![Right-wing Women Andrea Dworkin Right-wing Women Andrea Dworkin](http://www.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/06hKlaIIuESVBQX4m.jpg)
Theresa May, the leader of the UK’s Conservative Party and its embattled prime minister, is only the second woman to hold either roles. On June 8, following a series of campaign missteps and a late surge from Labour Party rival Jeremy Corbyn, her party lost its majority in parliament in the UK’s snap election. As prime minster despite growing pressure to resign.May, who in 2005, an organization within the Conservative Party to promote female representation in office, considers herself a feminist (and has ). She has also expressed her awareness that the quality of her work as a politician matters for gender equality. “When I read it and hear it, what I feel is responsibility,” she said in 2012 about being called the most powerful. “There’s an added reason for me to try to do my best—to show that a woman in this position can do my job.”And yet, feminists have not universally embraced May as one of their own. Are they, as many conservatives seem to believe, using identity affirmation disingenuously to promote liberal politics while excluding those with different partisan leanings?After all, Sarah Palin was not exactly held up as a paragon of women’s empowerment during her vice-presidential campaign. Before Palin, Phyllis Schlafly was a prominent leader in the Republican Party, and had a key role in.
—Andrea Dworkin, Right Wing Women In 1986 Andrea testified before the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (also known as the Meese Commission). Her testimony was included in the final report and excerpted in some conservative publications.
Both of the UK’s female prime ministers have been conservative, and so is—though it’s a bit difficult to equate American and European politics—Angela Merkel. Not to mention the impressive political longevity of, the driver of the French far-right’s ascent.The question of what makes a powerful woman empowering to other women is a complex one that intersects with contemporary political mores and the fight for women’s representation. On the one hand, having more women—of any political belief—in positions of power is a pre-condition of female empowerment, and should be celebrated as such. But there is also an argument to be made that conservative women in power do not change the structure of power, too often subscribing to male-centered views of the world, and therefore do not contribute to institutional gender equality on a broad scale.Many liberal women consider their gender identity a fundamental element that informs their political choices, explains Charlotte Walker-Said, a professor of history at CUNY’s John Jay College. Meanwhile, conservatives “want to be seen, and see themselves, as principled voters, instead of allies for women.” This often leads to a conservative rejection of the idea that gender should influence political choices.
(Feminists would counter that their fight for women’s equality is the reason conservative women have any access to power at all.)That right-wing political rhetoric doesn’t mesh perfectly with the ideals of the female empowerment movement has always been a part of radical feminist discourse. In her 1983 book Right-Wing Women, Andrea Dworkin argues that some women may prefer conservative politics because maintaining the patriarchal hierarchy feels safe.“There are two aspects to any serious critique of male dominance: that women have been excluded from male forms of power, and that power has been defined on male terms,” Catharine MacKinnon, a professor of law at the University of Michigan and long-term visitor atat Harvard Law School who authored several books on feminism, tells Quartz. Conservative women may get access to power, but that won’t necessarily change the nature of the power itself—especially if conservative women actively promote traditional gender roles on their path to political success.But it’s not only conservative women who choose not to wield their power wisely, according to MacKinnon: Liberal women, too, sometimes fail to challenge a masculine view of power. These people, she says, shouldn’t be viewed as particularly empowering, either. “Whether a woman in a male-defined position of power is empowering to women is not a matter of whether she is liberal or conservative,” MacKinnon explains, “but whether she uses the power of her position to advance women other than herself.”The question then, seems to be whether it’s possible to thoughtfully critique women without diminishing their overall role in history and holding them to higher standard than men. Why can’t feminists acknowledge the importance of Margaret Thatcher as a shrewd politician and powerful woman, despite her politics?The reason is an unresolved—and perhaps unsolvable—tension between individualistic and incremental progress for women (the tiny cracks in the glass ceilings, if you will). Feminists firmly believe that sweeping institutional change can only be achieved if the women in power implement women-friendly policies that eventually change society’s dynamics.“The important thing, I think, is for feminists not to conflate women with feminism, because really what feminists want is more feminist women in power,” Ronnee Schreiber, a professor of political sciences at San Diego University and author of, tells Quartz.This is a difficult position to hold.
Though the mainstream understanding of feminism often defines equality as its goal, radical feminist theory holds that it isn’t enough for women to seek individual promotion, they must also uplift their fellow women.
What does the Right offer to women? How does the Right mobilize women? Why is the Right succeeding in opposing women's rights? With the stark precision and forceful passion that characterize all of her work, Andrea Dworkin answers these timely questions. And by providing the first clear analysis of the impact on women of the Right's position on abortion, homosexuality, ant What does the Right offer to women?
How does the Right mobilize women? Why is the Right succeeding in opposing women's rights? With the stark precision and forceful passion that characterize all of her work, Andrea Dworkin answers these timely questions. And by providing the first clear analysis of the impact on women of the Right's position on abortion, homosexuality, anti-Semitism, female poverty, and antifeminism, she demonstrates how the Right attempts both to exploit and to quiet women's deepest fears. — From the reverse cover. Can I give this book 10 stars?
Bummer.One word sums up this book: BRUTAL.There's a lot of discussion amongst radical feminists about 'following a thought to its logical conclusion.' This means not stopping when an idea steps on PC toes or becomes uncomfortable - or downright dangerous - either personally or to the sex-class system at large (which obviously BECOMES personally dangerous for individual women.) Dworkin's book is radical - 'to the root' - in every single sentence, possibly eve Can I give this book 10 stars? Bummer.One word sums up this book: BRUTAL.There's a lot of discussion amongst radical feminists about 'following a thought to its logical conclusion.' This means not stopping when an idea steps on PC toes or becomes uncomfortable - or downright dangerous - either personally or to the sex-class system at large (which obviously BECOMES personally dangerous for individual women.) Dworkin's book is radical - 'to the root' - in every single sentence, possibly every single word. I was floored - I think I underlined about 25% of the book.
Also, her writing style is dense but totally readable, which I appreciate.Here's a sample - see if you can stomach it: '.The fate of every individual woman - no matter what her politics, character, values, qualities - is tied to the fate of all women whether she likes it or not. Subordinate to men, sexually colonized in a sexual system of dominance and submission, denied rights on the basis of sex, historically chattel, generally considered biologically inferior, confined to sex and reproduction: this is the general description of the social environment in which all women live.' Speak it, sister. I am 64 - this book brought my mother's generation to me in compassionate and world-view-changing ways back when it first came out.
Dworkin's respectful and insightful take on the innately sexual politics of conservative women has proved prescient and sadly, all too relevant still.please click the amazon link for reviews-this book's exploration of the mind-set and politics of right-wing women is still expanding the understanding of those who truly care about all women. That's what Andrea Dworkin i am 64 - this book brought my mother's generation to me in compassionate and world-view-changing ways back when it first came out. Dworkin's respectful and insightful take on the innately sexual politics of conservative women has proved prescient and sadly, all too relevant still.please click the amazon link for reviews-this book's exploration of the mind-set and politics of right-wing women is still expanding the understanding of those who truly care about all women. That's what Andrea Dworkin was - that's why she saw and named what so many others could not. The compassion at the heart of her vision is a challenge to us all. Andrea Dworkin gets such a bad rap among (some) feminists and anti-feminists alike that I was slightly wary to actually go out and find one of her books.
But, in an attempt to figure out what the majority of my female relatives are thinking, I picked this up. And it was damn worth it.Firstly.did I agree with her on everything? I do not, for instance, consider pornography to be a base cause of anything, or even one of the biggest problems women face in society. I did, however, agree with h Andrea Dworkin gets such a bad rap among (some) feminists and anti-feminists alike that I was slightly wary to actually go out and find one of her books. But, in an attempt to figure out what the majority of my female relatives are thinking, I picked this up.
And it was damn worth it.Firstly.did I agree with her on everything? I do not, for instance, consider pornography to be a base cause of anything, or even one of the biggest problems women face in society. I did, however, agree with her on a lot of what she said. Also, there were certainly sections of the book (the 'men hate intelligence in women' chapter) which were probably far more applicable a generation or several ago than they are now, though I'm sure there are men today to whom this applies (.coughJohnCarrollconservativescough.).Oh, and the writing is amazing.Also, I read this in conjunction with Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards' Manifesta, in which they succinctly explain that no, Dworkin did not believe all sex was rape. While I have yet to read the book which gave way to that myth ( Intercourse), this was important to see. I've heard far too many people, feminists and antis alike, saying this. Also, the other 'weird thing' about Dworkin which always gets pointed out, her relationship with John Stoltenberg.why do people care so much if she said she was queer but was in love with a (also queer) man?
'She said she was a lesbian but married a man' is what is constantly pointed out as why she was a little 'crazy,' but it's not like there's a law that a person has to declare their sexual orientation and never deviate.it's not like there's a law that people can't sometimes be attracted to people, not genitals. Just a thought. There is a lot to say for Right Wing Woman.
Dworkin really breaks down the internal consistency of conservative women in a way that I found really compelling.Quickly, some points of interest:- Her critique of the sexual revolution: 'sexual freedom' as just a reframing of men getting exactly what they want, with women needing to put up with even more males, an even higher chance of disease, etc., but calling it 'liberated.' It's a core tenant of any radical movement, not to make your goal exactly There is a lot to say for Right Wing Woman. Dworkin really breaks down the internal consistency of conservative women in a way that I found really compelling.Quickly, some points of interest:- Her critique of the sexual revolution: 'sexual freedom' as just a reframing of men getting exactly what they want, with women needing to put up with even more males, an even higher chance of disease, etc., but calling it 'liberated.' It's a core tenant of any radical movement, not to make your goal exactly what the ruling class wants, just glittered up with ideas of 'choice' or 'better conditions', and it's particularly well stated here.- Relatedly: Abortion, sexual promiscuity, etc. As a threat to RWW's sense of safety. One man with his sexual entitlement, just one man risking her pregnancy, childbirth, childrearing. One man to threaten rape, violence, etc.
One man: a husband. And, in return, he protects her from all of the other men. There is an internal consistency here: for a RWW who accepts her position, breaking down monogamous heterosexuality IS a threat to her safety. Pregnancy risk is a protection for women- it means they had a reason to say no. To RWW, liberal women are ruining the deal they've made with men-a deal they see as the best bargain possible-for a much worse proposal. Dworkin's basic premise is that women everywhere do what they do in order to survive. And this is true for RWW as well as LWW.- The part in Jews and Homosexuals where she discusses Sodom and Gomorrah and what Judaism and Christianity actually say for homosexuality.
'The lesson is not that the inferred homosexual assault is worse because one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual. The lesson is that when men are not safe from other men-a safety that can only be achieved by keeping women segregated and for sex-the city will be wiped out.' And, “'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.' (Leviticus 18:22). That means simply that it is foul to do to other men what men habitually, proudly, manfully do to women: use them as inanimate, empty, concave things; fuck them into submission; subordinate them through sex.” She made interesting points about homosexuality as a threat to the societally-constructed power difference between men and women. I've never heard this sort of telling of that Biblical story, and it was really interesting.- The last chapter, where she described the way different forms of antifeminism function (separate-but-equal, woman-superior, male-dominant), and what it means for feminism to be truly feminism (i.e., radical). She makes points about the way we see women as 'pure'.
Spiritually, with a sex-specific morality (women as pure, chaste, etc.). Secularly, with a greater sense of good: women champion the environment, peace movements, etc. Motherhood as biological proof, women are to have an intuitive moral standard. Women are a symbol, and they have two options: be pure and good (sexually available, within certain restrictions), or else, be filth (and open to sexual assault from a wide range of sources extending well beyond just one husband).Fascinating book. I wouldn't recommend it as an introductory piece on radical feminism, but I would definitely recommend reading it to any woman. This is not a book that I would recommend to anyone who is critical of radical feminism.
There are lots of assertions that are not argued through and most of the book is written in extremes. However, this is a very valuable book for left-wing folks. Dworkin is brutally honest about the chauvanism prevelent in the left, and why the program of the right is more appealing to oppressed women than the program (or rather hodge-podge of ill-defined ideas)of the left. Whether consious or not, the attitu This is not a book that I would recommend to anyone who is critical of radical feminism. There are lots of assertions that are not argued through and most of the book is written in extremes. However, this is a very valuable book for left-wing folks.
Dworkin is brutally honest about the chauvanism prevelent in the left, and why the program of the right is more appealing to oppressed women than the program (or rather hodge-podge of ill-defined ideas)of the left. Whether consious or not, the attitude toward sex among the political left is isolating women from their movements. To sum up, I enjoyed it, but as I read, I was thinking about all of the people who I wouldn't dare recommend it to. I was especially hostile to Dworkin's POV when I first read this but I've come a long way. I don't agree with some of her most controversial statements on religion, marriage and abortion. But I'm not a 'right-wing' woman neither politically, nor as per this book's definition.She has some points that are good to remember, especially as you get on the structure of the right in the United States. Her constant allusions to the far right and omissions of libertarianism were strange to witness, though I was especially hostile to Dworkin's POV when I first read this but I've come a long way.
I don't agree with some of her most controversial statements on religion, marriage and abortion. But I'm not a 'right-wing' woman neither politically, nor as per this book's definition.She has some points that are good to remember, especially as you get on the structure of the right in the United States. Her constant allusions to the far right and omissions of libertarianism were strange to witness, though I'm pretty sure she'd have classified Rand as complacent with male supremacy (after all, she was).Most interesting chapters were the first three and the last two. Her chapter on Jews and homosexuals has purposefully misrepresented Christianity by giving word to fundies and Mormons, which is really sad.
I still don't understand how, after saying that abortion could scar a woman, she still advocated it, and more in the face of the 'coming gynocide', which had too much accuracy even when she didn't exactly envision euthanasia or transgenderism: acceptance of prostitution, IVF and surrogacy, female feticide, were there.She was fatalistic and angry, but most importantly I liked her recognition that lesbianism is not necessarily a way out, that feminism still has a lot of work to do, even for these women who find the movement morally reprehensible or misguided. This is something you rarely see in the current political climate. Maybe there are things to be learned from Dworkin. This was my first book by Dworkin. The book consists of six essays written at the the end of the 70s beginning of the 80s: The Promise of The Ultra-Right; The Politics of Intelligence; Abortion; Jews and Homosexuals; The Coming Gynocide; Antifeminism. Dworkin's insights can be brilliant but at the same time she can be too emotional, as if she is taking things personally, and a bit too repetitive.
This makes her arguments not as clear as they could be. Also, it was noticeable for me that the book This was my first book by Dworkin. The book consists of six essays written at the the end of the 70s beginning of the 80s: The Promise of The Ultra-Right; The Politics of Intelligence; Abortion; Jews and Homosexuals; The Coming Gynocide; Antifeminism. Dworkin's insights can be brilliant but at the same time she can be too emotional, as if she is taking things personally, and a bit too repetitive. This makes her arguments not as clear as they could be. Also, it was noticeable for me that the book is a bit dated, although that in a way shows that some of Dworkin's ideas have been incorporated by other feminists I've read before and also into popular culture. Some essays are better than the others and my favorite was Antifeminism.
(Cool game to do on a boring afternoon, just pop this book open on a random page and see what kind of drivel it spews.)Some quotes of this utterly insane book. She criticizes the drugging of women but boy, Dworkin could use an antidepressant or 2.:Women cannot be responsible for pregnancy, in the sense of acting to prevent it, because women do not control when, where, how, and on what terms they have intercourse.Intercourse is forced on women, both as a normal part of marriage and as the prima (Cool game to do on a boring afternoon, just pop this book open on a random page and see what kind of drivel it spews.)Some quotes of this utterly insane book. Why women choose the Right?That's the main question of the book, and the answer Andrea gives the reader is not only full, but clearly shows the complexity of the subject. The Right gives women the apparent 'order' that leads one's life: non-changing values, traditions, the love of Jesus or whatever deitity, a sense of conservation and stability.And from this gloomy picture, Andrea unmask the male construction of sexuality, economy, order, and intellect, explaining in this way what is radical fe Why women choose the Right?That's the main question of the book, and the answer Andrea gives the reader is not only full, but clearly shows the complexity of the subject. The Right gives women the apparent 'order' that leads one's life: non-changing values, traditions, the love of Jesus or whatever deitity, a sense of conservation and stability.And from this gloomy picture, Andrea unmask the male construction of sexuality, economy, order, and intellect, explaining in this way what is radical feminism, at the heart: radical feminist want to destroy patriarchy for the harm that inflict into women, right-wing women assimilate to patriarchy for the harm that inflict into women. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers.
To view it,dworkin's view of women is 'women as pornography/women as sex.' The systematic oppression of women (which she expands upon really well, very eye-opening) is rooted in women's reproductive role; this leads to views of women as idiots, morally elevated or effete, etc.somewhat repetitive but her writing is splendid. Got nauseous at moments just from how bleak and grotesque she can render the status of women. Ends on an interesting/classic note abt 'class consciousness' and the need for liberation f dworkin's view of women is 'women as pornography/women as sex.' The systematic oppression of women (which she expands upon really well, very eye-opening) is rooted in women's reproductive role; this leads to views of women as idiots, morally elevated or effete, etc.somewhat repetitive but her writing is splendid. Got nauseous at moments just from how bleak and grotesque she can render the status of women.
Ends on an interesting/classic note abt 'class consciousness' and the need for liberation for ALL women. More thrillingly, dworkin provides an interesting delineation of the feminist motive (universal standard for human freedom and rights AND recognition of the sex-class system).honestly, a great primer on women's issues in many ways. Dworkin goes beyond public school k thru 12 summaries of suffrage, abortion rights, etc.; explores how certain forms of control relate to the domination of women; and highlights issues less explored now as women's issues (marital rape laws, regulation of welfare benefits, etc.)would recommendpostscript: the bits abt right-wing women's reasoning honestly feel a bit shoehorned in.
Incompletely incorporated in the text. Interesting but repetitive after a while. This is such an intriguing and necessary book. Not only does Andrea Dworkin divulge how and why the roots of the patriarchy and misogyny have sprouted into what we see today, but how such sprouts are interpreted and therefore acted upon. Feminists decidedly wish to fight against such sprouts, inciting freedom and liberation-but right-wing women see the struggle a little differently. A fight for freedom is surely a means of rape, prostitution, homelessness, death. They work within the system This is such an intriguing and necessary book.
Not only does Andrea Dworkin divulge how and why the roots of the patriarchy and misogyny have sprouted into what we see today, but how such sprouts are interpreted and therefore acted upon. Feminists decidedly wish to fight against such sprouts, inciting freedom and liberation-but right-wing women see the struggle a little differently. A fight for freedom is surely a means of rape, prostitution, homelessness, death. They work within the system to keep themselves alive and safe.It all seems so obvious to me now, this analysis.
Without Dworkin's analysis, I would probably still continue to think that women who are staunchly anti-feminist are solely that and for no good reason other than they think that everything is fine. But really, they know as well as feminists do that everything is certainly not fine! But our ways of getting to the root of the problem and means of working with it are just vastly different, and are in need of sympathy and collaboration than anger and upheaval.As insightful as she always is, Dworkin introduces invaluable concepts in her book. What are the differing opinions about prostitution, porn, abortion, and why? What's being done about these?
Why do we view anti-feminist women as participating in their own oppression? All such necessary questions, and even more necessary explanations.This is a must-read for any feminist. It has brought so much to light for me, and has added a new perspective to my repertoire.Review cross-listed! 'Looking for a way out of the sex-class system, a way beyond the boundary of prostitution, a way around the crimes of rape, battery, economic exploitation, and reproductive exploitation, a way out of being pornography, right-wing women look at feminists and they see women inside the same boundary, victims of the same crimes, women who are pornography. Their response to what they see is not a sense of sisterhood or solidarity—it is a self-protective sense of repulsion.
The powerless are not quick 'Looking for a way out of the sex-class system, a way beyond the boundary of prostitution, a way around the crimes of rape, battery, economic exploitation, and reproductive exploitation, a way out of being pornography, right-wing women look at feminists and they see women inside the same boundary, victims of the same crimes, women who are pornography. Their response to what they see is not a sense of sisterhood or solidarity—it is a self-protective sense of repulsion. The powerless are not quick to put their faith in the powerless. The powerless need the powerful, especially in sex oppression because it is inescapable, everywhere: there are no free zones, free countries, underground railways away from it. Because feminism is a movement for liberation of the powerless by the powerless in a closed system based on their powerlessness, right-wing women judge it a futile movement.' Dworkin isn’t my favorite feminist icon for various reasons but she really does hit the nail on the head in a lot of her writings so I find it sad that many people my age interested in feminist thought and ideas skip over her. This book in particular does a really good job of illuminating how misogyny exists on both the right and left of the political spectrum.
Dworkin theorizes that right wing women choose the right because they are more attune to the sexism on the left, which can seem subtle b Dworkin isn’t my favorite feminist icon for various reasons but she really does hit the nail on the head in a lot of her writings so I find it sad that many people my age interested in feminist thought and ideas skip over her. This book in particular does a really good job of illuminating how misogyny exists on both the right and left of the political spectrum. Dworkin theorizes that right wing women choose the right because they are more attune to the sexism on the left, which can seem subtle but is also glaringly obvious in many ways.
I found myself nodding a lot and thinking “yep this makes sense,” at a lot of the passages. Andrea Rita Dworkin was an American radical feminist and writer best known for her criticism of pornography, which she argued was linked to rape and other forms of violence against women.An anti-war activist and anarchist in the late 1960s, Dworkin wrote 10 books on radical feminist theory and practice. During the late 1970s and the 1980s, she gained national fame as a spokeswoman for the feminist Andrea Rita Dworkin was an American radical feminist and writer best known for her criticism of pornography, which she argued was linked to rape and other forms of violence against women.An anti-war activist and anarchist in the late 1960s, Dworkin wrote 10 books on radical feminist theory and practice. During the late 1970s and the 1980s, she gained national fame as a spokeswoman for the feminist anti-pornography movement, and for her writing on pornography and sexuality, particularly in (1981) and (1987), which remain her two most widely known books. “The accounts of rape, wife beating, forced childbearing, medical butchering, sex-motivated murder, forced prostitution, physical mutilation, sadistic psychological abuse, and other commonplaces of female experience that are excavated from the past or given by contemporary survivors should leave the heart seared, the mind in anguish, the conscience in upheaval.
But they do not. No matter how often these stories are told, with whatever clarity or eloquence, bitterness or sorrow, they might as well have been whispered in wind or written in sand: they disappear, as if they were nothing. The tellers and the stories are ignored or ridiculed, threatened back into silence or destroyed, and the experience of female suffering is buried in cultural invisibility and contempt the very reality of abuse sustained by women, despite its overwhelming pervasiveness and constancy, is negated. It is negated in the transactions of everyday life, and it is negated in the history books, left out, and it is negated by those who claim to care about suffering but are blind to this suffering.The problem, simply stated, is that one must believe in the existence of the person in order to recognize the authenticity of her suffering.
Neither men nor women believe in the existence of women as significant beings. It is impossible to remember as real the suffering of someone who by definition has no legitimate claim to dignity or freedom, someone who is in fact viewed as some thing, an object or an absence. And if a woman, an individual woman multiplied by billions, does not believe in her own discrete existence and therefore cannot credit the authenticity of her own suffering, she is erased, canceled out, and the meaning of her life, whatever it is, whatever it might have been, is lost. This loss cannot be calculated or comprehended. It is vast and awful, and nothing will ever make up for it.”—.