Andrea Dworkin NEVER said "all sex is rape"

[Kelvin Mace]

Neither did Catharine MacKinnon.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp

[seabeyond]

1. no, neither did. then again, anti feminists really do not let facts get in their way.

thank you for your post. i do not even bother with this lie

[Kelvin Mace]

5. I understand your feelings

but I do my best to never allow a lie to go unchallenged.

The closest she came to the remark was:

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

This was from her book Intercourse and can be read as "all sex is rape" only by removing it from the context of the work.

She addresses this in a 1995 interview with Michael Moorcock:

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.

Context MATTERS people!!

[KitSileya]

9. And she is right.

Laws that compel wives to submit to sex with their husbands make all sex within marriage rape, as the woman cannot freely give her consent. She is a slave to the husband, then, as he has lordship over her body, and she can be punished for refusing him access to it. We recognize that antebellum slaves such as Sally Hemings were raped by their masters because they did not have the right to decline sex without consequences, and the situation was the same for married women for a long time, and is the same for married women in many parts of the world today.


Luckily, feminists have managed to remove most of those kinds of laws in Western societies, such as the marital rape laws, the last of which in the US was removed in 1993.

[Chathamization]

153. Thanks. That's helpful.

Sentence fragments alone are all but useless when trying to form an opinion about someone (well, an informed one).

Also, the insanity of the laws on spousal rape (or rather, lack thereof until very recently) can't be stressed enough.

[Kelvin Mace]

154. I am amazed here by the number of folks

who have not read any of her work, but who still feel they are qualified to tell people who did what she meant.

[JackRiddler]

161. That's how it is.

Terrible.

[Atman]

2. I read the article in which she said this.

I wish I still had it. It was in *HORRORS* Penthouse magazine. She absolutely categorized all sex as a violent intrusion upon women. Just because she now "disavows the quote" doesn't mean she didn't say it. She did. She said it.

[seabeyond]

3. so penthouse put something dworkin said out of context to diss her? so surprised.

[Hip_Flask]

4. Under which context does that make sense?

[Kelvin Mace]

7. See, above post

She was paraphrased, and "all sex is rape" was inferred by her critics.

[Squinch]

63. Under the context where penthouse was frightened of the influence of feminists and wanted

to silence them.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. And yet free internet porn destroyed penthouse's business model far more effectively than Dworkin

Ever could.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. You read, in Penthouse,

somebody claim that Andrea Dworkin said something.

That is NOT the same thing as Andrea Dworkin saying it.

Snopes.com is a HIGHLY reputable site for debunking false claims.

[BainsBane]

8. Well that settles it

Penthouse, the publication of record.

[Atman]

14. Leave it to you to entirely miss the point.

Snopes didn't claim Dworkin didn't say it. It said she now says that's not what she meant. Meanwhile, I actually read the article. Why was Dworkin doing an interview with Penthouse in 1978 or whatever it was? Why? And why do you think it just warrants a rolling smiley instead of an honest response? Because it's what you do. You can't respond to anything honestly, you just have to twist everything, as many, many people have pointed out to you. The FACT is, she did an interview with Penthouse and said this. Period. Post all the smilies you wan't it doesn't change the fact.

[BainsBane]

16. You read an article

It doesn't mean the article was accurate. We read lots of false information in articles all the time. If Dworkin actually believed that, she would have published it in one of her own works.


It warrants a rolling smiley because your contention that reading it in Penthouse is some sort of absolute truth is hilariously absurd. I believe you read it in Penthouse. That doesn't mean she actually said it. Sometimes publications get things wrong, particularly when they want to discredit someone. Shocking I know.

[Atman]

18. It was an INTERVIEW.

A one-on-one transcript of a conversation! HER WORDS! What the hell is wrong with you?

[BainsBane]

20. Did you see the interview?

Or did you read it? I understand you believe Penthouse to be the font of all knowledge and above reproach. I suspect few others share that view. You wouldn't necessarily believe something you heard on CNN. Why would you believe Penthouse? Because they show naked women makes it more credible?

I'll believe it when you find a publication under Dworkin's own name that advances that argument. If she believed it, she would have expounded on it in her academic writing.

[Atman]

24. Do you EVER, EVER actually read what anyone posts, or just make stuff up?

I said "Penthouse {is the} the font of all knowledge and above reproach."? Really? I said that? I said that I read an interview. What does a picture of naked women have to do with a transcript of an interview? You do this all the time, as many people repeatedly point out to you. YOU MAKE SHIT UP THAT NO ONE SAID. I only stated that I read the interview in which she stated this, and Snopes did not actually contradict me.

[11 Bravo]

28. That was a rhetorical question, right?

Because the answer has been made self-evident, again ... and again ... and again.

[BainsBane]

251. Right

Says the king of the OPs looking to pick fights with straw women. You read something somewhere once, may or may not understand the point, then create an OP attributing it to large numbers of evil women, and then refuse to provide any quotes or links of where said statement came from, only to insult anyone who dares question the veracity of your post by invoking the fact you are or were an elementary school teacher. You are the last person to question anyone else's veracity.

I made up nothing in that exchange. I mocked his ludicrous assertion that the fact he read it in Penthouse means it has to be true.
I never claimed to quote him. That he believes my responsibility is to parrot his words verbatim is his problem entirely.

I would thank you to refrain from gossiping about me. If you are going to make snide comments about me, have the courage to do it directly.

[BainsBane]

250. Do you always, always insit that the only possible conversation

Is the one that affirms what you say verbatim, or does that just apply to wimenz?
You insisted it must be true because you read it in Penthouse. You refused to accept the possibility that Penthouse could be wrong. Therefore it's clear you see Penthouse as an infallible publication.

I did not make shit up. I made a comment. I never claimed it was a quote from your verbatim. It was a conclusion based on your refusal to consider the possibility that Penthouse could in any way be inaccurate in regard to that interview. It is not MAKING SHIT UP and your insistence that it is frankly is bizarre. You seem to think I have some obligation to parrot your every word. I do not.

[Atman]

252. So I am only supposed to accept the Penthouse interview was fake?

But you're not similarly supposed to accept that the Penthouse interview might be real?

See how that works? I might be totally correct (accept for the part wherein I acknowledged it might have been Paglia and not Dworkin). But that never stops you from making shit up. You didn't have to "claim" it was a verbatim quote...it was obvious what you were doing. You were making shit up to support YOUR side of the argument. No one else could possibly have a valid point. Again, as many have pointed out, it is your M.O. Deal with it. We're all on to you.

[BainsBane]

255. Paglia or Dworkin

so easy to get them confused. Look, I don't know if the interview is accurate or not. I'm simply saying it's possible it is not, and your contention that because you think you remember reading something in Penthouse equates with absolute truth is absurd.

Dworkin was an academic who published widely. If she advanced the precise view that intercourse is rape, you will be able to find it among the publications she herself wrote.

"You all" are people who prefer personal attacks over a discussion of issues. Your comment might concern me if I cared even a little bit about what you thought. I do not.

Mocking your absurd conclusion is not making stuff up. if I had claimed you said Penhouse was the font of all knowledge, that would be making stuff up. I didn't say that. I mocked your absurd contention that it had to be true because it was published there. Now come to find out you confuse Dworkin and Paglia. They are so much alike

Spare yourself the indignity of my "making up stuff" and just put me on ignore. Problem solved.

[Atman]

256. "...because you think you remember reading something in Penthouse equates with absolute truth..."

Again, you can point out this "absolute truth" angle WHERE exactly?

See? You make shit up.

I don't put you on ignore because you don't deserve the effort, and I enjoy the daily humor value in your posts.

[BainsBane]

258. Question

Is there some reason you haven't bothered to search a periodicals database or even Google for the article? It's not exactly rocket science.

It takes more effort to respond to one of my posts than to put me on ignore.

[Atman]

259. I have searched. I get mixed results.

AGAIN, you make shit up. You ASSUME I made no search for this interview. You post it as an absolute that I did not do so. Again, you make shit up.

[BainsBane]

271. Okay, you're right

I assumed you would be competent enough to turn up a result if you had done such a search. For that I apologize.

[BainsBane]

275. Here

Paglia, 1994. http://www.amazon.com/Penthouse-Oct-1994-Camille-Paglia/dp/B0039XNKZC

[Atman]

278. Except it wasn't 1994

Believe it or not, I know when I lived in Massachusetts. I know this comes as a shock to you because you've told us you're the only person who is ever correct.

[BainsBane]

279. Have I?

Since you are so horrified at the thought of "making shit up," I expect you will be able to provide a quote where I've said I'm the only person who is ever correct. I'm waiting.

[Atman]

280. Just read anything you've ever posted.

Hell, if you can play that game with everyone else there is no reason we can't turn it back on you. See how it works? Conflate individual statements into the larger meaning you want to believe. Once you understand that this is what you do...well, you'll understand. I don't hold out much hope, though.

[BainsBane]

282. In other words, you have no proof because you made shit up

Yet again. I provide quotes and you claim that's making shit up, but you are entitled to fabricate anything you want. Why is that?

All you have shown is your refusal to debate honestly. I proved that I didn't make up anything. In fact, I provided quotes that you then insisted somehow shouldn't count. You have been caught making false charges and then make another one because you are unable to debate the merits of an argument. Frankly, your whining and attacks are getting old, and anyone can tell it's a transparent effort to deflect the fact you have nothing of substance to say. What makes you think you are so important that your personal opinions about me are more important than the substance of an argument? Frankly, it's childish, and I'm beyond bored with it. If I wanted this level of dialogue, I'd volunteer in a middle school. Find another way to deal with your frustrations. They aren't my responsibility.

[Atman]

262. BTW, I get supportive PM's, too.

But of course, if anyone sends me a supportive message you'll be able to state unequivocally that it is because they are all idiots. It's what you do.

[BainsBane]

264. Who's making stuff up now?

Are you going to respond to my post where I did quote your own posts verbatim?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4771650

[Atman]

266. There is no point, because everyone else can read them!

I did not make the unequivocal absolutes you state. And further, you are cherry-picking (again, it's what you do, and we all know that). I made a couple of posts but RETRACTED the statements in later posts, I acknowledged a possible mistake. Right? I did this, Bain. You can read the thread just as well an any other person...I acknowledged that perhaps it was Paglia and not Dworkin. What is with your insistence on making this an issue, when I clearly, very clearly, pointed out in the thread that I might have mis-attributed the quote (which many others have essentially pointed out has some basis in fact)? What is your point? You just like making shit up! We already know that! At least I'm honest when I make a mistake. You just like to dig deeper. Every damn time. It's what you do.

I don't see many people defending your tactics.

[BainsBane]

269. Oh, you retracted them

but you accused me of making stuff up before you retracted them. Your statement that I made shit up is not honest, as the quotes I posted demonstrate. That you continue to make that charge despite the fact there is clear proof of what you said shows that. And you're absolutely right. Everyone can read it and can see exactly what you did write.

No one needs to defend me. I am more than capable of defending myself and have proved you wrong in this exchange.
Once again you turn to a personal attack because you have nothing else.

[Atman]

253. Here is what you do...

"...the fact he read it in Penthouse means it has to be true."

You create absolutes out of thin air. I never, ever said "it has to be true." YOU SAID THAT. It is what you do. People know this, which is why you're not taken seriously. You just make shit up.

[BainsBane]

257. You insisted repeatedly it was true

because you read it in Penthouse. You said it more than once.

. Atman (27,325 posts)

2. I read the article in which she said this.
I wish I still had it. It was in *HORRORS* Penthouse magazine. She absolutely categorized all sex as a violent intrusion upon women. Just because she now "disavows the quote" doesn't mean she didn't say it. She did. She said it.

The FACT is, she did an interview with Penthouse and said this.

Atman (27,325 posts)

18. It was an INTERVIEW.

A one-on-one transcript of a conversation! HER WORDS! What the hell is wrong with you?

That conclusion I came to is the same one everyone else in this subthread did. Your point was laughable and as a result people laughed. The example shows just how petty your dispute is. You three times insisted you read it in penthouse and therefore it was true. Now you insist a statement that "the fact he read it in Penthouse means it has to be true" is making stuff up?

I suspect the excessive literalism you express above is selective. You seem to think I have some sort of responsibility to be deferential to you and every word you utter. That you consider that making shit up is just bizarre. Whatever your issues are, they go far beyond me, as is evident in the fact you can't have a discussion with a feminist without hurling insults, which only proves how weak your arguments are.

I beg to differ that I am not taken seriously. I have received dozens of emails thanking me for speaking out about matters issues. I am not taken seriously by you and your like-minded friends. Given some of your more notorious and vulgar insults toward women, I would suggest you worry more about whether you yourself are taken seriously than I.

[Tsiyu]

303. GAWD that was painful to read

I don't know how you stuck with such irrationality and goalpost dancing.




"It's true, It's true but you won't believe it!!!!!"

"Show me a link."

"You're so hateful! Why won't you believe because I sawed it wit my owned eyziz!"

"Show me a link. I think you mean B and not A."

"I know what I saw! Don't you think I know the difference between A and B!!!! Huh! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!?!?!?!?! Everybody's on to you, you know. And these little tricks of yours. AND YOUR LITTLE DOG, TOO!!!!

"So where's the link?"

"Why do you have to act like this! I said I was wrong somewhere far far away in another sub-thread. This is ALL your fault anyway and everyone is ON to you! "





OMFG....

BB

[closeupready]

38. I'm reading an autobiography of a former child star,

Alison Arngrim, Nellie on Little House On The Prairie.

In one section, she recounts a day when she was home with her parents, and they received a journalist who wanted to interview her and her family. They all had a meal together, spent some time answering questions, and that was that.

When the interview was published, Ms. Angrim recalls in her book, NONE of what was published was what was said during the interview. The lesson she drew from that was that - as her father told her - people in magazines 'make stuff up', all the time.

Penthouse Magazine is hardly what you could call impartial with regard to gender and sexuality related issues.

[Atman]

39. That's why interviews are taped.

Did she sue. Would have been easily provable.

[Kelvin Mace]

134. You would think

that someone would be able to cite an issue and page number. But so far, nada...

[Squinch]

66. Seriously? This is what you are going to the wall on? Penthouse's journalistic integrity?

THAT'S why the rolling smilie is appropriate.

[Atman]

68. No, absolutely not.

If you actually read my comments you'd understand that.

[Squinch]

75. You are widely misunderstood. It must be difficult for you.

[Atman]

79. Nope. I am quite comfortable in my beliefs.

Except in HoF

Somehow, though, I work to get Democrats elected all over the country. I work on LGBT campaigns, I pushed through Maine's marriage equality, I work for NARAL and NOW...but several people on DU have me on ignore because I won't support the blanket statements. I know where the ignorance lies. I'm helping people get elected to help the people who hate me on DU. Crazy world.

[Squinch]

82. Yes. We all work for Democratic causes. Why are you pointing out that you do?

Your work on Democratic causes means we are required to agree with you when you insist that something happened when it never happened?

It's so ironic that your issue in this all is that you think that someone else "makes shit up."

[Atman]

84. I'm just at talking about Bain. It is well documented.

Prove me wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

102. Apparently it's difficult for some, that Dworkin is "misunderstood"

Between arguing that the only acceptable sex is sex that doesnt involve an erection, to palling up with Ed Meese to help Phylis Shlafly fight "obscenity", it's a shame that such an important progressive voice is unfairly maligned.

Speaking of going to the wall to defend the ridiculous.

[Atman]

105. Perfect.

Oh, shit...no comment...we can't be progressive here.

[nomorenomore08]

135. I'm honestly not sure what to think. I'm no great admirer of hers, but I don't entirely dismiss her

ideas either. Thing is, some quotes of hers make her sound totally reasonable, whereas others (such as those you alluded to) make her sound, frankly, a bit insane.

One thing I can agree with her on is the conflation of sex and violence, and of consensual sex and rape, by the larger society. Like it or not, quite a few guys really do view sex as an act of dominance, and get off on that "fact." Many of these same men also tend not to be too concerned whether their sexual partners are particularly consenting or not. Doesn't mean that sex is a bad thing, or that people's everyday sexual relationships are necessarily violent or coercive. Just that a lot of our culture's ideas about sex are deeply fucked up - not that Dworkin wasn't deeply fucked up in her own way.

Like with any "thinker," I just take what resonates with me and leave the rest.

[Kelvin Mace]

137. She was a product of her experiences

and she wrote about them and how she saw the world as a result of them.

Her anger informed her writing. That doesn't make it automatically wrong.

I wonder what kind of book the young woman raped in Steubenville might write one day?

[nomorenomore08]

140. I agree completely with this post. Her ideas sure as hell didn't come from nowhere.

Her writings may have dealt with society, culture, as a whole, but they're still the perspective of one individual.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. I think on that, you're right. Many of her most ardent allies felt she had lost touch with reality

near the end of her life.

One can feel sad and sympathetic for someone, and yet not be obligated to give credence to their more out there theories of human behavior.

[cui bono]

178. I haven't seen anybody saying she is a voice to be listened to, just defending her from the lies

that have been posted. Not sure why it's so important to discredit her though. Like I said, I don't see anyone here quoting her and saying she was right about anything. The only people I've seen bring her up initially are people arguing against feminist issues.

It's good to set the record straight.

[seabeyond]

180. The only people I've seen bring her up initially are people arguing against feminist issues.

that says lots...

actually i have been fed the wrong information about her so long. i have been educated that i am wrong. i am going to read her stuff soon. and decide for myself instead of the anti feminists convincing me she is not worth listening to

[cui bono]

184. I've never read her and the fact that she is being villified and used as a tool

makes me curious.

[seabeyond]

185. me too. i know what i have read of her little piece people use,

she is not gonna be an easy read. she has much more meaning in what she is saying, than an easy obvious.

but, i think i will spend some time on it. and then have discussions in hof. someone gave us down load of her material. it may be an interesting exercise to read a particular material and then discuss. book club kinda thing.

who knows.

[cui bono]

274. Yeah, that could be interesting.

Especially if she's going to be held up as the feminist icon that the MRA types want to use to discredit things.

[2banon]

243. I consider myself a feminist and I've never heard of her, before now.

She hasn't been an important socio-political figure in my life. ever. why is she given any notice here generally assigned to icons?

[cui bono]

276. I suspect it's because she comes up as a name on radical feminist sites

and some seemingly anti-feminist men have misinterpreted what she said as a way to argue their own points. I've only seen her name brought up here by men who are arguing against the fact that rape culture exists.

[2banon]

288. amazing.. sounds like rush limpballs followers..

sad to see that here..

[CrispyQ]

306. I think you can download everything from this link.

Scroll to the bottom. http://radfem.org/dworkin/

[Warren DeMontague]

182. I agree that accuracy is important.

She's certainly outside of the mainstream of thought on most of these issues, much moreso today than even a couple decades ago.

I did not think bringing her up in the context of any other threads or topics on GD was at all relevant, however, since this thread is ostensibly just about her, it's not too surprising that she is the topic.

[cui bono]

183. She's a topic of this thread because someone else wrongly accused her in his OP

of saying what has been corrected in this OP, and used it to claim there is no rape culture. Then when he was shown to be wrong he refused to edit/delete the OP and doubled down with yet another rape culture denial OP.

This OP is just to set the record straight about not having said that. Had she not been trotted out by that other OP and the incorrect quote used to try to prove a point this OP wouldn't have had to exist.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. Yes, but this thread is about her, specifically what she did or did not say.

I absolutely agree that bringing her up in regards to the rape culture discussion in GD was silly and irrelevant.

[cui bono]

187. Agreed. n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

195. Her health was beginning to fail

and she had a lot of emotional trauma which sadly began to haunt her at the end of her life (which is when even her supporters feel she began to lose it).

But as I said, this does not make what she said automatically untrue, and the remarks she gets the most grief for are 20-30 years prior to her decline.

[Kelvin Mace]

136. Hmmm

I certainly never called her "an important progressive voice". I simply corrected a factually incorrect statement and then admonished a few people to read the work in context to its time and the experiences of the writer.

Having been called on the bogosity of the quote, some are choosing to fall back on the "well, that's what she meant" excuse (though a few continue to insist the quote was genuine but have yet to provide any better sourcing than an "interview" in Penthouse they remember reading).

[closeupready]

146. With this thread as inspiration, I went to the wiki page on her - wow.

While she had a fairly normal childhood, her later experiences were those which would have left almost anyone angry and bitter. Nonetheless, from what the wiki says on her writings and her beliefs, she makes a LOT of sense, and I'm not seeing how - as some in this thread seem to be claiming - her emotions tainted her writings or ideas.

Mind you, I am basing this statement almost entirely on the wiki page - I am old enough to be sort of familiar with her, but I never studied her or her writings.

[Kelvin Mace]

148. I wouldn't say "tainted" her writing or ideas, but informed them

When you go through that kind of trauma, you can't help but be angry. Her opinions are brutally honest, and some folks can't handle it.

[closeupready]

156. I suspect that many who are beaten and/or raped do

have PTSD and problems dealing with the memory of those ordeals. I think in her case, she used her experiences in order to help achieve an excellent end.

[Kelvin Mace]

199. Beatings and sexual assault leave their mark

Women have a higher incidence of both, but, speaking from my own experiences, men have more experience with assaults, at least in my generation as "fights" and "ass-whippings" were considered "normal" rites of passage to be male.

I went to military school and can speak from personal experience that the subtext of violence is always just below the surface with young males. It may have changed since my time. Actually I really hope it has.

[nomorenomore08]

272. I think it's only changed a little, unfortunately. I'm 29 and graduated high school in 2003.

Even among my relatively "nice" group of friends, there was still conflict and aggression and a fairly clear pecking order. And while aggression may be a normal part of being human, that doesn't mean we have to take it out on each other.

[Kelvin Mace]

293. The level of violence lurking just below the surface

in most men is unsettling. A lot of it involves the jockeying for power, status, and position with other men. This is exacerbated in all male environments. There is certainly cruelty amongst young girls and teens, but it tends to the mental, whereas male cruelty is mental AND physical.

To this day, any time I walk into a public place I will scan the room instinctively and assess who might be a threat. Is that man behaving strangely? Is he likely to become violent? What will I do in that event? Hell, I got that attitude after six years of military school, I imagine that it is FAR worse for actual combat vets just back from our latest imperial ventures.

[nomorenomore08]

294. I know exactly what you mean. Other men often frighten or intimidate me without even consciously

meaning to, necessarily. And given the correlation between various forms of bigotry (racism, homophobia) and aggressive behavior, I'm all the more wary of those who make bigoted comments to relative strangers - and they exist even in the liberal Bay Area where I'm from. As much as I hate arbitrary prejudice of any kind, I'm often too intimidated to respond to it as forcefully as I should.

[Kelvin Mace]

296. I live in the South

and the amount of racism I have heard when among a group of "white only" men is pretty disgusting. Conversations about women get pretty revolting as well amongst only men. When I stick my oar in and explain I do not condone nor appreciate such comments (and I always do, because I am an ethical idiot) it gets me some VERY hostile responses. It has resulted in the occasional "altercation" but, so far, no actual violence (though there was considerable effort expended to "provoke" violence which I let pass. I may be an idiot, but I am not a fool).

[nomorenomore08]

297. Good for you. Everyone needs to deal with this in their own way, and your way is at least

as good as any other. I do generally consider sticking up the vulnerable to be good karma.

[CrispyQ]

307. Women are not the only ones afraid of men. Men are afraid of other men.

What a telling statement. If ever a culture needed to reevaluate it's definition of masculinity, it's western culture. And US culture is western culture on steroids.

[seabeyond]

151. i have not studied her either. i recently downloaded her stuff.

i am going ot have to spend some time reading. but what i understand is she has been tarnished now many stay away. and most of us are not informed enough to even know why. but the reality, is there is a lot of good stuff she says. and we have allowed the haters, anti feminists to dictate who we listen to.

another was catherine mackinnon. we were ridiculed if anyone took out quotes of her. i did research on her, and she is a damn awesome woman, that has accomplished a hell of a lot and who the hell am i to dismiss her cause a bunch of porn loving dem men claimed crap about her.

it is like limbaugh vilifying all feminists as feminazis. then young girls do nto want to call themselves feminists. cause they do not hate men.

well, these two women have been vilified. and i have since learned there is NO reason for me to buy into it.

[closeupready]

155. It's sad that she is condemned; on the other hand,

she wrote in order to change the world and people's minds, and I think she did just that - surely if she were alive today, she'd take great satisfaction in knowing that her ideas were helping to change how we view rape and gender inequality.

[thucythucy]

230. Her book "Letters From a War Zone"

is a good introduction to her work. It's a book of essays. It's been years since I read it, but I do recall a lot resonated with me. Particularly an essay called (I think) "I Want a Twenty-Four Truce During Which There is No Rape." We read it out loud during one of the anti-rape events I helped organize, back in the day.

Powerful stuff.

[seabeyond]

234. yes. i have heard of that. and yes, that was what i was told to particularly read. excellent

and interesting that you came up with that. thanks. we gotta do it. in a bit when we have time. i will set up in hof

[thucythucy]

236. excellent idea!

BTW, it's always great to see you here.

Best wishes.

[seabeyond]

237. ahhhh. and btw,

i was thinking the same seeing your name, reading your posts. lol.

[BainsBane]

254. Ah, the old guilt by association fallacy

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 06:00 PM - Edit history (3)

That was in your book of bad arguments you were handing out at Christmas, yet you invoke it continually. Your positions on a number of issues, including porn, are supported by the right. For example, the cavers agree 100 percent with you and the rest of the men's group about objectification. They agree with the rape culture denial crowd too.

Some feminists are separatists, which means they are lesbians. Dworkin speaks from such a perspective. Is it possible that you believe men's rights to women's bodies are so absolute, that women don't have the right to avoid sex with men in favor of other women? Why do we never here complaints about men who think sex with women is repulsive? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that as feminists, we have no problem with homosexuality, whether than involves gay men or lesbian women. Yet somehow a lesbian feminist is illegitimate because she doesn't want to submit to sex with a man, yet she is ridiculed by those who want to equate that position with alliance with the right, which is preposterous on every level.

Once again, the love of pornography triumphs above all, including a woman's right to control who she has sex with.


Edit: okay, phallacy was a Freudian slip.

[Warren DeMontague]

260. Ah, you sure do have an active imagination.

Dworkin's association with Meese and Shlafly was part and parcel of her activism, which made battling "obscenity" job #1 in her crusade to "phix" the Universe. People don't get to rewrite history just because it makes one of their heroes look bad.

As for the rest of... whatever that is, I think the most charitable summation I can come up with is, I don't think you understand the "phundamental" difference between consenting adults structuring their own lives as they see fit, and telling the rest of everyone how to structure theirs. I believe that cuts to the core of the issue with supposedly problematic notions like "choice".

If you can find one single place where I have EVER suggested consenting adults should not be free to love- or not love- who and how they see fit (again presuming everyone involved is also an enthusiastically consenting adult) your wall-o-textcusations there might hold water. But you can't, because I haven't.

Dworkin's trip wasn't "hey this is what I like, this is how I feel", she believed that everyone else ought to modify their sex lives and choices to her rather odd and arbitrary standards. Like other crackpot prophets of every stripe, she felt she alone had diagnosed the one big "problem" with reality and if she could just get everyone else to see, they might be saved.

And even so, I've never said she wasn't entitled to her opinion on those matters, just as I am entitled to my opinion on her opinion and you are entitled to your opinion on mine.

[BainsBane]

263. I am far from an expert on such matters

but my understanding is that Dworkin was a separatist feminist, which means a lesbian. She was also an academic. Her ideas about separatist feminism were part of her academic writings.

I am pointing to this post as such an example. In ridiculing Dworkin, you are objecting to the ideology of separatist feminists and separatist feminists are lesbians. You insist her ideas are illegitimate.

Then there is the question of why you all are so obsessed with Dworkin. As someone in this subthread noted, she is most often evoked by men who look to discredit feminists. it's not like people here are saying all male penetration is rape, or sex with a man is by nature rape, so how does that have anything to do with rape culture? The OP that invoked Dworkin to deny rape culture was close to incoherent. It lacked logic and made no sense.

And you really ought to knock off the guilt by association fallacy you invoke so often. As I pointed out, you are yourself on the right side of the spectrum on a few issues. I wouldn't, however, call you a right-winger in general because of that. For you to continue to evoke the right-wing trope against women who oppose pornography is cynical and, frankly, on the hypocritical side.

[Warren DeMontague]

265. If there are conservatives who agree with me that the 1st Amendment is important

I don't have a problem with that, nor should I. That's a good thing.

As for the rest of it, again, you might notice that you have to make up things I'm allegedly saying and spin all sorts of elaborate interpretations into my words, and then you proceed to argue with those. I'm really not interested in wasting my time on that.

This thread -which had been dormant until you, not I, kicked it- was about Dworkin, so that's what I've been talking about in this thread - if you insist on reading inferences into the fact that I am talking about her words and her legacy, I can't help you there. When I criticize or "critique" the words of Andrea Dworkin, unless I specifically mention someone else, I'm probably just talking about her.

[BainsBane]

267. This thread came out of the thread seeking to deny rape culture

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4752265
Still knocking around the first page of GD, as was this one when I looked at it again for the first time in days. It was not dormant until I kicked it.

I'm not making things up. I'm asking you to examine your position on this topic. Dworkin's comments about heterosexual sex were from the perspective of separatist lesbianism and should be understand as such. They were also from another era, when feminist theory was comparatively new. Given the idea that the personal is political, some feminists believed the only way to free oneself from patriarchy on a personal level was to avoid intimate relationships and partnerships with men. In condemning Dowrkin on that issue, you are condemning the ideology/subject position/choice (however one wants to describe it) of separatist feminism, lesbianism.

I have known some separatist feminists (ironically one is now married to a man), and what I associated with the term radical feminism before being told a million times that I was a radical feminist. when essentially my beliefs center around the idea that women are full human beings entitled to equal rights.

The First Amendment excuse is old, given that the discussions of pornography have revolved around social responsibility, not banning (with the exception of the British case, and Britain has no First Amendment). I will also observe that your notion of rights is gendered male, and, without realizing it, excludes women.

[Warren DeMontague]

268. I've said at least 3 times in this thread, I felt that bringing Dworkin up in the context of those

other discussions in GD, was irrelevant, not to mention flat-out goofy.

However, whatever the genesis of this thread was, the thread itself is on Dworkin. So that's what I've been talking about, in this thread.

I believe that women are full human beings entitled to equal rights, just as you do. I also don't think the First Amendment is an "excuse", nor is it "old". Dworkin and MacKinnon's legislative attempts around obscenity were defeated SPECIFICALLY on First Amendment grounds, so to argue that it's irrelevant to a discussion on her life and tactics, is also a bit goofy.

[BainsBane]

273. That ignores the issue of separatist feminism

and lesbianism that is the context of Dworkin's writings.

The invocation of the First Amendment is old and an excuse in the context of discussions about pornography here on DU, which are not legal challenges. Nor is pornography the subject of this OP.

[Warren DeMontague]

283. You and I will just have to disagree.

Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.

[MadrasT]

308. I would like to extend appreciation to you.

For your making your arguments in words in this thread and not goofy pictures.

When you do the goofy picture thing, I tend to dismiss any point you are trying to make.

Props for using words this time.

[Warren DeMontague]

309. Thanks... I think!

"Contestant executed a finely tuned damnation by faint praise, slight penalty for delayed response time and kicking a prior blissfully dead thread.... however, a solid demonstration of the form."





In my defense, such as it is.. for one, I do think visually- that's not some sort of evo-psych thing, it's the truth.

Also, IMNSHO, there's a time & a place for everything. Normally the goofy picture thing comes in when we're talking about one of the inane, seemingly endless and never-resolved personality or grievance matches on DU about DU where DU members endlessly pontificate in an endless fashion about the unresolved angst they feel around such and such DU member or use of such and such word on DU which was not addressed by so many juries despite a different number of recs on some other thread which prove that so and so DU members are such and such thing and furthermore there is nothing more important than spending all day endlessly yim-yammering on about the navel-gazing fishbowl of DU members on the subject of other DU members talking about the endlessly fascinating topic of exactly what is said on DU, and by whom.

[MadrasT]

310. LOL. Just for that I am kicking it again.

Just to say, have a nice weekend.

[Warren DeMontague]

311. Right on.

You, too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

169. self deleted

I can't find it in search, it is possible that it was a conversation with someone other than you.

[BainsBane]

171. Excuse me?

Who is Warren Farrell? I'm quite sure I have never commented on Penthouse before, particularly since I don't read it.

[LanternWaste]

17. Interesting allegation. Or maybe a false memory?

" I read the article in which she said this..."

Interesting allegation. And for now, that's all it really is. Or maybe a false memory-- I'm told they're just like the real things...

[Maedhros]

46. From the link to Snopes:

Dworkin has also disavowed the quote as a false statement circulated by her opponents. She has denied saying that "all sex is rape" or "all men are rapists." When asked to explain her views on the topic, Dworkin replied: "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that all sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."

I think many men might consider penetrative intercourse to be violent by nature if they were to be on the receiving end of it, even if it wasn't forced.

I think it's unfair to take Dworkin's quotes out-of-context of the larger discussion.

[dsc]

89. as someone who has been on the recieving end of penatrive intercourse and who is male

I have to say I didn't consider it an act of violence. I would have found it violent if I hadn't wanted it but when I do what it I don't consider it violent.

[Maedhros]

101. I think that Dworkin was using "violent" differently than what many are imagining.

One definition of "violent" is:

intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.

The very act of penetration is somewhat "intense in force or effect". I don't believe she is implying malevolent intent.

[dsc]

104. that I can buy

[Kelvin Mace]

138. Part of what must be considered is the mechanics of the act

The act of intercourse is for one person to literally insert themselves into another. Done with mutual consent, complete freedom of choice and without any form of cultural duress or expectation, it is the most wonderful thing two people can do.

Performed with any coercion, up to and including the "you are married now and it is your DUTY", or marriage as the only acceptable context for intercourse, and then violence does become part of the equation. "You MUST do this because..." makes it coercive, and violent, even if force is not used.

Just my take on Dwokrin was trying to say.

[Scootaloo]

158. Think also of the language used

You are being penetrated, or doing the penetrating.
It's not you are "enveloping," or doing the enveloping.

The verb belongs entirely to the penetrator.

By making penetration the act, then this makes the person doing the penetrating the actor, while the person being penetrated in an object being acted upon. It's represented too in the terms "top" and "bottom," where the meanings associated with these terms gives "top" the sense of triumph, dominance, and superiority, while "bottom" issubservient, lesser, somewhere you don't want to be.

Now of course you can tell me "it's not like that for me," and i'm not saying it is... I'm just pointing out hte connotations and attendant meanings that come with the language used; It can actually be an interesting reveal about cultural perceptions, stances, and biases.

[seabeyond]

167. +1. good stuff. love our words. beyond meaning. nt

[Scout]

221. loved Gloria Steinem's take on the "envelopement"

of a penis by a vagina, rather than the penetration of a vagina by a penis.

i'll have to find the article...

[Eleanors38]

295. Sounds ve-e-l-l-ly intelesting.

[MineralMan]

23. You did, eh? Well, then, quote it from the publication, and

provide page numbers and context. If you cannot do that, then I suggest that your memory of it is faulty. If you found this claim on some website, then link to it, but bear in mind that they probably got it wrong.

You cannot merely say something without support here on DU. If the quote in Penthouse is accurate, then provide the quote, in context, with references to the page and issue where it appeared.

Do you even remember when you might have read this in Penthouse? What year? Or is this something you found quoted second-hand somewhere?

[Atman]

26. I posted the date...I believe it was 1978.

Amazingly, I don't have the magazine still on the coffee table. I would be willing to bet there is an archive someplace, but I don't have a link to it. Therefore, your absolutely right...I must be lying just because I love to pick fights with HoF on DU. Get serious.

[MineralMan]

34. Actually, it was the April, 1987 issue.

I discovered that with a Google search. I have not found the actual interview, however. So, you remember what she said in a 1987 interview in Penthouse? Really. I have almost an eidetic memory, but I do not rely on it to remember the exact phrasing of something I read almost 30 years ago. I especially don't say that I read some exact words from that long ago.

You see, you have made an unsupported claim of a quotation you think you remember from April of 1987. Without seeing the exact text, I maintain that your memory is probably not accurate after all those years.

So, either you can find a copy of the publication or locate that interview in Penthouse online somewhere (I have not succeeded in doing that so far) or you can say you think you remember reading her saying what you think you remember her saying.

Beyond that, I say you're incorrect and that Andrew Dworkin's statement that she never said such a thing is likely to be more accurate than your memory of an interview in an old men's magazine.

[Atman]

42. No, it was in 1978. I know because I know where I was living at the time.

There might have been another interview. The one I read was definitely in the late '70's not 1987. I was married with children at that point, and Penthouse was not something I was "reading" anymore.

[MineralMan]

50. I can find no reference to an interview of Dworkin in Penthouse

in 1978 on Google. The only one I could find was the one in the April, 1987 issue, which happened shortly after her book, Intercourse, appeared on the market. Since that book appears to be the source of the misquotation of her so commonly used, it would seem likely to me that she might have discussed that book in her Penthouse interview the same year.

So, I'm suggesting that you have conflated your memory and the year any reference appeared. I'm certain that if she had said anything like that in an interview in Penthouse, I would be finding references to it. Yours is the only reference that appears in Google to her making such a statement. How likely do you suppose that is? Really.

[Atman]

45. I will make an admission of guilt here! (See, I'm an honest guy!)

It MIGHT have been an interview with Camile Paglia.

She's pretty out-there, too.

[seabeyond]

49. "Camile Paglia." ha ha ha ha. i am laughing, cause the

difference of the two. that is just cute. right or wrong, dont know. but, made me laugh. thanks.

[MineralMan]

60. So, you can't really remember, but you post anyhow.

I wish you wouldn't do that. When you get something wrong, you get something wrong. Camille Paglia is not Andrea Dworkin. Your memory seems to be defective in some way.

[Atman]

61. Well, no...it would appear my memory is just fine.

I searched my cranial hard drive, which has a few gigs of info dating back 35 years, and found a more relevant entry and was able to post my mea culpa. So why do you still have to be insulting?

[MineralMan]

62. I'm not being insulting. I'm saying you misstated something, and then

went on and on, insisting that what you said was correct. That is insulting, you see. I went and did a bit of research, and discovered that you were incorrect and told you so. You finally admitted that your memory was incorrect. OK. All those posts, though, insisting that you were right, even though you had no evidence. It's embarrassing for you.

[Atman]

65. I find that being honest is never embarassing.

DUers got to read my posts. Okay, so Bain twisted everything into bizzarro contortions of logic, but most people understood...you need to read the thread for context. I'm not just ripping out the stuff that make you sad. I'm leaving it for context, because I also made correction. Are you saying DUers are too stupid to read through a thread?

[MineralMan]

69. I have read the entire thread and all posts in it.

That's why I replied to you with the results of my Google search. The context is clear. You made a statement, and then defended it as factual and accurate, again and again. Only when it was demonstrated to you that it was not accurate did you make a joke of your incorrect statement.

I'm not saying anything about DUers. I'm talking directly to you about your series of posts.

[Atman]

73. I made no joke about it. Please...post my "joke."

I acknowledged an error. HORRORS! HORRORS! I should have stood by by error and not acknowledged I might have been wrong. You and Bain...what is your fucking problem?

[Squinch]

72. Do you get that the problem there wasn't Bain responding to you, but your insistence on something

that never happened? It doesn't seem like you do.

[Atman]

77. I get the problem is that Bain constantly twists people's post into bullshit that was never said.

I think that is unequivocal. It is her style. It is what she does. If you say "They sky is blue today!" She'll respond with a nasty post about how you don't know your color chart. It's what she does. Sorry for pointing that out.

[Squinch]

81. Do you see that you are doing exactly what you are accusing her of doing?

And I read your exchange with her here, and don't see anything of the sort going on.

But somehow I am certain that you can't be convinced that the difficulty with that exchange was your insisting, often in a belligerent way, on the accuracy of something that never happened.

So, see ya.

[Atman]

86. The difference is specifics.

I said I was quoting a certain interview, then I admitted that I might have been wrong about that article. Meanwhile, Bain continuously and repeatedly takes my words and twists them into something that was never said. Witness the comment about Penthouse...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4760132

Never said anything of the sort. She does this every day. "Sky is blue? NO! Why do insist the Sky is blue? You hateful man-pig!" It is her MO. I'm just kind of sick of it.

[Squinch]

87. Making shit up, there, aren't you? Saying she said something that she never said, aren't you?

[Atman]

88. Nope. Stand by my statement. Bain does this every day.

You say "Blue" and she'll call you a liar and say "Green." If you can refute that, please do. She does this to every DU poster. I'm fucking sick of it.

[Squinch]

91. And you're doing it today.

[Atman]

92. No, I am not.

I you know Bain's posting history, you know what I am talking about. Everyone is an evil woman hater. Everyone. Doesn't matter what you say, you hate women. Unless you 100% agree with Bain. Again, kinda getting sick of it.

[Squinch]

93. Well, then, by all means, keep reading her posts closely and complaining about them!

And making up shit that she didn't say! That'll show her!

[Atman]

96. I'm making up NOTHING.

She does this EVERY DAY, and many posters have commented about it. Many posters. "Sky is blue! No, it's green!" Every day. It's what she does. Fuck it. Done.

[Squinch]

100. You CAN'T be done! She'll never repent unless you keep complaining about her!

You must save her eternal soul!

[Desert805]

106. Give it a rest.

It's not even your fight. Did a chance at internet drameh present itself, and you couldn't resist?

So much fluff to wade trough here to get to the politics these days.

[Squinch]

109. And might YOU be projecting here?

[Desert805]

112. This isn't gonna be a big insult laden exchange.

Sorry to disappoint in advance.

[Squinch]

113. Given your insult laden salvo, it's too late to decide it's not going to be insult laden.

So I will simply send your words back to you: "Did a chance at internet drameh present itself, and you couldn't resist?"

[Desert805]

115. Keep trying.

I'm sure someone will find your games interesting.

[Squinch]

118. Given that you showed up out of the blue to join the conversation, it appears you do.

So you keep trying too.

But first, tell me again about how it's not going to be an insult laden exchange, as you are the only one throwing insults here.

[Sheldon Cooper]

124. I think the better question is WHO he might be projecting.

We've seen him before, of course.

[Squinch]

125. Clearly. Isn't it nice when the kids come back to visit?

Seems very similar to someone who approached me in an almost identical way a couple of weeks ago and then was immediately PPR'd. Again.

[Sheldon Cooper]

126. We don't even get a chance to miss them and then *poof* they're back again.

[Squinch]

127. They grow and clone themselves so fast!

[Kelvin Mace]

143. In this case you just admitted to being honestly wrong

which is only embarrassing if you fail to apologize to the folk you insisted were wrong.

Once you admit being wrong, after insisting that you were right, then you fail to apologize, people stop reading whatever else you have to say.

[Kelvin Mace]

142. Uh, wow

You really don't know Camile Paglia if you think she said that, or anything like it.

Given Paglia's opinions on feminist writers like Greer, Wood, Hoff Sommers, and Wolf, I think it would be highly unlikely she would have said anything close to that.

[mercuryblues]

117. you mean

the article where the reporter claimed to be from a paper n Israel, but was really from Penthouse? That article?

But people are supposed to believe what was written by him.

[Raine1967]

121. This might help a bit:

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.

Link to the entire interview: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html

Her words. I think her words should matter absent what she herself claimed and I quote her from the interview: 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.

I would like to see that article. I've looked for it, and I cannot find it.

[Kelvin Mace]

144. I have quoted from that interview

Snopes and a Guardian article, and this is still not enough for some folks here.

They simply REFUSE to read what she said in context, but still intend to lecture us on what she meant.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. so what if she did? does she represent all feminists. is she even that imp in the feminist movement?

DU is more dedicated to Dworkin than any feminist i have previously encountered (both in the defense of and the decrying of).

[Kelvin Mace]

78. I believe there would be a lot to discuss with Dworkin

she has views I agree with and disagree with. My pet peeve, which I cannot allow to go unchallenged, is people putting words in her mouth she never said, or inferring things from her writing by taking the writing out of context.

Dworkin is a "polarizing" figure to some, so I would guess that all boards, not just DU, are going to be "dedicated" to her.

[zazen]

11. pulling my copy of "Intercourse" off the shelf here . . . .

In her introductory chapter she's describing sexuality in general as a potentially fierce power in which human individuation is temporarily lost . . . so there's that . . very vivid, transporting imagery of what sexuality is and can be.

And then by contrast she's describing intercourse as practiced under male dominance as having inherent properties. I quote:

"The normal fuck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation: colonializing, forecful (manly) or nearly violent; the sexual act that by its nature makes her his. God made it so, or nature did, according to the faith of the explainer of events and values. Both conceptual systems--the theological and the biological--are loyal to the creed of male dominance and maintain that intercourse is the elemental (not socialized) expression of male and female, which in turn are the elemental (not socialized) essences of men and women. . . "

"In other words, men possess women when men fuck women because both experience the man being male. This is the stunning logic of male supremacy. In this view, which is the predominant one, maleness is aggressive and violent; and so maleness, essentially demands the disappearance of the woman as an individual; thus, in being fucked, she is possessed; ceases to exist as a discrete individual; is taken over." PP. 63-64

I believe her precise argument is that the latter description violates the potential of human sexuality and is instead a product of constructed male supremacy.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Precisely

She was talking about intercourse in the context of a time when laws still saw women as chattel, wives could not be raped, since by virtue of being married all sex was assumed consensual.

[NickB79]

32. She refers to the "normal fuck for the normal man" in the book quotes

Since I wasn't born until 1979, did a "normal man" of the 1970's view raping one's wife as a normal, common, acceptable practice of the day?

Was rape part of a "normal fuck" 40 years ago?

[Atman]

37. No.

I was an adult in 1979. This was never view as "normal" as far as I know. Although some men were assholes then as some are now. And that doesn't mean I find it acceptable, no matter how Bain is about to twist my words.

[seabeyond]

43. husbands were allowed to legally rape his wife. nt

[seabeyond]

40. yes. a husband was still legally allowed to rape his wife.

Marital rape, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. It is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. It can be equally, or even more, emotionally and physically damaging than rape by a stranger.

Once widely condoned or ignored by law, spousal rape is now repudiated by international conventions and increasingly criminalized. Still, in many countries, spousal rape either remains legal, or is illegal but widely tolerated, with the laws against it being rarely enforced. Traditional views on marriage which dictate that a woman must be (sexually) submissive to her husband continue to be common in many parts of the world.
Traditional understanding and views of marriage, rape, sexuality, gender roles and self determination have started to be challenged in most Western countries during the 1960s and 1970s, which has led to the subsequent criminalization of marital rape during the following decades. With a few notable exceptions, it was during the past 30 years when most laws against marital rape have been enacted. Several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia made spousal rape illegal before 1970, but other countries in Western Europe and the English-speaking Western World outlawed it much later, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. Most developing countries outlawed it in the 1990s and 2000s. In many countries it is not clear if marital rape may or may not be prosecuted under ordinary rape laws.

In some countries, the lack of criminalization of marital rape, coupled with the legal or social acceptance of child marriage, leads to severe forms of child sexual abuse.[1]

The original justifications for the legal non-criminalization of marital rape were simply the result of the way marriage was understood historically in most cultures (legally requiring a wife to obey her husband, allowing a husband to punish his wife if she did not perform her duties etc.). However, long after these views were no longer considered valid in Western countries, the lawmakers have continued to be reluctant to intervene on the issue of rape in marriage, based on the idea that it was undesirable to interfere with the 'privacy' of a married couple and that marriage as an institution had to be 'protected' from outside intervention.[2]

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

[NickB79]

44. I understand it was legal. I wanted to know if it was normal

Did most husbands normally rape their wives in the 1970's?

[seabeyond]

47. we do not know most husbands or their attitude of sex in the 70's, do we.

that was not the point. the point is. it was legally. so legally a woman walked into a marriage, that is what women walked into. and institution where, it was legal.

do you get the point? that is the purpose of feminists. to make these fine points and why the law to be able to legally rape your wife, should not be on the books.

did husbands feel they were able to rape their wives? dunno. not the point. the law, on the books, say rape was fine. that is the point

[NickB79]

54. OK, I can see that. So now that spousal rape is illegal

And a prosecutable crime, does that make the paragraphs quoted above moot to today's society, or do they still have bearing in another way?

"The normal fuck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation: colonializing, forecful (manly) or nearly violent; the sexual act that by its nature makes her his. God made it so, or nature did, according to the faith of the explainer of events and values. Both conceptual systems--the theological and the biological--are loyal to the creed of male dominance and maintain that intercourse is the elemental (not socialized) expression of male and female, which in turn are the elemental (not socialized) essences of men and women. . . "

"In other words, men possess women when men fuck women because both experience the man being male. This is the stunning logic of male supremacy. In this view, which is the predominant one, maleness is aggressive and violent; and so maleness, essentially demands the disappearance of the woman as an individual; thus, in being fucked, she is possessed; ceases to exist as a discrete individual; is taken over." PP. 63-64

[seabeyond]

64. some of us .... women, feel it is significant that only a couple decades ago, it was legal to RAPE

your wife

it is not so easy to just say, yea women, it is now illegal to rape your wife

some of us women feel... that it is still significant that two decades ago RAPE was legal, in circumstances. rape. was. legal.

just pause with that

today. we have men running for office still not getting why it is illegal.

is it significant today?

[nomorenomore08]

141. It's not as if these ideas, these "norms," just disappear within a generation or two.

To think so would be as absurd as thinking that the Civil Rights Act ended racism.

[Lyric]

207. I'm not sure it's possible to fairly answer this question.

First, because even if it WAS normal by our modern standards, back then, it's likely that nobody thought of it as rape. The stereotypical hallmarks that come to mind when we imagine rape (screaming, fighting back, denial, weeping, etc.) might not have been present--not because of consent, but because resistance was literally futile, and it's easier (and less painful) to just go along.

But consider it from an objective standpoint. Women did not have the right or the ability to say NO--even if they were thinking "No". Even if they didn't want it. And to complain about it risked ostracization, because "good wives" simply didn't talk about things like that. Not to doctors, not to the police, not to their mothers--not to anybody. Have you ever seen the docudrama, "Lovelace"? The story of Linda Lovelace and the making of "Deep Throat"? If not, I recommend it. In particular, the scene where Linda tries to escape her rapey-exploitive husband, and her mother not only refuses to help her, she orders her to go back because God says so, and acts like it's a scandal that Linda would ever have tried to talk about it or get away in the first place.

So...you're in a situation where women couldn't NOT consent. They literally could NOT say No and have that No respected by anyone around them. In a situation like that, is it even possible to say Yes? And have it MEAN anything? How can you consent to something that you never had the choice to NOT consent to? Like slave sex--even if Sally Hemings loved Thomas Jefferson, even if she was aroused and enjoyed the sex they had, could anyone ever REALLY say that slave sex was completely consensual?

In a society where saying No is not legally or socially possible, I think that saying Yes is equally impossible. Consent means nothing when there's no option other than to consent. So it would seem that the argument Dworkin was making, at the time, is that if women aren't allowed the right to say No, then how can ANY sex be anything but non-consensual--a.k.a., rape?

I've never read her stuff, personally, other than reviews and conversational analysis here and there, but honestly--I don't see why that idea is so insanely shocking. It seems pretty logical to me. I'm sure that most women of the time period didn't really think of it that way (which is sensible, because they were still in the midst of that awful dynamic and had never known anything else), but just because it's uncomfortable, that doesn't make it any less true.

The social changes that came about as a result of the sexual revolution and feminism were pretty shocking for the time period--but also very good for society, and not just for women. For example, 40-50 years ago, guys had no idea whether or not their ladies actually desired them. She had no choice anyway--and I can't imagine that that dynamic added much spice to the relationship, know what I mean? Nowadays, unless you're a blatant rapist, there is no doubt. If she's agreed to have sex with you, it's because she WANTS to...not because she doesn't have a choice. Knowing that you are truly wanted makes a pretty big difference in the quality of peoples' sex lives, at least in my unprofessional experience.

[KitSileya]

211. I have argued the same across different threads.

You are quite right, if there isn't two options, there is no choice, and therefore there is no consent to one or the other. So in North Carolina, up until 1993, wives could not give meaningful consent. That was the last place in the US where marital rape was made illegal.

However, there are still laws in place in some parts of the country that legalizes rape of unmarried women. In California, only if you are married are you legally raped if a man pretends to be your husband and tricks you into having "sex" with him with you believing him to be your husband. If you are unmarried, and he pretends to be your boyfriend in a dark room while you are sleepy and intoxicated...it is not rape. In other words, the crime is not the rape, but the violation of another man's property, and an unmarried woman isn't any man's property and can therefore be raped at will in these situations.

Disgusting, isn't it?

[seabeyond]

215. legal rape. and then we wonder why rapists get confised. but hey.... do not be mentioning that

rape culture to clue people in to legal rape, that confuses that po po rapist, right?

oh lordy.


it is merely sinking in that a husband could legally rape his wife into the 90's in some states in the u.s.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. Until fairly recent times

there were no laws against "raping a spouse". In fact, it was quite "legal" until 1993 in NC. The reform movement started in the mid 70's.

Being married meant submitting to sex whenever the man wanted, so yeah, it was an "acceptable practice of the day". How common it was I couldn't say.

I graduated high school in 1979 and I can tell you there was a MAJOR difference in attitude about women than when you grew up.

[NickB79]

56. Glad I grew up in the 90's instead if that's the case

Not to crap on your generation, but I can't fathom the idea that it would be socially acceptable to force your own wife to have sex when she doesn't want to.

I've thrown the puppy-dog eyes look at my wife a time or two, but if she isn't in the mood I'm not pushing the subject any further.

[Kelvin Mace]

59. My generation has a lot to answer for, but then, we were part of the

generation that started to question the status quo.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. meh. Every generation does that.

What do you suppose flappers were about? Or the "you're tearing me apart" types of the 50s?

Every generation rebels, accommodates, gets old, and eventually becomes the crotchety establishment they originally set out to vanquish.

We have a lot to thank the boomers for- Jerry Garcia, ending segregation and the vietnam war, the ease with which anyone can construct a pot pipe out of a toilet paper roll and some tinfoil....

Other subsequent generations have advanced the ball on issues like LGBT equality in ways boomers couldn't always adjust to. Similarly Millennials and the like don't really know what it is like to live in a country where porn is censored. It does not seem to have harmed them- or their views, IMHO.

[Kelvin Mace]

128. Well, I hope never to become part of the "establishment"

Thor knows that won't happen here.

[nomorenomore08]

139. I'm sure it depends on the individual. Then and now.

I don't think she was trying to say anything about the inherent nature of sexual intercourse, so much as how it's conceptualized by a society where women have traditionally been treated as subordinate.

[2banon]

244. Yes, speaking as a married woman in 1971, it was very very much the NORM. n/t

[NickB79]

41. Since I haven't read the book

I'm genuinely curious: does she offer a description of what an idealized sexual experience would be like between a man and woman in a situation/society where men and women are equal?

Because some of those descriptors she uses sound like they'd be applicable to ANY sexual intercourse, even between two equals or between two people in a same-sex relationship.

[zazen]

76. she does slightly in the beginning, but I'd look to her surviving partner John Stoltenberg

whose powerful book, "Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice," provides a better explication of his (and her, to a large extent) views. I think it has some very enticing, potent descriptions of sexuality not based on eroticizing dominance and submission.

I have bookshelves of all of this feminist literature and realize that this conversation requires me to pull them out and retype sections of them. That was life, 30 years ago. The net still blows my mind. And it's made me lazy, so I'm not running to pull them out to find the quotes for you. Sorry! Too many late afternoon errands, but hope the Stoltenberg reference helps.

[Supersedeas]

248. constructs and other rhetorical acrobatics

she does have a way with words

[Rex]

12. But but but...alleged comments she made decades ago prove

there is no rape culture today!

[Atman]

15. Of course, no one said that.

And the comments aren't "alleged." They are in print in a published interview and a book.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Please cite the title of the publication

and page number where Dworkin said this (not somebody said Dworkin said this).

Here is very reputable Guardian in 2005:

The attacks on Dworkin were not only personal; they also applied to her work. John Berger once called Dworkin "the most misrepresented writer in the western world". She has always been seen as the woman who said that all men are rapists, and that all sex is rape. In fact, she said neither of these things. Here's what she told me in 1997: "If you believe that what people call normal sex is an act of dominance, where a man desires a woman so much that he will use force against her to express his desire, if you believe that's romantic, that's the truth about sexual desire, then if someone denounces force in sex it sounds like they're denouncing sex. If conquest is your mode of understanding sexuality, and the man is supposed to be a predator, and then feminists come along and say, no, sorry, that's using force, that's rape - a lot of male writers have drawn the conclusion that I'm saying all sex is rape." In other words, it's not that all sex involves force, but that all sex which does involve force is rape.

[Atman]

31. No page numbers. Must not be true.

Seriously. And you quote an article from 2005 talking about something she supposedly said in 1997 (see how that works? "Supposedly," since you didn't actually hear it, as the finger pointed at me up thread?). I posted about an interview I read in 1978. Why is your response more reliable? Do you really think I just made this up?

[Kelvin Mace]

71. I am quoting her from sources

that spoke to her directly and can provide the links where she rebuts the claim and expounds upon what she ACTUALLY said. I am not relying on what I remember as a source, but on what I remember about the controversy backed up by articles by reputable writers.

I am not saying you made anything up, I am saying you remember incorrectly. I remember the outrage in the "adult magazine" community about MacKinnon and Dworkin when it was going on and I remember both Playboy and Penthouse repeating that claim, but I could find no such claim in the actual book when I read it.

Again, the quote was debunked by snopes.com which has a damned fine reputation for thorough research.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp

You have access to the same Internet I do. It should be simple for you to find a reputable source with a firsthand quote if she in fact said such a thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. The snopes article is about Catherine MacKinnon.

Not Andrea Dworkin.

[Kelvin Mace]

90. The snopes' article also says

MacKinnon claims the first reference to her alleged belief that all sex is hostile surfaced in the October 1986 issue of Playboy. According to MacKinnon, the statement (which had previously been attached to feminist Andrea Dworkin) was made up by the pornography industry in an attempt to undermine her credibility. It became inextricably linked with MacKinnon's name after she began working with Dworkin in the early 1980s to write model anti-pornography laws.

Dworkin has also disavowed the quote as a false statement circulated by her opponents. She has denied saying that "all sex is rape" or "all men are rapists." When asked to explain her views on the topic, Dworkin replied: "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."

The quote was attributed to Dworkin, then MacKinnon, and is now back to Dworkin.

The point is neither woman said it.

Please cite a reliable source quoting Dworkin as saying "all sex is rape". What I have found in the past, and have found even today, is people paraphrasing or inferring the statement from Dworkin's work, then defending that action by pulling various "supporting" quotes out of context to support the claim.

Dworkin's work rubbed a LOT of people the wrong way, especially men. But her writing style and assertiveness was no different from Christopher Hitchens, or Norman Mailer, or Hunter S. Thompson in "aggressive" tone and "take no prisoners" viewpoints. But, of course, they were men, thus permitted to say such things in such ways.

There was also nuance to her views that is very much lost on tone-deaf critics.

I also pointed out to the article in The Guardian which explicitly addresses the issue:

She has always been seen as the woman who said that all men are rapists, and that all sex is rape. In fact, she said neither of these things.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. It says she disavowed it. Whether or not she uttered that precise combination of words is

Pretty irrelevant in the context of the absolutely batshitty things she most definitely DID say.

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

"Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women's lives, can run wild."

"Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right."

"intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior"

"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women," and, it "may be immune to reform"


"For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together."

What do you suppose she meant, there? She felt penetrative intercourse was probably "immune" to "reform". Oh, but she never claimed sex was rape, right?

Now,I'm not claiming she ever said -or didn't ever say-"all sex is rape"- focusing on that one sentence is irrelevant in the context of her widely and repeatedly expressed worldview, even the unpopular portions that she tried to backpedal on, later.

But if people want to portray her as a totally rational voice on the topic of human sexuality who has only been unfairly maligned... Yeah, Good fucking luck.

[Atman]

98. Do we get to "disavow" previous DU posts?

Curious. Many DUers don't seem to think so.

[Kelvin Mace]

150. You have already admitted in other posts in this thread

that you now believe that Camilia Paglia said this, not Dworkin. This is also not true, but I am waiting on a disavowal of the Dworkin claim that you read the quote in Penthouse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4760254

[Kelvin Mace]

133. You have pulled a cluster of senetences out

of her work completely without context and judged them.

I have never sought to portray Dworkin as a "totally rational voice on the topic of human sexuality", few people are, and she was far from it. But, that did not automatically make what she said untrue.

What I sought to do was correct the assertion (made on this board) that she said "all sex was rape".

She either did say that, or she didn't. We either deal in facts, or we don't. If we are to deal with the "meaning" of what she wrote then snippets don't cut it.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. It's relevant if you want to talk about the philosophical gist of her work.

I mean, Humphrey Bogart never said the exact words "play it again sam", but that doesn't exactly change the plot of Casablanca.

A general tenet of Dworkin's work was that the act of penetrative hetero sex is in and of itself inherently problematic in all circumstances AND furthermore it is inherently non-consensual "under Patriarchy"--- which for Dworkin meant "on Planet Earth".

Whether that translates out to "all sex is rape" or fudges around the edges of it, I suppose is debatable. It's [link: it is the stated position of the Savage Death Island Chapter of Spinster Aunts International that, in a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist.|worth noting that modern-day followers of Dworkin are more than happy to defend that same sentiment.]

...beyond that, as to what this thread was posted in response to, I don't think Dworkin herself is really all that relevant to the larger discussions around Rape Culture. In fact she's only relevant to a dwindling number of people, in general.

But if people want to imply that she's being somehow unfairly maligned; she's not. Even if the quote is not directly attributable to her, her views were fairly well and repeatedly in line with the sentiment.

[seabeyond]

170. not true. there is a difference between rape, as you and others want to make it. and violent

I think that Dworkin was using "violent" differently than what many are imagining.

One definition of "violent" is:

intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.


The very act of penetration is somewhat "intense in force or effect". I don't believe she is implying malevolent intent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024759864#post101

violent, as she used is NOT rape against will. so saying it is the same, is simply not true. false. maligning what the woman said and no different than limbaugh feminazi feminists to create a negative few of feminists.

i like how this poster explained. and have appreciated others in this thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. I think you're responding to someone else's post, not mine.

I'm talking about the writings of Andrea Dworkin.

[seabeyond]

179. yes. i do not think you can take what she actually said, and say it is the same as saying all sex

is rape.

i think there is a big difference between rape, the unwilling and what she is talking about. this poster gave us an example of the difference and how her conversation is more fluid than you and others credit her with.

i think it is dishonest to change her words, and say, that is what she meant when it is not what she said.

[Warren DeMontague]

181. I've given several examples of things she actually DID say, and they're all over the map.

If someone wants to say she's being unfairly maligned as having a profoundly odd view of human sexuality, I'd suggest they actually read the words she wrote.

I'm not "changing her words". Changing her words would be to say "she said this". It's not, actually, clear, from snopes or anywhere else, that she absolutely DID or DID NOT ever say the exact sequence of words in question ("Klaatu... Barata....&quot however according to snopes, she "disavowed" it, which could mean she said it but later retracted or qualified it.

I don't know, nor do I particularly care. However, the stuff she actually DID say is pretty out there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

174. +1 n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

194. True

I mean, Humphrey Bogart never said the exact words "play it again sam", but that doesn't exactly change the plot of Casablanca.

However, that single quote, doesn't explain the entire plot of the movie either, and means absolutely nothing out of context.

Who is Sam?

What should he play?

Why was he playing it?

Why shouldn't he play it?

I can add a few other quotes:

"We'll always have Paris."

“…Here’s looking at you, kid.”

“Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine…”

“Round up the usual suspects.”

“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!”

“Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”

All of these are VERBATIM quotes from Casablanca, however, unless you see the entire movie, they make little sense. Yet people are telling me they can judge a person based on a selected quotes (and misquotes) of their works and speeches, without the context of the whole.

Be frank with me, have your actually read Intercourse the book this quote is attributed to?

[Warren DeMontague]

235. Here's the thing. First off, I believe the specific quote we're discussing comes from "Our Blood".

But the larger point, in this thread, is that defenders of Dworkin seem to have several different narratives around this stuff, some of them in direct conflict with each other.

To wit, she's irrelevant, but she's also important. She had lost touch with reality and espoused some admittedly kooky ideas, but her views must not be maligned.

One line of reasoning seems to be, "she never said that quote verbatim, and it's also a gross mischaracterization of her views" Simultaneously, however, people argue that "she never said that quote verbatim, and while it's not a mischaracterization of her views, it's a legitimate sentiment because of the law at the time". Another is "she never said that quote verbatim, and while it's not a mischaracterization of her views, she had an incredibly messed up life which led her to espouse all sorts of out there stuff" etc. etc.

I mean, if it doesn't matter what she DID say because of what she went through and the reality of the times she lived in, then it's sort of moot as to whether or not the actual quote in the OP was said in those specific words.

I do agree with one premise of your OP, here, in that Dworkin is irrelevant to discussions around rape culture in GD, and silly to bring up in that context.

Now, have I read Our Blood or Intercourse cover to cover? I've read enough to know I disagree with the philosophical underpinnings and axiomatic assumptions of her work. Similarly, I've never read all of Das Kapital, but I know where I don't agree with Marx. I've never read Atlas Shrugged (I'm not that much of a masochist) but I know I'm not an Objectivist.

As far as Intercourse... okay, put on your word salad waders and make it through this excerpt, and get back to me. I stand by my assertion that she had some seriously distorted views on human sexuality.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html

[Kelvin Mace]

239. Rather than address various quotes

and provide context here, I point you to another place where I address someone's similar objections about Dworkin (and MacKinnon's) views, rather than restate much of it here.

I believe you will also find your issue of relevance addressed.

I beg your indulgence for this shortcut, but only so many hours in the day.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4769707

[Maedhros]

277. Are you qualified to assert general tenets about Dworkin's work?

That would imply that you have read and analyzed carefully a majority of her writings.

Maybe you have, but it seems unlikely. From what I can tell, you appear to be seriously misunderstanding her points.

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Well, that's certainly a fascinating opinion you have there.

Are you qualified to have an opinion of my posts? Have you carefully read and analyzed them?

Maybe you have, but it seems unlikely. From what I tell, you appear to be seriously misunderstanding my posts.

But perhaps you can explain to me why this -an excerpt from one of her 'saner' works, isn't what it appears to be, i.e. a morass of word salad expressing at best an extremely skewed viewpoint of human sexuality?

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html

[Maedhros]

285. Well, to make a claim of understanding of an author's "general tenets" implies more

than a casual familiarity with a few excerpts gleaned from a Google search.

For example, I would say I could reasonably speak to the general tenets of H.P. Lovecraft, because I have read pretty much everything he's written. I'm very familiar with his subject matter, themes and style. I could NOT speak reasonably to the general tenets of David Mitchell, because I've only read "Number 9 Dream" and therefore lack enough body of knowledge to meaningfully expound on his personal philosophy. I might say some things about what he thinks about solipsism, but I would lack any authority unless I specifically restricted my analysis to the novel I read and did not try to apply the analysis to Mitchell's greater body of work.

Similarly if you are inferring Dworkin's "general tenets" from very limited sources, your analysis should only be applied to those works which you have read. "General" implies greater scope than would be indicated by the lack of breadth and depth of exposure that you indicate you have had with Dworkin's writing.

[Warren DeMontague]

286. It's not limited sources. That's a fairly extensive excerpt, and its by no means the only bit I'm

familiar with.

I'm not sure how much of Dworkin's work I'm supposed to provide a synopsis of, before I'm 'qualified', cough cough, to have an opinion. I've given you a link to an excerpt, again, and this is from her later, more "reasonable" work-- (the quote about how human sex would need to do away with erections, to become truly egalitarian, was in an earlier book) ... please, tell me how I'm interpreting her stuff incorrectly.

so again, if you want to correct my misapprehensions, as you see them, of what Dworkin was trying to say, go right ahead.

[Maedhros]

289. No thank you. You are taking a belligerent tone.

Discussion of issues with you is unpleasant.

[Warren DeMontague]

299. Heh

sure, okay.

[nomorenomore08]

145. That last one is bizarre. As though an erection weren't a matter of simple biology, which it is.

[seabeyond]

152. with so little there, we are all clueless what she was saying. it is worthless to

put something as titillating as that up, yet have absolutely no context. who knows. the before and after may make wonderful sense.

we do not know. why should anyone pretend that means a damn thing.

[nomorenomore08]

163. Very true. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

162. Maybe if you say it, it'll be okay.

When I say it... well, you know what happens.

[NickB79]

51. Without knowing much about Ms. Dworkin, I have a question

What is her definition of "using force" in sex?

Did she ever say in an interview what she considered "force"? I mean, clearly SOME force must be used in the actual, mechanical act of sex. And in some cases both partners enjoy a more vigorous application of force than simply moving one's hips a few inches every second or two.

Or is she using a different definition of force that I'm just not seeing (quite possible).

[Kelvin Mace]

57. You have to actually read when she said. I have posted

several excepts from interviews where she addresses the accusation in this thread. She explains what she said, and what she meant. You can get the gist from those quotes, but to understand properly you have to actually read what she said in context.

[LadyHawkAZ]

132. .

He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy.

A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate&quot the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.

HTH

[Rex]

25. Oh they didn't? There is a MEGA thread in GD that's premise is JUST THAT.

Did you miss it? I can give you a link if you like.

[Atman]

29. Sincerely...I'm not sure what you're saying.

The sarcasm smiley...what is sarcasm? Are you agreeing with what I said or disagreeing? I honestly can't tell.

[Rex]

30. Making fun of another thread in GD...the premise is weak

It states that because she allegedly said that ''all sex is rape", there can be NO rape culture today! I know...makes no sense, but they got like 300 or 400 replies.

[Atman]

33. Thanks.

I get what you're saying. And tend to agree...but don't tell Bain that. I'm just making everything up.

[Rex]

36. Yeah sorry, I guess I should have given more detail in the first reply.

There are a few posters on here I refuse to go into sub-threads with. Always turns out to be a huge waste of time.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. The premise is, indeed, weak.

But that doesn't mean that Andrea Dworkin didn't espouse some seriously odd views of human sexuality, in her books and interviews.

[Rex]

122. She should not be held as the 'gold standard' for if today we have a rape culture in America.

People that want to use her as an excuse are lame. It is like trying to use Freud as an excuse to argue why Psychology is all total crap today.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. No, it should not.

I agree with you there.

[thucythucy]

231. Actually, someone did say that:

Archae, in his post "In 1987, a radical feminist called all sexual contact 'degrading' and 'rape.'" He then went on to try to argue, in his OP and the thread that followed, that rape culture doesn't exist, somehow, because of what Andrea Dworkin said (but actually didn't).

Here's the link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4752265.

I believe this OP is in direct response to Archae.

And, as you admit in a later post, the "published interview" doesn't exist, not as you remember it, and the book says no such thing.

You really should apologize to BainsBain. She was right, you were wrong. Simple as that.

[seabeyond]

22. ha ha ha. ya. that. lol. thanks for the laugh. i am outta here. nt

[Rex]

27. "Nobody said that." Really? There is a MEGA thread on it in GD!

I knew you would get it.

[LadyHawkAZ]

13. No, she didn't

She described it as:
violation,
invasion,
occupation,
abuse,
use (in the negative connotation),
objectification,
lowering women's status,
worse than racism, colonialism, or Auschwitz,
dominance of men over women,
and an act that strips women of their freedom, self-determination, self-respect, and humanity.

She never quite called it rape, though. She skated delicately around that particular pit:

Intercourse as an act often expresses the power men have over women. Without being what the society recognizes as rape, it is what the society-- when pushed to admit it--recognizes as dominance.

[Kelvin Mace]

48. She was describing intercourse

in the context of a male dominated society that said women could not be raped by their husbands, and all the other claptrap that used to be accepted as gospel by society.

People may characterize her words as they wish. They are free to infer any number of things the writer did, or did not, mean.

But folks need to read the entire context of what was being said in the context of when it was being written.

[BainsBane]

52. I see the outrage

as emblematic of the idea that some feel men are entitled to sex with women and that the idea that a woman might prefer other women to men is unacceptable to them--essentially sexism and homophobia.

No woman is obligated to ever have sex with a man, to like sex with men, no more than men are obligated to have or like sex with women. Yet that concept is simply unacceptable in a worldview that assumes men have claim to women's bodies.

[Kelvin Mace]

55. Or that they simply prefer sex on their terms

with the right to initiate, or decline, as THEY see fit. Pretty much how men viewed sex from Biblical times to the last few decades.

I do see men (and some women, weirdly enough) get REALLY pissed off when this view is espoused.

[BainsBane]

58. Oh, yes

and I deliberately did not attribute the view exclusively to men. There are some women every bit as determined to uphold male dominance as any man.

[seabeyond]

74. yep yep yep. nt

[seabeyond]

70. yes yes yes. oh, i like the smart talk. you guys are getting me all that.

very good both of you. now... it is a given, this is who man is and what his sexuality is. in his ownership. we women get that. accept that. it is. but why???? isnt it a gven, or sadly even more so, allowed to be a given on women.

this is what makes all this stuff seem so fuggin stupid.

thanks you two.

you both were way more clear than i. but, i get it.

[Major Nikon]

229. "claptrap" like coitus

Just sayin'

[Ohio Joe]

35. No... It's just more bullshit MRA's like to spread

They will make up any old crap to try and defend their fear.

[zazen]

80. weird--I reread the posts (including mine) on Dworkin's memorial tribute wall on Sunday

I can't believe it'll be 10 years in April since she passed away. I guess I was "googling" my name, which I rarely do, and up it came on her wall, and I was reminded of all of the lives she transformed, including mine.

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-fifth-anniversary-of-death-of-andrea.html

There are some really powerful tributes to her there, for those of you who might be getting that familiar old feeling of having to climb Mt. Everest to get some people to open their eyes about her rare courage and talents.

I still have a soft spot for the late William F. Buckley Jr. who actually treated her with respect and took her seriously when she was on his show. It was the only time I saw a journalist EVER attempt to engage in an intelligent conversation with her. She was actually a very warm, very endearing person, if one ever talked with her. I got to meet her once in Durham, and I'm so grateful.

But, it did seem that she was having some serious emotional issues toward the end of her life. Who could blame her? How can someone that unflinchingly honest and brilliant stay sane? So, I don't agree with everything she wrote at the very end of her life because it seemed like she was descending into some medical paranoia. It broke my heart, but it doesn't change the brilliance and courage of what she wrote before. When you've been that violated so many times, how can you ever trust again? Paranoia seems rational under the circumstances.

[Vashta Nerada]

85. Huh? What?

I was busy looking at porn in my other open tab.

[In_The_Wind]

99. Excuse me ...

6:49 PM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Mar 31, 2014, 06:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Huh? What?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4760652

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

In what universe isn't this hurtful, rude, and insensitive? Andrea Dworkin and other radical feminists are anti-porn, most often on the grounds that so many women are raped in the industry. For someone to come into a thread about Dworkin and post this serves no other purpose than to use the mention of pornography as a way to antagonise. There are millions of websites one can go to to discuss porn use with other people who like it. Doing this in a thread about feminism is unmistakably intended to be disruptive and hurtful.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 31, 2014, 06:49 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see it as a poor choice at humor, but not worthy of a hide.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I have no idea why this shit-stirring misogynist troll is still on DU. He contributes nothing but turds in the punch bowl. Admins?
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Really bad alert!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Lighten up Francis........ Leave it alone.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Ohio Joe]

120. Juror #3 has a good question...

I hope the Admins take this sub-thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024758885#post110

Into consideration when they review this... I think it sheds some interesting light on it.

[CFLDem]

94. Does it really matter what she said exactly?

Dworkin was clearly off her rocker, hence the insanity that underlies everything she said.


Hmm...this bears an uncanny resemblance to her...

[Kelvin Mace]

130. I think I would prefer a more professional

opinion on that.

[Major Nikon]

202. Her own husband didn't believe her rape account

You don't always need a weatherman to tell you it's raining.

[Kelvin Mace]

213. Source please...

Since in this case you are providing a heresay account of the weather, in another place, at some time in the past, which I cannot stick my head out and verify.

[Major Nikon]

219. ...

http://www.salon.com/2000/09/20/dworkin/

[Kelvin Mace]

225. Thank you,

You are correct, and I appreciate the cite.

I will concede that Dworkin was having mental and physical health issues in the last years of her life, but I don't see how that impugns what she wrote over a decade previously. Fine, an argument can be made for viewing here writings from 1999 on as potentially tainted by mental illness, but there was no such problem in 1987 when her most controversial book came out.

As someone else pointed out, many great writers were considered mad, and if we can simply write off their works on that basis, we throw out some truly gifted writers. Hunter S. Thompson comes immediately to mind.

[Major Nikon]

227. I have no idea what conditions she did or didn't have

But I do know quite a bit that she wrote seemed to have a considerable disconnect from reality which doesn't seem all that much less lucid than what she wrote in later years. A disconnect from reality certainly can be a gift for some writers, but generally not non-fiction writers who are trying to write about reality. So yes, I'm pretty sure I can write off her works on that basis, as if there aren't any more. Dworkin was a college dropout trying to write academically about subjects she poorly understood. It's not as if she had any formal education or professional experience with the subject to begin with.

[Maedhros]

281. A disconnect from your reality, sure, but not from hers.

Every writer is guilty of subjective interpretation - that's why they write, to share their perspectives.

[Major Nikon]

287. The idea that everyone gets their own personal reality is not a good one

Reality is constant, perspectives are different. Everyone is guilty of subjective interpretation. Relevancy of a writer for that perception is received from the readers. When you are preaching to the choir it doesn't really matter how batshit crazy you are or how warped your perception is.

[RainDog]

290. Who here read Dworkin in law school?

Someone had excellent insight into her work from a legal perspective - I don't remember who that was, tho....was it you? Contrary to claims made, Dworkin is notable, for most who are familiar with her work, because of her anti-pornography claims as violations of civil rights v. feminists who supported, then and now, freedom of speech as an essential feature of women's liberation.

She lost that argument with a lot of feminists, and she still does.

[Major Nikon]

292. She also lost her legal battles

Dworkin had no legal background and teamed up with McKinnon, who drafted their failed anti-porn legislation which was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts who were less than impressed with the argument that inserting a penis into a vagina is inherently harmful to women.

[RainDog]

301. Dworkin was not an academic

She got a BA at the tail end of the 1960s. All of her training for her life work was done while working with political anarchists and other political movements - but she did work as an asst. to Muriel Rukeyser, who was an important feminist from the WWII era, into the 1970s.

Nothing wrong with being an autodidact, but she had no training in logic, etc. and when she tries to make statements about universality, she falls far short, for me. Her argument that "biology is destiny" is a basic conservative argument - just retrofitted to sound like "the personal is political." - This is another reason left feminists have had an issue with her understanding of the world - Dworkin, tho she was definitely involved in leftist political issues, did not extend the idea of culturally-formed attitudes to females - or she did - depending upon which paragraph you read, or what her explanations in the media meant when you look at her view of intercourse and violation.

Diff. povs in feminism have approached the issue of "essentialism" - those who based much of their work on Freud, for instance - long after Freud was demolished, imo, by Sartre's examination of the idea of "the unconscious" as Freud understood it. But this essentialism has been an important part of European feminist theory - and Dworkin cut a lot of her political teeth in Europe.

But "essentialism" itself is a conservative argument in general, no matter the subject.

All to say - there are many diff. povs out there from women about women - and there is no universal agreement about the meaning of this or that - and, within the social sciences, a lot of this is just semantics, anyway, because basic issues of human rights, equality before the law, bodily sovereignty - legal issues - find broad agreement among feminists.

Her argument isn't about PIV, per se, tho her stance regarding PIV as violation has to be considered since it's central to her view that pornography contributes to violence (tho this has not been established.) That's why she gets attention on DU.

I think hifi guy was the one who read Dworkin in law school, maybe?

[Maedhros]

291. One's reality is the sum of one's experiences.

The reality of a broken leg is much different to me (who has never had one) than to Joe Theismann.

The reality of sex to Andrea Dworkin is much different than your reality of sex. You have not experienced what she has, so of course it isn't "real" to you.

Everybody only gets to see a bit of reality, nobody gets to see the whole thing. And there's lots of it. The point of reading is not to "agree" or "disagree", but to take a look at things with another person's perspective. The more perspectives to which one exposes one's self, the more complete picture of reality one will have.

[Major Nikon]

298. Nobody but the insane and the GOP get their own version of facts and reality

Bones have structural limits and when exceeded they tend to break. The reality of a broken leg is no different just because the leg happens to be attached to someone else. The idea that reality changes for each person is an abstract romantic idea that belongs to the world of fiction. If 'your' reality changes, then it wasn't reality to begin with.

Capturing someone's perspective only increases one's knowledge of reality so long as it's based in reality. If I wrote the moon is made of blue cheese, reading this does not increase your knowledge of reality.

[Maedhros]

300. You've missed the point. Probably on purpose.

Bye.

[Major Nikon]

304. Perhaps because I didn't agree with it

Just sayin'

Cheers!

[nomorenomore08]

147. So were the Marquis de Sade, Nietzsche, and (arguably) Hunter S. Thompson.

Yet I don't knee-jerk dismiss their ideas either.

[CFLDem]

97. And no she didn't say it

But she clearly implied it. Really I feel pity for her poor trapped soul.

More importantly I feel bad for this party if we continue to allow the specter of her craziness to drive people away.

She's long dead, now is the time for healing.

[zazen]

103. you mean "implied," not inferred, and your grammatically incorrect insult to her memory is pathetic

And now I will go figure out how to block individual posters. Never motivated before after 10 years here. Have a nice life.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. So what did she mean about penetrative sex being "immune to reform?"

For that matter, since you've got her books in your library, maybe you can explain this quote from an earlier work- "Our Blood", I believe...What do you think she meant here?

"For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together."

[zazen]

114. I don't have that book, but you could start with reading works by her ex-partner John Stoltenberg

He has a penis and had sex with her quite a bit, so perhaps his commentary could shed some light on these issues for you.

Me? I agree with her analysis about intercourse under conditions of patriarchy. I don't think it's inherently like that. Also, even if it is, I'm a heterosexual female and so I make compromises, and that's a human tradeoff I make as a price of being born into a conditioned society where there are some things that aren't going to change in my or my daughters' lifetimes.

Other people can make their own choices. I quite enjoy and revel in erections when they've been connected to the men I love (one man at present), so I never went much in for some of her critiques of intercourse, though I know where she's coming from.

Her entire corpus was so staggeringly honest, incisive, and beautifully written (even conservatives in National Review gave her that) that I really don't bother too much with the areas where I disagree.

I feel that way about most of the "great works." If I threw out every sexist philosopher, scientist, and artist because I disagreed with some of their work, I'd throw out all of civilization. It is possible to appreciate someone's brilliance and courage and not agree with everything (or sometimes, almost anything--eg, St. Augustine) they say.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Stoltenberg identifies as Gay, and they repeatedly said no, they didn't have sex.

Perhaps it is you who should do more research.

[nomorenomore08]

149. Thank you. That was very well said.

[Kelvin Mace]

131. Well, trying to derive meaning from a sentence fragment

won't get us very far.

I don't happen to have the book handy, so if you do, please provide a page number so we can look it up.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. Are you suggesting I made it up? I didn't.

Try page 35 of "Our Blood". Using the google you should be able to find the PDF.

is, an absolute transformation of human sexuality and the in­stitutions derived from it. In this work,
no part of the male sexual model can possibly apply. Equality within the frame­
work of the male sexual model, however that model is re­
formed or modified, can only perpetuate the model itself and
the injustice and bondage which are its intrinsic consequences.
I suggest to you that transformation of the male sexual
model under which we now all labor and “love” begins where
there is a congruence, not a separation, a congruence
of feel­ing and erotic interest; that it begins in what we do know
about female sexuality
as distinct from male— clitoral touch
and sensitivity, multiple orgasms, erotic sensitivity all over the
body (which needn’t— and shouldn’t—be localized or con­
tained genitally), in tenderness, in self-respect and in absolute
mutual respect. For men I suspect that this transformation
begins in the place they most dread— that is, in a limp penis. I
think that men will have to give up their precious erections
and begin to make love as women do together. I am saying
that men will have to renounce their phallocentric personali­
ties, and the privileges and powers given to them at birth as a
consequence of their anatomy, that they will have to excise
everything in them that they now value as distinctively “male. ”
No reform, or matching of orgasms, will accomplish this.

(emphasis added)

That's the context, and having the context does not, IMHO, make it sound one whit less batshitty.

[boston bean]

175. can you provide the link that you copy and pasted that from?

[Warren DeMontague]

177. Why?

Again, are you suggesting I made it up?

I don't write like that.

[boston bean]

193. No. I wanted to read the entire passage.

[Warren DeMontague]

233. If you google "Andrea Dworkin Our Blood", one of the first results is a pdf link.

You can download the entire hot mess and read it at your leisure.

[Kelvin Mace]

196. Nope, not suggesting that at all

You gave me a sentence fragment and asked me to discern meaning from it.

Yes, this gives a bit more context, but still leaves a good bit out. It seems to be the conclusion to a long line reasoning, so I will have to consult the actual book to answer your question, as this is not one I have read.

[Kelvin Mace]

129. Again, you need to read the context

of what she said.

What she wrote was written in the mid to late 80s when it was still legal to force your wife to have sex, which in any other context would be rape.

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 point she was commenting on no longer applies. All 50 states now have laws prohibiting "marital rape". But, folks keep on taking her work out of context for the time it was written. and claiming she said things she didn't say.

I did not agree with all she said, and I didn't like her as a writer. Not because of anything she wrote or how she wrote it, but because she made me think a lot and ponder my own attitudes toward women. It is never painless to look in the mirror honestly and appraise yourself as a human being.

Dworkin was angry, and from what I have read of her life, had a lot to be mad about. But I have also read very angry words from Black and Hispanic writers about the soul crushing treatment they suffered at the hands of their oppressors. How is this any different? I read it today in the words of LGBT writers and the myriad of abuse they are subject to.

We HAVE come a long way from the world Andrea grew up in. That said, we still have a long way to go.

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. Shame on you. You're not a proper democrat unless you assist with rehabilitating her reputation.

She didn't really mean all that stuff she said. She was expressing Swiftian satire, like Valerie Solanas... you know, before all that unfortunate shooting stuff.

Why do you hate women?

[Capt. Obvious]

108. But she did say

“Sometimes I wonder if there's something wrong with me. Perhaps I've spent too long in the company of my literary romantic heroes, and consequently my ideals and expectations are far too high.”

[Kelvin Mace]

198. It is a rare individual indeed

who gets through this life so unscathed as to not ponder this question.

Most don't ask it aloud as people tend to judge you without the context of an introspective question about one's being. They simply point to it and say, "See, even YOU think there's something wrong with you!"

[seabeyond]

200. you are good. you are so patient. you are so respectful in your responses.

over and over and over. when people are throwing jabs, you doggedly give an informed opinion.

thank you for this Op. a moment in grace, in learning.

[boston bean]

159. The mens groups has a real infatuation with her

and likes to use the commonly held falsities regarding her writing and views, to tar and feather feminists.

here is a simple search:

Search Results
•Search term(s): dworkin
• Post author:
•Forum or Group: Men's Group
• Post type: All posts and replies
• Start date: January 31 2011
• End date: March 31 2014
•Sort by: Date
•Edit search / New search




Type

Title

Author

Date

Forum/Group

Reply Gotcha. Sorry, people keep trying to drag me into this silly fucking argument. Warren DeMontague 5:55 PM Men's Group
Reply I'm not defending Dworkin or her acolytes. name not needed 5:48 PM Men's Group
Reply Edited Subject Header Warren DeMontague 5:37 PM Men's Group
Reply Those that refuse to debate objectification have good reason not to do so Major Nikon Feb 23 Men's Group
Reply Interesting, yes. Will it happen here, I doubt it. Major Nikon Feb 18 Men's Group
Reply What I think would be interesting would be a discussion on Kant's theories regarding objectification stevenleser Feb 18 Men's Group
Reply It is usually pushback from the widely accepted fact that Dworkin became a total kook ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 7 Men's Group
Reply Y'know....there are people here who think calling Dworkin a lunatic.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 6 Men's Group
Reply Absolutely. I think Dworkin was a lunatic but that hardly motivates me to reject feminism generally. nomorenomore08 Feb 6 Men's Group
Reply I'm glad people are realizing that guilt by association is one of many crap logical arguments. Warren DeMontague Jan 19 Men's Group
Reply There is some truth to that, but feminism is too large and complex to really have one "direction" nomorenomore08 Dec 30 Men's Group
Reply Fantastic post. I might have a minor issue with a couple points, but basically you've got it covered nomorenomore08 Dec 30 Men's Group
Reply Homophobia, misognyny, the urge for censorship - they're all intertwined, really. nomorenomore08 Dec 2013 Men's Group
Reply The pushback going on is laughable ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2013 Men's Group
Reply Actually, if you can stomach it, I might recommend going to the source. nomorenomore08 Dec 2013 Men's Group
Reply The "radfems" at my university considered some of the most prominent feminists of the 20th Century Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2013 Men's Group
Reply You are 100% correct. For instance, I get accused of being "anti-Feminist" for criticizing Dworkin Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 Men's Group
Reply Couple things; one, it should go without saying but I'll say it anyway, everyone has the right to Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 Men's Group
Reply Honestly I don't read much of their work anymore Major Nikon Nov 2013 Men's Group
OP List of prominent anti-pornographers Major Nikon Nov 2013 Men's Group
Reply Good question Major Nikon Nov 2013 Men's Group
Reply Sheila Jeffreys has more academia acceptance than Dworkin ever had Major Nikon Oct 2013 Men's Group
Reply I appreciate that you hang out in a lot of different groups, and try to be fair & even handed. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 Men's Group
Reply Oh, they'll claim you're only pretending to be female. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 Men's Group
Reply I think there are two worldviews, and I just think they're essentially irreconcilable. Warren DeMontague Sep 2013 Men's Group
Reply Yeah, pretty much. Warren DeMontague Sep 2013 Men's Group
Reply If you really want a hoot, Major Nikon Jul 2013 Men's Group
Reply I've been accused of being some sort of fucking MRA Grand Poop-bah, because I dare to say things Warren DeMontague Jun 2013 Men's Group
Reply It's a comment on the constant, if ridiculous, attempt from some to pathologize male sexuality. Warren DeMontague Jun 2013 Men's Group
Reply You have to explain the op by putting in stuff that isn't there- isn't that a red flag? Warren DeMontague May 2013 Men's Group
Reply All this proves is that... TreasonousBastard Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply It does get very wearying. HappyMe Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply But if you criticize that, you're criticizing all of "Feminism" Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply They seem to represent the Phyllis Schaffly faction libodem Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply This post deserves a medal. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply No, I never got the sense MacKinnon has mental issues like Dworkin. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply I had to read a lot of Dworkin and MacKinnon to hifiguy Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply I read that book from cover to cover Major Nikon Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply the completely sane & rational Dworkin believed that "men must give up their precious erections" Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 Men's Group
Reply So here's the deal; and this is the EXACT same logical fail that comes up around religion and DU. Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 Men's Group
Reply you can keep telling yourself that Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 Men's Group
Reply To her credit, Dworkin was on the right side of this one Major Nikon Feb 2013 Men's Group
Reply Part of it is, I think the mainstream "Feminist Community" doesn't give a shit about the extremists. Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 Men's Group
Reply I had a friend who attended Smith College in the 80s. For about a year or two we couldn't converse Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 Men's Group
Reply It's mental illness, obviously. Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 Men's Group
Reply Here's the really sad part Major Nikon Nov 2012 Men's Group
Reply All very logical.. Upton Nov 2012 Men's Group
Reply Apparently stating these things in HoF is grounds for getting bounced Major Nikon Nov 2012 Men's Group
OP Conflating consenting adult porn with rape doesn't work. At all. Here's why. Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 Men's Group
Reply Seems to be a contest on who can hate men more Major Nikon Nov 2012 Men's Group
Reply She never said that, and besides, she took it back. You know, the thing she never said. Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 Men's Group
Reply Their argument is PIV=Rape fanatics were just taken out of context Major Nikon Nov 2012 Men's Group
Reply Yeah.. Upton Oct 2012 Men's Group
Reply If she were the only one it might be one thing Major Nikon Oct 2012 Men's Group
Reply Not surprisingly, one of the usual suspects was quick to defend it Major Nikon Oct 2012 Men's Group
Reply There's a good reason why some don't want to admit rape is down Major Nikon Oct 2012 Men's Group
Reply Clearly, an intervention is needed. opiate69 Oct 2012 Men's Group
Reply Wow... lots of undiagnosed personality disorders there, IMHO.... opiate69 Oct 2012 Men's Group
Reply Ah yes of course 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 Men's Group
Reply One problem with these arguments, such as they are, are the way they combine anecdote, Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 Men's Group
Reply What's funny is, Dworkin and her devotees "preferred the fundies", too. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply Evidence to the contrary is already there Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply I don't think either society or sexuality are "problems" that need to be "fixed", myself. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply In the legal sense at least Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply By her own admission, Dworkin was asexual Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply "Objectification" is just another rad-fem myth Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply Who says they're successful? caseymoz Sep 2012 Men's Group
OP The Repressed & Oppressive Sexuality of Modern Society NihiloZero Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply There are other examples Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply That's pretty much the story of her life Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
OP Did Dworkin completely lose her mind prior to its end? Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply Fortunately Dworkin lived long enough to see her empire crumble Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply I know for a fact the vast majority of people- men and women- don't buy into that gibberish Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 Men's Group
OP Women who think all men are rapists. Men who think women think all men are rapists. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply I doubt turning this argument around is going to do much good Major Nikon Sep 2012 Men's Group
Reply Again, its a self applied label. Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply From the comments: 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply They don't believe it's natural, and yeah, Dworkin and MacKinnon would qualify the statements Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply Dworkin never "backed off that idea" Major Nikon Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply It's hard to believe people are still pushing these debunked ideas Major Nikon Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply I won't alert, but you're not gonna be allowed to come in here and insult group members. Or Hosts. Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply I guess Sheila Jeffreys is a separatist. Whatever. redqueen Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply Interesting Statement, Here: Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply Well they're just trying to help 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply Took a while, but here are my current (probably incoherent) thoughts on the subject. rrneck Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply So when you talk of "smash the patrirchy", do you agree with Dworkin, "twisty", etc Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply Obviously, she needs a firm talking to by a 2nd wave Dworkin adherent .. Upton Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply Your brave warriors in the battle against "artificial standards of physical attractiveness" Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply Here's a good resource: "in their own words", from Maggie McNeill Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 Men's Group
Reply Scootaloo's credibility or lack thereof is not my job. MadrasT Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Ah. Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Interesting post. Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Yep, the way I'd read it, personally, redqueen Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Far fringe. Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Okay, great. A couple things. Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Unbelievable garbage.. Upton Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply or the alternate canned response: opiate69 Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Just channeling my inner Dworkin 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 Men's Group
OP Tatsuya Ishida's "Sinfest" - All Men Are Evil, Male Heterosexuality Is Inherently Oppressive Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Actually, you raised the point of porn. DeadParrotz Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply And I like Andrew Blake, but I neither said you were a fan of Dworkin nor asked who your favorite Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply You have some salient points. DeadParrotz Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply And, now, for the armchair psychoanalysis bit: Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Part II: Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Once again the radical left and radical right are indistinguishable from each other 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply This is the way I view what is being argued here Tsiyu Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply I've actually read a couple of Dworkin's books Major Nikon Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply No... PIV*, penetrative "sex" (or what we mistakenly think is "Sex&quot was INVENTED by Teh Patriarchy! Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 Men's Group
OP My first introductions into teh porn (a coming of age story) Major Nikon Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Ultimately the extreme right and the extreme left have a lot in common 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Oh, it's deliberate.. Upton Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply Which demonstrates that there's no really difference between them and the book burners Major Nikon Jul 2012 Men's Group
Reply You mean besides Andrea Dworkin? n/t Gore1FL May 2012 Men's Group
Reply Well, there is that. caseymoz May 2012 Men's Group
Reply I think there are a lot of issues at work here.. Upton May 2012 Men's Group
Reply From what I've seen, most self identified female feminists are pro choice & sex positive too. Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 Men's Group
Reply Study doesn't surprise me at all.. Upton Apr 2012 Men's Group
Reply What Patriarchy? Upton Feb 2012 Men's Group
Reply Phallophobia. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 Men's Group
Reply It seems to be axiomatic in certain corners of the Blogosphere: The Dude Is Always Wrong™ Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 Men's Group

[seabeyond]

172. ha ha. ya. a while back SOME of the men liked getting a most unappealing picture to

post as their comeback when some of us women spoke out. a little passive aggresssion at the expense of her looks. middle school

[Major Nikon]

204. A gender group discussing gender subjects

Quelle surprise!

The next thing you know HOF will be talking about MRAs.

And where exactly does the misrepresentation of her views happen exactly in your exhaustive research?

[nomorenomore08]

165. The mere act of sexual intercourse can mean many different things to different people.

For someone who was repeatedly raped and otherwise abused, as Dworkin was in her young-adult years, it's easy to see why she often cast heterosexual relations in such a grim light. Though just because she had her "issues" doesn't mean she should be dismissed out of hand - to be consistent, we'd have to dismiss a whole shitload of other artists and thinkers, many of whom have valuable things to say.

Personally, I can see where she was coming from with the "sex=violence/domination" thing, not just because of her own experiences but because of the way a lot of men have traditionally viewed the sex act - as conquest, as violation. Needless to say, such a view doesn't exactly lend itself to healthy relationships.

There's nothing inherently wrong with sex, any kind of sex. It's the fucked-up ideas and meanings people attach to it.

[boston bean]

166. My understanding is that she was speaking of a womans "duty".

if a woman feels a duty to have sex with her husband, it is not really consentual, she is doing it for a reason other than wanting to. And for the time she was writing this, it actually was the case that this is what women were taught, and I think it still does exist to this day to some extent.

[nomorenomore08]

168. I think it's a good question to ask, in general - are any of us truly "free" to make choices?

Though the traditional idea of sex as marital "duty" does make that issue more obvious.

[KitSileya]

188. Not to mention, that until 1993, in some places, marital duty by law.

For a long time, and still in many places in the world, wives could not legally be raped by their husbands. Their husbands had legal rights to use their wives' bodies for sex as they wanted. How could any wife give meaningful consent when she had no legal choice?

In fact, still in some places in the US, if a man pretends to be a woman's boyfriend, and she consents to have sex with him because she thinks he is who he pretends to be, it isn't considered rape by legal standards. This happened in California, where a woman, asleep and intoxicated, was raped by an intruder whom she thought was her boyfriend until a light shone on his face, and she knew she was being raped. His rape verdict was overturned, because only if he had pretended to be her husband, would it be legal rape. Presumably, that is because if he rapes her while pretending to be her husband, he is violating the husband's possession, while a woman with only a boyfriend is a free-for-all in California.

[nomorenomore08]

190. But anyone who objects to any of this is just a "feminazi" (per MRA-speak).

[KitSileya]

191. Yup. Very disappointing every time these topics are discussed on DU.

When women couldn't give consent because they had no legal right to refuse, by today's standards, all marital sex was rape. A person who does not have a choice, does not have the ability to give meaningful consent even if they do want to do something. You have to be able to refuse in order to freely accept something.

However, for our small napoleons on DU, it's ever so much more fun to drag out non-contexual quotes from Dworkin and McKinnon just to make-pretend that they hated men.

[davidn3600]

189. "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer..."

"Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman,"
-Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58

"One can know everything and still not accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that one without the imminent possibility of the other is unthinkable and impossible."
-Andrea Dworkin, Letters from the Warzone, p. 21

"...Men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape."
-Andrea Dworkin

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
-Catherine MacKinnon

"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....The major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."
-Catherine MacKinnon

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
-Catherine MacKinnon

Should I keep going?

[Kelvin Mace]

197. I am pressed for time at the moment, but am willing to offer

rebuttal for your quotes.

For now I only have time for one:

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

-Catherine MacKinnon

As we have already established in this thread, MacKinnon NEVER said this (as was pointed out in the title of this post, neither did Dworkin). It was attributed to her by her critics. If you believe she said this, please cite your source.

[CFLDem]

192. You can

but unfortunately, like religious fundies, they'll always try to rationalize the crazy away.

I wish it weren't true, but not everyone can be saved.

[Major Nikon]

201. Their claim is that coitus under the patriarchy is harmful and not fully consensual

Which means pretty much the same as "all sex is rape". Those who go looking for verbatim quotes are not going to find them, but there's volumes of information between the lines they are missing in the process and plenty of verbatim quotes which make their intent quite clear.

[seabeyond]

203. this quote in the 70's when it was legal for a husband to rape a wife, kinda is their point.

dontcha think? if law says a womens consent is not necessary....

well. you get the point. it is thru out this thread. made very well. very clear.

so. if an adult poster, capable of processing written word, reads the info clearly and continues to skew what she says.... well, " their intent quite clear"

[Major Nikon]

205. Dworkin's book, Intercourse wasn't published until 1987

They weren't just talking about marital sex.

If you think it's their point, you don't understand what they were saying.

[seabeyond]

206. Still legal to rape wife in some states into the nineties

[Major Nikon]

208. Which is tangential to Dworkin's et al claims

Their claim is that coitus under the patriarchy is violent, harmful, and less than fully consensual which means that even if you are having what you believe to be fully consensual and loving coitus under a certified government approved marriage, it's still violent, it's still harmful (to women), and is still not consensual.

Martial rape is nothing more than a red herring and has little, if anything, to do with what Dworkin and MacKinnon were claiming.

[seabeyond]

209. read lyric above. i am not wasting any more time with discussion. that a husband is legally

allowed to rape a wife into the 90's so casually washes off your ack is a clear indicator i have no interest furthering this discussion cause it simply does not matter.

and

you are wrong

[Major Nikon]

210. Did you actually read Dworkin's book, Intercourse?

It doesn't sound like it.

Just sayin'

[seabeyond]

214. i have been doing you so long, we know each others steps. now, intercourse.....

no. i have not read. as i say thru out this thread. as i have said whenever the men bring up dworkin, for us duers to have to address, once again.

you men always make me desire to read dworkin. a need a want a must..... to read dworkin. you all make her sound so very very very interesting. such a character, full of life. you show me her smarts. i just want to see how smart

so, no. i have not read

yes. i do want to read. looking to down load and have a book read and discussion in hof.

thanks guys.

that is why thru out my posts in this thread i do not specifically talk about her and what she says. as if i understand. i readily leave it to those that have read and can articulate. hence, me directing you to those posts in this thread. mace would be one. and lyric. as i directed you. answering your comments specifically and academically. so any 8th grader can understand.

and that would be why i am mainly focusing on husband allowed to rape their wives into the 90's. because that mattered. that, i get. that, is fact. and that has a lot to do with the feminists mind set in the 70's. as you, a man, that was legally able to rape me, a wife..... (figuratively), i think i get to have a greater stake in it than you do.

[Major Nikon]

218. So you are convinced I'm wrong about a subject you are ignorant by your own admission

I suspected you hadn't read Dworkin because you seem to have very little direct knowledge about what she did or didn't write. I could care less if you read Dworkin or not, but claiming someone else is wrong on a topic you are mostly ignorant by your own admission doesn't seem to be all that productive.

[seabeyond]

220. i know you are wrong cause you discount the time she was addressing, you have to change her words

to make your argument and many that have read her clearly kill your argument.

[Major Nikon]

222. So I'm wrong because someone else may think I'm wrong

I'm not sure how this helps your case.

Just sayin'

[seabeyond]

223. no. i clearly expressed three reasons you were wrong. and lookie, you HAD to change my words... lol

we have done this dance to many times

outta here

[Major Nikon]

224. Point of order

You expressed (whether clearly or not is debateable) reasons you think I am wrong based on information you are ignorant by your own admission.

It doesn't get any better than that.

[Kelvin Mace]

212. First,

is the conditional phrase "under the patriarchy", which when Dworkin was writing this was still very much how marriage could be described. Marital rape was not illegal in quite a few states at the time Dworkin wrote her views. Marrying a man in many states meant you submitted to sex regardless of your consent. If a husband forced his wife to have sex, it was not an offense, since in the eyes of the law this was a wife's duty as a wife, part of the marriage contract.

Dworkin's comments cannot be judged out of context with what she was writing, when she was writing and her experiences that lead her to her views.

Second, people have asserted that she said "All sex is rape", This is factually incorrect. When called on it, one poster INSISTED it was true because he remembers reading it in a Penthouse interview in 1978. He later admitted that it was a Camile Paglia interview he recalled, and even then he was wrong because Paglia never said it. Now, having proven she didn't say that (nor did MacKinnon), people fall back on "well, that's what she meant, so it's the same thing." which it is not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

216. Okay, then do you agree with and approve of what she did say?

For instance, do you agree with the model ordinance that she and MacKinnon got passed in Indianapolis which outlawed all books audio recordings and film that depict sex acts with which they disapprove? When asked if classics like the Illiad should be exempt from the law MacKinnon wrote;
"If a woman is subjected, why should it matter that the work has other value?"

Or do you agree with her when she said:
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership."

Or when she said:
"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

Her writing, although too verbose for dictionaries, should serve as the working definition of misandry. I'm completely unsurprised to see a full throated defense of her here. It's also why I'm completely immune to concerns that the usual suspects don't approve of me. I would have it no other way.

Personally, I think Cathy Young said it best.

Dworkin's admirers laud, and wildly exaggerate, her role in the battle against domestic violence and rape; if she deserves "credit" for anything, it's helping infect feminist activism on these important issues with antimale bigotry and paranoia. Her biggest "contribution" to the women's movement was to redirect a lot of its energy into a futile, divisive crusade against pornography.

While Dworkin spoke passionately on behalf of women who are battered and raped, her advocacy was undercut by her bizarre claims for instance, that the high rate of Caesarean sections in the United States is driven by the sexual sadism of doctors. Her melodramatic assertion that the everyday life of women in our culture is an "atrocity" could only trivialize real atrocities. Her depiction of all women as perpetual victims "Being female in this world is having been robbed of the potential for human choice by men who love to hate us" is profoundly demeaning.

She was nuts, and although I can extend a person some compassion for the circumstances that drove her to such a peak of hatred and insanity, I'm not going to give any slack to those who think that the insanity contains any nuggets of wisdom. It does not.

[Kelvin Mace]

238. Defending the accuracy and context of a person's quotes

is not automatically endorsing all of their views.

To answer your questions:

1) No, I do NOT agree Dworkin and MacKinnon's legal views on censorship. I do not believe in censoring anyone's writing for ANY reason. I would also disagree with both woman on their very broad designs on restricting what they see as porn.

2) "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership."

You need to read up on your history to see that marriage was all about tribes run by men, building alliances with other tribes run by men. When that didn't work, you raided the other tribe, killed the men, captured and raped the women, then brought some back to bear your children. "Marriage" was a way of giving a ceremonial legitimacy to this practice. The major point is, women had ZERO choice in who they married. Marriage was "Here is my 14 year old daughter, let me give him to your 22 year old son." Women were PROPERTY, nothing more. So I find it real hard to see where women would consent to the practice of being given to strangers for sex, thus, lacking consent, it is rape. As stated elsewhere in this thread, until recently (as late as 1993) there were no laws against "marital rape". Sex was a woman's duty and if force was required, oh well, that's the social contract.

So, her statement is factually correct.

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

Again, a factual statement.

Patriarchy : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly

: control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

When men make all the rules, then they get to say what is, and isn't rape. They get to say who marries who and when. If you raise your son and teach him that patriarchy is the norm, then when he is presented with an unwilling woman he is told is now his wife, he will have sex with her with, or without, her consent, which would be rape by our definition as a modern civilized society, but not under the rules of a "patriarchy".

The point of contention among some folk was MacKinnon applying her statement to modern society. But again, we are back to the fact that during her time, there were no marital rape laws and women were still given the short end of the stick on everything from marriage to fair pay in what jobs they could get.

Another bright example of a patriarchy is a double standard about sexual behavior, men operating under one set of rules and expectations, women under another. And that double standard is still found even today.

There is MUCH disagreement about both MacKinnon and Dworkins views and actions on porn, which some feminists have no problem with and some do. On the subjects of rape, physical abuse and appalling discrimination and harassment, both of these women spared no words or contempt for the practices that society preferred to ignore.

They remind me of the ardent abolitionist and feminist William Lloyd Garrison who spoke with candor about slavery when such things could get you lynched (indeed he narrowly escaped several attempts). Garrison's writings and speeches were so inflammatory that the Georgia legislature put a $5,000 price on his head.

When told that he should moderate his words in order to not offend the sensibilities of the public he responded:

“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

His characterization of slavery was considered incendiary by his critics and was just as shocking to the 19th century people as Dworkin/MacKinnon's writing about sex were in the 20th (and apparently 21st):

I cherish as strong a love for the land of my nativity as any man living. I am proud of her civil, political and religious institutions — of her high advancement in science, literature and the arts — of her general prosperity and grandeur. But I have some solemn accusations to bring against her.

I accuse her of insulting the majesty of Heaven with the grossest mockery that was ever exhibited to man — inasmuch as, professing to be the land of the free and the asylum of the oppressed, she falsifies every profession, and shamelessly plays the tyrant.

I accuse her, before all nations, of giving an open, deliberate and base denial to her boasted Declaration, that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I accuse her of disfranchising and proscribing nearly half a million free people of color, acknowledging them not as countrymen, and scarcely as rational beings, and seeking to drag them thousands of miles across the ocean on a plea of benevolence, when they ought to enjoy all the rights, privileges and immunities of American citizens.

I accuse her of suffering a large portion of her population to be lacerated, starved and plundered, without law and without justification, at the will of petty tyrants.

I accuse her of trafficking in the bodies and souls of men, in a domestic way, to an extent nearly equal to the foreign slave trade; which traffic is equally atrocious with the foreign, and almost as cruel in its operations.

I accuse her of legalizing, on an enormous scale, licentiousness, fraud, cruelty and murder.

Garrison was considered by many people in his day to be (to use your word) "nuts".

P.S. - I live in North Carolina and have heard MANY self-styled Civil War historians fume about Garrison even to this day. He was a "provocateur", a "trouble-maker" a "crazy" who provoked the Civil War.

[lumberjack_jeff]

240. Funny, I'm not reminded of the condition of slaves in the US when I think of Dworkin.

In fact, at risk of understatement, I think it's a bit of a hyperbolic stretch to compare the two.

If this were simply a correction of the record (setting aside the legitimate question of whether saying, writing and beleiving that all coitus in this society is non-consensual can legitimately be paraphrased as "all sex is rape&quot , the thread wouldn't be 240 posts long.

[Kelvin Mace]

241. Really?

Who got the right to vote first? Men or women? When the slaves were freed in 1865, the men immediately got the right to vote, whereas the women had to wait until 1920, 55 years later.

I would argue that women have existed in a state of slavery far longer than African-Americans. In fact, in today's world, the majority of slaves that still exist are women, used in the sex trade.

Such slaves can be found in THIS country, and you don't find the our government using every resource at its disposal to put an end to it.

In fact, it has been argued that the U.S. government has tacitly looked the other way about slavery going on in its own territories:

http://www.alternet.org/story/13140/part_iv%3A_delay%27s_unregulated_pacific_%22paradise%22

Sex slavery is a "back-burner" issue, so I believe my comparison is apt.

Your mileage may vary.

[RainDog]

242. I didn't really want to get into this

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

and won't, beyond this, because people will take from Dworkin what they want - and even defend her with no knowledge of her actual writings... so what's the point, really? It's just point scoring, not actually looking at Dworkin's distorted view of heterosexual interaction as sexual beings for what it is.

Shulamith Firestone made a better argument earlier in feminist thought about the consequences of sex for females in a natural condition - arguing that bearing children and being the ones who are most often the ones who invest their time in day-to-day childcare creates a condition of subordination for women that would only be overcome when childbearing was removed from women's lives. Of course this view, like Dworkin's, was based upon a western capitalist model to frame the issue - and disregarded any actual female desire to care for children - the frame, iow, defers to the status quo rather than the socio-economic as a great part of the distortion of equality for women in a system that relies upon unpaid and low-paid wages to create "winners and losers."

However, in Intercourse, written in 1987, Dworkin's view of penis-in-vagina is entirely based upon the idea that heterosexual intercourse violates women - as a sexual act. What would any woman here call that other than rape? All would call it rape, it seems, but some make an exception when Dworkin says it because she was commenting upon history. Yet she did not confine the view to history (and, honestly, any husband in 1987 who claimed rights to sex because of marriage was not exactly a beacon of truth for husbands - really. Ask any husband in any relationship that was not bounded by religious belief if he thought he had legal right to rape his wife, no matter what law was on the books - or if any woman could not obtain a no fault divorce if she wanted to accuse said husband of rape or thought she had been raped. Women would not have, generally, accepted such a condition, no matter the law because they could use the law through other means to stop such bullshit - divorce means no sex, not even the rapey kind.)

She states outright that hetero sex is a fundamental issue IN AND OF ITSELF for women. No matter the law of the land, because her view of females was such that she gave them no agency or bodily integrity simply because they had PIV sex.

There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?

She is clearly making AN ESSENTIALIST argument about women - that hetero intercourse is a condition of oppression for women that is "forced" upon women because they are human animals and intercourse propagates the species. She is not saying that, with an end of patriarchy, such oppression ends.

An essentialist argument is about the very nature of something that is irrevocable.

Yet she hedges on this essentialist argument by acknowledging that "compulsive heterosexual desire" is not rape - though it is dominance, and never an act of mutual agreement/consent.

Intercourse as an act often expresses the power men have over women. Without being what the society recognizes as rape, it is what the society-- when pushed to admit it--recognizes as dominance.

So, sex is (often) dominance and a violation. It is occupation. per Dworkin.

She did not acknowledge that females ever initiate sex, or that males ever responded to female desires and requests in sexual acts. Her entire conception of hetero intercourse derives from her personal abusive experiences and not from a universal experience of hetero sex - because her view of sex does not define all experiences of the same. She does use "often" as a qualifier, but the content and context makes that qualifier a sort of sop to criticism so that, while she is trying to claim a universal, she cannot be held to that if so criticized. Her claims are not very well reasoned in any way. Her argument is a polemic, not a descriptive of the universal (female) human condition, tho, again and again, she claims no other human is violated as part of her natural state. tho women are.

This is her ridiculous claim: The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center.

...She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy.She, a human being, is supposed to have a privacy that is absolute; except that she, a woman, has a hole between her legs that men can, must, do enter.

--that slit which means entry into her-- intercourse--appears to be the key to women's lower human status.

Her choice to say to women that they are lower in human status, not just perceived to be so is indicative of her essentialist argument. This sort of thinking runs throughout her polemic.

Because some women do not orgasm via intercourse, she uses this as an argument about the negative nature of intercourse itself. Some women, however, do have orgasms via intercourse - so what are they? Vichy females? Again, she is trying to make an essentialist claim about the nature of intercourse that is not essential - and, further - to claim that orgasms that derive from other forms of stimulation somehow negates intercourse is a really, really limited view of what male/female intercourse has been about for a long time for just about anyone I know who has ever talked about this subject. But whatever - that doesn't uphold Dworkin's narrative of intercourse as something apart from female sexual satisfaction.

Women have wanted intercourse to work and have submitted--with regret or with enthusiasm, real or faked--even though or even when it does not. The reasons have often been foul, filled with the spiteful but carefully hidden malice of the powerless. Women have needed what can be gotten through intercourse: the economic and psychological survival; access to male power through access to the male who has it; having some hold--psychological, sexual, or economic--on the ones who act, who decide, who matter. There has been a deep, consistent, yet of course muted objection to what Anais Nin has called "[t]he hunter, the rapist, the one for whom sexuality is a thrust, nothing more."3 Women have also wanted intercourse to work in this sense: women have wanted intercourse to be, for women, an experience of equality and passion, sensuality and intimacy. Women have a vision of love that includes men as human too; and women want the human in men, including in the act of intercourse. Even without the dignity of equal power, women have believed in the redeeming potential of love. There has been--despite the cruelty of exploitation and forced sex--a consistent vision for women of a sexuality based on a harmony that is both sensual and possible. In the words of sex reformer Ellen Key: She will no longer be captured like a fortress or hunted like a quarry; nor will she like a placid lake await the stream that seeks its way to her embrace. A stream herself, she will go her own way to meet the other stream. 4

A stream herself, she would move over the earth, sensual and equal; especially, she will go her own way.

Any woman who has ever had an orgasm would not describe it as a "stream moving over the earth." There are physical actions that happen to females that make their orgasms very similar, in terms of muscle contractions and the urge for release.

Shere Hite has suggested an intercourse in which "thrusting would not be considered as necessary as it now is. . . [There might be] more a mutual lying together in pleasure, penis-in-vagina, vagina-covering-penis, with female orgasm providing much of the stimulation necessary for male orgasm." 5

This, to me, is simply... ridiculous to state. So, the only thrusting that should be allowed in hetero intercourse is thrusting by females (because, yes, females do thrust, too - and that's okay, apparently, because ultimately that would seem to be what Hite is talking about - so, the reality is that both males and females thrust when they have sex - but because of patriarchy, it's only okay if females do it - and, okay, maybe males can do it in response to the vaginal muscles contracting with orgasm and pulling the penis deeper into the vagina - oh, but that would make a hetero orgasmic female somehow complicit in her own subjugation to have her body actually ask for male thrusting - which is what it does.

Anyway, so, anyone who wants to make a point that Dworkin never specifically stated all HETERO sex is rape is counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin, to me. If that's how someone wants to take her work - so be it. Others, however, read her and find that she offers nothing worthwhile to say to (hetero) females about the state of male/female sexual existence.

She did marry a gay man, came out as lesbian, they never had sex, she said she did not engage in intercourse by choice. She was abused and, to me, she was writing about her own trauma and making it the reference point for all hetero sex. I would not advise any young female to read her without a big dose of skepticism - her actions vis a vis the court and pornography are not separate from her worldview - and neither of them, to me, are worth much consideration as valid exercises in feminist thought.

[lumberjack_jeff]

245. Well said.

Her writing is tremendously influential and harmful even today.

[RainDog]

249. Dworkin should have stuck to "I think that"

"I" statements - claiming the emotion as her own, rather than pretend her extreme experience is reality for others. As a memoir of abuse, her work in Intercourse would be much more powerful - her anger and sense of violation after rape. I could entirely endorse her work as memoir, but not as feminist critique for hetero females about the human condition.

Her version of radical feminism leaves out what is, historically and currently, a condition of second-class status in capitalist society - and that condition is economic.

I have said, many times, I wish someone could create a valid model of society in which sex is separated from money and then see what women think about it. Of course, that would also mean sex as separated from marriage because marriage is a contract in American society that includes presumptions about roles and duties.

Of course, we do have other cultures in which females engage in sexual acts without the need of their societies to comment upon those women in any economic or social way, and in those, women seem to find intercourse a worthwhile activity in and of itself, without marriage contractually binding two parties to do anything other than have sex.

As far as your link - ugh. sophomoric. If that woman worries about whether a man will call her after she has sex, she shouldn't be having sex with him - or maybe anyone else. So, again, her aversion to PIV sex may be a good thing for her, but she doesn't speak for the women I know with whom I have discussed this issue many times in many ways - though she does remind me of a woman I knew as an undergrad who was talking to me on my way out of class one day who said... it's tough to be a heterosexual feminist - lol- then she got on her pink vespa and rode into the sunset... because so much of the critique of society has centered on roles generated by institutions but the critique limits its scope, and worth therefore, imo, to interpersonal relationships and not economic and cultural (religious esp) ones.

[Warren DeMontague]

261. That right there is why YOU are one of my favorite DU members.

Very well said.

[RainDog]

270. Oh. I thought it was b/c I liked music other than the GD

http://lyricstranslate.com/en/moi-mon-ame-et-ma-coscience-me-my-soul-and-my-conscience.html

[Major Nikon]

217. Historical context is somewhat relevant

But not very. If Dworkin were alive today she'd still be saying the same things, just as many today still parrot out her words and ideas. I don't think those words and ideas would be all that much different today.

Dworkin doesn't limit her rhetoric to marital rape or even coitus under marriage, so why anyone thinks this is what Dworkin was talking about either didn't read Dworkin very well or is operating on a level I am incapable of understanding. When coitus itself is described frequently by Dworkin as violating, coercive, and harmful to women, it's pretty clear Dworkin wasn't just talking about marital rape. Dworkin, et al, believe that coitus under gender roles is inherently void of choice (which is accurately described as synonymous with rape).

[div class="excerpt“Men have constructed female sexuality and in so doing have annihilated the chance for sexual intelligence in women. Sexual intelligence cannot live in the shallow, predestined sexuality men have counterfeiteed for women.”
― Andrea Dworkin

[Kelvin Mace]

226. We have no idea what Dworkin would

say if she were still alive, so that is conjecture. She had a point, a very important one bout gender roles and the obligations/expectations of women under marriage laws as practiced until quite recently.

To dismiss her points as no longer relevant (if ever relevant) would be the same as dismissing the legalized apartheid that existed in the country until VERY recently and pointing out that it's been "years" since we had a lynching. Would you blame a black writer who has lived through Jim Crow in the deep South for harboring very distinct criticisms against the white power structure?

[Major Nikon]

228. I'm not convinced her points were ever all that relevant

Dworkin was writing specifically about intercourse (specifically coitus), not marriage laws. If you think there's some relevance (now or ever) to the idea that getting an erection and engaging in consensual heterosexual sex is inherently oppressive, coercive, and damaging to women, then more power to you. I never thought it was and still don't. That was Dworkin's point. Dworkin was a misandrist and I blame all haters for their own hate. Whether or not someone else is a hater is irrelevant.

[thucythucy]

232. Thanks for posting this. I always saw the way Dworkin's "quote" was twisted

as similar to the way Al Gore supposedly said he "invented the Internet." A fallacious quote so often repeated Gore simply gave up trying to explain what he actually said--which was more nuanced, and actually true.

In both cases it was a smear to discredit someone's politics.

It's depressing to see how often that works, but good to know there are folks like you out there still willing to stand up for truth and accuracy.

Best wishes.

[KamaAina]

246. Ooh! Ooh! A feminism thread!

I'll have extra butter on mine, please.

[Kelvin Mace]

247. I think you are getting in at the end of the dust up.

But poke around the wreckage and watch the instant replays.

[NaturalHigh]

302. I'm willing to concede...

that there is no documented instance of Andrea Dworkin saying that all sex is rape. She did, however, write that "violation is a synonym for intercourse." The difference between the two quotes is a matter of degrees at most.

I truly feel sympathy for Andrea Dworkin. She was a severely damaged human being who felt a burning hostility for men and any women that she thought might be in league with what she considered "the patriarchy" (including Hillary Clinton). I'm not sure how she became so damaged, but she must have lived a miserable life.

Regardless of her intentions, she did nothing but damage to gender relations, and the right-wing, anti-pornography, anti-sex crowd (think Ed Meese), counted her as an ally.

[Kelvin Mace]

305. It's complicated

I address a number of Dworkin's (and MacKinnon's who got dragged into this) quotes and provide context for them elsewhere and do not wish to rehash it all, but I will summarize.

I disagree strongly with Dworkin's views on porn and allowing herself to be co-opted by the Right by folks like Meese. She fell into the trap of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which is a tactic used by politicians all the time, much to the detriment of all parties involved. She damaged her cause immensely by doing that.

I'm not sure how she became so damaged, but she must have lived a miserable life.

Dworkin was indeed damaged. She was sexually abused at age 10, and physically abused by her husband in her 20's, turning to prostitution to escape him and survive. So, yeah, I think that her background informs her writings and opinions. Most controversially, she claimed to have been raped after being drugged in 1999, a claim that was disputed, derided and mocked by many of her critics, and doubted by even some of her allies. What is obvious is that her health, mental and physical, began to deteriorate around that point to the end of her life in 2005 at age 58.

[div class="excerpt"Regardless of her intentions, she did nothing but damage to gender relations

I point out in another post (link above) that the very same criticism was leveled against legendary abolitionist and feminist William Lloyd Garrison. There are people, to this day, who accuse him of damaging the cause of abolition and even provoking the Civil War with his writings and speeches.

Garrison was a very "in your face" about slavery, to the point that people tried to kill him to shut him up. He grabbed the public by the scruff of the neck and made them look at the ugliness that was slavery and he stripped away the moral cover offered by apologists and "pragmatists". To say that these efforts were not appreciated in the South would be an understatement, but he even faced lynching in Boston for his views.

Dworkin and MacKinnon did the same thing about the sexual/physical abuse of women and the discrimination which exists to this day. Dworkin's work is only a few decades old and while things have gotten better, a lot of the problems she wrote about still exist today. It may be a century or more before the work can be evaluated properly.

My comparison of Dworkin to Garrison was called "hyperbolic" by one poster in this thread, however, as I pointed out to him: Slavery still exists TODAY, even in this country, and the slaves are overwhelmingly women. Rooting out the sex slave trade which harms and even kills tens of thousands every year is NOT a high priority of our government or its law enforcement agencies. In fact, members of our government have even been complicit in the trade.

I find it hard to dismiss Dworkin's written and spoken criticism of male abuse of power and subjugation of woman while this horror show was going on under our very noses.