I agree with most of what Dworkin says here, and it has been important for my ideological and perceptive development. It's also great that she's at least one radical feminist who isn't transfobic. I agree with most of radical feminism beside that major point and a few others.Unfortunately, as with anyone, I have my disagreements. For one, she gets academic in one chapter, reminding me of what I disliked most about Intercourse. She made far too much reference to a couple of creepy and disgusting books, when I just want to read what -she- writes. She does write from her own self all the rest of the book, though.The other issue I have is the end sections about 'taboo' subjects. There seems to be a taboo taboo where it's taboo to not talk about taboo. The significant differences present in child development, vulnerable adulthood brain capabilities, and nonhuman animal relational concepts, are all HUGE reasons these taboos exist. She, as with other taboo-fixated feminists, seem to think that unmitigated erotic relations are a path to independence and noncoercive sexuality. But the fight against coercion and nonconsent does not begin with diminishing our erotic boundaries - it is in solidifying what our boundaries mean (such as the limits of communication+scrutiny related to brain and social development), how to uphold boundaries against 'free love' manipulation, and how to defeat the coercive structure so as to have a freer relationship with all life, all without the priorities of sexuality and eroticism.I do understand this was her first writing, and I know she came to disagree with certain of the creepy practices defined as 'taboo', which is why I feel inclined to continue reading her works. But it's still a problem.Anyway, other than those very, very brief disagreements (which are vital disagreements no less), all the rest of this book were tremendous toward building my understanding of the world. It is a foundational work for all of us.
At the age of 22, decades ago, I read this book, and was amazed. In particular, Dworkin's description of global woman hating cultural practices such as foot binding and witch hunting made a vivid impression upon me. She tied together history and culture to expose patriarchy as a negative anti-life power dedicated to its own perpetuation. Though I had read Millett, Freidan, de Beauvoir, Solanas, Morgan, Brownmiller, and many others during the early seventies, the force of Dworkin's arguments reached me in a way that theirs didn't, perhaps because it was not written in an academic way, nor did it rely upon the reader recognizing herself as a housewife, mother, or middle aged. Woman Hating was the perfect book for a young woman to read immediately before setting off into the world from college. The only logical response to it was to set all girlish romantic illusions aside, recognize the world for what it was, and set forth relying upon one's self, seeking a path that would not require any sort of intercourse with anti-woman forces. So, thank you, Andrea Dworkin. I'm going to put this one on my "books to re-read" list so find out what it looks like from the perspective of a woman nearing later middle age.
What do You think about Woman Hating (1991)?
Finally. I feel like my eyes are bleeding. There was one useful chapter, the one in which she criticized Greer and the sexual politics of her contemporary leftists. The rest was a) dated b) just flat out BAD. Badly researched, bad science, bad sources. Intercourse is worth reading if you're interested in Dworkin. This is most definitely not, unless you like being told about outdated myths about matriarchal neolithic religion surviving into the middle ages and virgin birth being actually being a thing that is possible without outside assistance. Uhm. I cannot recommend this book to anyone. Only the chapter about the magazine Suck. That was interesting. The sad this is that she has a POINT. She has a point when she talks about androgyny and the possibility of sex without harmful dynamics. But it's a point she misses, entirely. She's onto something, something she gets angry about not generally happening later on in Intercourse. But it's wrapped in all that utter outdated crap. Shame, shame shame.
—Merinde
What first struck me while reading this was the realization that, despite what most people say about her, Andrea Dworkin was not "crazy" while writing it. It's hard to argue with her thesis: Western and Eastern civilization and culture, as a matter of course, operated on the degradation and villainization of women, from fairy tales to marrying off your daughters for money to impossible demands for beauty. Men needed women to fuck and make children, and a system was in place to keep them in their place, and it grew exponentially (fairy tales lead to actual witch trials, etc). And it is remarkable to me that no one would really *argue* with that thesis, which makes me wonder why this book was so controversial when it was released. Was she the first person to observe what we all pretty much accept as true, and was it really only in the past 30 years we acknowledged it?It seems too richly ironic/annoying that Dworkin was dismissed by many critics in a way her book could have predicted: She's too crazy! Too angry! And look at how she dresses! I think about this book practically every time my feet hurt from walking around in heels.
—Jocelyn
