An open challenge to Amicus

[Stella_Omega]

Just to add to the confusion...

then there's those pregnancies where both parties were responsible, did what they needed to do, and pregnancy still happened. What then?

Don't tell me it doesn't happen - I have two children that, by rights, shouldn't have been conceived. I adore them both, wouldn't give them up for anything, but birth control was very much in evidence.

Should their fathers be absolved of any fiscal responsibility? I don't think so, although, with my oldest, I absolved him of that responsibility myself.

It's a decision you have the right to make.

 

[cloudy]

It's a decision you have the right to make.

I agree, but there are those that say since I made the decision, on my own, to have her, that it should be his decision alone as to whether he supports her or not. I can't agree with that.

All precautions were taken, and they just didn't work, for some reason (I have to think she was meant to be here). We were both being responsible, so I would think that we would both have to continue being responsible.

True, I made the decision not to make him contribute to her upbringing, but that decision cost me, and I'm not sure it was the right one, looking back. I was very young - 18 when I got pregnant - and sometimes, at that age, decisions aren't based on what's best, you know?

 

[DeeZire]

Here's a bit of pretzle logic, inspired by this quote:

Populations of a species always balance out. When they exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat, Mother Nature starts killing them off. And Mother Nature is a bitch.

If we accept the fact that the earth's capacity to support life is finite, based on population and resources, then overpopulating the earth would be the same as murder, or suicide, depending on who dies first.

In this scenario, an aborted fetus (Kid A) could be saving the life of the next kid to be born (Kid B), or; the next kid to be born (Kid B) could be taking the life of the one after that (Kid C). So, murdering Kid A saves Kid B from death, the birth of Kid B murders Kid C.

Which kid do you save?

What if all those millions of embryos that were on their way to the trash when they were harvested for research were rescued and turned into kids? Now you have just murdered millions of future kids who will die when the earth reaches it's limit for sustaining life.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Deezire, well put

Which kid do I save? I save the one that is already born. Fetuses are not kids. They are potential kids. We have lots of actual kids that need attention and help.

 

[amicus]

Here's a bit of pretzle logic, inspired by this quote:



If we accept the fact that the earth's capacity to support life is finite, based on population and resources, then overpopulating the earth would be the same as murder, or suicide, depending on who dies first.

In this scenario, an aborted fetus (Kid A) could be saving the life of the next kid to be born (Kid B), or; the next kid to be born (Kid B) could be taking the life of the one after that (Kid C). So, murdering Kid A saves Kid B from death, the birth of Kid B murders Kid C.

Which kid do you save?

What if all those millions of embryos that were on their way to the trash when they were harvested for research were rescued and turned into kids? Now you have just murdered millions of future kids who will die when the earth reaches it's limit for sustaining life.

~~~

That is the kind of circular, internalized thinking that Malthus was guilty of, Paul , ah, Erlichman(?) and the entire ZPG generation fell into that leads to such surrealistic results.

Once upon a time I did the research, you can if you wish to, the indicated with the rise of the industrial revolution and the growth of urban life, the average birth rate began to decline.

Now the precise reasons are still being debated, but the decline continues, with caucasian women producing at less than replacement rate 1.2 to 1.3 children per family, in all industrialized western nations.

Now you can argue until you are blue in the face as to exactly why this has occurred, but, the numbers are there it did and is happening. And it was going on before birth control pills and other forms of modern contraceptive devices.

It is a sad and tragic attempt to justify abortion, especially since childless couples are lined up to adopt new-borns.

Amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Now the precise reasons are still being debated, but the decline continues, with caucasian women producing at less than replacement rate 1.2 to 1.3 children per family, in all industrialized western nations.

Why the distinction? What difference does race make? And why must you always bring it up?

It is a sad and tragic attempt to justify abortion, especially since childless couples are lined up to adopt new-borns.

but, since you went there, I feel no shame in doing the same: childless couples are lined up to adopt white newborns, and white newborns only. Children of other races, or those with disabilities are still left in foster homes for their entire childhood.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Just to add to the confusion...

then there's those pregnancies where both parties were responsible, did what they needed to do, and pregnancy still happened. What then?

Don't tell me it doesn't happen - I have two children that, by rights, shouldn't have been conceived. I adore them both, wouldn't give them up for anything, but birth control was very much in evidence.

Should their fathers be absolved of any fiscal responsibility? I don't think so, although, with my oldest, I absolved him of that responsibility myself.

I don't think the father should be absolved unless she rapes him.

I'm utterly shocked that anyone who has sex might not realize a baby can happen.

 

[cloudy]

I don't think the father should be absolved unless she rapes him.

I'm utterly shocked that anyone who has sex might not realize a baby can happen.

Oh, I realize it just fine, I promise.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

In this scenario, an aborted fetus (Kid A) could be saving the life of the next kid to be born (Kid B), or; the next kid to be born (Kid B) could be taking the life of the one after that (Kid C). So, murdering Kid A saves Kid B from death, the birth of Kid B murders Kid C.

Which kid do you save?

What if all those millions of embryos that were on their way to the trash when they were harvested for research were rescued and turned into kids? Now you have just murdered millions of future kids who will die when the earth reaches it's limit for sustaining life.

An arbitrary line set at birth vs pre-birth. The idea that a person exists only at birth is pure arbitrary reasoning at best, and outright sorcery at worst. It's only used to justify who should be sacrificed for someone else's well being. Now we're playing lifeboat ethics. DEFINITELY a Conservative mindset in any other circumstance.

That line of thinking ultimately leads to China's one-child policy or even licensed births, under the "ends (population control) justifies the means" line of thinking.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Oh, I realize it just fine, I promise.

Oh I know you do.

 

[amicus]

Why the distinction? What difference does race make? And why must you always bring it up?



but, since you went there, I feel no shame in doing the same: childless couples are lined up to adopt white newborns, and white newborns only. Children of other races, or those with disabilities are still left in foster homes for their entire childhood.

~~~

You know, Cloudy, I paused in the typing of my post for that very reason, thought perhaps to quantify that by stating the birth rates for Blacks and Hispanics are somewhat higher and decided not to include it.

It is an economic reason, my feathered friend, not an ethnic or a racial one. As African Americans and Hispanics reach higher levels living, their birthrate also declines.

Even your shameless second point is an economic one. There is a shortage of white newborns and thus an increased demand, and a surplus of babies of color, and thus, less demand.

But if you must keep thinking I am a racist, to satisfy your mind picture of me, then please continue to do so.

Amicus....

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

You know, Cloudy, I paused in the typing of my post for that very reason, thought perhaps to quantify that by stating the birth rates for Blacks and Hispanics are somewhat higher and decided not to include it.

It is an economic reason, my feathered friend, not an ethnic or a racial one. As African Americans and Hispanics reach higher levels living, their birthrate also declines.

Even your shameless second point is an economic one. There is a shortage of white newborns and thus an increased demand, and a surplus of babies of color, and thus, less demand.

But if you must keep thinking I am a racist, to satisfy your mind picture of me, then please continue to do so.

Amicus....

That doesn't qualify you as a racist - other things you've said, qualify you as a racist just fine.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

My ALL TIME favorite Amicus thread.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=420714

Favorite sentence?

"Discounting the ‘cows’ and the cheerleaders, I project that about ten percent, one in ten, of the females, are capable of rational thought. Problems there? (I may be generous with ten percent)"

You're in no position to judge Amicus. Really.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Here's a bit of pretzle logic, inspired by this quote:



If we accept the fact that the earth's capacity to support life is finite, based on population and resources, then overpopulating the earth would be the same as murder, or suicide, depending on who dies first.

Sorry, but that's a rather silly "if" at this point in time - no one is starving solely because someone else ate all of the food. In addition, we could follow the same logic to euthanize the elderly, the handicapped, or the members of the Democratic party, depending on who we happen to like today.

 

[DeeZire]

no one is starving solely because someone else ate all of the food...

I may be wrong, but I think there are quite a few people starving in third world countries because someone else ate all the food. Or drank all the water.

My point is that until we reach zero population growth, (or projected population growth that won't overtax our resources) all this talk of saving lives will be moot, because the lives we save today will just hasten the extinction of the species tomorrow.

It may be true that birth rates are going down for a certain segment of the population, but, as I understand it, the population of the world is still supposed to double in what, 50 years? If this continues, we will eventually reach the point where the earth will no longer have the capacity to sustain all those lives. I suppose that's when survival of the fittest will kick in, at which point the elderly, the handicapped, (and, depending on who's in power, perhaps even the members of the Democratic party) will be the first to die off.

If life is sacred, we have to look at it in the context of what sustains life. If we obliterate the sustenance of life by the preservation of life, how is that moral? I'm not advocating euthanasia, or abortion, I'm just trying to put the discussion into perspective.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I may be wrong, but I think there are quite a few people starving in third world countries because someone else ate all the food. Or drank all the water.

Yes, I think that you are wrong. The planet as a whole produces more than enough food to feed them and more than enough technologies to purify their water. The problem is that they lack governments interested in their welfare, infrastructure to move goods to them, and/or industry to create tradable goods to bargain with.

My point is that until we reach zero population growth, (or projected population growth that won't overtax our resources) all this talk of saving lives will be moot, because the lives we save today will just hasten the extinction of the species tomorrow.

Until such time as the actual number of people on the planet is too large for the total planetary resources to support - and we're very far from that point - no one's birth is hastening anyone else's death in the big picture sense. As Amicus has pointed out, in industrialized countries, the classes of people with the highest standard of living are actually at negative population growth, a trend that looks likely to occur in more countries as they reach the same standard of living. To suggest that we'd better start killing people now to prevent overpopulation in a thousand years makes no sense. We have no idea what will happen in the mean time, and at the moment the number of people consuming resources worldwide is not the issue driving poverty.

If life is sacred, we have to look at it in the context of what sustains life. If we obliterate the sustenance of life by the preservation of life, how is that moral? I'm not advocating euthanasia, or abortion, I'm just trying to put the discussion into perspective.

I quite agree that it's best to regulate our reproduction in such a way as to avoid destroying ourselves. However, there are many ways to do this other than euthanasia. You're presenting a false dilemma here: either we get comfortable with ways of killing people, or we destroy the planet. I think there are other options.

 

[DeeZire]

Yes, I think that you are wrong. The planet as a whole produces more than enough food to feed them and more than enough technologies to purify their water. The problem is that they lack governments interested in their welfare, infrastructure to move goods to them, and/or industry to create tradable goods to bargain with.

But they're still dying of hunger and thirst. If there were less of them, they wouldn't be. Crass, I know, but true.

Until such time as the actual number of people on the planet is too large for the total planetary resources to support - and we're very far from that point - no one's birth is hastening anyone else's death.

According to projected population growth, we are well on our way. Catastrophic water shortages are projected to hit in 20 to 30 years.

As Amicus has pointed out, in industrialized countries, the classes of people with the highest standard of living are actually at negative population growth, a trend that looks likely to occur in more countries as they reach the same standard of living.

How large is the class with the highest standard of living? The top ten percent? What about the other 90 percent?

To suggest that we'd better start killing people now to prevent overpopulation in a thousand years makes no sense.

Water shortages within 20 or 30 years. That's one generation, not a thousand years. And I'm not suggesting we start killing people. I'm suggesting that our myopic view of population growth will be killing people in the next generation (worst case) or the ones to follow.

I quite agree that it's best to regulate our reproduction in such a way as to avoid destroying ourselves. However, there are many ways to do this other than euthanasia. You're presenting a false dilemma here: either we get comfortable with ways of killing people, or we destroy the planet. I think there are other options.

Actually, we, as a world society, are already quite comfortable killing people. Just look at the third world, where thousands are starving to death, even though we produce enough food to feed them. How many have died in Iraq? How many are dying all over the world due to industrial pollution? (I understand the numbers are quite high in China.) To choose one form of life as sacred and ignore the rest as irrelevent appears hypocritical to me.

Please understand, I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite. I'm thinking in the abstract. I suppose it comes down to perception. Some people perceive overpopulation as a problem we won't have to think about any time soon, since it won't affect our generation. I prefer to look at the big picture. I think we're all supposed to be responsible for our actions, but if we just focus on today, with no regard for the future, we're being irresponsible, to the point of recklessness.

I wish I knew the quote from Native American culture - something about planning ahead for seven generations. What a concept!

Anyway, gotta go, so don't think I gave up. (Previous engagement.)

Edit: "Other options" for addressing the population problem might be to use trash-bound embryos for spinal cords rather than abortion debates. That's all I'm saying. I definitely don't want to kill anybody, and if that was the impression I gave...well excuse me! (in a Steve Martin voice.)

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I should have said; "More true" I suppose.

As for your second comment-- what, so no one should resist that which they abhor, for worry of the possible consequence that some people won't like you any more?

Sorry to reply so late, but my internet at home is slow, and I'm impatient, so I've only been posting from my sister's PC.

Here's my point: It's one thing to say, "I won't concede." It's something else to say, "I will resist."

Resistance is an active thing. When you "resist arrest" for instance, you struggle against the arresting officers. It's the struggle that wears you down. It's the pushing back. It takes the situation as it exists for them and it makes it the same for you.

If you go to a bar or club on a busy night, you almost always see it at least once. You see some dude who just wants to hang out, mellow out, and have fun. Then comes the brute, yelling, being pushy and mouthy, antagonizing. Mr. Mellow grows tired, and he stands up. He mouths back. Then the pushing begins. It becomes a struggle, and before the bouncers break things up or a fight begins, all you have is two Mr. brutes, jawing back and forth and being ass wipes.

There's a passiveness to "i will not concede" that makes it necessary. It's live and let live. It's I'll do my thing, and let you do yours. Yeah, there are times when that philosophy doesn't work (more specifically, there are people who won't allow it), but you choose your battles, and it's often a better idea to choose them less by what you believe, or how strongly you believe in them (bear in mind I said often, not always) but more by the likelihood of success.

The saying as I first learned it was: "What you fear, you become." But Rob's quote is equally true, as the aggression involved is generally (nearly always, let's face it) a biproduct of fear, of wanting to control generally due to a feeling of not being in control.

Pushing the fear away; it's a social disease.

It's okay to push back to a point; necessary in fact, but only to keep the aggressors at bay. You can only push so hard before you become the aggressor. That's what i see most often on this board. Politics make it hard, as they focus on changes that affect us all, but there's a lot of pushing back, aggressively going on here, against each other. It's frustrating when you just want to understand their viewpoints better.

Dunno if that made my point any more clear. I know I rambled a lot, and i probably went on some tangents (why do I always do that?) but being more clear...?

What the hell; one last quick shot at it.

My point is sort of like the Self-defense Laws. If someone is aggressive toward you, you can only strike back with equal aggression. Force can be countered, but if your life is not being threatened, you cannot counter with deadly force. you become the aggressor, you become the threat.

You become what you fear.

It's no longer about your safety. That's an afterthought. It's not about your values. They aren't in play any longer.

You become a sell-out.

Dunno if that was any better.

*shrug*

Q_C

 

[Stella_Omega]

But-- QC, we're not talking about one personal struggle here. We're talking about someone who was fighting for all women. I think she was wrong, myself. But I can understand why she would be willing to make herself unliked in the service of others-- martyr for the cause and all.

I found her on wikipedia; she has said that she was abused by her husband for two years, and hid from him for years thereafter;

Dworkin graduated from Bennington College, with a degree in Literature in 1969, and moved to Amsterdam to interview Dutch anarchists in the Provo countercultural movement.[1] While in Amsterdam, she became involved with, and then married, one of the anarchists that she met. Soon after they were married, she claims that he began to abuse her severely: punching and kicking her, burning her with cigarettes, beating her on her legs with a wooden beam, and banging her head against the floor until he knocked her unconscious, although the allegations are unproven (Heartbreak, 119; Letters from a War Zone, 103, 332).

After she left her husband late in 1971, she spent a year caught in the Netherlands, where she claims her ex-husband "attacked, persecuted, followed, harassed" her, beating her and threatening her whenever he found where she was hiding. She found herself desperate for money, often homeless, thousands of miles from home and family, later remarking that "I often lived the life of a fugitive, except that it was the more desperate life of a battered woman who had run away for the last time, whatever the outcome".[2] For a while, she was a prostitute. A feminist and fellow expatriate, Ricki Abrams, offered her help, sheltered her in Abrams's home, and helped her find places to stay on houseboats, a communal farm, and deserted buildings[3] while Dworkin hid from her former husband and tried to work up the money to return to the United States.

Abrams introduced Dworkin to early radical feminist writing from the United States, and Dworkin was especially inspired by Kate Millett's Sexual Politics, Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex, and Robin Morgan's Sisterhood is Powerful.[4] She and Abrams began to work together on "early pieces and fragments" of a radical feminist text on the hatred of women in culture and history,[5] including a completed draft of a chapter on the pornographic counterculture magazine Suck, which was published by a group of fellow expatriates in the Netherlands.[6]

Dworkin later wrote that she eventually agreed to help smuggle a briefcase of heroin through customs in return for $1,000 and an airplane ticket, thinking that if she was not caught she could return home with the ticket and the money, or if she was caught, she could escape her ex-husband by going to prison. The deal for the briefcase fell through, but the man who had promised her the money gave her the airline ticket, and she was able to return to the United States in 1972.[7]

Before she left Amsterdam, Dworkin talked with Abrams about her experiences in the Netherlands, the emerging feminist movement, and the book they had begun to write together. Dworkin agreed to complete the book—which she eventually titled Woman Hating—and get it published when she reached the United States.[8] In her memoirs, Dworkin relates that during that conversation, she vowed to dedicate her life to the feminist movement...

Passive resistance didn't change anything for Dworkin during her years as a battered wife; Any battered woman can tell you that remaining passive will not save her from His Rage.

Passive resistance didn't change anything for women in society for tens of centuries-- It took suffragettes chaining themselves to fences, throwing themselves under carriage wheels, scandalising the neighbours, to begin the dialogue. Dworkin's unpleasant but widely discussed views led a lot of people towards a change in their own. Some pornography is rape, after all. She did get people thinking about the differences between porn and erotica; she got people thinking about mysogynistic porn and porn based on an assumption of equality.

 

[rgraham666]

But Dworkin made it very clear that all men were exactly like her abusive husband. That if one acted in a misogynist manner, they all did.

It was the exact reflection of her ex husband's.

Here's blog by a former AHer on the subject I found most interesting.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But Dworkin made it very clear that all men were exactly like her abusive husband. That if one acted in a misogynist manner, they all did.

It was the exact reflection of her ex husband's.

Here's blog by a former AHer on the subject I found most interesting.

Yes, she was one of those people who feel that whatever is happening to them must be happening to the entire world. Those are exactly the kinds of people who make big waves, for better or worse.

Anyway, she still needed to resist. It allowed her to live. Passive wasn't going to do it.

And may I add that although she talked mysandrogny, she never beat a man's legs with a beam, or burned him with cigarettes. No man ever found himself prostituting to earn money because of her feelings about men.

So in some very important ways, she never became an exact reflection of her ex-husband.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yes, she was one of those people who feel that whatever is happening to them must be happening to the entire world. Those are exactly the kinds of people who make big waves, for better or worse.

Anyway, she still needed to resist. It allowed her to live. Passive wasn't going to do it.

And may I add that although she talked mysandrogny, she never beat a man's legs with a beam, or burned him with cigarettes. No man ever found himself prostituting to earn money because of her feelings about men.

So in some very important ways, she never became an exact reflection of her ex-husband.

In *cough* Andrea Dworkin's defense *wheeze*, what was happening to her, IMHO, was and is still happening to a large number of women.

Dworkin was lucky to SURVIVE her ex-husband's wrath.

It's just that Dworkin's premise seemed to be that ALL men are like that, and that was wrong.

 

[cloudy]

It's just that Dworkin's premise seemed to be that ALL men are like that, and that was wrong.

I agree.

I've been in an abusive relationship, and it's almost natural to make the leap from "he's abusive, and I can't trust him" to "they're all abusive, and I can't trust them." It takes a strength of will and, a lot of times, a gentle man to make you realize that it isn't like that.

Its easier, I think, to make the sweeping generalization she did, than to do the work on self you have to do to know otherwise...especially if a man has basically destroyed that "self."

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Apologies; after typing way to much to want to edit it all, I realized my "feminist"s and "feminism"s often contained an extra "in" for some odd reason.

But-- QC, we're not talking about one personal struggle here. We're talking about someone who was fighting for all women. I think she was wrong, myself. But I can understand why she would be willing to make herself unliked in the service of others-- martyr for the cause and all.

I found her on wikipedia; she has said that she was abused by her husband for two years, and hid from him for years thereafter;


Passive resistance didn't change anything for Dworkin during her years as a battered wife; Any battered woman can tell you that remaining passive will not save her from His Rage.

Passive resistance didn't change anything for women in society for tens of centuries-- It took suffragettes chaining themselves to fences, throwing themselves under carriage wheels, scandalising the neighbours, to begin the dialogue. Dworkin's unpleasant but widely discussed views led a lot of people towards a change in their own. Some pornography is rape, after all. She did get people thinking about the differences between porn and erotica; she got people thinking about mysogynistic porn and porn based on an assumption of equality.

Okay, before I get to rambling again, I want to clarify that my response was to a brief exchange between you and Rob, to the words that were used, not to the woman those words were being exchanged over. My exposure to Dworkin has begun with this discussion may not go much further, after all, I do know my place amid this topic. Being male, while I have my own beliefs, the struggle is mine to support, not to fight.

Having said that, I also see that my comments were an indirect, not a direct response, to your statement. I will stand by my point however, that becoming what you fear or hate is conformity in its worst form, and a selling out of values. I will, however, acknowledge the rudeness with which my words may be taken given the misconception, and apologize appropriately for it.

However, having read the brief posting you posted and some of the blog Rob posted (honestly, after reading your's, Rob's seemed to be answering the exact questions that arose in my mind that i didn't have the info, or insight as the blog was primarily if not entirely merely that, to answer myself), I will reply, and attempt to be brief. Bear in mind my response is based primarily on the basic info you posted.

First off, I'll reply directly to what you've posted here before i head off (If I keep my concentration that long) in the direction of your and rob's follow-up posts.

You mentioned repeatedly how passive behavior has failed at repeated times to be the solution. I'll respond by posting this quote from my last post:

Yeah, there are times when that philosophy doesn't work (more specifically, there are people who won't allow it), but you choose your battles, and it's often a better idea to choose them less by what you believe, or how strongly you believe in them (bear in mind I said often, not always) but more by the likelihood of success.

In cases where genuine abuse is a concern (and I say genuine because while there is plenty of abuse in the world, some people can't handle the stress of deciding what type of candy bar they want blended in their DQ Blizzard--Oreos, butterfingers...Ahhh! Why are you doing this to me?!!!!!), no, passiveness will not work. Genuine abuse is universally a situation where one must resist actively. I didn't and still don't feel my previous post contradicted this. Abuse, and we should remember that, while physical abuse has brought the most attention given the immediate concerns of health, the safety of the body in this case, it brings to the table, whether or not something is considered abuse should be defined by the emotional circumstances, the long-term emotional and mental effects it creates in the victim, not the possibilty of severe physical harm it imposes. I don't think any of us are naive enough to deny that the after-effects of rape are often, if not always, more severe on the emotional level than on the physical.

I point this out because we tend to forget that abuse occurs on a daily basis, on less than clearly defined levels than the impossible to ignore ones we deal with in terms of battering wives (or husbands for that matter, as while it is far less common, it does happen) and children. Abuse is abuse, and it happens to all walks of people regardless of age, race or gender; it bothers me immensely that when it comes to such topics, men tend to be viewed as the sole aggressors and women solely as innocent victims (I'll not mention children here, as they are, in terms of abuse concerning adults and children at least, nearly if not always the innocent victims)--it creates the idea that men are evil and women are angels, and we know full well that is not the case. It also creates the stereotype that women are weak and in need of protection from us evil men, which may be beneficial for some individuals involved, but works in direct opposition to the truth behind the feminist movement: equality.

I also pointed out the nature abuse in reaction to this:

And may I add that although she talked mysandrogny, she never beat a man's legs with a beam, or burned him with cigarettes. No man ever found himself prostituting to earn money because of her feelings about men.

So in some very important ways, she never became an exact reflection of her ex-husband.

Again, physical or verbal, its discrimination, and that generally is a prerequisite (sp?) or side issue to abuse. In action she may not have reflected his behavior, but did her attitude truly lack a reflection of his? Was her mentality truly any better?

But-- QC, we're not talking about one personal struggle here. We're talking about someone who was fighting for all women. I think she was wrong, myself. But I can understand why she would be willing to make herself unliked in the service of others-- martyr for the cause and all.

Okay, now I'm going to hypothesize a bit. I'm pretty good with psychology, to the extent that,and in away that, I trust my instincts and I believe in the truth behind what I'm about to say, but I'll draw your attention back to my admittance of formerly being unaware of Miss Dworkin, and of my lack of information on her and her life outside of what has been posted here, so bear that in mind if my response is a bit premature in consideration of that information. Any given person is similar in terms of who they are, their personal circumstances, etc; all the things that make them people, individuals as opposed to the generalizations we're almost always made out to be. However, oversimplified as this hypothesis of mine may be, I believe it does apply to many on one level or another. I wanna see if you agree.

This woman, before her involvement in the femininist movement, was abused even beyond the boundaries of her marriage. It was in the wake of the effects of this abuse that she became immersed in the movement. The blog posted referenced a belief that she was responding to or representing rage in her opinions and works. You made the statement that she "...was one of those people who feel that whatever is happening to them must be happening to the entire world." This directly implies self-absorbption (sp?). As does Rob's reference to her thinking that "Dworkin made it very clear that all men were exactly like her abusive husband. That if one acted in a misogynist manner, they all did."

My immensely premature hypothesis, submitted for the AH's approval:

Does it not make a fair amount of sense that, given what's been presented (to me, anyway), perhaps this woman, instead of being a martyr to the cause, simply found the cause to be a strong form of empowerment in the wake of her preceding struggles? Abuse of course, is known to cause a lack thereof. Doesn't it stand to reason that, while she may have drawn much attention to the issues concerning feminism and may have offered much thought to be considered on the matter, she in fact made feminism her struggle because of the issues it helped her deal with? That instead of martyring herself for the cause of many she simply used the issue (unintentionally, I mean, not through intended manipulation of any kind, or vanity) to draw the man into her own personal drama?

I mention this not to take away from her contributions, but merely to point out a simple yet important ideal, an ideal which summarizes (depending on how far off I rambled, that is) this entire post. Feminism isn't about the protection of women against abuse. Abuse is felt by individuals, not by the group. One woman being beaten by a man imposes a threat yes, but the abuse is felt by the individual alone. The longterm effects are hers to bear. One woman representing all women is no different than one man representing all men. A woman was struck, and a man did the striking. One woman felt the blow, and one man dealt it. Implying that Cloudy's past situation (I hope she doesn't mind me directly referencing her) is representative of all women is also implying that her abuser is representative of all men.

That's not female empowerment, it's discrimination against men. It doesn't solve a problem, it creates a new one.

Feminism, and feel free to disagree with me, is meant to counteract discrimination toward women by society (let's not pretend we can fix indivdual ignorances). Feminism is not about the ability of women to stand and be strong as a group, it's about their ability to stand and be be strong as individuals, which is where men have traditionally held their power. (Funny how I automatically used the word "their" instead of "our" there, eh? Perhaps some self-examination on my part is in order?) The ignorance that women have that strength, the belief that women were weaker than we are, is where the issue began.

I guess what i'm trying to say is this: The point is, or should be, I'm not sure which is most accurate, not seeing the female gender as empowered, but acknowledging the empowerment of the individual. Were the world as it should be in terms of this issue, if Cloudy and I were to meet (I was gonna say if "you" and I were to meet; the name Stella and the drag-queen situation make it hard sometimes to remember you have those... y'know, testicles) we would look at one another in the eye and see one another as equals not because of our genders, but regardless of them.

And afterwards, I'd check out her titts.

Q_C

 

[Stella_Omega]

Q_C, your post is so all-encompassing that it's going to be hard for me to absorb everything in one go!

but the very first thing to say is that I am indeed, a natural-born woman. With a certain amount of gender displacement... Whatayagonnadoo...

Okay, so;

That you realise that your comments were mostly tangential to the subject-- I do appreciate that. But they're worth talking about anyways

AS far as becoming what one resists-- it's sometimes very true, and probably an almost always unwanted effect, but it does not negate the necessity of resistance. And most "warriors" come into these battles not by choice. Circumstances can simply put one person into the right(wrong) place.

I'll copy-and-paste from your post to enumerate them, as I am suffering from Fried Brains just now;

...may not go much further, after all, I do know my place amid this topic. Being male, while I have my own beliefs, the struggle is mine to support, not to fight.
Your place in this topic would not be dictated by your gender, but by the amount of knowledge you can bring to bear in the subject, no? And I don't see why you can't fight alongside your sisters in the battle. Tortuous metaphor, but there it is.

...it bothers me immensely that when it comes to such topics, men tend to be viewed as the sole aggressors and women solely as innocent victims...

Of course it does. It truly sucks to hear your gender condemned when you are innocent yourself--It happens to everybody, though. Whites, blacks, men, women, straight, gay, Catholic, Methodist, drummer, trombone player-- absolutely every group of people get razzed and stereotyped, and almost every individual member is not, in fact like that.
I don't know what you can possibly do about this, any more than I know how to stop Ami from proving so many stereotypes right. Suck it up when you have to, and protest when you can, that's what we all do...
And unfortunately, out of the spouse-abusers in the world, a strong majority have a "Y" gene.

It also creates the stereotype that women are weak and in need of protection from us evil men, which may be beneficial for some individuals involved, but works in direct opposition to the truth behind the feminist movement: equality.
That is a thorny problem. Battered women are weak and have to be protected, in point of fact, from men who are beastly.

Again, physical or verbal, its discrimination, and that generally is a prerequisite (sp?) or side issue to abuse. In action she may not have reflected his behavior, but did her attitude truly lack a reflection of his? Was her mentality truly any better?

Umm... I am not defending her mentality in any case. I am saying however, that the possibility that some folks might tsk at her unpleasant attitude is no reason for her to back away from the battle. That she was forever after a damaged war vet replaying the battles in her mind is truly sad.
But she could just as easily have been a dead woman in a canal somewhere. That would have kept her from mirroring anyone else's bad attitude, huh?

In any case, I tend to judge people far far more by their actions than by their attitudes.

...perhaps this woman, instead of being a martyr to the cause, simply found the cause to be a strong form of empowerment in the wake of her preceding struggles...

yeah, well, duh. But how "simple" do you think that is, really? And certainly it was a subject she knew intimately-- down in every bone of her body.

I do not consider Dworkin a martyr, exactly. Every battered woman lives with a certain amount of rage, although most of them are not able to publish theirs and make it public the way Dworkin did. And most of them cannot couch their accusations in the kind of academic language that incurs respect among, sorry, men. If anything, I am glad for her that she was able to channel her anger. Whether or not you or I think so, she truly believed she was helping all women.

Which brings me to this thought of yours;
Abuse is felt by individuals, not by the group. One woman being beaten by a man imposes a threat yes, but the abuse is felt by the individual alone.

Threat.
That's right.
One beaten woman is a very vivid reminder to every other woman of how precarious her safety really is. I am 5'8" and weigh maybe 160, and not nearly enough of that is muscle. I am married to a guy who stands 6' even, also weighs around 160-- and most of that is muscle. (by this you find out my gender!) I am safe as houses with this guy, and have been for thirty years. But-- if he suddenly wanted to throw me through the wall, I would never be able to stop him.

It's a bit like seeing another Jew getting beat up by the brownshirts; it's one man getting hurt, but... not. It might be you tomorrow, or your kids.

There's more to talk about here, but gawds, my fingers are tired!