Men bashing

enough
Sorry for being tangential - but I notice that Andrea Dworkin still seems to be jumped on straight away by the blokes even now... I just noticed that in this thread and another on the go, males want to swiftly cast her as dangerous and beyond the pale, lest some feminist might have their eyes opened and see their structural oppression in all its shiny glory!!! Shock! Horror!

I wonder what terrifies them more, these men - the idea of women not shaving our legs or women thinking critically about piv? Because whatever it is, they don't miss a beat to try and put women off from reading her.....

ssd can you give us any examples?

If it's as rife as you seem to think, that shouldn't be too hard.

A great thread and thank you for all the thoughtful comments on this thread. I'm a much older feminist - I originally read Dworkin in my 20s and she was an inspiring woman who challenged our thinking. It was so exciting to be a feminist in the 70s and 80s - there was a real sense of 'smashing the patriarchy' and yes, I had the dungarees and Doc Martens (in pink ) covering my hairy legs!

But neither OP or ssd can give any concrete examples of man bashing. or refute the comment about how this thread is woman bashing.

I totally agree op

If you're anti porn or not comfortable with it, and want to explore that reason why more then Rage Against the Manchine is a great blog to read.

I'll leave this link here because I think all young women especially should read it.

rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/04/12/why-porn-isnt-cool-3-real-people-have-feelings/

You're welcome GuardianLions.

I also agree with the poster who said that once you see it you can't unsee it. So, if you don't want to go there, stay in your corner and keep the rose tinted lens on.

Yes, Datun, I'm always heartened by the sense and intelligence of FWR. I'm often struck by how a combination of different insights creates a truly amazing critique of the topic at hand. We are greater than the sum of our parts.

Brilliant thread. So many considered and intelligent answers from informed women.

It was the wholly consistent and sheer clarity of the feminism boards that made me start to see the negative behaviour, attitude and viewpoint that links a lot of men together, and makes it stop being about 'people'.

And the poster who said once you see it, you can't unsee it was absolutely right. Once you let that filter work, everything is seen through a different lens.

i don't hate men.
however, i don't think they are our meaning of life.
and since being a woman means you're almost always on a losing side in life, i really have no time thinking that me doing/speaking something 'hurt poor men's feelings'

OP wrote - "I would identify as feminist - although for want of a better word, I would rather say I'm an egalitarian."

Has it been proved that egalitarians never engage in "man bashing"?

I think I posted this elsewhere, but have you seen what Joe Biden has to say about locker room banter and college campus rape?

Elendon thanks so much for reminding me about Rage Against the Manchine

I've been googling around but couldn't remember the name - I was thinking... something to do with a blue car... I would never have found it.

Also you can be egalitarian and a feminist as well. The two are not exclusive.

Agree re Dworkin as well. She simply presented the truth regarding penetrative sex and flagged up rape in marriage. Without her I still think rape in marriage would not be seen as being punishable by law.

I also like Rage Against the Manchine. Not really active either, but a young heterosexual woman who got it.

Feminist activism is not man bashing. Men should and can resolve this themselves. What's stopping them?

I Blame the Patriarchy was an eye opener to me, despite liking and reading Germaine Greer previously. It is no longer active, I hope Twisty is ok, and she was very pro trans too. Her blogs on rape are so relevant and interesting.

'cause nowadays men are horrible, i know only a few good. Women want to be more independent that's mean feminism.

I think she was rather arguing that sex as it is conceptualised within patriarchchal, heterosexual culture is continuous with rape.

Oh, that old chestnut

Avon Dworkin never asserted all heterosexual sex to be rape. I think she was rather arguing that sex as it is conceptualised within patriarchchal, heterosexual culture is continuous with rape.

Heaven knows there are valid criticisms of Dworkin, but I always felt the 'all men are rapists' reading of her to be an unfair mischaracterization.

Thanks Avon and I have had this argument with my obtuse block-headed brother. He said a women could feel empowered by 'enveloping' a man and a man could feel overwhelmed and 'consumed' by a woman. He said this in response to my saying being penetrated is fundementally violating, and as a woman you need to be properly psyched for it and other conditions have to be right, for it to not be unpleasant (and that men feel less violated because their dick is outside their body).

Maybe I should have posed the scenario: you have 2 doors in front of you: behind one is a woman you don't fancy who is going to ride you, behind the other is a man you don't fancy who will ejaculate up your rectum - which door do you choose?....

I have never read anything she said in context without seeing intelligence in it. Speaking about vigilantes etc later I thought she sounded worn down by the struggle - but I could still see her point: if you can't get justice through ligitimate means then vigilantism is justified, and although that is a shocking thought in the UK even though conviction rates are low - I love the 'pink sari' women in India who threaten perpetrators of DV with big sticks.

I know she later said that after coming under attack (from sexist idiots, mainly) but reading Intercourse it comes across as more than that.

Direct quote:

"There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy. ... There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation."

I think you've over simplified and misunderstood her point. She clarifies what she meant: "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point".