Oh. Come. On. The people responsible for that stereotype are the conservative anti-feminist losers who could rarely think of a coherent argument against feminism, but were (and are) gifted at taking cheap shots.
I went into a political chat room once and was called a “hairy-legged birkenstock-wearing lesbian” for saying I supported Gore in 2000. You’re going to blame Andrea Dworkin’s sexual orientation and weight problem for idiocy on that scale?
“Oh. Come. On. The people responsible for that stereotype are {the following set of stereotypical people}”.
Anyone got a 3 amp fuse? My irony meter just blew. :dubious:
[QUOTE=uglybeech]
Oh that’s Andrea Dworkin’s fault? I thought it was because they were cowardly and ignorant.
[/QUOTE
Wow. Just…wow. Cognitive dissonance at its best, plus a couple of your own cheap shots. You sure know how to pack 'em in, don’t you?
“There’s some lovely filth over here…Help, I’m being oppressed! See the violence inherent in the system!” :rolleyes:
Stranger
I’d recalibrate. Or look up what a stereotype is. Actual people are not stereotypes and “stereotypical people” is pretty much an oxymoron. I’m referring to the subset of people who actually do paint feminists as a group as manhating lesbians. Anyone who does that is (by definition IMHO) a conservative anti-feminist loser who can’t think of a coherent argument. Again, that’s an insult, not a stereotype, because I’m not directing it towards a larger group.
I gave an example of at least one idiot who painted *all female democrats * as hairy-legged birkenstock-wearing lesbians. This idiot was not a “stereotypical person.” He was a person (sort of). And I hold him and people who do what he does responsible for the manhating lesbian stereotype of feminists.
If I painted all conservatives as fat drug addicts because Rush Limbaugh is one that would be a stereotype. If I then turned around and blamed Rush Limbaugh for perpetuating that stereotype that would be ridiculous.
Nope, my irony meter is working just fine. I’ve just added an “uglybeech” mark to the scale. In practical terms I think it’ll be like the farad is in electronics; best used in milli-, micro- and nano-units.
Stranger On A Train observed that, thanks to Dworkin and her like, feminism came to be equated with a particularly (unrepresentative but vociferous and widely-heard) ugly brand of man-hating, and yet apparently no-one ever actually thought this except a bunch of people economically painted with your broad brush. If you truly don’t think you’re stereotyping when you accuse the stereotypers, good luck to you.
Well, I read about the first four or five pages of Right-Wing Women (I think that’s the title), before concluding that no, it wasn’t going to get better, that the author WAS a misandronist. That ain’t a flavor of feminism I got any patience for, any more than I got any patience for black activists who hate the blue-eyed devil. Whether she was lesbian was, and is, none of my concern: there’s plenty of lesbians who aren’t misandronists.
I do think that there’s a strain of misandronistic feminism out there, and that it’s disproportionately prevalent on college campuses, where people who are just getting introduced to intellectual theories often don’t appreciate complexity and contradiction. And I do think that many people who get introduced to feminist theory via the Dworkin/Daly school wrongly conclude that all feminists are like that (again, no appreciation for complexity), and decide to distance themselves from all feminism as a result.
I’m sure Dworkin had her place, and it may be that despite her contemptible attitude toward men she did some real good. But I don’t think it’s a mischaracterization to say that she’s a manhater, or to say that her school of feminism made many people not want to call themselves feminist.
Daniel
Stranger *posited * that this was thanks to Dworkin. Which I think is completely wrong-headed. It’s as if I called all conservatives fat loud-mouthed drug addicts because Rush Limbaugh is one and then turned around and blamed Limbaugh for the stereotype I’ve created of conservatives. I would be responsible for the stereotype. NOT Limbaugh. Plus it would be a cheap shot on a number of levels (picking on his weight, addiction and speaking style rather than on substance).
Can you rephrase for clarity?
No, I’m not. I’m insulting them. There is a difference between an insult and a stereotype.
To clarify:
an insult would be calling Rush Limbaugh a fat loud-mouthed drug addict. It’s fair even if mean. Because it’s insulting a specific person for specific things he has done.
a cheap shot would be responding to Rush Limbaugh’s *arguments * by calling him a fat loud-mouthed drug addict. because it has nothing to do with the substance.
a stereotype would be identifying conservatives with fat loud-mouthed drug addict because one of them happened to be one (it would also be a cheap shot)
There are certainly plenty of liberals who do DO this sort of stereotyping - but they’re “liberal losers who can’t formulate a coherent argument and are gifted at making cheap shots.” Again - an insult, not a stereotype because I’m referring to specific people who do specific things and insulting them for doing that thing.
Anybody who is “ashamed to call themselves a feminist” not for any principled stand because “they don’t want to be associated with Andrea Dworkin’s ilk” is cowardly and ignorant. I stand by that. And I think anyone with a sense of intellectual integrity would feel that way.
As for my second quote I just defended it above. But I add - apparently you think I’m referring to a larger group here (conservatives) maybe. I’m not. I’m referring to specific people who do specific things.
Wow. Way to respect differing views, there!
As I said, I think that many people who first enter college (or who discover politics earlier) have a very non-nuanced view of the world. You’re either with the team or against it, no in-between. So people encounter Dworkin and decide that you’re either with her, and therefore a feminist, or you’re against her, and therefore not a feminist.
And some people decide that since they’re a feminist, they’ve gotta be with her.
Yeah, that’s ignorant, but it’s not cowardly: it’s just something people do before they learn how damnably complicated the world is. It sorta looks to me as if you’re doing the same thing, by putting everyone in the opposing team without trying to understand why they might disagree with you.
Daniel
I firmly believe that women should have the same opportunites as men in all facets of civilization. However I wouldn’t call myself a feminist because it comes with a lot of unwanted baggage. I feel the same about a lot of other labels including conservative and liberal.
Marc
Hi. Ignorant coward without a sense of intellectual integrity checking in here.
When the terminology is coopted by a group, and we’re told – if you’re a feminist, this is what you are – I can (a) be brave and smart; (b) have a sense of intellectual integrity; and (c) be ashamed to call myself a feminist because I don’t want to be associated with Dworkin’s ilk. All three, at once!
On preview, what Left Hand of Dorkness and MGibson said. Except that they said it much better.
This sort of analysis makes Cum Guzzling Cock Sluts seem hardley worth the effort to watch.
The problem is, even IF people say, “Well, screw what people think, I’ll call myself a feminist,” the Andrea Dworkin types drive them away. They screech and say, “You wear a bra/are attracted to men/wear dresses/shave/etc-you’re not a real feminist!!!” They’re hateful towards anyone who doesn’t fall in lock step, and they’ll alienate those who truly BELIEVE in rational feminism.
I dunno. What’s it about?
Marc
It’s about bike racing.
I’m a feminist and so are all of my female friends (and some of my male ones), and I wasn’t outraged at all.
Not all feminists fit into a neat little category.
“If you’re not a feminist, you’re a masochist.”
Gloria Steinem
Let me correct that Steinem quote, it goes like this:
“In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she’s a feminist or a masochist.” —Gloria Steinem
Ah, I wasn’t thinking about her influence on others, just what her declaration (and similar ones like it) meant to me. However, it is correct, IMHO, that such an apparent and violent anti-male stance turned many a female off. Especially if they just skimmed the surface of the issue(s) and walked away with the same sort of stereotypes that go hand-in-hand with being a hardcore “feminazi.” But, as already noted, we come in all flavors and I was simply glad that someone, anyone had no problem letting it be known. Despite their particular brand of idiocy. I did, however, distance myself from her ideas much in the same way that Christians run from good ol’ Phred.
Guess I should have kept such a minor, personal exception to myself. Certainly when it conflicted with my overall opinion of the woman in general. Sorry. 
Now see, this is what I’m talking about. Dworkin has perpetuated the stereotype of the man-hating, anti-sex, unshaven, hostile feminist. Now, I KNOW a lot of what is attributed to her is false, or else taken severely out of context. But she still helped it along, and I will forever be angry about her and MacKinnon teaming up with Ed fucking Meese to ban pornography.
Talk about strange bedfellows. So to speak, I mean. :o
Boy, that’s an image I’d now like to have permenantly erased from my brain. :smack:
Calling Dr. Mierzwiak, calling Dr. Mierzwiak, report to the OR, stat.
Stranger