Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Diana Bental)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Posting re. Andrea Dworkin
Message-ID: <272090CA.26470@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 90 18:00:42 GMT
Lines: 61
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

[At the request of the author, this is posted without email address to
avoid harassing email.  I will forward private email to her (which is
why my email address appears after her name in the From: field) --Cindy]

I think we need to try to set the record straight.

Andrea Dworkin is not in favour of porn. Her latest novel, "Mercy",
includes powerful indictments of pornography, prostitution and SM sex.
The review that Jamie described was written by someone who hadn't read
the book properly! "Mercy" includes a short prologue and an epilogue
which are *satires* on academic women who disagree with Dworkin's
views. They are both headed "not Andrea" (which should be a hint) but
they are written in the first person, as is the rest of the book. The
body of the book is clearly intended to refute the prologue and
epilogue. During an e-mail discussion with Jamie, it became apparent
that the reviewer had quoted from the prologue and the epilogue and
then discussed them as if they summed up Andrea Dworkin's own views! I
suspect that the reviewer did not even bother to read the main text of
the book.

Two weeks ago Andrea Dworkin gave a reading in support of the
Edinburgh Women Against Pornography group and the Off the Shelves
Campaign (i.e. that Playboy etc should not be on open display in
newsagents, but available on request only.) Judging by her presence
there and by what she said, Andrea Dworkin is still very much against
pornography.

Andrea Dworkin's book "Pornography" makes it very clear that for
Dworkin, the issue is that women are hurt and humilated by pornography
and that in such a context "aesthetic merit" is irrelevant - i.e.
when a woman is hurt it is *not important* whether her being hurt
makes a pretty pattern of light and shade. Dworkin argues that it is
immoral to think otherwise - i.e. it is immoral to prioritise a pretty
pattern over human suffering. She argues further that people who claim
that the aesthetics (prettiness) justify the suffering are making
excuses, either because they are getting off on that suffering or else
because they don't think that female suffering matters, both of which
she also considers immoral. These arguments are re-iterated in
"Mercy".

Andrea Dworkin's view is therefore the exact opposite of the view that
Ed Falk attributed to her and to feminists in general. I wonder if Ed
Falk is getting confused between Andrea Dworkin and Angela Carter?
(I'm willing to be corrected on this.) Andrea Dworkin refers to Angela
Carter as a "pseudo-feminist" precisely because of Carter's views on
pornography, which are those that Ed Falk describes. Angela Carter has
certainly written in such terms about de Sade ("The Sadeian Woman").

However, it is also possible that long ago, before she changed her
mind and wrote "Pornography", Andrea Dworkin held the view that
everything to do with sex is to do with love and freedom and is
therefore OK.  "Mercy" seems to have some autobiographical bits and
that's the kind of attitude that she ascribes to the main character
during the 1960s. So "Mercy" could be seen as describing what might
have caused her to change her mind and become anti-pornography, if
indeed she ever was in favour of pornography.

I hope this clarifies rather than muddies the waters,

Diana Bental,
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.