Oligopsony comments on Can the Chain Still Hold You? - Less Wrong

108 Post author: lukeprog 13 January 2012 01:28AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (354)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Oligopsony 15 December 2012 11:56:02AM 1 point [-]

Could you provide evidence that Daly or Dworkin did assert such a thing? I've read quite a bit of Dworkin, nothing suggesting anything of the sort; I've read less Daly, and while I found all of it pretty silly I would be surprised if that was among them.

The "all sex is rape" claim is most often attributed to Dworkin or MacKinnon, which makes me strongly suspect that while surely someone somewhere has believed it, prominent radical theorists were not among them.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 16 December 2012 12:26:41PM *  3 points [-]

In another comment in this thread there is a link to Daly saying, in an interview:

If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.

A short look at wikiquotes of Dworkin gives this:

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.

So assuming these are the best quotes to be found (I did not try too hard), it would be more precise and fair to say that Daly enjoyed the thought that 90% of men would be "decontaminated" by "an evolutionary process"; and Dworkin said that every man (under patriarchy, which means anything) is a "rapist or exploiter".

None of this really makes any of them a sick person, does it?

I mean, if I said that "if life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth; a natural process resulting in drastic reduction of the females" and "under feminism, every women is a rapist or exploiter of another man", those would also be perfectly OK, politically correct, inoffensive, and uncontroversial statements, ready to get me to the textbooks as a defender of equality and everything good. (Just joking, those are not my opinions.)

Comment author: Oligopsony 16 December 2012 02:13:20PM 3 points [-]

Well, you won't find me defending Daly; everything I've read of her suggests she's a nut. As you yourself note the passage doesn't directly imply the sex=rape thesis, and there's always context etc. (Dworkin for instance has some quotes describing sex as conceived by what she considers patriarchal ideology that have been taken out of context) but it also doesn't seem like a perverse interpretation.

I mean, if I said that "if life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth; a natural process resulting in drastic reduction of the females" and "under feminism, every women is a rapist or exploiter of another man", those would also be perfectly OK, politically correct, inoffensive, and uncontroversial statements, ready to get me to the textbooks as a defender of equality and everything good. (Just joking, those are not my opinions.)

Ah, but surely as rationalists we must not let emotions cloud our judgments or subject truth to the inquisitorial glare of political correctness, if men universally evolved to be scum may we should want to believe that they did, human biodiversity between untermenschen and überfräuen ought be celebrated, &c.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 16 December 2012 03:18:59PM 1 point [-]

I don't have a problem to believe things like "most mass murderers are male", etc. (I just hope people around me are good enough at math to recognize that the statement is not equivalent to "most males are mass murderers".) Just give me evidence from a reliable source.

Show me a sustainable utopia with 10% males (I would actually encourage feminists sympathetic to this idea to try it, but only with volunteers), give me reliable reports from independent sources, and I might be convinced. Until then, it is just a hypothesis in the idea-space, and I find other explanations more likely.

Comment author: Oligopsony 16 December 2012 04:06:24PM 1 point [-]

My last paragraph was, like yours, just joking and not my actual opinions. I'm a pretty strong constructionist on gender and also a dude, if that means anything.

Comment author: MugaSofer 16 December 2012 01:18:55PM 1 point [-]

I'm having trouble telling which parts of this are ironic. I'm sure some of this must be ... I just can't tell what.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 16 December 2012 02:46:55PM 5 points [-]

Non-ironic: Daly and Dworkin said some repulsive things, and a non-mindkilled person would recognize some problems with their ideas. (Here are the quotes, and I did not even try too hard to find them.)

Ironic: If I said the same things publicly, only with genders reversed, the people who consider Daly and Dworkin sane, would consider me sane too. (Not likely.)

Comment author: MugaSofer 17 December 2012 05:43:29PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for clarifying. It's sometimes hard to tell in a text environment.

Comment author: TimS 16 December 2012 07:07:40PM -1 points [-]

In the absence of a closer association between Daly and Dworkin, conflating their positions is like conflating Stephen J. Gould and Steven Pinker because they both claim to apply the theory of evolution.

As I and Oligopsony have said, Daly can go piss off. Dworkin's quote is just articulating her definition of patriarchy. If you think we aren't living in that society, her definition is not particularly interesting. But it isn't like there's no evidence that she's somewhat accurately describing our current society.