From: joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Dworkin (was Re: Liberty)
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:10:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec23.191043.14836
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Dec23.173528.25908@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> psp@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (P.S. Powledge) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.123033.4883@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>
>>While I understand [Arne's] economy in not being willing to lend 
>>credence to someone as extreme as Dworkin, I feel *nevertheless* 
>>there is *a* reality to be seen and appreciated in some fashion in the
>>ideas reported here as Dworkin's.

Mere reportage can't lend credence to ideas in some fashion, or else
agitprop itself would be used for comprehension of repressive regimes.
I try to rely on logic (and when logic fails, fashion sense). I don't
think Dworkin is bad or good for the Feminist agenda per se, speaking
as a man, since she is such a bad writer. She is taken seriously only
to the exten that she is fascinatin, or rather, that she is sharing her
feelings, and certainly her views on the Female Experience are
interesting, if not unique. The problem is that she scales experience
so drastically in her writing, that it doesn't resemble human kind,
and therefore her recommendations (if they can be called that) and
observations are a kind of prose poetry, what I frequently refer to as
koans; propositions which are meaningless, yet vivid. I think she has
plenty of feelings, but few ideas. The problem is that much of what
feminism works for is based on logic; equal pay for equal work;
reproductive rights + special maternity rights (because, after all,
only women have babies, and more often than not women /must/ raise the
children); equal protection under the law; equal presence in
representative bodies; social status equality; in general, a
recognition by society of equal capacities of men and women in most
spheres of life, and special needs for each in several crucial areas.
And so on. Dworkin doesn't address logic or reason, she addresses
illogic and gut-level instinct. 

>Anyways: I can't remember ever agreeing with any of Dworkin's arguments.
>I oppose antipornography laws; I don't think SM women are collaborators 
>in sexual violence; I don't agree with her famous remarks on intercourse.
>Still, am very uncomfortable with some of the criticism she gets, here and 
>elsewhere.
>Part of it is that Dworkin's often used to discredit all feminists as a 
>whole, as if all feminists have identical analyses. The truth is, there's 

That's the finger on the X-marks-the-spot. To discredit feminism
(which is tantamount to discrediting the idea of woman as social
equals) one seizes upon Dworkin, with her heightened sensibilities,
and uses that to bat other illogical ideas around. GIGO. I have my
problems with feminist agenda, and I've announced them loud and
clearly in the past (I'll debate one-on-one with any woman who
complains about women and breast implants with men and penis sizes.
"Manditory" makeup and male pattern baldness. Skirts and business
suits. Heels and Oxfords. Looking feminine in the office, and having
to have shiny cheeks, short hair, and a blue wool suit. Among other
topics).  I also think that "male liberation" is somewhat akin to
"arbeit macht frei" in dizziness (I'm no fan of all-male 'tribal'
gatherings).

Dworkin can't think or write clearly. It is a failure on the level as
a polemical writer. That's how she should be critiqued. Her
contributions to Feminism will be difficult to dissect from her style,
whis is to say, the implication follows from a cricism of feminism to
that of style, leaving feminism unscathed. 

Now let's talk about Alan Alda and Kate Millet!
-- 
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
Newsgroups: soc.motss