jump to navigation

Right-Wing Women (Part 2) February 26, 2011

Posted by FCM in books!, gender roles, health, liberal dickwads, PIV, politics, pop culture, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

in right-wing women, dworkin excoriates american 60s counterculture, noting that what was being pushed as a “sexual revolution” was actually malestream PIV-centric sexuality gone wild.  which of course it was.  the liberal dickwads i mean sixties flower-boys and male political players too wanted constant access to PIV, and this agenda was pushed as an ideology favoring “sexual freedom” and vetting and overcoming “sexual repression.”  gee, where have we heard this before?

one obstacle observed to be getting in the way of this continual unfettered access to womens vaginas was…wait for it!…pregnancy.  contraceptives werent readily available in the US throughout the 60s, and abortion was illegal.  this apparently caused some (many) women to be repressed about having constant PIV with numerous partners.  thats right!  sometimes the women even said no.  and that, the lefty liberal men could not have.  so…said lefty liberal men took it upon themselves to lobby for “womens rights!!111!1!!” to abort unwanted pregnancies that were womens alone to bear, as the easily forseeable consequence (to women) of “free love” and PIV-centric sexuality generally.  arent liberal doods awesome?  i wish i could have 5 just like them.

now, regarding this alleged “sexual” revolution, the flower girls’ mothers apparently had something to say about it.  they were unable to give away the whole game, by actually speaking in honest terms about the horrors of het partnerships generally and the consequences (to women) of PIV…but the mothers of course werent ignorant of any of it.  it must have absolutely killed them to know that their daughters were ignorant, yet they were essentially forbidden by the social contract (and for the good of all of their survival too, as women in patriarchy) to tell them the truth of it.  when their own daughters were walking into the lions den of dangerous male sexuality and, being young and inexperienced with men and with life, they didnt even fucking know it:

i cannot even imagine what that must have been like.  for the mothers or the daughters of this alleged “sexual” revolution.  to have to prime your own daughters for PIV, and sell them on men and het partnerships generally…and to all the time know what just one man was capable of.  and to not be able to tell her even that much, even as she was taking on one man and 10 of his friends in a polyamorous relationship. you know, or whatever.

anyway, the good news appears to be that many of these flower girls eventually became feminists.  yes!  they did.  and once they became feminists, they began framing sexual and reproductive issues in terms of female reproductive freedom, rather than merely “abortion on demand.”  in other words…they wanted access to abortion and contraception, and they were also saying no to men, and to “sex on male terms.”  and guess what happened next?  the lefty liberal doods abandoned them, and decided they didnt care that much about abortion afterall.  and these same men have mostly “played dead” ever since, or at least they arent nearly as militant about the issue now as they were before, watching on the sidelines as abortion rights have been “regulated” nearly out of existence.  because legalized abortion didnt get the men what they wanted, which was the whole reason they had supported it in the first place: unfettered access to womens cunts on mens terms, without question, without resistance, and without thought.  thanks, lefty liberal men!  oooh, i think i want 10 just like them!

welp…you know who doesnt want 5 or 10 or 100 doods just like these?  right-wing women.  they see that one is enough to deal with: the sexual entitlement, the PIV-centrism, and the resultant pregnancies, childbirth and childrearing.  not to mention domestic violence, marital rape, addiction, infidelity, and on and on and on.  uh, one is enough, thanks!  can you really blame them?  many of them lived through the 60s too, and they werent stupid either.  they learned from what they saw, and it shaped an ideology, and motivated them to strike a deal regarding abortion, heterosex, PIV and childbearing:

i mean really.  is “free love” any better or worse than the deal right-wing women have struck, as a means to survive rape culture, and PIV-centric sex?  this is a serious question.  they are actually very much the same, arent they, as far as making deals with the devil goes?  which of course is dworkins point.  and its a good one.

the only thing i would add is that lefty-liberal doods and fun-fems dont see anything different in radical feminists casting off PIV and saying no to men and to “sex on mens terms,” and right-wing women only allowing themselves to be fucked by one man, instead of by the whole fucking world.  both are allegedly “sex-negative.”  right?  because the only thing doods care about is access to womens cunts.  our reasons for denying them access are completely and utterly irrelevant, and unacceptable no matter what they are.  which is why they think our reasons are the same.  because they dont hear what we are saying, because they dont care.

stay tuned for part 3.

Comments

1. octagon surgeon - February 26, 2011

Hey, FCM! Long-time teenage lurker in the radical feminist circle here. This is an incredible analysis. It’s an organized expansion on beliefs that I’ve been trying to make sense of myself.

Fun feminists seem to be so flattered by liberal doods supporting women’s reproductive rights, when they only back it for their own self interests. It’s fucking depressing watching my best friend engage in a naive belief that pro-choice liberal doods are somehow basically decent. I heard one of her good liberal dood friends say that if he ever got his girlfriend pregnant, he’d make her abort. Come on, it’s fucking coercion on either side! But no, she defends him. Arrgggh. Nigel-coddling, too… I wish liberal women would wake up and realize that the dudes primarily aren’t looking after our health but their own entitlement to fuck.

FCM - February 26, 2011

i dont take credit for this analysis actually. its all in the book, i dont think i added a single original idea in this whole piece. dworkin lays it out boldly, and i have never seen anything like it, relating to right-wing women, and trying to honestly understand where they are coming from, with empathy and the realization that they too are women, trying to survive under patriarchy. and viewing them as keen survivors and strategists, instead of just morons and dupes.

it adds layers of nuance and history of course, to dissect the 60s counterculture and how the lefty liberal dickwads sexually used liberal women, and abused them terribly in fact, when they were supposed to be on the same side, in a movement for social justice. that part is just gut wrenching too. its clear that her entire point is to make parallels between how leftist men use leftist women, and how right wing men use right wing women, and how all women have to make the best deal they can to survive. this is a manual on empathy. all her books are. it makes me terribly sad that she was so despised, because the empathy she had for all women was palpable in everything she wrote. i like to think she eventually got over her empathy for men though, and i didnt see much of it here in her scathing critique of 60s male liberals. its just as well, because they obviously dont deserve her empathy, at all.

2. thebewilderness - February 26, 2011

“our reasons for denying them access are completely and utterly irrelevant, and unacceptable. which is why they think our reasons are the same. because they dont hear what we are saying, because they dont care.”

Yes.

3. maggie - February 26, 2011

“it makes me terribly sad that she was so despised, because the empathy she had for all women was palpable in everything she wrote.”

I agree totally. This is a very emphathetic look at the ‘deals’ done in the sixties by women from all spheres of heterosexual life. All these women had a common purpose to preserve the het relationship at all costs to them as women. Suffering in sex = male entitlement to PIV on demand.

Lefty dickwads were incapable of discarding the PIV on demand because of male entitlement. This has pervaded, and is now stronger than ever, because they now have the unreserved adoration of funfems as

Where the parallels stop is in that LW feminists DID say no to PIV on demand. RW women where unable to follow because the course they took meant limitations that constrained them in a world that was based on submissiveness and obedience – whether to the man and/or religion. RW men are constrained by the dictates of religion too in these relationships (submissive and obedient to god but not to the wife – wife is submissive and obedient to both god and husband and to a certain extent male issues) but the dice is totally loaded in favour of the men – all men who are within a het relationship.

Lefty dickwads were unable to discard PIV on demand as suggested by their feminists sisters, because of their male entitlement and the assertion that testosterone is king – why is having a high sex drive considered healthy?

Lefty dickwads continue to assert their dominence via the so-called equality they have sucessfully brokered between them and funfems. Loaded once more, like a RW het relationship, totally in favour of the man. Nothing has changed.

4. maggie - February 26, 2011

Opps third paragraph shouldn’t be there.

It was a lefty dickwad who called me a feminazi. Once his piv entitlement was cut off.

5. veganprimate - February 26, 2011

This was quite interesting to read and quite an eye opener with regards to right wing women. I guess the deal they have struck isn’t such a foreign concept after all. It makes sense on a certain level.

I was a bit confused, though. I get the impression (and just fyi my reading comprehension sucks) that the women she talks about aren’t conscious of their reasons and motives. They can’t articulate it. So, it seems kind of weird for her to say, “This is why they’re doing what they’re doing,” if the women themselves don’t know what their motives are.

Although, I guess we all do that. Fun fems will say they do such-and-such b/c they want to, and we’ll say, “Well, no you’re doing it to suck up to men.”

What sucks is that a lot of right wingers are religious, and so even if we would agree on a certain point, such as we wouldn’t want our 12 year old daughters to have sex, we can’t really dialogue about it, b/c their reason is that premarital sex is a sin, or the bible says so, or some other nonsense.

FCM - February 26, 2011

yes, thats where the THEORY comes in. individualism is pomo: its doesnt matter what individuals “think” or whey they are personally aware of, regarding their personal experience of the world. what matters is DOES THIS MAKE SENSE when looking at the big picture, and in what way does it make sense? HOW IS THIS CONSISTENT with the dominant paradigm, existing social structures and narratives etc?

instead of looking at RWW (or radical feminsts) through a lens of “these women are crazy, they dont like sex!!11!11” we can all choose, all the time, to look at it through a lens of “in what way does this make sense?” and dworkin nails it. THIS is the way it makes sense. its the only way it makes sense, when you conider everything RWW are giving up, what they get, and what they specifically get to AVOID.

looking at things women do, or dont do, or specifically resist, with an INTENTION to understand them (instead of an intention not to), and presuming that they ARENT stupid and ignorant (instead of presuming that they are), is indeed a very different way of looking at women, and womens lives. look at all this “EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!111!1” bullshit thrown at women who say “FUCK THIS TRANS SHIT” or “no, i dont want to have PIV, its not sexual for me, its not how i want to experience sex”. most people (aka. the mainstream view) automatically assume its that the women DONT KNOW. instead of that they DO.

6. rhondda - February 26, 2011

@ veganprimate

I think it has alot to do with reifying motherhood and making that a woman’s whole goal in life. It is of course reinforced by religion.

Thanks for this FCM. It brought up memories of living in a commune when I was at university. Actually left wing men are very much cowards when it comes to revolution. A lot of talk, little action. The sad part for me is a lot of left wing women do not figure it out. One of my old colleagues did serial marriages, became a capitalist and now is hoping number 4 or 5 will walk through her store door. Wait did she become a right wing woman?

7. FAB Libber - February 26, 2011

most people (aka. the mainstream view) automatically assume its that the women DONT KNOW. instead of that they DO.

Which is just another manifestation of denying women have any intelligence, sexual or otherwise, unless it supports or coincides with the malestream view.

The final part of the Dworkin extract was very sad:
The training of a girl to accept her place in sex in marriage means the annihilating of any will towards self-determination or freedom; her personhood is so demeaned that it becomes easier to risk death or maiming than to say no to a man who will fuck you anyway, with the blessings of God and state, ’til death do you part.

It is safe to say that mandatory PIV is damaging to a woman’s soul. It destroys her. She is conquered.

Also, as you progress down the radfem analysis, it becomes clear that men, right or left, will hold onto their access to PIV at all costs. It is the basis of our colonisation. And it is clear that men will not falter or change from that course (funfems are under the delusion that if they just ‘explain it [feminism]’ a different way or in a nicer way, that men will ‘get it’). No they won’t.

8. Sargassosea - February 26, 2011

There is not one whit of difference between Righty Dickwads and Lefty Dickwads. Not one.

Neither one keeps his end of the *bargain*: RD still sexually harasses the women at work, consumes pornstitution and insists on mistresses’ abortions. LD does all these things too but has the nerve to say that he doesn’t. And to add insult to injury he claims to fight for our “rights” but actually does nothing that doesn‘t serve him first.

9. Sargassosea - February 26, 2011

Uh oh. The ’ol RAGE is building up again given the topic of discussion🙂

I’ll do my best to keep myself in check, sisters.

10. veganprimate - February 26, 2011

S4 just reminded me of something with her claim that neither one keeps their bargains.

What bugs me about lefties is that they are such moochers. A rightie will ditch his wife when she gets old for a newer model, but at least he supported her for a while. Lefties are so fucking liberal that they don’t buy into that gender role bullshit…which ends up meaning that the woman is the primary breadwinner and the dude sits on his ass all day and doesn’t really help with the housework b/c he was busy banging thoughts around in his head, or playing RPG’s all day. Then when the woman complains, he criticizes her for being so square and old-fashioned, and hey, at least he allows her to have a career, unlike a rightie who expects her to stay home. Except…she is doing both, working and doing the housework.

So many of my female coworkers have unemployed or under-employed husbands, it makes me want to puke. B/c income is really the only positive contribution a man makes. That and maybe fixing leaky fawcetts, but lefties don’t do either of those things half the time.

11. veganprimate - February 26, 2011

These posts just serve to remind me that I really need to read Dworkin. I tried to read her in college, but I just had trouble grasping things. I do better with concrete examples rather than abstract theory. It’s just how my mind works.

12. Sargassosea - February 26, 2011

“this is a manual on empathy.”

Oh, absolutely. I was very fortunate that the universe saw fit to have this work be the first major radfem theory I read. It‘s one hell of a base camp.

One of the best things about learning how to be empathetic in a political way (as in using intelligence that you have gained by experience and expanding it to understand the plight of a class; the personal is political) is the insight it gives into the true anti-feminist nature of pomo *feminism*.

In pomo *feminism* there is no class, no politics, no theory and it is made obvious by their complete lack of EMPATHY for WOMEN. The pomos would have us believe that the state “empathy” is unattainable because You can’t know what IIIIIII feel like inside my special snowflake heart!!1! But they’re just fine with “sympathy” and “compassion” because sympathy to them is just a sweet euphemism for someone kissing their ass.

13. FAB Libber - February 26, 2011

There is not one whit of difference between Righty Dickwads and Lefty Dickwads. Not one.

Right-on Sar.

14. Noanodyne - February 26, 2011

Thank you for continuing to post and comment on Dworkin’s writings. So vitally important.

This is exactly right:
“what matters is DOES THIS MAKE SENSE when looking at the big picture, and in what way does it make sense? HOW IS THIS CONSISTENT with the dominant paradigm, existing social structures and narratives etc?”

(I haven’t read all of her book and some of what I did read was decades ago, so she may have made the following point as well, certainly many others have and you have touched on this as well in other discussions.) Right wing women are also reflecting the hatred their men have for women generally and the kinds of women who are perceived to be more available to men and what that means to them (LW men and women) and their lives, but especially women who (ostensibly) have choice about whether to be or stay impregnated and become mothers. Those men hate that women have whatever tiny choice it is to not be wholly-owned property. There’s also the jealousy by RW men of men who can, theoretically at least, PIV-fuck to their hearts content without fear of having to raise a child. It’s possible for them to believe that those men have total and regular access to women without the consequences that RW man have. This infuriates right wing men for all kinds of reasons — they’re missing out, they themselves are trapped, they think of their own property being treated that way, they imagine they’re being laughed at by women who think they’re better than the RW’s woman and by men who have that access, etc. RW women see their men’s jealousy, rage, and hatred, and react accordingly. RW women also feel their own version of jealousy (of being free of mandatory pregnancy and motherhood) and so have no trouble reflecting the hatred.

This of course is not blazing a new trail of thinking, it’s just a known corollary to what Dworkin is saying in the passages we see in your post and worth noting because woman-hate is always a subtext.

15. Noanodyne - February 26, 2011

The generation of lefty men who were in their late teens and twenties in the 60s is one of the vilest set of men on the planet. They’re now in their 60s and the lords and masters of grey little cube farms, lefty organizations and events, bureaucracies large and small, and lefty blogs and newsrooms, where they smirkingly patronize women, while continuing to run the show in exactly the way their fathers and grandfathers did. What makes them so much more sickening even than their forefathers is that they know just which words not to use and how to conceal, but still wield, their male chauvinism. I’ve had to work with and for them, have been in organizations with them, and have read their online garbage – they are no more enlightened than their predecessors, but that much more smug because they have gotten all that PIV sex while giving up nothing.

16. Noanodyne - February 26, 2011

Janis Joplin is the poster child of what the lefty PIV-sex ethos of that era did to women. I recently read Scars of Sweet Paradise: The Life and Times of Janis Joplin and it couldn’t be more clear that that was at the heart of her life’s calamities. But while sympathetic to Joplin’s experiences, the author didn’t go there. Joplin’s story is still crying out to be told from the perspective of how “sexual liberation” destroys women.

17. rhondda - February 26, 2011

Ever heard Mariann Faithfull’s Broken English? That’s what it did to women. The thing is not too many people remember the 50’s and what led up to the 60’s. Girls had to wear dresses to school. They could not be above the knee. We were pushed into home economics classes even though we wanted to take shop because our mothers already taught us all that sewing and cooking stuff. We were pushed into humanities because we couldn’t do science unless we were brilliant at it. Elvis, the Beatles and rock and roll were our only escape. Then the Vietnam war and civil rights for blacks became a rallying call and that led to marches, parties and drugs etc.etc. That was when ‘some’ women started to say wait a minute. Robin Morgan’s book Demon Lover is all about this. It did not all happen in a vacuum. Sleeping with your boyfriend was deviance then. Not like now where you are deviant if you don’t want it. The reversals just amaze me.

18. zeph - February 27, 2011

What happened during the sexual revolution was that young women moved from being pimped by their fathers and grandfathers to other old men (for social perks like golf club membership, beer money and reciprocal access to other wives and children). To pimping themselves, mainly to young men their own age, who at that time did not always have the funds to pay for prostitution. In return they were able to demand support for legalisation of abortion, easier access to divorce, etc. In other words they were paid in political currency.
Old left wing men are cross because what they gained on the roundabouts in their youth, they lost on the swings in their old age when due to those political changes, their wives had the option to walk out on them, take some share of their joint property and start again.

Andrea is exactly right about the motivation of right wing women, they see the game and try to play it, but the dice are loaded by men always playing as a group, while married women are forced to play alone.
We are still too influenced by media projections of what marriage is, to see that it is almost never exclusive. Right wing women keep status through silence, but they cannot control their husband’s, and his friends, sexual access to them or to their children. It is only because now (due to feminist activism) the back door stands ajar, that modern husbands are compelled to tread carefully.

All those respectable women of yesteryear; single, married, rich or poor, most of them had at least one baby through incest or community rape in their early teens. Some were adopted by the girls own mothers, some were killed for sadistic entertainment, many were put in changeling homes to die out of sight.
Emmeline Pankhurst laments in her book, how many young girls of around twelve, that came to her for help, had been impregnated by their fathers. Marriage is a reproduction racket, better today in the West, at least, than it has ever been, but no solution for the wellbeing of women and children.

19. cherryblossom - February 27, 2011

“, some were killed for sadistic entertainment, ”

Fucking Hell.

I wept at this line: “And the mothers failed to convince also because the only life they offered was a repeat version of their own: and the girls were close enough to feel their inconsolable sadness and the dead tiredness of those lives, even if they did not know how or why mother had gotten the way she was”

and shuddered at this: “the cynical male use of abortion to make women easier fucks”

That line gets to the root of it.
I remember Greer saying that abortion would not be necessary in a world where women were not oppressed because having a child would not lead to a drop in status, or to a life of poverty, and of course, in a world where coerced PIV did not exist all conceptions would be welcome.

And Dworkin spells out the “shame” factor of unwanted pregnancy. WHen a RWW goes for an illegal abortion, it’s not so much the fact she has done something “bad” that is at the root of her shame, it’s that the unwanted pregnancy is a symbol of how debased women are, how utterly worthless their lives are, and this leads to inevitable self-loathing that can be purged and transcended through pain and risk of death.

Whether right wing or left wing, there’s just a sea of female victims.

20. cherryblossom - February 27, 2011

” some were killed for sadistic entertainment,”

YOu know, when I read something like this, I realise that this can’t go on. Men have proved themselves to be INCOMPETENT and INADEQUATE as leaders. Their time is drawing to an end. The evil must be contained, their power stripped from them. Women are beginning to remember that their babies were killed for sadistic entertainment. By men.

21. maggie - February 27, 2011

“some were killed for sadistic entertainment”

This still, depressingly carries on. Take the horrendous case in the UK of Colin Blanchard and his part in hooking in women to a paedophile ring. Utterly depressing reading. No direct link because it is disturbing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/10/colin-blanchard-backstory-crime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/10/colin-blanchard-jail-paedophile-ring

The first article oulines the hierarchial structures involved in these circles. What is even more disturbing is that Blanchard had been on the sex offenders register for 5 years for previous abuse on children. Once off the register he started offending again.

22. maggie - February 27, 2011

Have been, once again, studying this blog for enlightenment and clicked on self identified feminist men. Found the post on the legalisation of prostitution/welfare (brilliant post btw) and have made some conclusions about the reply I made above. Sorry about the links working – thought they wouldn’t.

In that Blanchard (B) case, the judge, a male probably het and probably engaging or has engaged in mandatory PIV, stated that B had control over the women. Or so he stated.

I think it’s better for the judge to conclude that B had total control over the women as it suits the PIV centered het relationship paradigm. These women were so lonely and vulnerable, the judge believed, that they would do the acts B asked of him. These women were so isolated, despite one already involved in a het/marital/children set up, that any kind of attention was good attention. Is this a prime, albeit extreme, example of the harm that societal het/PIV centered relationships do? Turn women into compliant mistressess yes and in this case cause indefensible harm to children.

All the women were reported to have vied for B’s attention despite, with the exception of one, never having met him. They gained his attention by COMPLYING with his wishes. All via the internet and phone messaging. Even if the acts themselves were horrifying and no actual sex between the women and B (with the exception it’s intimated of one), the phone messages were clearly PIV sexually charged. B even had a wife ffs.

What I don’t get is the control bit. Like it’s all a surprise – he was controlling Whoa! Even his house had his imprint stamped all over it. Surprise. He must be a controlling person.

No one, least of all the judge, saw the correlation between PIV centered het relationships. But I think perhaps they did and choose to ignore it. Again a prime example of men not ever wanting to relinquish mandatory PIV, despite the sometimes horrific consequences of child abuse, not forgetting the harm it causes women which has been terrifically outlined in this blog, because they don’t frigging care.

23. Loup-loup garou - February 28, 2011

Reading this reminds me of the leftie dickwads I met while doing clinic defense in the nineties, when Operation Rescue was on one of its let’s-try-to-terrorize-Planned-Parenthood kicks. They were macho dudes all puffed up about how great it was that they were Defending Women and being all Non-Violent about it (but still acting like they wanted to bust some heads.) The saddest thing though, was a comment made by a fellow woman clinic defender, who was a Queer Nation type. She said, “Hey, you heard this joke? What’s the difference between an Operation Rescue woman and a plate of spaghetti? The plate of spaghetti moves when you eat it.” And I thought to myself, “Jeez, that’s really misogynistic.” I should have said so, too, but I didn’t want to get into it. We were on the same side, after all, and I’d been up since four in the morning (like everyone else there.)

I’ll still volunteer to do clinic defense and escort patients if OR comes to my town, but God, I detest all those faux-feminist George Carlin wannabes — of both sexes.

24. The Masked Lily - February 28, 2011

I don’t know how any self-professed feminist who’s read Dworkin can feel anything but love and admiration for her. Which I guess indicates that fun-fems can’t or don’t read.

Lefty dickwad men, just as much as right wing dickwad men, do know that PIV harms women. Just like rape – it’s about power, harm and superiority, right? so the “sexual revolution” as the installation of “Patriarchy 2.0” (shinier, hipper, PIVier) makes total sense..

FCM - February 28, 2011

I think most people who say they’ve read her, really haven’t. Seriously. I really don’t know how her message or her intent could be so misconstrued, unless its intentional, or people are fucking lying about having read her, at all.

25. Sargasso Sea - February 28, 2011

I once took the time to quote the rather lengthy passage about the 5 things that Righty offers women: Form, Shelter, Safety, Rules and Love on a discussion board for xtian and ex-xtian women, and I did so without clear attribution knowing that if The Dworkin’s name was attached all hell would break loose and no one would READ. Actually I think I attributed it to one of my *favorite feminist writers* or something equally lame.

It was very well received.

Because it makes SENSE, especially the part about Love, “[…]Jesus, beautiful brother, tender lover, compassionate friend, perfect healer of sorrow and resentment, the one male to whom one can submit absolutely – be Woman as it were – without being sexually violated or psychologically abused.”

26. sam - February 28, 2011

If everyone who says they read her really did then her books would still be in print.

Once at a party a man tried to impress me by saying he had read my favorite book, but sixty seconds in it became clear he had only watched the movie.

With average books by average thinkers they could probably fake their way through, but they’re fools for thinking they can get away with that when it comes to treasured writings by great writers.

Dworkin non-readers break bread with Woodstock non-goers and think they’re getting away with it.

27. SheilaG - March 1, 2011

I don’t think a lot of people have read Dworkin at all. They attack her, and they attack other radical feminist writers. But when I ask the question: “What books have you read?” The common response is, “Oh I’ve read quotes… or excerpts…” It’s a knee jerk reaction to the powerful logic of an Andrea Dworkin, truth teller extraordinaire. So telling.

FCM - March 1, 2011

just as an fyi, i dont have any new posts planned for the next 2 weeks…i will be away from the computer (modding comments but thats it.) so post ’em if ya got ’em! that is all.

28. Sargassosea - March 1, 2011

“It’s a knee jerk reaction to the powerful logic of an Andrea Dworkin, truth teller extraordinaire.”

Possibly. But most people, as you say Sheila, have only read excerpts or quotes and that’s the important part. Context is everything with Dworkin and she can (and routinely is) easily taken out of it by virtue of the fact that she used language so incisively and radically; poignantly with a prodigious use of “fuck”.

I’m sure that you would agree that her thoughts are pages long and require (for most women) a life-or-death kind of interest AND rigorous intellectual work to understand. I pride myself on above average reading comprehension skills, yet I will readily admit that I need to read Dworkin multiple times, at least, in order to squeeze the full meaning out of her words.

So I think it’s less of a reaction against logic than it is a swallowing whole and subsequent regurgitation of deliberately taken-out-of-context, and often equally deliberately misquoted, *sound bites*.

FCM - March 1, 2011

I would also like to add that Dworkin writes about marital rape in rww, and indeed at the time she wrote rww (in the late 70s) there was apparently a marital-rape exception in most states rape laws. My mother married my father in 1969 when she was 17. He was allowed to legally rape her, and he probably did. This is the “force” Dworkin was talking about, that married women knew went hand in hand with marriage and sex, but they couldn’t tell their daughters about because it didn’t fit the narrative, of marriage as an ideal, men as protectors, and “human sexuality” as generally positive, if done right. Men’s use of rape, and the force that goes hand in hand with heterosex and marriage was codified back then, in the US. In some places it still is.

Of course, men still rape their wives all the time, and the laws that DON’T protect most rape victims DON’T protect married women from their husbands either. And the use of force is STILL codified, lest anyone believe we are past that. We aren’t. The framing of the legal issue in terms of “consent” and not female desire or not doing harm to women, is not only the proof that this still exists, it literally IS the problem, in terms of male sexual force and rape of women being supported by “the state.”

FCM - March 1, 2011

Mackinnon writes about the problem of consent, whereby its so passive that even a corpse could fulfill the requirement.

29. cherryblossom - March 1, 2011

Marital rape did not exist in the UK until 1991…

30. maggie - March 1, 2011

As we all well know the least common form of rape is the surprise rape, yet this is the rape that will probably end in conviction. Most rapes happen by some bast known by the woman. Hence, logically, it makes sense that rape is more likely to occur in partnerships and marriages. It’s a no brainer but nevertheless deliberately ignored.

And I don’t buy the bullshit that some rapes are worse than others. I hate that grade system that’s done by society. It means that rape in marriage is perceived as less damaging than a surprise rape – though at the same time the west ignore the mass rape and maiming of women in Africa. Rape is rape.

31. Sargasso Sea - March 1, 2011

“Mackinnon writes about the problem of consent, whereby its so passive that even a corpse could fulfill the requirement.”

Dead women don’t say “no”. And even if they could, it still wouldn’t matter.

32. Undercover Punk - March 1, 2011

Hi, sorry, gotta de-lurk to say that rape is not rape. PIV rape = PIV rape. But PIA (penis in ass) rape is NOT PIV rape. Nor is man-on-man rape the same as man-on-woman rape or woman-on-woman rape. See also Fed Rule of Evidence 412: consent once, consent forever!!! It’s the same rationale underlying marital rape: implied consent.

33. Sargasso Sea - March 1, 2011

The last Nigel I ever had complained bitterly about what a terrible mother he had: she didn’t protect him from his violent father, she didn’t feed him and his FOUR other brothers well, she didn’t help them with their schoolwork, etc. ad nauseum.

The one bit of information he never complained about was that his mother gave birth to him when she was 14 years old and her *husband* was 40.

Needless to say my head fucking exploded when, after 2 years of his whining about his awful mother, he finally let that little fact drop. I must have screamed at (schooled) him for hours about RAPE and how a fucking marriage license is not a rape-children-for-free pass and had he ever thought how it might be a little difficult for a 14 year old girl to be an exemplary mother when she is being raped and beaten by a man more than twice her age and size.

34. maggie - March 1, 2011

UP thanks for delurking. You are absolutely right!

35. SheilaG - March 2, 2011

I agree that the greatest challenge of the Dworkin material is its ground breaking nature, that, and the fact that it is almost impossible for me to have these kinds of discussions IRL. Dworkin, and all radical feminism is really hard academic work.
It requires study and thought, and it is not for the faint of heart. You have to be very hungry for the truth in radical women’s liberation.

The radical classics/foresisters knew their work was uphill, but they were 100% committed to women’s liberation, and the truth of women’s lives under the most horrifying male supremacy out there.

Dworkin once said she became a feminist when she was down and out, had just escaped a battering husband, and feminists took her in. It’s a powerful testimony.

And Saragossa, the story about the 14 year old mother is shocking, telling and horrifying… patriarchy makes the very children of these rapist husbands blame entirely a 14 year old mother, and let’s a 40 year old father off the hook… I think that’s what you meant anyway.

The hard work of this is its reward, and again, radical women’s liberation itself gets attacked precisely because so many have a vested interest in a paralyzingly evil status quo— that is all men! And men try to scare as many women away from Dworkin as they can. Righty or Lefty, they are exactly the same!!

Good going everyone for doing this hard work together, and keeping Dworkin’s work alive and well!

36. SheilaG - March 2, 2011

What proves Dworkin’s unbelivable compassion towards abused, raped and prostituted women was her desire to always listen to their stories. When she traveled on the road, she always had time for the most marginal of women, and they absolutely trusted her to listen and GET IT. I know of no other radical feminist in the bunch of them that ever did this.

Now how many women do you know IRL, who really will listen to something very difficult? Best friends will listen… yes, I know that, but I find it so rare to get the attention of mainstream women about anything of profoundly serious stuff… it’s why we all get so mad at the fluff of sex pozzies and fun fems… because what they are really saying is they don’t give a damn about the most oppressed of all their sisters… and they can be flippant and sarcastic and narcissistic to boot. It’s what patriarchy set out to create to undermine women’s liberation.

FCM - March 2, 2011

the story of the 14 year old mother was fucking horrifying. AND the fact that her son(s) blamed HER and not her rapist-husband, and they didnt see anything wrong at all with an adult repeatedly raping and repeatedly impregnating a child. all these men fucking care about is themselves, BOO FUCKING HOO, my mom didnt wipe my ass properly as a child!!!1!!1 and on and on. AS CHILDREN, yes they were probably abused and neglected, sure. but what does it say about the men AS ADULTS, when all they CONTINUE to be able to focus on is their own pain, and remain deliberately ignorant and unmoved regarding the experiences of thier own mothers, and what their fathers did to them?

of course, this would never register as a harm to them at all. because they ARE rapists, themselves, or indistinguishable from rapists in the most fundamental of ways, by being PV-entitled pricks who think fucking a 14 year old is ok.

FCM - March 2, 2011

also, YES x 1000 to UP’s comment. rape of born-women by men is different than any other kind of rape. its DELIBERATELY used to cause pregnancy, and does in fact cause it. alot.

also, regarding the marital rape exemption…there was a time not so long ago, where marital rape was legal but abortion was not. think about that, if you havent already. when my own mother was first married, this was probably the case for her, although i havent looked up the laws for her state at that time. just…think about the logical outcomes to this system. all the outcomes. this shit is deliberate people. and it hasnt really changed, or at least, the changes to this particular paradigm have been largely if not entirely cosmetic.

37. cherryblossom - March 2, 2011

I only discovered Dworkin six months ago when I saw her book recommended on a feminist chat forum. I ordered Heartbreak, read it, and she blew me away.
When I googled her I discovered that she wasn’t much liked in the US, or anywhere in fact and it struck me then that censorship is the crux of every oppressive regime, the rule number one. NObody likes a female truth-teller. People will listen to anyone over a radical feminist: anyone but a witch, anyone but a woman.
I can’t understand how ANY woman can read her and not see what she’s saying. It’s clear that they haven’t read her, or they’re suffering from what Dworkin called ” a steadfast refusal to see”.
Women are going to have to overcome this refusal to see how the members of their sex are treated.

38. Sargassosea - March 2, 2011

Having shared that about my Prince Nigel* (but one small example of the deep-seated yet well-cloaked misogyny we call Liberal Dude) I am reminded that somewhere in that verbal rampage I informed him that HE was the product of RAPE.

And he ‘got it’; his own daughter was 9 years old at the time, how could he not? But, of course, he hated ME for breaking the news.

*for context’s sake, he was born in Alabama in the mid 50s.

39. thebewilderness - March 2, 2011

Here is a site you might like Cherryblossom.
Her speech “I want a 24 hour truce during which there is no rape” is at the link.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OnlineLibrary.html

40. Sargasso Sea - March 2, 2011

(Anybody else see the *poll* Twisty *conducted*?)

FCM - March 2, 2011

No…enlighten plz!

41. Sargasso Sea - March 2, 2011

She’s done a poll which reveals that the Whole World thinks tranz are great and something about dogs having the ability to love. Or something.

Some of our own participated. Didn’t change the *fact* that tranz are great though.

FCM - March 2, 2011

That doesn’t sound very scientific. In other words, its par for the course.

42. Undercover Punk - March 2, 2011

UGH. S4, I just read that shit. Well, I scanned it b/c reading is HARD. Here’s how I know that Twisty hasn’t read my latest blog post:

100% of blamers who are loved by dogs are all for transwomen using the ladies room. Thus we conclude that people who think their dogs love them are nice.

Trans women in the ladies room isn’t ABOUT being “nice” or “compassionate” to trans women. It’s about WOMEN! And women’s safety and female-specific harm. And PENISES. It’s not about trans fweelings. But whatever. She’s a lost cause. Obvi.

43. Noanodyne - March 2, 2011

When it comes to men, nice’ll get you kicked in the teeth. She’s really has gone around the bend.

44. The Masked Lily - March 2, 2011

Hey I know this isn’t exactly on topic, but I just received my copy of Quintessence in the mail today and I’m already in love with it. Plus in the front it’s stamped “review copy”, how awesome is that??

Back ON topic.. I find myself wondering a lot how to save my sex-pos Catholic-raised friend from becoming pregnant and the de facto wife of her unpleasant Nigel (she would hate to hear me say that, she loves him apparently even though really she’s with him only for shelter and refuge from her abusive home, and it’s only a matter of time before she’s pregnant and trapped) before she fulfills her dream of becoming a teacher..?

this whole sex-pos thing is such BS. So tired of it. It’s just another ploy to undermine women. It’s the reason why contraceptives aren’t 100% effective.. It’s why men don’t take birth control.. It’s patriarchy.. of course

45. FAB Libber - March 2, 2011

The poll, which was supposedly a test of the poll feature (I call bullshit) was just to gauge how strong the “twanz are my sisters” following was.
I filled out, suitably twanzphobic.

FCM - March 3, 2011

Quintessence was terrific. I don’t recall it you were around for the “24-hour menergy” discussion or not, but that was probably one of my all-time faves. Very cool.

46. cherryblossom - March 3, 2011

Thank you thebewilderness

47. cherryblossom - March 3, 2011

I just read the twisty post. Is anyone ever going to get the rad fem POV? It’s not mimicking the opposite gender that’s the problem, it’s saying MTFs are women that’s the problem.
They’re never going to get it are they.

48. rainsinger - March 3, 2011

I wrote a post about the IBTP trans-thing awhile-back, but I was also going to update the blog this weekend another movie genre post – but I might update the trans blog post instead🙂

Its called ‘Nothing Personal, Just Politics’.

FCM - March 3, 2011

i just read the last half of the 700+ comments. sending friend request to alien number. srsly. in fact, congrats to all who fought the good fight. it needs to be said, and said, and said some more.

49. SheilaG - March 3, 2011

‘ Cherry Blossom says: “…it’s saying MTFs are women that’s the problem.
They’re never going to get it are they.”

Nope, they are never going to get this! And we’re going to tell the truth about women forever, so they are not going to win this one.

But Nope, they are deluded, they are just men with the latest weird fashion, and being men, would not know that their behavior is proof of maleness.

FCM - March 3, 2011

i am sorry, but i think the “impregnation” dialog has them dead to rights. they are on a sinking ship, and i like to think they know it. fun-fems and self-identified feminist men too.

50. SheilaG - March 3, 2011

Impregnation… dead to rights… but again, fun-fems, MTFs, “feminist” men– don’t underestimate their deliberate dumb act FCM, and they play dumb 24/7

51. The Masked Lily - March 3, 2011

Yes, I was here for the menergy post as Calliope, fantastic post & discussion.

52. rhondda - March 3, 2011

In thinking about this further with regards to my own life, I did think I was in charge of my sexuality with men. It was a super sex charged time. I used to ask boys/men why men hated women and depending on their answer, I slept with them or not. That was the fun part. The not so fun part was the other girls/women who judged and were so afraid I was after their boyfriends.(I never went after another woman’s guy) So it actually alienated me from other women, but so many I knew at university were there only to get their MRS. degree.(find a man to marry) I did enjoy creating their discomfort. I wanted more than that though and the guys got boring. I mean BORING both intellectually and physically. If that is what it is, who needs it?
Just got Dworkin’s Letters from a War Zone. Every page blows me away. Where is this goddamn Feminist university anyway? I did not get pregnant. But yes, I did worry, until the blood came. Goddess I was a dits and very lucky.

FCM - March 4, 2011

i never got pregnant either rhondda. and i worried too. constantly. worrying is such a large part of womens existance isnt it? it could easily take up most of the day. and trauma-bonding is involuntary, by definition.

FCM - March 4, 2011

also, i have a new post up. i wasnt intending to post, but whatever. it has quotes from google! enjoy!

53. Colonisation | twanzphobic since forever - March 5, 2011

[…] or ‘duty’ of PIV, it does not matter whether it is the right or the left, both sides insist on mandatory PIV, it is a reminder that our bodies are not our own. They are the property and for the purposes of […]

FCM - March 5, 2011

also, regarding “spewing,” not only is spewing of thoughtful comments on this blog allowed and encouraged…i revel in it. spew away.

54. 29 April, why weddings suck for women | twanzphobic since forever - May 3, 2011

[…] het marriage ≠ prostitution & the word prostitution FCM – Right Wing Women, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Ballbuster – golddigger Part 1, Part 2. If anyone has other suggestions, please let […]


Sorry comments are closed for this entry