Comment on Gen Z males twice as likely as baby boomers to believe wives should obey husbands
atomicorange@lemmy.world 3 days agoCould you specify one feminist text that you’d say is a good example of this hating on men and controlling women? This description doesn’t match what I’ve read but I’m interested to see if there’s a side of feminist thinking I’m not familiar with.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Andrea Dworkin
atomicorange@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Hmm have you actually read anything by her? Her conclusions are unpleasant but her reasoning is rock fucking solid. I highly recommend watching This clip of a panel interview she takes part in to get a sense of her argumentation style. She feels completely honest and to me she seems disturbed and upset by the trends she has seen. And you can watch another male writer mean mug her the entire time, it’s honestly kind of hilarious how visibly pissed off he is. If you watch the entire interview you get to hear their exchanges too, fun to watch if you’ve got some time to kill. I thought she came across very well in an extremely hostile room, even if I think she’s ultimately missing some human element in her analysis.
Anyway, not the example I was hoping for, I think she’s a popular punching bag that is actually far more nuanced and interesting than people give her credit for, often because they haven’t actually interacted with any of her work.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yes. I studied in in college. There is more to an argument that solid reasoning.
The Nazi regime had solid solid reasoning too dude. Their conclusions were also ‘unpleasant’.
atomicorange@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I can’t blame Nietzsche for what the Nazis did with his philosophical writings any more than I can blame Dworkin for TERFs. All I can ask of a philosopher is solid reasoning about interesting concepts. I won’t concede that the Nazis had solid reasoning though, their ideology was all over the place, self-contradictory, and self-serving.
Dworkin took a set of observations to their natural reasonable conclusions. I think her biggest philosophical “crime” is not recognizing that her conclusions don’t feel true for most women. For example: Yes, the way women are raised in our society makes consent a complicated topic. Yes, generally, sex without consent is rape. But the conclusion that sex in our society is rape doesn’t feel true. For me, that indicates something is missing. She’s got a problem caused by the language and our definitions of consent or of rape (maybe baggage about rape having an intent, a perpetrator and victim). I don’t think that makes her a hater of men, a bad actor, a bad philosopher, or someone not worth reading. There is a kernel of truth there worth examining even if the language makes the discussion more difficult than it needs to be. Forcing people to engage with her ideas because the conclusions are so shocking is a strength in my opinion. Just like Nietzsche saying “god is dead” got everyone freaking out in the 1800s.