From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Dworkin (was Re: Liberty)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 19:25:49 PST
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <1992Dec23.152237.1124@tc.cornell.edu>, 
shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

> More or less.  As I wrote earlier, just because [Dworkin is] 
> wrong about an awful lot doesn't mean that she's wrong about
> everything.  She's starting from what I consider to be a
> reasonable assumption (the problematic nature of
> consensuality in unequal relationships) and drawing some
> outrageous conclusions.  That doesn't invalidate her
> starting point.

I fully agree that consensuality in unequal relationships is
very problematic, but I don't think that's Dworkin's starting point. 
In _Intercourse_,
if my memory is not too fuzzy here, she starts by documenting some
of the historical reasons why heterosexual relationships 
tend to be unequal. She concludes that, given this cultural
baggage, heterosexual relationships in our culture must necessarilly
oppress women. I don't think her very boring historical narratives
offer any new insights into herstory. What's original about her
work are her conclusions.
I think what's been criticized in this thread recently is the way
she argues to those conclusions. 

What I recall from _Intercourse_ are her careless generalizations,
conclusions that her historical data did not support, and a
willingness to attribute evil motives and consciousness of their
sexism to men without a bit of psychological or anecdotal 
evidence to support herself.

> [...]  And if Andrea Dworkin can jolt some men
> into considering *why* they get so angry with her, then she
> will at least have accomplished something.  Mind you, the
> number of men I've seen actually think about their anger
> with her and why she writes what she writes still numbers
> in the small single digits.  It's all too easy to dismiss
> her as a man-hater;  I'd like to see more people (men
> especially) consider the "why" of it all.

A couple of points on this. First, I doubt very much that she was
writing for men. There is no shortage of books men can read to 
jolt our minds and make us aware of (to get back to your very apt
language above) how problematic heterosexual relationships must 
be in this culture. But the effect of Dworkin on male readers 
seems to be quite different: imagining her to be in the mainstream
of feminist thinking, they are turned against feminism altogether. 
You seem to admit that Dworkin doesn't "jolt" men into examining
why we get angry with her work, so if that was her purpose we 
seem to agree that she failed miserably.

Second, remember that we straight folks want to keep unoppressive 
straight relationships at least theoretically possible, 
but Dworkin seems to rule them out. It seems bizarre that
(and I don't recall where I read this) she is in a long-term 
heterosexual relationship. Is she a hypocrite, or are her 
conclusions not really as extreme as I think they are? 
I don't think I'm misreading her, but it makes no sense for 
a straight or bi woman to think what I think she thinks. 
-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.motss