Thoughts on Andrea Dworkin.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I'm curious on what the opinions of forumites are on the life and work of the legendary (and controversial) radical feminist Andrea Dworkin.

Dworkin is, for some people, the epitome of extreme radical feminism. She was certainly an aggressive and imposing figure (i.e. she could basically break lesser men in half). She was outspoken, sensational, and every bit as radical as a feminist of her era could be. She was known for her (not unjustified) criticisms and crusades against the porn industry, calling it a misogynistic and dehumanizing business. She famously said that "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman".

She had her critics, of course...and I won't argue that they were all without merit. Dworkin was a rather abrasive individual, and to say that she was divisive is to say that Antartica is kinda chilly.

So.....thoughts? Opinions?

[Creative Destruction]

I think she did some important work, and, honestly, most of her criticism comes from cherry picking by her critics. She actually answered the "All sex is rape" characterization of her argument:


Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument,[62] stating in a later interview that "I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality"[63] and suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: "Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it."[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin

I don't think that's an unreasonable argument. Here's the larger point:


Michael Moorcock: After "Right-Wing Women" and "Ice and Fire" you wrote "Intercourse". Another book which helped me clarify confusions about my own sexual relationships. You argue that attitudes to conventional sexual intercourse enshrine and perpetuate sexual inequality. Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse--it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

[Comrade Hadrian]

Her book Scapegoat is curious, in that she posits the idea that within Israel, Israeli women are more oppressed than Palestinians. She ends her essay "Whose Country Is it Anyway?" with these lines:


In Israel, there are the occupied and the occupied: Palestinians and women. In the Israel I saw, Palestinians will be freer sooner. I didn't find any of my trees

I would say this is a good example of the limits of her politics. The essay itself has some interesting points, where Dworkin seems to recognize the reality of the situation, but can not bring herself to the only rational conclusion.



I went to a conference billed as the First International Jewish Feminist Conference. Its theme was the empowerment of Jewish women. Its sponsors were the American Jewish Congress, the World Jewish Congress, and the Israel Women's Network, and it was being organized with a middle-class agenda by middle-class women, primarily American, who were themselves beholden to the male leadership of the sponsoring groups. So the conference looked to secular Israeli feminists organizing at the grass-roots level--and so it was. Initially, the secular Israeli feminists intended to organize an alternate feminist conference to repudiate the establishment feminist conference, but they decided instead to have their own conference, one that included Palestinian women, the day after the establishment conference ended.
I went because of grass-roots Israeli feminists: the opportunity to meet with them in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem; to talk with those organizing against violence against women on all fronts; to learn more about the situation of women in Israel. I planned to stay on--if I had, I also would have spoken at and for the rape crisis center in Jerusalem. In Haifa, where both Phyllis Chesler and I spoke to a packed room (which included Palestinian women and some young Arab men) on child custody and pornography in the United States, women were angry about the establishment conference--its tepid feminist agenda, its exclusion of the poor and of Palestinian feminists. One woman, maybe in her sixties, with an accent from Eastern Europe, maybe Poland, finally stood up and said approximately the following: "Look, it's just another conference put on by the Americans like all the others. They have them like clockwork. They use innocents like these"--pointing to Phyllis and me--"who don't know any better." Everyone laughed, especially us. I hadn't been called an innocent in a long time, or been perceived as one either. But she was right. Israel brought me to my knees. Innocent was right. Here's what compromised my innocence, such as it was

[PhoenixAsh]

The crusade against the porn industry and the resulting advocacy for legislation against porn in all its forms put her on the side of the christian & moral right resulting in radical feminists trying to implement legislation brought to the floor by the epithome of patriarchal society. This view was extended far beyond the porn industry towards sexual relations between lesbians, the butch debate, male female sexuality (resulting in the concept women do not have a choice....and that women need to be protected from being misled through legislation).

This sparked the feminist sex wars during the late 70's and 80's (and incidentally the counter reaction of sex positive feminism) from which the feminist movement still not recovered (and which divides feminist debates even today) and which was partially responsible for third wave feminism and the choice movement (which developed as a direct opposition within feminism to the rad fem sex negative positions).

Sex positive feminists have accused her (and imo not without merrit) for actively trying to limit and restrict womens sexuality even through legislation. This does not mean rad feminists analysis were rejected. Just their methods and their solutions.

So...interesting read. Interesting theories. Beyond that...imo...her views on methods perhaps didn't break, but seriously disrupted and negatively impacted, the feminist movement for the last 3 decades.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Dworkin was often sympathetic to trans people, which set her apart from some of her fellow travelers.