Thursday, April 19, 2007

Dworkin

I've been doing an informal reading group on Dworkin's Intercourse lately. The women (including me) seem to get a lot out of it. The men seem to be slowly trickling away. Although I love being able to have discussions with the women, and I think it's important for us to get a lot out of the reading group, I'm a bit sad that we can't keep everybody. It's mostly sad for the men, since they don't enjoy benefit from the discussions.

I had a chat with one of the men yesterday, and he mentioned that the Dworkin makes him extremely uncomfortable. He says that the rhetoric reminds him of hate speech. In some ways, this is right: what I like about Dworkin is that her writing makes me angry at what I believe are grave injustices against women. It's supposed to make you angry. And anger is fun--a hell of a lot more fun than despair, which is arguably the #1 most popular response to injustice. But in another way, Dworkin does not function as hate speech for me, and seems not to work that way for the other women. I don't get mad at men in general and decide they should be exterminated. I get mad at strangers who catcall me and make unsolicited remarks about my breasts. (This doesn't happen nearly as much as I used to when I was living in... oh, I'll be completely apt and call that city R'lyeh.) I get mad at the boys I over hear on the bus, who talk about which college campuses are full of 'dirty whores' when they're clearly slutting it up their own selves. I get mad at the ex-boyfriend who wanted me to jump through a bunch of sexual hoops, even though he wouldn't do squat to satisfy my desires. This isn't the stuff of violent uprising. It's the stuff of perfectly reasonable expectations.

The really strange thing is that may of these same men had no problem with the S.C.U.M. manifesto, which I think is batshit insane. People say it's supposed to be funny, but I see no indications that Solanas is joking. But they get hung up on Dworkin, who never once advocates violence against men? I think the difference is that Solanas is too insane to really engage with, but Dworkin is on target enough to make them feel guilt. I'm not happy about the guilt: the guys who are feminist enough to be my friends are usually not the same guys who deserve to feel guilty about widespread rape and abuse. Those guys don't care. Then my friends read radfem literature, think it's attacking them, and have these massive unproductive attacks of guilt. They worry about whether their sexual desires are evil and in some way tantamount to rape fantasies. I usually feel the need to baby them, since the guilt is so unnecessary and unhelpful, and that's a pain for me. It's really frustrating.

One of the other sad things is that before the guys stopped participating, I got to hear (indirectly) about how limited their sex lives are. I had to explain to them why intercourse is not the only thing that deserves to be called 'sex', why a lot of mainstream het porn might not be so interesting for most women, and why the upshot of Intercourse is not that women dislike sex. Maybe Intercourse is just the wrong book for them. Maybe they all need copies of The Ethical Slut. Horses for courses.

2 comments:

figleaf said...

I'm slowly, slowly reading "Intercourse." I admit it's hard reading (though it would be a lot easier if I had a reading group to keep up with.) I don't think I'd bail on it though.

She documents some pretty wretched behavior. The book I'd read just before I picked that up was Elizabeth Abbot's "Celibacy, a History." After that the part about Tolstoy in Dworkin's book hit me harder than I think it hit *her!* The difference was that she was trying to fit his cruelty into assumptions based on modern notions of gender. Tolstoy's Russia still had the more medieval notion that *men* were sexually moral and chaste by nature and *women* were incapable of sexual restraint!

That's what made his hatred for her even more intense. He was flippin' forcing himself on her, even while trying to be "celibate." And the whole time he was laboring under this insane idea that it was *her* fault for luring him in, and *his* weakness for being unable to resist.

Of course the idea that *either* men or women have more or less moral agency than the other is crap -- otherwise we wouldn't have flipped all that upside down starting in Protestant parts of Europe just a few hundred years ago.

Anyway, if you read it that way Dworkin was actually a little too harsh but also *way* too gentle on the guy.

I agree she's hard to read, and yeah, some of what she has to say is so bitter it does sound a lot like hate speech. But I don't think it was. In particular I don't think *she* hated men as much as she hated the system that pushed the Tolstoys into their psychotically tragic situation.

Take care, P,

figleaf

P. Burke said...

Thanks, figleaf. It's nice to hear from a guy who gets something out of Intercourse. (I completely agree with you on the Tolstoy chapter by the way: I read it and was like, "what sexual power? Where?") All the men in the reading group are considerably younger than you; maybe they need to mature a bit before they're ready for it.