Feminist on Incest: "the incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture" (Andrea Dworkin, 1974) (self.politics)

submitted 2 months ago by Wallura to c/politics@hexbear.net

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] culpritus@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat:_The_Jews,_Israel,_and_Women%27s_Liberation

In Scapegoat, Dworkin compared the oppression of women to the persecution of Jews, discussed the sexual politics of Jewish identity and antisemitism, and called for the establishment of a women's homeland as a response to the oppression of women, just as the Zionist movement had established a state for Jews.

Writing in Spectre, Sophie Lewis argued that Scapegoat represents the “despairing culmination” of Dworkin’s thought, contending that the book advocates the creation of an “Israel” for women and links women’s liberation to nationalist violence. Lewis criticized the work as relying on sweeping historical analogies and described its argument as “dazzlingly erudite and stunningly stupid,” ultimately characterizing its political vision as “fascistic.”

[-] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 18 points 2 months ago

What if there was a country but it was just for the ladies?

[-] Speaker@hexbear.net 18 points 2 months ago

What if it was Hisrael and it was just for the fellas?

[-] culpritus@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago

Hizrl and Herzl

[-] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

like that greek island?

[-] Wallura 15 points 2 months ago

I haven't read that book of her yet.

But in her book "woman hating" she has a chapter on chinese footbinding and writes that mutilating the opposite sex is a form enslavement. Her being jewish - there's an obvious irony.

[-] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 19 points 2 months ago

Though I would not personally use the word slavery, I think there's something to be said about viewing women's bodies as property to the point where they are mutilated in a way that makes it more difficult to do even the most basic of tasks. Women were bought and sold chiefly by and for the benefit of men and things were done to them, often against their will, to make their market rate higher. Again, not sure I'd use the word slavery, but mostly because in the US it is so closely associated with chattel slavery that it is hard to warrant a comparison, even though it is pretty close to other forms of slavery.

[-] MeetMeAtTheMovies@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Her being jewish - there's an obvious irony.

I don’t understand the obvious irony. What is it?

[-] casskaydee@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago

Circumcision I'm guessing?

[-] MerryJaneDoe@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

Wow, I just went down a rabbit hole and read a bunch of her stuff.

I'm left to wonder why her ideas gained any traction at all? But I've had enough of Dworkin for one day, so maybe I'll just stay morbidly curious and move on with my life. I feel like I need some chocolate and a fuzzy blanket now...safety...security....sanity.

[-] JustSo@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago

if I've learned anything its that everything this obnoxious has its roots in CIA meddling bullshit.

[-] XxFemboy_Stalin_420_69xX@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

trueanon rule: be normal

[-] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago

This is a topic I am fully chud-brained on. Some things should be illegal because I just find them that gross and off-putting. You can give me some convoluted argument explaining how consent between adults in incestuous situations is invalid, but we all know that incest between consenting adults is illegal purely on the grounds of being repugnant to the majority of people, and that that’s the way it ought to stay.

[-] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 32 points 2 months ago

I can't get on board with this because this exact reasoning also works for sodomy laws.

[-] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

leftist rationales around laws forbidding bestiality [...] are so strained

what-the-hell

The left rationale around outlawing bestiality isn't strained at all. Animals can't give informed consent. If that's not self-evidently enough for you, then I don't know what to say.

[-] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago

The vegan leftist rationale outlawing bestiality isnt strained. The non-vegan leftist rationale that the animal’s consent matters when it comes to sex with a human but not when it is forcibly impregnated or killed by a human is strained.

[-] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

The Banned Comment

I know, that’s why it’s chud-brained. And I think that’s why liberal or leftist rationales around laws forbidding bestiality and incest are so strained, no one wants to lend credence to a “it should be illegal based on my personal feelings about it” mindset. But ultimately nothing is objective, all law have a root in morality and all morality ultimately has a subjective basis. And this is one area I’m just gonna have to skip the line and say it’s bad because I feel that it’s bad very strongly.

[-] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago

"consenting adults" is doing some lifting there because of grooming and power dynamics.

very very rarely unwitting siblings who were adopted into separate households grow up without knowing each other, meet without knowing they're related and start a relationship and sometimes courts decide that isn't illegal as long as they don't reproduce. biologists can chime in on whether one generation is enough to Hapsburg.

i think it's motivated by disgust but it's also a pretty good heuristic for abuse, unlike sodomy laws.

[-] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. In the incredibly unlikely scenarios where two siblings of the same age who are now grown adults and independently decide, free of any insidious influence past or present, that they are in love and want to be together without ever having children, I still want them to be lowered into a hole and for that hole to be covered forever (humanely).

[-] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

what if they're half siblings from one of those sperm bank fraud weirdos? that's probably happened a few times without anyone knowing.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

The abolishment of the nuclear family is something I've never been sold on. Like, here in the US, we don't even have multi generational households generally, and I've spent some time in places where people live in close proximity to a lot of their relatives. I haven't been anywhere that let's say "primary" relationships (as in nuclear) aren't significant.

[-] blunder@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago

My family is nuclear in that proximity to them is radioactive to me and therefore I see greater value in the "weaker" (i.e. non blood) but more various forms of connection I've formed since, with people who don't talk about murdering people like me. But that's just my exp

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

I fully get that. I'm fortunate in that I have good relations with my "blood" family, but I do have extremely close relationships that I consider "family" or closer. I'm just saying I'm not sold on the idea on a general, social level.

[-] blunder@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah I mean definitely jealous of people who have that in a stable form haha. But decentering that family model and normalizing leaving it when it is not functional and uplifting alternate models is good for others, while those in stable families can continue to be

obama If you like your family, you can keep them

Not that I think you disagree I'm just musing

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

Yeah we're on the same page :)

[-] ClassIsOver@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

Friends are family you get to choose

[-] MeetMeAtTheMovies@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If I’m not mistaken there have been some family abolitionists who tried to raise kids without parents. Turns out that’s exactly how you breed kids with attachment disorders. Young kids use their relationship with their primary caretakers as a template for the rest of the major relationships in their life.

[-] tithonis@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

The nuclear family is a historical aberration and it's not unusual for infants to have multiple primary caregivers that they can rely on to get their needs reliably met.

Attachment theory as popularly understood is basically astrology for how you and your mommy got along before you were 18 months old. Attachment is at minimum a dyadic process; an attachment "style" is something that emerges from the social interaction of two or more people.

I could go on at length here.