From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 17:54:16 GMT

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.  If you read the book, _Intercourse_, you'll probably
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."  She believes that, given a
sexist society, women cannot treat intercourse as a simple sexual act.

>  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.

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?

>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.