4 ms·

Or you could read Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and or if you want something lighter Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" to have it d

Or you could read Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and or if you want something lighter Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" to have it debunked.

rayiner 8y ago
Have what debunked?
- notyourday 8y ago
  > I wouldn't call it feminism, but the lingering effects of the sexual revolution, which was dominated heavily by male interest. (Read Dworkin's "Right Wing Women." TLDR version, the sexual revolution was heavily influenced by male desire to make women more sexually available: https://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010.. https://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010.... (pp. 94-95)) Iliza Shlesinger has a great point about this in one of her routines. That.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Hm. And there was of course no female desire to not be stigmatized for wanting to be sexually available? Because only men want that, right? This thesis smells funny.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      That's a highly reductionist view of Dworkin's point. The sexual revolution was not merely about reducing the stigma on women for having sex outside of marriage. As Dworkin explains in Right Wing Women (p. 89): > The pop idea was that fucking was good, so good that the more there was of it, the better. The pop idea was that people should fuck whom they wanted: translated for the girls, this meant that girls should want to be fucked—as close to all the time as was humanly possible. She continues (at p. 91): > Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful. Hence Iliza Shlesinger's point: > > You’ve also been holding in… your intentions. We have this really nasty habit in our society of labeling women very cruel and unfair things when they express their desire for very normal things. Monogamy, exclusivity, a relationship, a family, babies. Right? We like to call them desperate, sad, psychos, baby crazy. “We’ve been married for six years. She already wants a kid! I’m a fuck man! They can’t get me.” It’s very normal to want these things. Calling women "baby crazy" for wanting kids is the product of a male-centric sexual revolution that prioritizes what men want out of sexual relationships and criticizes women for wanting perfectly normal things out of those same relationships. I haven't read the "Selfish Gene," but I strongly suspect it doesn't "debunk" the idea that it's normal for women to want kids and that our popular culture shouldn't stigmatize that desire.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. I think that calling this empirically true requires a highly dubious operationalization of “free”; it is absolutely the case that sexually (and in other ways which are indirectly related to sexual and reproductive choices), women have more options that will not lead to near-universal condemnation. It is true that this is not cost-free for women of all preferences (and particularly for women who strongly desire universal acceptance), in that the one option that previously had near universal approbation now only produces large minority approbation, overwhelming majority (but not near-universal) acceptance, and small minority condemnation. Alternatively, it requires (as seems to underlie most of Dworkins fact claims, in RWW and elsewhere), simply the willingness to claim whatever suits your ideological agenda as proven fact no matter whether it has any correspondence with reality whatsoever.
        rayiner 8y ago
        You're ignoring the male side of the equation: "Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints." The sexual revolution dramatically reduced the reciprocal obligations men used to have in connection with sexual activity: i.e. taking care of the resulting kids. > in that the one option that previously had near universal approbation now only produces large minority approbation, overwhelming majority (but not near-universal) acceptance, and small minority condemnation. This is an understatement. It's not one option--it's the option. Wanting kids is a nearly universal preference: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp.... Among adults age 45+, if they had to do it again, only 11% would have chosen to not have children. (7% of those who had children, and 44% of those who never had children). But for women, expressing this nearly universal preference is quite taboo these days during their prime reproductive years. And if they choose to have kids (which men and women want at similar rates), the sexual revolution has meant that they are much more likely to be bear the cost of taking care of them alone, because reciprocal male obligation has been greatly diminished.
        8y ago
    - notyourday 8y ago
      Yes, everyone should read feminist theory ( of course we must exclude Paglia because she is not a true feminist as she contradicts the true feminists ) to debunk Evolutionary Biology. /s, in case it was not obvious.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        What exactly is the point of evolutionary biology that you feel is being attacked? To the contrary, Dworkin's point is rooted in biology, specifically the fact that sex is expensive and risky for women in a way it isn't for men. She describes the women in communes who had to take care of children without any support (or risk unsafe abortions) due to the free love culture. She deemed the sexual revolution male-centric for that reason: it was about more sex for men and diminished responsibility for the outcomes, which for biological reasons is borne by women.
        JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Because communes? That's a small nail to hang a theory on. Sounds a lot like what-about-ism. And what's the revolution about today? Because its still here. And women are advancing into every social institution continuously, the risk having been abated by chemistry and physics. Is it still male-centric? Should it now stop because of a 1960's confused theory?

Or you could read Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and or if you want something lighter Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" to have it debunked.

rayiner 8y ago

Have what debunked?

notyourday 8y ago
> I wouldn't call it feminism, but the lingering effects of the sexual revolution, which was dominated heavily by male interest. (Read Dworkin's "Right Wing Women." TLDR version, the sexual revolution was heavily influenced by male desire to make women more sexually available: https://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010.. https://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010.... (pp. 94-95)) Iliza Shlesinger has a great point about this in one of her routines. That.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Hm. And there was of course no female desire to not be stigmatized for wanting to be sexually available? Because only men want that, right? This thesis smells funny.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That's a highly reductionist view of Dworkin's point. The sexual revolution was not merely about reducing the stigma on women for having sex outside of marriage. As Dworkin explains in Right Wing Women (p. 89): > The pop idea was that fucking was good, so good that the more there was of it, the better. The pop idea was that people should fuck whom they wanted: translated for the girls, this meant that girls should want to be fucked—as close to all the time as was humanly possible. She continues (at p. 91): > Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful. Hence Iliza Shlesinger's point: > > You’ve also been holding in… your intentions. We have this really nasty habit in our society of labeling women very cruel and unfair things when they express their desire for very normal things. Monogamy, exclusivity, a relationship, a family, babies. Right? We like to call them desperate, sad, psychos, baby crazy. “We’ve been married for six years. She already wants a kid! I’m a fuck man! They can’t get me.” It’s very normal to want these things. Calling women "baby crazy" for wanting kids is the product of a male-centric sexual revolution that prioritizes what men want out of sexual relationships and criticizes women for wanting perfectly normal things out of those same relationships. I haven't read the "Selfish Gene," but I strongly suspect it doesn't "debunk" the idea that it's normal for women to want kids and that our popular culture shouldn't stigmatize that desire.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. I think that calling this empirically true requires a highly dubious operationalization of “free”; it is absolutely the case that sexually (and in other ways which are indirectly related to sexual and reproductive choices), women have more options that will not lead to near-universal condemnation. It is true that this is not cost-free for women of all preferences (and particularly for women who strongly desire universal acceptance), in that the one option that previously had near universal approbation now only produces large minority approbation, overwhelming majority (but not near-universal) acceptance, and small minority condemnation. Alternatively, it requires (as seems to underlie most of Dworkins fact claims, in RWW and elsewhere), simply the willingness to claim whatever suits your ideological agenda as proven fact no matter whether it has any correspondence with reality whatsoever.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        You're ignoring the male side of the equation: "Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints." The sexual revolution dramatically reduced the reciprocal obligations men used to have in connection with sexual activity: i.e. taking care of the resulting kids. > in that the one option that previously had near universal approbation now only produces large minority approbation, overwhelming majority (but not near-universal) acceptance, and small minority condemnation. This is an understatement. It's not one option--it's the option. Wanting kids is a nearly universal preference: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp.... Among adults age 45+, if they had to do it again, only 11% would have chosen to not have children. (7% of those who had children, and 44% of those who never had children). But for women, expressing this nearly universal preference is quite taboo these days during their prime reproductive years. And if they choose to have kids (which men and women want at similar rates), the sexual revolution has meant that they are much more likely to be bear the cost of taking care of them alone, because reciprocal male obligation has been greatly diminished.
        8y ago
  - notyourday 8y ago
    Yes, everyone should read feminist theory ( of course we must exclude Paglia because she is not a true feminist as she contradicts the true feminists ) to debunk Evolutionary Biology. /s, in case it was not obvious.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      What exactly is the point of evolutionary biology that you feel is being attacked? To the contrary, Dworkin's point is rooted in biology, specifically the fact that sex is expensive and risky for women in a way it isn't for men. She describes the women in communes who had to take care of children without any support (or risk unsafe abortions) due to the free love culture. She deemed the sexual revolution male-centric for that reason: it was about more sex for men and diminished responsibility for the outcomes, which for biological reasons is borne by women.
      - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Because communes? That's a small nail to hang a theory on. Sounds a lot like what-about-ism. And what's the revolution about today? Because its still here. And women are advancing into every social institution continuously, the risk having been abated by chemistry and physics. Is it still male-centric? Should it now stop because of a 1960's confused theory?