Fidelbogen: Men’s Rights Activists! Forget about DV shelters for men. Focus on the important issue: yelling at feminists

Fidelbogen says Dave has taken a “few quotemines” “wildly out of context.” Dude, you know people can actually see what you both posted? Doesn’t seem even non-wildly out of context to me.

With an actual example of quote-mining, you can show how it went.

For example:

“Andrea Dworkin said all sex is rape!”

“Actually, her quote goes like this: Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into (“violate”) the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy.”

People who cry quote-mine without actually showing me a quote-mine? Yawn, no, sit down.

@HowardBannister: That is interesting, as I had taken it for granted that Dworkin did equate all intercourse with rape and even thought I remembered her explicitly stating as much. From the quote above it is easy to see how such an interpretation would arise. If she did not mean that all intercourse is rape (I just looked it up, she denied it), then the only possible explanation is that she misused the term “synonym”. If violation and intercourse are synonymous, then of course all intercourse must be rape. The rest of the quote I would have to read in context. Taken by itself, even with the most charitable interpretation, it seems to be saying that violation is seen in our culture as a “normal use” of a woman’s body. That is, I can only interpret it to mean that, even if not all intercourse is rape, all rape is considered equivalent consensual intercourse. Personally, I have little more use for radfems than for MRA’s the latter being quite a bit scarier.

When she says it synonymous, she’s talking about how the language that we use to talk about sex is all kinds of rape-y. She’s talking about the social construction of sex.

But it’s a big idea and takes three chapters for her to explain, because, y’know, that’s just how it is, women are tasked with withholding sex, sex is something men get by pushing against women’s boundaries until they overcome them, etc. etc. etc.

She’s absolutely RIPE for quote-mining.

Fidelbogen, not so much.

@ Howard Bannister- I’ve found that in general, the more complicated and nuanced a thinker is, and the more difficult their ideas, the easier it is for idiots to quote mine them. Which is a real shame for those of us who want to have 501 level discussions about some of these topics only to have to smack down the 101 level trolls who completely miss the point. *sigh*

Really hope this isn’t seen as trolling, just a genuine idle thought: what about when something is bitchin’, meaning that it’s totally rad, awesome and badass? I would guess it’s a phrase mainly (if not much any more) used by dudebros, but how did this reversal of meaning come about? And would a T-shirt that says Feminism is bitchin’ be, well, totally bitchin’, or would it just suck?

This is just my own opinion, but I think the context makes that use of the word bitch okay. In that case it’s an adjective, and it’s used to describe something as being good, so I don’t see it having any misogyny in it. I personally would like a T-shirt saying “Feminism is bitchin”, because I’d see it as being funny and taking the word back. But I’d give more leeway to a woman wearing one than a man, just because I’d wonder if the man was wearing one as a way of trying to call feminists bitches, but having the ability to deny it, too.

Someday if men are called bitches for being opinionated and assertive, then I guess my views on it would change. But as it is now, bitch is almost always used against girls and women, and when it is used against men, it’s done in a way to imply they are women. So that’s why I give more leeway to women with the word.

Re: Andrea Dworkin. Having found the original quote, I think if you want to put it in a clearer context, you should include the preceding sentence: “The discourse of male truth—literature, science, philosophy, pornography—calls that penetration violation.” That makes it clear that she is talking about intercourse as it is viewed in male-dominated culture. There is certainly reason to think so, as most traditional depictions of love / seduction involve a man “laying siege” to a woman’s “heart” until she “surrenders”. However, granting all that, as I read more of her writing in context, I can’t help but see her view of intercourse as being inherently and irredeemably degrading to women: “There are many explanations, of course, that try to be kind … There is nothing implicit in intercourse that mandates male dominance in society.” (one of those explanations, which she appears to dismiss). “The great advocate of the female-first model of intercourse in the nineteenth century was Victoria Woodhull. She understood that rape was slavery; not less than slavery in its insult to human integrity and human dignity … Male-dominant gender hierarchy, however, seems immune to reform by reasoned or visionary argument or by changes in sexual styles, either personal or social. This may be because intercourse itself is immune to reform.” I haven’t read the whole thing, but each time she brings up attempts to “even the playing field” by giving women more power over their own bodies, she shoots it down. The only way I can interpret her is as saying that intercourse will always be bad for women as long as women have unequal power, but intercourse itself is an expression of that unequal power and always will be (it’s immune to reform, it implicitly mandates male domincance). Then, at the end of the chapter: “If intercourse can be an expression of sexual equality, it will have to survive– on its own merits as it were, having a potential for human expression not yet recognized or realized–the destruction of male power over women.” This makes it clear that 1) she thinks intercourse can be an equal affair (at some future point, when there is no more rape or prostitution) and 2) under current conditions, it cannot be anything but an expression of men’s power over women. The first point directly contradicts what she said earlier about intercourse itself being one of the things that perpetuate male power over women. http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseII.html

RE: markb

Oh god, dude, no paragraph breaks? Dworkin is hard enough for me to read as it is!

LBT – sorry, you should have seen it before I edited it.
AK – Well, she’s a polemicist. I don’t think it was her intent to provide a roadmap away from a patriarchal society and towards a more equal one. I kept skimming through it for some suggestion of what she thinks we should do to change things, and I think that boiled down to “get rid of prostitution and (institutionalized) rape” in the last paragraph. That is my main problem with radical feminists, they talk about smashing patriarchy but right now (and this is based on a very cursory analysis of web sites) they seem to be going about it by getting into fights with transgendered people and holding women-only concerts. Fortunately, the MRA’s are even more ineffectual.

RE: markb

Keep in mind there are different types of radical feminism, which is why the term Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) exists. And the Second Wave had a LOT of issues regarding trans folks, gender performance, and so on.

RE: M Dubz

I swear, I am the only trans person I know who has never read Judith Butler, because every time I try, I want to STAB IT AND SET IT ON FIRE. Just, oh my fucking god, could you BE more opaque and obfuscatory? It drives me crazy, as a writer who also makes educational works on mental health.

Is it just me, or does Fidelbogen sound like the name of a troll? Like, an actual troll, the kinds that live under bridges and steal babies and shit?

Also, re: Dworkin, not all feminism is sex-positive, and there’s an argument to be made for that, but I’m not gonna be the one to do it, because I’m drinking margaritas right now and laughing about the name Fidelbogen.