From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:47:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.071149.15854@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.175416.6446@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>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.
>
>So, given an imperfect society, we have to give up our ideals, and say that
>life is evil?  More importantly, can you justify your behavior with other
>people on the basis of history?  Can you interpret as you will, and attribute
>others' actions according to your own biases?  I guess you can.  But I don't
>think it will serve any useful purpose towards cleaning up our society.  And
>if this is her attitude, then I have no pity for her.  I am ready to treat
>her as an equal.  I am even ready to say that women have often been treated
>poorly by society.  I am not ready to say that I am guilty of hurting any woman
>or women; I am no oppressor!  Prove otherwise!

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying.  You seem to be
saying that we, as individuals, live in a vacuum where we're not
influenced by history, society, etc.

I don't believe people should give up their ideals, but there are also
realities.  Racism in this country is a reality.  I think the Rodney
King beating proved how easy it is for whites to cast a black man into
a role of a berserk, out-of-control animal who was treated fairly by 4
white police officers.  The Sumi Valley jurors claimed they weren't
racist and were horrified by being considered such.  Does racism not
exist if we proclaim loudly enough that we're not racists?

Why is it giving up your ideals to realize that women have been
oppressed by men wrt sex?  That women have been raped, have been
raped in marriage because they were married?

>OK; expand backyard to include her local library on misguided quotations!
>What do these quotes prove?  Many people believed this garbage.  She argues
>it is true!  I would say she is way out of line, if she is using these quotes
>as information...they are more likely non-scientific, unsubstantiated, mis-
>information!  I can't believe she is using these anti-female and unenlightened
>quotes to try to prove anything other than that people have been misled by
>people by her in the past!

No, she's not arguing it's true.  She's arguing that given the
overwhelming misogyny in the last two thousand years, it's impossible
for vaginal intercourse to be a loving sexual act for women now.  I
think she hopes it can be when we've rid the world of sexism.  (In
some ways, I find Dworkin endearingly naive wrt that.)

Now, many people who are feminists disagree with her that each act of
vaginal intercourse is by default oppressive.  I, for example, don't
think it is.

>>"...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)
>
>Who the heck is Andre Brink?

He's a (white, I believe) South African who has written much against
racism in South Africa.

>Is this fictional account supposed to prove something?
>She would do better to use modern sociological evidence!
>Her sources are fictional and biased!  You can't use a biased source to prove
>anything, not even bias!  So an author was biased!  Is the book popular?  What
>does this prove about the society?

People don't live in a vacuum.  What our writers are saying, what TV
shows we watch, etc. both reflect and influence what society holds as
true.

Remember the fairy tale of Sleeping Beauty?  A female character is
awakened to her sexuality, her personhood by the handsome prince.
Until she's kissed, she exists in only a vegetable-like state.
Remember Snow White?  Same story.

Do these fairy tales not reflect the way that Western culture has
viewed "good" women?  As frigid, unknowing princesses who are only
awakened to their sexuality (and if you follow the biblical myth of
Adam and Eve, self-knowledge is or causes sexuality) and
self-knowledge by men?

>>"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.
>
>This is utter misinterpretation.  The quote means that the man and woman may
>have sex in whatever manner they may find pleasurable.  Neither do I think
>it means that he can have sex with her when she does *not* want it!  It means
>that if he wants to have sex with her, Jewish law does not place a limit
>on the number of times they may have sex.

Where in the quote is there anything about what the woman wants?

>The broader sense of whenever he wants *cannot* apply, since there are many
>laws which prevent sex at specific times.  They cannot have sex from the time
>of her period until after is ritually ready, they cannot have sex on a fast
>day, etc.  In fact, does Dworkin translate her own "Maimonides"?  Surely she
>shouldn't interpret an English translation in a revisionist/feminist way,
>especially if she agrees that the English language is biased, without carefully
>examining the original!  I think this is a good example of her poor scholarship
>!  She is clinging to straws, and the academic community deserves better theses
>with better arguments.

The quote comes from:  Marimonides, Moses _Sex Ethics in the Writings
of Moses Marimonides_.  edited by Fred Rosner.  New York: Bloch
Publishing Company, 1974.

>Yes.
>I think she is picking and choosing her quotes with reckless abandon, to
>support her own biased outlook.  Let her quote some studies.  If she were
>unbiased, she might even consider doing some studies of her own.

What studies should she quote?  Studies that suggest something like
30% of college men in a study said that they'd rape a woman if they
knew they wouldn't get caught?

A study of 12 year olds where something like half of the boys and
girls felt that a boy has the right to rape a girl if he takes her out
and spends a lot of money on her, but she won't have sex with him?

>I don't find anything of hers rich, so far.  It is rather poor, in fact.
>I would much prefer to read more Tannen.  She at least seems to care about
>truth, reality, science, bias.

Well, you might try reading one of her books, you know.  And Dworkin
has never stated that she's a scientist.

>She seems to think there is still a chance of making the world a better place
>for both sexes through increased awareness and understanding of one another.
>I have no problem with educating men about women.  But I think Dworkin needs
>a lesson about reality.  The reality is that she is a fanatic.  The world
>isn't perfect, but she really needs to clean her glasses!

Hmmm...  So, if she is a fanatic, what then?  Instant dismissal of all
her ideas?