"Mercy" by Andrea Dworkin
Dave Gross
Move over, Bret Easton Ellis, there's a new brand of
p.c. hatred in town. Your psychopathic protagonist just
won't cut it these days -- He was a whitemale and was
murdering THE WRONG PEOPLE!
If Ellis had been smart, he would have written a book
about a non-white or non-male individual who murdered
whitemales to avenge her race or sex. Instead, he wrote
"American Psycho," a story about a whitemale who kills eight
women, nine men, and even a little boy, with great paragraphs of
gore.
If he'd stuck to the men and the little boy, things
would probably have been okay. His book would have died the
death it deserved, as a critically panned hack and slash --
a murder mystery with lots of murder and no mystery.
Unfortunately, his protagonist was an equal opportunity
butcher.
This upset certain feminist groups. Many denounced the
book in the press, some pressured bookstores not to sell it,
others pressured Simon & Schuster to drop it.
Tammy Bruce, president of the Los Angeles chapter of
NOW, launched a boycott of the publisher, saying that the
book was "a how-to novel on the torture and dismemberment
of women." To emphasize her point, she sponsored a sort of
dial-a-gore line which people could call to hear recorded
excerpts of some of the bloodier femicides.
Andrea Dworkin is a much more savvy novelist than Ellis.
She knows which way the wind is blowing. She wrote a novel
called "Mercy" about a woman, also named Andrea, who
butchers men at random.
Well, not entirely at random. Andrea is raped in each
of the 12-chapter novel's first 10 chapters. These rapes
are described in a flesh-rending detail that Bret Easton
Ellis would be proud of. Ironically these same descriptions
probably run afoul of the antipornography laws Dworkin has
helped pass in some areas.
New York Times book reviewer Wendy Steiner writes,
"Andrea's experience is meant to stand as that of all women
and to constitute an unassailable argument against the attempt
to coexist peaceably with men.... Ms. Dworkin advocates
nothing short of killing men."
Although the men Andrea murders are not her rapists, by
the end of the novel the author has made her point that
there ARE no innocent men. Andrea the protagonist is simply
starting the "final solution" to the rape problem.
Andrea the author is the architect of this final
solution, promoting it not only in her novel but in her
speaking engagements when she encourages her audiences to
find oppressive men and "get them killed," as she did at
a conference organized by the Canadian Mental Health
Association. "We are in a war," she said, "and we need to
win... We need a political resistance above ground and
underground."
And what of the feminist movement that was so
infuriated at the blood and guts in "American Psycho?" What
do they think of Andrea Dworkin and her final solution?
Well, some of the stars of the feminist movement are quoted
on this very subject in the advertisements for the book.
Kate Millet says: "Mercy is literature, a brilliant,
very important book."
Gloria Steinem says: "In every century, there are a
handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea
is one of them."
So there you have it.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgr...@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by
which _all men_ keep _all women_ in a state of fear"
-- Susan Brownmiller (_Against Our Will_ p. 6)
Michael Newton
> Move over, Bret Easton Ellis, there's a new brand of
> p.c. hatred in town. Your psychopathic protagonist just
> won't cut it these days -- He was a whitemale and was
> murdering THE WRONG PEOPLE!
Sorry. Not new at all. Dworkin's been around for years. Well before the
term PC was around.
> Andrea Dworkin is a much more savvy novelist than Ellis.
> She knows which way the wind is blowing. She wrote a novel
> called "Mercy" about a woman, also named Andrea, who
> butchers men at random.
I'm not sure I'd call her a novelist. (She's written lots of articles,
some quite well-researched, believe it or not.) These "novels" of hers seem
more like a form of print performance art, to me. She certainly wouldn't
have chosen to write "Mercy" based on "which way the wind is blowing." This
is the kind of stuff she's written for years; Ellis followed her, if anything.
"Savvy," to my mind, evokes a picture of a sophisticated
and business-suited professional. Ever seen her? She truly looks like some
slasher flick director's idea of a "crazed lesbian feminist who might pull
out an axe at any moment."
> Well, not entirely at random. Andrea is raped in each
> of the 12-chapter novel's first 10 chapters. These rapes
> are described in a flesh-rending detail that Bret Easton
> Ellis would be proud of. Ironically these same descriptions
> probably run afoul of the antipornography laws Dworkin has
> helped pass in some areas.
Her "novels" remind me of another writer, Kathy Acker, whose "Blood and
Guts in High School" consists of similarly relentless violence against the
main character, Janie, who is raped and beaten and prostituted (as I recall--
it's been four years since I read it) and who wants to fuck Jimmy Carter.
There is one page that is completely taken up by the word FUCK and nothing
else. This "genre" (I don't know what else to call it) is a mystery to me;
the only motivation that I have been able to come up with is that the authors
want you to become so angry about the book that you would ask to have it
censored. Sort of a latter-day "Steal This Book," although an
even more unprofitable way of boosting readership... I'm at a loss to explain,
though, how creating more violent pornography is a protest against violent
pornography. I guess it can remind us of how bad it is for alot of women.
It's estimated that in the U.S. alone, a woman is physically beaten every
15 seconds, but Dworkin's book isn't going to help that, as far as I can see.
She just makes people angry--men and women, and diverts attention from the
real issues.
> Andrea the author is the architect of this final
> solution, promoting it not only in her novel but in her
> speaking engagements when she encourages her audiences to
> find oppressive men and "get them killed," as she did at
> a conference organized by the Canadian Mental Health
> Association. "We are in a war," she said, "and we need to
> win... We need a political resistance above ground and
> underground."
She also has said that all heterosexual intercourse is rape.
> And what of the feminist movement that was so
> infuriated at the blood and guts in "American Psycho?" What
> do they think of Andrea Dworkin and her final solution?
> Well, some of the stars of the feminist movement are quoted
> on this very subject in the advertisements for the book.
> Kate Millet says: "Mercy is literature, a brilliant,
> very important book."
> Gloria Steinem says: "In every century, there are a
> handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea
> is one of them."
> So there you have it.
I'm at a loss to explain the reaction of these feminists to Dworkin, and I'm
particularly surprised to hear Steinem come out so strongly in favor of her.
I suppose she does serve as a catalyst--for what, is the problem.... I guess
she serves as an alternative to that rabidly abstract deconstructive stuff
they serve up in the rarefied air of our institutions of higher learning--
but the antidote to that is hardly offered by Dworkin's unrealistic manhatred.
Her articles appear in Ms. every so often; I usually skim them, then
try to ignore their presence, as there is so much else in there worth
reading.
She certainly doesn't represent the kind of feminism *I* ascribe to, nor,
I would hope, that of most feminists, lesbian or heterosexual. Dworkin is,
by and large, the lunatic fringe. Don't judge feminism by this extremist,
please!
Marianna Wright-Newton
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>Sorry. Not new at all. Dworkin's been around for years. Well before the
>term PC was around.
I don't know about that. "PC" as a term has been around for nearly twenty
years. If you want to mean "well before 'PC' became a hot news item", I
agree. She's been around for years.
>Her "novels" remind me of another writer, Kathy Acker, whose "Blood and
>Guts in High School" consists of similarly relentless violence against the
>main character, Janie, who is raped and beaten and prostituted (as I recall--
>it's been four years since I read it) and who wants to fuck Jimmy Carter.
>There is one page that is completely taken up by the word FUCK and nothing
>else. This "genre" (I don't know what else to call it) is a mystery to me;
>the only motivation that I have been able to come up with is that the authors
>want you to become so angry about the book that you would ask to have it
>censored.
I don't know to what extent Kathy Acker is trying to make any sort of
"constructive" statement, in the sense of "trying-to-make-the-world-
a-better-place-for-women". My reaction upon reading her was "so this
is what *The Naked Lunch* would be like if William Burroughs was a
woman!" There's an established tradition of surreal fantasias of
squalor and degradation of which Acker and Burroughs are well-
established practicioners.
Regarding *Mercy*: has anyone considered the possibility that one of
Dworkin's motivations for writing it was as a sort of "answer" to
*American Psycho*? That one of her goals was to make people (mostly
males) VERY UNCOMFORTABLE with the idea that there are a fair number
of women who respond positively to the concept of a female serial-
killer who kills men? That she wants people of all genders to maybe
think about just what it is that makes serial-killer stories so
appealing?
(I have read neither *American Psycho* nor *Mercy* (nor do I intend
to). I'm thoroughly enjoying reading the reactions to both, however.)
--
"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
soren f petersen : i AM NOT
spet...@peruvian.utah.edu : THE university OF utah
Dang. Utah always gets everything first. -- Rod Johnson
John McCarthy
called _"PC" So Far_:
The term "political correctness" seems to have originated in
the early part of the century, when it was employed by
various species of Marxists to describe and enforce
conformity to their preferred ideological positions. Books,
films, opinions, even historical events were termed
politically corrrect or politically incorrect depending on
whether or not they advanced a particular Marxist view.
There is no indication that the revolutionary ideologues of
that period spoke of political correctness with any trace of
irony or self-mockery.
Eventually the term dropped out of the political lexicon,
only to be revived in the early 1980s when it came into use
by spokesmen for assorted contemporary ideologies: black
consiciousness and black power, feminism, homosexual rights,
and to a lesser degree pacifism, environmentalism, the
counterculture in general. The new _Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary_, published by Random House, defines political
correctness as "marked by adherence to a typically
progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially race,
gender, sexual affinity, or ecology". These days, as most
people know, the home of such "typically progressive
orthodoxy" is the American university.
Like the Stalinists and Trotskyites of an earlier era,
contemporary campus activists maintain that "everything is
political", and thus to them it seems quite proper to
inquire whether classroom lectures, the use of language, and
even styles of dress and demeanor reflect a politically
correct stance or not. ...
I think D'Souza is right about the antecedents of the term and
its current usage, except that he should have mentioned, as he
does later in the article, that the ironic use is now also
commonplace and may be driving out the nonironic use.
However, there are some holdouts. I recently read a letter to a
newspaper by some university official saying approximately, "If
politically correct means X, if politically correct means Y, if
politically correct means Z, then count me as politically correct".
Here X, Y and Z were things like "opposed to racism".
I would suspect that "politically correct" was revived earlier than
the 80s. Namely, I remember a newspaper distributed at the Altamont
Rolling Stones concert in 1969. I was astonished at its use of ideas
and jargon that the Communist Party had abandoned as "left-sectarian"
in the middle 1930s, when the Party line switched to "popular front".
I was so surprised that I filled out the coupon asking for more
information. I was further surprised when I later received a six page
handwritten letter essentially inviting me to go underground with
them. I would expect that "politically correct" was one of the terms
revived then.
--
Mankind will probably survive - even if it doesn't take my advice.
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>According to an article by Dinesh D'Souza in the October Commentary
>called _"PC" So Far_:
> Eventually the term dropped out of the political lexicon,
> only to be revived in the early 1980s when it came into use
> by spokesmen for assorted contemporary ideologies: black
> consiciousness and black power, feminism, homosexual rights,
> and to a lesser degree pacifism, environmentalism, the
> counterculture in general.
>I think D'Souza is right about the antecedents of the term and
>its current usage, except that he should have mentioned, as he
>does later in the article, that the ironic use is now also
>commonplace and may be driving out the nonironic use.
Well, my original impulse was to say that D'Souza's article was
"full of shit". Instead, I will merely point out that what he
says runs directly counter to my own experience. I have almost
*never* heard the term used non-ironically. I've spent the last
three years at the University of Utah, and the five before that
at Reed College (a small liberal arts college--exactly the sort
of place where you'd expect "political correctness" to be a big
deal), and I can think of only one instance (a poster) in which
"PC" or "political correctness" was used as anything but a
sneer.
Certainly, the concept was well known. It was fairly widely
noticed that a lot of the same people were interested in a lot
of the same issues. The term, however, was always used ironically--
even by people who shared the agenda.
Tom Fawcett
>
>Regarding *Mercy*: has anyone considered the possibility that one of
>Dworkin's motivations for writing it was as a sort of "answer" to
>*American Psycho*? That one of her goals was to make people (mostly
>males) VERY UNCOMFORTABLE with the idea that there are a fair number
>of women who respond positively to the concept of a female serial-
>killer who kills men?
But how many people -- male or female -- responded positively to the male
serial-killer in _American Psycho_? I can't remember hearing any
response but revulsion.
-Tom
Karla Shapiro
> Andrea Dworkin is a much more savvy novelist than Ellis.
Andrea Dworkin a novelist!!!???? Are you sure about that? :|
[more opinions & description of _Mercy_ deleted]
Andrea Dworkin is one of a group of feminists. I personally find her to
be an angry, bitter woman who hates men based on what I have read of
her articles and one of her books. She has been around a long, long time.
I have not read _American Psycho_ or _Mercy_, nor do I intend to. The
old saying about two wrongs not equaling a right may apply in this case...
I really don't know.
What I am upset at is how books like these do so well in sales. I personally
get disgusted when I see books about mass murderers (*especially* when
accompanied by cassette copies of the murderer's confessions), sensational
headline "behind the story" type books and other such trash (IMHO) so
prominently displayed in my local bookstores.
As much as I do not care for Dworkin, I do understand why *any* movement
needs to have its extremists. If it takes something like _Mercy_ to
shock a complacent majority into *really* thinking about the hack & slash
trash that does so well in all medias then she has done a good thing.
(please note, that last statement was sort of like a kid mumbling "I'm
sorry" to an antagonist because their parent is making them. :) )
I would write to people who stood out against _American Psycho_ and praised
_Mercy_ and ask them point blank why it is OK to decry violence to women
by a man and not vice versa. (Better yet, I'd ask them *very* publically
at a press conference or media event... but that's me.) As far as I can
tell, if one is wrong, so is the other.
karla
my opinions... don't go blaming others for them.
Stewart Schultz
>As 'Joe Average person', how would one get a comment out of NOW or even
>the Canandian Mental Health Association, (who recently invited her to speak),
>as to their reactions about her books / why they invited her to speak?
It's even more curious than that -- they invited her to be the
_keynote_ speaker for the conference on "Women in a Violent Society."
This wasn't an informal gathering, but a federal conference attended
by high level officials, including the Minister for Women's Affairs.
I haven't the slightest idea what they were thinking about.
>I'd really like to know - I'd just love to get either one of them on record
>on this issue, but I strongly suspect they would resist taking any stand.
>[Documenting their (presumed) refusal to stake a stand would be the second
>best thing, I can think of].
One of the organizers of the conference is on record in the Montreal
Gazette:
>>One organizer refused to comment on Dworkin's statements. "I can't
>>tell you whether I agree or disagree," said Renee Cochrard, the
>>conference's co-chairperson.
No word on whether it was laryngitis, or an offer she couldn't refuse :-)
-S. Schultz
Bret Jolly
mich...@milton.u.washington.edu (Marianna Wright-Newton) writes:
>She certainly doesn't represent the kind of feminism *I* ascribe to, nor,
>I would hope, that of most feminists, lesbian or heterosexual. Dworkin is,
>by and large, the lunatic fringe. Don't judge feminism by this extremist,
>please!
>Marianna Wright-Newton
You are the first avowed feminist that I've seen condemn Andrea
Dworkin unambivalently. But can a person who is praised by Kate
Millet and Gloria Steinam really be relegated to the lunatic fringe?
Indeed, I've seen feminist views much more extreme than Dworkin's.
One feminist told me that she believed that all women would
naturally rise up and exterminate men once they saw through the male
lie that men were necessary for procreation. (She believed that
parthenogenesis was practical, but that the techniques were being
suppressed by male scientists.) She seemed upset that I was offended
by her homicidal political lunacy, saying, "I didn't mean *you*,
you're civilized." That makes one of us!
Randall J. Burns
>
>What I am upset at is how books like these do so well in sales.
perspective of someone who committed a crime should not be able to be
copyrighted(i.e. they would have the same legal status as usenet
postings.) This would mean that criminals would still have free speech,
but would preclude the possibility that publishers might find it
profitable to turn felons into celebrities. In some cases like G. Gordon
Liddy's, it might be a good idea to place all materials produced by the
felon or containing the felon's image in the public domain.
>
>As much as I do not care for Dworkin, I do understand why *any* movement
> needs to have its extremists. If it takes something like _Mercy_ to
> shock a complacent majority into *really* thinking about the hack & slash
> trash that does so well in all medias then she has done a good thing.
> (please note, that last statement was sort of like a kid mumbling "I'm
> sorry" to an antagonist because their parent is making them. :) )
an extreme wing of the Catholic church. Yet, as much as I disagree with
her on many points, I don't find her as offensive as Dworkin.
>
>I would write to people who stood out against _American Psycho_ and praised
> _Mercy_ and ask them point blank why it is OK to decry violence to women
> by a man and not vice versa. (Better yet, I'd ask them *very* publically
> at a press conference or media event... but that's me.) As far as I can
> tell, if one is wrong, so is the other.
Well I would agree, but few of the American public feel that violence
against men is an important enough problem to worry about.
>
>
Bronis Vidugiris
)I would write to people who stood out against _American Psycho_ and praised
) _Mercy_ and ask them point blank why it is OK to decry violence to women
) by a man and not vice versa. (Better yet, I'd ask them *very* publically
) at a press conference or media event... but that's me.) As far as I can
) tell, if one is wrong, so is the other.
As 'Joe Average person', how would one get a comment out of NOW or even
the Canandian Mental Health Association, (who recently invited her to speak),
as to their reactions about her books / why they invited her to speak?
I'm not in the habbit of attending 'media events' or press conferences -
it seems a little unrealistic to me to be able to do this.
I'd really like to know - I'd just love to get either one of them on record
on this issue, but I strongly suspect they would resist taking any stand.
[Documenting their (presumed) refusal to stake a stand would be the second
best thing, I can think of].
Did any of the articles on the topic cover the question as to why A.D. was
invited to speak? If she's been preaching the same stuff for a long time,
it would seem appropriate to ask why she was invited to this conference.
It seems to me that there is a double standard here on the behavior of the
media too (which has been true for a long time) - they are not willing to
ask women/minority groups the tough questions.
Jim Kasprzak
> One feminist told me that she believed that all women would
>naturally rise up and exterminate men once they saw through the male
>lie that men were necessary for procreation. (She believed that
>parthenogenesis was practical, but that the techniques were being
>suppressed by male scientists.) She seemed upset that I was offended
>by her homicidal political lunacy, saying, "I didn't mean *you*,
>you're civilized." That makes one of us!
this sort of thing. During a conversation with a group of die-hard
feminists I had a couple of yeasr ago, one of them made the obligatory
remark "all men are scum". I asked why she was associating with me if
I was such scum, and she replied, "Well, _you_ aren't, but men in
general are." I didn't feel like wasting my energy trying to point
out the obvious flaw in her logic - if one specific man she'd taken
the trouble to get to know turned out to be non-scum, then perhaps
some other males might turn out to be like this as well, which would
make nonsense out of her general case.
It's not just feminists who do this, of course. I've heard a white
person say to a black person, "I hate all niggers. Not you, of course -
_you're_ not a nigger."
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Disclaimer: RPI pays me to work, not to think.
\_| "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" -Rush
==== e-mail: kas...@rpi.edu or kasp...@mts.rpi.edu
Dena Rollo
or tactic re pornography, I happen to think that she's
brilliant, a wonderful writer, and well worth reading
(talking here about her essays; have not read her fiction).
And BTW, Marianna, I found the following (from your post)
offensive, as well as nonsensical (those who look like
"rabid lesbian-feminists" don't/can't be "savvy??):
Ever seen her? She truly looks like some
slasher flick director's idea of a "crazed lesbian feminist who might pull
out an axe at any moment."
-Dena
Mark Sobolewski
>Well, while I don't agree with Dworkin's conclusions
>or tactic re pornography, I happen to think that she's
>brilliant, a wonderful writer, and well worth reading
>(talking here about her essays; have not read her fiction).
I feel the same way about G. Gordon Liddy, Erwin Rommel, and
Adolf Hitler to name a few. Each has written works that signifigantly
affected/observed the attitudes of humanity at the time. Each are
brilliant, intelligent, witty speakers.
But should they be helping to set public policy?
--
Mark Sobolewski sobl...@cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!sobleski
Craig Becker
dgr...@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>
> Move over, Bret Easton Ellis, there's a new brand of
> p.c. hatred in town. Your psychopathic protagonist just
...
> NOW, launched a boycott of the publisher, saying that the
> book was "a how-to novel on the torture and dismemberment
...
> Andrea Dworkin is a much more savvy novelist than Ellis.
> She knows which way the wind is blowing. She wrote a novel
> called "Mercy" about a woman, also named Andrea, who
Hey, thanks for the pointer! Gonna have to pick up this _Mercy_ book...it'll
be a wonderful companion&great conversation piece sitting on my bookshelf
next to _American Psycho_. And I can just imagine waking up in the middle of
the night to the sound of screams and ripping pages as Pat Bateman and Andrea
mix it up ;-) Probably have to move my DeSade collection to the other side
of the room, tho...wouldn't want it to be an unfair fight!
Craig
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- "It was during the battle of Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
-- Agincourt that Fedmahn Kassad Internet: cra...@ot.austin.ibm.com --
-- encountered the woman he would IBM Austin: cra...@woofer.ibm.com --
-- spend the rest of his life seeking." VNET: CRAIGB at AUSVM1 --
---------------- Dan Simmons, _Hyperion_ ------------------------------------
-- off 906/4A-015 zip 9641 ph (512) 838-8068 tl 678-8068 hm (512) 346-5397 --
-- IBM Personal Systems Programming, 11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX, 78759 --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Oceanstar
correct":
> Eventually the term dropped out of the political lexicon,
> only to be revived in the early 1980s when it came into use
And adds:
>I would suspect that "politically correct" was revived earlier than
>the 80s.
Among the people who formed my cohort, as I was growing up and becoming
politically aware during the 60's and 70's, often used the term, and
never stopped using it. We tended (and still tend) to use two different
wordings of the concept:
1) Politically correct --> usefully a rueful acknowledgment that while
we try to hold true to your counterculture values, we're all
human, and sometimes we fail. Examples (from several diffe-
rent sociopolitical moments):
"I'm looking forward to when the grape workers get their
problems sorted out, so we can go back to drinking Gallo.
I know Almaden is more politically correct, but it just
doesn't taste as good."
"I've come really close to buying a microskirt and a pair of
high heels, but every time I get them up to the counter, I
go, 'Shit, I can't do this--it's not politically correct.'"
"I know that 'The Big Chill' isn't as politically correct as
'Return of the Secaucus Seven', and it makes me a bit queasy
for that reason, but I still enjoyed the story."
2) Political statement --> more often used affirmatively, as a way of
patting yourself on the back for doing the right thing:
"Do you like these New Zealand crackers? I bought them
as a political statement, because of the business about
nuclear subs, but they really are quite tasty."
"Why do I have long hair? Well, in part as a political
statement. But also, just 'cause I like it this way."
[said my husband to a curious child, this past Sunday]
When the whole D'Souza business came out, I was puzzled indeed. Weren't
people using these phrases all along? I don't resent them at all. We
have to have some way of monitoring what we're doing, of giving
ourselves credit for things that are a pain (like all those years of
driving to faraway recycling centers--gack), or of forgiving ourselves
for things we can't resist (I wear makeup, for example). I feel the
same way about other measures of performance, such as "hip" or "cool,"
and "aesthetic": "I know eating processed cheese food nacho dip isn't
very hip, but sometimes I indulge." "Yes, it's overpriced and probably
politically incorrect, but the aesthetics... you have to love 'em."
And so on.
--just another failing aspirant to
my own standards of correctness,
Fiona
Bronis Vidugiris
)It's even more curious than that -- they invited her to be the
)_keynote_ speaker for the conference on "Women in a Violent Society."
)This wasn't an informal gathering, but a federal conference attended
)by high level officials, including the Minister for Women's Affairs.
)I haven't the slightest idea what they were thinking about.
Pretty strange - sounds like a good time for Canadian readers to start
thinking about some letter writing. I'd say some letters to the editor of
the local papers, to the conference organizier, and as many attendees as can
be identified. Also funders of the organizers, if they can be identified.
[Boy, I'm glad *I* don't have to think about doing all this! It's a Canadian
Problem <whew> :-) ] Some words about the inappropriateness of promoting or
appearing to promote lawlessness and violence against men in a society where
men already suffer more from violence [insert Canadian version of US stats
here] seems about right, along with some words about how the organizers seem
really unclear about explaining their intentions about selecting such
a controversial [maybe that's too mild?] keynote speaker as well.
No need to bother writing to Dworkin, though :-)
)>>One organizer refused to comment on Dworkin's statements. "I can't
)>>tell you whether I agree or disagree," said Renee Cochrard, the
)>>conference's co-chairperson.
)
)No word on whether it was laryngitis, or an offer she couldn't refuse :-)
I am glad that the media is asking some of the basic questions of the
organiziers that I'd expect, though - looks like they are not *quite* as
brainwashed on not asking women/minorities embarassing questions as I
thought before.
Eric Pepke
>_keynote_ speaker for the conference on "Women in a Violent Society."
>This wasn't an informal gathering, but a federal conference attended
>by high level officials, including the Minister for Women's Affairs.
>I haven't the slightest idea what they were thinking about.
Other than embarrassment by proxy, is there any good reason to assume anything
other than the obvious: that they invited her to be keynote speaker because
she represents the sort of ideas that they want associated with their
conference?
-EMP
Nosy
< ro...@Xylogics.COM (Dena Rollo) writes:
< >Well, while I don't agree with Dworkin's conclusions
< >or tactic re pornography, I happen to think that she's
< >brilliant, a wonderful writer, and well worth reading
< >(talking here about her essays; have not read her fiction).
< I feel the same way about G. Gordon Liddy, Erwin Rommel, and
< Adolf Hitler to name a few. Each has written works that signifigantly
< affected/observed the attitudes of humanity at the time. Each are
< brilliant, intelligent, witty speakers.
I challenge this claim, Mr. Sobleski. Please list the writings
of Field Marshal Rommel, detail what he discussed and what
effects his writings had on the attitudes of humanity "at
that time". Discuss Rommel's speaking abilities, what speeches
he made and what effect they had on the attitudes of humanity
"at that time".
Finally, detail for us exactly how Field Marshal Rommel
died and why he died that way.
< But should they be helping to set public policy?
Describe what public policy in Germany Field Marshal Rommel
helped to set.
< Mark Sobolewski sobl...@cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!sobleski
"Facts are stupid, er, stubborn things"
------Ronald Reagan
Janet M. Lafler
>mich...@milton.u.washington.edu (Marianna Wright-Newton) writes:
>
>>She certainly doesn't represent the kind of feminism *I* ascribe to, nor,
>>I would hope, that of most feminists, lesbian or heterosexual. Dworkin is,
>>by and large, the lunatic fringe. Don't judge feminism by this extremist,
>>please!
>>Marianna Wright-Newton
>
> You are the first avowed feminist that I've seen condemn Andrea
>Dworkin unambivalently. But can a person who is praised by Kate
>Millet and Gloria Steinam really be relegated to the lunatic fringe?
>Indeed, I've seen feminist views much more extreme than Dworkin's.
I've never been an admirer of Dworkin's work or political theory, and in
fact I disagree violently with a lot of what she stands for, but I'd be
reluctant to "condemn her unambivalently" myself. Dworkin is on the anti-
pornography side of the controversy, within feminism, over pornography,
which reached its height in the mid-eighties and has never really been
resolved. She is deeply hated by some feminists, who see her as anti-sex
(and particularly anti-heterosexual-sex), judgemental, puritanical, anti-
civil liberties, etc. The "pornography wars" were extremely devisive; for
example, Joanna Russ at one point publicly denounced Andrea Dworkin, though
she (Russ) later apologized for doing so. However, there's a certain
amount of feeling among feminists that it's necessary to maintain the
semblance of a united front and to defend members of the community from
the criticisms of outsiders even though we don't necessarily agree with
them ourselves. (I'm sure you've observed this sort of behavior with
other communities and political groups, and especially families. It's a
matter of loyalty.) Also, I think a lot of feminists see value in appre-
ciating positions more extreme than our own, because they keep us ques-
tioning ourselves, our motivations, our assumptions. This may be what's
going on with Steinam and/or Millet, though I don't really know anything
about either woman's history with Dworkin.
/Janet, an avowed feminist
--
send mail to: repn...@leland.stanford.edu
"Now, captain," said the squire, "you were right and I was wrong. I own myself
an ass, and I await your orders."
-- Treasure Island
riv...@dev8j.mdcbbs.com
> She certainly doesn't represent the kind of feminism *I* ascribe to, nor,
> I would hope, that of most feminists, lesbian or heterosexual. Dworkin is,
> by and large, the lunatic fringe. Don't judge feminism by this extremist,
> please!
>
>
> Marianna Wright-Newton
Prior to the start of WW2, Hitler's anti-Jewish campeign was labeled
a "lunatic fringe" movement. It was tolerated and ignored because people
didn't think anyone else would take it seriously. And since everyone
"knew" that all Jews were child killers (All men are rapists) anyway,
what harm was there in it? Daily ther movement grew, despite protests
from peopel that they didn't actually believe "that" part of the nazi plan.
The fact that Dworkin's book is being hailed by a broad spectrum of
feminism leadership indicates that this is not a small sequestered
lunatic fringe. The fact that Dworkin can claim "We are in a war and we
need to win" ,advocating that women become part of a secret society to
kill suspected rapists and child beaters and be CHEERED for it underscores
that she has a sizeable audiance who agree with her proposed methods,
and that this audiance is being directed against men on the basis of
a deliberate campeign of blatent lies.
The feminist leaders who applaud Dworkin's work have already gone on record
as supporting false rape charges as a means of controlling men. In
applauding Dworkin's work, and cheering her statements regarding the
violent assault of men without due process, they are creating a climate
in which many women will see "Mercy" as a valid blueprint for the
elimination of men. And when they take action, the fems will claim
"extenuating circumstance" (i.e. he was ASKING for it) in reducing or
eliminating criminal penelties (look at these POOR women, in jail for
murdering those mean old husbands).
The message of "Mercy" versus "American Psycho" is very clear.
It's politically correct to fantasize about women murdering men, but
politically VERBOTEN to fantasize about men killing women. There is
a clear social bias being imposed on us all.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
| Michael Rivero riv...@dev8j.mdcbbs "A Human's Human!" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Yes gang, it CAN happen here! |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric Pepke
>she (Russ) later apologized for doing so. However, there's a certain
>amount of feeling among feminists that it's necessary to maintain the
>semblance of a united front and to defend members of the community from
>the criticisms of outsiders even though we don't necessarily agree with
>them ourselves.
If you insist on smearing the shit all over your united front, don't make
a big pretense of being surprised when somebody notices the stink. And don't
be too surprised when the first member of that voluntary united front who says,
"Hey, don't judge *me* by that" gets laughed at.
There are advantages to casting your lot in with a bunch of people and
presenting a homogeneous face. There are also disadvantages. You don't get
one without the other. In the past, women have generally been indulged to
the extent that they could pretend that they could pull it off. Thank
Dobbs, this is finally changing.
Sorry, but that's the way it works.
-EMP
M.H. Nadel
First off, I think that one difference between "Mercy" and "American Psycho"
is that Dworkin gives her character a motive. I see a difference between
depicting someone who breaks down into violence when pushed over the edge
and someone who never goes deeper than "violence is fun."
Secondly, I'm not sure it's fair to claim that the feminist leaders quoted
actually support Dworkin's "position." Book jacket blurbs are notorious
for their lack of context. I think it's fair to say that I consider Dworkin
an "important and influential person who has made people think" although I
disagree with most of what she says. In particular, the Steinam quote sounds
like one of those things that could well have been said about some other
work of Dworkin's but some editor thought would make a good blurb. (I happen
to have a friend who used to write book jacket copy for a living. Accuracy is
not considered particularly essential to the trade and context is outright
irrelevant.)
Miriam Nadel
--
"Chaos is not the sort of thing that lends itself to space allocation."
- Laura Pederson, _Play Money_
Dan Welch
>
>First off, I think that one difference between "Mercy" and "American Psycho"
>is that Dworkin gives her character a motive. I see a difference between
>depicting someone who breaks down into violence when pushed over the edge
>and someone who never goes deeper than "violence is fun."
>
does not murder the people that did her wrong. This, to me, is really
terrible -- it's saying that all men are guilty of the crimes done to her,
and all men deserved to be punished. Not really a surprising sentiment
coming from Dworkin, but one that is profoundly disturbing, to say the least.
The character in "American Psycho" was just that -- psychotic, deranged,
not presented as a role model. Dworkin tries to justify her character's
unjustifiable actions.
There is also a question about social acceptance: "American Psycho" was
reviled here, there, and everywhere, thus very clearly not a guide for
socially acceptable behavior. "Mercy", on the other hand, was written by
a prominent feminist author, and its content has been supported by others
both here and in the feminist forefront. Which is more dangerous, the one
that everyone jumps on, or the one that everyone pats on the back?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Daniel Welch | Got no money, |
| Tandem Computers, Inc. | Got no car -- |
| Austin, TX, USA | You got no woman, -- Young MC |
| dwe...@devnull.mpd.tandem.com | And there you are. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronis Vidugiris
)Other than embarrassment by proxy, is there any good reason to assume anything
)other than the obvious: that they invited her to be keynote speaker because
)she represents the sort of ideas that they want associated with their
)conference?
The organizer as quoted in the paper seemed remarkably incoherent about why
they chose Dworkin as their keynote speaker.
It *could be* they are just incompetent and/or uninformed about the radical
nature of Dworkins views.
Another possibility - a ambitious politican at the conference
sees a possibility to float a 'trial baloon' about their male-bashing
grab for poolitical power by having his/her friends at a conference invite
Dworkin as a speaker. By using the conference as a 'cut out', they are not
directly involved if the reaction is highly negative,and can gauge the likely
reaction of their colleagues and the public to their plans. They gain the
cooperation of the organizers with friendship, calling in past favors, and
promises of funding.
A third possibility - the conference organizer has had a long-standing
friendship with Dworkin, and is inviting her for personal reasons rather
than professional ones.
There's lots of possibilities - if the organizers really were behind Dworkin
100% I'd expect them to be more direct and coherent about their reasons
for inviting her than were quoted in the article I saw.
TJ Wood WA3VQJ
> I challenge this claim, Mr. Sobleski. Please list the writings
> of Field Marshal Rommel, detail what he discussed and what
> effects his writings had on the attitudes of humanity "at
> that time". Discuss Rommel's speaking abilities, what speeches
> he made and what effect they had on the attitudes of humanity
> "at that time".
Here is a book reference that might be of use to you in your quest for answers:
D Rommel, Erwin, 1891-1944.
766.82
.R57 The Rommel papers / edited by B.H. Liddell Hart, with the
1982 assistance of Lucie-Maria Rommel, Manfred Rommel, and Fritz
Bayerlein ; translated by Paul Findlay.
New York, N.Y. : Da Capo Press, [1982], c1953.
xxx, 545 p., [16] p. of plates : ill. ; 21 cm.
Reprint. Originally published: 15th ed. New York : Harcourt,
Brace, 1953.
Includes indexes.
1. World War, 1939-1945--Campaigns--Africa, North.
And, just for good measure, I asked CAROLINE to look up some of the works
of Adolf Hitler:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
943 Hitler, Adolf, 1889- .
H63my
My new order / edited with commentary by Raoul de Roussy de
Sales, with an introduction by Raymond Gram Swing.
New York : Reynal & Hitchcock, [c1941].
xv, 1008 p. ; 22 cm.
Includes index.
"A collection of Hitler's speeches set in a running commentary...
Millions of words have had to be eliminated, so as to retain only
such speeches, or parts of speeches, as make a readable and
instructive book."--Introd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DD Hitler, Adolf, 1889-1945.
247
.H5 Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, translated by Ralph Manheim.
A322
Boston, Houghton Mifflin company, 1943.
xxi, 694 p. 21 cm.
1. Germany--Politics and government--20th century.
2. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DD Maser, Werner, 1922-
247
.H5 Hitler's letters and notes. Translated from the German by Arnold
M284513x Pomerans. [1st U. S. ed.]
New York, Harper & Row [1974, c1973] [32773]
Translation of Hitlers Briefe und Notizen; sein Weltbild in
handschriftlichen Dokumenten.
Includes bibliographies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry
PS: If you want to contact me about the above, please send e-mail. I'm
only skimming this group, so I might miss your question.
--
INTERNET: t...@pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS UUCP: uunet!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw
Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!
Duncan Peter G. Thornton
>Secondly, I'm not sure it's fair to claim that the feminist leaders quoted
>actually support Dworkin's "position." Book jacket blurbs are notorious
>for their lack of context. I think it's fair to say that I consider Dworkin
>an "important and influential person who has made people think" although I
>disagree with most of what she says. In particular, the Steinam quote sounds
>like one of those things that could well have been said about some other
>work of Dworkin's but some editor thought would make a good blurb. (I happen
>to have a friend who used to write book jacket copy for a living. Accuracy is
>not considered particularly essential to the trade and context is outright
>irrelevant.)
Ah, Miriam, as someone who himself used to write book jacket copy for
a living, may I ask you not taint us all with your friend's brush
(pauses with uneasy feeling that he's lost control of his metaphor).
I had rules: never to actually lie, never to substantially distort
what a reviewer or advance copy blurb-writer said (this last is
fraught with danger anyway; you need these people to not hate your
press). Splitting infinitives is probably out too.
But it is good to remember that if the quote might well be a general
statement taken from comment about a previous work, it probably is. In
the trade, this isn't seen as dishonesty; it's just _assumed_. For one
thing, jacket space is tight, and putting in a line saying "Praise for
one of Dworkin's earlier, possibly less extreme works:" is pretty
wasteful.
We did use blurbs like this, but tried to make sure they didn't imply
(through wording or presentation) that they were for the book in
question. But casual browsers probably wouldn't have picked up on
the difference.
- Duncan
Duncan Thornton | An odd thought strikes me - we shall receive no
tho...@ccu.umanitoba.ca | email in the grave.
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
> The fact that Dworkin's book is being hailed by a broad spectrum of
>feminism leadership indicates that this is not a small sequestered
>lunatic fringe. The fact that Dworkin can claim "We are in a war and we
>need to win" ,advocating that women become part of a secret society to
>kill suspected rapists and child beaters and be CHEERED for it underscores
>that she has a sizeable audiance who agree with her proposed methods,
>and that this audiance is being directed against men on the basis of
>a deliberate campeign of blatent lies.
Firstly, the amount of child abuse/sexual molestation in this country
is huge--much more than most right thinking people would like to
believe (one study I saw indicates that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in ten
boys are sexually abused as children). Given that two thirds of
the victims are women, and the vast majority of the perpetrators
are men, I'd say that dealing with child-abuse
> The feminist leaders who applaud Dworkin's work have already gone on record
>as supporting false rape charges as a means of controlling men. In
>applauding Dworkin's work, and cheering her statements regarding the
>violent assault of men without due process, they are creating a climate
>in which many women will see "Mercy" as a valid blueprint for the
>elimination of men.
This is, of course, the precise same argument that was used by many
feminists against *American Psycho*, or various civic leaders
regarding *Do the Right Thing*. It's funny how things change
when ones own ox is being gored...
(And who precisely is advocating false rape charges, anyway? Please
be specific and give sources. Are you saying that all "feminist
leaders" advocate such charges, or just all the ones quoted on the
*Mercy* book jacket?)
Michael Newton
>And BTW, Marianna, I found the following (from your post)
>offensive, as well as nonsensical (those who look like
>"rabid lesbian-feminists" don't/can't be "savvy??):
I was referring to the connotations of the word, the associations I make with
it personally; there's a women's magazine marketed for business women called
"Savvy" so that is probably one of the reasons I make this association. It
also doesn't seem like the right word to use to describe someone so unusual
and original as Dworkin, whose writing doesn't seem to be motivated by
anything like "how can I make some money off of this trend?".
As for this description, I didn't mean that *I* (perjoratively) thought she
looked like a "crazed lesbian feminist" but pointed out that a slasher flick
director would think so. She looks like a stereotype, is what I'm saying.
I suppose that those who consider ME a crazed lesbian feminist (for some,
the words are synonymous) would still not consider me the most obvious
casting choice were they directing a picture and looking for someone
to play one. Dworkin does.
> Ever seen her? She truly looks like some
>slasher flick director's idea of a "crazed lesbian feminist who might pull
>out an axe at any moment."
Marianna Wright-Newton
Kenn Barry
>feminists that it's necessary to maintain the semblance of a united
>front and to defend members of the community from the criticisms of
>outsiders even though we don't necessarily agree with them ourselves.
If that's your strategy, you'd better rethink it. All it's done
for feminism so far is to get ERA defeated. Didn't that give you a
clue? You're known by the company you keep. If you can hold your nose
and make an alliance of convenience with some group and actually gain
real influence by so doing, that's traditional politics, and more power
to ya. But that's not what feminists are doing. Rather than behaving
like politicians they behave like ideologues. They don't ally with
groups that gain 'em real power, but with any left-field cuckoo that
claims to be a fellow feminist and uses politically correct vocabulary.
>(I'm sure you've observed this sort of behavior with other communities
>and political groups, and especially families. It's a matter of
>loyalty.)
Exactly. It's a matter of loyalty, and that's what's wrong with
it. Why be loyal to crypto-fascists like Dworkin? In terms of ideology
it's a mismatch; in terms of practical politics it's fatal; and in terms
of ethics and aesthetics, it's ugly and evil. Any real feminist, any
person, that is, who believes in human equality, should have a better
understanding of who their real friends are. Coddling a few extremist
nuts will only lose any movement the support it really needs for
success: that of the great middle.
The Dworkins of this world have the power to kill feminism, if
the true feminists let 'em. I'm far from the only person in the world
who's figured out that any friend of Dworkin's is no friend of mine.
- Nothing fails like success - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: ba...@netcom.com
Jeff Dalton
>I've never been an admirer of Dworkin's work or political theory, and in
>fact I disagree violently with a lot of what she stands for, but I'd be
>reluctant to "condemn her unambivalently" myself. Dworkin is on the anti-
>pornography side of the controversy, within feminism, over pornography,
>which reached its height in the mid-eighties and has never really been
>resolved. She is deeply hated by some feminists, who see her as anti-sex
>(and particularly anti-heterosexual-sex), judgemental, puritanical, anti-
>civil liberties, etc. The "pornography wars" were extremely devisive; for
>example, Joanna Russ at one point publicly denounced Andrea Dworkin, though
>she (Russ) later apologized for doing so.
They "see her"? You mean it's just an opinion?
> However, there's a certain
>amount of feeling among feminists that it's necessary to maintain the
>semblance of a united front and to defend members of the community from
>the criticisms of outsiders even though we don't necessarily agree with
>them ourselves.
Why is this? Erasing distinctions is often a poor way to proceed,
IMHO, and the anti-pornography campaign does so to excess. (Eg,
in Edinburgh not long ago, little "Pornography IS violence against
women" stickers appeared all over the place.) Seeing feminists
line up with the religious right to attack civil liberties (so
to speak) has just played into the hands of the PC bashers and
lowered the quality of political discourse by employing a number
of extremely questionable arguments.
I could understand solidarity if it were more politically effective,
but at best this sort of position speaks only to the converted.
With everyone else, it tends to discredit feminism instead.
> Also, I think a lot of feminists see value in appre-
>ciating positions more extreme than our own, because they keep us ques-
>tioning ourselves, our motivations, our assumptions.
Or confirm your prejudices. Or whatever. Why should extreme
positions cause you to reconsider, unless you're entertaining
the idea that they might be right. If you read a racist book
do you start questioning whether racism is wrong?
-- jd
R o d Johnson
>In article <1991Oct7.1...@math.ucla.edu> tr...@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
>> You are the first avowed feminist that I've seen condemn Andrea
>>Dworkin unambivalently. But can a person who is praised by Kate
>>Millet and Gloria Steinam really be relegated to the lunatic fringe?
>>Indeed, I've seen feminist views much more extreme than Dworkin's.
Yep. I would hardly call Dworkin lunatic-fringe. In fact, I think
"Intercourse" is sometimes taken too literally as an anti-sex
document. In fact--there's some confusion over this--it's my
understanding that she's heterosexual and, in fact, married.
"Intercourse" (and, I imagine, "Mercy") is an attempt to put a new
construction on something that's generally uncritically considered a
good thing (fucking). I don't really understand it or accept it, but
I don't consider it crazy. Provocative, assaultive perhaps, but then
so was Johnny Rotten.
>Dworkin is on the anti-
>pornography side of the controversy, within feminism, over pornography,
>which reached its height in the mid-eighties and has never really been
>resolved. She is deeply hated by some feminists, who see her as anti-sex
>(and particularly anti-heterosexual-sex), judgemental, puritanical, anti-
>civil liberties, etc.
Dworkin and Catharine McKinnon were the most demonized at the time.
McKinnon is actually rather brilliant--I admire her writings a lot,
and I think it's a shame that her reputation as firebrand keeps her
from being more widely listened to. They certainly polarized the
feminist community, though. (This is important to realize for those
of you who seem to think "feminism" is a monolith.)
>The "pornography wars" were extremely devisive; for
>example, Joanna Russ at one point publicly denounced Andrea Dworkin,
I remember Erica Jong being rather splenetic about Dworkin too--and
her argument relied heavily on the first amendment. (This is
important to realize for those of you who seem to think "feminism" is
necessarily anti-civil liberties.)
>Also, I think a lot of feminists see value in appre-
>ciating positions more extreme than our own, because they keep us ques-
>tioning ourselves, our motivations, our assumptions.
This is well put, and so important. Not every statement has to be
scrutinized with an eye to what position we should take on it--right
or wrong, valid or invalid. Sometimes it's OK just to listen to what
someone has to say, see what thoughts or insights it provokes, where
it leads, and hold your need to judge in abeyance for a little while.
Indulge in a little negative capability. You may ultimately disagree
with Dworkin (or whoever), but still find value in the terms of debate
she introduces (or whatever). Surely premature rigidification is a
worse fate than to have made a few rash claims here and there, when
all is said and done.
--
Rod Johnson * rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 764 3130
"For there is no Height in which there are not flowers"
--Christopher Smart
Subrata Sircar
>tr...@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
[Feminism generalization deleted]
> When Hitler [...]
I surrender. I've had to amend the Corollary so many times, it just
isn't worth it. Mike Godwin was right in the first place.
Godwin's Theorem (paraphrased): The probability that an (odious) comparison
between Hitler/Nazism and a topic will be drawn increases as a Usenet
discussion continues.
Sircar's (new) Corollary: The time to certainty is about three days [your
propogation may vary] for any topic from the following list: heinlein,
homosexuality, baseball, hard v. soft sf, splitting sf-lovers, feminism ...
--
Subrata Sircar |sksi...@phoenix.princeton.edu|Prophet & SPAMIT Charter Member
I don't speak for Princeton, and they don't speak for me.
/EARTH is 98% full. Please delete anyone you can.
"The voters have spoken, the bastards..."
Lisa S Chabot
Bret Jolly writes:
One feminist told me that she believed that all women would
naturally rise up and exterminate men once they saw through the male
lie that men were necessary for procreation. (She believed that
parthenogenesis was practical, but that the techniques were being
suppressed by male scientists.)
Michael Rivero warns
When Hitler started his genocide program (on the theory that Eugenics was
'practical') many minorities stood idly by after being reassured that the
programs did not apply to them in particular.
I suppose men are a minority, in some countries, by what? About 2 %?
Whooppee--better barricade yourself! Gee, better hope that Deep
Dark Secret is kept that way by the Worldwide Conspiracy of Male
Scientists!
Michael Rivero continues
It is a historical fact that in times of great social stress (wartime, or
depression, or dark ages) that the general populations suppressed anger
and frustrations are easily tapped into by dynamic leaders with drastic
solutions. Hitler did it, and did it so well that only the year before he
invaded Poland, he was Time Magazine's "Man Of The Year", for the changes
he had made in his country.
If the current recession were to deepen and then prolong itself, Dworkin
and her agenda might just become a mainstream political force. The first
clue will come when fraternities and other mens organizations start to
suffer the fate of the Reichstagg Building.
Ha Ha! Keep it up--this is better than Dave Barry!
Hmm, usually, depressions mean no paying jobs for women, and possibly
burning at the stake, although I'm not quite sure I'd lump dark
ages in with economic depression... [What's the proof there was stress,
then, anyway?] But anyway, "history is bunk". So.
Presumably, the Dworkinites'll be storming the fraternities and
mens clubs to break open the safes and wrest from the mens's dead,
bloody hands the closely guarded secret of parthenogenesis.
[When the first clue does come, be sure to catch it (so you'll have one).
To think I never used to believe in womb-envy. Oh well!]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly enough, there's another book by the same title, recently
published. Quoting from the "Gender Swapping List" (V4) posted in
June by Bob Ewoldt:
MERCY David L. Lindsey 1990
Suspenseful thriller about a serial killer stalking women that are part of
an underground, bisexual, s&m group in Houston. One of the major characters
turns out to be a transvestite. Only one scene of dressing but nice
description of their feelings while getting dressed. NOT the typical
connection with the murder you would expect.
I don't remember any uproar about this one...anyone else?
Non-fictional references:
Mark MacNamara, "American Psycho"
San Jose Mercury News, West magazine, April 7, 1991
about real-life serial killers
Ann Jones, _Women_Who_Kill_
Fawcett Crest (Ballantine), NY (c) 1980, 1981
1988 paperback edition
(still in print, I believe: saw 2 copies at the local
mystery/horror/sciencefiction/fantasy book store)
In Jones's book she mentions in the 1840's and 50's, there
were a series of popular pamphlets describing FICTIONAL cases
of women serial killers, who were depicted as sensual
(very unseemly) which related to their criminality. In actuality,
there were very few (if any) who fit the category. She does
histories on some women who committed multiple murders, but
they more or less killed relatives (for money).
These days, FICTIONALLY it's good to be sensual (unless you're obsessed,
like "Fatal Attraction"), so instead the fictional women serial killers
are, what, usually gun-toting, rape-survivors, usually lesbians? And,
in the case of Dworkin's _Mercy_, it'd be okay if she just went after those
who attacked her? Because revenge is okay? Because the legal
system is no good? Vigilanteism is good? "Death Wish Etc."?
Blech.
--
In times of stress, remember to keep your bowler on
and watch out for criminal masterminds.
Jack Campin
> Why be loyal to crypto-fascists like Dworkin?
That is just plain silly. Have you actually READ any of Dworkin's work?
I'd give the lynch-Dworkin crowd somewhat more credence if they showed ANY
sign of knowing what she actually says, rather than is fantasized as
saying. I've read "Right-Wing Women" carefully, "Pornography..." less so
(and didn't agree with most of what I remember), and skimmed "Intercourse"
and "Ice and Fire". Let's see a similar list from the rest of you, if
you're not doing the same as the Randians with Kant.
For example: every book of hers I can remember is dedicated to, or has an
acknowledgement to, John Stoltenberg. Whatever that means (and her private
relationships are none of our business), it doesn't suggest someone with a
Valerie Solanas line on men.
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Rheal Nadeau 1514332
in order to find out what all the fuss is about... Now, why do I have
the feeling it will be easier for me to find American Psycho than Mercy?
--
The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau), Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: nad...@bnr.ca Standard Disclaimer Applies
riv...@dev8j.mdcbbs.com
> One feminist told me that she believed that all women would
> naturally rise up and exterminate men once they saw through the male
> lie that men were necessary for procreation. (She believed that
> parthenogenesis was practical, but that the techniques were being
> by her homicidal political lunacy, saying, "I didn't mean *you*,
> you're civilized." That makes one of us!
>
'practical') many minorities stood idly by after being reassured that the
rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto that people began to realize the reality
of the threat.
It is a historical fact that in times of great social stress (wartime, or
depression, or dark ages) that the general populations suppressed anger
and frustrations are easily tapped into by dynamic leaders with drastic
solutions. Hitler did it, and did it so well that only the year before he
invaded Poland, he was Time Magazine's "Man Of The Year", for the changes
he had made in his country.
If the current recession were to deepen and then prolong itself, Dworkin
and her agenda might just become a mainstream political force. The first
clue will come when fraternities and other mens organizations start to
suffer the fate of the Reichstagg Building.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
| Michael Rivero riv...@dev8j.mdcbbs "A Human's Human!" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Hell YES I'm paranoid. But, am I paranoid ENOUGH? |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric Pepke
>document. In fact--there's some confusion over this--it's my
>understanding that she's heterosexual and, in fact, married.
Dworkin asserts that she has been a lesbian for ten years. This information
was conveyed by her to an audience of about 300 plus me through the means
of vibrating air molecules without the aid of amplification or recording
devices. I didn't really care, but most of the audience seemed to think it
worthy of an eardrum-rending cheer.
What other people do with their genitalia is not generally of concern to me.
> Provocative, assaultive perhaps, but then
>so was Johnny Rotten.
Dworkin is much more like the modern Skinheads than she is like Johnny Rotten.
-EMP
"Closed mouth catches no flies,
Burning bridges as you're crossing is not very wise." -PIL
Eric Pepke
>disagree with most of what she says. In particular, the Steinam quote sounds
>like one of those things that could well have been said about some other
>work of Dworkin's but some editor thought would make a good blurb. (I happen
Oh, it's almost certain that the comment was about another book or intended
as a comment in general, and it is always worthwhile to remember the
context-free nature of blurbs. However,
1) I just did a search for books by Andrea Dworkin in an online electronic
catalog. The only books of hers that I have not at least skimmed are
_Fire and Ice_ and something called _Child_, which I am not even sure is
from the same Andrea Dworkin.
I have not seen evidence that the sense to froth ratio ever exceeds a
reprehensibly small amount. There is, in my option, no Golden Age of
Moderation to look back on.
2) Steinem's quote sounds like a general accolade to me. Of course, if I
were to make a comment containing the word "evolution," I would probably
mean it ironically. Nothing pushes the ol' genotype along like a deadly
plague or long-term climate disaster. However, I don't have any evidence
that Steinem knows enough about evolution to come up with something like
that.
Steinem has a tongue; in fact, she has a complete set of speech organs. She
also has access to a media ear; she is always popping up on CNN telling us
about the moral implications of some piece of cheap media kitsch or other.
If she wishes to clarify herself or protest a misuse of her name, she is
quite capable of doing so. If she wishes to leave it at face value, that's
her decision.
-EMP
Lisa S Chabot
Yep. I would hardly call Dworkin lunatic-fringe. In fact, I think
"Intercourse" is sometimes taken too literally as an anti-sex
document. In fact--there's some confusion over this--it's my
understanding that she's heterosexual and, in fact, married.
"Intercourse" (and, I imagine, "Mercy") is an attempt to put a new
construction on something that's generally uncritically considered a
good thing (fucking). I don't really understand it or accept it, but
I don't consider it crazy. Provocative, assaultive perhaps, but then
so was Johnny Rotten.
I was pretty sure that the subtitle of _Intercourse_ points out
that it's about the depiction of fucking in literature (and film).
And, mostly this is what happens in the book: examples from books
and movies...but also some relating it all back to what these
examples are saying about how we think about sex and sex roles
and who does what to whom. It's hardly anti-sex--doesn't she
work being done to explore changing these images? Away from
fucker vs. fuckee? The book has wit and humor but even more
despair: the last few pages are a trial that I thought I would
not survive. But, I did, and I was sustained. Sex is power:
perhaps; but Dworkin ends with the life-giving power of love.
Many thanks to Scooter for posting the Faulkner Nobel Prize speech
this week...
"...The poet's, the writer's duty is to write about these
things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting
his heart, by reminding him of courage and honor and hope
and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have
been the glory of his past. ..."
Char Aznabul
speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty)
writes:
+ (And who precisely is advocating false rape charges, anyway? Please
+ be specific and give sources. Are you saying that all "feminist
+ leaders" advocate such charges, or just all the ones quoted on the
+ *Mercy* book jacket?)
Catherine Cummins [??], an administrator at a college that escapes
me at the moment (but it's on the east coast). I read about it in the
_Chronicle of Higher Education_ before I saw it here. I'll leave it
to the rest of the net to fill in my blanks/correct my errors... :)
All I know, is that if I were a student at that college, I would give
serious consideration to transfering.
Eric Pepke
>I'd give the lynch-Dworkin crowd somewhat more credence if they showed ANY
>sign of knowing what she actually says, rather than is fantasized as
>saying. I've read "Right-Wing Women" carefully, "Pornography..." less so
>(and didn't agree with most of what I remember), and skimmed "Intercourse"
>and "Ice and Fire". Let's see a similar list from the rest of you, if
>you're not doing the same as the Randians with Kant.
I have read _Intercourse_, _Our Blood..._, _Pornography..._ and _Woman Hating_.
I have read miscellaneous essays of hers, such as in _Take Back the Night_.
I have skimmed _Right Wing Women_ and _Letters from a War Zone_. I have NOT
read _Ice and Fire_, and I have seen a questionable reference to something
called _Child_. I have attended a lecture by her about one year ago and am
also therefore familiar with her crowd-working abilities.
The word "read" in this context means a sequential processing of text with
care comparable to that invested in a textbook by a good studing wishing to
know the material. The word "skim" in this context means a random heuristic
processing of text.
I eagerly await evidence of your newly increased respect for me.
>For example: every book of hers I can remember is dedicated to, or has an
>acknowledgement to, John Stoltenberg. Whatever that means (and her private
>relationships are none of our business), it doesn't suggest someone with a
>Valerie Solanas line on men.
Have *you* read anything by John Stoltenberg?
-EMP
Jeff Dalton
>is that Dworkin gives her character a motive. I see a difference between
>depicting someone who breaks down into violence when pushed over the edge
>and someone who never goes deeper than "violence is fun."
So if a writer just supplies a little motivation it's all OK?
I don't think so, and I'd also say the whole thing may be more
effective (eg, in making one think) if the motivation is less
clear.
>Secondly, I'm not sure it's fair to claim that the feminist leaders quoted
>actually support Dworkin's "position." Book jacket blurbs are notorious
>for their lack of context. I think it's fair to say that I consider Dworkin
>an "important and influential person who has made people think" although I
>disagree with most of what she says.
She's importand and influential in only a very small circle.
I suspect most people would choose a different characterization.
M.H. Nadel
>In article <1991Oct9.1...@aero.org> na...@aero.org (M.H. Nadel) writes:
>>
>>First off, I think that one difference between "Mercy" and "American Psycho"
>>is that Dworkin gives her character a motive. I see a difference between
>>depicting someone who breaks down into violence when pushed over the edge
>>and someone who never goes deeper than "violence is fun."
>
>So if a writer just supplies a little motivation it's all OK?
>I don't think so, and I'd also say the whole thing may be more
>effective (eg, in making one think) if the motivation is less
>clear.
>
protest over it was misguided.
I also haven't read it because I consider Ellis to have virtually no writing
talent, based on other works by him. I do think Dworkin's writing is
"better" from a literary standpoint, though quite frankly if I want to
read something violent I'll take Raymond Chandler any day (or, should you
insist on someone living, Jonathan Kellerman.)
I merely intended to point out that it doesn't sound like "Mercy" is just
a gender reversed "American Psycho" and it is misleading to imply that
it is.
>>Secondly, I'm not sure it's fair to claim that the feminist leaders quoted
>>actually support Dworkin's "position." Book jacket blurbs are notorious
>>for their lack of context. I think it's fair to say that I consider Dworkin
>>an "important and influential person who has made people think" although I
>>disagree with most of what she says.
>
>She's importand and influential in only a very small circle.
>I suspect most people would choose a different characterization.
The fact that you're bothering to raise the question at all suggests she is
influential. Her influence need not be positive but she obviously has raised
questions that a significant number of people consider worth debating given
how much attention she gets on the net. If you really want to talk about
what "most people" think of her, I would venture to guess that well over 90%
of the American public has even heard of her.
As far as "Mercy" goes, it's a novel and doesn't claim to be otherwise. If
you think that it's likely to suddenly incite women to slaughter men en masse,
I suppose you're also boycotting Stephen Sondheim's musicals because
"Sweeney Todd" is a sympathetic portrayal of a mass murderer, of a man pushed
so far by the actions of a few people that he concludes "they all demand to
die."
Bronis Vidugiris
)I'm curious about the assumptions that Dworkin's book is intended to be
)prescriptive. What's the evidence for this?
)
Here are some of her other words, according to a recent post on the
net. [Looks like the article prompting the post is a bit old, though - just
noticed that.]
---
KILL WIFE BEATERS WHO GO FREE, FEMINIST-RIGHTS ACTIVIST URGES
Canadian Press. Montreal Gazette, May 13, 1991
==============================================
Banff, Alta. If wife beaters can't be jailed, women should take the
law into their own hands and kill them, says a leading U.S. women's
rights activist.
Andrea Dworkin jolted a weekend conference in this Rocky Mountain
resort town with her call for women to become "warriors." She urged
the 1200 delegates to close down porn outlets, retaliate against
rapists and form a support system for battered women who kill their
husbands. "I am asking you to stop men who beat women...get them
jailed or get them killed," said the feminist author.
Dworkin made the comments in a keynote speech to the conference
entitled Women in a Violent Society, organized by the Canadian
Mental Health Association and attended by Crown counsels, lawyers,
social workers and 150 victims of sexual abuse. Mary Collins, federal
minister for women's affairs, was among the speakers.
Urging women to become "part of a secret life," Dworkin said, "when
the law fails us we cannot fail each other. "We are in a war and we
need to win...we need a political resistance above ground and
underground," she said to thunderous applause.
Matt Austern
> For example: every book of hers I can remember is dedicated to, or has an
> acknowledgement to, John Stoltenberg. Whatever that means (and her private
> relationships are none of our business), it doesn't suggest someone with a
> Valerie Solanas line on men.
And, for that matter, the one book I have read by John Stoltenberg
(_Refusing to be a Man_) is dedicated to Andrea Dworkin.
I recommend _Refusing to be a Man_, by the way. It's a collection of
essays and talks about gender issues, and it's something you can show
to people who don't believe that male feminists exist. The book is
very opinionated, of course, and Stoltenberg's version of feminism is
similar to Dworkin's. I disagreed with much of the book, but he does
make some interesting points.
--
Matthew Austern I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(415) 644-2618 of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
aus...@theorm.lbl.gov multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
aus...@lbl.bitnet me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Janet M. Lafler
> The message of "Mercy" versus "American Psycho" is very clear.
>It's politically correct to fantasize about women murdering men, but
>politically VERBOTEN to fantasize about men killing women. There is
>a clear social bias being imposed on us all.
Oh? _American Psycho_ got published after all, and it sold a lot of
copies. The book became a cause celebre in civil libertarian circles.
I haven't read either book, so I'm not in any position to comment on
the content of either, but I'd just like to point out that:
1) Movies and books which portray men being violent to women are very
common and have been for a long time; movies and books in which women
are violent to men are still far more rare. (I don't feel any need to
"even the score;" I'm just pointing out something that should be mani-
festly obvious.)
2) Despite the way a work is intended, it doesn't need to be taken that
way by its audience. I doubt that either Anthony Burgess or Stanley
Kubrick meant us to approve of the violence of Alex and his friends in
_A Clockwork Orange_, but I have watched the movie in a theater and heard
some of the men in the audience urging on Alex and his friends during the
rape scenes. A lot of the movies and books which portray violence by men
against women may not be intended to be "prescriptive," but they can end
up being just that in the eyes of part of their audience. Don't assume
my pointing this out means I'm in favor of censorship.
3) Finally, for the record, I did not participate in the boycott of Ellis'
book. I didn't read it because it's not the kind of book that I ordinarily
read.
I'm curious about the assumptions that Dworkin's book is intended to be
prescriptive. What's the evidence for this?
/Janet
--
send mail to: repn...@leland.stanford.edu
"Now, captain," said the squire, "you were right and I was wrong. I own myself
an ass, and I await your orders."
-- Treasure Island
Janet M. Lafler
>In article <1991Oct10....@leland.Stanford.EDU> repn...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
>
>> prescriptive. What's the evidence for this?
>
>foolish enough to say that Dworkin is advocating systematic murder of
>men (but then again, this is the Net, so there's probably a defender
>for any position, no matter how ludicrous). However, it's not
>unreasonable to read Dworkin as saying that women have a right---or
>possibly an obligation---to be angry about their treatment by men, and
>that this anger should find expression in behavior.
An interesting book to compare it to might be Richard Wright's "Native
Son," the point of which is not that black men ought to go around murdering
people but that the protagonists' actions in murdering two women were the
inevitable result of the hopelessness and degradation of his life. The
point is that racism doesn't just produce saintly sufferers who are worthy
of everyone's sympathy; it produces angry, violent, twisted people who see
that they have nothing to lose and who lash out indiscriminately. One thing
that's very hard for a lot of liberals to deal with is that the victims of
oppression aren't necessarily very nice people, even if they're not down-
right sociopaths like Dworkin's and Wright's fictional characters.
>I haven't read _Mercy_, so what I'm writing is based on the reviews I
>have seen. Actually, has *anyone* in this discussion actually read
>_Mercy_? If not, do we get some kind of Usenet Award for the most
>voluminous discussion about a book that nobody has read?
Heh. I've glanced through the book, but I haven't read it.
Mitchell S Todd
>
>First off, I think that one difference between "Mercy" and "American Psycho"
>is that Dworkin gives her character a motive. I see a difference between
>depicting someone who breaks down into violence when pushed over the edge
>and someone who never goes deeper than "violence is fun."
Maybe there's a reason why Ellis titled his book _American
*Psycho*_? If you've read much about serial killers and their
motives, you might notice that Ellis' conception of the mind
of a serial killer tends to be closer to reality than Dworkin's.
A common comment of the aquaintences and neighbors of serial
killers is that of disbelief that the murderer would actually
"do something like that". "But he was a nice man", goes the
refrain. Just look at Ted Bundy.
_Mercy_ seems to be the sort of "Yeah? Well, I'll show
*them*" spoink-lit commonly produced by the members
of various (mostly) fringe groups.
______
___________________/ \________________________________________________
\__ / mst4298\\\ _______/
\__ Mitchell S \ @zeus. /// Thunder, Perfect Mind ______////
\__ Todd \.tamu./// All the usual, and even more _______////
\_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\ //////////////////////////////////////////////
\/\///
\/ Are you happy now, Clark?\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Janet M. Lafler
>
>> For example: every book of hers I can remember is dedicated to, or has an
>> acknowledgement to, John Stoltenberg. Whatever that means (and her private
>> relationships are none of our business), it doesn't suggest someone with a
>> Valerie Solanas line on men.
>
>And, for that matter, the one book I have read by John Stoltenberg
>(_Refusing to be a Man_) is dedicated to Andrea Dworkin.
I just nipped down to the bookstore to take a peek at _Mercy_, and noticed
that it's dedicated to Michael Moorcock, as well as two women I hadn't
heard of. There are also positive blurbs by Moorcock and Paul West on
the back jacket. Perhaps they're traitors to their gender?
Matt Austern
> I'm curious about the assumptions that Dworkin's book is intended to be
> prescriptive. What's the evidence for this?
Depends on what "prescriptive" means. I don't think anyone here is
foolish enough to say that Dworkin is advocating systematic murder of
men (but then again, this is the Net, so there's probably a defender
for any position, no matter how ludicrous). However, it's not
unreasonable to read Dworkin as saying that women have a right---or
possibly an obligation---to be angry about their treatment by men, and
that this anger should find expression in behavior.
One reason for thinking this is that the book is in some sense
autobiographical; the main character is named Andrea. A second is
that the book contains another character, "not-Andrea," who is
liberal, and is thoroughly corrupt. The dichotomy between rage and
corruption seems rather clear.
I haven't read _Mercy_, so what I'm writing is based on the reviews I
have seen. Actually, has *anyone* in this discussion actually read
_Mercy_? If not, do we get some kind of Usenet Award for the most
voluminous discussion about a book that nobody has read?
Mikhail Zeleny
(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>In article <1991Oct12....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct12....@hellgate.utah.edu>
>>speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
>>(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>>>In article <1991Oct11....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>>>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>>>>why not?
SP:
>>>Because people who do tend not to know what they're talking about?
MZ:
>>A brilliant response, one gracefully combining light-footed evasion of the
>>issue, an implication of the respondent being ``in the know'', a veiled
>>aspersion of the opposite cast on the impudent questioner, and an ironic
>>dismissal of its own meaning.
SP:
>Given the the fact that your original question simply reeked of snideness,
>offhanded dismissiveness, and a greater interest in making cheap shots
>than in furthering discussion, I felt that the response I gave was all
>it deserved. I am merely following your example.
On the contrary, you are following the ghosts conjured by your febrile
imagination. My inquiry has been made in all sincerity; the fact that you
managed to discover all sorts of pernicious subterfuge in a two-word
question not addressed to you personally, says a lot about your
obstreperous nature, but nothing at all about the issue at hand.
SP:
>I won't even bother to point out that in this very thread, several people
>have posted statements to the effect of "I consider myself a feminist and
>I disagree with Andrea Dworkin.
I shall deviate, entirely at my own risk, from the sterling example of
nixonian intellectual honesty exemplified by your above remark, omitting
the preterition, and unabashedly noting that this forum has also seen a
great many eminent feminist thinkers cited in support of Andrea Dworkin;
and, moreover, that a quick perusal of the back jacket of ``Intercourse''
adds to their ranks such notables as Robin Morgan, Phyllis Chester, Mary
Daly, and Shere Hite, as well as an anonymous flack in the employ of ``San
Francisco Examiner-Chronicle''. My question stands; however no further
samples of your hostility are solicited thereby.
SP:
>>>--
>>>"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
MZ:
>>oh, and so original, too...
SP:
>You mean there's another person who does this? Now I'm embarassed--and
>I thought I was being so unique...
You are about as unique as Tiffany, dear.
>--
>"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
>soren f petersen : i AM NOT
>spet...@peruvian.utah.edu : THE university OF utah
> Dang. Utah always gets everything first. -- Rod Johnson
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| ``If there are no Platonic ideals, then what did we fight for?'' |
| (A Spanish anarchist, after 1938) |
| Mikhail Zeleny Harvard |
| 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 doesn't |
| Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 think |
| (617) 661-8151 so |
| email zel...@math.harvard.edu or zel...@zariski.harvard.edu |
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
> _Mercy_ seems to be the sort of "Yeah? Well, I'll show
> *them*" spoink-lit commonly produced by the members
> of various (mostly) fringe groups.
Like the folks who make the *Death Wish* movies, maybe?
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>why not?
Because people who do tend not to know what they're talking about?
--
Mikhail Zeleny
>I was pretty sure that the subtitle of _Intercourse_ points out
>that it's about the depiction of fucking in literature (and film).
>And, mostly this is what happens in the book: examples from books
>and movies...but also some relating it all back to what these
>examples are saying about how we think about sex and sex roles
>and who does what to whom. It's hardly anti-sex--doesn't she
>work being done to explore changing these images? Away from
>fucker vs. fuckee? The book has wit and humor but even more
>despair: the last few pages are a trial that I thought I would
>not survive. But, I did, and I was sustained. Sex is power:
>perhaps; but Dworkin ends with the life-giving power of love.
Your brain must be melting; hasn't slowed your fingers any...
`Wilhelm Reich, that most optimistic of sexual liberationists, the only
male to abhor rape {\it really}, thought that a girl needed not only ``a
free genital sexuality'' but also ``an undisturbed room, proper
contraceptives, a friend who is capable of love, that is, not a National
Socialist...'' All remain hard for women to attain; but especially the
lover who is not a National Socialist. So the act goes beyond complicity
to collaboration [...] That collaboration, fully manifested when a woman
values her lover, the National Socialist, above any woman, anyone of her
class and status, may have simple beginnings: the first act of complicity
that destroys self-respect, the capacity for self-determination and freedom
--- readying the body for the fuck instead of for freedom. The men have an
answer: intercourse is freedom. Maybe it is second-class freedom for
second-class humans.' (``Intercourse'', pp.141--2)
Note that she says `her lover, the National Socialist', rather than `the
National Socialist, her lover'...
I dunno, I bought her argument until she claimed that ``the word {\it
penis} comes from Old English word for {\it fetus}''... (p.187)
>--
>In times of stress, remember to keep your bowler on
>and watch out for criminal masterminds.
To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
why not?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>In article <1991Oct12....@hellgate.utah.edu>
>speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
>(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct11....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>MZ:
>>>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>>>why not?
>SP:
>>Because people who do tend not to know what they're talking about?
>A brilliant response, one gracefully combining light-footed evasion of the
>issue, an implication of the respondent being ``in the know'', a veiled
>aspersion of the opposite cast on the impudent questioner, and an ironic
>dismissal of its own meaning.
Given the the fact that your original question simply reeked of snideness,
offhanded dismissiveness, and a greater interest in making cheap shots
than in furthering discussion, I felt that the response I gave was all
it deserved. I am merely following your example.
I won't even bother to point out that in this very thread, several people
have posted statements to the effect of "I consider myself a feminist and
I disagree with Andrea Dworkin.
>SP:
>>--
>>"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
>oh, and so original, too...
You mean there's another person who does this? Now I'm embarassed--and
I thought I was being so unique...
--
INFIDEL
"American Psycho" is boring - Ellis thinks he's making his character
shocking and nasty but unfortunately the "nasty bits" read more like
the back of a cornflakes packet, in a sense. Ellis's trouble is that he
doesn't communicate depth of feeling very well - so the bits that are
supposed to be horrific just turn out to be plain silly. He doesn't
choose his subject matter well at all.
One gets more horrified in visiting a farm and hearing the stories of struggle
there, told honestly. But that sort of thing is not glamourous (and
sensational) enough for Ellis and the gullible general public. Drilling
a hole in a girl's head ? Ha! Garbage. It means little to just about
everybody, so it's guaranteed to be read as a cartoon, a horror comic.
On the other hand, play on the influence of despair of loneliness, for instance,and you've potentially got yourself an accessible story. But that'd mean
writing in a non-trivial style, something which Ellis - in all his
ambition-driven wisdom - manages to fail to do.
So it's amusing to see the amount of hot air generated by tapping
fingers , feminist and male chauvinist and whatever , over a horror
comic. As if that cartoon had something deep say about the human
condition or something sensible to add to the issue of justice for
women.
"American Psycho" is trash; the argumentative busy-bodies, who have
nothing better to concern their minds with than caricatures of people,
have found their level.
John Wojdylo
Perth
Western Australia
Craig Becker
(Rheal Nadeau 1514332) writes:
>
> Now I'm going to have to find these two books (Mercy and American Psycho)
> in order to find out what all the fuss is about...
What *I'm* waiting for is the logical "sequel" that ties the _Mercy_ and
_American Psycho_ together: _Andrea and Patrick: A Love Story_
:-)
Craig
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- "It was during the battle of Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
-- Agincourt that Fedmahn Kassad Internet: cra...@ot.austin.ibm.com --
-- encountered the woman he would IBM Austin: cra...@woofer.ibm.com --
-- spend the rest of his life seeking." VNET: CRAIGB at AUSVM1 --
---------------- Dan Simmons, _Hyperion_ ------------------------------------
-- off 906/4A-015 zip 9641 ph (512) 838-8068 tl 678-8068 hm (512) 346-5397 --
-- IBM Personal Systems Programming, 11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX, 78759 --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikhail Zeleny
speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>In article <1991Oct11....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>>why not?
SP:
>Because people who do tend not to know what they're talking about?
A brilliant response, one gracefully combining light-footed evasion of the
issue, an implication of the respondent being ``in the know'', a veiled
aspersion of the opposite cast on the impudent questioner, and an ironic
dismissal of its own meaning.
SP:
>--
>"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
oh, and so original, too...
>soren f petersen : i AM NOT
>spet...@peruvian.utah.edu : THE university OF utah
> Dang. Utah always gets everything first. -- Rod Johnson
Mike Godwin
>
>common and have been for a long time; movies and books in which women
>are violent to men are still far more rare.
It is worth noting that works that show men being violent to men are
also quite common, and that books showing women being violent to women are
rather rare. This seems to reflect what we know about life in general:
that men as a sex are more prone to violence. This violence is not
specific to the relationships between men and women.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Eros and language mesh at every point. Intercourse
mnem...@eff.org | and discourse, copula and copulation, are sub-classes
(617) 864-0665 | of the dominant fact of communication."
EFF, Cambridge, MA| --George Steiner
Mike Godwin
> When Hitler started his genocide program (on the theory that Eugenics was
>'practical') many minorities stood idly by after being reassured that the
>programs did not apply to them in particular. It wasn't until the open
>rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto that people began to realize the reality
>of the threat.
Ah, another example of Godwin's Rule:
As a Usenet discussion continues, the probability of a reference to Hitler
or Nazis approoaches one.
Gordon Fitch
| speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
| (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
|
| >In article <1991Oct11....@husc3.harvard.edu>
| >zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
|
| MZ:
| >>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
| >>why not?
|
| SP:
| >Because people who do tend not to know what they're talking about?
|
| A brilliant response, one gracefully combining light-footed evasion of the
| issue, an implication of the respondent being ``in the know'', a veiled
| aspersion of the opposite cast on the impudent questioner, and an ironic
| dismissal of its own meaning.
Ah, Michael ever Green, so you have slipped into rec.arts.books.
I had not seen your name since you wore out your craven baiting
of homosexuals in talk.politics.theory. Baiting feminists, now,
are you? Telling them they're evading issues when everyone knows
there is no issue, and knows (if they know you at all) that you
know as well?
I think you should do a little better that to pretend that you
think Andrea Dworkin represents "the feminists." It's true you
might get some neophytes to earnestly explain things to you, so
you could twist and turn and quote Petronius Arbiter or whatever
else fell out of the library when you walked through -- but even
they would see the sham after the third go-'round or so.
| SP:
| >--
| >"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
|
| oh, and so original, too...
-- like heavy sarcasm. Can't you find a better way to draw
attention to yourself than this sort of thing, Mr. Green?
--
Gordon Fitch * uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
Bx 1238 Bowling Green Station / NYC 10274
"... a master of disingenuous subtlety." -P.McGuinness
Mikhail Zeleny
g...@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| In article <1991Oct12....@hellgate.utah.edu>
>| speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
>| (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>| >In article <1991Oct11....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>| >zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>| >>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>| >>why not?
SP:
>| >Because people who do tend not to know what they're talking about?
MZ:
>| A brilliant response, one gracefully combining light-footed evasion of the
>| issue, an implication of the respondent being ``in the know'', a veiled
>| aspersion of the opposite cast on the impudent questioner, and an ironic
>| dismissal of its own meaning.
GF:
>Ah, Michael ever Green, so you have slipped into rec.arts.books.
>I had not seen your name since you wore out your craven baiting
>of homosexuals in talk.politics.theory. Baiting feminists, now,
>are you? Telling them they're evading issues when everyone knows
>there is no issue, and knows (if they know you at all) that you
>know as well?
Gordon, old thing, so you've been trying to find me? How flattering. Try
alt.sex, or the sci.philosophy/logic groups, or the .soviet ones; you won't
have to wait for long. As for your libertarian buddies in t.p.t,
cross-posting there was a mistake of my usenet youth, when I still naively
assumed that the group's subject matter has to correlate with its name.
Incidentally, I still believe that homosexual activity is morally wrong,
and never shy away from stating my views directly; on the other hand, my
views on feminism stand in need of factual information. `Craven baiting'
is, of course, an appropriate description for your own position, given that
your self-proclaimed (on talk.politics.guns) non-violent convictions would
conveniently exempt you from the need to accept my invitation for pistols
for two and coffee for one.
GF:
>I think you should do a little better that to pretend that you
>think Andrea Dworkin represents "the feminists." It's true you
>might get some neophytes to earnestly explain things to you, so
>you could twist and turn and quote Petronius Arbiter or whatever
>else fell out of the library when you walked through -- but even
>they would see the sham after the third go-'round or so.
Your judgment of my character has been noted and disregarded, Gordon
dearest.
SP:
>| >--
>| >"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
>|
>| oh, and so original, too...
GF:
>-- like heavy sarcasm. Can't you find a better way to draw
>attention to yourself than this sort of thing, Mr. Green?
Evidently this is most effective when trying to attract the attention of
the dog of my dreams... Now kindly bugger off into that good night, old man.
>--
>Gordon Fitch * uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
> Bx 1238 Bowling Green Station / NYC 10274
>"... a master of disingenuous subtlety." -P.McGuinness
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>In article <1991Oct12.1...@hellgate.utah.edu>
>speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
>(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct12....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>>In article <1991Oct12....@hellgate.utah.edu>
>>>speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
>>>(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>>>>In article <1991Oct11....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>MZ:
>>>>>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>>>>>why not?
>[stuff deleted]
>SP:
>>I won't even bother to point out that in this very thread, several people
>>have posted statements to the effect of "I consider myself a feminist and
>>I disagree with Andrea Dworkin.
>I shall deviate, entirely at my own risk, from the sterling example of
>nixonian intellectual honesty exemplified by your above remark, omitting
>the preterition, and unabashedly noting that this forum has also seen a
>great many eminent feminist thinkers cited in support of Andrea Dworkin;
>and, moreover, that a quick perusal of the back jacket of ``Intercourse''
>adds to their ranks such notables as Robin Morgan, Phyllis Chester, Mary
>Daly, and Shere Hite, as well as an anonymous flack in the employ of ``San
>Francisco Examiner-Chronicle''.
You're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. You cite
a lot of feminist "names" who have said things that can be interpreted
as supportive of Andrea Dworkin. I cite a number of self-avowed feminists
on the net who have stated that they do not share Andrea Dworkin's views
on a great deal of subjects. Some of these people have even cited
feminist "names" who have gone on record as disagreeing with Dworkin
(specifically Erica Jong and Joanna Russ). A great many people, both
avowedly feminist and not, whose honesty I have no reason to doubt, have
expressed the opinion that Dworkin represents some sort of "lunatic fringe"
of feminism.
This seems to me to be definitive evidence that Andrea Dworkin does not
speak for all feminists, and that feminism as a whole should therefore
not be judged by her example.
If you had been following the thread on *Mercy* (at least the version
that has appeared in rec.arts.books) for the last week or so, you would
be aware of this. Thus my assumption that anyone who jumps in and baldly
asks "why shouldn't all feminists be judged according to Andrea Dworkin's
example" at this point of the game is deliberately ignoring everything
that has gone before, and is more interesting in stirring up trouble
than contributing to legitimate (if heated) discussion.
If you really haven't seen the preceding discussion, then I apologize.
If you have, then I stand by everything I've said.
>My question stands; however no further
>samples of your hostility are solicited thereby.
Fuck you.
>SP:
>>>>--
>>>>"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
>MZ:
>>>oh, and so original, too...
>SP:
>>You mean there's another person who does this? Now I'm embarassed--and
>>I thought I was being so unique...
>You are about as unique as Tiffany, dear.
The difference between you and me, darling, is that I *know* when I'm
talking bullshit.
joseph toman
>
>> The message of "Mercy" versus "American Psycho" is very clear.
>>It's politically correct to fantasize about women murdering men, but
>>politically VERBOTEN to fantasize about men killing women. There is
>>a clear social bias being imposed on us all.
>
>Oh? _American Psycho_ got published after all, and it sold a lot of
>copies. The book became a cause celebre in civil libertarian circles.
Why would that be, if violence against women were as accepted as you claim ?
>I haven't read either book, so I'm not in any position to comment on
>the content of either, but I'd just like to point out that:
>
>1) Movies and books which portray men being violent to women are very
>common and have been for a long time;
I would disagree. Violence against women in film and books prior to the
mid-sixties was pretty much confined to "tying them to the railroad track"
so the handsome hero could save her, beat the bad guy, and save the day.
This changed with horror/slasher flicks, where Muffy continually goes
down into the unlit basement in her underwear to find out what that
noise was, and gets skewered by the lonely-guy-gone-wrong (whose mother
loves him) . Note that Muffy's dismemberment causes this to be labeled
a "horror" movie, while any number of male rent-a-sentry's can die horribly
in a war film and it's still good clean family fun. When women get killed
or raped in movies nowadays, it usually to excuse the excesses of violence
the male (possibly female) lead will wreak in the name of 'justice'.
Fr'instance, the original Deathwish film.
>movies and books in which women
>are violent to men are still far more rare.
Movies and books in which women do anything constructive or destructive
are rare, though becoming commoner.
> (I don't feel any need to
>"even the score;" I'm just pointing out something that should be mani-
>festly obvious.)
>
>2) Despite the way a work is intended, it doesn't need to be taken that
>way by its audience. I doubt that either Anthony Burgess or Stanley
>Kubrick meant us to approve of the violence of Alex and his friends in
>_A Clockwork Orange_, but I have watched the movie in a theater and heard
>some of the men in the audience urging on Alex and his friends during the
>rape scenes.
Who has denied the existence of assholes ?
J. Toman
Mitchell S Todd
>> _Mercy_ seems to be the sort of "Yeah? Well, I'll show
>> *them*" spoink-lit commonly produced by the members
>> of various (mostly) fringe groups.
>Like the folks who make the *Death Wish* movies, maybe?
Exactly.
Your point being?
A T Rogers
either book, but having read other Ellis novels, I don't think he deserves
as much attention or argumentation as has been spent in the media or on
this net. I won't read Dworkin because I am not found of pathologically
violent novels, but I won't read Ellis because I expect it is not worth
reading.
Tim Rogers (and his opinionated dog, Omega)
Janet M. Lafler
>In article <1991Oct9.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> repn...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
>
>>I've never been an admirer of Dworkin's work or political theory, and in
>>fact I disagree violently with a lot of what she stands for, but I'd be
>>reluctant to "condemn her unambivalently" myself. Dworkin is on the anti-
>>pornography side of the controversy, within feminism, over pornography,
>>which reached its height in the mid-eighties and has never really been
>>resolved. She is deeply hated by some feminists, who see her as anti-sex
>>(and particularly anti-heterosexual-sex), judgemental, puritanical, anti-
>>civil liberties, etc.
>
>They "see her"? You mean it's just an opinion?
What else would it be? She might admit to being anti-civil liberties, in
some contexts, but I doubt that she considers herself anti-sex; that's an
opinion that many of her opponents have formed. (As for being anti-hetero-
sexual, she calls herself a lesbian, but there's a lot of gossip around the
gay community these days to the effect that she's involved with a man these
days. Make of that what you will.)
>> However, there's a certain
>>amount of feeling among feminists that it's necessary to maintain the
>>semblance of a united front and to defend members of the community from
>>the criticisms of outsiders even though we don't necessarily agree with
>>them ourselves.
>
>Why is this? Erasing distinctions is often a poor way to proceed,
>IMHO, and the anti-pornography campaign does so to excess. (Eg,
>in Edinburgh not long ago, little "Pornography IS violence against
>women" stickers appeared all over the place.) Seeing feminists
>line up with the religious right to attack civil liberties (so
>to speak) has just played into the hands of the PC bashers and
>lowered the quality of political discourse by employing a number
>of extremely questionable arguments.
>
>I could understand solidarity if it were more politically effective,
>but at best this sort of position speaks only to the converted.
>With everyone else, it tends to discredit feminism instead.
I think I stated what I meant badly. What I was trying to convey is
that feminists tend to feel responsible for defending one another from
what they see as ignorant attacks, based on lies or misinformation,
not on refraining from criticizing one another (although there's a lot
of talk about doing so gently and constructively). This tendency stems
from the repeated and scurrilous misrepresentation of feminism in the
media and by politicians. As for maintaining a "united front," I didn't
say that I approved of this idea; in fact, I have mixed feelings about
it. I certainly have no trouble stating publicly that I disagree with
other feminists on various issues; I've done this from the beginning.
But feminism is more than simply a political movement, it's a community
which has formed around that movement, and for whatever reason many fem-
inists, me included, have emotional ties to other feminists. I'm anti-
censorship and I have a lot of trouble with the idea that *all* pornography
is violence against women, but I think I understand the rage that has led
many feminists to take that position.
>> Also, I think a lot of feminists see value in appre-
>>ciating positions more extreme than our own, because they keep us ques-
>>tioning ourselves, our motivations, our assumptions.
>
>Or confirm your prejudices. Or whatever. Why should extreme
>positions cause you to reconsider, unless you're entertaining
>the idea that they might be right. If you read a racist book
>do you start questioning whether racism is wrong?
I think you missed my point. Listening to opinions which differ from mine,
really listening, leads me to examine my position, to *think* about why I
hold it, to ask myself what holding that opinion implies, and if I can live
with that. What happens when you stop listening to other opinions? If I
read a racist book, I don't start questioning whether racism is wrong, but
I might start questioning what I assume racists are like, what I think the
best solution to the problem of racism is, etc. _Native Son_, which I've
mentioned before in this thread, is a flawed book, IMO, and I have trouble
with some of its politics. Nevertheless I think it's worth reading and
that there are interesting things to be gleaned from it.
Janet M. Lafler
>Your brain must be melting; hasn't slowed your fingers any...
Well, the level of discourse on this thread has degenerated to the point where
I, for one, am not longer interested in participating. Have fun, folks.
Mikhail Zeleny
(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>In article <1991Oct13....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct12.1...@hellgate.utah.edu>
>>speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
>>(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>>>In article <1991Oct12....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>>>In article <1991Oct12....@hellgate.utah.edu>
>>>>speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu
>>>>(soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>>>>>In article <1991Oct11....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>>>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>>>>>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>>>>>>why not?
SP:
>>>I won't even bother to point out that in this very thread, several people
>>>have posted statements to the effect of "I consider myself a feminist and
>>>I disagree with Andrea Dworkin.
MZ:
>>I shall deviate, entirely at my own risk, from the sterling example of
>>nixonian intellectual honesty exemplified by your above remark, omitting
>>the preterition, and unabashedly noting that this forum has also seen a
>>great many eminent feminist thinkers cited in support of Andrea Dworkin;
>>and, moreover, that a quick perusal of the back jacket of ``Intercourse''
>>adds to their ranks such notables as Robin Morgan, Phyllis Chester, Mary
>>Daly, and Shere Hite, as well as an anonymous flack in the employ of ``San
>>Francisco Examiner-Chronicle''.
SP:
>You're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. You cite
>a lot of feminist "names" who have said things that can be interpreted
>as supportive of Andrea Dworkin. I cite a number of self-avowed feminists
>on the net who have stated that they do not share Andrea Dworkin's views
>on a great deal of subjects. Some of these people have even cited
>feminist "names" who have gone on record as disagreeing with Dworkin
>(specifically Erica Jong and Joanna Russ). A great many people, both
>avowedly feminist and not, whose honesty I have no reason to doubt, have
>expressed the opinion that Dworkin represents some sort of "lunatic fringe"
>of feminism.
The names I cite, plus the names of Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett, cited
by other contributors, represent the feminist leadership, which seems to be
reluctant to allow any sort of internecine conflict. You cite rank and
file; whom shall I trust more in deciding what the movement is all about?
Here's the article I was referring to:
In article <1991Oct9.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
repn...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
>In article <1991Oct7.1...@math.ucla.edu>
>tr...@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct6.2...@milton.u.washington.edu>
>>mich...@milton.u.washington.edu (Marianna Wright-Newton) writes:
MWN:
>>>She certainly doesn't represent the kind of feminism *I* ascribe to, nor,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>I would hope, that of most feminists, lesbian or heterosexual. Dworkin is,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>by and large, the lunatic fringe. Don't judge feminism by this extremist,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>please!
^^^^^^^
>>>Marianna Wright-Newton
BJ:
>> You are the first avowed feminist that I've seen condemn Andrea
>>Dworkin unambivalently. But can a person who is praised by Kate
>>Millet and Gloria Steinam really be relegated to the lunatic fringe?
>>Indeed, I've seen feminist views much more extreme than Dworkin's.
JML:
>I've never been an admirer of Dworkin's work or political theory, and in
^^
>fact I disagree violently with a lot of what she stands for, but I'd be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>reluctant to "condemn her unambivalently" myself. Dworkin is on the anti-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>pornography side of the controversy, within feminism, over pornography,
>which reached its height in the mid-eighties and has never really been
>resolved. She is deeply hated by some feminists, who see her as anti-sex
>(and particularly anti-heterosexual-sex), judgemental, puritanical, anti-
>civil liberties, etc. The "pornography wars" were extremely devisive; for
>example, Joanna Russ at one point publicly denounced Andrea Dworkin, though
>she (Russ) later apologized for doing so. However, there's a certain
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>amount of feeling among feminists that it's necessary to maintain the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>semblance of a united front and to defend members of the community from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the criticisms of outsiders even though we don't necessarily agree with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>them ourselves. (I'm sure you've observed this sort of behavior with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>other communities and political groups, and especially families. It's a
^^^^^^
>matter of loyalty.) Also, I think a lot of feminists see value in appre-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ciating positions more extreme than our own, because they keep us ques-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>tioning ourselves, our motivations, our assumptions. This may be what's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>going on with Steinam and/or Millet, though I don't really know anything
>about either woman's history with Dworkin.
>/Janet, an avowed feminist
>
>--
>send mail to: repn...@leland.stanford.edu
>"Now, captain," said the squire, "you were right and I was wrong. I own myself
>an ass, and I await your orders."
> -- Treasure Island
SP:
>This seems to me to be definitive evidence that Andrea Dworkin does not
>speak for all feminists,
Agreed.
SP:
> and that feminism as a whole should therefore
>not be judged by her example.
This simply doesn't follow. If Janet Lafler is correct in her analysis,
and I think she is, the feminist leadership deliberately maintains its ties
with the Dworkin fringe. This says a lot about their principles, at the
same time ensuring that no comprehensive account of the feminist movement
can be made without taking her into consideration. For the radical fringe
often comes to dominate the entire movement in a relatively short time; if
you have any doubts, think of the history of the Russian Socialist
movement...
SP:
>If you had been following the thread on *Mercy* (at least the version
>that has appeared in rec.arts.books) for the last week or so, you would
>be aware of this. Thus my assumption that anyone who jumps in and baldly
>asks "why shouldn't all feminists be judged according to Andrea Dworkin's
>example" at this point of the game is deliberately ignoring everything
>that has gone before, and is more interesting in stirring up trouble
>than contributing to legitimate (if heated) discussion.
On the contrary, my memory is better than yours; see above.
SP:
>If you really haven't seen the preceding discussion, then I apologize.
>If you have, then I stand by everything I've said.
No comment.
MZ:
>>My question stands; however no further
>>samples of your hostility are solicited thereby.
SP:
>Fuck you.
No comment.
SP:
>>>>>--
>>>>>"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
MZ:
>>>>oh, and so original, too...
SP:
>>>You mean there's another person who does this? Now I'm embarassed--and
>>>I thought I was being so unique...
MZ:
>>You are about as unique as Tiffany, dear.
SP:
>The difference between you and me, darling, is that I *know* when I'm
>talking bullshit.
Then, given all of the above, you are either a liar or an idiot, depending
on the precise meaning you attach to the term `bullshit'.
>--
>"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
>soren f petersen : i AM NOT
>spet...@peruvian.utah.edu : THE university OF utah
> Dang. Utah always gets everything first. -- Rod Johnson
Craig Becker
inf...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>
> "American Psycho" is boring - Ellis thinks he's making his character
> shocking and nasty but unfortunately the "nasty bits" read more like
> the back of a cornflakes packet, in a sense.
Jeez! What do you people eat for breakfast down there in Oz? I can just
imagine what the Ham&Cheese Omelet must be like...
> John Wojdylo
> Perth
> Western Australia
Craig
Muffy Barkocy
MZ:
>>>>>>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>>>>>>why not?
I'm not the one who asked, but I'll answer - because I'd rather be
judged by my own example. I have no control over the actions/opinions
of some other person (in this case, Andrea Dworkin), and I therefore
have no desire to be judged by that other person's actions or opinions.
MZ:
The names I cite, plus the names of Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett, cited
by other contributors, represent the feminist leadership, which seems to be
reluctant to allow any sort of internecine conflict. You cite rank and
file; whom shall I trust more in deciding what the movement is all about?
"Feminist leadership?" I am at least somewhat of a feminist, but I am
certainly not being led. By your argument, I must be in favor of (and
judged by) everything that George Bush does, since he's the "American
leadership" and I'm an "American." Here's a secret for you - each
person is in charge of deciding what they believe and how they will act.
The "feminist leadership" doesn't tell me what to do, and I don't tell
them what to do - a fine arrangement.
Muffy
Bronis Vidugiris
)I just nipped down to the bookstore to take a peek at _Mercy_, and noticed
)that it's dedicated to Michael Moorcock, as well as two women I hadn't
)heard of. There are also positive blurbs by Moorcock and Paul West on
)the back jacket. Perhaps they're traitors to their gender?
Must be. I guess I'll have to burn all my Moorcock books, starting with
'Stormbringer'.
:-)
Moorcock seems to be in to shocking people nowadays - I tried to read his
latest, but couldn't choke it down. I did like his 'Elric' stories when
I was in high school, though they didn't seem all that special when I
re-read them recently.
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>me:
>>>>>>"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
>[....]
>him:
>>>You are about as unique as Tiffany, dear.
>me:
>>The difference between you and me, darling, is that I *know* when I'm
>>talking bullshit.
>him:
>Then, given all of the above, you are either a liar or an idiot, depending
>on the precise meaning you attach to the term `bullshit'.
Please! I prefer 'performance artist.'
Jeff Dalton
>> Why be loyal to crypto-fascists like Dworkin?
>
>That is just plain silly. Have you actually READ any of Dworkin's work?
I don't think it's at all silly to regard the anti-pronography
gang as crypto-totalitarian. I wouldn't say fascist, though.
>I'd give the lynch-Dworkin crowd somewhat more credence if they showed ANY
>sign of knowing what she actually says, rather than is fantasized as
>saying. I've read "Right-Wing Women" carefully, "Pornography..." less so
>(and didn't agree with most of what I remember), and skimmed "Intercourse"
>and "Ice and Fire". Let's see a similar list from the rest of you, if
>you're not doing the same as the Randians with Kant.
If the anti-Dworkin crowd is so far wrong, it should be easy for you
to demonstrate this from your superior knowledge of her work.
>For example: every book of hers I can remember is dedicated to, or has an
>acknowledgement to, John Stoltenberg. Whatever that means (and her private
>relationships are none of our business), it doesn't suggest someone with a
>Valerie Solanas line on men.
Is that the best you can do?
Jeff Dalton
>Although people are saying this, no one has yet produced a good quote
>from Dworkin to demonstrate the horridness of her views. If she writes
>a fictional book which involves women slaughtering innocent men, perhaps
>her normative views are being rendered, not as a blueprint, but in some
>other way. And if so, what's the fuss? In _Song of Solomon_, there
>was (as I recall) a group called "the Seven Days" that went around
>killing innocent white people (in response to lynchings) -- did this
>cause a stir?
The two cases are siumilar only in a very superficial way.
Jeff Dalton
>In article <54...@skye.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>I merely intended to point out that it doesn't sound like "Mercy" is just
>a gender reversed "American Psycho" and it is misleading to imply that
>it is.
Ok. But being different includes being worse (more deserving of
criticism). You seemed to be saying it was better.
>>> I think it's fair to say that I consider Dworkin
>>>an "important and influential person who has made people think" although I
>>>disagree with most of what she says.
>>
>>She's importand and influential in only a very small circle.
>>I suspect most people would choose a different characterization.
>
>The fact that you're bothering to raise the question at all suggests she is
>influential.
It does? I didn't raise the quesiton in any case. I was merely responding
to something you wrote.
>As far as "Mercy" goes, it's a novel and doesn't claim to be otherwise.
Tell that to A.D. the next time she flames about pornography that
includes fiction. In any case, I haven't written anything that
relied on it not being a novel.
>If you think that it's likely to suddenly incite women to slaughter men
>en masse,
Why are you attaching this view to me? Does "if", like fiction,
excuse anything whatsoever?
> I suppose you're also boycotting Stephen Sondheim's musicals
>because "Sweeney Todd" is a sympathetic portrayal of a mass murderer,
>of a man pushed so far by the actions of a few people that he concludes
>"they all demand to die."
I don't think the two cases are all that similar.
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>In article <1991Oct13....@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
> MZ:
> The names I cite, plus the names of Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett, cited
> by other contributors, represent the feminist leadership, which seems to be
> reluctant to allow any sort of internecine conflict. You cite rank and
> file; whom shall I trust more in deciding what the movement is all about?
>"Feminist leadership?" I am at least somewhat of a feminist, but I am
>certainly not being led. By your argument, I must be in favor of (and
>judged by) everything that George Bush does, since he's the "American
>leadership" and I'm an "American." Here's a secret for you - each
>person is in charge of deciding what they believe and how they will act.
>The "feminist leadership" doesn't tell me what to do, and I don't tell
>them what to do - a fine arrangement.
Thank you for saying everything I was going to say. I get the distinct
idea that Mikhail has the "feminist movement" confused with the
Chinese Army. Understandable, I suppose....
Janet M. Lafler
Not only that, but the feminist movement has never had a really "top-down"
structure, in which policy is dictated from above. Feminist groups haven't
always lived up to the ideals of grassroots, non-hierarchical organization,
but many try and do pretty well in sharing responsibility and setting policy.
Furthermore, though there are women who are heads of various feminist or-
ganizations, such as NOW, or well-known writers, like Millet, there is no
single organization or party, known as "feminism," which has a distinct
leadership. What we have is a motley gang of folks, with a *lot* of "inter-
necine conflict," and a few women who are known as the feminist leadership
because they are famous, not because they have any formal authority. People
who identify themselves as feminists do, as I said, tend to want to stick
together and protect one another, but there is no policy mutual defense handed
down from on high.
(I know I said I was going to bow out of this discussion, but since MZ used
something I had said to bolster his argument I thought I ought to report
that he twisted my remarks completely out of recognition.)
/Janet
Mikhail Zeleny
>In article <1991Oct13....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>>>>>>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>>>>>>>why not?
MB:
>I'm not the one who asked, but I'll answer - because I'd rather be
>judged by my own example. I have no control over the actions/opinions
>of some other person (in this case, Andrea Dworkin), and I therefore
>have no desire to be judged by that other person's actions or opinions.
If you identify yourself as a member of a political movement, -- as, I
gather, you've implicitly done in the above, -- you thereby assume the
responsibility for political actions of its members. Last I've heard,
Dworkin was still considered a good feminist by the people who presume to
decide such matters. Moreover, you can certainly control the affiliation
of Dworkin with mainstream feminism, as long as you actively participate in
the latter.
MZ:
>>The names I cite, plus the names of Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett, cited
>>by other contributors, represent the feminist leadership, which seems to be
>>reluctant to allow any sort of internecine conflict. You cite rank and
>>file; whom shall I trust more in deciding what the movement is all about?
MB:
>"Feminist leadership?" I am at least somewhat of a feminist, but I am
>certainly not being led. By your argument, I must be in favor of (and
>judged by) everything that George Bush does, since he's the "American
>leadership" and I'm an "American." Here's a secret for you - each
>person is in charge of deciding what they believe and how they will act.
>The "feminist leadership" doesn't tell me what to do, and I don't tell
>them what to do - a fine arrangement.
If you aren't being led, good for you; and I mean it. I trust you don't
make political contributions, don't accept political appointments, and
don't vote for political candidates. At this point, your feminism must be
a matter of principle, with most of which I would in all likelihood agree.
And at this point it is perfectly reasonable for you to demand that you not
be judged by the example set by a Gloria Steinem or an Andrea Dworkin;
moreover, I would happily yield to such a demand. If, on the other hand,
you do participate in the political party process in the ways indicated
above, then you can certainly be judged by the merits of your party's
leadership, whether it be Bush, Steinem, or Dworkin.
>Muffy
Dave Gross
According to b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris):
>
>Moorcock seems to be in to shocking people nowadays - I tried to read his
>latest, but couldn't choke it down. I did like his 'Elric' stories when
>I was in high school, though they didn't seem all that special when I
>re-read them recently.
There was a time when I was fanatic about Moorcock's books.
I've read almost all of them, and liked most of them. More
relevant to this thread though, is that there are those who
read the Elric series with gender issues in mind.
A note to those who don't know about the Elric series: The
main character, Elric, is the head of a decadent and wicked
kingdom of sorcerous types. Torture and communion with the
gods of chaos are main pasttimes. Elric is an albino and
is physically unfit and must be sustained on various potions
and drugs and such. Some others feel he is unfit for the
job because he is physically inferior. He splits for a
while and there is a palace coup in which his queen and his
throne are captured by his nemesis, Yyrkoon (who does a
cameo in the Corum series as a crucified monkey, but I
digress). Elric finds the black runeblade Stormbringer which
has a mind of its own and a serious thirst for blood. It
has to kill periodically and becomes more and more
uncontrollable when it "needs" blood and when the need is
especially great or the blade gets caught up in a killing
frenzy, it tends to kill anyone who is lying around, much
to Elric's distaste. However, the blade also revitalizes
Elric when it kills, transferring the energy of the
vanquished into his body and allowing him to live without
the drugs & potions mentioned earlier. Much merriment and
adventure ensues as Elric galavants through the spheres
chopping foes right and left.
Those in the know suggest Moorcock was using the sword as
a metaphor for the penis and that the books were about a
man controlled by his sexual desires and the harm that is
done by an unfettered male sex drive.
His praise for Dworkin isn't limited to "Mercy." He also
praised "Letters From A War Zone" ("a brilliant collection
of essays by today's best and most original minds") in a
recent letter in which he also mentioned his work for the
"Campaign Against Pornography and Censorship" and said that
"I'm due to speak in London at meetings of the Fawcett
Society and the National Council for Civil Liberties (the
UK equivalent of the ACLU) who are considering accepting
our position on the issue of pornography as a civil rights
rather than an obscenity issue."
He continues: "If pornography can be defined in Law as
that which acts against women as racist propaganda acts
against minorities, we should be able to get rid of all
kinds of censorship or potential censorship against political,
erotic and educational material currently under threat."
I interpret this as meaning that if pornography can be
censored under the laws which prohibit anti-semetic or
other racist speech in some parts of Europe, then those
who want to censor things for other reasons (right-wing
prudery) will lose some of the wind from their sails.
To me that's a vacuous argument on a number of fronts,
but it's possible I'm not parsing his paragraph as I
should, so I welcome other interpretations.
--
******************* INTERNET: dgr...@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU **********************
"War... is something that occurs not between man and man, but between
States. The individuals who become involved in it are enemies only by
accident." -- Rousseau
Char Aznabul
+ In article <MUFFY.91O...@remarque.berkeley.edu>
mu...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
+ >In article <1991Oct13....@husc3.harvard.edu>
zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
+
+ > MZ:
+ > The names I cite, plus the names of Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett,
cited
+ > by other contributors, represent the feminist leadership, which seems to
be
+ > reluctant to allow any sort of internecine conflict. You cite rank and
+ > file; whom shall I trust more in deciding what the movement is all about?
+
+ >"Feminist leadership?" I am at least somewhat of a feminist, but I am
+ >certainly not being led. By your argument, I must be in favor of (and
+ >judged by) everything that George Bush does, since he's the "American
+ >leadership" and I'm an "American." Here's a secret for you - each
+ >person is in charge of deciding what they believe and how they will act.
+ >The "feminist leadership" doesn't tell me what to do, and I don't tell
+ >them what to do - a fine arrangement.
+
+ Thank you for saying everything I was going to say. I get the distinct
+ idea that Mikhail has the "feminist movement" confused with the
+ Chinese Army. Understandable, I suppose....
You must realize that you will be judged by the company you keep.
If you 'hang out' with highly visible, highly controversial
radfems, you will be painted with the same brush. Moderates are
not *newsworthy*.
Further, radicals tend to rise to positions of power. Hence my view
of Dworkin: she may be nothing...or she may pose a very real danger
to myself. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next month
or next year. But somewhere down the line, I have this gut feeling
she's gonna cause me problems.
You will forgive me if I take steps now that will minimize those
problems.
Bronis Vidugiris
)In article <1991Oct10....@leland.Stanford.EDU> repn...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
)>
)>1) Movies and books which portray men being violent to women are very
)>common and have been for a long time; movies and books in which women
)>are violent to men are still far more rare.
)
)It is worth noting that works that show men being violent to men are
)also quite common, and that books showing women being violent to women are
)rather rare. This seems to reflect what we know about life in general:
)that men as a sex are more prone to violence. This violence is not
)specific to the relationships between men and women.
Yep. Exactly.
The Uniform Crime Report statistics for murder are rather interesting in
this context.
For single-victim single-offender murders in 1989, there were
6603 men murdering men
2373 men murdering women
1171 women murdering men
245 women murdering women
So, men mostly kill men. (Ratio: 2.8:1) Women mostly kill men but not
nearly as much as men kill each other, and men still kill more women than the
reverse (*) (Ratio: 2:1 men killing women / women killing men). Women hardly
ever kill women (Ratio: 4.8:1 women killing men/women killing women).
Men kill about 6x as much as women. [Rates for other violent crimes are
comparable according to the National Crime Survey]
Men are the victims about 3x as often as women. [Rates for other violent
crimes are not so extreme - men are only 1.5x as likely to be the victim of a
violent crime according to the National Crime Survey].
I don't belive that women are represented as commiting 1/6 of the violent
crimes in the media - I believe women are under-represented here.
Men are realistically portrayed as being the most common victim of violence
in the media IMO - but it is fairly common to hear people ignore this fact
and focus only on the violence to women. I hear about 'men's violence
towards women' even in cases where the violent men were practicing
'Equal Opportunity violence'- they were violent towards everyone, man or
women.
(*) I should also mention that sources other sources other than the Uniform
Crime Report give a different ratio for men killing women/women killing men
that is closer to 1:1. Dave Gross has posted the revelant statistics in
soc.men which I won't repeat - I believe that including some 'self-defense'
killings is what changes the ratio, though I am not 100% positive on this.
The ratios ranged from 1:1 to 1.3:1 instead of 2:1 as the UCR gives.
INFIDEL
>In article <1991Oct13....@uniwa.uwa.oz.au>,
>inf...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>>
>> "American Psycho" is boring - Ellis thinks he's making his character
>> shocking and nasty but unfortunately the "nasty bits" read more like
>> the back of a cornflakes packet, in a sense.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Jeez! What do you people eat for breakfast down there in Oz?
We eat feminists, mate.
>I can just
>imagine what the Ham&Cheese Omelet must be like...
It's nicer with a dollop of tomato sauce - I hate the taste of meat in
the morning...
>Craig
jw
Richard Caley
mz> The names I cite, plus the names of Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett, cited
mz> by other contributors, represent the feminist leadership,[...]
`Feminist leadership'?
What planet are you from?
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Richard Caley
Well, that explains a lot. However, it would help the rest of us if
you clearly stated the fact that you are an imbecile at the top of
every message so that we know to skip them.
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Louis Marco
>some contexts, but I doubt that she considers herself anti-sex; that's an
>opinion that many of her opponents have formed. (As for being anti-hetero-
"The end of intercourse would be an essential, utterly logical
part of acheiving that promised peace [...] this universal peace, following
on the beating of the spears into plowshares or pruning hooks, requires not
occasional chastity on the part of some but a deep and committed chastity
on the part of all - this to achieve a reconciliation between men and women
that physical love, with its strong, cruel passion, makes impossible"
"For the man, this right to use a woman's body, to exploit her in
intercourse, has a nightmarish dimension originating in his absolute
arrogance, his sense of total possesion, which the woman, as an object,
must not suborn"
"Despite all efforts to socialize women to want intercourse, e.g,
women's magazines to pornography to Dynasty; incredible rewards and
punishments to get women to conform and put out "
"Intercourse is not necessary to existence anymore. Existence does
not depend on female compliance, nor on the violation of female boundaries,
nor on lesser female privacy, nor on the physical occupation of the female
body".
"Sadism and death converge at the vagina; to open the woman up, to
go inside her, penis or knife. The poor little penis kills before it dies"
Dworkin also expounds her theory that Joan of Arc was executed
because she wore male clothing...
Andrea Dworkin is one sick puppy, so dripping with self-loathing that
the only way she can maintain even a fragile hold on sanity is to re-cast
the world in her own disgusting violent mis-shapen image.
the wharf rat
"Gotta find a woman to be good to me,
won't hide my liquor try to serve me tea.."
Jeff Dalton
>In article <53...@skye.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct9.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> repn...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
>>
>>>I've never been an admirer of Dworkin's work or political theory, and in
>>>fact I disagree violently with a lot of what she stands for, but I'd be
>>>reluctant to "condemn her unambivalently" myself. Dworkin is on the anti-
>>>pornography side of the controversy, within feminism, over pornography,
>>>which reached its height in the mid-eighties and has never really been
>>>resolved. She is deeply hated by some feminists, who see her as anti-sex
>>>(and particularly anti-heterosexual-sex), judgemental, puritanical, anti-
>>>civil liberties, etc.
>>
>>They "see her"? You mean it's just an opinion?
>
>What else would it be? She might admit to being anti-civil liberties, in
>some contexts, but I doubt that she considers herself anti-sex; that's an
>opinion that many of her opponents have formed.
What is the point? That we can't know her secret thoughts? Yes, she
might be pro-civil liberties while behaving as if she were anti-. So?
By your logic, we can never say anyone is anti- anything unless they
admit to it. The usual language for that, however, is "confessed/avowed
anti-X". I would say she is (not just seems) judgemental, puritanical,
and careless of civil liberties. Whether she's anti-sex or anti-hetero
or etc I don't know.
>>> However, there's a certain
>>>amount of feeling among feminists that it's necessary to maintain the
>>>semblance of a united front and to defend members of the community from
>>>the criticisms of outsiders even though we don't necessarily agree with
>>>them ourselves.
>>I could understand solidarity if it were more politically effective,
>>but at best this sort of position speaks only to the converted.
>>With everyone else, it tends to discredit feminism instead.
>
>I think I stated what I meant badly. What I was trying to convey is
>that feminists tend to feel responsible for defending one another from
>what they see as ignorant attacks, based on lies or misinformation,
>not on refraining from criticizing one another (although there's a lot
>of talk about doing so gently and constructively). This tendency stems
>from the repeated and scurrilous misrepresentation of feminism in the
>media and by politicians.
I can understand that, but why do it exclusively? And what happens
when criticism comes along that isn't based on lies or misinformation?
Sure, when the inquisitor comes along and says "denounce your
friends" you may think "not really friends, but they have value
to me and are more right than you" and say "no". But does that
mean all criticism must remain within the community? Is it really
you against the outsiders and only insiders have the right to
criticize?
>I'm anti- censorship and I have a lot of trouble with the idea that
>*all* pornography is violence against women, but I think I understand
>the rage that has led many feminists to take that position.
Just as a point of curiosity, when/how did "rage" become a key word
of feminist vocabulary? For some reason "anger" wasn't enough.
In any case, when is any pornography actually violence against women?
Only when violence was used in its making, I would say, and even then
it's the result of violence rather than violence itself.
>>> Also, I think a lot of feminists see value in appre-
>>>ciating positions more extreme than our own, because they keep us ques-
>>>tioning ourselves, our motivations, our assumptions.
>>
>>Or confirm your prejudices. Or whatever. Why should extreme
>>positions cause you to reconsider, unless you're entertaining
>>the idea that they might be right. If you read a racist book
>>do you start questioning whether racism is wrong?
>
>I think you missed my point. Listening to opinions which differ from mine,
>really listening, leads me to examine my position, to *think* about why I
>hold it, to ask myself what holding that opinion implies, and if I can live
>with that. What happens when you stop listening to other opinions? If I
>read a racist book, I don't start questioning whether racism is wrong, but
>I might start questioning what I assume racists are like, what I think the
>best solution to the problem of racism is, etc.
Listening to opinions that differ form one's own is entirely
reasonable. But that hardly implies that one should do so
indiscriminately. What makes Dworking worthwhile? Just that
she's more extreme? Life is short. Why bother with her at all?
Why should I read racist literature? Because I might start
questioning what I assume racists are like? I suppose it's
possible, but after a certain point it stops looking like the
best way to spend my time.
-- jd
Muffy Barkocy
In article <MUFFY.91O...@remarque.berkeley.edu>
mu...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1991Oct13....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>>>>>>To the one who asked that the feminists not be judged by Dworkin's example:
>>>>>>>why not?
MB:
>I'm not the one who asked, but I'll answer - because I'd rather be
>judged by my own example. I have no control over the actions/opinions
>of some other person (in this case, Andrea Dworkin), and I therefore
>have no desire to be judged by that other person's actions or opinions.
If you identify yourself as a member of a political movement, -- as, I
gather, you've implicitly done in the above, -- you thereby assume the
responsibility for political actions of its members.
*LAUGH* *LAUGH* *LAUGH* *LAUGH* Oh, god. Well, I guess I understand
now. Feminism, in my personal life, is not a political movement. There
are, I suppose, several political movements which are feminist, but that
is not the same. However, your assertion is still ridiculous. I could
easily be part of a political group that I mainly agreed with, but I
disagreed with certain policies/actions. It is unlikely that you will
ever find two people who exactly agree on everything, much less a large
group of people, such as a political organization.
Last I've heard,
Dworkin was still considered a good feminist by the people who presume to
decide such matters.
Like you, perhaps? What is a "good feminist?" Are there "bad
feminists?"
Moreover, you can certainly control the affiliation
of Dworkin with mainstream feminism, as long as you actively participate in
the latter.
What is "active participation?" I refuse to be put down, I control my
own life, I point out when people are being sexist, I discuss the
position of women in society with my friends and on the net. None of
this is political, and yet it is still feminist. If I was doing
something political, it could be with any number of groups, each of
which has different goals. For example, there are feminists who wish to
censor pornography. I am very much against any censorship. So, I would
not join such a group, and I would certainly resent being told that
because I was in a completely different political group, say, a
choice-protecting organization, that I was therefore responsible for the
actions of the anti-pornographers.
MB:
>"Feminist leadership?" I am at least somewhat of a feminist, but I am
>certainly not being led. By your argument, I must be in favor of (and
>judged by) everything that George Bush does, since he's the "American
>leadership" and I'm an "American." Here's a secret for you - each
>person is in charge of deciding what they believe and how they will act.
>The "feminist leadership" doesn't tell me what to do, and I don't tell
>them what to do - a fine arrangement.
If you aren't being led, good for you; and I mean it. I trust you don't
make political contributions, don't accept political appointments, and
don't vote for political candidates. At this point, your feminism must be
a matter of principle, with most of which I would in all likelihood agree.
You allow this as a possibility, and yet, you first lumped all
"feminists" together and blamed them for Andrea Dworkin's writing and
opinions, then were surprised and confused when someone objected to
this. If you already *knew* that there were different kinds of
feminists, why did you ask the question about feminists not wanting to
be held responsible for her actions?
And at this point it is perfectly reasonable for you to demand that you not
be judged by the example set by a Gloria Steinem or an Andrea Dworkin;
moreover, I would happily yield to such a demand. If, on the other hand,
you do participate in the political party process in the ways indicated
above, then you can certainly be judged by the merits of your party's
leadership, whether it be Bush, Steinem, or Dworkin.
I am registered to vote, and I do vote. I am registered with no party,
because there is no party I agree with enough to declare myself a part
of them. However, everything you bring up is pretty much irrelevant,
because your basic premise is wrong. It is not the case that just
because the leadership of some political group takes some action that
all the members are responsible for that action. Even more so, the
members of the group would absolutely not be responsible for the
personal *opinions* of their "leaders." By the way, you seem to be
assuming that there is a "feminist" political party. I know of the
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc, but no "Feminists."
Muffy
James Davis Nicoll
His 'Dworkin is the Altar before which all feminists Worship' model
falls apart if he has to select a representative sample of the entire class
of feminists, rather than just the ones who have said something which looks
supportive of Dworkin. Same thing as using Horton to represent paroled
criminals rather than the average ex-con (who might very well be recidivists,
but are unlikely to be as distasteful as Horton); in these kinds of arguments,
one picks the cases which support one's biases and then one denies the
applicability of the exceptions (or, indeed the average) to the model.
So, any one know of a distasteful Harvardian to judge Zeleny by?
James Nicoll
Janet M. Lafler
> Moreover, you can certainly control the affiliation
> of Dworkin with mainstream feminism, as long as you actively participate in
> the latter.
Oh, I see. You're suggesting that we purge her.
Jeff Dalton
>
>What planet are you from?
Do you really find the phrase even slightly mysterious?
Go ahead. Post all the technicalities that let your view count as
strictly true.
[Wish I could remember the exact Judy Chicago no hierarchy but
I'm in charge quote...]
Matt Austern
> moreover, I would happily yield to such a demand. If, on the other hand,
> you do participate in the political party process in the ways indicated
> above, then you can certainly be judged by the merits of your party's
> leadership, whether it be Bush, Steinem, or Dworkin.
Neat! I never heard that there was a Feminist Party. Could someone
send me some more information on it? Maybe I'll want to join it.
On the other hand, since I haven't joined the Feminist Party yet, I
would ask everybody not to judge me on by the actions of its leaders,
whoever they are.
--
Matthew Austern I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(415) 644-2618 of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
aus...@theorm.lbl.gov multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
aus...@lbl.bitnet me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Jim Kasprzak
member of the PC-Thought-Police at the top of every message so we know
not to expect any sort of open-mindedness from you.
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Disclaimer: RPI pays me to work, not to think.
\_| "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" -Rush
==== e-mail: kas...@rpi.edu or kasp...@mts.rpi.edu
Mikhail Zeleny
It would help me personally, Mr Caley, if you were prepared to answer for
your insults in a direct fashion. If your balls are adequately represented
by your mouth (or, rather, your fingers), feel free to contact my second,
Mr Christoph R\"uegg, at (213) 508 0889, during reasonable hours of Pacific
time, in order to arrange a free, and, with any luck, terminal, lesson in
civility; otherwise you may revel in your dickless political correctness
until the end of your natural life cycle. I am told that tree mold is
quite remarkable in its longevity, so your prospects may be very good
indeed.
>--
>r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
Bronis Vidugiris
)
)According to b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris):
)>
)>Moorcock seems to be in to shocking people nowadays - I tried to read his
)>latest, but couldn't choke it down. I did like his 'Elric' stories when
)>I was in high school, though they didn't seem all that special when I
)>re-read them recently.
)
) There was a time when I was fanatic about Moorcock's books.
) I've read almost all of them, and liked most of them. More
) relevant to this thread though, is that there are those who
) read the Elric series with gender issues in mind.
)
) A note to those who don't know about the Elric series:
...
) Those in the know suggest Moorcock was using the sword as
) a metaphor for the penis and that the books were about a
) man controlled by his sexual desires and the harm that is
) done by an unfettered male sex drive.
I didn't see it that way at the time I was reading it, but that does seem to
be a logical interpretation of some of the symbolism.
Elric does have a love/hate relationship with his sword for most of the
series (IMO) - there were a few where he functioned well without it, but
most of the time he wasn't really complete without it. That seems to
fit in pretty well with the sexual symbolism.
I think one of the things that attracted me to Moorcock / Elric was his
unconventional approach to gender. Elric was definitely not a 'real he man'
type hero. Some amount of gender confusion runs throughout Moorcock's
work, IMO, though I can't recall the titles / details offhand. I was also
struggling with those issues at that time (high school) [not that I have
them _all_ worked out now :-)] and I think that was part of the attraction of
his works for me then.
) His praise for Dworkin isn't limited to "Mercy." He also
) praised "Letters From A War Zone"
...
) He continues: "If pornography can be defined in Law as
) that which acts against women as racist propaganda acts
) against minorities, we should be able to get rid of all
) kinds of censorship or potential censorship against political,
) erotic and educational material currently under threat."
)
) I interpret this as meaning that if pornography can be
) censored under the laws which prohibit anti-semetic or
) other racist speech in some parts of Europe, then those
) who want to censor things for other reasons (right-wing
) prudery) will lose some of the wind from their sails.
Your interpretation of Moorcock sounds logical to me. My impression of
Dworkin is and remains quite negative, and I think that expecting her to
support any sort of erotica is unlikely. [This is based more on my
experiences with other people who hold the 'pornograpy is degrading to women'
viewpoint than a direct reading of her works.]
One of the things which my (fairly) recent readings of Moorcock left me with
was a definite impression of an incest theme. I think this was explicit
in the Elric series (wasn't his bride also his sister - by Melnibonian
custom?), but seemed to run through some of his other works as well.
Janet M. Lafler
>In article <1991Oct14.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> repn...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
>>In article <53...@skye.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>In article <1991Oct9.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> repn...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
>>>
>>>>I've never been an admirer of Dworkin's work or political theory, and in
>>>>fact I disagree violently with a lot of what she stands for, but I'd be
>>>>reluctant to "condemn her unambivalently" myself. Dworkin is on the anti-
>>>>pornography side of the controversy, within feminism, over pornography,
>>>>which reached its height in the mid-eighties and has never really been
>>>>resolved. She is deeply hated by some feminists, who see her as anti-sex
>>>>(and particularly anti-heterosexual-sex), judgemental, puritanical, anti-
>>>>civil liberties, etc.
>>>
>>>They "see her"? You mean it's just an opinion?
>>
>>What else would it be? She might admit to being anti-civil liberties, in
>>some contexts, but I doubt that she considers herself anti-sex; that's an
>>opinion that many of her opponents have formed.
>
>What is the point? That we can't know her secret thoughts? Yes, she
>might be pro-civil liberties while behaving as if she were anti-. So?
>By your logic, we can never say anyone is anti- anything unless they
>admit to it. The usual language for that, however, is "confessed/avowed
>anti-X". I would say she is (not just seems) judgemental, puritanical,
>and careless of civil liberties. Whether she's anti-sex or anti-hetero
>or etc I don't know.
Okay, fine. Be my guest. The point is that I think that there's room for
interpretation, and I don't usually state my opinions as if they were facts.
I don't quite understand why you're being so nitpicky about the wording of
this. When I wrote the above, it was in response to someone who had stated
that he didn't know any feminists who were willing to condemn Dworkin. My
point was that I know lots of feminists who can't stand her politics; they
do in fact *see* her as judgemental, etc. (as opposed to her supporters, who,
no doubt, do not see her this way). Okay?
>>I think I stated what I meant badly. What I was trying to convey is
>>that feminists tend to feel responsible for defending one another from
>>what they see as ignorant attacks, based on lies or misinformation,
>>not on refraining from criticizing one another (although there's a lot
>>of talk about doing so gently and constructively). This tendency stems
>>from the repeated and scurrilous misrepresentation of feminism in the
>>media and by politicians.
>
>I can understand that, but why do it exclusively? And what happens
>when criticism comes along that isn't based on lies or misinformation?
>
>Sure, when the inquisitor comes along and says "denounce your
>friends" you may think "not really friends, but they have value
>to me and are more right than you" and say "no". But does that
>mean all criticism must remain within the community? Is it really
>you against the outsiders and only insiders have the right to
>criticize?
That's what I meant when I said that I put things badly. I think that
intelligent, informed criticism always deserves a considered response, no
matter where it comes from. My initial error was in not making the dis-
tinction between criticism and attack. Of course, with beseiged groups,
it's sometimes difficult to make that distinction. Personally, I think
there's a lot to be gained from sitting down with people who aren't femin-
ists and talking about feminism as calmly and honestly as I can. But it's
difficult to do that sometimes, especially in an environment as hostile to
feminism as the Net. (I'm sure many people will disagree that this is a
hostile environment, but I've rarely posted an article in which I mentioned
I was a feminist or made some sort of identifiable feminist analysis without
getting hostile email or followup posts. I don't remember ever getting hate
email in response to any other issue that I've posted about, not even the
Great Orson Scott Card Homosexuality Debacle....Well, actually I did get
flamed once for something I said about Gene Wolfe, but that was quickly
smoothed over.) In any case, in a hostile environment, it's easy to mistake
criticism for attack.
>>I'm anti- censorship and I have a lot of trouble with the idea that
>>*all* pornography is violence against women, but I think I understand
>>the rage that has led many feminists to take that position.
>
>Just as a point of curiosity, when/how did "rage" become a key word
>of feminist vocabulary? For some reason "anger" wasn't enough.
I dunno....I suspect that it's a bit of psychobabble that got borrowed
during the late 70's.
>In any case, when is any pornography actually violence against women?
>Only when violence was used in its making, I would say, and even then
>it's the result of violence rather than violence itself.
Some pornography portrays violent acts, especially rape. In addition,
since most commercial pornography is aimed at a male audience, the whole
idea of pornography, in which women are "objectified" for the benefit of
male pleasure, is seen by some feminists as violent in itself. I have
trouble with this analysis, so I'm probably not the right person to explain
it, but that's the basic idea, as far as I understand it.
>Listening to opinions that differ form one's own is entirely
>reasonable. But that hardly implies that one should do so
>indiscriminately. What makes Dworkin worthwhile? Just that
>she's more extreme? Life is short. Why bother with her at all?
>
>Why should I read racist literature? Because I might start
>questioning what I assume racists are like? I suppose it's
>possible, but after a certain point it stops looking like the
>best way to spend my time.
True enough. I only have so much time myself, and there are a lot of
books I want to read. I have a couple of answers to these questions.
One point of appreciating "more extreme" positions is that there's a
general bias against "extremism" in this culture (though I don't know if
you would consider that we belong to the same culture, especially in terms
of politics and education), and so thinkers who have been labelled extreme
are rarely seriously considered in ordinary discourse nor (despite all the
"tenured radicals") in most schools and universities. We don't need to
read such extremists to know that they are "bad," so therefore we don't
really know what they stand for. Thus you will find people arguing against
(or for) Marxism without ever having read a word of Marx. I would argue
that there's a specific value to reading "extreme" thinkers, which is to
find out for yourself whether or not they are, in fact, what they're repre-
sented to be, because most people DON'T KNOW; they rely on hearsay to form
their opinions.
As for Dworkin, let me put it this way; I call myself a feminist, therefore
I feel that it's intellectually responsible for me to familiarize myself
with things that people who also call themselves feminists are saying.
I only have so much time, so I have not, in fact, read much of Dworkin's
work. Keeping up with feminist thought, at this point, would be a full
time job, and I have other pursuits. As with a lot of things, it's a hap-
hazard process. I wouldn't necessarily defend Dworkin as someone people
in general ought to read.
And now, she sighed plaintively, I'm sick of this discussion. Can we talk
about something else, please?
Richard Caley
In article <RJC.91Oc...@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
rjc> `Feminist leadership'? What planet are you from?
jd> Do you really find the phrase even slightly mysterious?
Yes.
Walk around the building, there are enough people here who will
identify themselves as feminists, ask them who the `feminist
leadership' is. Those who don't end up rolling on the floor at the
very idea will give you non intersecting sets.
To adapt the old joke, put three feminists in a room and you will get
four factions. This is good, it is a sign of health for a point of
view.
jd> Go ahead. Post all the technicalities that let your view count as
jd> strictly true.
Technicalities? Moi?
This one is simple. There is no organisation, hence there can be no
leadership. If there were a feminist leadership, it would have to be
the Bavarian Illuminati.
We can dismiss the idea of an informal leadership simply by noting
that there is no small group who all, or even most, feminists will
obey or even listen to.
jd> [Wish I could remember the exact Judy Chicago no hierarchy but
jd> I'm in charge quote...]
So? I could claim to be leader of the Labour Party, what counts is
whether they do as I say. Give some examples of well known feminists
being brought `into line' by Ms Chicago's orders.
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
lewis.h.mammel..jr
> .................. What is a "good feminist?" Are there "bad
> feminists?"
Terry Eagleton is a "bad feminist" according to femeninnyism,
( or something like that. )
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Richard Caley
jk> And it would help the rest of _us_ if you clearly stated that you are a
jk> member of the PC-Thought-Police at the top of every message so we know
jk> not to expect any sort of open-mindedness from you.
But I _hate_ MS-DOS!
In this life it does not pay to be open minded over ideas that are
obviously false such as that one can survive jumping from the top of
tall buildings or the deleted lunacy from Mr Zeleny.
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<