13
Right-Wing Women by Andrea Dworkin | Abortion | Chapter 3
Welcome to another discussion post for Right-Wing Women: The Politics of Domesticated Females by Andrea Dworkin.
In this post, we are discussing Chapter 3 Abortion.
Share your thoughts on this chapter and overal book section in the comments. (Feel free to also share thoughts and suggestions on the discussion post and bookclub structure itself.)
Anyone who hasn't read the book but wants to give input on the topics discussed are welcome to as well! (I recommend mentioning that you haven't read the chapter in your post, so people are aware of that when replying.)
Readers are welcome to join in at anytime. Find a free copy of the book at frauenkultur.co.uk.
Previous Discussion Posts
Chapter 4 discussion post is going to be on May 4th!
This chapter starts with talking about the time before Roe v Wade. It is somber and interesting, considering we are now considerably “back” in that same time — where abortion rights are determined by the states. Dworkin talks about how many women who got illegal abortions before Roe v Wade were actually already mothers, shattering the myth that women who get abortions are “shameless sl*ts” or “godless wh*res.”
Dissociation from other women is always the safest course. They are not sluttish, but other women who have had abortions probably are. They tried not to get pregnant (birth control being illegal in many parts of the country before 1973), but other women who had abortions probably did not. They love their children, but other women who have had abortions may well be the cold mothers, the cruel mothers, the vicious women. They are individuals of worth and good morals who had compelling reasons for aborting, but the other women who had abortions must have done something wrong, were wrong, are somehow indistinct (not emerged from the primal female slime as individuals), were sex not persons.
I am reminded of the article “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”.
She has learned (learned is a poor word for what has happened to her) that every life is more valuable than her own[.] [...] Abortion turns a woman into a murderer all right: she kills that child pregnant in her since her own childhood; she kills her allegiance to Motherhood First. This is a crime. She is guilty: of not wanting a baby.
Highlighting how female humans are socialized to put other lives as more important and valuable than her own, and how women are brainwashed to think their destiny is motherhood.
Dworkin then has a section explaining the male ego and why men are against abortion:
To many men, each aborted pregnancy is the killing of a son—and he is the son killed. His mother would have killed him if she had had the choice. These men have a peculiarly retroactive and abstract sense of murder: if she had had a choice, I would not have been born—which is murder. The male ego, which refuses to believe in its own death, now pushes backward, before birth. I was once a fertilized egg; therefore to abort a fertilized egg is to kill me. Women keep abortions secret because they are afraid of the hysteria of men confronted with what they regard as the specter of their own extinction. [...] At the very least, she must not murder him; nor should she outrage his existence by an assertion of her separateness from him, her distinctness, her importance as a person independent of him.
Dworkin then goes into forced sex, especially in the confines of marriage. While reading this section, I kept in mind this was written in the 70s so I was curious and looked up marital rape laws in modern day times, and I made a post about existing marital rape laws here. There has been significant progress on this front since the '70s.
The good wife submits; the bad wife can be forced to submit. All women are supposed to submit.
Women are required to submit to intercourse, and women may then be required to submit to the pregnancy.
Women are required to submit to the man, and women may then be required to submit to the fetus.
More explanations of the female socialization that all lives are more important than women's and how abortion restrictions play into that.
Women are brought up to conform: all the rules of femininity—dress, behavior, attitude—essentially break the spirit.
I just appreciated the "break the spirit" part.
The importance of this ignorance about intercourse cannot be overstated: it is as if no girl would grow up, or accept the hundred million lessons on how to be a girl, or want boys to like her, if she knew what she was for.
I think we can actually see this happening in modern day times as a result of transgenderism and the rapid exposure of children to hardcore pornography on the internet. Young girls no longer have the sweet frilly fantasy of love and marriage to men, there is no more illusion of prince charming awaiting them when they grow up, there is violent sex and degradation. This is why I believe ROGD has happened in girls. For the first time in history, masses of girls were blinded by the misogyny of the real world waiting for them when they would become women, and they wanted to opt out.
The right of men to women’s bodies for the purpose of intercourse remains the heart, soul, and balls of male supremacy: this is true whatever style of advocacy is used, Right or Left, to justify coital access. [...] Every woman is surrounded by this system of forced sex and is encapsulated by it. It acts on her, shapes her, defines her boundaries and her possibilities, tames her, domesticates her, determines the quality and nature of her privacy: it modifies her.
The right tells women to be “good wives” and submit to sex (of course they paint this not as “sex” but as “being fruitful and multiplying” leaving out the part that for the man, sex conveniently remains the same enjoyable and carefree experience for him, whether or not he gets the woman pregnant), the left tells women to not be “prudes” and submit to sex.
There is the definition of the female in terms of her function, which is to be fucked; so it may be unfortunate that she is fucked too early, but once fucked she has fulfilled a preordained function as a woman and therefore is a woman and therefore can legitimately be fucked.
This passage seriously reminded me of that one TIM, I think Andrea Long Chu, who said some shit about how "to be female is to be fucked." It's like he read this and took this passage positively or something. (More explanation on how transgenderism, especially for men who pretend to be women, is misogyny.)
Dworkin then goes into the 60s free love movement, which I found enlightening. Here Dworkin builds the stage for how the left views women as public property. She explained how young women revolted against their mothers—conservative women who thought it best for their daughters to be chaste until married and committed to one man, without explaining why—as regressive (I mean, it is, as Dworkin points out later) and joined the hippie movement instead. Dworkin shows how men destroyed the sexual revolution by focusing it on their dicks and male dominance. Men in the sexual revolution only viewed it for themselves in terms of being able to freely fuck women. Dworkin explains how the push for legal safe abortion on demand was largely meant for the benefit of men to encourage women to continue freely fucking them. The hippie communes were rife with sexual abuse. Once women began talking amongst each other about the sexual trauma they had experienced within the free love movement, they began to revolt. The feminist movement that then sparked in the 70s was focused women's right to bodily autonomy, and the penis-for-brains men in the '60s movement filled with rage when they realized that women's access to abortion did not equate to more women freely having sex with them. Women realized part of the sexual revolution was that they didn't have to have sex with men. Que the mantrums. That is why men stopped caring about abortion access, and abortion access eventually became a state issue instead of the once noble goal of safe and legal abortions for all women in the United States. This section was a fascinating and infuriating read, and shows how little all political classes of men view women's humanity.
Right-wing women defending the traditional family are public; they are loud and they are many. Especially they are loud about legal abortion, which they abhor; and what they have to say about legal abortion is connected to what they know about sex. They know some terrible things. [...] The right-wing woman makes what she considers the best deal. Her deal promises that she has to be fucked only by him, not by all his buddies too; that he will pay for the kids; that she can live in his house on his wages; and she smiles and says she wants to be a mommy and play house. [...] The women who rebel against their function must do it secretly, not causing grief, embarrassment, or confusion to other women isolated in their own reproductive quagmires, each on her own, each alone, each being a woman for all women in silence and in suffering and in solitude.
Dworkin concludes the chapter by wrapping up on how right-wing women consider private rapes with only one man in the confines of marriage as “the better deal.”
The part about how no girl would accept the hundred million lessons on how to be a girl, or want boys to like her, if she knew what she was for, was so relatable. I remember thinking that guys liked me as a person, thought I was interesting when they showed interest in me, and being bitterly disappointed when I found out that was wrong. But of course I internalized it, thought it meant I wasn't good enough. It's so effective, to have women riddled with insecurity makes us much easier to manipulate.
I can see how the free love movement would have been appealing after so long of women's sexuality being repressed and controlled. Of course men didn't care at all about women being able to finally explore our own sexuality, they took advantage of the movement to shape our sexuality into what suited them. We have the extreme of that now with things like pornhub, only fans and sex work is work mentality. I find it hard to imagine what will come next. How can we get men - and women for that matter- to see women as fully human if they are growing up on media and in a culture which so thoroughly trains us to see women as objects?
I remember thinking that guys liked me as a person, thought I was interesting when they showed interest in me, and being bitterly disappointed when I found out that was wrong. But of course I internalized it, thought it meant I wasn't good enough. It's so effective, to have women riddled with insecurity makes us much easier to manipulate.
Same here. I remember finding this a devastating lesson when I went to University, after attending an all-girls Convent school until age 18. It was my first time really socialising with boys properly and it was devastating. One after another they would seem to want to be "friends" with me. Then when I didn't want to sleep with them they would drop me abruptly and not want to see me again. The only way I could make sense of it was, exactly as you say, to assume I was fundamentally inadequate in some way.
How can we get men - and women for that matter- to see women as fully human if they are growing up on media and in a culture which so thoroughly trains us to see women as objects?
That is a really good question. I feel like documentaries like Killing Us Softly might help open some eyes. I think also just generally pointing out how fucked up shit is, constantly pointing it out and saying how it's not okay, helps too. Other than that, I'm really not sure.
I think Brainwashed does this as well with many more contemporary examples. Something that relies on advertising is less persuasive in today's streaming content world. We barely see 'ads' anymore. Women Art Revolution is another one from the art world specifically.
I think seeing how women responded, how strong and widespread the Women's Liberation Movement was in the day--before the internet--is also very eye opening, like She's Beautiful When She is Angry or The Glorias.
I wanted to join the book club but I'm sorry to say I don't think I can read this book. I read Chapter One with my eyes nearly popping out of my head. I skimmed Chapter Two. I read Chapter Three through the gaps in my fingers as I tried to shield my eyes.
I can't decide if it's too close to the truth to bear, or if it's a nightmarish, monstrous distortion of reality.
It's like being beaten over the head, it's deeply distressing. Dworkin is visceral and terrifying.
I feel like: yes it's obviously true if I think of my mother, or several other women I can think of. But it can't be me... can it??? I'm fighting, I'm rebelling but always at the back of my mind is terror at what my husband might do to me if I keep rebelling. On the other hand I am a bit of a nightmare to live with no matter who you are. I am critical and perfectionist. He is kind and forgiving. So I don't know.
Sorry for my incoherent response.
p.s. I had an abortion and I never regretted it and also have never been made to feel bad about it. Nobody has ever implied I did anything wrong. My mum also had an abortion, after me and my brother were born, because she and my dad just didn't want/couldn't afford a third child. I don't think my mum feels bad about it, she has never tried to hide it and she says it was just a rational, sensible decision with no regrets of heartache. She was completely supportive when I needed an abortion, even paid for the clinic because it was quicker than waiting for the NHS, paid for us both to stay in a nice hotel near the clinic the night after, it was actually quite a nice bonding experience. She is Catholic (late convert) but is very open about all the stuff she doesn't agree with, not least the stance on abortion. She says, "of course God doesn't mind if we have abortions, of course it's not a sin. What nonsense!"
So although I recognise quite a lot of my mother in parts of this book, there are other parts that simply don't chime at all.
Sorry to say I think parts of the book are somewhat overblown and exaggerated. It's kind of like reading a horror book. It's almost as if Dworkin is getting a kick out of making everything about being a woman as utterly bleak and miserable and degrading as she possibly can, and I'm not sure I find that particularly helpful.
That's okay, thanks for giving it a try. 💜
In regards to Dworkin being "overblown" or "exaggerating", I disagree. Poetic, maybe; overblown, I don't think so. I try to keep in mind for some topics, that this book was written in the 1983, in a time where legal abortion in the United States just happened ten years prior via Roe v Wade. And that's just in terms of abortion, not other aspects of misogyny. Forty years ago was such a different time.
For instance, I remember recently watching The 'Burbs, a casual comedy movie from 1989, and I was disturbed at the way the main male character was yelling at his wife over his own issues was considered "normal." There is so much misogyny that is "normalized" in society. I feel like Dworkin rips off the reader's rose-colored glasses.
I appreciate your input, I think it helps me understand why there is not as much activity in this bookclub as there was initial interest. Dworkin is a fierce writer, she is not apologetic, and she wastes no time with pleasantries. Her writing can be like jumping in ice cold water.
I'm glad you had a "positive" (idk a better way to phrase it) personal experience with abortion, especially with your mother. She reminds me of how I recently learned about Catholics for Choice, which was surprising for me to discover. (What a cool organization.)
Thanks Unicorn. I will actually stick with it but I don't think I can read every word. I can't work out if it's a part of my trying to protect myself, because the truth is just too shattering, or if I'm resisting because I think it goes too far, or goes beyond what's actually realistic.
Hmmm, yeah, regarding Catholics for Choice.... I actually supported that organisation for years until I found out they are completely captured by trans ideology. Catholics for Choice is run by men who support "gender ideology" and "transgender rights", including children who identify as transgender. When I emailed them to explain why I couldn't continue to support them this is what I got back:
(I didn't say anything remotely approaching "the dehumanization of trans women". I just said men can't become women, transgender rights don't have anything to do with abortion rights and asked why all the information on their website about who the directors of the organisation are had disappeared and there was no info about how donations were used. For all I knew it was going to TRAs. I also pointed out that their website devoted a lot of space to transgenderism while staying completely silent on the roll-back of Roe vs Wade which was the crucial issue facing women at that time. I haven't gone back to the website to see if they've made any changes, and I don't intend to.)
EDIT: I had a quick look at the website and it appears to be fairly re-vamped. There is now a list of staff (which was missing before) and it appears to be women (?) with no "John" in sight. However they still have a whole page about trans stuff including such gems as "the notion that sex is a binary of male and female is scientifically inaccurate" and "Sex is the label you’re assigned at birth by a doctor " and "Gender identity is the innermost concept of oneself as male, female, a blend of both or of neither—it’s how they feel inside and how they express those feelings" and "forcing a child to change their gender identity doesn’t work and can be extremely harmful. If your child is transgender, it’s important to educate yourself about the concerns that transgender youth and adults face"
Wow, what a response! What a bizarre hill for John to die on.
I had noticed some of the pro-trans stuff on their website, but I put it aside for the other points, which I otherwise thought were all quite progressive and reasonable.
Wtf, I guess it's their loss. It's really unfortunate that they lost your (and probably many others) support over their allegiance to transgenderism. So weird. I wonder if voices like yours are what spawned the revamp of the website and the absence of John.
Send them the Cass report. 😆
Yeah, it was a real shock to me at the time. I felt like an absolute idiot for having given them my money over the years.
I wondered the same just now when I looked at the website again and saw that big list of women with loads of detail on exactly who they are!! Back when I got that email from "John" I did a lot of digging and found the organisation was run by two men, "John" and another one, I forget the details.
I would like to think I wasn't the only one asking questions and withdrawing support.
I'm tempted to go back to them now and let them know what happened but I have completely left all residual Catholic faith that I had behind now. I think Christianity is irredemable especially now I've found the Dianic Tradition!
Yeah, I do not hold any kindness for patriarchal religions. I am glad you've found solace in the Dianic Tradition. :) The Women's Rites, Women's Mysteries bookclub is quite comforting! It actually makes me not abhor religion, lol. I especially found it "amusing" to feel the juxtaposition between reading peaceful Barrett and scathing Dworkin last week, since the two bookclub chapters intersected at that time. 😆
Ha ha, so true. If reading Dworkin is jumping into ice cold water then reading Women's Rites is a lovely warm scented bath with candles. I am finding it deeply comforting actually. It really offers ways of healing and existing and finding a path in this world, whereas Dworkin inspires despair and hopelessness in me.
Maybe both are important. The truth, and the comfort.
Absolutely true! And interestingly, now that I've started to recover, it does feel quite cathartic and rejuvenating to have read that stuff, even though I can feel my brain squirrelling it away to the back of a drawer somewhere.
I was actually just thinking how it's like being burned in a cathartic fire, but ice cold water might be a better analogy.
I noticed on the Chapter Two discussion post that someone else (they deleted themselves so I can't see user name) had a similar reaction to me, which is kind of comforting to me as I was feeling confused/inadequate. The snippets and quotes of Dworkin that I've read in the past have been so exciting and true and real and, like the other user says, for me Dworkin is radical feminism, and a totally awesome human being. It's just....... A LOT to read a whole chapter in one sitting. Like, A LOT.
Deleted-user said:
You asked if one chapter a week was too much and she said:
LOL indeed! I felt exactly the same! "It's too much!"
Even without reading RRW this evening I am seriously struggling in general right now not to hate all men (including my own Nigel and even my own son), how to find a way to live and exist in this world as a woman. It's hard to take Dworkin right now. It's hard to see a way to carry on. Sometimes I wish I still lived in blissful ignorance even though I know in reality that meant depression and eating disorders. Maybe it's better to know the shitty truth than to suffer in confusion and self-hating ignorance. Maybe that's why we need Dworkin to pick us up by the scruff of the neck and shake us awake.
Exactly like deleted-user, I have a copy of "Last days at hot slit" waiting to be read. I should dip into it as I have a feeling it might be an easier pill to swallow than RWW or Pornography.
P.S. I really want to thank you, Unicorn, for having the courage and tenacity to start and persevere with this book group. I think it's really really important that the posts are here even if little/no discussion actually happens. You're putting it out there into the Ovarit universe and that's important.