feminist: Why she matters

Madame Zorah (

zorah) wrote in

feminist,
@ 2005-04-11 12:28:00

Why she matters
Andrea Dworkin matters because what happens to women - the fact that we do not truly own our own bodies and minds, the fact that we are always to some extent public property, commodities, products - she matters because all that shit pissed her off.

She wasn't polite about it, she wasn't quiet or diplomatic. I want someone to be angry about it. I needed that. Being angry, being outraged proves that someone, somewhere does not think that the way women are used and discarded is natural or acceptable.

Yeah, it's great that people get sad over it, theorize about it, write papers. But really, what I need is for someone to get pissed. And the fact that she could write like mad and hit you in the gut, that made it all the more satisfying. Someone was outraged about what happened to me. Thank God for Andrea Dworkin.

September 15, 1963, four little girls were killed in a racially motivated church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama. The whole country got outraged, finally, thankfully. Something turned.

Right now in the world, every year 2 million women and children are trafficked into the sex trade, generating more profit for their traffickers worldwide than the drug trade. In case you think this is a third world problem, 45,000 to 50,000 of those women and children are trafficked into the United States every year. In countries where trafficking is tolerated, or prostitution is allowed, there are more brothels than schools.

And by the way, trafficking is the polite term. What we are talking about here is more accurately called sexual slavery.

Where is the outrage for these women and little girls? Where is their movement?

If that is too abstract and huge to actually hurt you, think about this: In my neighborhood, statistically speaking, there are more than just four little girls who have experienced rape already. Before they can even vote, drive or graduate high school.

In yours, too. Everywhere.

Andrea Dworkin was outraged, I am outraged. She taught me that the only natural emotion for women experiencing violence - whether culture-wide or interpersonal - is rage. Anyone who asks that we feel something more 'civilized' (read quiet, polite, ineffective) hasn't actually confronted the reality of what it means to be born a woman.

(Post a new comment)

	moontidemelody 2005-04-11 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you for posting that!!! I agree that rage/outrage is the natural reaction & hope that more people see that & are outraged by what wars our government is out to fight, & which wars they gladly ignore!! (Reply to this)

ibnfirnas
2005-04-11 08:12 pm UTC (link)

Love isn't quiet, or ineffective, and it lasts a hell of a lot longer than rage. Rage is a good place to start. It reminds you that there's work to be done and helps you break some of those first barriers in the way of the work, but outrage is hardly the only appropriate or natural response.
Rage helps you fight against, but eventually, you need to rely on love, which helps you fight for--eventually either the rage will burn you out or you'll run out of enemies, which isn't likely. Love helps you bring more and more people into your circle until finally what you've got is a big, powerful Us. It's slow going, but I really do think that it works better in the long run than fighting Them, much as those fights need fighting in the meantime.
I'm angry, too, but we've all got different temperaments and different reactions, and we need all of those very natural responses to get different parts of the job done.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

towanda
2005-04-11 08:16 pm UTC (link)

That's a noble idea and personally and idealogically I agree with you. But there are harsh realities for anyone fighting against a dominant paradigm. And that reality is that love doesn't change minds. Rage, extremism and determination change minds.

The thing about Dworkin is that she pushed people to the edge. She pushed the people who normally wouldn't think about the things she fought for. And she was way to extreme for everyone. But her rage allowed people to say, "Hey, she's crazy, I won't go that far...but maybe I am willing to go this far."

People in general are lazy and apathetic. Most people in this country don't worry about where their next meal is coming from or whether they'll be raped again. Most people in this country could give a damn less about anything until it effects their pocket books or their flimsy, oft-ignored moral principles. It takes a person getting angry and shouting things that challenge our privileges and our comfort level to even get anyone to pay attention.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

ibnfirnas
2005-04-11 08:31 pm UTC (link)

I agree--people need pushing, and they need people to push their limits and get their attention. And I'm pretty sure I've been so disappointed in their laziness and apathy, some days, I'm not sure what good can be done.
I really do think, though, that if I didn't believe people were better than that--even having seen evidence to the contrary--I wouldn't see the point in trying to make things better at all. In my experience, love is the only thing that ever changes minds for keeps.
You can be angry at an oppressor, and that'll maybe get you to beating them if you're strong and determined and lucky; but if you love the oppressed, then you'll be there to deal with the next oppressor, and the next, and the next. You're right; it's a harsh reality, and there are pragmatic concerns to worry about. I just think, from what I've seen, that becoming harsher in turn won't stop it being so harsh in the end. I'm not advocating the eloquent mumblings of moderation, here. Love, done right, is a radical thing, too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towanda 2005-04-11 08:51 pm UTC (link)
	I like that. Love done right is radical. :) Yeah, I agree completely too. You can't do without the love angle and without things get pretty bleak. If I didn't believe in the inherent goodness of people, then I wouldn't be bothering to fight in the first place. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

pokeyturtle
2005-04-11 09:39 pm UTC (link)

i agree with you. i think there's a place in any movement for angry radicals AND people who love powerfully, though. it's like with the civil rights movement of the sixties: malcolm x appeared to outsiders as the angry radical, and dr. martin luther king jr. as the one who loved powerfully. i think having both personalities in a movement is useful not only for the reasons already mentioned but because it gives those who oppose the movement a moment of pause. they tend to think to themselves, "wow, Angry Radical scares me. i think i like Loving Person better. i'd rather see the world change the way LP wants it." and they take another look at the movement, and they become allies.

sad, but maybe true.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	grey_and_purple 2005-04-12 01:02 am UTC (link)
	Rage, extremism and determination change minds. In my experience, determination often changes minds. Rage and extremism, never. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towanda 2005-04-12 01:08 am UTC (link)
	If there's never anyone willing to go two steps farther than you, what will motivate you to move at all? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	red_girl_42 2005-04-12 04:56 am UTC (link)
	Extremism is not necessarily two steps farther in a positive direction. Extremism is not the same thing as passion. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towanda 2005-04-12 05:02 am UTC (link)
	I never said it was entirely positive. Just neccessary. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	grey_and_purple 2005-04-12 02:45 pm UTC (link)
	You're absolutely right, but the two steps must be in an inspiring direction, and they must be directed toward persuading people who are not already supporters of the cause to become supporters. Rage and extremism persuade nobody. Rather, they harden opposition and begin a vicious cycle that turns debate into a screaming match. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towanda 2005-04-12 07:51 pm UTC (link)
	I agree--if they are the only voice. But when they are paired with a moderate voice then it is the extremist that allows the non-believer to see the moderate's point of view. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

grey_and_purple
2005-04-14 04:27 pm UTC (link)

Actually, what I happens much more often is that the non-believer associates the moderate message with the extremist and rejects it. Decides that the moderate has more in common with the extremist that with her, or that the moderate is really an extremist who is toning down her language.

There's something basic to human psychology in this. If you're making a public speech and one hundred ninety-eight people are silently holding signs to protest you, and two people are throwing rocks to protest you, you're going to remember that those people were throwing rocks at you. If pressed, you will probably estimate that ten or twenty of the protestors were throwing rocks. It's just the way the human mind works.

The most extreme demonstration captures your mind and it's hard to rationally think about the moderate viewpoints.

And when the media (which is designed to amplify dramatic displays) gets into the mix, things go way out of whack in a hurry.

As an example ... in the 90s, Queer Nation made a practice of showing up at pro-choice marches. They'd be twenty or thirty people among thousands or tens of thousands, but they were outrageous, and flamboyant, and just where do you think the news cameras would be focussed? Just where? Three guesses and the first two don't count.

Not at that boring, reasonable speaker on the podium, that's for sure. And so the prochoice movement, which had gotten sick and tired over the decades of being dyke-baited and had just seemed to get out from under it, suddenly was being dyke-baited all over again. (Many pro-choice activists had some choice words to say about Queer Nation on that point.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	towanda 2005-04-12 01:08 am UTC (link)
	Sorry, that's meant rhetorically, not directed at you personally. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	grey_and_purple 2005-04-12 02:46 pm UTC (link)
	Understood. :D (Reply to this) (Parent)

	zorah 2005-04-11 11:42 pm UTC (link)
	I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	rackletang 2005-04-12 10:08 pm UTC (link)
	Agreed. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	towanda 2005-04-11 08:12 pm UTC (link)
	Well said!! Thank you. (Reply to this)

	bethanthepurple 2005-04-11 09:48 pm UTC (link)
	big applause Thankyou for writing this. It's nice to see someone else see the wonderful power of rage. After Lord knows how long of being told that people would be more willing to listen to me if I "just wasn't so bolshy" it's nice to hear more people sing the praises of the rant :) (Reply to this)

pretzelsalt
2005-04-11 10:14 pm UTC (link)

Thank you.

This is a note I left on a friend's journal after seeing them post the dozenth goodbye "but" to Andrea Dworkin:

Why mixed feelings?

Sing the love! She is gone and we are none the better for it.

My reason for asking is because out of the dozens of mentions from amazing people on my FL of her passing almost ALL of them have a disclaimer that (to me) smacks of the "I'm not THAT kind of feminist". I didn't agree with 100% of her work either - but then I have never agreed with ANYONE I have experienced 100% - why the epitath on HER words?

My biggest issue with Dworkin was different then most others - she had some class priv she was unwilling to acknowlege - but I want to stop putting her at arm's length.

I don't agree 100% with Lewis Carol - or Douglas Adams - or Dostevski - or Howard Zinn - or Ward Churchill (okay so maybe I do) - but whenever the distance meter is layed we need to ask why.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

trinityva
2005-04-12 03:39 am UTC (link)

I think for some people, though, there are real reasons for this. It's very hard for me as a BDSM woman and a committed feminist to read page after page of reasons why I "can't consent" to what I do, to see her partner refer to people like me as "pro-sadomasochism 'feminists'," as though the scare quotes are somehow important and our feminism is a lie, some kind of smoke and mirrors.

My own farewell to her had a lot of "buts" in it. Though I understand why that might depress you, I hope you understand that it's very hard to read when someone says your sexuality just is training for abuse.

I don't doubt that many people's "buts" are there for bad reasons. Many people's "buts" are in general, where feminism is concerned. But the idea that some people want to distance themselves from Dworkin isn't weird to me. I wish it didn't bother me that she would call me an antifeminist. But it does, and that makes her difficult as hell to read. And I think my reasons for feeling that way are valid, not, say, glitzy "pro-sex" glosses over feminist concerns.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towanda 2005-04-12 05:05 am UTC (link)
	I feel very similar to you on this subject. If you ever feel so inclined, I would love to see a seperate thread discussing issues of BDSM and Feminism because I struggle with many of the same issues. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	trinityva 2005-04-12 12:57 pm UTC (link)
	Hahaha... when is my life NOT about discussing that? grin I'd be glad to talk more about it with you. Maybe I'll post something sometime soon. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

red_girl_42
2005-04-12 05:05 am UTC (link)

I hope you understand that it's very hard to read when someone says your sexuality just is training for abuse.

Yes, exactly. I don't think it's right for anyone who calls herself a feminist to decide *for* me that my sexual choices are oppressive.

On the other hand, someone's death is not, to me, a good time to point out their shortcomings. Andrea Dworkin was above all else a fellow human, and her death grieves many. I respect that, even if I don't respect her work.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

trinityva
2005-04-12 01:01 pm UTC (link)

*nodding*

Yeah. I'm not trying to say "She's dead, neener neener!" Good heavens no.

I'm just saying that my own post in my LJ (locked, but very similar to what I posted here: http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2005/04/andrea_dworkin_.html) included my thinking about both the things I think her legacy has done for me that are positive, and my ambivalent feelings about the things that I find hurtful or tough to deal with.

I don't feel that's direspectful, though I totally understand if someone else disagrees.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

mittimus
2005-04-12 01:37 pm UTC (link)

Dworkin was initially part of the so-called 'second wave' (I caught the tail end of it). Within that there was a grass roots movement that involved 'feminist consciousness raising' - a group of women would get together for the purpose of critiquing each other's behaviour. The idea being that no woman could be completely sure that anything she did was 'free' of patriarchal influence so it was offered up, teased out, debated and discussed (and even within a supportive atmosphere it was often painful, confronting and very emotional).

Dworkin, like many 'second wave' feminist theorists, has carried that into her writing. The difference, obviously being that, unlike the 'opt in' by choice 'feminist consciousness raising' groups, this means that she is critiquing the behaviour of women who have not asked for her opinion.

I'm not disagreeing with how you feel when you read some of her opinions. I can understand it being 'hurtful'.

But its one of those theoretical divides - either you believe that feminists can and should critique the behaviour of other women, or they shouldn't.

I'm one of those who believes that they should.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

out_fox
2005-04-12 04:37 pm UTC (link)

I belive that we should *critique* and I am of an age when I came to feminism slightly after the 2nd wave, but before the third. ie. I came of age sexually in period when feminist & lesbian circles were heavily dominated by Dworkin-think who did not *critique* but sometimes near hysterically slandered & ostracised sexualities they did not understand. I also have worked with *feminist* migrant sex workers and seen them routinely patronised & silenced by Dworkins supporters if they will not toe the party line.
I can deal with critique, but when it seuqes into silencing & slandering other women, any serious critique needs to acknowledge that part of her legacy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

mittimus
2005-04-13 09:45 am UTC (link)

IMHO, any brand of feminism that it attempts to silence other into agreement is disreputable. And I completely disagree with the 'toe the line' attitude in any form because it suggests that one position 'has all the answers'.

If an argument is strong it will stand on its own. If a theory is strong, it will stand on it own. And both will be all the stronger for debate and revision.

What I liked most about Dworkin (a bit like Germaine Greer at her best) is that she was a polemicist. She stirred it up and got feminists talking (and not always in agreement!). And to do that, to take a topic and shine a light on it in such a way as to initiate the sort of the sort of furious discussion that cuts across boundaries and makes people reassess their opinions for years to come takes and exceptional mind and the courage to back it up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

*blink* *blink* Um, no.

trinityva
2005-04-12 04:59 pm UTC (link)

Um, wow.

Why do you believe that I don't believe that women should critique the behavior of other women, just because I think that some of the critique I see in Dworkin is too broad?

Why do you suggest I don't know what feminist consciousness-raising is and is about? (Though I must admit I thought it was about much more than just criticizing other women's behavior -- I thought it was just as much about rooting out hidden/buried feminist sentiment (allowing safe space for feminist anger, for example) as it was about "critiquing one another's behavior.")

If you honestly think I don't believe that feminists can critique the behavior of other women, simply because I think feminist BDSM is possible, I don't know what to tell you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

totally understand?

mittimus
2005-04-12 10:42 pm UTC (link)

You finished your original comment with - 'I don't feel that's direspectful, though I totally understand if someone else disagrees.' - I am one of those who disagreed and gave my reasons in response.

Nowhere did I state what I thought you 'believed' other than to re-state (and acknowledge) that I could understand how you how it made you feel.

Nowhere did I suggest that you didn't know what 'feminist consciousness-raising' was about.

You said that's you'd 'totally understand' if someone disagreed with you views. I did.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: totally understand? trinityva 2005-04-13 12:29 am UTC (link)
	I can understand that you disagree with me. I cannot understand why you claim that I am someone who believes women ought not examine their choices. I have said many times, in here and elsewhere, that we should. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: totally understand? mittimus 2005-04-13 09:33 am UTC (link)
	Where did I claim that about you? I referenced one aspect of Dworkin's approach, as born out of 'second wave' experiences and practice, as being on a particular side of a 'theoretical divide' within feminism and stated that I agreed with it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

night101owl
2005-04-12 06:53 pm UTC (link)

'feminist consciousness raising' - a group of women would get together for the purpose of critiquing each other's behaviour.

I have a problem with the way you phrase this. Feminist consciousness raising is not about a group of people gathering to criticize each other, but rather for each to examine herself, and to help each other deconstruct social expectations and privileges to facilitate that self-examination.

There is a world of difference between criticizing the other and examining the self.

this means that she is critiquing the behaviour of women who have not asked for her opinion.
How can you really pick up someone's book, and then claim you weren't asking their opinion?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

mittimus
2005-04-12 11:03 pm UTC (link)

'There is a world of difference between criticizing the other and examining the self.'

But, IMHO, the strength of the method is within the feedback and dialogue between the women involved.

Its also, as I said, an opportunity for 'critiquing each other's behaviour' - the experiences that I've had with it are that one woman may bring an issue to the group but in the exchange others use their own experiences to discuss that. It may start with an individual situation but, by its end, what's usually brought forward through a consensus based approach is agreement on what 'a woman' (both the self and the other) faced with that situation (both in the experiences offered and, potentially, in the future, if it happens again) has/could do to deal with it.

(And this is within a 'second wave' context there was much less emphasis on individuality and individual 'rights' within feminism as there appears to be now.)

'How can you really pick up someone's book, and then claim you weren't asking their opinion?'

Or click on a web link and read an article? Yes. I'd agree with you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	trinityva 2005-04-13 12:31 am UTC (link)
	Thanks. Exactly. That's the problem I had with that language too. I can see how calling women on problematic behavior is part of being in a c-r group, but surely that's not what c-r IS. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	red_girl_42 2005-04-12 05:40 pm UTC (link)
	Nah, i didn' think you were disrespectful. I was just responding to the thread in general. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	trinityva 2005-04-12 05:59 pm UTC (link)
	:) okay, cool. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	kamuela 2005-04-12 10:56 am UTC (link)
	very well said -- captures it in a nut shell. much of Dworkin's work marginalizes as much as it tries to empower. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	trinityva 2005-04-12 01:10 pm UTC (link)
	nodding Yeah, that's how it's always felt to me. MacKinnon too, though I've managed to make my peace with a lot of her opinions. Dworkin is much more difficult for me. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	trinityva 2005-04-12 05:24 pm UTC (link)
	And I find I actually agree with MacKinnon on a lot, and the stuff I don't agree with I don't totally discount, either. Maybe someday I'll be able to re-read Dworkin with the same sort of distance. shrug (Reply to this) (Parent)

	nerdanel 2005-04-12 08:29 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	trinityva 2005-04-12 08:33 pm UTC (link)
	yw (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cookieavalanche 2005-04-11 11:04 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you, thank you, thank you. I worked with sex trafficked girls in India and I am sure they would appreciate your post. I have to say, though, rage is only one "natural" reaction to atrocity and oppression. Sadness, depression, love are all valid too, and all have their different effects. (Reply to this)

	trinityva 2005-04-12 03:31 am UTC (link)
	I have seventeen kajillion problems with her writing, to the point where I can barely look at it for more than a half-hour at a time. But you're totally right about her rage, and why it matters. (Reply to this)

out_fox
2005-04-12 12:29 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, I agree with the value of rage, and that some of Dworkins' detractors certainly are just objecting to the "angry woman" factor.

But, I can understand the caveats in remembering her too. Dworkin & her devotees frequent stance of "You're for us or you're a dupe of the patriarchy" or worse "You're for us or your sexuality supports rape" were pretty damning to some other feminists who are ALSO raging & doing activism against sexual violence. That particular "for us or against us" type of rage can be unconstructive at best, and passive aggressive + silencing at worst in it's effect on feminist dialouge. Isn't that worth remembering & analysing given the huge divisions it caused in feminism for over a decade? It doesn't always mean people don't agree with the rage at sexual violence.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	trinityva 2005-04-12 01:11 pm UTC (link)
	Really really well said. Exactly. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs