/lit/ - Literature

>>7424601
>Didn't even read her wiki page.

I fucking screen capped it and you're still going to make that accusation? Its just so hard to discern sincere idiocy these days and masterful trolling, rad-fems tend to straddle Poe's law precariously.

Based on the thesis provided, and the fact that it provides Dworkin's own defense to her work I think we can agree that its not a biased page. Not overtly anyways.

I just provided you an argument that undermines that central thesis. Madame Bovary and Dracula fundamentally don't fit the proposed model of normalizing a woman's subordinate sexual attitude. Anyone that has read them would likely come to the same conclusions, many even believe Madame Bovary to be a feminist text.

>>7424601
Off hearsay? From this thread alone most people would have reason enough not to read her. Moreover, I've listened to in-depth analysis of her work, I relegate it to videos that can occupy me between classes and reading substantive literature.

I have read, and intend to continue reading the occasional feminist or social-science text, but Dworkin? No.

>Get's offended by dissenting views
What are you doing now then retard? Saying I come to "mouth your asinine views" isn't being offended by dissenting views?
>hurr durr its cause you're uninformed.

But i'm not, i've merely come to the conclusion that naturalistic or empirical explanations account for the majority of the hypothesized behavior that is criticized. These finds are BACKED UP by observations, this is just ONE example: http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/

Face the fact that Dworkin's opinions are spouted by a minority because -as impressive as its volume is- its not very accurate.