The recent and brutal gang rape in BC sadly demonstrates, once again, that the late and much-maligned Andrea Dworkin is not an outdated dinosaur. Her analysis of misogynist violence, the institutions and ideology connected to patriarchy, is not something we can easily dismiss. Her speech "I Want A Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape" is still tragically relevant: there was never any truce and this most recent example of misogynist warfare is another terrible instance, in a long list of patriarchal violence, of the ongoing oppression of women.
Somewhere in the counter-revolutionary late 80s the unrelenting feminism of the Dworkins was shunted aside for the so-called "sex-positive" feminism of the 3rd Wave. The sexist violence continued but it became taboo, in certain chic feminist circles, to ask about the normative grounds of this violence, the institutional and ideological props for the material reality of patriarchy. It was just not fun to imagine that Dworkin's critique of pornography and its connection to rape culture still possessed validity. If anything it was "anti free speech" and no one bothered to ask whether, regardless of the tactical problems connected to Dworkin and MacKinnon's attempt to legally associate pornography with hate speech, there was a contradiction between liberal notions of free speech and oppression.
The left in this country has always had a problem with liberalism. That whole "right against right but greater force decides" reality of liberal "equal rights", critiqued by Marx, has so often been ignored in the flurry to embrace some pseudo-radical notion of individual liberty. Suppression of dissidence has often devolved into saccharine "free speech" movements that empty the politics of the original dissident act, ignore the systemic situation of oppression, and never bother to ask "whose free speech and for whom?" And thus Dworkin is furiously denounced as an enemy of free speech while the misogynist corporate mogols, with their armies of lawyers and publishing connections, were allowed to prevent her free speech.
Dworkin makes us all feel a little uncomfortable, though it is somewhat odd that many feel uncomfortable without having read any of her work. Since we have the "sex-positive" feminists around to denounce her for us (a sad label since it assumes that Dworkin, without any real evidence besides hearsay, was "sex-negative" - a language slur like how the anti-abortion right calls itself "pro-life") we can feel good about our pornography and never once question how it is ideologically connected to instances of real world rape.
And yet the ugly world of misogynist violence continues, the patriarchal war persists, and we have not at all moved beyond that world of rape-celebration that Dworkin was trying to reveal, examine, and demystify. Ms. Marx, in a recent entry, examined the shocking pro-rape culture surrounding this recent act of oppression: not only was the gang rape posted on Facebook, but the comments under the posting were all the sort of comments one would find on a porn site: she wanted it, she was asking for it, women want to be gang-raped, she's a whore, she's a slut, it's funny...
The parallel between the consumption of real world rape and pornography, a connection analyzed by Dworkin, is not forced. In fact, counsellors and experts at rape crisis centres have been making the same parallel in their comments about this specific rape. One of these counsellors even pointed out that we live in a culture where rape is acceptable; the persistence of pornography (and here I do use the term in the way Dworkin would use it not in the way it's been watered down to include "feminist pornography", etc.) helps make it acceptable - just like the persistence of racist imagery in the media helps make racism acceptable. As Daisy Kier, spokesperson for the Vancouver Rape Relief and Womens Shelter, said:
Perhaps Kier's comment isn't "sex positive" but, as Dworkin would remind us if she was still alive, rape is not sex positive. And if pornography is ideologically connected to rape then maybe, just maybe, we should realize that it's not "sex positive" either. Dworkin understood and examined the "predominant image and theory" of pornography decades ago; the analysis is still relevant today.
But hold on there! Dworkin is just a little too "crazy" (or maybe the appropriate sexist term would be hysterical) isn't she? She wants to take away my porn and make me feel guilty! She's a "misanderist"! She said some things about sex that I never read but that I heard that she said that make me feel uncomfortable! I'd rather read some nice, safe, "sex positive" third wave feminism: they're real feminists because they make me feel good about myself.
There are times when I feel that Andrea Dworkin is the feminist equivalent of Frantz Fanon. Both are stylists as well as theorists and readers who do not take the time (or rely on bad readings rather than read the actual text) fall into the trap of focusing on the surface form rather than reading for content. The number of bad readings done on the first chapter of Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth are rather significant, and it is quite common for someone to complain that Fanon is outdated now that we have the nice and safe post-colonialist theorists to replace him. Bhabha instead of Fanon because, hey, I really don't like what that Fanon guy is saying about violence. Like Fanon, Dworkin was interested in practice. Like Fanon, Dworkin was interested in engaging with the material reality of a specific oppression. Like Fanon, Dworkin makes us uncomfortable because she's talking about real world violence and demanding change, something that always makes readers uncomfortable - especially those readers whose privilege is contingent upon the oppression being critiqued. And like Fanon, as this recent instance of misogynist violence should demonstrate, Dworkin is still and sadly relevant.
Somewhere in the counter-revolutionary late 80s the unrelenting feminism of the Dworkins was shunted aside for the so-called "sex-positive" feminism of the 3rd Wave. The sexist violence continued but it became taboo, in certain chic feminist circles, to ask about the normative grounds of this violence, the institutional and ideological props for the material reality of patriarchy. It was just not fun to imagine that Dworkin's critique of pornography and its connection to rape culture still possessed validity. If anything it was "anti free speech" and no one bothered to ask whether, regardless of the tactical problems connected to Dworkin and MacKinnon's attempt to legally associate pornography with hate speech, there was a contradiction between liberal notions of free speech and oppression.
The left in this country has always had a problem with liberalism. That whole "right against right but greater force decides" reality of liberal "equal rights", critiqued by Marx, has so often been ignored in the flurry to embrace some pseudo-radical notion of individual liberty. Suppression of dissidence has often devolved into saccharine "free speech" movements that empty the politics of the original dissident act, ignore the systemic situation of oppression, and never bother to ask "whose free speech and for whom?" And thus Dworkin is furiously denounced as an enemy of free speech while the misogynist corporate mogols, with their armies of lawyers and publishing connections, were allowed to prevent her free speech.
Dworkin makes us all feel a little uncomfortable, though it is somewhat odd that many feel uncomfortable without having read any of her work. Since we have the "sex-positive" feminists around to denounce her for us (a sad label since it assumes that Dworkin, without any real evidence besides hearsay, was "sex-negative" - a language slur like how the anti-abortion right calls itself "pro-life") we can feel good about our pornography and never once question how it is ideologically connected to instances of real world rape.
And yet the ugly world of misogynist violence continues, the patriarchal war persists, and we have not at all moved beyond that world of rape-celebration that Dworkin was trying to reveal, examine, and demystify. Ms. Marx, in a recent entry, examined the shocking pro-rape culture surrounding this recent act of oppression: not only was the gang rape posted on Facebook, but the comments under the posting were all the sort of comments one would find on a porn site: she wanted it, she was asking for it, women want to be gang-raped, she's a whore, she's a slut, it's funny...
The parallel between the consumption of real world rape and pornography, a connection analyzed by Dworkin, is not forced. In fact, counsellors and experts at rape crisis centres have been making the same parallel in their comments about this specific rape. One of these counsellors even pointed out that we live in a culture where rape is acceptable; the persistence of pornography (and here I do use the term in the way Dworkin would use it not in the way it's been watered down to include "feminist pornography", etc.) helps make it acceptable - just like the persistence of racist imagery in the media helps make racism acceptable. As Daisy Kier, spokesperson for the Vancouver Rape Relief and Womens Shelter, said:
"The whole mythology sold to men and the fantasy perpetuated through most pornography is how women are willing participants who really love sex and really want five men having sex with them. That is a predominant image and theory that's being put out by pornography."
Perhaps Kier's comment isn't "sex positive" but, as Dworkin would remind us if she was still alive, rape is not sex positive. And if pornography is ideologically connected to rape then maybe, just maybe, we should realize that it's not "sex positive" either. Dworkin understood and examined the "predominant image and theory" of pornography decades ago; the analysis is still relevant today.
But hold on there! Dworkin is just a little too "crazy" (or maybe the appropriate sexist term would be hysterical) isn't she? She wants to take away my porn and make me feel guilty! She's a "misanderist"! She said some things about sex that I never read but that I heard that she said that make me feel uncomfortable! I'd rather read some nice, safe, "sex positive" third wave feminism: they're real feminists because they make me feel good about myself.
There are times when I feel that Andrea Dworkin is the feminist equivalent of Frantz Fanon. Both are stylists as well as theorists and readers who do not take the time (or rely on bad readings rather than read the actual text) fall into the trap of focusing on the surface form rather than reading for content. The number of bad readings done on the first chapter of Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth are rather significant, and it is quite common for someone to complain that Fanon is outdated now that we have the nice and safe post-colonialist theorists to replace him. Bhabha instead of Fanon because, hey, I really don't like what that Fanon guy is saying about violence. Like Fanon, Dworkin was interested in practice. Like Fanon, Dworkin was interested in engaging with the material reality of a specific oppression. Like Fanon, Dworkin makes us uncomfortable because she's talking about real world violence and demanding change, something that always makes readers uncomfortable - especially those readers whose privilege is contingent upon the oppression being critiqued. And like Fanon, as this recent instance of misogynist violence should demonstrate, Dworkin is still and sadly relevant.
May I cross post this at my blog, A Radical Profeminist? It's like a breath of fresh air in a room lacking oxygen due to the heavy breathing of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you liked it; feel free to cross-post.
ReplyDeleteOne thing we might want to distinguish here are Hey JMP. Cool article.
ReplyDeleteTheir position on Butler and LEAF was complex.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceCanada.html
"Andrea Dworkin, consulted by LEAF on the Butler case, opposed LEAF's position. Dworkin wrote a letter argu...ing that no criminal obscenity law should be supported."
Wikipedia has an account of the Butler decision here and related links for Glad Day and Little Sisters bookstores:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Butler
Dworkin's descriptive positions from her prescriptive positions - her analysis of the relationship between pornography and rape for instance (as you emphasize) is descriptive. Her prescriptive positions (in either her writing or those one can assume from a closer reading of her legal activism) entail working with the state. These are the ones that are most contentious for some activists. The same's true for MacKinnon.
ugh. it got mangled. here's what i meant to post:
ReplyDeleteHey JMP. Cool article.
Their position on Butler and LEAF was complex.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceCanada.html
"Andrea Dworkin, consulted by LEAF on the Butler case, opposed LEAF's position. Dworkin wrote a letter argu...ing that no criminal obscenity law should be supported."
Wikipedia has an account of the Butler decision here and related links for Glad Day and Little Sisters bookstores:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Butler
One thing we might want to distinguish here are
Dworkin's descriptive positions from her prescriptive positions - her analysis of the relationship between pornography and rape for instance (as you emphasize) is descriptive. Her prescriptive positions (in either her writing or those one can assume from a closer reading of her legal activism) entail working with the state. These are the ones that are most contentious for some activists. The same's true for MacKinnon.
you can delete the mangled post if you want. hope you're well
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post, it wasn't too mangled the first time around! I agree that any decision to work with the state is, on an abstract level, super problematic, I think it might be spurious and idealist ultra-leftism to just ignore this as a strategy. Forcing the state into concessions (like free health care, welfare reforms, anti-racist and anti-sexist laws) is always a useful strategy, though it should never replace true radicalism (as it does for liberals). Just rejecting the state in this way is, at the end of the day, lifestyle anarchism: might as well drop out of society and live in the woods...
ReplyDeleteVery few people on the left would argue that women and people of colour shouldn't have the vote, or that we should have laws against racist hatespeech - and these were all reform movements that conceded to the state and thus possess limitations.
That being said, there are times when these reform attempts, especially in the way censorship has been used by the state, have led to strange and unfortunate alliances. Dworkin's prescriptive position, as you put it, is not identical to MacKinnon's. She said in numerous, numerous interviews that she saw the pornography-as-hate-speech legislation attempt as a "stop-gap" measure. A tactic rather than a strategy that was only just that. For Dworkin there was always the demand for a revolutionary overthrow of patriarchy, but she was willing to use various tactics - as any radical should.
In general, though, my issue with the stuff around the whole legislation thing is not whether or not it is a good tactic (I'm not sure it was in this case, though the article you pointed out above showed that it had more nuance)but how we on the left have cognized this tactic. Why have we focused on the free speech of corporate misogynists that this woman and MacKinnon were "denying" and why haven't we dealt with how they have been effectively silenced by these corporations?
Thanks, JMP!
ReplyDeletei dont really understand how to comment on blogs!
ReplyDeletebut i effing love andrea dworkin- and agree that she
is sadly 100 percent relevant today. its gross that pseudo radicals, liberals and other humans run around demanding free speech and other forms of individual liberty when women, as dworkin says so perfectly live under what amounts to a military curfew which is enforced by rapists (or something like that). that women cant wear what they want, when they want, walk where they want when they want- and if they wear something that isnt a turtle neck or a giant parka then they were just asking for it--bc the explanation of why we put ourselves into these situations is already in place: that we crave it. cause women inherently just want to be brutalized. so, lets throw in a state enforced dress code on top of that curfew.
ugh. so disgusting and i could rant about this for hours. also a youtube video has been floating around as of yesterday, i think showing a yale frat chanting that 'no means yes!' or something to that effect. so, anyone who is going to disagree with this shit needs some next level re-programming as a human.
woo!
I didn't hear about that youtube video but that's just horrifying (and, sadly, not very surprising). The importance of Andrea Dworkin and Radical Feminism is, as you say, extremely relevant. Especially in light of the fact that there is currently an internet war between radical feminists and sex positivists where the latter has harassed, belittled, rape-baited, and associated with Mens Rights Activists to shut down radical feminist youtube accounts. Although I sympathize with some of the sex positivist feminists, these internet "sex positivist" groups are acting in a very reactionary and anti-feminist manner.
ReplyDeleteThis walking maggot of a woman was NEVER relvant to the real world out there. She was always, like radical feminists are, living in her sexist bigoted bubble. I know enough REAL feminists, eauality feminists that snort with contempt at the mention of Andreas name. They know full well that when this walking sewer lid uses the word rape, in her comment "I want a twenty-four hour truce where there is no rape." This KKK, lesbian Feminist, Nazi, (All the same thing) is really refering to all sexual contact between men and women. Good-bye Andrea, say hello to your new partners in hate and bigotry, Hitler, KKK, etc,
ReplyDeleteBefore I remove this reactionary comment because it is in defiance of my COMMENTS POLICY, I will reply so that rightwing "Anonymous" (who likes to pretend he is not rightwing by comparing a leftist to rightwing folks he probably has far more in common with than Andrea Dworkin) cannot whine into his privileged sleeve that he has been "censored."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you've obviously never read Andrea Dworkin if this is the position you have. Secondly, it is unclear that you "know enough REAL feminists" if you have such an unnuanced understanding of how Dworkin is understood in the history of feminism. It's kind of like a racist saying, hey I have these people of colour friends who think etc., etc. The fact that you use a Mens Rights Activist discourse and misogynist language disqualifies you from speaking of "equality" and your supposed feminist friends. Please read a book, learn how to read a blog post properly, and figure out the basic rules of rationality before replying here again.
Your comment, and this response, will be deleted in two days according to the comments policy. Crawl back into your reactionary hole and enjoy the company of Hitler and the KKK who have far more in common with your type of thinking than Andrea Dworkin's.
Hey "Anonymous" -
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a feminist. Not sure whether i am a "real" feminist, or what that means, or what this "real" world you refer to is.
But I will admit that I had a critical opinion of Dworkin myself at one point -- before I actually read what she wrote! It's surprising how things work like that...
I also question your use of the term "lesbian feminist" in the same sentence as words like KKK and Nazi. Is there some significance to this? I'm surprised that someone who knows so many "real" feminists would equate lesbians with Nazis. Or maybe it's just the specific combination of lesbians who are also feminists?
I want to point out how "Anonymous" again in defiance of my comments policy tried to post again twice. Once with a typical misogynist statement about how all lesbian feminists are "ugly." Another with an appeal to identity politics (mobilizing the fact that he is actually gay and black). I called you privileged, Anonymous, because you aped a privileged position - and the language of structural oppression - in the way you spoke about women. And those of us who reject structural oppression do so for reasons other than individualized and petty-bourgeois identity politics.
ReplyDeleteI also find it telling that this Anonymous attacks women, mobilizes the language of feminism, and completely ignores the fact that this article was about a real world rape that real feminists would deal with first before spouting venom at Dworkin's supposed problems.
Read the comments policy: reactionaries are not welcome on this site.