Andrea Dworkin: An Example of Injustice in Literary Academia

[Mark]

The late Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist and a brilliant author and theoretician, wrote a book called Intercourse. She was immediately accused of having said that all sex is rape.

Anyone who actually read the book (I have, and there's a copy on my bookshelf) would know that isn't what she said. She said that sex which wasn't mutual and reciprocal, which consisted only of one person doing something to another rather than two people doing something together, was rape.

Dworkin explained that in male/female intercourse, the male penetrates the female and the female engulfs the male. This is, in mutual, reciprocal intercourse, usually simultaneous. But if the female is not an active partner and is simply penetrated by the male, even if the act is consensual, it is rape, not sex. In countries where young girls are given in marriage to older males, this may be the only kind of intercourse they ever experience. In patriarchal societies where females are expected to submit to males, it is not uncommon for any active participation in intercourse by the female (no less actual enjoyment of the act) to be considered improper and immoral. A female who actively participated in and enjoyed sex, would be considered a whore.

I had a long online argument about this with a male Orthodox Jewish Israeli settler. He insisted that all heterosexual sex was penetration of the female by the male. He was totally incapable of grasping the concept that the female might be the active partner or that the act could be mutual and reciprocal, rather than just the male penetrating the female. According to his beliefs, sex was something that males did to females, not something that males and females did with each other.

Not only was the false allegation that Dworkin had said that all sex was rape so widely propagated that Dworkin became the most hated female in the world, but it led to her being given a date rape drug and raped in France, an event that caused her to feel so deeply humiliated and depressed that she died not long afterward. As she was old, fat, and unattractive (Rush Limbaugh is an example of a male who was old, fat, and unattractive, and whose vilification of feminists didn't harm his career), and as she was unconscious during the act (she woke up to find herself in such a position that it was obvious she had been raped even though she had no memory of it), the rape was apparently due to anger by ignorant males who believed the lies and thought they were getting revenge on a feminist who'd said that all sex was rape. What was done to her was exactly what she'd written about--there was nothing mutual about it. The rapists hadn't wanted to have sex with her, they wanted to fuck her over and they did.

Many highly respected authors and academics and even some self-proclaimed feminists repeated the lie without ever reading the book. Very few copies were sold.

In most cases, anyone who critiques a book in such a way as to make it obvious that they hadn't actually read the book, would not be considered to be a respected or reliable teacher or academic. A student who did that probably wouldn't get a passing grade.

In this case, I know of nobody whose academic career suffered because they repeated something that wasn't true in criticizing a book that they obviously hadn't read. Some even claimed to be admirers of Dworkin and eulogized her after her death, while continuing to repeat the lie.

That's okay. Life isn't fair and nobody ever said that it was. But I reserve the right to remain pissed off about injustice, however weird it may make me seem.

[pan]

When Dworkin died I started a fred in her honor at the old Smirking Chimp. There were the usual "old, fat, and ugly lesbian" comments from the usual idiots. I also got in a long argument with an individual who made his living from internet porn about the suppression of free speech v. the effects of objectification/commodification of women.

Regarding her use of the meme of penetration, I always thought it was unfortunate that her book didn't include a discussion of penetration v. enveloping as ways of perceiving/approaching the act. I had several discussions with young women who had read the book and they believed that Dworkin was insisting that penetration was the only way to frame the act.

[Mark]

Pan, you write, "I had several discussions with young women who had read the book...."

Did you read the book yourself?

It is strange that you would think it, "unfortunate that her book didn't include a discussion of penetration v. enveloping as ways of perceiving/approaching the act," as the entire book is a "...discussion of penetration v. enveloping as ways of perceiving/approaching the act."

In discussing James' Baldwin's Another Country, Dworkin writes:

"With the destruction of identity, fucking as love is destroyed, because, as Baldwin says, 'to make love to you is not the same thing as taking you. Love is a journey two people have to make with each other.' Those who are able to know themselves must then find 'the grace' that enables them to conquer the fear of that knowledge, '[f]or the meaning of revelation is that what is revealed is true, and must be borne.' With this grace, fucking can be communion, a sharing, mutual possession of an enormous mystery; it has the intensity and magnificence of violent feeling transformed into tenderness."

In the chapter entitled, "Possession," Dworkin describes how patriarchal framing of the sex act isn't logical:

"Remarkably, it is not the man who is considered possessed in intercourse, even though he (his penis) is buried inside another human being; and his penis is surrounded by strong muscles that contract like a fist shutting tight and release with a force that pushes hard on the tender thing, always so vulnerable no matter how hard."

"Remarkably."

In the chapter, "Occupation/Collaboration," which itself compares two ways of framing the act, Dworkin writes, "...visions of a humane sensuality based in equality are in the aspirations of women....they are deep, humane dreams that repudiate the rapist as the final arbiter of reality. They are an underground resistance to both inferiority and brutality, visions that sustain life and further endurance."

Throughout the book, Dworkin gives examples of how patriarchy frames intercourse and contrasts them with other ways in which the act could be framed.

The meme of penetration is not Dworkin's meme, but patriarchy's meme, as I'm sure those who make their living from porn understand.

People who believe, "that Dworkin was insisting that penetration was the only way to frame the act," have failed to understand the thesis of the book. What Dworkin says is that penetration is the only way that patriarchy frames the act, and that patriarchy rejects all other possible ways. Either those young women you spoke with had not actually read the book (more likely they had read reviews of the book by people who themselves had not actually read the book), or they failed to understand the book's main premise.

Dworkin was an innovative thinker. Rather than simply parroting the memes of the most highly credentialed and respected "authorities" on any given subject, Dworkin did her own research and reached her own conclusions. Unlike the majority of her critics, Dworkin actually read the books that she critiqued.

In our hierarchical, patriarchal society, with it's constant recourse to authority ("appeal to authority" is a psychological warfare technique enumerated and explained in the KUBARK manual) Dworkin was, perhaps for that reason more than any other, considered weird.

[Mark]

Pan, in the original Word Cops fred, you made the statement, "Andrea Dworkin made the argument that, since sexual intercourse involved penetration, all acts of sexual intercourse were acts of violence against women."

I'd be extremely interested to know your source for that statement. I believe that I've read every published word that Dworkin ever wrote, and I found nothing even close to that anywhere. It is a false meme that was propagated by her critics and parroted by many, but Andrea never made that argument.

Andrea's argument, in Intercourse and elsewhere, was that penetration of a female by a male, without reciprocality, where the female is merely an object to be penetrated rather than a partner in the act, is rape, not sex. Andrea never said that females could not be reciprocal partners in acts of sexual intercourse that were not rape, and indeed Andrea quoted many literary sources with examples of just such equality and reciprocality, and of continuing female aspirations towards such even when it was not socially possible.

Read.

Think.

Don't just parrot false memes.

When you attribute something to an author, cite your source in that author's writing. A false meme parroted by critics of an author, no matter how scholarly, respected, credentialed, and authoritative those critics may be, is still a false meme.

I'm sure that you wouldn't do the same thing with regard to history or the arts.

I think you are much more valuable to Jeb's class than I could ever be, as you are credentialed and familiar with academia.

I'm sure that something like this, which would be fatal if I did it, won't diminish your credibility in the least.

But I still ask two questions:

1. Have you read Intercourse?

2. Can you reference any place in Dworkin's writings where Dworkin makes the argument you claim that she made?

It is unfortunate that the jacket of the hardcover copy of Intercourse that I own, carries a blurb (unattributed) on the inside front and back flaps, that was placed there by the publisher and which misinterprets what Dworkin wrote. It may be this blurb that gave birth to the false meme parroted by so many. The true lesson here may be, "Don't judge a book by its (jacket) cover."

I'm not out to get you and I would like to be able to co-exist, if that is possible. But not at the price of truth. What I'm saying is that your statement is parroting a false meme, and I'm calling you out--either source it directly in Andrea's writing, something nobody else has ever managed to do, or please stop repeating it. Andrea Dworkin was one of the greatest feminist writers this country ever produced but she never got the acclaim she deserved. Instead she was vilified, her last years of life were miserable, and now that she's dead, people can't seem to stop trying to desecrate her memory. I remember when she died, how the usual "of the dead, speak no evil" vanished from public discourse and hordes of sexists rushed to outdo each other in expressing how happy they were that she was dead. Even some who admitted that she had made major contributions to the field, had to include a slap at what they incorrectly attributed to her based on a false meme. Fortunately for historians, her published works remain and she never made that argument.

[pan]

Busted. It is clear that I am guilty of doing exactly what annoys me when I see others accepting judgments about authors and artists without actually seeing the work. Though I have always held Dworkin in high esteem I accepted misinformation without actually reading the book.

Most of my information about Dworkin (particularly Intercourse) comes from 2nd and 3rd hand sources. Comes from what others have written about what she has written. And/or small sections of her writing that has be cited and recontexturalized within someone else's writing.

My first impression of the book came from an intelligent feminist woman who was reading the book and very excited by the ideas carried within it....I thought she was a reliable source. I have discussed the book with several people who, purportedly, had read it and most were equally enthusiastic about the work yet none ever contradicted the idea that penetration was her central metaphor to the exclusion of viewing intercourse in any other light. You are the first person who has contradicted that meme. Yesterday I read a chapter of it that is available on the internet and see that your interpretation of her work seems more complete.

Thanks.

[Mark]

Thank you, Pan.

You are not alone. As you say, most people respond to any mention of Andrea Dworkin by repeating that false interpretation, which shows not only the power of memes, but also the importance of teaching the wee spiders to do their own reading and thinking, rather than merely accepting what they're told or what appears to be the conventional wisdom.

Many other people have tried to counter the false allegations against Dworkin, but the truth has usually been drowned out by the lies.

Truth is a rare, fragile, and precious thing in our capitalist society. Like everything else, truth is commodified, but it is given a much lesser value than lies which further the competitive, divisive model and can successfully manipulate millions of people for the benefit of a few. Copywriters who can induce people to eat unhealthy foods are richly rewarded, while those who speak out about the dangers of factory-farmed beef, pork, chicken, eggs, and milk, genetically-modified foods, and foods grown with highly toxic fertilizers or pesticides, are in real danger of being labeled criminals and eco-terrorists for interfering with corporate profits. We are a culture of "the big lie," and even today, 46 years later, when a majority of Americans question the official cover story, there are still millions who believe in the government's 'lone nut with a magic bullet' theory of the JFK assassination. As with 9/11, only those who are willing to do their own research and arrive at their own conclusions, have a chance of ferreting out the truth.

Thank you for having the honesty, courage, and integrity to admit you were wrong. I was wrong about something also--I had written to Curt that I expected you to ban me from RBC for speaking out. He's going to laugh at me now, and I don't mind in the least. I'm pleasantly surprised and happy to be wrong. And I'm sending you a friend request because you've earned my respect.

--Mark

[pan]

Mark,

Though I am highly opinionated, hate being proven wrong, and sometimes show a bit of arrogance, I still know that I don't know everything and have much to learn.

I can state with confidence that, even in the heat of passion, I might write/say some rather impetuous things but I am rather good about not engaging in actions that would negatively impact someone else - even if they are really annoying me at that moment. I would never consider banning any member without complete consensus with all of the moderators.

As I have written elsewhere, even though you have thoroughly pissed me off at times, I have a great deal of respect for your intellect and passion that is clearly supported by a voracious appetite for the written word. I am very pleased that we seem to have taken some steps towards a much more pleasant level of discourse.

Pan

[Mark]

Likewise, Pan.

If you'd like to go further with this, I'd be willing to discuss any incidents where I "thoroughly pissed...[you]...off."

On COTO, C-boy accused me of having pissed him off on OEN. I posted a link to the relevant discussion on OEN. The only thing I'd done that pissed him off was that I'd referred to a senior editor only a few years younger than myself as, "kid," something which the other senior editors felt was not sufficiently respectful towards a senior editor. C-boy jumped into the OEN fred and made a series of nasty personal attacks on me. I responded to the one sentence he had written which was not a personal attack, merely noting that the rest of his post consisted only of personal attacks. Later, he himself would be much more disrespectful towards OEN senior editors than I ever was, but he still claimed that I'd deserved to have been banned from OEN for disrespect. To allow himself the freedom to be as disrespectful as he wishes, but to insist that others deserve to be banned for disrespect, is hypocritical.

So I'd like to know if what pissed you off was something I said or did, or something that others claimed I'd said or done.

We have two points of disagreement that I know of. One was my objection to your use of the word cunt in saying, "Feinstein's a cunt." You claimed, if I remember correctly, that your use of the term wasn't sexist because the word cunt could be used to show disrespect for people who weren't female. I argued that if you had instead said, "Feinstein's a nigger," you would be incorrect in arguing that the use of the word wasn't racist because it could be, and in this hypothetical case would have been, used to denigrate somebody who wasn't black. We had several points of agreement, in that neither of us have any respect for Feinstein (or any other war criminals), and neither of us wish to restrict freedom of speech. The only place we differed, as far as I know, was in the use of a sex-based term as an ad hominem attack. In my opinion, calling a war criminal a cunt or a nigger is more disrespectful towards females and people of color, than it is to war criminals.

Our other point of disagreement was in how you mischaracterized the events leading to my banning from the original RBC.

If those disagreements have been resolved to your satisfaction, we're cool. If not, I hope we can work through them. I don't know much about the arts, but I doubt if you could have gotten to where you are without having been controversial and sticking your neck out to convey some meaningful truths now and then. Sometimes reality sucks, but as far as I know there can be no other basis for reality based communities or reality based friendships.

Thank you for accepting my friend request. Now that we're RBC friends, I hope we'll eventually become really truly friends. Since I'll never have your status or privileges, you'll have to expect that I'm going to be defensive at times. Dealing with defensiveness is the price that those with relative status and privileges pay for interacting with those less favored. I've lived sixty-nine years in a world where most of those with greater status and privileges have only half my intellect, and it has taken a toll and left me with an attitude.

[pan]

Our other point of disagreement was in how you mischaracterized the events leading to my banning from the original RBC.

Completely bewildered by this statement. I have no recollection of you being at the original RBC founded by Double Helix. I wasn't one of the first members there - I came later. Perhaps this happened before I arrived. I don't recall ever making any statement regarding your banning. Have you confused me with someone else?

Regarding the other thing.....I understand your feelings about the usage of certain words. I don't agree with your conclusions and believe that no amount of discussion will ever make you understand why I believe that all taboos of symbols can and should be broken. I don't think I can change your mind and know you can't change mine. But that's OK. I have strong disagreements in other areas with others on this site that I don't pursue for the same reason. Please don't pursue this any further.

[Mark]

Here's the beginning of what you wrote, Pan: "On the original RBC site there was an argument regarding the use of gendered pronouns. One poster, inspired no doubt by Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto...."

Were you there or weren't you there?

I was there. The poster you're referring to was ME. Curt was there.

If you were there, you mischaracterized what happened.

If you weren't there, then once again you've taken somebody's word for what happened, and it doesn't happen to be what happened.

If you look back at the second Word Cops fred, the one in the COTO group, the last part of my first post and most of my next post explain it. The fred is here:

http://realbc.ning.com/group/coto/forum/topics/word-cops-1?page=1&a...

As for the other, I don't think any of the people with swastika tattoos in my neighborhood are into breaking taboos of symbols--most of them are into breaking heads--but I'm fine with not pursuing the subject.

I can see that this isn't going to be easy, Pan, but out of respect for Jeb and Curt, you and me are going to be friends even if it kills us, and even if it turns out that there aren't any subjects that we can pursue. Sometimes life lets us choose our friends and pick our fights, and sometimes reality smashes us up against a wall and we're too stunned for a moment to gather the determination and will power to pick ourselves up and keep going, but once our heads clear, if we're lucky, that's what we do. Every time, at least until we can't do it any more.

Chumbawamba lyrics

Chumbawamba - Tubthumping Video - Chumbawamba Music Videos

Music Videos by VideoCure

[pan]

Didn't make the connection, didn't realize it was you. I didn't realize that you were banned - thought you got fed up and left.

When I arrived there were already two very long freds devoted to the discussion. It took me awhile to read it all and it was more than a little confusing at first just what was going on. If you reread those freds (I am fairly confident that you still have record of that discussion) you will find that panpipes wrote in support of your request to be referred to in the male pronoun (if my memory is correct).

[curt]

If I recall correctly, your memory is correct. ;-)

[Mark]

Exactly how could Panpipes have supported anything in that fred if Panpipes wasn't there at the time?

No, I don't have the record of that discussion, Pan. I hadn't expected to be banned and hadn't downloaded it. If you happen to have that record, I'd like very much to add it to the collection of my personal papers at the Schlesinger Library.

Again, either your memory is incorrect, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing what occurred. I certainly made no request to be referred to "in the male pronoun" any more than you ever did, and I can think of no reason that you or I would ever have done anything that absurd and unnecessary.

What the hell is a male pronoun anyway, Pan? Are there pronouns with little testicles and penises?

I had always been referred to in the traditionally generic, default pronoun, which happens to be not only my preference, but also what I'm accustomed to and my Constitutional and legal right to be accorded equal terms and treatment without regard to sex. What that means is without regard to whether I happen to be male or female, and without regard to whether or not I happen to be an effeminate or homosexual male or a male in a traditionally female occupation, or any other criteria. Changing the way that I had always been referred to so as to reflect that some male supremacists may have decided that I wasn't masculine enough to be referred to in the same way that they were referred to, was discriminatory. In an online forum there is no way to compare penis size and pictures could be photoshopped.

Some people in that discussion used the same types of arguments that you have used in other topics here, Pan.

One of those arguments usually takes the form of, "I know feminists and they prefer to be referred to with pronouns indicating that they are female, therefore all females, all males in traditionally feminine occupations, all gay males, and all males perceived to be in any way weak or effeminate, MUST be referred to the same way the feminists I've spoken with prefer." It appears to be a logical argument until you realize that most females in prerevolutionary China preferred to have their feet bound, but that wouldn't have been a good reason to insist that all females and effeminate males everywhere in the world should also prefer to have their feet bound. Most people usually prefer to conform to whatever is socially acceptable in their time and place, but individuals who do not wish to conform to stereotypical social roles should not be forced to do so.

The other argument is along the lines of, "I believe that both types of pronouns are equal, I'm male and I don't object to being referred to with feminine pronouns, therefore nobody else should either." Again, it seems like a logical argument, if not for the fact that the people making it never expect it to actually happen, and react with censorship and banning when it does.

The key is to treat other people the same way that you want to be treated, Pan, not the way that you imagine that you might wish to be treated if you were them, since you're not them and you can't know that. Unless people have stated a different preference, something I certainly never did, all you have to do is follow the Golden Rule.

Since you never requested to be referred to with traditionally masculine pronouns, Pan, any more than I ever did, does that mean that you prefer the traditionally feminine pronouns? Nobody requests a pronoun, Pan. Pronouns grammatically follow nouns. If somebody is accustomed to a particular pronoun, it is usually obvious from their name, as names are proper nouns. Where names do not indicate a pronoun preference (there are many unisex names), people who have such a preference usually do offer some indication of it.

I've had hundreds of short term jobs in my life, and while some were traditionally male jobs, such as electrician or loading and unloading trucks, I've also done traditionally female work, such as clerical jobs and housecleaning. You claim to work in a traditionally female field--does that mean that we both should be referred to with feminine pronouns?

My name, the one on my RBC account, happens to be the same name that appears on my driver's license and on my passport. I never made any request to be referred to differently than the way that anyone else named Mark is usually referred to. If you want to continue to mischaracterize what happened, in your determination to draw attention to something that happens to be not only irrelevant, but is also in a category called "suspect" due to historical discrimination, you're going to find yourself in an indefensible position from which the only way you'll be able to salvage your pride is to ban me, and you may not find consensus for that, so I suggest you think carefully before pursuing it.

I told Curt I wouldn't fuck with you, but that doesn't mean I won't defend myself if you fuck with me.