Andrea Dworkin Has Died

[Modem Butterfly]

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,145722...

Simon Jeffery
Monday April 11, 2005

The American feminist icon, writer and campaigner Andrea Dworkin, who linked pornography to rape and violence, died at the weekend, her agent said today. She was 59 years old.
Her radical-feminist critique of pornography began with her first book, Woman Hating, published when she was 27. She campaigned frequently on the subject, helping to draft a law in 1983 that defined pornography as a civil rights violation against women.

[Book Lover]

1. A real loss

I don't agree with her assertion that there is a causal link between watching porn and violence against women, but she was a strong and effective voice for our rights. It's a loss for thinking women.

[MadisonProgressive]

174. Watch out it also causes beastiality according to some pubes

[sui generis]

2. whew. Glad I only have gay porn.

[meegbear]

5. You naughty naughty boy you!

Can I borrow some?

[bullimiami]

13. gay porn.....lol

[UdoKier]

3. "All sex is rape"

I thought of her as one of the most negative of "feminist" thinkers, epitomized by the idea that "all sex is rape". Her philosophy seemed to come from a lot of deep-seated anger and pain. I hope she's found peace.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. I'm not a big fan of Dworking

but fairness compells me to point 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 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."

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

46. Al Franken's joke

When confronted with the "all feminists view intercourse as rape" meme, Franken's response is, "I only know of one feminist who believes that intercourse is equivalent to rape, and we've been married for twenty seven years."

Funny guy, that Al.

[Montauk6]

50. OK, maybe she didn't actually say, "all sex is rape"...

But here's what she DID say, and I'm only going to present the URL as the moderators have issued a warning against sexually explicit dialogue here: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.ht...

I haven't completed the entire text but going by the gist so far, "all sex is rape" is standup comedy compared to what she actually discoursed.

As for the double standard on the treatment of her demise and that of JPII in, I believe, another thread; I think we're talking apples and oranges. Like it or not, when you head one of the largest religious communities on the planet, you're gonna get some slack.

As to which Mr. Burch alluded, she, along with Professor McKinnon (who I thought was the "all sex is rape" originator) is tainted by her recent collaboration with the Jesus Brigade. This is the same taint that may stain folks like Dennis Miller, Christopher Hitchens if they were to punch out, say, tomorrow.

That said, I don't quite concur with the good riddance sentiment. I reserve that for my former landlord, Fred Phelps, and other consoviet leaders and apparatchiks.

[PassingFair]

123. Is that Coleman Young in your avatar? N/T

[Montauk6]

142. Detroit's own!

[PassingFair]

149. He was the mayor while I was growing up in Detroit.

My favorite line of his was to the HUAC committee:
"You must mistake me for some kind of stool pigeon"; or something to that effect...

[neuvocat]

88. "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent."

Actually it is rape that is violent. Intercourse by nature is not.

[Kelvin Mace]

124. See, here we have to get into definitions of "violent"

There's violence and there's VIOLENCE. If you are looking at the mechanics of intercourse from a strictly clinical perspective, it can be seen as a violent act, which invades a woman's personal space and, depending on how it is carried out, can be demeaning or subjugating for women. A woman can get pregnant and this is an situation which has profound affects on the woman and is the subject of a lot of VIOLENT dispute in our society.

Even on our side, I see a lot of people sqeamish about abortion. They recast the question about being "pro" or "anti" choice. Personally, I think men have *no* valid input to this debate (oh, this is going to get me in trouble) since we are NOT the ones who must either have the abortion or give birth. Only women undertand this unique situation. And it is THEIR bodies, thus their decision. There is NO equivalent situation a man can be in where he must decide whether to end a life that is an intergral part of him or go through nine month's of pregnancy and give birth, then face the decision of raising a child or giving it away. There is NO equivalent situation a man faces where simply asserting control of his body is potentially subject to judicial/legal review.

No one is shooting circumcision doctors.

Dworkin seems to have chosen her words for a visceral reaction, but she is essentially correct if you divorce that emotional reaction and look strictly at the physical act.

Come one folks, sexual intercourse as practiced by a vast majority of the world's male population is an act of dominance. And before you look on our country as "enlightened" remember that we have to deal with the religiously deranged who view sex as an evil "necessity".

We have states that feel a man can never rape his wife, because saying "I do" mean automatic consent to intercourse whenever the man feels like it. One does not have to look far in our culture to find reactionary attitudes about gender roles and equality of power (and this is what sex is about). As men, we have absolutely NO clue what it means to be in a position where a man can be with us for two minutes and completely change our life for the next 20. We do not know what it is like to be at the mercy of other men about the status and integrity of our bodies.

We.just.don't.know.

(Sympathizing and empathizing is not the same as *knowing*).

Dworkin pondered this and wrote in a fashion that pissed a lot of people off (men and women).

Her greatest sin in my eyes was aligning with the Religous Right under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. Stupid. But I see it every day and it has its advocates on this site.

Again, I disagree with some of her conclusions, but she was certainly on to something in getting people to look at intercourse in the manner she did.

Did she hate men? I don't know, she seemed to associate with them, so a good guess is that she hated what a lot of men had been conditioned by society and religion to do. Did she have intercourse with her husband? Not my business. If you think she's "hates" men, try reading George Carlin's latest book. We do NOT come off well.

As far as I can determine, Dworkin never said "all sexual intercourse is rape". She did dare to point out that sex can hardly be consensual in a society where women are considered inferior to men. We are only a few decades from women being almost wholely dependent on men for their livliehood. Despite all our pretense about equality, we MEN defeated the ERA in this country. We (again, mostly men) are currrently arguing about whether women should be allow access to contraceptive services.

We are hardly as enlightened as we like to believe. (and yes, I realize that we are moreso than our Freeper brethern, but that's not much of an endorsement, is it?)

[smirkymonkey]

135. Excellent Post. Thanks!

[Montauk6]

144. Then ANY act of intimacy, committed by male or female, is a "violent" act

I mean, really. A hug or embrace can be looked at as a form of detention or entrapment. A stroke of the hair or neck or body part can be considered an assault. Hey, if I tap you on the shoulder to get your attention, the only difference between that and a vicious punch is simply degree of pressure applied.

So when you deconstruct to such a level, you'd then have to concede that all physical encounters are ipso facto "violent," in which case men AND women are as culpable; furthermore, men can victims of domination as well. The ultimate problem, IMHO, of this kind of ivory-tower, navel-gazing, dust-in-the-wind pontification is that the RELEVANT point of women getting treated like crap in most societies which are, even today, highly sexist and misogynistic (as well as racist and homophobic) gets sidetracked and even diminished.

[Kelvin Mace]

160. You are ignoring context

and missing the point.

The context is the status of the people involved. A hug CAN be an unwelcome assault, ask any women with a groping boss. Ask a small child with an effusive aunt.

When the people invloved are of unequal status, then the contact can be viewed as unwanted and invasive. What is so hard to understand?

Women *can* be the agressor in these situations, but history has show this to be uncommon.

I consider people who assume they can use my first name to be invasive. Why? Because I don't know this person and am offended that they presume familiarity.

As I have said many times on this board and elsewhere, context is everything.

[Montauk6]

162. Then,I can just as well say you're only focusing on ONE context

And I'm not missing the point; I just don't agree that it applies to all situations and, thus, can comprise an entire world view.

[Kelvin Mace]

168. Dworkin specifically set out her context

That said, it doesn't apply to ALL situations, only situations between unequals. Where are we disagreeing?

Dworkin and most feminists address the issue of the real world, not the ideal world. Like it or not, inequality between the sexes is the norm, not the exception, even in this country (some might say, *especially* in this country).

Human behavior is governed by three principle factors: Nature, culture and intellect. Nature is how we are wired, culture develops from nature and is influenced by things such as religion, politics and superstition; and the intellect is the (attempt at) objective analysis of our behavior.

We cannot help how we are wired, but intellect allows us to overcome the base instinct that is that wiring.

Dworkin examined this hard wiring and how it had been codified and accepted in our culture, she was taking an intellectual approach to examine human nature and the cultural proclivity to excuse this nature by justifying it overtly and covertly.

She was also pretty pissed off, which is the reason she gets so much grief.

Do you know how many times I have heard self-described "feminist" men crack jokes about Dworkin's looks? How about snide remarks about the only women with her viewpoints about sex were women no one would want "to fuck on a dare". (I am ashamed to say that I laughed at these cracks. My only excuse is callow youth and intellectual shallowness)

(By the way, I would be interested in hearing from our gay and lesbian DUers on the issue of equality in sexual relations between members of the same sex.)

No one is saying behavior "A" is always violent (what Dworkin is accused of saying). What is being said is behavior "A" in context "X" is violent by virtue of inequality.

A man who owns a woman (man=Thomas Jefferson, woman= Sally Hemming) cannot engage in consensual sex. His act, is by objective standards, rape, even if the woman is willing (and hopefully I am not going to have to argue that all rapes do not entail overt physical abuse).

This is not to say that women are not sexual creatures who can and do control their bodies. They do, but the number who do is very small compared to the 6+ billion people on this planet.

[FizzFuzz]

150. You are the Best!

Not many men out there as aware as you are--really it's startling! And such a breath of fresh air.



Now, to reveal my ignorance , I didn't realize that Dworkin was a proponent of the idea to band with the XtianRight. Bad move--I'm surprised she couldn't see that the Xtian Right's anti-porn stance has zero to do with respect for women's dignity and integrity, and everything to do with repression of sexuality and of women. Or did she see that and still believe she could get something positive in terms of women's advancement from the alliance?

I remember my first reaction to reading her--so brilliant it scared me!

RIP Andrea

[Kelvin Mace]

169. Dworkin testified before the Meese commission

on porn. I find this action chock full of contradiction, but can see how it happened.

Reading her does make you think, which is the highest compliment that can be paid any writer.

[jdj]

199. I am so sad. Dworkin was a genuis and a prolific writer.

She ripped a few paradigms out of our culture, and it was quite painful. I truly believe that young women today owe her a tremendous debt of gratitude, even though most if not all are stupidly clueless about it.

[MadisonProgressive]

175. So what positions does she condone?

[RPM]

62. yes - i didnt like her calling me a rapist.

or even equating me with one... I am sure if i published a scholarly work in which i said "all women are whores" she would have understood my offense.

[saigon68]

155. To Bad she isn't here to enlighten us on

ANAL RAPE WITH PLASTIC FLASHLIGHTS UP THE OLD RECTUM

AT THE ABU GHRAID PRISON BY CIA AGENTS

[warrens]

4. Awwww

She'll be missed. Not sure by whom, but...

[sasquatch]

6. Boy is she crazy

Damn near "Reaching into a bag full of rattlesnakes" crazy.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Again, I disagree strongly with some of Dworkins views

but let's not accept the view of ONLY her critics.

Ms Dworkin's life as a political activist began early. In 1965, when she was 18, she was arrested at the US mission to the United Nations, protesting against the Vietnam war. She was sent to the New York City Women's House of Detention, where she was given a brutal internal examination.

Her testimony about the experience was reported worldwide and helped to bring public pressure to bear to close the prison. An unmarked community garden now grows where it once stood.

[Senior citizen]

21. You have a point, if much understated.

Opposing patriarchy is MUCH more dangerous than reaching into a bag full of rattlesnakes.

[smirkymonkey]

38. Well stated.

A lot of people thought she was too radical, but I consider her to be one of the bravest writers ever. She went up against a powerful and oppressive force and gave many of us an opportunity to examine our own relationship to the patriarchy.

RIP, Ms. Dworkin.

[liberalhistorian]

7. She lost me totally when she asserted that

ALL sex, even totally consensual sex, was rape and that it symbolized women being "occupied" by men, and that women could never really emjoy sex even if they thought they did, which is total bullshit. I thought her book "Intercourse" was total man-hating bullshit, too. I happen to enjoy sex, I don't think it's "rape", and I refuse to apologize to the likes of man-hating women like her.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. Please see my post above

She denies ever having made the statement.

[liberalhistorian]

10. I'm sorry, but I saw her on a major talk

show to promote her book "Intercourse", and she made the same assertion on that show, that all sex is rape and that sex means women are "occupied" (her exact word) by men. That book is total bullshit, too.

[Senior citizen]

26. Geez, I hate to tell you this,

but not all sex is missionary position or penetrative.

Did Dworkin say on that talk show that sex with a female on top is rape? Who is being raped in that case? Are you asserting that sex with a female on top isn't sex?

[grumpy old fart]

14. hmmm, how come "thoughtcrimes.org" doesn't work..eom

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Might be a router problem with your ISP

I just checked and it is up.

[grumpy old fart]

19. hmm, that's odd. I have a dsl line and using firefox browser....

what could be the issue?

[Kelvin Mace]

27. If there is a problem with

a router between you and the site, it can cause problem.

If you go to DOS and type "tracert thoughtcrimes.org" you can see the hops between you and my site.

I'm betting the trace dies somewhere along the path.

David

[grumpy old fart]

34. did it, and I get this....

1. * * * request timed out
2. * * * request timed out

and on and on....what's it mean? If you don't mind...

[Kelvin Mace]

51. It is dying on the first hops

out, which means your ISP is definitely having problems resolving my IP address. When you run tracert it traces the route from your machine to the the target domain. It appears not be responding to your computer correctly.

Try using this in your browser address line:

66.34.17.233/mt

This is my actual IP address.

[Senior citizen]

15. Dworkin never said it.

Thanks, Kelvin Mace, for repeating this fact. But there are some people who will insist on repeating whatever they've heard on FAUX news, no matter what the facts may be.

I have an autographed copy of Dworkin's book, "Intercourse," which I have read, and most of the people who wrote negative reviews of the book or wrote diatribes against Dworkin admit that they've never read the book. Some right-wing think tank must have put out the message to misinterpret Dworkin's thinking, and that has been the lie ever since.
Anyone who has actually read the book, knows that Dworkin never said the things attributed to Dworkin by the right.

Dworkin is somebody that it is okay to hate, like Nader. So no matter what they say, their truth is ignored and their name is smeared. I had a feeling there must have been a problem, since no Dworkin books have been published recently. Well, don't worry--death won't stop the right from kicking Andrea around.

Andrea Dworkin was a great feminist and a great writer. Many feminist men found themselves inspired by Dworkin's writing. And Dworkin had many female collaborators. The funny part is that most of these so-called man-haters were or are happily married to or living with feminist males. Maybe they only hate males who hate females.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Yes, I note with interest

that Dworking was with the same man for 30 years, marrying him in 1988.

[Senior citizen]

18. R.I.P.

Andrea Dworkin had a difficult life. Since nobody else will say it,
Andrea, rest in peace.

[amazona]

55. she wasn't "with" him in the traditional sense, that's for sure

I don't know the deal between her and John Stotzenberg (suspect I've forgotten the right spelling of his name) but she was open about the fact that they didn't have intercourse.

I'm not into hysteria nor am I into people trying to pick and choose my reading matter or sexual activities for me, but since this very troubled woman has just passed away, I think I had best hush up now and save any critique of her life's work for another day.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[eridani]

190. There are many other ways to do sex

Use your imagination.

[warrens]

23. Quote

This may be because intercourse itself is immune to reform. In it, female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in— which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body—the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings—is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are—neutrally speaking— violated. What is taken from her in that act is not recoverable, and she spends her life—wanting, after all, to have something—pretending that pleasure is in being reduced through intercourse to insignificance.

Dworkin

[Kelvin Mace]

32. Context

We have a single paragraph discussing intercourse without context to the chapter's greater point.

Here is a key contextual point about the book:

Dworkin argues that in a society where men oppress women, they will use sex for that purpose as well, and that men's sexual dominion over women underpins the whole system of oppression codified in law.

Her most provocative point is that sexual intercourse itself intrinsically creates problems for women's self-esteem. She bases this argument on the premise that human beings need to protect their physical boundaries to feel safe. Since women's boundaries are breached in even the most welcome and humane forms of sexual intercourse, they must therefore experience themselves, as part of their normal existence, as more vulnerable than men experience themselves and less able to assert their humanity. Dworkin's argument is obviously one-sided, disregarding benefits women may derive from these intimate connections. Nor does she spend much time on a solution for the problem of boundaries she has identified. Still, this fascinating book deserves a wide readership.

Cynthia Harrison,
American Historical Assn.
Washington, D.C.

Again, I do not agree with all of Dworkin's conclusions, but she has several points that bear reflection and consideration.

[mongo]

47. Here's some Dworkin Quotes:

Intercourse with men as we know them is increasingly impossible. It requires an abortion of creativity and strength, a refusal of responsibility and freedom: a bitter personal death. It means acting out the female role, incorporating the masochism, self-hatred, and passivity which are central to it. Unambiguous conventional heterosexual behavior is the worst betrayal of our
common humanity (Dworkin 1974, p.184). From "Quotations from Women," Women's History,(7 January 2001)

A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.
Andrea Dworkin

Erotica is simply high-class pornography; better produced, better conceived, better executed, better packaged, designed for a better class of consumer.
Andrea Dworkin

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.
Andrea Dworkin

Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.
Andrea Dworkin

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/andrea_dwor...

Andrea Dworking was a radical, who through her writings along with Catherin MacKinnon were personally responsible for the anti-feminist
backlash. She was pro-censorship and responsible for the hate-crimes legislation in Canada, which also outlaws many forms of erotica.

In America, she was responsible for model legislation outlawing pornography on the basis of a civil rights violation against women (which was later overturned by the supreme court)

Later, she teamed up with Jerry Falwell to promote her pro-censorship ideology.

She has done more harm than good for the feminist movement.

[Pithlet]

104. Back some of that up, please.

I've seen these accusations before that you stated at the end of your post, and can't find anything. In fact, in searching for them, I've found that she's stated emphatically that she's against obscenity laws.

Edit: Nevermind. I see where she talks about pornography laws. She doesn't mention Falwell, however.

And, as far as those quotes go, I don't see what is really wrong with any of them. They certainly don't point to the "All Hetero Sex is rape" man hater that some claim she is in this thread. I think she has some valid points, even if one may not agree with all of them. But, I can't even squint at it really hard and see the "Sex is violent" angle.

[liberalhistorian]

108. Because what she's saying is that

most sex is wrong for women and that women don't enjoy sex even if they think they do. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. I'm a woman who happens to enjoy sex and I don't think of men as the evil oppressors out to use women solely for only their own gratification. Yes, such men exist but they're in the minority. Her belief that even women who think they enjoy sex really don't and are being brainwashed by the culture is especially bullshit. I enjoy sex, no one's demanded that I enjoy it, and I don't have to apologize to the likes of Dworkin and her ilk and their outdated, angry ideas.

[Pithlet]

116. Where do you get that from anything she has said?

None of you who are saying this have answered that, yet. I don't see where she says that all men are evil oppressors. She's saying that women have been oppressed by men. Big difference. She has even written about how gender is really nonexistent, and that we are raised to fill the roles we do. I often see little boys discouraged from gentle, tender feelings. That that stuff is for sissies, and little girls. And it breaks my heart whenever I see it. She has written about that. That doesn't sound like "I Hate Men" to me. She is railing against the system. Not against people as individuals.

I'm not trying to vigorously defend her. I'm not even the biggest Dworkin fan of all time. But, I hate the misconception about a lot of the things she has said and done. Do you realize that she is the main reason why we have laws against sexual harassment in the work place? Does that count for nothing? The laws against marital rape? Yep. Andrea Dworkin fought heavily for those. But, nope, not going to talk abut that, we're going to talk about how much she hated sex. I mean, WTF? I bet we could find a lot of things we'd hate about the people we tend to hold up as influential to our society. Stuff that gets brushed aside and hidden. But, because she's one of those scary feminists, she doens't get the same treatment.

I'm not defending her because I think she is perfect, or speaks for me 100% But, I do see much of the slander against her as typical feminist bashing. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it that I have to dismiss her because she fought against pornography, when she made the workplace much more tolerable for you and me. Or that I didn't sign away my rights to my own body because I got married. I'm going to weigh those accomplishments against any attempts against porn (which is flourishing all the same, I might add). All of her accomplishments, which vastly outweigh the negatives, get drowned out in all the screeching "She Said All Sex is Violence!" crap. Crap which is unsubstantiated.

[warrens]

128. Dworkin was a hatemonger

The idea that anyone would defend that POS amuses me. She parsed her language in her books, but she would go ballistic on talk shows. She was a pure to the bone man-hater, irrational, insane. Every mention of her brings man-haters out of the woodwork.

It's funny how when we have an obvious misogynist like Ah-nold, there are no guys here saying, he was misunderstood and parsing all the criticisms. The guy is a fucking pig, and so was Dworkin.

[jdj]

200. "anti feminist backlash?" LOL.

that's just millenia old misogyny trotted out in a shiny suit and a brand new pair of shoes.

I love her, love her writings, and can't really find anything objectionable in her quotes.

"manhood" doesn't mean men, by the way, it means the institution.

I'm always amused when heterosexual women confide in me their true feelings about men because they think they are finally free to tell the truth about what they feel to a "man-hating dyke", as if I'd understand. As Roseanne Barr said "it's not lesbians that hate men, they don't have to sleep with them." It's not the culturally tagged 'man-haters' like Dworkin that you guys need to focus all your huffy resentmet on (i.e. fear), it's the woman sleeping next to you that knows none of you can handle the truth about how she really feels and who is playing you like a marionette. At least Dworkin told the truth, and if you all had heard what I have heard you'd know it's what most women feel but few will admit and certainly rarely if ever to a man.

As far as the sex part goes, why is it that when Dworkinsays it it's verboten but when Janes Addiction says it is somehow deep and cool.

[mongo]

201. Lesbian written pornography ... is an expression of self hatred. - Andrea

http://www.sexuality.org/l/activism/laurhglr.html

Dworkin was a sex-hating, pro-censorship radical that did more harm than good for the feminist movement.

If you are what you described yourself as, I feel sorry for you. And I'm thankful everyday that I know how the woman I married "really feels" and is not "playing me like a marionette".

Edit: I'm really suprised the sexist comments about men that are tolerated on DU. And by saying that most women are "playing men like a marionette", you are basically calling all hetro women prostitutes.

[Senior citizen]

20. Andrea also enjoyed sex,

and far from hating men, was married to one.

I'm sorry you didn't understand Andrea's message.

[Pithlet]

64. Sigh. She never said that.

I thought I'd have to see that a few less times on DU. Guess not.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

136. I always that ...........

........she needed it really bad.

She looked like she did everything she could to make herself unattractive. My guess is that there was some sort of psychosexual history of abuse somewhere in her backstory. An angry, misguided woman who really did the feminist movement more harm than good.

Now, how's Katherine McKinnon, that skank, feeling?

[Senior citizen]

154. So you're judging an author and a law professor

on their physical attractiveness? What I see is name-calling and character assassination--ad hominem attacks. You may be old and you may be a lawyer, but are you sure you're a leftie? Does women's work count for anything with you, or just their physical attractiveness and sexuality? All they need is you, right?

Being old, a lawyer, and supposedly a leftie, apparently doesn't endow you with empathy and sensitivity. I'm sure that if you were a woman, you know how you'd live your life, and if there is a Goddess and reincarnation, I'm sure that you will.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

157. I am a woman

and an author (yes, the kind whose books are in the bookstores) and a law professor, and you have now backed yourself into an angry corner where you've got nothing to cover your sorry, misinformed ass but your tired old assumptions and your inability to comprehend the opinions of others.

Did you read my words as putting down Ms. Dworkin's appearance? If you did, you can't read. Go back and read what I wrote and this time, put your preconceptions and defensive attitude away when you read them.

Did it ever occur to you that her time spent working as a prostitute shaped her unfortunate philosophy and led to her fallacious and troublesome conclusions? Did it ever occur to you that there were events in her early life that shaped her into the lost soul that she turned out to be?

By the way, I'm also old. Probably older than you, so I'd recommend you moving off your imaginary moral high ground and come down here and socialize with us mortals. It's better than you deserve for what you posted to me, but I'm a forgiving kind of OldLeftieLawyer.

Thanks for the laugh, though. There's nothing funnier than sputtering outrage from someone without a clue.

[Senior citizen]

182. Why should females make themselves attractive to

everyone, since everyone not only includes themselves and other females, but also rapists and serial murderers? Why should females be judged on whether or not they make themselves attractive? As it happens, the human sex drive is very strong, and when a male is horny, attractiveness is not necessarily a concern, and, conversely, when a male is not horny, or is gay, the most attractive female in the world has no allure. The closeted gay Republican male who dresses conservatively when fundraising to oppose gay rights, but dresses in outrageous drag when wishing to attract sexual attention at private parties, has the freedom to dress according to the situation and his mood. Why shouldn't all females have the same freedom? As a female attorney have you never had the problem of selecting a wardrobe that would look attractive while still appearing professional? If you don't mind that male attorneys don't have similar problems, you are not particularly egalitarian or are in denial. I know many female professionals who deplore this gender role handicap in our society.

Poverty and hardship can and do shape a person's views, particularly if such poverty and hardship is widespread and common to a group of people with whom they identify.

Both Dworkin and MacKinnon's books are in bookstores.

I hope you never have the personal experiences that could lead you to understand that Dworkin's views were not unfortunate, but that the situation of many females in patriarchal societies is. Exceptions to the rule usually think it is due to their own special nature or hard work, never realizing that many with greater potential never had their opportunities.

The fact that some are lucky enough to enjoy good sex, does not make the situation of rape victims, battered wives, and involuntary sex slaves any better. Understanding the defects in a society where such situations are not uncommon, even if it hasn't happened to you yet, is the beginning of feminist thought. I was working as a hotel night auditor in Denver many years ago, when a wheel-chair bound woman in her eighties was raped and killed by a young man. If she had made herself old and unattractive in order to avoid sexual attention, it certainly didn't work.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

183. I can see that something's badly wrong here

This rambling, unreadable rant of yours is just another example of your embarrassing yourself.

You're not just a sexist with a shitload of issues that are screaming for help, you're a fool.

You do have my pity, much as the toad Dworkin did. At least she won't write any more of her nonsense, so her death was a deliverance all around. She did nothing but spread her hatred and her anger, and you seem to be trying to do the same thing, only you have no publisher.

There's a lot to be thankful for in this world.

Your implicit (and embarrassed) apology to me is accepted. Now, go spread light and joy.

[Senior citizen]

192. There is hatred and anger, but not from me

and certainly not towards someone recently deceased who spent most of their life opposing patriarchy.

But I suppose it would be just awful to express any hatred and anger at all towards those whose business is war and the subjugation of others. They don't take opposition lightly. They demand complete obedience, and some people are obedient. Andrea wasn't.

Why would I want a publisher? I can get quite enough hatred and venom right here. Besides, I've lived in Afghanistan and had females tell me how much better off they were veiled than American women who had to walk around unveiled. Why would American women want to be President when they can be happy sex workers? Everybody's happy and fulfilled, and they sure don't need me.

I did not and will not apologize to you, implicitly or otherwise. Your provocative sniping is indicative that you are not as happy as you would have others believe. But if you think you are, fine. Don't worry, be happy.

As for spreading light and joy, I'd prefer to spread peace and equality. Somebody once got their Ph.D. for a thesis entitled: "Schizophrenia: As Essential to Survival in Our Society."

May your karma come back on you when you die. You don't have to treat others as you'd have them treat you, and nobody can make you.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

193. Like I said,

your sexism and logorrhea are forgiven, and your confusion is certainly to be pitied.

Best of luck to you.

[DulceDecorum]

12. Now, when all those MEN died last week

y'all paid THEM some attention.

[RandomKoolzip]

22. Terri Schaivo was a man?!

News to me.

[Inland]

24. On the dead scale

The same as Ranier Grimaldi
Less than Hunter Thompson
Much less than George Keenon
Much Much Less than Miller and Bellow
Much Much Much less than Pope JPII

[smirkymonkey]

41. Who the hell is George Keenon?

I suppose it's all relative.

I have to admit, I regret Andrea Dworkins passing much more than that of the Pope.

[Inland]

121. Wasn't talking about REGRET

that's a subjective state.

Kennan, which I may have misspelled, invented the strategy by which we defeated the Soviet Union and communism without getting tens of millions killed in the process.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7226020/

[smirkymonkey]

137. I know you weren't, but I was.

Thanks for explaining Keenan to me.

[liberalhistorian]

109. Who the hell are Ranier Grimaldi and

George Keenon?

[Inland]

122. It would probably help if I spelled the goddamn names right.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7226020 /

And Ranier is Rainier, Prince of Monaco, Grace's husband.

[youspeakmylanguage]

25. RIP, but her views weren't admirable

Her sexist radicalism and support for censorship helped the right vilify the feminist movement among ordinary Americans.

[RandomKoolzip]

28. She ended being a tool for Ed Meese and Park Deitz.

Remember Meese's commission on pornography?

Real progressive, aligning yourself with the far right in the name of eradicating your pet peeve.

[Senior citizen]

31. Andrea NEVER supported censorship.

Andrea pressed for laws that would permit those who were harmed by pornography to sue for damages.

If the subject of censorship interests you, I recomment a small but important book by long-time Dworkin collaborator, Yale professor Catharine A. MacKinnon, entitled, "Only Words."

[youspeakmylanguage]

36. What?

How did she define "harmed"?

Her radical-feminist critique of pornography began with her first book, Woman Hating, published when she was 27. She campaigned frequently on the subject, helping to draft a law in 1983 that defined pornography as a civil rights violation against women.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,145722...

[mongo]

49. If you'd like the other side of that argument read

Defending Pornography, by Nadine Strossen.

Dworkin was responsible for a model law - i believe that it was Indianapolis, that outlawed pornography on the basis that it was a civil rights violation against women. It was later overturned.

She also was in large part responsible for the hate crimes legislation in Canada, which also criminalized many forms of erotica.

She testified against pornography for the Meese commission.
She teamed up with Jerry Falwell to fight pornography.

She most definitely supported censorship.

And just out of curiosity:
Andrea pressed for laws that would permit those who were harmed by pornography to sue for damages.

Who exactly is "harmed" by pornography? In what was does it "harm" them?

[Modem Butterfly]

71. That's a good point

Linda Lovelace, of Deep Throat fame, teamed with Andrea on the Victims of Pornography law. Lovelace later claimed that she was forced to make Deep Throat at gunpoint, an assertion anyone who has seen the film can dispute. Moreover, at the time, she gave several enthusiastic interviews detailing how much she enjoyed making Deep Throat and talking about her hope to be in other adult films. It was only more than a decade after the fact that she decided she'd been forced into making the film.

Anyone who is genuinely an unwilling participant in pornography has legal recourse. But you can't change your mind after the fact.

[Eloriel]

85. Being anti-porn isn't the same thing as supporting censorship

Or at least, that's a framing of the subject I reject, utterly. You can count (and villify?) me among the Andrea Dworkin admirers. her book, "Letters From the War Zone" is absolutely brilliant, IMO. Yes, it's VERY tough, not for the faint of heart, and not for poor little tender-ego'd men who might get their widdow feewings hurt by some very abrasive, tough talk about the ugliness and destructiveness of pornography for women.

As for the book "Intercourse," I owned it once and was disappointed in it vis a vis Letters From the War Zone, but re-reading the excerpt someone posted a link to upthread, within a certain context, I have to agree 100% with all but a few minor points. The key word is within context -- something all critics, whether on the left or right, are all too happy to blithely ignore in the interest of advancing their OWN agenda. I think also you have to take a writer where she is, step into her world and worldview to a certain extent. Wordsworth's phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" may apply. I'll put it this way: if I am interested in understanding Andrea Dworkin's take on her subject, I won't read it with my shackles up, looking for every little jot and tittle I might disagree with, criticize or jump on. I'll read it sympathetically, the way I might read a poem or song lyrics. Too, IIRC, "Intercourse" was a far more literary type work than "Letters" anyway.

What saddens me is the intellectual dishonesty in this thread. People calling Dworkin a "tool of the right," claiming that she single-handedly harmed feminism, that she supported censorship. Puh-leeze. All of those are gross exaggerations if not outright lies.

The TRUTH is that her worst detractors were on the left -- something obvious from the thread itself. The TRUTH is the right doesn't need a Dworkin to do their dirty work, just as they don't need Dems to do foolish things (they'll make up stuff if they have to). And opposing pornography is a viable restriction on the First Amendment -- which has LOTS of restrictions on speech, no matter what Nadine Stossen (ACLU) thinks. Between them, Dworkin and MacKinnon wrote some extremely persuasive stuff on why pornography should be another rextriction on speech. Persuasive enough to have convinced me and I'd always before that been one of those who would say, "I don't like pornography, but I support the First Amendment."

Well, I still support the First Amendment, but absolutely agree with Dworkin and MacKinnon that pornography is an abuse of speech, and that it's a civil rights issue for women. Other restrictions on speech include: conspiracy to commit a crime; false advertising; inciting to riot; leaking classified or state secrets; libel and slander; yelling fire in a crowded theater; and so on.

Unfortunately, I don't expect 90-95% of DUers to agree with me or even see my point of view -- that might actually require a thorough reading of their work. But just stop the stupid demonization and mischaracterization of Dworkin and MacKinnon. It's SO unbecoming.

[youspeakmylanguage]

91. Who gets to define what pornography is?

...and isn't?

Let's say a law was passed restricting pornography as "the graphic representation of sexual activity in audible, visual, or literal form". Would Dworkin's own books have stood up to a test like that?

Web filters do a great job blocking "pornographic" websites. They also block websites that offer information on breast cancer, OB-GYN practices, sites that document sexual abuse, etc...

The point is, who gets to decide what is pornographic and what isn't? What is the litmus test? And where do we draw the line?

[mondo joe]

101. Additionally: Other limitation on free speech are necessary because

they prevent DIRECT harm.

[eridani]

191. No, they wouldn't have

Ironically, her own books were stopped at the border under a Canadian anti-porn law that she and McKinnon backed. Of course there is such a thing as degrading and hostile porn, but where and how do you draw the line?

One thing she said in one of her book intros which IMO was very wise was "This is not about what should or should not be said; it is about the meaning of what is being said." Should have paid attention to this thought before formally espousing anti-porn laws.

[Democat]

126. You don't really support the First Amendment when you say "but...."

[Ms. Toad]

134. I also support the First Amendment, but..

I fully support Bush's, or the KKK, or any other individuals or groups with whose point of view and actions I disagree. Hating what these individuals stand for, say, and the actions they take and pointing out that their speech and actions are harmful is not the same as seeking to forbid their speech.

Although I do not agree with everything Andrea Dworkin believed, as a rape survivor and peer counselor her works were the first I came across which stated publicly what I knew from my experience. Rape is the extreme end of a continuum of behavior that is both emotionally and physically harmful women, to which pornography contributes in at least two very specific ways. It objectifies women, teaching that women are appropriate objects of pressured or forced sex rather than equal participants in it (and enjoy being forced into sex), and many of the participants in pornography are not truly voluntary participants for a variety of reasons (class, internalized victimization, actual force).

That is not to say that all sexually explicit material is pornography, that pornography is harmful to all viewers, or that all participants are not voluntary. Because pornography suggests and reinforces the notion that violence toward women is acceptable and because many participants are victimized in the process of making pornography, however, speaking out against pornography and pointing out the connection to real violence against women is appropriate. Doing so is quite different from undermining the first amendment. Even though the ACLU fought for the right for the Nazi's right to march in Skokie, I have spoken with many ACLU members who are also working actively against the Nazi agenda.

Thanks to Eloriel for having the courage to do the same with respect to pornography.

[liberalhistorian]

110. Excellent points, and she also

never considered the fact that many women actually enjoy "tasteful" pornography as well. Of course, she never considered the fact that women could enjoy sex or have satisfying intimate relationships either.

[mondo joe]

131. It's just mortifying when people turn out to be the same authoritarian

moralists they've been fighting - they just have a different set of standards they want to force on others.

Ugh.

[Psephos]

133. Couldn't have said it better myself. n/t

[bluestateguy]

165. When it comes to pornography I tend to be a free marketer

Let the market decide. People who dislike pornography are free to not buy it. Child pornography, of course, should be aggressively prosecuted.

And I read that book a few years ago and found it to be crap. Too much intellectualizing and not enough good old fashioned American common sense.

[benburch]

29. Sorry she is dead - Glad she is gone.

She was a tool of the Right.

[Senior citizen]

40. Andrea was never a tool of the right.

That's just another smear.

Pornography in this country is an over $11 billion a year business. Are you really afraid that Andrea, from the grave, might cost it a penny or two in profits? I'm sure the porn profiteers are grateful for your concern.

As for those females and children whose lives were ruined by porn, well, in a patriarchal society, it is male satisfaction that counts, and if left alone those women and kids might have competed with men for jobs that pay enough to buy porn and hire prostitutes.

When Andrea was born there were no equal opportunity laws.

When Andrea was born it was legal for a man to rape his wife.

When Andrea was born there were very few females in the professions or in professional graduate schools.

Someday, just as females have fought for and achieved the right to the vote, higher education, entrance into the professions, and other rights until recently allowed only to males, females may achieve sexual and social equality with males. Far from being the end of happiness and civilization, this would bring about more sexual satisfaction and happiness for everyone, and a better world with less overpopulation and fewer wars. If you are a firm advocate of male supremacy, don't mourn Andrea. But if you hope for peace on earth, you'll join me in mourning one of its fiercest proponents.

[benburch]

44. Not just pornography!

Her slander of members of sexual minorities was very useful to members of the Religious Right!

She was simultaneously useful to them to oppress sexual minorities and to suppress heterosexual immorality by way of sexwork and pornography.

Go re-read her book "Woman Hating". A smear of erotica, pornography, and BDSM sexuality from one cover to the other.

[tishaLA]

30. While I had significant differences with Ms Dworkin

Her voice was an important one in the feminist evolution and the examination of sexuality we have undergone during the last generation. Second wave feminists like Dworkin, Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, Catherine McKinnon, et al may have been less progressive about sexuality than we are in our more "enlightened" age, but she was a stepping stone toward more egalitarian sexuality, if that's the sort of thing you're into.

[Selteri]

33. I never cared for the woman and I DID read her books

she's up there in my books with Ann Colter for being dissociated with reality. She didn't directly correlate heterosexual sex with rape but she came pretty damn close both in her interviews and in the books I read. She was a strong and radical feminist who did point out that there were inequalities, she just went a wee bit far in my humble opinion.

Her works did some good, but she did go too far in her statements, she was just as bad as some of the religious right with her broad statements against men. Her choice to link Porn with Violence against women had some questionable parts to the statement by linking the fact that many people who were violent toward or raped women had pornography in their possession to 'objectify' women would truly be closer to identifying a symptom. To me it is as clear as if I were to make a broad statement that those who go to church often are being trained to be neo-con theocrats, while there are some links between the two, one is not the cause but more a support of that chosen path, something I have doubts over if she understood that or not.

As a male who is a voracious reader that sees women as being attractive in a sexual fashion that are equals in every aspect, in effect a part of the balanced equation as we hold a symbiotic gender relationship. There are some general differences between the two genders but that doesn't mean that there are any excuses for gender discrimination. Those women who choose to do things with their partner behind closed doors is their choice as much as it is their partner's choice to consensually interact with them.

To use her own words, to call the sexual act 'occupation' from a male is horrible and anti-male, to my own personal definition the sexual coupling of two partners, male-female or any other combination thereof is the closest thing we as individual beings have to share ourselves and blend into a single entity in our very isolated world. To _me_ it is an act of love and sharing, not taking or 'occupation', those who view it in that way from either side are in need of help.

[youspeakmylanguage]

39. I agree...

I am an elightened liberal with a like-minded fiance. I am monogamous, yet I know people in the "sex industry" through work (nightclub security), male and female, all involved in the retail end (selling videos, toys, clothing, etc). Based on first-hand (no pun intended) experience, I can tell you that almost half of their customers are women, many customers are couples, and none of their products are "violent", with the exception of S&M/fetish videos, which most people have no interest in.

[mongo]

56. Please don't charactorize S&M videos as "violent"

because people in the BDSM community do not see them that way.

It's not about violence, it's about trust and loss of control.

[youspeakmylanguage]

58. I understand your point

I don't understand S&M and BDSM, and I think to someone who doesn't understand some activities may appear violent, but I keep an open mind as long as whatever happens is between consensual adults.

[BuddhaGirl]

146. actually, BDSM is about trust and surrender of control

"safe, sane, and consensual" is the BDSM motto.

[mongo]

173. Yeah, that is a better way to put it.... thanks.

[Selteri]

147. I agree fully

The BDSM community is generally not about pain when the partner who is the 'bottom' isn't into pain.

It falls into the line of that and all other 'fetishes', they are reflections of the person and their inner desires.

The woman who fantasizes about being the damsel in distress who is tied to the railroad tracks is a fetishist who has connected that situation to one where she feels enjoyment.

It's the same if that woman isn't a woman, but a male crossdresser who finds that kind of fantasy to be comfortable.

It's even the same if the person, gender being unimportant, has any kind of sexual fantasy with another consenting adult, they can wish to be tied, dressed, infantilized (Not sure that's a word), pretend to be an animal human hybrid, wet and messy situations or any of the countless fetishes. Rarely are they about actual true enslavement so much as they are for that individual to seek their own 'fetish' for that which gives them a feel of comfort of completeness. The important thing when talking about anyone who indulges into a fetish is to remember that these people often do it in a search for the same thing that those who don't harbor a fetish, love, companionship and understanding from someone who accepts them for who they are regardless of their personal fetish.

While there are people who are sadly guilty of the wish to 'occupy' that are in some fetish groups, more often than not they are inclined toward the enactment of the fetish rather than the idea of even enacting a 'rape'. Yes, there are bad people out there, but there are and always will be people who would turn any person into an object and commodity before ever seeing them as a Human, just take a look at the Current Administration.

[Fenris]

60. An excellent analysis.

[liberalhistorian]

111. And she definitely DID call sex

"male occupation", I remember an interview with her where she used those exact words. She did a lot of damage to women in general, as far as I'm concerned, and gave the right plenty of ammunition against us.

[MnFats]

35. she got a ridiculous anti-porn ordinance passed in Mpls.

(not single-handedly, of course, but she led the charge.)
Meese and Ashcroft would have admired it.
Fortunately, as I recall, then=Mayor Don Fraser (he's married to Arvonne Fraser, an energetic local activist) had the good sense to veto it to save the city the expense of a constitutional challenge which surely would have ended with the ordinance tossed.
It stayed dead.

I admire her willingness to challenge authority and orthodoxy, but when she was where we could observe her up close and personal, she was off the scale.

sorry if that offends anyone.

[Senior citizen]

43. You're probably right.

After all, a certain amount of equality is tolerable, but some people just go too darned far and want TOTAL equality.

[mongo]

52. So how is it "total equality"

to want to outlaw porn and demonize women sex-workers?

[Eloriel]

89. No class of people can be fully equal

if they are routinely objectified by the dominant culture. Pornography is 100% objectification of women. Despite the oh-so-innocent pleadings to the contrary here, pornography DOES include and promote violence against women. Both these are two extrenmely powerful ways that pornography keeps the female half the entire population of the world oppressed.

There's no demonization of sex-workers implied in being anti-porn. Not at all. Dworkin and others see women (and men) sex workers are part of the group of people who are victimized by porn. The vast majority of sex workers were sexually harmed in some way as children -- working in the sex industry is NOT a healthy use of one's body or sexuality, no matter how much the comsumers of porn and other sex industry "products" and services want to fantasize to the contrary.

[youspeakmylanguage]

92. Many people that engage in alternate sexual practices...

...come from abusive households. If a woman or a man engages in group sex or has multiple sex partners due to being a victim of some sort of "sexual abuse", should we outlaw group sex and send SWAT teams into swinger clubs? Should we require that people who have sex register with the government to guarantee that if they are having sex with more than one person at the same time, they are given mandated counseling? How about people that can't remain faithful in a relationship?

Most women involved in various adult businesses are motivated by the same thing the men are...MONEY.

[mondo joe]

106. Yes, Dworkin is incredibly patronizing.

Those poor women who think they actually choose to work in porn or erotica and don't even know they are just victims.

<Sigh>

It's bad enough when the PATRONS are patronizing. But with Dworkin even the MATRONS are.

[Lilith Velkor]

119. Wow, never disagreed w/you before.

But I emphatically do on this matter. It is up to the individual to determine what to do with one's body, whether it's abortion, drugs, or sex work.

I don't have a daughter, but if I did, I'd rather see her paying for college posing nude than, say, killing Iraqis. That's just my own morality, tho, YMMV.

[mondo joe]

130. Agreed! My entire pro-choice rationale is based on the

autonomy of the individual over their own body.

Whether they want to have an abortion or sex work of cosmetic surgery or chastity or tattoo it like crazy it's their body.

[Kelvin Mace]

176. I think their is a difference between posing

nude and engaging in various forms of intercourse for the pleasure of others (99.9% men). While I would not mind a daughter (or a son) posing nude, I would be uncomfortable with overt sexual activity for public consumption. This is not to place a judgment upon those who do this for a living, but we would be fooling ourself if we did not face the fact that a lot of the people in the sex biz have serious problems (drugs, booze, abuse).

It is one thing for a person (usually a woman) to do this kind of think because they like it and see it as a legitimate job. It is something else to *have* to do it in order to *survive*.

If my daughter or son is doing this to survive, what the hell am I doing as a parent just standing around watching?

Also, anyone starting this business below the age of 21-25 is very troubling.

As to "this or killing Iraqis", I think there are a lot of other choices in between. <g>

[Lilith Velkor]

179. Everyone's got their comfort zones

I have friends in the sex biz, male and female. They are wonderful people who have overcome serious adversity, and it helped them to be able to make a lot of money in a very short time. Out of the few ways to escape grinding poverty, it's one of the best.

>It is something else to *have* to do it in order to *survive*.<
What else is it? The ones I know mostly did it for college money, which not all parents can afford. College starts at 18-19, y'know?

I have also had friends in the war biz, but most of them died of Gulf War Syndrome before graduation. Unlike STDs, there's no real protection from that.

I seriously doubt that females make only 0.1% of the audience for porn, but I gotta research that....

[Kelvin Mace]

181. Well, there I went into a bit of exagerration

I would more accurately put the porn market as 95% male, but even there I could be wrong.

When a person is at the point that the *only* way they can put food on the table, pay for shelter or medical care is by selling their body, we have failed as a society.

Remember, the vast majority of the sex industry isn't like Scandinavian countries where it is regulated and the workers looked after. The majority of the industry is into exploitation of young women and even children (please note that the US sex industry is dwarfed by the Asian industry, so when we talk about the "sex industry" we must look at the aggregrate).

Again, your friends are nice people and upstanding citizens. They do this because they enjoy their work and it is a completely voluntary decision. That does not change the fact that they are in the minority as far as industry workers go. If a man or woman has a choice between an office job that pays well and a sex job that pays well, and they choose sex, great! If they have a choice between a crappy poverty-level job and a better paying sex job I see a problem. Also, while *some* sex workers are paid well, *most* aren't.

[mondo joe]

186. The only way most people put food on the table is selling their bodies

Some sell them for sex, some for war, some for manual labor.

And there are a hell of a lot more people FORCED to work in all sorts of unfortunate and even degrading jobs that earn them less than many a sex worker earns.

So instead of deciding what's sad for others we can just be truly pro choice and respect the choices people make about their own bodies.

[Lilith Velkor]

188. You assume much

My friends are in the US sex industry, and know about exploitation in ways I hope you never have to even think about. The ones who don't learn how to game the system are the early casualties you read about. Those who do are the beginning of a fully unionized sex industry, and being battled in this every step of the way by those who call themselves feminists.

But I guess the bitter bitter truth to all this is that mainstream feminism is all about the sensitivities and comfort zones of middle and upperclass white women. That has to change, right quick. People (mostly women) are dying over this bullshit.

[youspeakmylanguage]

194. My comments on this thread have been about the US industry...

...just to clarify.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

138. Free speech is free speech

If I want to work in the sex industry, that's my choice, and my decision that it's a "healthy use of" my body. No one else decides that for me.

It's always entertaining to see how the subject of sex causes the most repressed and conflicted go off the deep end.

Dworkin wrote nonsense, she lived a sad life, and she was given credibility only by rightwingnut exploiters who saw her for what she was - a willing tool. I daresay the street whores I know have had much more control over their lives than did Andrea Dworkin.

[mongo]

170. I think you nailed it here....

It's always entertaining to see how the subject of sex causes the most repressed and conflicted go off the deep end.

God, our society would be so much better if we had a healthy attitude about sex - and culturaly acceptable options for exploring boundries.

[smirkymonkey]

139. Good point, and also I think it was Andrea Dworkin who

categorized pornography as a form of "hate propaganda."

I think the problem is that many people on this forum can't understand that there is a difference between sex and sexual politics.

[BuddhaGirl]

148. You're painting too broad a brush

with your statements about women and porn. Ever heard of Nina Hartley? She's a longtime porn actress and sex worker, and a feminist.

Here is something she wrote recently in response to an article by a university professor criticizing women in porn"

http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005/html

Feminists for Porn

By NINA HARTLEY

excerpt:
"It was with a growing sense of outrage that I read Prof.Chyng Sun's report of her visit this past January to the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. I couldn't help wondering it the author had done any prior research whatsoever into the active, twenty-year debate among women over the impact of pornography on their individual lives and their status as a gender. There's nothing new in her indignation, nothing fresh in her insights and nothing unfamiliar in her arguments. As a sex-worker and sex-worker advocate for over two decades, I've heard and read it all before.

The professor appears wholly unfamiliar with the work of accomplished, feminist women who reject her fundamental contentions about porn and sex-work. If she bothered to consider the writings of Nadine Strossen, Carol Queen, Pat Califia, Susie Bright, Wendy McElroy, Sallie Tisdale, Linda Williams, Annie Sprinkle, myself and others, her homework wasn't reflected in what she showed me. Clearly, testimony that failed to corroborate her pre-conceived notions of what porn is "really" about, or what it "really" means didn't register on her radar screen.

And to confabulate the images on a screen, which are created performances, with the actual experience of the performers themselves, would be laughably literal-minded, were it not so profoundly insulting. Sex performers, like the products they make, vary greatly in taste and temperment. We are much more than the characters we play. LIke it or not, many female performers enjoy what they do, including things Professor Sun finds repellent. If we are not to choose what forms of sexual _expression we find appropriate for ourselves, who is to do the choosing for us, Professor Sun and her like-minded friends of the Christian Right?

Even those performers to whom work in porn is just a way to pay the bills don't need to be lectured by a tenured university professor regarding what work they may properly do, based on her interpretation of the gender politics of porn. Her essay pulsates with the unconscious classism that has contaminated feminist thought since I first encountered it. If I learned one thing when I started my career in 1983, myself the product of an ivory-tower upbringing in Berkeley, California, it was to rein in my received ideas about my fellow sex workers and to see them as individuals struggling with all kinds of situations. What does Professor Sun propose sex workers do instead of addressing their economic challenges with what resources they possess, go to Harvard? The real choices that present themselves in modern America to a young woman with a high school education and no class advantage are often far less appealing than sex work. Perhaps she thinks we should choose the dignity of minimum wage jobs, early pregnancies and abusive marriages over the relative autonomy we enjoy as independent tradespeople."

NINA HARTLEY is a Founding Member, Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force Member Emeritus, Board of Directors, Free Speech Coalition Member at Large, Board of Directors, Adult Industry Medical Foundation.

**more at above link

I think she makes great points! BTW, I met her recently and she is a very warm, intellingent and articulate person.

[Senior citizen]

153. The reality Hartley speaks of is economic coercion.

George Gilder, Reagan's economic advisor, wrote that women should be deprived of all means of support outside of marriage (and prostitution), such as jobs and social programs, in order to make them available to men. In one of his books he cited the case of two wealthy, well-dressed men, who were actually unable to get laid in a whore-house. Well, that's what they considered it to be--it was a massage parlor, but no matter how much money they waved around, the women wouldn't provide sexual services. Anyone with any street sense knows the poor women naturally assumed they were cops trying to set them up for a bust. But Gilder felt it showed how men were deprived when women were able to earn a living nonsexually.

Only when females have the same choices that males have in all other realms, could they be said to freely choose sex work. So long as the average female college grad earns less than the average male high school grad, males are controlling the economy to their sexual advantage, and females who seek economic equality without risking early pregnancies and abusive marriage, will be grateful for what they can earn through porn and prostitution. The choice is not freely made unless the options are equal.

[youspeakmylanguage]

172. You are applying gender bias to a gender-neutral problem...

There are many males, mostly runaways, who prostitute themselves as well. Not all are gay.

Unless pure communism is acheived in the real world, economic hardships will always cause some people to engage in activities that they do not want to engage in. And as long as there are people, men and women, that are willing to exchange money, goods and/or services for sex, there will always be other people, men and women, willing to accept their offer.

[MnFats]

53. ummmm. 'sarcasm' not necessary.

were you there?
do you know the details of the ordinance?
that was my beef.
it was an exceptionally bad ordinance that would have permitted almost anyone to sue anyone else.
Political correctness gone mad, my apologies if I sound like a right-winger.
it had nothing to do with partial or full equity.
as casey stengel said, you could look it up.

[youspeakmylanguage]

59. You've proven my point...

...she was so radical that when liberals discuss her views, we have to say things like "I know I sound like a right-winger...". If we respond in kind, imagine what sort of impression her work has made on political moderates. It's perfect fodder for the right (i.e. Drug Boy Limbaugh's "feminazi" tripe) to slander feminism in general.

Just as we cannot defend activists who are anti-semitic (as opposed to pro-Palestine or anti-Sharon), we should not defend feminists that are anti-freedom (as opposed to anti-violence or anti-discrimination). Sorry to use pedestrian terminology, but I'm at work and a little rushed.

[Pithlet]

69. I'll give you this

When the feminist movement is again strong and full of leaders voicing our cause, then maybe we can afford to be pickier about whom we defend. While I'm not anti-porn, and don't think it should be made illegal, I'm not going to toss aside the good that the woman did because she hated porn and was active against it. I'm not going to refuse to support someone who speaks for me because they *gasp* hate porn. I also think that aspect of her is way over emphasized. Most people who have ever even heard of her got their information from right wing anti-feminist propaganda. Which is very obvious from many of the posts in this thread.

[MnFats]

73. as i think i pointed out....

...my comments were limited to her words and actions when she was here and i followed almost daily news coverage (and not! just mainstream media! but friends in mpls. city hall) -- and i observed the sequence more or less first-hand.... and she did more harm than good...anyone who disagreed with her or raised questions about the constitutionality of her ordinance was a woman-hating hack or dupes of same...
.......and i am not some woman hating hack. i used to write for the Minn. Women's Press fairly regularly and they don't run stuff by woman-hating hacks.

the closed-mindedness around here today is stifling. lemme outa here.

[Pithlet]

79. I was responding to someone else specifically

Just to be clear. I also observe. I've observed through life, and on DU, that if anyone so much as falls slightly under the "Thank God for Porn! It is the Best Thing Ever and Ever, Amen!" on the spectrum, they are accused much like Dworkin was. I don't think porn should be illegal. The whole consenting adults thing, you know. But, I also don't think it is always the pure, harmless fun that many say it is. And for that view, I've been blasted as puritanical and man hating. Here on DU.

[MnFats]

81. Ok, things become clearer.

let me point out that I am not a fan of porn, as most of it commits the unpardonable sin of being boring and radically unlike good sex.
erotica, that's another thing. (ID, "Body Heat," Kathleen Turner and John Hurt)
my feelings about porn are roughly akin to those of erica Jong, who said (this is not verbatim) "After five minutes of watching porn, I want to •••• like mad. After 15 minutes of watching porn, I want to go take a shower.

[youspeakmylanguage]

80. It's not about "hating porn"!

You are missing the point entirely. I hate radical right-wing propaganda, white supremacy, Nazism, etc, but I would never support a law that would restrict others from creating and distributing media, unless that media directly harms another person (the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" thing).

Dworkin supported restricting the freedom of men and women alike to enjoy erotic materials. While that may be "hating porn", it's also wrong and we have the right to criticize the person for advocating it. I'll say the same thing about Jerry Falwell or Charles Keating.

[Pithlet]

82. You are flying by my point at light speed

in another galaxy. I'm not supporting laws that ban anything two consenting adults enjoy together.

I don't mind the criticism of her stance on porn. My objection is with the whole cloth rejection of everything the woman did because of that aspect of her life. I don't think it makes someone man-hating to think porn is destructive to society, and they want to do something about that. For her, and people with her stance, it isn't a free speech issue. Again, I'm not saying I agree with that. If you want to focus on that aspect of her and ignore all else, that's fine. I just don't think you should ask others, who are facing an ever weakening feminist movement, to do the same, and all because of porn. And, much of what is being said about her in this thread is patently false. Much of it is based on lies spread by the anti-feminist movement. And their campaign is highly effective. I hear "I'm not a feminist, but.." from the lips of other women my age WAY too often. They've succeeded in demonizing the movement, and many on the left have fallen for it completely.

[youspeakmylanguage]

86. And you're missing my point as well...

We are critical of Dworkin because her views were so over the top that she enabled the right wing to demonize feminism. If I'm wrong on this, please enlighten us with what she really stood for. Because even if she didn't literally write it or say it, she made a strong case for equating heterosexual sex with violence.

If I'm wrong, correct me.

[Pithlet]

90. She did not enable the right wing to demonize feminism

Do you honestly think they had no problem doing that before Dworkin came along? Do you honestly think that their criticisms of her are valid? Are you really going to take THEIR word for it?

Show me where she equates all heterosexual sex with violence. I've seen people assert this, but when I try to look for a direct source where she says this, and backs it up, I can't find it.

[youspeakmylanguage]

93. This took a 2-second Google search

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/andrea_dwor...

I'm sure these were "taken out of context", but they make a pretty compelling case, don't they?

[Pithlet]

95. Okay. So where is her argument

that all heterosexual sex is violent? In fact, what statement in that list are you having a problem with, specifically?

[Pithlet]

98. Here is a link

That debunks a lot of myths about the woman and what she has stated.

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

[youspeakmylanguage]

99. Always Causing Legal Unrest...

...is about as laughable an organization as you can get. Find me a link from a reputable feminist site and I'll be happy to click on the link. But these people give feminists a bad name. Anyone that thinks attacking members of the real ACLU in public as a "protest" gets zero respect from me.

[Pithlet]

100. Give me examples of what you deem are reputable

So I can judge exactly where you are with the movement. That site linked to the Lie Detector, but it is not a part of that website. The first site that I found that happened to link to it was ACLU. It doesn't discredit any of the facts presented there. I can find other sources, but I'm not going to waste my time if you're going to dismiss all of them.

[youspeakmylanguage]

103. Sorry...

I thought you were familiar with Always Causing Legal Unrest. They have made a point of harrassing the real ACLU in public for supporting the 1st amendment.

Any mainstream organization will do. I'm at work, so please only send links to sites that don't have explicit images. I support the first amendment, but the rules change in the workplace.

[Pithlet]

105. Here's another

I'm not familiar with this link, but checking it out, there doesn't appear to be anything too far out there. Looks work friendly.

http://www.radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/10/andrea_dworkin

[youspeakmylanguage]

107. I have to go...

...but I skimmed it. Apparently, Dworkin did believe that penetration was a "violation", but not in the anatomical sense - she believed that it was defined and celebrated by society as a violation. Again, I only skimmed it. I'll read it more closely tomorrow. No PC at home, so I'll have to dive back in tomorrow morning. Until then, would anyone else like to comment on this particular essay?

[youspeakmylanguage]

171. I am busy at work, and no PC at home...

...so I want to postpone this until I have time to really study the essay. Sorry, but it may be a day or so. Haven't forgotten about you...

[smirkymonkey]

140. Here is another article debunking the "all sex is rape" myth

from the UK Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1457398,...

"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."

The article also explains her horrific background involving violent sexual abuse, which might give even her most vehement detractors pause to question her motivation.

I also believe that she made herself purposely unattractive in order to protect herself from further sexual abuse. I think it would be interesting to speculate on what part her experiences played in inspiring her work.

[Pithlet]

187. Oops (edit)

I was confused. I'm in too many threads.

I think my meaning was clear. I was referring to her fight against porn. Which is what you're taking issue with. And that's fine. You just can't expect me to write off everything she's done. And I stand by everything I've said. Much of the criticism of her in this thread, outside of the porn thing, is based on misinformation.

[liberalhistorian]

113. Exactly what good did she do?

Exactly how does she speak for women when most of us enjoy sex and some women even enjoy some forms of pornography? She sure as hell didn't speak for me or any other woman I know.

[Pithlet]

120. You really don't know?

Seems to me then that you're spouting off about a person you know little about. If you aren't even aware that she is the person that spearheaded and fought against sexual harassment in the workplace. Or, that pesky little issue about women being able to press charges if their husband rapes them. Those two issues alone made your life and mine a hell of a lot better in this country. Oh, but the porn!!!!!... Whatever. Porn is still alive and thriving in this country. You, me, and anyone else who wants it, can get it. I think we can all chill out, there. I think the feminist movement need not be quashed over it.

I'm a happily married heterosexual woman who enjoys sex, also. I don't hate all porn, and don't think it should be made illegal. But, I refuse to dismiss the woman who did those things. Most of the posts against her in this thread are reactionary BS fueled by myths propagated by the right. Feh.

[mongo]

189. porn is already illegal

Like most states, in Ohio I can be sentenced to up to 1 year in jail for selling ANY movie in my inventory.

It is not worth the trouble for most prosecutors because getting a conviction from a jury is a crapshoot.

[MnFats]

70. ok. i surrender. i give.

you're way more correct than i am.

i'm at work too.

i will never dis an icon again.

bye

[youspeakmylanguage]

78. I agree with you, MnFats...

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[mondo joe]

75. I don't see what the ordinance has to do with "TOTAL equality"

or any equality.

Can you explain?

Thanks.

[youspeakmylanguage]

83. Everyone was equally restricted...

...from producing or enjoying erotic material.

[mondo joe]

87. And without it wouldn't they still be equally FREE to produce

or enjoy erotic material?

[redqueen]

37. Though I often disagreed with her views...

I am 'man enough' to admit she did much good.





Sometimes I really hate some of the posts I read here...

[Zan_of_Texas]

45. She was a uniquely original thinker.

I doubt I would have wanted to be her best friend, but she came up with startling analyses that forced people to think -- those who cared to, anyway.

Aside from the discussion of intercourse (and if you have failed to notice, rape itself is used as a weapon of military forces to subdue the enemy -- Bosnia, Africa, you name it)....

Her view of gender I thought was fascinating. Like race, which is a hypothetical construct (ask anthropologists or biologists), she exploded the notion of male / female as being totally polarized. She looked at intersexed people -- those born with traits or genes or both sexes, and concluded that sexuality is a continuum, not a polarity. Society forces those with ambigious gender characteristics to get surgery etc. -- YOU MUST CHOOSE one or the other. (US Census long did the same thing with race.) Why -- because it's harder for those in charge to oppress people based on color or sex if they refuse to cooperate by defining themselves in little boxes.

She also wrote about the internal psyche of right wing women.

Her partner, John Stoltenberg, is an equally original writer whose views on masculinity would throw most of you for such a loop you might not be back for several years.....

[alarcojon]

66. Agreed about Stoltenberg

Check out "Refusing to Be a Man" if you want your entire world as a man questioned (or, if you are female, if you want a unique insight into men!)

I'll add to the respectful RIP's for Ms. Dworkin. Like many others here, I have significant disagreements with her, and she WAS convenient for the Right, but she was courageous, original, and thought-provoking.

[LoZoccolo]

42. Bah, this was bad; self-delete.

[Chovexani]

48. RIP

As a sex-positive feminist (who writes gay porn of all things) I disagreed very strongly with Ms. Dworkin's views on various things, but nevertheless she was an important figure. Whether you agreed with her or not, hers was an important voice, and the dialogues her ideas helped foster have helped the movement as a whole, I think.

My condolences to her family and those who looked up to her. I didn't, but she fought for equality in her own way and while I disagreed with her methods and her philosophy I can't argue with her motives.

[amazona]

54. i hope she can now find peace

I think she was a woman with severe problems who made herself and many others pretty miserable, but no one deserves to go through some of the stuff she went through or believed she went through.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Nostradamus]

57. so sad to see so many men still sacred of an intelligent woman

grow up guys...andrea was anti-violence, anti-war, anti-lie

[MadHound]

61. Yeah, to a certain extent I agree with that

But she started to lose me when she came out for beastiality and incest. Yes, yes, I know the art of making a point by going over the top, but IMHO, she went too far with that.

She really lost me when she decided to team up with the antithesis of the femiminist movement, Jerry Falwell and the religious right that he brought with him. You simply don't make those kinds of deals with the devil.

All in all, I think the good she did was counterbalanced with the bad, and sad to say, she will be mostly remembered for the bad.

[youspeakmylanguage]

63. You're right, I'm scared...

...scared of people in general who try to restrict the freedom of others to express themselves sexually, a cause to which Dworkin dedicated her life.

I don't care if you're a fundamentalist christian or a radical "feminist" - if you're for restricting the first amendment, then you lose my respect.

[Pithlet]

65. But she dissed the porn.

Can't be having that. That man hating harpie.

[youspeakmylanguage]

67. we're dissing her...

So we must hate all women. End of story.

No cute animated GIF needed.

[Pithlet]

68. Wuh?

Where did I say anyone hated women?

Confused. No cute GIF for that.

[youspeakmylanguage]

74. man-hating harpie?

I don't know if she hated men or not. I do know she wanted to restrict sexual expression through various media - the difference between porn and erotica is in the eye of the beholder.

[Pithlet]

76. It's called sarcasm

Really, I thought my post was dripping with it. I even had the cute GIF.

[youspeakmylanguage]

77. Nevermind

Different strokes for different folks...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...no pun intended.

[mondo joe]

72. And anti-free speech. eom

[mitchum]

84. No, I'm put off by ANYONE with a personal pathology that finds an...

outlet through quasi-academic "conclusions" Dworkin was not intelligent.

[Voltaire99]

97. You're right.

This isn't "intelligent." It's brilliant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1340476,00.ht...

[Senior citizen]

102. Yeah. And Hypatia was a slut.

Goldman was anti-American. And Meitner, well she didn't exist, did she? And if she did, well she never did anything noteworthy did she? I mean obviously it was the Nazi guy who had never studied math or physics who discovered nuclear fission, instead of the woman of Jewish descent who had doctorates in both and was one of only a dozen or so people who understood Einstein's theories at the time. So when Einstein said that there was no father of the bomb, there was a mother of the bomb, Lise Meitner, he was lying through his stupid teeth, right? Hypatia, Goldman, Meitner, Dworkin--porn-hating, man-hating, stupid right-wing tools, all of them, huh?

Ah, patriarchy. Forget it. Go take your pharmaceuticals and enjoy your intelligently explicit porn. Those who can understand that you cannot end war without ending patriarchy, will never be able to communicate with those who don't want to end either one, or think it is possible to end one without ending the other. We don't even live in a patriarchal society--we're almost ready for a female President, right? Well, almost almost ready anyway. And just because there's a widespread commercial trade in unwilling females, doesn't mean that some women don't have the right to choose to be sex slaves if they wish. It isn't about slavery, it is about trust and control. And those who don't have any choice in the matter don't count because they can't post here, so who cares what they think or feel?

Sarcasm off.

A long time ago some warlike males had a practice of attacking peaceful villages, killing the adult males and taking the females and children for slaves and wives. There wasn't much difference between a slave and a wife in those days, as the owner had the right to demand absolute obedience from both and the power of life and death over both. The only real difference back then was that the sons of wives had inheritance rights, and the sons of slaves did not. That's it. But there was a problem in raising children, because the female children of wives were also destined to be wives/slaves, while the male children were destined to be patriarchal warriors like their dads. So they had to be segregated from birth. This segregation took the form of gender roles--different types of names, pronouns, clothes, etc., based on sex. There was a "natural" division of labor, based on sex (everything in a patriarchal society is based on sex), where the wives and slaves did all the work and the warriors did the killing and capturing. Wives who refused to raise their children unequally were simply killed for disobedience.

After 5,000 years of this, it does appear to be natural. Of course it has had to be modified to some extent in some places. Here, for example, females are permitted all sorts of freedoms not available to females in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. We've made progress. And the fact that we are an ecologically nonviable species, unable to control our population growth in accordance with available resources, and therefore subject to cyclical overpopulation peaks and die-offs, seems natural also. Well, if not natural, then at least by intelligent design. And if Ronald Reagan said that there is no such thing as a person, just men and women, well by God, our Constitution must have been wrong in using the word person, because if Reagan said so, it must be true. He wasn't stupid like Dworkin.

I've wasted the past 25 years trying to explain the facts of life to morans, and I'll probably keep it up until I die, when I expect to be vilified like Dworkin, if my death is noticed at all. I do not expect to be understood. I do not expect anyone to agree with me. I live in the same world that Andrea is undoubtedly grateful to have left behind--and it is a good place for a very small percentage of its inhabitants. For the rest it is squalor and misery, hardship and disease, torture and imprisonment, poverty and hunger.

Sarcasm back on:

I really don't blame you for taking Viagra, buying porn, and calling Dworkin unintelligent. Why not enjoy life and be on the winning side? You can't fight the big machine, so just lie back and think of England. And if your sons and daughters are dying in this war, and your grandchildren, if the world is still here, will die in future wars, well, that's just how life is. There are still pleasant, positive things people can do. Why be negative?

Of course if you can stand some negativity, here's a link to a speech that Dworkin gave in 1995: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/remember.html

But it isn't any fun to resist. Better to just go along to get along and have everyone like you. Invite the gang over for a good video. Try not to think and if anybody tries to make you think, well, you have ways to deal with that. Nobody can make you think if you don't want to--and it would be extremely unintelligent of them to try.

[xchrom]

117. i'm curious -- what would your sexual universe look like?

you and i might agree re: the patriarchy.

but i think you would be disappointed in ''humans'' taste in sex and the eyeball and the mind.

[Senior citizen]

152. My sexual universe would have no rapes,

no nonconsensual sex, nobody who was forced into pornography or prostitution either economically or physically, no unwanted pregnancies, and none of those people who like to humiliate other or take them down a peg by enticing them into trust and control situations and then laughing when their poor victim starts screaming their agreed upon "stop" word over and over, for being so stupid as to have believed them.

Apart from that, everyone would be free to enjoy one another's bodies as they pleased. For dominance and control heads, it wouldn't be any fun at all. For those who can empathize with and love others, it would be pure heaven.

[mitchum]

132. Nice broad brush you're wielding there

Oops! I said "broad"

[youspeakmylanguage]

177. Grief does not excuse you from making...

...nasty ad hominem attacks and stereotyping all men. You are making some good points, but your need to insult all men and those who disagree with you or Dworkin is limiting your ability to rationally debate.

[Lilith Velkor]

127. ...anti-heterosexual

Oh yeah, I really enjoy being told I only like sex because I'm a poor brainwashed victim of the patriarchy. Makes me feel empowered, y'know?

Fuck her.

[warrens]

129. Bullshit

She was dripping with hate, victimization and more hate.

[slappypan]

94. Dworkin interview by British SF author Michael Moorcock

One of Dworkin's more surprising defenders was Michael Moorcock, best known for his fantasy and science fiction writing.

http://www.yelah.net/articles/fighting

Michael Moorcock: What do you think about the current shift to the right in US politics?

Andrea Dworkin: Here, in blaming and shaming the oppressed, the powerless, the left colludes with the right. There's no reason to look to the left for justice, so people look to the right for order. It's pretty simple. The victory of the right also expresses the rage of white men against women and people of colour who are seen to be eroding the white man's authority. The pain of destroying male rule won't be worse than the pain of living with it.

Her book Right-Wing Women, written back in the 80's, was extremely prescient. America's march to the right continues.

[Voltaire99]

96. Although I opposed her ideas personally and professionally...

...for many years as a First Amendment absolutist, I have had a change of mind about Dworkin.

Twenty years on it is clear to me she offered a searing critique of the banality of evil, and in so doing had the number of American society: a machine that will grind up anyone or anything for profit. Pornography is only one address of heartlessness.

Some of her recent writing, especially an essay on Kerry that appeared last winter in the Guardian, was quite good: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1340476,00.ht...

So she had our number, if not, in Indianapolis and Minneapolis, the right remedy. The Moronic Inferno, to use the late lamented Saul Bellow's metaphor, resists easy dousing.

Rest in peace.

[bluestateguy]

112. I extend a R.I.P.

though I think many of her views were just plain nutty, and that she hated men.

Sorry, but I just am not down with the whole political correctness thing.

[liberalhistorian]

114. No, actually you

make good sense!

[sendero]

115. I'm afraid I agree..

... there are women who are so outraged at the discrimination they endured in real life (justifiably so decades ago, rarely justifiably so now) that they extrapolate it into all kinds of crazy psychosexual bullshit.

I've been with feminists, and those who weren't particularly so. Even the dedicated feminist I was married to for 11 years knew how to leave it at the bedroom door. And if you cannot, how sad for you.

[bloom]

118. But isn't it like

you think she should have been "politically correct" and say she thought that (all) ((most)) (((some))) ((((a few)))) men are always respectful of women and have only loving thoughts in regards to sex with women?

Or not say anything about it at all??

Isn't that what most women do???

[bluestateguy]

141. I have no idea what you are talking about

Really. I literally do not know what you are trying to say here.

[bloom]

143. Ok...

You said,

"I think many of her views were just plain nutty, and that she hated men.


She was basically saying that she thought men hated women (that's how I see it).




So you don't want to be politically correct. And I was saying that neither did she.

[Elidor]

125. No word on whether she wielded a strap-on, but I take it she

Liked it on top.

[Cats Against Frist]

145. As far as I can tell, Dworkin was no more of a crackpot than

the third-wavers who insist that the more you prance around in a G-string, the more men will respect you.

Seriously, if you guys can't handle Dworkin, you can't handle critical theory: in the binary sense, because men have always had control, woman is the zero and man is the one -- woman always defined by male logic. It's in all of our heads.

That said, I do think she was slightly inflammatory -- and obviously psychologically damaged. But then, we have monkey boy with his finger on the nukes and a whole country full of nut bags that put him there.

Welcome to the thunderdome.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

185. OK, you win

Paws down, you've got the best name I've ever seen on DU.

[nolabels]

151. Looks like a another thread in which people are debating about sex.....

Maybe the moderator should delete it before it gets out of hand

[youspeakmylanguage]

159. I think we are debating politics

...the politics of censorship, equality, and freedom of expression. Whatever you think of Dworkin, she apparently still inspires very lively discourse.

[nolabels]

161. Was pretty much just joking

The fundies would never admit how much their inhibition to sex is also tied up in their politics. I was checking into a thread along them lines the other day and it got locked. It kind of bothered me a little (seemed a little like censorship). But I still learned a lot in that thread while it was up, so it's don't really matter that much really

The word "SEX" seems to scare a lot people for some reason

[youspeakmylanguage]

163. LOL. Of course it does...

...we apparently aren't afraid of destroying our environment, scrapping personal rights and derailing the fundamentals of our economy, but the horizontal bop still sends most Americans into conniptions.

[Senior citizen]

156. I am in mourning.

I have shed tears.

I am grateful to the thoughtful, intelligent people who either found something good to say of the deceased, or said nothing.

I am awestruck by the intelligence and discernment of those who actually understood what Dworkin was saying.

And I have firmly made up my mind that when Ralph Nader passes away, may he live to 120, I will not look at DU for several months, just to avoid those who, with only a fraction of his intelligence and absolutely no good works to show for their materialistic lives, will enjoy vilifying someone who made much of their comfort possible.

And while I'm at it, let me point out that not all pedophiles are Republicans. Many are Libertarians. And some are actually Democrats. Anyone who is born into or attains a certain level of wealth and power, will find others more wealthy and powerful in whose interests it is to see them fully compromised and controllable. It would be foolish to assume that just because people are Democrats, or post to DU, they are feminists or egalitarians. The Democratic Party itself is a hierarchy. Many people believe that some form of hierarchy is a natural and necessary part of any social structure--otherwise we'd have nothing but chaos and anarchy. Anarchists, of course, would probably say that a pecking order is a good thing--for chickens.

A few years back one of the Harvard libraries acquired Dworkin's papers. I don't believe Andrea published any more books after that. We have lost someone who was capable of original thought. I'm really astonished at the number of people in this thread who respect that. But I'm not surprised at the number of parrots who jump at the chance to condemn someone for a capability they'll never have. Andrea spoke truth to power, and power never likes to hear the truth.

[youspeakmylanguage]

158. I'm sorry you are mourning...

...and I offer my condolences. I did get caught up in the discussion yesterday and I realize now I came across more harshly than I intended.

But this is a forum for political discussion, so discussing the positive and negative aspects of the political legacy of a public figure is fair game, IMO. Calling people that disagree with you "parrots" is condescending and insulting. We are capable of original thought, and we have come to the conclusion that freedom of expression, which Ms. Dworkin clearly wanted to restrict, is paramount to inducing original thought.

Ms. Dworkin enjoyed the right to freely write, publish, and promote her ideas and beliefs because all of us, as Americans, have a fundamental right to enjoy those freedoms.

[amazona]

167. agree -- sorry about the grief, sorry about her terrible life

My feeling is that we did Dworkin no favor by pretending that her hysteria was original thought or that her thoughts on intercourse and marriage were any different from the thoughts on intercourse and marriage that we heard from our mothers and our grandmothers. The feminist movement enabled her illness, the media enabled her illness, her "mate" of 30 years about whom she ran about bragging she didn't sex with enabled her illness.

In Susie Bright's large-hearted essay, she comments that "no one"
noticed that Fire and Ice was a reworking of de Sade. That isn't quite true, is it? Everyone noticed. It was sort of a backyard joke that she wanted male-produced pornography banned to cut down on the competition. After all, if I have a copy of Hustler in one hand and Fire and Ice in the other, no question which I'll read first and which wins in a free open marketplace of ideas. De Sade simply wasn't as new to the rest of us as he apparently was to Dworkin.

She wanted it both ways -- to whine that she couldn't make a decent amount of money from pornography (and whatever else it may be, Fire and Ice is pornography or the word has no meaning) and yet she wanted to claim that pornography was rape. I happen to believe that before you can have an original thought, you have to be capable of sufficient logic to understand the thoughts of those who have gone before you.

Dworkin was ill. She was very ill. She was very unhappy. If she had not been rewarded with media attention, then perhaps at some point she might have gotten help and made some changes.

We all failed her. As far as I know, to the end of her days, she was imagining rapes and other crimes being perpetrated against her. She was imagining that no one cared and that no one would help her. In the end, we got more pleasure, apparently, from pretending to be all intellectual and enjoying the outrageousness of such silly productions as Intercourse. We all want to pretend to be deep.

But sometimes hysteria isn't deep. Sometimes nonsense isn't deep. Sometimes it is what it is. And there can be a thin line between respecting someone and completely ignoring what they are actually saying. Her life was a scream for help.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[OldLeftieLawyer]

178. Beautifully stated, beautifully thought-out,

beautifully written.

Thank you.

She was, indeed, a sad and damaged soul, exploited in all sorts of ways. The irony is that she gave herself over in trade, just like the porn workers she scorned, and probably never realized the porn folks were more honest about it than she was.

[bloom]

166. Democracy Now

gave a respectful tribute - today. (Not a long one - but at least a respectful one).

Gloria Steinem was quoted as saying something like Dworkin was one of a handful of people in the 20th century who made a difference.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

184. Andrea Dworkin lacked credentials

If her Washington Post obituary is to be believed, she was a self-proclaimed lesbian who lived for 30 years with a gay man, marrying him a few years ago.

Where, I ask you, given how she lived her own life, did she get the gall - or the credentials - to discourse with anything even resembling authority about the heterosexual enslavement of women?

She lived, she died, and, when the dust settled, as it did on Ms. Dworkin quite a few years ago, she was nothing but an angry, frustrated gay woman who literally overflowed with self-loathing and outrage that others weren't as unhappy as she.

She made no difference at all.

[ButterflyBlood]

164. no tears here

She was just as fascist as the religious right and simply allowed the right to use a bogeywoman to try to discredit the whole feminist movement, which was largely succesful.

I'm not going to dance on her grave but I'm definately not going to miss her.

[RedCloud]

180. Violation is a synonym for intercourse.

The above title is straight out of her raucous diatribe.

She died as she apparently had lived: collapsing under the weight of her own contradictions.

This type of discourse is not only malevolent but it could serve ulterior motives.

There was a "study" out once about human sexuality. It seemed to dwell on the fact that there is rape from men, bad sex, and you have to do it to yourself to get satisfied. Then the chapters go on to reveal that woman are good friends of other women. And concludes with the blissful lesbian Utopian universe. Fortunately, I have forgotten the "researcher's" name.

It presupposes that lesbians never have their bad moments. If you have a bad relationship with a man, any man, become a lesbian. Heaven forbid, don't try to find another guy or worse, try to fix what is wrong...

I have known many lesbians. I have seen them fight with each other over who gets the next girl they envision. One even asked me to a pool party because she thought I might "attract chicks so she can try to seduce them". Pretty blunt. BTW that lesbian wanted to have kids with me, but I was married at the time and not about to have kids for the sake of having them.

All this being said I did date a feminist once. We hit it off greatly. All things clicked. She was as erotic as it can be, put porn starts to shame, etc. But one day she revealed her secret fantasy. She wanted me to rough her up, through her around the room. It was very hard to hide back the tears. I told her I couldn't do such a thing as I have been and always hope to be a pacifist, non-violent person. We eventually broke up. I didn't want to tell her it was about this incident, but it was.

As far as porno exploiting women, this is getting really ridiculous. The female porn stars get the money (what little there is) and the males get almost nothing (sex is the incentive). There are plenty of women who want to be porn stars. It only takes 1% of the population and you have about 1,000,000.

There are instances even of females raping guys who are often made out to be the laughing stock of their community.

It is sad that someone wasted their life in trying to divide a natural union between the genders. I readily admit women are abused politically and economically. So what they need are forces of unity to help them gain their long overdue fair share.

Oh and one final thing about porno. On Showtime's Family Business they showed a little trick that can make women ecstatic. It does work even on SAPOR women who have learned how to be without a partner. (SAPOR= self assisted patterned orgasmic response). ha ha. Your partner has the right angle! It does take two to tango!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

195. Let us take a few moments...

To regard the times in which some of Ms. Dworkin's philosophies were formed: The 60s and 70s.

As a male who came of age in that era and was *something* of a hippie, and who did indulge in the libertinistic urges that were so acceptable at that time, I can say with great assuredness:

Goddamn, some of us were utter bastards. Real pricks. Treated women like crap. There is no wonder that there is a white-hot pool of anger and resentment that exists in some women, to this day. A pool that was formed back then.

That's a fact I have pondered at length. It just cannot be denied and I would hope that any guy who was sentient in those times and got smart since then would recognize that all that "liberation" that took place back then was not so liberating for some folks.

That said, I do believe that Ms. Dworkin may have hung out with Andrea Solana a bit too much. Maybe. I might be wrong about that one.

RIP, Ms. Dworkin. I hope you find the peace that you were looking for in life.

[Senior citizen]

196. Link to reality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[JohnLocke]

197. No tears here

[frustrated_lefty]

198. I read Dworkin when I was younger.

Mary Daly, too. Pat Califia. There were others, but those three stick out in my mind. All three really seemed to have a personal hurt which prevented the potential for discourse, the exchange of ideas. They were angry, they were vocal, they were aware of where they stood and proud to be there.

Ms. Dworkin's views may have been inflammatory....they were also often insightful. She will be missed.

[JoFerret]

202. Andrea Dworkin Lie Detector

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

Try the lie detector and begin to consider how people who speak out uncomfortable truths and opinions about the reality of the world are attacked and demonised.

[localroger]

203. Andrea Dworkin wanted me in jail.

Let us make no mistake about this. If Dworkin had ever been aware of the online bit that is the basis of my teeny little spark of net.fame, she would have been yelling for my testicles and a stick on which to roast them. Never was this plainer than when she and her buddy Cathy MacKinnon put on their road show trying to convince our leaders, largely with writings and images taken out of context, to make my favorite thoughts and images illegal.

Where do I get this "out of context" idea, you ask? When I was a kid Playboy ran a few pictures by a German photographer of a beautiful nude woman posing in the midst of some reflected laser beams. Dworkin was later quoted in an interview I read as saying "Playboy ran a picture of this woman being cut and burned by lasers." Now I happened to have a copy of every Playboy from that era, and I immediately knew exactly which layout she was talking about. The cutting and burning were in Dworkin's mind; the lasers were harmless decoration, less familiar then but no different from the laser pointers everyone has today. This was only the clearest and stupidest example of her long-running habit of taking images out of context and claiming they came from snuff films.

Dworkin did incalculable harm not just to the feminist movement, but to the entire Left; at a time when we should have been consolidating and protecting the gains made for feminism and sexual freedom in the 1960's and 1970's, she helped to split the Left along an axis that has never healed (as this discussion amply shows). People who should have been powerful allies became enemies, people who should have been enemies were given succor and schmoozed. Make no mistake, the religious right LOVED Andrea Dworkin, and for good reason.

The fact that she was, as Amazona says, a deeply ill person does not mitigate the harm she did. It does not mitigate the personal insult of calling me a rapist for several reasons, from my genitalia to my fondness for certain literature to my particular sexual paraphilia. It does not mitigate the incredible hypocrisy of her writing Fire and Ice, a work which manages to be as sick and pornographic as anything I ever dared to write, while saying very specifically that I should be jailed for writing such things, and then whining that she WASN'T PAID ENOUGH for it. It does not mitigate the even more incredible hypocrisy of the little clause buried in their little model law allowing an exception for academics to possess porn -- that's right, in their own model law Dworkin and MacKinnon reserved the right FOR THEMSELVES to do what us mere proletarian schmucks shouldn't be allowed to do.

Her later efforts to weasel her way out of saying what she clearly said and implied do not mitigate what she clearly said and implied. She may never have personally said "all sex is rape" but she said almost exactly the same thing, many times, in different words and in 48 point boldface type between the lines of her hateful screeds like Intercourse. And our enemies who think all sex should be suppressed on general principles, not because it's rape but because it makes them feel squicky, eagerly adopted her framing for their ongoing attacks on our freedom.

So I hope you folks will forgive me for not joining in the singing of Kum Ba Ya on her behalf. Every dangerous and malevolent person has some good qualities and some often pitiful reason why they became so dangerous and malevolent; this doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed a sigh of relief and an observation that the world is indeed a better place once they have shorn the mortal coil.

The fact is that Dworkin and her followers did more damage to the things most of us believe in than a horde of stampeding Republicans could ever hope to do. It might be tacky to celebrate her passing, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that I am glad she's gone, just as I am quite certain she would have expressed delight that a "dangerous pervert" such as myself had been removed from the world she hated and feared so much.