Skip to content

right wing women, now in 3-D! (graphic title is “the condition of women”)

March 25, 2011

the condition of women, drawn with prostitution as the material reality; pornography as the underlying ideology

the condition of women, drawn with pornography as the surface phenomenon; prostitution as the underlying system

ok, these are the previous graphic but in 3-D.  she refers to the top as drawing 3 and the bottom as drawing 4.  the graphic in the preceding post was drawing 1.  (drawing 2 is the “circle of crimes against women” which i didnt think needed its own scan).

and she actually describes exactly what she means when she uses them, so i had a radical idea: let the woman speak for herself!  so here ya go: dworkin, on dworkins graphic (“the condition of women”):

as you can see, i made a little boo-boo where i said that “pornography is what women are FOR.”  she clearly states her intention that pornography is what women ARE; the circle of crimes against women are what women are for.  (and prostitution is what women DO).

does this help?  i thought it was fascinating that she presented this graphic in 3-D and it inspired me.  i now know what i will write about for RWW part 3.  stay tuned!

Advertisements
12 Comments
  1. yttik permalink
    March 26, 2011 12:51 am

    Thank you, this is a concept I’ve been trying to express when people are talking about giving up lipstick or rejecting femininity as if that was some sort of revolutionary act. Go for it, but you’re still standing in the circle, now you’re just not wearing lipstick.

    “There is no state of being or act of will, including lesbianism, that changes the circle: there is no state of being or act of will that protects a woman from the basic crimes against women as women or puts any woman outside the possibility of suffering these crimes.”

    There are some feminists that still believe if women just change their appearance or how they act they can escape this circle. You can’t. It’s an external force. So whether or not women rebel or comply, the circle remains. (However, rebellion can be self satisfying, so one act a rebellion a day is good medicine, LOL.)

  2. FAB Libber permalink
    March 26, 2011 1:24 am

    It certainly needed the 3D or profile versions to make more sense (the 2D top view was not sufficient on its own).

    Certainly a good analysis, of tying the different elements together.

    And strange she mentions “Great wealth does not put a woman outside the circle of crimes” because that was the point I brought up on my street harassment thread regard QE2, even with all her protections (both physical and conventions) she is still subject to dudes pawing at her. She was also subject to that dude breaking into the palace and sitting on her bed. And she was still the subject of sexualised mockery in a ‘sculpture’. So if all this stuff can happen to her, there is fuck all protection for the rest of us.

    Dworkin is so right about when professions become female ones, I have seen it happen.

  3. jilla permalink
    March 26, 2011 1:59 am

    Prostitution is what women *do*? I think rather it’s what’s *done* to women.

  4. March 26, 2011 2:34 am

    there is just SO MUCH great material in RWW and i think that this graphic can be read in a few ways. she explains very well here what she means, BUT (for example) the book very much lead me to interpret the graphic initially as “prostituted women/the threat of prostitution keeping all women in line” and i think that still applies. she talks about men using force, and about RWW choosing only one man, since he can only damage her the way ONE man can damage ONE woman. and she stresses more than once that she means “prostitution” to be a ring/wall, an outer perimeter keeping women inside.

    as for “what women do,” she explains that everything women do is within the context of prostitution. i think thats clear. if this is intended as a venn-diagram (or a sort-of venn diagram) then concentric circles literally mean “all x are y.” so all pornography is a crime/s against women, by men. all porn and crimes against women are prostitution (or “within the context of” prostitution). all womens work, inside and outside the home, is a crime against women (economic and reproductive exploitation) and its all prostitution. etc.

  5. March 26, 2011 2:38 am

    heres a link to the “glod” post, which explains all the concentric-circle business.

    http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/this-is-what-a-glod-looks-like/

  6. radfemcrafts permalink
    March 26, 2011 7:39 am

    Cosmetic (ha, so punny) changes like lipstick vs. non-lipstick recall, as well, Bookchin’s (not the best person, but it’s a useful analysis I think) takedown of Lifestyle Anarchism. For people who seek revolution, making cosmetic/superficial changes to your lifestyle doesn’t magically result in revolution.

    We all have to live a life, and therefore have a lifestyle, and it’s nice to be able to feel good about our respective lifestyles. I grow a vegetable garden, limit my time and energy with men, don’t wear makeup, but Dworkin is exactly right, it does nothing at all to extract us from the circle of oppression. She’s right. We must annihilate the system’s heart.

    (On the other hand, it may poke little holes of light into the darkness of oppression by showing us a way to desire freedom and build a vocabulary for it. It is not completely without merit but it is not revolution.)

    And like bell hooks says: “Don’t you think the biggest lie of our contemporary liberation movements is that who you fuck radicalizes you?”

    If it were true then she’s right, all lesbians would be naturally radical feminists and all non-lipstick wearers too. But we know it’s not true. It may be useful once we already *are* radicalized to live as lesbians without lipstick. But none of these acts necessarily make us radical or provide a very coherent theory of radicalism to the not yet radicalized. (Sort of like the way the message gets mixed between the abolishment of gender post-revolution and the idea that one can escape being gendered pre-revolution. I personally never get pleasure from talking about gender and lifestyle post-revolution because it inevitably gets conflated with how we live pre-revolution.)

  7. Sargasso Sea permalink
    March 26, 2011 1:41 pm

    “Dworkin is so right about when professions become female ones, I have seen it happen.”

    I spent some time reading Debunking Serano yesterday and was struck by one of his (Serano’s) stoopid-ass complaints about “pseudofeminists” and how we wheedle and whine about da twanz invading our work spaces.

    I had a vision of all of the FAB secretaries and nurses and teachers and maids and cashiers replaced by M2Ts. Yet another possible (probable?) marginalization brought to you by unbalanced femalenessfulled misogynists.

  8. March 26, 2011 5:04 pm

    From RWW

    “Sexual intelligence in women, that rarest intelligence in a male-supremacist world, is necessarily a revolutionary intelligence, the opposite of the pornographic (which simply reiterates the world as it is for women), the opposite of the will to be used, the opposite of masochism and self-hatred, the opposite of “good woman” and “bad woman” both. It is not in being a whore that a woman becomes an outlaw in this man’s world; it is in the possession of herself, the ownership and effective control of her own body, her separateness and distinctness, the integrity of her body as hers not his.”

    RWW – The politics of Intelligence

    I think this links beautifully with the chapter antifeminism. Today in London people from all classes, all backgrounds, all generations came together to promote the alternative way. The suffragettes were mentioned by Ed Milliband as a revolutionary force. But I feel strongly that the only way to smash the walls of oppression is to make radical changes, trashing a lipstick won’t cut it.

    Standing together with men at a rally is one thing to force the current gov to secure employment and financial security – and a sense of liberation for the thousands of female workers in low paid employment who face redundancies and therefore a future of dependence upon benefits and husbands; however women, ALL women, ALL generations have to accept the changes. Otherwise it simply wont work.

  9. March 26, 2011 5:10 pm

    Sorry posted too early before checking:

    however women, ALL women, ALL generations have to accept the changes that smashing enforced oppressions will bring and we have to link with each other to do it. Otherwise it simply won’t work.

    I saw ‘right wing women’ marching today alongside the union shop stewards. If they can do that, damn they can smash walls down. Easily.

  10. Loup-loup garou permalink
    March 26, 2011 6:45 pm

    “[Dworkin] talks about men using force, and about RWW choosing only one man, since he can only damage her the way ONE man can damage ONE woman.”

    Interesting how that becomes explicit in some defenses of sadomasochism written by both straight women and lesbians. They’ll go on about how wonderful it is to be the masochistic partner in such a relationship, because it (supposedly) creates a safe little sphere in which only one person, the sadistic partner, can hurt them — and since it’s done with permission, it’s okay. (I won’t even get into how naive it is to believe that consent renders an inherently abusive act somehow harmless.)

    Some say things like this: “Since I discovered I can consent to be called a dirty bitch and have the crap beaten out of me, I have also realized that I can choose NOT to consent to that! It’s very empowering!” Um, okay… but there are a lot of nasty power dynamics in everyday life that you can’t just choose to opt out of. Some of them flat-out perverse, especially if you happen to be a woman. What I think really happens to those empowerfulized kinksters is that the exaggerated “pretend” cruelty of sadomasochistic relationships makes the perversity of everyday life harmless by comparison, which it really is not. The idea that it’s possible to make that trade-off — to consent to be abused by one person, in exchange for being either protected by them, or somehow empowerfulized by the experience in a way that renders you less vulnerable in the rest of your life, is a lie.

  11. March 26, 2011 11:09 pm

    ok, RWW part 3 is now up over at my place…enjoy!

    http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/right-wing-women-part-3-d/

Trackbacks

  1. Right-Wing Women (Part 3-D) « femonade

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: