~ archived since 2018 ~

Dworkin really did say "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women"

meninist

February 28, 2011

7 upvotes

David Futrelle has a blog dedicated to complaining about the MRA. In this particular post, he claims that MRA's have been misquoting Andrea Dworkin:

Then there's this alleged quote from Andrea Dworkin:

'Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.'

According to Wikiquote, this quote is quite literally fictional:

Wikiquote is right; Dworkin never used those exact words. However, if we look at her 1987 book "Intercourse" you'll find a shockingly similar quote:

Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women

A couple words are changed, but it's basically the same idea. Some people will say the quote is out of context, but you can read the whole book online and decide for yourself.

I don't know about the other "debunked" quotes, but this one is clearly not "fiction".

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Dworkin really did say "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women"
Author	meninist
Upvotes	7
Comments	20
Date	February 28, 2011 10:11 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fulmg/dworkin_really_did_say_intercourse_is_the_pure/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dworkin-really-did-say-intercourse-is-the-pure.1042665 https://theredarchive.com/post/1042665

Comments

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]XFDRaven 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's a difference between third wave feminists and second wave.

Unless you can give a link or point out where the membership forms are which establish the values of the different groups, your argument is bullshit and meaningless. It's a very novel approach to try and pass off the realities of feminism and its followers as "no true feminist..."

Or do you want to accept every single guy who claims to be for men's rights when really he wants to disenfranchise women as a true MRA?

Avoiceformen has already declared that I am not an MRA because I will not create an exception to my standards to blanketly dismiss any claims a woman might have against a man in court. Fine by me, I consider myself an Egalitarian which within the formal definition is not exclusive to one sex for "benefits and equal rights" like feminism nor defacto-innocence towards men like the extremists ownership of MRA.

You have no legs to stand on with this rhetoric you're presenting. You're simply Randall, trying to "take back Porch Monkey".

There is absolutely no difference. A feminist, is a feminist. Period.

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I understand where you're coming from, yes. But I at least appreciate the fact that some of those who consider themselves feminists have publically distanced themselves from misandrists like Dworkin, and at least try to be more for the equality they theoretically desire. Just like I appreciate it when other Christians denounce the Westboro Baptist Church. Feminism can change and evolve like any other political movement--look at the Republican Party. They were the ones who freed the slaves, but they certainly aren't minority-friendly now.

So I agree, Dworkin is still a feminist, but I appreciate that there are feminists who draw a line between themselves and creatures like her. Would I like them better if they stopped calling themselves feminist and went for egalitarian or humanist? Of course. But at least it's a step, you know?

Also, that is hilarious, that he thinks you aren't an MRA.

[–]wavegeekman 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]XFDRaven 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for <person> and to demonize <opposition> who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks."

Wiki:No_true_Scotsman: No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

E.g. "My feminism is not her feminism because no true feminist would do this." Modification of subject: "x, y and z attributes, that I assert to be true, are exclusive to true feminists, therefore this is no true feminist."

It's still no true scotsman. Unless you can provide a link to the different applications to be qualified as a first wave, second wave, or third wave feminist, which includes strict definitions, standards and attributes which can be used to exclude those members who do not act in accordance, your point is bullshit and meaningless rhetoric. Period.

[–]Fatalistic 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gigoloaunt 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link