Intercourse in Our Shared Shelf

May 21, 2022 Lord Beardsley rated it really liked it

Shelves: feminism, read2022

Dworkin is such a notorious figure in feminism, that many (including myself) wrote her off without ever bothering to actually read her work. Much has been generalized and oversimplified about her body of work, discrediting her entirely. While, certain criticisms are justified, they cannot be made without first exploring and reading her work.

She is a sublime writer, and an excellent literary critic. Her style is both learned and engaging at the same time - making it quite accessible and not just Dworkin is such a notorious figure in feminism, that many (including myself) wrote her off without ever bothering to actually read her work. Much has been generalized and oversimplified about her body of work, discrediting her entirely. While, certain criticisms are justified, they cannot be made without first exploring and reading her work.

She is a sublime writer, and an excellent literary critic. Her style is both learned and engaging at the same time - making it quite accessible and not just reserved for academia. At times, her discussion on the power dynamics found within the act of fucking brought to mind the likes of Michel Foucault. Both explored power dynamics in sex and the inescapability of it in daily Western life. I was particularly engrossed in the chapter 'Virginity' focused on Joan of Arc. That chapter alone is a necessary read. She was speaking about rape culture, gender identity and presentation long before those conversations were mainstreamed, and what she had to say then still resonates today (albeit certain aspects/language are dated and to be read with a grain of salt).

There are so many facets of this work that deserves revisiting and discussion today within feminist circles. That being said, when it came to the point that the way in which sexuality is approached societally, I felt that the argument was a bit limited.

The argument hinges on heteronormative sexuality in a way that is quite narrow. I agree in many ways that these dynamics are fundamentally misogynist to a point, however, Dworkin paints with pretty broad brush strokes. This could also be put down to when the book was written (published in 1986). Read through a modern lens, a lot of exceptions came to my mind and a lot of arguments can be made about placing limitations on the sexual act, different peoples' preferences, and the diversity of sexuality. I'm not totally disagreeing with her fundamental argument, but I find it limited.

I also was frustrated by the fact that lesbian relationships specifically are not hardly at all mentioned. Homosexuality is discussed, heterosexuality is discussed, but lesbian sex isn't. Strange, as she herself was a lesbian. What about the dynamics found in alternative sexualities? I wanted to hear more about that and felt that it is pretty side-lined.

Finally, while I think she speaks from an intimate place as a former sex worker, and was highly informed on the subject itself - she argues that pornography and sex work should be abolished, yet doesn't offer much of a solution.

She was (in my opinion rightly) - along with many other feminists at the time including Gloria Steinem - criticized for joining forces with anti-pornography conservatives in the 80s to work together to abolish porn. I see this as a lesson learned in not ever - under any circumstance - joining forces with those who seek to limit your rights just because they happen to support one cause you have in common. People who are actively interested in taking away bodily autonomy from people with vaginas are not allies just because they also agree that exposure to pornography is also wrong.

I came away with: here are a lot of examples of how women are continuously subjugated (totally agree there), sex work and pornography exacerbates this as they exagerate these imbalances (I can see the point, yet feel the argument isn't pluralistic and doesn't dive into the nuances and counter-arguments by sex workers themselves - one voice does not create a dialogue, it's more a manifesto...which okay, fair enough, she has the right to her manifesto).

My biggest problem though was she doesn't offer a solution as to how society can attempt to actively rid itself of pornography and sex work. This itself is the hardest argument to make. For example, who would be in charge or passing these laws? Who would be in charge of writing this legislation? Who would be in charge of enforcing these laws? Who would these laws help or harm? Would the people responsible for putting these laws into action be the same people in government actively working to limit the bodily autonomy of people with vaginas? Because I sure as hell DO NOT want those people enforcing any laws that limit my and others bodily rights. As Dworkin argued, all of society is essentially a phalocracy, and quotes Audre Lorde's famous quote: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

As long as we are under a malecentric system of government, we're still living in the master's house. And we all need to realize that the master will use those same tools to dismantle sex work and pornography as he will to dismantle people with vaginas fundamental human rights.

I greatly admire Dworkin's writing and compelling arguments. However, I see a lot of examples but few viable solutions found within.
...more

3 likes · Like · see review