From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 21:05:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug29.175416.6446@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.052723.8947@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>>In article <l-cn-sd.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>Here are some quotes from Andrea Dworkin, a feminist lawyer.
>>>This material is from _Reason_ magazine. There is much more...
>>>
>>>In Dworkin's view, any material involving sexual intercourse
>>>would by definition be degrading to women. "Intercourse remains
>>>a means or the means of psychologically making a woman
>>>inferior, communicating to her cell by cell her inferior status,"
>>>she writes in her book _Intercourse_. "Physically the woman in
>>>intercourse is a space inhabited, a literal territory occupied
>>>literally: occupied even if there has been no resistance; even
>>>if the occupied person said, 'Yes please, yes hurry, yes more.'"
>>>Intercourse, she declares, "is the pure, sterile, formal expression
>>>of mens contempt for women." The fact that a woman might enjoy sex
>>>makes it even more degrading. Dworkin contends that material depicting
>>>women as enjoying sex is worse than the Nazis' treatment of the
>>>Jews:"The Jews didn't do it to themselves and they didn't orgasm....
>>>No one, not even Goebbels, said that the Jews liked it.
>
>>I find these spoutings of hers insensitive, offensive, sexist and bigoted, and 
>>they offend me, as a human being, a Jew, and a man.
>
>I believe Dworkin is Jewish, although not religious. 
>
>>I truly wonder whether she can conceive of a loving relationship with a member
>>of the opposite sex.  I won't tell her what kind of relationships to have or
>>not to have, but I think she is only declaring her own bias by asserting that
>>sexual intercourse is and is only a degredation of females by males.
>
>Dworkin thinks it's important to put intercourse in its historical
>perspective.  

Why? Would it not be better to just clearly look at things as they are
today? Historical progression may be a great method of teaching a
college class (who was it, Laplace that came up with this method?),
but I see no necessary reason why it should reflect in any way upon
todays values. Much of what happens today would be inconceivable just
75 years ago, yet they are the base knowledge for life today. Yesterdays
viewpoint is simply not valid.

>                    If you read the book, _Intercourse_, you'll probably

This I still need to do.

>find a lot of her statements offend you, but I think you'll be left
>with the feeling of, "yes, many times fucking has been used as a way
>of colonizing and oppressing women."  

From which we can conclude that all sex all the time is a method of 
oppressing women. This simply does not follow. 

>                                            She believes that, given a
>sexist society, women cannot treat intercourse as a simple sexual act.

This is where it starts to become similiar to Marxism (IMHO). Things
are no longer what they are, but must be ideologically interpreted in
terms of the party line.

>>  But it seems to me that
>>Dworkin takes a completely negative approach to sex, without analyzing any
>>cultural patterns other than what she sees in her own backyard!  Then she
>>applies it to the whole world, to all males and females, and to the biology
>>which created her!  What bothers me is that people actually listen to her,
>>because she is feminist!  She is not pro-female only, she is vehemently and
>>blindingly anti-male!  Academia should never accept this trash as valid!
>
>I'm not sure her "completely negative approach" to intercourse comes
>from not analyzing any cultural patterns other than what she sees in
>her own backyard.

Rather, what she -interprets- from "what she sees in her own backyard."
She has already stated that what happens is not simply what we see. But
what if my interpretation differs, or yours? Does that just make up
tools of the capitalist imperialists (err) male supremists? I am pretty
certain that you could roughly replace male with capitalist, etc, in
Dworkins book, and come up with what reads like communist doctrine. When
I get her book, I will test this. 
 
>Some examples taken from Dworkin's book:
>
>"What both man and woman, driven by obscure primitive urges, wish to
>feel in the sexual act, is the essential force of maleness, which
>expresses itself in a sort of violent and absolute possession of the
>woman."  by Theodore H. Van De Welde, _Ideal Marriage_, 1930.
>
>"...I tried to imagine how you would hurt me and cause me to bleed.  I
>wanted to bleed, mulberry blood for you, for my own sake too:  to know
>what it meant to be a woman, to be transformed into a person by
>you..."  by Andre Brink in _An Instant in the Wind_, 1985.  (the
>speaker is a female fictional character speaking to a male lover)
>
>"Since a man's wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any
>manner whatsoever.  He may have intercourse with her whenever he so
>desires, and kiss any organ of her body he wishes, and he may have
>intercourse with her naturally or unnaturally, provided that he doesn
>not expend semen to no purpose."  by Moses Maimonides in his 12th
>century codification os sexual ethics according to Hebrew law.
> 
>"But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon
>his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract
>the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she
>cannot retract."  by Matthew Hale, chief justice in England in
>the 17th century.
>
>So, you still think she's viewing intercourse by the cultural patterns
>in her own backyard?

No, I see an interpretation, nothing more. That in itself says nothing
about validity, positive or negative. But that she may find it valid does
not make her impression the driving force in my life, nor any other
males.

And the "12th century codification os sexual ethics according to Hebrew 
law" does not reflect the cultural patterns in her back yard, unless
her back yard is accessed through a time tunnel.
 
>>I am saying all this only in context of the above post...I assume that it
>>truly reflects Dworkin's views :-(
>
>It's awfully easy to find outrageous statements by Dworkin.  She's
>much richer than the outrageous statements, though.  I suggest you
>read some of her books.  I'm sure you won't agree with her, but you'll
>probably not find it a waste of your time.

I plan to, although I already do not agree with her views. Of course,
she claims that her views reflect my reality, and I feel that I know
more about my reality than she does. I do not speak for anyone else
in this.


Rich

payner@netcom.com