Antiporn crusader Andrea Dworkin died last week at the age of 58. I have to say that I'm not too sad about her passing. While she left and impact on feminism and opened the door for sex-positive feminist writers and speakers such as Susie Bright, I can't help but be pissed off at her and Catherine MacKennon for their hysterical, antiporn rants.
Maybe it's because I finally hit my feminist streak during the Clinton years, or maybe it's my damned independent Midwest beliefs, but I had a hard time swallowing their argument that "pornography is oppression," or even better, "heterosexual sex is rape" and that marriage is "a legal license to rape." I'll never forget reading their works for a college class on a nice sunny day on my apartment balcony.
I believe the phrases, "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT?" and "BULLSHIT!" rang out frequently there.
What pissed me off (and still does) was the painting of women as mindless victims that had things happen to them as opposed to making a conscious choice (even if a woman argued that it was her choice to be a hooker, stripper, porn star, the counterargument would've been "Of course dear." *smirk*) in their sexuality. Painting the woman as a constant victim didn't give her the power and responsibility of dealing with her own decisions in sex, love and life.
Ultimately, all people make good and bad decisions in all areas of life. To say that I've been victimized by the patriarchy keeps me in a victim status without power. Empowerment is about taking responsibility for your decisions (whether they're good or bad ideas) and dealing with the consequences like a grownup.
Shit. Maybe I should give Dworkin some credit. Without her and MacKinnon, I wouldn't have shaped my thoughts about women and sex into what I have today (which was a reaction to them). Without them, I wouldn't have formed in a coherent fashion my argument that porn, strippers and hookers aren't evil and should be destroyed. Perhaps getting poked hard in the educational eye is a good thing. We all need that every now and then.
OK, I tip my hat to you Dworkin. Even though your arguments are bullshit.
4 comments:
Bravo! That's all I'm saying, dude. Critical Studies of any sort, if it is to hold any academic weight, has to be open to a wide range of discourse, whether or not you agree with it.
Women's Studies as a discipline must be open to critically discussing both ends of the sex/pornography debate, or it just becomes a wank fest (no pun intended). I think their theories are full of shit, but to deny them their place in shaping and influencing the discipline does the field a disservice.
Great post! The recent discussion we've had reminded me of what I loved about grad school.
Another quick thought.
I think the only issue I take with your post is that seems to imply that blaming "the patriarchy" is an excuse for women don't have the cajones to take personal responsibility for their lives.
Subjugation of women still exists. Globally, sex trafficking and sexual violence against women and children is a very real human rights issue here and abroad. The short sightedness to the "sex-positive" view of the sex industry, is that it doesn't always seem to distinguish between "sex work" and "sex trafficking" and seems to hold the view that all sex workers are doing this by choice, they are all out there loving the sex and getting paid, and wow isn't that empowering! Which ignores the fact that thousands of people, mostly women and children from developing countries, are essentially sold into sexual slavery in this country.
Again, Dworkin's view? Full of shit. But the broader discussion of pornography and sex work from a human rights perspective is ignored by both sides of the debate.
I meant to say "in this country alone"
Sorry for the spam. :)
Post a Comment