
If a group, any group that follows an ideology, employs a pattern consistent with a model of thought reform, it can certainly be called cultic. Determining whether a particular group is problematic involves an objective process of evaluating the behavior in the group against an objective standard as determined by a particular model.
I offered this example here of problematic use of terminology to demonstrate that I understand well the problems that terminology can use, not to introduce another topic. Language can be problematic.
So I am again confused and believe I have been unfairly characterized on this forum as someone who does see in terms of black and white to insult and offend as opposed to someone who is offering tools to people to help them transcend the abuses they have endured.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jul 3, 2010 20:52:49 GMT -5
I have to question why we need to rehabilitate Andrea Dworkin on this particular site, at this particular time.
She is a radical feminist who's interpretation of her experience is VERY harsh and very separatist. When you are working with women who have chosen to give up their dreams and their voices, if only temporarily, AD had little resonance with them.
I'd rather talk about women who have clear and mainstream voices, Michelle Obama, and yes, Hillary Clinton. Women like Elana Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Also the women we see every day, teachers, nurses, physicians, lawyers, and judges. People we would show as examples to our daughters.
I don't think Andrea Dworkin needs to be rehabilitated, she's fine as she is. Women who would finder her inspiring will find her in their own time.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 3, 2010 22:02:31 GMT -5
Autumn - absolutely agree on the AD things. Cindy - First, I am happy to hijack the thread for a discussion of the use of terminology as it relates to religious groups and issues as more appropriate to the forum it is on. I am sorry if I am giving you the impression that I misunderstand you. I really do not. I simply disagree with the way the term 'cult' is defined in general currently. You do not share my opinion, obviously. That's fine. But I wanted my opinion on the subject out there too, since I use the term and I don't want my usage to be misunderstood in the broader sense that your usage implies. I know you are evangelical Christian and a fundamentalist as well, that is no issue for me whatsoever. Even as a converted Catholic I have a serious soft spot for evangelical Christianity as I knew it years ago. The loud mean-spirited type seen all over the place lately I barely recognize. I can appreciate that one can be one and not the other. I have no problem with either you or your beliefs. At all. But I am sensitive to how the secular world defines the word 'cult' and 'thought reform' and things of that nature. There is a lot of abuse of the terms and the reasons those terms are brought into play. I do take a different stance on some of those things than you do and I don't apologize for that. But please don't think that I am attacking you personally or marginalizing your religious perspective or whatever else is at work here. I respect you very much. I think my sore spot (the use of 'cult' and 'thought reform' and lists of 'signs of abusive churches' which abounds today) bumps up against something (those same things) which you are very vested in from what you've said. We're bound to disagree on it. I just wanted to make sure my side of it was at least out there. When we speak of 'cultic' religion I think it's much plainer. Things can be cult-like without falling into being a cult proper. Again, though, drawing of lines is problematic. I also think that when you broaden out into the world at large it becomes even more so. Is the Dalai Lama the head of a big cult? Are the Shaolin monks in a cult? Is Islamic fundamentalism a cult? I am not talking about the religious beliefs, I am talking about the religious practices, the kinds of severe sacrifices and practices that are demanded of people who devote themselves to such religions, etc. A lot depends on who is doing the judging and defining, is what I'm saying. The fact that the term is popular and academics embrace it is not a factor for me. Anyway, that's my perspective and why I brought it up. Am I being clear? It seems a little mushed up, but I'm pretty tired today and I don't think it's going to get any clearer right now.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 4, 2010 3:26:05 GMT -5
I was thinking about the original post on the thread and I realized that my comments were coming off kind of mean. Sea, it was never my intention to be mean. I did not mean to be mean. I do apologize if it came off that way. I did not want to pursue a purely feminist debate on the merits of different feminist leaders and schools of thought on a forum where that is not the primary focus. However, the post was about more than AD. It was also about language and how its usage - whether intentionally provocative or unintentionally inflammatory - can be a common ground or wielded as an explosive into an otherwise calm complacent crowd. The word AD uses (per Sea, I have no first hand knowledge of this person) commands attention, seeks to shock the listener, stirs things up, paints an act most prefer to view in softer terms as something aggressive and degrading. Those are the kinds of things that term conjures in many people. I think AD knows this perfectly well and uses the term precisely for those kinds of reasons. They are her own reasons. But since this is NLQ and not a womens' study group or class on famous feminists of the twenty-first century (?) her reasons and her language are for another place and another discussion. But it raises some interesting questions, not the least of which is the back and forth over the word 'cult' that Cindy and I have had today. Loaded language. Pejoratives. Misunderstandings based upon language and context and history. This is a very interesting subject. Especially given that so much of our exposure to Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Fundamentalism, Reformed Theology, Evangelicalism, Theism, Atheism, etc etc is based upon how words are used and interpreted and acted upon. Scriptures. Books. Lectures. University classes. People are everywhere talking to us and telling us what we should think about whatever they are saying. Sometimes they lead us to good things and sometimes they lead us into a trap. It's how we 'got into this mess', it's how we got out of it. Just the right word can be what brings us to a place where we say to one another 'Yes! That's it exactly! I understand that, I felt that, I thought that way too!' But some words can drive a wedge between us and make it difficult for us to hear each other when we speak. Sometimes the latter situation has happened here in this forum, and kerfuffles have arisen over terminology, over the intention of language used. I hope we can all keep in mind the primary rule here on the forum: Respect one another, and make 'an assumption of goodwill' on the part of other posters. Where there is misunderstanding, seek to clarify. Where there is honest disagreement, agree to disagree without rancor. This forum is such a gift. So many people of such diverse backgrounds and beliefs, able to talk to each other with respect and goodwill and usually good humor. There aren't many places like this in the world. I am so grateful to Vyckie for making it all possible. Happy Fourth of July, people! Whether you celebrate it or not, I hope you all have a very good day.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jul 4, 2010 5:48:26 GMT -5
Autumn -
You know, I just thought I'd give it a try.
My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jul 4, 2010 6:41:57 GMT -5
However, the post was about more than AD. It was also about language and how its usage - whether intentionally provocative or unintentionally inflammatory - can be a common ground or wielded as an explosive into an otherwise calm complacent crowd. The word AD uses (per Sea, I have no first hand knowledge of this person) commands attention, seeks to shock the listener, stirs things up, paints an act most prefer to view in softer terms as something aggressive and degrading. Those are the kinds of things that term conjures in many people. I think AD knows this perfectly well and uses the term precisely for those kinds of reasons. They are her own reasons. But since this is NLQ and not a womens' study group or class on famous feminists of the twenty-first century (?) her reasons and her language are for another place and another discussion. But it raises some interesting questions, not the least of which is the back and forth over the word 'cult' that Cindy and I have had today. Loaded language. Pejoratives. Misunderstandings based upon language and context and history. This is a very interesting subject. Especially given that so much of our exposure to Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Fundamentalism, Reformed Theology, Evangelicalism, Theism, Atheism, etc etc is based upon how words are used and interpreted and acted upon. Scriptures. Books. Lectures. University classes. People are everywhere talking to us and telling us what we should think about whatever they are saying. Sometimes they lead us to good things and sometimes they lead us into a trap. It's how we 'got into this mess', it's how we got out of it. Just the right word can be what brings us to a place where we say to one another 'Yes! That's it exactly! I understand that, I felt that, I thought that way too!' But some words can drive a wedge between us and make it difficult for us to hear each other when we speak. Sometimes the latter situation has happened here in this forum, and kerfuffles have arisen over terminology, over the intention of language used. I hope we can all keep in mind the primary rule here on the forum: Respect one another, and make 'an assumption of goodwill' on the part of other posters. Where there is misunderstanding, seek to clarify. Where there is honest disagreement, agree to disagree without rancor. This forum is such a gift. So many people of such diverse backgrounds and beliefs, able to talk to each other with respect and goodwill and usually good humor. There aren't many places like this in the world. I am so grateful to Vyckie for making it all possible. Often I refer to "hearing the dog whistles" and "seeing the fnords" when I see behind the loaded language various groups use. The first time I used these terms together was in regards to a Pentecostal church I left because I believed they had started to reveal themselves as "too radical", because I felt I was hearing dominionist dogwhistling from the pulpit.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jul 4, 2010 14:00:46 GMT -5
Cindy - “I am troubled by the way the topic has been presented, as an authoritative statement which makes some informal logical errors in its presentation. If it had been presented as ‘What do participants here have to say in response to Dworkin's comments that people who are not comfortable with her choice of "f" are undereducated and superficial?’ then I would not be concerned.” Well, maybe you wouldn’t be, but I would - Dworkin doesn’t comment here! She’s dead! I said all that to attempt to start a conversation about Andrea Dworkin (the very dead feminist theorist and activist) and the way in which she utilized f*ck in context (and grammatically correctly, by the way) in her many writings and speeches! Wow. That’s precisely what I meant about “undereducated” and “superficial”.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jul 4, 2010 14:15:47 GMT -5
I think when people hear the name Andrea Dworkin they tend to think of the straw Andrea Dworkin, not the real Andrea Dworkin.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jul 4, 2010 14:28:57 GMT -5
I think you are absolutely right.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Jul 4, 2010 14:36:18 GMT -5
All I have to say here is this:
Sea, the ONE person who was willing to engage with you in a discussion (which was presented in what I read to be a hostile tone) about Dworkin was Cindy.
Cindy presented a well-thought out position, she ADMITTED she didn't know who Dworkin was, and she asked a few questions and comments about how the original post was presented.
All of which you ignored completely to attack her personally for something which she FREELY ADMITTED in her post.
Now, I know it may be hard to believe, but there are people who are educated who do not know much about feminists or feminism as a movement. I also know little about this topic, nor do I care much about the topic, which is why I didn't post a response. I simply don't give a shit what the woman wrote. It isn't important to me right now.
What I do care about is someone on this board offering what they call an invitation for a discussion, and then indulging in ad hominem attacks with no actual meaningful answers to their questions.
I use 'cursewords' in my own interactions with friends, but I can see Cindy's point that many people would be taken aback by someone using "F" as a straighforward verb in a scholarly publication.
Why didn't you address Cindy's actual questions if you honestly want to rehabilitate the damn woman so badly?
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jul 4, 2010 15:53:23 GMT -5
Ex-Adriel - If you’re referring to this free admission: “However, the post was about more than AD. It was also about language and how its usage - whether intentionally provocative or unintentionally inflammatory - can be a common ground or wielded as an explosive into an otherwise calm complacent crowd. The word AD uses (per Sea, I have no first hand knowledge of this person) commands attention, seeks to shock the listener, stirs things up, paints an act most prefer to view in softer terms as something aggressive and degrading. Those are the kinds of things that term conjures in many people. I think AD knows this perfectly well and uses the term precisely for those kinds of reasons. They are her own reasons. But since this is NLQ and not a womens' study group or class on famous feminists of the twenty-first century (?) her reasons and her language are for another place and another discussion.” That was Nikita, not Cindy. And as for the “damned woman” thing? Wow, again.
|
|
|
Post by sigaliris on Jul 4, 2010 17:37:15 GMT -5
I don't post often here, because others often seem to have more to say on a given topic than I do. But, in celebration of Independence Day, I thought I'd briefly chime in with some appreciation for Sea and what she's trying to do. I'm one of those who thought Andrea Dworkin was just "too extreme" and not someone who would have something to say to me. That was based on hearsay, on what others had to say about her.
When I actually read her work carefully, I found it profoundly moving. It spoke to my situation and comforted me because I knew that she really understood what some women go through. I felt tremendous admiration for her because she continued to speak her truth in spite of all the vilification, abuse and threats that she got in return. I would have been daunted. I would have shut up. But she didn't. For that, she is a real hero to me.
This is why it makes me sad that people would expend long paragraphs to condemn her and declare her irrelevant <i>without even knowing what she really said</i>! Can we not do her the courtesy of listening to her words before judging them? This seems to me like such a common way to shut women up. "Well, I heard she used bad language, so therefore we should not listen to what she says!" "You women are so bitter and angry--therefore there cannot be any truth in your words!" "My husband told me this woman's stance was not Biblical, so therefore I'll never read her blog!"
It's bad when men do this to us, but I think it's a tragedy when women do this to each other. There are all kinds of ways of responding to our experiences as women. This blog is a wonderful place of connection for women who have had different experiences and have chosen different paths as a result. Andrea Dworkin is one more women who spoke out strongly of her experience. True, her writing may not be useful to everyone. We all have the right to make that decision for ourselves. But I don't get why <i>discussion</i> of Dworkin, or any woman writer, should be declared off the table.
Autumn said, "When you are working with women who have chosen to give up their dreams and their voices, if only temporarily, AD had little resonance with them." Autumn, you speak for yourself and undoubtedly for some other women, too. But both Sea and I have found that Andrea Dworkin had a <i>lot</i> of resonance for us--and aren't we women too? So I don't think you can make quite such a broad generalization. Maybe women deserve to know who Dworkin really was, and what she really said, so they could make their own decision, rather than having it made for them by others who somehow KNOW without reading her that she is no good for us.
I don't see why this has to be a fight among women. And I'm not seeing the "ad hominem attack" that Sea is accused of making. Can you point it out to me? I suspect this is just a misunderstanding, and maybe not something she intended at all.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jul 5, 2010 12:10:05 GMT -5
Oh my!
I see now where Cindy says she doesn’t know who Andrea Dworkin was. I guess I just thought that she did because she had so much to say on the subject. Obviously my mad reading comprehension skillz were a little lacking yesterday…
But now that I understand that some of you aren’t familiar with her (AD’s) work I’ll begin to approach this subject slightly differently, and am actually working on the next bit now wherein I do address a couple of Cindy’s questions (which are absolutely relevant questions!) and I’m hoping that we can now have that productive discussion about *thefword* that I was hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 5, 2010 14:39:58 GMT -5
Sea, to what purpose? There is a broad range of discussion on NLQ but there is a point where things are simply off topic to the forum and are better brought up and discussed elsewhere. I am concerned that you've started this thread in a very provocative manner and reacted with strong negativity to the few people who have attempted to respond to the thread, although I realize that you were not getting the response you had hoped for.
NLQ forums is not a general women's studies forum and the pros and cons of particular feminists or their schools of thought is beyond the scope and intention of the forum. Particular feminist writers and schools of thought may inform the attitude and worldview of particular posters and may even arise in specific threads as part of the natural flow of the conversation but they are not in and of themselves on topic to the forum. There is a point at which some discussions and arguments are so far off topic that they need to be taken to another place, either by private message or other forums dedicated to those purposes.
And at no point is it acceptable to speak to other posters in the manner in which you have been responding. Accusing people who don't care who Dworkin is, or who disagree with her, or simply don't like the way she has presented herself, of being 'undereducated' and 'superficial' is not acceptable behavior on the forum.
We have very few rules here: Assume the goodwill of other posters, treat them with respect as you wish to be treated, and stay reasonably on topic to the forum.
As moderator I am asking you to please honor the rules of the forum upon which you are posting.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jul 5, 2010 16:59:07 GMT -5
Nikita - No other purpose than the one I stated, because I think it is important for women to explore ideas that other women have put forward - inside and outside of this forum. Words as tools for building or tearing down and all that... (maybe I was even going to fall on my own sword?) But even though this is a forum for women, I understand that my voice is not right here (because I lack a certain amount and kind of abuse) and I can accept that. Thanks to you as well
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Jul 5, 2010 20:07:03 GMT -5
Thank you for posting this - it makes me feel a lot better that your first response was based on a mistaken assumption.
I apologise myself for being terse - I have a friend who was very agressive and abusive in his 'academic discussions' with people - to the point that no one would talk about anything with him because you'd come away nursing psychic wounds!
I over-reacted to your post because I'm really touchy about agressive discussions when they're academically related. I do apologise for that, the profanity was not warranted, and I'm sorry I lost my temper.
On a side note, while I don't know enough about feminism to post anything on the actual thread topic, I am interested, (and have been, or I would not have been following the thread) and I will keep reading with interest if anything further about Dworkin or other feminists does get posted.
I think that regardless of where we are personally, it doesn't hurt to have information on feminism and feminists out there. Just because it doesn't specifically help me out right now, that's no reason to think that it wouldn't help some other poster or guest who needs to see that info out there to help them through a philosophical or emotional need.
Again - I'm sorry for being so harsh earlier, and I'm glad to know that it was a misunderstanding which caused the post I responded to.
For what it's worth, I think that discussions on feminism, and by extension, notable feminists, are related to NLQ's goal of assisting women who are leaving religious patriarchy, and as long as the discussions can be had rationally, there's no need to bar them from the board totally.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 5, 2010 20:51:22 GMT -5
There is a point where subjects are just too far afield to be on topic to the forum as a whole, because this isn't a general forum. There's a purpose to this place, and many different people from many different philosophies, religions, and backgrounds meet here but the unifying factor is patriarchy/quiverfull/abusive religious groups and their effects on us. That is the direction of the discussions here. Where those discussions bump up against other subjects that is all well and good.
As an example: We've been discussing dominonism and reconstructionism. There are people on the far right politically who are working towards those ends and others on the far right who don't realize it but are playing into that religious goal for others. Should someone here start a thread dedicated entirely to politics? Why this politician is better than that politician? No. That's isn't the point of the discussion. If someone wants to understand more about political parties and who to campaign for there are other resources for that kind of thing. That is not the purpose of this forum, to promote political parties or candidates. Stuff may come up in passing during discussion, but it is not the main thread of the discussion nor should it be.
That is why I am saying, if someone wishes to know more about great feminists and their writings/philosophies/life's work there are other places to go for this information and quite probably to have in depth discussions with like-minded people. That is not the scope of this particular forum and we have to think about the reason we are all coming here as well as our divergent backgrounds when making these kinds of decisions.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jul 6, 2010 11:15:20 GMT -5
Nikita -
I'm going to be more clear than I guess I was last night:
I get what you're saying so I'm shutting up for good and you won't need to say anything else.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jul 9, 2010 8:07:08 GMT -5
Back after dropping bombs and then taking off! I'll probably do the same thing today! When I read that comment that Sea posted, I didn't know if it was an oversight on her part, but it basically framed out the argument that if you didn't agree with Dworkin about the "f" business, you were a bit dim witted. It wasn't stated as a "What do you think about..." or a "Why is there no word for ..." topic; but as stated, if you didn't agree with Sea's take, something limited to just the use of the pejorative, you were the same as Dworkin's less than intellectual critics. I didn't say that she had no case in point or that the discussion didn't have merit. In fact, I think I actually stated that. And I did state that I hoped it was just something missed in translation, too. We're all trying to build a good rapport with one another here, showing ourselves different from the aggressiveness and wholesale discounting that comes from some of the patriarch camps who can only counter arguments by yelling "Lesbians!" at the top of their cyber lungs. I hate to see that kind of thing go on here where we're presumably helping one another get away from that pattern. (And I'm in here learning right along with everyone else.) Hope that's a bit clearer than mud.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jul 11, 2010 7:26:16 GMT -5
I'm rather surprised to hear that in a forum designed to empower women in patriarchal and abusive spiritual groups, discussion of feminism or feminist writers is now considered off topic. Here feminists have spent years defining patriarchy and trying to hold up a light to show the way to empower ourselves and reject its influence. Surely talking about what they have found out during their years of concentrated study of the topic applies very well to the project here. That is not to say that every woman fleeing QF or other such lifestyles MUST become feminists, but the writing of feminists contain some very useful information and insight that they can make use of if so inclined. Otherwise we are all left reinventing the anti-patriarchal wheel. Such a lot of work to do over again when some of it has already been done and written about. I, too, started a forum with a particular purpose in mind but when people start talking they will of course meander on to other topics that interest them and I think it creates a dynamic forum where everyone who comes can find something that interests them. Why not let people explore feminism if they find it useful? Anyone who would like to know more about Andrea Dworkin can find an overview here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkinand more here: www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/Some quotes: * Feminists are often asked whether pornography causes rape. The fact is that rape and prostitution caused and continue to cause pornography. Politically, culturally, socially, sexually, and economically, rape and prostitution generated pornography; and pornography depends for its continued existence on the rape and prostitution of women. o Pornography and Male Supremacy (1981), Letters from a War Zone, p 230.
* I want to see this men's movement make a commitment to ending rape because that is the only meaningful commitment to equality. It is astonishing that in all our worlds of feminism and antisexism we never talk seriously about ending rape. Ending it. Stopping it. No more. No more rape. In the back of our minds, are we holding on to its inevitability as the last preserve of the biological? Do we think that it is always going to exist no matter what we do? All of our political actions are lies if we don't make a commitment to ending the practice of rape. This commitment has to be political. It has to be serious. It has to be systematic. It has to be public. It can't be self-indulgent. o "I Want a Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape" (1983)
* Anti-feminism is also operating whenever any political group is ready to sacrifice one group of women, one faction, some women, some kinds of women, to any element of sex-class oppression: to pornography, to rape, to battery, to economic exploitation, to reproductive exploitation, to prostitution. There are women all along the male-defined political spectrum, including both extreme ends of it, ready to sacrifice some women, usually not themselves, to the brothels or the farms. The sacrifice is profoundly anti-feminist; it is also profoundly immoral... o "Anti-feminism," Right Wing Women (1991), pp. 230-231.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jul 11, 2010 11:47:39 GMT -5
Tapati,
It sounds like I agree with many of her criticisms and this strange anti-feminism stuff in the religious right that is encouraged for women that never had anything to do with suped up liberal secular feminism. Women who went to college and once had a job are pressured to "repent of feminism" when they were never feminists at all.
I just glossed over the rape stuff because I'm already inflamed and working with a woman who is in an abusive marriage. I don't need any extra encouragement from a domestic abuse angle! {Please pray for this nameless woman I'm working with to build a plan of action.}
In terms of the Christian discussion, I don't have a problem with borrowing from secular arguments.
I think that the church is tacitly responsible for encouraging the abuse of women through what I believe is dehumanization of women through most all of the complementarian arguments. And most Christians are brow beaten into accepting this stuff. And it ultimately hurts women.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jul 11, 2010 15:59:36 GMT -5
I'm rather surprised to hear that in a forum designed to empower women in patriarchal and abusive spiritual groups, discussion of feminism or feminist writers is now considered off topic. Tapati: I took Nikita's suggestion to mean that this isn't the place for debate about specific feminist authors. Informative posts (like the ones I provided in other threads)--and discussions--seem to be fine. fwiw, I agree that this isn't the place for such debates, which is why I've refused to to be drawn into them in spite of provocation. In any case, it seems like what you've done here is perfectly fine--informative and useful for those who may want more information.
|
|