Is all radfem literature like this?
This shit is some of the most ludicrous, hyperbolic grievance mongering I have ever read. There's interesting shit floating around in here, but it is drifting in a sea of "every man is a wife-beating rapist who caused all the world's problems." Even though the book is directly comparing Zionism and feminism and seems to advocate for a lady Israel, it's mostly just couched in whining about men. Dworkin doesn't even have the fucking stones to be a strong Zionist. She's one of these wishy-washy Zionists who thinks that Zionists and Palestinians can co-exist, and maybe one day Israeli and Palestinian women can come together and unite against their REAL enemy: men! (lol) (lmao)
15 posts and 2 image replies omitted.Is there a Dworkin discourse going on on twitter, I just saw a thread about her there. I am going to copy it here as I think it is an actually intelligent critique as opposed to misogynist screeching about how she wasnt fuckable enough ITT.
>There is something to be said about the fact that the lost granddaughters of radical feminism obsess over Dworkin's bibliography but rarely engage with the works of the actual founders of the movement. Excerpt above is from Ellen Willis, one of the Redstockings co-founders. To be fair, the whole 1984 essay is an evaluation of the misteps of radical feminism, from its theoretical affiliations, politics and unfolding during the 70s. Here is Butler, 1992, on MacKinnon and Dworkin: [see picrel]
>Butler, on 2024 (Who's Afraid of Gender?), stresses that while MacKinnon is and Andrea was transinclusive thinkers, highlights that even though there is distortion in the GC adoption of their work, the pratical political affiliaitons with the right were premeditated by them. Even though you do find transinclusivity in the Dworkin's wonder, one wonders why she wrote a blurb for Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire, which remains the firm theoretical ground for Gender Critical rhetoric. Or better yet: why she didn't criticize it? I know that Andrea's writing can be captivating. It is powerful, a ruthless description of male violence and domination, and I will contend that some aspects of her work can shed light on this. I still think that Right Wing Women is her better work, though, and very useful to expose the logic behind the driving force of the Gender Critical and TERF movements today. Yet, it is entirely dishonest to only look at her writings, to not think on the effects of her political activity and stance. It is not distortion all the way down. While her writing can be great at exposing misoginy, I don't think her work can be separated from a strong polarized sex metaphysics, that, as Willis pointed out, reify the sex-class paradigm. Butler calls it behaviorism, there is an obvious social determination behind it all. That is why I don't used and think that the most damaging concept in this tradition is the "socialization" idea, it flattens out the sexed experience, tending to pretend that "males" and "females" have a firmly homogeneous childhood-youth experience.So yes, Dwrokin has been criticized. By her predecessors and her sucessors. Keep in mind tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.>>758438>dworkin is le bad because she didn't care for transhumanistsI still prefer the mysoginist ad hominem argument.
>>758457Yeah I know you do.