From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Dworkin and her positive contributions to feminism?
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:30:05 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Sep10120207@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>  She does seem to come up a lot.  Many people have said that she has
>been quite influential in feminism, and that many people agree with her.
>What I'd like to know is if anyone on the net actually agrees with what
>she says. 

Last year, I tried to get through Dworkin's novel Mercy.  I just 
could not get into her fiction prose.  Too scatter-shot for my taste.
A few days ago, while at the library, I saw a copy of her 
"Right-Wing Women".  I grabbed it from the shelf and checked it 
out.  The copyright date is 1983, with 1978 being the earliest 
date.  Apparently she gathered a lot of material for the book while 
a reporter for Ms. Magazine.

The most remarkable thing about the book is its physical appearance.
Or I should say, this copy of the book.  The spine hadn't even 
been broken (it's a paperback).  There was only one other time 
this book had been checked out, according to the back flap, 
February of last year.  Obviously not a fast mover.

She makes some interesting points in this book, but not so much 
about "right-wing women" as about women's historical status as 
being subordinated through marriage.  If I am reading her right, 
she seems to be saying that all sexual intercourse in marriage 
is, by definition, rape.  She also contends that many (if not 
most) of the man-created institutions in our society were put 
in place to control the sex of women for man's benefit. She 
further claims that women, especially right-wing women, buy 
into this "sexual slavery" as a means of protection against 
male violence.

One of the ironies is that she claims that men reduce women 
to their sexual organs while at the same time I get the 
impression that she is describing men as being motivated 
almost exclusively by the pursuit of sex, thereby reducing 
men to their sexual organs. 

When she writes about such economic institutions as welfare, 
nursing homes, etc. she makes some sense.  But when she talks 
about men-women-sex, to my way of thinking she goes off the 
deep end.  When I read her, page after page after page, 
describing intercourse by nature as degrading to women, I am 
reminded of the minister in "Rain"; methinks the lady is a 
bit overly preoccupied with the subject. 

 I have never (physically) met anyone who agrees with her, or
>even one that thinks she's anything but a loon, if not a provocative
>loon at times. 

Add me to that list.

>  It's my contention, as I've said before, that she is only important to
>the anti-feminists as a tool to use to bash the more moderate (and
>intelligent ;-)) mainstream feminists.  Does anyone think that she has
>made any *positive* contributions to feminism?  Does anyone agree with
>her? 

I agree that many net-writers toss her name around as some sort of 
feminist-bashing code word.  I could not say either way if she 
has made positive contributions, but in just this one book, outside 
of her heebie-jeebies about marital sex, I didn't sense anything 
else much original.  In fact, she seems to have picked up a lot 
from Victoria Woodhull, as Dworkin quotes her extensively, and 
expands on Woodhull's aversions to marital sex.  In fact, Dworkin
takes to task Woodhull's contemporaries for not recognizing the 
important contributions Woodhull made.

 I'm really tired of hearing about how she speaks for all kinds of
>feminists.  I don't know what the official party line for the larger
>feminists groups are -- someone said that they don't denounce dworkin,
>but do they denounce anyone that claims to be a feminist?  Are they
>chicken, or do the major groups ever take a stance against women?  I
>honestly don't know.  I really don't think she has any bearing on
>reality for many people; I'd welcome references, parables, quotes,
>thoughts or citations that show something to the contrary.

You know, I think calls to denounce Dworkin are specious.  Given 
the pristine condition of the copy I read, I find it hard to believe 
that very many folks have really read her works.  They just toss her 
out as some sort of boogey-person.  Granted, she is weird, but I 
cannot imagine very many folks being exposed to her writings.  

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu