If feminists are against sexism, where is their outrage over Dworkin who was so clearly sexist?

Question

Why weren't feminists outraged that someone so clearly sexist against men identified herself as a feminist?

Wouldn't feminists be offended that their movement was getting marred by sexism?

...One of the very things they were supposedly fighting AGAINST?

...& yet Dworkin is hailed as a feminist pioneer & called "inspiring" by feminists.

She was not cast out of the movement nor denounced publicly by the "moderates."


Interesting, no?

EDIT:

Exactly Serin...

...& I'm sure you know that Wendy McElroy even devised a new term "ifeminists" to show her deviation from the mainstream.

It's women like the ones you name that I do not even call feminists. That term has such a taint to it that it might bring unfortunate connotations to them.

I also like the women over at the Independent Women's Forum (Carrie Lukas, to name one) who are also examples of women that want TRUE equality.


(Object Of Its Ire)

Yes, I know... you're bored of me. ...Which is why you read all of my posts & feel the need to post comments in them. What makes you keep reading them? What makes you keep responding? Oh well... keep 'em coming.

EDIT:

(rovale)

What modern religious leaders have made comments equivalent to Dworkin's? Examples?

Has Rush Limbaugh made comments equivalent to Dworkin's? Examples?

You've also lumped Rush Limbaugh in with the entire white population. That's a bit of a stretch. Next you'll want me to defend Dahmer.

Do you think John McCain would endorse Limbaugh? Fred Thompson?

Limbaugh is nowhere near as bad as Dworkin & yet conservative leaders wouldn't endorse the man.

Feminist leaders endorsed Dworkin and they still do.

EDIT:

(Katy)

She was a man-hating radical. A person with so much hatred & hate speech against men should not be a valued commodity to ANY movement.

The fact that the feminists hail her as "one of the greats" is eye-opening. Keep your eyes closed if you wish.

Answer 1

Very true, and this is one of the great failings of feminism. You see, feminists are almost completely unwilling to ostracize ANYONE who uses the feminist label. They like to assert that there are "many different kinds of feminism," and this particular brand is not the one THEY represent.

Of course, if a word means everything, it also means nothing.

However, there have been a handful of feminists who have called out women like Andrea Dworkin, Carol Gilligan, and all the rest of the man-hating hordes. Women like Christina Hoff-Sommers, Wendy McElroy, etc. - all are excellent examples of what feminists SHOULD be. And how are they treated by the rest of their "peers"? THEY are ostracized - not misandrists.

It's very telling.

Answer 2

I didn't realise "feminists" (whatever that means) had a duty to be annoyed by anyone! Or
"cast them out"! It doesn't sound like a very freeing kind of an aim of a movement to
have those kind of conditions. Sounds more like a fraternity or masonic lodge!
I am impressed, and must admit had no idea that the author of this question knew the opinions of every "feminist", and knew that they were all in favour of Andrea Dworkin's every word and agreed with her on everything. I always thought that some people disgreed with her. Nor did I realise that all sympathisers with the women's movement were required to have the same views and preferences. I guess if they did,
it would be easier to label them "feminists" and lump them together and then attack them.

Disagreeing with somebody is not a reason to denounce them publicly, although many men over the years have used this tactic on women, and on other men whom they wish to have superiority over. To great effect, it must be said. And to
the detriment of joy, diversity and equality.
Eliminating hierarchy in human relationships is the only agenda that I have personally,
and it is one where I have found common ground with a lot of women, men and children and
in a lot of literature considered to be " feminist". So what if Andrea Dworkin annoyed some men in trying to acheive a similar end. She only wrote a book! Is being an authentic human being, with all the love, faith, anger, and general failings of any person, and something to be despised? There is no "ideal woman." There is no "ideal feminist". Women are not puppets, sanitised and spruced and unchallenging. In fact
who says that people whi have suffered and lost under an unfair and damaging regime have a duty to be polite when rebelling against it? Who says they have to get everything right and be balanced and reasonable? People just try their best, and I think being a bestselling writer and getting people talking and debating and raising awareness for years
is pretty damn good.

Answer 3

Are you touching on the Guns_fan query? I understand the place you're coming from. His solutions show that he's extremely sexist. despite if, as long as he has no skill to quite DO something which will end me from being efficient simply by fact of his sexism, I help his precise to assert what he needs. i in my opinion hate to assert it, yet unfastened speech extends to all human beings, even people who've no longer something priceless to assert, or who in common terms have discriminatory issues to assert. If he bothers you that lots, merely attempt to overlook approximately him. besides, while you're a humanist, you're truthfully a feminist. Please do no longer end calling your self a feminist. EDIT: For the main section, sexism should not be disregarded. in case you're denied a activity given which you're a woman, then you definitely shouldn't overlook approximately that. in case you gets a commission much less given which you're a woman, you're able to desire to no longer overlook approximately that. If somebody ever does something to incorrect you given which you're a woman, you're able to desire to no longer overlook approximately that. yet...if some random guy...on an cyber web communicate board...wastes his precise to unfastened speech making sexist comments, and that they do no longer right now injury you, then sure, you're able to desire to overlook approximately that.

Answer 4

I for one disagree with Dworkin dead or alive that's where I stand. Now here is a though to consider. No matter if we agree or not with what a person says the seeds of their words are still implanted in our minds.

Answer 5

Let me ask you some things:

How come more Christians don't publicly denounce some religious leaders when they make offensive and inflammatory comments?

How come more white men don't denounce Rush Limbaugh when he makes insulting comments about women and minorities?

Wouldn't you think your movements are being tainted by these sorts of extremist views? How come feminists are expected to denounce some of their more lunatic fringe members yet those who belong to other political movements can make just as offensive statements and not be "cast out"? Why is that?

Answer 6

In Dworkin's day, everyone was more radical than they are now, when we tend to distance ourselves from her kind.

I would like organizations like ifeminists.org more if they weren't so obviously right-wing. I'm a libertarian, but I'm also a liberal.

Answer 7

It has to do with identity politics. A person can identify however they want to. "Feminism" is a socially constructed category. Who gets to make the rules of who is allowed to identify and not identify?

Not all feminists agree with one another.

If dwarkin was called "inspiring" by feminist, obviously we should insert *some* before feminist, instead of assuming she was called "inspiring" by all feminists. ^_~

Answer 8

You keep making generalist statements about all feminists. When are you going to understand that not all feminists have the same views???

Answer 9

Who on earth would feel 'outrage' over a dead person's point of view anyway? Are we not each entitled to a point of view? Are you trying to censor "point of view"? Are you trying to censor ideas? You people are beginning to sound more like Nazi's with each passing minute; they also enjoyed a good old fashioned book burning. The warmth of the fire, the soft glow, the music of the crackling as verboten ideas went up in smoke

Tick-tock, tick-tock...

This is problematic. I can feel outrage at DEEDS or EVENTS where people (or animals or the environment) have been/continue to be victimised. Examples would include

- clear cutting old growth forests by the logging industry
- the Gulag prison system's role in squelching political dissent in the former USSR (real or imagined dissent)
- the Salem Witch Trials
- the bushmeat industry in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- parrot smuggling rings operating out of Mexico
- the AIDS epidemic in Africa...

I can't feel 'outrage' at thoughts or opinions. No matter how loony or offensive, you are entitled to your opinions. And so TOO was Dworkin.

Who do you think you are anyway,
the 'Thought Police'???
Something to think about.