tittle@ics.uci.edu (Diana Bental) (10/21/90)
[At the request of the author, this is posted without email address to
avoid harassing email. I will forward private email to her (which is
why my email address appears after her name in the From: field) --Cindy]
I think we need to try to set the record straight.
Andrea Dworkin is not in favour of porn. Her latest novel, "Mercy",
includes powerful indictments of pornography, prostitution and SM sex.
The review that Jamie described was written by someone who hadn't read
the book properly! "Mercy" includes a short prologue and an epilogue
which are *satires* on academic women who disagree with Dworkin's
views. They are both headed "not Andrea" (which should be a hint) but
they are written in the first person, as is the rest of the book. The
body of the book is clearly intended to refute the prologue and
epilogue. During an e-mail discussion with Jamie, it became apparent
that the reviewer had quoted from the prologue and the epilogue and
then discussed them as if they summed up Andrea Dworkin's own views! I
suspect that the reviewer did not even bother to read the main text of
the book.
Two weeks ago Andrea Dworkin gave a reading in support of the
Edinburgh Women Against Pornography group and the Off the Shelves
Campaign (i.e. that Playboy etc should not be on open display in
newsagents, but available on request only.) Judging by her presence
there and by what she said, Andrea Dworkin is still very much against
pornography.
Andrea Dworkin's book "Pornography" makes it very clear that for
Dworkin, the issue is that women are hurt and humilated by pornography
and that in such a context "aesthetic merit" is irrelevant - i.e.
when a woman is hurt it is *not important* whether her being hurt
makes a pretty pattern of light and shade. Dworkin argues that it is
immoral to think otherwise - i.e. it is immoral to prioritise a pretty
pattern over human suffering. She argues further that people who claim
that the aesthetics (prettiness) justify the suffering are making
excuses, either because they are getting off on that suffering or else
because they don't think that female suffering matters, both of which
she also considers immoral. These arguments are re-iterated in
"Mercy".
Andrea Dworkin's view is therefore the exact opposite of the view that
Ed Falk attributed to her and to feminists in general. I wonder if Ed
Falk is getting confused between Andrea Dworkin and Angela Carter?
(I'm willing to be corrected on this.) Andrea Dworkin refers to Angela
Carter as a "pseudo-feminist" precisely because of Carter's views on
pornography, which are those that Ed Falk describes. Angela Carter has
certainly written in such terms about de Sade ("The Sadeian Woman").
However, it is also possible that long ago, before she changed her
mind and wrote "Pornography", Andrea Dworkin held the view that
everything to do with sex is to do with love and freedom and is
therefore OK. "Mercy" seems to have some autobiographical bits and
that's the kind of attitude that she ascribes to the main character
during the 1960s. So "Mercy" could be seen as describing what might
have caused her to change her mind and become anti-pornography, if
indeed she ever was in favour of pornography.
I hope this clarifies rather than muddies the waters,
Diana Bental,
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/21/90)
----- In article <272090CA.26470@ics.uci.edu>, tittle@ics.uci.edu (Diana Bental) writes: > Andrea Dworkin is not in favour of porn. Her latest novel, > "Mercy", includes powerful indictments of pornography, prostitution > and SM sex. ... Ironically, a mystery author here in Texas recently released a novel by this same title that placed murder in the Houston S&M scene. It is nothing more than slick pulp, and I do not recommend it. I'll have to put Dworkin's book on my reading list. > Andrea Dworkin's book "Pornography" makes it very clear that for > Dworkin, the issue is that women are hurt and humilated by pornography > and that in such a context "aesthetic merit" is irrelevant - i.e. > when a woman is hurt it is *not important* whether her being hurt > makes a pretty pattern of light and shade. Dworkin argues that it is > immoral to think otherwise - i.e. it is immoral to prioritise a pretty > pattern over human suffering. She argues further that people who claim > that the aesthetics (prettiness) justify the suffering are making > excuses, either because they are getting off on that suffering or else > because they don't think that female suffering matters, both of which > she also considers immoral. These arguments are re-iterated in > "Mercy". I find little merit to this kind of argument. Fiction whose sole purpose is erotic does not hurt people nearly as much as more weighty material. Can the literary, social, and political merits of a book justify whatever psychological hurt it does some people? If not, we should start burning Dickens and Twain novels. What about lighter fiction that offends? In my neck of the woods, there are fundamentalist parents who don't want their children reading Jean Auel. Is she immoral because of the hurt she causes them? Or is it only the erotic that can never justify whatever sting its words might have to some? Why is the erotic to be disadvantaged vis-a-vis the literary, or even the merely entertaining? Dworkin's argument seems to reduce to either a bias against books, or a bias against the erotic. Both of these biases rub me the wrong way. If people are hurt by what they read, they can put it down, though sometimes they would do better to read it and figure out why it hurts. They could learn something about themselves, or about their society. To some extent, I agree with Dworkin. There is a lot of bad erotica; bad in both the aesthetic and moral sense. By all means, let's condemn it, just as we would condemn any other bad writing. The problem with Dworkin is twofold. First, she judges indiscriminately. The issue is NOT just whether someone is hurt by what they read. Some lesbian porno I recommended in a previous post is guaranteed to hurt the average nineteen year-old straight man who reads it. This hurt might do him some good. Second, Dworkin wants to use the state to enforce her literary judgment. This is always wrong. Russell
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/23/90)
In article <272090CA.26470@ics.uci.edu> (Diana Bental) writes: >Andrea Dworkin's book "Pornography" makes it very clear that for >Dworkin, the issue is that women are hurt and humiliated by pornography >and that in such a context "aesthetic merit" is irrelevant - i.e. The debate is *not* about "aesthetic merits." The debate is about the right of *consenting* adults to do what they like with their bodies. For some reason Dworkin and MacKinnon have thought that they have the right to to control these bodies in the name of "women's liberation". BTW it is interesting to note that these two prudes wrote, in their anti-porno laws, that all men-gay porno humiliates women...
falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (10/26/90)
In article <272090CA.26470@ics.uci.edu> tittle@ics.uci.edu (Diana Bental) writes: >Andrea Dworkin's book "Pornography" makes it very clear that for >Dworkin, the issue is that women are hurt and humilated by pornography >and that in such a context "aesthetic merit" is irrelevant - i.e. >when a woman is hurt it is *not important* whether her being hurt >makes a pretty pattern of light and shade. Dworkin argues that it is >immoral to think otherwise - i.e. it is immoral to prioritise a pretty >pattern over human suffering. She argues further that people who claim >that the aesthetics (prettiness) justify the suffering are making >excuses, either because they are getting off on that suffering or else >because they don't think that female suffering matters, both of which >she also considers immoral. These arguments are re-iterated in >"Mercy". This is incomplete. What is Andrea Dworkin's definition of "Pornography"? What specificly would she have the government ban? Playboy? Penthouse? Hustler? Tits 'n Clits? Bondage magazines? Forum? Yellow Silk? My Secret Garden? Cosmo? Romance novels? Gay male porn? Lesbian porn? On Our Backs? Off Our Backs? Our Bodies Ourselves? -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com card-carrying ACLU member.
feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) (11/16/90)
In article <1741@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes: >This is incomplete. What is Andrea Dworkin's definition of >"Pornography"? (Since I'm responding so late, I think this may have been answered?) Re: The Amendment to Minneapolis's Civil rights law: (I quote from Dworkin's _Pornography_:) "The law itself is civil, not criminal. It allows people who have been hurt by pornography to sue for sex discrimination. Under this law, it is sex discrimination to coerce, intimidate, or fraudulently induce anyone into pornography; it is sex discrimination to assault, physically attack, or injure any person in a way that is directly caused by a specific piece of pornography---the pornographers share responsibility for the assault; in the Bellingham version (there were 2 versions of this law- e.f.) it is also sex discrimination to defame any person through the unauthorized use in pornography of their name, image, and/or recognizable personal likeness; and it is sex discrimination to produce, sell, exhibit, or distribute pornography---to traffic in the exploitation of women, to traffic in material that provably causes aggression against and lower civil status for women in society. "The law's definition of pornography is concrete, not abstract. Pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women in pictures and/or words that also includes women presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities; or women presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or women presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or women presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or women's body parts---including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, buttocks---exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or women presented as whores by nature; or women presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or women presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual. If men, children, or transsexuals are used in any of the same ways, the material also meets the definition of pornography" [pp xxxii -- xxxiii].
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (11/17/90)
In article <45691@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes: >"The law itself is civil, not criminal. It allows people who have been >hurt by pornography to sue for sex discrimination. Under this law, it >is sex discrimination to coerce, intimidate, or fraudulently induce >anyone into pornography; Under the Minneapolis law a woman who feel degraded because of all-men gay porno will be able to sue and collect damages. The idea is to return to the old Puritan standards - if *any* women does not like something sexual then it should not be presented and/or discussed. I think that *willingness* of the feminist movement to cut (others...) freedom of speech to achieve a "good" goals tells us about how little they care about other people's freedom...
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (11/23/90)
----- In article <45691@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes: > "The law's definition of pornography is concrete, not abstract. > Pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination > of women in pictures and/or words that also includes women presented > dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities ..." "Concrete"? Hah! Just how does one concretely define a concept as abstract and subjective as "subordination ... in pictures and/or words"? Is a depiction of a woman going down on a man an instance of woman's subordination? (Why?) What about a man going down on a woman? (Why?) What about a couple kissing? (Why not?) What about a couple engaged in mutual oral sex? (Why is this different from kissing?) What if the depiction of something that is clearly subordination is necessary to a substantive theme? Is such expression itself subordination or not? (If it is, Dworkin would be subject to penalty under her own laws.) Anyone who thinks "concrete" a definition that requires such interpretation is passing bullsh*t of the first order. Russell
falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (11/23/90)
In article <45691@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes: >In article <1741@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes: >>This is incomplete. What is Andrea Dworkin's definition of >>"Pornography"? >(Since I'm responding so late, I think this may have been answered?) No it hasn't, thanx for posting it. Although I like some parts of the Dworkin-MacKinnon law (i.e. it would let women who were abused or raped in the making of pornography to stop it), the law is somewhat of a blank check. Read Dworkin's definition of pornography carefully: >Re: The Amendment to Minneapolis's Civil rights law: >(I quote from Dworkin's _Pornography_:) >"The law itself is civil, not criminal. It allows people who have been >hurt by pornography to sue for sex discrimination. Under this law, >... it is sex discrimination to produce, sell, exhibit, or distribute >pornography--- ... >"The law's definition of pornography is concrete, not abstract. >Pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination >of women in pictures and/or words that also includes women ... >presented in postures or positions of ... display; This definition easily includes Playboy and other soft, nonviolent porn. It would be illegal to ship Playboy magazines to areas with this law. (Or more precisely, Playboy magazine could get sued by anybody who wanted to.) I can easily see the fundies getting ahold of this law and using it to ban "On Our Backs" or "Our Bodies Ourselves" -ed falk, sun microsystems -- sun!falk, falk@sun.com "What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?" -- William Simpson, A.C.L.U.
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) (11/27/90)
In article <3039@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes: >I can easily see the fundies getting ahold of this law and using it to >ban "On Our Backs" or "Our Bodies Ourselves" Dworkin herself is opposed to _On Our Backs_, so it is not neccessary for fundamentalists to intervene. In her speech at FSU, she stated that she was "appalled" by what _On Our Backs_ was doing. Incidentally, did my earlier article about the circularity of Dworkin's argument make it out here, or did it, like so many of my early articles to this newsgroup, vanish without trace into the shared-responsibility blameless void? [I got the article and posted it last week. If you saw it, send email to Pepke. Thanks, --CLT] -EMP
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/30/90)
In article <3039@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> (Ed Falk) writes: >No it hasn't, thanx for posting it. Although I like some parts of the >Dworkin-MacKinnon law (i.e. it would let women who were abused or >raped in the making of pornography to stop it), Please explain why the anti-rape laws that we have now are not good enough for that purpose.